Immigration in general, and the newly passed state law in Arizona in particular, has raised a great deal of debate (and I use the term as loosely as possible for most media outlets) surrounding the United States and immigration. I've been thinking about this issue for a long time (over a year to date) and I would respectfully submit my thoughts and a proposal. One word of note to begin, and that is that my address is specifically pointed to followers of Christ. My hope in all my thinking is to bring together the biblical consideration that followers of Christ should give to any topic, some ancillary but related issues and contemporary cultural ideas that tend to cloud the issue. With that as a backdrop, I begin with what I believe to be the requisite initial definition.
A Christian position on immigration must be based on biblical truth. A quick perusal of just the Old Testament reveals a good portion of scripture dealing with the issue, and it is incumbent upon us as believers who understand the Bible as the inspired Word of God to investigate the terms so we can have a well founded understanding of what is intended and not just force a personal interpretation on the text. gwr is the hebrew root for the words used in the Old Testament to speak on the topic. Here I am going to include a significant excerpt of John T. Willis' translation, edited by Botterweck and Ringgren from the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament by William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company of Grand Rapids, Michigan, pages 439 to 449. Any mistakes, typographical or otherwise are mine.
"Hebrew lexicography reckons with several roots of gwr. In connection with an investigation of the root gwr I, 'to tarry as a sojourner,' the important question is whether gwr II=subordinate form of grh, 'to attack, strive,' and gwr III=subordinate form of ygr, 'to be afraid,' are independent homonymous roots, or whether possibly an original connection can be established between these roots, so that the various meanings represent special meanings of the same root...
...gwr I occurs in the qal 81 times...the subst. ger occurs 92 times...meghurim means 'sojourning' and occurs 11 times...
...In the OT, the ger occupies an intermediate position between a native ('ezrach) and a foreigner (nokhri'). He lives among people who are not his blood relatives, and thus he lacks the protection and the privileges which usually come from blood relationship and place of birth. His status and privileges are dependent on the hospitality that has played an important role in the ancient Near East ever since ancient time. In the early period of Israel, the legal position of the ger is comparable with that of the metics of Greece...However, under the sign of religious integration, the concept develops more and more toward the proselyte, the non-Israelite who becomes an adherent of the Yahweh faith...
...The reasons why someone becomes a ger, separates himself from his clan and his home, and places himself under the legal protection of another man or group of men, are varied. The most frequent reason given in the OT is famine...Military encounters can also force people to lead the life of a ger...In addition, individual distress or bloodguilt can cause a person to seek protection and help among foreigners as a ger...
...As a rule, of course, the protected citizen could acquire no property, and thus was left to the legal protection of the fully enfranchised citizen...
...when the ger is mentioned in connection with the treatment of the quality of sacrifice in Lev. 22:17-33, and when Nu. 15 in supplements to the regulations concerning sacrifice (Nu. 15:14, 15 [twice], 16, 26, 29, 30) explicitly states that the ger has the same rights as the native, and that the expiatory power of the sin-offering is also given to the ger who lives in the midst of the whole community of the Israelites, again it is quite clear that in late strata of P (the Pentateuch) the ger is the fully integrated proselyte. Therefore, in this portion of P one should regard all laws as also applicable to the ger, even if he is not explicitly mentioned. And this means that the ger has his place in the community as a proselyte by circumcision and mode of life...
...The Israelites are commanded to treat the protected citizen kindly (Dt. 10:19; cf. Ex. 22:20 [21]; 23:9), because they know what it is to be a ger (nephesh hagger, 'the soul [heart] of a stranger'), they have the responsibility of extending the law of loving their neighbor as themselves (Lev. 19:18) to the ger...The idea that man simply lives the life of a ger here on earth if of special significance. Thus, the psalmist knows that he is only a ger, 'guest' and a toshabh, 'sojourner', before Yahweh, like all his fathers...Yahweh alone is owner of the land, and thus they can only be hereditary tenants of his possesion...The distress of earthly existence leads to the recognition that God must support and help man like a patron, or else man will be lost."
End extended excerpt
There are several ideas that come to the front of my thinking. First, the biblical understanding of the sojourner was that there was a significant impetous occuring in someone's native land that would drive them away (drought, famine, military action, bloodguilt, etc.). The implication here is that people are not just milling about for no reason, wandering to and fro, but rather something is driving them to leave the protection and privilages afforded him in his native land. They are placing themselves at the mercy of their hosts. Second, there was an expectation of assimilation into the culture and the beliefs, the term proselyte is used. The implication here is that all the laws of the land are expected to be followed and although the guest is protected and allowed to live securely, obtain private possessions, hire others to work for him, etc. there is the understanding of full assimilation into the culture. Third, respectful treatment is required by the native in the land. It is critically important to remember the position of mankind as a "hereditary tenant" of God's possession; such that caring for visitors is as part of good stewardship.
Now to bring in the related legal issues. I'll be brief here because this portion could be an entire post on its own. Governments and laws are established by God and are limited in power by God. As Harold O.J. Brown says in his article Civil Authority and the Bible, "The first of these limits if quite clearly expressed in Scripture and is universally accepted by Christians and, to some extent, even respected by the civil laws of secular states: We may not do that which God's law prohibits, even when the secular authority commands it (Dan. 3:4-6), and we must do what God's law requires, even when secular (or religious) authorities prohibit it (Dan. 6:7-12; Acts 4:18; 5:28)." Further, R.C. Sproul in his article The Biblical View of Submission of Constituted Authority states, "The apostles were driven to continue their ministry by an overarching ethical imperative. What words they couched in a gossamer veil of the rhetorical in Acts 4, the proclaimed "without horns" in chapter 5: "We ought to obey God rather than men" (v. 29). This ethical imperative, resting on an obligatory oughtness, is structured in a comparative form. The operative word in the comparison is 'rather.' It is not a universal license for revolt against all human authority...The 'rather' comes into play only when there is a conflict between the lesser and the greater magistrate. The principle is always and ever prior obligation to the higher authority...The'governing authorities' can also be rendered 'higher powers.' The powers or authorites (exousia) in view are not restricted to the supreme office of king or emporer but are applied to anyone who is in authority over us. In 1 Peter 2:13 reference is made to the king who is supreme, but in this text no single class of magistrates is compared with another. Our obligation is submission to all who hold magisterial authority over us. There are encompassed by the word higher (hoperechon)."
And now to my recommendation, which is based on a more complete study of the full texts of the documents refrenced above and others and which I hope will be seen to be a balanced biblical approach for followers of Christ. It seems to me that we need to incorporate the ideas of treating visitors well (as we understand even ourselves to be only caretakers of God's property), proselytizing and submitting to authority. It would not be biblical or Godly to say everyone should just stay out and leave us alone because this is OUR country. It would also not seem to be biblical or Godly to ignore the status of the soul of whoever comes in and out of the nation. It would also not be biblical or Godly to say ignore the law and let everyone come in without a second thought. My position, after careful consideration, which I consider to be a balanced biblical view of the issue, is that Christians in this country should endeavor to minister in the border areas where those to our South are entering the country. At first thought, the ministry would be some combination of providing food, clothing, shelter for those wishing to enter the US while also explaining the current laws relative to immigration, helping to complete and submit the proper documentation for legal entry into the country, begin offering some basic English language to aide in assimilation into US culture, sharing the gospel and possibly even help in placement for employment and/or location once the legal documents for lawful entry have been received.
This seems to me to be a proper Christian respone to the issue. It remains true to helping those in need and treating all people with dignity and respect because they are created in God's image, to be true to the biblical principle of submitting to authority where it does not conflict with God's law, and to make disciples of all nations. It also seems to me to be a very difficult and potentially dangerous road to take, but that should be seen as possibly the best evidence for its being a legitimate solution for Christians. Those who are called to being on the front lines would most certainly be in physical danger, but would have a wide open mission field of not only those who genuinely seek refuge from a situation that is forcing them to flee the provision and protection of their own native land and put themselves at the mercy of another but also to those who would attempt to smuggle drugs into the US. It would also be another opportunity for all Christians across the nation to contribute to mission work right here in the United States.
This is good advice. Being located in AZ I am proud to say that our church is active in teaching English as a second language and ministering to these souls. This ministry, and our church's location in a poor area has also drawn a large contingent of African refugees.
ReplyDeleteI would say however that there are two things happening here and people are being used in two ways. Even though most are conservative in their worldview, they are known to vote Democratic buying into the old and untrue axiom that Democrats are for the rich and Republicans are for the poor. On the other side they are abused because, given their status as illegals, they are outside of the loads of red tape and extra expenses, and workplace protections, that come with legal workers. They are in effect a modern softer version of slaves. Should they become legal residents they will, by doing so, become unemployable due to the added expense and will themselves be at the mercy of future illegal residents.
At first glance the solution to the immigration problem is not as obvious as it would seem to appear, i.e. amnesty/building walls-both of which treat symptoms-from a compassionate or Christian perspective I believe. Unfortunately, there are plenty of reasons in Washington to keep things just the way they are; something that amnesty would itself also achieve as it pertains to the plight of the immigrant.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment, and I appreciate your churches work on the "front lines" as it were. If there is one thing i'm sure of it is that the issue is more complicated than I can comprehend. I also know from my own struggle in trying to come up with what is a proper biblical approach to the issue that it is especially hard for Christians.
Dread came into my mind, however, when I read your discussion on the "soft slavery" treatment of the people, and how a non-believer would approach the issue. If, on an a non-theistic view, people are nothing more than meat machines, then these people who are created in the image of God would be seen as commodities and simply cheap labor. Where on earth will the issue go if that is the starting point of consideration??
Great to hear from you and I look forward to when you are able to begin posting again. I've checked in often to catch your first return post.
Blessings, Dan. Keep up the good work and be encouraged as you do kingdom work. As difficult as these issues and situations of the day, this world is not our home and although we struggle in a fallen world we have the hope of the promise of something better made available through our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
"people are nothing more than meat machines, then these people who are created in the image of God would be seen as commodities and simply cheap labor."
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly right. As with every issue where the course is set by emotion (not thoroughly thought through)by the general populace-including many Christians-, and self-interest and political expediency by decision makers and power brokers, including the media, the unintended consequences hurt the very people they like to think they are helping. Not that I think it matters to these crusaders beyond the emotional high they receive from feelings of increased self-worth and moral superiority.
Sorry for taking so long. I've been wading through this trying to see where we're going. Let me take a few steps, here. You note...
ReplyDeleteFirst, the biblical understanding of the sojourner was that there was a significant impetous occuring in someone's native land that would drive them away (drought, famine, military action, bloodguilt, etc.).
1. I'm okay with the notion. That certainly seems to be generally the case, that the foreigners were people in Israel for a reason.
2. However, I'm not certain that this would necessarily need to apply to every instance of being welcoming to a foreigner. Maybe it does and I'm just not familiar enough with the context to know it, but I don't think it would necessarily require the supposition.
3. To support this, I'd point to the laws commanding the nation of Israel/the people of Israel to leave portions of their field for the poor, the widows, the foreigners to glean. It was a way of providing "welfare" of ensuring that the least of these had some resources so as not to simply die from a lack of provision, which the Bible suggests would be wrong.
4. Now, the idea behind those laws, if I'm not mistaken, is the provision for the poor. Period. The landowners/farmers weren't to go out and verify that the people gleaning food were TRULY needy. There were no means tests involved. The food was simply set aside for those who needed it.
Would it be possible for some to take advantage of such provisions? I'd say it certainly seems that way. But that was not the concern of God in creating those laws, just that the food would be there if needed.
5. So, if a wanderer - for any reason - happened through Israel, the food was to be there for them. Period. Hospitality WAS a critical rule for ancient peoples and Israel was to provide for those in need.
6. All of that to say that I'm just not certain that it mattered in context whether the foreigners were in Israel due to famine, military action, etc, OR if they were just wanderers, like Israel was.
You say...
ReplyDeleteSecond, there was an expectation of assimilation into the culture and the beliefs, the term proselyte is used. The implication here is that all the laws of the land are expected to be followed and although the guest is protected and allowed to live securely, obtain private possessions, hire others to work for him, etc. there is the understanding of full assimilation into the culture.
I'd agree that foreigners were expected to follow the rules of Israel while sojourning there. But clearly, some foreigners were just passing through. I don't know that there was any expectation of assimilation for those who were only passing through.
I'd suggest that there was the expectation of right behavior, but not assimilation. I think for the foreigner who was not passing through who wanted to "join" Israel, I think a case could be made that assimilation was expected. But I don't know that the Bible suggests that every foreigner was one seeking to be assimilated. There would also be those who were just passing through.
For these, too, hospitality and provision was an expectation. Wouldn't you think?
As to legal issues...
ReplyDelete1. I agree that in general, we ought to obey a nation's laws. Whether we are a citizen or just passing through.
2. I agree that the exception would be when it conflicts with what we believe God would have us do.
3. where you say...
It seems to me that we need to incorporate the ideas of treating visitors well
I agree.
4. Where you say... ...proselytizing and submitting to authority.
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean that we ought to expect our visitors to obey laws/submit to authority in that sense? I agree, with the caveat that we would not expect them to hold to laws contrary to God's laws.
5. I'm not sure what you mean by "proselytizing," though. That we Christian citizens are REQUIRED to proselytize foreign visitors? Proselytize is one of those words that has given rise to some negative connotations.
We are always to be sharers of the good news to the poor, liberty for the captive, helpers for the needy and ill, sharers of God's grace, etc, as Jesus taught. Sharers of the gospel, in short. Whether that is for neighbors or foreigners. If that's all you mean by proselytize, okay.
6. Where you say... It would not be biblical or Godly to say everyone should just stay out and leave us alone because this is OUR country.
I agree.
That is, we would be expected to obey the law to drive the speed limit, it is a reasonable civic law not in conflict with God's law. However, if there were a law requiring child sacrifice, well, obvious, that is a law we'd HAVE to break to be faithful to God.
I think we mostly agree thus far.
Now, where you say...
ReplyDeleteIt would also not be biblical or Godly to say ignore the law and let everyone come in without a second thought.
I would agree up to the point where - as we have already agreed - the law is contrary to God's wishes. IF a given law is contrary to God's will for us, then we ought to obey God rather than humanity.
If a foreigner is here because he is seeking to avoid his family's starvation, then criminalizing that person's presence seems to me to be cutting awfully close to being contrary to God's law.
I will say I think it is a gray area and I'm not being absolutist about this, but if, for instance, a Mexican gentleman approached me and said he was here illegally trying to find a job because his family was literally starving to death in Mexico and he had tried everything he knew there and simply was unable to provide food to keep them from starving. HERE, he tells me, he knows he CAN get a job and thus keep them from starving.
He might be here illegally, but I would be opposed to turning him in because he is here for a just and Godly cause, it seems to me. Turning him away with a "Sorry, but it's against the law," just seems contrary to God's law. It sounds too much like James 2...
If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?
Now, ideally, perhaps the Christian (or Muslim or Jew or atheist) would be in a place to say, "Well, HERE's a solution that will be both legal AND allow you to provide for your family..." and provide the solution. But failing that, that would be a law that I would refuse to obey, as being contrary to my understanding of God's will.
What do you think?
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your comments and will try to respond as best I can to your follow-up questions in the time I have available.
From your first response:
I don't think we substantially disagree anywhere. I would just clarify when you began with talking about "wanderers" that we should be careful with the terminology. I respect the authorities who actually did the word study which is why I quoted such an extensive excerpt from their work. There was protection and privaledge within one's homeland and so people didn't just strike out on their own for no reason. Wanderer is OK so long as we are clear that it is someone making a decision to leave the safety and security of their native land to put themselves at the mercy of another nation.
On your second response:
This goes again to the authority I quoted who make clear that the expectation of any non-native is that they are treated rightfully as a guest, but are expected not just to behave well but to assimilate (the authority used the exact phrasing "fully integrated proselyte") completely including circumcision and blood sacrifice. I'm also not sure why you are repeating the idea of people "passing through". We are discussing the biblical position on people who are leaving their native land to come live in another land. I'd have to do a different post on a different topic of how Christians are to treat those "just passing through". Our discussion here is focused on those leaving their homeland to join another, let's keep that idea in focus.
More in a moment on your last two responses.
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteOn your third response:
We are talking about a Christian response to immigration. Proselytize may have negative connotations because people have used it while doing something not remotely resembling proselytizing. That doesn't render the word meaningless. Just like people don't the term Christians because of what some Christians have done in the name of Christ. It doesn't de-legitimize the term. However, what I mean is by proselytizing is sharing the gospel message of Jesus Christ with everyone. Making disciples of all nations, if you will. I think it's pretty clear that is an expectation of all Christians. I don't think there's any disagreement there.
On to your fourth response:
"He might be here illegally, but I would be opposed to turning him in because he is here for a just and Godly cause, it seems to me. Turning him away with a "Sorry, but it's against the law," just seems contrary to God's law. It sounds too much like James 2...
If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?"
You're establishing a false dichotomy here. You are stating either I help the hypothetical Mexican here illegally, or I turn him in. You quoted James 2:16, which, repectfully I don't think you are using in the right context here. James is a letter written to "the twelve tribes scattered among the nations:" and verse 15 says "Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food." This passage is about works accompanying faith for believers and specifically sets up the scenario of helping a brother or sister in the body. Now, having said that there are other verses concerning the treatment of all people you could have used instead. I'd just encourage you to select those next time. To the point at hand, however, if confronted with that hypothetical situation it seems consistant with the theme of my post (if it is a correct biblical understanding) to provide for the man food, clothing, etc. out of one's own provisions, then encourage and help facilitate remaining here legally as a refugee (which is a different scenario than immigration), all the while sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ. Seems to me this is showing love and not disregarding the authority where it does not contradict God's law.
In your last paragraph you hinted at this type of solution so i'm not sure we would disagree on this resolution to the hypothetical situation you presented.
Finally you said the hypothetical man was here for a just and Godly cause. We're still in the middle of discussion of what it means to be Godly so I won't re-hash that discussion in this thread but just ask for clarification as to how you feel being hungry to the point of starvation to be just or Godly. It seems to me those are moral terms that you're using to describe a physical condition. The man may or may not be Godly. How we treat him may be just or unjust, Godly or unGodly. I don't think his being a starving man could be rightly stated a just or Godly condition.
I want to end on a good note, however, in that it seems we agree on this issue much more than we disagree. It's no judge of whether the position is right of wrong, but I hope you can at least see my heart's desire to find out a truly balanced biblical response to such an important issue. Ultimately i'm for helping people, but not for undermining authority because I think both are biblical. I think there we both agree, at least in substance.