So what can we learn about our controversy over illegal immigration from what the Bible tells us about the gift of tongues? Obvious question, right?
“Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe” (1 Cor. 14:20–22).
This is a real puzzle to many. What does it mean that tongues are sign to unbelievers? In J.B. Phillips’ translation of the New Testament, he reverses the meaning in order to have it make sense (to him, at any rate). He rendered it, “That means that ‘tongues’ are a sign of God’s power, not for those who are unbelievers but to those who already believe” (v. 22). He explained in a footnote that he thought it had to be a slip of the pen on Paul’s part or, more probably, a copyist’s error.
But Paul began by telling us to think like adults. We are told the meaning of the gift of tongues, and it is not what many people assume.
Set the covenantal context. When the curses of the covenant are being described in Deuteronomy, one of them is the presence of a foreign language in your streets.
“The Lord shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand” (Deut. 28:49).
This, right along with crop failures and devouring locusts, is a covenantal curse. Not a good thing at all.
Then the prophet Isaiah continues in the same vein.
“For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; And this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear” (Is. 28:11–12).
This is the passage Paul quotes. And what follows immediately after the arrival of strange tongues in the streets of Jerusalem?
“But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken” (Is. 28:13).
Now Paul tells the Corinthians to be grown-ups in their thinking. He discourages tongues-speaking in the church, setting strict limits on it. Why? Because it is a sign (of judgment) for the unbelievers. The marvelous gift of tongues would pour out into the streets of Jerusalem and yet they “would not hear.” They would not know what it meant.
I am a child of the Cold War so let me use an illustration from that time. Suppose a prophet had been sent to America in the fifties and he was routinely mocked, ignored, despised, jailed, and so on. “Very well, then,” he might say. “You mock what I say as it were nothing but childish Sunday School lessons — here a little, there a little — and you will not hear what I tell you in plain English. Neither will you understand it when your streets fill up with Russian.”
There is one more aspect to this that we should touch on before getting to our controversy over immigration. If you read through the first part of Isaiah carefully, you will see that the gift of tongues functions in much the same way that the Stone did. The Stone that was Christ was simultaneously a stone of stumbling and a precious cornerstone.
“The stone which the builders refused Is become the head stone of the corner. This is the Lord’s doing; It is marvellous in our eyes. This is the day which the Lord hath made; We will rejoice and be glad in it.” (Ps. 118:22–24; Matt. 21:42).
“As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed” (Rom. 9:33; cf. Is. 8:14; 28:16; 1 Pet. 2:8;).
Christ is the stone of stumbling, and whoever believes in Him will not stumble. The gift of tongues is a sign of bewildering judgment, and he who believes will not be bewildered. He will be an adult in his thinking.
So what does all this have to do with the multicultural chaos on our college campuses and an out-of-control immigration system? Cosmopolitan elites want us all to become citizens of the world, and as far as they are concerned, the faster the quicker. Trump supporters are beyond exasperated, and want to deal with it by building a Wall. Simple, right?
It what follows, I am not saying that America is Israel now, or any such foolishness. I am simply reasoning by analogy. If a modern farmer woke up one morning to find his crops all destroyed by hailstones the size of cantaloupes, and all his irrigation ditches were filled with blood, it might be reasonable for him to consider what he might have done.
The issue is not immigration. In itself, immigration is a sign of blessing, and a sign that other nations recognize the presence of blessing. But out-of-control immigration is no blessing at all. It is all a matter of what is the head and what is the tail. This is where the average Trump supporter is far wiser than the cosmopolitan elites — at least he knows that this is a major problem. If you walked down the street you grew up on, but could not understand a thing that anybody was saying, that is a problem. The cosmopolitan elites think that it is all grand, which is like looking at a field filled with hailstones the size of cantaloupes and seeing job creation. The Trump supporter — supposedly a low information voter guy — at least recognizes a major problem when he sees it.
His problem is not that he sees the problem. His problem is that he think the judgments of God can be averted with a Wall, instead of with repentance. But Jerusalem had a wall.
Exactly, we have killed over 60,000,000 babies ” legally ” since 1973 and effectively prevented another 40,000,000 babies from being brought forth from the 30,000,000 girl babies that never had a chance. Thus God’s judgements of bringing forth into our land to fill the gap those with an unknown tongue ( language ) and those with an unknown lip ( religious profession )!
Go easy on Doug, folks – he’s dancing as fast as he can!
He aint got nothin on Bojangles though.
https://youtu.be/NusZgfCQ634
I thought that was covered in Southern Slavery as it Was. No? Doug can’t dance. Can he pick cotton?
Not when them cotton balls get rotten.
https://youtu.be/46h56pidCiE
Yeah, he’s dancing on quicksand. Too bad he’s not fast enough!
He is also providing a forum where these things are discussed frankly. I never recall Moody Bible radio discussing these things nor Alistair Begg nor Jerry Falwell nor….
I do not take this blessing for granted; I am very grateful that God has provided a pastor who will at least listen.
I hope some day that you will thank him to.
I do not take this blessing for granted; I am very grateful that God has provided a pastor who will at least listen.
Me, too. But what’s the point of being thankful that he’s listening if you’re afraid to tell him the truth?
Afraid of telling Doug the truth? what?
I appreciate the tone of the article, Doug, and it seems to boil down to an argument for trusting God rather than the political process. The question for me is: assuming I trust God alone, but also desire to weigh in on policy issues, how might I discern the viability of a wall on the southern border specifically, and a stricter policy with respect to immigration generally? I suppose that’s something of a rhetorical question in this context, as I’m not intending to hijack the thread with more Trump vs. Whomever Else debate, but I do believe that on that… Read more »
The verse in 1 Cor. 14:20-22 really stuck out at me. I’ve been doing a lot of research and writing recently about global Christianity. While it’s declining in the western world, it’s growing rapidly in other parts of the world, particularly the global south. There are projections that by 2030, the “typical Christian” may be a Nigerian or Brazilian woman. And, the growth of Christianity outside the western world is often not a lukewarm, watered-down, “tolerant and inclusive” culture-mongering faith. There is talk in these countries about sending missionaries to us. So it really grabs my attention when the Scripture… Read more »
I wonder if Doug would do a post about our embassies promoting the gay agenda. We are doing this in over 50 countries. Even our embassies in Israel and Vatican City fly the rainbow flag.
The ride up the roller coaster takes a relatively long time. The view from the front car is deceiving. Clak, clak, clak as you go up, and then crest the top and it looks very steep in front of you. Yet, you still do not speed up and go hurtling in obedience to gravity.
That is because most of the coaster is still coming uphill behind you.
When the center of mass passes the apex, the ride then becomes interesting.
No doubt you have heard that one of the worst curses one can utter is, “May you live in interesting times.”
There is much to be said for a peaceful and quiet life…
Amen.
Message to Doug: Sorry for being off topic but on the Trans in the bathroom issue, I think the conservatives need some Rules for Reformers strategy here. It seems like we are just doing the same dumb stuff we did on gay marriage – passing laws, being attacked for those laws, losing the argument, and ….. presumably …. having the tyranical courts overrule local states. I was thinking that the strategy might be good to start not with laws but with a Women’s rights movement. Women are one of the acceptable minorities (still allowed to complain about injustice) and women… Read more »
Here’s a thought, let’s first figure out how to stop conservative leaders from trying to solicit sex in public bathrooms (and elsewhere) and then after that we can maybe worry about the horror of transgendered persons trying to pee in them.
(Standing up of course for a 9 year old to see… the way anyone wishing to become a woman would urinate. In the non-stall part of a women’s rest room where the public urinal exists. dumb.)
Randman, do you think there are any perverted non-transgendered men that might take advantage of being allowed into women’s restrooms? No possibility of abusing these laws huh?
That already happens with straight men breaking the law in that way. Plenty of examples there if you look.
I would frankly be more worried about my son going into a public men’s room with a conservative leader. Examples there too. In fact there are no stories of actual trans people sexually misbehaving in public bathrooms, but straight republicans? Check!
Many news stories of trans women raped or beaten in public bathrooms.
You see, since there are perverts who already transgress the law, what is the big deal about making it easier to transgress the law by allowing them to be in there legally. Nothing to see here. Nothing wrong whatsoever with little girls seeing a man’s penis in the girls restroom/locker room. “the college cannot discriminate based on the basis of gender identity. Gender identity is one of the protected things in discrimination law in this state.” But according to parents, the fact that the student has exposed her male genitalia, in one instance in the sauna, is cause for concern.… Read more »
There are much higher rates of heterosexuality than homosexuality. That is why we have gender bathrooms in the first place. If there is no chance of abuse, why have gender specific bathrooms at all. Why not let men and women use the same bathrooms? You know as well as I do that there are a much higher number of dudes that would like to sneak into women’s bathrooms than there are gay dudes seeking to get a peek in the dudes’ bathroom. We have separate bathrooms for that reason. What the Trans law does is essentially take away any justification… Read more »
Would it be hateful to have separate restrooms for blacks and whites?
What in the world are you talking about? You think having adult males alone in the bathroom with little girls is in any way analogous to racism?
What in the world are you talking about?
It’s pretty clear what I’m talking about: Would it be hateful to have separate restrooms for blacks and whites?
It used to be the law and/or custom in much of the country, for much of its history.
Was it hateful?
So, you don’t think men and women should have separate bathrooms?
LMAO
Why won’t you answer the question?
I’m not afraid to answer yours:
Of course I think men and women should use separate restrooms.
But I don’t say that separate restrooms for blacks and whites were hateful.
Nearly all Judeochristians like yourself do believe that racially segregated restrooms in the South were “hate.”
But then you want to turn around and insist that separate restrooms for men and women aren’t “hate.”
How’s that workin’ out for ya?
LMAO
Could you explain to me why you think racially segregated bathrooms were not hateful?
Better yet, jilly, since the burden of proof generally falls on the party accusing another party of evil conduct, I’ll let you explain why racially segregated bathrooms are/were hateful.
Actually, I really would like to understand your thinking.
But, I believe that requiring racially segregated public bathrooms can only happen in the presence of a societal conviction that the members of one race do not fully share in our common humanity. It suggests that how a black lady uses a public restroom is likely to disgust the white lady who happens to be there at the time. It is manufacturing artificial differences and assigning social importance to them, in order to give one race a sense of superiority over another.
I should’ve been clearer, jilly. So let me rephrase that: Can you explain why racially segregated bathrooms are/were hateful, without simultaneously making a`case that separate restrooms for men and women are hateful, too? Like this: I believe that requiring sexually segregated public bathrooms can only happen in the presence of a societal conviction that the members of one sex do not fully share in our common humanity. It suggests that how a male uses a public restroom is likely to disgust or frighten the woman who happens to be there at the time. It is manufacturing artificial differences and assigning… Read more »
Well, I do hope you will get around to answering my question, sometime before I die. Members of both sexes share fully in our common humanity. Nonetheless, there are biological differences between men and women, rooted in anatomy, that raise questions of privacy and modesty. For example, men urinate in front of other men. Women in our culture are not used to seeing the penises of strange men. Women do not normally watch anyone urinate, other than small children for whom they are responsible. Men might likewise be uncomfortable urinating in the presence of women to whom they are not… Read more »
Man, alive… They say it’s different out west. Wow, I guess so…do guys in LA really check out each other’s private parts while they’re taking a whiz? Whoa. I’m 66 years old, and I’ve been using public restrooms my entire life, and I have never seen another man’s private parts in a public restroom. Not once. Not sure what’s going on out there in LA LA Land. But if it’s common for men to check out the private parts of the other guys in the restroom, it’s even worse than I thought. Have you considered moving? I’d be getting out… Read more »
I think this means that you are not going to answer my question. Unless your answer is that you believe that black men are going to beat you up when you go to the bathroom.
I have had men tell me about being ogled in the bathroom and how uncomfortable it made them. Perhaps as you say it is a California thing. I thought about what you said very carefully. My objection to men in the bathroom is not based on fear of crime. There will always be criminals who lurk in remote bathrooms in order to harm somebody, and having other men coming and going might actually be a protection. I think the objection for me is primarily aesthetic (I don’t want to see men urinate, and I like girly bathrooms). Presumably there would… Read more »
Because there is no conceivable motivation that does not partake of mental illness for not wishing to share a public bathroom with people of a different race, other than “I do not want to be anywhere near those people, at any time, for any reason, regardless of how limited the interaction might be.” And that’s a form of hatred, if a subtle one.
LMAO
It was either mental illness or HATE.
Why? Because…because….because I SAID SO!
Hat’s off for going there, Dunsworth . . . ‘specially knowin’ how the Academy is about dat sh*t.
All right, go ahead and explain to me a rational reason that indicates no antipathy for other races, to not want to be near people of other races *even in public restrooms* where you don’t have to talk to them, do business with them, or even be around them for more than two minutes at a time.
Mocking me for not knowing your reason doesn’t really add up to having a reason.
Why do you think that men and women should have separate bathrooms?
You are an quite mistaken on the racism thing. Racism is a sin from hell and separation based on race is an offense against God. If you knew history better, you would realize that Christians have historically been the primary opponents of both slavery and racism.
LMAO
Good answer.
Yeah, I know.
But, thanks.
I don’t think all men understand the nature of women’s restrooms. All toilets are located in stalls with doors that generally lock. It would be extremely unusual for any woman to adjust her clothing outside that stall. When two women accompany each other to a public bathroom, they see nothing of each other until they are washing their hands. There is no public nudity!!! (I suppose that a foot fetishist might lie flat on the floor for the purpose of looking at women’s shoes and ankles–which is all he would see–but even my own ever-fertile imagination boggles at this.) So… Read more »
Thank you jillybean! That was my point as well re the reality of a women’s room: only if you are a man dressed as a woman with a hand-washing fetish are you in business…
“Let me be clear: I am not saying that transgender people are predators. Not by a long shot. What I am saying is that there are countless deviant men in this world who will pretend to be transgender as a means of gaining access to the people they want to exploit, namely women and children. It already happens. Just Google Jason Pomares, Norwood Smith Burnes, or Taylor Buehler, for starters”
http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/23/a-rape-survivor-speaks-out-about-transgender-bathrooms/
Little girls are perfectly safe there with men three times their size.
It infuriates me that you are making peace with this perversion of civilized society; shame on you.
What’s going to happen timothy? Where is your moral outrage about the beatings and rapes that occur to trans gendered people? Shame on you. Your loving, foot-washing jesus is not proud of you right now.
The hell with ‘gender’. The hell with you.
Timothy, I value your good opinion and I am always sorry to disappoint you. I don’t think my opinion is as extreme as you suppose, so I hope you will hear me out. I don’t support gender-neutral bathrooms. I don’t support anyone’s right to say “Today I feel like a girl so I will use the powder room.” I think that anyone who doesn’t know how to behave in a public restroom should probably be locked up for the wellbeing of the rest of us. I also don’t support gender reassignment surgery as a solution to the tragic problem of… Read more »
Thank you, that does help. I do not have patience for the unrepentant. I am done accommodating evil. They are normalizing incest now. Esquire magazine tweeted an article on sibling sex. We have men and women modifying their bodies into dragons and demons (google it). This reflects an inner integrity. This is the flesh telling us of what/who it is. This will not stop. It will not stop because the flesh is at war with the spirit. War. That means killing. They will attack. It is coming. In this war in defense of Christendom, I do not have the patience… Read more »
What could possibly go wrong.
“The University is temporarily changing its policy on gender-neutral bathrooms after two separate incidents of “voyeurism” were reported on campus September 15 and 19. Male students within the University’s Whitney Hall student residence were caught holding their cellphones over female students’ shower stalls and filming them as they showered.”
http://www.dailywire.com/news/330/university-toronto-dumps-transgender-bathrooms-pardes-seleh
Hmm… straight males. Who would have thought? This is not about about straight men taking advantage of women. There are laws protecting people from criminal conduct in public restrooms.
If anything, a concern for safety weighs in favor of bathroom accessibility for trans folks. Transgender people face a uniquely high degree of harassment. Fifty three percent of 6,000+ transgender people polled reported being harassed or disrespected in a place of public accommodation in a recent survey.
Is there a law that when women (and “women”) enter a public women’s restroom they must enter their individual stalls to “adjust their clothing”? Is there a law that there may be no public/open nudity in the women’s restroom? And, if there is such a law, how will it stand once the leftist perverts decide to tear it down? What? Are *you* going to suddenly grow a spine after spending you whole life acting as a useful idiot for the leftists, whose whole reason for living is to destroy what is? *You* are the reason that the 19th Amendment was… Read more »
I hope it doesn’t. But, if it is any comfort to you, I’m not a citizen yet so I can’t vote!
I am puzzled by the asterisks around “you” in your post. I wasn’t sure whether they meant “you” as in “women like you” or “you” as in “you in particular”. I admit to being a bit spineless but have put that down to being female and therefore tending to feel sorry for people and wanting to make them happy. But I do hope I am not an idiot. As Judge Judy says, Beauty fades but dumb is forever.
I am always willing to believe that I am naïve. I tend to live in my happy little bubble and not notice anything unpleasant until it clubs me over the head. From what I have read here and in other places in the last 24 hours, I realize that there are creepy individuals with a fixation on bathrooms and what people need to do in them. How such activities can possibly be erotic to even the most depraved is something I would rather go to my grave without finding out about. I do support separate bathrooms for men and women.… Read more »
“But I also oppose legislation that requires someone who looks like a man, dresses like a man, has male parts (even artificially acquired), and sounds like a man to use the women’s room because they are chromosomally female.” That person will have no problem going to the men’s room, today. There is no one in the bathroom checking chromosomes. If you look like and man and have male parts, then you will go in and out of the men’s bathroom with no problems, today. What these laws do is make it easier for sexual deviants and perverts to assault women… Read more »
But what is the purpose of the social agenda? I understand that while bathrooms can be high crime areas, this battle is also symbolic. But what is the motive for those who are not impelled by the kinds of urges that lead people to prey on strangers in bathrooms? Is the idea to further blend gender distinctions, or is it to normalize sexual acting out?
Yes, both.
Jillybean, it sounds like you are ok with not having women’s bathrooms then? Because everything you said seems to suggest that men in women’s bathrooms are totally cool.
No, I really don’t think that. I think that it is important to be accurate, and I guess I have been irritated by some people’s assumptions that a man in a ladies’ restroom will see as much nudity as a man in a men’s restroom. I can see lots of reasons for not allowing men into ladies’ restrooms, but it is just not accurate to say that men will be able to stare at unclad women–unless they are using spy tech. But I think there should be separate bathrooms for each gender, and ideally there should be a separate bathroom… Read more »
So, what is your problem with the North Carolina law? If you agree that men and women should have separate bathrooms, what is your problem with a law demanding that the gender listed on your license reflect the bathroom you are using?
My understanding of the law was that it required people who have completed transgender surgery and hormone treatment to use the bathroom that corresponds to their birth status. I found this foolish in that it seemed likely to produce the exact result that nobody wants: someone who looks exactly like a man using the women’s room. I also found it cruel to demand that transgendered people who look exactly like women must use the men’s restroom. However, I have been told that the law does not require this, or that there is a way to alter one’s birth certificate.
Anyone who supports these laws hates women. “Don’t they know that one out of every four little girls will be sexually abused during childhood, and that’s without giving predators free access to them while they shower?” she asked. “Don’t they know that, for women who have experienced sexual trauma, finding the courage to use a locker room at all is a freaking badge of honor? That many of these women view life through a kaleidoscope of shame and suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, dissociation, poor body image, eating disorders, drug and alcohol abuse, difficulty with intimacy, and worse? “Why… Read more »
I would point you and your fearful cut and paste xtian politics to jellybean’s reasoned response. I am yet not sure where I personally stand on much of the trans movement and how their needs should be handled, but I will say again that I would be much less afraid of a trans person sharing a ladies room with my daughter than some of the (christian) men I have personally encountered in my life in a men’s room with access to my son. My point is that presenting it as a safety issue when it is not is disingenuous and… Read more »
For what it’s worth, many women and the men that want to protect them are already fighting predators’ access to our bathrooms with that argument. The proponents for “transbathroom” laws appear to be responding with a collective shrug and yawn. Once again, victims are only allowed to be recognized as victims when they aren’t actually victims but rather grabbing for power they ought not have. Women and children must be protected. Part of that protecting requires the men to not be spineless and not be ashamed to say that a boy wearing a dress is still a boy, a girl… Read more »
It is also important to understand that these laws are not about bathrooms or accommodations, they are about normalizing deviant behavior. They are a vehicle to show that “transgenderism” is a normal, morally good condition, not a psychotic one that requires medical/psychiatric care. If these people really loved transgendered individuals, they would get them medical help instead of feeding into their delusion.
I realize WHY they are doing them (normalizing behavior). What I am talking about his HOW to defeat them. If the debate becomes about the behavior, we are going to lose. If it is about women being protected from creepy child molesters abusing a well intentioned law, I think we can win.
I agree that the language we use to attack these laws is vital.
I wish America would repent of all that rots the core of the country. By all means, yes, repent. All in favor? Amen!
Meanwhile, I’m still in favor of a wall, followed by actual enforcement of laws against hiring illegal aliens. This will incentivize millions to go home and become a blessing to their own country.
Exactly. His problem is not that he sees the problem. His problem is that he think the judgments of God can be averted with a Wall, instead of with repentance. But Jerusalem had a wall. No, Doug’s problem is that he can’t seem to understand that building the wall and repentance are not only not contradictory, building a wall is the very repentance he claims we need. Yes, repentance is called for. Repentance for despising our children and grandchildren, and their children and grandchildren, and refusing to take the hard steps necessary for preventing their homeland from turning into a… Read more »
“building a wall is the very repentance he claims we need.”
How many of those pushing for the wall will worship the wall rather than God?
Doug,
Is immigration to America really more out of control now than it was in the 18th and 19th centuries? By what standard do you say it is now out of control? Is it because of the different language thing?
Up until WWI there was almost unlimited immigration. Many of the names in the book at Ellis Island were fake.
One thing that changes immigration now is that we have a welfare state. When people come and the only way they can survive is by working hard and contributing to society, then immigration is almost always a good thing. When people come and can immediately start consuming without producing (public schools, welfare, medicaid, etc), then immigration done wrong can be a really bad thing.
“Unlimited” immigration would be fabulous IF–don’t miss the IF–those coming in are ready and willing to adapt to their new mother country (i.e.: language), don’t immediately start sucking on the government teat, and continue waving the flag of their former country.
Malachi, that is actually not different. New York had many foreign language ghettos for years with people who only spoke Italian, Greek, and etc. People always assimilate over a few generations (mexicans included).
Really? Tell the Amish that.
If humanity in general were Anabaptist, they might be evidence of why Christian is wrong about the general trend. Okay, you’re right, they’re a counter-example to “always,” but not to the general point.
One might also ask the Massachusett Indians how well those immigrants from across the ocean assimilated.
Ashv, congrats. You found the one group of people in the whole history of the US that never assimilated completely. Their whole religion rests on not assimilating but don’t let that slow you down.
Maybe we should pass a law banning the immigration of Amish?
Yankees and Southerners never assimilated completely. Ask natives of Oregon and Colorado how they feel about immigration from California. The Midwest is politically and culturally German. Minnesota’s practically a colony of Sweden. And Texas is pretty much its own country.
The US has always been a combination of melting pot and mosaic but my point is that what is happening with the Mexicans is no different in its general behavior than what happened with the Irish (or Italians).
I know. And you’re wrong.
Ok.
For future reference, a worthwhile comment usually provide arguments to support conclusions. Saying “you are wrong” without explaining how one generation of immigrants who does not immediately assimilate (the mexicans) is substantially different that a previous generation of immigrants who did not immediately assimilate (the Irish) is not terribly helpful.
We’ve had plenty of Mexicans living in the US since the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and they haven’t assimilated either; why do you think more recent immigrants would be different?
Also note that “melting pot” was a phrase coined in the 19th century by a Russian Jewish immigrant. No, it hasn’t always been a melting pot.
Hmmmm….I think it is uniquely American and ahistorical to make learning and using a single language the measure of whether someone is really assimilated into a country. Only in the unusually monoglot US would people think this makes any sense as the sine qua non of assimilation. I agree assimilation is vitally important, and learning the dominant language is useful for individuals to prosper outside ghettoes, but it’s odd that language has become a proxy for “belonging.” Most nations of the world in most of history have comfortably accommodated significant numbers of speakers of more than one language. “Italian” wasn’t… Read more »
I think a very telling factor when considering God’s judgment vs. God’s blessing on a nation comes when we compare the response of the nation to a particular cultural or societal issue with the response of the church within that nation to the same issue. Look at how the nation is responding to, in this case, multiculturalism and immigration – division, prejudice from both sides of the issue toward the other (right and left wing), rhetoric, divided more or less right down the middle of the political continuum, etc. Then compare how the church within the nation is responding to… Read more »
I want to point out the obvious here: Pastor Wilson is making two stretches of interpretation. The first is in applying God’s warning to covenant Israel to secular modern America. The second is in taking a text clearly talking about invaders, and not just your can’t-get-along-with-’em neighbors but dudes from way off there, and suggesting it applies somehow to the immigration question. Stretches aren’t necessarily bad – some of them help keep you in better shape, limbered up and ready. But others lead to damage. I’ve not given either of these particularly detailed thought, but I say the first one… Read more »
Well, what would an ‘invader’ mean to you? To me it would be someone who is breaking the law to get here and continuing to break laws while here.
The law abiding foreigner is a different person altogether.
Lawful immigration maybe somewhat out of control in America, but the invasion is certainly out of control.
There is a difficulty with that definition in that our immigration policies, laws, and regulations are – as in quite a number of other areas – so numerous and exacting as to be unjust almost by definition simply by their extent. While I don’t disagree that an immigrant – as the rest of us – ought to follow the laws as far as justly possible, I think there are at least three classes we deal with: (a) those in good standing with our laws, (b) those whose living among us is morally legitimate in some sense even without perfect compliance… Read more »
Immigration is a blessing in the same way that houseguests are a blessing. But guests are not family, and occasionally some of them have to be thrown out.
Seems like there’s a lot of distance between a cosmopolitan and a Trumper. I think this post is completely wrong. Maybe I’m reading it wrong but if seems way off the mark to me. I think God wanted Israel to come out from the nations and be seperate. In that regard a foreign language in their streets would be a curse. But that is not the case for any of the states. I think the parallel to draw would be if we started reciting the Koran in Sunday morning service. Syncretism and false religions coming into the church and adulterating… Read more »
The leaders of the Church are all eager to call for repentance — but not of the right things.
Exactly. It’s just a catchphrase that sounds really really spiritual and makes all the ladies out there of both sexes swoon. But it’s completely meaningless and intentionally so. It’s the preacher’s version of “eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse” that politicians glibly toss out when asked how they’ll balance the budget.
Tim Bayly commented on this from Carl Trueman: http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/could-big-eva-face-a-trump-moment#.Vw5RxfkrI5d
I thought it interesting considering the tone and tenor of things lately.
I haven’t seen that site before — that’s a fantastic name.
Admit the Ruths who’ll assimilate and work hard, but not the Jezebels who’ll bring their problems with them and use the government to enforce their problems on us.
Turn the question around. Is it really good for the spiritual health of our brothers and sisters in other countries to move to such a debauched and immoral society?
Which should be easy because, you know, we’re as omniscient as God, and we know which of the seven billion people on earth will turn out to be “hard workers”, and which ones will be Jezebels.
The casualness with which Judeochristians resort to the outrageous blasphemy of saying we have the power to know the content of the character of a few thousand people in our neighborhood, let alone all seven billion people on earth, never ceases to boggle my mind.
Remember, folks, Doug’s the same guy who wrote this back in December: Donald Trump has now proposed drastic measures to deal with the threat of domestic terrorism, of the kind we recently saw in San Bernardino. His idea is to put a ban on all Muslims entering the country, period, until such time as we get all this “sorted out.” His idea is, of course, simplistic, unworkable, and obnoxious So now Doug says that having our country flooded with foreigners whose ways aren’t our ways, and whose language isn’t our language, is a curse. But back in December, he said… Read more »
As a cynic, OJ COSBY won’t permit himself to quote the rest of what Wilson has said on the subject of immigration. Recall that Wilson did not propose a blanket ban on Muslim immigration, but he did propose a simple check of the internet activity of foreign residents, to look for obvious indications of disloyalty to the U.S., and Wilson also advocated what appeared to be a one-strike policy in regard to their goal of citizenship. In other words Wilson was for open-eyed information gathering, and screening based on actual evidence, as opposed to blanket bans based on assumptions of… Read more »
He’s also mixing a principle (there should be borders) with a specific implementation (Donald Trump’s poorly thought out version) and acting as though you can’t agree with the principle if you criticize the implementation. In my mind, that’s not even trying to be fair, at least for a person of average intelligence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO0cvqT1tAE
Implementation? Apparently the vocabulary lessons were a real bear, too!
LMAO
What ARE you on about? Do words with more than three syllables hurt?
It’s wearing thin for us but not for him because this is all about amusing himself. I really think he has exceeded his sell-by date.
Dunsworth, you may not believe this, but Jesus loves you, and so do I.
To be fair, OJ COSBY is just following in the footsteps of some other fondly remembered trolls on these boards (mostly ryan sather, actually :)
OJ don’t follow in nobody’s footsteps.
Yeah. He really do.
Hi OJ, would I be right in guessing that Shoah is another of your avatars?
Nope. It’s not me.
I wondered only because of the use of the word Shoah. But I am glad it is not you. Regardless of how one feels about the Jewish people, so flippant a use of the Hebrew word (Ha Shoah, the catastrophe) that most Jews prefer to use for the holocaust is offensive beyond belief. I hope that the person who uses this avatar is acting from ignorance and not malice.
I’ve changed my screen name, and I’m sure I’ll change it again if I wind up hanging around, but I only use one name at a time on here. I’m not trying to deceive anybody.
It’s used as calculated impudence in some circles, due to criticism of Jews being regarded as uniquely off-limits in polite society. (The Holocaust was an atrocity and I have no reason to doubt the official version of events, but it wasn’t the worst thing of its kind, even in the 20th century — and German Jews did much to incite it.)
You would, and he’s been upvoting himself for weeks! No one said trolling is easy.
Unless you really still don’t understand a lick of Spanish, hard to see how this is relevant to the experience of 95% of Americans, especially in Idaho. Spanish and French have been spoken on this land just about as long as White people have been here. My great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather was actually a “Spanish” citizen of Missouri way back in the day, though he was 100% of British origins. When I was a kid we all learned a year or two of Spanish in school. It’s a rather easy language to learn. Israel was being warned about being conquered by a… Read more »
Good point — any application of this stuff to the USA needs to take into account that it’s not a nation, but was founded as a multicultural empire. There are multiple nations within USA borders, just like there were in Rome or Assyria or whatever.
That said, numbers matter because acculturation can only happen so fast, and there’s plenty of forces working against it.