I am blessed to have extraordinarily thoughtful friends. Here Darrell Dow, a recovering Baptist and good friend from Kentucky gives a memorable, succinct, pithy response to a Christian who is convinced that Christians are obligated, because of Jesus Good Samaritan parable, to support illegal immigration. This piece is marked by lucid brevity and would be good to have in your pocket the next time the Zombies come at you on Immigration.
Darrell is responding to this piece by the well intended but confused Southern Baptist executive Dr. Russell Moore.
Let’s start with the parable of the Good Samaritan since that is where misguided Christians make appeal to in regards to supporting illegal immigration. Was its inclusion in the Gospels designed to instruct the state as regards immigration policy? Here Moore engages in logically fallacious thinking by universalizing a particular obligation and in so doing creating the conditions for ethical mischief that ultimately empowers the state at the expense of civil society. Moore is propounding a universal ethic that is more a residue of Enlightenment liberalism than Christianity and leads to statism. The ethical instruction may be appropriate for individuals and even churches but Moore is laying this at the feet of the magistrate who is to be an avenger of God’s wrath and minister of justice.
This thinking leads us to conclude that we have 6.3 billion “neighbors.” But in scripture, compassion is balanced with justice, and with a preference given to kin, and by extension to nation. I Timothy 5:8 teaches, “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” I am operating under an assumption–that God organizes society around groups of people: families, clans, communities, tribes, nations. Open immigration and the creation of lawless boundaries destroys such a social order and a prudential civil government has an affirmative duty to protect the interests of its people first and foremost. My brother, for example is a house painter. Is he harmed or helped in his calling and ability to care for wife and children by an influx of cheap labor? Who is my neighbor in this scenario?
How do we think about refugees and immigrants? In his book “The Immigration Crisis: Immigrants, Aliens, and the Bible”, Dr. James Hoffmeier provides a definition of an alien in Israelite culture and law. The Hebrew word ger is translated variously as “stranger” (KJV, NASB), “sojourner” (RSV, ESV), and “alien” (NIV) in contemporary English translations. A ger was a foreigner living in a land outside his homeland who had received permission from the proper authority. For example, when Jacob’s family wanted to flee famine they traveled to Egypt and asked Pharaoh for permission to enter, “We have come to sojourn in the land … please let your servants dwell in the land of Goshen” (Gen. 47:4). With the appropriate permission secured, Jacob’s family, which grew into the people of Israel, became legal aliens in Egypt. In short, they were allowed into the country by the host. This scenario finds its modern equivalent in the immigrant who has legally entered a foreign land with permission and secured proper documentation to that effect.
With this background we better understand the various biblical laws protecting “aliens” from oppression. It is wrong to allow people into your land and subsequently subjugate them. God gave many laws to protect aliens in Israel. Aliens were not to be oppressed (Ex. 22:21; Lev. 19:33-34). They were integrated into Israelite society, entitled to equal justice (Num. 15:15-16) and equal pay (Deut. 24:14-15), and could celebrate Passover (Ex. 12:48). They had legal standing and near equality of status in the community.
Two other Hebrew words, nekhar and zar, refer to those foreigners passing through or sojourning in Israel—this would be more in line with the “refugees” along the border. They were not given the same benefits and protections as the ger (Ex. 12:43; Deut. 15:3; 17:15). The “foreigner” and the “alien” did not have the same social and legal status. Some English versions of the Bible, including the TNIV and TLV, translate ger as “foreigner,” allowing the reader to think that these categories of people were the same. They were not.
Biblical supporters of “comprehensive immigration reform” and a “path to legalization”, which Moore endorses, often refer to Leviticus 19:33-34, which says: “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.”
Citing C. D. Ginsburg, R.J. Rushdoony says that this “‘stranger’ is one who has become circumcised, fasted on the Day of Atonement, obeyed the laws of sacrifice, and has practiced the laws of chastity, as well as obeyed other moral laws.” In short, once a foreigner had become part of the community, his nationality was not to be used against him. Such passages address treatment of aliens ONCE they are part of the community. But it tells us nothing of who should be allowed to be part of that community.
Finally, I don’t think that we can call these folks at the border “refugees.” They are not enduring political or other persecution, but are coming for economic reasons and because they know that Americans are disarmed. This ethical disarmament is what is endangering these people and encouraging them to make a dangerous journey. And to the extent that they are “refugees”, even the article that Moore cites leads one to conclude that the reason for their travails is the ongoing drug war. Will Dr. Moore try to convince Southern Baptists of the wisdom of drug legalization? With a bowl of popcorn in hand, I shall await his attempt.
I would only add that even the “ger” would forever in his generations be seen as a “stranger” since he could never inherit land as land was always to return to the Tribes and Clans.
