George Floyd

[GaryK]

Second, thanks for letting me know that you have taken some steps to explore how people like Keeshon experience systemic racism. Unless I missed it, heretofore, you hadn't mentioned that you had given these folks a close hearing. That kind of thing to me does indicate to me a learning stance.

May I kindly suggest that it shouldn't need to be that someone has to tell you they have done what you recommend and then only you will believe they are in a learning stance. There are many ways to learn.

[MaxPC]

Second, thanks for letting me know that you have taken some steps to explore how people like Keeshon experience systemic racism. Unless I missed it, heretofore, you hadn't mentioned that you had given these folks a close hearing. That kind of thing to me does indicate to me a learning stance.

May I kindly suggest that it shouldn't need to be that someone has to tell you they have done what you recommend and then only you will believe they are in a learning stance. There are many ways to learn.

[joshuabgood]

Second, thanks for letting me know that you have taken some steps to explore how people like Keeshon experience systemic racism. Unless I missed it, heretofore, you hadn't mentioned that you had given these folks a close hearing. That kind of thing to me does indicate to me a learning stance.

May I kindly suggest that it shouldn't need to be that someone has to tell you they have done what you recommend and then only you will believe they are in a learning stance. There are many ways to learn.

I am willing to consider that...

Though in a good faith learning conversation if one party suggests some further resources for discussion/learning it feels to me acknowledgement and expressing interest in further reading and discussing those, help foster that good faith, healthy conversation. On the other hand, when resources provided are not responded to at all, or not referenced at all, with expressions of interest, it doesn't feel like a learning conversation or learning stance, which is why I inquired. (Once you let me know you had explored at least one of them...I noted without a grudge that is evidence of a learning stance and a good faith conversation.)

May I return a question and ask why you didn't in fact acknowledge and reference Keeshons work and his experiences with systemic racism? Or the other resources I mentioned? It certainly was germaine to the conversation, and I had referenced Keeshons experiences as a starting point for a good faith discussion. Because you didn't acknowledge them, or mention you had explored Keeshons contributions at least, it caused me to question if you were interested in engaging in a serious learning conversation. Or if there was some other underlying unwillingness that drove that lack of acknowledgement and seeming unwillingness to engage in a serious conversation around those items.

I guess the other possibility is I am taking this as seriously as I would any individual relationship and conversation with a brother, and you dont see the conversation/relationship the same way...I am not sure...If that is the case I think I will take a break. Which might be best anyway...

[Josh]

I would like to say, politely, that it feels offensive to me to constantly see someone’s first name getting invoked here as some kind of trump card.

Every outsider who joins a conservative Anabaptist church feels a special bond with each other, and I felt that with Keeshon and myself back when I used to spend time in York. Racial differences seemed very unimportant in contrast to the stark differences in coming from the world vs growing up in an ethnic Anabaptist household.

If we’d like to discuss Mr Washington’s work, let’s have a separate thread to discuss that. Josh, let’s stop using it as some kind of tool or weapon here to proclaim how right you are.

I would politely suggest that someone who comes from the world like myself or Keeshon is, generally speaking, not interested in joining liberal-progressive political movements, which is what Josh is flogging here. I used to be a part of liberal politics and I had to walk away from that to become a Christian, and it’s tiresome to hear Josh constantly repeat that to be a good Christian, I have to go and read all these books I already read that espouse anti-Christian values.

[joshuabgood]

Josh...I am not sure how to respond. I am not political. Also, I have no interest in using Keeshon Washingtons work as a tool. I only want to honestly discuss what he publicly released. So far I can't get anyone to engage the substance of it. I wonder why??

Additionally I referenced Bryan Stevenson, Diangelo, 13, Coates, and other resources. We were just now discussing Keeshons work because Gary mentione that he saw Keeshons dkc interview.

[RZehr]

Josh...I am not sure how to respond. I am not political. Also, I have no interest in using Keeshon Washingtons work as a tool. I only want to honestly discuss what he publicly released. So far I can't get anyone to engage the substance of it. I wonder why??

Additionally I referenced Bryan Stevenson, Diangelo, 13, Coates, and other resources. We were just now discussing Keeshons work because Gary mentione that he saw Keeshons dkc interview.

I haven’t read it, never heard of the man until this thread, no idea where to find his book, and already have plenty to read (although I would like to have read it).

That’s why no discussion from me on the substance of his writings or any other of your recommended readings.

[GaryK]

Second, thanks for letting me know that you have taken some steps to explore how people like Keeshon experience systemic racism. Unless I missed it, heretofore, you hadn't mentioned that you had given these folks a close hearing. That kind of thing to me does indicate to me a learning stance.

May I kindly suggest that it shouldn't need to be that someone has to tell you they have done what you recommend and then only you will believe they are in a learning stance. There are many ways to learn.

I am willing to consider that...

Though in a good faith learning conversation if one party suggests some further resources for discussion/learning it feels to me acknowledgement and expressing interest in further reading and discussing those, help foster that good faith, healthy conversation. On the other hand, when resources provided are not responded to at all, or not referenced at all, with expressions of interest, it doesn't feel like a learning conversation or learning stance, which is why I inquired. (Once you let me know you had explored at least one of them...I noted without a grudge that is evidence of a learning stance and a good faith conversation.)

May I return a question and ask why you didn't in fact acknowledge and reference Keeshons work and his experiences with systemic racism? Or the other resources I mentioned? It certainly was germaine to the conversation, and I had referenced Keeshons experiences as a starting point for a good faith discussion. Because you didn't acknowledge them, or mention you had explored Keeshons contributions at least, it caused me to question if you were interested in engaging in a serious learning conversation. Or if there was some other underlying unwillingness that drove that lack of acknowledgement and seeming unwillingness to engage in a serious conversation around those items.

I guess the other possibility is I am taking this as seriously as I would any individual relationship and conversation with a brother, and you dont see the conversation/relationship the same way...I am not sure...If that is the case I think I will take a break. Which might be best anyway...

I thought I was making it quite clear in most of my posts that I'm interested in discovering what a NT Kingdom response to favoritism is, making my starting point the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles, not other resources.

It seemed to me that you were more interested in continuing to promote your research and view than hearing where I was coming from. This was indicated by a continual referencing of my need to be in a learning stance and also stating that my position was that I did not believe the experiences of those you mentioned. To me that came across as quite condescending. I acknowledged that how you were coming across in our discussion may be because of your gift of teaching. In a classroom setting that is expected - the teacher teaches and the students learn. But on a discussion forum, continual references to the need for the other person to be in a learning stance, and stating things not true about the other person's position are, IMO, not helpful to a productive discussion.

[joshuabgood]

Josh...I am not sure how to respond. I am not political. Also, I have no interest in using Keeshon Washingtons work as a tool. I only want to honestly discuss what he publicly released. So far I can't get anyone to engage the substance of it. I wonder why??

Additionally I referenced Bryan Stevenson, Diangelo, 13, Coates, and other resources. We were just now discussing Keeshons work because Gary mentione that he saw Keeshons dkc interview.

I haven’t read it, never heard of the man until this thread, no idea where to find his book, and already have plenty to read (although I would like to have read it).

That’s why no discussion from me on the substance of his writings or any other of your recommended readings.

Thx Rzehr for the reply. The links to all his essays were posted earlier by PeterG in this thread. Is DKCM interview, I will post the link for later tonight.

[joshuabgood]

May I kindly suggest that it shouldn't need to be that someone has to tell you they have done what you recommend and then only you will believe they are in a learning stance. There are many ways to learn.

I am willing to consider that...

Though in a good faith learning conversation if one party suggests some further resources for discussion/learning it feels to me acknowledgement and expressing interest in further reading and discussing those, help foster that good faith, healthy conversation. On the other hand, when resources provided are not responded to at all, or not referenced at all, with expressions of interest, it doesn't feel like a learning conversation or learning stance, which is why I inquired. (Once you let me know you had explored at least one of them...I noted without a grudge that is evidence of a learning stance and a good faith conversation.)

May I return a question and ask why you didn't in fact acknowledge and reference Keeshons work and his experiences with systemic racism? Or the other resources I mentioned? It certainly was germaine to the conversation, and I had referenced Keeshons experiences as a starting point for a good faith discussion. Because you didn't acknowledge them, or mention you had explored Keeshons contributions at least, it caused me to question if you were interested in engaging in a serious learning conversation. Or if there was some other underlying unwillingness that drove that lack of acknowledgement and seeming unwillingness to engage in a serious conversation around those items.

I guess the other possibility is I am taking this as seriously as I would any individual relationship and conversation with a brother, and you dont see the conversation/relationship the same way...I am not sure...If that is the case I think I will take a break. Which might be best anyway...

I thought I was making it quite clear in most of my posts that I'm interested in discovering what a NT Kingdom response to favoritism is, making my starting point the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles, not other resources.

It seemed to me that you were more interested in continuing to promote your research and view than hearing where I was coming from. This was indicated by a continual referencing of my need to be in a learning stance and also stating that my position was that I did not believe the experiences of those you mentioned. To me that came across as quite condescending. I acknowledged that how you were coming across in our discussion may be because of your gift of teaching. In a classroom setting that is expected - the teacher teaches and the students learn. But on a discussion forum, continual references to the need for the other person to be in a learning stance, and stating things not true about the other person's position are, IMO, not helpful to a productive discussion.

I apologize for making you feel condescended to. That helps me understand why you didn't engage or acknowledge what I was bringing resource wise and makes sense. And thanks for your honesty and willingness to express to me how I made you feel. My desire is to do better in my communicating to avoid that in the future as a brother in Christ.

I am interested in the way of Jesus also. And Stevenson and Wahington in particular bring what they bring in that context. I have been so blest by both of them. When the time is right, I would appreciate, if you wanted, discussing that further. Or if I can visit GA speaking with your friends as we discussed sometime.

That said I believe we can learn kingdom truth from others also. I learned alot from Malcolm Xs autobiography for instance.

[ohio jones]

I would politely suggest that someone who comes from the world like myself or Keeshon is, generally speaking, not interested in joining liberal-progressive political movements, which is what Josh is flogging here.

Josh...I am not sure how to respond. I am not political.

I accept that you intend to be apolitical. But it does appear to me that your views are heavily informed by liberal-progressive sociology. And since sociological views quite often find expression in politics, even among those with apolitical aspirations, I can understand why Josh R. sees it that way. And why some of the discussion fails to resonate with those of us who have considered and rejected the liberal-progressive worldview.