A long time ago — before I had kids — I heard someone speak about legitimate double-standards. The point in his context was that in parenting there will be legitimate double-standards–rules that apply to some people, but not others. Older children may have a later bedtime than their younger siblings. Parents may be able to drink and eat certain things that they don’t want the kids to eat (an extra candy bar or soda, for example). For some reason that idea has stuck with me all these years and I think about that often when I find situations that on the surface seem unfair. Maybe there is a legitimate double-standard hiding just below the waterline.
This election season I have found myself fighting against this self imposed double-standard. The reason I am fighting it is because I am not so sure that it is a legitimate double-standard. I continue to be on record that I am one of those who despises many things about the current American political scene. I don’t like all the political advertisements. I don’t like the tendency we have to trust a view of leadership that is built on a corrupted nature of rule. I don’t like that the predictive role of the media is (it seems to me) more powerful than the vote of the people. And I don’t like that in our two party system we focus on the 10% of things that divide us and polarize people into conflicting groups. So I will be glad when November 5th is here and the election is over.
But one of the things I am noticing is that when I hear the political TV or radio shows (when I am looking for a sports channel) or read things on political blogs or in the newspaper it does not bother me as much as when I hear pastoral stewards in the Christian church campaign for a candidate. There are some pastoral stewards who seem to be spending a large amount of their resources evangelizing for one candidate or the other. For some reason this is like fingernails on a chalkboard, chewing on frozen tin foil, or shaving my head with a cheese grater. It rubs me the wrong way. Maybe this is not a legitimate double-standard but it seems to me that pastoral stewards should not be putting their hope on a political candidate.
No doubt, I am reading more into these pastoral endorsements than I should but I still find it puzzling. And while I am one of those who chooses not to vote for people running for political offices, I am not trying to persuade others to join that camp. It just seems to me that as pastoral stewards we should be campaigning for the politics and economics of Jesus. Now I realize that there are strong cases to be made that one candidate is more in line with this than the opponent but that argument cuts both ways. Who will adjudicate between these competing claims? I hear people ask How Would Jesus Vote? and I don’t know that he would. If his kingdom is not of this world than why spend so much time determining which kingdom of this world lines up the most with his? The sacred texts seem to tell a narrative of people being faithful to the way of the Kingdom regardless of who was the head of state. It seems to me that it does not matter if you live in a monarchy, a democracy, are republic, a dictatorship, or complete anarchy. As followers of Christ we still need to live lives of faithfulness, forgiving, loving our neighbors, praying for our enemies, giving to those who have needs, etc… So arguing for one candidate over another seems like an inefficient use of our resources. It seems to me that we (American Christians) should have more in common with our sisters and brothers around the world. I don’t think the underground and persecuted church outside this country loses sleep over who will be our next president and I don’t think we should either.
Rebel
Having said all that, I do have to say one last thing that contradicts most of what I just said. I think, that if we were not in such a two party stranglehold this process in our country would be a lot healthier all around. I cannot help but think that if Ralph Nader, or another minor party candidate or two were allowed to participate in the debates, at a minimum, that we I would see things in a more positive light. For those looking to vote for the “lesser of two evils” I suggest that we don’t need Mavericks or Hope or Change. What we may need is a Rebel.
Three Way Presidential Debate: Obama, McCain, Nader:
