W.E.B DuBois Would Not Vote in This Election

I know. I was surprised at the notion myself. A tireless champion of Civil Rights, a participant of the Niagra Movement and one of the founders of the NAACP, one would expect DuBois to argue the moral responsibility of voting–particularly for a people recently disenfranchised.

But in a piece entitled, “Why I Won’t Vote,” delivered on October 20, 1956, DuBois made an eloquent case for not voting at all.  The entire speech really should be read; it’s haunting in its description themes and tensions in 1956 that could as easily apply to 2012. DuBois begins with a kind of biography of his voting record:

Since I was twenty-one in 1889, I have in theory followed the voting plan strongly advocated by Sidney Lens in The Nation of August 4, i.e., voting for a third party even when its chances were hopeless, if the main parties were unsatisfactory; or, in absence of a third choice, voting for the lesser of two evils. My action, however, had to be limited by the candidates’ attitude toward Negroes. Of my adult life, I have spent twenty-three years living and teaching in the South, where my voting choice was not asked. I was disfranchised by law or administration. In the North I lived in all thirty-two years, covering eight Presidential elections. In 1912 I wanted to support Theodore Roosevelt, but his Bull Moose convention dodged the Negro problem and I tried to help elect Wilson as a liberal Southerner. Under Wilson came the worst attempt at Jim Crow legislation and discrimination in civil service that we had experienced since the Civil War. In 1916 I took Hughes as the lesser of two evils. He promised Negroes nothing and kept his word. In 1920, I supported Harding because of his promise to liberate Haiti. In 1924, I voted for La Follette, although I knew he could not be elected. In 1928, Negroes faced absolute dilemma.   Continue at Gospel Coalition

See also:  John MacArthur Rebukes Democratic Platform

Congregationalism Is Used by Satan...Like He Uses Everything Else

Did you catch James MacDonald's critique of congregationalism yesterday morning? It’s not clear to me if he was referring to hyper-congregationalism or congregationalism in general, but since most of us at 9Marks hail from a congregational tradition, we thought it provided us with a good opportunity to think about congregationalism in general. It may surprise him and others that, in some circles in the SBC, 9Marks is seen (and critiqued!) as being advocates for having a plurality of elders and even giving those elders leadership in the congregation.

MacDonald offers five critiques of congregationalism, which I think we can see quite readily are indeed Satanic abuses of congregationalism:

1) Congregational Meetings Can Be Forums for Division: Satan will often employ many God-given gifts and institutions--from biblical marriage to civil government to biblical congregationalism--for diabolical ends. You name it, and he'll use it to undermine leadership, to divide friends, even to present a poor witness for the gospel. With congregationalism, for instance, Satan will use things like unregenerate church members, decades of failing to practice church discipline, and man-fearing pastors in order to make a congregation ornery.

I think of John Dagg who wrote, "We concede that the independent form of church government is not adapted to ungodly pastors, and unconverted church-members" (Manual of Church Order, 278). Of course, that's true of any church order. Still, you can feel it more quickly in a congregational members’ meeting. Keep Reading...