yesterday, i got back from the jesus radicals conference in minneapolis. the weekend was packed with information and conversations that were urgent and mind-bending. amaryah, who rode up from atlanta with kirsten and i, co-led a session at the event called sexuality, spirituality and christian-radicalism. her take on the intersections of orthodoxy and queerness blew folks out of the water. ched myers (if you haven’t read this guy’s work you’re cheating yourself) spoke on watershed discipleship and our obligation to save spaces we love. other sessions explored the topics of anarchy, the prison industrial complex, education, bio-regionalism, surveillance, and the ever-expanding problem of robotic weaponry. these topics are always interesting but they take on a new dimension when considered through the lens of the gospels. in light of the current national discussion about who deserves government services and who should have to pay taxes, it was refreshing to hear christians say unequivocally that democracy and capitalism aren’t and can’t be christian institutions.

on monday, kirsten flew from minneapolis to boston to spend time with her parents and her grandmother, nancy smith, who just completed a six month sentence for crossing the line at the school of the americas protest last year. nancy is the jam! may we all be stirred to the kind of subversive action this woman dared to engage in at the age of seventy-eight.

(i can’t find any information about the above image so i don’t know who to credit  for this absurd and very popular nationalistic revisioning of jesus)

it feels like every year the christmas season starts earlier and earlier. it used to be that the tree and the man with the beard didn’t start working their magic until after thanksgiving. now, jingle bells start ringing the morning after halloween.

the election season has adopted that same prematurity. already, the hopefuls are lining up to mention things that divide and dishearten the public: immigration reform, abortion, unions, troop deployment, school defunding, prison funding, same-sex marriage, environmental policy. and usually they do their best to mention all of those expansive issues in one concise speech. it’s a lot, and before long televised and printed debates on these very issues will dominate the average american’s media intake and, in turn, the average american’s daily conversations. all this gut-churning, one-sided, opinion-driven back and forth will happen so that you and i will feel informed enough to pick one very driven human to lead our country. who really likes this issue saturation besides newscasters and the partys’ talking heads? i know i’m not looking forward to the impending skermish.

however, we’re supposed to recognize the witnessing of this performance as research for one of the most important duties performed by democratic citizenry…voting.

after the last election, i started to really question this duty. in the ‘08 election, i voted for a candidate who said he would end wars and mediate reconciliation with old enemies. that never happened. new wars were started and our country made enemies. with idealism intact, it didn’t occur to me that the former literally can’t happen. after all, we elect someone who carries the title “commander in chief”. disarming in any form is never an option for a leader of a nation that makes its big bucks from weapons manufacturing and sales. yet peace activists all over the country brandish “peace is patriotic” merch and run for the ballot box. and, of course, this goes beyond war to almost every issue. people who support homeless folks vote despite the fact that every possible candidate is extremely wealthy and has a vested interest in an economy that increases their personal storehouse. environmentalists vote for people who, if elected, will create an enormous carbon footprint through the use of a personal jet, multiple cars and a mansion inhabited by a single family. the list drags on. daunting as these realizations were i was mulling over a question that seemed irrelevant across party and idealogical lines; “is it christian to vote”? and then there’s the historically weighty query “can a feminist refuse to vote”? both questions held a lot of sway and i wasn’t ready to write the ballot box off without some research.

i eventually stumbled upon electing not to vote edited by ted lewis. the book explores, from a faith-based perspective the history and ideas about abstaining from casting a ballot. that collection of essays was a solid jumping off point for more study on the topic of abstaining from the vote, both from a christian and feminist perspective.

in this season of heated office debates, rabid campaigning, and general apathy from the disenchanted; i’m pretty excited about a fresh course. bump the ballot box with me. the “vote or die” thing is a scare tactic, i promise.