"Not voting" as an act of prophetic resistance

Last week someone gave me a CD of a sermon by Lou Engle, a well-known charismatic preacher who's also a leader in the "Apostolic and Prophetic" movement. The sermon was entitled "Voting as an act of divine governance." I was so impressed by the title that I thought I should make the title of my rebuttal sound equally spiritual. If voting can be an act of "divine governance", then certainly not voting can be an act of "prophetic resistance." If I ever get to interact with Engle or any other leader of the "Apostolic and Prophetic" crowd, I wonder if my not-so-subtle attempts to co-opt their language would make them more likely to hear me out?

Sarcasm aside, I was deeply troubled in my spirit as I listened to the sermon. While I appreciate the fact that Lou Engle mobilizes tens of thousands of young people every year to pray for spiritual awakening in America, I often wonder if the prayers are misdirected. The underlying assumption is that if God were to answer our prayers, then we would be the ones with all the political power. The "we" by the way is very specific. It means "pro-life, anti-gay marriage" Christians. And the "pro-life", as you probably know, does not mean pro-life after the womb. It only means pro-life before the womb. You'll never ever ever ever ever hear these guys speaking out against innocent civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of U.S. foreign policy. They also actively promote the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Now I guarantee you that they would tell you otherwise (after all, who wants to say they support ethnic cleansing?), but the reality is that every time a U.S. president asks the Israeli government to halt the expansion of Jew-only settlements--settlements built on home demolitions and private property land confiscations--they scream bloody murder.

For my friends that think of themselves as progressive evangelicals, if you think I'm writing this to make us all feel smug in our supposedly enlightened views of a "consistent ethic of life." Think again. Lou Engle did say something that got me thinking, and thinking hard. He said that if you knowingly vote for someone that sanctions murder, then you're just as guilty as the person you voted for. In the context of the sermon, Engle was saying that Christians have a kingdom duty to vote for anti-abortion candidates. Not voting is simply not an option in Engle's worldview. But the more that I listened to what he was saying, the more I felt that Engle was actually making the case for not voting.

I'll admit. I think of myself as sorta kinda "progressive" in my political views. A lot of evangelicals that think like me were appalled at the lack of respect for human rights demonstrated during the Bush Administration. We saw the hell and destruction unleashed on the Iraqi people. We saw Abu Graib, Gitmo, waterboarding, the Patriot Act, extraordinary renditions, the supporting of totalitarian regimes, and we concluded that it would be hypocritical to call ourselves "pro-life" and then turn around and vote for someone who supported things like torture and pre-emptive war. We justified voting for Obama, even though he was "pro-choice", because we honestly believed that from a human rights perspective he was the lesser of two evils.

Now that we know that Obama has continued many of the Bush policies, and in some cases has increased them (as in the case of drone attacks killing civilians), can we really say that we support a "consistent ethic of life" and cast a vote for Barack Obama in 2012? Might we be guilty of the same hypocrisy we accuse the other side of? I realize that one key difference is that most of us that voted for Obama weren't deluding ourselves into thinking that our vote was an act of "divine governance." But still, even if we recognize that our vote has absolutely zero to do with expanding God's kingdom on earth (after all, the Kingdom of God as revealed in Jesus is a non-coercive kingdom) voting is never morally neutral. So, thank you Mr. Engle. I may not vote in this next election because of you. May God lead us all to follow the dictates of our conscience in 2012.

Obama's escalation in Afghanistan, should Christians take a side?

On the eve of the election last November, I wrote a thinly-veiled endorsement of Barack Obama and blasted it out to my friends and family. Now after listening to President Obama’s speech trying to sell the American people on his decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan, there’s a verse of Scripture that’s taken on a profound new significance, “Do not put your trust in princes, nor in a son of man in whom there is no help” (Psalm 146:3).

By all accounts, it looks like President Obama is about to commit a colossal mistake. For starters, 30,000 troops is a drop in the bucket for what’s truly needed for an effective counter-insurgency. The Russians tried to do the same thing we’re doing and it turned out to be the death of their empire. And to top it off, we’re sending our men and women to spill their blood in order to prop up a government of war criminals that brutalize women, oppress their people, and use the tax dollars of hard-working Americans to fleece their people and fill their coffers. Is this change we can believe in? No, it’s not. At least for me it’s not.

Then again, I could be wrong. Let’s do a hypothetical and imagine that by a heavy dose of divine intervention combined with an equal dose of strategy and good luck, Obama’s plan works. In 18 months, the threat of the Taliban is neutralized, the Karzai government does a 180 and cleans up their act, and the war is responsibly brought to an end. If I were to attach God to my political views and make it the “Christian view” that the escalation is wrong, then what will I have done to the credibility of the Christian message if I turn out to be wrong? Even, worse. What if I made that a part of the kingdom gospel that I preach? Come to Jesus and end the war in Afghanistan!

Progressive evangelicals often chide their right-wing counterparts for focusing on a narrow set of issues and claiming that their political solutions are God’s solutions. It seems to me, however, that both sides of the political aisle run the danger of pimping God to endorse their political views. It’s all too easy to take the big three of the Manhattan Declaration (abortion, gay marriage, and religious liberty) and replace them with the big three of progressive evangelicals’ agenda (war, poverty, and the environment). If both sides claim that God sides with their political views or that their issues are the most important, then how are they really that different from each other? If either side takes a position that turns out to be wrong or endorses a candidate that turns out to be disappointing—as I’m sure that right about now there’s a degree of buyers remorse for religious leaders that endorsed Obama—then whose credibility is damaged?

Perhaps a better approach for Christians is to preach the gospel, serve our fellow man with good works, focus on living a Kingdom lifestyle within the life of the Church, and recognize the ambiguity in all political solutions to earthly problems. I may know that abortion is wrong and never counsel a woman to have an abortion because of my religious beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that I’m privy to special knowledge on how to translate that into a political solution that will save the most unborn lives. I may refuse to serve in combat because I believe that killing in war is a violation of Jesus’ command to “love your enemies”, but that doesn’t mean that I have God’s perspective on what should be done about Iraq and Afghanistan. If I claim that I do, then the credibility of the gospel that I preach is damaged in the end. If Obama’s decision has taught me anything, it’s that political humility isn’t just an option for Christians; it’s a necessity.