God, voting, and election eve

I'm a bit giddy from cold medicine this morning. I'm also increasingly optimistic about the chances of a Kerry victory. (See this morning's current prediction at Electoral Vote.Com). My own electoral college prediction (why not, it's free) is that Kerry wins 284-254. Bush will concede on Friday of this week, I imagine. The Democrats will have a net gain of one Senate seat, or so I predict.

I like to play with the numbers on interactive electoral maps; a good one is on the PBS NewsHour site.

My fiancee and I will be in line at our polling place tomorrow morning before 7:00AM. (We are prepared for a bit of a wait.) I won't say how she'll be voting, but I can say that our views are neither perfectly aligned nor diametrically opposed. Some loving disagreements are perfectly healthy; my maternal grandparents cancelled out each other's votes for years. (Defying stereotype, my grandfather was a liberal Democrat, my grandmother a Republican moderate.) Once again, if anyone is interested in my endorsement slate, it's here.

The Los Angeles Times had a reporter at All Saints Pasadena yesterday. George Regas, our rector emeritus, preached a sermon entitled "If Jesus debated Senator Kerry and President Bush." It was as close to a partisan sermon as one could get without jeopardizing one's tax-exempt status under the IRS code. Regas began with a small joke, quoted in today's Times:

"I don't intend to tell you how to vote. We can just agree to disagree. You go your way and I'll go God's way."

It was meant in jest, and we all laughed. He hastened to say that good men and women of sincere Christian faith could vote for Kerry or Bush. But after that quick caveat, Regas proceeded to tell the jammed sanctuary (high attendance at church yesterday) exactly how Jesus would feel about the Iraq war, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and abortion rights. Jesus, we learned, would consider this war an abomination, the failure to disarm the gravest of contemporary sins, the latest round of tax cuts as an assault on the poor, and the right to abortion necessary in order to save lives. Except for fleeting references to Micah 6:8 (we liberals do love that text), no Scripture was cited to support these positions, but that didn't seem to matter. George Regas was certain of how Jesus would stand on all of these complex modern issues, and by the time he was done, there was little doubt how Regas thought Jesus wanted us to vote.

I was angry and disheartened. Look, I'm a solid liberal on every issue except abortion. I'm voting for John Kerry tomorrow with hope and enthusiasm. Naturally, my faith does inform my voting, as I would like to believe it does every other area of my life. But I'm stunned at the hubris of anyone, left or right, who claims certainty about how Jesus would view our modern day political landscape! I've never been comfortable with fundamentalisms of any sort -- and what I got yesterday from the pulpit at All Saints was liberal fundamentalism at its most self-righteous. I don't like it one bit when it comes from Dobson or MacArthur or Falwell on the right -- and I don't appreciate it from the left, even when the positions espoused are quite close to my own.

Tomorrow's election is important for all of us. It is important for our nation, and for the world. But while I do believe that Christians are called into the political arena (though my neo-Anabaptism leaves me ambivalent about that), I don't think that the world of secular affairs is our most important battleground. Whoever wins tomorrow (if, deo volente, it ends tomorrow), we shall still have poor to care for. We shall still have hungry to feed. We shall still have lonely to comfort. I will still have teenagers to hug and laugh with. The work of the church is going to continue under a President Kerry, it will continue under a second Bush term. Ultimately, the president is still Caesar, and though we are subject to Caesar's laws (and in this society, may even help him make those laws), our focus must always be on service to another, grander, greater kingdom.

Both liberal and conservative Christians are too enamored of the power of the secular state to transform the hearts and minds and lives of its citizens and the citizens of the world. Yes, the moral character of the ruler matters. Yes, the policies of the state matter -- and good Christians can differ in good conscience as to what those policies ought to be. But the God I worship had little time for great leaders when he walked the earth. Jesus was political, yes -- but His politics were far more radical than anything any modern politician could possibly espouse. To claim Jesus' endorsement for any party, any candidate, is unbiblical and profoundly offensive.

I'm tired of the question, "What Would Jesus Do?" Though a useful corrective to the self-absorbed, the question assumes that there is always a clear answer. Sometimes, the answer is clear. More often, it isn't. I'm no bible expert, but one thing I see in the Gospel is Jesus consistently confounding the expectations of his followers. He tends to do the unexpected, the surprising, the scandalous. Even those who knew Him best were taken aback time and time again.

So do I know how Jesus wants me to vote? No, I don't. I don't think anyone else knows either. I know He calls us to service, sacrifice and giving. But beyond that, a humble respect for mystery does not allow me to go. I'm voting for Kerry. I want him to win. But I would never, ever, be so bold as to say that he is God's candidate. Of course, I also categorically reject the suggestion that the incumbent is God's favorite in this race. Ultimately, Bush and Kerry are competing to be the most powerful prince in the contemporary world's greatest principality. And while Christians can and should take an active interest in the affairs of this world, there is no question that real justice, real transformation, and real hope cannot come from the princes of this world.

The real battle is already over. Jesus already won. And in the certainty of that, I am struggling to remain tranquil on this tense and anxious day.

Comments

[Jody]

Amen.

[Stephen]

Very, very well-put Hugo -- although I think your prediction is wrong. :)

[John]

Quite right. I'm pulling for Dubya tomorrow, since the Free World needs a real Leader, and I shall be singing the Te Deum if he wins, but regardless, God is bigger than that. If Kerry wins, well, we've had punishment with Babylon before, and we'll survive it again.

[Troy]

Well said!

Apropos of self-righteousness and "Don't argue with me--argue with God!", see:
http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3712293/detail.html

Troy

[Ono]

I do think it is useful to project where Jesus would fit in on the liberal-conservative scale. We don't have to ask if Jesus would support the "Clear-skies" initiative, but we can ask, given his persona and stance on issue in his day, what would questions or responses would that mindset produce today vis-a-vis modern questions.

Jesus was clearly a liberal in his day. He understood that the point of the law was not the law itself, but people. He was less inclined to pronounce moral judgment on people, rather, he strove to meet people where they where in their lives.

That said, Kerry will win convincingly.

[Stephen]

Ono:

We are all quite convinced that we are in the right on political matters and it shouldn't be otherwise. (It doesn't make sense to support positions or candidates you believe to be wrong.) More to the point, we believe that we have truth on our side but to say that Truth is on our side takes a bit of hubris. Reading Jesus as a liberal of his day is a HUGE stretch when he was at best engimatic on issues of state. It is the classic blunder to which we are all susceptible (because it feels so good) -- we create God in our own image. Hugo's point (if I may Hugo) is that we would do well to bring a dose of epsitemic humility to these discussions and rest only in the knowledge of His salvation. Exactly who will be saved is also rather problematic. All we do know is that those most convinced of their salvation were often the most misguided.

[Lisa]

I know all I ever do is comment lamely on how much I love everything you write. But Hugo, I love everything you write.

[Hugo]

I'm blushing, Lisa...

Steve, you know me well enough to speak for me, my friend! Your words to Ono are right on the money...

[NancyP]

I must say it was very pleasant to escape from the political hoo-hah into church yesterday. Not one peep from the pastor about the election. Only political activity in this election season was an earlier announcement that the registration deadline was date x, if you wanted to vote. And the announcement was in the company of "interfaith dinner on date y, new Holocaust Museum exhibit dates t through u, etc".

[Jeff JP]

Mr. Schwyzer,

Why are you so anxious about this election? You say, in part,

"Ultimately, the president is still Caesar, and though we are subject to Caesar's laws (and in this society, may even help him make those laws), our focus must always be on service to another, grander, greater kingdom.

But of what other, "grander, greater kindom" do you speak, friend?

Did not Jesus of Nazareth, the One you rightly call "Lord and Savior" teach us, "[B]ehold, the kingdom of God is within you"? (Luke 17:21)

In a true sense, it probably doesn't get any better than this. The Kingdom of God is right here, right now. It's within you, within me, and within those feminists that I allow to annoy me sometimes! This is it, dude!

Look at it this way: the time that you spend being anxious about the election is time that you could be spending enjoying the Kingdom of God.

In the grand scheme of things, this election is no more or less important than any other election. It's all impermanent and transitory; it's passing away.

We Americans have an exaggerated sense of self-importance. If planets, stars, and entire galaxies pass away, why should we get so worked up over an election?

Get well soon.

Jeff Jp

[Orange Hans]

I also predict a Kerry victory, and I will be at the polls at 7:00 am here in Oklahoma.

Let me echo your best lines:
"Both liberal and conservative Christians are too enamored of the power of the secular state to transform the hearts and minds and lives of its citizens and the citizens of the world."

"And while Christians can and should take an active interest in the affairs of this world, there is no question that real justice, real transformation, and real hope cannot come from the princes of this world."

[mythago]

Well said, Hugo. Regardless of whether Jesus is being dragged in to support my point of view or not, I cringe at the idea of anyone claiming to speak on Jesus' behalf.

[Jake]

Good words, Hugo; they needed to be said, even though George Regas continues to often be held up as a model of how to be an effective activist priest, appropriately, it seems to me. But this time I think he got it wrong.

I have a Kerry bumper sticker on my car, but could not mention his name in the pulpit; I could be wrong (although in this case I really, really, really doubt it).

What is that line from Lincoln? Something to the effect, "The question is not if God is on our side, but if we are on God's side."

[Xrlq]

Well said. I've long taken "What would Jesus do?" as a presumptuous shorthand for "what do I think is the right thing to do?" There's nothing wrong with asking oneself that question, of course, but there is plenty wrong with mistaking one's own sense of right and wrong for that of one's favorite deity.

[Gabe]

Every time I check your log (a couple of times a week) I see my own thinking looking back at me. Thanks for writing a blog so I don't have to! Insightful comments on liberal fundamentalism -- just as scary as the conservative kind, but cuddlier.

[Chris T.]

Hi Hugo,

Camassia pointed to this post in her recent entry about the IRS issue. Just wanted to say that this was as incredible the second time around as when I read it last year near the election.