Christians should be able to agree with this principle: We are Christians first and Americans second

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Isaac,

I have not missed the nuances of your position; I just disagree. We as Christian citizens are not being asked to do anything that violates God’s Word by simply following existing legal code. Helping those who have come here illegally to thwart those laws would violate God’s Word. It is both simple and black and white. You are only partially correct when you state they have broken the law (indicating the lawlessness has already come and gone, water under the bridge) and are here now. Being here is an ongoing violation of the law. Any aid we provide in helping them continue breaking the law joins us in their lawless deeds - see 2 John.

The law is not portrayed in Scripture as a monolith that can never be broken. Expressions of grace in the Bible are notable because they do not rigidly conform to law. In simplistic terms, life trumps law. That is the core of the Gospel message. A Righteous and Just God overlooks sin. That is the Gospel that Christ exemplified. Samaritans were worthy of mercy, and an adulterous woman was spared. Even minor things such as unwashed hands and Sabbath harvesting were overlooked…not because they were not part of the law of the day, but because there was a higher principle at stake. Pharasaical additions to the law were technically the law of the land. Jesus disciples broke the law. Matthew 12:1-13 advocates an interpretation of law that errs on the side of mercy.

These children are seeking asylum (a legal form of immigration) because of the horrors of their homeland. You seem to be callously saying that its not our problem. It is preferable to maintain national sovereignty than to save a life? I’m more concerned about millstones around my neck than I am about being judged by God for not adequately upholding a minute interpretation of immigration policy. Which is more likely: “I honor you for protecting American laws and American borders” or “I honor you for providing comfort and solace to undeserving children”?
The over-riding moral foundation for all laws is to love God and love man. The law is not meant to be protected at the expense of man….it is supposed to embody love for our fellow man. God’s moral code over-rides man’s attempts to regulate every situation. Furthermore, God requires that a good man “do justly” and “love mercy”….mercy is undeserved kindness. There is something Godly about showing compassion when the law allows or demands something harsher. Whether a legal refugee seeking asylum or an illegal child seeking life, I cannot imagine any iteration in which Jesus commends me for turning them away….sorry, it doesn’t pass the sniff test.
“Hi, I’m a Christian, and its my moral obligation to send you back to your poverty-stricken, gang-controlled country. Believe me, I wouldn’t do this unless God commanded it, but this is the best way of expressing His justice and mercy. If I let you stay here, its actually a twisted way of hurting you. I hope everything works out for you….go and be filled!”

On a Sabbath, while he was going through the grainfields, his disciples plucked and ate some heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands. But some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath?” And Jesus answered them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those with him?” And he said to them, “The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”

A Man with a Withered Hand
On another Sabbath, he entered the synagogue and was teaching, and a man was there whose right hand was withered. And the scribes and the Pharisees watched him, to see whether he would heal on the Sabbath, so that they might find a reason to accuse him. But he knew their thoughts, and he said to the man with the withered hand, “Come and stand here.” And he rose and stood there. And Jesus said to them, “I ask you, is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to destroy it?” And after looking around at them all he said to him, “Stretch out your hand.” And he did so, and his hand was restored. But they were filled with fury and discussed with one another what they might do to Jesus.

-Luke 6:1-11

[Todd Bowditch]

Chip Van Emmerik wrote:

Isaac,

I have not missed the nuances of your position; I just disagree. We as Christian citizens are not being asked to do anything that violates God’s Word by simply following existing legal code. Helping those who have come here illegally to thwart those laws would violate God’s Word. It is both simple and black and white. You are only partially correct when you state they have broken the law (indicating the lawlessness has already come and gone, water under the bridge) and are here now. Being here is an ongoing violation of the law. Any aid we provide in helping them continue breaking the law joins us in their lawless deeds - see 2 John.

The law is not portrayed in Scripture as a monolith that can never be broken. Expressions of grace in the Bible are notable because they do not rigidly conform to law. In simplistic terms, life trumps law. That is the core of the Gospel message. A Righteous and Just God overlooks sin. That is the Gospel that Christ exemplified.

I have seen enough of your comments here on SI over the years to believe this was a little bit of short hand, but I don’t think you mean what you actually said. God never overlooks a single sin - ever. Every sin has consequences which must be dealt with. Thankfully, Christ was willing to take my place to receive my just reward for my sin, but the fact that I do not personally bear the consequences of my sinfulness does not mean God overlooked it.

________________________

Now, as to the general discussion at hand. Scripture is clear. We are only permitted to break human law when obeying it would require us to violate God’s law. As I have pointed out, and as Isaac passingly admitted, breaking the current immigration laws is not the only way we as Christians can practice our Christ-honoring love for these illegal immigrants. There is therefore no justification for joining in their lawless deeds. Mark 12:17, “Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him.” juxtaposed with Acts 5:29, “But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.” You cannot negate one with the other as you are trying to do, you must obey both concurrently.

“Let all things be done decently and in order” (1 Corinthians 14:40)

I know the context is the local church and spiritual gifts, but God is a God of order.

We have disorder on the S border. I saw that bodies are floating in the Rio Grande. Imagine the influx of students crowding schools, hospitals, et cetera

Chip,

I think what Todd is advocating for (myself as well) is that there are higher principles to adhere to within the “law” that when practiced at the expense of another but minor principle/law is acceptable (e.g. it is acceptable to eat temple bread than to starve, better to show compassion than to “sabbath”, etc). Your always obey concurrently theory really isn’t biblical—it doesn’t match the law’s purpose and intent.

Also, my “passive admission” that love can manifest in more ways is not an agreement that sending the children back to violent environments is a Christian option.

Isaac,

The bottom line is you have no biblical justification to break the law or help others break the law unless obedience to the law would force you to violate scripture. You have not, and can not, show that enforcing the current immigration laws would require you or anyone else to disobey any other command of scripture. Helping people break the laws and disobey God’s commands is not a loving act, its is a self-serving, humanistic act attempting to rationalize wrong doing on the basis of feelings.

Saw this via Instapundit/Breitbart Media:

An elite, law-enforcement sensitive El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) intel report from July 7, 2014 was leaked to Breitbart Texas and reveals that homicide rates in Central America suggest violence is likely not the primary cause of the surge of thousands of unaccompanied minors and incomplete family units illegally entering the United States.

The EPIC report indicates that the belief among the illegal immigrants that they would receive permisos and be allowed to stay was the driving factor in their choices to come to the United States and that the crisis will continue until ‘misperceptions’ about U.S. immigration benefits were no longer prevalent . The report also states that the migrants cited Univision and other other outlets as having shaped their views on U.S. immigration policy. Another implication of the report is that family members already in the U.S. are encouraging the minors to come and organizing the travel with smugglers. EPIC is a widely respected intelligence analysis group and was initially staffed by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

and

The EPIC report states that near-term slowdown in the crisis is unlikely and that traditional migration factors will likely continue to fuel the wave of illegal immigration. It states that the crisis will continue until the migrants’ “misperceptions” about U.S. immigration benefits are changed:

(U//FOUO) EPIC assesses that UAC flow to the border will remain elevated until migrants’ misperceptions about US immigration benefits are changed. We further judge that this process could take the remainder of 2014 given the time needed for bi-lateral coordination efforts—such as information and enforcement campaigns in Mexico and Central America—to take hold. Nonetheless, traditional underlying immigration factors, such as family reunification and poor socioeconomic conditions, will continue to drive alien flow—including minors—from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador.

The link to the full report is at Breitbart.

Chip,

You are not interacting with the majority of what has been said by myself and others. Enforcing the current immigration laws is lawful according to American jurisdiction. If you go back and track all the posts, some have highlighted verses where Christians ought to show compassion over against being “lawful.” What biblical justification are you seeking?In fact, when you are compassionate, you ARE obeying the law. So by protecting people who are seeking asylum maybe “breaking” US law but it IS obeying God’s law. Are you not obligated to show compassion when the opportunity presents itself? Have the examples above proven to be insufficient?

Please interact with what people have been saying. Please respond to Todd’s summary of the Law. Respond to the responsibility of the German citizen in Nazi Germany. Please interact with the verses that have been provided. And, please, do some work in Christian ethics. You’d be quick to find that the field disagrees with you.

There is no more to be said on my end. I’m bowing out.

Isaac,

I’ve interacted with your assertions. Repeating doesn’t make them more valid - for either one of us. I tried to boil my last post down to the most concise statement I could to provide clarity. You have not shown how you would be violating God’s Word to uphold current immigration laws, therefore you ave no justification for breaking those laws. Repeated reports (including the post right before your last one) indicate this crisis is not being caused by imminent danger to these people, but that rather, the influx is based on their belief that the President, and apparently people like you, are willing to break the laws and offer them illegal residency in the U. S.

Here is another look at the causes of the issue. There is a humanitarian need brought upon these folks by their own willful breaking of the law - they put themselves in the current predicament. Evidence consistently indicates that almost none faced an imminent threat that caused them to flee to America; instead, they were emboldened by the impression that they would be allowed to break the law without consequence.

Most liberals and conservatives miss the point, however, making the same old arguments we have all heard before. Liberals argue that we need to provide more welfare and assistance to these young immigrants, while conservatives would bus them to the other side of the border, drop them off, and deploy drones to keep them out.

Neither side seems interested in considering why is this happening in the first place. The truth is, this latest crisis is a consequence of mistaken government policies on both sides of the border.

If this were really about helping real refugees, we would be shouting for foreign aid to be pumped into El Salvador and Guatemala. The best place to deal with a humanitarian crisis is before the refugees make a 1,000 mile dangerous journey. But that’s not what this is about. For Obama it’s really about solidifying the hold Democrats have on Latino voters and future voters.

Also, if you want to talk about Levitical directives to welcome the stranger, then you need to talk about the obligations of the stranger. Such a stranger would be under the law of the land. In Israel, a stranger was forbidden to do any work on the Sabbath for example. Welcoming the stranger would really mean welcoming the legal immigrant. For sure, yes and amen to welcoming such a person. But it’s an oversimplification to say we should welcome all illegal immigrants uniformly as strangers and sojourners. They need to live up to their end of the bargain. My big point is that when we’re talking about metaphors between our present situation and biblical principles, we need to swallow the whole metaphor, not the parts that seem most loving in our 21st Century, screwed up context.

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/dramatic-surge-arrival-unaccompanied-children-has-deep-roots-and-no-simple-solutions

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart.com

Breitbart is known for presenting conservative (political) views. All sources present with a particular intent. Some sources present it as immigration policy. Some present as a humanitarian problem.

Try this from the Migrant Policy Institute.

“There is some evidence of a growing perception among Central Americans that the U.S. government’s treatment of minors, as well as minors traveling in family units, has softened in recent years. These child-friendly policies in many ways directly flow from TVPRA. In addition to the screening and ORR transfer requirements described above, the law also requires the United States to ensure safe repatriation of minors and established standards for custody, created more child-friendly asylum procedures, and relaxed eligibility for SIJ visa status. Some also contend that minors are spurred to migrate by the false idea that they could benefit under the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which offers a reprieve from deportation for certain young unauthorized immigrants who have lived in the United States since 2007.

Furthermore, while these minors are all placed in removal proceedings, it is not clear that they are ultimately repatriated to their home countries. According to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) data, the agency carried out 496 repatriations (removals and returns) of juveniles from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador in 2013, down from 2,311 in 2008.

On the other hand, strong evidence also points to increasingly grave conditions in Central America as principal drivers of the new influx. A number of investigations by journalists and studies by nongovernmental organizations have found that children are fleeing their home countries to escape violence, abuse, persecution, trafficking, and economic deprivation. To be sure, murder, poverty, and youth unemployment rates paint a bleak picture of conditions that children may face in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador in particular. Rising gang violence in some of these countries has become an undeniable factor in many children’s decision to migrate.”

Because we shouldn’t show compassion to people who bring misfortune on themselves….Willful disobedience should never be forgiven.

Chip, please refer to the link I posted. Escape from gang violence is still a significant reason for some migrants (apparently). Thankfully we can still punish them for breaking our immigration laws. Of course, those that are seeking to escape from gang violence can very likely qualify for legal asylum as refugees. Then they aren’t lawbreakers…they’re just kids who were told to run. Wouldn’t it be a shame if we had to take care of them?

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Todd Bowditch wrote:

Chip Van Emmerik wrote:

Isaac,

I have not missed the nuances of your position; I just disagree. We as Christian citizens are not being asked to do anything that violates God’s Word by simply following existing legal code. Helping those who have come here illegally to thwart those laws would violate God’s Word. It is both simple and black and white. You are only partially correct when you state they have broken the law (indicating the lawlessness has already come and gone, water under the bridge) and are here now. Being here is an ongoing violation of the law. Any aid we provide in helping them continue breaking the law joins us in their lawless deeds - see 2 John.

The law is not portrayed in Scripture as a monolith that can never be broken. Expressions of grace in the Bible are notable because they do not rigidly conform to law. In simplistic terms, life trumps law. That is the core of the Gospel message. A Righteous and Just God overlooks sin. That is the Gospel that Christ exemplified.

Todd,

I have seen enough of your comments here on SI over the years to believe this was a little bit of short hand, but I don’t think you mean what you actually said. God never overlooks a single sin - ever. Every sin has consequences which must be dealt with. Thankfully, Christ was willing to take my place to receive my just reward for my sin, but the fact that I do not personally bear the consequences of my sinfulness does not mean God overlooked it.

________________________

Now, as to the general discussion at hand. Scripture is clear. We are only permitted to break human law when obeying it would require us to violate God’s law. As I have pointed out, and as Isaac passingly admitted, breaking the current immigration laws is not the only way we as Christians can practice our Christ-honoring love for these illegal immigrants. There is therefore no justification for joining in their lawless deeds. Mark 12:17, “Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him.” juxtaposed with Acts 5:29, “But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.” You cannot negate one with the other as you are trying to do, you must obey both concurrently.

im not sure what you’re taking issue with here, Chip. It is definitely shorthand (why am I still up?)…but I think my point is borne out by Scripture. Basically, mans laws are imperfect reflections of Gods laws. Jesus showed little regard for man-made laws that we’re being applied in a way that violated God’s moral laws. This level of discussion hinges upon your definition of ethics and morality. I would suggest that a clear differentiation between God’s universal moral laws and mans imperfect laws is key to discussing ethics. This is the lens that allowed Rahab the harlot to be justified/saved by her lies on behalf of the spies. Lying is a sin, but her lies saved lives and God honored that.

This of course means that ethics is not black and white. It is a pleasant shade of gray. The highly-demonized term of “situational ethics” is actually better known as spiritual discernment. For what other reason would Jesus refuse to stone an adulteress? The law required it as the just punishment for her crime! How does this story of grace mesh with your definitions of law and ethics?

the fact is that the US government has established laws for immigration. As noted above, there is not a single, simple reason that explains the presence of 52,000 children at the US border. Some are no doubt illegal in every sense of the word; others are there to escape violence. But it doesn’t matter, they are children. I remember a Christ that had compassion on multitudes of undeserving people. I can hear Christ warning those that would take advantage of or hurt children….and that reveals to me a God that is less concerned with artificial immigration laws and more concerned with souls. Immigration laws are the same as the pharisaical sabbath laws. The moral obligation to heal the sick and feed the hungry is far superior to man-made laws.

This position is completely consistent with my understanding of ethics and Christian morality. Showing mercy does not make one complicit in a crime unless you are willing to accuse Christ of encouraging and abetting the adultery of harlot or the thievery of a publican. I can’t help but feel that your understanding of mercy and compassion is a mere specter of what Scripture reveals. You have essentially stated that mercy taints Gods justice….or more clearly, that mercy is a sin. I hope that you will dispute my simplistic rendering of your point. Perhaps you can clarify how showing mercy is a crime?

Todd,

The problem isn’t that mercy taints justice, it is that a holy God does not violate either mercy or justice. He provides mercy justly. What you and others here are advocating is allowing mercy to trump justice. Biblically, it is never an either/or but always a both/and. Jesus didn’t just sweep the adultery of the woman under the rug, either temporally or eternally. Temporally, Jesus followed the law which required two accusers. When none were left to testify, the law prohibited any action being taken. Eternally, either this woman went to eternal damnation because of her sin or Jesus became the substitutionary payment for the woman on the cross - either way the penalty was paid. Nowhere does God permit His mercy to be played against His holiness or justice as you are trying to portray. And trying to play imperfect human law against prefect Divine law is a red herring as well. What I have continually pointed to are the dual Divine commands to obey the earthly authorities unless and until obedience to earthly authorities would cause you to disobey God. You and Isaac and others continue to fail to show how obeying the current immigration laws and deporting these illegal immigrants causes you to disobey God in any way, or why helping these illegal immigrants continue to break the law is the only way for you to fulfill you biblical duty of mercy and compassion in their lives.