Skip to main content

Vote! Or don't...

It's that time of year again!  It's time for us law-abiding citizens to get to the polls and vote!  Some would call this a privilege, while others would insist that it's a right.  True 'muricans, however, remind you that it is your duty.

Voting has rarely been as controversial in the good ol' United States of America as it is today, at least as far as the nature of that controversy goes.  Back in the day people fought over who was allowed to vote.  Was it only the landowners, the ruling class elite?  Should both men and women be allowed to cast their vote into the ballot box?  What about people whose skin is darker than your average Caucasian, and, if so, exactly how much melanin is too much before we assume you're not intellectual enough to vote?  Yeah, that was the kind of stuff we fought over for a long time.

Not our proudest moment.

Regardless, people wanted to vote and they fought for that right.  We're all about taxation with representation here in the U.S.A., and that means that the common man should be allowed to decide which rich guy taxes the heck out of him.

And they call me a cynic...

Today's voting controversy is a little bit different.  Now the "patriots" are trying to convince people that voting is a worthwhile way to spend an hour (hey, as long as there's WiFi in the building, I'm cool with standing in line).  Boomers are trying to convince the X'ers, Y'ers, Millennials, and [fill in the blank with your stereotypical generational moniker] that, despite 100 years of evidence to the contrary, voting actually accomplishes something.  The Boomers' kids, distracted by hedonistic pursuits, don't have the time or the will to vote.  Their kids, the dreaded Millennials, consider themselves woke as heck--politically inclined but disillusioned.  Having become disenchanted by the absurd futility of the American political process, they have disenfranchised themselves.  The funny thing is that, as this last election demonstrated, it was the Millennials not getting out and voting that really changed things, an ironic twist on the Boomers' belief in the power of voting.

So, what about Christians?  Should we vote?  Should we exercise this God-given right to pick between the elephant and the donkey?  Some would insist that you simply must.  How could you not capitalize on your right to vote when your forefathers gave their blood, sweat, and tears to procure it?  God himself ordained your birth into this noble Republic!  Vote, infidel!  Some would even go so far as to say that not voting is a sin.  Others, you see, approach it from a bit of a different angle.  Voting, to them, is fighting spiritual battles with carnal weapons.  We should concern ourselves with evangelism and do-gooding, and not with who occupies the oval office.  Voting is worldly, even sinful, they claim.  So who's right?

Both.

And neither.

If you want to vote, then do it.  There is nothing wrong with it.  If you want to use every legal means within your grasp to work for change in your community, state, country, etc., then go ahead.  Do it.

If you don't want to vote, then don't.  If you're of the opinion that your vote probably won't affect the direction the bourgeoisie is taking this country, then don't cast it.  That's okay, too.  If you think it's carnal, then don't do it.

If it is my right to vote, then it is also my right to abstain from voting.  Can't we all just get along?!  It's actually sort of weird when people try to convince people with whom they disagree to vote.  It's like your trying to stir up the opposing army.  It's counterproductive.

Personally, I usually get my voting on.  It's a relatively quick and painless process and, while I'm confident that my vote will never help decide who becomes the PoTUS, I do believe that it might have an effect at the local level (local officials, tax levies, state issues, etc.).

So, come next Tuesday, get out and vote!  Or don't...


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...