Kingdom Grace blogged a provocative post on God’s Will and Election on October 27th. You need to read the post AND the comments it’s sparked. They supply a most intriguing look at the larger issues that go far beyond candidates and parties, to deep theological issues of God’s Election, Predestination, and Will, and also how we engage with culture. As a futurist who is a Christian, these are all very very pertinent issues, and perhaps you’ll find my perspectives of interest. I’ve reposted grace’s short entry, and my comment in full below, with an add-on at the end to round out its poetic nature.
Kingdom Grace’s Post on “God’s Will and Election”
A.
“It is God who sets and removes the rulers of nations. We vote in obedience to His direction and then trust that the person chosen to lead the country is His plan for us.”
B.
“It is up to believers to discern which candidate best represents godly and righteous values and to pray and act accordingly. God’s will for our nation can be hindered by our failure to act.”
Which of these statements most accurately represents you? Any related thoughts?
My Comment (#40 – A Number of Biblical Proportions)
And we just talked earlier today about those who come late to a stream of commentary already in progress … Do I have anything to add? And then, oh yikes, grace! You throw in another question and I’m still working on the first!
Let me give the initial question a try … and ooh! Who knows … maybe it will partially answer the second question too, about who is to blame if the “wrong” guy wins.
Umm … is it okay to be neither/nor instead of either/or or both/and?
A. “It is God who sets and removes the rulers of nations. We vote in obedience to His direction and then trust that the person chosen to lead the country is His plan for us.”
Well, to me that sounds partially good, as long as we recognize “the person chosen to lead the country is His plan FOR us,” which does not necessarily mean that the person will lead us IN His plan. And then what do we do …? Isolation? Activism? Civil disobedience? Not sure Answer A prepares us for the follow-up questions.
B. “It is up to believers to discern which candidate best represents godly and righteous values and to pray and act accordingly. God’s will for our nation can be hindered by our failure to act.”
Well, to me that sounds partially good at first, but then it’s hard for me to fully be a B, when I see complexity. And I have difficulty with reductionism when the party of the first part refuses to fuse some of the parts of the party of the second part, and vice versa and verse the vice. Both party’s platforms are in serious need of some paradigm patches and then a massive defragging, if we are to get beyond the modernist liberal-conservative split that offers us the same dichotomized directions politically as theologically.
My perspective’s a bit different, shaped by an intriguing mix of experiences. I started out my college studies in public administration, and thrived on keeping up with current events and getting involved in social activism. But I changed majors when I discovered I had a potentially fatal allergy to bureaucracy and red tape. In the 1980s, I conducted five years of extensive studies on religious persecution of Christians in the former Soviet Union and communist Eastern Bloc. So I’ve spent a lot of time contemplating the meanings of and responses to persecution. As a futurist, I deal in issues of possibility, plausibility, and preferability and how current events and underlying trends affect all those. As a futurist who follows Christ, above all, I seek to instill hope.
In both politics and theology, it seems to me that we find ourselves involved in a deep mystery. Through the Spirit’s leading and sustaining, we are “sub-creating” our futures with God in Christ’s Kingdom. So, instead of the A and B choices offered, I’d prefer to think of the dynamic tension as a more three-dimensional space that is carved out by these active vectors:
* Destiny without determinism.
* Providence without passivity.
* Fate without fatalism.
Together, these support a combination of expectancy, creativity, and responsibility. Our horizons are marked – to become more Christlike and to express that character socially as Kingdom culture. And our choices are real – there will be no need to blame, shame, or defame anyone for whomever wins at elections. They will not have “messed up” God’s sovereignty. And, I trust, all of these together add up to more than the sum of the parts and thereby yield hope.
Next week and thereafter, when we face up to whatever consequences may come from whichever candidates are elected, we can still perceive God in our midst. He will still never leave us or forsake us. He may still give us help at unexpected times and in unexpected ways. We can still walk within a redemptive and joyful future where we need not revel in flawed victory nor anguish in flawed defeat, but see all things as working together for opportunities to become more like Christ and to become Kingdom beacons for the sake of others. In all these still-nesses, we will find The Way forward …
A Poetic Add-On
On occasion, I write poetry and lyrics. In reflecting more about Kingdom Grace’s post, I was struck by this particular verse and chorus from a hymn I wrote in 2000 called “Holy Ground.” Regardless of the outcomes of next week’s elections, God has already revealed part of the ultimate outcomes for our futures:
Lord, when this earthly era’s done,
And You the universe refine,
Both New Heavens and New Earth emerge,
New holy ground for eternal time!
At the fullness of long days and nights
You will set all cosmic wrongs aright.
We rejoice, Your promise so profound
Will complete Your holy ground.
As a sojourner here for now, those are days I long for …
Note: This post really only deals with part of the story. As soon as I can I will post again with another facet of the issue – dealing with questions of good and evil.
