The church is, in a real sense, an alternative political reality. When we say that Jesus is our King, we are making - at the very least - a political claim. We are God’s people, in some sense, The Kingdom of God, or Heaven (Jesus uses both phrases in the Gospels to denote roughly the same thing). And while we might differ as to the content of our agenda, as a politcal body the church has an agenda which may or may not be opposed to america’s political agenda. Some of the churches politcal commitments: expanding our numbers, countering injustice, being an advocate for the oppressed (in the Bible, the widowed and the orphaned), and being an Eden/Heaven-valued people. The key here, for me, is that my allegance is to Jesus; further, I use my rights as an american citizen to “smooth the path,” as it were, for the churches political agenda. Notice I did not say that I vote toward “christianizing” america, or that I use my votes to combat immorality, but that I vote so as to make the world a place wherein the church can more easily live out it’s purpose. Worship, missions, social justice, catholicity (ecumenical-ism); which canidate will make the world a place where we (the church) can do these things most easily?
I think the answer to that question is John Kerry. I percieve that this world grows ever smaller and it is increasingly more important (for the church, from the perspective of missions) for countries to work together and not autonomously from each other. On a global scale, the biggest perpetrators of social injustice are not nation-states (like N. Korea, poor though that situation is) but multi-national corperations, whole reach is global.
Not only that, but I am also concerned that, for much of the world, rightly or wrongly (wrongly, I would hope), Americans are equated with Christians. This equation does the church no good. Firstly, the church transcends national, geographical boundaries, and this sort of thinking (both by americans as well as by others) divides us. Secondly, when the world thinks in this way, they become confused about what the church is really about: When we (americans) think this way, we also become confused about what we are about (it makes little sense, for example, to demand moral behavior from those who are not first committed to the God by whose character the morality is derived).
Instead, what I hope for, and dream of, is a Church, catholic, as a body politic whose citizens occupy every nation in the world, and whose citizens embody the values and characteristics of thier King, and whose citizens envision and act out a world being redeemed and being renewed by means of their King acting through them. I vote to make the world a place where this vision is more likely to obtain.
(wow. I just went off. sorry, and thanks for listening, feel free to comment in a Christianly manner.)
5 Responses to “Why I am Voting for Kerry”Leave a Reply |
Entries (RSS)
October 4th, 2004 at 12:50 pm
You say John Kerry can make these things happen, but you never mention specifics. You do state a convincing argument. However, there is something to be said for standing ground for Christian morals and ethics, and trusting that doing the right thing (such as hunting down terrorists–not promoting certain forms of stem-cell research, standing for the truths clearly stated in God’s Word–anti-abortion, anti-homosexuality, etc)will profit God’s kingdom in the long run. Advocating the Kingdom should never come at the expense of denegrating our values.
October 18th, 2004 at 2:19 am
Sorry I’m a bit late to the party, Chris; I was just now reading your web site and blog.
There are a couple of interesting issues here. One is that both men profess Christianity of one kind or another. Although neither, of course, is perfect, it is interesting, relevent, and difficult to consider what effect having a Christian political leader has on the church. What qualities are important in such a leader? What effects does such a man have on the domestic, let alone foreign pereception of the church?
Second, the plight of the unborn has been on my mind a lot lately. Surely aborted children qualify as a disenfranchised group, and oppressed. Are we not to seek the best interest of the unborn, as well as their parents? Wouldn’t their best interests be served by an anti-abortion president?
This is not to say that I have no objections to Bush. Far, far from it. I’m not thrilled with the prospect of either candidate as president, actually.
– Grant <grant_watson@yahoo.com>
October 18th, 2004 at 7:24 pm
Of all of the differant comments that I have recieved concerning this post, the issue of abortion has been most frequently addressed. And so I will respond, carefully.
Firstly, let me be clear: I think abortion is wrong morally, and should probably even be illegal. That is to say the churches stance is clear, abortion is wrong; and it is probably in the best intrests of the united states as a political entity if abortion were not an easily available option (though one could make an argument for medically necessary exceptions).
Having said that I think that, as far as this election is concerned, the abortion issue is irrelevant. Look, George W. Bush has been the most “pro-life” (I’ll get to the quotes in a moment) president we have had in a long time; furthermore, the congress is, at the moment, in the control of republicans. And yet, when the conditions are the most favorable for change, abortion is just as legal as it was four years ago. That is to say, having a “pro-life” president hasn’t changed anything. Bush does not seem to be able to make abortion illegal, and Kerry as a president cannt make it more legal; therefore we are at an impass. Also, therefore, at least as it pertains to the 2004 presidential elections, the abortion issue is irrelevant, and should not be the basis for which we choose the preferable canidate.
There is one catch: it is possible that, in the next four years, up to three supreme court justice seats will need filling. If Bush were president, we can be certian of what sort of justices he will apoint (see the op-ed page of today’s New York Times for an article on this very issue), however Kerry has indicated (or, so I have heard) a preference for moderate justices. This possibility seems to me to be less convincing than the certianty of Bush following the road he has set out on in many other areas.
Some of those areas (and the reason for the quotes around pro-life): Bush favors corperate freedom over laborers, he has eased up and/or repealed EPA restrictions, he allowed the assault-weapons ban to expire, not to mention invading two foriegn countries - one of which under a false rationale, and so on. The point is that, from my perspective, Bush has been “pro-life” primarily for those who have yet to be born, and the rich.
Sorry, I digress. I am corncerned about those who choose sides based entirely on the canidate’s position on abortion. It is an issue, but not the only issue - and in this case it may even be a mute point.
October 19th, 2004 at 12:56 pm
"…he allowed the assault-weapons ban to expire…"
I agree that Bush’s stance is problematic in most of the areas that you stated, I should note that this position is not. If you are farmiliar with what the ban actually did, it imposed annoying restrictions on the cosmetic features of semi-automatic firearms, but didn’t really do anything useful. Digression for digression, I guess.
"I am corncerned about those who choose sides based entirely on the canidate’s position on abortion."
I don’t believe there are many of those. Some may say they are, but I think that most would be willing to compromise here if another candidate were much more acceptable in other ways.
Anyway, I don’t think the Supreme Court issue is as relatively unimportant as you suggest. Even those who support Roe v. Wade often recognize that it rests on shaky foundations, legally.
If you’re worried about a president’s future actions, I’m not sure the wars are relevent either, as much as I oppose them. Kerry will seek foreign military support in Iraq, but otherwise will continue more or less what Bush is now doing; I doubt he will find it.
The other issues are, as you say, problematic. I will probably not vote for either of these two, when I fill out my ballot. I’ll have to find someone else.
Here’s a Kerry question for you Chris, rather than a Bush one: When is wealth-redistribution by the government just? After all, that is what many of Kerry’s plans boil down to. Would the seizure of Naboth’s vinyard been acceptable if it had been sold to provide prescription drug benefits?
October 19th, 2004 at 12:57 pm
I should have said that I wrote the above.
– Grant