Warning: Another long one!
This post may be referred to as “Part I” as I collect my thoughts on a Saturday morning. I never intended to blog about illegal immigration all week, but this post started it. After it received so many comments, I conducted further research and read reports, etc., to understand the policy implications of illegal immigration.
A few commenters grappled with what Christians should be doing/thinking about illegal immigration. These folks got my attention but never really fleshed out their thoughts. I will attempt to do so.
Let’s put aside the economic, social and cultural burdens illegal aliens impose on this country. From an economic standpoint, California is bearing enormous costs because of free medical care and overcrowding of government schools, for example. The budget shortfall in California is staggering ($38 billion? $40 billion?). Keep in mind that Governor Gray Davis was recalled for this reason.
It is not “un-Christian” to support restricted immigration into one’s country. It is not “un-Christian” to advocate deportation of illegal aliens. I challenge anyone to find in Scripture where such a concept is even hinted at.
Here’s the problem that arises when discussing biblical issues. In our secular society, humanistic philosophy is the norm. The Bible and God have been pushed out of government schools and the public sphere, and our society in general prefers that religious beliefs be kept private. In this regard, we don’t discuss these things in “mixed company.”
When referencing biblical things and speculating on “what Jesus would do,” there is a tendency among believers and unbelievers to argue philosophically rather than scripturally. I understand this temptation, especially when one doesn’t know what the Bible says about certain things. See Jesse Jackson’s Liberal Jesus, for example.
As a Christian, I look at it this way. My brothers and sisters in Christ come in all colors, shapes, sizes and countries. My fellow Christ followers are in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Russia — in every country on the planet, including Mexico.
Among illegal aliens I have brothers and sisters in Christ. The call to share the Gospel with unbelievers and worship a merciful and gracious God with believers doesn’t stop at our national borders. God saves all kind of men, and all kinds of men are my fellow inheritors of Christ’s bounty!
However, I am not required to ignore or oppose justice against lawbreakers, even if they are believers. Government is supposed to punish lawbreakers, and Christian criminals are not excepted. God appointed men to authority and laid down the function and role of government. In that same vein, as an aside, it is not unbiblical to support war. I’ve written about the role of government and a biblical view of war in a few posts:
- Onward, Christian Solders
- John Kerry and James 2
- Kerry Cites Scripture to Battle Bush View (Instapundit linked to this one)
People tend to confuse biblical instruction to Christians with the role and function of government. For instance, a commenter wrote (This is not intended as a criticism of the commenter.):
But for us who are Christians, how do we live out a Christ-like response to illegal immigration? The Lord Jesus was an immigrant Himself in the land of Egypt. He was poor and an alien in that land, just like many of the illegal immigrants here in America. His family fled harsh conditions just as many immigrants here have. God raises up and takes down governments at His sovereign will, so who are we to say that our secure borders trump the compassion we should have for the immigrant family who is just trying to live life to its fullest here in America?When we Christians move beyond numbers and start viewing each immigrant or immigrant family as people to whom we should be ministering the love of Christ in our own land, a love that transcends earthly laws and aspires to the greatest commandments Jesus cited (love God, love people), then the issue becomes less clear. Does not the love of God for these people render our desire for legal retribution against them null and void? When you actually talk to illegals here and listen to their plight, our commonality as men for whom Jesus died makes that phone call to INS impossible to make.
First of all, Christ was not an “illegal immigrant.” It is true that Jesus’ parents fled to Egypt to evade King Herod, who sought to kill the newborn Messiah, but that is not the point. The Bible does not make reference to Egypt’s immigration laws. Whatever their laws were, if any, are irrelevant! To try to draw a parallel between this biblical reference and illegal aliens is disingenuous and confusing at best (and obscures the point), and ludicrous at worst.
Secondly, Christians cannot nor are we obligated to demand that our government have a “Christ-like response” to illegal aliens (what does that mean, anyway?). This was John Kerry’s error when he implied several months ago that our government (and George Bush) should demonstrate “good works”, as referenced in James 2, by using taxpayers’ money. I’ll re-post part of it in case you have neither the time nor desire to go back to the archives and read it:
“The scriptures say, what does it profit, my brother, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? When we look at what is happening in America today, where are the works of compassion,” preached Kerry.
What he’s getting at is that faith without works is dead. While I don’t expect Kerry or the liberal media to know what’s in the Bible, I do expect him to have the decency to seek counsel from clergy before he starts using scriptural references on the campaign trail….
The passage Kerry took out of context is James 2:14-17:
“What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,’ but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.”
James wrote his epistle to Jewish believers, “the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad”, exhorting them to “count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience”, one of my favorite verses.
He urges the believers to be doers of God’s word and not hearers only. A believer is saved through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone, but that faith manifests itself through action or works (”fruit”).
James gives guidance on how individuals, not governments, can evaluate their faith to determine whether it’s living or dead. It is the personal works of believers that James has in mind in this passage. It wasn’t addressed to Caesar.
If Kerry were a Christian, he’d know that the biblical standard of the test of faith doesn’t rest on whether poor people exist or teenagers are killed in the streets. Using taxpayers’ money isn’t a work of faith.
What you do as a professing Christian, i.e., using your own money or time to feed the poor, would be considered “works.” Does Kerry see the distinction?
I believe he can get away with such misapplication, even in a church with a “learned” pastor sitting only a few feet away, because most Christians seem unable or unwilling to properly exegete and understand Scripture themselves. As a result, when someone like Kerry misuses God’s word, Christians don’t recognize it. This is why Bible reading is very important.
I used to assume that when people first become saved, they’re on fire for truth and hungry to know the God they worship. I don’t assume that anymore.
God gave us the Bible, written down by men inspired by the Holy Spirit as His revelation to us. He is Creator, Love, Righteousness, Perfect Justice, Savior, Friend, Advocate, and so much more.
We live in a postmodern age where people believe that there is no truth, that it cannot even be known! It is vitally important for Christians to know what they believe, know what’s in the Bible and always be ready to defend the faith and challenge people who misuse (purposely) Scripture.
John Kerry would do well to remember that the word of God is a two-edge sword. Works without faith, genuine saving faith, are just as dead.
As a Christian, I cannot demand of my government that it have “compassion” on illegal aliens because, after all, it is a Christ-like thing to do. Christians have no right to force others to do “good works.” It’s nonsensical. But I, at my own expense, can help the less fortunate. That is what Christ requires of me and other Christians, not of the government. I am not biblically mandated to impose burdens on others.
You see, it is socialism, pure and simple, to force someone to pay to support others. Redistributing income — taking from one to give to another by force (law) — is entirely unbiblical. This is where Christians themselves get confused, let alone non-Christians and/or those unfamiliar with Scripture.
Now as the body of Christ, whether gathered together in a church building or dispersed across the globe, we can help alleviate the suffering of others. I believe we are obligated to report lawbreakers and at the same time, offer assistance (food, clothing, medical care, the Gospel) to them.
Giving the commenter the benefit of the doubt, I know where his/her heart is. For immigrants who are starving, for example, and who are also brothers and sisters in Christ looking for work, my heart goes out to them. If I’m so moved, I can help them through the immigration process, intercede at deportation hearings on their behalf — whatever I need to do.
Does not the love of God for these people render our desire for legal retribution against them null and void?
The answer is no, and I don’t know where he/she came up with such a concept. When someone blows up an abortion clinic in the name of Christ, killing people, for example, my “desire” is that they go to jail, just as I desire the “doctor” killing the babies to go to jail.
How in the world (or in the Bible) does our “love of God for these people” mean that Christians should ignore crime? God is the ultimate judge, and he will punish lawbreakers. Yes, he is compassionate and merciful, but where in Scripture are Christians required to ask government not to punish criminals?
To require my government to ignore crime, ask others to do the same and pay to support criminals is unbiblical. Evading personal responsibility is unbiblical. Forcing others to pay for our good intentions is unbiblical. Supporting illegal immigration is unbiblical.
Read Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount.
As long as I’m alive, I suspect I’ll continue to struggle with all of this, so stay tuned.
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 48 comments }
This is a great post La Shawn, don’t you think it’s ironic that the people who are preaching at us that we are ignoring our Christian values by arguing against all this unchecked immigration are the same people who accuse us of trying to force our Christian views on the country when we argue against removing God from the constitution or prayer from schools?
Best post you ever wrote.
“California is bearing enormous costs because of free medical care and overcrowding of government schools, for example.”
Illegals don’t get ‘free medical care’. they get some ER access. there’s a vast difference.
Nitpicker’s delight! Actus, even if it only covered ER access, it’s still free medical care! Show some kind of proof to support your assertions, will you? And by the way, is that the only thing you got from this long post? Good grief.
Illegals do get free health care here in California, in fact, so much so that a few weeks ago one of the news magazines highlighted the crisis in this country about it. Citing one woman who said that “if” she had to pay she would, but she doesn’t so she’s okay with that!
Last semester I was in a cultural diversity class and this issue came up, illegal immigration, and it was heated because, once again, I was the only one with the guts to say - Christians should obey the law! I liked your comment about Christian criminals!
Anyway, the big gripe that I heard from my liberal classmates was that it took too long to become legal in this country and so that gave them the right to break the law.
To which I say, oh well - obey the law, get legal and stop griping when you have to pay for something.
In the words of an old song by Steve Taylor - Whatever happened to sin?
I think most ‘christians’ believe that it doesn’t exist anymore!
So true…non believers always use the Bible to manipulate and hide behind the true evil they seek to impose upon the rest of us.
Actually, what non-believers do is create straw man caricatures of Christianity, and then say, “look at you, if you were really a Christian, you would do x,y,x”…when in reality, they have no concept as to what Christianity is other than some miscontextualized quoting of scriptures they manipulate to support their various positions…
I see this done on the right and on the left…and true Christians need to stand against the usage of the bible to support party line ideologies that are anything but biblical. My opinion is that Christians can derive ideological positions based upon biblical principles, but biblical exegesis can not be driven by political ideology.
You make some excellent points.
Idea of nations are in no way condemned in scripture and it is pretty silly to think of a nation that can not control its borders. A borderless nation is no nation at all. Where were the condemnations in scripture on walled cities?
Mexico is largely corrupt with a pious people governed by a very secular state, but it is in no way a dictatorship. Isn’t there some stewardship required of its citizens to make Mexico a better country instead of running off to greener fields? As Christians we are to leaven the whole lump not just the part we want to.
I largely support legalized immigration (my wife is an immigrant) and I wish that we would increase it instead of giving amnesty to people who have purposely broking our laws. This should be done orderly with background checks and not excusing those who illegaly cross our borders no matter their possible good intentions. The ends do not justify the means.
I’m not at all convinced La Shawn. You’ve established that it’s Biblical (broadly speaking) to obey the law, and I’m not arguing. But take a step further back — can you build a Biblical case for the very concept of “illegal immigration”. can’t think of anything in the scriptures to justify the idea.
Where do you see migration in the Bible? In the movement of Israel from Egypt to the Promised land certainly — and there’s nothing in that story to suggest that anyone has the slightest interest in “immigration law”, if it even existed. The land belonged to whoever won the fight for it.
You also get movements of individuals and small family groups, and here there is nothing to suggest that their movements are hindered by “national borders”. Quite the reverse. But you do see commandment after commandment to care for the alien and the stranger. These were not merely calls to individual charity, but a demand of *the nation*. In today’s world that would mean it was the government’s responsibility.
As another commenter has said on an earlier thread, it really isn’t as simple as you’re trying to make it.
>>As a Christian, I cannot demand of my government that it have “compassion” on illegal aliens because, after all, it is a Christ-like thing to do. Christians have no right to force others to do “good works.”
Nobody’s talking about forcing anyone to do anything. The government isn’t “out there” — we both live in democracies. In theory that means that the government acts according to the views of its citizens. I should say it is every Christian’s duty to invite their government to according to the principles of God’s kingdom as we understand them. Wouldn’t you?
Richard, migration in the Bible has nothing to do with how and why countries established their own immigration laws today. There is nothing unbiblical about having and enforcing immigration laws. God gave the nation of Israel the land of Canaan; are you saying it follows that a country give their land to whoever wants it? I don’t understand your point. I suspect you just want to be contrary. Is there nothing in my post you can agree with? Aren’t you a minister?
The command to “care for strangers”: who is this command directed to?
And I can ask my government to do all manner of things, but the point is I can’t make a genuine case that my government should be “Christ-like” and feed the poor at the expense of others. Maybe you and I read different Bibles because I don’t understand your opposition and resistence to biblical tenets.
And of course things aren’t simple, but declaring the word of God doesn’t require a theological degree. It’s not as complex and you and others make it out to be, either. Do me a favor: find something in my post to agree with before you dispute anything in this comment.
Yes, there is an obligation to care for the alien and the stranger, but such an obligation is not absolute. Such a one must live among the people peacably, in conformity with the laws. And I challenge Richard to list the social welfare programs of the governments of ancient Israel — I doubt he will find much of a “social safety net”. It was the acts of the private charity that allowed the poor to survive, along with strict personal adherance to the religious norms of the Torah.
And note Richard’s argument on territory and borders — it justifies over-running another country and annexing its territory by force. As such, it completely rejects the norms of international law that liberals like him tend to demand be followed scrupulously. I trust, then, that if we decide to invade Canada or Mexico he will accept it as biblically justified.
If I may add some additional verses to support LaShawns point:
The role of government according to the bible:
Romans 13:1-7
1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Romans 13
Paul appeals to the Roman government:
11 For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar.” Acts 25.
Those are some direct scriptural references…
To further address the issue we must consider the “nation” of Israel where God allowed for specific “legal” structures for individuals coming into the nation, marrying of individuals external to the nation, and creating institutions and structure for national government.
Our responsibility is to follow the rule of the government as long as it doesn’t directly contradict the rule of God. As reference to “illegal” immigration, by definition, they are opposed to the “rule” of our government, therefore as citizens, it is our responsibility to deal with them accordingly, or work to change the laws which make them illegal.
I can see a counter argument that states, not accepting the illegal immigrant is against the law of God, but I as of yet have not seen that proved by anyone. God is a God of order which equals logic, logos, apply the concept of 100% open borders which is the extension of many of the “just let em in its Christianities way” concept of immigration. If applied to its end, we have immigrants from across the globe utilizing freely the system that is provided for by the governance of the united states, thereby weaking the system, and destroying the system, and in no where in the bible will you find God (outside of his judgements) advocate the self-destruction or weaking of a nation. As LaShawn said, the whole idea of a nation and governance is based upon “borders” or a system bound within a geographic region. Therefore to pursue an open immigration policy without enforcement of governmental rules is someone of a contradiction.
The conclusion of the matter is we are bound by the governmental law, according to the bible, unless it is a DIRECT AND CLEAR violation of the law of God as provided for in the New Testament. I just don’t see rejecting illegal immigrants as fitting this description.
The problem here is that it is not even scriptural for a government to care for it’s residents. In the Bible, the government’s job is to punish wrongdoers (Rom 13:4).
I wonder if the Jesus-is-a-Democrat people like Jesse Jackson ever read the Bible. “Then I realized that it is good and proper for a man to eat and drink, and to find satisfaction in his toilsome labor under the sun during the few days of life God has given him-for this is his lot. Moreover, when God gives any man wealth and possessions, and enables him to enjoy them, to accept his lot and be happy in his work-this is a gift of God.” (Ecclesiastes 5:18-19)
The second highest commandmant, to love one another, is being used by liberals to blot out the first by making government the provider of all good. A particularly egregious example of that is on The Corner now, where an editor from Reuters wants to kill off the unwanted unborn children whom the government will not provide for.
Communes were tried in Acts. They disappeared. Communism failed. New Deal taxes were rolled back by Kennedy and Reagan. Event the “New Left”, which is the palest form of socialism yet attempted, still can’t seem to find a President or candidate who isn’t a pathological liar. In the end I think we will find that the economic theme of the Bible, individual responsibility before God, will continue to work the best.
That said, immigration policy is set in large part for selfish reasons of people who don’t want competition and want to impose higher costs on their neighbors. That doesn’t justify breaking the law, but we must acknowledge that at times the law needs to be fixed.
Precintchair, God did command a few “social safety nets”…I am leaving class now, I may post them later, I think you Christians will find them interesting…
…immigration policy is set in large part for selfish reasons of people who don’t want competition and want to impose higher costs on their neighbors.
A country wanting to secure it’s borders for safety/economic/cultural/whatever reasons is selfish, but illegal aliens imposing unfair burdens on citizens of said countries isn’t selfish? Having and enforcing immigration laws isn’t necessarily intended to “impose higher costs” on neighboring countries. But why should a country even consider whether having closed/restricted borders “burdens” other countries? I don’t follow your reasoning.
Jon, this is a little off post, but the concept of individual responsibility before God, is not the economic them in the bible. In a theocratic system of governance later turned monarchy, the concept of individual responsibility is a distant second to responsibility to the “government” which in the OT system is the levitical priest system, sacrificial and financial obligations, and the absolute authority of the monarch (post judges) to enact his will on the populace.
Don’t get it twisted, capitalism as it is not, is not in the bible. And furthermore, Christianity makes no provision for a governmental structure under the new covenant with the exception of the ecclesial structure of the church.
As I stated above, the bible should drive ideology, ideology shouldn’t drive biblical interpretation…the closest we have to any form of “government structure” in the New Testament, is the voluntary socialistic system in Acts. Other than that the mandate has always been to “give unto Caeser” unless Caesar directly and specifically contradicts clear laws of God.
LB:
well, I don’t feel like getting into a theological discussion for what could justify this statement:
“However, I am not required to ignore or oppose justice against lawbreakers, even if they are believers. Government is supposed to punish lawbreakers, and Christian criminals are not excepted”
So nitpicking it is.
*sigh*
Whatever. Thanks for playing.
>>There is nothing unbiblical about having and enforcing immigration laws.
I agree with you. In the world as it is of course border controls are necessary. Will that do? (I’m bound to say, I’m a bit puzzled. I had no idea there was some sort of obligation to find something to agree with before commenting here. And how does my being a minister mean that I have to agree with you?)
What I was attempting to say, not very clearly, is that the world of the Bible is very different from the world of the Bible. The whole notion of nation-states with clearly defined borders is a modern one. You only have to look at maps of a much more recent period than the Biblical era to realise that modern border crossings simply could not have existed then. You had peoples, you had land and you knew roughly who belonged where. But I don’t know there’s a single case of anything that looks remotely like “illegal immigration” in the scriptures. Which means we should be circumspect about dogmatism about what the Bible says about it.
The scriptures I alluded to would include Exodus 25 (the sabbatical year), Deut 10:17-19; 14: 28-29; 27:19 but we should actually go back to Cain’s question in Gen 4:9 (to which the unspoken answer is, obviously, “yes”) I don’t need to rehearse all those passages that talk about care for the poor, do I? So for me, a modern nation does have a duty to provide security for its citizens but it also has a duty to be compassionate to those in need, a condition which I’m certain is true of most (all?) illegal immigrants. The story of the Good Samaritan is surely enough to convince you that we are not called only to care for those who are “like us”. And in our democratic system, for all its flaws, “us” includes the government we choose to lead us.
*sigh*
Very exasperating. Richard, your sarcasm is noted. Obviously there is no requirement to agree with me before posting because…nevermind. Waste of energy.
Whatever you say. I’ll get off the board and give others a chance to respond.
Well, its just that the crux of your argument, what it depends on, is that no amount of compassion or teaching of love or whatever warm fuzzies are in the bible can overcome the fact that there is a line in the sand (literally) that these people crossed — That your compassion is limited by that line, and by people’s reactions to it.
I’m sure there are bible quotes out there that tell us to be lawful. I just don’t see them as limiting compassion in the way you argue.
HiRez,
The Bible uses monarchs as the example of the strongest power among men. That authority is used to enforce laws and to extract wealth from the people. That money is used to maintain the wealth of the king, not to redistribute, and it is certainly not looked upon favorably (1 Sam 8:11-18). As I said the purpose of government was for laws and not economics, so I am not dissuaded that the economic theme of the Bible is at the individual level.
The money that is given to priests is for the same reason (when it is not abused) as Paul asks for money, so that they can keep bringing the word of God to man. That is a fee for a service, and so it is not redistribution.
The commune is first mentioned in Acts 2. Acts 3 is then about a beggar who instead of getting the money he is expecting, gets health (i.e. the ability to work) and a lecture on the importance of faith. Again they share what they own in Acts 4. Acts 5 shows that the sin that arises in such a system causes death. In any case, that sharing is among the members of the Church, and is not part of the government.
LaShawn,
The selfishness I was referring to was the protectionism of keeping low-wage service providers out of the country and from competing with citizens. There may indeed be practical security concerns that can only be met by restricting the borders. Also, the neighbors I was referring to was neighbors within our own country who must pay higher prices as a result of lack of competition. You are right, we need not give great weight to how our own economic decisions affect other countries, but with some exceptions. First, they often retaliate. Second, our policies often put people in other countries out of work, which even besides showing a lack of love, means those people can’t buy our products.
Richard,
Deut 14:28-29 is a very important verse for saying what we must do. America does that amount of giving and much more. Lashawn’s point as I understand it is that we are being abused. The tithe is a specific percentage, and according to the Bible, every third year of that is enough. Some people do come to this country to live off us, and that is wrong. My concern with Lashawn’s point is simply that the majority of aliens come here to work and that benefits us all.
We DID invade Mexico.
It’s the conservatives who brought about the first amnesty and the conservatives who are behind bringing about the second one. Why do you think that is?
Pres. Bush said that when he became president he would make the Federal government reimburse the states, especially CA and TX for expenses in holding criminal illegals in state prisons. He has changed his mind. Why do you think that is?
“They only asked that I remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do”
>>Very exasperating. Richard, your sarcasm is noted. Obviously there is no requirement to agree with me before posting because…nevermind. Waste of energy.
>>“Do me a favor: find something in my post to agree with before you dispute anything in this comment.”
???
La Shawn, great post! The gov’t is supposed to uphold the laws, but when it comes to illegal immigration we don’t seem to have the stomach for it.
If we wanted to do something nice for Mexico, we’d move there and fix the place up. I know plenty of Christian groups that go to Mexico during the summers and do things to help Mexicans.
The really sad thing about illegal immigration is that it splits up families. The Mexican gov’t should really do something on its end to stop the madness.
As for us ‘invading’ Mexico, NO WE DID NOT. The Mexican gov’t invited Stephen F. Austin to bring in white settlers because Mexicans were not settling Texas. PRACTICALLY NOBODY WAS LIVING IN TEXAS UNTIL THE AUSTIN 300 CAME IN! Not even the natives! That was a case of LEGALIZED immigration and white settlers were Mexican citizens. When the gov’t started to impose taxes, all of Texas revolted, white and Mexicans alike. Don’t even try that with me.
The “love-gushers” touting amnesty to a fault wherein the illegal immigrant is given full protection disregard the point that in Israel, “There will be ONE TORAH (set of instructions) for both the resident and the stranger.”(Exodus 12:49 and twice in Numbers chapter 15 - verses 16 and 29)
In other words, illegal actions such as ignoring immigration laws are wrong and will be punished in accordance with the prescribed measure of punishment.
Oh, Richard. Good grief. My point was that if I had a requirement for agreement, your comments wouldn’t be on my site. Since your comments are on my site, it follows that there is no requirement for agreement. Follow?
Nowhere in my equally sarcastic but obviously ineffectual statement, “do me a favor…” is there any mention of the word “requirement” or such implication. I was not being literal.
LaShawn has an awesome post up that fries people who think the Bible gives license for illegal immigration.
Posted by Ian S. in Generalat [...]
Let’s try another one. Say I’m the pastor of a Hispanic church here in San Diego and its obvious that some of those in my congregation are “illegal”. They may or not have jobs. They may or may not be receiving some kind of benefits. But they are there, more are coming and many, if not most are coming to a genuine trust in Christ. What should I do? You’ve argued this issue to death, including what the Bible says or does not say, but now you have the issue right in front of you in the brown and hopeful faces of men, women and children. Fish or cut bait. What would YOU, all of you, do?
Then why were so many Christians and politicians against the war with Mexico? One of the greatest hymns ever was written in opposition to that war.
“Once to Every Man and Nation Comes the Moment to Decide”
Long Post
If you want to wax truly philosophical, according to the definition most of you apply to “compassion” we would all have wealth re-allocation until everyone across the globe would have an equal amount of resources available to them. Think about that.
Or if need be I can reframe it in the form of a question –
What is the limit of compassion, and does compassion supercede justice, and God ordained governance.
Jon:
—-The Bible uses monarchs as the example of the strongest power among men. That authority is used to enforce laws and to extract wealth from the people. That money is used to maintain the wealth of the king, not to redistribute, and it is certainly not looked upon favorably (1 Sam 8:11-18). As I said the purpose of government was for laws and not economics, so I am not dissuaded that the economic theme of the Bible is at the individual level.—-Jon
??? This does not prove your thesis in anyway. How can you legitimately attempt to compare a government system of governance by theocracy with judge vicegerents (pre-Saul) and monarchal system (David to diaspora), to the lay leadership of the Pharisees and aristocratic Sadducees upon under the rule of the Roman Caesar (monarchy), to a system such as a democratic republic with an economic system of capitalism? Most definitely there was a barter system, it states that God enlarged the tents of Abraham, so I guess the question I have to ask you is this, are you saying that the barter systems of the ancient agrarian economies were capitalistic, even under the guise of an “omnipotent” monarchy? Remember laws and economics go hand in hand. Remember Russia?
—–The money that is given to priests is for the same reason (when it is not abused) as Paul asks for money, so that they can keep bringing the word of God to man. That is a fee for a service, and so it is not redistribution.—-Jon
The Levitical priesthood was exclusively funded by the other tribes of Israel, by COMMAND, it has been stated that up to 30% of an individuals income every year was commanded to be given, be it through direct tithe, indirect mandatory sacrifices or various other commanded giving types. That isn’t even in taking into account the fact the Hebrews were commanded to forgive all debts every seven years. If that is not non-voluntary wealth re-allocation, ummm, I don’t know what is.
—-The commune is first mentioned in Acts 2. Acts 3 is then about a beggar who instead of getting the money he is expecting, gets health (i.e. the ability to work) and a lecture on the importance of faith. Again they share what they own in Acts 4. Acts 5 shows that the sin that arises in such a system causes death. In any case, that sharing is among the members of the Church, and is not part of the government.—- Jon
You are 100% correct, the bible states the “sold what they had and gave to each other according to need” this is voluntary socialism, and the way the first church operated. There is no mandated form of economic system or governmental system provided by Christ in the New Testament. We know he and Paul functioned under the Roman Emperor. Again, are you suggesting that the Roman Empire functioned as a capitalistic system such as we know today?
—-First, they often retaliate. Second, our policies often put people in other countries out of work, which even besides showing a lack of love, means those people can’t buy our products. —-Jon
Finally, America has been the single greatest force in bringing wealth to the world through our competitive economic practices, as well as our utilization of the economic concept of specialization to enrich other companies of lessor means.
I just don’t buy the concept that compassion means – Sacrifice the laws of the government God put in place. Romans 13
http://www.dellgines.blogspot.com
This is a very long post (and it hope it formats okay), but I think all this needs to be said.
The greatest influx of people outside the state of California came during the Dust Bowl era as exemplified in Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath, yet California was able to able to absorb all those Okies without the state falling into the sea. Solutions can be found if we wish to. The problem is that we do not wish to.
That’s because the Scriptures contain no references at all to national immigration laws. Perhaps God does not see national immigration laws as something worthy of even enacting. Truth is, though, that the Bible routinely notes that the People of God are to treat aliens with the same concern as widows and orphans. Their legality or illegality is not God’s concern:
“You shall not wrong an alien, neither shall you oppress him, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.
(Exodus 22:21)
You shall not glean your vineyard, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and for the foreigner. I am Yahweh your God.
(Leviticus 19:10)
” ‘If a stranger lives as a foreigner with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. The stranger who lives as a foreigner with you shall be to you as the native-born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you lived as foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am Yahweh your God.
(Leviticus 19:33-34)
For Yahweh your God, he is God of gods, and Lord of lords, the great God, the mighty, and the awesome, who doesn’t regard persons, nor takes reward. He does execute justice for the fatherless and widow, and loves the foreigner, in giving him food and clothing. Therefore love the foreigner; for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt.
(Deuteronomy 10:17-19)
Cursed be he who wrests the justice due to the foreigner, fatherless, and widow. All the people shall say, Amen.
(Deuteronomy 27:19)
Moreover concerning the foreigner, who is not of your people Israel, when he shall come out of a far country for your name’s sake (for they shall hear of your great name, and of your mighty hand, and of your outstretched arm); when he shall come and pray toward this house; hear in heaven, your dwelling place, and do according to all that the foreigner calls to you for; that all the peoples of the earth may know your name, to fear you, as does your people Israel, and that they may know that this house which I have built is called by my name.
(1 Kings 8:41-43)
(the foreigner has not lodged in the street, but I have opened my doors to the traveler);
(Job 31:32)
Yahweh, how long will the wicked, how long will the wicked triumph? They pour out arrogant words. All the evildoers boast. They break your people in pieces, Yahweh, and afflict your heritage. They kill the widow and the alien, and murder the fatherless.
(Psalms 94:3-6)
The people of the land have used oppression, and exercised robbery; yes, they have troubled the poor and needy, and have oppressed the foreigner wrongfully.
(Ezekiel 22:29)
Don’t oppress the widow, nor the fatherless, the foreigner, nor the poor; and let none of you devise evil against his brother in your heart.’
(Zechariah 7:10)
“But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. Before him all the nations will be gathered, and he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will tell those on his right hand, ‘Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry, and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me drink. I was a stranger, and you took me in. I was naked, and you clothed me. I was sick, and you visited me. I was in prison, and you came to me.’ “Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you; or thirsty, and give you a drink? When did we see you as a stranger, and take you in; or naked, and clothe you? When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?’ “The King will answer them, ‘Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ Then he will say also to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you didn’t give me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and you didn’t take me in; naked, and you didn’t clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’ “Then they will also answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and didn’t help you?’ “Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you didn’t do it to one of the least of these, you didn’t do it to me.’ These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
(Matthew 25:31-46)
By faith, Abraham, when he was called, obeyed to go out to the place which he was to receive for an inheritance. He went out, not knowing where he went. By faith, he lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a land not his own, dwelling in tents, with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise. For he looked for the city which has the foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
(Hebrews 11:8-10)
Consider the entire book of Ruth. Consider that we Christians are merely sojourners on this planet. The entire Bible is the story of people who were aliens to the rest of the surrounding world. And let us not forget that Jesus Himself was an alien in this world, the ultimate foreigner.
Yet it is hypocritical for Christians to demand the government change the laws on abortion and to establish ones concerning the legal definition of true marriage, but then look at our immigration laws and just shrug as if nothing can be done to bring Christ into them. How many Christians were apoplectic over the Elian Gonzalez issue, justifying the bending of every immigration law we have? “God forbid that we should send that boy who is here illegally back to where he came from!”
Fact is, we just don’t care about this issue unless it serves us somehow.
Again, how quickly would you place a call to INS if a fellow Christian who just happened to be an illegal immigrant knocked on your door or showed up at your church’s food pantry looking for something to eat?
Our words and intentions mean nothing, only how we live out what we say and believe.
Irrelevant? C’mon LB, it’s the very point! If Egypt in that day did have immigration laws, then the Holy Family probably broke them even as God directed them to do. If Egypt did not have immigration laws, then that is also relevant because it shows that even a large nation of that day did not impose those laws on people; they found a way to deal with their borders without the need for such laws.
You are trying to make a case for justification of why Jesus’ family fled to Egypt, but if you do, then you have to also allow justification to be made for every illegal.
We Christians desire our government to have a Christ-like response to abortion, don’t we? We argue that America is a Christian nation and that our laws are based in large part on the Bible (or have we forgotten the Roy Moore debacle?)
We’ve got a self-proclaimed evangelical in Bush saying (before 9/11) that he wanted to grant amnesty to all the illegals in this country. Isn’t that Christ-like, similar to the ideas espoused in the OT Year of Jubilee?
Your argument would be the same one used against abolitionists. Their standing up against the slavery laws of mid-19th century changed government in this country. They did this by breaking laws that were unjust. I live in a town that was a major waypoint on the Underground Railroad, I know how badly both those who were sheltered and those who gave shelter were treated by our government and its laws.
There were Christians in Nazi Germany who felt obligated to report Jews in hiding to the authorities.
There were Christians in the Dixie South who felt obligated to report escaped slaves.
There are Christians today who feel obligated to report the poor and indigent who have crossed our borders.
I am not going to impugn this comment, but I will say that when we talk about illegals as just numbers, as people who put us grossly rich Americans out just a tad (unless they tend our gardens), I get the feeling that we simply don’t care. As long as they stay poor in their own country, let them be someone else’s problem, but not ours.
That is in no way the heart of Jesus.
You have not made you case based on Scripture.
I, too, struggle with this. If I am overly harsh here, it is to myself as well.
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?
Where in the Bible would we find, for example, that enacting and enforcing laws is “oppressing” people? Part of the problem we have in secular society is that we can justify anything we want. You just can’t do that with the Bible. You can’t 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 you’re trying to prove…that immigration laws are unbiblical? That Christians should ignore illegal immigration because “Jesus was an alien?” Good grief.
By the way, who’s oppressing aliens, DLE, and what does that have to do with America’s immigration policy? And comparing slavery with Nazi Germany with illegal aliens who’ve crossed the border…Words fail me.
Although it is wrong to support criminal activity, you say that I’ve 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?
You’ve gone off into many tangents in this comment. This thing has gotten off-point, taken on a life of its own and crossed over into the absurd. I’ll probably end up blogging about this again tomorrow.
Revelation describes Christ at His 2nd Coming ruling the world with a “rod of iron”… Why do we only want to see the “gentle, compassionate” Jesus and not the “just” Jesus? There is room for both… I think we should make it far easier for people to immigrate to this country *legally*, but continue to punish *illegal* immigration.
La Shawn,
This is a great post, as usual. I must say that you indeed have the patience of Job to bear some of these folks giving you the business with their “real Christians are only Christians if they believe in peace and love and the liberal political agenda” line. That is precisely the reason I have largely ceased participating in these “mixed” forums, as it were, with believers voicing their opinions alongside non-believers. I guess to them the “real” Jesus is a liberal Jesus, as so “eloquently” argued by the Reverend Jackson in his comments sometime back.
I must give you credit for being absolutely fair especially when the temptation (in my opinion) is so strong to respond in a less than Christ-like way. Keep up the great work. Your intelligence and eloquence are persuading me to give these open forums a try once again.
Once again,you’ve driven home the point with tremendous clarity of thought.
“Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees”
HiRez,
You asked “are you saying that the barter systems of the ancient agrarian economies were capitalistic, even under the guise of an “omnipotent” monarchy? Remember laws and economics go hand in hand. Remember Russia?”
The word capitalism was coined by Marx to discredit the basic idea. I prefer the term “freedom of enterprise.” To that basic idea we also add in industrialism, but Adam Smith wrote his work in 1776 well before industrialism took off, so I would say that he developed those ideas under an absolute monarchy, but with a feudal economy. By advocating laissez-faire, Smith was saying that loosening control of the state over the economy would improve the welfare of the people. On that point I think you and I agree, and I quoted Ecclesiastes 5:18-19 above to show a similar idea in Scripture, but there the benefit from hard work is to appreciate the gifts of God.
One point where differ with you is when you say “If applied to its end, we have immigrants from across the globe utilizing freely the system that is provided for by the governance of the united states, thereby weaking the system.” On the contrary, people coming here for the most part understand the opportunity and the risk, and we all benefit from their hard work.
I think our current immigration laws are making criminals out of some of our hardest working people and so the law must be changed.
Wow. This is the first post of yours I’ve read (for some reason, I’ve heard your name, but never wandered over). Fantastic. Wonderful. And I can’t wait to read more!
I am very disappointed that we are not willing to discuss this on a level that goes beyond “Ooh, you are SOOOOO wrong.” I thought I was engaging people here who are willing to go deeper than that. My point by point rebuttal is above; I am hoping to get something just as methodical in reply.
And lastly, to those who commented that my post is a simple-minded “Jesus loves everyone” screed, perhaps it would be best to consider that once in a while Jesus is more than the angry guy who drove out the moneychangers with a whip. A good systematic theology means considering ideas that are outside the scope of your comfort zone. Jesus not only metes out justice on the wicked, but also on those who claim His name but show no mercy to the people God says to show mercy to (consider the Matthew 25 passage I enclosed.)
One last comment:
Has anyone here EVER had any personal contact with real illegal aliens on a consistent basis–and I’m not talking about having them serve you at Taco Bell? Anyone ever sat down and talked with them, worked beside them, prayed for them, eaten with them, taken them for medical help, or taught their children? Anyone given them a glass of water in Jesus’ name or shared the Lord with them?
Anyone?
Tom B.,
I invite you to check out my blog Cerulean Sanctum and determine for yourself just what kind of “liberal Christian” I am. Especially consider “A Flawed Love Letter?” and “Whatever Happened to Sin?” found in the July 2004 and June 2004 archives.
Well, DLE, I have lived next door to one Mexican (possibly Guatemalan) family. The woman was deferential and seemed disinclined to speak with a man without the presence of her husband (a common behavior, I am told, among more traditional cultures). The man spoke English well, and was very friendly, and usually stopped whatever he was doing to offer a warm greeting.
These people, in fact, are far friendlier than the jaded yuppified white natives. The exception to this is outside the one-on-one contact; when I, as a white man, venture into the quarter of town where they predominate. It is then that I am looked upon with the darkest of suspicion. (I will curb my outrage at being viewed as an interloper in the very places where I actually grew up).
Contrary to the views that others hold about me, I do not ‘hate’ other cultures. I just happen to believe that a “nation” is more than just geographic borders. A nation is the home land of a distinct people, and this “nation” is no different.
DLE — come to my classroom, any period, and you will find I probably have more contact with illegal aliens in a week than you do in a year. And I find myself caught between two sovereigns there — a federal governemtn that SAYS these folks are here illegally (but won’t act on the law) and a school district that promises to fire employees who report illegals (and has done it).
I err on the side of ensuring that my disabled wife gets a steady supply of medication paid for by my paycheck and insurance.
Personally, I can't say I'm totally convinced either way, although I would say I've had a leaning towards La Shawn's position. But you're making me think, DLE.
Maybe I'll summarize what seem to be the significant issues and some questions arising from them:
1. Government's role. Is it different for a secular nation than it was for God's chosen nation, whose purpose was explicitly to make his name great among the other nations? (I do believe it is different in these two situations.) Some of the disagreement over what the Bible commands probably comes from our perspectives on this question.
2. A Christian's role, with respect to that Government, in a Democratic society. Should we try to vote Biblical values into law if we can? Both the black & white ones and the gray ones? (Arguably a recursive issue, I know, because we don't all even agree on which ones are which. But I would suggest that abortion falls into the B&W camp, while specific social/economic policies, being just different approaches to the general "compassion" command, do not.)
3. A Christian's responsibility when that Government's laws explicitly contradict God's laws. I'm guessing most of us would say, in the abstract at least, that we have an obligation to follow God's laws over man's (Acts 4:18-20).
4. A Christian's responsibility when said laws don't contradict God's laws. I'm guessing most of us would say our obligation is to uphold those laws (Romans 13).
Presumably the problem comes in deciding whether we're in case 3 or case 4. (Which I believe is what HiRez said early in the exchange.)
Clearly, the Bible does command believers to exercise compassion towards the poor and afflicted. Clearly, many illegal immigrants fall into this category. What isn't clear is how much harm to poor & afflicted citizens is caused by the societal burden of caring for the illegals.
i.e. Open borders aren't a purely financial burden, only on the middle-class and wealthy, are they? It seems to me that the part of our citizen population that is truly poor must also being paying some kind of price in missed opportunities and aid? If so, compassion for the poor doesn't necessarily demand support for free immigration, does it?
Even if we concede that point, though, is there any chance we could quantify the impacts in a way that satisfies both sides of the debate? Guessing there is not, how do we proceed? We each vote our convictions and attempt to rationally persuade others, right?
Then, as DLE asked, when faced with real individuals, what do we do? Turn them in? Ignore the situation? If they're believers, counsel them to turn themselves in or look for other means to rectify the situation? I'd like to think I'd take that last route when it was relevant, but I really don't know what I'd do for a non-Christian.
Is is appropriate to hold one position globally (try to legislatively prevent such things from happening), but the other individually (assist or ignore current known illegals)? Is that hypocritical, or is it just "gracious"?
Anyway, these are just some of the questions that come to my mind as I ponder this issue, many of which I don't have a clear answer in my own head yet. Thanks for getting me thinking, all.
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 don’t remember ever being taught or studying anything from the Bible that exempts us as Christians from the laws of man. In fact when we are first introduced to Jesus it is after Mary and Joseph are traveling in order to obey the law and register for taxation.
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.
Comments on this entry are closed.