I Was a Stranger and You Invited Me In
December 10th, 2007 by David RogersPosted in Culture, Current Events, David Rogers, Discipleship |
Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ Matthew 25:34-36
While I am home in the States on furlough from the mission field, people ask me from time to time if there are certain things that stand out to me, or that are especially hard to adapt to. And, indeed, there are some. For the most part, though, my family and I feel very blessed to be here, and warmly received by our family and friends, and brothers and sisters in Christ in the various churches we visit sharing about the work of the International Mission Board.
However, if I am honest, there is one particular thing that has stood out to me and concerns me as I observe from the standpoint of someone who has been away for awhile. That thing is our attitude towards immigrants.
As I listen to conservative talk radio, I have been amazed and dismayed at the rabid and contemptuous rhetoric that is often bandied about denouncing immigrants. Most disappointing of all, though, for me, has been to hear, on various occasions, this same attitude mirrored in the comments of brothers and sisters in Christ.
I am totally aware there are different schools of thought related to the best methods to positively assimilate immigrants into a new culture. I am aware of the potential danger of terrorists infiltrating our borders, and perpetrating acts of violence against innocent victims. I am aware that there are certain limits our economy can withstand, and that, if we allow too many immigrants to come in all at once, everyone suffers as a result. I also believe that, both as a Christian and as a citizen of the United States, I have a responsibility to support and submit to the rule of law.
Because of all this, I am open to listening to rational arguments in regard to this policy or that on immigration. I am not talking so much here about one particular policy or another. I am talking about attitudes.
As followers of the Lord Jesus, I do not believe we are given the option of closing our hearts against those from other countries and cultures. When Jesus said “I was a stranger and you invited me in,” He might well have said today “I was an immigrant, and you showed me kindness and hospitality.”
The truth is not all immigrants, whether legal or not, are potential thugs. Many are honorable people who are looking for better opportunities for their children, or to support their impoverished families back home in their native lands as best they know how. Even if some of them may not be totally pure in their motives or behavior, though, that does not give us an excuse to disdain and despise them. Thank God that He had mercy on us while we were yet sinners.
In my ministry in Spain the last several years, the Lord has given me the privilege of getting to know quite a few immigrants on a close up, personal basis. I can tell you it sure influences your perspective when you are thinking of real people, with real names and faces, and real stories. On many occasions, I have been led to ask myself why I was afforded the privilege to be born in America and have access to so many blessings, while others, by no fault of their own, have been born into very different circumstances.
Sometimes, I believe that, from a strictly human standpoint, what may be in the interest of the United States is not always necessarily in the interest of the kingdom of God. And as followers of Christ, we are called to be, first and foremost, citizens of the kingdom of God.
‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’ Matthew 25:37-40
69 Responses to “I Was a Stranger and You Invited Me In”
By Gary Snowden on Dec 10, 2007 at 7:14 am
David,
A very good and timely word. One cannot read the OT prophets for very long without grasping the clear truth that God expressed special concern for certain classes of people–the orphans, the widows, and the sojourners (or immigrants if you will). One of Israel’s great shortcomings was their neglect of these special groups that God singled out for extra care, given the fact that their status meant they weren’t included in the normal family structures that would otherwise meet their needs.
By William on Dec 10, 2007 at 7:47 am
I agree with your point that there is a lot of unjustifiable demagoguery concerning immigration in America; however, in my state one night in traffic court is sufficient to demonstrate that illegal immigration is a problem that must be addressed. Christians can certainly participate in the resolution of this problem while maintaining Christian compassion.
By Geoff Baggett on Dec 10, 2007 at 7:58 am
William,
I agree. I think we need to be careful that we do not “lump” the current climate regarding illegal immigrants from Mexico and places south to an overall attitude toward immigration in general. I don’t discern that most people have a fundamentally negative attitude toward immigrants. Instead, I think that many people are frustrated with the government’s inability to protect the borders and stop the flood of illegal aliens entering the country. Some of that frustration will, invariably, be directed toward those illegals.
David,
In my little hometown we have had a long-established group of Mexican folk, many of them seasonal workers. I’m sure that some are illegal. But they are well received. We even have a small community of Chinese people who came here to open a restaurant, and have settled into our community quite nicely. One of my church members helped the matriarch of the family learn enough English to be able to pass her test and receive her driver’s license. I, for one, do not believe that we are in an overall “negative mode” toward immigration in general. But there is dramatic and passionate conviction regarding the illegal entry issue. Maybe I’m just missing something. I look forward to other’s insights today.
By John Daly on Dec 10, 2007 at 8:57 am
Frankly, it matters not where one may come from, I am more concerned with where they may be going.
By Russell on Dec 10, 2007 at 9:51 am
I have planted 2 churches in the US made up mainly of Hispanic immigrants. I have lots of great memories of people in Dallas and in Roxboro (NC) helping out and being great examples of ministering to Jesus through the poor. I have also had other experiences which were not so great, but they were genuinely fewer.
As to what David is saying, things seem to have changed. There really is a difference in how socially acceptable it is for Christians to communicate very aggressive messages against people in America who don’t speak English, much less against illegal immigrants.
I have had e-mails forwarded to me by ‘prayer partners’ who love the non-English speaking folk as long as they are ‘over there’.
The one that finally got me to ask some direct questions was one falsely attributed to Andy Rooney which included profanity at the punch line about cops shooting them if they hadn’t learned enough English to understand Freeze! (or get your hands up, or something like that).
The almost universal element in these conversations (via e-mail or in person) is about protecting the United States of America. I understand about traffic court (I worked as an interpreter in court) and I understand about responsible government protecting its citizen (I was a US Marine). What I do not understand is the emotional intensity behind some of the arguments which suggests a disproportionate loyalty to earthly kingdoms (e.g. USA) vs the one Jesus rules and has invited us into (Kingdom of God).
Jesus said it, what did he mean by it? The question to me is: Am I really able to give an account to him, not just the others in the debates for how I have thought, spoken and acted towards him via the least of these?
By Rob Ayers on Dec 10, 2007 at 10:47 am
What is lost in this discussion is Romans 13 (which David to his credit discussed in passing - but if we are to have a holistic discussion of this topic, it needs to be broached). What is the purpose of government if laws enacted are so flippantly disregarded? For governments have been ordained by God, so that we should fear Him.
Do we give concessions to the poor single mother of young children who then steals food from the store? Do we give the older gentleman a pass when he takes prescriptions for a dying wife? While each of these examples are understandable, and we might have sympathy for their plights, still the hand of justice is swift - for if everybody had a carte blanche opportunity to rob and steal when ever they needed to, then the world in which we live would be chaotic indeed - besides being in violation of God’s law, these are in violation of the order which God ordained.
I submit to you that the border is in such a state of chaos because enacted laws are not being followed for various reasons. Our plight as Christians in this is a tensioned filled crisis - both under command to care for the poor and underprivileged, while at the same time encouraging all to submit to the authority of law which is God ordained. Can we truly justify that in this case the law (written to protect our borders from infiltration of subversives, to protect our workers from sub-wage earners) and not to mention a travesty to everybody else who does obey the law (often to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars) and comes to be a legal citizen. Is this a law that we can say pricks our conscious to readily disobey or to say nothing to others about their disobedience to it? At what level then can we tell our children to not steal, yet give exemption to some because of their plight? Is this not relativistic thinking? Help me here please.
Rob
By David Rogers on Dec 10, 2007 at 11:54 am
I will attempt to answer the comments of several people all together here.
I think that the following sentence from Russell’s comment in a lot of ways gets to the core of what I am saying:
“What I do not understand is the emotional intensity behind some of the arguments which suggests a disproportionate loyalty to earthly kingdoms (e.g. USA) vs the one Jesus rules and has invited us into (Kingdom of God).”
No, it is generally not a good thing to encourage people to break laws or circumvent the system. However, we must ask ourselves why so many people are willing to take the risks involved in doing so. I think very, very few immigrants would choose to come illegally, if it were in their reach to come legally. However, if we allowed too many to come legally, perhaps, as Rob mentions, our own workers would not be protected from sub-wage earners.
I realize Rob is talking about illegals here working for below minimum wage. But, what I wonder is to what degree we, as a country, want to keep immigrants out primarily in the interest of protecting our economy, and making sure we don’t have to share the pie too much with those who aren’t “true Americans.”
Making it easier to immigrate legally may well not be in the interest of the US economy. But, taking care of the poor and underprivileged, whether they were fortunate enough to be born in the US or not, is, I believe a core value of the kingdom of God.
By Rob Ayers on Dec 10, 2007 at 12:17 pm
David,
I brought up some of the purpose of the law when I suggested one of the reasons to restrict immigration was to protect the economy. I really do not know if it does or not. And of course we can turn this around - is the law that would give “legal” residents a “minimum wage” a detriment to these illegal immigrants because being “illegal” means flying under the radar, as well as being subjected to conditions that otherwise they would not because of their status.
The point is this is besides the point. The law is the law. And where one is born is irrelevant in the view of the sovereignty of God. To each side this is a test. For our Christian brethren on this side of the divide: will we open our door to the stranger, and give out of our prosperity to their need on both sides of the border? And what of those who are tempted because of their lack? Can they be content with what they have and go through legal channels, both secular and divine to meet thier needs, or will they break the laws of both God and man because of their discontent and unwillingness to keep faith? The core values of the Kingdom of God is both of these - not this over that.
Rob
By David Rogers on Dec 10, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Rob,
I see a possible parallel in this to the pro-life movement. Yes, of course, we should oppose abortion. But, our pro-life stance sometimes has a hollow ring to it if we are not doing anything, at the same time, to help single moms.
By the same token, we can defend the law, and the mandate to obey the law. But, if at the same time, we are closing our eyes and turning a cold shoulder to the plight of those whose situation leads them to disobey the law, our defense of the law has a sort of hollow ring. In such a case, we may well be good pharisees. But perhaps not very good Christians.
By Rob Ayers on Dec 10, 2007 at 1:45 pm
I take a big exception, David, to the Pharisee comment, and believe it was clandestine and innapropriate. I thought that in my response that I kept an even keel, by both mentioning the needs and obligations of both ourselves and those we minister. The converse of duty is responsibility, brother. We have a duty to minister to those who are in need. We also have a responsibility to tell them what they need to save themselves from judgement. They also have a duty and responsibility as well.
For example, we have a duty to tell the world that abortion is a sin - we also have a responsibility to minister to the victims of abortion - the unborn child as well as mom, and even to those who made the wrong choice to terminate the pregnancy. Society and mom also have a duty and responsibility - a duty not to kill the unborn child, and a responsibility to make right what in most cases was an irresponsible choice.
This post you have written desires to share with us our duty. Thank you for sharing that - we need it. It has left out in my opinion our responsibility which I guess is left to folks like me to remind us all - and of course the post has little regard for sharing both the duty and responsibility of those of whom you are calling us to minister to. This is the culture in which we live - too many people shirking both duty AND responsibility for their choices, and anybody calling for both in the “victim” is considered a Pharisee or a racist. I guess I should put my name up for “Pharisee of the year” in your book, heh brother?
Rob
By David Rogers on Dec 10, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Rob,
I am so sorry for not communicating clearly.
I did NOT mean to insinuate that YOU were being a pharisee here. Indeed, I agree with you that you are adding in a valid counterpoint to what I am saying here.
Reading my comment over again, though, I can see where you might well make that assumption. Once again, I am very sorry.
The point I meant to communicate is that if one were to only emphasize obeying the law (as some undoubtedly do), that would be phariseeism. I have seen nothing to indicate that such is the case with you.
By Rob Ayers on Dec 10, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Thanks David for the good word.
It is just cold today - perhaps that explains my sensitivity. Grant me your forgiveness for my overreaction to your previous post.
Blessings,
Rob
By David Rogers on Dec 10, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Rob,
Better to get it out, than leave it inside brewing. Besides, you gave me the chance to clear that up, since other people would have likely read it the same way you did.
Cyber-hug.
David
By Texas on Dec 10, 2007 at 4:04 pm
This is definitely a tough issue. I believe we should do all we can to minister to the people God brings in to our lives whether they are here illegally or not. The churches in our area do a great job in facilitating that kind of ministry. Still, many of us feel burned by the difference between those who are here legally and those here illegally.
Some of what we think of as “rhetoric” is not just a basket of empty words but an expression of genuine frustration. Allow me to give to others and I am fine; force me to give and I have a problem. In our state we have a problem.
Our medical and educational resources are stretched thin when it comes to providing services to those here illegally. Let me bring it down to terms we can understand. If your son breaks his arm and you take him to the emergency room at a typical Houston hospital you may very well be looking at a wait of four to eight hours before he can be seen. The reason: our hospitals are swamped with treatment of good folks here illegally. Much of that problem could be addressed by efforts from small clinics to provide primary care (http://www.click2houston.com/news/14326781/detail.html) rather than those patients clogging the ER. But that is not a solution to solve the lion’s share of the problem.
Imagine you are the homeowner whose taxes can go up by hundreds of dollars a year in order to fund an increasing number of students who are here illegally. Compassion is one thing, coersion is another altogether.
I personally do not ask if someone checked in at the gate when I minister to them. When I see a need I give what I can. Forcing me to meet that need by penalysing my family or through a heavier tax burden is not the right option.
By Bernard Shuford on Dec 10, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Seems like the question here is whether Christians have the right to oppose illegal immigration, but, to be fair to David, that’s not what he says.
The point is whether we despise Hispanics and other largely immigrant groups of people simply because there are large groups that immigrate illegally.
In other words, do I turn YOU out of my home because a white man killed my brother. Hypothetically. (I really don’t even have a brother).
Do we love EVERYONE, or do we just love those who look like we do?
I do maintain, though, that Americans have the right to oppose illegal immigration. I also maintain that Christians have the right to oppose illegal immigration without violating the standard of Christlike behavior. I find it absurd to interpret the “you took me in” verses in such as way as to force American Christians to support illegal immigration.
A man who murders another man and thus winds up in jail might benefit from the prison ministry of a local church and even become saved. Does this mean that we should condone murder? I think not.
The legal issue is not the same as the issue of Christian love. There is more at stake.
By David Rogers on Dec 10, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Texas,
I agree we must divide between “rhetoric” and valid reasoning. And, I would be the first to admit that I have not studied out all the issues well enough in order to argue in favor of one policy or another in response to the valid concerns you bring up.
What I am daring to address here is a biblically informed position regarding our general attitude towards immigrants. Balance in regard to actual decisions regarding policy will no doubt come as a result of listening openly to all views, including the one you are expressing here.
The danger I want to point out (and let me make perfectly clear I am not stating that you have fallen victim to this danger) is that of letting our positions on certain policies influence our attitudes towards certain people. While, as some have already pointed out, there are many who are able to successfully make this division, my personal perception is that there are many Christians who do not. And, if such is indeed the case, I don’t think we do well to just “sweep it under the carpet.”
By David Rogers on Dec 10, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Bernard,
I definitely agree that, as Christians, we have as much of a right as anyone to oppose illegal immigration. I am asking us, though, to consider, while we are clear on our views about obeying the law, whether or not there is good warrant to change the laws that make it so hard for so many to immigrate legally.
Someone can correct me if I am wrong here. But it seems to me like the argument I hear so often is: “that’s the law; they’re illegal; and that settles it.” But the laws of our land our only the reflection of the views of the people who vote them in.
For instance, I have heard people arguing on talk radio that the best way to counteract illegal immigration is to cut back on legal immigration. I am not saying there may not be a certain amount of reason to such a view statistically. But, I do question whether such a view is really one that takes into account a Christian concern for the welfare of our fellow human beings, whether they be Americans or not.
By cb scott on Dec 10, 2007 at 5:00 pm
David,
Forgive me if someone has already brought this up for I have been lazy and not read all of the comments in the comment thread as is my normal custom before boarding the ship to do battle. I have been on other blogs on this day off trying to get Southern Baptists to vote for Mike Huckabee for President of the United States.
Now, for my question. Do you believe people should obey the laws of this nation and the one they are departing if they have a desire to come to the United States for a better opportunity in this life?
Or, do you think the law of the land should be thrown to the wind in light of the great need such people have for seeking a better way of life found in this nation?
I believe any man or woman has a God given right to beter themselves in this life as well as to be prepared for the one to come.
In order to be prepared for the one to come a person must come by way of a salvic relationship with Christ. There is no other way and there is no short-cut.
In order to live in this nation I believe one must come as prescribed by the very laws by which this nation is governed. To come any other way is to become a criminal within our borders. Criminal activity should not be winked at no matter the circumstance.
cb
By David Rogers on Dec 10, 2007 at 5:31 pm
CB,
I would basically answer you the same way I did Bernard in comment #17.
By the way, so far, from what I have heard, I have been impressed by the way Huckabee, while taking a “hard-line” on illegal immigration, seems to, at the same time, express compassion for the plight of the immigrant.
For some other “conservatives,” it seems to me they are in a contest to see who can talk the hardest against immigration. The less compassion and wiggle-room the better. That is the type of attitude that concerns me.
By Russell Minick on Dec 10, 2007 at 6:39 pm
For each of us:
Why does Jesus make such a dramatic point of communicating to us that what we do to the least of the people in this world is so very personal to him?
Is that our first question when it comes to issues like immigration and other questions of economic security?
Do our more detailed positions (border enforcement, costs of social provision in hospitals, schools etc., crime proglems, etc. etc.) flow from our understanding of Jesus’ concern for the poor or flow around it? Do we use Romans 13 to undermine Jesus on the poor or to elucidate? Micah 6:8 says it is our responsibility to integrate justice and mercy in our hearts and policies while remembering He is Lord. Thus the initial point of the thread:
The attitude by some is troubling. A right heart shouldn’t be so fierce in building a wise policy (on immigration or other things). Speak up, but speak the truth in love (which includes tone but is more than just tone).
By cb scott on Dec 10, 2007 at 8:14 pm
David,
I agree with you basically here. I do not believe the laws of this nation reflect the views of the people in general. The laws of this land reflect the prescribed Constitution of our Republic which, in turn, reflects the Judeo-Christian ethic. If we were governed by the views of the people in general we would be in a constant state of chaos.
I think you are right about several of those seeking the Presidency right now. I also like Huckabee’s justice with mercy position.
I believe any person entering this country the proper way should be accepted as an equal with equal opportunity to take advantage of the freedoms afforded any and all Americans.
Russell,
A proper understanding of Romans 13 would never undermine Jesus for He wrote Romans 13 and there is no contradiction between what Jesus said in the gospels and what Paul said in Romans for ultimately all Scripture comes from the same Source. It is biblical to seek both justice and mercy in all things. It is never biblical to support one without the other.
cb
By Russell Minick on Dec 10, 2007 at 8:37 pm
CB
You are right. The unity is assumed (on this blog, including by me). Thus the question, how is that unity (justice and mercy in humility) manifesting for each of us? More specifically, how do the divergent aspects get reassembled after I have made a point of one aspect?
What I read in David’s post was an honest account of a perception from a someone is in one sense an insider (SBC from Tenn.) and in another sense an outsider (his tent is pitched in Spain). I wanted to ‘amen’ his observation only to say I sense some concerning signs by some Christians in America as well. I renounced violent anti-abortionists without losing my voice on being Pro-Life. We can, and many do, argue for a well integrated policy on dealing wisely with the complex issues of immigration from a Kingdom of God perspective 1st, a USA perspective second.
Are there good reasons for some of the intensity in the immigration debates? You who are living through the challenges will know better than me (I am an immigrant to Asia). The hope is that hearing a family voice say (just make sure…) is a good way for us to check ourselves.
It sounds like you, and others, have said to David “Duly noted, we will watch for that as we deal with this difficult problem.” If so, that is great and the function of a discussion oriented community succeeds over and against a dissention oriented community.
shalom,
russell
By David Rogers on Dec 10, 2007 at 8:43 pm
I agree that there is no contradiction between what Jesus said in the Gospels and what Paul said in Romans 13. However, I think we must remember that Romans 13 was written to people in a very different political milieu than us. In a modern democracy, we not only have a responsibility to be subject to the higher powers (provided their laws don’t go against the laws of God), but also to speak into the law-making process. In a sense, we ourselves are the “higher powers.” We cannot shirk our responsibility for working towards justice and mercy, sacrificing it on the altar of “being subject to the higher powers.” We must also work actively to support and effect justice and mercy, even in the legal process. Our ultimate hope as Christians, though, is not found in human government. And we must be careful to never hang too much of our hope there.
A related question, though one I was not really trying to raise here, is whether or not civil disobedience is ever justified. If we are asked to directly disobey clear commands of God, I believe it is. I admit it is up for debate what are the exact implications of the commands of God to show hospitality to “strangers,” though.
By Russell Minick on Dec 10, 2007 at 9:44 pm
How do immigrants (legal or not) affect our faith?
They give us access to complete the Great Commission.
How do immigrants (legal or not) affect our quality of life?
They make it change.
Which one raises our heart rate more easily, frequently, naturally?
By IamanM on Dec 10, 2007 at 10:00 pm
I echo the call for all of us to check our attitudes humbly and thoroughly, for that is the real point of the post. It seems like one of the themes that has come up in response to this post (and one that often comes to my mind) is that as long as immigrants are obeying the law, then most people in the US, including Christians, would welcome them warmly. It’s the law-breakers that we don’t want. We can give this response without ever asking ourselves tough questions, though.
Are the current laws a good reflection of our attitudes and beliefs? Should they be? Or are they just a convenient answer to avoid dealing with tougher issues? (Please take no personal offense at these questions. They are ones that I often ask myself…) Why are we not campaigning to get the current immigration laws changed? And when Christians are seen doing this, why are they usually on the side trying to make our immigration policies even stricter? Why do we assume that any hardship that comes upon our families by taking care of others is wrong? Where does the Bible guarantee the church all of the economic benefits that most Americans currently enjoy? Speedy health care? Low taxes? We could go on and on…
We recently made a quick trip back to the US for a family wedding. The “immigration problem” came up at least twice while we were home. My wonderful, Godly, genuinely caring, Southern Baptist family talked about this issue with an attitude that I have not seen from them ever. Instead of deeper comments filled with grace, humility, and love that were based in Scripture, most of their comments and arguments were reactionary, emotional, and based on the law or economic principles. There definitely is an attitude problem - even in the church.
By cb scott on Dec 11, 2007 at 8:48 am
Russell,
If you, as an immigrant from Asia, are now a citizen of this country you are now us. You have the same responsibility to seek justice and mercy equally in all things American. As a citizen of Heaven you are responsible to seek justice and mercy in all things no matter where you are or your nationality. It is a Kingdom thing far more than one of national importance.
IamanM,
It is always proper and always very Christian not to want law-breakers among us of any degree or type be they domestic or foreign. The origin of birth is not an issue. I stand willing to defend myself, my family and you against law-breakers using whatever manner of defense necessary to do what needs to be done. I hope you feel the same way. If you do not you are wrong both as a citizen of this nation and a citizen of Heaven.
David,
Romans 13 was written to its original readers with an intended application. Due to the fact it was written as inspiried Scripture it also has an application to us just as necessary as was it intended for its original readers. The four Gospels were also written to people of different cultures than are we, but the application of the substance of the gospel therein is just as necessary to us as it was to the original readers.
BTW, we do not live in a “modern democracy.” Thank God. We live in a Republic. It was due to civil disobedience we live in a Republic. As long as fallen man walks upon the earth there will be a need for civil disobedience in various circumstances. The degree of civil disobedience is directly dependent upon the degree of oppression perpetrated upon the specific society or culture involved.
cb
By Mike Woodward on Dec 11, 2007 at 9:22 am
Let’s set the illegal alien / criminal activity argument aside for a minute.
Since we are a republic, on some level we are the authorities.
As we empower the authorities, what is the gospel response to a desire for people to immigrate legally?
Do we increase the levels of immigration? Do we set parameters (skills testing) for what type of immigrants we want? Do we set ratios of what nationalities can emigrate?
My point is that each of us should examine what the first thing is that pops in our mind when someone says that we should increase the levels for legal immigration.
Is it how we can further the gospel (1 Cor 9:19-23) or how we can keep what is “rightfully” ours.
By IamanM on Dec 11, 2007 at 9:25 am
America has laws concerning abortion. There are laws concerning prayer in schools. Most Christians when asked about these issues don’t simply say, “Oh well, the law is the law.” They are actively trying to bring about positive change.
Making the immigration issue one of simply obeying the law is simplistic and skirts the heart issues that Christians need to address entirely. If America changed its laws and closed its borders entirely what are the implications for the church in the US? If immigration laws are relaxed and waves of foreigners pour into the heartlands, how will the church respond? Would we be just as xenophobic as the non-church crowd or would we see it as an incredible opportunity to fulfill the Great Commission?
By cb scott on Dec 11, 2007 at 9:46 am
IamanM,
As Christ-Followers we are to fulfill the GC no matter the degree of difficulty to do so or the opposition to it.
The immigration laws we have are not the problem. They work. It is the system in which the immigration laws are in a bottle-neck that is the problem.
The politics of immigration and the politicians who use immigration as a dog and pony show to promote their own agendas are the problems. People who work in immigrations understand this. It is not the immigration laws that produce the problems. It is those who control the system. “The operators of the machine” do not oil it properly. The machine itself is a good machine, built to handle the job. It simply needs proper care, tuning and an oil change.
This is true with many of our government agencies. Try to get your finger prints for becoming a foster parent or to become a school teacher in this country and see how long it takes you. Try to get your disability before you die if you are a disabled worker in this country.
The gate is not broken. It is that the gate keepers are asleep on the job. That is the problem.
BTW, never and I mean never would I say, “Oh well the law is the law.”
cb
By Rob Ayers on Dec 11, 2007 at 9:59 am
Whenever somebody starts spouting off the term “xenophobic” is when the red alerts go off. One of the last rules of debate is of course denigrate your opponent. Like Clarence Darrow who said that anyone who did not agree with him was not educated, the forces of mercy unencumbered by justice would call everyone who has issues with “illegal” immigration “xenophobic.” Sorry man, not buying. There are indeed some in society who are truly racist. There may be a majority (which most public polls seem to bear out) that want the nation to deal first with securing the border, and then to tackle immigrant issues. Until the politicians get the message, we will be left with the chaos that now insues. I believe that most of us have ancestors who were first immigrants, so your little xenophobic nonsense is uncalled for.
And in any case, would I support “amnesty” as part of any immigration relaxation? I just have a problem about people wholesale selling out their soul and breaking laws flippantly no matter what their motivation or ethnicity.
The issue that stares us in the face now is of course not what the law MAY and COULD be in the future. The issue is what it is NOW and if the law as applied is considered an “unjust” law, subject to civil disobedience. I am sorry, I do not see why this law must be defied - the purpose is not injust or for that matter unChristlike, nor will in application cause harm to the vast majority - and in fact the purpose is to protect the majority of citizens from harm, since by definition the United States is a soveriegn state whose primary focus is protect HER citizens from harm primarily from those who want to kill Americans who see our borders as pourous.
How is it that Christians are not fuffiling the Great Commission by the United States regulating immigration and controlling our borders? Can we not just as well fulfill the Great Commission by helping our neighbors be able to have a robust economy so that they will not feel obliged to cross our borders while at the same time giving opportunity to those who do wish to come legally into our nation as citizens? What is so xenophobic about that?
Rob
By David Rogers on Dec 11, 2007 at 10:18 am
CB,
I am not meaning to imply that Romans 13 no longer has a valid application for us today. However, modern democracy or republic, or whatever you choose to call the system we live under today, does change in some ways our relationship as Christians to human government.
For example, as individuals, Jesus says we are to “turn the other cheek.” At the same time, the government “bears the sword” as God’s “agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” But, in the system in which we live, to some degree or another, we ARE the government.
One response to this has been that of the Anabaptists, to withdrawl from participation in government altogether. That is an option that I personally do not think can be lightly dismissed.
However, I also see that the Word of God teaches me that “for the person who knows to do good and doesn’t do it, it is a sin” James 4.17, Holman Christian Standard Bible). So, I must also ask myself if, by non-participation in government I am failing to do good, things that are in accordance with God’s revealed will, that I know how to do.
For me, that is the reason for any participation I, as a Christian, may choose to have in the governmental process. I guess you could call me a “do-gooder”. In that sense, I plead guilty. I suppose I am more of an idealist than a pragmatist in regards to this, as well.
But, when I get to heaven, and give account to God, I don’t think He is going to ask me how good a job I did at preserving the American way of life. I believe He will ask me how faithful I was to the teaching of Matthew 25:31-46, though. From the standpoint of eternity, maybe I am more of pragmatist than what it might seem like on the surface now.
By David Rogers on Dec 11, 2007 at 10:28 am
Rob,
Xenophobia exists. And the fact that I, or IamanM, may make reference to it does not mean we are carte blanche using that term to denigrate those who have a different perspective than us. But because it exists, and because it seems to us that it is making somewhat of an inroads in American society, even among Christians, I don’t think we need to be afraid of bringing the topic up. If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn’t, fine as well. If you agree that xenophobia is a bad thing, though, you should be glad that we are all being called to be on guard against it.
Maybe you can say it is a “bogeyman” that is being blown out of proportion. Perhaps so. My perspective is far from infallible. But, as someone who has been out of the country for awhile, and has recently stepped back in, my impression is that it is more of a problem than many are willing to admit.
By David Rogers on Dec 11, 2007 at 10:39 am
Rob,
Also, you may well be right that a better alternative is “helping our neighbors be able to have a robust economy so that they will not feel obliged to cross our borders while at the same time giving opportunity to those who do wish to come legally into our nation as citizens.” The only problem is I don’t see a whole lot of people lining up to work towards this. I can’t remember the last time I heard anyone vigorously defend this position on talk radio or Fox news. Or, even in church, for that matter.
By Geoff Baggett on Dec 11, 2007 at 11:03 am
I guess I’m just having trouble following the logic of this entire conversation.
What do open -vs- closed borders have to do with fulfilling the Great Commission? I say, “Nothing.”
I will share my faith and offer ministry for anyone in need, regardless of whether they are in this country legally or not. Indeed, my church has provided help for people who are (I’m quite sure) in this country illegally. Yet I also yearn for a more stringent tightening of our national borders for an array of reasons (security, economic, crime rates, etc…). The idea that those of us who want tighter borders, zero illegal immigrants, and a controlled flow of legal immigrants somehow don’t care about “widows and orphans” of the world like the Bible says we should is, in a word, absurd. I think it is the “over-spiritualization” of an issue that is not (necessarily) spiritual.
I quite think that we can help the poor, share the Gospel, do relief work, build homes, and improve life for people all over the world … within their own borders (i.e. international missions). We don’t have to issue green cards “carte blanch” (don’t know if I spelled that correctly) so people can come to us … so that we can minister to them.
Missionaries who have come home after a time away seem to be having difficulty understanding the frustration and vitriol on this issue. I think that it’s something that you had to have lived through and experienced these last few years. Of course, the issue is compounded by politics … as both parties scramble to offer amnesty for illegals so that they may secure a huge, newly legalized voting block. People are frustrated that their politicians are more interested in feathering their federal job nests and power positions than they are in protecting the security and economy of our nation and our families. It IS frustrating. I think this is one of those strange, unique times when those who have lived outside the culture of the U.S. for a significant period of time have to try to see things through our “worldview,” which has (I think) changed dramatically in the past 3 or 4 years.
So, I guess I’ve rambled long enough … :)
By cb scott on Dec 11, 2007 at 11:37 am
David,
On a previous post (Tightrope?) I said I like you on some days better than others.
I think that is because we approach many things from a very different perspective although we are both Christ-Followers. It is evident you are a very gentle person and I am not, although I am sure I have stood in the gap for as many or more helpless and hurting people as you have.
I have basically the same passions you do, yet I will never be called a “do-gooder” by anyone. If you will notice I said we must fulfill the GC no matter the degree of difficulty no matter where we live. Personal origin has nothing to do with it.
I am a Christ-Follower first and an American somewhere down the line of priority from there. If for some reason I become an Iraqi tomorrow I must still be a Christ-Follower first and everything else I am or may become must follow that priority somewhere down the same priority line.
I agree with much of what you say here but it is what you leave so open that sometimes bothers me. Rob and Geoff have said much of what I wanted to say much better than I would so I direct you back to them.
Rob and Geoff,
Top-Drawer logic. Thank you.
cb
By Rob Ayers on Dec 11, 2007 at 1:03 pm
My dear David,
What exactly are you arguing? That the government of the United States is itself Christian and must adhere to Christian principles? That it is a church, and so therefore must follow the golden rule? The only directive I see scripture giving government is Romans 13 “The sword” while the church has been given the Good Shepherd with His staff.
While we can argue that the government, as a Republic, is subservient to the “will of the people” it is only beholden to a “majority will” - and that further funneled down as a representative republic - and while Christians should be salt and light in the world and impact our culture and secular institutions for Christ, we will probably still remain in the minority no matter what we do. As believers, we are “Ambassadors” of an heavenly kingdom, not an earthly one. We can always pray for change within earthly governments, but must then weigh “the laws” in terms of our allegiance to Christ. You have really not offered ways in which restriction of borders nor immigration is in any way deleterious to our conscience. Christians are told to take the gospel to every nation - not to wait till the nations move in down the street. Right?
The current problem of “illegal immigration” is that our politicians for the sake of expediency or “good will” or political malfeasance do not see the border security as a priority. With this is combined with the deplorable conditions found in much of the Southern hemisphere with some of their earst-while politicians encouraging countless thousands to go to the United States illegaly so that this unsettled and poor population will leave them alone. Thus laws placed on the books by the majority (be they Christian or pagan) are not being upheld. The reason why you do not see the position of “good will” and “supporting our neighbor over the border” among the itellgensia in government and media is because that position is for Christ-followers to be obedient to. I really do not expect the world to follow it, do you? Otherwise it is a social-gospel good works mentality - as lifeless as legalism, and as pointless as well.
The last time I looked Christians are those who turn the other cheek, support the homeless and unwanted, and open their hearts and doors and pocketbooks for the furtherance of the gospel irregardless of the sin of those we minister to-in the event that nations are good hearted as well is a benefit and speaks about the majority will. However, nations and governments first priority is for their citizens first and foremost. Believers priority is teach and all men, regardless of their status in earthly kingdoms, hoping to disciple many for God’s Kingdom. I pray that many in our churches will stand and and not only give to missions but to participate in them “in both Judea and Samaria and all the world.” I don’t expect my country to do that - I do expect believers to do that. As they should without governmental interference.
In the main our nation has been an object used for good throughout the world. The xenophobic statement is proffered by you and others without evidence. Provide evidence that it is 1)the majority view 2)if not the majority view, that it has made grave inroads in the common man to become a concern and 3)it has made inroads within the evangelical Christian community to become a concern. Hint: support of border security and the support of current immigration law is not evidence of xenophobia by definition.
Rob
By cb scott on Dec 11, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Rob,
Yeah. That’s it.
Thank you again.
cb
By Russell Minick on Dec 11, 2007 at 2:07 pm
The original post was laid out clearly:
“I am not talking so much here about one particular policy or another. I am talking about attitudes.”
Was David wrong? Was he absurd to say there is an increasinlgly intense attitude?
(by the way,CB, I am not an immigrant from Asia, but thanks for welcoming me :p. Read post 5 please. Like you conceded, you may have been boarding the ship for battle a bit too quickly to process what was actually being said).
Romans 13:13 Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in … sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy.
By Russell Minick on Dec 11, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Sorry for the double post!
By Geoff Baggett on Dec 11, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Russell,
I think we do understand the original point of David’s post. Some of us have been trying to point out that the “attitude” observed (and its inherent frustrations) is more directed toward governmental non-action than toward people of international origin.
What I was responding to was another underlying attitude expressed within the thread … namely that those people who do desire tighter border and immigration controls are somehow guilty of “fumbling the ball” on the Great Commission and ignoring the biblical mandate to minister to the poor.
Personally, I believe the two subjects are apples and oranges. That was simply my point. I just hope I communicated it clearly. No quarreling or jealousy here. :) Just my 2₵ worth. ;)
By Geoff Baggett on Dec 11, 2007 at 2:21 pm
And I fixed your double for you … :)
By Rob Ayers on Dec 11, 2007 at 2:35 pm
What Geoff said in #40. And I do not even have to say it double!
Rob
By Keith Price on Dec 11, 2007 at 2:45 pm
As someone who has worked in businesses that had 90%+ immigrant labor and states heavily influenced by that labor, there are some complexities with the issue. There are individuals you know and love and wish for them the best. As a citizen you respond because you see the issues it causes your country…and you can do both of these and be a Christian.
I will also add..”What Geoff said.”
A politcal pollster called and asked me “do you expect the congress to do something about illegal immigration?” I answered that I could not answer the question. I surely expect them to do something, but I do not expect they will. They don’t have the courage to do what is right, only what they think will get them re-elected.
By Russell Minick on Dec 11, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Geoff, you definitely got it in this:
“Missionaries who have come home after a time away seem to be having difficulty understanding the frustration and vitriol on this issue. I think that it’s something that you had to have lived through and experienced these last few years”
That is exactly the core of the thread. It isn’t easy to understand. I haven’t had to work through all the issues from an American context for a while, but it is hard to do it. When a fair question is raised in very limited scope, it is more and more frequently met with very intense speeches about all sorts of stuff beyond the scope of the quesiton asked (in e-mails, conversations and occassionally forums like this).
Thanks for not calling me ridiculous or such for having difficulty understanding. I agree, I do have difficulty but I am willing to keep trying to listen and interact to what is actually said. That’s the whole point of the blog, right?! Thanks for providing it. (And your 2 shekels worth)
By David Rogers on Dec 11, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Geoff,
It may be a bit of stretch, but this is how I see the immigration issue related to the Great Commission. A part of the Great Commission is teaching the disciples we make to obey all of Christ’s commands. One of Christ’s commands is to feed the hungry, give drink the the thirsty, welcome in the stranger, etc. Perhaps the best way to fulfill this command is through the private sector, and through strictly Christian charity. It seems to me that a truly consistent application of this line of reasoning would lead one to take a libertarian, laissez faire approach to government. If we were all to take this approach, would the poor and needy of the world end up better off as a result? I honestly don’t know. But, I have my suspicions that probably not. I personally want to do what I can to help the poor and needy, even if it includes working through government channels. I am open to being shown how it is really not in their interest to do it this way, though.
Also, let me clarify once and for all:
I am not saying, and never have said: “that those who want tighter borders, zero illegal immigrants, and a controlled flow of legal immigrants somehow don’t care about “widows and orphans” of the world like the Bible says they should.” I am saying, though, that the attitude of not caring, and of xenophobia, seems to me to be “in the air.” Are these two things mutually exclusive? I don’t think so.
Also, one other thing you (or someone else) might be able to help me understand: If the politicians have been lax to control illegal immigration because of political motivations, why, all of the sudden, are so many politicians now rushing to demonstrate that their position is the truly hard-line view on immigration? These two things do seem mutually exclusive to me. But maybe there’s something here I’m not seeing.
By David Rogers on Dec 11, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Rob,
If I am following your argument correctly, it seems like you would not favor any government social programs at all: education, medicine, housing, programs to help the needy should all be relegated to the private sector. Is that correct? If I am misunderstanding you here, help me to see what you are saying.
Also, I agree with you that “support of border security and the support of current immigration law is not evidence of xenophobia by definition.” I hope I never communicated that it was. As far as the specific evidence of xenophobia you ask for, though, I will have to start taking notes from now on whenever I hear it. You’ll just have to take my word for now that I have heard it, and just once or twice. Do you mean to tell me that you have never heard it? If you, you must not be listening to same things I am listening to.
By David Rogers on Dec 11, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Russell,
Thanks. You are doing a good job of interpreting and explaining my position.
By Rob Ayers on Dec 11, 2007 at 4:57 pm
David,
Answer to your question (though I am not Geoff) is relatively simple: November 4, 2008. I believe poll after poll reflects the attitude of the vast vast majority of Americans on this issue - deal with the border first, and then deal with the immigration issue. Of course politicians go overboard to carve out their niche for the American electorate - and then just as happily will go their own way after the election. Such as life in these United States these days.
The question remains not what government can do for or not do for the poor (whatever happened to JFK’s idea “Ask not what your country can do for you…” but I digress - sorry for the nostalgia) but what are believers doing or not doing for them? I am of the firm opinion that if believers stood behind our convictions and performed our duty to the poor and led them to Jesus, then at least 1/2 of all governmental obligations toward the poor would be eliminated overnight! Instead of putting money into big complexes and Baptist buildings and SUV’s, we would put it in ministry! What kind of witness would that be?
Your question fails to understand the obvious - and it is hitting you right in the face: Why should government pay one whit of one shekel to support people who are in violation of the laws on the books? Why should the taxpayers pay one dime to help those who being here are in violation of the law while even our own citizens cannot afford the premiums of a major medical policy?
I do agree in principle to the idea of a “safety net” for those of our citizens who by misfortune unable to work or care for themselves by disability or other misfortune, which would even include the class of single mothers with children. It is not in the public interest to allow these to suffer - at least from a government perspective. From a Christian perspective I have no choice - I am to give without regard to everyone who is in need because I have a duty to do that and share the gospel - yet this is not the role of government. You still want to dilute the obligations of government (first to the countries legal citizens) and the Believer (duty and obligation to citizens of the world).
Brother, I did not say that xenophobia “does not exist.” I know it does - and perhaps I am understating it in contradiction to your overstating it. My point is that while it exists, it does not exist in the majority view, nor does it exist in a large minority. Geoff listed why this issue brings a large level of excitement in many people, and frankly it has nothing to do with country or origin or ethnicity. It has everything to do with border security and support of citizens of the nation first and foremost. Our national coffers are filled by a forced taxation - not by our willingness but by fear of imprisonment if we do not. As believers we willingly offer up our treasure (or should) to support in love others in need - yet government’s duty is to support our welfare as citizens - and frankly the way I read the US Constitution, it does not say we as a nation are to freely give our treasure to “citizens of the world” - and so when government taxes go to support other nation’s citizens without our support - then the fur hits the fan. Thus the politicians get excited here as I said in the first paragraph.
Rob
By David Rogers on Dec 11, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Rob,
Are you saying that 4 years ago it was politically expedient to be lax on illegal immigration, and now, 4 years later, it is not, because the attitude of the country has changed? If you are, you may be right. What I am saying is that, in the midst of the uproar, there is a danger of the pendulum swinging too far over towards the side of xenophobia.
I am not necessarily disagreeing with your reasoning about the role of government. I am struggling to be hermeneutically accurate, though, in applying passages that were written before the modern nation-state with defined political borders and representative government existed.
Also, I guess living overseas may have perhaps made me more sensitive to the inequalities and injustices in this world. I am perhaps just trying to process the implications of the thought that I, through no merit of my own, can freely access the benefits of the richest nation in the history of the world, while so many others, through no guilt of their own, have virtually no opportunity to improve their lot in life.
I do agree with you that, as believers, we should not “punt” to the government, in our responsibility to care for the poor. But, at least as I understand it so far, if I have the opportunity to choose between a government that works to help the poor and one that doesn’t, I kind of prefer the first one.
I wish there were some way to reflect openly about these questions without at the same time coming across as judging others or thinking myself to be more spiritual than those who think differently. I do believe all of us in this discussion are trying to do our best to be obedient to God’s will and serve him with our whole heart.
By Geoff Baggett on Dec 11, 2007 at 6:25 pm
David,
Most of the talk and claims about a “hard line” position on immigration are simply that … talk and claims. Politicians know that the electorate wants to hear, so they say it. Once they are elected, it all becomes moot - a “clean slate” in their eyes.
The government has been lax for decades with regard to the issue of border security and illegal immigration. But, within the last four years, the price has gone through the roof. How? Because there are states in our country which enroll illegals in the welfare system, provide various governmental benefits, even scholarships for education to people who are here illegally. Almost every state issues illegals drivers’ licenses without question. With those licenses they have the ability to open bank accounts, obtain loans, and buy guns. It happens every day. Indeed, some states have laws that forbid American citizens the right to demand documentation of legal status for obtaining services … a version of immigration “don’t ask, don’t tell.” The problem has exploded beyond reason, thus the wholesale backlash by the American people.
We are discovering that one particular reason why the feds are so lax toward illegals is because they are a financial cash cow for the federal government. They are paying social security premiums on false social security numbers. They will never receive payment of benefits for those dollars invested because they will never be eligible to apply. Free money for Uncle Sam … another reason to maintain the status quo.
Like Rob said, the reason everyone is talking now is because we’re electing a president and a new congress in 11 months. Immigration policy has replaced foreign policy (i.e. Iraq) as the #1 issue on the minds of the American people … and for good reason.
Again, this isn’t xenophobic hatred of all peoples foreign. It is frustration with a situation that has gone beyond reason. Think about it … the absurdity of 20+ million people, from one country (Mexico) in this country illegally, and no one in government seems to want to enforce the current law and do anything about it.
Anyhow, I’ve rambled long enough.
On another note, you mentioned that absent of real help from the church, you’ll settle for the government helping the poor. The only problem with that in the U.S. is that the government’s “help” is really no help at all. It has merely canonized a poor, welfare class that repeats its cycle generation after generation. What was intended as help for the poor has somehow morphed into a cruel system of keeping people in poverty.
And all in the most wealthy, most free country on the planet.
So, in the end, welcoming people (sic. illegally) from other lands into the cruel cycle of a poverty “class” is somehow, as I see it, far from biblical.
Let’s go to them, reach out a hand of help, share Jesus, and help them transform the places where they live.
Just my 2 cents worth … ;)
By David Rogers on Dec 11, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Geoff,
Fair enough. I will take what you have to say here into consideration. I really am not sure what is the best answer, from a policy point of view, to these questions.
I still maintain, though, that a lot of the rhetoric I hear going around (not here on SBC Impact, though) smacks to me of xenophobia. I know, I know. Kind of subjective, and hard to demonstrate. But it is, nonetheless, my impression.
By Rob Ayers on Dec 11, 2007 at 11:13 pm
David,
I sense that this discussion is coming to a close but desired to leave you with a couple of passing thoughts. Thank you for the great discussion, a thought invoking post, and even the disagreement. This was the purpose that went into the creation of this collaboration. And while I am no longer a part of staff, let me just say that I am extremely encouraged and excited about your participation here. Thank you for your service to our Lord, and to Southern Baptists. May the Lord bless you greatly as you strive to serve Him, and bring Him glory!
AS to my last point. The US may be the richest country in the world. But even then, the resources of the treasury are finite - there will never be enough to make even a splash in comparison to all the needs present in the world. Yet our Lord owns it all! And how much could a people, believing and trusting in Him could make the US treasury pale to insignificance!
Rob
By Russell Minick on Dec 11, 2007 at 11:44 pm
No one responded to my example of the prayer ladies forward e-mails alleged to be from Andy Rooney ranting about …foreigners who don’t understnd enough english to respond unthreatingly to “Freeze!” deserve to have their sorry *** shot…
That example was forwarded to me by a Baptist church lady accompanied with a list of ‘Amen!’s and “Hallelujah, someone said what I’ve been thinking” and such from other church going friends who pray for the nations.
Folks, really, even if there is a real need for border control don’t fail to hear a good word from friends who are outside the boiling pot who say: “Boy, it sure is getting HOT over there!”.
By Russell Minick on Dec 11, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Geoff, Rob, etc.
Thanks again for having a forum that can lead to meaningful discussion (enough room to work through levels of disagreement) that is useful (truth in love).
It is a blessing.
Merry Christmas!
Russell
By David Rogers on Dec 12, 2007 at 9:40 am
Rob (and others in discussion),
I am also happy to be able to discuss issues like this, as brothers in Christ, with the freedom to disagree in a spirit of love and mutual respect.
I too would love to see, more than anything else, God’s unlimited resources touch the rest of the world through his Body, the Church. However, I don’t think it’s necessarily an either-or question, but perhaps both-and.
By David Rogers on Dec 12, 2007 at 9:42 am
Russell,
I can’t find your first reference to the “prayer ladies forward e-mail.” In any case, that is an excellent case in point of what I am referring to.
Thanks for your input in this discussion.
By Rob Ayers on Dec 12, 2007 at 11:32 am
David,
I just reread a portion of a previous post in which you stated “I am struggling to be hermeneutically accurate, though, in applying passages that were written before the modern nation-state with defined political borders and representative government existed.” You do realize of course that the philosophical foundation if not the complete framework of the modern state did indeed exist in the times Paul wrote Romans 13. Plato’s “The Republic” was written at least 400 BC - the polis or “City State” such as Athens and Rome did have a semi-democratic framework (though among the aristocracy only - thus you have a Roman Senate). Even the Romans discerned the difference between citizens rights and others - thus we have Paul “appealing to Caesar” as a Roman citizen. So I am not quite understanding how Romans 13 is delimited in terms of modern governments such as a Representative Republic. Government really has not evolved that much philosophically at all. And in any regards, does the difference impede our subjugation to it’s authority - with the exception to grave circumstances such as “bowing to Caesar as god”?
Rob
By David Rogers on Dec 12, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Rob,
Don’t worry. I am not insinuating a radical re-reading of the traditional interpretation of Romans 13. Just throwing out the idea that in a democratic system, as well as submitting to the rule of law, we also have the opportunity (and responsibility?) to speak into the law.
Application for us here: while we do well to advocate submitting to the law in terms of illegal immigration, do we need to carefully think through, at the same time, our role in influencing the laws that lead many people into illegal immigration?
By Rob Ayers on Dec 12, 2007 at 1:34 pm
David,
Two main contributions to illegal immigration (at least in terms of the largest issue in terms to our neighbor of the South):
1) Prosperity on the American side
2) Deplorable economic conditions on the other side with an added confluence of a corrupt government who are not meeting the needs of it’s citizens - who then as government openly advocate the poorest of citizens to go across the border to prop up the local economy
Some questions:
1)Is the American government responsible for the deplorable conditions found outside of it’s borders? Or for allowing through free market systems a prosperity that attracts others to it’s borders?
2)Is the American government responsible for the corruption found in government(s) outside of it’s borders that lead to deplorable economic conditions inside a another sovereign state?
3)Depending upon your answers to the above questions, what laws can then be enacted that would change the conditions found within another sovereign state? And if we acquiesce and allow less restrictive immigration on our side of the border, would that change of law have any effect on the deplorable conditions that feeds the current level of illegal immigration currently ongoing?
Rob
By David Rogers on Dec 12, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Rob,
I think I agree with your two main contributions. I might add in dangerous situations, and bad environment for raising children and giving them an opportunity to make something out of their life, as well.
As far as your questions are concerned:
1) For general purposes, I agree with you that the American government is not responsible. There may be some questions as to what extent certain multinational corporations contribute towards the inequalities in certain places, and what the American government could do to regulate this. But, I grant that, for general purposes, the American government is not responsible.
2) Once again, for general purposes, probably not. I am not totally sure that the US government has never propped up some corrupt regimes in other places. But, once again, I will concede that, for general purposes, the American government is not responsible.
3) I am definitely not an expert on these questions. But a few things that come to mind are: a) enacting fair trade agreements that favor equal opportunities for all; b) putting pressure (economic sanctions) on corrupt governments; c) contributing in foreign aid for healthy and equitable development in underdeveloped countries.
And yes, I think good decisions on the part of the US government in their dealings with underdeveloped countries could have some positive effect in discouraging illegal immigration. The vast majority of immigrants I have known do not leave their home country just because they like another country better. It is because they don’t have opportunities. Many hope to make enough money to get their lives in order, and then return to their home countries. Others, not foreseeing a good future in their home countries, seek to bring over their families with hopes of starting a new life, and pursuing the American Dream, or the European Dream, as the case may be.
Also, although the issue of immigration is definitely in the air politically, my purpose in writing is not so much political. It is more about encouraging believers to show the love of Christ in their personal attitudes and dealings with “the least of these.”
By Rob Ayers on Dec 12, 2007 at 6:57 pm
The fair trade agreement was called NAFTA. It has been already enacted, and has created some encouraging things in terms of uplifting a otherwise dismal forecast among our southern neighbors.
Sanctions rarely limit corrupt politicians - but they do impact the people one is hoping to help in the first place. And there are always some other nation-state who is willing to treat with any government as long as their pockets are filled, often in defiance of long standing economic sanctions. See Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
Economic aid has been following freely to our southern neighbor to the tune of multiple millions of dollars yearly - yet the flow of illegal immigrants has not been mitigated. How much should we give? 10 million - 100 million - 1 billion? - and again I remind you that this money is not coming from a free will offering given in charity by good hearted people. It is given from a treasury that taxpayers under penalty of law grudgingly give for the purpose of good government.
I understand the original purpose of this post was for us to consider our attitude toward those with whom we should minister. I hope that I have eliminated your fears that at least for me I have no negative outlook to people with whom I as a believer am to minister to. I also hope that as part of the banter of this discussion that you have come away with many things to consider as well.
Rob
By David Rogers on Dec 12, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Rob,
Yes, I knew about NAFTA. Also, I am aware that the issues we are discussing do not have simplistic answers. And, yes, you have given me some things to think about. But, I still maintain what I have said here, especially in the original post.
Blessings,
David
By Russell Minick on Dec 12, 2007 at 8:51 pm
David, post 5 was where I gave an example of mean, unchristian vitriol coming from otherwise gracious Christians. Post 53 is where I repeated it and elaborated.
Another example: a good Baptist brother from the US was visiting our house church that has people from all over the world who happen to be living in Thailand. Out of nowhere he launced into a speech about US immigration. His voice got louder, his face got flush and we were all extremely uncomfortable before we even got to consider his message.
I like hearing Christians engaged in important issues. It is just hard to hear them when I keep picturing angry media superstars speaking through them. Most of you are probably not like that (i hope). But can you see that it really is infecting some in our community?
Russell
By David Rogers on Dec 12, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Russell,
Somehow, after reading the original comment, I forgot, in the midst of everything else, you had said that, and then, scrolling through later, somehow passed over it.
You really do have some good testimonies to what I am talking about. And an excellent answer to Rob’s questions in the last paragraph of his comment #36.
By Rob Ayers on Dec 13, 2007 at 9:52 am
Anecdotal comments from extraneous sources do not equal evidence. Evidence proffered must be across a wide range of documented sources such as a public poll taken over time. Remember, I said I believe xenophobia does exist yet - 1)not in the majority and 2)not in a significant minority. Your two examples are merely extraneous and not evidence of a greater concern and could also be interpreted to be an ax against governmental non-action. Try again.
Rob
By Russell Minick on Dec 13, 2007 at 10:18 am
Try again? No thanks. I was just offering an observation to a friendly audience that was asking if anyone else had seen the same.
shalom,
russell
By Rob Ayers on Dec 13, 2007 at 10:37 am
I am a “friendly audience.” Believe me on that. Yet the affirmative argument was made that xenophobia is a concern because of it’s wide existence. Your two examples are noteworthy I concede. Yet they do nothing to prove the affirmative argument. One cannot extrapolate onto a greater culture by the sample of two experiences. That is the problem when these terms are bandied about without evidence. They are often used to describe not a factual sociological condition, but merely how a person “feels” personally from their point of view about sociological conditions. It is patently unfair to broad-brush a whole society and culture with a term which in the hands of a few has turned into a pejorative (not you or anybody on this thread). I profer that in the main American citizens are not being xenophobic, but reactive to a current sociological phenomena of which they feel they have no control of - of which I have proof in the forms of multiple public polls spread over time. The finding of xenophobia in the majority would find the complete closing of the borders, and no immigrants at all. Even in the most wideness of rhetoric that condition cannot be found currently.
Again, the crux of the burden of proof is upon you. Do you base your beliefs upon personal perceptions and anecdotal experiences, or upon sociological evidence?
Rob
By David Rogers on Dec 13, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Rob,
No, I do not have scientific evidence. Perhaps it exists or perhaps it doesn’t. Right now, doing the necessary investigation to determine whether it does or not does not fall into my priority uses of my time for the near future.
Also, that I can remember, I have never made the claim that the majority, either of US citizens in general, or within the Church in the US, is xenophobic. I have made an observation that, according to my subjective impression, the degree of xenophobia, both in the US population in general, and within the Church in the US, is higher than it ought to be.