I have an idea. Why don’t you resume the discussion on your own blog? You can even trackback to my post to let everyone know you’re discussing it.

Plus, all of these long comments are eating up my bandwidth! I had to upgrade yesterday.

When I said that you argued philosophically, it didn’t mean that selecting Bible verses to make your point meant that you were now arguing biblically. Context means determining who is saying what to whom, when and for what purpose, not merely plugging in an isolated verse. Here’s the difficulty when citing OT verses: Ancient Israel was a theocracy, and for his divine purposes, God laid down a certain set of laws for his people, many of them ceremonial. We have to look at the passage in light of this context.

For instance, regarding ceremonial laws, we know they were fulfilled in Christ. When unbelievers cite these in an attempt to mock us (”So I guess we should still slaughter lambs on the altar, right?) and disregard other OT laws (stoning adulterers and homosexuals, for example), we know that those laws, while still intact, were fulfilled through and in Jesus Christ and the grace he gives to sinners.

God’s laws for Israel did not pertain to surrounding foreigners or other countries. They were for his people who were set apart from the rest. This setting apart was a picture of how believers would be set apart from unbelievers when Christ came. Secular governments like ours are not prohibited from proscribing certain laws, and those laws may include provisions against or limitations on immigration, for example.

Being kind to foreigners, strangers, widows and orphans does not mean a nation cannot enforce its laws or that Christians should break those laws to “be kind” to foreigners, strangers, widows and orphans. All of these side issues are causing confusion and do not address the issue at hand!

What you provided is not evidence that Christians should ignore immigration laws or that opposing them is unbiblical. Treating people with compassion does not mean we disobey the law. Because I accused you of offering philosophical arguments, you selected Scripture. Great, but they still don’t address the issue: illegal immigration is wrong and Christians should not support it.

I am not changing my original point or argument by getting into discussions about hiding Jews from Nazis, slaves from masters or killing babies. Even Daniel in Babylon has nothing to do with Christians supporting or opposing illegal immigration in the United States.

Some care more about the downtrodden than others. Some not at all. Christians should always care, but that care doesn’t entail breaking the law. Citing OT verses concerning God’s explicit instructions to the nation of Israel have nothing to do, believe it or not, with the way the US should govern its people.

Whether or not our nation’s immigration laws “reflect the heart of God”, Christians should not disobey the laws and hide illegal aliens or fail to report them if need be. Again, this is why the discussion gets off-topic.

DLE, if you want to argue that supporting immigration laws is somehow unbiblical or should cause Christians to determine whether they “reflect the heart of God”, fine. I can deal with that. Personally, I see the damage the illegal influx has caused our country, and I consider it immoral to ignore or fail to consider that. Remember, we have Christians right here in America who are being financially affected by illegal immigration. How should we regard them? Where is compassion for those brothers and sisters in Christ?

I’ll let Sherry’s comment conclude my own:

I don’t believe La Shawn has ever stated we should not allow immigrants into our country. What I have taken from her post is that she is asking why should they not have to follow the same laws as we do – Enter the country legally, become a citizen and share in the privileges of American society – no problem.

I hardly see where La Shawn taking a firm stand on enforcing immigration laws shows a lack of compassion towards the poor or a misunderstanding of her Christian duties.

I’m tired of all the back and forth, and I want to end this discussion for now, at least on my blog.

So you did a google search for occurrences of the words “alien” and “foreigner” in the Bible and posted them without the context of the passages to show what? That the words “alien” and “foreigner” are found in the Bible? To whom in the Old Testament do these passages refer? Who was God talking to? Secular government or the nation of Israel? Why does it matter?

When I argued “philosophically” I was accused of not providing biblical evidence. I provide biblical evidence and now I’m accused of forsaking context.

The context is this: God cares for outsiders as much as He cares for you and me. He equates caring for foreigners in our land with caring for orphans and widows (note James 1:27, too.) God is telling His people to never ignore the foreigner in our land, to love them even as we love ourselves (and all that this entails.) Frankly, we Christians who are conservative don’t do a very good job of this.

Where in the Bible would we find, for example, that enacting and enforcing laws is “oppressing” people?

Umm, do Shadrach, Meshach, Abednigo, and Daniel mean anything? They were told to obey laws that opposed the will of God, yet they refused to. God honored them for that because His laws trump manmade laws.

Or what about Moses? His case illustrates two sides of this issue. The Egyptians imposed laws that resulted in the baby Moses being set adrift in the river. As an adult, Moses ran away when faced with a murder charge and certain death. Consider the ramifications of both incidents here….

Part of the problem we have in secular society is that we can justify anything we want. You just can¹t do that with the Bible. You can¹t take a passage here or a verse there and use it to support your point that, for example, Christians should support illegal immigration because God told the nation of Israel to treat “strangers in land” with kindness, etc. I guess you¹re trying to prove…that immigration laws are unbiblical? That Christians should ignore illegal immigration because “Jesus was an alien?” Good grief.

I did not say that we should ignore immigration laws, only that we Christians should consider whether they reflect the heart of God, are just, and are applied uniformly. If they are not, then we should work to change them, even as John Wesley worked to change the way the mentally ill were treated legally in England, or how the Stowe family forced the government to consider a different path concerning slavery laws, or how Martin Luther King worked to enact true Civil Rights laws.

When we simply mouth some party line without real discourse, we do a disservice to those affected by our limited thinking.

And comparing slavery with Nazi Germany with illegal aliens who’ve crossed the border….Words fail me.

They shouldn’t. The analogy is perfectly apt. Historically, there were Christians who hid Jews from the Nazi government authorities and there were ones who turned Jews in. Same for Christians who helped slaves escape and those who turned them in. And certainly there are Christians in this country who shelter illegals and help them and there are those who seek to prosecute and deport them. In every case here, those who hid or sheltered people were breaking the civil laws.

Since those positions are totally at odds, their relative morality cannot be equal. We Christians have to consider which side we are going to take on issues like these or we work to find some middle ground that proves to be win-win. We are definitely not doing the latter. (Middle ground may not even exist in all cases, either. Unrestricted abortion comes to mind here.)

Although it is wrong to support criminal activity, you say that I¹ve not made the case that supporting illegal immigration is unbiblical. You’re kidding, right? Has it come down to this, that even Christians hold no moral absolutes?

The definition of “criminal activity” is either based on the biblical moral law of God or it is not. If we vow to support the laws that are not and consider them as valid as God’s laws, we have to be very careful that it will not come back to bite us in the future.

Again, if you say that you support every law on the books in the United States, then you must assent to abortion and ensure that women are unfettered in their ability to get one. You must also support the gay marriage laws in states now enacting them.

Remember, the government attempted to prosecute abortion picketers under RICO statutes. Did you support the government’s right to do this? Now this has been overturned due to public outcry, but what other laws need this same manner of outcry? Let’s not assume that our immigration laws are carved in stone, either.

Lastly, moral absolutes are only moral and absolute if their origin is in God, the source of all absolute morality. I am not so sure that God is concerned whether it is wrong if you walk an alligator on a leash on a city street after dark, but there are laws (in Louisiana, I believe) that address such an issue. If I think it is okay for someone to walk their alligator on a leash on a city street after dark, is God displeased if I attempt to get that law changed? Probably not. But if I attempt to change laws in order to specifically violate God’s clear-cut morality, then that is another issue entirely.

We need to be very careful how we label people. Someone may call us relativists when we gore their ox, but that does not mean we truly are. I know that I am far from being a relativist, probably as far away from relativism as you consider yourself to be.

Apparently you missed a point I made in my last statement in that if we are to have truthful and real compassion that stems from having the love of God in us then we ought to be able and willing to utilize the existing processes to help those people who are living in “raging poverty” to get out of it. As I stated, there exists a legal way to get foriegners into this country, whether you think it is cumbersome or unfair is beside the point. It is there and accessible to anyone. The simple fact of that truth makes any argument for breaking the law unarguable. If there were no laws in place then it wouldn’t be against the law to harbor illegals, and therefore we would not be breaking the law of the land or the laws of scripture.

DLE, if you continue on this path of reasoning it will lead you to a dangerous place spiritually. For to maintain such an argument causes one to have to compromise God’s word. Such reasoning is purely from emotions rather than from logic or scripture.

Why isn’t there an argument to compel Christians to use the existing processes to help those in other countries to come over into this country legally? Why is there only an argument to break the immigration law rather than use the law to help these people?

And lastly, what am I nitpicking about? I merely challenged your reasoning when you compared sheltering illegal Christians who are persecuted for Christ’ sake with sheltering illegal non-christians.

I contend that you cannot equate such a thing. Christian persecution is a serious matter that doesn’t compare to any other. To suffer for Christ is an honor among the Saints. You cannot possibly tell me that you equate suffering for Christ with suffering in poverty or joblessness? To do so demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the cause of our suffering to begin with, the curse of sin in this world.

Living in a massive garbage dump in Mexico City would qualify.

Jerry,

I find your argument to be nitpicking. You’ll shelter illegals for religious reasons, but you won’t shelter illegals who came here to work to keep from starving to death or to escape oppressive poverty (such as living in a garbage dump.) Didn’t the ministry of Jesus include helping to meet the material needs of people, regardless of their race or national origin or their citizen or non-citizen status within the Holy Land?

Yours seems to be a rather arbitrary application of the Gospel. If you believe such destitute people are ever going to get visas into this country, you and all the rest who support this idea are simply deluding yourselves. Honestly, what chance does a family of five who live in a garbage dump or a drug-filled ghetto have of ever getting a visa into the US? Trade places with them and ask what you yourself would do.

Again, it is a very simple issue when its just numbers, but when it becomes real people Christ died for, it is not so easy.

In your next sentence, you said something about how I didn’t disappoint you, implying that I was a racist. I couldn’t allow that to remain. I definitely understand that we sometimes say things in anger, but I don’t want to give readers or other commenters the impression it’s OK to call the blog hostess a racist whether or not you believe I am. That’s a buzz word that tends to stifle the discussion, and I won’t fall for it.

I hold very few grudges, so we’re still friends.

I’d like to apologise if you found it insulting and assure you that no insult was intended. I wish I could remember exactly what I’d written so I could clarify what I wrote. Friends?

I say no. If anything, the love of God ought to compel us to carry out justice by following the law rather than ignoring it. If there is true and real compassion for illegals then there should be a willingness to assist these people in becoming legal citizens to this country through the proper channels. By breaking the law to “help” them you compromise your own integrity and scripture. While it sounds nice that we as Christians ought to have compassion on others and demonstrate God’s love, it is disengenuous to say that by not helping or allowing illegals to stay in this country illegally we are not showing compassion. DLE, what you described sounds more like pandering to illegals due to a false guilt rather than true compassion for others. Similar to what many liberals do with the Black community.

Personally, I don’t see the struggle in obeying the law of the land vs. obeying God’s laws. It seems more or less a pusillanimous argument to imply that there is a contradiction between showing Christian compassion and obeying the laws of immigration. As I stated before, there is a huge difference in aiding a Christian family who are under persecution for being Christians and aiding an illegal alien or family who are trying to get work in this country. While the illegals seeking work is honorable their methods are dishonorable in that it breaks the law of the land. As Christians we are admonished to obey those who have authority over us and to obey the laws of the land. I would go further and state that we are to obey the laws of the land as long as they do not contradict with God’s laws.

Another key point is that there exists a LEGAL way for illegals to get into this country. It may be cumbersome, yet it is there for anyone to use. If there wasn’t an existing system in place then there would be real cause for debate.

By the way, what is “raging poverty”?

Omar you said,
“What? Whats that got to do with anything? What i “propose” is that racial profing is racist, inaequate and a contradiction of freedom. If you think every “young middle eastern man” is a terrorist, theres little i can do to change that.”

As I stated before, racial profiling is racist, you are correct in that. How is racial profiling a contradiction of freedom? By that statement then any enforcement of the law is a contradiction of freedom if it is based on something you consider arbitrary, such as age, type of car driven, clothes worn, or language used.

What about law officials who use discriptions of the proposed assailant when solving a crime? Can or should skin color be included in that profile? What about accect? Height? Weight?

Go watch mississipi burning and tell me you think that letting those local terrorists be in charge is a good thing.

Exactly my point.

If you want to see lots of information about Arab Muslims being caught crossing the border, look at Michelle Malkin’s website. It’s very disturbing. I would also recommend checking the http://www.parapundit.com sites archives. They have lots and lots and lots of information.