Sudsy wrote:I thought this to be a good article regarding Mennonite involvement in politics called - How Should We Be political ?
http://mennoworld.org/2017/02/13/the-wo ... political/
What do you agree with / disagree with in this article?
Sudsy wrote:I thought this to be a good article regarding Mennonite involvement in politics called - How Should We Be political ?
http://mennoworld.org/2017/02/13/the-wo ... political/
Regarding your quote, I think one contrast in Kingdom versus kingdom at this point is in the 'Make America Great Again' quest, there is this need to be recognized as the greatest and even if this requires less support for other countries who have so much less. Kingdom of God promotion comes by humility and self sacrifice for others. Jesus taught that whoever humbles himself like a little child shall be greatest in the Kingdom of God. As Kingdom people we should be reflecting a giving spirit even if some make take advantage of it. Compared to most of the world we live in luxury.Hats Off wrote:"Instead, when we critique policies or rebuke leaders, may we do it out of loyalty to kingdom principles and a desire to show the world that so many national political values do not line up with kingdom values. We must critique inasmuch as we’re showing a difference between the two." This is a quote from the article. I don't think I have enough knowledge of political affairs to really rebuke a leader. I really don't believe Justin Trudeau would listen or care if I attempted to rebuke him.
I took what this writer was saying is that the idea of talking about another Kingdom than the one they were stuck in, in itself was a political involvement as far as the Romans were concerned. To stand for something that differs from the system you are in can be seen as political involvement. Or did I miss your point ?Neto wrote:Mostly disagree. Their point # 1 (last one mentioned), partially agree. Well, I agree with the statement, except that then they make it say something different. I do not see evidence for Jesus having any political involvement with the controlling political power of his day, the Romans. He did speak to the religious leaders, of course, and they did wield some political power, but I think that he spoke to them in the context of their position as religious leaders, not in any capacity as political leaders, perceived or real.
[This article pretty clearly follows the sort of position I took during my "activist-pacifist" era, but I no longer support that viewpoint.]
I understood them in the same way as you state here, but I think that is a smoke-screen of sorts to justify political involvement. It is at that point that I disagree. They interpret the mere fact of the existence of the conflict between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world as a reason to be involved in the kingdom of this world, or this belief (that there is another Kingdom) in and of itself as a sort of resultant activist/protest involvement. While I did at one time believe that, I no longer think it is a Biblical stance. I believe that when we become a part of the Kingdom of God, we become aliens in the kingdom of the world, and aliens don't vote (except in some Democrat-controlled areas, according to some reports ).Sudsy wrote:I took what this writer was saying is that the idea of talking about another Kingdom than the one they were stuck in, in itself was a political involvement as far as the Romans were concerned. To stand for something that differs from the system you are in can be seen as political involvement. Or did I miss your point ?Neto wrote:Mostly disagree. Their point # 1 (last one mentioned), partially agree. Well, I agree with the statement, except that then they make it say something different. I do not see evidence for Jesus having any political involvement with the controlling political power of his day, the Romans. He did speak to the religious leaders, of course, and they did wield some political power, but I think that he spoke to them in the context of their position as religious leaders, not in any capacity as political leaders, perceived or real.
[This article pretty clearly follows the sort of position I took during my "activist-pacifist" era, but I no longer support that viewpoint.]
What about moral outrage at the behavior of leaders? Do we know enough to do that?Hats Off wrote:"Instead, when we critique policies or rebuke leaders, may we do it out of loyalty to kingdom principles and a desire to show the world that so many national political values do not line up with kingdom values. We must critique inasmuch as we’re showing a difference between the two." This is a quote from the article. I don't think I have enough knowledge of political affairs to really rebuke a leader. I really don't believe Justin Trudeau would listen or care if I attempted to rebuke him.
He is talking precisely about speaking out:Neto wrote:I understood them in the same way as you state here, but I think that is a smoke-screen of sorts to justify political involvement. It is at that point that I disagree. They interpret the mere fact of the existence of the conflict between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world as a reason to be involved in the kingdom of this world, or this belief (that there is another Kingdom) in and of itself as a sort of resultant activist/protest involvement.
Are you saying you would not speak out on any political issue? Would you speak out on moral issues? How do you separate the two?This principle is exactly why I, a non-voting Anabaptist/Mennonite type, still speak out on some political issues: I want to illustrate the difference between the two kingdoms.
I did not address "speaking out", but political involvement, which I am interpreting as "becoming a part of the political process, in order to bring about some change". But I do think that as far as "speaking out" goes, our main focus should be speaking to those within our own kingdom. Our "involvement" in the other kingdom ought to be limited to touching the lives of individual members of that kingdom, as much as possible through one-on-one contact, and secondly, through helping those who do have that one-to-one contact. Rather than "speaking out", I think we should be "acting out" (our faith, by doing what all men are intended to do by God's design, not just as an "example to be followed", but focused on the person(s) involved, to bring about wholeness).Bootstrap wrote:He is talking precisely about speaking out:Neto wrote:I understood them in the same way as you state here, but I think that is a smoke-screen of sorts to justify political involvement. It is at that point that I disagree. They interpret the mere fact of the existence of the conflict between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world as a reason to be involved in the kingdom of this world, or this belief (that there is another Kingdom) in and of itself as a sort of resultant activist/protest involvement.
Are you saying you would not speak out on any political issue? Would you speak out on moral issues? How do you separate the two?This principle is exactly why I, a non-voting Anabaptist/Mennonite type, still speak out on some political issues: I want to illustrate the difference between the two kingdoms.