Is Jesus for “Law & Order?”

[JohnH]

Do you have a radio?

No, unless you count the one in a 22-year-old vehicle I recently purchased and haven’t pulled out yet, but the antenna has been pulled. Our conference has maintained a strong stance against the radio.

But you engage with other forms of mass communication like the Internet?

Yes. It’s not a radio that you can tune to the AM band and listen to Rush Limbaugh, Charlie Kirk, or various radio preachers.

I define a radio as a device that plays broadcasts on the AM and FM bands. Do you agree?

[ohio jones]

But you engage with other forms of mass communication like the Internet?

Yes. It’s not a radio that you can tune to the AM band and listen to Rush Limbaugh, Charlie Kirk, or various radio preachers.

I define a radio as a device that plays broadcasts on the AM and FM bands. Do you agree?

Internet radio isn't exactly new; it has been around for decades. You can listen to most stations, such as WTAM just to give one random example, on the web; just click the Play button. Reruns of Rush are probably scarce these days, but content is routinely simulcast to AM/FM and the internet, making any device with a browser capable of being used as a radio.

[Szdfan]

No, unless you count the one in a 22-year-old vehicle I recently purchased and haven’t pulled out yet, but the antenna has been pulled. Our conference has maintained a strong stance against the radio.

But you engage with other forms of mass communication like the Internet?

Yes. It’s not a radio that you can tune to the AM band and listen to Rush Limbaugh, Charlie Kirk, or various radio preachers.

I define a radio as a device that plays broadcasts on the AM and FM bands. Do you agree?

It's also a mass communication device that provides access to outside opinions and worldviews. It's more pervasive and influential than radio. The technical differences aren't the point. Whether it’s AM radio or YouTube, both are ways of hearing outside voices.

[JohnH]

But you engage with other forms of mass communication like the Internet?

Yes. It’s not a radio that you can tune to the AM band and listen to Rush Limbaugh, Charlie Kirk, or various radio preachers.

I define a radio as a device that plays broadcasts on the AM and FM bands. Do you agree?

Internet radio isn't exactly new; it has been around for decades. You can listen to most stations, such as WTAM just to give one random example, on the web; just click the Play button. Reruns of Rush are probably scarce these days, but content is routinely simulcast to AM/FM and the internet, making any device with a browser capable of being used as a radio.

The that would be the radio, too.

Radios also have knobs; however, not everything with a knob is necessarily a radio.

My original point was it’s a good idea for the Christian to avoid listening to AM talk radio.

[ohio jones]

My original point was it’s a good idea for the Christian to avoid listening to AM talk radio.

I agree. And my point is that it's the content that's the problem, whether delivered by AM radio, FM radio, XM radio, weather radio, shortwave, youtube, instagram, podcasts, or whatever medium might become popular next. Banning radios is ineffective if the exact same content is being consumed elsewhere. Teaching people to be discriminating consumers, or non-consumers, of the content (to order their lives) is more fruitful than ripping the antennas out of their cars (imposing law).

[Szdfan]

My original point was it’s a good idea for the Christian to avoid listening to AM talk radio.

I agree. And my point is that it's the content that's the problem, whether delivered by AM radio, FM radio, XM radio, weather radio, shortwave, youtube, instagram, podcasts, or whatever medium might become popular next. Banning radios is ineffective if the exact same content is being consumed elsewhere. Teaching people to be discriminating consumers, or non-consumers, of the content (to order their lives) is more fruitful than ripping the antennas out of their cars (imposing law).

My initial point in telling the story about my grandfather is how porous these things are. Grandpa was an ardent conservative, but there were ways that he was also political (like listening to Rush Limbaugh) that he didn’t recognize as political.

Also, in this day and age, banning radio is irrelevant when you have access to the same info via the Internet. I mean…I don’t listen to AM radio either.

[Szdfan]

Gary, I think you're expressing an articulate view of Two Kingdom theology. I want to clarify that I'm not opposed to it. It's a part of my own spiritual and theological DNA and there are many things about it that I appreciate about it. But like everything in creation, I think it also has limits and misses.

When I argue that Jesus's life, death and resurrection had a political dimension to it, I'm not saying that Jesus is a Republican or Democrat. I'm not saying that Jesus engaged in partisan politics (and the Gospels do refer to different political factions vying for power and influence). I'm talking about politics in a broader sense -- the question about what it means for us to live in society and how society makes decisions. In that sense, Two Kingdom theology and separation from the world is in itself just as political as any other theory about the relationship with power.

I'm very familiar with the argument that the Early Church was apolitical before Constantine and that it was corrupted when Christianity became the religion of the Empire. What also strikes me is how Two Kingdom theology parallels post-Enlightenment secularism. To me, the secular separation of Church and State mirrors Anabaptist separation from the World. Both believe that politics is public and faith is private and never shall the two meet. And yes, I think it's important for both the Church and State to have some sort of separation between them, but I also think it's not that simple.

I remember when my conservative Mennonite grandfather started listening to Rush Limbaugh during lunch. He listened religiously every weekday. He frequently expressed opinions about Bill Clinton and other political issues. I don't think Grandpa ever voted, but I also think he was political in ways he nevef acknowledged.

Faith and politics constantly seep into each other in informal ways. Faith affects how people vote and which politicians they support. Politics can influence people's theology and which parts of Scripture they emphasize.

In that sense, I don't think an argument that Christ wants his followers to submit to an unjust political order is a politically neutral position. I think it is a political choice and I think it risks ignoring the complexities of how both Scriptures and Jesus confront the injustices of worldly power.

This is a well crafted discussion and I somehow agree with both angles.

I differ a little from the Sdzfan viewpoint in that I am far more resistant to actual engagement that supports or opposes a specific party or candidate but his primary point of faithfulness will have political ramifications (neutrality will collapse with pressure) seem true to me.

My practice is far closer to that presented by GaryK but I suspect this relies too heavily on a neo-gnostic dualism of the material world vs. spiritual world that would have been labeled heresy by apostle Paul. The entire Bible is written from the perspective of those two worlds as a single arena where God rules.

I agree that faithfulness may have political ramifications at times and that neutrality, in the sense that Jesus' Kingdom attempts not to engage in society at large, should not be an option for the church.

Where I think the danger lies is if the church relies on the politics of earthly government to dictate what it involves itself in. If the church would closely and consistently follow the teachings and ways of Jesus I believe she would be out front of earthly politics as it relates to societal involvement and would have somewhat of a "so what" attitude if issues of the day occasionally intersect between the two. That attitude frees the church to do her work regardless which way the political winds blow.

One of the things I find interesting is that Plain communities are by their very existence communities of resistance. Non-conformity to the mainstream in dress, media consumption, electricity, cars, etc. are by their very nature political. Rejecting the ways of the world is not just a theological decision, but also a political one. I think it’s not always obvious to plain Anabaptists because it’s so normalized for them.

The challenge is that government doesn’t have to dictate what the church involves itself in. Look at the kinds of discussions we have in the politics section of this forum and how they track with whatever controversy is currently hot in society. I sometimes play a game with myself to see how long it takes for an issue to pop up in the media before it shows up here on MennoNet. It takes discernment to figure out issues are worth for the church to focus on and which aren’t.

[JohnH]

My original point was it’s a good idea for the Christian to avoid listening to AM talk radio.

I agree. And my point is that it's the content that's the problem, whether delivered by AM radio, FM radio, XM radio, weather radio, shortwave, youtube, instagram, podcasts, or whatever medium might become popular next. Banning radios is ineffective if the exact same content is being consumed elsewhere. Teaching people to be discriminating consumers, or non-consumers, of the content (to order their lives) is more fruitful than ripping the antennas out of their cars (imposing law).

Yes, that would be the perspective from groups that decided to allow the radio.

[JohnH]

One of the things I find interesting is that Plain communities are by their very existence communities of resistance. Non-conformity to the mainstream in dress, media consumption, electricity, cars, etc. are by their very nature political. Rejecting the ways of the world is not just a theological decision, but also a political one. I think it’s not always obvious to plain Anabaptists because it’s so normalized for them.

Also, in this day and age, banning radio is irrelevant when you have access to the same info via the Internet. I mean…I don’t listen to AM radio either.

The challenge is that government doesn’t have to dictate what the church involves itself in. Look at the kinds of discussions we have in the politics section of this forum and how they track with whatever controversy is currently hot in society. I sometimes play a game with myself to see how long it takes for an issue to pop up in the media before it shows up here on MennoNet. It takes discernment to figure out issues are worth for the church to focus on and which aren’t.

So plain communities have a sort of “Schrödinger’s Resistance” where they simultaneously have rules about things you say are irrelevant yet also track with controversies of what is currently “hot in society”.

The current discussion topic at my church is whether to have youth gatherings on Sunday nights. That doesn’t seem to track broader society at all. At the ministers’ meeting last year one of the topics was whether selling investment bonds at 2% to rich people to finance nursing homes is okay. (It was decided it’s not given our prohibition on usury.) I don’t think that is a topic currently hot in society at all.

The closest to a mainstream issue I can think of is discussing screen time for children.

[Szdfan]

My original point was it’s a good idea for the Christian to avoid listening to AM talk radio.

I agree. And my point is that it's the content that's the problem, whether delivered by AM radio, FM radio, XM radio, weather radio, shortwave, youtube, instagram, podcasts, or whatever medium might become popular next. Banning radios is ineffective if the exact same content is being consumed elsewhere. Teaching people to be discriminating consumers, or non-consumers, of the content (to order their lives) is more fruitful than ripping the antennas out of their cars (imposing law).

Yes, that would be the perspective from groups that decided to allow the radio.

Extolling one’s moral superiority for not having a radio on the…(checks notes)…internet is certainly a choice someone can make.