A friend of mine is in the unenviable position of assessing potential candidates for a pastoral position at an evangelical church. One of the possibilities is a keen political thinker capable, so it seems, of critical analysis of American politics. In fact he wrote an article in which he comparared the positions of two self-avowed evangelicals: Chuck Colson, a staunch Republican at least since Nixon, and Jim Wallis, more or less a Democract (although to be sure, both of them are more or less able to think for themselves now and then). Wherein he wondered aloud whether or not American evangelicals could ever come to the point where they could recognize that similar fundamental theological convictions could lead them to different political conclusions. But all this is prologue to the really interesting matter he raises.
And that is this. Apparently Mark Noll, distinguished historian of American religious history at Notre Dame, himself an evangelical, publically announced four years ago that he would vote for neither Bush nor Kerry. His logic? Quite simple: one is pro-life but not pro-poor; the other is pro-poor, but pro-abortion.
Now this got me to thinking. What if Christians all did what Noll did? Colson upbraids him for political 'disengagement,' but might not this actually have immense potential for Christian political witness?
Granted to simply say that one is pro this or pro that is to over-simplify complex and difficult political and economic questions. But were it also granted that neither candidate were ideal, precisely because each candidate holds at least one position that is contrary to the Christian faith, might there not be something to Noll's position?
As it is, 'evangelicals' are by and large fastly bound to the Republican party; while those Christians, evangelical or no, who decide to vote Democrat openly acknowledge their hesitations in doing so, usually principally over the question of abortion. There is no indication that any impending sea-change in the political landscape is on the horizon. The status quo will abide; and yet, it seems equally clear that Americans generally, and many American Christians in particular, are dissatisfied with the present situation. (Surely this is why each major election ends in near 50-50 indecision, even while political affiliation dies and more and more individuals cast themselves 'independent.') What if, somehow or another, Christians could boycott the political system - better, 'go on strike' - and in effect force a shift in the entire situation?
I think it would at least be more interesting than our current possibilities. How could this practically come to fruition?
For starters, evangelicals as such have to be written off. They are fragmented with no means of centralized action (apart from charismatic figures like that apolitical animal, Billy Graham, or that most political of family counselors, James Dobson) and, in general, find my (and other's) frustration with the politics of the present moment basically unintelligible. Which is to say, there is widespread (not always, but often) uncritical allegiance to the GOP - and in particular to self-avowed 'evangelical' politicians, as for example the current President, as instruments of God's will. And for these reasons political conversations with evangelical Republicans are often very boring: criticism is written off a priori, opposition is immediately met by accusations usually involving the issue of abortion or, in the present moment, suspicion of one's 'patriotism' related to criticisms of the 'war' on 'terror.' So basically, I can't imagine evangelicals being interested in my proposal - any who are interested are certainly more than welcome. But in any case, evangelicals represent a smaller portion of the electorate than the more likely candidate for my boycott. I refer, of course, to the Roman Catholic Church.
Whose social teachings place principled catholics in a difficult situation. On the one hand, there is no church with a clearer teaching on abortion. (In fact this morning we visited a Catholic Church, and during the prayers for the departed the priest included 'the victims of abortion'!) As Democratics tend to be pro-abortion, this would suggest that the 65 million or so Roman Catholics should vote Republican. The question of traditional views on marriage may also come into play here (although surely it is more ambiguous as a political issue). On the other hand, Pope John Paul the Great and Pope Benedict have declared that the war in Iraq does not meet the standards of a 'just war,' and in general their politics tend to suspect the 'democracy-as-the-kingdom-of-God' pretensions of the Bush administration. Furthermore, the social encyclicals since Rerum Novarum have sought a middle way between unfettered capitalism and marxism, for which reason on matters of economic policy many thoughtful catholics tend towards the Democratic party. Enter here also opposition to the death penalty, and matters 'environmental.' If the good Catholic adds up these policies, with the resolve to vote in an unequivocally 'catholic' manner, for which candidate does she end up voting?
In the present presidential election, the answer is: neither.
Now, the assumption which usually controls our political calculus, is that we must needs choose between imperfect options, 'live in the real world' with all its awful grey areas and whatnot, and just 'hold our nose' and pick one of two equally unpalatable candidates. But what if Roman Catholics followed the example of Mark Noll?
Let's imagine the Roman Catholic Bishops Conference is surfing the web, they see this blogpost and think it's a good idea. They agree on a common teaching with respect to the current political situation, to wit: it is a mortal sin for Roman Catholics to vote for or otherwise support any candidate who holds policy positions contrary to the social teaching of the Magisterium. They excommunicate all Roman Catholic politicians who act contrary to these teachings; and they warn their flocks that anyone who votes contrary to these teachings puts themselves in a position of mortal sin. Now here is the really tricky part: imagine, just imagine, that the Church actually does what the bishops tell them to do. Which means, practically speaking, that they do not vote for either McCain or Obama. They stay home. They boycott. They strike. They all go to Notre Dame, and light votive candles with Mark Noll. What happens?
Who knows? All of this seems pretty much impossible anyway. But at least it is a first step towards imagining a politics beyond the complacency of our current situation.
And here's the thing: stranger, more courageous and daring things have happened before. In the fourth century, St Ambrose, bishop of Milan, excommunicated the Roman Emperor for indiscriminately slaughtering 7,000 of his citizens. Did anyone imagine that Ambrose would have the guts to do that, before he did it? No. But it turns out, he did. And what did the Emperor do? He submitted to Ambrose, and did penance. End result: Ambrose, merely by the faithful exercise of his spiritual office, directly affected the very this-worldly politics of the Roman empire. Could not the same thing happen in our own empire?
If your answer to that question is 'no,' I would challenge you to ask yoursef whether yours is a truly 'christian politics.'
