MennoNet.com

First of all - sorry for my harshness bootstrap.

In regards to protesting I see it only as reactive. I see in the context of Jesus saying to not resist evil and to love our enemies as a call in our lives to be busy in proactively and actively loving others. Our motivation is rooted in the love of God. And motivation that involves reaction, which I believe protesting does(peaceful or not), is actually disobeying Christ as far as I understand Him because it is reactive. The sad part is that by my reaction to you I disobeyed this principle myself that I was trying to encourage. Sorry.

Hence why I try not to get caught up in any political, abuse stopping, racism renouncing, or etc. bandwagon, and people get upset or confused when I don't speak out - I believe Christ never got caught up in any of these things but intentionally, continually, and unconditionally actively gave Himself to self-sacrificing love for everyone. That is what I want to emulate when I don't get involved with any movement - the world gets involved in these things. I need to be emptied of self and lovingly serving others as I follow Christ. Protesting seems too late(maybe I'm reacting because I wasn't active enough?!) and protesting seems demanding and trying bend another person - love isn't demanding.



1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

9 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.

10 Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another;

11 Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord;

12 Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer;

13 Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality.

14 Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.

15 Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep.

16 Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.

17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.

18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if He thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
Romans 12:21

I disagree. Peaceful protest is nothing more than speaking truth to power. And is as old as history, going back to the Old Testament prophets.

Black Americans ended a century of Jim Crow and a violent segregationist apartheid state by relentless peaceful protest inspired by social justice and biblical principles of nonviolence. They could have plunged the country into a second violent and brutal civil war like the troubles in Ireland or the current wars in Syria and Iraq.

What would you have had them do? Spend another century in Jim Crow segregation until White folks "came around" on their own? Take up arms against segregationist governments?

What they did was a far superior job of keeping the violent and destructive impulses of their youth at bay. Something today's protest organizers on the right and left need to learn from.

You talk about keeping destructive impulses at bay and then post a picture of a person well known for his adultery?

For what shall it profit a man, if He shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
Mark 8:36

Wade wrote:You talk about keeping destructive impulses at bay and then post a picture of a person well known for his adultery?

For what shall it profit a man, if He shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
Mark 8:36

You know full well I was talking about property destruction and violence at protests, and not the personal shortcomings of the leaders. And unlike you, I am not prepared to judge the soul of Martin Luther King. I'm sure, whatever his shortcomings, he was a better man than I.

What would you have all those millions of people do? Just go home and bide their time in an unjust and racist society, year after year, until some day a leader comes along who has no flaws or shortcomings and meets your approval? Are their protests and cause illegitimate because you disapprove of the personal private life of their leader?

The Civil Rights leaders of the 50s and 60s went through immense effort to keep their more violent counterparts at bay. There were plenty at the time who wanted to chart a more confrontational and violent path. But the leaders knew there were those in power who were looking for any slip-up or excuse to discredit the movement and crack down on it. They were right to have that fear. And it is a lesson the protest leaders of today from across the political spectrum would be wise to heed.

Myself, I'm happy not to protest. We have a safe, comfortable life and nothing to protest about. But I'm not willing to judge others who's lives are different. And who feel compelled to have their voices heard.

Ken, try making your argument from the text of Romans 12 (or other relevant scriptures), rather than from the political movements of the past century. This is a theology thread, not a politics thread.

ohio jones wrote:Ken, try making your argument from the text of Romans 12 (or other relevant scriptures), rather than from the political movements of the last century. This is a theology thread, not a politics thread.

Since this is a theological thread about protesting, how about some Martin Luther King Jr. making a theological argument for peaceful nonviolent protest against violence and injustice?

“Always be sure that you struggle with Christian methods and Christian weapons. Never succumb to the temptation of becoming bitter. As you press on for justice, be sure to move with dignity and discipline, using only the weapon of love.”

“Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction. So when Jesus says ‘Love your enemies,’ he is setting forth a profound and ultimately inescapable admonition.”

“We should be happy that (Jesus) did not say ‘Like your enemies.’ It is impossible to like some people. ‘Like’ is a sentimental and affectionate word. ... But Jesus recognized that love is greater than like.”

“The kind of love that led Christ to a cross and kept Paul unembittered amid the angry torrents of persecution is not soft, anemic, and sentimental. Such love confronts evil without flinching and shows in our popular parlance an infinite capacity ‘to take it.’ Such love overcomes the world even from a rough hewn cross against the skyline.”

"To our most bitter opponents we say: We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey unjust laws, because non-cooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail, and we will still love you. Bomb our homes and threaten our children and we shall still love you. Send your hooded perpetrators of violence into our community at the midnight hour and beat us and leave us half dead, and we shall still love you. But be assured that we will wear you down by our capacity to suffer. One day we shall win freedom, but not only for ourselves. We shall so appeal to your heart and conscience that we shall win you in the process, and our victory will be a double victory."

Was he wrong?

Okay- what do you call what the Anabaptists did during the Protestant Reformation?
Wasn't it a kind of protesting? I read where they would show up and 'talk over' priests?
What is the difference between 'movements' and 'protests'?

We are not only asked to love God, but to love our next ones as ourselves (at least because God loves us). So I would not reject protesting in general. In most cases, protesters seem to protest against alleged abuses concerning themselves or other people they like - and even if protests go awry, we may say that much is forgiven to those who love much.

Nevertheless, the late Guy F. Hershberger defended the principle of non-resistance in the sense of non-enforcing. We as citizens of heaven are not entitled to force our will upon the citizens of this world, even when we are "legally entitled", even if we do it by making a law which will be enforced by the policemen and not by us personally. In this respect Hershberger saw a fine, but important line between "non-resistance" and "non-violent resistance". (Here I rely to Hershberger: "The Way of the Cross in Human Relations (1957)", am not sure that Hershberger lived up to those principles later on).

ohio jones wrote:Ken, try making your argument from the text of Romans 12 (or other relevant scriptures), rather than from the political movements of the past century. This is a theology thread, not a politics thread.

I think this thread illustrates one of the issues with the current “politics sabbatical.” In the case of the US Civil Rights movement, politics and theology were deeply intertwined together — it was both a political AND a theological movement. I strongly recommend Charles Marsh’s book, The Beloved Community, which explores the theological underpinnings of the movement.

Most of the political speech here on MD is blatant and easy to identify, but in a thread about the “theology of protesting” how do you take out the “politics” and leave the “theology” in a discussion over an inherently political activity? It’s a distinction without a difference.

I feel for the moderators as they try to navigate something that’s pretty much impossible to navigate.

Wade wrote:You talk about keeping destructive impulses at bay and then post a picture of a person well known for his adultery?

For what shall it profit a man, if He shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
Mark 8:36

I appreciate your attempt to approach this topic from a scriptural view.

Adultery is a mortal sin. It is violence against oneself, the other party, one’s spouse, family, church, community. It highly damages or ruins Christian witness and leadership; it is damaging in the secular world. It causes ruination. It’s destructive.

Secular law now mostly ignores it. That doesn’t mean it’s less sinful or that there are no grave moral and cultural penalties.

Valerie mentioned early Anabaptist protesting. I believe these incidents were in church settings, not government, not attempts to commandeer secular law or access the public treasury (which have become central goals in contemporary times).

I’m not sure. In early times, there may not have been distinctions between church+state we now expect.

MLK Jr was an imperfect man, as pastor, his adultery would have removed that role from him. If he had lived? ..

But the question I most often wonder about is, was his greatest mistake in (inadvertently) leading his flock to seek after government for answers, rather than relying on God? ..

If he were alive today, what would he see and think? Would he be furious that his intent has been largely hijacked for gov goals?

We do have his living niece, Dr Alveda King. An amazing woman. Who is all but ignored in the mainstream. She is a leader for prolife causes. Also ignored in the mainstream.

From what I read, over years, March for Life is very well attended, ignored in the mainstream.

EXCEPT that one year when the mainstream decided to cherry-pick a non-prolife fight with teen Nick Sandmann to blow up the internet.

Not a word about MFL/prolife. It was all about lib media’s pet project: targeted destruction.

MLK Jr has become a sacred cow.
Christians must beware. Questions are fair.

Wade, your questions are valid.

But the question I most often wonder about is, was his greatest mistake in (inadvertently) leading his flock to seek after government for answers, rather than relying on God? ..

Part 2 of the question is:
What if the response was seeking after God, not government? Things were changing, there would have been changes. If God had been invoked, not government, where would things be today? Something to consider for all decision making.