Today's paper was replete with striking reports of happenings in the world. An editorial by Thomas Sowell entitled Gingrich and immigration spoke of how the United States is proving it's convictions relative to immigration either by plumping for amnesty for all peoples currently residing in the US whether the have legitimate citizenship documentation or not, or whether we promote a house by house manhunt for all without papers and summarily dump them on the other side of the border. Mr. Sowell's main point was that an equivocation was being made where people saw the immigration issue the same a importation of goods, namely that there should be open and free trade of goods worldwide so likewise there should be a free coming and going of all people worldwide with no restrictions. Mr. Sowell described the differences, however, in a good and a person who brings a culture with them and procreates to create a furtherance and increase of that culture.
In another article by the McClatchy News Service entitled Nigeria's Senate votes to criminalize gay marriage had the Senate leader claiming that gay marriage was an import from the West. He said, "The whole idea is the importation of foreign culture, but this would be one freedom too many. We cannot allow our traditions and value system to be eroded." This statement implicitly states that the United States' value system has already been eroded, since we are now freely exporting such as a commodity. There again are obvious differences as much of Nigeria has not proposed any resistance to the criminal law passage as the country enforces Sharia law to punish same-sex relations by stoning. Opponents to the law have similar arguments, however, as one spokesperson for rescinding the law said that outlawing gay marriage was a "gross violation of fundamental human rights."
Finally, in an article by the Associated Press entitled World's central banks act to ease market strains it seems that amid a constant parade of national bailouts the world is jumping from crisis to crisis and gaining confidence not from widespread stabilization of worldwide national debts and currency valuation based on a fixed point of reference but rather on how quickly the world community acts to prop up ailing nations so they can limp along until the next crisis. Most troubling is the fact that the World Bank was only able to provide the bailout after China reduced bank reserve levels to make more money available.
In all three cases there is a common theme, there are people not willing to do what is hard to address problems effecting all mankind. With regard to immigration it is hard to stand up and acknowledge that although people occupying a nation are in fact people and cannot just be loaded up on a ship and dropped off in a dingy in the ocean en masse, aliens do bring a culture with them and although all are not criminals no nation can accommodate a free border system and reasonably expect to provide security for it's citizens. Something serious must be done that most people won't like but is right.
With regard to homosexual unions it is hard to stand up and acknowledge that marriage reaches beyond tradition and culture and cannot be addressed satisfactorily in a purely legal process while also being aware of the obvious logical fallacy that celebrating any lifestyle one chooses is equal with being denied food and water or other fundamental human rights. There must be a standard for the very existence of fundamental human rights on which such "value systems" are based and then determine the legitimacy with which behaviors are celebrated or disavowed. Making a stand for a standard by which to measure any "value system" and the precipitating statement of illegitimacy for relations outside those that align with the standard won't be liked by most people but it is right.
With regard to worldwide economics it must be acknowledged that many people will suffer if national banking collapses or is rendered functionally impotent while at the same time recognizing the obviousness that a nation cannot spend more than it produces or just print more currency that is not equally valuated against a fixed point of reference and continue to flourish. For the US in particular either a return to the gold standard or some other fixed point of reference and/or major cuts where spending falls far below production so that legitimate debt obligation can be met the real crisis will hit and suffering on a much larger scale will result. Something serious must be done that most won't like but is right.
In all cases the right thing must be done or serious consequences will be the result. The question for all is what is right, and is there even such thing as right that applies to all people in these matters? What standards are there for a value system that governs immigration, marriage and economics? It is absolutely critical that those questions be answered with confidence and singularity. I am confident in the singularity that can successfully address all those issues and all other effecting humanity. What about you?
Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Friday, April 30, 2010
A ger Of An Issue - or - A Suggested Christian Approach to Immigration at the Southern US Border
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)