Man-made solutions

Took me some time to finish this:

Inauguration Day. Or Golfing Day as mummy put it. He who shall not be named, is not showing up to hand over the reins, and perhaps that is for the best for all concerned. It is just incredible how much anger and division he has managed to stoke - but the more amazing thing for me is how many people voted for him, that is, thought he was fit to lead. Or to be more accurate, thought he was fit to continue to lead despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You could sort of excuse them the first time round - no one in their wildest imagination could have predicted how the past 4 years have turned out. But having lived through his presidency, they thought what?!

So many troubling questions...

Many people have gotten into arguments and debates over the political divide, including non-Americans which I understand better now. There was a time when like many others, I did not understand how people could see themselves supporting such a character. Why would you? How could you? Why does it matter so much to those who don't have much of a stake in the outcome?

First, some context. I think the main cause of the ills of the world has always been man's rebellion against God, against control. This is the paradox at the heart of our relationship with God. He gave us free will, to choose to believe (or not), to decide how to live our lives.  

Those who reject God want to believe that they can either overcome evil/sin, or embrace it totally in their own lust for power. By overcoming evil, I mean they believe that they can fashion some kind of system or structure e.g. democracy, that will defeat man's worst instincts like selfishness and greed. This is founded on the belief that most people are rational and good and will act according to their best interests and that the sum of all such individual interests will result in the greater good. Including the belief that those we elect will act in our best interests. And that there are enough checks and balances that can be built in to prevent corruption, abuse of power etc. Or something like that. 

There is a long debate or discussion to be had about this (maybe some other time) but suffice to say for now, democracy is what got Trump elected - and contrary to what the liberal media is crowing now, Biden's election/inauguration is not about democracy 'winning'. He won an election that's all.  Democracy does not win just because your guy got elected. In fact you could make a case that democracy didn't do too well in a system that allowed Trump to peddle his lies and mislead millions of people, or if you prefer, said what they wanted to hear.

Which brings us to the more troubling group.

Those who believe in God still have to decide how to reconcile their faith with how to live in a broken world. Some find themselves torn between imperfect choices in most cases - but that feeling is not a bad thing because it means they understand the problem rather than over-simplifying things. Some choose to ignore integrity issues of the party/candidates because they think it is better to vote for someone who professes the same faith or appears to support the values we must uphold.

In some cases, I think they have chosen the wrong perspective with which to view the issues.  The two most distinctive are of course the LGBT and abortion (or pro-life) issues. To reduce the complex decision of how to vote down to a single issue is firstly, probably overly simplistic. I joked with someone that some people might support Hitler today if he was pro-life. 

Secondly, there is a big difference between being forced to make choices incompatible with our faith, and allowing choice to be made by all. The key for Christians is freedom to practice our faith and about loving everyone - if we seek to impose our values on all, how are we different from those religions that want their religious laws to replace secular laws? If we seek to establish God's kingdom on earth through our own efforts, we will obviously fail but will also show our intolerance that will not glorify God.

None of this is to say we support these issues (like LGBT and abortion), but only that we should not confuse how we should live our own lives versus what kind of leader/government we should choose and the type of society we want to live in.  None of the those issues are about forcing believers to do something against their faith. And voting for the better candidate (however you define it) who happens to endorse freedom of choice which overall makes for a more tolerant society isn't wrong in my view.

And this is the real question. All politicians, whether they are believers or not, have to find a way, a perspective to balance these competing tensions. Many other Christians, also find themselves in jobs or positions where they have to contend with such issues. My take on why some believers argue so strongly about some of these issues in the political arena is because of sin.

It is about pride, arrogance and self-righteousness in most cases.  If they truly understand what Christ wants us to do, and examine our hearts, and find that love is not the driving motivation behind their thoughts and actions on a particular issue, the most common cause or reason is that they want to become Pharisees.  They want to show that they are more righteous because they are fighting for the cause, to defend the faith which is under attack.  Most of the time, it is not our faith that is under attack but people want to believe it is because it fits with what they want to do, which is express outrage.

Outrage is the defining characteristic of the world today. Woke culture, cancel culture are all products of anger and pride, especially when people reject God and seek meaning and identity in other things.  And if we answer that rage and anger with our own, we have not followed in Jesus' steps or obeyed his commandment.  And for believers, some will justify their outrage by saying that Jesus also spoke out very strongly at some points in His life, and so for them, love is not the key message.

That is selective interpretation, and a dead giveaway when discussing issues with believers who have extreme views.  So they pick and choose according to what they want to justify.  And they will even reject the commandment about love simply because it does not fit in with what they choose to believe. I think the starting point is key.

I think these two biblical references are most relevant and helpful.

Mark 12:13-17 Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

Romans 13:1-7 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities,

What do these verses tell us? That we should obey the law and be good citizens. They don't tell us to rebel because some parts of the law aren't to our liking. This isn't to say we should not call out injustice where we find it, but to do so lawfully. In my view, the key message for us is the acceptance/belief that we are all hopeless sinners and Jesus is our only path to salvation.  And so Jesus lays out the path for us very simply because He knows there is no other way. Try as we might, we cannot eradicate sin on our own. And so He tells us to love Him above all else, and to love others. He never told us to fight His battles for Him on earth - the Jews made that mistake at first because they thought He was a political Messiah. 

In my view, the politicisation of faith by the American brand of democracy (or syncretism - blending of various beliefs into one) makes the same mistake (possibly willingly) And it has affected believers everywhere. The history of Christianity over the ages has many instances in which it becomes a powerful political force, either co-opted by those politicians or power brokers who understand how to manipulate it, as well as when the church leadership sought power for itself. Other people have said all this better, especially in a link I shared recently. Here it is again, if you didn't read the article. 

https://ponderingprinciples.com/2021/01/23/meditating-on-the-meditation/

Why does all this matter?  Or does it?

It matters not because as some people believe, that we must do everything we can to convince others to come round to our view, and that the world will be a better place because of this. But today, it doesn't work. Today, people find their positions very quickly and dig in. The assumption here is that you are right, and others are wrong (likewise on the other side); and increasingly, the assumption is also that you have the insight and wisdom, and the other does not. Everything is black or white, with no room for disagreement and compromise. Thus the debate becomes more personal, more divisive, with less and less room for civility.  And if that is the result, people stop listening and make up their own minds based on feelings and sentiment, instead of reasoned arguments. So in my view, the idea that good ideas will prevail ultimately, is losing credibility because the arguments almost don't matter anymore in the age of conspiracy theories.

But for those of us who want to walk on the right path, it is important to find the truth for ourselves - not to convince others so that we form the majority. That may never happen, and in fact it does not happen for many believers in many parts of the world. That is not our goal. We seek the truth so that we are not personally misled. It sounds almost too simplistic doesn't it?  Well the book of Revelation (and other books especially in the OT) tells us different.  Even when there is a great deal of evidence staring you in the face, people may still choose to believe otherwise and turn away from God, from what is good.

Which brings me back to the point made at the beginning about why so many supported Trump and why. We also need to seek understanding. Surely not all of his millions of supporters are totally blind to his faults, or are gun-toting rednecks - though the media does its part to play up that idea. Good for the ratings of course. We need discernment. Trump may be gone (hopefully) but he wasn't the architect of the divisions in society - he only knew how to tap into them better than anyone else.