Fewer Broken Pieces

Today the annual Diocesan Convention wrapped up.  I was an alternate from St. Bartholomew’s.  Due to a misunderstanding of the schedule, I had to miss Friday’s business.  Still, I got to enjoy an excellent eucharist service accompanied by jazz music at St. Paul’s Salem before the first session.  This morning the convention continued the “Appreciative Inquiry” process, part of our self-evaluation before selecting a new bishop at next year’s convention.

There are some up and coming issues which are sure to cause contention in Oregon, including a discussion on permitting the benefit of all sacraments to all congregants - in other words, gay marriage.  Along with those there were some resolutions of policy which I thought odd to be on the docket for ecclesial convention, including a petition for the repatriation of some native American artifacts and a letter of support for a proposed Department of Peace and Nonviolence (the bill stalled in committee and a similar fate awaits it if re-introduced in the next congress).  One of the rationales for the latter proposal was:

• There is currently no organized approach by the US government to create nonviolent solutions to domestic and international conflicts.

As for domestic conflicts, I am not sure what is being insinuated, but I have no idea why such a program would need to be implemented at the federal level.  As for international conflicts, is not that exact role served by the US State Department?  Oh, the curiosities of convention!

I had the pleasure of being introduced to several groups, including a prison ministry I am quite interested in, Episcopal Peace Fellowship, and Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon.  EMO is hosting Archbishop Desmond Tutu in Portland in May 2009.  Other than that, I met some great people, and I hope to be able to be a delegate again in the future.

In 100 years, all that will be remembered about this election is that a black man was elected to the Presidency for the first time.  Republican, Democrat, irrelevant.

Some political action committee has started airing ads which highlight the connection between Senator Obama and Reverend Wright.  The hope is that Americans will decide Obama has bad judgment (or hates America, or somewhere in between) and choose to vote for the other guy.  I don’t really care, though I find the silence on Senator McCain’s religious life deafening by comparison.  Obama did indeed denounce Wright, just as Wright had predicted would happen some time ago.  This instance of a politician severing ties with a church for political expediency has probably made me more cynical about politics than anything else.

Perhaps I have some latent bias towards Obama, but try as I may, I just cannot find anything particularly scandalous in the preaching of Jeremiah Wright.  He espouses some opinions which I think are best regarded as “conspiracy theories,” such as the US government introducing drugs or AIDS to black populations, or the government causing levies to fail in New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.  However, given the nature of the Tuskegee experiments, I can hardly fault black people for expecting the worst from the government.  Moreover, I myself have been quite enamored with conspiracy theories at times (something which I attribute to being brought up on the X-Files).  Yes, I acknowledge that some of Wright’s ideas are wrong or questionable, but I do not think those errant views invalidate his overall message.

Yet these are not what the media typically focus on.  What they focus on are the more inflammatory of Wright’s statements, including “God damn America,” and “America’s chickens are coming home to roost” (concerning the causes of 9/11).  These out-of-context clips are characterized as “hate speech” or “anti-American” or “having nothing to do with the gospel.”  The essence of Wright’s rhetoric can be summarized thus: “God is not pleased with America when it does bad things” and “America should obey the golden rule.”  I don’t object to either of those messages.  What most people are reacting against is the shock-value of Wright’s statements and tone.  Once again, I do not object to these.  Wright is loud and fiery, and he preaches provocatively.  When presented in isolation, his sermons can be passed as “hate speech” by commentators.  However, when taken in context, his sermons are a powerful prophetic witness.  So I do not count Wright against Obama.

But Obama severed his ties nonetheless.  A presidential candidate cannot affirm an association with someone who speaks against America.  This elucidates the problem of Christian participation in electoral politics.  If we as Christians have something critical to say against the United States, that sentiment cannot be shared by any mainstream candidate for the Presidency.  Therefore I fear voting can at times be an affirmation of patriotism above faith.

We find ourselves today at the end of one of the longest and the most expensive Presidential campaigns in United States history.  I am left with two questions:  Did the nomination and electoral process as manifested this year help the United States select the best possible candidates?  Did the campaign foster civic discussion in a way which helped citizens make the best-informed decisions?

Read the rest of this entry »

The 2008 /dev/null Nethack tourney has begun.  Do you have what it takes?

Gordon Smith is running ads against Constitution party candidate Dave Brownlow.  I suppose they have some internals which show he is peeling off some of Smith’s typical voting base.  Still, it is pretty amazing to see a political ad attacking a third-party candidate.

Late update: Brownlow ended up getting ~6% of the vote and Smith lost his seat.  The ads were too little, too late.

How old is the earth, anyway?  What effect does evolution have on Christian theology?  Steve Martin is facilitating a mini blog conference on the topic.  Dr. Peter Enns examines the issue by means of his review of The Bible, Rocks and Time.  This summer Robin Parry tackled the issue of the flood in a series of posts entitled “Did Noah’s Flood Happen?”:

1. An Historical Overview
2. The Evidence says ‘No’
3. Theological Reflections, pt 1
4. Theological Reflections, part 2 (Genesis in ancient context)

Happy reading.

A government-sponsored religiosity makes you suffer from amnesia.

~ Jeremiah Wright.  I am looking for the entire context, because this one line intrigued me.

Want to download a lot of free live performances of Elliott Smith?  Thanks be to the Internet Archive.

Pilate presents Jesus

I nearly voted, by write-in, for Pontius Pilate to be the President of the United States.  It would have been a joke, for sure, but the sort of joke which provokes more thought than laughter.  Instead I opted to vote for no one, which sparked quite the outrage among friends and family.  It seems anything is better than not voting, and even the non-vote born of laziness or apathy is better than what I did.  However, this was the desired effect, because I thought a non-vote to be the most effective means to raising my thoughts and concerns about Christianity and politics.

Here I will present three basic reasons that I did not vote for President.  The first two will be rather brief, but the third will form the crux of my current thinking on voting.

First, I have become rather fond of federalism of late.  Therefore I think we would be better served by having our President elected by a means other than a popular vote.  For example, state legislatures could choose free-will electors by preferential vote.  I believe this would facilitate a better selection process which cannot be so heavily driven by the media.  Think of the money which could be saved if candidates only had to campaign for 538 individuals.  Moreover, think of the benefit to our society were we spared from the eternal election cycle and the divisive rhetoric which accompanies it.  This proposal is unpopular by definition, but I think at this present juncture it could be quite useful for states to follow their forebears and take the vote for President out of the hands of the people.

Second, I wanted to give concrete expression to my heavenly citizenship.  The preponderance of salvific and even messianic language coming from some high-profile candidates this season has given me pause.  The hope to which I so firmly hold is Jesus Christ, not the political movement of Barack Obama.  Moreover, the change I seek is the change of Jesus’ inbreaking kingdom, not that of a political “maverick” named John McCain.

Obviously, I have saddled each with a perhaps unfair equivocation of what each means by “hope” and “change.”  Neither Obama nor McCain would say he is seeking to usurp a role which only God can fulfill.  Yet as I considered the concept of heavenly citizenship, I realized that I myself give very little expression to my understanding of the hope and change that are in Christ Jesus.  My hope was indeed vested in Presidential politics, at least in terms of any practical expression.  My hope in Jesus was purely theoretical.  Therefore I thought it best, for my own devotional edification, to opt out of voting for a leader and instead to merely say “Jesus is Lord.”  By doing so, I am expressing that I am not expecting ultimate hope nor change from worldly leaders.  Rather I can relax in knowing that whoever wins this tiny election, Jesus Christ still sits at the right hand of the Father, waiting to usher in His kingdom on earth.

The final reason I elected not to vote this year centered around the question of voting as Christian orthopraxy.  In other words, as I have asked before, is it possible to vote righteously?  Another way of asking the same question: should faith inform one’s voting?  Based on my purely anecdotal experiences, I believe that most Christians want to say that their faith affects how they vote.  My question is different from and prior to that question: how can faith inform voting?

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father; through him all things were made.

How someone can go from faith (as witnessed in the Nicene creed) to Democrat or Republican is a mystery to me.  I simply see nothing in any tradition’s creed, confession of faith, catechism, or doctrinal statement which can tell me whether supply-side or demand-side economics are better; whether welfare programs are best executed in the US by the states or the federal government; whether “the right of the People to keep and bear arms” should include assault rifles; whether a federal ban on off-shore drilling should be lifted; etc., ad nauseum.  Christian faith, in and of itself, cannot inform our voting, unless there is a measure on the ballot, “Do you believe in one God . . . ”

Saddam is toppled

I think that if asked about these issues, most Christians who say that their faith affects their vote would agree that there is no clear “Christian” position on many of these partisan distinctives.  They are, for the most part, purely a matter of personal preference.  If someone would like to make a political case for a politician or an issue, one must do it from the standpoint of Christian ethics, not Christian faith.  Are there any issues facing the United States about which Christian ethics can make an authoritative pronouncement?  To each individual, it would seem there are.  However, I can affirm the Nicene creed with my Episcopalian friends, some of whom disagree with me on whether abortion should be illegal.  Also, I can affirm the Foursquare doctrinal statement, but many of my friends in that movement disagree with me on the wars.

There is also the question of to what degree our Christian ethics should correspond to the laws of laws and politics of a liberal democracy.  My conservative friends believe that we should clothe and feed the poor, but they do not believe that such charity should be mandated and carried out by the government.  My liberal friends believe that homosexuality is wrong, but they do not believe that gay couples should be deprived of the same benefits as straight couples.  With regard to abortion, should Christians vote for McCain because he takes a principled stand against legalized abortion, or Obama, whose policies might greater reduce the actual occurrence of abortion in the United States?

Sarah Palin’s former pastor said, “If every Christian will vote righteously, it would be a landslide every time.”  In my opinion, the only way to vote righteously is to vote self-righteously.  I know I have made an inflammatory statement here, and I do not wish to unduly offend anyone.  Yet when I look at the complexity of voting and of Christian ethics, I can come to no other conclusion.  Voting is subjective.  Even on seemingly easy questions, Christian tradition cannot easily be boiled down to a vote for a single candidate.

I believe we have to approach voting humbly and dispassionately, if at all.  We do so because in our weakness we admit that we lack the wisdom to discern God’s will in every instance.  We do so because in nearly every case in politics, there is no one right answer, yet we feel compelled by our civic duty to do something.  We do so because our own Christian brothers and sisters, who believe in God with the same sincerity, may come to opposite conclusions.  And finally, by voting dispassionately, we acknowledge that the politics of this world are not the ultimate end.  It does not matter greatly if things do not go our way, because we trust that “in all things God works for the good of those who love him.”

This year I assumed the ultimate dispassionate posture: I chose not to vote for President.  I may or may not make the same decision in the future.  Yet this year it seemed right to me to excuse myself from the noise.  On November 4th, I will be free to take in the greatest spectacle on earth without worrying about a right or wrong result.  I will be trusting in God’s providence rather than the will of the electorate.