[Note: This post links with a sermon of mine, which can be found here.]

Introducing the Problem

One of the primary claims of the Christian faith is, “Jesus is Lord.” This is an exclusive claim. It not only means that, “Krishna isn’t Lord” and “Allah isn’t Lord,” and “Buddha isn’t Lord,” but also that no ruler (e.g. King, President, or Prime Minister, etc.) or nation (e.g. India, USA, UK, etc.) can claim the ultimate allegiance of a Christian. 

However, if Jesus is Lord of the whole world, then why was the revelation that came through him given to the Jewish people in the province of Palestine in the first century during the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius? In other words, if I claim that Jesus’ lordship extends to the whole world through time, why did God not give this revelation in creation itself so that everyone could clearly see it and believe? Why was it given in specific historical, geographical, cultural, and linguistic contexts? I will discuss this from six related and developing perspectives.

Denial of Reality

Suppose, for example, that what God wanted to tell us, including especially the revelation we receive about God through Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, was universally available to all people, in all places, and at all times. I would just have to be an honest seeker and wake up one morning with the determination that I wanted to learn about God. Then I could, on the one hand, ask some expert for the insights she had concerning God and how she came upon these insights. Since everything is available without any obstruction, this expert would just have to indicate the evidence she found convincing and I would be convinced about these truths because they would now be universally available. Or I could, on the other hand, undertake a journey of discovery on my own and reach similar conclusions.

Note that for something to be universally available, it would have to be something that did not rely on any superior intellect or specially tuned senses. Otherwise, it would automatically be not universally available. So right away we can exclude things like any of the laws or theories that are used in the natural sciences. Einstein’s theory of gravitation, for example, while being the prevailing scientific wisdom today, was not known a little over a century ago. Hence, in the 19^th century, this wisdom, while universally available, was not universally accessible because human knowledge had not progressed to a level where this new insight was needed. We could extend this to all developments of human knowledge, from the area of geometry, codified for us by Euclid, to the area of psychology, theorized by Freud, Jung, and others. 

In other words, to say that knowledge about God had to be universally available would mean that such knowledge would have to be at the level of the sunrise and sunset or the phases of the moon or the constellation of stars. These phenomena are universally available. Note that even a phenomenon like the tides could not count for there are vast regions in the earth’s land mass where people do not have access to the tides. However, even the behavior of the sun, moon, and stars would not suffice. The sun’s behavior differs in the northern and southern hemispheres. The moon’s phases differ, even if slightly, with longitude. And the constellations in the southern hemisphere do not appear in the northern hemisphere and vice versa.

In other words, there is actually no natural phenomenon that can be understood by almost every human and that still is universally accessible by every human. Hence, any assertion that knowledge about God must be universally available to all humans is based on a denial of reality itself, for the reality is that our experiences of the natural world depend, in large part, on where we find ourselves on this earth.

Divine Action in History

But let us assume that there is some phenomenon that is universally available and accessible by all humans. The natural phenomena that come closest to this universal ideal are the rising and setting of the sun and the changing of the phases of the moon. This is why almost all cultures have calendars based on solar or lunar activity, the former centering around the solstices and the equinoxes and the latter centering around the new, quarter, or full moon phases.

While these solar and lunar phenomena are excellent as the bases of calendars, they do not allow for historical progression. Today’s sunrise is much the same as yesterday’s and both will be the same as tomorrow’s. This cycle’s new moon is much the same as the previous new moon and both will be the same as the next new moon. While our calendars may indicate that we have some festival to observe, and while we may mark some historical event based on the solar and lunar phenomena that coincided with the event, the solar and lunar cycles themselves do not constitute history.

In fact, it is precisely because they are so universally available and accessible, due to which we are able to mark our calendars using them, that they, ironically, do not themselves provide any historical development. What this means is that the more widely available and accessible some phenomenon is, the less likely it can be used as a marker of a historical event. 

Hence, if we insist that the creator God is in a relationship with his creation and acts within it, he cannot do it through commonly available and accessible phenomena. If we saw the sea parting everyday, as described in Exodus, it would not be of any significance but would be rendered as yet another ho-hum natural event that we take for granted. Hence, for God’s actions to be historically significant, they cannot be universally available and accessible. Of course, we could say that we prefer things that are universally available and accessible. However, that would mean believing in a God who actually does not act in history. Since one of the foundational beliefs of the Christian faith is that God has acted in history, any view that proposes that knowledge of God is universally available and accessible has to be classified as sub-Christian or anti-Christian.

Storytelling and Embodiment

Now history is a record of the flow of time. When we say, for instance, that Abraham lived in the 2^nd millennium BC and Jesus in the 1^st century AD, we are placing Abraham and Jesus relative to each other – and to us – with respect to time. It would be disingenuous for us to expect Abraham to know things that were revealed only in, through, and by Jesus, a fact that far too many Christians fail to appreciate when they interpret the scriptures.

Since history is a record of the flow of time, history itself tells a story. If we read the books of the bible as though they were historical documents, and if we were able to arrange them in a roughly chronological order, we would be able to discern a story of God’s interactions with his creation. Now, quite obviously the books of the bible are not just historical books. They are books intended to teach the reader about God. But specifically, they are intended to teach the reader how God interacts with his human creatures. In other words, through the books of the bible, we are able to say that God interacts with us in certain ways and does not interact with us in certain other ways. 

However, this is not given to us in propositional form since God’s interactions with humans are historically rooted. In other words, since God interacts with us in and through history, there cannot be universal propositions that dictate how God interacts with us, since the contexts each person finds herself in will be different from the ones in which the biblical characters found themselves.

What the historical narrative of the bible does is portray the lives of others like us. The bible does not whitewash their flaws and, hence, we are able to identify with these broken people through our own brokenness. 

What would have happened if God had given us an ahistorical book (or collection of books) that spelled out a set of propositions to live by that were universally available to everyone? We don’t have to guess much here, but only have to look at what Christians who held such views did in the past. Invariably, a living relationship with God, in which God can surprise us and we can surprise God, is jettisoned in favor of a rigid legalism. After all, if I have a set of ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’ why bother with a relationship? Relationships are messy and unpredictable. They have the potential to cause stress in our lives, especially when we want to please the other person but have no clue how to do that. 

Laws, however, are easy. They may not be easy to follow. But they give us the impression that we at least know how we ought to behave. However, the clarity that laws provide is detrimental to the formation and deepening of any relationship, as anyone with strong friendships or a long lasting marriage would readily attest.

Moreover, universal propositions are a denial of how we engage with life. None of us lives our lives propositionally. Rather, we negotiate between what is good, better, and best, or bad, worse, and worst. Life rarely, if ever, presents us with alternatives that are clear. We have to struggle with the alternatives, attempting to decide, not what would be the best course of action for any generic disciple of Jesus, but for us. I know that my life situations are different from yours. I know that my priorities are different from yours. I know that my hopes for the rest of my life are different from yours. It would be foolish for either of us to think that the same advice would help both of us. In other words, an expectation of universal principles to follow is a denial of our historical rootedness. It is a denial of the fact that your story is different from mine. 

Hence, to expect God to have given some ahistorical, universal set of principles that is accessible to everyone everywhere is to ask God to deal with us as disembodied creatures who do not actually have to live through time, in a certain place, and interacting with a unique set of people. In other words, any view that expects God to have given us revelation that is not bound by time, history, geography, culture, and language, is to expect a subhuman revelation because all humans are bound by time, history, geography, culture, and language. This is the result of our embodied nature. Each of us, due to our embodiedness, has a different story to tell. The recognition of our embodiedness, involves our commitment to the storied nature of our existence. And hence, a denial of the need for a historically rooted story from God is a denial of our essential nature as embodied creatures.

Invitation to Storytelling

Nevertheless, each of us does not just have a story that we keep as our own. Rather, recognizing how crucial to our identities our stories are, we invite others to tell their stories and to hear ours. We gather around fires to share episodes from our lives. We sit around a table and share anecdotes. In fact, this is what we normally call ‘evangelism’ is supposed to be. Evangelism is not the repeating of some ‘laws’ or ‘principles’, as many have unfortunately taken it to be, thereby despoiling it of its most potent attributes. Rather, evangelism is equivalent to saying, “I can tell you how God’s life and my life intersect and intertwine. Perhaps this will help you see how it is possible for God’s life and yours to intersect and intertwine.”

In other words, what we call ‘evangelism’ is supposed to be nothing but the mutual sharing of stories by two embodied creatures in the attempt to assess which story is more promising, more hope filled, more joy infused, and, therefore, more likely to be aligned with reality. Through this shared storytelling we tell the other person, “I have tasted Yahweh and have found him good. I think you will also find him good if you taste him. Want to know how?”

However, for the most part, at least for the past few decades, ‘evangelism’ has been eviscerated by reducing it to sets of ‘laws’. But you see, the most compelling truth is not that “God has a plan for my life.” If I remain isolated, with a ‘plan’ all for me, it is effectively unattractive. If it is a plan for me, then it will begin with me and end with me. If I will have a life spanning seventy years, then there is nothing attractive about telling me that there is a plan that also has a similar duration. 

However, if my story can become an integral part of the story of God, then I can belong to something that predated me by millennia and that will postdate me by millennia. I know that I am still insignificant. But I can now be part of something much larger, something that transcends my short life. Like a piece in a jigsaw puzzle, my life may be small enough to be vanishingly unimportant in the large scheme of things. However, its absence will be noticed.

In other words, it is precisely by locating my story within the larger tapestry of God’s story that I ironically will find my purpose. This is perhaps part of what Jesus meant when he said, “For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.” (Matthew 16.25) When we lose ourselves in his story, we ironically find our place in his story. However, if we choose an ‘unstoried’ existence, relying on disembodied ‘universal truths’, we actually discover that we are indeed insignificant.

This invitation to storytelling is unique. It depends on the person telling the story and the person hearing it. This is why Paul’s narratives about how Jesus confronted him are never the same. This is why each of the four Gospels presents their story of Jesus that is colored by their own priorities and perspectives.

Designation to Agency

However, if God communicates his story through us when we tell our story, this means that our storytelling is essential to the telling of God’s story. It is not enough to tell people that Jesus is Lord. We must also share how his Lordship has affected our lives. The crucial question is, “How have I changed on account of being a disciple of Jesus?” This means that I must not only be the one to keep a careful account of my story with God, but also that I must be ready to share this story with others. 

This means that, when Jesus recruits me to be a participant in his story, he does so with the idea that I will help him recruit others. However, if what I learn from my relationship with Jesus is readily available without the need for any particular circumstances, then I am actually not needed in the process of sharing God’s story. 

Many Christians have, indeed, reached such conclusions, saying that God could reach the whole world with the gospel without any human agents. But this is a denial of the nature and character of God, which is to share with his creatures. God doing the whole thing on his own renders meaningless the process of preaching by which he has determined to share his story with the rest of the world. 

In other words, being an inherently sharing person, it is intrinsic to God’s nature that he would delegate some parts of the storytelling to his creatures. To not do so would be to go against his very nature. What I am saying is that the proclamation of my story within the story of God is a part of the agency God has given me on account of his very nature. I have the privilege and honor of telling God’s story with my story intertwined in it because God has an inherently sharing nature.

If this is true, then any expectation that God would reveal himself in universal ways, without the need for any story, is a repudiation of the time-bound agency that each of us possesses. I cannot but tell my story since it is the only story of which I am fully informed. But if knowledge of God is divorced from storytelling, since it is presumed to exist universally, then there is no story to tell – neither God’s nor mine – since there is no progression of events from conflict to resolution. If this is the case, then the only agency I have, which necessarily involves my time-bound existence and the unfolding of my story within time, becomes inconsequential at best and a hindrance at worst.

What this means is that the expectation of universal truths actually undermines human agency as God’s images, who are expected to represent God to humans, telling his overarching story to humans, and to represent humans to God, telling their story to him.

The Storytelling of Love

However, God not only asks humans to represent him, but actually loves humans, along with the rest of his good creation. Love, however, for embodied creatures, must make itself visible in and through time. If we expect universal ideas that are available to everyone all the times, then there would have been no need for Jesus and his supreme act of love – the cross. Hence, the suggestion that God should have given us universal principles that are available and accessible to all is a denial of the love demonstrated on the cross.

Love, of course, is highly specific. I have two daughters. And though I love them equally, I do not love them in the same way. They are different persons, who respond differently to the ways in which I show my love. But precisely because of this, I have a different journey of love with each of my daughters. To say that there should be some universally available body of knowledge or revelation that is accessible and available to everyone is to deny the uniqueness of each relationship. 

The storytelling of love involves all the episodes that constitute the history of the love between two people. Each story may certainly have points of overlap with other stories because we are all human and share similar kinds of experiences. However, the sequence and set of episodes that define one bond of love will be quite unique from all others precisely because each of us is free to respond to the demonstrations of love in different ways. Hence, to expect there to be universal knowledge of God that anyone can access anytime is to expect God to relate to us as though we were automatons produced on an assembly line. 

But more than this, it is actually impossible to love a time-bound human without that love also being time-bound. If someone intends to love me, then that person must love me – warts and all. And I have a different set of warts than anyone else! My past, including everything that has happened to me and everyone I have met, especially those particularly close to me, have a significant effect on how I respond to anything someone says to me now. For someone to love me, he/she must love this person who has these particular failings, developed over a lifetime. 

Necessity of the Scandal

What we have seen is that it is impossible to have anything meaningful that affects a human that is not also specific to the person involved. Any human interaction inherently involves particulars that cannot be replicated without denying our human nature. In other words, the desire for universal truths or universal principles that are available and accessible to anyone at any time is based on a denial of our humanity itself. 

Because of this, though the scandal of particularity might seem to be offensive, it is the only way in which a God who desires to demonstrate his love for his creation could act. For to act in ways that affect humans who have a spatio-temporal existence necessitates God’s acting in spatio-temporal ways. In other words, the only way by which God could have any meaningful relationships with us is for him to condescend to relate with us through the limitations of space and time. This involves revealing himself through a unique history that includes specific places and people, localities and languages, cultures and chronologies.

A Stitch in Time

I know I promised a post about whether the Jewish people deserve a nation to call their own. This is a crucial question, especially considering the current circumstances in Israel-Palestine. However, with the 2024 General Elections in India set to start this Friday, I felt that I should address the issue of elections from a Christian perspective as a matter of urgency. Delaying it by a week would mean that voting in 101 constituencies would be done before the next post was published. This would mean that 18.6% of the seats would be decided before I voiced my views. God willing, I will be able to deliver on my promise next week. Hopefully, nothing urgent comes up to scuttle my plans.

Now, I am under no delusions that I have a significant enough readership to make any observable, let alone, meaningful difference! However, one never knows what issue might spark sharing within larger circles. So, if I wanted to be heard before any decisions were made, I had to publish this post today.

As I have declared elsewhere, I am not going to be exercising my disenfranchise this election season. Hence, I wasn’t following things related to the elections. However, a few people have shared with me posts or memes or videos that encourage people to vote. A large number of these happen to be from a Christian perspective, possibly because I’ve received them from Christians and because I am a Christian. Because of this I felt that I should weigh in and explain why I, also from a Christian perspective, will not be exercising my disenfranchise.

I will first address some reasons for voting proposed by a Christian political thinker. After that I will address some reasons given to me personally by or through people I know. I will then make a few proposals for election reforms. Finally, I will close with some observations in light of the plethora of articles and posts that defend the view that Christians must vote.

Rejecting the Bait and Switch

Krish Kandiah is a well known Christian political thinker in the UK. In this article he lists 10 reasons why Christians should vote. The reader can access other Christian articles that support voting here, here, here, and here. I have chosen to deal with Kandiah’s article because he is considered one of the foremost Christian political thinkers of our time and he includes points others do not mention.

I reproduce Kandiah’s reasons below with my comments after each. His article did not have any links, what I consider a fatal flaw in a web article on such a serious matter. I have provided links here for the reader’s convenience. I have also boldfaced Kandiah’s words to distinguish them from mine.

1. Voting publicly recognises that we submit to the authority of the political system in our nation as established by God. (Romans 13:1-7)
   • Since voting is a right, it inherently includes the right not to vote. Further, I can submit to the authority of the government in other ways too. Just as standing in silence while the national anthem is sung is an acceptable way of recognising the solemnity of the anthem without necessarily singing it, so also I can allow elections to happen without actively disrupting them.
   • Of course, one must also assert that no government can have carte blanche expectation of our submission. Just as, if we think some policy is wrong, we are permitted to express opposition to it, so also, if we think the election system is broken, as I have demonstrated in my earlier cited article, we are allowed to express opposition to it by withdrawing from the broken system.
2. Voting recognises the equality of all people and their right to speak and be heard. (Deuteronomy 10:17-19)
   • Actually, this point is quite disingenuous. Gerrymandering is common in the UK as in India. Of course, gerrymandering is precisely the process by which, though we claim all people are equal, we favor the votes of some over the votes of others. In other words, when we actively have cases where the votes of some people are silenced, it is obscene to claim that voting involves a recognition of equality.
   • Of course, it may be an ideal that voting recognizes equality. And I understand that it is too much to expect any human institution to reach its ideals. However, forming of constituencies and redistricting requires intentional effort. And when this endeavor intentionally marginalizes some groups of people, it is clear that the system is not even trying to reach its claimed ideals.
3. It is one way that we can obey God’s command to seek the good of those around us and our nation as a whole. (Jeremiah 29:5-6)
   • Quoting this passage from Jeremiah, written to dispossessed exiles (i.e. refugees), in the context of elections in which only citizens, not refugees, can participate, is a classic example of the proof texting that is ubiquitous in Christian circles.
   • Now, I am a teacher. By definition I am involved in seeking the good of the people of India. That is what a teacher does. I refuse to accept that I need to demonstrate my concern for the people of India by voting. I am confident that the overwhelming majority of my students will agree that I have been a positive influence in their lives.
   • This does not mean that only teachers do good for the country! Other people also, through their work can seek the good of the people of India. Whatever one’s occupation, one can use it as a platform from which to benefit others in the country.
   • In fact, if we recognise that a system is broken and unjust, then any act that keeps the system alive is not seeking the good of people but ensuring that those who are disenfranchised by the system will continue to be disenfranchised.
4. It shows that we care deeply about who our leaders are as we are urged to offer prayer and intercession on their behalf. (1 Timothy 2:1,2)
   • This is a confusion of actions. Praying for leaders does not necessitate going to the polling booths. I cannot see why it is by voting that we can show we care.
   • Actually, if you are convinced, as I am, that the system is irredeemably broken, then voting shows that we are ok with allowing our leaders to dehumanize us – and themselves – by perpetuating the cycle of brokenness. Praying for someone while consciously allowing them the opportunity to continue their abusive actions is duplicitous.
5. It is a simple yet significant way we can do something about politics in our nation. ‘All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing’, Edmund Burke. (Psalms 34:14)
   • Misquoting a misattributed saying really does Kandaiah’s case great harm. This quote is not from Burke. Rather, a similar quote comes to us from John Stuart Mill, who said, “Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.” (Italics mine.) Note that Mill accepts that protest is a viable option. For Mill, protest is valid action. It is doing something. Hence, any suggestion that someone who does not vote in order to protest against the system is doing nothing takes the quote out of context and rejects the spirit of Mill’s words.
   • Further, since the elections are not fair, participating in them does not constitute doing something, and certainly not something positive, about the politics of the nation. Rather, when faced with a broken system, it is protest and reform that does something positive for the politics of the nation.
6. It makes a difference the way a grain of salt makes a difference, and that is how we are to influence our society for good. (Matthew 5:13)
   • It is all well and good to quote Jesus. Was Jesus actually talking about voting? Of course not! But then I agree that we can’t hold Jesus to that standard since he would not have known about democracy and probably was clueless about democratic principles.
   • However, could his words actually be applied to the case of elections? Actually, no! He was talking about the continuous and constant effect of those who follow him on the world. To apply this to voting, which happens once in four or five years, is dangerous since it allows us to think that punctiliar actions are enough when Jesus was talking about continuous influence that pervades all aspects of society.
   • Moreover, this claim is disingenuous, especially when we realize that, as I have shown, there is a much better chance of us winning the lottery many times over than making a difference in even one election result.
7. It is a privilege not to be taken for granted. Those of us who reap the benefits of living in a democracy should play a part in upholding democracy.
   • Democracy is not upheld merely through elections. If that were the case, we should have elections more often! In fact, given the stranglehold that certain parties have in the two biggest democracies, India and the USA, it would seem that democracy exists only in name rather than in fact.
   • But which of us has actually been met by any of our representatives so that he/she could understand how to represent us? And how can a so-called representative actually represent someone he/she has never met? The constituency in which I live has over a million voters. How can anyone genuinely represent a million people? It is a farce! We call them ‘representatives’. But we should be honest that they can actually never even scratch the surface of representing us.
   • In addition, there is actually no theological reason why we should be supporting democracy rather than any other system of government since no system of government has a divine imprimatur. While we may be convinced that democracy is the least worst form of government, this does not mean we should uphold it as though it were actually a gift from God.
   • Further, if something is a privilege, then why should anyone be faulted for not using the privilege? If one has to use a privilege, it no longer is a privilege but something mandatory.
8. Not voting is a form of voting, as it will influence the outcome. We need to take responsibility for our actions, as well as our lack of actions. (Luke 10:25-37)
   • Yes! Exactly! Not voting is a form of voting. Not voting is neither a vote for any candidate nor a vote against any candidate. It is not like voting none of the above, which is a vote against all the candidates. Rather, not voting is a vote against the system!
   • I am not proposing a Pilate-like washing of the hands. I am as responsible for the outcome of the elections when I vote as when I do not vote. And I have shown that the effect is negligible. However, that does not mean I must vote. If I, as a conscientious objector to the practice, am willing to accept that my not voting has consequences, it is as responsible an act as that undertaken by someone who votes and a more responsible act than that undertaken by someone who blindly votes!
   • On the issue of influencing the outcome, Kandiah grossly exaggerates the potential of any voter to actually affect the outcome in any election. This kind of emotional blackmailing just needs to stop, not just because it is bullying, but mainly because it is based on false claims. Of course, bullying is necessary when you wish to make false claims!
   • Kandiah’s decision to cite the passage from Luke, which is the parable about the Good Samaritan, indicates a failure to recognize that there is a difference between the life threatening situation of the parable and the situation surrounding voting – once again an example of proof texting. Of course, given how close the parable is to the hearts of many Christians, Kandiah’s misuse of it in the context of convincing people to take responsibility for their actions is downright abusive since it makes it seem as though those who do not vote are like the priest or the Levite in the parable.
9. Voting has biblical precedence for example Acts 14:23 describes that the early Christians elected elders by voting. (sic.)
   • Citing biblical precedence would be a very strong argument. Of course, if you have to rely on misrepresenting the text, then it is only fair that it ought to work as a strong argument against what you are supporting.
   • That Kandiah has misrepresented the verse is clear, for Acts 14.23 actually says, “Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.” There is no mention of an election. One does not need an election in order to appoint people to positions of authority. In fact, given that only two possible ‘voters’ are mentioned – Paul and Barnabas – no reasonable voting could even take place! The only possibility was that they discussed and reached consensus, which is precisely not what voting is.
10. Voting is part of our stewardship to use all the resources we have been given in ways that honor God; to waste a vote is to squander a gift.
    • This is nothing short of theological abuse. To waste a vote is to squander a gift? Really? As mentioned earlier, especially in the context of the misquoted and misattributed statement of Mill, refusing to vote out of protest is meaningful action. It is a decision not to continue to support a broken and unjust system. To vote while knowing the system is broken and unjust, in fact, is to misuse our God-given freedom to not vote.

Avoiding the Tug at One’s Heartstrings

I have addressed each of Kandiah’s reasons and believe I have at least undermined, if not outright refuted, them. But there are three additional reasons for voting that I have often heard, normally in a more informal setting. Let me address these.

First, some say that voting is a duty. Now, something cannot be a right and a duty or a privilege and a duty. A duty is something that is non-negotiable. However, if I have a right, I must have the choice not to use that right. For example, I may have the right of free speech. But that does not mean I have to speak every time I have the opportunity. Also, if something is a privilege, I have the choice not to exercise that privilege. For example, just because I have been given the privilege of driving does not mean that I have to drive everywhere.

I reject the claim that voting is a duty. It is not. However, we are told it is a duty so that more and more of us become complicit in supporting a system that manifestly does not work for most of us. Actually, I find it ironic when some pundits ridicule certain groups of people for ‘voting against their interests’ when, in fact, the system is rigged in such a way that it can never serve the interests of the people. And if a system does not serve the interests of the people, participating in it cannot be a duty.

Second, some say that they are voting for the lesser of two evils. But let’s face it. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. It does not become a vote for the good. The idea that all we can do is vote for the lesser of two evils is a admission that none of the candidates actually deserve our vote. It is an admission that all the candidates will actually do harm and that we are making an attempt to mitigate the harm done. However, given that one’s vote actually makes no difference, would it not be better to convince others not to participate in a broken and unjust system than to perpetuate it by purportedly voting for the lesser of evils?

By voting ‘for the lesser of two evils’ all we do is give the broken system a new lease of life. We allow it to continue for one more cycle, perpetuating its insidious ideas that it is actually working for our interests when in fact it is not.

Third, some people have told me, “You can’t expect anyone or any party to be perfect.” In other words, they assume that I am saying I will only participate if I am given a perfect candidate or a perfect party. This is typical. We try to make it about the individual rather than the system. It is always easy to place the blame on an individual or a party. But this is not where I have found fault. I have not once said that I withhold my vote because of imperfect candidates or parties. I have a healthy understanding of human frailty and know that neither the candidates nor the parties will ever be perfect.

However, what do you do when you recognise a broken system masquerading as one that actually works? This lie is often hidden beneath the surface and there are few, if any, who are willing to do the work to uncover the hidden brokenness. What do you do when you realize that this emperor is strutting around naked with everyone admiring the clothes?

Proposed Electoral Reforms

What we need to do is at least attempt to fix the system. I will provide some suggestions in the context of India. If this is appealing to someone in another country he/she may have to tweak these suggestions to make it more relevant to the context of that country. So here goes.

First, we need to work toward a more equitable distribution of legislative assembly seats that does not penalize states that have a lower population growth rate. These states in general contribute a larger share to the nation’s GDP than more populous states. Perhaps, in the interest of providing incentives for economic growth and literacy, the number of assembly seats for a state can be a combination of percentage of population, percentage of GDP and literacy rates. This will also provide the candidates with incentives to educate people in their constituencies since the number of seats is directly related to the literacy rate. Hopefully, some states, like Bihar, Arunachal Pradesh, and Rajasthan, which have the lowest literacy rates will receive more funding for education rather than keeping them poorly educated. Perhaps states like Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Jharkhand will see the need to develop economically rather than remain the three least developed states.

Second, we need to work on redistricting the constituencies so that an unbiased election would yield results that reflect the inclinations of the population. There are many pressing and relevant demographic factors in India, education level, income level, language, religion, and sex being particularly important. If India actually intends to become a respectable country, we can no longer afford to redistrict on the basis of any of these demographic factors. Rather, redistricting should strictly follow purely geographic considerations so that no humanly created factor can be weaponized by any party for political gains.

Along with this, we must stop the abominable practice of having reserved seats for any group of people. If, after seventy six years of independence, we haven’t created a nation that is equitable for everyone, then reservations, which have existed for most of this period, are not the answer. We should allow the free market of the voters to select the candidates they want and reject other candidates.

Third, we should not allow anyone who has been found guilty of or has a case pending for a non-bailable offense to stand for elections at any level. It is a matter of great shame that so many MPs and MLAs have actually been accused of such offenses and we carry on as if the system is not broken! That our continued participation in a broken system has not solved any issues is clear from the fact that, from 2009 to 2019, the percentage of MPs who had serious cases against them rose from 14% to 29% with the percentage of all criminal cases rising from 30% to 43%.

Fourth, we should permit campaign contributions only by individuals and this too should be capped at a reasonable amount that has been cleared by the Income Tax department. I cannot compete with Mr. Ambani here. Hence, Mr. Ambani must not be allowed to have undue influence on the electoral process. We should not allow any groups or institutions to contribute because India exists for its citizens and those who reside within its borders, not for the companies or institutions that operate within its borders. We should not allow NRIs to contribute to election campaigns. They still have a vote. However, they have already voted with their feet and should not be allowed to have undue influence on the elections.

Fifth, since India is a large country, the election is conducted in multiple phases over a period of about six weeks. The press should not be allowed to report on earlier phases while other states have yet to go to the polls. I know that the press will not like this. However, any reporting automatically affects the voting in subsequent phases. Since the sanctity of the elections is what I assume a democratic country will aim for, this small muzzling of the press is necessary.

I don’t think any of the above will be taken seriously. Our politicians do not have the will to promote just elections. Our Election Commission too will not like the humongous effort this will require. The press will not like having to restrain themselves. Companies and billionaires will not like the campaign funding restrictions. And the common folk will not lift a finger because producing such sweeping changes will require too much of an effort.

But who knows? Maybe some decades down the line someone who has read this post or better ones along similar lines will spearhead a revolution. One can hope. One can only hope.

Concluding Unapologetic Postscript

I remain resolute in my commitment not to participate in a charade. I will not waste my time going to the polling booth, standing in line, and voting, when I know that the system is corrupt. And I will not insult my intelligence by thinking that my vote actually makes a difference. Neither will I allow myself to entertain the delusion that voting for the lesser of evils actually staves off the greater of evils.

While I have written this from a Christian perspective, I am painfully aware that most Christians do not share my convictions. I reject any claim that the perspective I have presented here is in any way against the Christian faith. There is nothing I have said here that undermines the global lordship of Jesus or violates the notion that humans have been created to be God’s images on earth. Because of this, I am fine with others disagreeing with me. While I would certainly attempt to persuade them toward my view, I will never attempt to force my views on anyone. I believe that those who disagree are entitled to their views and I will not attempt to impinge on their right to hold onto their delusions!

Mary Against Misogyny

The account of Mary Magdalene and Jesus on the first Easter has captivated many Christians over the centuries. And it has captivated me too. Unfortunately, works like The Da Vinci Code continue to promulgate the idea that Mary and Jesus were married or were lovers or something of the sort. They claim that the Church has suppressed women and that one point of suppression was the relationship between Mary and Jesus. Now there is no denying that the Church has suppressed women. Even today we have many prominent pastors hold misogynistic views.

However, views that propose that Mary and Jesus had some sort of a romantic relationship or that they were married are actually more regressive than they might first appear. To say that Mary and Jesus had to have been married and that this was suppressed by the Church only solidifies the patriarchal idea that a woman must be linked to a man. Since Mary was obviously not Jesus’ mother or daughter, the only role available to her that would link her with Jesus in a patriarchal milieu was ‘wife’. Hence, such views actually say that Jesus himself could not think of a woman becoming a close disciple without her also becoming his wife. This is the kind of argument that has fueled many charismatic leaders who have gathered harems around themselves. But not Jesus!

Indeed, as someone who has many women friends with whom I have no romantic or sexual relationship, I know first hand that women and men can have strong bonds of deep and meaningful friendship. And I think the more philogynistic position would be to admit that Jesus too could have had such deep and meaningful friendships with women, Mary being one of them.

Ironically, both the highly conservative Christian traditions and these supposedly ‘progressive’ views have the same approach toward women. The latter say that, because we must champion women’s sexuality, it must be that Jesus had a sexual relationship with Mary. The former say that, because Jesus cannot have had a sexual relationship, there was no such relationship between him and Mary. But both hold the same impoverished view of friendships between women and men. And this is because both confuse sexuality, something with which all humans are blessed, with sex, the act of engaging in sexual intercourse. It is possible to be a fully sexual human while never engaging in sexual intercourse. And it is possible to engage in sexual intercourse in a way that denies our human sexuality.

I do not, however, wish to dwell more on this issue. I believe that Jesus was a fully sexual male but that he chose a life of celibacy, not because celibacy is better or worse than marriage, but because the nature of his work would not have allowed a stable marriage.

Mary and the ‘Gardener’ – Take 1

What I wish to focus on is something really intriguing, at least to me, in the account in John 20. After she speaks to the two angels, she goes outside the tomb. Then we read that she turned around to see Jesus. “Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?’ Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, ‘Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.'” Till now Mary has heard Jesus speak to her but she does not recognize that it is him. Was his voice different than it had been earlier? The New Testament does not tell us about such matters. So we cannot know for sure. All we can conclude is that this interaction between Jesus and Mary was not enough for her to recognize that she was speaking to him.

The Gospel accounts of Jesus after the resurrection, especially the ones in Luke and John, seem to be telling us that there is both continuity and discontinuity between Jesus as he was prior to his death and Jesus after his resurrection. While none of the Gospels dwells on the matter, it is likely that, though they saw Jesus and recognized some striking similarities with the friend they had known, the idea of the resurrection of just one person in the middle of this present age was just too outlandish for them to accept. Hence, they could not bridge the gap between what their senses were apprehending and what their theology allowed them to accept.

But then John tells us, “Jesus said to her, ‘Mary!’ She turned and said to him in Hebrew, ‘Rabbouni!'” All those words asking her why she was weeping and who she was looking for were unsuccessful. But the single mention of her name was enough. How do we explain this?

The Importance of a Name

To most of us, our name is an integral aspect of who we are. In crowded rooms, with all sorts of conversations taking place, we may not be able to understand what anyone is saying. However, if someone uses our name, our ears are instantly tickled. We are primed to hear our names. But what we have with Mary and Jesus goes far deeper.

We all know that, though our name does not change, the way it is pronounced changes with the person. No two people pronounce our names exactly the same. Rather, each person intones our name in a unique way. This is amplified all the more the stronger the bond between us and another person. There is a unique intonation with which parents speak the name of their child, made special by the fact that they were likely the ones who carefully thought about and chose the child’s name. Siblings too have a way of speaking each other’s names that reveals their camaraderie and rivalry. And of course, the way a husband says his wife’s name or a wife her husband’s is poignant with the unique love they share.

I propose that there was a way of saying ‘Mary’ that she had heard only on the lips of Jesus. Hence, when he said her name there was no doubt who was speaking. When she heard him speak her name, she heard what would only have come from his lips before then. However he said her name, it was unique to him. And I wish to take this in two different directions from here on.

Hearing Jesus’ Voice

Our relationship with Jesus is unique because each of us is unique. God does not churn out humans on an assembly line! Hence, Jesus’ relationship with each of us is different. This is why I have often advised people not to compare their relationship with him and what they perceive to be the relationship between him and another person. Such comparisons deny our uniqueness in his eyes and are, therefore, ‘iconoclastic’ in the sense that, for me to mimic another person, it would result in one less genuine way of imaging the true God.

Indeed, when Jesus says, “My sheep know my voice,” he is not just saying that we are familiar with the tone of his voice. Rather, he also says, “He calls his own sheep by name.” When we see Jesus say Mary’s name, we see him act on the promise of being the good shepherd. There is a way in which he calls to each of us. And he does so by name. We dare not forget this. We dare not reduce this highly personal relationship to something churned out on an assembly line.

Rather, this calling of my name by Jesus is highly personal. No one else calls me like he does. No one says my name the same way as he does. Whatever comfort or challenge, rebuke or reassurance I receive when he speaks my name I can get from no one else.

This is what Mary heard when she heard Jesus speak her voice. She was distraught and in need of comfort and reassurance. I am confident that the way Jesus spoke her name brimmed over with all the comfort and reassurance his voice contained.

Speaking Jesus’ Name

At the same time, who he is to me is also deeply personal. When I speak his name, he hears something that comes only from my lips. No one else can worship him as I do. No one else can have the same conversations with him that I do. Just as his way of saying my name is unique, so also my way of saying his name is unique.

But this means that I must not allow my way of saying his name to become what I expect from everyone else. My approach to him might be extremely meaningful to me, especially if the conversations I have with him run deep like a river. But my approach cannot be the barometer I use to gauge the health of someone else’s approach to him.

Unfortunately, many Christian leaders communicate the idea that they have got the handle on Christian discipleship and that others would benefit by imitating them. I consider all the books in the self-help category and most in the discipleship category as being resources of this sort. But I must struggle to understand how I must speak his name for there is something that I do that no one else can.

The Ten Commandments has a command against bearing God’s name in vain. While there are broad ways in which we can describe the vain bearing of God’s name, each of us has idiosyncrasies that distinguish us from other people. How I bear God’s name, while not entirely different from anyone else, is not completely identical to anyone else.

This allows us to have a graciousness about us. When we realize that we cannot expect either Jesus to relate to all of us in the same way or everyone to relate to Jesus in the same way, I can free myself both from trying to imitate others and from expecting (or at least hoping that) others would imitate me.

When Mary responds with the single word, “Rabbouni,” she was allowing Jesus to hear what he would hear only from her. Sure, others also called him ‘teacher’. But no one said it in the same way as Mary said it. There was a tonal quality to the word ‘rabbouni’ that Jesus would find only when Mary said it and no one else. This title on Mary’s lips overflowed with memories of everything she had experienced with him, from his casting out demons from her, to her helplessness as he died on the cross.

Just as there was no one who shared the same memories with Jesus as Mary did, so also each of us has a unique bouquet of memories that forms our relationship with him. No matter how brief our relationship with him or how lengthy, there is no one who has gone through the same things with him as I have. Hence, when I say, “Jesus,” it resonates with the longings that my memories create in me. And so also with you. Each of us gets to bear his name on our lips with a different longing.

Naming and Renaming

All of this links to the promise given to the church at Pergamum. In his letter to that church, Jesus says, “To everyone who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give a white stone, and on the white stone is written a new name that no one knows except the one who receives it.” (Revelation 2.17) The promise is that the one who overcomes will be given a new name. In order to understand the implications of this, we must look at some key renaming episodes in the bible.

The first recorded renaming is that of Abram and Sarai to Abraham and Sarah in Genesis 17 as a sign of the covenant God was making with them. He would now no longer be ‘great father’ but ‘father of nations’. As a result of the renaming, his identity is changed to reflect a new reality created by the covenant God had made with him. The quintessential record of renaming is when Jacob’s name is changed to Israel in Genesis 32. From a ‘usurper’ he is changed to someone who ‘fights God’. It is unclear whether his fight is with God as in alongside God or against God. And perhaps this ambiguity is essential for the story of his descendants after that. At times they function as God’s allies. At other times, they are opposed to God. In a remarkable statement, when Jesus is introduced to Nathanael, he makes an allusion to this renaming when he says that Nathanael is ‘a true Israelite, one in whom there is no guile’. Their ancestor was a man of guile before his renaming. He cheated his brother, was willing to let a curse fall on his mother, and lied to his father. By calling Nathanael ‘a true Israelite’ Jesus was saying that this man was like Jacob after his renaming.

Jesus, of course, was famous for renaming people. Simon, bearing the name of Jacob’s second son, who, along with his brother Levi, killed all the men of Shechem, was as volatile as his namesake. But Jesus renamed him Peter. And Simon took many years of difficult discipleship to begin to live into the reality of that renaming. Jesus similarly nicknamed James and John ‘the sons of thunder’, probably to warn them about the violence in their hearts. If the writings of John are any indication, it seems that the warning worked and the lesson taught by the nicknaming was learned by the brothers. It is likely that Jesus also renamed Mary ‘magdala’, meaning ‘the tower, probably because she was tall or because she had a towering personality.

What we see then is that names are highly significant in the bible. Renamings, when they occur, are momentous occasions full of theological meaning. Hence, a promise to receive a new name is not to be taken lightly. Rather, as in the case of the majority of the renamings, when we receive a new name it will indicate a baptism into a new ideal that we are given the opportunity to transform into a reality.

Mary and the ‘Gardener’ – Take 2

As Mary heard the words of the angels, her heart must surely have fallen. She had wanted to anoint Jesus’ body properly. But even this was now being denied her. Even this gardener didn’t seem to be even in the slightest bit inclined to offer any assistance. And then she heard the name – her name – on the gardener’s lips. But… Surely, it couldn’t… Could it…? What she heard carried with it the quality only found on Jesus’ lips. It must be… It could not be anyone else. And so, recognizing what the utterance of her name by those lips would not permit her to deny. she said, “Rabbouni!”