Is Jesus for “Law & Order?”

[JohnH]

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.

There are simply different perspectives. I think not having radio is a blessing particularly since it means we are much less influenced by AM political talk radio.

When I visit my parents my mother has it on, blasting ads for sports gambling, dubious investment schemes involving gold, dubious supplements, and then with “news” that is either outright false or misrepresented.

[Szdfan]

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.

There are simply different perspectives. I think not having radio is a blessing particularly since it means we are much less influenced by AM political talk radio.

When I visit my parents my mother has it on, blasting ads for sports gambling, dubious investment schemes involving gold, dubious supplements, and then with “news” that is either outright false or misrepresented.

The Internet provides all the same content as the radio and even more so — it makes everything you object to constantly and instantly available. It’s a bit like complaining about the negative effects of the horse and buggy, but you drive a car.

[Szdfan]

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.

I'm not saying that at all.

I'm saying that I believe that Plain Anabaptists don't recognize how their radical separation from the world has political dimensions to it. Their ordinances are not just social and theological, but also political by nature -- not partisan political, but political in the broader sense of the word.

While I don't know what kinds of conversations your church has, I know what conversations you have here. And I know from years of reading your words and arguing with you that you spend time thinking about hot button social and political issues with at least some frequency.

[Bootstrap]

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.

I really appreciate these three posts, and agree with all of them.

If we are mostly exchanging opinions on the same things we would find on a Twitter feed every day, in ways that echo the talking points of political factions, I don't think we are doing what the Kingdom of God is called to. But to get beyond that, we need a compelling vision of what it is that we are called to in our own kingdom.

And I think that includes what we do for the last, the least, and the lost, echoing what Jesus said and did. In most of our discussions here, the tail is wagging the dog. Worldly political slogans don't help - "Jesus would be for 'law and order'" is a way of endorsing a political slogan as part of our faith, ensuring that the discussion starts there. The Bible is a richer, deeper place to start from.

[barnhart]

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...

I agree. I think we generally fail at properly evaluating, appreciating or recognizing the value of the type of "resistance" we are best at. We often loose vision for it and run away from it or elevate it to the level of idolatry.

[GaryK]

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.

Maybe, in the broadest sense of the word political, non-conformity might be "political" in nature. But looking at the common usage of the word, I would differ with your characterization.

Here is Websters:

political
adjective
po·​lit·​i·​cal pə-ˈli-ti-kəl
1 a: of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government
b: of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy
2: of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics
3: organized in governmental terms
political units
4: involving or charged or concerned with acts against a government or a political system
political prisoners

[Bootstrap]

Maybe, in the broadest sense of the word political, non-conformity might be "political" in nature. But looking at the common usage of the word, I would differ with your characterization.

Here is Websters:

political
adjective
po·​lit·​i·​cal pə-ˈli-ti-kəl
1 a: of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government
b: of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy
2: of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics
3: organized in governmental terms
political units
4: involving or charged or concerned with acts against a government or a political system
political prisoners

As I have said many times, part of the problem really is that we are using different definitions.

I think that definition is narrower than everyday use. We all know what "office politics" and "church politics" means - people with different opinions and various relationships have to work ways to do things together. That’s not about government; it’s about influence, decision-making, and the dynamics of a community.

And this is closely related to the original meaning: The earliest sense of politikos in Greek was not about “the government” in our modern institutional sense but about the life of the community: the affairs, responsibilities, and character of those who belong to a community. In that older sense, political simply meant communal or relating to the life of a people. Maybe it's mostly people who read old books or read Greek who think in that older sense, but I am very much among them.

In general, I think it's helpful to be very concrete and specific about which things we mean. Even under the Webster's definition, it's rather broad. And even in the narrower sense, I think a LOT of things Jesus said used terms typically used by the ruler of a government.

I'll kick off a new thread with a poll ...

[GaryK]

Maybe, in the broadest sense of the word political, non-conformity might be "political" in nature. But looking at the common usage of the word, I would differ with your characterization.

Here is Websters:

political
adjective
po·​lit·​i·​cal pə-ˈli-ti-kəl
1 a: of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government
b: of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy
2: of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics
3: organized in governmental terms
political units
4: involving or charged or concerned with acts against a government or a political system
political prisoners

As I have said many times, part of the problem really is that we are using different definitions.

I think that definition is narrower than everyday use. We all know what "office politics" and "church politics" means - people with different opinions and various relationships have to work ways to do things together. That’s not about government; it’s about influence, decision-making, and the dynamics of a community.

Pick a dictionary and you will find how the word is commonly used, which is why I said "common usage of the word".

And this is closely related to the original meaning: The earliest sense of politikos in Greek was not about “the government” in our modern institutional sense but about the life of the community: the affairs, responsibilities, and character of those who belong to a community. In that older sense, political simply meant communal or relating to the life of a people. Maybe it's mostly people who read old books or read Greek who think in that older sense, but I am very much among them.

In general, I think it's helpful to be very concrete and specific about which things we mean. Even under the Webster's definition, it's rather broad. And even in the narrower sense, I think a LOT of things Jesus said used terms typically used by the ruler of a government.

I'll kick off a new thread with a poll ...

I think the OP is pretty clearly not about the Greek definition, which is why I have been using the word political/politics in the more common usage sense.

[barnhart]

Speaking of semantics, the vision I see GaryK putting forward is the avoidance of conviction to political control, not avoidance of political influence.

[Bootstrap]

Pick a dictionary and you will find how the word is commonly used, which is why I said "common usage of the word".

I think the OP is pretty clearly not about the Greek definition, which is why I have been using the word political/politics in the more common usage sense.

Fair enough. I just think some people have read Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Politics, and both define the term differently.

I think you and I agree on how believers should relate to the statement in the OP?