Reflections of a Non-Voter on the Eve of Another Election

4 years ago I was deeply conflicted about voting or not voting...not that this has readily been resolved in my heart...but it did produce a few interesting reflections in my journal from that time. These are not in anyway conclusive thoughts but a wondering...perhaps to find a more decisively dicipled identity not tied to political and/or national ideology.


“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love you enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5.43-44)

Saturday I passed a sign along the road that read, "God bless America." Sarcastically I asked my passenger, "and the Iraqis too?"

This sarcastic comment began to raise so many questions… Can a good patriotic American uphold loyalties to both God and country? Which takes precedence? What are the limits of each? Should a Christian support war? These are questions that we as Christians need to be asking ourselves. Though I’ve really found no concrete answers, I will share my leanings.

Too often, American Christians confuse their loyalty to Christ with that of the State. I wonder, are Christianity and patriotism reconcilable? Certainly our commitment to Christ must certainly rise above patriotic notions. And yet, why do they so often seem to be interwoven. To do so, do we risk confusing America with God’s chosen people of Israel? If we believe God to be the creator and lover of all peoples, then patriotic or nationalistic loyalties do not seem be tied to God’s purposes. Patriotism is a division of our allegiance that would seem to pit one nation of brothers and sisters against another.

Luke 16.13 No slave can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.”

Exodus 20.1-6 The God spoke all these words: I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, our of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God…

Essentially anything that takes our attention and desires from God is an idol. God is jealous for our affections.

1 Corinthians 8.5-6 Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth – as in fact there are many gods and many lords – yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Ephesians 4.4-6 The is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.

Romans 3.3a God is one…

Monotheism is not about numbers, but about our exclusive allegiance.

Peter, when told by the authorities not to speak of Christ, he replied, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge; for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4.19-20). Peter again speaks of the higher calling and commitment to God when he says, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5.29). Submission to the state must end when the Christian conscience is irritated and suppressed. The faithful Christian must oppose submission of the Christian conscience to the State conscience.

If patriotism is love for, and the defense of ones country, then dissent is equally patriotic as war support. Barry Harvey, who teaches at Baylor University, says that Christians are to be sanctified subversants, subverting culture for its own benefit. Dissent is a political subversion for the country’s own benefit by strivings for peace over war. In this sense, dissent protects democracy, which is the goal of patriotism.

Dissent for the Christian means faith is put first in Jesus Christ above any other loyalty. The Christian’s war is fought through prayer on behalf of both nations that the awfulness of war may be ended soon, safety of all troops (including the Iraqis) and for the nations and families of all. It is done in a spirit of humility and submission to our Lord whereby we place our trust in God’s sovereignty and judgment.

[The Lord] shall judge between many peoples, and shall arbitrate between strong nations far away; they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not life up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. (Micah 4.3)

One of the key points in this country’s political origins is the “freedom of religion” from a state imposed religion of which we all benefit from. This freedom of religion created the opportunity, in part, the pluralism of denominational forms apart from the state religion. Implicit within the freedom “of” is the freedom “from.” This means that a freedom of religion includes the choice of no religion; hence freedom from religion. This is the heart of our current liberal democracy.

We may aptly apply the same inverse understanding to that of the right to vote. Implicit within is the right not to vote. I may exercise my right to vote or I might not. Furthermore, even non action is still action. A potential voter who chooses not to vote does not become a vacuum, but rather exerts a force in opposition to what or whomever by creating yet another option of protest or abstention. If non-voting does not impact, then why are there so many current movements to attract Christians, single mothers, Gen X and the like by so many public figures (watch MTV…PDiddy’s “Vote or Die” campaign as one example). It is obvious that the silent voice of not voting has impacted the past elections.

Unfortunately the American ideology promotes self-interest as patriotism, and voting is perceived as patriotic and not voting is un-patriotic. Yet, if the current democratic system has been put in place to create the individual option, the choice to not vote is just as patriotic because it follows what the government has set forth. It is also the proper use of the set structures. Criticism of Noll’s position is likely because he is subverting the norm of political and societal structure. But his points and the choice not to vote is still politically valid, and subversively patriotic.

Peace & the State's Alternative Soteriology

Life has been hectic so my reading and posting for the summer is marginal. I have been reading, ever so slowly, Theopolitical Imagination by Wm. Cavanaugh which I have previously mentioned. I had hoped to cover a few ideas of his on peace that pertain to my posting during the week of the 4th.

Cavanaugh starts his first chapter which is entitled “The Myth of the State as Savior” by suggesting that the “modern state is best understood…as an alternative soteriology to the Church. Both soteriologies pursue peace and an end to division by the enactment of a social body…and the state is a simulacrum, a false copy, of the Body of Christ” (9-10). Cavanaugh contends that the state, civil society, and globalization are means of understanding or orienting ourselves within time and place. These become the “rule” of life which is upheld by an imaginative process which gives the “rules” a certain weightiness. The state presumes of offer a soteriology, not wholly unlike Christian soteriology, as a rescue from violence.

This is a striking challenge to doctrine and life, because the state simultaneously redirects and redefines religion as a private affair thus effectively dividing the physical and spiritual realms. “Religion is no longer a matter of certain bodily practices within the Body of Christ, but is limited to the realm of the ‘soul’ and the body is handed over to the state” (35). The state is now savior and protector of the physical (and most tangible) reality. So what is the danger in all of this? Well, to whom do we look to for understandings of peace? The state which ensures peace through violence or Christ through non-violence? If, as Cavanaugh suggests that the state proffers an alternative soteriology we must see it as a “heretical” soteriology. We do not have the luxury of our consumerist tendencies to pick among our options. If the state is suggesting itself as savior to its people, it is a competitor to the Christ’s gospel and the vessel of salvation…the church.

Cavanaugh sees the Eucharist as proper arena for a radical re-orienting of the Chruch, the very public expression and embodiment of Christ’s ongoing presence.

Previously I have been suggesting we pursue a thicker definition of “peace” as more than the absence of strife and discord. While the state pursues the thinner definition, which proposes to create a certain amount of freedom for the individual to pursue the inner/spiritual/religious peace as they choose to define it. This private individual is free to think what s/he will.

Cavanaugh, while stressing the absolute need for non-violence, seems to imply also that the state naturally sees the true community of believers gathered around the Eucharist as a competitor to its vision because it causes ruptures or divisions because the Body of Christ “has pretensions to be a body that transcends state boundaries” (38). Does the Church will naturally be proverbial thorn in the states side? What are we to make of this?

Thick or Thin III: Considerations On the Meaning of Peace

Last Sunday as I sat amidst the liturgy, I began to listen for ideas of peace within the liturgy. A project like this takes a long time to see how peace is used and intended. Placing this within the context of the past few thick and thin discussions how does our liturgical peace line up with some of the biblical aspects of peace I have been discussing.

Peace is prominent in the Prayers of the People. The introduction to the prayer of the people reads; “Prayer is offered with intercession for the Universal Church, its members, and its mission, the Nation and all in authority, the welfare of the world, the concerns of the local community, those who suffer and those in any trouble, the departed.”

Form 1 begins, “With all our heart and with all our mind, let us pray to the
Lord, saying, “Lord, have mercy.”

For the peace from above, for the loving‑kindness of God,
and for the salvation of our souls, let us pray to the Lord.
Lord, have mercy.

For the peace of the world, for the welfare of the holy Church
of God, and for the unity of all peoples, let us pray to the Lord.
Lord, have mercy.”

This is an intriguing division of peace? Peace from above is paired with matters of God’s love and salvation. Peace from above seems to be differentiated from the peace of the world which is paired with the welfare of the Church and unity among all people. Are we on the same track here with the thick and thin? If so, is it significant that the peace associated with tangible reality is petitioned for secondarily? If so, can we assume that the second, what I have been calling thin peace, emanates from the first or thick peace?

Form II petitions, “I ask your prayers for peace; for goodwill among nations;
and for the well‑being of all people. Pray for justice and peace.” Per our ongoing examination, it seems that this instance of peace, at least in casual observance, would fall under a thinner aspect of peace.

Form III petitions, “We pray for all who govern and hold authority in the nations
of the world; That there may be justice and peace on the earth.” Again, I would lean toward a thin or resultant peace.

Form IV petitions, “Guide the people of this land, and of all the nations, in the
ways of justice and peace; that we may honor one another and serve the common good. Lord, in your mercy Hear our prayer.”

Form V petitions, “For all who have commended themselves to our prayers; for
our families, friends, and neighbors; that being freed from anxiety, they may live in joy, peace, and health, we pray to you, O Lord.” Form V is also an interesting case. My initial reading it seems as if this is concerned an inclusive thick reading; one that encompasses both matters of existential anxiety and the daily varieties. For me, this is a both/and situation.

Form VI peace is prevalent with multiple petitions. It begins, “In peace, we pray to you, Lord God.” How does this peace come about? Liturgically we have just celebrated the Eucharist which brings individual members together to participate as the earthly body of Christ while simultaneously participating in the reality of the Trinitarian life. It celebrates and participates in the reconciliation offered to humanity by God in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. To say, “In peace, we pray to you, Lord God” would suggest, at least in my perspective, an acknowledgement of the unity of Christ’s earthly body, our unity with Christ himself and ultimately through this unity, our access to God.

While we are on the Eucharist, I want to mention what immediately precedes its. Just prior to the Eucharist, the gathered congregation passes the peace following the priest.
“The peace of the Lord be always with you.
People And also with you.

How should we read this section? Thick or Thin? I am not sure, both or thick? And yet, preceding the passing of the peace is the confession of sin. A plea of peace in the confessions is certainly thick whereas the passing of the peace, would be the resultant enactment as a thin interpretation.

Form VI also petitions, “For this community, the nation, and the world; For all who work for justice, freedom, and peace.” Again this seems to be a fairly straight forward thin reading of peace.

All of this being said, the Prayers of the People, are filled with pleas for peace and justice. I have only scanned the actual usages of the word “peace” but it is intimately woven into the fabric of nearly every sentence.

What worries me, and suggests the necessity of this casual study for me, is that we too easily jump to the earthly peace and presume that it can be attained without, that which form 1 petitions as the “peace from above.” We should also be certain to claim “which above” this reality is, and not allow it to devolve into some vague spiritualism. We must be continually reminded that any earthly peace must flow out of our peace with God through Christ. The liturgy reminds us of this and the centrality of the Eucharist reminds us of its own necessity to our hopes for a unified church as a peacemaking instrument in the world.

Next week I think I will continue on this little topic again but in regards to my current reading of William T. Cavanaugh's Theolopolitical Imagination.

Thick or Thin II: Considerations On the Meaning of Peace

Another passage to consider in the theme of peace is Isaiah 53.5 which reads, “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.”

In the context of my previous posting on thick or thin peace, how should this be read? Should we consider this an absence of discord and strife or suggestive of peace construed as salvation?

Likewise, if we consider Numbers 6.22-27, the Aaronic blessing, “22 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 23 Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying, Thus you shall bless the Israelites: You shall say to them, 24 The Lord bless you and keep you; 25 the Lord make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you; 26 the Lord lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace. 27 So they shall put my name on the Israelites, and I will bless them.”

Here we see that peace is a gift from God. Notice also the directional language as well. If we put this within the covenantal agreement between God and the Israelites it seems that this would linger in the thicker readings of peace as salvation, but likely also include a resultant peace as well.

What are the effects upon our doctrine and practice if we define these through the thin definitions rather than the thickness of salvation? Do our patriotic tendencies color our interpretations of this peace? If so, who becomes our savior if peace is defined thinly? The state? I think I just threw up a little.

Thick or Thin? Considerations On the Meaning of Peace

This being the week of the 4^th of July (can it be already?) as many are inclined to do, we reflect on our freedoms, and relative peace that we have in this country. While we are at war in far off places, we live in a generally peace-filled place. My hope this week is to reflect on ideas of peace and what that means for us as Christians.

A few years ago I heard a chapel message about the nature of peace. She spoke from the John 20.19 (See also, Luke 24.36) passage which reads, “When it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and the doors of the house where the disciples had met were locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you." Peace, as she interpreted it, grew out of its opposite of strife or the negation/absence of strife. I was not quite at ease with her definition. It felt deficient. Slight. Almost cheapening the profundity that should come with Christ’s words. I want something thicker…more substantial.

More recently in our small group we ran into the passage from Luke 10.5-6 (See also Mt. 10.13) which reads, “Whatever house you enter, first say, "Peace to this house!' 6 And if anyone is there who shares in peace, your peace will rest on that person; but if not, it will return to you.” Is Christ here speaking of the absence of strife? And what is all this about offering it and its return?

My contention is that there is a thicker reality to peace than what we as American’s tend to read in these passages.

First off, lets look at the thin reading of peace as the woman offered to us in chapel. Looking back on her remarks I wonder what strife was Christ trying to overcome in his words? Was he at odds with the disciples when he appeared to them? Are his words to be interpreted as an olive branch held out in hope? I am not satisfied with this as the context does not seem lend those interpretations too easily. Likewise if we consider passages like Matthew 10.34 or Luke 12.51 Jesus tells his followers that he has not come to make peace, but has come with a sword. How are we to interpret this troubling passage? Does this sanction a just violence? Through out the Lukan narrative, we see the birth narratives (1.79, 2.14) suggesting peace, Jesus proclaiming peace in his redemptive activities (7.50, 8:48 – we will come back to these), teaching his disciples to do the same (10.5-6). How can these passages be reconciled with the divisive sword? What we see in the narrative is that God’s purposes will engender opposition. This opposition is ultimately the strife and violence that brings Jesus under the weight of the cross. It seems clear that a thin reading from these two passages alone cannot be a sufficient understanding of peace.

That being said, Mark 9.5, Jesus does urge his followers to be at peace with one another. Here, and a few other places, I will admit that it seems that Christ spoke of an absence of strife which offers some credibility to a thin reading…or perhaps a sacramentally thin reading. More likely the thin offering is a resultant effect from the thick interpretation.

So then, what is this thick reading I have been raving about? My tendency is read them Christologically and Soteriologically.

Our small group has been reading Luke through the lens of Isaiah 61 or the prophecy Jesus reads about himself in the temple recorded in Luke 4.16-19,
“When he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue on the sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written: 18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." Luke’s contention, as the narrative seems to suggest, is that when we see these things we are seeing the active presence of the Kingdom of God.

Luke seems to pair peace with healing. Passages such as Luke 7:50, And he said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace." or Luke 8.48/Mk 5.34, “"Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace” seem to suggest a great reality to peace than the absence of strife, though it may well include it.

Joel Green suggests that peace is roughly equivalent with salvation in the Lukan narrative (NICNT, 413). Rereading the healing passages above, Christ is not sending the healed women out with an absence of discord, but has sent them away as signs of the healing salvation brings and signs of the inbreaking of the Kingdom. Perhaps the command to go in peace can be roughly reworded to “Go, being now saved.”

But I think we can move beyond the soteriological reading to another reading based in Christology itself. If we see the incarnation as God’s reconciling efforts for peace with humanity, Christ himself becomes the embodied reality of peace as well as the means to procure it.

If we take this perspective to the Luke 10 passage again, we read Jesus telling the disciples to tell the communities that, "The kingdom of God has come near to you.” Not only the redemptive signs of healing and freedom offered in the Isaiah prophecy and the women, but Christ himself as the embodiment of peace. Returning to the woman’s chosen passage that she chose to interpret as the absence of strife, I prefer to read it as a thick proclamation of who Christ was. “Peace be with you,” he said is suggestive of the embodied reality of who he was and also what he offered them. Jesus become the means of acquiring peace with God through faith. But also, that Jesus is the very reality of that peace as seen in the Kingdom of God. The kingdom of God…the peace of God has come near, in a physical human form.