Blog
Paradigms of ethnicity and power
Author: Dewi Hughes
Date: 13.05.2010
Category: Ethnicity, Diaspora, Globalization
Translations
In his excellent piece on the 5 paradigms of ethnicity RCW seems to imply that those who espouse the 3 paradigms focussing on globalism are able to imagine or envisage a world without ethnic identity. However, if historical precedent is anything to go by globalism has, thus far, always been an expression of ethnonationalism. No one can stand outside history and culture to advocate for some system of government, production of goods etc that can be identified as beyond ethnicity. An ethnic identity is made up of the following characteristics: a common proper name; a belief in a common ancestry; a shared history, memories of a common past; elements of a common culture, such as, language, customs, material culture, religion; a link with a homeland; a sense of solidarity. What has happened historically is that certain ethnic identities have been able to build up their power so that they can impose their history, culture and sense of solidarity to the detriment of the history, culture and sense of solidarity of other ethnic identities - and then have the cheek to call their destruction of less powerful identities a great blessing to them! Internationalists cannot avoid speaking and once they open their mouths they identify allegiance to an ethnic identity. It is vain to protest that what is in view is an internationalism of ideas or economic or political practice because such internationalism will be impossible to achieve without communication and communication means language - which means ethnic identity. We are back with Babel in Genesis 11. What happened in the plain of Shinar was that a people decided to grasp authority over all humankind and by uniting all humanity and its ingenuity make a name for themselves that would ensure their security. God had to come down to see the great tower they were building but he saw clearly where their intentions would lead - to a greater and greater ability on the part of humanity to rebel against his will. So, God confused their language and their lack of ability to communicate soon destroyed their great imperial project and they drifted away from each other and God’s intention that there should be a multi-ethnic world was achieved. But this was but the first attempt of many that a particular ethnic identity has tried to build a world dominating empire. Christianity has probably always functioned in the context of empires that were aiming for world domination. It may be helpful to see how the biblical ideal of blessing the nations has played out – and is playing out – in this context.
Reach Map and Statistics
Views: 8532
Comments: 5
Recommendations: 0
One Click To Action
Connect me with people interested in this conversation:
Join related conversations
- Ramadan 27, Laylatul Qadr (Night of Power) and Jesus Christ
By husseinwario
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | The Lausanne Global Conversation is powered by World Wide Open | What is World Wide Open?
Conversation Post Comment
United Kingdom
Hi Dewi,
I agree that multi-ethnic/cultural community is what God intended. Gonzalez beautifully shows this in his book, The Healing of the Nations.
At the same time, I also feel that we need to stress the fact that these identities are not ’given’ or ’readymades’ but social constructs in the light of a given situation. This clarifes that the nature of identity is dynamic and is necessary in that situation. This will help us have a balance view. Secondly, ethnic identity and identity movements in many parts of the world, particularly in the global south are signs of the people’s desires for nationhood by following what other people did in history. In other words, if identity is connected to land/territory and its resources without sharing with others [e.g.migrantion rules], identity struggles will continue. The challenge for us is to critically reflect on the issue of land ownership: how to claim/own the land/territory which God has created for all human beings. We need to find a different way of understanding identity and its connection to territory. In our theology, we need to include people who have no land of their own or those who do not settle in one territory but moves on because, this also is equally human culture.
17.10.2010
Nigeria
Thanks Dewi for starting this discussion along this line. May I contribute the following:
I agree completely with you but add that it is the same basic desire desire for domination that is a man that is passed to people the man first dominates or who have similar desire that led to babel as well as the present condition of the world that is dominated by capitalism. It is also in Mission Agencies and denominations.
However, it seems to me as if God’s intent has always been global from Gen. 1:1. This view is supported by the often missed fact that the conditions for the blessing of the nations had ALWAYS been similar for Abraham’s seed as for the rest of the world (Num 15:15-16).
While babel was a “locking up” of the world into conglomerates, Pentecost was an offer of the “key for the padlock” - the Church spoke and is to speak in the diverse languages of the world to enable everyone to comprehend. Thus we are commanded to “go into” (not go to) all the world...leading to communicating the gospel in what has been called ’receiver comprehensible terms’ so as to implement (enforce if you like) the victory of Christ that broke all barriers including the world-view differences. Our failure is what Isaiah lamented when he asked who had believed our report. Our report contain the arm of the Lord but it must be revealed. Our failure means that it remains concealed.
While agreeing with your line of thought, I tend to disagree when you say that “it is vain to protest that what is in view is an internationalism of ideas and economic ….” Again while agreeing with you that it is impossible to achieve without communication, I suggest, as above, that more than language is required. It should involve the ’deciphering of world views so as to present the gospel as indicated above to enable all conglomerates to comprehend the victory of the Cross.
Finally, it will not lead to another babel because the evil base that created babel would have been destroyed in Christ and they would have been brought into the liberty of the sons of God. It will rather lead to (Rev 7:9ff) the uncountable multitude from these nations who, haven been liberated by the gospel, are joined in the everlasting song while the host of heaven give their support in their chorus. To this end we apply ourselves. If RCW is thinking in this line, I think he may be right.
01.07.2010
Nigeria
Thanks Dewi for starting this discussion along this line. May I contribute the following:
I agree completely with you but add that it is the same basic desire desire for domination that is a man that is passed to people the man first dominates or who have similar desire that led to babel as well as the present condition of the world that is dominated by capitalism. It is also in Mission Agencies and denominations.
However, it seems to me as if God’s intent has always been global from Gen. 1:1. This view is supported by the often missed fact that the conditions for the blessing of the nations had ALWAYS been similar for Abraham’s seed as for the rest of the world (Num 15:15-16).
While babel was a “locking up” of the world into conglomerates, Pentecost was an offer of the “key for the padlock” - the Church spoke and is to speak in the diverse languages of the world to enable everyone to comprehend. Thus we are commanded to “go into” (not go to) all the world...leading to communicating the gospel in what has been called ’receiver comprehensible terms’ so as to implement (enforce if you like) the victory of Christ that broke all barriers including the world-view differences. Our failure is what Isaiah lamented when he asked who had believed our report. Our report contain the arm of the Lord but it must be revealed. Our failure means that it remains concealed.
While agreeing with your line of thought, I tend to disagree when you say that “it is vain to protest that what is in view is an internationalism of ideas and economic ….” Again while agreeing with you that it is impossible to achieve without communication, I suggest, as above, that more than language is required. It should involve the ’deciphering of world views so as to present the gospel as indicated above to enable all conglomerates to comprehend the victory of the Cross.
Finally, it will not lead to another babel because the evil base that created babel would have been destroyed in Christ and they would have been brought into the liberty of the sons of God. It will rather lead to (Rev 7:9ff) the uncountable multitude from these nations who, haven been liberated by the gospel, are joined in the everlasting song while the host of heaven give their support in their chorus. To this end we apply ourselves. If RCW is thinking in this line, I think he may be right.
01.07.2010
Nigeria
Thanks Dewi for starting this discussion along this line. May I contribute the following:
I agree completely with you but add that it is the same basic desire desire for domination that is a man that is passed to people the man first dominates or who have similar desire that led to babel as well as the present condition of the world that is dominated by capitalism. It is also in Mission Agencies and denominations.
However, it seems to me as if God’s intent has always been global from Gen. 1:1. This view is supported by the often missed fact that the conditions for the blessing of the nations had ALWAYS been similar for Abraham’s seed as for the rest of the world (Num 15:15-16).
While babel was a “locking up” of the world into conglomerates, Pentecost was an offer of the “key for the padlock” - the Church spoke and is to speak in the diverse languages of the world to enable everyone to comprehend. Thus we are commanded to “go into” (not go to) all the world...leading to communicating the gospel in what has been called ’receiver comprehensible terms’ so as to implement (enforce if you like) the victory of Christ that broke all barriers including the world-view differences. Our failure is what Isaiah lamented when he asked who had believed our report. Our report contain the arm of the Lord but it must be revealed. Our failure means that it remains concealed.
While agreeing with your line of thought, I tend to disagree when you say that “it is vain to protest that what is in view is an internationalism of ideas and economic ….” Again while agreeing with you that it is impossible to achieve without communication, I suggest, as above, that more than language is required. It should involve the ’deciphering of world views so as to present the gospel as indicated above to enable all conglomerates to comprehend the victory of the Cross.
Finally, it will not lead to another babel because the evil base that created babel would have been destroyed in Christ and they would have been brought into the liberty of the sons of God. It will rather lead to (Rev 7:9ff) the uncountable multitude from these nations who, haven been liberated by the gospel, are joined in the everlasting song while the host of heaven give their support in their chorus. To this end we apply ourselves. If RCW is thinking in this line, I think he may be right.
01.07.2010
South Africa
Do you see any relation between this and Samuel Huntington’s "Clash of civilizations" theory?
06.06.2010
You must be logged in to post a comment. If you don’t have an account, you can sign up now (it’s free and easy!).