Ernie wrote:Bootstrap wrote:I don't think voting is the same as joining a political party or declaring loyalty to a political party, I think it is deciding which of the candidates is best for a particular job, picking one of the choices the parties give us. To me, this is part of public engagement, like picking up the trash on the road or in a park, or attending parent's meetings at school. And I think of public engagement as a good thing, building a sense of community and being in this together.
This position makes several assumptions in my mind. Reword them if you don't agree.
1. This position assumes that voting (and researching candidates of popular parties who have a chance at winning) is a worthwhile and effective use of time.
2. It assumes that this use of time is one of the better ways to use ones time.
3. It assumes that conventional norms of democratic society are good norms.
I prefer stable democracy to most other forms of government, and consider it a blessing to live in peace. And I do think that I am part of a secular community, not just my faith community. I have neighbors and a neighborhood and I live in a city and a state and a country. Paul wrote this to Timothy:
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior,
Back then, they didn't get a vote on who their leaders would be. A vote is probably less effective than prayer, sometimes I feel like neither is doing as much as I wish. But if we Christians want to "lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way", Paul says government has a role to play. And that's where I have a dog in this fight. That's why I vote.
The odds that my vote will be the deciding vote are infinitesimal, and it does take time. I guess I feel the same way about so many things I do - what are the odds that speaking to this neighbor, reading this passage today, posting on MN, or anything else will really make a difference for the Kingdom? It's hard to know how best to use our time for the Kingdom. So far, MN is probably much more of a distraction for me than voting.
Ernie wrote:4. It assumes that a person can have "dual citizenship" as Martin Luther proposed, rather than an "ambassador only" position, as was commonly understood by the early Anabaptists.
Would you say that Christians have a "responsibility", as the article below states or an "opportunity"?
Either way, I don't think that early Anabaptists would have seen either to be a tool of the Kingdom of God.
Paul invoked his Roman citizenship to advance the gospel, and I suppose I'm voting in the same spirit. An ambassador does try to influence the direction of the country he is living in, as a representative of another kingdom. An ambassador does not vote, but I don't think we should stretch the ambassador analogy beyond its original intent. My guess is that Michael Sattler would never vote, but Pilgram Marpeck probably would. Hubmaier probably would too. Since voting did not exist back then, we can only speculate.
I think Christians wrestle with questions like voting for a good reason. And on many issues, I think there's something healthy about this wrestling, especially if it is done in peace and prayerfully. I don't see voting as an obligation, and I appreciate those Christians who choose not to vote.
When we wrestle with this kind of issue, I don't think we have to agree. I think we can learn from each other even if we choose different positions on this kind of issue. The wrestling helps us remember what is most important.