If you weren’t paying attention to my Asides feature, you may not have noticed that me and my conservative, house-church nemesis (tongue-in-cheek) Derek got into a little tiff this weekend over some political stuff. I actually really like Derek and have gone to a movie with him, his brother, and a friend. As a complete side note, he’s been hosting a rather insightful collection of posts on some of Frank Viola’s older work over on his site that you should probably check out.
Anyway . . . he made a couple of comments in the comments (ha) that assumed I was voting for Barack. And while I have blogged about my affection and interest for the Senator (here and here) . . . I also haven’t written much here about what I think of the process and the election, outside of why I won’t give money to a campaign. I thought it might be therapeutic for me to get a few things off my chest about the whole political process.
Let me begin with what might be a bit of a surprise. I actually like John McCain the person. I definitely don’t jive with his thoughts on war. Nor do I think his rhetoric involving “enemies” is very helpful in the short or long term. But as a person . . . I think we could be friends. I find him to be honest. I find him to be fairly engaging. And I find him to be pretty straight-forward and honest. I think he has backbone and dare I say virtue, although I did make the backbone comment in the past about a current 2 term president. All that to say, I still wouldn’t vote for him. But I think I just might like him as a person. He stands up for what he believes in. But not in a creepy, twisted logic kind of way. He explains his perspectives like a gentleman. And I don’t think he’s full of BS like some of the other political candidates (Clinton, Romney, Huckabee, Edwards – hell everybody but Obama, McCain, and Paul). But again, still wouldn’t vote for him unless you paid me handsomely. He still relies to heavily on the Straussian need for an enemy.
Now to Barack Obama. I stand by my earlier statements that he might not be the most seasoned candidate for President (Hillary’s “ready from day one” rhetoric is a joke) and I might not agree with all of his policies (even if they are still in their infant stages), but I think he’s the best person for what our country needs right now. Namely, a military withdrawal from Middle East conflicts, and secondly, someone who will be diplomatic enough to repair our image across the globe and do so in non-military ways. I also think he brings about a certain energy/hope/bipartisanship that engages people who normally wouldn’t be engaged in the political process. For example, Anna is currently downloading Barack Obama wallpapers and screensavers. Seeing her face and excitement after voting in the Georgia primary gives me hope that civil engagement doesn’t have to be complicated or detached. It can affect everyday people who don’t like to read huge economic or political works. The biggest concern that I see for Obama is letting other people influence him and in turn allow his policies to evolve into a diluted down, mash-up of his cabinet or advisers, in effect a politician.
However, with all that being said, I’m growing increasingly ambivalent towards the political process. I’m not sure if it’s just in my indie jeans to dislike anything that becomes popular or if it’s something more substantial. Lydia over on the Emerging Women blog asks some interesting questions as well about these crushes that we have for Obama. I really like the guy. I voted for him in the primary, but just barely (I almost didn’t vote at all). But he’s not superman. He’s not going to save our country. Or even fix it. He is but a man. And a politician at that. To think that he’s going to fix everything is to deceive ourselves.
I’m becoming more and more convinced that a President has less and less of a real impact on the “state of the world”, although you could certainly convince me otherwise with Clinton’s NAFTA, Bush’s war mongering, and Regan’s reversal of the New Deal as evidence. I guess I just contradicted myself.
But I’m just so apathetic to this whole process at this point. Perhaps it’s the length of the contest. Perhaps it’s the insane amount of money that gets spent. Perhaps it’s what you have to become and lose in order to move forward. Perhaps it’s my tiring of reading every blog that comes into my RSS praise the golden boy from Illinois.
Perhaps it’s just that I’m afraid that we are putting way to much stock into Obama getting elected and fixing everything.
Maybe he will. What do I know?
I also think that a couple of hours of talking with Chris Haw about Thoreau, Hauerwas, Yoder, and the Amish, to name a few, has completely clouded my hope in the American political project.
In the end, I’m just not sure how relevant politics is. Or rather, how relevant we should desire to be in the political process. This is not to say that Jesus wasn’t interested in the politics of Rome. Or that he didn’t attempt to subvert Rome in his own way. But that his methods of doing so was based on an effort at irrelevancy as opposed to relevancy.
Anybody still reading my ramblings at this point?
on 
on 
on 
on 
on
24 Comments
i’m with you man. i teeter back and forth on all this. obama is definitely appealing to me, but when i look at how jesus operated within his political context, i become more painfully aware that his (and god’s) ideal would never ever work as a national project/foreign policy/whatever. hell, the dude was executed for standing against the status quo. that says something. we’ll never have a savior for a president. in fact if jesus does serve as an example, the coronation of someone as some sort of a political messiah proves the opposite, if that makes sense.
so, i stand with you. i’m ambivalent. and reluctant at that. i’m not sure why i stand actually. i see how detached isolationism is ineffective, but i also see how dangerous overzealous nationalism is. i guess i’m somewhere in the middle, trying to balance hope and cynicism.
I hear you loud and clear Josh; and Blake. Both of you put your finger on the same sort of guarded optimism/discomfort I’ve been carrying for awhile now with this electoral business.
Mainly I get pissed about the sheer amount of money spent (which is sickening) and how the simple pile of cash distinguishes “legit” candidates from “not-legit.” Which is a load of horse crap and should make a couple founding fathers turn over in their grave.
But Barack seems to be the leader for the moment I think. We’ll see.
well Clinton who got all the votes in NY voting precincts, including Harlem, has bigger problems5 million can go a long way I guess and if Obama wins the delegate count and hill wins the super del’s, it will be like running into a brick wall for the Dems
It’s understandable that an entire generation (i.e. ours) would have the hesitancy we have toward the American political system.
I was born in 1980 and the presidents we’ve had since then have all done some fairly harmful things to the American public. Betrayal, lying and deplorable acts of injustice are what i associate with the American political system.
It would be great if we had a president who could somehow begin a shift toward democracy and away from fascism.
Hi Josh,
This is my first time visiting/commenting. I appreciate your views on this Wunderkind, and share a good amount of cynicism for the political process.
Most of my posts about this guy have been the kind that you are sick of seeing in the ‘ol feed aggregator, but I think my disilusionment with the political system has catalyzed my excitement for Obama as a candidate. I’ve been involved in politics since the 2nd grade. I have campaigned for Republicans and Democrats. I grew up hard right and switched to hard left. I feel like I understand the underlying needs of both sides to a certain extent and I feel that what we all need is a return to grace and love (the opposites of cynicism). For me, I think Obama is that chance of return.
I hear ya, man. I’ve become very disillusioned as well. As far as the “crushes” we have on Obama…uh-huh. We want change, and he’s done a fantastic job of creating a political image that provides a body for us to project that desire onto…along with a box to tick on Diebold’s black boxes.
I’ll admit it – I cried a little bit when I watched the Will.i.am / “We Want Change” video. Granted, it’s a video. But I’ve read a lot of what he says and like most of it.
So, my absentee/ex-pat ballot is on the way, and I’m gonna tick that box anyway. I kinda miss Kucinich, though
.
I was part of those conversations with Chris Haw in Florida and I was kind of “puzzled” at first by his apparent apathy towards politicians and his claim of Jesus as the “president” we should follow (catchy name for a book, no?). I’ve been twisting that around ever since. Along comes N. T. Wright’s new book “Surprised by Hope” and in chapter 5, he is dealing with “evolutionary optimism” and the “myth of progress”. There’s no room to go into it here, but after reading it (amazing book…), I too, am seeing the potential danger of pinning our hopes on a person/system that ultimately cannot deliver. “Jesus for President” is starting to make more and more sense…
I echo your sentiments about political apathy. Sometimes I feel like it would be better to to toss a penny into the pool of giant goldfish at the local China Buffet than voting.
I nearly always enter the polling place feeling pretty good that I’m taking advantage of one of the most basic rights I’m afforded as a citizen of the US. Most of the first year of a presidency I still feel okay, basically medicating my frustration with ‘its early and you can’t rebuild Rome in a day’ or something like that.
Somewhere in year two, I’m living in ‘dammit! I voted for that guy’ world.
By year three, there’s already primaries and the like. More commercials and I’ve lost the energy to keep checking faithful sites like factcheck.org to navigate all the crud.
Year four- ‘this is year I protest the broken state of the US politic’ sets in and I decide that I’m NOT voting. Then I feel un-American, and there’s something in my gut that makes me not okay with that–which is weird being a Mennonite in a UMC body that I’d still cave to that. I’ve been ‘un-American’ for years now.
Anyway, my two cents…
Heh, funny, Josh, you completely mirrored by comment previously about Jesus and politics. It was irrelevant to him. As I said, “it was more like he acted as if it didn’t exist.”
I don’t think anybody can hear Obama speak and not like him. Even if you entirely degree with what little substance he does put into his speeches. And therein lies the problem – when a politician’s ability to motivate far overpowers their positions, you have a dangerous combination. If we’re worried about nationalism, I think we should be likewise worried about a politician frequently making women faint, and the type of blind support that gets you. I’m not saying I’d prefer Hillary over him (though I’d prefer she’d get the nomination, because she’d definitely lose). It’s just not the type of politics we should be encouraging.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – the whole process of picking a president was never supposed to be this way. Presidents, initially, were chosen by electors who were chosen by state legislatures. So none of this beauty contest type of thing. Presidents (and senators, for that matter) were chosen by the states. I would really love to see someone push for a more simple system like that again. It would give the national news media a LOT less to talk about.
@ DEREK yeah but i think we’re still looking at “irrelevant” differently. maybe i’m wrong. but when you’re still talking about military conflict and war and capital punishment, you’re still relying to heavily on a “relevancy” of security and safety and human justice. in my mind at least.
to me . . . the more you follow jesus into his downward mobility and begin to see the irrelevancy of caesar claiming to be lord, then you care less about reforming the tax system because jesus is lord of the tax system. you care less about military conflict because you know that jesus is truly non-violent.
on one hand, you’re saying that we shouldn’t care about the politics of rome or try to change them. but on the other hand you argue for the fair tax and protecting our “interests” across the world. again, not sure that you can have it both ways. you don’t want christians to try and influence rome but at the same time you are seeking change on your end. or at the very least desiring it pretty adamantly. i’m just not sure why you get to be the one that decides what is “ok” and “safe” to chase after in regards to political and economic reform.
i just don’t understand how one can make a blanket statement and say politics were irrelevant to jesus. it completely ignores his context(s), which deeply political. jesus was entrenched in politics, it surrounded and affected everything. religion. economics. social life. everything.
sure jesus transcended the polarization of the politicized sects of his day. he acted like that didn’t exist. not the politics of caesar or the oppression of rome. no, jesus actively resisted and subverted that. not to trade one domination system for another (which is what we do here in america every 4 years or so), but to offer an alternative reality a “kingdom” (a deeply politcal word) of god, a message of gospel, or good news (another deeply political word). jesus re-imagined reality. and reality is always political.
Blake, I still say it just wasn’t relevant to Jesus. Knowing that one day it will all pass away kind of does that to you. I think political terminology was used because that was the way people could understand it. But it wasn’t like he was protesting against the government or anything. It wasn’t arguing against something that already existing. He was pointing people towards something else that was more real and permanent.
I also don’t like the term “re-imagined” there. I think it points to the difference I feel. It wasn’t something that had to be imagined, it was something that existed, that Jesus was ushering people into.
Josh, you’re totally right that there’s tension between the two. It wasn’t a problem for the early Christians because they didn’t really have a say in government (until Constantine screwed the whole thing up, but even then they didn’t really exert any direct influence, it was all top-down). Today, I believe that as Christians we can choose to participate in the government system or just ignore it. I think both approaches are valid, and I think it comes down to personal conviction. But when we do so, some things that make sense on a personal and/or fellowship level, in the church with Christ as the head, don’t work under a coerced, state-sponsored, essentially secular system. And therein lies the disagreements.
The thing is, my ultimate devotion is not to a system of this world, and never will be. But in the meantime, we live within a system of this world, and have a historically unique opportunity to provide input to it. I’m not saying we shouldn’t do that. I’m saying we shouldn’t expect the state to look like the church – we shouldn’t expect the state to take on the nature of Christ. We can hope for and expect a state that is not oppressive, either in it’s taxation, civil liberties, or it’s posture towards other nations. One that protects its citizens, and its friends, from the evil of others, whether by fraud or physical force.
So yes, I can be an advocate for a better system of taxation even though I know, one day, all taxes will be done away with at the end of the age. Because I can desire a better world for believers and unbelievers alike, even if I know it won’t be perfect.
@ derek.
fine. but i just don’t think it’s fair or consistent when i (or people like me) work towards or advocate what we think is a more jesus centered politic and economic foundation. and then you get to throw out the card that it doesn’t matter because this world is passing and we can’t realize heaven on earth and all that jazz. your faith obviously informs your politics and economics. i just wished you saw that my faith informs my politics and economics as well. and it’s no where near as black and white as you make it out to be.
derek. i still disagree, but i think i understand now that this disagreement is much deeper than just the political semantical discussion. because i believe that jesus actually had something to say about life here on earth and how we can work toward something better, hence my use of the word “re-imagine.” i’m not saying there’s not something eternal or something after death, there very well may be. but i don’t think any of us can know for sure. and i think preoccupation with that misses the here and now, and what we can actually do. sure it sounds nice and makes us all feel good, but that doesn’t do anything to help make the world a better place to live. we’re in an affluent position were we can reflect on eternity and look forward to it, but that doesn’t really work for the poor or the oppressed. it’s pretty insulting actually. they need help now and i think jesus had something to say about that more than anything. it was a protest against the status quo. to me, my faith is more than hoping for something awesome after i die, it’s what inspires me to work for something better and help those that can’t help themselves.
This is better than any debate on tv! Thanks Josh for laying it out there.
heh, heh, you used the word “straussian.”
“heh, heh, you used the word “straussian.”
i know. what a nerd right?
Eschatology does have a direct effect on your political worldview. If you think we are beaming up to the clouds and this planet is blowing up, you have less concern for things of this earth than if you believe (as I do) that the redeemed/restored earth will be our eternal home. Heaven coming down to earth should inspire EACH of us to become involved in the “great restoration project”, instead sitting idly by waiting for the “government to do something” (works DO matter – it’s not just grace). It is good to see all the hope and excitement that Obama is creating into a previously disenfranchised people (not seen since Kennedy?), but if after we pull that lever (or poke that chad) on election day we all go back to our TV’s and simply WATCH to see what Obama does, nothing changes. The “politics of Jesus” (at least how I understand it) is about empowering those on the underside of the power structure to “come to the table”, and to make real and lasting change. Jesus didn’t want to build a “Jesus Fan Club” – he wanted to build an upside-down army of revolutionists and activists to bring about real justice and to take back the Kingdom! Does this make any sense?
“your faith obviously informs your politics and economics. i just wished you saw that my faith informs my politics and economics as well. and it’s no where near as black and white as you make it out to be.”
I’m aware of it, that’s not the issue. The issue is that it’s not enough to let faith “inform” any agenda we might discuss. A proposal has to be tested for what it actually affects. My biggest point on that has really been government-based charity. (See my other recent comment for a good book recommendation on that topic. I really would like for you to read that book!)
But it’s more that a “jesus centered politic and economic foundation” simply isn’t possible without, well, Jesus. If you try to push a secular system into that, without the Jesus part, it will never work. Principles of the kingdom really only work because of the King. Throw a bunch of sinful people together, and you need a whole different set of things that have to be in place in order for things to work than you need for a bunch of believers who are acting with Christ as their king. Two totally different things. That’s why I can advocate one thing in the church, and understand that in the world things have to work a little differently. It’s not that the church, or our faith, can’t inform politics, it’s that we can’t expect the world to conform to the image of the church when it doesn’t have Christ.
And blake, I think that speaks pretty well to your comment, too. It’s not about just looking forward to something that is to come. It is about how something that already exists (the kingdom of God) transforms us (the church) to live in the world, as Christ’s bride. And by all of the measures of the world, we will not seem very victorious (if we’re following the standards of Christ, anyway). The ideals of transforming worldly systems just isn’t there in the NT. The realities of transforming people who live under the kingdom of God is – and big time.
“The ideals of transforming worldly systems just isn’t there in the NT.”
i would argue that jesus’ actions and teachings demonstrate opposite. it wasn’t all pie in the sky. in fact most of it was tangible and very visceral. actions aside, just historical examination of the parables alone proves that. bernard brandon scott’s works on parables are a good start.
and i’m not saying i’m diametrically opposed to what you’re saying. but if you take that too far it becomes very dismissive and ineffective to reality. a lot of people just use it as an excuse. i think there’s a via media in there somewhere.
See, I think the whole thing about transforming worldly systems was at the heart of Satan’s temptation of Christ. And I think if anyone were to do it, He would have started it. Or would have commanded His followers to specifically do it. Instead, He told them to look for His return. And that it would be triumphant. Doesn’t that seem a little strange if you assume that we were meant to change the world?
I think the ideas of transforming culture, and us redeeming the world, are very appealing. But therein lies their danger. They make us important. Following what Christ personally did, and what He commanded His followers to do, will not really help us transform the world. It’s too radical. Too crazy. Too dismissive of worldly systems. When we become followers in God’s kingdom, we’re aliens here. I don’t know, I just see so much in scripture that goes against the idea of us redeeming the world, whereas I think you have to try really hard to read those ideas into scripture.
Look, we have a hard enough time following Christ’s explicit commands. Trying to obediently serve my place in the kingdom of God is simple, yet really, really hard to do. I don’t think Christ burdened the entire church with the transformation of the world into God’s original vision of it – something that is described in scripture, but something that is described as God doing, not the church.
like i said, i think there’s a medium in there somewhere. i just think it’s as simple and reductionistic as you make it to be. most importantly i don’t think that’s what the pre-constantinian church practiced. i know they expected the parousia to happen at anytime, but they were intentionally building an alternative community in opposition to the empire. they were about transformation.
i just think there’s more to it than sitting around and waiting for some triumphal eschaton. like i said, most people use that as an excuse. i’m not saying that’s what you’re doing, but i’ve seen done too many times. if jesus was solely concerned about returning why did he come in the first place and why didn’t he hurry up and get the death and resurrection part over with? and why did he mess with healing people and teaching and preaching things like the sermon on the mount–that seems to be very much rooted in “wordly transformation.”
Late to the party but here goes–
When I was newly married I had a conversation with my Mother that went something like: ME–But government doesn’t have a heart, it isn’t truly looking to help people. It is trying to fix a problem as if it were a math equation. It’s the job of the Church to meet the needs of the people. MOTHER–Well, the Church dropped the ball and until it picks it up again government better get its act together.
I still believe that Government doesn’t have a heart BUT we can elect mouth pieces (presidents) who do and who are willing to use their unique position to encourage healthy families, neighbors who care aboput one another, communities who volunteer, and a nation that looks beyond its borders and its own pocketbook. Jesus may be coming back triumphantly but what will He be coming back to? He’ll be looking for a spotless Bride. The servant who buries his talents just to keep what he’d been given safe will be a disappointment.
We’ve gotten to this place before in conversations. My eschatology is not one of sitting on my butt and waiting for the end. Christ commanded plenty of us to do while we await His return.
I do think it’s easy to see the transformation that Jesus was pushing for and take that extra step towards changing the world. My semi-evangelical background would actually support that. Re-learning this stuff, though, and trying to move away from the assumptions of my background, I now see Christ’s emphasis (as well as the rest of the NT’s) being on the church, not the world. And any emphasis on the individual is really targeted towards being built into the church.
derek. that’s what i figured. but i had to push back and make sure
One Trackback
[...] Oh Politic Where Art Thou? | IAmJoshBrown (tags: christian politics election) [...]