Non-resistance does not mean silence

Christian ethics and theology with an Anabaptist perspective
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Non-resistance does not mean silence

Post by Valerie »

Bootstrap wrote:
Soloist wrote:Would you ever continue pushing on someone's buttons offline if you knew it bothered them?
Offline, I would probably say, hey, this topic isn't working, can we discuss something else.

Online, here's a quandary for me in that thread. I think that thread started with a shocking story (probably not entirely true as reported) and encouraged people to push each other's shock and disapproval buttons. Peter was the first to pick up on that, and his question was labelled hostile. My questions were also labelled hostile. But I really don't think we should rush to judgement on people we don't know in circumstances we don't know much about, no matter how much holy language we sprinkle on our conversation. The college is having hearings, the story seems to be a little different than what was first reported, the man involved is in hiding because he is receiving death threats. Max seemed to want to shut down all discussion of that part.

As Peter put it:
"Just look as those bad people! Please join me in my disapproval of them."
So when Max labels us hostile for pointing that out, should we leave the room so that people can keep going down that path, or should we discuss how we Christians respond when we hear shocking accusations about other people? When Max labels us hostile for asking questions about the situation that was reported, and labels us as hostile if we suggest that pushing each other's shock and approval buttons about a situation we aren't involved in actually adds to vitriol, I'm not sure withdrawing is the right response. It builds a culture where you can respond to a question by saying you don't like the other person so they should just shut up. It builds a culture where we cannot discover the facts over time.

For one thing Boot- Max was reporting on what he saw on "TV" that is publicized to millions watching- he's really not used to watching TV anymore, maybe never was- (thank the Lord) but when exposed to things like that, it can be shocking- and from my perspective when reading that thread, I believe Max was wrongly accused and misunderstood by Peter too- that was not what Max seemed to be doing, I didn't get the impression the majority of the people came to that conclusion- (I could be wrong, people are quiet with reactions sometimes). I feel like he had legitimate concerns and feels comfortable sharing concerns here with most people-


If he actually is a professor and actually is developing ethics training, that's a much more positive response. And I hope he will share the contents of that training - how do you balance free speech, academic freedom, and the need to make everyone feel safe and welcome at a secular university? That's a very hard and interesting question, and a question that universities spend a lot of time on. But if he is a professor, "I'm a professor" shouldn't mean "I don't have to answer any questions because I'm an expert", the whole point of being an expert is being able to answer questions with information. I'm at a conference right now where I'm probably the only person without a PhD, several people have more than one, and some of these people are considered real experts in their fields. They love questions. Even challenging, hard questions.

I don't think the right response to a question is "you are a hostile person so go away" unless it is a hostile question. And I think we give an awful lot of power to bad behavior if we support that. I don't know how to think through how to be a light in this dark world without asking a lot of hard questions. I don't know how to see through mainstream media reports without asking a lot of questions.
Boot from the beginning you have implied to the whole forum that you consider Max to be a fake. You don't trust him, imply he is dishonest, making up his life, etc- people have tried to point this out to you in the past but it continues to persist, something like a hound dog hot on a trail to a fox. Personally I don't see Max as a fox- probably if your approach from the beginning was different, you could have had a whole different scenario. But here again- you come across as suspicious to his most recent claims. You can't compare your situation in your conference to this at all- this is a discussion forum where he felt comfortable sharing a concern he had from a national TV broadcast- and his concerns regarding college professors is legitimate and widely held among a lot of people, and if good comes out of this- praise the Lord-
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23813
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Non-resistance does not mean silence

Post by Josh »

Valerie wrote:Boot from the beginning you have implied to the whole forum that you consider Max to be a fake. You don't trust him, imply he is dishonest, making up his life, etc- people have tried to point this out to you in the past but it continues to persist, something like a hound dog hot on a trail to a fox.
Valerie,

You seem to believe the Bootstrap is paranoid or delusional or something and are not open to the possibility that Max is, indeed, a fake. Whoever MaxPC is is a person who refuses to share any shreds of any information about themselves at all, and then engages in a personal war against that person (including PMing other people on the forum to try to get them on his side). Bootstrap and myself pretty much can't breathe or make any post here without Max tearing us down.

Of course, someone can participate in MennoNet with a high degree of anonymity, and that's fine. What's not fine is when one chooses to do so, but then portrays themselves as an expert about all kinds of things, and also goes around disfellowshipping people via the Internet or proclaiming to someone they have lost their salvation, like Max did to me.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Non-resistance does not mean silence

Post by Bootstrap »

Valerie wrote:Boot from the beginning you have implied to the whole forum that you consider Max to be a fake. You don't trust him, imply he is dishonest, making up his life, etc- people have tried to point this out to you in the past but it continues to persist, something like a hound dog hot on a trail to a fox.
I think it would be EXTREMELY helpful if people would stop pointing out that I don't trust him and think he has told tall tales about his life. It practically forces me into the position of explaining why. That's not something I feel the need to keep bringing up, so please stop mentioning it. That's not the reason for most of the questions that I ask. If about three people would stop bringing that up, I bet it would come up a whole lot less often.

But I also think it would be helpful if Max would answer questions about the things he claims about himself, building a record of trust. Or perhaps simply make fewer claims about himself, like most people here.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Sudsy
Posts: 5854
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Non-resistance does not mean silence

Post by Sudsy »

MaxPC wrote:
RZehr wrote: Non-resistance does extend beyond physical force.

But typically boycotting is not going beyond. Typically boycotting is nonviolent resistance, but is still trying to force some issue. I think it is important to know what side of boycotting is found, and I believe boycotting actually is falling short of non-resistance instead of going beyond.

True non-resistance of evil is rooted in love.
I agree to a degree. :D
I'm also of the position that if there's a point of "no progress"; that to continue a conversation after the others become increasingly repetitive in their hostility and false accusations, even after a private conversation, then it's not promoting the mission or love of Christ. It's time to shake the dust from one's feet rather than to enable the hostile party by continuing the conversation that always ends with the hostile party continuing the hostility. Of course that's the Catholic perspective of non-resistance. We don't call it boycotting. We assess the situation (discernment) and take the course of action that does not involve hostility or vitriol (prudential judgement) for a nonresistant response.
Putting all past offenses behind us, we all see here how one person has chosen to respond to a breakdown in PM attempts for continued peaceful conversation. The PM reproving process is deemed over by the withdrawing party and this withdrawal approach is unacceptable to other(s). Then the ball is in whose court to do what ?

Imo, the ball is in the court of whoever is having trouble accepting this withdrawal approach. Will they move on and not post on threads made by the withdrawal poster and avoid referring to postings made by each other in other threads ? Or will they not respect this withdrawal boundary and push in an open way to still try to force the situation to their approved way ?

Can someone use this withdrawal approach to avoid anyone who disagrees with them or doesn't speak to them in a way they would like ? For sure. Can someone attempt to force compliance with how they think Christians should relate to each other. For sure. God alone knows what is really going on. There are some limitations here that are not the same as in a local church setting. I do think for the better part we don't need being moderated if we differ yet allow space for these differences and work towards brotherly love the best we can.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Non-resistance does not mean silence

Post by Bootstrap »

Sudsy wrote:
MaxPC wrote:I'm also of the position that if there's a point of "no progress"; that to continue a conversation after the others become increasingly repetitive in their hostility and false accusations, even after a private conversation, then it's not promoting the mission or love of Christ. It's time to shake the dust from one's feet rather than to enable the hostile party by continuing the conversation that always ends with the hostile party continuing the hostility. Of course that's the Catholic perspective of non-resistance. We don't call it boycotting. We assess the situation (discernment) and take the course of action that does not involve hostility or vitriol (prudential judgement) for a nonresistant response.
Putting all past offenses behind us, we all see here how one person has chosen to respond to a breakdown in PM attempts for continued peaceful conversation. The PM reproving process is deemed over by the withdrawing party and this withdrawal approach is unacceptable to other(s). Then the ball is in whose court to do what ?
Umm ... it's been years since Max PM'd me or responded to one of my PMs - I can't remember when I last sent him a PM or received one from him. What private conversation is Max talking about? I don't think he has contacted me privately since a failed attempt at reconciliation with the help of the moderators back on MennoDiscuss quite a while ago.

And does that announcement ever reduce vitriol? It signals three things: (1) Max is telling us that he himself is beyond reproof, (2) he is telling us that the other person is hostile and making false accusations, and (3) he is telling us that his judgement is final and not open to discussion. Max has spoken. He's telling you quite loudly how you should feel about him and how you should feel about the other person. And most of the time, this proclamation really doesn't seem to match what the other person was saying. Seriously, is this proclamation not hostile on the face of it? Isn't it an obvious case of passive aggression, a hostile act claiming to be an act of peacemaking?

I really do suggest this: let's move forward and not backward, putting offenses behind. Assume goodwill. If there's a question that's problematic, say so, in public, and explain why it is problematic.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Sudsy
Posts: 5854
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Non-resistance does not mean silence

Post by Sudsy »

Bootstrap wrote: And does that announcement ever reduce vitriol? It signals three things: (1) Max is telling us that he himself is beyond reproof, (2) he is telling us that the other person is hostile and making false accusations, and (3) he is telling us that his judgement is final and not open to discussion. Max has spoken. He's telling you quite loudly how you should feel about him and how you should feel about the other person. And most of the time, this proclamation really doesn't seem to match what the other person was saying. Seriously, is this proclamation not hostile on the face of it? Isn't it an obvious case of passive aggression, a hostile act claiming to be an act of peacemaking?

I really do suggest this: let's move forward and not backward, putting offenses behind. Assume goodwill. If there's a question that's problematic, say so, in public, and explain why it is problematic.
I don't think everyone agrees with you on your 3 things this signals and no, I don't see this proclamation as a fact that he is being hostile. And even if what you say is all true, can we not keep problematic personal areas aside in threads to just PMs ? Otherwise, my guess is that these things said in public will fan the fires of slander and taking sides. Your choice. I think thats all for me on this. And everyone said - 'AMEN' ! :)

May the peace of God rule in our hearts til Jesus comes !
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Non-resistance does not mean silence

Post by Bootstrap »

Sudsy wrote:And even if what you say is all true, can we not keep problematic personal areas aside in threads to just PMs ?
Definitely. And it would also be helpful if we can all stop taking sides when someone raises problematic personal areas in public.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Non-resistance does not mean silence

Post by Valerie »

Bootstrap wrote:
Sudsy wrote:And even if what you say is all true, can we not keep problematic personal areas aside in threads to just PMs ?
Definitely. And it would also be helpful if we can all stop taking sides when someone raises problematic personal areas in public.
Boot I don't think it is a matter of taking sides at all- but just not analyzing all this the same way you are- please forgive me if I came across that way- I appreciate you in many ways but at the same time, I just don't see what you see in this- and I really didn't feel what Max was raising concerns about, was an 'illegitimate' concern because of the great influence, professors can have on young minds. Perhaps it made me think back decades ago to the communists who stated something to the affect with, they will use the school system to achieve their goals- without using a gun (my mom knows the quote well, I just cannot remember it word for word and would have to ask her) point being- I don't understand why you had to be so obsessive about it in that particular thread, when if I was in Max shoes, exposed to the same news broadcast, i would have felt the same way- and he is actually taken a positive step towards addressing how professors (schools) can be held accountable- someone needs to do this. We can agree or disagree- but it just gets wearisome this constant harping about it, Max doesn't personally influence anyone on this forum, I don't think to where it should raise such an issue with you?
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Non-resistance does not mean silence

Post by Bootstrap »

Valerie wrote:... and I really didn't feel what Max was raising concerns about, was an 'illegitimate' concern because of the great influence, professors can have on young minds.
Valerie wrote:I don't understand why you had to be so obsessive about it in that particular thread, when if I was in Max shoes, exposed to the same news broadcast, i would have felt the same way
Sure, you hear the news broadcast, you feel that way. I would have too. But news reports aren't always accurate, and internet shaming is a very big problem. After all, this guy is now getting death threats and had to go into hiding, and he and the college say big parts of this story were not true. The college will give him a fair hearing, we do not have the facts to do that ourselves.

Should Christians participate in internet shaming when we have no direct knowledge of the people or facts involved? When we do this, does it reduce vitriol? I think this is a very big problem, a nasty form of gossip.
Valerie wrote: and he is actually taken a positive step towards addressing how professors (schools) can be held accountable- someone needs to do this.
As I said several times now, if he is actually doing this, this is a positive step. I would really like to see him provide pointers to any materials or programs he creates. That will take time, let's give him that time.

And I would really be interested in a discussion of what the limits of academic freedom are as he sees it. I'm pretty sure that colleges already teach professors the limits of academic freedom, and that they have ethics training. These limits are regularly tested in courts, schools have law facilities, and these are very hot debates on most campuses.

If he's going to do this, he's going to have to answer the kinds of questions that professors ask. Many of these will be similar to questions I am asking. There will be a lot more of them.
Valerie wrote:We can agree or disagree- but it just gets wearisome this constant harping about it, Max doesn't personally influence anyone on this forum, I don't think to where it should raise such an issue with you?
Every time you ask this kind of question, you are asking me to respond on this topic. It keeps it alive.

But here are the things that matter to me:
  • Internet shaming is a really ugly thing. I don't think Christians should participate in it. If someone is accused, they should get a fair hearing.
  • If we don't think the mainstream media always gets us the truth, we have to be able to ask whether a report was true. If we don't think everything someone says on the Internet is always true, we have to be able to ask questions about it.
  • If you look at the questions I was asking, they are mostly about the topic itself - what actually happened, did the news get it right, is the college already having a hearing, what kind of ethics training do professors get, what would Max say in those materials, how should we respond as Christians to shocking stories we hear in the news, etc. These are the questions that are being called hostile. How can we even take the subject seriously without asking this kind of question?
  • Max's response is generally to turn attention to the people asking the questions, accusing Peter, me, and Josh of being hostile. He wants to shut people down, stop us from asking questions. I want to be able to actually discuss the topic.
I don't really want to be discussing Max at all, and certainly not the conflict between us (unless he is interested in seeking reconciliation, I keep that door open). I want to discuss topics, without rancor. Can we go back to doing that?
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
TeleBodyofChrist
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:20 am
Location: Traveler
Affiliation: Christian
Contact:

Re: Non-resistance does not mean silence

Post by TeleBodyofChrist »

Well, I can say I did not know what was going on in this thread until things were brought up. I did not realize what happened in another thread since I have not been on in a few weeks.

I think it is easy when there is an issue to become defensive and think everything said is some passive aggressive slight. However, I am not sure that others addressing the issue is helping anything. If the person has an issue with what was said, and there is a known issue between them why not let that person defend or confront the person themselves?

I thought we are supposed to go to our brother and talk to them if we have an issue? It is a difficult situation as we want peace, surely? Unfortunately, just from reading and not knowing the past it appears as if people have already taken sides and made opinions about who is right and who is wrong. What is the solution? For each person to avoid each others threads? Do we really need an ignore/add foe button on a Christian forum? Can we not just read someone's post without taking our toys and going home?

When I think about it, I have PM'ed a couple of members here and never received a response at all. Why? I do not know. I guess I could take it personally but what is the point of that? It would be nothing but my sinful flesh trying to rule me. Instead, I still read what they have to say and like their post if I agree. Whenever, I feel myself wondering about them in a negative way I stomp it down. I have too.

Walking this walk is hard. We will offend people. However, we should never turn ourselves away from someone to the point we can not even hear when they seek reconciliation. After all, as much as we fall short of the Glory of God He still hears us.

Hopefully, I am not coming across as self righteous or whatever negative thing one may think. That is the problem with the written word. It is very hard to tell intent and easy to misunderstand.
0 x
Let’s read the whole bible together in 30 days!
If interested you can view my profile and go to my website.

2 Tim. 3:16-17
Post Reply