George Floyd

[Soloist]

And in regards to following Jesus, what do you do with the account of Jesus overturning the moneylenders' tables in the Temple? It's a passage I often struggle with when I think about non-resistance and pacifism. Jesus got angry. He destroyed property. He attacked small business owners with a whip. It's a passage that makes me deeply uncomfortable and it's not something that I have been able to reconcile yet.

It does not say he attacked small business owners with a whip. Rather it says he drove the animals out. Note where he specifically addresses the dove sellers telling them to carry them out.
Also, this is the Son of God, and the temple. Nothing there gives us the right to do the same.

[Szdfan]

But what about the people dying in the riots?

Their lives are more valuable than property too. This is a bad situation, but I think we need to be careful not to make a moral equivalency between loss of life and destruction of property.

No one is drawing moral equivalencies between a life and people's property. Robert et al are saying the very thing that all Anabaptists have believed in for 500 years; namely that all violence is evil, wrong and ultimately fruitless.

I don't agree. I think people are making that equivalency. On top of that, some people on another thread are arguing that it's acceptable to run over protesters with a car if they are blocking the road and threatening them.

Saying things like the following comes across as a patronizing form of approval:

Apologies if this comes over as patronizing approval. I'm not trying to be patronizing and I'm wrestling with the approval. I'm aware that it's easy for me to come across as approving the rioting. I recognize it's a thin line and I'm struggling to walk it. Like the King quote I posted earlier, I want to both embrace non-violence while recognize that there are underlying causes for this violence. Oppressed people become violent when there's no hope.

And perhaps this a divide between the liberal and conservative spheres on Anabaptism, but I don't believe that condemnation of violence has credibility without the hard work of peace building. It's easy to say that POC should not respond to oppression with violence if one hasn't at least done the hard work to understand the circumstances from their perspective. In our discussions on MN, some deny that systematic racism is an actual lived reality and that critiques which expose and highlight that reality is just "cultural Marxism" or just liberals being ideological. Even in the case of George Floyd, there's been an attempt to deny that his murder had anything to do with race. I think it's also patronizing to deny that this experience exists and then trot out MLK or denounce violence when it erupts.

What's more, the suggestion that maybe some of the violence is being perpetrated by Out-of-Staters or White Supremacists seems like a ranking of the virtue of the violence i.e. POC and natives of Minneapolis can be justified in their destruction of their city (but I would never do it because Kingdom Christianity) but if they're coming in from out-of-town to foment unrest and rebellion then that's beyond the pale.

I am trying to reserve judgment on the "out of town" thing for now because I don't know. I'm hearing this from people who I find credible and trust, but I'm also skeptical of that kind of narrative. To me it seems that there are a lot of people behaving badly (including the police) and that this is an extremely complicated and violent situation that our usual partisan framing does not adequately address. I think there is evidence that white supremacists are instigating riots in order to start a race war. I think there is evidence that the militarized police are in some case over-reacting and attacking peaceful demonstrations -- yesterday's attack by police on a peaceful protest at St. John's in order to clear them out for a presidential photo op is an example. I also think there is plenty of evidence that some POC are looting and burning down their own neighborhoods.

I think Boot had the best response to this entire catastrophe on page 1 of this thread:

I don't disagree, but I also think these questions need to be asked, "What does it mean to mourn?" What does it mean to bless in a way that legitimizes the experiences of those who are hurting and mourning? What does it mean to be heal? How does one thirst for righteousness and lead to peace without just re-establishing and re-enforcing the status quo that has led us to this catastrophe?

[Szdfan]

And in regards to following Jesus, what do you do with the account of Jesus overturning the moneylenders' tables in the Temple? It's a passage I often struggle with when I think about non-resistance and pacifism. Jesus got angry. He destroyed property. He attacked small business owners with a whip. It's a passage that makes me deeply uncomfortable and it's not something that I have been able to reconcile yet.

It does not say he attacked small business owners with a whip. Rather it says he drove the animals out. Note where he specifically addresses the dove sellers telling them to carry them out.

Ok, maybe I have the whip thing wrong. But he did overturn their tables and disrupt their business. He did drive their merchandise out of the the temple. He made it impossible for the moneylenders to continue.

Also, this is the Son of God, and the temple. Nothing there gives us the right to do the same.

Are we not supposed to emulate Jesus? Where does it say in Scripture that this is the one thing we're not supposed to do?

[Ken]

And in regards to following Jesus, what do you do with the account of Jesus overturning the moneylenders' tables in the Temple? It's a passage I often struggle with when I think about non-resistance and pacifism. Jesus got angry. He destroyed property. He attacked small business owners with a whip. It's a passage that makes me deeply uncomfortable and it's not something that I have been able to reconcile yet.

It does not say he attacked small business owners with a whip. Rather it says he drove the animals out. Note where he specifically addresses the dove sellers telling them to carry them out.

Ok, maybe I have the whip thing wrong. But he did overturn their tables and disrupt their business. He did drive their merchandise out of the the temple. He made it impossible for the moneylenders to continue.

Also, this is the Son of God, and the temple. Nothing there gives us the right to do the same.

Are we not supposed to emulate Jesus? Where does it say in Scripture that this is the one thing we're not supposed to do?

Perhaps the whip is in our collective consciousness because a lot of the Renaissance art depicting the cleansing of the temple show Jesus with a whip getting pretty violent. For example, this is the famous 1571 El Greco painting Christ Driving the Money Changers from the Temple that is hanging in the National Gallery.

[HondurasKeiser]

Their lives are more valuable than property too. This is a bad situation, but I think we need to be careful not to make a moral equivalency between loss of life and destruction of property.

No one is drawing moral equivalencies between a life and people's property. Robert et al are saying the very thing that all Anabaptists have believed in for 500 years; namely that all violence is evil, wrong and ultimately fruitless.

I don't agree. I think people are making that equivalency. On top of that, some people on another thread are arguing that it's acceptable to run over protesters with a car if they are blocking the road and threatening them.

Saying things like the following comes across as a patronizing form of approval:

Apologies if this comes over as patronizing approval. I'm not trying to be patronizing and I'm wrestling with the approval. I'm aware that it's easy for me to come across as approving the rioting. I recognize it's a thin line and I'm struggling to walk it. Like the King quote I posted earlier, I want to both embrace non-violence while recognize that there are underlying causes for this violence. Oppressed people become violent when there's no hope.

And perhaps this a divide between the liberal and conservative spheres on Anabaptism, but I don't believe that condemnation of violence has credibility without the hard work of peace building. It's easy to say that POC should not respond to oppression with violence if one hasn't at least done the hard work to understand the circumstances from their perspective. In our discussions on MN, some deny that systematic racism is an actual lived reality and that critiques which expose and highlight that reality is just "cultural Marxism" or just liberals being ideological. Even in the case of George Floyd, there's been an attempt to deny that his murder had anything to do with race. I think it's also patronizing to deny that this experience exists and then trot out MLK or denounce violence when it erupts.

What's more, the suggestion that maybe some of the violence is being perpetrated by Out-of-Staters or White Supremacists seems like a ranking of the virtue of the violence i.e. POC and natives of Minneapolis can be justified in their destruction of their city (but I would never do it because Kingdom Christianity) but if they're coming in from out-of-town to foment unrest and rebellion then that's beyond the pale.

I am trying to reserve judgment on the "out of town" thing for now because I don't know. I'm hearing this from people who I find credible and trust, but I'm also skeptical of that kind of narrative. To me it seems that there are a lot of people behaving badly (including the police) and that this is an extremely complicated and violent situation that our usual partisan framing does not adequately address. I think there is evidence that white supremacists are instigating riots in order to start a race war. I think there is evidence that the militarized police are in some case over-reacting and attacking peaceful demonstrations -- yesterday's attack by police on a peaceful protest at St. John's in order to clear them out for a presidential photo op is an example. I also think there is plenty of evidence that some POC are looting and burning down their own neighborhoods.

I think Boot had the best response to this entire catastrophe on page 1 of this thread:

I don't disagree, but I also think these questions need to be asked, "What does it mean to mourn?" What does it mean to bless in a way that legitimizes the experiences of those who are hurting and mourning? What does it mean to be heal? How does one thirst for righteousness and lead to peace without just re-establishing and re-enforcing the status quo that has led us to this catastrophe?

This is a very thoughtful response. I don't agree with all of it but I truly appreciate it. Thank you.

[Joy]

So ironic that George Floyd had worked for peace in two states, and in the wake of his death, they desecrated his memory by burning businesses and houses (occupied in one case, then blocked emergency workers), and smashing others' property.

[PeterG]

No one is drawing moral equivalencies between a life and people's property.

Why prioritize one [destroying property] over the other [killing innocent black men]?

Perhaps there's a relevant difference between non-priority and moral equivalency, and I'm not even sure that I disagree with what Robert said, but to me it looks like Robert drew a moral equivalency here. I'd be happy to see Robert explain further.

I hesitate even to say that much, because something just seems wrong with this whole discussion, this ping-ponging between "racism is evil, but so is rioting" and "rioting is evil, but so is racism." The sadness that Neto expressed is about the only thing in this thread that feels completely right to me. I don't know if my response is correct, but it is what it is.

[Josh]

What does the Bible say about sin and evil? It doesn’t talk at all about the things the world is saying are evil (like racism or authoritarian governments).

On the other hand, the Bible says some things are very evil that the world says are OK. Covetousness is evil, but so is greed. Wealth can keep a rich man out of the kingdom of heaven. The Bible isn’t too focused on keeping the economy humming - although it does say to let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labour with his hands.

[Ken]

So ironic that George Floyd had worked for peace in two states, and in the wake of his death, they desecrated his memory by burning businesses and houses (occupied in one case, then blocked emergency workers), and smashing others' property.

The word "they" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your comment. Who is "they"?

By all accounts, there were widespread peaceful protests that got hijacked by predominantly white young thugs bent on causing destruction and anarchy. At least that' what happened in this part of the country. I haven't been following the news of what happened everywhere.

[Robert]

No one is drawing moral equivalencies between a life and people's property.

Why prioritize one [destroying property] over the other [killing innocent black men]?

Perhaps there's a relevant difference between non-priority and moral equivalency, and I'm not even sure that I disagree with what Robert said, but to me it looks like Robert drew a moral equivalency here. I'd be happy to see Robert explain further.

I hesitate even to say that much, because something just seems wrong with this whole discussion, this ping-ponging between "racism is evil, but so is rioting" and "rioting is evil, but so is racism." The sadness that Neto expressed is about the only thing in this thread that feels completely right to me. I don't know if my response is correct, but it is what it is.

I did not say what you posted and adding words inside my quote is dishonest. I know you were trying to explain it, but it distorts what I said.
Here is my statement:

Both are wrong. Both need to stop. Why prioritize one over the other?

Killing George Floyd was wrong. Riots killing multiple people are wrong. Riots are killing people, not just damaging property. Both are wrong. Both need to stop.