Bunny Trails

[Bootstrap]

If so, how do we respond to what is going on in society around us from a Kingdom perspective?

As others have mentioned to you the best way to respond is stop using WE or US (2nd person plural) and speak in the first person singular I and me. You're not a king or a pope so you can't use it that way. Your opinions are first person and yours alone so use first person singular pronouns.

I was asking a genuine question, inviting people to share their own perspectives. When I said “we,” I meant Christians who seek to respond to what’s happening from a Kingdom perspective—that seems like a real “we,” not the “royal we.”

Focusing on pronouns feels like a distraction from the actual issue. Here’s the question again, since that’s what I’d love to hear your thoughts on:

What would I leave out in order to "leave the politics" out? Are you saying any mention of Trump or MAGA is politics? If so, how do we respond to what is going on in society around us from a Kingdom perspective?

How would you answer the question? What is your opinion?

[JohnH]

I was asking a genuine question, inviting people to share their own perspectives. When I said “we,” I meant Christians who seek to respond to what’s happening from a Kingdom perspective—that seems like a real “we,” not the “royal we.”

One of the first things I'd do, then, is seek membership at a church that teaches its members not to vote, hold office, or get "deeply emotionally engaged" in politics, among other things. And then as part of a member of such a church, you can exhort your fellow brethren when you see them getting too involved with politics, which in the present era usually means talking about news clippings of pointless culture war issues.

Focusing on pronouns feels like a distraction from the actual issue. Here’s the question again, since that’s what I’d love to hear your thoughts on:

What would I leave out in order to "leave the politics" out? Are you saying any mention of Trump or MAGA is politics? If so, how do we respond to what is going on in society around us from a Kingdom perspective?

How would you answer the question? What is your opinion?

"How do we response to what is going on in society around us" - why does the Trump administration need a "response" from "us" at all?

[JohnL]

If so, how do we respond to what is going on in society around us from a Kingdom perspective?

As others have mentioned to you the best way to respond is stop using WE or US (2nd person plural) and speak in the first person singular I and me. You're not a king or a pope so you can't use it that way. Your opinions are first person and yours alone so use first person singular pronouns.

I was asking a genuine question, inviting people to share their own perspectives. When I said “we,” I meant Christians who seek to respond to what’s happening from a Kingdom perspective—that seems like a real “we,” not the “royal we.”

Focusing on pronouns feels like a distraction from the actual issue. Here’s the question again, since that’s what I’d love to hear your thoughts on:

What would I leave out in order to "leave the politics" out? Are you saying any mention of Trump or MAGA is politics? If so, how do we respond to what is going on in society around us from a Kingdom perspective?

How would you answer the question? What is your opinion?

And there it is again. Blaming others - classic gaslighting. Take a look in the mirror and use first person singular pronouns. Take responsibility by using I-statements.
You’re not leading a classroom discussion.
You’re not leading anyone here so this so-called “invitation” is just another excuse to argue with people to gaslight them with AI responses and try to look like the smartest guy in the room. You’re not the smartest one here. There’s quite a few here much smarter than you pretend to be and who don’t need AI to engage discussion.

[ohio jones]

You’re not leading a classroom discussion.

Neither are you.

I was about to move this post to Bunny Trails, but I see it's already here.

[temporal1]

i’m bothered by the energy and urgency to find fault with CK’s memorial which unapologetically included politics, thinking of the literal full sacred cow status given MLK Jr, a womanizer, adulterer, a political activist. U.S. government was radically impacted by him, starting in his lifetime, continuing today. (Hopefully, in many ways he would NOT endorse.)

i didn’t view, for the very reason i anticipated it would be a mixed bag of messages - memorial services often are.
They are for the purpose of various people eulogizing the deceased from their varied views.

If you know you loathe someone, why seek him out? Why choose to let him define the total?
Wallowing in it is a form of masochism, in my view. Worse when intent is to compel others to wallow with you.

[barnhart]

i’m bothered by the energy and urgency to find fault with CK’s memorial which unapologetically included politics, thinking of the literal full sacred cow status given MLK Jr, a womanizer, adulterer, a political activist. U.S. government was radically impacted by him, starting in his lifetime, continuing today. (Hopefully, in many ways he would NOT endorse.)

i didn’t view, for the very reason i anticipated it would be a mixed bag of messages - memorial services often are.
They are for the purpose of various people eulogizing the deceased from their varied views.

If you know you loathe someone, why seek him out? Why choose to let him define the total?
Wallowing in it is a form of masochism, in my view. Worse when intent is to compel others to wallow with you.

Unless I am mistaken you are the only one to bring this up in this thread.

[temporal1]

i’m bothered by the energy and urgency to find fault with CK’s memorial which unapologetically included politics, thinking of the literal full sacred cow status given MLK Jr, a womanizer, adulterer, a political activist. U.S. government was radically impacted by him, starting in his lifetime, continuing today. (Hopefully, in many ways he would NOT endorse.)

i didn’t view, for the very reason i anticipated it would be a mixed bag of messages - memorial services often are.
They are for the purpose of various people eulogizing the deceased from their varied views.

If you know you loathe someone, why seek him out? Why choose to let him define the total?
Wallowing in it is a form of masochism, in my view. Worse when intent is to compel others to wallow with you.

Unless I am mistaken you are the only one to bring this up in this thread.

bottom of P.4, if not elsewhere in this topic, alone.

[barnhart]

Hmm... I see Sdzfan mentioned being "uncomfortable" with some aspects of the memorial. Is this the "energy and urgency" you protest.

[temporal1]

Hmm... I see Sdzfan mentioned being "uncomfortable" with some aspects of the memorial. Is this the "energy and urgency" you protest.

in my view, he went beyond that, there, and in other topics, even receiving guidance wrt choosing forum categories. he persisted, which surprised me.

my opinion, i don’t expect anyone to agree. or even tolerate.
to clarify, my comment was intended to be general, not wrt this forum. the general response to the memorial is happening in the airwaves.

Many are adept at moderating language according to audience.

- - - - - - -

Funny, this reminds of (example) many NYT pieces which are riddled with political bias, yet their audience “sees nothing”.
i hope it’s something the world is now in process of correcting. i’m hopeful. Bari Weiss at CBS brings hope.

The objections to BW are revealing wrt how bad bias is. It’s serious.
P.90 / https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&start=890

[JohnH]

I appreciate the clarification. I was also uncomfortable about Charlie Kirk’s funeral (though mostly from Steven Miller’s demagoguery).

Where do you see David French or Anabaptist World’s criticism of Christian nationalism veer into blanket criticism of Christian civic participation?

Could you tell us how a non-Christian's speech at a funeral has any relevance at all to "Christian nationalism"?