After reading an intensely partisan post by John over at
VerumSerum, I was moved to consider Christian engagement in radical partisanship. As I've argued before, I think there are two different possible approaches to partisanship one can find in Scripture.
The first is the Ezra/John of Patmos model. That approach is one that radically defines the "other" in terms that are rooted in cultural and cultic purity or a neo-Babylonian dualism. Those who do not hold to your perspective are to be cast out, just as Ezra drove out the foreign wives and children of the Israelites so that they wouldn't corrupt the pure blood of the Hebrew people. They are to be utterly rejected, just as John of Patmos utterly rejected and condemned those who disagreed with his uncompromising vision of the faith. If disagreement exists, it has to be because your opponent bears either the Mark of the Beast or the new Chase Whore of Babylon Platinum Visa card. Double Bonus Points for every dollar charged in Vegas! From that worldview, there can be no compromise with Satan. Christians..on both the right and the left...who want to cling to a radical partisanship will spend a great deal of time in these texts.
The second is the Paul/James model. Yeah, I know, they're supposed to disagree with each other. But that purported grace/works model just doesn't hold water when you really study the texts. At the heart of the morality proposed by both Apostles is the bright-line assertion of the agape love ethic. This is not an abstract principle, but as a defining and personally transforming aspect of the Christian life. Paul articulates it clearly in
Romans 12:9-21 and
Romans 13:8-10. James describes this interchangeably as the
Royal Law or the Law of Liberty, and it is that latter description that I find most potent in a democratic republic.
Our liberties and the God-given foundations of our democracy are dependent on our ability to think and act according to the the Law that governs all human liberty: our willingness to love and show mercy to another. Intense partisan hatred and division utterly fails to stand against that metric.
We hear a great deal about the need for Christians to show their values when they live and act as citizens. Shoot, I'm preaching on that very topic this Sunday. But we cannot pretend we are protecting the integrity of our Land of Liberty if we don't understand and personally express the Law that underlies it.
Comments (2)
I'd be interested to hear what you have to say about the movement, albeit not a tremendously significant one, of Christians abstaining from voting in this election. Not that this is anything really new. No doubt many a Christian has opted out of the election process before now; appealing to the "conscientious abstention" idea which I can personally identify with. Undoubtedly, as believers it can be agreed that we must vote according to our conscience for to do otherwise would be, well, a sin.
Once I finish the book linked above, I'd be more than happy to forward it your way if you're interested.
@Jonathan - I preached on that this Sunday, actually, fusing Matthew 22:15-22 with Romans 13. Christians in a democracy who do not vote are not, in Paul's words from Romans 13:7, giving honor where honor is due.
That doesn't mean you have to vote Democratic or Republican. Vote for one of the smaller parties..like, for instance, the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party. If you're on the left, you've got Nader or the Green Party. If an individual's conscience is so persnickety that they can't find one of the six party options viable, then I think the problem lies not with the "system," but with unrealistic expectations on the part of that individual.
Voting is not only a right. It's a duty, and one that Christians need to embrace.