MennoNet.com

PeterG wrote:The trouble with this thread and others like it is that, whether intentionally or not, they are positioned in the context of partisan political conflict, which tends to become indistinguishable from participation in partisan political conflict.

But how do we address partisan political conflict? If someone has a religious devotion to some political faction, and you tell them that's not really the Gospel we find in the Bible, they invariably respond by saying you are just some blind follower of the opposite faction.

And I do think it's helpful to open our eyes to how much this influences American Christianity. When Christians get together, they often talk a whole lot more about politics than they do about faith or what genuine love is or what we are grateful to God for or how to live out our lives as servants to others or how to become more holy.

PeterG wrote:Now, I know Bootstrap well enough to be confident that with the OP he intended to make a point (with which I fully agree) about conflating religion and politics, rather than engaging in partisan battle. But it doesn't necessarily look that way to the casual observer, because the object of political allegiance is emphasized, rather than political allegiance itself.

This confuses me. Isn't this hymn precisely an expression of political allegiance, expressed as a hymn that can be used in church services? The object is irrelevant - it would be just as bad if the lyrics were "Yes, we can!" (Obama's campaign slogan).

Bootstrap wrote:This confuses me. Isn't this hymn precisely an expression of political allegiance, expressed as a hymn that can be used in church services? The object is irrelevant - it would be just as bad if the lyrics were "Yes, we can!" (Obama's campaign slogan).

There actually were. It was sung at some elementary schools. I have no doubt it was sung in a few churches too.

There will always be people pushing politics. This is because they do not really believe that there is a Supreme Being who is orchestrating or guiding things. Only people who have a high level of trust in God would trust God over "politics." Politics is humanity working to govern themselves. As Anabaptists, we think God, and the teachings of Jesus, should be guiding us. Those who have little or no trust in God and the teachings of Jesus would have to focus on human rule and control of the masses.

Then we have Level 2 peoples. Those who see Obama or Trump and God's appointed and often blindly support that person because they see it as a piece of a bigger pattern of Supreme Being guidance and control.

There will always be the extremists that will follow the extremes.

As when Obama got elected, and as Trump has, we have a benefit already in place. After no longer than 8 years, they are gone and someone else will be there.

I think we still tend to see the president as king. This is humorous to me. They are just a person in place to do some things for a bit. They will soon be gone and someone else will be in place to mess things up.

Reread the book of Judges. We have changed little. I am sure there were songs for the good and bad Judges alike too. Someone liked what they were doing. There were some who liked what Charles Manson was doing. I am sure they sang a few songs about him too.

Robert wrote:

Bootstrap wrote:This confuses me. Isn't this hymn precisely an expression of political allegiance, expressed as a hymn that can be used in church services? The object is irrelevant - it would be just as bad if the lyrics were "Yes, we can!" (Obama's campaign slogan).

There actually were. It was sung at some elementary schools. I have no doubt it was sung in a few churches too.

The Pledge of Allegiance is bad enough, but of course we can't explain why that is idolatry to most people. But brainwashing kids with political slogans? When we are already divided into toxic political factions? Not good.

I'm curious whether anyone knows of churches who sang that song or distribution channels that tried to market it to churches that liked Obama. Any evidence on this?

Suppose you are talking to a partisan who thinks singing "Yes we can" in churches would be great. What can you say that won't just fan the flames? I don't think we can be salt and light by simply avoiding all controversial subjects ...

Robert wrote: There actually were. It was sung at some elementary schools. I have no doubt it was sung in a few churches too.

i was mortified to view a video of young schoolchildren sitting in their seats in school, i believe this one was in harlem, happily chanting words (something like) "go and vote - it's your civic duty!" songs to sing to their parents, specifically glorifying obama.

it's often easier to remember things when they are chanted or sung.
this is used as a teaching tool.

i believe this was in obama's first term, when many sincerely believed he was the 2nd coming.
it was so prevalent, i recall obama smiling and stating, "no, i am not Jesus Christ." i believe in his first term. he still has his devotees for whom he can do no wrong.

later, i tried to find this video, could not find it.
there are various things i have seen with my own eyes+ears that i can't find on the "forever" internet.
evidently, this happens.

since, news sites will sometimes state, "we captured this - before it was removed from the internet." so, i know it's not "just me" and my poor tech skills.

my memory is faulty, but not non-existent.

As haithabu said elsewhere,

haithabu wrote:I would find it refreshing if just once instead of "yes, but" or "backatcha" or "what about" someone would simply say, "Yes, I agree that's wrong and it bothers me too!"

Bootstrap wrote:

PeterG wrote:The trouble with this thread and others like it is that, whether intentionally or not, they are positioned in the context of partisan political conflict, which tends to become indistinguishable from participation in partisan political conflict.

But how do we address partisan political conflict? If someone has a religious devotion to some political faction, and you tell them that's not really the Gospel we find in the Bible, they invariably respond by saying you are just some blind follower of the opposite faction.

And I do think it's helpful to open our eyes to how much this influences American Christianity. When Christians get together, they often talk a whole lot more about politics than they do about faith or what genuine love is or what we are grateful to God for or how to live out our lives as servants to others or how to become more holy.

PeterG wrote:Now, I know Bootstrap well enough to be confident that with the OP he intended to make a point (with which I fully agree) about conflating religion and politics, rather than engaging in partisan battle. But it doesn't necessarily look that way to the casual observer, because the object of political allegiance is emphasized, rather than political allegiance itself.

This confuses me. Isn't this hymn precisely an expression of political allegiance, expressed as a hymn that can be used in church services? The object is irrelevant - it would be just as bad if the lyrics were "Yes, we can!" (Obama's campaign slogan).

I hear you. I'm more than sympathetic with the point you're trying to make, and know all too well how hard it is to navigate these issues. But here we are on page 4, arguing about Trump and Obama. Maybe this is inevitable no matter how the issue is framed, but I don't think it helps that the thread title consists largely of a Trump slogan. The idol is foregrounded, rather than the idolatry, hence the debate over whether or not the blue idol is worse than the red idol.

Anyway, I'm probably being too hard on you. I really do appreciate the way you're thinking here. It's just discouraging to see how these discussions degenerate.

I'm sure we can all agree that the song sounds horrible, though. Right?

Maybe a 4 part harmony would bring it to life

PeterG wrote:

Bootstrap wrote:

PeterG wrote:The trouble with this thread and others like it is that, whether intentionally or not, they are positioned in the context of partisan political conflict, which tends to become indistinguishable from participation in partisan political conflict.

But how do we address partisan political conflict? If someone has a religious devotion to some political faction, and you tell them that's not really the Gospel we find in the Bible, they invariably respond by saying you are just some blind follower of the opposite faction.

And I do think it's helpful to open our eyes to how much this influences American Christianity. When Christians get together, they often talk a whole lot more about politics than they do about faith or what genuine love is or what we are grateful to God for or how to live out our lives as servants to others or how to become more holy.

PeterG wrote:Now, I know Bootstrap well enough to be confident that with the OP he intended to make a point (with which I fully agree) about conflating religion and politics, rather than engaging in partisan battle. But it doesn't necessarily look that way to the casual observer, because the object of political allegiance is emphasized, rather than political allegiance itself.

This confuses me. Isn't this hymn precisely an expression of political allegiance, expressed as a hymn that can be used in church services? The object is irrelevant - it would be just as bad if the lyrics were "Yes, we can!" (Obama's campaign slogan).

I hear you. I'm more than sympathetic with the point you're trying to make, and know all too well how hard it is to navigate these issues. But here we are on page 4, arguing about Trump and Obama. Maybe this is inevitable no matter how the issue is framed, but I don't think it helps that the thread title consists largely of a Trump slogan. The idol is foregrounded, rather than the idolatry, hence the debate over whether or not the blue idol is worse than the red idol.

Anyway, I'm probably being too hard on you. I really do appreciate the way you're thinking here. It's just discouraging to see how these discussions degenerate.

Has it degenerated? So far I've seen discussion, and some disagreement, but I haven't seen people having an argument, at least in the sense of a "fight". Seems pretty mild.

I think we should be able to talk about specific cases where something is wrong, and not just the general subject, even if it requires a clarification that we aren't excusing other instances, or the other "side". I think there is a way to bring up the other "side" in a way that isn't simply what-aboutism, such as a clarification or an expansion of the discussion to show how the principle applies across the board. If people are being fair-minded and willing to give each other the benefit of the doubt, then that should bring them to find something they can agree on together, or at least to an amicable agreeing to disagree. If they're not willing to have that attitude, then a profitable discussion isn't possible. I agree what-aboutism is wrong.

PeterG wrote:As haithabu said elsewhere,

haithabu wrote:I would find it refreshing if just once instead of "yes, but" or "backatcha" or "what about" someone would simply say, "Yes, I agree that's wrong and it bothers me too!"

I agree with this. I think this goes against not only what-aboutism, but also the opposite, i.e. not bringing up controversial subjects at all.

KingdomBuilder wrote:I'm sure we can all agree that the song sounds horrible, though. Right?

Maybe a 4 part harmony would bring it to life

I haven't listened to the song, but ugh, still not interested. (I know you're joking )

Unfortunately, some churches in the U.S. have blended politics and religion so thoroughly that it is very hard to go to church without hearing politically biased statements. They have essentially created a new religion. I used to attend churches like that and it upset me because of the way they seemed to actually hate the current leader. Saying things they would never think to say about one another in the house of the Lord or around Sunday lunch. Another issue I had was the spreading of lies (knowingly or unknowingly) about the current leaders.

One of the things that drew me to the Anabaptists in the first place was the separation of the two kingdoms. It was an absolute relief to get away from political pressure. So, for me when I see reminders like this, I worry for the churches we now attend. Will this mania spread here? I think things like this are good reminders to stay vigilant.

Actually, discussions like this let me see that Mennonites are still very much aware of the dangers.