ANALYZING THE CHARLOTTESVILLE VIOLENCE
Re: ANALYZING THE CHARLOTTESVILLE VIOLENCE
If we as Christians are truly nonpartisan, we should be able to call either side out for their misbehavior without addressing the failures of the other side. This is because our primary goal is not finding a balance, but rather a call to individuals to take responsibility for their actions.
0 x
- Dan Z
- Posts: 2667
- Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:20 am
- Location: Central Minnesota
- Affiliation: Conservative Menno
Re: ANALYZING THE CHARLOTTESVILLE VIOLENCE
Absolutely RHZehr.
If we really don't have a "dog in the hunt" then we will respond with the ethics of Jesus to each issue as we are confronted by it, regardless of whether or not it harms the image of one party or another. "Balance" shouldn't matter to us.
This approach should also tend to keep us from always needing chime in on the latest hot-button issue out there - since we are not motivated to "score points for our side."
Wow---that's a lot of metaphors in one post.
If we really don't have a "dog in the hunt" then we will respond with the ethics of Jesus to each issue as we are confronted by it, regardless of whether or not it harms the image of one party or another. "Balance" shouldn't matter to us.
This approach should also tend to keep us from always needing chime in on the latest hot-button issue out there - since we are not motivated to "score points for our side."
Wow---that's a lot of metaphors in one post.
0 x
-
- Posts: 16795
- Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:09 pm
- Location: U.S. midwest and PNW
- Affiliation: Christian other
Re: ANALYZING THE CHARLOTTESVILLE VIOLENCE
Dan Z wrote:Absolutely RHZehr.
If we really don't have a "dog in the hunt" then we will respond with the ethics of Jesus to each issue as we are confronted by it, regardless of whether or not it harms the image of one party or another. "Balance" shouldn't matter to us.
This approach should also tend to keep us from always needing chime in on the latest hot-button issue out there - since we are not motivated to "score points for our side."
Wow---that's a lot of metaphors in one post.
0 x
Most or all of this drama, humiliation, wasted taxpayer money could be spared -
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.
”We’re all just walking each other home.”
UNKNOWN
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.
”We’re all just walking each other home.”
UNKNOWN
-
- Posts: 2456
- Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:50 pm
- Affiliation: Midwest Mennonite
Re: ANALYZING THE CHARLOTTESVILLE VIOLENCE
I think I hear what you are saying here. On the other hand if I am honest with myself I do have to admit that my natural tendencies brought about at least somewhat by my personal experiences are going to create some biases on my part. I have found that if I make no effort at admitting those biases I am even less likely to be able to understand where others are coming from.RZehr wrote:If we as Christians are truly nonpartisan, we should be able to call either side out for their misbehavior without addressing the failures of the other side. This is because our primary goal is not finding a balance, but rather a call to individuals to take responsibility for their actions.
I find it pretty easy to ask others to take responsibility for their actions. I struggle a lot more at trying to understand why they may have taken those actions in the first place.
Or another way of saying it is, I like when others try to take the time to understand where I am coming from and why I might have responded the way I did in a certain situation. Am I willing to give that same consideration to others?
0 x
-
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:52 pm
- Location: Central PA
- Affiliation: Conserv. Mennonite
Re: ANALYZING THE CHARLOTTESVILLE VIOLENCE
What's the difference between this and partiality?RZehr wrote:If we as Christians are truly nonpartisan, we should be able to call either side out for their misbehavior without addressing the failures of the other side. This is because our primary goal is not finding a balance, but rather a call to individuals to take responsibility for their actions.
0 x
"It is a weird" —Ken
Re: ANALYZING THE CHARLOTTESVILLE VIOLENCE
The spirit it is done in, which may not be clear on an internet forum but is clear in real life.PeterG wrote:What's the difference between this and partiality?RZehr wrote:If we as Christians are truly nonpartisan, we should be able to call either side out for their misbehavior without addressing the failures of the other side. This is because our primary goal is not finding a balance, but rather a call to individuals to take responsibility for their actions.
0 x
Re: ANALYZING THE CHARLOTTESVILLE VIOLENCE
OK, but I suspect the spirit in which I wrote my posts may also be unclear on an Internet forum. I don't think I was doing that to score points for my side. I'm definitely not on the side of either of these groups. I'm pretty sure the OP wasn't trying to score points for one of these sides either. On the other hand, my posts seem to have upset people, and I apologize for that. I won't revisit any of that in this thread.RZehr wrote:The spirit it is done in, which may not be clear on an internet forum but is clear in real life.PeterG wrote:What's the difference between this and partiality?
But I don't think calling each side to account is the same as giving an account of what happened, and I think that's important.
Suppose Steven dumps a bucket of mud on Jim's head, and Jim starts pummeling Steven. When you talk to each of them, you want each to take responsibility for his own actions, and not use the actions of the other as an excuse. At this point, you are asking each to take responsibility for their actions. Now their mother walks in and asks what happened. You tell her that Jim hit Steven. That doesn't sound impartial. Or you tell her excuses one of them made without making sure that they are true. That doesn't sound impartial either. To avoid being partial, I think you really do need to present what each of them did in the same level of detail, and have the same level of skepticism for each.
I suspect both the OP and my bullet points were an attempt at an impartial telling. I doubt that either of us are trying to score points for either of the sides in the conflict. I also suspect there may be some cultural differences at work.
I think we're all on the same side of this issue, wanting peace and stability. So I'm sorry that my posts came across the way they did.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Re: ANALYZING THE CHARLOTTESVILLE VIOLENCE
One last thing: I want to be clear that in the Steve and Jim example, I am not implying that the account in the OP is as partial as the example. It clearly is not. The example uses an extreme to try to explain why I think you need balance if you want to tell a story in an impartial way.
I apologize if that was not clear.
I apologize if that was not clear.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Re: ANALYZING THE CHARLOTTESVILLE VIOLENCE
Partiality overlooks and over emphasizes.RZehr wrote:The spirit it is done in, which may not be clear on an internet forum but is clear in real life.PeterG wrote:What's the difference between this and partiality?RZehr wrote:If we as Christians are truly nonpartisan, we should be able to call either side out for their misbehavior without addressing the failures of the other side. This is because our primary goal is not finding a balance, but rather a call to individuals to take responsibility for their actions.
0 x