Re: Voting without warring
Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:45 pm
A good book on how Mennonite beliefs changed in regards to voting and the separation of church and state is "Mennonites, Amish, and the American Civil War" by James O. Lehman.
Jesus taught to specific situations but He also extrapolated the teaching to principles of discipleship, eg Matthew 5:38-40.Ernie wrote:So would you say that not going to war is an application of "resist not evil"? And not hitting and enemy with a stick would be an application of "resist not evil"? (The Bible doesn't say we may not hit our enemies with a stick.)RZehr wrote:Principle vs. Application
I believe there is clear teaching in the Bible regarding the principle of separation of the two kingdoms. Not voting is a good application of this principle. But it is not the principle thing. Just as modesty is a biblical principle, and long pants and long sleeve shirt might be the application. Or bearing one anothers burdens is a principle, and not having insurance is an application of that principle.
When I confuse the application for the principle, I may end up grasping at biblical straws in order to defend an my exact application.
Can't there be direct applications, indirect applications, and semi-direct applications?
Could you summarize it?Martin wrote:A good book on how Mennonite beliefs changed in regards to voting and the separation of church and state is "Mennonites, Amish, and the American Civil War" by James O. Lehman.
Quoting the from the book on page 13, "This books details the story of negotiating nonresistant citizenship. The political implications were complex-whether in conversation with the state or in relations with neighbors or fellow church members. The scale and scope of the Civil War only increased the intensity of such matters, reaffirming convictions while often reformulating the old approaches."Bootstrap wrote:Could you summarize it?Martin wrote:A good book on how Mennonite beliefs changed in regards to voting and the separation of church and state is "Mennonites, Amish, and the American Civil War" by James O. Lehman.
We've talked a lot about why one might conscientiously abstain from voting - but this, I believe, is the most compelling reason for me. How can I, as a non-resistant follower of Christ, directly chose a person who wields the sword for society (President, Governor, Sheriff, Judge, etc.)?"Those who cast their suffrage for the President placed him in office and put the sword into his hands; and I do not see how anyone can contend that it is sin for him to use it, and not for them to give him power to do so."
I can appreciate this perspective to a point - especially in the way it does not choose political sides."In short, the truly converted nonresistant Christian was apolitical, condemning neither Republican nor Democrat, judging neither North or South, but humbly submitting to God's sovereign will and living faithfully in a parallel universe that was the kingdom of God."
The argument for Christians being apolitical does not at all require disregard for and inaction on behalf of the needy. In fact, it may free us to do more, not encumbered by the trappings of political entanglement. Nothing stands in the way of our going into prisons, donating to food banks, distributing to charity, volunteering for disaster relief and humanitarian aid missions, preaching the good news, helping our neighbors, visiting the sick and elderly, etc, etc. Let's do it, folks.Dan Z wrote:I can appreciate this perspective to a point - especially in the way it does not choose political sides.
This is "the quiet in the land" argument - a clear two-kingdom perspective...and I'm cool with it provided those who are the quiet in the land do not turn a blind eye to the spiritual and physical suffering and injustice around them.
Unfortunately, what has happened too often among our people is that this type of attitude has historically been used to justify separation (and indifference) to the point where we live comfortable lives of oblivion - maintaining our separate lifestyles and communities, and effectively neglecting the real work of Jesus in regard to "the least of these." There is a spiritual fatalism within some streams of Anabaptism that piously claims the sovereignty of God in all circumstances - where our light is kept warm and snug under a bushel while all hell breaks loose around us. Where is our witness in that? Might it be that our sovereign God would choose to do His work through his followers?
Amen, and this 'spiritual fatalism' is very dominant in non-Anabaptist groups also. One of God's sovereign acts is to use us as means in building His Kingdom. As the early church demonstrated, being a 'quiet in the land' (if that means withholding words that may be taken as offensive and/or foolishness or just keeping the peace) is not what Christianity was meant to be about. Rather we are in a war with principlaties and powers in the spirit realm that we are to fight in the natural realm in a very radical way - the way of love.Dan Z wrote:Unfortunately, what has happened too often among our people is that this type of attitude has historically been used to justify separation (and indifference) to the point where we live comfortable lives of oblivion - maintaining our separate lifestyles and communities, and effectively neglecting the real work of Jesus in regard to "the least of these." There is a spiritual fatalism within some streams of Anabaptism that piously claims the sovereignty of God in all circumstances - where our light is kept warm and snug under a bushel while all hell breaks loose around us. Where is our witness in that? Might it be that our sovereign God would choose to do His work through his followers?
Indeed.Dan Z wrote:Thanks Martin for the summary of the Lehman book.
I don't think I can. I can offer one opinion. Taken together with other people's opinions, someone gets elected. In my experience, it is not always the person I vote for.Dan Z wrote: especially appreciated the two quotes you gave:
We've talked a lot about why one might conscientiously abstain from voting - but this, I believe, is the most compelling reason for me. How can I, as a non-resistant follower of Christ, directly chose a person who wields the sword for society (President, Governor, Sheriff, Judge, etc.)?"Those who cast their suffrage for the President placed him in office and put the sword into his hands; and I do not see how anyone can contend that it is sin for him to use it, and not for them to give him power to do so."
This argument is most compelling when made by people who are "quiet in the land". It's much less convincing when made by people who constantly inflict their political opinions on others, who do in fact condemn and judge. And I do recognize that some of the people who are most emphatic about not voting do not participate in those threads. To me, it makes their witness much more consistent.Dan Z wrote:I can appreciate this perspective to a point - especially in the way it does not choose political sides."In short, the truly converted nonresistant Christian was apolitical, condemning neither Republican nor Democrat, judging neither North or South, but humbly submitting to God's sovereign will and living faithfully in a parallel universe that was the kingdom of God."
This is "the quiet in the land" argument - a clear two-kingdom perspective...and I'm cool with it provided those who are the quiet in the land do not turn a blind eye to the spiritual and physical suffering and injustice around them.
I agree.Dan Z wrote:Unfortunately, what has happened too often among our people is that this type of attitude has historically been used to justify separation (and indifference) to the point where we live comfortable lives of oblivion - maintaining our separate lifestyles and communities, and effectively neglecting the real work of Jesus in regard to "the least of these." There is a spiritual fatalism within some streams of Anabaptism that piously claims the sovereignty of God in all circumstances - where our light is kept warm and snug under a bushel while all hell breaks loose around us. Where is our witness in that? Might it be that our sovereign God would choose to do His work through his followers?
Is it possible to vote without being partisan?Bootstrap wrote:I'm more concerned about the dangers of (1) partisanship
Possibly. Some elections are virtually non-partisan, like local elections in some places for some kinds of judges.mike wrote:Is it possible to vote without being partisan?Bootstrap wrote:I'm more concerned about the dangers of (1) partisanship