All told, 21% of nonvoting respondents fit into this category.
These nonvoters told Insider that they were not voting because:
"I believe that God's kingdom is the only solution to the problems we all face."
"Because of my religious beliefs."
"Voting adds your name to be selected for jury duty. I, like most people, don't like jury duty."
Included in this category are religions such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Christadelphians, which do not permit practicing followers to participate in elections.
I finally got around to watching this, after a sermon on the subject this morning. I appreciated the emphasis on the power of the cross and our spiritual weapons, that make political weapons seem puny. As well as Dan's mention of how aligning with a political identity has the tendency to make us part of a tribe that trumps our allegiance to the kingdom of God.
I watched it days ago and have been mulling how to say what I'm thinking.
Although I think kingdom theology is an acceptable way of explaining a refusal to vote, it rings a bit hollow as an explanation for why conservative Anabaptists don't vote. I don't think that many Anabaptists would say the reason they don't vote is because they believe they are part of a different kingdom. In my opinion, many would say they don't vote because their church doesn't allow it.
Further, the idea of not voting because it puts us in ungodly company since governments use coercion as a means of getting compliance is a moot point to conservative Anabaptist people who all their lives have had their everyday choices in life couched in rhetoric which esteems "authority" and "submission" rather than the "kingdom of God". They have seen coercive measures used in the church to get the desired outcome; coercion is nothing unusual and seems compatible with people who say they're Christians; they have seen it many times.
If CA's want to stem the tide of their people becoming part of the political scene, they will need to change the emphasis in their churches away from "authority" and "submission" and give a vision of the kingdom of God to their people.
“The priestly class invariably makes God less accessible instead of more so ‘neither entering yourselves nor letting others enter in’ as Jesus says (Matthew 23:13). For the sake of our own job security, the priestly message is often: ‘You can only come to God through us, by doing the right rituals, obeying the rules, and believing the right doctrines.’ This is like telling God who God is allowed to love! The clergy and religious leaders, unintentionally, perhaps, teach their disciples “learned helplessness.” Thus the prophets spend much of their time destroying and dismissing these barriers and trying to create a “straight highway to God” (Matthew 3:3). Both John the Baptist and Jesus tried to free God for the people and it got them killed.” Richard Rohr
TruthSeeker wrote:“The priestly class invariably makes God less accessible instead of more so ‘neither entering yourselves nor letting others enter in’ as Jesus says (Matthew 23:13). For the sake of our own job security, the priestly message is often: ‘You can only come to God through us, by doing the right rituals, obeying the rules, and believing the right doctrines.’ This is like telling God who God is allowed to love! The clergy and religious leaders, unintentionally, perhaps, teach their disciples “learned helplessness.” Thus the prophets spend much of their time destroying and dismissing these barriers and trying to create a “straight highway to God” (Matthew 3:3). Both John the Baptist and Jesus tried to free God for the people and it got them killed.” Richard Rohr
This seems wrong in the opposite direction and not an accurate assessment of what the prophets were doing. Who afterall, instituted the priestly caste and much of the ritual of the Hebrews?
HondurasKeiser wrote:
This seems wrong in the opposite direction and not an accurate assessment of what the prophets were doing. Who afterall, instituted the priestly caste and much of the ritual of the Hebrews?
I interpreted Rohr to be using a figure of speech vs making a doctrinal/theological statement. The religious folks in the time of John the Baptist & Jesus didn’t understand the spacious God that each attempted to convey.
TruthSeeker wrote:“The priestly class invariably makes God less accessible instead of more so ‘neither entering yourselves nor letting others enter in’ as Jesus says (Matthew 23:13). For the sake of our own job security, the priestly message is often: ‘You can only come to God through us, by doing the right rituals, obeying the rules, and believing the right doctrines.’ This is like telling God who God is allowed to love! The clergy and religious leaders, unintentionally, perhaps, teach their disciples “learned helplessness.” Thus the prophets spend much of their time destroying and dismissing these barriers and trying to create a “straight highway to God” (Matthew 3:3). Both John the Baptist and Jesus tried to free God for the people and it got them killed.” Richard Rohr
This seems wrong in the opposite direction and not an accurate assessment of what the prophets were doing. Who afterall, instituted the priestly caste and much of the ritual of the Hebrews?
With respect, Rohr, who took Franciscan vows in 1961 and was ordained as a priest in 1970, has a long and significant habit of re-applying Scripture in new and questionable, if not outright disingenuous, ways to fit his brand of theology... This is a good example thereof and worthy of being wary of, even by progressive Anabaptists...
TruthSeeker wrote:“The priestly class invariably makes God less accessible instead of more so ‘neither entering yourselves nor letting others enter in’ as Jesus says (Matthew 23:13). For the sake of our own job security, the priestly message is often: ‘You can only come to God through us, by doing the right rituals, obeying the rules, and believing the right doctrines.’ This is like telling God who God is allowed to love! The clergy and religious leaders, unintentionally, perhaps, teach their disciples “learned helplessness.” Thus the prophets spend much of their time destroying and dismissing these barriers and trying to create a “straight highway to God” (Matthew 3:3). Both John the Baptist and Jesus tried to free God for the people and it got them killed.” Richard Rohr
This seems wrong in the opposite direction and not an accurate assessment of what the prophets were doing. Who afterall, instituted the priestly caste and much of the ritual of the Hebrews?
With respect, Rohr, who took Franciscan vows in 1961 and was ordained as a priest in 1970, has a long and significant habit of re-applying Scripture in new and questionable, if not outright disingenuous, ways to fit his brand of theology... This is a good example thereof and worthy of being wary of, even by progressive Anabaptists...
And also even Catholics are wary. Though Rohr calls himself Catholic, he has long ago lost his ordinal rights to teach in official Catholic parishes. He can be a guest speaker in non-Catholic places but he is no longer allowed even partial teaching authority in Catholic settings. To sum up, he is not respected in official Catholic circles and is even considered highly suspect. He claims Jesus' teachings "are a bunch of nice stories" in one of his books and claims they are not binding. At his retreat center, he created scandal by performing a wedding for homosexual couples. He also allows nudists to wander around the compound. No, Rohr is not a person to be considered an authority on Biblical teaching in the opinion of the Catholic Church.
