My friend, Seth, and I have been engaged in a conversation via email for a few weeks now, and this post over at Radical Congruency has finally motivated me to blog about it.
The question being asked there is this: If God, and therefore the Christian, is (should be) neither a Republican nor a Democrat, as many are wont to claim, then what is he (should we be)? Everything suggested so far (See the comments.) is a hybrid, some position on the political continuum between liberal and conservative. No one, however, seem to be particularly satisfied with the results so far.
Now, mine isn’t a novel idea, but my take – my “third way” – is to recapture Christian ambassadorship. As I see it, the Christian is no longer a citizen of the nation she lives in, but an ambassador to that nation. She is a citizen of Heaven, representing her king to the citizens of the nation she lives in.
This doesn’t imply that the Christian should be uninvolved with his resident nation. “By no means!” to borrow Paul’s phrase. Without doubt, a good ambassador engages the nation she lives in, though not in the same way as a citizen would. The ambassador works as an outsider. She represents her King.
She might influence her nation of residence by advocating his positions. “Back in my country, we do things this way,” she might say. She might concentrate on living among the citizenry modeling the life of her heavenly homeland, bringing “foreign aid” and relief. She might do it by speaking against the positions and policies of the nation she lives in.
Now, being ambassadors does not absolve us from having to work through many of the issues. I’m not trying to be escapist. I’m aware that there is much discrepancy among citizens of Heaven regarding just how our King would do things, and we must work out his ways. Ambassadorship does, however, free us from ties that might bind us and hijack our faith.
So, to answer the question, who would Jesus vote for, I say: No one. I don’t think he’d vote. He is truly neither Republican nor Democrat. He – and His – are foreign ambassadors. Voting is a right reserved for citizens of democracies; Christians are citizens of a monarchy. In fact, they are more than citizens; they are members of the royal family!
My friend, Seth, doesn’t buy it. He expresses it this way:
Before I was a Christian I didn’t participate in anything political. After all why should I? Everything was just my opinion. My thoughts weren’t based on anything firm, granted I grew up in the church and pretty much knew right from wrong. There was no foundation to my “beliefs” so why should I impose them on others? Now that I am a Christian I have a Firm Foundation to my beliefs and opinions. I have backbone behind my stances. Now I want what God wants and I oppose what God opposes…. He has put us in this great free nation that has given us the ability and responsibility to participate in the government, from voting to running. He has put us here with these freedoms for such a time as this, with these decisions to be made. And if we truly are his ambassadors to this world and nation, with the given ability to have our voices heard by the “hosting nation”, then shouldn’t we let them, the nations leaders, hear God’s voice! After all, we are speaking and voting on His behalf if we are truly his ambassadors. Eh? (emphasis his)
There’s probably room for Christians to hold both positions. God is wonderfully (and frustratingly) ambiguous at times, refusing to give the hard and fast, black and white guidance we so often desire. What do you think?
Well I think it is our obligation to vote. See Consistently Chili – Christians and Politics. But I find your thoughts very challenging and will be pondering them for a while. Thanks.
I think this is one of those cases where asking “What would Jesus do?” isn’t a fair question, since Jews in Palestine didn’t have the right to vote (at least not in the Roman system).
I’m very much pondering this question myself, and I can’t help but think, at the moment, that we really do have to choose the lesser of two evils. Politics, as well as living in a free society, is about compromise and negotiation. I don’t know any other way.
I agree with Seth’s convictions on voting, and I hope that he and I are leaning toward similar political convictions as well. I posted a lot of long rants on this subject on Justin’s blog; after a whole summer (and more) of emergent/postmodern blog reading, I’m starting to feel like being “postmodern” or “emergent” means accepting a lot of liberal horse manure, both religious and political.
I guess I’m angry because I wouldn’t have wasted my time if I knew that’s what the emergent church is about. IS that what it’s about?
Nice dome, by the way, Baldman…I’ve got quite a bit of that reflection going myself!
About the ambassador analogy, it just occurred to me that even though ambassadors don’t vote, they take a pretty clear stand on the issues; they even get into some pretty nasty arguments with officials in their missions. Hum…that still fits with Jesus, though, doesn’t it?
utech – Your leaps from respecting authority and silent agreement to an oath is a bit too much, IMO.
Justin – We ask, “WWJD?” all the time in areas of technology. Why can’t we ask it of politics? Admittedly, it’s harder to answer, because our context is so far removed from his; but that doesn’t relieve us from having to wrestle with the question? Fundamentally, the question, “WWDJ?” is (or at least should be) all about: “How do I follow Jesus here and now?”
Also, you hit a nerve when you said, “Politics… is about compromise and negotiation.” A bit off topic but, what happened to persuasion? Compromise is part of what has put U.S. politics into the mess it’s in. Neither side of an argument listens to the other. Compromises are reached that leave everyone feeling like they lost. When was the last time you heard a politician say, “I was talking with some folks from across the aisle about such-and-such, and they’ve persuaded me to change my mind?”
Ted – Perhaps many in the emerging church seem so liberal, because they are reacting against fundamental evangelicalism and the “religious right.” I’m speculating a bit, but that seems an accurate statement from the folks I’ve been getting to know. Anyway, don’t write it (Should I say us?) off just yet.
Disclaimer: I have grown more liberal recently, so don’t hate me too much. Try to look past that and see the bright red glow emanating from my sun-burnt skull.
Bald Man-
I’m probably becoming more liberal myself, but I still identify more with fundamental evangelicalism and the religious right—that’s where I was discipled and formed spiritually, and even intellectually. The conflict for me is that I know I’m living in a postmodern world, and I get as frustrated as anyone when my church experience isn’t relevant to that world and its culture.
I’m not going to change my worldview from Christian Theism to postmodernism, but I do want to update my religious expression so that it assimilates the positive aspects of contemporary culture, hopefully in a way that leads to more positive interaction with it. Is it possible to be a fundamental/evangelical/right wing/postmodern, or is that as problematic as being a gay/nazi/motorcycle rider/Jew for Jesus? (No offense to any of those groups except the Nazis.)
Are postmodernism and liberalism inclusive to everyone except conservatives, or am I just excluding myself?
Wait…I can see the glow! I have two words for you: wear a hat!
I’m wading into deep and treacherous waters here, I fear. But here goes:
We are called to participate in the world, unless we have a special calling to lead a contemplative life. The question WJWVF cannot really be answered, of course. Jesus may or may not have “voted” if such a thing was available to him, but he challenged the corruption and hypocrisy of the temple, without a doubt. And in his day and time, the temple and the government were completely intertwined.
We are to be in the world but not of the world — we hold jobs, raise families, participate in leisure activities and sports, obey laws. All the activities that nonchristians participate in. We should vote and we should vote our conscience as guided by the Holy Spirit. Some % of us will vote “wrong.” Some % will vote “right.” For there is a progression of earthly history and it is either toward God or away from God.
We have no way of knowing the course on a long scale. But we must be active in as Christian a stance as possible as God directs. It is the action, not the result, that matters at the “micro” level where we live.
Perhaps, as we step back from the political continuum (I really like Brian McClaren’s image of moving off the “stick” and finding another plane on which to operate. He introduces the idea in A New Kind of Christian, in case you’re not familiar with it.) looking for a “third way,” we do appear to move toward the middle. That would be left-ward for many of us, because we start from a conservative, right-flank position. Hopefully we will distance ourselves far enough from the line, that we genuinely appear to be operating on another plane vs. from another position on that plane.
n/p – I think there is another, more Christian way to engage the world aside from voting. That’s why I’m clinging to the notion of ambassadorship. I think that encompasses the realities that (1) we live in this world and must interact with it in simple day-to-day terms, like you mention (working, recreating, etc.); and (2) we are not citizens of this world and, thus, do not participate in the same way as citizens do.
Ted – Have you seen