Is Jesus for “Law & Order?”

[Szdfan]

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 that was one of the central questions I wanted to dig into with my original post. As much as this thread has gone down the bunny trail, I think the argument that separation of people by culture and language is part of God’s divine plan is an excellent example of how worldly political order gets confused with God’s intentions and plans.

Yes, there are Scriptures like Romans 13 that instruct believers to obey the government, but there are plenty of other scriptures of defiance and prophetic criticism towards unjust powers. Moses confronts Pharoah. Nathan confronts David. The Old Testament prophets confront Israel’s kings. Jesus declares the truth to Pilate. I think this tension between obedience and prophecy embodies the challenge of what it means to be faithful under human power and authority.

[Soloist]

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.

Wife: I agree with what you are saying and I think that a nation has a right to enforce borders. I just think we as the church shouldn’t. We shouldn’t be helping people break the law, but we can minister to whoever we come in contact with.

[JohnH]

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.

In other words, English becomes the dominant language, effectively a liturgical language, with native English speakers of course being at the top of the pecking order.

I do not consider this part of God’s design.

[JohnH]

I think that was one of the central questions I wanted to dig into with my original post. As much as this thread has gone down the bunny trail, I think the argument that separation of people by culture and language is part of God’s divine plan is an excellent example of how worldly political order gets confused with God’s intentions and plans.

Yes, there are Scriptures like Romans 13 that instruct believers to obey the government, but there are plenty of other scriptures of defiance and prophetic criticism towards unjust powers. Moses confronts Pharoah. Nathan confronts David. The Old Testament prophets confront Israel’s kings. Jesus declares the truth to Pilate. I think this tension between obedience and prophecy embodies the challenge of what it means to be faithful under human power and authority.

If separating people by language isn’t part of what God has ordained and enforced upon men, then why hasn’t God un-confused our languages?

I think it’s important to have minority languages (like Spanish or Russian or Indonesian) allowed to be a majority in a church, and also allowed to have native speakers of that be the ministers and deacons and otherwise the leadership of a congregation. Not native English speakers who happen to have learned a second language. I think people should have church services in the language they understand best, and not have a liturgical language imposed on them.

[JohnH]

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?

I said that I think God has decided to organize people according to language groups (and thus ethno-linguistic groupings).

The fact you folks keep trying to change the topic to interracial marriage is interesting. The language someone speaks is not a hereditary trait.

[Nomad]

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.

Wife: I agree with what you are saying and I think that a nation has a right to enforce borders. I just think we as the church shouldn’t. We shouldn’t be helping people break the law, but we can minister to whoever we come in contact with.

I agree. The Church shouldn't involve itself in establishing borders. Nations and Church have diverse roles yet are interconnected...sometimes the lines get a bit blurred in all the dialogue.

[JohnH]

Part of my point about language is that there is no “border” except the one God has created.

A while ago I attended a service conducted in German. The preaching did not particularly edify me (the preachers assumed we would understand it). Likewise, a few years ago I went to a Spanish service, since the area of Dodge City that congregation in is majority Spanish speaking. I did not gain too much from the preaching although I was able to understand the singing. The same goes for the services I have attended in Hebrew.

There is no “wall” but there is also no meaningful participation for me as anything other than effectively a tourist, because God has decided to confuse our tongues.

It seems particularly fruitless for me to expect such a congregation to adapt to me, even though English is effectively the dominant language of Christianity these days. It is far more fruitful for me to simply find my regular fellowship at a church with English singing and preaching, and where English speakers can fully participate in the leadership and activities of the church.

Doing so also opens up space for people of other ethnic-linguistic groups to feel valuable and have a role to play. I think it’s good to have explicitly Spanish language congregations in my own church conference. Spanish speakers who are not fluent in English can feel valued and have an important role to play including in leadership instead of feeling subservient to the dominant role English speakers play in America. Likewise, the French speaking congregation in Quebec has had a positive impact on its local community who appreciate having Mennonites establish a church and school who is committed to French language instruction, services, and public singing.

[Szdfan]

I think that was one of the central questions I wanted to dig into with my original post. As much as this thread has gone down the bunny trail, I think the argument that separation of people by culture and language is part of God’s divine plan is an excellent example of how worldly political order gets confused with God’s intentions and plans.

Yes, there are Scriptures like Romans 13 that instruct believers to obey the government, but there are plenty of other scriptures of defiance and prophetic criticism towards unjust powers. Moses confronts Pharoah. Nathan confronts David. The Old Testament prophets confront Israel’s kings. Jesus declares the truth to Pilate. I think this tension between obedience and prophecy embodies the challenge of what it means to be faithful under human power and authority.

If separating people by language isn’t part of what God has ordained and enforced upon men, then why hasn’t God un-confused our languages?

I think it’s important to have minority languages (like Spanish or Russian or Indonesian) allowed to be a majority in a church, and also allowed to have native speakers of that be the ministers and deacons and otherwise the leadership of a congregation. Not native English speakers who happen to have learned a second language. I think people should have church services in the language they understand best, and not have a liturgical language imposed on them.

Isn’t the entire arc of Scripture the gradual restoration of the relationship between God and creation? Isn’t the hope of Christianity that the Church lives into the redemptive hope of Christ’s return?

Nobody is arguing that the church needs to have one language or that people can’t worship in a language they understand. But the Church is called to live across the divisions that separate humanity. Look at Revelations 7:9:

After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language,standing before the throne and before the Lamb.

What does this mean for the Church today? To simply say that the current state of the world is what God wants denies a central hope of the Gospel — that creation is being restored and reconciled through Jesus Christ.

[JohnH]

Isn’t the entire arc of Scripture the gradual restoration of the relationship between God and creation? Isn’t the hope of Christianity that the Church lives into the redemptive hope of Christ’s return?

Is it? I see a world still full of sin, suffering, and death, and with the full brunt of the effects of the fall, the effects of the flood, and then the effects of the aftermath of Babel. As far as I am concerned, Jesus came to give us hope of a resurrection into a new heaven and a new earth someday, after a judgment of the righteous unto eternal life but a judgment of the unrighteous unto condemnation.

Nobody is arguing that the church needs to have one language or that people can’t worship in a language they understand. But the Church is called to live across the divisions that separate humanity. Look at Revelations 7:9:

After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language,standing before the throne and before the Lamb.

But we aren't there yet (and it is notable that nations, tribes, and languages seem to persist even then). But I don't see why people from different nations, tribes, peoples, and languages can't be presently serving God and worshipping him. However, it seems rather obvious that people of different languages necessarily must be worshipping God in different congregations. It doesn't make sense for them to be attempting to sing songs (or listen to them) in a language they can't understand.

What does this mean for the Church today? To simply say that the current state of the world is what God wants denies a central hope of the Gospel — that creation is being restored and reconciled through Jesus Christ.

And none of that changes the fact that a Chinese believer and myself have about zero ability to communicate with one another.

[Szdfan]

Isn’t the entire arc of Scripture the gradual restoration of the relationship between God and creation? Isn’t the hope of Christianity that the Church lives into the redemptive hope of Christ’s return?

Is it? I see a world still full of sin, suffering, and death, and with the full brunt of the effects of the fall, the effects of the flood, and then the effects of the aftermath of Babel. As far as I am concerned, Jesus came to give us hope of a resurrection into a new heaven and a new earth someday, after a judgment of the righteous unto eternal life but a judgment of the unrighteous unto condemnation.

Nobody is arguing that the church needs to have one language or that people can’t worship in a language they understand. But the Church is called to live across the divisions that separate humanity. Look at Revelations 7:9:

After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language,standing before the throne and before the Lamb.

But we aren't there yet (and it is notable that nations, tribes, and languages seem to persist even then). But I don't see why people from different nations, tribes, peoples, and languages can't be presently serving God and worshipping him. However, it seems rather obvious that people of different languages necessarily must be worshipping God in different congregations. It doesn't make sense for them to be attempting to sing songs (or listen to them) in a language they can't understand.

What does this mean for the Church today? To simply say that the current state of the world is what God wants denies a central hope of the Gospel — that creation is being restored and reconciled through Jesus Christ.

And none of that changes the fact that a Chinese believer and myself have about zero ability to communicate with one another.

My Dad was born Amish in Ohio and grew up in Florida. After graduating from EMC, he went as a missionary to West Germany and Poland. He ended up in West Berlin and built relationships across the Berlin Wall with East German Baptists and Lutherans. In the early 2000s, he ended up in Russia and began working for the Russian Baptists. Now retired, he’s served on Russian delegations to China as part of an effort to build relationships between Russian Baptists and Chinese Christians.

I have a lot of disagreements with Dad, but his story is a testament that it is possible and profoundly Christian to build relationships across the boundaries of language, culture and politics. During the Cold War, my family was regularly worshiping with fellow Christians in East Berlin. We became good friends of the Dang family — the wife is a former East German Lutheran pastor (back then a seminary), her husband is a Vietnamese lawyer who drove truck for the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War. My Dad is godfather to their son. Her parents moved from West Germany to East Germany in the 50s because they believed God called them to minister there.

I’ve told this story before, but I think it’s apt here — when I was in high school, I spent a week in Donetsk, Ukraine with a former East German Baptist youth group. I was staying at the local pastor’s family. Over breakfast, someone observed that all of us at the table — Ukrainians, Germans and an American — were citizens of countries that had been enemies of each other. That’s the hope I think of the Church — for Christians of enemy countries to eat breakfast together.

It’s not God’s intention to divide humanity, but humanity is divided. Yet God also works within those divisions. Those divisions are real, but they are not sacred. The work across those divisions in ways that both build unity and honor who we are is holy work.

The image of humanity in Revelations 7 isn’t of a monolithic or monolingual culture. It’s of a diverse people brought into harmony with God.