ANALYZING THE CHARLOTTESVILLE VIOLENCE

Events occurring and how they relate/affect Anabaptist faith and culture.
RZehr
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:42 am
Location: Palisades Mennonite Church Culver Oregon
Affiliation: Western Fellowship

Re: ANALYZING THE CHARLOTTESVILLE VIOLENCE

Postby RZehr » Mon Aug 28, 2017 12:27 pm

If we as Christians are truly nonpartisan, we should be able to call either side out for their misbehavior without addressing the failures of the other side. This is because our primary goal is not finding a balance, but rather a call to individuals to take responsibility for their actions.
2 x

Dan Z
Posts: 263
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:20 am
Location: Central Minnesota
Affiliation: CMC

Re: ANALYZING THE CHARLOTTESVILLE VIOLENCE

Postby Dan Z » Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:16 pm

Absolutely RHZehr.

If we really don't have a "dog in the hunt" then we will respond with the ethics of Jesus to each issue as we are confronted by it, regardless of whether or not it harms the image of one party or another. "Balance" shouldn't matter to us.

This approach should also tend to keep us from always needing chime in on the latest hot-button issue out there - since we are not motivated to "score points for our side."

Wow---that's a lot of metaphors in one post. :)
1 x

temporal1
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:09 pm
Affiliation: less than the least

Re: ANALYZING THE CHARLOTTESVILLE VIOLENCE

Postby temporal1 » Tue Aug 29, 2017 12:02 am

Dan Z wrote:Absolutely RHZehr.

If we really don't have a "dog in the hunt" then we will respond with the ethics of Jesus to each issue as we are confronted by it, regardless of whether or not it harms the image of one party or another. "Balance" shouldn't matter to us.

This approach should also tend to keep us from always needing chime in on the latest hot-button issue out there - since we are not motivated to "score points for our side."

Wow---that's a lot of metaphors in one post. :)
0 x
formerly Temporal1

“The past is never dead. It's not even past.”
William Faulkner, Requiem for a Nun

appleman2006
Posts: 530
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:50 pm
Affiliation: Midwest Mennonite

Re: ANALYZING THE CHARLOTTESVILLE VIOLENCE

Postby appleman2006 » Tue Aug 29, 2017 9:03 am

RZehr wrote:If we as Christians are truly nonpartisan, we should be able to call either side out for their misbehavior without addressing the failures of the other side. This is because our primary goal is not finding a balance, but rather a call to individuals to take responsibility for their actions.


I think I hear what you are saying here. On the other hand if I am honest with myself I do have to admit that my natural tendencies brought about at least somewhat by my personal experiences are going to create some biases on my part. I have found that if I make no effort at admitting those biases I am even less likely to be able to understand where others are coming from.
I find it pretty easy to ask others to take responsibility for their actions. I struggle a lot more at trying to understand why they may have taken those actions in the first place.
Or another way of saying it is, I like when others try to take the time to understand where I am coming from and why I might have responded the way I did in a certain situation. Am I willing to give that same consideration to others?
2 x

PeterG
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:52 pm
Location: Central PA
Affiliation: Conserv. Mennonite

Re: ANALYZING THE CHARLOTTESVILLE VIOLENCE

Postby PeterG » Tue Aug 29, 2017 5:26 pm

RZehr wrote:If we as Christians are truly nonpartisan, we should be able to call either side out for their misbehavior without addressing the failures of the other side. This is because our primary goal is not finding a balance, but rather a call to individuals to take responsibility for their actions.

What's the difference between this and partiality?
1 x

RZehr
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:42 am
Location: Palisades Mennonite Church Culver Oregon
Affiliation: Western Fellowship

Re: ANALYZING THE CHARLOTTESVILLE VIOLENCE

Postby RZehr » Tue Aug 29, 2017 7:14 pm

PeterG wrote:
RZehr wrote:If we as Christians are truly nonpartisan, we should be able to call either side out for their misbehavior without addressing the failures of the other side. This is because our primary goal is not finding a balance, but rather a call to individuals to take responsibility for their actions.

What's the difference between this and partiality?


The spirit it is done in, which may not be clear on an internet forum but is clear in real life.
0 x

Bootstrap
Posts: 2303
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Kingdom Christian

Re: ANALYZING THE CHARLOTTESVILLE VIOLENCE

Postby Bootstrap » Tue Aug 29, 2017 7:38 pm

RZehr wrote:
PeterG wrote:What's the difference between this and partiality?


The spirit it is done in, which may not be clear on an internet forum but is clear in real life.


OK, but I suspect the spirit in which I wrote my posts may also be unclear on an Internet forum. I don't think I was doing that to score points for my side. I'm definitely not on the side of either of these groups. I'm pretty sure the OP wasn't trying to score points for one of these sides either. On the other hand, my posts seem to have upset people, and I apologize for that. I won't revisit any of that in this thread.

But I don't think calling each side to account is the same as giving an account of what happened, and I think that's important.

Suppose Steven dumps a bucket of mud on Jim's head, and Jim starts pummeling Steven. When you talk to each of them, you want each to take responsibility for his own actions, and not use the actions of the other as an excuse. At this point, you are asking each to take responsibility for their actions. Now their mother walks in and asks what happened. You tell her that Jim hit Steven. That doesn't sound impartial. Or you tell her excuses one of them made without making sure that they are true. That doesn't sound impartial either. To avoid being partial, I think you really do need to present what each of them did in the same level of detail, and have the same level of skepticism for each.

I suspect both the OP and my bullet points were an attempt at an impartial telling. I doubt that either of us are trying to score points for either of the sides in the conflict. I also suspect there may be some cultural differences at work.

I think we're all on the same side of this issue, wanting peace and stability. So I'm sorry that my posts came across the way they did.
1 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?

Bootstrap
Posts: 2303
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Kingdom Christian

Re: ANALYZING THE CHARLOTTESVILLE VIOLENCE

Postby Bootstrap » Wed Aug 30, 2017 12:09 pm

One last thing: I want to be clear that in the Steve and Jim example, I am not implying that the account in the OP is as partial as the example. It clearly is not. The example uses an extreme to try to explain why I think you need balance if you want to tell a story in an impartial way.

I apologize if that was not clear.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?

RZehr
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:42 am
Location: Palisades Mennonite Church Culver Oregon
Affiliation: Western Fellowship

Re: ANALYZING THE CHARLOTTESVILLE VIOLENCE

Postby RZehr » Wed Aug 30, 2017 1:49 pm

RZehr wrote:
PeterG wrote:
RZehr wrote:If we as Christians are truly nonpartisan, we should be able to call either side out for their misbehavior without addressing the failures of the other side. This is because our primary goal is not finding a balance, but rather a call to individuals to take responsibility for their actions.

What's the difference between this and partiality?


The spirit it is done in, which may not be clear on an internet forum but is clear in real life.


Partiality overlooks and over emphasizes.
1 x


Return to “Current Events and Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests