How Should A Christian React to Trump's DACA rescission
Since President Trump rescinded the Obama executive order giving federal benefits to children of illegal aliens once again many in the church have promoted a false view of what the Bible says about immigration. The Catholic Church has recently stated that Matthew 25 requires countries to allow any person in need into their country. It says nothing of the sort. We have addressed "the least of these my brethren," in another post. This passage neither advocates a social gospel nor requires an "unrestricted opening to immigration. I understand that the Catholic Church has a different understanding of biblical authority and hermeneutics then the Protestant one does, and frankly, while I disagree with their understanding of the text find the view consistent with some Catholic teaching. I am far more trouble when I some evangelicals talk about DACA. The ignorance of the Christian Church on this matter is startling.
Recently Southern Baptist leader argued for a restrictive border policy in an equally disturbing manner. While arguing that God determined the borders of nations he used a diminutive title for God (clearly a violation of the 3d commandement) while arguing that God's command to be compassionate did not apply to immigrants. In other words, he is admitting to twist the scripture to serve his political objective. That is the kind of religious right dogma that is a stench in the nostrils of God.
Does our nation's high regard for compassionate and human rights compel us to permit entry to anyone in need? Is it consistent with a nation who claims to be built on Judaeo-Chistian values to prohibit refugees and immigrants from countries that harbor terrorist or support our enemies. Many Christians object tor President Trump's recent executive action restricting refugees and other immigrants from some nations he deems as hostile to us. Some Christian openly teach that if we love our neighbors and if we are to be witnesses for Christ, then we should allow anyone into our country who presents themselves at the border if they are in need. The civil war in Syria is a humanitarian crises, which the Obama foreign policy exacerbated. There is no doubt that we bear some responsibility for the crises, and have some responsibility to help. Are we to ignore the genocide and civilian casualties of this war? That the Bible calls us to respond generously and unreservedly to the poor, refugees and the immigrant is clear. How can we who claim to be ambassadors of Christ and refuse these people?
While some Christians insist that the Bible requires people of faith to allow anyone displaced by these events to come to America; other Christians question whether it is our Christian duty or in our national interest to admit and give benefits to children who have come into the country illegally.
President Obama Secretarys' John Kerry and Hilary Clinton argued that it was contrary to "American values," to deny entry to these children, creating a crisis of children at our border. Yet what are American values regarding immigration. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled recently that the President. All of the lower courts have ruled that Obama's prior DAPA, allowing the parents of displaced children who crossed the border amnesty unconstitutional. Obama himself insisted his entire first term that he had no legal right to grant amnesty to the so called dreamers. If American values are determined by our founding documents and the will of the people expressed in national elections than it is clear that Obama, Clinton and Kerry usurped the Constitution and the will of the people to impose their own political values on the the national. Like it or not the President has the sole right to restrict immigration to those whom he found to be harmful to the country, and that includes harmful to the economy. While many Christians would favor amnesty for these "dreamers," it is hardly either racist or anti-biblical to oppose DACA, nor do we have a duty to assuage any past sins committed against Islam. The sins of the church committed during the Crusade need not be assuaged by amnesty.
Recently Southern Baptist leader argued for a restrictive border policy in an equally disturbing manner. While arguing that God determined the borders of nations he used a diminutive title for God (clearly a violation of the 3d commandement) while arguing that God's command to be compassionate did not apply to immigrants. In other words, he is admitting to twist the scripture to serve his political objective. That is the kind of religious right dogma that is a stench in the nostrils of God.
Does our nation's high regard for compassionate and human rights compel us to permit entry to anyone in need? Is it consistent with a nation who claims to be built on Judaeo-Chistian values to prohibit refugees and immigrants from countries that harbor terrorist or support our enemies. Many Christians object tor President Trump's recent executive action restricting refugees and other immigrants from some nations he deems as hostile to us. Some Christian openly teach that if we love our neighbors and if we are to be witnesses for Christ, then we should allow anyone into our country who presents themselves at the border if they are in need. The civil war in Syria is a humanitarian crises, which the Obama foreign policy exacerbated. There is no doubt that we bear some responsibility for the crises, and have some responsibility to help. Are we to ignore the genocide and civilian casualties of this war? That the Bible calls us to respond generously and unreservedly to the poor, refugees and the immigrant is clear. How can we who claim to be ambassadors of Christ and refuse these people?
While some Christians insist that the Bible requires people of faith to allow anyone displaced by these events to come to America; other Christians question whether it is our Christian duty or in our national interest to admit and give benefits to children who have come into the country illegally.
President Obama Secretarys' John Kerry and Hilary Clinton argued that it was contrary to "American values," to deny entry to these children, creating a crisis of children at our border. Yet what are American values regarding immigration. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled recently that the President. All of the lower courts have ruled that Obama's prior DAPA, allowing the parents of displaced children who crossed the border amnesty unconstitutional. Obama himself insisted his entire first term that he had no legal right to grant amnesty to the so called dreamers. If American values are determined by our founding documents and the will of the people expressed in national elections than it is clear that Obama, Clinton and Kerry usurped the Constitution and the will of the people to impose their own political values on the the national. Like it or not the President has the sole right to restrict immigration to those whom he found to be harmful to the country, and that includes harmful to the economy. While many Christians would favor amnesty for these "dreamers," it is hardly either racist or anti-biblical to oppose DACA, nor do we have a duty to assuage any past sins committed against Islam. The sins of the church committed during the Crusade need not be assuaged by amnesty.
Much of our culture's understanding of the crusades comes from fictional narrative. Novels like IVANHOE, COUNT ROBERT OF PARIS, THE BETROTHED, THE TALISMAN movies like THE KINGDOM OF GOD and ROBIN HOOD: PRINCE OF THIEVES have created a cultural myth that Islamic leader Saladin was a gentle benevolent man who was morally superior to King Richard I, who as the story goes was despotic, cruel and barbaric. The pervasiveness of this myth in popular culture and in public education have created a false sense of responsibility and guilt among Western Nation for the problems in the area we used to call Levant. Modern Muslims and both political and religious liberals disparage Christianity for the Crusades implying that we must now accept refugees in restitution for the horrors we perpetrated.
After 9/11 President George W. Bush promulgated the same false beneficent view of Islam saying repeatedly "Islam is a religion of Peace." Islam only offers peace to Muslims. Infidels are to be enslaved, beheaded or taxed. The reason few moderate Muslim excoriate the terrorist for their actions, is that to do so would be to repudiate their religion. While there were many despicable acts committed in the name of Christ during the Crusade (those actions are a scourge on Christianity and disgrace on the name of Christ), Muslims barbarism against Jews living in Palestine and Western Nation was consistent with their desire to build a caliphate. In his book, THE CRUSADES, CHRISTIANITY, AND ISLAM, Johathan Riley Smith, Columbia University Press, copyright 2008 explains the Crusades from the theological and cultural conflicts and perspectives of the time.
The reason few so called moderate Muslim excoriate the terrorist or their actions, because to do so would be to repudiate their world view.
From its inception Islam was a religion that advocated the brutal execution of infidels. For four hundreds years the religion spread violently with goal of establishing a caliphate. The church called for the Crusades when caliphate brutality threatened Jews in Palestine and in Christian territory. King Richard and others moved to protect their countries and their people and to defend Jews living in Palestine. Christian theologians recognize some kind of just war theory. The actions of the Islamic nations toward Christians in the Middle Ages were seen as justification for war. What was different about the Crusade from modern wars from a Christian perspective was Thomas Aquinas's advocacy of penitential warfare. He taught that a soldier who died in a just war for the defense of the church (which at the time was the equivalent of the state) were absolved of their sin. It is this view, rejected by nearly all Christians of the 20th century, that lead to Christian soldiers seeing their death in the Crusades as a guarantee of their martyrdom and justifying brutality. When penitential warfare confronted jihad both sides found justification for heinous crimes. Politicians or others who paint the history of the Crusades as a battle of the ruthless Christian versus the serene peaceful Muslims are ignoring history. There was plenty of brutality on all sides.
The reason few so called moderate Muslim excoriate the terrorist or their actions, because to do so would be to repudiate their world view.
From its inception Islam was a religion that advocated the brutal execution of infidels. For four hundreds years the religion spread violently with goal of establishing a caliphate. The church called for the Crusades when caliphate brutality threatened Jews in Palestine and in Christian territory. King Richard and others moved to protect their countries and their people and to defend Jews living in Palestine. Christian theologians recognize some kind of just war theory. The actions of the Islamic nations toward Christians in the Middle Ages were seen as justification for war. What was different about the Crusade from modern wars from a Christian perspective was Thomas Aquinas's advocacy of penitential warfare. He taught that a soldier who died in a just war for the defense of the church (which at the time was the equivalent of the state) were absolved of their sin. It is this view, rejected by nearly all Christians of the 20th century, that lead to Christian soldiers seeing their death in the Crusades as a guarantee of their martyrdom and justifying brutality. When penitential warfare confronted jihad both sides found justification for heinous crimes. Politicians or others who paint the history of the Crusades as a battle of the ruthless Christian versus the serene peaceful Muslims are ignoring history. There was plenty of brutality on all sides.
Combine a false narrative with some bad contemporary theology and you have some Christians demanding the acceptance of displaced immigrant children because of a guilt motive. It has become popular among Christians over the last 30 years to advocate a view that contemporary Christians are culpable for sins of their ancestors. I once went to a conference of Christian men who shared in a sacred assembly of penitence. The sponsors of the Conference advocated that Christians living in the 20th century were somehow culpable for sins committed against Native American and African Americans in our past. I refrained from participating in these services as they were based on both bad history and worse theology. The gospel is a message of grace, rather than guilt (Romans 8:1-8); even a casual reading of scripture makes it obvious that individual Christians are not responsible for the sins of their ancestors:
[16] “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deuteronomy 24:16 ESV)
[10] “If he fathers a son who is violent, a shedder of blood, who does any of these things [11] (though he himself did none of these things), who even eats upon the mountains, defiles his neighbor's wife, [12] oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore the pledge, lifts up his eyes to the idols, commits abomination, [13] lends at interest, and takes profit; shall he then live? He shall not live. He has done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself. [14] “Now suppose this man fathers a son who sees all the sins that his father has done; he sees, and does not do likewise: [15] he does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbor's wife, [16] does not oppress anyone, exacts no pledge, commits no robbery, but gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment, [17] withholds his hand from iniquity,(1) takes no interest or profit, obeys my rules, and walks in my statutes; he shall not die for his father's iniquity; he shall surely live. (Ezekiel 18:10-17 ESV)Neither the law nor the prophets hold individual Christians culpable for sins committed by past or future generations. While there were many sacred assemblies recorded in the Bible (Nehemiah 8:18-9:) to confess national or communal sins, the assemblies were held because those sinful practices rooted in their history were occurring contemporaneously to the assembly. It was past sin that has continued for generations.Sacred assemblies are called when historic sin remains prevalent. While some of the injustices committed against Muslims during the Crusades, Native Americans and African Americans in past generations were
I have enough sinful issues to confess with out being responsible for the sins of my ancestors.
shamefully done in the name of Christ. The abolitionists movement and many benevolences to Native Americans and much ministry to modern Islamic people's is also done in the name of Christ. I know of no one who accepts the idea of penitential warfare today. Benevolent ministry does not excuse past atrocities, neither are modern Christians culpable for them. I have enough sinful issues in my life without being responsible for the sins of my ancestors.
Those who would advocate that we must grant amnesty to immigrant children in our country because of past Christian sins committed against them make a specious argument based on a convoluted view of history, bad exegesis and a perversion of theology. The Bible does call us to act compassionately and justly to all people even to our enemies. Does that mean that our commitment to love, mercy and redemption of all people require us to give amnesty to children of illegal immigrants? We value sharing the gospel with all people, extending help to the poor, disenfranchised and refugees around the world. We are sojourners and refugees ourselves (Phil 3:20), and the history of Israel is that of nation repeatedly displaced and disenfranchised. We are called to be a source of compassion and justice to all people (Micah 6:6-8; James 1:27) We also are subject to our government and steward of the things God has given us, including our freedoms.
The Old Testament included civil laws and social responsibilities to establish and protect the culture and the country into which the Messiah would come. Although the civil law of the Old Testament is not contingent on us, these laws and regulations in the Old Testament reveal timeless values and governing principles for all godly people (Matthew 5:17-20; Romans 15:4). The Bible can teach us how to respond to other nations and cultures in crisis. A careful examination of how the Israelites responded to alien peoples can provide a balanced biblical view of the refugee crisis.
Although the scripture says much about helping those in need, and Christian people will show compassion even to our enemies, there is no scriptural mandate for giving amnesty to children of immigrants, some of whom may be our enemies. Jeffers is right when he points out that God purposely separates people and defines national and ethnic boundaries (Genesis 11:8; Zechariah 14; Acts 17: 26&27: Revelation 5:9 &10).There is a scriptural difference between aliens admitted under the law, and those who were not in the nation legally , or those who threatened a nations security.
God commanded the the nation of Israel to applied differing standards to alien's based on their home countries relationship to Israel, even legal aliens had no guarantee of citizenship. When the Israelites left Egypt there were some non-Jews, aliens, who journeyed with them, and were assimilated into Israelite culture (Exodus 12:38; Numbers 11:4; Jos 8:35) and some who lived among them but were never allowed to become citizens. Some immigrants were required to obey laws specifically directed at them (Lev 12:19;17:10,15; 18:26; 20:2; 24:16) and were restricted in what they could do. For a few who there was a path way to citizenship, if they assimilated into the culture, adopted its language and customs and were governed under the covenant (Ruth 1:15-18); in other words, they had to become Jews.
Refugees need not be resettled for us to minister compassionately or effectively to their needs. God loves Arabs and Muslims. Christians need not fear them, nor are we compelled to act in a certain way because of shameful things done in the name of Christ by past generations. We live by grace not by guilt. A nation built on Judeo-Christian policy can make policy to protect its safety, security and cultural identity. A balanced biblical view of the refugee crisis demands that we help the disenfranchised and poor around the world. It also demands we support our government in its attempt to keep us safe and secure. Christians who argue that denying people entry to the country makes us dispassionate, deny God's compassion. Christian who argue that we should be only concerned for our political safety and ignore suffering humanity deny God's grace. A Biblically balance solution helps suffering people while, protecting our cultural values and keeping the country as safe as possible.So while it is the responsibility of Christians to help those living among us, there is no mandate for a government to allow anyone in the country illegally.
Of course, we recognize that the children of illegal aliens are in difficult situations, and while it is a compassionate act to consider that many have established themselves in this country. We must also consider that the one who brought them here with a false promise was their parents, not the US citizenry. We have no obligation to grant residency or citizenship to these people. Further it is our governments duty to preserve the security of our nation, which includes its economic security. So there is no easy answer to what we should do with these DACA recipients, and one can make a biblical argument for either side. What we must not do is argue that our particular political position on this dilemma is the biblical one. The Bible requires that our government protect our nation, and that it be compassionate to those who are here, a task that will require wisdom from God and national and personal humility.
Although the scripture says much about helping those in need, and Christian people will show compassion even to our enemies, there is no scriptural mandate for allowing refugees from enemy nations to immigrate into a country.
God commanded the the nation of Israel to applied differing standards to alien's based on their home countries relationship to Israel, even legal aliens had no guarantee of citizenship. When the Israelites left Egypt there were some non-Jews, aliens, who journeyed with them, and were assimilated into Israelite culture (Exodus 12:38; Numbers 11:4; Jos 8:35) and some who lived among them but were never allowed to become citizens. Some immigrants were required to obey laws specifically directed at them (Lev 12:19;17:10,15; 18:26; 20:2; 24:16) and were restricted in what they could do. For a few who there was a path way to citizenship, if they assimilated into the culture, adopted its language and customs and were governed under the covenant (Ruth 1:15-18); in other words, they had to become Jews.
Some aliens who could neither assimilate, nor conform to Old Testament Law were kept out of Israel. There were some ethnic groups that were not allowed to immigrate and were restricted to becoming citizens for up to 10 generations (Exodus 12:48; 34: 15- 16 Deuteronomy 7:1-4; 23:3); in at lease one case the Lord told the Jews to annihilate those who had entered, because they posed a danger to God's purposes for the nation (Deut 14:21). The scripture often speaks of God judging the enemies of Israel based on how they treated Israelites (Ob11). Immigrants from enemy nations were treated differently under the law then those from Israel's allies. In Ezra Chapter 10 families of Jews who had intermarried with some aliens were required to divorce them and their families were broken apart with aliens and their children repatriated to their homeland. In others words children who had come into the country through no fault of their own were commanded to be expatriated to their parent's former country
So while I understand that many Christians are uncomfortable with rescinding DACA, from a Biblical perspective it is an action that is allowed in some circumstances to protect God's sovereign purpose for a nation. To call Trump action's or Christian's who support it dispassionate misunderstands the very nature of God and of the biblical view of government and society.
Immigrants from enemy nations were treated differently under the law than those from Israel's allies.
So while I understand that many Christians are uncomfortable with rescinding DACA, from a Biblical perspective it is an action that is allowed in some circumstances to protect God's sovereign purpose for a nation. To call Trump action's or Christian's who support it dispassionate misunderstands the very nature of God and of the biblical view of government and society.
Immigrants from enemy nations were treated differently under the law than those from Israel's allies.
While taking care of the alien's and disenfranchised people is a duty of God's people, the scripture places a high regard on preserving culture, and national identity, in order, to preserve God's redemptive work in history. The individual has different responsibilities to his neighbor, than to their governments its allies or enemies. Some would argue that the Old Testament civil law is no longer obligatory for New Testament church. Our citizenship is in heaven; our responsibility is to care for all people no matter what race so we wonder what should be our attitude toward immigration policy in the current political and social arena? Citizenship in the kingdom of God is never a matter of ethnicity or political affiliation, yet Jesus himself acknowledge the governments were responsible for some things while individuals others (Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25). Are there timeless biblical principles that can define how we respond to refugees, Syrian or otherwise?
1.God has established the sovereign boundaries of nations and has a purpose for them in his plan of redemption. A Christian government has a duty to preserve those boundaries and culture for the sake of maintaining civil order and accomplishing God's purpose for the nation. They can even go to war if need be (Romans 13:4).
2. We each have differing responsibilities to God, the church and to our government. We are to treat all people with compassion and dignity.
3. Human dignity and the sanctity of life affords no entitlement to citizenship. Obviously the scripture teaches that prisoners and criminals should be treated with dignity, but it gives governments rights to punish them and deny them certain privileges.
4. A Biblical immigration policy therefore, protects our God ordained sovereignty, culture, national borders and security. It defines as a matter of law who can enter the country under what grounds they can stay and may treat some groups differently depending on whether their nation or ethnic group is enemies or friends.Refugees can be served in their home areas as well or better than they can through repatriation. The Center for Immigration Studies has documented the cost of resettling a refugee in this country is $65,000 per person. The United Nations Commission on refugees can help refugees in their on countries for about $1500 per person. There are many churches successfully operating ministries to help refugees resettle, and learn English in this country. My own church runs a ministry teaching English to immigrants. These are commendable and should be advanced. There are also organizations like World Vision, Samaritan's Purse, Compassion International and others working to improve the lives of refugees where they live.
Refugees need not be resettled for us to minister compassionately or effectively to their needs. God loves Arabs and Muslims. Christians need not fear them, nor are we compelled to act in a certain way because of shameful things done in the name of Christ by past generations. We live by grace not by guilt. A nation built on Judeo-Christian policy can make policy to protect its safety, security and cultural identity. A balanced biblical view of the refugee crisis demands that we help the disenfranchised and poor around the world. It also demands we support our government in its attempt to keep us safe and secure. Christians who argue that denying people entry to the country makes us dispassionate, deny God's compassion. Christian who argue that we should be only concerned for our political safety and ignore suffering humanity deny God's grace. A Biblically balance solution helps suffering people while, protecting our cultural values and keeping the country as safe as possible.So while it is the responsibility of Christians to help those living among us, there is no mandate for a government to allow anyone in the country illegally.
Of course, we recognize that the children of illegal aliens are in difficult situations, and while it is a compassionate act to consider that many have established themselves in this country. We must also consider that the one who brought them here with a false promise was their parents, not the US citizenry. We have no obligation to grant residency or citizenship to these people. Further it is our governments duty to preserve the security of our nation, which includes its economic security. So there is no easy answer to what we should do with these DACA recipients, and one can make a biblical argument for either side. What we must not do is argue that our particular political position on this dilemma is the biblical one. The Bible requires that our government protect our nation, and that it be compassionate to those who are here, a task that will require wisdom from God and national and personal humility.
Comments
Post a Comment