Unlike DF I live in a very diverse cultural if not racial community and the typical church has 2 signs and congregations: one in English and another in Spanish or Korean. The Church displays diversity when one homogenous church partners with a culturally different homogenous church to further the kingdom of God.

In multi-cultural teams that I have been on, there is usually a common goal that binds us. Missio Dei must drive us to not so much be micro-diverse, but to be macro-diverse in order to see the kingdom of God spread.

Blessings

Also, you say, “Let’s just say that some Christians will argue that Christians should NOT ask the state to make it illegal to violate biblical ethical norms (could we not see diversity possibly being in this category i.e. equal amendments which honor diversity?)except where such violations harm the rights of others. But one has to ask why this is a biblical and just principle FOR government. Why limit public law to protecting people (human flourishing) from the harm of others (who oppose humman flourish through diversity)?”

Here I get extremely confused. Diversity’s push against human flourishing becomes a possible reason for it to be unbiblical, whereas amendments in the constitution become authoritative toward affirming the goodness of diversity? I can’t even tell if that’s what you’re actually saying; but if it is, it’s wierd (TO ME…so take that for what its worth). Plus, honestly, I can’t tell if maybe you’re trying to sneak in a possible Republican political agenda about border control (and not necessarily YOUR Republican agenda, but the possible goodness/validity of that particular piece of that agenda).

Then you say, “If it is because the church is a diverse assembly of love IN CONTRAST TO THE STATE which uses coercion to punish evil (anti-community and anti-diversity, can I say GENUINE diversity?) then it would appear the Church cannot serve as a model for the state.”

Again, I am simply confused. Does the contrast remain contrast as if contrast is the same yesterday, today and forever? I mean, I read what you say UP TO THE POINT OF “then it would appear the Church cannot serve as a model for the state”, and I’m thinking, “Yeah, that’s why the church is to be a model…” But then you say, “then it would appear the Church cannot serve as a model for the state”, and I am simply confused. Plus you there throw in the thing about genuine diversity in reference to your previous parenthetical conversation, and I am again at a loss, probably based on my previous loss.

Anyway, then in your next sentence you go to, “And that’s the thing. If you DO believe that the state SHOULD enforce certain laws to protect people from the harm of others the modeling concept loses much of its appeal and the power of biblical mandates diminishes as the church mediates them to society.”

At which point it looks like you’re saying the exact same thing as what Dave is saying in his post, with which I resonate highly, except with an entirely different logic of your own, which I am just not piecing together.

All that just to clarify my points of confusion…if you woulnd’t mind addressing them, that’d be great for me…??? Thanks,

Jason

And -b…are you a politician? Just kidding. But really…you said, “What I find problematic about the ‘prophetic tradition’ is not only do they identify ‘the powers’ with existing political institutions ([Wallis and Sider] not saying you have done that here)? But ‘themes of ‘protest against’ and ‘liberation from’ the powers implies CRITICAL DISTANCING from offices of government (Skillen), such that the diversity of which you seek ‘for the world’ may not or may only be limited.” My own views on what you’re gettting at are either colored by or easily sympathetic to Walter Wink’s Engaging the Powers series.

I don’t necessarily IDENTIFY the powers with the institutions. But I certainly do enjoy the sanctuary of unconditional love that REALLY DOES bring life to my relationships with my church family. That REALLY IS in stark contrast to my work factory where the love for me is conditional upon my production and efficiency (not my primary gifts, being primarily gifted as a “prophet”!).

So there might be some sort of “critical distancing”, but I don’t know who on earth Skillen is. I can say that my own journey with Christ, my frustrations at work, is certainly a journey of being loved and learning how to love. What theoretical stuff I DO know, I’m a fan of neither “criticism” nor “distancing”, so, I dunno. I also know that when I’m at work, I’m in work. Otherwise I wouldn’t have the frustration or the struggles in the first place…

And I jokingly asked if you are a politician, but it really does seem like there’s a lot behind what you are saying that is going unsaid. And it’s not entirely clear to me what it is. Please paint your bulls eye more clearly. You jump around a lot…the problem with the prophetic tradition…the problem with the bible…the problem with the concept of modeling…things that don’t seem to be problems to me until confronted with whatever it is you aren’t saying (I mean wha’ts with the discussion on whether the government should only pass laws for xybad?…we aren’t government officials!). Either that or I missed something you DID say? Either way, it would help (for ME) if you clearly and directly stated “the problem”. This may sound like I’m dismissing what you are saying. I am not. I think I see some connections between your various “problems”, and maybe even SOME connection to whatever it is you aren’t saying (like, if we’re the church, and we need or want to influence the government, we need to know HOW we want to do that)…but I just need some clarity. Thanks and God bless,

Jason

There is real challenge and dialogue to do most everything as a result of our cultural differences but there is definite blessing in it. I have learned/and still learning so much about my own prejudices through being there, loving Christ and loving His body the church there. I also learn a lot from seeing how my brothers and sisters are acting with each other there.

Last spring we became without pastor. There was some pretty inflammatory talk at the Annual General Meetings afterwards but from what I can see people are coming together and hopeful about what the Lord is doing there. We will now have an interim pastor, a South African of Chinese ethnicity. I think it is going to be great, and of course not without its difficulties.

I know our case is a bit special with being an international church but we are learning from each other through our common worship and also through other modes of fellowship. The pot luck lives on down here and if there is any one thing that helps us dip into the culture of another it is FOOD!

In reading this post I was thinking about the implications for missions work of not just “americanizing” the way our faith is practiced in other cultures. Maybe you will touch on that in the future

Peace,
Jenny

When you say that others will view your post as “sectarian withdrawal” whereas we should not do this by withdrawing into a “pacifist stance,” I hope that I was not conveying that. I believe that your concerns for diversity are global-meaning, in this instance, such that the world will see our love (as displayed by this diversity) and move towards that.

But then, this gets to the heart of what I’m trying to say with regard to Christian political engagement. It seems to me (by the nature of your article and the example of the challenges of African American women and your use of Yoder) that you are coming from a position in which one will “speak to government from without” i.e. Yoder’s “Christians like non-Christians can be easily seduced by wealth and power. Therefore, they need to guard against being diverted from their primary responsibility of witnessing to the coming of the Kingdom through communities that practice faithful obedience.” In this instance, if the Church exemplifies true diversity (the practice of radical obedience), the world will see that and (possibily?) move in that direction.

What I find problematic about the “prophetic tradition” is not only do they identify “the powers” with existing political institutions ([Wallis and Sider] not saying you have done that here)? But “themes of “protest against” and “liberation from” the powers implies CRITICAL DISTANCING from offices of government (Skillen), such that the diversity of which you seek “for the world” may not or may only be limited.

This brings up another fundamental question that I have and (it seems I forgot about this only to be reminded by referring to some discussions I had on the internet a couple of years ago).

It seems to me that the driving assumption is that the practice of diversity within the Church can PROVIDE A MODEL for change in the larger world. Question: Aren’t we a little overconfident about that? That is, should the Church be a undifferentiated model for EVERY form of human community including the state? It seems to me that the appeal to the Bible (and what it says about diversity) can be both arbitrary and idiosyncratic if they do not go hand in hand with a clear articulation of the principled task of government.

For example, should we say that the church be distinguished as a loving diverse community modeling the Kingdom on the one hand standing against anti-community and diversity, yet simultaneously believe that the church should call on the government to legislate and even enforce what the Church first develops as a model on the other? Let’s just say that some Christians will argue that Christians should NOT ask the state to make it illegal to violate biblical ethical norms (could we not see diversity possibly being in this category i.e. equal amendments which honor diversity?) except where such violations harm the rights of others. But one has to ask why this is a biblical and just principle FOR government. Why limit public law to protecting people (human flourishing) from the harm of others (who oppose humman flourish through diversity)? If it is because the church is a diverse assembly of love IN CONTRAST TO THE STATE which uses coercion to punish evil (anti-community and anti-diversity, can I say GENUINE diversity?) then it would appear the Church cannot serve as a model for the state. And that’s the thing. If you DO believe that the state SHOULD enforce certain laws to protect people from the harm of others the modeling concept loses much of its appeal and the power of biblical mandates diminishes as the church mediates them to society.

Anyhoo…we may be getting off of topic here. But for me personally, I see much more at stake in this discussion.

Second of all, OK, either the article is unpublished, or whatever it was that I found was not really the article. Which is very possible, because I did not find the quote you provided from it about the multiplicity of cultures under the sign of God’s will being a restoration of his original plan. Third of all, OK, in a certain context…I found in whatever it was I found in the internet (http://www.nd.edu/~theo/research/jhy_2/writings/method/relativism.htm) that the article is written in the context of a discussion on foundationalism…I think I see what you mean.

My dumb self should have continued listening AFTER I stopped at “restoring His original plan”, at which point I was like, “Huh?” I would have GOTTEN to “True diversity, dialogue in concrete relations between particular communities, is God’s means to save humankind from ‘its presumptuous and premature effort’to become like God.” Yes, I know. You don’t have to say it. It was the very next sentence! So you already answered my question – with my question. Thanks.

The plan is that its not our plan. OK, got it. Thanks. I think Yoder might be a poet (eerrr…prophet!) in a theologian’s mask (that “pluralism” stuff). I’m no expert, but my guess is that there are probably lots of theologians out there who turn their noses that that guy…just based on the little I read so far. Either that or there is some suddenly popular theology since the time I was born that none of the old folk who taught me anything were taught by their own old folk teachers…

I’m off topic again…sorry. But this little Yoder exploration was fun for me. I’ve heard his name a lot lately, but haven’t had the foggiest idea who the guy is.