"Electing Not to Vote"

[Caretaker]

Electing Not to Vote, edited by Ted Lewis, published by Cascade Books, 2008 (126 pages) is a compendium on nine chapters by nine authors on the subject of voting. The book is referenced here as a springboard for discussion.

Here are a couple of quotes to kick things off from Chapter 2 which is written by Andy Alexis-Baker.

"In the current American climate, with the democratic social-contract ideology that undermines the church's practices of deliberation, and with the corruption of corporate interests, abstention should be the normal Christian stance rather than the exception." (p. 21).

"After reading Yoder [John Howard Yoder], I find it is even harder to see how Christians can, with integrity, participate in the nation-state's charade. I, for one, will abstain from such endeavors to work for a better hope" (p. 22).

In order to nurture coherent discussion it is strongly recommended that contributors to the discussion read the book, or at least the chapter under discussion, prior to posting.

 

[Norbert L]

Look at the subject from another angle. When the second temple was standing the pharisees and sadducees had a difference of teaching on the resurrection of the dead. Not only were they both allowed to assemble at Jesus' Father's house, but so did He and the disciples.

Question is, should a church shun the voters or non-voters from its' membership? Does this issue define being a Christian and a false Christian that is deceived about the truth of the matter?

 

[thecolorsblend]

"In the current American climate, with the democratic social-contract ideology that undermines the church's practices of deliberation, and with the corruption of corporate interests, abstention should be the normal Christian stance rather than the exception." (p. 21).

Yeah, that's really logical. After all, Christians are getting regularly screwed over. Subtracting their voice entirely from the political discourse can only have a happy ending.

Why is it that every single one of these recommendations on Christians going out to vote invariably results in "Actually, just don't vote at all"?

 

[Caretaker]

Again, it's not possible for informed discussion to take place without having read the book, or at least the chapter under discussion.

I see no suggestion (at least so far - I'm on chapter 3) that those who choose to vote be kicked out of the church.

Also, the authors do give coherent and logical reasons for not voting that might not be immediately obvious to those who have not approached the topic from the perspectives the authors discuss. In short, while the knee-jerk impression may be that the impact of not voting would be negative, the authors provide insight as to why they believe the opposite is true.

 

[FenderTL5]

Why is it that every single one of these recommendations on Christians going out to vote invariably results in "Actually, just don't vote at all"?

Maybe:

because we are aliens and strangers here.. our citizenship is in heaven..??

 

[thecolorsblend]

Maybe:

because we are aliens and strangers here.. our citizenship is in heaven..??

Ah. So does that excuse us from civic and/or political engagement then? If all that needed to happen to prevent, say, a bloody persecution of Christians was getting off our duffs and voting, should we still stay hope because, hey, our citizenship is in Heaven? Or should we make the de minimis effort to vote for candidates or policies that won't result in more Christians getting fed to more lions?

 

[roamer_1]

I wound up abstaining this year, due to health reasons. But my intended vote was going to go to Castle, not either of the front runners.

As a Conservative, I absolutely refuse to sacrifice Conservative principles.
And as a Christian, I particularly refuse to sacrifice Christian principles.

 

[FenderTL5]

Ah. So does that excuse us from civic and/or political engagement then? If all that needed to happen to prevent, say, a bloody persecution of Christians was getting off our duffs and voting, should we still stay hope because, hey, our citizenship is in Heaven? Or should we make the de minimis effort to vote for candidates or policies that won't result in more Christians getting fed to more lions?

I don't know.

I do think it's worth careful consideration since, ""In the current American climate, with the democratic social-contract ideology that undermines the church's practices of deliberation, and with the corruption of corporate interests.."

 

[Caretaker]

Maybe:

because we are aliens and strangers here.. our citizenship is in heaven..??

While that thought occurred to me (and makes sense to me), I have not seen that argument made in chapters 1 or 2, nor so far in chapter 3.

Here are some of the ideas from Chapter 2 (written by Andy Alexis-Baker).

State Mythology
Through schools, media, and countless fragmentary ways we learn a foundational narrative that situates elections: the state saves people from violence and tyranny. In the United States, grade-school students learn stories of revolution and territorial expansion from textbooks, classroom discussions, and "fun" films like School House Rocks cartoon shorts. Students eventually acquire a theoretical framework for this story from classical political theorists like Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke. Under natural conditions, the story goes, individuals compete with one another over scarce resources, creating a "war of all against all." So in order to protect their property and lives, people formed a contract: they surrender their "right" to violence to a centralized institution. Thus the state (Hobbes's "mortal God") saves people from themselves and simultaneously protects each individual's self-interest without promoting any common or highest good.

Within this soteriological framework, students learn about democracy and elections. With the American and French Revolutions, the story continues, people broke free from monarchical tyranny and created a fundamentally new form of government: democracy. Democracy transfers the divine right of kings to "the people" and focuses elections as the ritual by which people exercise their divine sovereignty. In elections, individuals renew the social contract and consent to state rule so long as it helps save them from a common evil - starvation and death in the "natural condition." In elections, competing individuals once again agree to be social on the condition that their "rights" and interests remain protected. Thus, in this mythology, individuals enact their "freedom" to be self-interested through elections; they do not deliberate upon a common good.

Schools reinforce this story with student-government elections that form physical and mental habits in youth to automatically accept the underlying "state-as-savior" mythology. Studies show that the more educated a person becomes, the more likely they are to participate in elections and to have a high view of the system. This mythology, supported by patriotic symbols and folklore, remains the dominant though unstated way in which people evaluate candidates for office. People learn to act without changing their fundamental belief system. Some sociologists and psychologists suggest that Sunday schools also aid in this process when they teach children that God is a "king" who created "the state". Studies show that these children then transfer their notions of God and Jesus to the presidential office. So even if the media expose a crime that the president committed (like Watergate or the Clinton sex scandal), American society and churches teach children to distinguish the office from the person, so that despite "individual failures", the role remains ordained and worthy of respect and allegiance, and voting remains a "near-divine civil mandate".

From there the author launches into a discussion of "Elections as a Confession of Faith".

 

[FenderTL5]

at that point the author seems (at least to me) to be presenting, "the democratic social-contract ideology that undermines the church's practices of deliberation.." portion of his premise.

While I would hesitate to say that Christians have an obligation to abstain from the political process, I do see a case for avoiding it. This was especially true in this most recent cycle when the candidates of both parties were especially flawed from a Christian perspective.
The New Testament is filled with enough passages that suggest we are part of the Heavenly Kingdom and our citizenship is there that I see the argument. YMMV