(Ir)religiosity

Political action and democratic participation have been points of contention in the Christian community for quite some time.  Now, as the upcoming presidential election quickly approaches, the issue of voting and not voting as an act of resistance have been brought to the forefront — at least in the blogosphere.

An interesting observation is that the dying Christian Right and the new post-evangelical, or emerging movement converge on the issue of voting though they endorse opposite candidates.  Both seek to utilize the democratic process as a means to bring about justice, though they disagree vehemently as to what justice actually means or looks like.  This concerns me to an extent because I can see it leading to the formation new Christian Left, which in my mind is no better than its dwindling counterpart.  But that’s a different issue altogether.

A few months ago David Fitch, who blogs a Reclaiming the Mission, wrote a post advocating the notion of voting abstinence as an act of resistance in opposition to Empire and asserted the Hauerwasian claim that voting itself can and should be seen as an act of violence.  Fitch writes:

It had been my hope, that the emerging church, atune to post modern, post Christendom and even post-Marxist post structuralist critiques of capitalism and democracy, might become a place of new Christian discernment for this new aggressive social posture of resistance towards the State and its marriage to multi- national corporate interests. Dissappointedly, I don’t think it has appeared yet.

Voting in essence polarizes and sets one group over against another. Once the 51% wins, voting sets the majority over against the minority in an act of domination. The 51% tell the other 49 what to do (er where to go in GB’s case). Should we Christians participate in that? Likewise, given the overt captivity of American government by territorializing powers of capital, should we encourage this process by legitimating it by our vote?

Though I might disagree on some of the nuances, I believe Fitch has a point: voting is an indirect act of violence.  By participating in the process one is legitimizing the authority of the Empire which in turn exercises a monopoly on the use of force and violence for its own interest.  Further, as we’ve seen in the past overly enthusiastic political participation on the part of Christians can lead to a confusion between the church and the state, between the kingdom of God and the Empire of Caesar.  So I see Fitch’s point.

Last week Anthony Smith, who blogs at Postmodern Negro, wrote a post on the Emergent Village blog from the black perspective, challenging the underlying suppositions of Fitch’s claims.

Voting, as it is oftentimes seen by historically marginalized groups, is a precious gift. It is not seen, within the language game of the prophetic black church, as a form of violence. That voting is seen as means of violence can only come from Christians who don’t know what it is like to be without the gift. This is why the loudest voices for political disengagement on Gospel grounds tend to be of lighter hue. It is another form of advantage to eschew voting.

Smith also has a point.  And if I’m honest with myself it is a point I will never fully understand; as a person of privilege my point of view tends to be from the perspective of those who win — it is the water in which I swim.  But I shall try nonetheless.

It’s hard for white people, white mean specifically, to understand or even comprehend the idea of not being given the right to vote. That’s because we’ve always had it; indeed, we were the ones who deprived others — blacks, women, and so on — of that right.  Hence it’s easy and convenient for us to talk about not voting as an act of resistance, such is the nature of the position of privilege.  So I also see Smith’s point.

A summation of the two ideas:

1. Christian should not vote because voting itself is an act violence and domination which legitimatizes the authority and power of the Empire.
2. Christians should vote as a means of asserting equality and showing solidarity for those who haven’t always had the right.

I agree and disagree with both.  I’ll take them in order.  I can’t overstate how much I agree with resistance and subversion of the Empire.  Indeed, in my view, the authority and power of the Empire are blatantly illegitimate; thus it should be dismantled.  I also agree with the statement that voting is an act of violence and domination for two reasons.  First, it is the nature of our system — which I would argue is not a true democracy — there isn’t much difference between 51% and 49%.  The former is said to be the majority while the latter is completely disregarded.  That’s just how it works.  Second, and more compelling is that we live in violent society and a violent state.  Almost everything we do could be seen as an act of violence and construed as a legitimization of the Empire. The issue of voting just happens to be especially visible.

While I agree that voting itself is an act of violence and domination, I disagree that it is compelling reason to abstain from voting altogether because of the second reason listed above.  As citizens of the Empire we can’t help but participate in it’s acts of violence — that is our reality.  The best that we can do is choose our battles wisely and decide what action brings about the most justice because any action, until the Empire is dismantled, is an action of violence.

On to number two and Smith’s point.  I wholly agree with asserting the equality of previously deprived groups and standing in solidarity with those who are and once were oppressed.  Voting, as Smith shows, can be seen as such as an act.  My only concern is that by doing so one is still legitimizing the power and authority of the Empire; that is one is still allowing the Empire to call the shots, one still playing by its rules. But then again it is just voting after all.

Which brings me to my final and most important note.  It concerns me to see both voting activists and nonvoting resisters devoting so much time to one act (voting) that take place, on a national scale at least, every four years.  Such an act as voting is not likely to change much either way and I find it somewhat myopic to reduce political action to the simple issue of voting.  Perhaps we should agree to disagree on this one issue, maintain the healthy dialectical tension, and then sit our eyes to bigger and better things that just mere voting.  It seems to me that our political action shouldn’t be defined my voting only.  Rather, it should amount to the daily acts of imperial resistance and subversion we participate in for the pursuit of justice.

I will vote in November, but not with any false notions of messianic hope or assumptions that my act of voting defines my political activism and my participation in God’s kingdom.

It’s healthy to see persons like David Fitch and Anthony Smith having a healthy conversation about voting.  They should continue to do so.  But even more important visible persons like themselves should be conversing and conspiring, broadening their horizons beyond an issue that occurs only every four years, and participating in daily acts of imperial resistance and kingdom participation.  I believe is a disservice to reduce Christian political action to elections alone and frankly, some of the noise coming from emergent circles surrounding the upcoming election concerns me.  It’s my hope that political activism and the pursuit of justice will continue after John McCain or Barack Obama becomes head of the Empire.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Evangelicals Planning Useless Political Upheaval…