In my last post I attempted to navigate the difficult waters of the abortion debate. My arguments were rightly pointed out as being pragmatic. I readily acknowledge this fact, and make no attempt to argue otherwise because I believe they should be pragmatic, as is virtually every engagement in the political arena. Being pragmatic usually involves compromise, and, once again, I readily acknowledge that I made some compromises in my vote. This is because when a Christian, such as myself, must choose a political candidate I will always have to compromise, because a ruler of a kingdom of this world will always have some anti-kingdom of God policies. In this election I compromised on voting for a candidate who has the anti-kingdom view of being pro-choice. I did this because I believe abortion is the result of deeper anti-kingdom problems that I believe Obama has a better handle on. Only time will tell if made a good compromise.
Recently, Jim Wallis wrote a piece about a letter Focus on the Family put out about the election. In it, Wallis says: "Christians should be committed to the kingdom of God, not the kingdom of America, and the church is to live an alternative existence of love and justice, offering a prophetic witness to politics. Elections are full of imperfect choices where we all seek to what is best for the "common good" by applying the values of our faith as best we can." Wallis does a great job here articulating how Christians should approach politics. There should be a constant awareness that the only way the world can truly change is by the church enacting God's kingdom. The question then becomes what is the product of God's interaction in the world and the work of fallen human beings, and how can Christians promote policies and candidates that will promote God's kingdom that are also being favored by those outside the kingdom? In other words, where does the "common good" look like the kingdom, how can those areas be promoted politically, and how can those areas where the common good doesn't look like the kingdom be changed? For starters I would argue the areas where the CG doesn't look like KOG involves a change in deeply held values, and a change in values usually happens outside the political arena.
I am fully aware that what I just wrote might be confusing, but for the sake of not writing a novel, I won't go on. So if you're confused, you know where to comment.
3 comments:
I have been giving this some thought. I agree that we are always called to compromise when we cast our votes... I wonder if you would agree that there are some issues that we should never compromise on? The Romans used to demand a sacrifice to the emporer from all citizens... Christians would refuse and were martyred. Do you believe that there any such issues in the modern political scene which a Christian is duty-bound to oppose, and if so should that also affact their vote?
i think that if abortion were not a right and a president ran promising to make it one we would be "duty bound" to vote against that candidate. but because there is no way realistically that abortion rights will go back to the states, at least not by electing a president, a christian is still "duty-bound" to oppose abortion, but action to oppose it doesn't need to be by vote.
yet, maybe if christians want to oppose anti-kingdom activity by voting, they should be consistent and get together and make a list of things a candidate should oppose or support to win their vote, or otherwise not vote at all.
Post a Comment