Whatever
THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT
The Long Take: Whatever
Whatever. I don't care who gets elected.
But the sentiment behind this statement is probably not what you think. What follows is my attempt to explain my current thoughts / approach to politics in general. Do not worry—this is not an attempt to explain why a Christian should or should not vote for a particular candidate. In fact, I am not even going to mention any candidate by name or policy, except for a possible generic reference to a two-party system.
I am completely indebted to the writings of James K. A. Smith for some of my thoughts and most what follows is grounded in his book, Awaiting the King (ATK). I encourage all of you to engage in his writings, starting with You Are What You Love and continue to work through his Cultural Liturgies series. I do not agree with all of what he writes but I would affirm a high percentage of his writings.
To get to a Christian political theory, one first has to understand that we are created to worship. We all believe in something and that something will differ from person to person. That something is what we declare to be ultimate and defining, whether that be God, science, America, identity, politics, or any other countless iteration of ultimate essence. Hidden in that something is a vision of what makes up a good and flourishing life, a telos or design for how life is to be.
Thus, we need to understand that something defines how we live and act in the here and now. We do not merely think our way through life; we act our way through life. By this I do not mean acting in the fake or theatrical sense but in the sense that we are physical beings embodied in a physical world. We don’t simply know that it is a good thing to feed the hungry—we actually feed the hungry.
To that end, one can see how two problematic views of politics can arise. First, we can think that Christianity and the political world are what Smith calls “spatialized” in that there is a sphere where the Church operates under the Lordship of Christ, and another sphere of the state under the Lordship of Caesar (to appropriate a common biblical reference). In this view, Christians attempt to navigate between the two spheres and negotiate border wars between the two in a Frankensteinian separation of church and state. The Church is happy when the state allows it unfettered operation and will engage in the political area to maintain acceptable boundaries. The second is to think that the political area is simply a theoretical town square where persons of various beliefs engage to discuss said beliefs and decide which beliefs will govern the town. The former is a spatialized political venture where we fight for boundaries; the latter is a rationalized political venture where we fight for access. Neither, I’m afraid is a biblical political venture.
Augustine is helpful here. He argues that the true definition of a people is the “habits and practices for living in common and toward a certain end, oriented toward a telos” (ATK, 9). Assuming the engrained nature of habits and practices, we can see fighting for boundaries or access will not work to change others but maintain status quo for ourselves. But is this what we are called to do as believers?
Smith provides further explanation:
We need to recognize that ‘the political’ is not synonymous with the earthly city’s particular instantiation of politics. In other words, we must resist the temptation to see the current configurations of the political as equivalent to ‘the political’ as such. The earthly city does not have the corner, or the last word, on politics—which is precisely why we can labor, hope, and pray that the terrain of the political can be bent toward the kingdom of God. This is what we mean by a 'Christendom' project (contrary to almost everything you’ve ever heard about Christendom). Christendom is a missional endeavor that labors in the hope that our political institutions can be bent, if ever so slightly, toward the coming kingdom of love (ATK, 17).
Augustine again helps. By contrasting the earthly city with the City of God, he offers that love is the driving force behind both cities: the earthly city was created by self-love and contempt for God; the heavenly city was created by love for God and contempt for self. But where we make a mistake is establishing a wrong “us vs them” dichotomy. We need to understand that our current political affiliation does not define our fellow citizens. If Matthew 7:13-14 (the wide and narrow gate) holds true, then we see that those we align ourselves with politically are more than likely holding an antithetical view toward the Kingdom of God, operating out of self-love and contempt for God, regardless of political party. In other words, non-Christian Democrats and Republicans are advancing policies that, at their heart, are designed to promote self-preservation and power rather than biblical principles. This is Cain’s offering repeated ad nauseum; the intent of the heart is what matters and any ancillary benefit or alignment with God’s righteous order is more reflective of God’s common grace than sound governing policy.
In short, our eschatology affects our politics. The earthly city is aligned with sin; the heavenly city is aligned with redemption. But, and this is key, the heavenly city consists of citizens who are called in the here and now to bring a “foretaste of the social and cultural life God desires for this world” (ATK, 47).
Smith, again: We shouldn’t shrink from hoping to bend our policy and public rituals in the direction of rightly ordered love, not so we can “win” or “be in control,” but for the sake of our neighbors, for the flourishing of the poor, for the common good (ATK, 34).
How does that play out in the here and now?
Rightly understanding the implications of Christ’s ascension into heaven, namely its foundational nature of establishing (coronating?) the reign of Jesus over all creation
The ascension is the declaration in a physical place and time of God’s ultimate rule over all physical places and times, including past and future kings, dictators, tyrants, governors, and presidents. We are talking about a God who planned the full incarnation of His Son to exist in a time where an oppressive decree from Caesar, a narcissistic and paranoid order from Herod, an unjust declaration from Caiaphas, and a cowardly sentence from Pilate (all men who would declare themselves without equal) were mere pawns in God’s redemptive plan.
Rightly understanding the Christ / Caesar divide
When Jesus said to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and God what is God’s, it was not to establish a sacred / secular divide but to establish a kingdom of ultimacy. In other words, Caesar is the ruler of an empire that has already been conquered. He is yesterday’s king. As such, whichever president is elected is already yesterday’s president. To what do we owe a ruler of a fallen empire as compared to the ruler of the cosmos? Smith states, regarding the ascension: “In short, the political is now inherently eschatological. Christ has disarmed the powers, made a public show of them, and delegitimized their claims to be the mediators of ultimacy” (ATK, 78).
Rightly understanding our role is not to bring God into the role and rules of current political manifestations but to expand the horizons of the current political manifestation to see the activity of God throughout the whole of the cosmos
Here is where the rubber meets the road. We lose our effectiveness when we limit this to a simple checking of the box every two to four years and then retreating into our cloistered lives to shake our heads at the direction the outside culture is heading. Smith, in discussing the habit forming nature of authentic, biblical, liturgical worship, argues to the contrary: “Being centered in the formative disciplines of the heavenly city, we are then sent to labor in the contested terrain in the saeculum. This isn’t about permission; it is about preparation. It’s not about sequestering the church from the messiness of “engagement”; it’s about intentionality with respect to the church’s formation for engagement” (ATK, 55).
Because of our disciplined nature brought about by authentic, biblical, liturgical worship, we are solely and purposefully equipped (as compared to unbelievers) to understand what is good, beautiful, and true. By knowing that, we are solely and purposefully equipped to diagnosis that which is not good, beautiful, and true and work, through the grace of the Father, the blood of the Son, and the power of the Holy Spirit, to recultivate into the good, beautiful, and true. We are able to declare there is something bigger and more profound than an election.
And when we engage in the culture around us in that manor, we can see the “political” is the world around us that we experience every day of our lives, not merely limited to the election booth. The job of the Christian in the political is not to work to the well-being of a particular party but to (1) the salvation of those around us and (2) the cultivation and redemption of a world already won by the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of our Lord and Savior.
So, my vote is but one way by which I work toward those two things, but I would argue that it is one of the least important ways. Don’t get me wrong—I vote prayerfully and in line with what I believe to be biblically based, but I vote in faith and hope. God is the ultimate Elector; He alone chooses which and when rulers rise and fall. More important is what I do in between elections, namely the discipleship of my family, the development of relationships with my community at large, the work I do as a teacher and educator. In those areas, I work to demonstrate what is good, beautiful, and true and how that leads to a flourishing life as intended by God. Jesus is on His throne. He has been, is, and will be faithful to His people from exile to exodus to Eden. He is ultimate. He will be worshiped. He will be exalted. His name will be proclaimed. My job is the same before, during, and after elections: Pray and work. Worship and proclaim. Teach and make disciples. Love my neighbor. I don’t care who gets elected. Whatever.
Better Late Than Never
It may seem odd to include a book that recently came out in the Better Late Than Never section, but I thoroughly enjoyed Another Gospel by Alisa Childers. While written in similar veins to Cold Case Christianity and Case For Christ, what makes this book unique is that it is not contrasting biblical Christianity against atheism but against progressive Christianity. The thesis of the book is that progressive Christianity should not be viewed as a variant of Christianity but a different faith altogether. It is, as referenced in Galatians 1:6-9, a gospel different from the apostolic tradition. Well written and argued, this book is a helpful resource in discerning truth from error that is present within the walls of American churches.
A Final Word
I hope to put these out at a greater frequency. I've found that input equals output and the more I'm in Scripture and books, the easier it is to put my thoughts on paper (computer?). But I'm also trying to see out that helps me live a quiet life (1 Thessalonians 4:11). My goal with these posts is to provide my thoughts on how to live a life that reflects the good, beautiful, and true (although done so with feet of clay) rather than being argumentative and caustic. I hope you find them helpful and edifying.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Mitch Evans