It has just been 2 days now since our country went to the polls to vote for our next president. As we all know, Sen. Barak Obama was the clear choice of the majority of the voting citizens. But already, I am hearing comments like this from a growing number of Christians: "God is sovereign, so he can fix this." This is a belief about God that I certainly agree with. No plan of his can be thwarted, we are told in Job 42:2.
But behind this statement about God's sovereignty I am finding an interesting contradition. What is being expressed is that we messed the vote up, so God in his sovereignty will have to override our choice. But let me ask this question, what if God in his sovereignty chose Barak Obama to be our next president? I'm not sure that this question has even crossed our minds. If this were the case, then what would our responsibilities be as Christians toward our next president?
But behind this statement about God's sovereignty I am finding an interesting contradition. What is being expressed is that we messed the vote up, so God in his sovereignty will have to override our choice. But let me ask this question, what if God in his sovereignty chose Barak Obama to be our next president? I'm not sure that this question has even crossed our minds. If this were the case, then what would our responsibilities be as Christians toward our next president?
4 comments:
Sovereignty of course begs two major issues based on worldview: (1) to what extent is God the "controller" of world events and (2) to what extent does God "know/foreknow" our future?
A deist leaning Christian would say that God is indifferent to whomever may be elected by a secular nation to lead that nation.
An open theist leaning Christian may say God is actively at work, but that even God may not know the outcome.
A typical Arminian leaning Christian might say that God is sovereign by allowing human decisions ("free will") to alter the course of the world, only trumping that human will when He has a specific agenda He wants to accomplish.
That said, still another Arminian might argue that whatever the people voted WAS God's will, since that was the end result.
A five-point Reformed Christian might argue that God is sovereign but that political elections fall in the "free will" category and so God may not necessarily be controlling it with some controlling sense of sovereignty.
A seven-point Reformed Christian would absolutely argue that God's will was done, for thats what happened, and the world as we experience it is meticulously controlled by God to create maximum glory for Himself.
So... what worldview are we assuming???
What do we (what do you, Jeff?) mean by "sovereignty"?
For my own money, God certainly cares who our leader is as He knows what will spread His kingdom. But God didn't thwart the democractic process by, say, striking John McCain dead the night before elections. God allowed the voting process to ensue. Did God stir in the hearts of a majority of people to vote for Obama and therefore that's His will? Maybe, but that seems odd, for many Spirit-led, Bible-believing, Jesus-following Christians also voted for John McCain. So since there were Spirit-led, Bible-believing, Jesus-following Christians who voted for Obama also, were they just "more in line" with God's will? Such questions seem bizarre. And in the end I almost sympathize with the deist leaning folks. Hmmm... maybe God didn't/doesn't care all that much.
Part of the danger I run as I blog this is incredible anthropomorphism. I am projecting great heaps of human perspective onto the Infinite and Eternal One. Ummmm, thats problematic.
I'm gonna conclude with a mighty "I don't know."
One thing I do know: the attitude among some Christians is appalling. I've heard the most prejudiced and bigoted and conspiracy theory NONSENSE concerning our president elect. "He's actually a Muslim deceiving us," "he was actually born in Kenya," "he actually wants to turn us into an African type nation," "he's going to discriminate against white people." On and on, the most ridiculous nonsense. We haven't come far enough as a nation, clearly. Thats what I find disturbing.
Equally disturbing is the marriage of the Republican party and many of our evangelical churches, but thats a whole 'nother sermon!
Enough for now. Thoughts?
REV
For the people that I am conversing, 'sovereignty' is in reference to God running the world in close to a deterministic way. However, when something goes wrong (ie. electing Obama) God's sovereignty is evoked as a source of comfort. I don't intend to mock this, really. I just find it interesting that from this position the thought doesn't seem to cross a person's mind that perhaps then God chose Barak as our next president.
The next question, and perhaps the most relevant to us, is 'how should we relate to our new president?' The Presidential Prayer Team was in full swing with during the early years of the Bush administration. We seem to be highly motivated as evangelicals to pray for blessing on 'our' candidate. But what about Clinton or Obama? How many of us evangelicals were praying for God's blessing rather than God's wrath on Bill? Will we submit ourselves to the governing authorities as the Apostle Paul suggests? Will we pray for those whose full time job it is to govern? Or, will we complain / ridicule / reject a president that we did not vote for?
Reformed or Arminian, how should a follower of Jesus relate to a government that they did not choose?
Thanks for bringing up Paul, Jeff. Before I go there, lets also remember Jesus. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's (his coin with his face on it) and give to God what is God's." Jesus' kingdom is counter-cultural, world-transforming, and radical. It doesn't fit well with traditional powers, as it is power from beneath, strength in submission and service, etc.
If we had this mindset that the early Christians did then matters of "ruling the government" or "our candidate" would be irrelevant. Sadly, we live in the legacy of Constantine, which has done much damage to the church for 1600+ years now.
Onto Paul... yes, here we might invoke two famous passages. One, that we pray for our leaders, and two, that we submit to the ruling authorities.
In both instances, Paul is writing in the first century Mediterranean rule. The ruling authorities are corrupt and cruel Roman governors and above them, Caesar. The letter to the Roman Christians, in fact, was during NERO's (of all emperors!) reign! And so to "submit to government" is quite a command to Christians (Peter picks up this theme as well, but I'm not dealing with his epistle right now).
And so if certain followers of Jesus are demonizing DFL presidents over GOP presidents, as you alluded, then my goodness! what would they say if their ruler was Nero Ceasar?!!!!
Again, I return to Constantine. The legalizing of Christianity and then a couple decades later the official endorsement/institutionalization of Christianity has damaged Jesus' message of the kingdom.
Jesus' kingdom does not spread by laws (Constantine) or the sword (Muhammad). Yet once Constantine's edicts were set in motion, a clash of not only civilizations (Roman/Byzantine/whatever) was inevitable, but now, sadly, religions. Suddenly the church was the state was the kingdom. And if the church must do BOTH Romans 12 AND Romans 13, then the church takes on a contradiction: the grace/mercy giver AND the sword swinger??? Yikes!
And sadly, Western Rome attacked Eastern Constantinople as Roman Christians sought to destroy Byzantine (and Orthodox) Christians. And in the Centuries that followed there were Inquisitions, Crusades, post-Reformation wars (e.g. 30 years war) and on and on as "Christians" slaughtered not only non-Christians, but also each other.
Yuk.
So all this talk of getting "our guy" in office is disturbing to me, because it smacks of Constantinian thinking, which I'm convinced is not the message of the kingdom. For if we go Constantine's route, we'll need to pick up the sword and demonize "the other" (whether thats GOP folks demonizing DFLers or "American Christians" demonizing Muslims, whatever).
Instead, if the church does its thing as commanded by Jesus and works for power under and service, rather than power over and control, then we'll be free of this demonizing of the other and we're free to pray for either major party's candidate (and third party candidates!) because the playing field is level.
The Romans 12 realm thus blesses the Romans 13 realm. Not because the Romans 13 realm always "gets it right" (good heavens, remember Nero!) but rather because the roles of each kingdom remain what they are and helps keep the Romans 12 realm free to bless.
Enough of that soapbox. I'm stepping off now. Thoughts?
REV
A second approach to your question.
I've pondered a second approach.
This one has to do with the idea of "choosing." If I chose to accept Jesus as Lord and savior (I did not elect Him to that position, nor did some majority of humankind, rather the choice to submit to Him was graciously offered to me)... if I so chose that, then that is whom I chose! He is the one I "voted for."
So in that sense, regardless of whomever may be in office (Obama, McCain, or my grandma), I am already serving the one I did choose. All other "choices" are merely a product of our republic style democracy (the Romans 13 realm).
Just an interesting thought on the nature of "choice" and what we're really talking about.
Sadly, I fear, for many Christians there is no concept of living in the kingdom. And for those Christians who do have at least some "kingdom" concept/construct, I fear that they too don't realize or even desire the full extent of that kingdom.
If my assumptions are thus correct, then its no wonder so much passion (or disappointment) goes into democractic elections and the results thereof! For our hope is misplaced and our "choice" is skewed.
I'm struck by Greg Boyd's teachings over the last four years (since the 2004 election cycle) on "kingdom single mindededness." Really good stuff. If you haven't heard any of his sermons on it, I'd highly reccomend it.
REV
Post a Comment