Josh wrote:I would politely suggest that someone who comes from the world like myself or Keeshon is, generally speaking, not interested in joining liberal-progressive political movements, which is what Josh is flogging here.
joshuabgood wrote:Josh...I am not sure how to respond. I am not political.
I accept that you intend to be apolitical. But it does appear to me that your views are heavily informed by liberal-progressive sociology. And since sociological views quite often find expression in politics, even among those with apolitical aspirations, I can understand why Josh R. sees it that way. And why some of the discussion fails to resonate with those of us who have considered and rejected the liberal-progressive worldview.
I understand what you are saying and yet I dont think it is fair. I am against abortion, I am for traditional sexuality, I believe in an exclusive religion, I have a conservative economic bond, I dont believe in evolution or humanism, etc...
I dont vote. I dont promote candidates. I dont lobby.
I do believe black people when they say they experience systemic racism.
Help me understand why i get pushed into a political wing...
joshuabgood wrote:
I am willing to consider that...
Though in a good faith learning conversation if one party suggests some further resources for discussion/learning it feels to me acknowledgement and expressing interest in further reading and discussing those, help foster that good faith, healthy conversation. On the other hand, when resources provided are not responded to at all, or not referenced at all, with expressions of interest, it doesn't feel like a learning conversation or learning stance, which is why I inquired. (Once you let me know you had explored at least one of them...I noted without a grudge that is evidence of a learning stance and a good faith conversation.)
May I return a question and ask why you didn't in fact acknowledge and reference Keeshons work and his experiences with systemic racism? Or the other resources I mentioned? It certainly was germaine to the conversation, and I had referenced Keeshons experiences as a starting point for a good faith discussion. Because you didn't acknowledge them, or mention you had explored Keeshons contributions at least, it caused me to question if you were interested in engaging in a serious learning conversation. Or if there was some other underlying unwillingness that drove that lack of acknowledgement and seeming unwillingness to engage in a serious conversation around those items.
I guess the other possibility is I am taking this as seriously as I would any individual relationship and conversation with a brother, and you dont see the conversation/relationship the same way...I am not sure...If that is the case I think I will take a break. Which might be best anyway...
I thought I was making it quite clear in most of my posts that I'm interested in discovering what a NT Kingdom response to favoritism is, making my starting point the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles, not other resources.
It seemed to me that you were more interested in continuing to promote your research and view than hearing where I was coming from. This was indicated by a continual referencing of my need to be in a learning stance and also stating that my position was that I did not believe the experiences of those you mentioned. To me that came across as quite condescending. I acknowledged that how you were coming across in our discussion may be because of your gift of teaching. In a classroom setting that is expected - the teacher teaches and the students learn. But on a discussion forum, continual references to the need for the other person to be in a learning stance, and stating things not true about the other person's position are, IMO, not helpful to a productive discussion.
I apologize for making you feel condescended to. That helps me understand why you didn't engage or acknowledge what I was bringing resource wise and makes sense. And thanks for your honesty and willingness to express to me how I made you feel. My desire is to do better in my communicating to avoid that in the future as a brother in Christ.
I am interested in the way of Jesus also. And Stevenson and Wahington in particular bring what they bring in that context. I have been so blest by both of them. When the time is right, I would appreciate, if you wanted, discussing that further. Or if I can visit GA speaking with your friends as we discussed sometime.
That said I believe we can learn kingdom truth from others also. I learned alot from Malcolm Xs autobiography for instance.
Thanks Josh. All is forgiven.
I read very little other than the Bible and a whole range of news sources. And MN! Much of what I have learned in life has been through observation, experience, and living in a number of 3rd world cultures attempting to expand the Kingdom. Reading primarily the Bible and news sources over the years has, for me, made the contrast between the 2 kingdoms quite stark and is the filter through which I attempt to view ideas and ideologies. "How does it mesh with NT Kingdom values and teachings?" is a question that is constantly running through my mind when I'm thinking through things.
I recognize that not reading more than I do puts me in the category of not being very well read but I haven't found that to be a big hindrance in being able to work with those I've been called to serve over the years. Being in my mid 50's I'm doubtful my reading habits will change a whole lot in the future.
Josh wrote:I would politely suggest that someone who comes from the world like myself or Keeshon is, generally speaking, not interested in joining liberal-progressive political movements, which is what Josh is flogging here.
joshuabgood wrote:Josh...I am not sure how to respond. I am not political.
I accept that you intend to be apolitical. But it does appear to me that your views are heavily informed by liberal-progressive sociology. And since sociological views quite often find expression in politics, even among those with apolitical aspirations, I can understand why Josh R. sees it that way. And why some of the discussion fails to resonate with those of us who have considered and rejected the liberal-progressive worldview.
I understand what you are saying and yet I dont think it is fair. I am against abortion, I am for traditional sexuality, I believe in an exclusive religion, I have a conservative economic bond, I dont believe in evolution or humanism, etc...
I dont vote. I dont promote candidates. I dont lobby.
I do believe black people when they say they experience systemic racism.
Help me understand why i get pushed into a political wing...
Thank you for taking a learning stance on this.
As I see it, part of the disconnect is in the way the views are expressed. Like Peter in the high priest's courtyard, or German-speaking Anabaptists during World War I, using terminology sourced from a liberal-progressive context can give the average (or even the above-average) MN reader the impression that you're buying into the rest of the package that usually accompanies that vocabulary. If you're not, maybe try deacademicizing the conversation a bit and see if communication improves?
ohio jones wrote:
I accept that you intend to be apolitical. But it does appear to me that your views are heavily informed by liberal-progressive sociology. And since sociological views quite often find expression in politics, even among those with apolitical aspirations, I can understand why Josh R. sees it that way. And why some of the discussion fails to resonate with those of us who have considered and rejected the liberal-progressive worldview.
I understand what you are saying and yet I dont think it is fair. I am against abortion, I am for traditional sexuality, I believe in an exclusive religion, I have a conservative economic bond, I dont believe in evolution or humanism, etc...
I dont vote. I dont promote candidates. I dont lobby.
I do believe black people when they say they experience systemic racism.
Help me understand why i get pushed into a political wing...
Thank you for taking a learning stance on this.
As I see it, part of the disconnect is in the way the views are expressed. Like Peter in the high priest's courtyard, or German-speaking Anabaptists during World War I, using terminology sourced from a liberal-progressive context can give the average (or even the above-average) MN reader the impression that you're buying into the rest of the package that usually accompanies that vocabulary. If you're not, maybe try deacademicizing the conversation a bit and see if communication improves?
Ok. I accept that. I will try to keep it to plain language. How is this...in essence, I believe black people when they say they experience systemic racism. I can point me to a number of sources to document that in fact the vast majority do feel systemic racism is real. I can also point to specific individuals, including in the CA world, who also feel this way about systemic racism. Further I believe followers of Jesus would die well to respond to individual acts of racism as well as systemic issues for the purpose of redemption and reconciliation. (Btw CT has an interesting article just came out on reparations by the churches.)
Now, I'd like to say this, for your consideration, perhaps the knee-jerk reaction to paint me as a political leftist springs from, at least in part, political loyalty to another faction by the disagreeing party. This urge to categorize honest differences as political might be because those folks are fact seeing the world through a certain political lens, rather than simply avoiding politics, which is what I would advocate for. That is, no voting. No donating. No accusing others of being mere political hacks (which I didn't do in this convo btw). No promoting candidates, etc.
Any thoughts on that possibility as a contributing factor to my position on institutional racism being labeled leftwing politics?
With respect, I’d rather listen to my close friends who happen to be black and conservative Anabaptist about issues with being black and conservative Anabaptist.
I’m much less interested in you lecturing me as a white person with a solid ethnic Anabaptist pedigree and last name tell me how things are. I’m not interested in you being a spokesman for black community on MennoNet. Any one who is black or white or any other race can join MennoNet and share their opinion; you are not needed as a spokesperson.
In particular, in conservative Anabaptist circles, constantly being lectured by an ethnic insider when I’m an outsider is quite wearisome. And you just won’t stop, despite me telling you I used to hold your positions and I no longer believe in them. You seem to view me as some kind of project that needs fixing, or some kind of closet racist who needs to be exposed and publicly repent of his evil latent racism.
In short, you are the very thing you claim to be against. And I am quite concerned with the path this eventually will take you.
With respect, I’d rather listen to my close friends who happen to be black and conservative Anabaptist about issues with being black and conservative Anabaptist.
I’m much less interested in you lecturing me as a white person with a solid ethnic Anabaptist pedigree and last name tell me how things are. I’m not interested in you being a spokesman for black community on MennoNet. Any one who is black or white or any other race can join MennoNet and share their opinion; you are not needed as a spokesperson.
In particular, in conservative Anabaptist circles, constantly being lectured by an ethnic insider when I’m an outsider is quite wearisome. And you just won’t stop, despite me telling you I used to hold your positions and I no longer believe in them. You seem to view me as some kind of project that needs fixing, or some kind of closet racist who needs to be exposed and publicly repent of his evil latent racism.
In short, you are the very thing you claim to be against. And I am quite concerned with the path this eventually will take you.
I am sorry I have made you feel this way. I apologize. Feel free to not respond to my comments or participate any further with me. I actually did not mean. To make you feel like you were a target. I apologize. I was trying to engage anyone who wanted to discuss racial issues and racial reconciliation in society as the issues became painfully obvious in the George Floyd incident. And bring in some both close and outside sources into the discussion. But feel free to ignore me moving forward if I am triggering for you...and I won't direct any further questions to you about it. Peace...
As I’ve said repeatedly, I think it would be useful to talk about disbanding or reforming police departments including my past experience with that. Could we talk about that more and talk less about you educating us?
joshuabgood wrote:The links to all his essays were posted earlier by PeterG in this thread.
I'll drop the links here again, since my earlier post is pretty far upstream by now.
PeterG wrote:
joshuabgood wrote:If you haven't please read Keeshon Washington's essays online regarding racism/favoritism also within the CA community. He is a school teacher, FBEP alum, that works at Tidings of Peace, a very conservative CA school in York. And when you do...if you take a learning stance, you may find yourself moving on some points.
Josh wrote:As I’ve said repeatedly, I think it would be useful to talk about disbanding or reforming police departments including my past experience with that. Could we talk about that more and talk less about you educating us?
Sure. Perhaps start a thread on police reform or reorganization.
I am also sorry you heard that I want to "educate you." I apologize. I did ask for people to be willing to take a learning stance and also noted that that was my desire as well. It feels reasonable to me that for a conversation to be profitable, people should be willing to take an honest learning stance. That doesn't mean one person is solely "educating"the other. It means people enter into a dialogue with a willingness to learn and mutually grow. If a learning stance isn't taken, the convo is a waste of time generally.
It does mean people are willing to authentically engage with the material. And give an attitude of willingness to explore ideas...
Taking a learning stance need not be threatening...
appleman2006 wrote:
For what it is worth I have been reading his essays. I have only met Keeshon once. So I do not claim to know him well at all. But I would love to get to know him better. I hear his hurt and his frustration. And I will be the first to admit that I cannot fully understand. But even so I do want the very best for him.
I hesitate to say this next part because I accept that I have many blind spots and I as said before I do not know his situation fully.
But if he were my son this is the advice I would give him if he were asking me for it. I would strongly encourage him to move out of the city environment he is in. At least for 5 to 10 years. And I know the answer would probably be, but what if all the good guys move out? What happens then?
My fear for him is that if he tries to reform from within as he is obviously trying to do now that he will be caught up in the worst elements of the BLM movement rather than having those in that movement caught up in the ways of Christ...
Appleman, how would it feel if I said in all sincerity that Appleman is so closely tied to the conservative culture that nurtures radical movements like Alt-right, to escape these elements he should move into an urban environment for five or ten years. If he continues his struggle to live a righteous life where he is, he will be caught up in the worst elements of the hard right rather than helping people in those movements escape.
Much of what I have learned in life has been through observation, experience, and living in a number of 3rd world cultures attempting to expand the Kingdom. Reading primarily the Bible and news sources over the years has, for me, made the contrast between the 2 kingdoms quite stark and is the filter through which I attempt to view ideas and ideologies. "How does it mesh with NT Kingdom values and teachings?" is a question that is constantly running through my mind when I'm thinking through things.