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.

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. ]]> http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/28/worldview/comment-page-1/#comment-2226 ThePrecinctChair Sun, 29 Aug 2004 05:58:43 +0000 http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/28/worldview/#comment-2226 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. 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.)

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.

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.