Plus Politics

[JohnH]

Maybe make a distinction between church group politics and governmental politics?

Church politics can be just as bad or even worse than government politics.

I don't see it that way. Church politics are about accountability to Jesus' Kingdom. Governmental politics are about loyalty to politiical parties. In my view that's a HUGE difference especially since this forum is about two Kingdoms and the practice of our faith.

Perhaps Szd’s perspective is from approaching church like people do politics: “winners” and “losers”; trying to force a view on the 49% just because 51% voted for it, and so forth. MC USA did this with the homosexuality issue. Felt very much like worldly politics.

[JohnL]

Church politics can be just as bad or even worse than government politics.

I don't see it that way. Church politics are about accountability to Jesus' Kingdom. Governmental politics are about loyalty to politiical parties. In my view that's a HUGE difference especially since this forum is about two Kingdoms and the practice of our faith.

Perhaps Szd’s perspective is from approaching church like people do politics: “winners” and “losers”; trying to force a view on the 49% just because 51% voted for it, and so forth. MC USA did this with the homosexuality issue. Felt very much like worldly politics.

How sad that a group that started out as Christian would go that route. Nevertheless my suggestion for Robert is to make a distinction between church group politics and governmental politics? I like what you said about winners and losers when it comes to governmental politics. That's probably why there's so much mouth foaming. Church politics on the other hand are usually about accountability to Jesus and the Bible.

[temporal1]

How are we going to define "politics"?

You know it when you see it.

I agree. This is a good question. It does interlace with current events a lot. For me, it is when the subject or discussion deals largely with the worldly kingdom, its structure, and leaders. Since two kingdom theology is a very easy topic for us, it is discussing that other kingdom, the way it is run and the people directly involved with enacting it.

Anyone else want to add thoughts?

i hope definitions and guidance will contnue to be up to the discretion of admin+mods.
it’s subjective, and works great. sometimes it pinches. MN is not a democracy.

i credit the forum’s longevity and vitality to Christ-centric, Anabaptist admin+mods.

often in life, we don’t think about what’s most important to us.
we take it for granted. until it’s gone.

pray for God’s will.

Will the rest of the forum be more tightly moderated for political content? I've seen some Current Events threads become quite political..

Threads be moved, but a little politics discussion in current events will be inevitable. It will be up to the Mods to decide.

As always, any decision of the Mods is not allowed to be questioned.
I am happy to discuss why that is such a hard line here.

[JohnH]

I don't see it that way. Church politics are about accountability to Jesus' Kingdom. Governmental politics are about loyalty to politiical parties. In my view that's a HUGE difference especially since this forum is about two Kingdoms and the practice of our faith.

Perhaps Szd’s perspective is from approaching church like people do politics: “winners” and “losers”; trying to force a view on the 49% just because 51% voted for it, and so forth. MC USA did this with the homosexuality issue. Felt very much like worldly politics.

How sad that a group that started out as Christian would go that route. Nevertheless my suggestion for Robert is to make a distinction between church group politics and governmental politics? I like what you said about winners and losers when it comes to governmental politics. That's probably why there's so much mouth foaming. Church politics on the other hand are usually about accountability to Jesus and the Bible.

Well, other denominations adopted essentially political movements as well, often directly advocating for things like the constitutional amendment to allow women to vote, like the Methodists did. (Then going for another amendment to prohibit alcohol.)

We see the sad fruit from this in the excessively political destruction of the United Methodist Church today.

[Bootstrap]

I have been part of the no politics user group at various times but then leave because politics is so broad that there are times I see topics that I wish to comment on. I did vote for the proposed change because politics is getting most of the oxygen here.

I also voted "yes", for exactly the same reason.

Yeah, and maybe that’s why some discussions on here seem so futile sometimes. We’re not actually talking to each other. We’re talking to the unseen crowd.

I think this is at the heart of the deeper problem - the level of contempt and tearing people down, as though scoring points for some side is the real goal. Many responses show no indication that the person actually read and thought about what the other person said. And I think that's what we see modeled in worldly politics around us, especially on social media. It's easy to see what we think of each other, it's sometimes harder to trace the reasoning behind various positions. Lots of heat, very little light.

And I think this is different in political topics. We do better on other topics - but those are swamped out.

[Bootstrap]

You know it when you see it.

I agree. This is a good question. It does interlace with current events a lot. For me, it is when the subject or discussion deals largely with the worldly kingdom, its structure, and leaders. Since two kingdom theology is a very easy topic for us, it is discussing that other kingdom, the way it is run and the people directly involved with enacting it.

Anyone else want to add thoughts?

This is the hard part. And I don't think we are as good at two kingdom theology as we think we are - this really comes out in the thread Gary started:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7757

Two Kingdom theology is about two kingdoms, not just one. It includes our relationship to the world around us, how we live in this world but not of it, our witness, the way we love and serve others. I don't know how we can have a meaningful two kingdom theology that does not involve both kingdoms. And a two kingdom theology should have ramifications for how we live here and now.

Really, that's what I would like to see at the heart of discussions on MN. I don't know if that's possible. Gary's thread has shown that we have difficulty being clear about simple things like what we mean by politics. Two kingdom theology really isn't an easy topic for us. Living it out in practice is difficult, and requires discernment.

I voted for the proposal, and I think it's a good proposal. But I also think it's important to think about how we think about two kingdom theology in today's world together. Or maybe MN simply isn't able to be that place?

[Robert]

I have been part of the no politics user group at various times but then leave because politics is so broad that there are times I see topics that I wish to comment on. I did vote for the proposed change because politics is getting most of the oxygen here.

I also voted "yes", for exactly the same reason.

Yeah, and maybe that’s why some discussions on here seem so futile sometimes. We’re not actually talking to each other. We’re talking to the unseen crowd.

I think this is at the heart of the deeper problem - the level of contempt and tearing people down, as though scoring points for some side is the real goal. Many responses show no indication that the person actually read and thought about what the other person said. And I think that's what we see modeled in worldly politics around us, especially on social media. It's easy to see what we think of each other, it's sometimes harder to trace the reasoning behind various positions. Lots of heat, very little light.

And I think this is different in political topics. We do better on other topics - but those are swamped out.

I honestly was really hoping to hear your take on this. Thanks for sharing.

The reality is MN is not working well and a lot of it is worldly politics. I see no reason not to discuss it, but it just has the same people going back and forth from their strongholds. I am not at all ashamed to admit my tendency to discuss worldly politics over some other issues. After 20 years, I feel like I have discussed most of the faith based issues and I just tend to share about things that are current events, which includes politics. I seldom start a thread, but often feel compelled to respond when I see issues I may disagree with.

We need to do something and if this does not work well, we can always change it. It is not locked in stone. I think we will find that the majority will not opt in. I may be wrong and if so, we will know we are moving in the wrong direction.

[Bootstrap]

I think some like their opinions seen by all ... a lot.

FWIW, I think the "like" button really encourages that kind of posting. It delivers the dopamine hit. If we want to discourage that kind of posting, getting rid of the "like" button might also be helpful.

[Bootstrap]

We need to do something and if this does not work well, we can always change it. It is not locked in stone. I think we will find that the majority will not opt in. I may be wrong and if so, we will know we are moving in the wrong direction.

I hope this helps. I do think it's important to do something.

The real question: can we find a constructive way to explore two kingdom theology and how we live it out in threads like GaryK's?

[temporal1]

^^ah-ha.
Robert spoke to these things just above. Nice.

I would be curious as to the reasons three people voted against it so far.

I think some like their opinions seen by all ... a lot.

This is definitely part of it, on a broad scale, probably why social media is so popular!

There’s more, too.
One of the most interesting aspects of MD, my first forum experience, was, how unexpected responses would appear from unexpected people! To me, a reflection of “how life works on earth”. God always provides the unexpected. Not always wanted! That’s a different matter. So often, God provides unexpected ways that are so much better than could be imagined.

Positive or negative, i embrace the unexpected. “Leave room for God’s will.”

Another positive is, the open forum works as The Light of Day.
Going private has positives! i believe LOTS of good has been done privately on forum.
It may invite negatives.

i’ve mostly stayed on open forum, by far, for these reasons. the light of day.

(i see) the proposed sub forum as a hybrid.
it would not be totally private, without oversight, but not public, either.

(i hope) if it goes forward, it goes as an experiment, given a trial period (one or more) - evaluate results, leave room for tweaking.
leave room for disbanding, if it doesn’t go well.

^^i wish gov would follow this pattern.