The lull is over ... time to face the music. For most of us, "Who are you going to vote for?" has not been a seriously pressing question for awhile now. I mean, the primaries were mostly done. The real race (you know, Democrat candidate versus Republican candidate) hadn't started yet. And the real vote in November was still months away. Good ... out of sight, out of mind. Well, the Democratic race is over. It's no longer "out of sight." We have to think about it again.
Now, I already admitted that I'm not entirely clear on the Christian's role in politics, so this is just a further excursion into the question, I suppose. But I'm hearing some interesting debates among Christians telling us how we should vote, and I don't get it. The most popular line of thinking goes something like this. "You have to vote for McCain even though we know he's not a real representative of Christian political views ..." (whatever that means) "... because if you don't, Obama will get elected and he would be the worst thing for the country." Here, let me quote someone who responded to my question over at Pyromaniacs about what a Christian's role should be in politics: "Exercise a sound stewardship of your vote. Don't be idealist when it comes to voting. In other words, don't vote for a third party. Realistically, there are only two parties in our system. A vote for the third party by conservatives is a vote for democrat."
"Don't be idealist." Forgive me, but this sounds like an odd position for a Christian to take. No, not the guy who made the comment, but the majority of Christians I know. There is, in my view, an underlying premise in this view that astounds me: "God does not actively participate in human politics." In other words, it's up to you, Christians, because if you don't do the right thing, the wrong guy will get elected. God is not going to intervene. There are two related premises here. First, God only wills that "good people" be in government. Second, God does not interfere in human choices.
Imagine, then, God's pain when Lenin came to power in the Soviet Union! Imagine His chagrine that Stalin followed, replete with millions of people murdered. Imagine how God pulled against His "human chains" when Hitler became the leader of Germany or Saddam Hussein rose to power in Iraq. How sad must God have been when Nebuchadnezzar became the leader of Babylon, knowing that he would overrun Israel. Oh, wait, that was God's plan! Okay, now hold on here. Are we sure about theses others then? No, now let's just pause for a minute and think. My Bible says, "There is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God" (Rom. 13:1). That suggests that God intended for the Lenins and Stalins and Hitlers of this world to be there for whatever purpose He might have. Could it be that God intends for an Obama to be in power here for whatever purposes He might have? Can we say for sure that the answer to that question is "No!"?
This leads to the more basic, second premise. Does God interfere in human choices? Genesis seems to say that He does. You remember that Abraham was afraid that people would kill him and take his lovely wife, so he told them, "Um ... no, she's not my wife ... she's ... uh ... my sister! Yeah! That's the ticket!" So Abimelech, the king of Gerar, took her for one of his own wives. That night, God showed up in a dream. "Abimelech," He said, "you're a dead man!" "Why??!!" "You've taken Sarah, another man's wife." "Whoa, there, God, hang on a minute! I didn't know. Besides, I haven't touched her." God makes an interesting statement here: "Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against Me. Therefore I did not let you touch her" (Gen. 20:6). Now, doesn't that say that, despite Abimelech's self-confidence that he didn't make the wrong choice, it was actually God directing his choice?
The vast majority of Christians that I know hold to a "sovereign God." They also hold to a sovereign God who has surrendered His sovereignty to Man's Free Will. God doesn't interfere in Man's choices ... ever. Never mind that this is inconsistent with the term "sovereign." They argue, in fact, that this makes God more sovereign. Never mind that this is logically incoherent. They argue that it's perfectly logical. You see, the problem I have is if God doesn't interfere in Man's choices, then how does He accomplish anything? For instance, God wants us to be obedient; how can anyone become a better person? "Well, they have to want to." Okay, setting aside the obvious -- even if they ask God to interfere in their choices, He's still interfering -- isn't it true that the vast majority of people do not want to be more godly people? In fact, Man is naturally hostile to God. So the vast majority of choices will be counter to what God wants. And -- poor God -- He's left to try to muddle through and make everything come out the way He intended it. He can't, of course, because He has already surrendered to Man's Free Will, but maybe in other ways He can make it work. He can control things that Man doesn't, like weather or red lights. Or not. Most Christians don't actually think that God controls weather (or red lights) and uses them for His purposes. You see, most Christians have an entirely unexamined position that says that humans live almost entirely uninterrupted by God ... and God is perfectly sovereign. I see it as manifestly inconsistent with Scripture and logic, but it's the most common position you'll find, I suspect.
Well, you guys go ahead with that. I cannot. I believe in a Sovereign God who has no problem allowing people like Judas Iscariot (Luke 22:22) or Pilate and Herod (Acts 4:27-28) make undirected choices that coincide with His plans or preventing them (like Abimelech) from making choices when they don't. I believe in a Sovereign God who has His fingers in every event -- allowing, causing, ordaining. And while I will have to come to my own conclusions on whom to vote for in November, I won't be choosing based on a fear that "the wrong guy" might get into office. You know, it is possible that God intends for Obama to be elected. Do you (Christian) want to stand in His way? It may be possible that God wants to bring America to its knees through a "wrong" President. Are you (Christian) going to warn God off? "No, God! Bad choice!" I don't plan to do that. I think I'll vote my conscience and leave the results in the Hand of the One who already has it in hand. I personally can't imagine standing before God and saying, "Well, yeah, I cast my vote for someone I thought was wrong because, well, if I didn't, You wouldn't have had a chance of getting what You wanted to accomplish done." I'll leave that one for you guys.
6 comments:
"Don't be idealist." Forgive me, but this sounds like an odd position for a Christian to take.
Amen to that. You don't leave any stone unturned in this destruction of the "God doesn't get involved in politics" fallacy. In Romans 13 Paul reminds us that the leaders are God's servants to punish evil. So the obvious solution if you are given a choice is to choose the best servant of God.
I was one of those 19% who voted for Ross Perot in 1992 based primarily on the issue of fiscal sanity. A deficit is a serious moral issue, ostensibly borrowing now without an assurance that you will pay it back later in return for short-term economic growth. Ultimately our children will be stuck paying for this generation's excesses. I thought I wasted my vote on Perot, but now I don't. Two years later, the movement moved into the Republican party although re-done as the Contract with America, and I was one of those "young angry white men" who swept the Republicans into office. So I didn't waste my vote after all. Unfortunately, after Gingrich left the Speakership, that movement died completely. The first 3 Republican congresses under Bush II were an absolute disgrace in my opinion.
We need a strong third party candidate desperately now but I'm surprised to see nothing filling the vacuum. Again our choice is "Who is the best servant of God?" Although we might have to hold our noses again at the poll booth, we must decide which one of all the candidates, no, not just two, and let God take care of the rest.
The positives about McCain are that he is one of the few fiscal conservatives left in the Senate, he is as experienced as anyone could be, and he is flexible. In contrast, George Bush has been the kind of president that if there was something he absolutely had to do but his advisors didn't want to do, he did nothing. The problem with McCain is that he really really really didn't get the life lesson from the Iraq invasion. We should require whoever is elected to write "I will not invade unless atacked" 300 times on a chalkboard before we allow them to take office.
Now Obama may have gotten the message on Iraq, but he also is a standard culture of death liberal. He is a big fan of Planned Parenthood, the organization founded ironically to rid us whites of black people. He also promotes same sex marriage although he supports the public making them legal, not judges. He is also very smart and gives good speeches. But he is also inexperienced and we don't know how well he can adapt. Bill Clinton and JFK grew in their experience, but Jimmy Carter did not.
I choose the best servant to be McCain, although if a 3rd party candidate comes out of the woodwork I'd definitely look at them with interest.
Jim, I have to know. I understand that you are convinced that invading Iraq was absolutely, unavoidably wrong. Okay, fine. Is it also your view that the only defensible, right action now is Obama's immediate withdrawal plan? I ask because I've asked multiple times of multiple people "What then?" It seems like the plan is "Get our people out and, well, who really cares about you schmucks in Iraq?" Is your view, "Get them out now and don't worry about the consequences"? (I'm just asking, not trying to cast aspersions or make value judgments.)
If we have been equipping the Iraqi government with the tools and training to keep order (for 5 years now), then we can plan a withdrawal of troops. As McCain said, we will have some presence there indefinitely. It's also kind of a catch-22 to say that by leaving that we do not care about the Iraqis. Did we show we cared by invading?
As I understand it, the Iraqi troops are not yet ready to keep order. McCain plans for an indefinite presence (which only makes sense to me ... we still have troops in Germany, Japan, South Korea ... I mean wherever we go to war, we tend to leave a force).
As for whether or not we cared when we invaded, I cannot imagine anyone arguing, "The Iraqi people were much better off with Saddam Hussein in charge." I want to make it abundantly clear that I'm not convinced we should have gone there in the first place. Having said that, I am concerned that pulling out now (after the fact) will do grievous harm to the Iraqi people and to what little credibility and sense of power that we have in that region. (By "sense of power" I mean "Are they a force to be reckoned with?" The answer, if we cut and run now, would seem to be, "Nope, no need to worry about the U.S. -- paper tigers, just like they were with Carter.") My sense is that we need to clean up the mess we made, despite the likelihood that we shouldn't have made it in the first place.
I find the claim that the Iraqi forces aren't ready to defend themselves to be highly suspect. Surely, no nation is that incompetent that they can't muster some type of force after 5 years. Did they lose their survival instinct? Will they choose to not survive? And if they do choose not to survive then I don't see how we could possibly succeed anyway. I think we should plan troop reductions, showing some trust in God, unlike the invasion, in which we did not.
I'm trying to picture what training would be like these first years. "Okay, guys, this is how you pull the trigger, this is how you aim, this is how you make a traffic stop ... okay, now, let's go ... oh, wait ... three of you just got shot on your way out the door. Next!" It's not like training in the military, where you do it without being shot at first and then get deployed. Your training is under fire. That has to make it difficult to keep recruits.
As for whether or not it is possible for them to succeed is a serious question for me, but ...
Post a Comment