Peacemaking after the Election

[Josh]

If we are to be peacemakers,it seems like a real error to believe, as some have seemed to posit in these political discussions, that there is more virtue on one side than the other. Perhaps the beginning of the peacemaking endeavor is to purge ourselves of the idea that, in politics, there is a good team and an evil team (although, as peacemakers, it would be good to admit that there are some good intentions, and even a few good points, on all sides).

We often say this, but few are really willing to stand by it. When I question the most ardent pacifist, they will never draw an equivalence between the Axis powers and the Allies - who wants to say "Well, there are good intentions, and even some good points, on the side of Imperial Japan and the Nazis"?

[Wayne in Maine]

If we are to be peacemakers,it seems like a real error to believe, as some have seemed to posit in these political discussions, that there is more virtue on one side than the other. Perhaps the beginning of the peacemaking endeavor is to purge ourselves of the idea that, in politics, there is a good team and an evil team (although, as peacemakers, it would be good to admit that there are some good intentions, and even a few good points, on all sides).

We often say this, but few are really willing to stand by it. When I question the most ardent pacifist, they will never draw an equivalence between the Axis powers and the Allies - who wants to say "Well, there are good intentions, and even some good points, on the side of Imperial Japan and the Nazis"?

That's a good point Josh. When we put "our" preferred national politics in the same box as Mao's or Stalin's or Pol Pot's or Hitler's we tend to actually get pretty uncomfortable. We turn around and defend "our" system as more virtuous. If George Bush was a war criminal, Barak Obama was also a war criminal.

[Dan Z]

If we are to be peacemakers,it seems like a real error to believe, as some have seemed to posit in these political discussions, that there is more virtue on one side than the other. Perhaps the beginning of the peacemaking endeavor is to purge ourselves of the idea that, in politics, there is a good team and an evil team (although, as peacemakers, it would be good to admit that there are some good intentions, and even a few good points, on all sides).

We often say this, but few are really willing to stand by it. When I question the most ardent pacifist, they will never draw an equivalence between the Axis powers and the Allies - who wants to say "Well, there are good intentions, and even some good points, on the side of Imperial Japan and the Nazis"?

Good point.

In my post I wasn't necessarily arguing for moral equivalency as an approach to peacemaking. Wrong needs to be recognized for what it is (although, I would note that we are all subject to some degree of propaganda from "our side", and also that tribalism often clouds our objectivity).

I was primarily thinking of US politics when challenging the idea that one party's methods and actors are more good than the other (as opposed to, say, Nazism or ISIS or Totalitarianism). There is plenty of dirt to go around in US politics - money and power guarantee that.

[Josh]

Wrong is not following Jesus, including his message of peace. There is no "middle ground" in the narrow way.

Now, righteousness does exult a nation - to an extent. But we are supposed to be of a heavenly nation.

It greatly disturbs me how many avowed Christian pacifists would be absolutely okay with carrying out a targeted assassination of a sufficiently evil political enemy.

[Dan Z]

This is an interesting topic Josh, and I've been thinking a lot about it -especially lately with the election an all. Let's start a new thread on The Christian and Political Involvement

[temporal1]

Wrong is not following Jesus, including his message of peace. There is no "middle ground" in the narrow way.

Now, righteousness does exult a nation - to an extent. But we are supposed to be of a heavenly nation.

It greatly disturbs me how many avowed Christian pacifists would be absolutely okay with carrying out a targeted assassination of a sufficiently evil political enemy.

there are many many not-necessarily-pacifist Christians, and not-Christian, at all, folks who cannot support assassinations, either. but, it's well to question specific claims of pacifism in this way.

[temporal1]

Page 1 / Nov 4, 2016 / prior to the election

Those that haven't been walking the way of peace will probably not magically change after the election (especially if their favored party doesn't win).

If we suddenly need to change into peace-makers after the election, then it is probably too late to keep our Christian testimony from being ruined.

mike’s understated words of wisdom.

[temporal1]

For some unknown reason, i began a spin-off thread.
Maybe just to TRY to move away from “politics.”

over 2 years later, with no let-up in rancor, i hope it’s ok.

”Peacemaking in rough seas”
http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php ... 931#p48931

[Bootstrap]

Bumping this thread. This is how we discussed the Trump election 4 years ago. Interesting to read what each of us said back then. Worth reading the whole thread.

[Bootstrap]

Four years later, I still think this is the right attitude for Christians to take after an election if the candidate they do not prefer wins.

joining others in prayer for the newly elected.

Me too. And I think we should have an open mind, praying and hoping that Trump can be a good president. Peter Feaver sums it up well in this article.

Peter Feaver was very much against Trump during the campaign, but pushed for this attitude after Trump was elected:

He is now our president. He does not have our unwavering support, but because he is now our president-elect, he has our initial support. We want him to succeed as president because if he succeeds, America succeeds.

And he will have to understand that America cannot be as great as it needs to be if we stay as divided as we are right now. That means he will need to work with the leadership of both parties !!! SNIP !!! to find areas of common purpose.

To me, at least, this seems like the right attitude.