God and the Election

“God is not a Republican. Or a Democrat.” This is a “catch phrase” that Jim Wallis and the Sojourner community have been using for many years. And certainly it is a correct assessment of the political situation in the U.S.

But does God not care what policies the parties and their representatives promote? Is one party as good as the other in God’s eyes? And does it make no difference who Christians, or other people of faith, vote for?

Just before the election, some Christians were saying, “God is sovereign; no matter the outcome of the election, God is in control.” That, too, is doubtlessly true. But does that mean it makes no difference who (or which party) wins the elections—or that God causes the candidates/party God wishes to be in office to be victorious?

In his concession speech, Todd Akin, the beleaguered Senate candidate from Missouri, declared that “it’s particularly appropriate to thank God. He makes no mistakes and . . . is much wiser than we are. So I say, to God alone be the honor and the glory regardless of how He decides to organize history.”

Since Mr. Akin is a Calvinist, we can understand how he might think that the elections turned out in accordance with God’s sovereign will. But probably most of us who are not Calvinists are more likely to believe that the election results had far more to do with the free choice of the people who voted than by the sovereign “manipulation” of God.

(It is also quite likely that Mr. Akin lost his Senate race because of strongly negative voter reaction to his beliefs and statements rather than because of God causing his defeat.)

“Neither party is going to bring in the Kingdom of God,” someone wrote just before the election. I am sure that that also is an accurate statement. Any and all talk of human effort “bringing in” or “realizing” the Kingdom of God is erroneous.

And yet, Jesus surely meant it when he told his followers to pray, “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” The Kingdom of God is not just about a glorious future beyond human history. It is about God’s will being done, however incompletely or inadequately, in the here and now.

Thus, I have serious questions about a statement posted recently on an Anabaptist blog: “Neither party is nearer the Kingdom of [God] than the other.”

Since there is considerable difference between the party platforms, though, isn’t one is more nearly in keeping with what God wants (the “dream of God”) than the other?

In my judgment, which may or may not be accurate, I believe that the current Democratic platform better represents Kingdom values. So I voted for the Democrats on the national ticket not because they were Democrats, but because I believe their policies are more consistent with my understanding of the Kingdom of God.

Just one example: In the Kingdom of God surely the health needs of all persons will be taken care of. Even though there are some problems with it, I believe that what has derisively been dubbed “Obamacare” is a move in the right direction. Mr. Romney said he would repeal Obamacare his first day in office (which, of course, he couldn’t have done).

Although it is just one of many I could give, this is an example of how for me, and no doubt for many others, God (and God’s Kingdom) was related to the November 6 election.

How to Vote on November 6

Tomorrow is an exceedingly important election day. Because of absentee and early voting possibilities, some of you may have already voted. But I assume most of you, like me, will be voting sometime tomorrow. So I am writing this to make some suggestions about how to vote. (Note: this is different from telling you who to vote for—although I could do that, too, if you want me to!)

Here are some suggestions to consider:

(1) Vote on the basis of the political position of the candidates. I once thought that consideration of the personal qualities of a candidate was the most important factor and that one should always vote for who they thought was the best person. But I now consider that way of thinking to be misguided.

It is a candidate’s, and his or her party’s, policies that are of most importance. That may not be the case in county elections, and maybe not even for some state elections. But it is certainly true, I think, in national elections.

For a long time now I have said that the personal life of public officials is nobody’s business. Rather, it’s a politician’s official policies and decisions that are of greatest importance. For example, I am happy that former President George W. Bush is a faithful husband and doesn’t cheat on Laura. But his personal morality is of little concern in comparison with, say, his wrongheaded decision to launch a preemptive war on Iraq—a decision that cost the lives of many U.S. servicemen/women and of many, many Iraqi soldiers and even more civilians.

    (2) Vote with full consideration of the totality of a candidate’s (and his/her party’s) political positions, not just his or her stance on one or two issues. People should vote on the basis of their cherished values, of course. And those of us who are Christians should vote on the basis of our Christian convictions. But we should consider a wide range of values/convictions and not just focus on a few, high-profile issues.

The Value Voter Summit, for example, is heavily skewed toward opposing abortion and same-sex marriage. But not only are there other understandings of those issues, universal healthcare, programs providing necessities for those locked in poverty, opposition to a view of American exceptionalism that tends towards military conflict, etc. are much more important values to consider.

    (3) Vote for one of the major party candidates for President (and for the U.S. Congress). Neither might be “best,” but one is certainly going to win. And surely one is better than the other. You might as well vote for the better of the two, for no “best” third-party candidate is going to win the election (at least this year).

Some people are tempted not to vote at all as a protest against not having better candidates. But  not voting doesn’t have any positive effects. Again, even if you don’t like either candidate, surely it is preferable to vote for the better one than not to vote at all.

    (4) Finally, vote with the recognition that the world as we know it will not end if “your” candidates or “your” party does not win the election. The matters you are most interested in may get worse because of the election—but a “course correction” is possible in two years and especially in four years. That’s one very good thing about democracy in the U.S.!

The End of the Mormon War

What is often called the Mormon War of 1838 began on August 6 of that year. (You can read about that in my August 5 posting.) That war ended soon after the “Haun’s Mill Massacre” that occurred 174 years ago today, on October 30, 1838.

In thinking about the Mormon War, the role of Alexander Doniphan (who is fondly remembered in this part of Missouri) is noteworthy. Doniphan, born in Kentucky in 1808, moved to Liberty and opened a law office in 1833.

Along with David Atchison, Doniphan served as a lawyer for the Mormons from the beginning of his practice in Clay County. He and Atchison, though, asked the Mormons to leave the county in order to avoid civil strife.

Subsequently, Doniphan was instrumental in organizing Caldwell County in 1836 as a place for the Mormons to live in peace. But he was also a brigadier-general in the Missouri state militia and was involved militarily in the Mormon War two years later.

On October 27, 1838, Governor Lilburn Boggs issued a statement to one of the generals in the state militia, declaring that the “Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary, for the public peace.”

Three days later, on that fateful October 30 afternoon, 240-250 Missouri militiamen descended upon Haun’s Mill, a settlement around a mill established in eastern Caldwell County in 1835–36 by Jacob Haun, an early Latter-day Saint settler.

By October 1838 around 50 Mormon families were living around Haun’s Mill, and in the massacre, there were 17 Mormons killed and several others injured. It is not clear whether the massacre was a direct result of the “execution order” issued by Governor Boggs three days earlier.

Soon after the Hauns’ Mill massacre, the Mormon headquarters in Far West surrendered, Joseph Smith and other leaders were arrested, and the Mormon War of 1838 came to an end.

Smith and several other Mormon leaders were court-martialed on November 1. Later that day Major-General Samuel Lucas, the commander of the Missouri militia, sent the following order to Brigadier-General Doniphan: “You will take Joseph Smith and the other prisoners into the public square of Far West and shoot them at 9 o’clock to-morrow morning.”

Doniphan refused to carry out that order. Subsequently, Smith and a few others were brought to a jail in Liberty, where they spent several weeks before escaping and fleeing to Illinois.

Now, 174 years later, a Mormon who has been a missionary and a “pastor” for ten years, is running for President of the United States. He may, or may not, win that election. But it is most likely that he will garner Missouri’s ten electoral votes.

One hundred seventy-four years is a long time, but it is still remarkable that a presidential candidate who is a faithful member of a religion that was once literally run out of the state will probably receive a sizeable majority of the votes in that state.

As most of you know, or can guess, I will be voting to re-elect the current President. For many reasons, I will not and could not vote for Mr. Romney. But his being a Mormon is not one of those reasons.

Billy Graham and Biblical Values

Billy Graham, who according to the Gallup Organization was the seventh most admired person in twentieth century (by Americans), suddenly has become quite political. Earlier this month, Mitt Romney went to visit him and they prayed together—which certainly was not something unusual: Graham has known and prayed with every President from Harry Truman to Barack Obama.

After his prayer with Romney, though, Billy is quoted as saying to Mitt, “I will do anything I can to help you.”

A few days later, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA) changed a website article, removing the reference to Mormonism as a cult. The website previously read, “A cult is any group which teaches doctrines or beliefs that deviate from the biblical message of the Christian faith.” It went on to state, “Some of these groups are Jehovah’s Witnesess, Mormons, the Unification Church, Unitarians, Spritualists, Scientologists, and others.”

It may well be a good thing that the BGEA no longer considers Mormonism a cult. But the timing is certainly interesting: they made that change just a very few weeks before the election in which one of the candidates is a Mormon.

Then last week in the Wall Street Journal and other newspapers, the BGEA placed a full-page ad that was an implicit endorsement of the Romney-Ryan ticket. The ad states:

The legacy we leave behind for our children, grandchildren and this great nation is crucial. As I approach my 94th birthday, I realize this election could be my last. I believe it is vitally important that we cast our ballots for candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel. I urge you to vote for those who protect the sanctity of life and support the biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman. Vote for biblical values this November 6, and pray with me that America will remain one nation under God.

But what are biblical values? The same Bible (Old Testament) that is used (by some) to condemn gays (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13) also seems to accept or even to approve of polygamy (such as in the case of Jacob, for example). It is questionable to use the first to tout “biblical values” but disregard the many examples of the latter.

Or why are the two cited verses from Leviticus used to support a biblical value but the following verses are not? “Do not take interest or any profit from them, but fear your God, so that your poor neighbors may continue to live among you. You must not lend them money at interest or sell them food at a profit” (Leviticus 25:36-37).

Sanctity of life, I would agree, is certainly a biblical value. But as I explained in my October 15 posting, abortion done under the right conditions in the first trimester is not the “taking of life.”

Loving one’s neighbor as oneself, however, is unquestionably a biblical value if we take the teaching of Jesus seriously at all. Thus, by implication, such love would surely include such things as providing universal health care coverage and helping to provide for the needs of the poor as well as opposing the exploitation of the poor by the rich.

Sojourners has produced a very good voters’ guide (available at this link), one that includes many more vital biblical values than the narrow, and questionable, version offered by Billy Graham.