Is Jesus for “Law & Order?”

[JohnH]

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.

Suppose I try to congregate with 10 other families. One speaks
Hindi, another Arabic, Chinese, Spanish, Japanese, Turkish, Bengali, French, and Russian. None of us will be able to effectively be a church or minister to one another except at a very basic level.

Worse still, my family will probably feel most comfortable with the Spanish speaking family since I can somewhat communicate in Spanish. So we will end up forming micro-divisions.

It would be far more sensible for the Chinese family to find other Chinese families to congregate with, the Arabic family find other Arabic speaking families and so forth. Those of us who are polyglots might find we can visit each other’s congregations.

Overall, this fantasy of erasing language divisions leads to just mandating trade languages for church: the reality in my above scenario is everyone will probably want to learn English. But I don’t think the kingdom of heaven comes down to earth by instituting English as a liturgical and trade language.

[Szdfan]

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.

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.

But you're using the same logic as segregation and apartheid -- that the divine order -- God's intentions -- was to separate people. This was theological justification behind segregation and apartheid.

I also think your use of the term "ethno-linguistic" is disingenuous. You're claiming that God's design is to separate people by inherited traits such as culture and language and therefore you're not talking about race. In practice, however, "ethno-linguistic" groups often overlap with racial boundaries. That's semantics, not theology.

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.

And again, Genesis 11 makes it clear that the language and cultural divisions of Babel are the result of human sin, not God's intentions. Why do you deny the redemptive work of the Holy Spirit in Acts that calls the church to move beyond those cultural and linguistic boundaries?

Why do you insist that that the divisions caused by human sin are what God desires?

[Soloist]

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.

Suppose I try to congregate with 10 other families. One speaks
Hindi, another Arabic, Chinese, Spanish, Japanese, Turkish, Bengali, French, and Russian. None of us will be able to effectively be a church or minister to one another except at a very basic level.

Worse still, my family will probably feel most comfortable with the Spanish speaking family since I can somewhat communicate in Spanish. So we will end up forming micro-divisions.

It would be far more sensible for the Chinese family to find other Chinese families to congregate with, the Arabic family find other Arabic speaking families and so forth. Those of us who are polyglots might find we can visit each other’s congregations.

Overall, this fantasy of erasing language divisions leads to just mandating trade languages for church: the reality in my above scenario is everyone will probably want to learn English. But I don’t think the kingdom of heaven comes down to earth by instituting English as a liturgical and trade language.

Wife: What is your actual point then? This bunny trail went off after you responded to barnharts thing about law and order/interracial marriage. I don’t see that specific thing being an issue in this example you just gave. I would also think that for an inter-lingual marriage, or for someone of another language to fit into a church, it would make sense for at least one or both of them to learn the persons language or the language spoken at that church. It is a little difficult when the only churches that provide a specific language might be lacking in scriptural teachings.

Perhaps myself and other people have misunderstood what you’re saying and you’re not advocating against interracial marriage or for segregation. Other than the church example you gave, can you give an example that shows what you’re advocating?

[Szdfan]

I would also think that for an inter-lingual marriage, or for someone of another language to fit into a church, it would make sense for at least one or both of them to learn the persons language or the language spoken at that church.

After my parent’s divorce, my Dad married a Russian. He learned to speak Russian. I can communicate a bit with her in German.

When they visited several years ago, we communicated using three different three languages around the table. My girls were little then and had no problem interacting with her.

It takes a lot of patience, goodwill and a willingness to learn, but it’s possible to navigate these situations.

[Szdfan]

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.

Suppose I try to congregate with 10 other families. One speaks
Hindi, another Arabic, Chinese, Spanish, Japanese, Turkish, Bengali, French, and Russian. None of us will be able to effectively be a church or minister to one another except at a very basic level.

Worse still, my family will probably feel most comfortable with the Spanish speaking family since I can somewhat communicate in Spanish. So we will end up forming micro-divisions.

It would be far more sensible for the Chinese family to find other Chinese families to congregate with, the Arabic family find other Arabic speaking families and so forth. Those of us who are polyglots might find we can visit each other’s congregations.

Overall, this fantasy of erasing language divisions leads to just mandating trade languages for church: the reality in my above scenario is everyone will probably want to learn English. But I don’t think the kingdom of heaven comes down to earth by instituting English as a liturgical and trade language.

My first congregation as a pastor had originally started as La Junta (Colorado) Mennonite Spanish Mission in the 1950s. During the early 60s, it had become a bicultural church. Many of the original Spanish-speaking families were still there. It was clear there had been real pain and struggle as the church became more “mainstream” Mennonite, but it was also clear there were decades-long relationships, love and deep connections.

One of the members was a retired minister named Eldo Miller. He told me he had once been part of a Spanish mission church plant in Mathis, Texas. When he first went down there, he preached in his living room with a translator because he didn’t speak Spanish. Eventually, he stopped using the translator when he realized the translator wasn’t saying exactly what he meant. He had learned enough Spanish to preach himself.

Cross-cultural ministry is hard. It’s often messy and full of misunderstanding. But it's also holy. It’s also part of what it means to be the Church.

That’s what I find so powerful about Pentecost. When people from every nation in Jerusalem heard the people gathered in the upper room praising God in their own language, they didn’t suddenly become Hebrews. They kept their cultural identities, but they were drawn into a body of believers who saw themselves as part of something larger and redemptive.

I don’t think we’re all supposed to speak the same language or share the same culture. Language and culture don’t work that way. Identity isnt just one thing. But the Church is called to reach across those boundaries -- even imperfectly -- and to witness to the Spirit’s power to reconcile what the world divides.

[Bootstrap]

Suppose I try to congregate with 10 other families. One speaks
Hindi, another Arabic, Chinese, Spanish, Japanese, Turkish, Bengali, French, and Russian. None of us will be able to effectively be a church or minister to one another except at a very basic level.

This June, I was at a very vibrant international church in Kuşadası, Turkey, 12 miles from Ephesus. It looked a lot like what you describe, and it was wonderful to see. A few years back, I was in a similarly vibrant international church in Jerusalem. There are some very effective churches like this. They find ways to minister to each other, and mature through doing this.

And just look at the New Testament. Some of the letters of Paul were written to very international cities where people spoke many languages and came from a wide variety of places. That's a big factor in how the Gospel spread. Corinth had Greeks, Romans, and Jews. Israel had people who spoke Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, some Latin. Ephesus was a major cosmopolitan port.

They did have a language in common - Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic. And most international churches also have a language in common, often English. People tend to form friendships both within and across ethnic groups.

Take a look at Acts 2. At the end of the chapter, it's clear that these people are added to the church, across a wide diversity of languages and cultures:

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?”

[Bootstrap]

Overall, this fantasy of erasing language divisions leads to just mandating trade languages for church: the reality in my above scenario is everyone will probably want to learn English. But I don’t think the kingdom of heaven comes down to earth by instituting English as a liturgical and trade language.

Erase?

Do you have to erase the difference between male and female before men and women can have meaningful relationships? If so, there's no hope for marriage.

It really is possible for different people to have fellowship. Real fellowship is never easy, precisely because you do have to wrestle with real differences. But that's what brings maturity.

Paul urged Christians to see beyond these differences to the unity that really counts:

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

That doesn't mean erasing the differences. That means taking our unity in Christ seriously. And it isn't easy. It was hard for the New Testament church too. We can do hard things, and we must if we want to become mature in Christ.

[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.

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.

I think you are conflating "the Church" with "the nations". The Church is a not a nation in the sense that there is no difference ethnically speaking, or gender, nor is there land or borders established with it. The Spirit brings individuals into the Church without regard for these distinctions. This doesn't mean these distinctions don't exist however. Nor does it seem that we have to assume that the division of nations at Babel needs to be reversed...scripture doesn't seem to support that concept. Geopolitical nations are not anti-God...the people who live within the nations are what make the nations so, but not the borders and ethnic groups themselves.

I would also point out that the above passage in Acts 2 was speaking of Jews and Jewish proselytes...not Gentiles. Hence why its location is in Jerusalem at Pentecost. Its not till Acts 10 we see Cornelius, a Gentile being established into the unified body of Christ...which we call the Church...not a nation.

[Bootstrap]

I think you are conflating "the Church" with "the nations". The Church is a not a nation in the sense that there is no difference ethnically speaking, or gender, nor is there land or borders established with it. The Spirit brings individuals into the Church without regard for these distinctions. This doesn't mean these distinctions don't exist however. Nor does it seem that we have to assume that the division of nations at Babel needs to be reversed...scripture doesn't seem to support that concept. Geopolitical nations are not anti-God...the people who live within the nations are what make the nations so, but not the borders and ethnic groups themselves.

I would also point out that the above passage in Acts 2 was speaking of Jews and Jewish proselytes...not Gentiles. Hence why its location is in Jerusalem at Pentecost. Its not till Acts 10 we see Cornelius, a Gentile being established into the unified body of Christ...which we call the Church...not a nation.

The notion of modern borders simply didn’t exist in biblical times. But what did exist was God’s clear command to treat foreigners with justice and compassion.

Israel was told to treat foreigners the same as native-born, showing God's compassion and justice.

Exodus 12:49 — “The same law shall apply to the native and to the stranger who sojourns among you.”
Leviticus 19:33–34 — “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
Deuteronomy 10:18–19 — “He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.”
Numbers 15:14–16 — Foreigners offering sacrifices are included: “You and the foreigner shall be alike before the Lord.”

The Book of Ruth shows a Moabite woman who became part of God's people through faithfulness. She became an ancestor of David and ultimately of Jesus. This affected Israel as a nation, and became the focus of an entire book in the Bible.

And it's not just Israel. The prophets condemned nations for injustice toward refugees and foreigners (Amos 1–2; Ezek 25ff).

If we care about justice, mercy, and the weightier matters of the law, I think that means caring for refugees, outsiders, the displaced, and the disadvantaged. That's what Jesus demonstrated in his own life, and it is one of the things that many religious people objected to. That's what we see in the early church. We can decide to be like Jesus, or we can decide to be like the Pharisees.

[Nomad]

I think you are conflating "the Church" with "the nations". The Church is a not a nation in the sense that there is no difference ethnically speaking, or gender, nor is there land or borders established with it. The Spirit brings individuals into the Church without regard for these distinctions. This doesn't mean these distinctions don't exist however. Nor does it seem that we have to assume that the division of nations at Babel needs to be reversed...scripture doesn't seem to support that concept. Geopolitical nations are not anti-God...the people who live within the nations are what make the nations so, but not the borders and ethnic groups themselves.

I would also point out that the above passage in Acts 2 was speaking of Jews and Jewish proselytes...not Gentiles. Hence why its location is in Jerusalem at Pentecost. Its not till Acts 10 we see Cornelius, a Gentile being established into the unified body of Christ...which we call the Church...not a nation.

The notion of modern borders simply didn’t exist in biblical times. But what did exist was God’s clear command to treat foreigners with justice and compassion.

Israel was told to treat foreigners the same as native-born, showing God's compassion and justice.

Exodus 12:49 — “The same law shall apply to the native and to the stranger who sojourns among you.”
Leviticus 19:33–34 — “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
Deuteronomy 10:18–19 — “He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.”
Numbers 15:14–16 — Foreigners offering sacrifices are included: “You and the foreigner shall be alike before the Lord.”

The Book of Ruth shows a Moabite woman who became part of God's people through faithfulness. She became an ancestor of David and ultimately of Jesus. This affected Israel as a nation, and became the focus of an entire book in the Bible.

And it's not just Israel. The prophets condemned nations for injustice toward refugees and foreigners (Amos 1–2; Ezek 25ff).

If we care about justice, mercy, and the weightier matters of the law, I think that means caring for refugees, outsiders, the displaced, and the disadvantaged. That's what Jesus demonstrated in his own life, and it is one of the things that many religious people objected to. That's what we see in the early church. We can decide to be like Jesus, or we can decide to be like the Pharisees.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I agree with all that you said. However, all of these things (justice, peace, refugees,, law, order, etc...)can be done with borders and nations that God put in place to establish nations.

Deuteronomy 32:8 says
[8] “When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, When He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples..."

Nations and borders in and of themselves are not wrong. How we treat the people within our borders matters and we should be caring for the stranger and foreigners who reside within our nation...after all, we are of the same blood, yet many nations (Acts 17:26). That doesn't mean nations are wrong in God's eyes. A nation doesn't mean foreigners are excluded...a nation includes multiple ethnic groups within it, much like Israel had foreign peoples within its borders in the OT era. But a nation with borders is not necessarily defined by a homogeneous people group within its border.