I argued a couple of days ago that there really is no such thing as the Christian vote. I do wish my American friends would learn that nobody speaks of “the Christian right” or “the Evangelical vote” anywhere other than their country. Nor is it a badge of honour for them that anybody does. It simply shows the triumph of attaching the church to a political programme that Jesus has nowhere endorsed and the scriptures nowhere outline. The waving of national flags in churches and the assumptions that God will, necessarily, bless America and that all of his people will vote Republican is quite offensive to the majority of world Christianity, who simply do not see things the same way or sit in the same political space.

The politicisation of Jesus and the scriptures has a long and insalubrious history, with Jesus being simultaneously co-opted by the Moral Majority for their particular brand of cultural crusade and, at the same time, various Socialists the world over and all manner of people between. It seems everyone thinks Jesus agrees with them and none of them are quite able to absolutely prove it. There are Christians of all stripes who think the scriptures definitely lean in their direction and everyone, to their left and their right, are different degrees of politically unbiblical. As I said before, Jesus will not be co-opted by our politics and has not endorsed any one of our parties. Some of us need to reckon very seriously with God’s general view of those who put words in his mouth and claim things he hasn’t said when it comes to our politics.

Yesterday, I spoke about the nature of being good neighbours. Specifically, who is our neighbour and how does the Good Samaritan affect both who we view as our neighbour and how we are to treat people in light of it. You can read that full post here. But it strikes me that one of the ways we can truly love our neighbour as ourselves – particularly our Christian neighbour – is giving them the benefit of assuming capacity and not treating them like they’re cretinous because they think differently to us politically. It simply will not do to write brothers and sisters off – who hold to all the same theology we do, who sit in the same churches, who share in the same loaf – and yet consider them beyond the pale because they land quite differently to us politically.

I have, frankly, lost count of the number of times I have heard people insist I must justify my Socialism as consistent with my Evangelicalism as though I must, necessarily, have missed some significant theological matter somewhere. When they can’t find the theological gap – finding we affirm the same gospel and same Calvinistic Reformed Baptistic theology all down the line – rather than assuming capacity and thoughtfulness (and perhaps acknowledging that history and politics degree I’ve got), they just assume inconsistency. And some of these are not ill-thought out people, but genuine, serious-minded, folks who simply cannot fathom that it could be consistent on any level. Either that, or there is some glitch in the matrix because an actual Christian with no chink in the theological and ecclesial armour (as they judge it) doesn’t land in the same place as them politically. Nor do they seem to countenance that I’m not an outlier, there are other people who land where I do too. It gets worse when you discover, even in my own family – just between me, my dad and my brother – brought up in the same house, same culture, same religion, same church and all holding to those same religious assumptions, all land differently even among ourselves! Hasn’t Jesus told us all how to vote, if not directly, nevertheless in practice? Spoiler alert: nope!

One way we can be good neighbours, and to follow Jesus’ golden rule of doing unto others as we would have them do unto us, is to assume that other believers have capacity to think sensibly and, though they may land differently to us, have done so for thoughtful, biblical reasons. Another way we can be good neighbours is to not speak ill of them when we discover they vote differently and think about the issues differently. I don’t mean just not going around slagging them off generally because they vote for another party (though, to be clear, don’t do that). I mean not speaking about issues in such loaded and pointed way that you make clear whoever thinks differently to you is an idiot.

Little brought this home to me more clearly than the Brexit vote. The aftermath of that time found a lot of people speaking about others on the other side of matters in quite unkind terms. I have no problem with frank discussion of the issues and debating the actual matter at hand. That is all well and good. But the number of times I sat in church and heard people praying thing from the front in such loaded terms it was almost impossible not to know their particular position and, worse, to be able to say Amen at the end was startling. But since that time, I have heard countless examples of such talk. I am sick to death of hearing people talk about issues using terms that just assume agreement or such loaded terms that the hearer is forced to either agree or essentially admit to being a dolt. I obviously find it objectionable when I am the one in line to stand on that uneviable side of the conversation, but I similarly bristle when people do it on issues on which I would agree. Except, I don’t want to agree with the way they are framing matters because they necessarily insist anyone who doesn’t agree is a cretin (and I don’t agree with that!)

So, can I make two suggestions to believers as we continue on in our election campaign. I think these are biblical suggestions that Jesus would endorse. I think I can find overt biblical support for both. So, my two simple suggestions are these.

First, when we discuss issues or voting intentions, can we assume capacity of our brothers and sisters? Can we give them the benefit of any doubt in our mind and assume they have considered the matter thoughtfully and, even if they land differently to us, are doing so for legitimate biblical reasons? I would suggest this is especially true of those in our churches, who affirm all our theology and biblical assumptions. Can we please think the best of one another and assume thoughtful believers have actually thought about what they are doing and, if they disagree with us, are doing so for credible reasons rather than necessarily out of stupidity? I am fairly sure it is how each of us would want our own views to be treated by others (do unto others and all that) as well as an application of the biblical imperative to bear with one another in love, among others.

Second, can we be careful how we speak about the issues and parties at hand? I appreciate we may have strong views. I even accept we may think the bible is absolutely on our side on the issue. But when we speak about them, can we avoid such loaded terms as ‘lunacy’, ‘idiots’, ‘madness’ and the like? These words necessarily imply, if you do not agree with me, you are stupid. Which isn’t going to help our discussions when we find out, frankly after we’ve made such views clear, that the person we’re talking to doesn’t agree. Again, I think there are biblical instructions on being careful with our words, doing what works for upbuilding and – even if we insist this person is not a believer and is advocating for matters we consider deeply dangerous – would still be a legitimate outworking of doing good to all and loving even our enemies (such as they even are that).

If we can just stick to these two things, I am convinced we will have much better discussions about the issues at hand. I don’t mind robust discussion. I don’t mind direct discussion. I don’t mind very frank arguments. But we need to avoid pejorative, assuming the worst of those we speak to and, ultimately, being unkind to those who differ from us. If we can take care to do these two things, we’ll have a much happier and more fruitful election campaign as believers.