Timeless Truth for a Sound Bite Culture

You Can HELP

Share TRUTH Across the World

Donate NOW

Join Our E-Mail List

JOIN

Freedom of Worship

Watch this "Freedom of Worship" Video

From the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview

"Theologian George Weigel wrote on Secretary Hillary Clinton's speech at Georgetown University, "For those with ears to hear in Gaston Hall that day, the promotion of the so-called LGBT (lesbian/gay/bisexual/ transgendered) agenda had just been declared a human rights priority of the United States, in the same sentence in which the secretary of state had offered an anorexic description of religious freedom that even the Saudis could accept."

Watch Chuck Colson as he reminds the world that religious freedom is God-given, and not a gift from government.

See the  Urgent Alert from Chuck Colson here

Illegal Immigration and the Scripture

Immigration is front and center in recent news. The US borders are still leaking like a sieve, and violence, spawned by the drug wars, is becoming more frequent. Arizona has stepped in to fill the federal vacuum of action and people around the country are taking sides and looking for political solutions. Immigration policy and, more particularly, what to do about the illegal immigrants already in this country is generating a lot of angst. Evangelical Christianity seems to be similarly divided. One News Now reports contrary views between a number of evangelical leaders on this topic. In another story religious leaders are speaking directly against the new Arizona law. Instead of trying to address the various political solutions, this post is going to try to look at some biblical conceptions (or misconceptions) about immigrants and illegal aliens. I would like to lay out a possible biblical argument used by more liberal advocates of policy and see if it stands the smell test. We all know what the issues in the news are and most of us have political perspective, but what does the Bible have to say illegal immigrants in particular?

The Bible For Amnesty?

Here are some Bible texts (NIV) that may be used to support an open immigration policy:

Leviticus 19:33-34: 'When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God."

Exodus 22:21: "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt."

Exodus 23:9: "Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt."

Deuteronomy 10:19: "And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt."

In light of these scriptural commands, are Christians to support open borders and/or amnesty programs for those that have come into our country without legal process? Should we be against the enforcement of civil laws requiring deportation? It seems to make sense that if Israel was commanded to treat the aliens among them "as one of your native-born" then Christians should take a similar approach and support illegal immigration. As with many so called biblical positions a look at the broader context of the passages may change the perspective.

A Little Deeper Look

1) Be careful not to uncritically impose Old Testament Law on current civil governments. While there are many principles from which we gain wisdom in the Old Testament law Christians should not desire a return to the theonomy of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. Even in the future reign of Christ on earth a return to the specifics of the law will not be imposed as this was only a shadow of the Gospel under Christ (Col 2:16-17). That being said, it does not seem improper to take a command to treat others (including aliens) as yourself (does this sound vaguely familiar?) as outdated.

2) In that vein (of the Golden rule), it is because the Israelites were strangers in Egypt themselves that they needed to treat other strangers honorably. That is, they knew what it was like (Deut. 10:19) to be in a foreign land. So, reach out to illegal immigrants and love them. Do not abuse or use them (Malachi 3:5). It is a temptation to hold their status over them. In the eyes of God, we are not better than any illegal alien (Rom. 3:9, 27). We all deserve the full weight of the law of God, but have been given mercy. We must look at everyone as made in the image of God and remember that we (as Christians) were once  wanderers and aliens to God.

The New Testament uses the Old Testament terminology of aliens and foreigners to illustrate the change that takes place when we trust Christ. Ephesians 2:19: "Consequently [because of the blood of Christ], you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, . . " It is a picture of going from an "outsiders" status to one of intimacy and fellowship. (Alternately, this language is also used in the New Testament to describe the position of Christians in relation to the rest of the world as analogous to being strangers on earth [e.g., Heb. 11:13; 1 Peter 2:11].) It would be appropriate to use the current cultural issue of immigration to remind us of our just alienation from God and subsequent merciful acceptance into His family of those that trust Him. Immigration can remind us of the need to spread the Gospel.

3) Keep in mind that the aliens in Israel about which the passages above (Leviticus 19:33-34;Exodus 22:21; 23:9; Deuteronomy 10:19) were spoken were not illegal. They were invited by the law to stay. Further, the Isrealites in Egypt were invited there by Pharaoh (Gen. 47:1-10). Only later were they oppressed when another Pharaoh had forgotten what Joseph had done (Exodus 1:8). Thus, in the biblical context a stranger and alien does not imply being illegally in that place. Similarly, we have many aliens in this country who we have invited and who we have let come. These are the people that the passages mentioned spoke specifically about.

4) The strangers in Israel were treated differently than Israelites. They could not own property; they could be bought as slaves and charged interest unlike Israelites. (Lev. 25: 47; I Chron. 22:1-3; 2 Chronicles 2:16-18). This is similar to the laws in our country. There are certain priviledges afforded to legal aliens and there are certain priviledges denied. For instance, someone in the United States on a student visa is not allowed to hold certain jobs. They do not have the rights of citizens. They do not have the right of leadership (Deuteronomy 17:14-15).

5) Aliens had to obey the laws of the land. The children of Israel were to live well while in Egypt -  not in opposition to the laws.  Joseph's family asked permission of Pharaoh (Genesis 46:28-47:9) to be there. Later, when the Israelites had their own land they received stern instructions for themselves and foreigners in their midst. Here is a sampling:

Leviticus 18:25-27:  "Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled." Here a distinction is made between natural born citizens and aliens, but both are required to follow the law.

Numbers 19:10 "This will be a lasting ordinance both for the Israelites and for the aliens living among them." The lasting ordinance of the law was applicable to everyone.

Deut. 31:12 "Assemble the people—men, women and children, and the aliens living in your towns—so they can listen and learn to fear the LORD your God and follow carefully all the words of this law." Again, the law was applicable to everyone.

Joshua 8:32-35  "There, in the presence of the Israelites, Joshua copied on stones the law of Moses, which he had written. All Israel, aliens and citizens alike, with their elders, officials and judges, were standing on both sides of the ark of the covenant of the LORD, facing those who carried it—the priests, who were Levites. . . . Afterward, Joshua read all the words of the law—the blessings and the curses—just as it is written in the Book of the Law. There was not a word of all that Moses had commanded that Joshua did not read to the whole assembly of Israel, including the women and children, and the aliens who lived among them." A clear delineation was made between citizen and immigrant. The laws were applied to everyone.

From these we see that immigrants are called, like citizens, to submit and obey the laws.  We see in Romans 13:1-7 that government has been established by God. It is the agent of God to keep order, protect the weak, and punish the wrong doer. The language of "bear[ing] the sword" is an image of law enforcement. To willfully disobey the government is the same as disobeying God. Bottom line? Do what is right, obey the law - immigrants and citizens.

Furthermore, Scripture makes clear that governments are put in their place in order that every individual has the best opportunity to seek God. Acts 17:26-27: "From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us."

6) What about the instances where people are called to violate a civil law when it directly goes against the commands of God. Don't the laws of God trump the law of man? Yes, there are times when Christians are to obey God rather than man (e.g., Acts 4:15-20; Acts 5:29; Exodus 1:17). The question then is, is that what is happening in the case of illegal immigration? Should we support the illegal immigrants against the supposed tyranny of the government? Should we harbor illegal aliens in our churches so they don't have to be deported to Mexico or other locations.The answer is clearly no. There is no command of God that the United States government (or Arizona government) is violating by expecting to protect it's borders and control the flow of those that would ignore the law. The government is fulfilling it's God given duties of securing the peace in not allowing anyone and everyone to cross it's borders. The ends (securing a better future for themselves and their families) do not justify the means (illegally entering the country). Christians have no justification for subverting the law on this issue. We are not justified in lying for them or harboring them.

But what about illegal aliens who are living “morally” (i.e., who are not breaking other laws)? Aren't they better than native born citizens who are immoral and are breaking the law in many other ways? There is no doubt that there are many illegals who make better citizens than the actual citizens of this country. However, this is not the issue and is a logical rabbit trail. It would not do for the government to refuse to enforce its laws until everyone who is "worse" than some particular law break is given justice. This would be an untenable principle of justice.

What about Jesus telling us to turn the other cheek to abusers (Matthew 5:39; Luke 6:29)? Shouldn't we ignore some evil in order to be loving Christians? If they cross the borders illegally, shouldn't we ignore that (turn the other cheek) in order to help them? This would be a gross misapplication of this passage. One has to completely rip this passage out of its context to see the passage this way. First, turning the other cheek is for the purpose of spreading the Gospel not for government regulation. This is a personal admonition, not a directive to appropriate government. The Church is not intended to be a law enforcement agency. The Church is remedial not punitive. That is, it's job is redemption of the soul and not the securing of borders. Security is the God ordained job of government and the Church should recognize and appreciate this role.

7)  A proper path to citizenship was prescribed in the Old Testament and is appropriate today. First, when Jacob's family was entering Egypt they sought and received permission from Pharaoh to stay in his land. (Genesis 46:28-47:9). Likewise, when the Israelites were in their own land and were confronted with how to treat foreigners a proper path to "citizenship" was ordained. They had to fully convert to Judaism (which included the ceremony of circumcision for males). Only then could they own land and be fully integrated. Those desiring to be full member of the society had to take on the values of the host society (including, as seen above, the honoring of the whole law). The Old Testament sojourner (alien) purposed to live under the law of in order to be treated as a fellow Israelite. Review this example:

Exodus 12:48 "And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof." This parallels the important practice of having those that wish to become citizens of the United States take citizenship classes where they learn the history and values that we espouse. The Old Testament example was not one of easy amnesty. It was one of intentional education and acceptance through a process of time and ceremony and was sealed with a solemn act of deep commitment (adult circumcision was not for those who made light of their new citizenship).

Some Concluding Thoughts What can we take away from all of this? First, remember the Great Commission imperative – make disciples (spread the Gospel). Second, as believers in Christ we must learn to live with the tensions of putting into practice our faith. Our application can not be done haphazardly by pulling a verse or two out of context. We must struggle to rightly apply biblical principles in the complex situations that arise in current affairs. Ethical issues need to be carefully evaluated in light of the whole of Scripture. Third, treat everyone with respect. Be kind to illegal aliens, proclaim the Gospel to them, and encourage them to follow the law in regards to their habitation in our country. Do everything possible to move them toward legal citizenship. Fourth, those that have obeyed the law (i.e., applied legally) should not be put ahead of those that disobey the law. Fifth, uphold the law and respect the God given role of government. Their role is to protect the borders so do not discourage this. Expect obedience to the law by everyone. Further, there is a difference between aliens and trespassers.  There is no Scriptural command for open borders, lawlessness, easy amnesty or the like. Next, when advocating a way to citizenship do not bypass due process and do not encourage rights for those that have not yet yielded to the values of the United States (or other country). Finally, consider solutions that are both just and are cognizant of the realities of those that face severe difficulties in many other countries. Personally, I would like to see processes put in place that legally allowed many more immigrants into our country each year. Many around the world suffer for their faith. Political oppression is prevalent and poverty is rampant. Our country was built on immigrants and should continue to do so--just not at the cost of lawlessness. Close the borders (justice). Open the gates (mercy).

Is. 14:1 "The LORD will have compassion on Jacob; once again he will choose Israel and will settle them in their own land. Aliens will join them and unite with the house of Jacob."

Ezekiel 47:21-23 "You are to distribute this land among yourselves according to the tribes of Israel. You are to allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the aliens who have settled among you and who have children. You are to consider them as native-born Israelites; along with you they are to be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. In whatever tribe the alien settles, there you are to give him his inheritance, declares the Sovereign LORD."

Scientific Breakthroughs and Timeless Moral Boundaries

The big news in science this past week related to the announcement that the world’s first “synthetic cells” had been created.  Researchers in Maryland and California have developed a hybrid type of bacteria called Mycoplasma mycoides.  This newly engineered bacteria results from scientists implanting strands of DNA into another, different bacteria from which the original DNA had been removed.  The “new” resultant bacteria package began behaving as if it had originated naturally.  Oxford University ethics professor Julian Savulescu commented, "This is a step towards ... creation of living beings with capacities and natures that could never have naturally evolved.”

Indeed.  On a number of levels, such scientific “accomplishments” amount to pushing nature toward things unnatural.  Some of the news coverage included journalists asking persons if they thought that such research was an example of, “man trying to play God?”

One’s answer to that question should be tempered by the fact that that while the creation of hybrid bacterias is admittedly complex work, the scientists are, after all, merely manipulating existing material.  Scientists still haven’t truly started from scratch and brought anything into existence ex nihilo. Neither have they started life from non-life.

But the real concern should be over the ethical implications of such research.  Savulescu remarked that such experiments and their results are, “creaking open the most profound door in humanity's history, potentially peeking into its destiny.”  The prospect of new life forms being developed is unsettling enough.  Of great significance are two realities, that: (a) such scientific powers are being honed in an age when man’s moral sensibilities seem to be at their most diminished. And (b) these scientific “advances” are coming about in the age of global terrorism and amidst political instabilities throughout the world.

Here in America, most individuals aged from childhood up are polarized by discussions over what is right and wrong.  As debate over values perpetually increases, the practice of virtue seems to correspondingly decrease.  In a self-contradictory twist, the assumption that there are no absolute moral truths has become dogma for many Americans.

Our nation might be well served to reflect on the fact that the moral code originated from God.  Some of history’s best and brightest thinkers (such as Augustine and Aquinas, not to mention America’s founders) believed that ultimate moral truth exists, can be known, and originated from God.  In his book The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis gives historical documentation that all cultures throughout history have recognized a basic, common moral code of what was right and wrong.  The Christian scriptures (such as Romans, chapter 2) also tell us that mankind knows what is morally right, even though he may earnestly give himself over to what is morally wrong.  Man has known the moral code, even when he did not always follow the moral code.

The reason that this ubiquitous moral code is not open for revisions is because God’s nature (or essence) does not change.  Remember that God is eternal.  Morality-- reflective of Who God is-- likewise, does not change.  The question becomes “To what degree is my aversion to the moral code an offense to the One Who handed down the moral code?”  Opposition or indifference to “natural law,” i.e. “morality,” is actually a rebellion against the Lawgiver.

The human ethical problem is a sort of militant autonomy --  the desire to live independently of God.  In previous times, we called this sin, and most had no problem admitting their own share in human culpability. Today, many impose their own standards over God's standard, and set themselves up as their own moral judges.  American culture of 2010 all but shouts:  "Since God's way cuts across the grain of our own wants and desires, we’ll disbar God, and replace Him with a Law-giver that may be tolerated more easily...ourselves.”

Commenting on the potentials of the hybrid bacteria, Dr. Venter said, “We are entering a new era where we're limited mostly by our imaginations.”  I would submit that we’d better be limited by something more than just our imaginations.  When operating apart from solid moral grounding, the human imagination has inflicted some grisly things on the world.  Let’s hope that today’s cutting-edge laboratories don’t create biological armaments, which wind up equipping modern libertines to set new benchmarks in human suffering.

No, these scientists aren’t, “playing God.”  To do that, modern science would have to recognize that there is One.  Whatever the scientists are doing, let us pray that the results are ultimately handled only by those who live within standards of absolute morality and who recognize the value of human life.

Return to Narnia

The first trailer for The Voyage of the Dawn Treader premiered this Saturday!!!  For more information see NarniaFans.Com - The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.

Is Same Sex Marriage a Private Issue?

The gay marriage issue is often framed by supporters in terms of prejudice and racism. The analogy they hope to promote is that opposition to gay marriage is tantamount to racial hatred. Thus, if you disagree with the government's definition of marriage you can expect to be treated like a bigot who opposes interracial marriage. (Of course when opponents compare gay marriage arguments to similar arguments used to support polygamous, pedophilic, incestuous, or besitality "marriages" they are accused of slippery slope thinking.)

Maggie Gallagher of National Organization for Marriage (www.nationformarriage.org), says that the issue goes far deeper than whether or not a same sex couple get their relationship legally recognized. First, marriage matters because children need a mom and dad. Studies show that this is the case and that in general families have healthier lives.

Second, gay marriage would effect a lot of people besides gay couples in the privacy of their homes. Gallagher contends that several public consequences will follow from gay marriage legislation (and that some are, in fact, already occurring):

  1. In gay-marriage states, a large minority people committed to traditional notions of marriage feel afraid to speak up for their views, lest they be punished in some way. (FOR EXAMPLE)
  2. Public schools will be forced to teach positively about gay marriage. Parents in public schools who object to gay marriage being taught to their children will be told with increasing public firmness that they don't belong in public schools and their views will not be accommodated in any way. (FOR EXAMPLE).
  3. Religious institutions face new legal threats (especially soft litigation threats) that will cause some to close, or modify their missions, to avoid clashing with the government's official views of marriage (which will include the view that opponents are akin to racists for failing to see same-sex couples as married). (FOR EXAMPLE)
  4. Support for the idea "the ideal for a child is a married mother and father" will decline. A large body of social science research now affirms the importance of marriage for children, adults, and communities. Marriage matters because when fathers are committed to their children and their children’s mother, children are most likely to thrive. (MORE INFORMATION)
  5. If marriage is redefined by the government, true marriages will decline even more, bringing more harm to the culture at large.  Pragmatically speaking, marriage reduces the risk of poverty for children and communities (the majority of children whose parents don’t get or stay married experience at least a year of poverty). Fatherless households increase crime (boys whose parents divorced or never married, for example, are two to three times more likely to end up in jail as adults). Marriage protects children’s physical and mental health (children whose parents get and stay married are healthier and also much less likely to suffer mental illness, including depression and teen suicide). Both men and women who marry live longer, healthier and happier lives (on virtually every measure of health and well-being, married people are better-off than otherwise similar singles, on average). (MORE INFORMATION)

Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, says there is a lot at stake when the government attempts to overturn natural law (see The Role of Religious Authority in Debates on Public Policy). But this also puts the issue into the public realm - for natural law is not bound by any culture (even religious cultures). Gallagher warns supporters of marriage not to give in to the "progressive myth" that the outcome is inevitable: "Despair is gay marriage advocates' prime message point." The facts are that the majority of Americans still favor marriage over legalized gay unions (as votes in typically liberal states have recently shown).

For more information on what you can do to protect marriage please contact the National Organization for Marriage at (609) 688-0450 or on the web at www.nationformarriage.org.