The Temptation to Surrender

I was called out the other day on a Christian website for my recent endorsement of one of the presidential candidates. The problem, as they saw it, was that by endorsing a candidate it appears as though I'm giving into the dominate powers of the world. The answer that the website gave (in response to my own position) is that the more radical and Christ-like response is to resist the temptation to give into the ideologies of the world, and therefore “withhold your vote!” If voting is symptomatic of us being drones within the empire then I can see how this is a good solution, especially when we look at how often the church finds itself wrapped up in the current political rhetoric and ideologies of the day. Of course, at another level, when we take this to its ultimate conclusions aren't we all already implicated in the empire at some level? Doesn't “withhold” in reality function more like “I surrender?” So then how do we think about this?

Sunday, on our drive home from a friend's birthday party, we were listening to Krista Tippett's interview with Evangelical leaders Chuck Colson, Greg Boyd and Shane Claiborne. They billed it as three generations of Evangelical leaders and what they see as the role of Christians in the public sphere. It's a big question. It has always been a big question, and it goes all the way back to Jesus' own crucifixion. Wasn't Peter pulling his sword out when Jesus was arrested an attempt institute Christendom? It's the temptation to surrender to the politics of this world. I don't really fault Peter for this, I think Peter is a lot like us Evangelicals, really earnest and committed, wanting to do ‘right' not matter what it takes. But, as we know, Peter's solution was not the way of Jesus.

Theologian John Howard Yoder argues in his book, “For the Nations,” that the mode of the church's relationship to culture and politics must be rooted in Jeremiah 29:7, “But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.” When this was written, the Hebrew people were living in exile under the Babylonian empire, yet God called them to live in such a way that the very neighborhoods and cities would be better because of them living there. The church as an exiled people always rubs up against the powers of the world, yet it doesn't retreat from it, it constantly seeks the peace of the kingdom within those places. The Hebrew people remained “distinctive” during their time in exile by compiling the Hebrew canon and worshipping YHWH. But their distinctiveness did not preclude actively dialoguing with and seeking to transform their world, in fact, it is what freed them to be creative in the culture with which they worked. And this is for Yoder, the same distinctiveness/dialogue pattern that Jesus exemplified and the church is to embody.

So then what about Friends? What are our political options? I mean is it okay for an Evangelical (Quaker) to endorse a political candidate? The answer follows this bifurcation, I think the answer is both yes and a no. This is why the Quaker position is still so radical and closely aligned with Yoder's distinctiveness/dialogue. The Friends Church has been activist oriented from its very inception: think of letter writing campaigns to change unjust laws, the many Friends, (after 1650) including George Fox and James Nayler, who reject war and violence, those who work for prison reform, and helped to end slavery, those involved with woman's suffrage, and those who have paid the price for practicing peacemaking in Iraq. All of these things were political acts done by Christians who believed it wasn't enough to just vote or not vote, but who really believed that the church is itself a political institution in the world. Change comes through the way we live everyday, it comes by way of our communities “seeking the peace of the city” where we live.

The catch was that these Friends accepted that the only way to do kingdom ethics was through the kind of non-violence and love of enemy practiced by Jesus. Take for instance the example of Pennsylvania. Here was a state that was founded not simply on Quaker principles, but on what Quakers saw as kingdom politics. For three generations this experiment went on in a way that would end up shaping much of what is assumed within America today. During the “French and Indian War” the Quakers allowed themselves to be voted out of the assembly. This form of “surrender” came not before, but after the act, after all other avenues and possibilities had been exhausted. When the only other option left was to resort to the rules of the world, the Quakers stepped down. This is a lot different than doing whatever it takes to make sure your platform or political position is upheld at all costs. In fact, Yoder argues that Pennsylvania is a successful picture of nonviolent political involvement.

In this way I can see how not voting, and those who vote on one or two issues into are in a similar spot, both are a form of surrender prior to the act. The first is a surrender by way of building of the lingering assumption of Christendom (if I vote, it is a vote that means I believe that God will usher his kingdom in through this person or that party and will do it by whatever means necessary) and the other is to surrender to political hegemony which co-opts “moral issues” away from the kingdom of God (and the church) and ultimately reduces faith to voting blocks. We can avoid the temptation to surrender by planting our hope firmly on our citizenship of the kingdom and the hope that God can work in all aspects of culture.

We are called to live out the kingdom in every area and moment of life, which means that even when we participate in empires we do it in a way that plays by God's rules, not the rules of the world. Let us take the risk of choosing sides, and coming down on the issues we embody in our churches. Let us not be afraid to stand for the kingdom of God, even if it means we will get thrown out of town (again).