Is Jesus for “Law & Order?”

[Szdfan]

Last I checked, our churches are not the same thing as an ethno-linguistic nation-state, Augustine’s attempts notwithstanding.

My original point stands: God decided he doesn’t want humanity united into one people with a common language and he confused our languages so that doing so is impossible.

God did so in response to sin. He also originally made man for tending a garden and then cast him out in response to sin.

Right, and that’s also why we wear clothes. I am arguing that natural ethno-linguistic ordering is as much God-ordained as wearing clothes is, and rebelling it is about as sensible as having a Christian nudist colony.

The kind of ethnonationalism John describes is functionally indistinguishable from the theological justifications once used for segregation and apartheid. This quote from David Duke demonstrates how this type of reasoning has been weaponized—

What we really want to do is to be left alone. We don't want Negroes around. We don't need Negroes around. We're not asking— you know, we don't want to have them, you know, for our culture. We simply want our own country and our own society. That's in no way exploitive at all. We want our own society, our own nation….

I’m not quoting Duke in order to compare John with him, but to point out that the logic of “divine separation” has repeatedly been used to defend racial hierarchies in Christian context.

I think this discussion illustrates well Barnhart’s point that launched this bunny hole:

In the lifetime of my parents, their neighbors were using the law and order argument to justify racial segregation. I grew up around people who still felt God's law and order was being violated by "interracial" marriage. Just saying God is "for" law and order is not a faithful interpretation of Scripture. There is a robust theology of God's people being freed from abusive law and order as well as an apocalyptic vision of a future where the law and order of this world fades away in significance as all things are made new.

[JohnH]

Okay so doesn’t apply to you. You also seem to believe it does apply to the church but you selectively edited out ethnic group.

I think we all agree it’s Scriptural that we need to speak the same language. You draw the line at saying ethnic-linguistic for the church sort of, so you actually have a separation between church and nation.

My first post on the topic said "ethno-linguistic", which is pretty broad (and not necessarily tied to modern notions of "nation").

God has decided to divide people into ethno-linguistic groups, and he hasn't apparently rescinded that decision, despite any modern notions of church. It is not possible for a church congregation to function without a dominant linguistic group in that congregation, and in practical terms, that usually means an ethno-linguistic group, although in some contexts (such as Australia) basically any Australia can be comfortable in terms of language in almost any Australian church, since one language is so dominant there.

It is interesting that were miracles / gifts of speaking in other tongues for the purpose of spreading the gospel during the time period in Acts, but it is also interesting that that rarely (if ever) happens today, and that God seems content for present-day congregations to be organised along ethno-linguistic lines.

[JohnH]

The kind of ethnonationalism John describes is functionally indistinguishable from the theological justifications once used for segregation and apartheid. This quote from David Duke demonstrates how this type of reasoning has been weaponized—

[snipped quote from David Duke]

No, it isn't, Szdfan. Here is what I said:

An obvious question, then, is why God decided to divide humanity into different ethno-linguistic groups, and apparently has continued to decide this is how he wants humanity organised to this day.

I said "ethno-linguistic", with an emphasis on language, as God divinely ordained that we be organised into different groups by language. That has nothing to do with "ethnonationalism", segregation, or apartheid.

I’m not quoting Duke in order to compare John with him, but to point out that the logic of “divine separation” has repeatedly been used to defend racial hierarchies in Christian context.

Language has nothing to do with race. In America, people of different races speak the same language, and can form unitary communities bound together by that language, since they can easily communicate with one another.

There are many ethno-linguistic groups that might share a common race but don't share a common language, with an obvious example being French Canadians vs. the rest of Canada.

Why are you trying to make this about race?

[Szdfan]

The kind of ethnonationalism John describes is functionally indistinguishable from the theological justifications once used for segregation and apartheid. This quote from David Duke demonstrates how this type of reasoning has been weaponized—

[snipped quote from David Duke]

No, it isn't, Szdfan. Here is what I said:

An obvious question, then, is why God decided to divide humanity into different ethno-linguistic groups, and apparently has continued to decide this is how he wants humanity organised to this day.

I said "ethno-linguistic", with an emphasis on language, as God divinely ordained that we be organised into different groups by language. That has nothing to do with "ethnonationalism", segregation, or apartheid.

I’m not quoting Duke in order to compare John with him, but to point out that the logic of “divine separation” has repeatedly been used to defend racial hierarchies in Christian context.

Language has nothing to do with race. In America, people of different races speak the same language, and can form unitary communities bound together by that language, since they can easily communicate with one another.

There are many ethno-linguistic groups that might share a common race but don't share a common language, with an obvious example being French Canadians vs. the rest of Canada.

Why are you trying to make this about race?

I get that you’re talking about language rather than race. But I think your reasoning that God divided humanity into separate ethno-linguistic groups and continues to will that division has a long history of being applied to racial segregation and apartheid.

In Genesis, the separation of humanity isn't God's will -- it's the result of sin. God creates different languages because of humanity's hubris building the Tower of Babel. This isn't God's divine will but a consequence of human sin. It's a sign that something has gone wrong in God's creation. Therefore, I think interpreting this separation as God's command for us today is a significant theological error.

Once we start treating human division as God’s intention, it doesn't take much to see cultural or national boundaries as sacred and any attempt at unity as rebellion. That’s the same logic that’s shown up in Christian defenses of segregation and apartheid, even when people call it “culture” or “language” instead of “race.”

[Szdfan]

Also, I want to point out that language as a divinely ordered boundary and order between people doesn’t make any sense.

Let’s look at English:

• It has German syntax and core vocabulary from its Anglo-Saxon roots
• It’s completely saturated with Greek and Latin via French due to the Norman Invasion of 1066. One of the things I teach middle school students is morphology, which completely relies on Greek and Latin prefixes, suffixes and roots, not any of the older Germanic elements in English.
• English continually incorporates words from other languages (algebra, alcohol, sugar, coffee, bungalow, pajamas, shampoo, canoe, hammock, hurricane, barbecue, banjo, jazz, zebra, etc.)

I’ve heard English described as “three languages in a trench coat.” One of the reasons it’s hard to learn is because it doesn’t follow its own rules. A major reason for this is because English is a mish mash of different languages, shaped by centuries of contact, cooperation, trade and conquests.

Language isn’t a fixed, frozen thing. It’s alive, constantly changing and evolving. As far as divine boundaries go, this seems like pretty weak sauce.

[Nomad]

Also, I want to point out that language as a divinely ordered boundary and order between people doesn’t make any sense.

Let’s look at English:

• It has German syntax and core vocabulary from its Anglo-Saxon roots
• It’s completely saturated with Greek and Latin via French due to the Norman Invasion of 1066. One of the things I teach middle school students is morphology, which completely relies on Greek and Latin prefixes, suffixes and roots, not any of the older Germanic elements in English.
• English continually incorporates words from other languages (algebra, alcohol, sugar, coffee, bungalow, pajamas, shampoo, canoe, hammock, hurricane, barbecue, banjo, jazz, zebra, etc.)

I’ve heard English described as “three languages in a trench coat.” One of the reasons it’s hard to learn is because it doesn’t follow its own rules. A major reason for this is because English is a mish mash of different languages, shaped by centuries of contact, cooperation, trade and conquests.

Language isn’t a fixed, frozen thing. It’s alive, constantly changing and evolving. As far as divine boundaries go, this seems like pretty weak sauce.

Genesis 10:5

[5] From these the coastlands of the nations were separated into their lands, every one according to his tongue, according to their families, into their nations.

Its true language doesn't define nations...but it appears God used it as a way to bring nations about according to His plan.

[temporal1]

Genesis 10:5
[5] From these the coastlands of the nations were separated into their lands, every one according to his tongue, according to their families, into their nations.

Its true language doesn't define nations...but it appears God used it as a way to bring nations about according to His plan.

i bunny trailed on this a bit, P.183 / https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... start=1820

God designs and allows diverse earthly life, NOT abuse+exploitation. He knows best.
What a dull world if designed and confined to human reasoning! Humanity is vulnerable to confusion, the work of darkness.

When i was young, living in difficult times, Vietnam, race, militant women’s lib, and plenty more, i thought i had some ideas that God could make good use of. .. Thankfully, my eyes were opened. i was at once disappointed, and relieved.

[Soloist]

Okay so doesn’t apply to you. You also seem to believe it does apply to the church but you selectively edited out ethnic group.

I think we all agree it’s Scriptural that we need to speak the same language. You draw the line at saying ethnic-linguistic for the church sort of, so you actually have a separation between church and nation.

My first post on the topic said "ethno-linguistic", which is pretty broad (and not necessarily tied to modern notions of "nation").

God has decided to divide people into ethno-linguistic groups, and he hasn't apparently rescinded that decision, despite any modern notions of church. It is not possible for a church congregation to function without a dominant linguistic group in that congregation, and in practical terms, that usually means an ethno-linguistic group, although in some contexts (such as Australia) basically any Australia can be comfortable in terms of language in almost any Australian church, since one language is so dominant there.

It is interesting that were miracles / gifts of speaking in other tongues for the purpose of spreading the gospel during the time period in Acts, but it is also interesting that that rarely (if ever) happens today, and that God seems content for present-day congregations to be organised along ethno-linguistic lines.

Wife: I think language is very important, which is why missionaries pick up the language of their host country, and why churches should be in the language of the people around them (or at least offer an interpreter). There’s someone here that goes to church, but her husband does not speak English very well, so he doesn’t go. I appreciate efforts like the place over in Oregon that has a downstairs Spanish service for people who married someone on the mission field, and other Spanish speakers in that area, which has a large migrant population.

My brother is also deaf, which limits him to churches with a translator, and I know that there is a Mennonite church back in Oregon that had a lot of deaf people at one point that had an interpreter. I’m actually going to be bringing my children to a sign language class held by one of the churches here today so that we can communicate with my brother better when we hopefully get to visit.

It might not be for everyone, but it does show that you care when you bother learning other people’s languages in order to reach them. Paul and a lot of the other missionaries throughout the last few millennia learned multiple languages, and it would seem like it was that way in Abrahams time too.

[Szdfan]

Also, I want to point out that language as a divinely ordered boundary and order between people doesn’t make any sense.

Let’s look at English:

• It has German syntax and core vocabulary from its Anglo-Saxon roots
• It’s completely saturated with Greek and Latin via French due to the Norman Invasion of 1066. One of the things I teach middle school students is morphology, which completely relies on Greek and Latin prefixes, suffixes and roots, not any of the older Germanic elements in English.
• English continually incorporates words from other languages (algebra, alcohol, sugar, coffee, bungalow, pajamas, shampoo, canoe, hammock, hurricane, barbecue, banjo, jazz, zebra, etc.)

I’ve heard English described as “three languages in a trench coat.” One of the reasons it’s hard to learn is because it doesn’t follow its own rules. A major reason for this is because English is a mish mash of different languages, shaped by centuries of contact, cooperation, trade and conquests.

Language isn’t a fixed, frozen thing. It’s alive, constantly changing and evolving. As far as divine boundaries go, this seems like pretty weak sauce.

Genesis 10:5

[5] From these the coastlands of the nations were separated into their lands, every one according to his tongue, according to their families, into their nations.

Its true language doesn't define nations...but it appears God used it as a way to bring nations about according to His plan.

But is that descriptive or prescriptive? Does it describe how the world is or command how the world is supposed to be? Again, the division because of Babel was a consequence of human sin, not a result of God’s design or intentions.

Furthermore, Pentecost in Acts 2 demonstrates a kind of partial healing and restoration to Babel—

Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?” (Acts 2:5-12)

When the crowd accuses the apostles and others of being drunk, Peter goes out and describes this explosion of language as the part of the Spirit’s outpouring. The Church is called to heal the divisions of Babel, not sanctify them. It is called to act restoratively and redemptively, not create pockets of monolithic “ethno-linguistic” communities and churches and call that divine order.

This is one of the dangers of using Scripture to argue that the division of the world is part of God’s divine order. It’s bad theology that does the opposite of what the Gospel proclaims.

[JohnH]

I get that you’re talking about language rather than race. But I think your reasoning that God divided humanity into separate ethno-linguistic groups and continues to will that division has a long history of being applied to racial segregation and apartheid.

Which is irrelevant because I’m not talking about racial segregation and apartheid.

Once we start treating human division as God’s intention, it doesn't take much to see cultural or national boundaries as sacred and any attempt at unity as rebellion. That’s the same logic that’s shown up in Christian defenses of segregation and apartheid, even when people call it “culture” or “language” instead of “race.”

Except human division is indeed God’s intention, by language. Segregation and apartheid are artificial inventions. Language naturally divides.