Time for a Change

Politics and Jesus-following make strange bedfellows. Earlier in my life I believed that Christians had a responsibility to bring about change via their elected officials. Then, I went through a stretch where I didn't vote at all, feeling that it was something that had no relevance to the world I wanted to see. I'm back in the voting booth, but for different reasons.

As a Follower of Jesus I no longer look to our elected officials to bring about change. This movement is about transformation, first of the individual, then of the community. The change we want to see, the steering into the Kingdom, is going to come from the bottom-up, not top-down. From individuals strengthened by the Spirit to endeavor to live out the teachings of Jesus. All this is not to say that I am not engaged politically, at least to a small degree. Fighting against systems of injustice requires engagement with those systems, at the very least to stand in opposition to them. In a nutshell, I'm looking for the politicians to "not make things worse" while those of us with a vision of the Kingdom, within ourselves and within our world, figure out what to do with that.

All that being said, there are still two things that will get my attention when we're talking politics. They're the same two things that get me excited about Jesus-following too: Hope and change.

I've said many times that I am not optimistic, but I am very hopeful. I'm also a supporter of that old saw about doing the same things and expecting different results.

For these and other reasons, we here at Waving or Drowning are prepared to endorse Barack Obama for President of the United States. That's right folks, you heard it here first. A nondescript little Canadian blog is throwing it's hat in the ring, aware of the turmoil this will undoubtedly cause throughout America-Land.

But in all seriousness... Listening to Senator Obama speak in Ebenezer Baptist Church the day before Martin Luther King, Jr. Day helped push us over the edge. People want change. People need an outlet for hope.

Then, in a beautifully written piece evoking memories of a better time, Caroline Kennedy (along with other members of the Kennedy clan) has thrown her support behind Obama. People want change.

I've written here about my new found respect for Bill Clinton; clearly he has done his best work since leaving office. It saddens me to see how, in support of his wife's candidacy, he has resorted to political business as usual.

This brings us to the final motivator for our support of Obama, which comes from a fellow blogger and friend Will Samson. Will is someone whose political insights I respect hugely. Like me, he too has a "previous life", but his is a political one. Will is suffering from Clinton Fatigue, and you can read his reflections here.

Let's be clear. As Followers of Jesus we do not rely on our elected officials to do what we should be doing ourselves. Governments cannot love our neighbours, but they can help to create an environment which helps us to do that. I believe that Barack Obama best represents that possibility.

People want change. People want possibility. People want hope--no, they have hope-- and they need an outlet for that hope.

Comments

[Rick]

I hope Tim doesn't mind but I'm posting his words left at my place here about the Obama Phenomena:

To tell you the truth, Rick, I'm not altogether sure that (if I was a citizen of the US) I would vote for Obama. I agree with everything people have said about his ability to inspire, and as a person who leans to the left politically, I obviously don't have the disagreements you have with his political views, but I take your point about his lack of experience.

Part of the problem, I think, is that we all seem to want our political leaders to be the Messiah. We keep hoping that this one will be different - that this one will turn out not to have the feet of clay the others had. Truth be told, I keep thinking about a verse from the psalms (I know it in the Coverdale version from the 1662 English Prayer Book): 'O put not your trust in princes, nor in any child of man: for there is no help in them' (Ps. 146:3).

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying voting is either wrong or a waste of time. I just think it's not wise to hope for too much, from either side of the political spectrum.

Amen. And amen.

[Mike]

I hear you Rick, but check my words again.

As Followers of Jesus we shouldn't be betting the farm on politicians or politics. Yet, I think we should be voting for the one who will do the least harm, and who may allow us room to do what we are called to bet the farm on - loving our neighbour.

Experience?! Look where experience has got you. Experience has failed your country and your government, and experience is crushing the poor.

Time for a change.

[Steve K.]

Time for a change, indeed. That's why I've been supporting Barack Obama, and I'm glad that everyone at Waving or Drowning is joining in the cause! ;-)

Seriously, my faith is not in Barack Obama. My faith is not in politics. My faith is in God, and my faith compels me to care about my world and how to affect my world for the good of others and for God's glory. That's why I support Barack Obama -- because he is the candidate that I believe can do the most good for the U.S.

I sympathize with everyone who wants to temper all the excitement about Obama and to put a damper on it, saying "Let's not get our hopes up too high." I totally sympathize, and that may be wisdom speaking there. But I think it'd be foolish to think we should stop hoping for our elected officials to be able to accomplish a great deal of good for people. We need to keep having high standards and seek the best, not settle for the worst (or the "lesser of two evils").

Maybe I'm just completely drunk on the Kool-Aid, but I do have hope that Barack Obama could be a leader for the U.S. for such a time as this. That's "biblical," right? I still believe God is involved in deciding who leads nations. And the positive, hope-filled message of Obama's campaign has given me some hope that God could still work through politics to bring about change in our country. So here's hopin' ...

[Rick]

Mike... failure?

In what way? Please, be specific...

[Rick]

Mike... crushing the poor?

In what way? Please be specific...

[Mike]

Rick - I don't think I can help you, given that I suspect we have a different definition of "failure."

From where I'm sitting:

+ Iraq is a failure

+ Paying for Iraq by leveraging your children's future is a failure

+ The ridiculous numbers of your fellow citizens with no health insurance is a failure

+ The ridiculous numbers of your fellow citizens living under the poverty line is a failure

+ Trickle-down economics is a failure (see point above)

+ Capitalism gone amok (i.e. Enron, the sub-prime fiasco, etc.) is a failure

+ Your energy policy is a failure

Now don't think I don't know this is the pot calling the kettle black. If you don't want Obama, send him our way.

[Trisha]

I love this sentence..."Governments cannot love our neighbours, but they can help to create an environment which helps us to do that."
A government should not take away the responsibility followers of Jesus hold, even if they have a "program" or a "solution".
Followers of Jesus still have a responsibility to their actions, words, and deeds. And hopefully their reactions to that responsibility is showing love in huge ways.

[Pete]

I like to paint pictures in my mind to describe some thoughts. In terms of western politics , it's like a pendulum. However, the politics of the day means that the pendulum doesn't swing too far one way or the other.

Nobody wants to rock the boat too much.

It's time to move that pendulum a bit more than usual. I can't see any other candidate on either side is likely to shake things up. In fact, I question whether Mr. Obama will either. But Obama is the most likely candidate to consider serious change.

Besides, he is intelligent and articulate. We haven't see that from a president in the last 7 years.

[Rick]

Pete... Bush ran against Al Gore and John Kerry and their academic records (and subsequent actions) suggest to me that neither of them are what anyone with an iota of critical thought would call articulate and intelligent... not even close man.

There's no sense Mike in my bringing up points that counter your own... for two reasons... you're a fundamentalist when it comes to Bush... Period. And it wouldn't matter what I had to say to counter your points.

On my blog I've articulated where it is that I think Bush has messed up, numerous times and though I've been up front about where my thinking is sourced, I can't see that you are... what are your sources for these opinions? Where do you get your information? Are those sources objective or do they carry the opposition party's water in any way? What can you cite to those of us interested that would buttress your opinions (besides the New York Times or Jim Wallis)... especially on the notion that Iraq is a failure (you are aware of the historical comparisons to other 'modern' wars aren't you... and if so, can I safely assume that you think WWII was also a failure?). And the notion that the poor in America are being crushed... can you cite your sources for this? Can you define crushed? And can you help us understand why this is Bush's fault... alone? What have the Democrats done specifically for the poor since they've assumed power in 2006? What have people like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, who are co-ideologues in every way with most who hang here at WorD, what have they done for the poor? In fact, what's on the docket (since the answer is that they haven't done a damned thing in the nearly 15 months they've been in power) that will change anything for the poor?

Finally Mike... you cite Will... my understanding is that you folks champion the notion of doing things locally... it's all about the community... and if we're taking care of things at the community level then we're, minimally, doing what we ought to be doing... it's something I can agree with...

But.

Who is it that you think line the power structures of most local, especially urban, communities in America where many (arguably) of the poor reside?

The answer is simple... liberals... like yourself... look at New Orleans Mike and tell me that Bush alone was responsible for that debacle? Who ruled the land locally?

Liberals.

People like who?

Like Obama... same policies... same mindset...

No. Real. Change.

But here's where I'll say this... I'm not crazy, in the least, with the field of Republicans... in the least... and because of that, only because of that, could I understand voting for Obama...

Only because of that.

[Brian in BC]

I find Obama to be a rather charismatic individual and I can understand why he has broad appeal. I don't really see him as a real "change". The only person running on a real platform of radical change to the status quo is Ron Paul. Whether or not you agree with any of his policies, opinions or the legions of oftentimes (to borrow a phrase from Rick) "moonbat" followers, you have to admit in any discussion of candidates who offer an opportunity for doing things very differently that he's pretty much got that covered. I think his Achillies heel is some of his questionable choices in associates over the years but I don't see anyone else even close in the "let's do things differently" department...the rest frankly are all like shopping for white paint at Home Depot...1000 versions of something we all agree is just a slight shade different, regardless of the exotic name it's given.

[Mike]

Good comment Brian... I just don't know what to say in response.

Rick, I've been musing over your well thought out comments, and it suddenly clicked for me. You've raised some good political points. But I'm not talking about politics. I'm talking about following Jesus. Keep in mind what I said earlier; I'm not looking for a saviour (already got one.) I'm looking to facilitate following Jesus, and more specifically loving my neighbour.

I know, I know, we've talked about this label thing, and I know you're not buying it. That's where we hopefully shake hands and agree to disagree.

Anyway, I appreciate the comments.

[Tim]

Rick, I'm not at all averse to being quoted in this context, and to be honest, I don't think anything I said in that comment on BH disagrees with the first point Mike was making - about not expecting too much from politicians. Mike, I like your point about change coming from the bottom up. This is something John Howard Yoder had a lot to say about - Jesus refused to be a ruler and judge over people, but instead took the way of the Servant King. He would say that it is time the church realised that our first responsibility is not to manage the society around us, but to be faithful followers of Jesus in the context of that society.

I used to subscribe to 'Christianity Today', but I gave it up because I got tired of the magazine's obsession with politics during US election years. "Is So-and-So God's man for the White House?" I somehow can't imagine St. Paul asking such a question!