Some voting non-advice

If one thing's bound to wind me up, it's people of any political stripe trying to claim Jesus for their cause. I know plenty of earnest leftists - it's an occupational hazard of the eternal student - and I'm sick to the back teeth of the argument that goes, "We're nice to people, the right wingers aren't, so Jesus would be socialist." On the other side of the fence the American right's line goes something like, "We protect unborn babies and those lefties are rampant secularists, so Jesus would vote conservative." Through all this, the British right look confused and carry on going to church, just possibly aware that the CofE isn't theirs if it ever was, its 'Tory party at prayer' moniker being long ago replaced with 'Her majesty's alternative opposition'.

There's one main problem with claiming Jesus for your cause: Jesus didn't fit into neat categories 2000 years ago and he still doesn't today. A Jewish friend told me that Jesus was technically a pharisee, even though he got along infamously badly with the rest of the pharisee crowd (Pharisees were a religious grouping who could possibly be viewed as the evangelicals of their day, but who Jesus criticized for their addiction to laws). The title given to Jesus, "The Christ/Messiah*" was a political title given to the one who would deliver Israel from captivity and usher in a new age of God's justice, but as we know, his idea of "Christ" was very different to the idea held by anyone else - it involved his own death, the 'offence of the cross' and a widening of God's kingdom from Israel to the whole world.

It's easy to paint a picture of a left wing Jesus; Feeding the poor, siding with the oppressed, talking truth to power, forming a community of followers in Jerusalem who shared everything they had. Then again, painting a traditional right wing Jesus isn't so hard either: he stood by every smallest letter of the law (Matthew 5:18) and preached that you'll face judgement on your own, the state of your soul is your own individual responsibility. He upheld a strong view of marriage and had no problem telling people when they were in the wrong.** The one political statement from Jesus that I really can't fathom is his economic manifesto: "Give unto Caesar's what is Caesar's, and give unto God what is God's." (Matthew 22:21). I've never quite worked out what it meant. Ideas, anyone?

A few years back, Jim Wallis wrote the book God's Politics with the strapline, "Why the American Right Gets it Wrong and the Left doesn't Get it". He got a lot of things right. Jesus cares both about your own personal morality and also about the world, so neither the traditional leftist or rightist moralities are totally right, but they both contain an element of truth, and shouldn't be rubbished. We concentrate on one or other sphere because we're fallen, but Jesus cares about both. If we were perfect like he is, we wouldn't need to vote along party lines of Left or Right, we'd simply do what was right.

As a Christian, it's important that I put my politics under Jesus' authority, just like any other part of my life. That means that for my view on any particular issue, he gets the last say - my politics should be bound by my theology and should submit to what I feel is the will of God. However, as I hope I've illustrated, it can be difficult to know quite what Jesus' view of politics would be, since the will of God doesn't fall neatly along party lines. We know the long term goal of politics, a society where the wolf lies down with the lamb but the medium term vision can be all too unclear. What we can know for sure, however, is how we should behave politically in the here and now, where our ends should never justify our means and we should examine each little action we take by God's criteria:

And what does the Lord require of you, but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" (Micah 6:8)

*These titles are equivalent. The first comes from greek, the second from hebrew.
**Is this story the first example of compassionate conservatism? Jesus tells the woman she's in the wrong ("Go and sin no more") but unlike the other men, doesn't try to punish her for it.

Comments

Greg, I share your sentiments

Greg, I share your sentiments but would have a few questions to raise. You are absoutely correct in saying that Jesus does not fit into any (current) political categories, and that there are elements of NT teaching which can be seen as lending support to both the Right's ideas of personal responsibility and the Left's ideas on social justice. But what of the heart of Jesus' teaching about the relationship of the kingdom to his new 'community'? (I think particuarly of Matthew 16, the eucharistic dialogues, and the Holy Spirit in John 16, not to mention the embryonic church as presented in Luke-Acts and Paul's letters.) Doesn't the whole shape of Jesus ministry, in word and action, call Christians very specifically to a community grounded in sacramental grace - by baptism and eucharist? Jesus' free sharing of common meals with the poorest locates God primarily on the edge of culture, drawing human beings into a new centre (himself).

I think it makes more sense to talk about God shaping the priorities of a new communality than to reject wholesale the inevitable (and perhaps, necessary?) dichotomies of political engagement. It is unthinkable for Christians who take seriously an authentic reading of scripture and tradition to support political organisations which emphasise the priority of the individual as an end in itself. Since God both is and is communicated as Holy Trinity, we recognise that to be an individual in completeness is to know perfectly in love the other. Individuality, and the specific community known as the ecclesia are inexorably intertwined. I would not read Matthew 22:21 as a 'political manifesto' at all, I think that would essentially be an anachronistic confusion of the saying. Instead, it is an assertion that the final priorities of God and his kingdom are always at odds with human ends, something which is deeply linked with Jesus eschatalogical 'judgement sayings.' No project without God is ever complete, he says - give to the wealth of the world belongs to it and concentrate on me instead. And since we have in Jesus' new community a tangible witness to Him and his ways, led by the Paraclete (John 14) we can begin to listen to Christ and know if we belong to him (John 8:47).

We should not confuse Marxist theory for gospel truth. Nor should we find ourselves in the position where we claim our calling is ambiguous. Controversially, I would say that the indissoulibility of marriage, the re-orientation of God's community, and the eschaton of personal judgement are intertwined. But it is better for me to support the Labour party and Socialist movements, sometimes as a critical and subversive voice, because they essentially share my priority for value and meaning against a dull laissez-faire nihilism which so often, but not always, characterises the political Right.

This might be of interest too!

Great piece Greg. I agree

Great piece Greg. I agree with most of what you said but I feel that something additional should be said about Jesus supporting political engagement. I've met some people who have seen the fact that they can't reconcile Jesus with today's politics as an excuse to ignore politics. Even if it's not party political Jesus's message is deeply political, or at least how I read it is. It might not be easy to say Jesus would vote for this or vote for that but that doesn't mean that Jesus wouldn't vote or at least be out there campaigning for a better society.

For something that some might find interesting and roughly related:
Ten reasons Jesus might vote labour
Ten reasons he might not