briar patch

[Bootstrap]

I think that highlights the problem with the exiled politics forum. The line between something that’s political and not political is already fuzzy but the criteria on this forum between political and non-political is also completely arbitrary and depends on whether people agree with it or not.

Making a joke about deporting people is a political comment, even if it’s intended as a joke.

And there is no clean line between Seeking First the Kingdom of God and politics. Consider emperor worship in Rome. It's political, but it's also a core Kingdom issue. Also, in the current climate, there is no clean line between politics and medicine, politics and science, or politics in religion. After all, "Evangelicals" is now a political category as much as a religious category.

I think clean lines are possible, but they probably involve defining the center rather than the boundary—deciding what we are for (such as seeking Christ, worship, community, truth-telling) rather than trying to police every edge case. If we anchor ourselves in Kingdom priorities, some conversations will clearly fit and some will clearly not, but many will live in that messy overlap where faith, politics, culture, and daily life all collide. The important thing is whether the conversation draws us toward Christ and his Kingdom, or away from it.

Conversations that mirror that kind of politics—personality-driven politics, negative polarization, tribal loyalty—belong in the politics forum. Conversations that center on Christ and the Kingdom, even if they touch political, cultural, or social issues, belong in the Kingdom forum. The difference isn’t whether the topic sounds “political,” but whether the conversation is oriented around Christ or around the idols of our age.

[Szdfan]

I think that highlights the problem with the exiled politics forum. The line between something that’s political and not political is already fuzzy but the criteria on this forum between political and non-political is also completely arbitrary and depends on whether people agree with it or not.

Making a joke about deporting people is a political comment, even if it’s intended as a joke.

And there is no clean line between Seeking First the Kingdom of God and politics. Consider emperor worship in Rome. It's political, but it's also a core Kingdom issue. Also, in the current climate, there is no clean line between politics and medicine, politics and science, or politics in religion. After all, "Evangelicals" is now a political category as much as a religious category.

I think clean lines are possible, but they probably involve defining the center rather than the boundary—deciding what we are for (such as seeking Christ, worship, community, truth-telling) rather than trying to police every edge case. If we anchor ourselves in Kingdom priorities, some conversations will clearly fit and some will clearly not, but many will live in that messy overlap where faith, politics, culture, and daily life all collide. The important thing is whether the conversation draws us toward Christ and his Kingdom, or away from it.

Conversations that mirror that kind of politics—personality-driven politics, negative polarization, tribal loyalty—belong in the politics forum. Conversations that center on Christ and the Kingdom, even if they touch political, cultural, or social issues, belong in the Kingdom forum. The difference isn’t whether the topic sounds “political,” but whether the conversation is oriented around Christ or around the idols of our age.

I did post something about that fuzzy line with politics…on the politics forum.

[Bootstrap]

And there is no clean line between Seeking First the Kingdom of God and politics. Consider emperor worship in Rome. It's political, but it's also a core Kingdom issue. Also, in the current climate, there is no clean line between politics and medicine, politics and science, or politics in religion. After all, "Evangelicals" is now a political category as much as a religious category.

I think clean lines are possible, but they probably involve defining the center rather than the boundary—deciding what we are for (such as seeking Christ, worship, community, truth-telling) rather than trying to police every edge case. If we anchor ourselves in Kingdom priorities, some conversations will clearly fit and some will clearly not, but many will live in that messy overlap where faith, politics, culture, and daily life all collide. The important thing is whether the conversation draws us toward Christ and his Kingdom, or away from it.

Conversations that mirror that kind of politics—personality-driven politics, negative polarization, tribal loyalty—belong in the politics forum. Conversations that center on Christ and the Kingdom, even if they touch political, cultural, or social issues, belong in the Kingdom forum. The difference isn’t whether the topic sounds “political,” but whether the conversation is oriented around Christ or around the idols of our age.

I did post something about that fuzzy line with politics…on the politics forum.

What did you say? (I can't see the politics forum.)

The fuzzy lines are the reason I think we should focus on the center. Outer boundaries are often fuzzy. For instance, we may not be sure exactly who is saved and who is not because the borders are fuzzy, but we know the center is to trust Jesus, turn to him in faith and trust him with all we are and have and experience, follow him in what he said and did.

[Szdfan]

And there is no clean line between Seeking First the Kingdom of God and politics. Consider emperor worship in Rome. It's political, but it's also a core Kingdom issue. Also, in the current climate, there is no clean line between politics and medicine, politics and science, or politics in religion. After all, "Evangelicals" is now a political category as much as a religious category.

I think clean lines are possible, but they probably involve defining the center rather than the boundary—deciding what we are for (such as seeking Christ, worship, community, truth-telling) rather than trying to police every edge case. If we anchor ourselves in Kingdom priorities, some conversations will clearly fit and some will clearly not, but many will live in that messy overlap where faith, politics, culture, and daily life all collide. The important thing is whether the conversation draws us toward Christ and his Kingdom, or away from it.

Conversations that mirror that kind of politics—personality-driven politics, negative polarization, tribal loyalty—belong in the politics forum. Conversations that center on Christ and the Kingdom, even if they touch political, cultural, or social issues, belong in the Kingdom forum. The difference isn’t whether the topic sounds “political,” but whether the conversation is oriented around Christ or around the idols of our age.

I did post something about that fuzzy line with politics…on the politics forum.

What did you say? (I can't see the politics forum.)

I PM’d it to you in order to not distract from this thread.

[temporal1]

.. completely arbitrary ..

i believe MN is subjective, not “completely arbitrary”, and, the subjective nature of this forum should be be appreciated.
It makes it what it is. Real, and personal. Not regulated or robotic.

At an attractive price.

This category is Mennolight, a fair hint as to the OP intent. For those who care about OP intent.

[Szdfan]

.. completely arbitrary ..

i believe MN is subjective, not completely arbitrary, and, the subjective nature of this forum should be be appreciated. It makes it what it is. Real, and personal. Not regulated or robotic.

At an attractive price.

This category is Mennolight, a fair hint as to the OP intent. For those who care about OP intent.

So why is Robert’s joke about deporting people okay but not Boot’s parody of Trump? Both are political.

[temporal1]

.. completely arbitrary ..

i believe MN is subjective, not completely arbitrary, and, the subjective nature of this forum should be be appreciated. It makes it what it is. Real, and personal. Not regulated or robotic.

At an attractive price.

This category is Mennolight, a fair hint as to the OP intent. For those who care about OP intent.

So why is Robert’s joke about deporting people okay but not Boot’s parody of Trump? Both are political.

i haven’t paid attention, but decisions are admin+mods. i don’t have to understand. esp not in the moment.
sometimes, understanding comes after a bit of time.

[Bootstrap]

This category is Mennolight, a fair hint as to the OP intent. For those who care about OP intent.

Making a joke about charging people with ridiculous crimes isn’t “just a joke” when the president is literally filming SWAT raids and blasting them on social media to build his brand.

Using “Mennolight” to frame it as lighthearted is itself a political move, because it hides the performance of power under a smile. It hides the performance of power under a smile, and then implies that anyone who takes the article’s serious concerns seriously is “being political” and therefore out of bounds.

[temporal1]

This category is Mennolight, a fair hint as to the OP intent. For those who care about OP intent.

Making a joke about charging people with ridiculous crimes isn’t “just a joke” when the president is literally filming SWAT raids and blasting them on social media to build his brand.

Using “Mennolight” to frame it as lighthearted is itself a political move, because it hides the performance of power under a smile. It hides the performance of power under a smile, and then implies that anyone who takes the article’s serious concerns seriously is “being political” and therefore out of bounds.

your opinion.
i would not presume ken_s’s intent, nor discount his ability to relay his intent. i wouldn’t do that.
you’re experienced in starting new topics.

ken_s responded:
viewtopic.php?t=8265

[Bootstrap]

This category is Mennolight, a fair hint as to the OP intent. For those who care about OP intent.

Making a joke about charging people with ridiculous crimes isn’t “just a joke” when the president is literally filming SWAT raids and blasting them on social media to build his brand.

Using “Mennolight” to frame it as lighthearted is itself a political move, because it hides the performance of power under a smile. It hides the performance of power under a smile, and then implies that anyone who takes the article’s serious concerns seriously is “being political” and therefore out of bounds.

your opinion.
i would not presume ken_s’s intent, nor discount his ability to relay his intent. i wouldn’t do that.
you’re experienced in starting new topics.

I’m not making any claim about Ken’s intent — I can’t see that from the inside.

What I’m pointing out is the practical effect. In practice, framing something like this as “Mennolight” has the effect of softening a display of power into a joke, and then treating serious engagement with the issue as if it’s out of bounds because it’s “political.” My concern is about how it functions, not about what Ken meant.