With only 3 weeks left before the election, here's how I would think theologically through this moment in history:
Before we start our political conversation, it would be helpful to explain where I’m coming from. We live in an era of full-disclosure—no need to keep the reader guessing! The ideas presented in this ‘guide’ represent a variety of communities popping up here and there in North American who are committed to radical discipleship to Christ, but have become both jaded with mainstream forms of Christian faith yet convinced that there must be another path to follow. A quick look at philosophy, history and our own social location will help. I’ll spare a lot of details. First of all, philosophically speaking, we are convinced that our dialogue should be post-Foundationalist. Foundationalism has been the quest for certainty and demand for a simple, black-and-white, dualistic worldview. Over the past century, Christian options labeled ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ have offered their own competing packages. We reject both packages, yearning for a more complex, nuanced, context-oriented [and, we think, more faithful] conversation about the world. In addition, we recognize that our culture is becoming more and more fragmented with a multitude of worldviews [or narratives] being pitched to us by family, friends, the media, various churches and organizations, political candidates, etc. These diverse perspectives, with their competing propaganda, make it extremely difficult to unearth the truth or view the worldly objectively. We are skeptical when sincere folks propose that ‘the Bible clearly teaches’ us about all sorts of issues, beliefs and practices. This does not mean that we’ve abandoned truth to ‘blowing in the wind’ [relativism], but we do think claims to absolute truth should be much more humble than they currently are. A post-Fragmentation Christianity will emphasize the Bible as a ‘script’ that Christian communities interpret in order to participate in our diverse locales, instead of as a manual of ‘universal principles’ or ‘self-evident truths’ that proclaim common sense no matter where one lives in the universe.
Second, we acknowledge the historical mistakes of Christendom, starting with Roman Emperor Constantine in 313, the grasping for power and privilege in order to make our world more ‘Christian.’ We are post-Constantinian—the only ‘Christian’ faith option presented in the New Testament is freely chosen discipleship, a radical decision to start with the teachings and life-model of Jesus the crucified one, not the various stories of success, ambition and triumph told by the world. This means the United States is not—and was never—a ‘Christian Nation,’ imposing a blend of highly selective ‘biblical morality’ and militaristic capitalism on its citizens and the world while trumpeting itself as the ‘last best hope.’ Our faithful Christian witness is not by electing leaders or passing laws [although we always advocate for peace, liberty and justice], but by living faithfully Jesus’ call to love our enemies, forgive each other, serve the marginalized, tell the truth and share our possessions. We seek to live like exiles in a foreign country, not as the ones whose responsibility is controlling the world for God. In addition, we desire to repent and resist the mistakes of the past committed by the American Body of Christ in their participation in overtaking land, resources and cultures of various people groups [Native Americans, African-Americans, Mexicans, Iraqis, etc] for our country’s gain. We recognize that these decisions, made by Christian leaders and advocated by Christian citizens of the not-too-distant-past continue to have systemic effects on marginalized people living inside and outside the US. We are post-Colonial—the reign of God extends beyond our borders into the backyards and slums of our brothers and sisters all over the Third World.
Lastly, following Jesus from nowheresville Nazareth, we prioritize a consistent ‘perspective of the periphery,’ giving voice to the groaning of those communities of poverty, injustice and death in the States and all over the world. An important aspect of the identity and vocation of God’s people is to have solidarity with these pockets of poverty inside and outside the US. Christians coming from privilege and power should seek to reform their own lifestyles [many of which benefit from unjust laws and practices] and to advocate for those on the outskirts of wealth. We are post-Suburban—creatively seeking to sacrifice our comfort, security and wealth in order to put the focus on the world’s marginalized.
By political definition, Christians are those who pledge allegiance, first and foremost, to God’s Reign [‘the kingdom of God’ in the Gospels]. This allegiance knows no borders and proclaims God’s inclusiveness and abundance. This ‘citizenship’ bonds us in solidarity with all of those, world-wide, who work for kingdom values and ultimately hope in the Lord Jesus’ return to make all things new. Living as a faithful witness to God’s Reign in the United States, a ‘democracy,’ means that we have an opportunity to campaign and vote for the candidate we think will both demand peace and justice and give space for every citizen of this world to live and believe freely. We want a candidate who will honor differences that God ordained at the Tower of Babel.
When both candidates talk brashly about what our military may have to do to Pakistani, Afghani, Iraqi, Iranian, Chinese or Russian people, these words should be abrasive to followers of the Prince of Peace. We should remind these candidates, and their political parties, through word, contributions and deed, what we think God means by ‘peace’ and ‘justice.’
The script for his citizens of God’s Reign, the Bible, overwhelmingly beckons his people to honor and care for the marginalized and oppressed in the world. These poverty and justice issues should be included under the banner of what, today, is called, ‘character’ or ‘family values’ or simply ‘morality.’ ‘Suburban Christians’—whose privileged position in society has led to a college education, job opportunities, health care, annual vacations, pension plans, savings, investment strategies—should seek out the perspective of the periphery, those on the underbelly of American society who do not have these taken-for-granted opportunities. We cannot succumb to the myth that everyone in the US has the opportunity to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps to make a better life for themselves. This is not true. Many need help from the government, the wealthiest in the history of world. We should take seriously ‘systems’ approach to wealth and poverty. There are pockets of poverty in the United States where people are educated in dilapidated schools and have limited choices of grocery stores and have little property tax and federal and state funding for infrastructure needs. This environment has paid unfortunate dues on families, resulting in many single-parent upbringings. In addition, a historical approach to understanding unjust systems should be taken seriously. We are only decades removed from overt segregation of whites and blacks in the Jim Crow South, but also over segregation of whites and Latinos in Orange County, CA. These policies, and many others, have had long-lasting psychological, economic and educational effects on African-Americans and immigrants.
‘What about the issues’ you ask? First of all, I grew up in a Christian tradition that prioritized social issues like abortion and homosexuality. In fact, it wasn’t until somewhat recently that I thought someone who labeled herself pro-choice could actually be a Christian. I would now characterize these two lightening rods as ‘in-house’ issues. What I mean by that is that each Christian community can most effectively bear witness to God’s Reign by practicing what they believe in regards to abortion and gay marriage. Our Christian community would do all that we can to decrease the number of abortions in the US annually—through education and adoption, as well as advocating for more just economic policies that demand a living wage and health care benefits for expectant mothers. Voting primarily for candidates that are ‘pro-life’ is a Constantinian strategy [advocating for controversial Christian policies in a pluralistic society]. This issue [along with gay marriage] has come to be the defining issue for the Evangelical movement. This is a shame, mostly because ‘pro-life’ has come to mean anti-abortion without consistently fiercely advocating for ‘life’ in regards to war and poverty issues. Followers of Jesus are ‘pro-life’ with the womb, the bomb and the slum. We shun enormous efforts to change legislation as the primary strategy because poll after poll continues to show that a majority of Americans do not believe that Roe v. Wade [1973] should be overturned. These polls reveal that Americans are either not convinced that life starts at conception [competing scientific finding and/or beliefs about life] or that they will simply go about aborting [for various reasons] anyway. This is a really complex and sad state of affairs, but it will not get better by overturning Roe against the will of a majority of Americans.
In regards to gay marriage, there are two key issues: what does the Bible say about homosexuality and what does that mean for the law in the United States? We must start with Christian communities as the eye of the interpretive hurricane. Many churches believe that homosexuality is always an affront to God’s way and that ‘marriage’ is clearly defined as ‘between a man and a woman’ in the Bible and this means that Christians must do everything possible in order to insure that state law protects ‘the sanctity of marriage.’ On the contrary, we would advocate for a non-Constantinian approach to gay marriage. Gays and lesbians should have the right to ‘marriage’ in California and the other 49 states because we live in a pluralist society with many different beliefs about what ‘marriage’ means. Churches will have the opportunity to decide, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, how to approach issues like ordination of gay pastors and whether to preside at gay/lesbian weddings. Many Christian churches will prayerfully say ‘yes’ to both of these volatile issues. Most evangelical churches will prayerfully say ‘no’ to both. Again, all of these churches interpret the same Bible differently. Who is right and who is wrong? We won’t know this side of the Kingdom.
For thought-provoking Biblical commentary on the homosexuality issue [that will probably be different than what you have been socialized into, check out Ched Myers and Walter Wink.
Issues that should compel us to choose one Presidential candidate over another are those that pertain to specific decisions that Presidents make that directly affect those on the periphery of society [both in the US and the world]. These include decisions on the War on Terror [Iraq? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Guantanamo?], tax and trade policies, Health Care reform, race/ethnicity relations and world diplomatic affairs. The executive branch in the United States has a lot of power with these issues. At this moment in time, we need a President who will reverse the disastrous decisions on the Iraq War, where thousands of poor Americans and Iraqis have died over the past 5 years for security and oil and has diverted billions of dollars away from domestic and international help for those living in systemic poverty and oppression. It’s what Martin Luther King sermonized about Vietnam four decades ago:
I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money, like some demonic, destructive suction tube.
Iraq has been ‘a demonic, destructive suction tube’ for mostly poor, minority young men and Obama had the wherewithal to call it a ‘dumb war’ way back in 2002 when it was unpopular to do so even as he was running a successful campaign for the Senate. Arguments about how much the ‘surge’ worked are besides the point and after the fact. We need a President who will remove the troops ASAP [the very thing Iraq’s own government wants] and take care of our wounded [emotionally and physically] veterans once they get home. Obama will do this. [for more on my own conversion on theological conversion on Iraq, click here.
In addition, we need a President who will talk with not down to other leaders of this world. American arrogance, through the actions of the Bush Administration, is well documented and quite appalling. Obama, not McCain, has repeatedly proposed to diplomatically work with the rest of the world [our allies and enemies] instead of shutting out or manipulating other countries to do what is in America’s best interest.
I trust the American people to understand that it’s not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but our enemies...
Barack Obama
Many Christians are skeptical of Obama’s faith. Some of this comes from comments made by Obama’s former pastor Jeremiah Wright [For my thoughts on Jeremiah Wright click here], but some of it comes from a false belief that he is actually Muslim [which would not disqualify him from being a great President in my opinion] stemming from his middle name ‘Hussein’ and from a brief stint in Indonesia for a couple of years during his early elementary school years.
Of course, many Evangelicals simply find it unthinkable that a man could be ‘pro-choice’ and ‘Christian.’ These speculations can mostly be put to rest with a quick history lesson. Obama is part of an historical American Christian tradition of liberation. He is a Christian in the line of Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King, who read the Bible as a socio-political ‘script’ for God’s liberation of the oppressed of this world. Jesus’ call to care for the ‘least of these’ [Matthew 25] is a cherished passage in this tradition. This liberation theology leads to skepticism for many ‘white moderates’ [MLK’s name for white clergy who did not support his equating the Gospel with Civil Rights for blacks] who live with unacknowledged privilege, power and opportunity.
The McCain/Palin attacks on Obama’s character in recent weeks have been truly nauseating in their utter lack of truth. Claims about Obama’s association with domestic radicals [Palin: ‘he has been palling around with terrorists’] as well as pot-shots about Obama’s work in the intercity after receiving his degree at Columbia [Palin: "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer,’ except that you have actual responsibilities"], are just the tip of the iceberg concerning rhetoric used to incite fear. In addition, they cling to populist issues like ‘lower taxes’ and ‘country first’ and ‘drill, baby, drill’ in their efforts to rally undecided voters. These issues have their own ‘Christian’ critique, first of which is the continued nationalism and economic exploitation that has ‘worked’ for white America for so long. It is clear, even with very limited research, that ‘straight-talkers’ McCain/Palin care far more about being elected than being seekers of the truth [check out www.factcheck.org].
