Culture – Page 27

The Death of Robin Williams and the Question of the Proper Christian Response

The suicide of Comedian-Actor Robin Williams has provided a rather interesting window into the worldview of various and sundry Christians. I was caught quite surprised over the emotion that Williams death would generate among those who claim the name of Christ. It could be the reason for all that emotion is that Williams has been a poster child for large segments of both the Baby Boomers and Generation X. In losing Williams these large swaths of people are losing a cultural identifier that was woven deeply into their psyche. No one can doubt that Williams, for good and for ill, made a huge impact on the zeitgeist.

In this discussion, I think I can understand both the perspective of those that insist that, as Christians, we should be respectful of the dead and so not speak ill of them as well as the position that observes that Williams should be used as a negative example of the danger of gaining the whole world while losing one’s own soul.

An example of the former disposition can be found in the following quotes provided by sundry Christians,

“We can’t say for certain whether or not he is in peace right now so being respectful and gracious is the right thing to do. RIP”

“Well, we can certainly dissect the lives of anyone who has died, believer and non believer alike at their deaths. But, is it kind and is it necessary to do so? Is it the place of those who knew him so little to make fun or to criticize those who have grief right now? There are unpleasant stories in the past of us all. People right now are desiring to focus on the positive and pleasant memories of Robin Williams and his brilliant wit and comedy. We are all shaped by those around us: family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, those in the political realm and those in the fashion/music/entertainment world. In spite of the negative influences that the Lord allowed to be part of the shaping of who I am today, i hope that when I take my final breath, that others who may not care for me will allow those that do to grieve. My life was not damaged by Robin Williams, though not all that he did was I fond of. It is like eating fish… Spit out the bones when you get a few in your mouth and move on. Enjoy the good things that a person did.At this time, the death of a well loved man, perhaps our testimony as Christians shines brighter by showing respect rather than making a mockery of others and their memories and grief.”

“It honestly just bugs the hell out of me when people say things negatively about people like him when they die. Its not as if he committed genocide and deserved to die.

I feel more terrible that a man who was a thinker and had such a great mind for comedy probably wont be in heaven. You should grieve more for people who don’t have any hope…because they are damned. At least when our fellows in Christ die, they get to move onto the afterlife of peace and tranquility. Not so for unrepentant. Show your quality as Christians by being sympathetic.”

There are texts in Scripture that seem to support this disposition. Proverbs 24:17-18 for example says:

“Do not rejoice when your enemy falls and do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles; or the Lord will see and be displeased and turn His anger away from him.”

The Proverbs 24 passage echoes other passages. Job, for instance, believes himself righteous because he hasn’t rejoiced in the death of his enemies (Job 31:29). Scripture indicates that when we see the wicked rejoicing over the death of their enemies, we automatically know it isn’t right (Judges 16:25; 2Sa 16:5-6; Psalm 35:13-15; 42:10; Micah 7:8).

Certainly then there is a place for sensitivity and tenderness in an untimely death. We can all admit that there is a certain sadness when the wicked die. After all, there but the grace of God go any of us. We can be sad at the waste of all that talent as the talent was not used for God’s glory. We can be sad at what might have been. Sad for the damage they did to themselves and to those who loved them. We can be saddened over how the enemy kills and destroys image bearers of God.

However, sadness and a pious respect are not the last words on this subject. We must also consider that Scripture repeatedly speaks of joy over the death of the wicked. Proverbs 11:10 says,

“When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices; they shout for joy when the wicked die.”

In Psalm 58:10 this idea of God’s people corporately rejoicing in the death of their enemies is recorded,

“The righteous will be glad when they are avenged, when they bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked.”

Here we note that God expects His people to rejoice over the death of His and their enemies. And why should we be surprised at that? The wicked are those who oppose the advance of God’s Kingdom. The wicked are those who prefer their triumph over God’s triumph in the land of the living. The wicked prefer their glory being known as opposed to God’s glory being known. The wicked desire to make a name for themselves at the expense of God’s people making a name for God. There can be no doubt that the removal of the wicked should be a cause for celebration, if only because their attack on God’s reputation is finished.

The greatest mind ever produced by America, (Rev. Jonathan Edwards) preached a sermon once that captured some of this. Edwards reminded his listeners that the most intimate of relationships would not cause the redeemed in the relationship to not rejoice over the destruction of the unredeemed. Edwards wrote,

“You that have godly parents, who in this world have tenderly loved you, who were wont to look upon your welfare as their own, and were wont to be grieved for you when any thing calamitous befell you in this world, and especially were greatly concerned for the good of your souls, industriously sought, and earnestly prayed for their salvation; how will you bear to see them in the kingdom of God, crowned with glory? Or how will you bear to see them receiving the blessed sentence, and going up with shouts and songs, to enter with Christ into the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world, while you are amongst a company of devils, and are turned away with the most bitter cries, to enter into everlasting burnings, prepared for the devil and his angels? How will you bear to see your parents, who in this life had so dear an affection for you, now without any love to you, approving the sentence of condemnation, when Christ shall with indignation bid you depart, wretched, cursed creatures, into eternal burnings ? How will you bear to see and hear them praising the Judge, for his justice exercised in pronouncing this sentence, and hearing it with holy joy in their countenances, and shouting forth the praises and hallelujahs of God and Christ on that account?”

Our current Christian culture, such as it is, has no problem with the empathy side of the equation. Unfortunately, in our current culture most of our empathy is on the side of fallen men. But understand, that those who properly rejoice at the death of the wicked are also demonstrating empathy. It is a least possible that they are demonstrating empathy for God and His Christ in rejoicing over the death of the wicked. Is there not a place for empathy over God’s glory being diminished and then a place for rejoicing when those who have diminished God’s glory are removed? Is there not a place for empathy for God, when His name and character are denigrated, and then a place for rejoicing when those who have denigrated the Holy name of God are removed so as to never denigrate it again? Not all rejoicing over the death of the wicked is a case of insensitive clods who don’t understand what it means to be Christian. And some of the tenderness over the death of the wicked is a case of insensitive (to God) nekulturny who don’t understand what it means to be Christian.

The point here plainly stated, for those who may have missed it, is that it is possible that sympathy and empathy for the fallen wicked may come at cost for sympathy and empathy for the Transcendent, Holy God.

So, we must own both sides of the equation in this matter. I think that we can both rejoice at the death of fallen men and not rejoice over the death of fallen men by remaining God centered. We can rejoice in God’s name being cleared and we can not rejoice when remembering that it is only God’s grace alone that causes us to differ from God haters. In the death of the wicked we have to satisfy both sides of the equation.

Postscript,

Clearly it is possible that Robin Williams turned to Christ just before he jumped off the chair to hang himself, (odd combination there to think about) but if we were only to look at his body of work it is clear that the man did not own Christ and so is eternally separated from God. There is nothing inappropriate about noting that as a warning to people.

http://www.goodfight.org/a_v_williams_robin.html

Fisking American Vision Published Blog Regarding Immigration

http://covenantaldivide.com/open-and-closed-borders-lets-have-both/

I will not be fisking the whole article above. Those who want to read the whole article are encouraged to go to the link to read the parts that I’ve passed over.

Publisher American Vision writes,

“What about a scriptural alternative to the cacophony of opinions being blurted out on the issue? Notice I didn’t say Christian alternative. We Christians today are many times out of touch with what scripture has to say in the civil realm.”

Bret observes

The answers that are provided here, in this article, are not exactly clear. American Vision blog, while bringing out some great points, does not succeed in giving us a nuanced picture of immigration in the Old Testament.

American Vision Blog writes,

Beyond common sense and logic, the issue is biblical. Matt is on target in that the heart of the issue lies within a discussion of borders (boundaries), laws and enforcement. We need to ask ourselves, what kind of borders? Who makes the laws? Who has authority to enforce the laws? What laws should govern immigration? What is the source and standard for such laws?

1.) Biblical is beyond common sense and logic? How would we know that without using common sense and logic to determine that?

2.) R. J. Rushdoony asked these questions back in 1965. Here are some of the answers at which he arrived.

“The purpose of this immigration policy then is to unify man, to bring about the unity of the godhead. Its purpose, and its premise, is not economic but religious. It is theologically rooted in this religious dream, the United Nations.”

So, Rushdoony realized that the immigration push was to eliminate all borders so that the humanist global order could come to the fore. Rushdoony understood that the immigration act in 1965 (and what is currently happening is merely the flowering of that Legislation) was being pushed by Humanists desiring to destroy the Nation State order. Rushdoony understood that such immigration was not Biblical.

America Vision Blog writes,

Let’s begin with the last question first. I believe the Word of God should be the source and standard. With this pre-commitment in mind, it would make sense to look at the first nation in Scripture to tackle the immigration issue God’s way.

See, I have taught you statutes and rules, as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should do them in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the LORD our God is to us, whenever we call upon him? And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today? (Deuteronomy 4:5-8)

Israel was to be a light among the nations. If they operated their nation in terms of God’s revealed law, all other nations would take notice. Not only would they take notice, many would be drawn to Israel.

Bret responds,

Certainly we can agree that God’s intent for Israel was to be a Witness to the Nations. However, that in no way implies that God desired open borders so that the Nations lost their National Identity as the various Nations’ identity was submerged with Israel’s National Identity. Nations were to be drawn to Israel so that they, as Nations, bowed to Yahweh.

A Reformed Old Testament scholar Martin Wyngaarden recognized this when he wrote,

“Thus the highest description of Jehovah’s covenant people is applied to Egypt, — “my people,” — showing that the Gentiles will share the covenant blessings, not less than Israel. Yet the several nationalities are here kept distinct, even when Gentiles share, in the covenant blessing, on a level of equality with Israel. Egypt, Assyria and Israel are not nationally merged. And the same principles, that nationalities are not obliterated, by membership in the covenant, applies, of course, also in the New Testament dispensation.”

Martin J. Wyngaarden
The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture pp. 101-102.

American Vision blog writes,

God promised blessing and freedom if Israel followed his prescription for running their nation. Freedom is only possible when men govern themselves according to the Word of God. God’s covenant people were required to render judgment in their families, the assembly and the state according to God’s revealed law. As they did so, their light would shine as a beacon to other nations that were in bondage.

Not only was Israel a light, it was a shelter. Someone could recognize the light and sojourn in Israel. If they subjected themselves externally to the law of the land (the law of God), then they would enjoy the blessings promised in the land.

For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be alike before the LORD. (Numbers 15:15)

Here the American Vision blog does not nuance enough given the different words for “stranger” in the Old Testament.

James Hoffmeier, in his book, “The Immigration Crisis proves that a State is under no compulsion to have a generous immigration policy and does have a responsibility to protect its borders –just as States did even in the Old Testament. The texts used by Christian organizations like American Vision, Sojourners, etc. are ripped out of their context in order to guilt the laity into thinking being a good Christian means disinheriting one’s self and children.

The book of Joshua goes into great detail about the allocation of the territories of the Promised land to the tribes of Israel but the ger (resident Alien) did not receive their own allotment. The Ger (resident Alien — perhaps our equivalent of a perpetual Green card holder) could receive social benefits (i.e. — gleaning rights, a portion of the third year tithes) but they could never own land and so they forever would remain ger (stranger).

The resident alien (ger) in Israel was never so integrated and assimilated into the Israeli social order that the distinction between citizen born and alien evaporated. The resident alien (ger) was held to the same law, could become part of the worship cult BUT they were always known as distinct from Israeli born. Hence they are continuously referred to as ger (stranger).

So there was continuity between the native born Israeli and the ger but there was discontinuity as well and it strikes me that it is the discontinuity is what American Vision desires to ignore.

In short the ger (stranger) would always be known as “other.”

In the Old Testament the alien (ger) was a person who entered Israel and followed legal procedures to obtain recognized standing as a resident alien. Hence ger (alien) is the term for legal immigrants. However, the ger (legal immigrants) in the OT were still distinct from those who were permanent residents (citizens). In the OT then there is a distinction between the alien (ger) the foreigner (nekhar or zar) and the permanent residents of the Israeli tribes.

The American Vision Blog continues,

The stranger could worship who and how he wanted within the confines of his own home but as long as he was a resident in Israel he had to submit externally to God’s law….

This is a major component with the issue of immigration because with no handouts and a requirement to live according to God’s laws, the borders of Israel were to some extent self-regulated. Those that immigrated into the country were most likely law-abiding, productive residents that would add value to the society. This was inexpensive, inside-out border enforcement. It was in one sense an open border policy by God’s design.

Bret responds,

Hoffmeier differs with this assessment regarding “self-regulated borders,” as he points out that ancient territorial borders were taken seriously and that national sovereignty was recognized. Hoffmeier points out that not only were wars fought to establish and settle border disputes, borders were vigorously defended, and battles occurred when a neighboring state violated another’s territory. So, national boundaries were normally honored.

Numbers 20:16-21 yields an example of Edom’s refusal to allow Israel to pass, even with Israel paying a Toll. This was out of keeping with the socially accepted custom of offering hospitality to strangers in the ancient and modern Middle East. Still, it is worth noting that even a traveler — a foreigner — passing through the territory of another had to obtain permission to do so, thus revealing that in the OT borders were taken seriously. Likewise Judges 11:16-20 gives another example of borders being taken seriously.

These episodes demonstrate clearly that nations could and did control their borders and determined who could pass through their land.

On the individual, family, and clan level, property was owned and boundaries established. Personal property and fields were delineated by landmarks — stone markers of some sort. For this reason, the Mosaic law prohibited the removal of landmarks. (Dt. 19:14, 27:17). This parlayed itself into the idea of National boundaries merely being an extension of the reality of property owned by individual, family and clan. During the period of the divided Kingdom (8th cent. BC) the prophet Hosea decried the leaders of Judah for seizing territory of her sister kingdom Israel by taking their boundary stones (cmp. Job 24:2).

So we see that nation states, large and small in the Biblical world were clearly delineated by borders. These were often defended by large forts and military outposts. Countries since biblical times have had the right to clearly established borders that they controlled and were recognized by surrounding Governments.

The borders of countries were respected, and minor skirmishes and even wars followed when people and armies of one nation violated the territory of their neighbor.

All this meant that nations, including Israel had the right to clearly established secure borders and could determine who could and could not enter their land.

American Vision blog continues,

“There was though, another critical component to God’s open door policy. Those that did immigrate into Israel and lived as residents could not hold civil office as a judge. They could enjoy the blessings through submission to external laws but could not judge in the civil realm. This could only change if they professed that Israel’s God was their God and were circumcised.

Again, this was critical. Someone who was not in covenant in the visible community of God’s people, professing Jehovah’s Lordship and authority over them, could not exercise temporal authority over others. This includes their ability to vote. (Voting is rendering judgment against those who hold office.) Practically this means that if you did not profess God’s Lordship over you for all eternity, you would be restrained from having a voice among his people temporally. In order to preserve the purity of his people and blessings that come from living according to his laws, you would be restrained from civil authority.”

Bret responds,

This is all true but there are a couple other components that the American Vision blog is missing and that is important to this discussion. First, is the fact that a stranger and an alien could never own land in the Israelite community. Land was to be kept within the Tribes and returned to the various Tribal ownership upon every Jubilee. This provision ensured that the alien and the stranger (ger) would never rise higher than the native born.

“The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia” offers,

The Ger.

This word with its kindred verb is applied with slightly varying meanings to anyone who resides in a country or a town of which he is not a full native land-owning citizen; e.g., the word is used of the patriarchs in Palestine, the Israelites in Egypt, the Levites dwelling among the Israelites (Deuteronomy 18:6 Judges 17:7, etc.), the Ephraimite in Gibeah (Judges 19:16). It is also particularly used of free aliens residing among the Israelites, and it is with the position of such that this article deals.

Secondly, the ger, if bond servants, were not released in the Year of Jubilee. This again is suggestive that distinctions were maintained between Native born and ger (Exodus 12:43,45; Leviticus 25:45,46).

All of this is suggestive that we need to be very very careful when we seek to translate Old Testament immigration reality from OT Israel to 21st century Immigration issues in the States. Would American Vision blog support Strangers coming here with the stipulation that they could never own land? Would American Vision blog support unfettered immigration if the condition was known before hand that the immigrant would always and forever be known as “ger?”

American Vision blog,

“To do otherwise would be to leave a crack in the door and the potential for an ethical invasion from within the camp. Don’t miss this concept. If my god is different than your god, I will inherently work towards a competing law-order. My god will skew my ability to render judgment according to the law of your god. In a practical and organizational sense it would be a structural, judicial compromise with God’s sovereignty. This competing law-order would no-doubt be a stumbling block given the sinful nature of man. There is only one alternative to God’s law. It is man’s. So, in essence, to give an outsider an inside voice would be to tempt the entire nation with the opportunity to captain their own ship rather than leave God in control.

In Israel you had to be a member of the “assembly” or Old Testament church to be a full citizen and judge within the civil realm. Upon formal acknowledgment that you were under God’s eternal sanctions, you could place yourself in the position of carrying out God’s temporal sanctions in history.”

Bret responds,

Here, we appeal again to Rushdoony who taught that the kind of Immigration that is going on now was a immigration that Christians should oppose precisely because it was seeking to establish an alien social order. Rushdoony lectured,

“… The continuing purpose of American history, according to President Johnson is union, union of the races, closer union of the states to the federal union. It is also civil rights, federal aid, the unity of man with the world he has built, the United Nations, the New Immigration policy, and the Great Society.’

Rushdoony understood what we fail to understand and that is that the immigration policy cobbled together in 1965 and which still guides our policy today is a policy intent on Humanistic Union. This is why Biblical Christians must oppose this immigration folly right now. This immigration policy, as Rushdoony knew, was about pushing us nearer and nearer to a Humanist Statist regime where tyrannical centralized control would be established.

Rushdoony, in the same lecture continues on pointing out the now obvious,

“The U.N. charter preamble declares that its purpose is to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to gain fundamental freedom for all, the first chapter declares, without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. Disunity is the one great evil. The godhead must be united, and this faith, which appears in the U.N., is a product of a grassroots faith. We see it all around us. We see it in the churches, in the pulpits. We see it in a multitude of private agencies which indeed very often outrun the U.N. in their enthusiasm for this one world state, this new god. But certainly it is a part of the United Nations program, and its IMMIGRATION LAWS is an expression of this policy, to unify mankind.”

Here we find Rushdoony saying explicitly that Churches and Organizations that support the kind of Immigration we are seeing this very day are Churches and Organizations who are “outrunning the U.N. in their enthusiasm for this one world state.”

American Vision blog offers,

“So, if this was such a great system then why did Israel suffer from such a poor track record in history? First of all, guarding the nation from within through limiting citizenship was not a failsafe against national moral decay. This was only one aspect of God’s law. The fundamental principle was one of Lordship. If the people of God ceased to walk according to his statues in any area, they were liable to his judgment. There are no political solutions for sinful rebellion among citizens.”

Bret responds,

American Vision blog speaks about how Israel failed in Christ’s Lordship and yet were we,as Biblical Christians, to support the current Immigration boondoggle we our currently staring at we likewise would be failing in Christ’s Lordship.

Consider again the great Rushdoony when speaking against the 1965 immigration act,

“The purpose of this 1965 Immigration Act law is threefold.

First, it has been described by Senator Javits as the civil rights legislation for the world. Now, had we so described the bill, we would have been accused of misrepresentation, but we have the authority of Senator Javits that this bill is the civil rights legislation of the world. In other words it will establish, as a civil right of any person, anywhere in the world that they have a right to come to the United States, that immigration is no longer a privilege, a right which we hold and which we extend as a privilege to whomever we choose, but a civil right of anyone in the world. This then is its first function.

Its second function is to transfer immigration control from the legislative branch to the executive, so that the control of immigration, which has historically been in the hands of congress will be transferred to the administration.

Third, the law would be basically secondary to the president’s wishes, so that the basic law would be the will of the president, and it really would be a blank check. There would be no effective prohibition of anyone, whether subversive, mentally defective, a prostitute, a pervert, anyone would have the right to come into the country. There would be no effective {?}.

This then, is the nature of the Kennedy-Johnson bill…. The purpose of this immigration policy then is to unify man, to bring about the unity of the godhead. Its purpose, and its premise, is not economic but religious. It is theologically rooted in this religious dream, the United Nations.”

What we are facing right now with the borders on the edge of being extinguished is the full flowering of the 1965 Immigration act that Rushdoony was so animated against. As Biblical Christians should we not be just as animated as Rushdoony was in 1965?

This immigration policy is NOT about economics. It is about expanding the humanist global state by creating the North American Union which is a precursor step to the the global state. This immigration policy serves to capture the country irretrievably for socialism, because this policy will forever entrench the Marxist (Democratic)party as the ruling party. This immigration policy serves to bring socialism to the country because it provides cheap labor which in turns redistributes wealth upwards by 3% annually and so again, turns us ever more into a Marxist state, as the Uber wealthy eliminate the middle class in the push towards Corporatism. This immigration policy serves to socialize the country because it serves corporatism and the fact that people can’t see this merely means that they are not self aware enough of what the humanist globalist elites are doing …. which R. J. Rushdoony understood in 1965.

The American Vision article finishes quite well. I encourage the reader to read the whole thing.

In the end we must keep in mind the necessity to fight for the reality of nations as nations against the humanist global order that Rushdoony warned against.

Wyngaarden understood this as well. I finish with this quote,

“More than a dozen excellent commentaries could be mentioned that all interpret Israel as thus inclusive of Jew and Gentile, in this verse, — the Gentile adherents thus being merged with the covenant people of Israel, though each nationality remains distinct.”

“For, though Israel is frequently called Jehovah’s People, the work of his hands, his inheritance, yet these three epithets severally are applied not only to Israel, but also to Assyria and to Egypt: “Blessed be Egypt, my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance” (Isaiah 19:25).

Thus the highest description of Jehovah’s covenant people is applied to Egypt, — “my people,” — showing that the Gentiles will share the covenant blessings, not less than Israel. Yet the several nationalities are here kept distinct, even when Gentiles share, in the covenant blessing, on a level of equality with Israel. Egypt, Assyria and Israel are not nationally merged. And the same principles, that nationalities are not obliterated, by membership in the covenant, applies, of course, also in the New Testament dispensation.”

Wyngaarden, pp. 101-102.

Darrell Dow On The Good Samaritan And Illegal Immigration

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.

The Road to Jericho and the Border Crisis

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.

Predestination From Beginning To End … To God Alone Be The Glory

“When Paul was forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the Gospel in the province of Asia, and was given the vision of a man in Europe calling across the waters, ‘Come over into Macedonia, and help us,’ one section of the world was sovereignly excluded from, and another section was sovereignly given, the privileges of the Gospel. Had the divinely directed call been rather from the shores of India, Europe and America might today have been less civilized than the natives of Tibet. It was the sovereign choice of God which brought the Gospel to the people of Europe and later to America, while the people of the east, and north, and south were left in darkness. We can assign no reason, for instance, why it should have been Abraham’s seed, and not the Egyptians or the Assyrians, who were chosen; or why Great Britain and America, which at the time of Christ’s appearance on earth were in a state of such complete ignorance, should today possess so largely for themselves, and be disseminating so widely to others, these most important spiritual privileges. The diversities in regard to religious privileges in the different nations is to be ascribed to nothing less than the good pleasure of God.”

~ Loraine Boettner,
“The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination”

Note here, then, that God both sovereignly prepares a people as the receptive soil and then delivers the seed of the Gospel to land upon that soil that He had sovereignly prepared. All of this is of God’s predestinating Grace. Why should we think that God predestinates the casting of the seed without realizing that God has predestinated the receptivity of the soil even to the point of predestinating the very genetic makeup of those who would be receptive? It is still all of Grace and it is still the case that God alone gets the Glory. As Boettner writes above the discrimination between those who receive the Gospel and those who do not is — in every spiritual and corporeal detail — all of grace. If Macedonians as Macedonians were more favorable to the reception of the Gospel it is only because God predestined them in their whole being to be more receptive to the Gospel.

“Apart from this election of individuals to life, there has been what we may call a national election, or a divine predestination of nations and communities to a knowledge of true religion and to the external privileges of the Gospel. God undoubtedly does choose some nations to receive much greater spiritual and temporal blessings than others. This form of election has been well illustrated in the Jewish nation, in certain European nations and communities, and in America. The contrast is very striking when we compare these with other nations such as China, Japan, India, etc.”

~ Loraine Boettner
“The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination” (1932)

Let me just mention something interesting about this book as it pertains to race. When Boettner discusses race, which he does freely and fully, he does not stutter or blush as he writes. He also has the most annoying habit of referring constantly to “the white race” as if that were a real and meaningful idea instead of what all Cultural Marxists know it to be, namely a contrived pseudo-scientific neologism that serves only as a social construct designed for systematic theft and murder. Unconsciously, Boettner as a white man, will talk about the blessings of Christianity and the privileges of election in hearing the gospel, then will default to describing white culture and European settings. We see one example of that in Boettner’s first quote where he falls into talking about how Tibetans are less civilized because the Gospel did not take root in Tibet, whereas it did in Europe and America. (Remember though Boettner was writing in 1932.)

“A third form of election taught in Scripture is that of individuals to the external means of grace, such as hearing and reading the Gospel, association with the people of God, and sharing the benefits of the civilization which has arisen where the Gospel has gone. No one ever had the chance to say at what particular time in the world’s history, or in what country, he would be born, whether or not he would a member of the white race, or of some other. One child is born with health, wealth, and honor, in a favored land, in a Christian home, and grows up with all the blessings which attend the full light of the Gospel. Another is born in poverty and dishonor, of sinful and dissipated parents, and destitute of Christian influences. All of these things are sovereignly decided for them…”

Lorraine Boettner
The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination

God chooses the Elect from the inside (otherwise known as genetics), AND from the outside (otherwise known as the environment), and then chooses to send His Spirit to open their eyes to see what they never could see apart from the Spirit and as depending only upon the fallen basis of both genetics and environment (nurture and nature).

Hat Tip — Ed Waverly

Lyndon Baines Johnson On Civil Rights

Today the man who claims to be President gave a speech honoring Lyndon Baines Johnson for signing the Civil Rights act. It is the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Civil Rights legislation. Here is a quote from LBJ from a speech in 1948.

“The Civil Rights program, about which you have heard so much, is a farce and a sham… an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. I am opposed to that program. I fought it in Congress. It is the province of the State to run its own elections.”

In 1957 LBJ added this gem.

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”

These quotes kind of put all the LBJ worship going on in perspective.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/10/obama_lbj_knew_what_the_hell_the_presidency_was_for.html