Here’s a word I hadn’t known before yesterday: Cleromancy.

I was thinking about the midterms in the car, and found myself thinking about casting my vote, which then made my mind wander toward wondering about the biblical tradition of casting lots.

In related news, I am easily amused and occupied.

When I got home, before I hauled out my theological dictionaries, I did a quick Google search, and the first entry to “casting lots” was ‘cleromancy.’

Cleromancy?

Never heard of it, darn it.

Naturally, I went to my personal fave web page www.etmyonline.com, punched in ‘cleromancy,’ and learned that it means the coming to a decision by way of tossing dice or lots. The word comes from the Greek word ‘kleros’, that is ‘lot’ (Fun fact: the word ‘cleric’ and ‘clergy’ comes from the same root, because the Lord is their ‘lot’ [Deuteronomy 18:]), and ‘manteia,’ namely ‘oracle.’

The idea is that through diviniation (-mancy) as evidenced by how the chips fall (so to speak), the will of God/the Universe/the Powers That Be will be manifested, and/or a person of interest (complementary or nefarious) will be identified.

In other words, whatever the dice or lots reveal also reveals what God wants to go down or what has gone down or who caused something to go down or who should cause something to go down.

‘Lots’ were pieces of paper or small objects with specific markings, colors, words, or names on them.  They were placed into a container of some sort—a cup, perhaps, or a bowl or urn—and either plucked out, or cast down to the ground.

When a certain one was chosen or a particular pattern was discerned in how they fell, so (obvs) was the answer to the question at hand.

We see lots being cast in Esther 3:7 to determine a date, Numbers 26:55 to divvy up land, 1 Samuel 14:42 to sift out a guilty person, and Mark 15.24/Matthew 27:35/Luke 23:34/John 19:24 to parcel out Jesus’ clothing in an act of utter humiliation.

The tradition (which isn’t only Judeo-Christian, but existed and exists in cultures and religions all around the world) puts its trust in the belief that casting these lots yields God’s purpose or God’s truth.

To many modern (technically post-modern) minds, in a word it’s positively nuts to make key decisions or come to critical discernments by way of complete chance.

Clearly, lot-chucking results are all and only random.

But actually, during my afternoon of nerding out about cleromancy, I stumbled on news that some people are beginning to wonder whether ‘random’ choice is the better way to elect politicians.

Given the disproportiate role of money, power, and gerrymandering in election results, four folk with experience in politics, academics, research, and social activism are proposing that we give cleromancy, namely casting lots, another look, saying:

Sortition, or selection by lot, has considerable advantages over elections. Unlike elections, public lotteries cannot be readily rigged or bought. The members selected by lottery would owe nothing to special interest donors or party leaders. They would be free to focus on making good policy, instead of playing to the media, which now feeds on the permanent election cycle as voraciously as politicians themselves. Americans from all walks of life would see people like themselves in a “Citizen Assembly” selected at random. Women would make up roughly half its membership, and a plurality of its members would probably identify as political independents.

(As an aside, did you know that the word ‘lottery,’ not to mention city lot, sand lot, lots, and lot-in-life all come from the cleromantic word ‘lot?’ Who, I ask you, knew?)

ANYway, the point is, they say that the basis upon which our political system is built, representation, doesn’t actually represent us, and given the nature of chance, odds are are that we’d get better political representation and decisions if we selected our politicians the way we do juries: by lot.

I see their point.

It is definitely worth some reflection.

But the chance (see what I did there?) that we will change our election process any time before, oh, I don’t know, say….THE MIDTERMS is not just remote: it is not going to happen no matter how many times you roll those dice.

Instead, I wonder, given that we can’t change our election process, if we change the way we think of our election process, before, say, THE MIDTERMS, whether we could take some electoral direction from the way that decisions are often made in significant church deliberations.

It’s a process called Ecclesial Voting, a style of communal decision making that isn’t only about voting (though it is that), but about call.

That is, the entire arc of the process is bent not toward what we want, but what we attempt to discern that God wants.

Now, strictly speaking, ecclesial voting is more nuanced and complex than this simple upshot, but that is its basic premise: what is God calling us and calling this person to do right now?

So, fine…but how do we figure that out?

Well, for starters, we consider two things and remember a third.

We ask: Who is our God? What is God’s agenda for the world?

We remember: We are only stewards, owning nothing, but serving only God’s will in the world in everything that we do…even our vote.

An electoral process—regardless of whether it’s related to church or politics (technically, I suppose, even when the family votes about what should be for supper, but I don’t think God really cares that much)—is not, that is, about our will or us: it’s about God’s will and God.

We discern what that will is by way of prayer, and by paying close attention to the actions and the message of those up for vote.

We listen, then, and we cast our vote for the one who seems closest to representing God’s intention for the day and for the future.

So given that THE MIDTERMS are approaching, it’s key for people of faith to reflect on those very same three points:

1) Who is our God;

2) What is God’s agenda for the world;

3) How do we as stewards of God represent God in the world, not least of all by way of our vote?

Turns out that from a faith perspective, your vote is not about you, in short, or at least not mostly.

In fact, your vote is to be about God’s will not just for you, but for all people.

In fact, your vote is to be about God’s will most especially for vulnerable people.

In fact, that is, as an act of faith, your vote might be a vote precisely and fairly radically against you and your best interests.

In fact, if you look at it that way, your vote isn’t really yours to cast: your vote represents God’s will in the world, for you are a steward of God in all things.

When you cast your vote into the ballot box, then, you are casting your God, or your god, into the world.

So who is your God?

No, really.

Who or what is your God?

When you vote, see, you are making decisions that have ridiculously important, lasting, life-or-death sort of implications.

People will live or die based on your vote.

And so with whom does your God stand?

Because as people of faith, our vote is called to stand with those very ones too.

Fortunately for us, although the Bible has a variety of things to say about a variety of things, where it, and where God, and where the people of God stand by way of the poor, and the foreigners, and the sick—in short, the Least of These—leaves little room for confusion.

God’s with them, and therefore so are the people of God.

So, for example, Mary’s song, as she sings her praise for the advent of her son and the Savior of the world, gives us a bit of a hint: