Basileanetwork

Who are you voting for?  

This question is often much more complicated than it first appears – and perhaps that’s part of the reason for low voter turnout.  The Americans have separate votes for local representatives, state senators, and the nation’s president – and this gives them somewhat more of a sense of control.  But here, in Canada, with our single vote to cast, perhaps our most pertinent question is:

What are you voting for?

There are basically five ways people vote, and all have their merits:

1.) Voting for the Individual Candidate

This is the original intent of our parliamentary system.  In rural Britain, local townspeople would send one from their own area to represent them in London.  This person would ideally be of good standing in the community, well-educated, and somewhat financially independent.

Today, especially in commuter-oriented suburbs, we often lose a sense of neighborhood and community.  We don’t even know our local representatives.  Yet, in the end, our vote is for an individual person in our local riding.  That is who it directly affects.  The winner is a real, live person who gets a salary and pension for their new job of voicing the concerns of your community in Parliament.

2.) Voting for the Party

Perhaps our ignorance of our local candidates has led to the pragmatic formation of parties.  In many ways, this is helpful.  It simplifies the process.  We learn a little about political ideology: right wing likes low tax, big military, lots of economic freedom to develop, and strict morals; left wing loosens up moral restrictions, supports unions, compassionate social programs, education, healthcare, environment…and pays for it with higher taxes.  No doubt you have some idea of this model in your mind as you vote:

But the party system has another affect: it essentially thins out the competition.  We all know that there’s only one winner in each riding.  Our “first past the post” system means that you don’t need a majority of votes to win – just more than anyone else.  And with the party system, almost all attention is focused on candidates who are part of major parties.  Sadly, voters come to the realization that if their vote is going to actually make a difference, they need to vote for someone who has a chance to win.  I have lived in ridings where the winner is a foregone conclusion, and my vote actually makes no difference.  We realize that individual candidates often subscribe and submit to the agenda of a party, and the winning party rules the roost.  Many candidates seem to tow the party line, and show very little individual thought or local concern.

3.) Voting for the Leader

It is somewhat surprising that people employ this method, considering the fact that, unless the leader is a candidate in your riding, you have no control over who leads.  We vote for individuals who support parties who select their own leaders.  Parties allow votes for their leaders at different times, but in a general election, the leader of the winning party becomes Premier.

Yet, we may realize that, in our Parliamentary system, a majority is a dictatorship.  We realize that if a party wins the majority of candidates, then a leader’s control of his or her party means a leader’s control of the whole government.  And, interestingly, party leaders often exercise a great deal of control over their parties.  They select their cabinet of ministers, and sometimes even authorize its members.  This leads the various candidates to sing the praises of the leader for their own benefit.

4.) Voting for an Issue:

Sometimes, people become confused or disillusioned by parties and politicians.  One party may care for the elderly, poor, and students, but doesn’t care about morality or debt.  Another party may care about working families, prosperity, and opportunity, but not about its effects on vulnerable people and ecosystems.

It can all get really confusing, and discouraging when we’re looking for the perfect party or candidate.  In light of this, some may focus on one particular issue that they care most about: the value of life, tuition rates, environmental care, tax rates for businesses, immigration policy, infrastructure plans, etc.

5.) Voting for a System

Last federal election, I was left with a strong desire that my next vote would not be for a party, but for a new system.  Unfortunately, this idea seems to be only discussed by losing parties, and not by the public in general.  There are some great ideas out there that follow the idea of “Proportional Representation:” that parties receive a percentage of representatives that is proportional to their percentage of overall votes.

Don’t we already do that?!?

No!  In federal elections, our recent Conservative and Liberal majority governments over the past few years have had 35-40% of the overall vote.  In a multi-party situation, our “First Past the Post” system over-rewards the biggest party, and sells small parties short.  Basically, with many parties, if your party gets 35% of the vote in every riding, you could get 100% of the representatives with 1/3 of the vote!

Did you know that British Columbia has twice had a referendum on this issue?

Yes, it’s called “Single Transferable Vote.”  It is a hybrid idea that groups local ridings into clusters of 5-7, and then awards a proportional number of local representatives to each party, according to their percentage of the vote.  Here are its advantages:

- It preserves a sense of locality.  A group of 5-7 ridings could unite places like the City of Vancouver, the Eastern Fraser Valley, or the Okanagan region into single clusters.  This seems more preferable than lumping us all into one big provincial bowl.

- It makes your vote count!  As of now, a vote for a losing party is thrown out.  I have lived in ridings that are such strongholds for certain parties, that I am left with no sense of “choice” on voting day.  With STV, your vote could count towards the first, second…or seventh place candidate!

- It gives other parties a chance.  Currently, a party only gets a representative if one of its candidates can get first place in a local riding.  With STV, with clusters of 5-7 ridings, a party could earn a candidate with 15-20% of the local vote (1/5th or 1/7th).

- It prevents chaos.  Some countries, like Italy and Israel, have adopted Proportional Representation on a national level.  This has led to an endless multiplication of parties, who all feel they have a chance, if they just get a minimum percentage of votes.  And this is the key – it is important to have a minimum requirement, or you will get some union, corporation, or cult winning a single candidate with the minimum percentage (1-2% of the province).  With STV, you still need a decent chunk of votes to be in the top 5-7 of your riding.

Saturated yet?  Discouraged?  Where is faith in all of this?

I hope that the options that I have presented have provided you with a path forward for voting with conscience.

Informed by our faith, you can consider:

- when voting for a party, which issue are you standing for, and why?

- when voting for a leader or local representative, what qualities are you looking for and why?

I hope that, in the least, this has helped you to question your approach to voting, to avoid falling into surface-level reasoning, and to consider how to make your vote count.

Let’s remember that while these politicians are in positions of power, they are entrusted with by God.  We must always look to Christ as our King, and respect those who God has put in place (Romans 13:1-7).

Let’s also remember that these politicians are people.  We may feel anger or annoyance toward them, but they need our prayers:

1 Timothy 2:1-6: I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— ² for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. ³ This is good, and pleases God our Savior, ⁴ who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. ⁵ For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, ⁶ who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.

We live in a world of rapid change – so rapid, that if we stand still, the ground will be pulled out from under us.  Local communities can have a global impact, and can also feel the effects of global events.  Pollution.  Trade.  Immigration.  Religion.

I finally sat down and carefully, fully read a book assigned to me in a History class I took at UBC called, “World History till 1900.”  I am now glad that my professor assigned some works of historical fiction, such as Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe, published 1958.  Though the story focuses almost entirely on the experiences of one man and his village, it paints a vivid picture of social change and upheaval to which people from every corner of the earth can relate.

Things Fall Apart takes place in the Nigerian village of Umuofia in 1890, and focuses on the story of Okonkwo.  He is a man driven by the desire for respect and social honor, wanting to erase the pattern set by his lazy father.  As a farmer, he is competitive and determined; as a husband of three and a father of many, he rules with an iron fist.  He has gained notoriety as a wrestler, a fierce warrior, and a village authority.  But, on his way to becoming a great man, everything changes…

The first 2/3 of this book are a charming portrayal of village culture in Umuofia.  It proceeds at a relaxed pace; conversations are laced with wise proverbs and interrupted with legendary stories.  Detailed descriptions of social gatherings, accounts of natural phenomena, and explanations of spiritual customs serve as topics for each chapter – rather than any destination-driven plot line.  In fact, so little changes in this part of the story, that this really becomes the point: life in Umuofia is characterized by stability, tradition, and continuity.

The ending sections, however, portray what life in Umuofia became after the Europeans arrived.  Okonkwo had been exiled for 7 years for manslaughter, and when he returns, everything has changed.  The first European missionary in their area was killed, which brought fierce retaliation.  The next missionary gently won the tolerance of the village, who thought he was crazy, and also won a number of converts.  For the most part, he was a positive force in the society; despite the objections of the community, he provided mercy for the least of society.  While other missionaries were less sensitive and more harmful to the culture, it was ultimately the European government that quickened the erosion of the society Okonkwo knew. 

This illustrates what I appreciate most about this book: its neutrality and balance.  Its portrayal of Umuofia is fair, not nostalgic: beloved customs and proverbs are portrayed alongside the mutilation of stillborn children, the abandonment of twins, and the harsh subjection of women.  Likewise, the European visitors are portrayed in different cases as victims or invaders, compassionate or disciplinary, sensitive or intolerant.

Things Fall Apart is simply a story of one man, his village, and great change.  It refrains from judging and moralizing, but it leaves the reader with serious questions:

Was Umuofia better off without the Europeans?  Were their brutal social practices wrong, or just cultural?

How did Umuofia benefit from the Europeans?  Was it worth what they lost?

What is the greater good?  Continuity or “Progress?”

What is the greater evil?  Widespread subjection and abuse of the weak, or subjection of one culture to another?

In all of this, I wonder if there could have been a better way for these events to transpire.  The Europeans brought the good news of Jesus Christ – that our gracious God sent His Son to live here, revealing the way to God; to die here, reconciling us to God; to resurrect, giving us victorious life with God now and forever.  The missionaries brought grace, mercy, and justice to a culture that needed it; but could they have avoided needless damage to the beautiful uniqueness of the village culture?  Could their witness have been even better?

What positive effects does the true Christian faith bring to our culture?

Aside from the obvious, stereotypical extremes (see right), have you seen unnecessary battles being fought in the name of Christianity, with negative effects?

I just watched the movie Thor, another Netflix special, and found insight in an unexpected place.  It wasn’t a great movie; it was fun, but not impressive.  But, despite its weak characters and marginally credible setting, its plot reflected a part of the great meta-narrative of which we are all a part.

Thor, the firstborn son of King Odin (Norwegian gods), is about to be named the new king of Asgard, his realm, when the ceremony is interrupted by invaders from an other realm (a distant planet).  In retaliation, he rashly picks a fight with them and invades their realm.  When his father rebukes him, Thor lashes out at his father, and is banished to Earth.  There, he experiences life as a mortal, lacking both his divine powers and his weapon of choice – a hammer.

While this mythological plot never approaches a level of plausibility that we would find in science fiction, that’s not the point.  The purpose of myth is to teach a truth my means of narrative.  The details don’t matter so much.

C. S. Lewis, professor of Mediaeval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge (1954-63) is a known advocate of mythology.  He noted its potential to capture audiences by relating to their lives, and expressing something of great significance.  They answer big questions about human origins and human nature.

Once he realized that the story of Christ was a true myth that occurred in space and time, he recognized the genre’s usefulness at leading people to truth.  The various myths we find in the world’s cultures are, in some ways, shadows and reflections of the one, true myth - the story of our creation, fall, and redemption through Jesus Christ.   In this way, they are a sort of “general revelation,” or in Lewis’ words, “good dreams,”   With this in mind, Lewis began writing his own myths - the Chronicles of Narnia, the Space Trilogy, and Till We Have Faces.  Each of these express and point to truth in a more indirect and illustrative way.

So, how is the story of Thor useful to us?   I’d like to point out two basic parallels in the plot, and how they mirror and differ from the story of Jesus: (spoiler alert…)

1.) The Son of God Comes to Earth:

The Incarnation is a basic, fundamental aspect of the Christian narrative (though it is too often neglected in gospel messages).  Yet, while many other cultures mirror this idea of divine beings coming to earth, none of them picture these lesser gods to be “One with the Father” (John 10:30) and the “exact representation of His being” (Heb 1:3).  Furthermore, can you think of any mythological gods that are perfect and sinless like Jesus? (2 Cor 5:21)  This idea would be absurd for any culture that, like the Greeks, view the physical realm as inherently imperfect.

And Thor is no different.  He is exiled to earth to learn a lesson, not to save it.  He doesn’t humble himself to come as a servant, but is sent to learn humility.  And, eventually he does – and learns to love the people there.  Still, Thor, like other mythological gods, is no more than an amplified representation of humanity; humans cannot create something that does not already exist.  We just re-arrange (try inventing a new colour…).  Jesus is unique in that He perfectly reveals our Heavenly Father to us (John 14:9) as the “Word became flesh” (John 1:14).

2.) The Son of God Dies and is Resurrected:

The death and resurrection of Jesus form the core of the Christian Gospel, as displayed clearly in the first Christian sermon recorded (Acts 2:22-41).  And we see this part of the meta-narrative show up in various stories in our culture: Aslan in Narnia, Neo in The Matrix, Superman, Jake Sully in Avatar, Optimus Prime in Transformers, The Terminator, Spock in Star Trek, and Gandalf/Aragorn in Lord of the Rings.  Yet, none of them die for the same reason as Christ.  They may heroically sacrifice themselves for the good of others, but, again, this is merely an extension of humanity at its best.

Thor, for example, he dies sacrificially to save others (from a flamethrowing robot).  His dying words, “it’s over” somewhat resemble Jesus’ own: “it is finished.”  This would appear to be Christlike, if it weren’t for the fact that the robot was sent to kill him in the first place.  Another interesting aspect of his death is that it pays for sin…his sin.  Through his sacrificial death, Thor proves to his father that he has changed.  As a result, he is resurrected and reinstated to His position of power.

This story touches on the need for a sacrifice to pay for sin and reconciliation, but not in a vicarious, substitutionary way as in Christianity.  If we were to die for our own sins, that would be justice.  But, because Christ died for us, we can be forgiven.  Christ was resurrected by virtue of His perfection – He didn’t need to die for Himself, to pay His own debt.  And, neither do we.  Because of Christ’s sacrificial death for us, our debt is paid for and our guilt removed, so that we can have hope in resurrection to eternal life.

So, really, Thor more accurately represents a Christian than he represents Christ.  He was banished from the Father, he repented from his sins, he gave up his life (as Jesus calls us to do – Luke 9:23-24) and received a new life.  What is missing is the source and ability for such a change of heart – knowledge of God’s grace through Christ.  Christ’s sacrificial death for us frees us to live our lives to live for Him (2 Cor 5:15), and assures us of our hope in redemption because His sacrifice is a truly sufficient payment.

So, while Thor points us to the story of Christ, he falls short as a representation of our Savior.

And, while Thor offers an inspiring example of the best efforts of humanity, those who follow his example will  ultimately fall short of their goal without hope in the true Christ’s sacrifice for them.