Consent & Participation in Democracy & Theology - Brad Jersak

“Let the Process Play Out”?

In a recent podcast from the pollsters at FiveThirtyEight.com, Galen Druke asked Clare Malone (the senior politics writer) about the values and dangers of a “Let the process play out” stance on court challenges to the 2020 American election. Her response was telling:

“What Divided the Electorate in 2020,” Fivethirtyeight.com (11-16-2020)

Galen Druke: “They’ve said, ‘Let’s let the process play out. President Trump has the right to bring these legal challenges, etc.’ and in some ways giving credibility to these conspiracy theories surrounding voter fraud instead of saying ‘all the secretaries of state said that this an election that has been conducted with integrity, a secure election, etc.’ Are there any long-term problems for small-d democracy in the broader Republican apparatus not forcefully rebutting this?”   

Clare Malone

Clare Malone: “For sure. Even though we all know to read through the lines that ‘he should get security briefings’ means ‘we think he won the election,’ there’s a big difference between saying that and saying, ‘He won the election; let’s move on.’” It’s not a healthy sign, it’s not a good thing. This is not me saying American democracy is over, but it is me saying, “In order to stay healthy, you eat well and exercise.” This is people, like, smashing hamburgers and shooting heroin into their veins.”

Later in the podcast, Clare Malone goes on to describe the essential problem as the necessity of consent in a democratic social contract, which I’ll restate and expand on here:

Consent & Participation: Essential to Democracy  

Political Science Fact: Consent is an essential pillar of small-d democracy. Refusal of candidates to concede an election is not merely an exercise in bad sportsmanship. It breaks a central feature of the social contract—rule by consent. Yes, we must do everything possible to ensure fair and legal elections. But opting to battle election results in court, based on unfounded claims of voter fraud, is not consent. Even when the losing party loses the election a second time in court, the ‘consent fundamental’ has still been effectively removed and democracy is crippled. Without consent, elections become just another form of coercion and there’s nothing exceptional about that.

Further, without consent, the outcomes of the election move from the electorate to the courts. In the worst case, the courts may overrule the will (participation) of the people. And even in the best case, the decision to confirm or veto the will of the electorate is still relocated to the judiciary. Participation of the people is subordinated to decisions by the gavel. Surely that is not what the founders imagined.  

One American commentator said to me, “We’ve reached the point where more than half of Republicans are just about ready to say it out loud: ‘We don’t give a damn about democracy.” That’s to be expected when one’s primary aim and political platform is reduced to securing power (by admission). At the very least, it’s a revisioning of democracy without consent, a phenomenon in other nations that Americans have historically called out, as in Russia and Iran for instance.

Please note carefully: democracy in America does not turn on whether Biden or Trump ‘won.’ What matters here is whether whoever loses (Trump, in this case) is willing to play their role to maintain democratic consent by willingly conceding. We see in retrospect why it was so important for Al Gore to concede to George Bush despite the kafuffle around Florida recounts in 2000. Gore’s concession meant that Bush’s presidency and American democracy were ultimately consensual. That didn’t happen this time.¹ And now it can’t—because even if President Trump concedes after losing in court, it’s no longer conceding by consent. It’s a downgrade for sure—so obvious to the rest of the world—but if that’s the future she chooses, we’ll have to accept and adapt to America’s new political reality. We’ll be okay.

Consent & Participation: Essential to Theology

Sadly, a (the?) dominant force in the erosion of democracy in the U.S.A. has come via the efforts of American(ized) Christianity to marry politics with faith. I think FiveThirtyEight saw this but what follows are my own conclusions.

 

Paula White

Yes, please, let your faith guide your political choices with integrity and truth. But when the President’s ‘spiritual advisor’ prophesies that God told her angels have been dispatched from Africa and South America to change election results—that victory has already been secured in the heavenlies—we’ve entered Christian voodoo territory. It’s a partisan political appeal to divine sovereignty sans the crucial (literally) doctrine of divine consent, and therefore a critical crack in Christianity’s theological foundations.  

 

How do consent and participation figure into Christian theology or our political theology? Simone Weil and George Grant (both political philosophers) saw the Cross as a revelation of divine consent and participation:

• The Cross reminds us of God’s consent in creation, making kenotic space for authentic otherness. Creation itself is a manifestation of “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

• Thus, God consents to the reality of secondary causes, including natural law and human freedom, without direct interference in the shadow sides of tragedy and evil … or elections.

• At the Cross God even consents to our defiance as we reject and crucify Jesus Christ (or truth and justice) even while harnessing the great crime of deicide for our redemption.

• At the Cross (and really, beginning with Gethsemane), we see Christ consent to the will of his Father in drinking the cup of affliction for our sake, bearing the worst of human history in himself (to become the Lord of history).

• At the Cross, we come to the end of ourselves, fall to our knees and consent to the healing grace that flows from the wounds of Christ.

• The Cross reveals God as far different from that of the Deists who penned the Constitution. This is the crucified God who fully participates in the human condition, undergoing our limitations, our injustice, and even our death.

• The Cross reveals the path of redemption that calls not only for our consent but also our full participation in his project (‘the kingdom of God’)—God’s rule and reign by love (i.e. consent and participation) rather than by coercion.

In the end, it’s no surprise that when a nation-state becomes a global empire, we would inevitably see slippage away from democracy by consent and participation into partisan will-to-power. It may be disappointing, but apart from historical amnesia, not unexpected. But for Christianity itself to stray from the cruciform theology of consent and participation into theocratic delusions is simply tragic—and as I’ve said elsewhere, attaching Jesus' name to such ambitions is blasphemous.

It may be odd, then, to hear a word of hope. But those willing to acknowledge and abandon the lose-lose cul-de-sacs into which our culture has wandered may still find an exit. Alternative paths may present themselves, but they will look nothing like the powerplays of spectrum ideology or bastardized faith. Personally, I’m watching for cues from those on the margins who embody the Beatitudes of Jesus. Here’s hoping.   

NOTES:

[1] Barry Richard—George Bush’s top Florida lawyer in the case that went to the Supreme Court—denies any claims that the current barrage of 30+ lawsuits in 6 different states are in any way similar to 2000. https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/politics/decision-2020/bush-v-gore-lawyers-2020-court-fight-is-not-similar-to-2000/2326866/.

Comments

[April]

Tom,
I find your point of view enlightening. I find it hard to know what the actual truth is and how to vote. It feels like we are being deceived by both sides and cannot even trust the reporting by the media. The good news is that Jesus is the way the TRUTH and the life.

[Tom]

Brad...there is so much I want to say in response to your recent comments about the US election, and to also respond to some of the others who have provided commentary on this issue. What I have generally concluded is, worldwide, government (the state) has become humankind's god. Constantly looking to government to provide for us and lead us is the substance of humankind's religion. We are always looking for a "messiah" to rule us and "give us manna from above." Ardent secularists and humanists have, in truth, become religious fundamentalists, whether they know it or not. Despite what people may say, we are not in a cultural war, or even a race war, we are engaged in a war between multiple religions.

I recall reading Brian Zahnd's book Postcards from Babylon and understanding that our only allegiance is to Christ, not to Babylon. Therefore, any vote is a vote for Babylon. In this last election, I voted for the Babylon I thought to be less intrusive on my freedom to follow Christ, and the version of Babylon more inclined to recognize the checks and balances (against human corruption) wisely included in the US Constitution. However, at the end of the day, Babylon of any flavor is corrupt as the day is long - and always will be. Christians are citizens of another kingdom.

Many Christian "thinkers" and commentators seem to come out swinging against one political worldview. Yet they remain strangely silent during the years that a Babylonian ruler is in place who is more to their liking. It doesn't really take much to read between the lines as to where their allegiances lie. Whether they wish to admit it or not, they are essentially attempting to serve two masters.

When I look at the growing worldwide religion of state, the movement toward globalization, the advancement in technologies that now tie us together in real time across the globe, I see a new Tower of Babel being constructed. Humankind will ultimately try to collectively re-establish itself as God, determining good from evil, and ruling over ourselves. And this is when (thankfully), Christ steps back on this earth and says "enough." Come quickly, Lord Jesus.