;)
Resources on Evangelicals and Immigration Reform
Posted by David Rogers in Bible & Theology, Church & Missions, News & Culture
Tomorrow is election day here in Tennessee, with various local offices up for grabs, as well as the primaries for the upcoming election for governor. All three of the leading Republican candidates for governor have made a special point in their campaigns to delineate a hard-line stance toward illegal immigration. Indeed, it seems in areas of the United States, such as the South, in which Evangelicals are most established, that hard-line positions toward illegal immigration are more popular.
Several years ago, in the early days of SBC Impact, I wrote another post on the topic of immigration, and our attitude, as believers, toward immigrants. A lot of what I think about the subject of illegal immigration and immigration reform I already outlined in my other post, and, in even more detail, in the ensuing comment stream. I am not an economist, political scientist, or politician, by trade. If anything, I would describe myself more as a Bible student and missionary. My main area of interest, in my writing, is missions, ecclesiology, evangelism, and discipleship. As such, I am, admittedly, a bit out of my area of relative competence with this particular subject matter. But, since it continues to generate so much interest and conflict in the media, and particularly among Christians, here I am writing about it again.
Undoubtedly, this is an issue over which we as Evangelical Christians, seeking to apply biblical principles to all of life, have different opinions. It is, admittedly, quite complex. At the same time, there is much superficial, demagogic rhetoric that often obscures the underlying background issues.
There are some who camp out at Romans 13, and aren’t able to see anything beyond the point that undocumented immigrants have, in effect, broken the law, and, as such, are disobeying the biblical injunction to be subject to the ruling authorities. And, there is certainly a degree of truth in that perspective. Others place more emphasis on passages such as Leviticus 19:33-34: “Do not take advantage of foreigners who live among you in your land. Treat them like native-born Israelites, and love them as you love yourself. Remember that you were once foreigners living in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God.” And, there is an entire thread of references throughout the Bible relating to the special place in God’s heart for those who are displaced, for whatever reason, from their native land.
The challenge is evenhandedly applying the overall teaching of Scripture in the particular context in which we live in modern-day America. While some Evangelicals have come out with hard-line positions, focusing primarily on detaining and deporting undocumented immigrants, others, such as the National Association of Evangelicals, and even Richard Land of the SBC’s ERLC, have come out publicly endorsing comprehensive immigration reform, opening up a path to citizenship for those who are willing to take certain steps.
As I have thought about this, and the corresponding implications, several questions have continued to occupy my thoughts. For example:
• I suppose it is technically possible to be generous and welcoming in our personal life, and, at the same time, support a public policy of greater restrictions toward outsiders. What I wrestle with, however, is how this translates in a democratic society in which we ourselves are, to a certain extent, the one and the same “Caesar” to which the Bible calls us to submit. Do we not, as Christians, while seeking to submit personally to the laws of the land in which we live, also have a corresponding responsibility to work toward more just laws that manifest God’s particular concern and mercy for marginalized and underprivileged members of society? While working to cut down on illegal immigration, do we not have a corresponding responsibility to do what we can to provide an easier pathway to legal immigration?
• When the Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” does that not also apply to those born outside of the United States?
• Is not the best way to cut down on illegal immigration by means of attacking it at the root—cracking down on unethical employers who provide the jobs that draw the vast majority of illegal immigrants to the United States in the first place? If we were able to successfully reduce the quantity of illegal jobs available, would not a great part of the problem pretty much solve itself?
I am painfully aware that a lot of my thoughts on these issues have been based largely on my understanding of Scripture, and personal observations through interaction with immigrants, and not so much on in-depth understanding of the historical background, and the legal, economic, and sociological factors at stake. Recently, however, I have come across some excellent resources that have helped me to fill in a lot of the gaps in my understanding (HT John Armstrong). Certainly, I am still learning, and have a long way to go before really understanding the complexities involved. But, the following resources have been helpful for me in trying to get a better grasp on what is really going on under the surface of so much of the rhetoric we often hear in the media.
Whatever your personal view on illegal immigration and immigration reform, I highly recommend you take the time to work through some of these resources, and give an effort to think more deeply about what an appropriate Christian response to these matters should be. My main motivation in writing this post is to introduce you to these resources and to encourage you to check them out.
Welcoming the Stranger website
Especially recommended: Audio of Seminar by Matthew Soerens: “Mission on Your Doorstep: Undocumented Immigrants” (Go to the box labeled “Introduction to Immigration Issues” and click on the MP3 icon).
3-part video, with Matthew Soerens and Jenny Hwang, covering much of the same material as the audio file above.
Education Toolbox: a collection of links to assorted resources for evangelical churches and individual Christians wrestling through how to engage the complex issue of immigration policy.
At the same time, I want to keep learning as well. If you know of any other resources that you would like to recommend on these matters, I would love to hear about them.
;)
;)
;){kind=icon}
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
And, there is an entire thread of references throughout the Bible relating to the special place in God’s heart for those who are displaced, for whatever reason, from their native land.
And not one of those threads in any way, shape, form, or fashion suggests or implies for even an instant that it is wrong for a country to enforce its own immigration laws. Not.Even.One
Further, these criminals were not “displaced from their native land”. They knew what the law was, chose to break that law, and should be held accountable for that. They are not innocents.
There are thousands of women and men from all over the globe who come to this country legally because they want a better life and they see America as being some place where they could find that better life. To say that we are under some sort of moral or biblical imperitive to offer amnesty to the criminals who broke the law is an insult to those good, honorable people who did things the right way and is some of the most painful “scripture twisting” I’ve ever seen.
If America were to change its immigration laws to make it easier for folks to come in, that would be fine (stupid, but fine). However, America is not under some sort of mandate to change that law because of any biblical principal.
Joe,
Immigration reform, as I understand it, is not about enforcing or not enforcing laws. It is about changing laws, something we have the right and privilege to do in a democratic society.
Your comment seems to imply that the majority of those who come illegally do so because they prefer to do it that way. The reality, in the vast majority of the cases, is that there is no possibility for them to come legally. Those who are able come legally, in the great majority of the cases, do so either because they are highly skilled, and have employers specifically seeking them out, or because they are from countries that have not yet met their quota for legal immigration. Most (not all) undocumented immigrants come seeking a job to provide for the needs of their families, something Scripture also tells us we ought to do (1 Timothy 5:8). For many, this is something they were unable to do in their country of origin.
I certainly agree we should not encourage people to break the law, nor reward them for doing so. But, I cannot find anywhere in Scripture (either specific reference, or general principle) that infers that Christians in a democratic society should enact and/or work to support strict immigration laws. If they are already on the books, yes, obey them. But actively seek to keep them on the books, or make them even stricter? I don’t see how Rom. 13 applies, in this case.
I challenge you to open-mindedly listen to the audio of Matthew Soerens’ seminar I link to above. If you have material that you would like me to look at that presents a different perspective, I will be willing to do that as well.
I can agree that there is nothing that prohibts a Christian from working to see immigration law changed. There is nothing that requires it, either. So, if you, for instance, want to work to change the laws well you would be free to follow your conscience. However, the implication that I got was that anyone who opposed changing the laws was simply “camping out on Romans 13″. I simply see no mandate whatsoever in scripture that requires a Christian to work to see those laws changed.
Joe,
I think that a separate issue is to what degree we as Christians should be politically engaged. As you are no doubt aware, I have written about that before (here, for instance).
I would, however, put the shoe on the other foot, and ask you if you think that, as Christians, we have any obligation to work to change unjust laws in relation to abortion? Or, did Christians, in days when slavery was still legal, have any obligation to work to change the laws that permitted slavery? Overall, as the Church, I would say yes, on both counts we do, and we did. I would also say we have an obligation to stand up for justice and mercy wherever we see the need for it in the world around us.
I guess the question is, if you agree on this point, do the laws currently on the books related to immigration best manifest God’s concern for mercy and justice for the underprivileged in this world? Or, is the bottom-line interest, underlying them, that of protecting our right, as native-born Americans, to “make all we can, can all we make, sit on the lid, and poison the rest”?
David,
It is my understanding the US naturalizes over 600,000 people each year. Do you think that number should be raised? Should the quota from Mexico be raised? Or should the number be unlimited? Would you give anyone who wanted to work in the US a visa or would you place a limit?
And while I agree with Leviticus 19:33-34; the passage doesn’t state that the foreigners were breaking any laws. I also would like to refer you to Numbers 15: 15-16.
David:
This issue is not a Democrat or Republican issue. It is a United States of America issue. This should have been addressed many years ago, but it was not.
Surely, the citizens of America can find a solution to this challenging problem.
The clear difference is that the government did not have the right to pass a law saying abortion was legal. Therefore, since the law of the land conflicts with the law of God, Christians are obligated to work to overturn that law.
Further, slavery has no bearing on this issue because slaves were treated as property. While the bible does not say “Thou shalt not own slaves” I believe that if you look at slavery through the eyes of the gospel there is no way you can say that it’s right.
Those two issues, therefore, are completely different than immigration. The laws are not unjust. We have the right to make it as hard as we want to get into this country. No one has some sort of inborn right to come here. Therefore, while it is fine if a Christian wants to work to change those laws, no Christian is under any obligation to work to change those laws because the laws are moral, just, and nothing anywhere in the bible suggests or implies for even an instant that they are wrong. We have the right to make them, enforce them and uphold them.
Joe:
Sadly as always you really add nothing to the discussion but vitrol. I’m realy sorry that you harbor all these ill feelings towards almost everything.
John,
Could you give me a link that gives the 600,000 figure? I’m not questioning the accuracy of what you say. I would just be interested to study that out more. As I said in my post, I don’t really consider myself to be an expert on these matters, but I do want to learn what I can.
I would agree the number should not be unlimited. There is probably a threshold where, once you go over that, no one benefits, not even the new immigrants coming. From what I have been led to believe, though, this situation pretty much works itself out, through the supply and demand of jobs. The best way to regulate this is through cracking down on those seeking to exploit those who are willing to work for below minimum wage and live in constant fear of being turned into the authorities, for their own gain. Not through tearing families apart, and making people live their lives, constantly having to look behind their backs to see who is watching them.
I agree that Num. 15:15-16 should be taken into account, when studying the context of Lev. 19:33-34. Technically, since we are not presently under a theocracy, neither one is directly enforceable. But, I think the general principles related to how God views aliens comes through in both of these passages, as well as in many others, both in the New and Old Testament.
As I state above, “The challenge is evenhandedly applying the overall teaching of Scripture in the particular context in which we live in modern-day America.” And, “What I wrestle with, however, is how this translates in a democratic society in which we ourselves are, to a certain extent, the one and the same “Caesar” to which the Bible calls us to submit. Do we not, as Christians, while seeking to submit personally to the laws of the land in which we live, also have a corresponding responsibility to work toward more just laws that manifest God’s particular concern and mercy for marginalized and underprivileged members of society?”
Joe,
You say, “We have the right to make it as hard as we want to get into this country. No one has some sort of inborn right to come here.”
As Americans, and not specifically as Christians, there is some element of truth to what you say here. Even then, I wonder about the intent of the phrase from the Declaration of Independence I quoted above: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
However, as Christians, it is my contention that we operate from a different frame of reference than solely what protects our right, as Americans, to “make all we can, can all we make, sit on the lid, and poison the rest.”
We are under no obligation whatsoever to allow whoever wants to come in to come in. The reason we’re not under such an obligation is that the immigration laws in no way, shape, form, or fashion violate any biblical principals whatsoever. Making the laws tougher so that it would be even harder would not violate any biblical mandate. It is not unjust for our country to have laws which say “You may not enter our country” or “You may only enter our country if…”
If people can’t get in and they have a hard life in their home country, then, well, I guess they’ll just have a hard life in that country. Of course we should send missionaries and help with medicine and food. But we are under no biblical mandate to make their lives better as far as their standard of living. If they want a better life (now this is going to sound crazy) maybe they could work to make their country better and improve their lives and the lives of their citizens.
However, whether they do or they don’t no Christian is under any obligation from working to change the laws so it’s easier to enter the country. No.Obligation.At.All
Of course, they’re not prohibited from doing that either. But the Christian who does not work to ease those laws is not somehow ignoring any mandate or directive based on scripture.
Genesis 4:9
“And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?”
Luke 10:25-37
The Parable of the Good Samaritan
“And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”
But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”"
For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?
1 Corinthians 4:7
You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.
Revelation 3:17
Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!
James 2:12-13
If we were to take the Scriptural application that is often used in such “social justice” cases like illegal immigration and apply them universally I wonder what it would look like. I wonder, not only on a governmental scale, but on a personal level.
So, here are some questions using Matthew 5:40-42 (ESV) as the underlying foundation. Yes, I know they are extreme, but how much different is the application than some offer for other types of issues?
[40] And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
Should Christians fight to change that law so that every lawsuit where retribution is made the losing party must give the other party something of equal value?
[41] And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
Should Christians fight for a law that makes it illegal to not pick-up hitchhikers? Or a law that says a car-jacking victim who remains in the vehicle must give their assailant an extra ride somewhere?
[42] Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
Should Christians fight for a law that makes it illegal not to give a beggar something? And one that says each person is obligated to let anyone, stranger or not, borrow anything they like from you? And a further law that mandates that beggars be driven around to neighborhoods so they may beg and borrow from everyone where the residents are under legal obligation to give out whatever is asked?
Mark,
You pose some good questions here that really make me think.
I am not dogmatic in my reply to you here. I am just trying to think out loud (or, at least, on-line). If I run into a place where I am logically inconsistent here, I hope to be willing and able to admit it.
Having said that, it seems to me that each of the examples given in Matthew 5:40-42 have to do specifically with voluntary personal sacrifice. It doesn’t say, for instance, “And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak, and your neighbor’s cloak, as well.” It doesn’t say, “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles, and obligate your neighbor to go with him two miles, as well.” And, it doesn’t say, “Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you, and, while you’re at it, make sure that your neighbor doesn’t refuse the one that would borrow from him.”
The problem with immigration is that “welcoming the stranger” necessarily involves not only our personal hospitality, but also the official hospitality of the country in which we live.
I guess there is a sense in which I cannot, and should not, obligate my neighbor to personally welcome the stranger in his midst.
But, when I have a vote in the mutual choice of the community, I can (and perhaps should) register my preference for hospitality as over against inhospitality.
Is that the equivalent of obligating my neighbor to give his cloak away, go two miles, or give generously to beggars? I am not sure that it is.
Even if the community, by means of a majority vote, decides to extend hospitality on an official level, my neighbor still has the option to be inhospitable in his personal choices.
If we lived under a dictatorship, this question wouldn’t even be relevant. But, since we live in a democracy, we must wrestle with it. I admit the answers are not always as simple and straightforward as we would like them to be. But that is how I understand it, at least, for the time being.
David, I’m in a slight hurry so my apologies if I am a bit off.
It seems like the pro-illegal immigration folks (for lack of a better term) who use the Scripture for support do indeed use passages that call for voluntary personal sacrifice.
Concerning the national outlook of “welcoming the stranger” it seems we’d have to figure how this translates from a theocratic government into a democracy. The other issues are defining “welcoming” and “stranger”.
If welcoming is defined Nationally does this mean extending all benefits, resources, etc. to all unequivocally? If so, then there is a sense in which it would become personal for all involved. Hence, my examples above from Matthew. Of course, all laws make judgments and enforce moral decisions on one level or another.
I know you’ve said as much when you said that your “neighbor still has the option to be inhospitable in his personal choices.” Deciding how and where to draw lines is not always easy. Even you’ve admitted above (as I recall) that we should not let an unlimited amount of people in the country at any given point.
Anyway..I have to run for now. I appreciate the gracious discussion. There is much to think about.
David,
The 600,000 number is something I had seen before but could not specifically recall where.
I was able to dig this up:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/natz_fr_2009.pdf
Keep in mind that this is naturalizations and not total immigration.
Obviously the government has legal immigration numbers, but the total; illegal and legal vary depending on the source.
I suspect that we are on different sides of this issue. While I believe that some change in our laws would be helpful; it is difficult to have these conversations while current law is being ignored.
Mark,
Yes, I agree this conversation most likely calls for careful thought that is hard to express well on the run. And, I myself am somewhat on the run right now, as well.
In any case, first of all, though I know you didn’t intend it this way, I must register my objection to the term “pro-illegal immigration folks.” There may be some people out there who meet this description, but in my experience, very few. In my case, and the case of the vast majority voicing similar concerns, I think a more accurate term would be “pro-immigration reform folks.” I am aware, at the same time, with the problems related to this term, as well, since “reform” is a term that is a bit hard to pin down. But, for the record, I think it is preferable to, and more accurate than “pro-illegal immigration.”
And, I totally agree with you that “Concerning the national outlook of ‘welcoming the stranger’ it seems we’d have to figure how this translates from a theocratic government into a democracy.” So much of our difficulty in agreeing, as Christians, on what our relationship should be toward government, and our stance toward political involvement, stems here.
But, I don’t think that gives us the privilege to punt. We must grapple with this difficulty.
For me, the balanced approach is to take scriptural injunctions that refer specifically to voluntary personal sacrifice, and apply them on a voluntary personal level. But, then there are other principles, such as the laws given to the people of Israel, that were not just voluntary, and not just personal.
Now, as we have been discussing here at SBC Impact on other recent posts related to New Covenant Theology, we are not under the law of the Old Testament; we are under the law of Christ. This, as I see it, has mostly (if not exclusively) voluntary and personal ramifications.
And, as I understand it, there are definitely obligatory and communal aspects of the Mosaic law that no longer apply to us in our modern-day nation states (e.g. stoning rebellious children).
Yet, I think there are moral and ethical qualities about the civic and moral aspects of the Mosaic law (not to make them a whole different category) that serve as a model for other societies.
This seems to go hand in hand, as I understand it, with Deut. 4:5-8:
“See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the LORD my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it. Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.” What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him? And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?”
Well, as I said earlier, got to run. Let’s pick this up later.
Dave,
In order to keep my opinion as simple as possible I offer the following;
To become a Citizen of the Kingdom of God I must be saved “by grace through faith and not of works”. There is a process of entry. There will be no illegal aliens in Heaven.
To become a Citizen of the US one must make this allegiance his creed:
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_States)
When one is here illegally we have the same problem in America as the one at the wedding without the appropriate garment Matthew 22:11-14. Citizenship in America should follow the same pattern and we need to be just as discriminatory.
Bruce,
Thanks for your interesting and insightful observations on this. You make some good points. However, I see a few areas in which the analogy between Kingdom citizenship and US citizenship breaks down:
1. Entrance into the Kingdom of God is open to all who will accept the conditions of entrance. In the case of the US, though, there are many who would be happy to sign and abide by the Oath of allegiance, but are never given that opportunity.
2. In order to enter the Kingdom of God, you must personally accept the conditions of entrance: grace through faith, including a change of heart that leads to allegiance to the King. Merely being born to a family of Kingdom citizens, or within the boundaries of the Kingdom (the church?) is not sufficient. However, in order to become a US citizen, it suffices either, to have parents who are citizens, or be born on US soil. In such cases,it is not required to sign anOath of allegiance.
Dave,
Agreed.
Additionally, there are some who have taken the Oath of Citizenship and master minded 9/11. This world of political ideas starts off with ideal conditions but can only grow more complex and head toward its natural course of moral depravity. Trying to fit all the pieces together in a corrupt society, no matter how good the constitution, is truly impossible for the believer.
For instance:
Many believe that when a baby dies prior to the age of accountability it goes to heaven. This is based upon David’s comment about the baby that died which was a product of his and Bathsheba’s sin. When we protest against abortion we have a moral dilemma. If 2 million babies are aborted, they supposedly go to heaven. If we save 2 million babies from abortion, only 10% to 20% will possibly get saved and go to heaven. That means we saved 1.6 to 1.8 million of them FROM certain eternal joy. By the way, I do not advocate abortion and support life 100%. This is just a moral dilemma that we who are part of God’s Kingdom face by being a citizen of the United States.
The reason I take the black and white stance is because it is easier on my mind. By showing mercy to an illegal and at the same time telling them that they need to leave follows the pattern I think God would have me take.
Great post as usual, Dave. It makes me think and causes me to better establish the foundation I must stand upon.
Folks like Daniel Carro, a VP of the BWA now at the Leland Center in Alexandria, Va and his friend Proff Wilson at Mercer U have advanced this discussion considerably.
I hope some of you who take this matter seriously will do something as pragmatic as getting Memphis Declaration signer Ginny Britt, Harry Dent’s daughter, to get in touch with her neighbor in Seneca, SC US Senator Lindsay Graham to do the right thing in this matter.
Read Carro on this matter.
Contact Senator Graham, a fellow Southern Baptist
And meditate on the witness and legacy of Earl Stallings, an Atticus Finch of his time when you consider this matter:
Read his story in Bass’s Blessed are the Peacemakers:
http://www4.samford.edu/pubs/belltower/090806/stallings.html
Bruce,
Yes, while we are in this world, we continually face the dilemma of different gods and kingdoms that compete for our loyalty. As citizens of the Kingdom of God, our ultimate loyalty must always be to the King of kings, and to everything His Kingdom stands for. At times, this will, of necessity, pit us against the values of all earthly kingdoms, even that of the U.S.A. Just as the early Christians, we cannot say “Christos Kurios” and “Caesar Kurios” at the same time. We only have one LORD, and all others vying for our loyalty, must take a secondary place to our ultimate loyalty to Christ, and Christ alone.
The Oath of Allegiance is a bit problematic in this regard. I suppose it is possible to interpret it as limited loyalty (i.e. merely putting one’s loyalty to the U.S. in front of loyalty to all other earthly geo-political entities). I can see a place for this, as long as it does not obligate me to put my loyalty to my country in front of my loyalty to my brothers and sisters in Christ around the world, from whatever country they may be from.
Also, promising to bear arms on behalf of the U.S., for the consistent Christian, must also be a contingent vow. This leads us into a very long and complicated digression on “just war theory.” But, supposing there are just wars and unjust wars, and that it is appropriate for Christians to engage in just wars, but not unjust ones, it must be up to the individual believer to determine, according to the dictates of his/her own conscience, whether any particular war is just or unjust. Yet, as I understand it, there is no middle ground in U.S. policy. You cannot declare yourself a conscientious objector to some wars, and not to others.
There are indeed a lot of difficult tensions we must live with “between the times,” the “already but not yet” of the world in which we presently find ourselves.
Stephen,
It was interesting for me to observe Graham’s participation in the following press conference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnA9HfCz8Fs. It is indeed frustrating how the vicissitudes of politics sometimes cause good people to compromise and waffle on matters of morals and conscience.
Also, as an aside, I was especially impressed with Richard Land’s comments at this same event, which may be observed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDK1fkkgZPk&feature=related
and, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrv3feOb0kQ&feature=PlayList&p=494AF7A58836C891&index=3
While I don’t always agree with Land’s approach to everything, I find little to find fault with in what he says here. And, in my opinion, he says it, perhaps, more eloquently than any of the other participants.
While I’m on a roll, here is the text of the SBC Resolution on “The Crisis of Illegal Immigration” passed at the 2006 convention in Greensboro. Though it stops short of specifically endorsing “immigration reform,” I think there is much, in what it says, that implies the necessity for it.
On The Crisis Of Illegal Immigration
June 2006
WHEREAS, The crisis of illegal immigration in the United States impacts tens of millions of people in many different ways; and
WHEREAS, Christians have responsibilities in two realms: as citizens of the nation (Matthew 22:21) and as citizens of the heavenly Kingdom (Philippians 3:20; Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 2:9); and
WHEREAS, As citizens of the nation, Christians are under biblical mandate to respect the divine institution of government and its just laws, but at the same time, Christians have a right to expect the government to fulfill its ordained mandate to enforce those laws (Romans 13:1-7); and
WHEREAS, As citizens of the heavenly Kingdom and members of local congregations of that Kingdom, we also have a biblical mandate to act compassionately toward those who are in need (Matthew 25:34-40), love our neighbors as ourselves (Matthew 22:39), and to do unto others as we would have them do unto us (Matthew 7:12); and
WHEREAS, The federal government’s failure to fulfill its responsibility in the area of illegal immigration, during both Democratic and Republican administrations, has caused severe consternation among a sizable constituency of Americans and has led to the crisis we now face; and
WHEREAS, The federal government has not only failed to control the borders but failed in its responsibility to enforce the immigration laws, not only with regard to the individuals who are here illegally, but also with regard to the employers who knowingly hire them; and
WHEREAS, There are reportedly 12 million immigrants and counting who are living and working in America without legal status, many of whom have children who are American citizens by birth; and
WHEREAS, Many of these hardworking and otherwise law-abiding immigrants have been exploited by employers and by others in society, contrary to James 5:4; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina, June 13-14, 2006, urge the federal government to provide for the security of our nation by controlling and securing our borders; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we urge the United States Congress to address seriously and swiftly the question of how to deal realistically with the immigration crisis in a way that will restore trust among the citizenry; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we urge the federal government to enforce all immigration laws, including the laws directed at employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants or who are unjustly paying these immigrants substandard wages or subjecting them to conditions that are contrary to the labor laws of our country; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we urge citizen Christians to follow the biblical principle of caring for the foreigners among us (Deuteronomy 24:17-22) and the command of Christ to be a neighbor to those in need of assistance (Luke 10:30-37), regardless of their racial or ethnic background, country of origin, or legal status; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we encourage Christian churches to act redemptively and reach out to meet the physical, emotional, and spiritual needs of all immigrants, to start English classes on a massive scale, and to encourage them toward the path of legal status and/or citizenship; and be it finally
RESOLVED, That we encourage all Southern Baptists to make the most of the tremendous opportunity for evangelism and join our Master on His mission to seek and save those who are lost (Luke 19:10) among the immigrant population to the end that these individuals might become both legal residents of the United States and loyal citizens of the Kingdom of God.
Greensboro, NC
Joe (and any others who are quoting Romans 13 and the Old Testament passages noting that it implies or suggests no laws were broken, so that “aliens” or “sojourners” were in Israel legally),
One principle of Bible interpretation that I should not have to remind any conservative of is the importance of interpreting passages in their proper context. Aliens and sojourners mentioned in the Old Testament (or for that matter, the New) were not wherever they were illegally because immigration laws are phenomena of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Even when ancient nations closed their borders (such as when Abram and Sarai tried to enter Egypt), it was not strictly an “immigration law.” Consequently, it was not illegal before to late 1800s to immigrate wherever, with or without paperwork. I don’t know of any of my family who came to the US who ever had a green card or other clearance to come (though some of my Native American ancestors might, in retrospect, have wished it), and that includes my great-great-great-grandfather Fariss who fought in the Revolutionary War and still spoke only Gaelic when he died some 50 years later. It seems to me that the context of these passages would demand that we consider that there were no immigration laws in Bible times. How does that impact what the Bible says, and how we interpret it?
John
Good point John. Immigration was not “restricted” specifically in the U.S. before the late 1800′s. And granted, there were no such laws in biblical times as well. But does this not validate the argument that “no laws were broken” by aliens in ancient Israel because ancient Israel did not have any such law? And as many have suggested, how does this relate to current modern times? Modern states in order to protect their current citizens have in place laws which restrict in various ways immigration across their borders. The reasons are many which include economic, military, and crime enforcement necessities, which all dovetail nicely to the elephant in the room: Romans 13 (sorry David, if I camp out here). If comparison of the “times” draw any weight with you, no current nation on the globe (unless they are “failed states”) are “open border” in that immigration is restricted in some way to delineate between “illegal” and “legal” =- otherwise to use the terms would be meaningless. Even Mexico treats Guatemalan “illegal” immigrants with strict enforcement of its immigration laws – many of which would be considered by some to be “totalitarian.”
David,
I know I am late to this conversation – if you are willing to plow on, then I am willing to dialogue a bit. As in our previous discussions, (and with due respect) there is a difference between Christians through love giving of their treasure for the benefit of those less fortunate, and a government by force of law being tolerant to those who would break the laws of two soveriegn nations and the law of God (Romans 13 which seems to find little play with those who would quote Old Testament is a New Testament command, written in the days of Nero). It is not ambigious or hard to understand – and as others have stated the abortion analogy does not play well when the stated purpose and objectives of immigration restriction is for the protection of citizens whose government has been ordained by God, and whose officers are the “servants (diakios) of God” to wreck vengeance (Paul’s words) against those who would break the laws of that government.
I am sympathetic to a change of the law to support migrant or temporary work permits to allow those who a)do not want to become citizens of the United States and b)merely want to be here for the purpose of working to send money back home for the support of their families. This would be an orderly process which would not include climbing over fences in the dark, or hiring mules for the purpose of navigating away from the pursuit of lawful crime enforcement. This would also include stiff penalties and fines on employers (incluiding jail time) who did not use due diligence in hiring workers – or hire illegals anyway because they could be employed for slave wages. Hiring legal workers means the person or company who hires them as well as the worker are subject to the laws of hiring/termination which would also include the minimum wage. This may also include strict enforcement with extended jail sentences for those who continue to circumvent the lawful process.
The purpose of law is to curtail chaos. The current law enforced would do just that. The problem is not the law – it is the lax enforcement of it. Would a “new” law circumvent the lawlessness that is ongoing? New laws unenforced are just as bad as the Old laws unenforced. I think that this is what places the majority of Americans in a quandrary (who are not infected with predjudice). “IF they are unwilling to enforce current law now, how can I be sure that they would enforce a new law later?” I think what the American voter wants to see is enforcement of the old law, so that they can be assured that any new law would be enforeced with the same rigor as well.
As to your “Declaration of Independence” premise. The “inalienable” rights granted by a “Creator” was a Lokean argument in defiance of Hobbesian philosophy that entrapped European monarchs (One person rule). The letter (written to the British Monarch George) was a statement that indeed that the Creator gave rights (“Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” with the Lockean “Property Rights” encapsulated in the Constitution) that no dictator, monarch, or King could upsurp. If rights are granted by Government, then any Government could take them away – if rights are granted by God, then only God can take them away. While these rights are “universal” the writers of the document were not arguing that they wished to fight for these universal rights for all men everywhere – THEY were fighting for the right of self determination for “the 13 colonies” – with a geographical area, and a specified people FROM a specific monarch – George. “Liberty” indeed is a univeral right – but only if one is willing to fight for it from those who would wrestle it away. Thomas Jefferson, the writer of that Declaration: “The Tree of Liberty is refreshed only by the blood of the patriots.” Self-Determination includes setting up a government which then makes laws to keep the balance of Freedom over Chaos. The Constitution gave Congress and the President the power to both make laws governing immigration as well as the power to enforce those laws. That was what that Declaration was all about – a determination of a people that what they were living with was enslavement, and a willigness to fight and die for the freedom to pursue Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.
Rob
Rob,
This post is not about the virtues and/or vices of illegal immigration. It is primarily about the need to change the system.
I, for one, am not arguing in favor of illegal immigration. Nor am I arguing for open borders. What I am arguing for is a system that does not promote racism and xenophobia, and that provides opportunities for those who want to work, and provide better circumstances for their families, to do so with dignity. Most people on both sides of the question, from what I understand, are in agreement that the present system is broke.
As I mentioned in the post, I am not an economist. But, I do know there is something called “the law of supply and demand.” For the most part, from what I understand, people come looking for work, because there is work to be found. My suggestion is that, if they are going to come, we should help them to do so legally. And, if the only jobs that are available are illegal jobs, we should attack the problem at the root: those who are supplying the illegal jobs.
I forget where I heard this, but I heard it recently in the various things I have listened to and read on this subject:
The difference between the illegal immigrant, and the illegal employer, is the illegal immigrant does what he/she does so that he/she may be able to work. The illegal employer does what he/she does so that he/she won’t have to work.
A few questions David:
How does current law promote racism and xenophobia? Is the law tailored to exclude certain races or ethnicity from lawful entry and citizenship in the U.S., or is it more “universal” in its approach? What I suspect here is that you are commenting upon the vast majority of illegal immigrants being predominantly a certain ethnicity and in the news – but does the law and ICE treat Mexican illegal immigrants differently from an Ethiopian illegal immigrant? Does current law welcome one current racial ethnicity over another to become legal citizens? Current law as I understand does differentiate and is more “welcoming” to those who have highly skilled technical abilities than unskilled labor – a great influx of both Asians and Indian (India) immigrants has been the result – but do you consider this racism and xenophobia?
I did write this in my paragraph which was kinda (IMHO) ignored: “I am sympathetic to a change of the law to support migrant or temporary work permits to allow those who a) do not want to become citizens of the United States and b)merely want to be here for the purpose of working to send money back home for the support of their families. This would be an orderly process which would not include climbing over fences in the dark, or hiring mules for the purpose of navigating away from the pursuit of lawful crime enforcement. This would also include stiff penalties and fines on employers (including jail time) who did not use due diligence in hiring workers – or hire illegals anyway because they could be employed for slave wages. Hiring legal workers means the person or company who hires them as well as the worker are subject to the laws of hiring/termination which would also include the minimum wage. This may also include strict enforcement with extended jail sentences for those who continue to circumvent the lawful process.”
I in fact agree with you: If law enforcement would enforce current law on the employers, confiscate their businesses and put a few of them in jail, then the problem of “illegal” workers would disappear overnight. But David, that level of enforcement can be found under current law.
Rob
Rob,
Thanks for being patient with me. I did read your comment #28 but did not respond in a way that communicated well my agreement with you on several key points.
I hope I can do a better job with this comment, responding to your #30.
I cannot say for sure in what way the current law may or may not promote racism or xenophobia. To be honest, I am not familiar enough with the current law to make knowledgeable assessments in this regard.
That is a major point of my post. Up to now, I have based much of my opinions on these issues on what I understand to be biblical principles and personal observation, but not on actual knowledge of the various political, legal, and economic ramifications involved. I found the resources I linked to helpful in filling in some of these gaps. Admittedly, however, I am still largely ignorant of the actual stipulations of current legislation as well as specific proposals for reform. As I understand it, that is one of the big problems with the whole concept of immigration reform: it is a very nebulous idea embracing a wide range of possible actions.
In any case, I suppose what I had in the back of my mind more than anything, when I mentioned racism and xenophobia, is the recent amendment to the Arizona immigration law, which, from reports I have read, opens the door for racial profiling (especially the parts that were struck down by the federal judge). Also, though I cannot speak with a great deal of knowledge about the current federal law, I have definitely heard racist and xenophobic ideas expressed both by public media figures as well as private individuals in connection to opposition to immigration reform.
All that being said, I suppose our main point of contention in this relates to your statement in comment #28: “The purpose of law is to curtail chaos. The current law enforced would do just that. The problem is not the law – it is the lax enforcement of it.”
Having already admitted my relative ignorance of the current law, I am open to entertaining evidence on your part supporting this claim. As I mentioned in #29, I have heard many on both sides of the question who say the system is broken and we need comprehensive immigration reform. But I realize the number of voices making a claim do not necessarily make it true.
Specifically, I would be very interested to hear, if you can provide me with the information, the reasons for which current legislation is not enforced as well as it ought to be. I would also be interested to hear any proposal you may have regarding a plan to enforce current legislation in such a way so that it does not end up in massive and cost-prohibitive deportations, forced family separations, and a general witch hunt mentality towards those who are doing the best they can to make a living and support their families.
Please do not read sarcasm into this. These are honest questions I have. And, I admittedly still have much to learn.
Rob,
Don’t know if you will see this comment or not, but I would be interested in your response to this article:
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/aug/27/guest-column-immigration-policy-needs-complete/
I have not ignored your challenge David here. I am going to write a post (long or short term, I do not know) that will deal with this topic in a way that is biblically honoring. Thank you for your continued dialogue.
Rob