A Matter of Principles

I haven’t seen the rhetoric flying like this for a long time. The battle lines are drawn. Ideologues on either side will truck no dissent. If there is one thing of which we as conservatives can be sure, liberals are always wrong about everything. If there’s a liberal is favoring a particular policy, we don’t have to know anything about it. That tells us enough to know we’re agin’ it.

I keep writing about the matter of illegal immigrants, even though I get very little blog traffic or Facebook comments about it. My liberal friends have written me off years ago and my conservative friends have by and large shunned me. Sadly, that includes most of my conservative Christian friends. But for Christians is it an area where the ideological rubber meets the theological road.

More than anything, this issue has highlighted that when it comes to politics for a lot of conservative Christians, they are conservatives first. If it is possible to eisegete their square Christianity into the round conservative hole, all the better, but if not, it can be silently left outside.

I consider myself a conservative. I’ve always been on the right wing of the Republican Party. At one time I was very active on the right wing of the Republican Party. You don’t have to be a Christian to be a conservative. You do however, have to be a Christian to be a Christian.

Christians are not called to be politically conservative. Neither are they called to be politically liberal. They are called to be Christians. Where being salt and light, even in political participation, intersects with being politically conservative (in the very limited meaning that term has within the very specifically American context, which most Americans assume is the only context), that’s great.

Time and again I have read and I have been told that we should be compassionate individual Christians, but that when it comes to the State it is a whole different matter.  The State, just like any other God-ordained institution, is nothing more than a collection of individuals. As such, it has – we have – a responsibility to act righteously and compassionately without assuming roles not delegated to the state. Should we not as the Church be compassionate? Should we not as members of families in whatever capacity we find ourselves – father, mother, child, sibling, or collateral – be compassionate? Likewise, we have a responsibility to look to the Scriptures for guidance with regard to how we treat others as a body politic.

A lot of Christians seem to be concerned with the fact that illegal immigrants broke the law to get into the United States. Now most of these people would not have been involved in the civil disobedience of the Civil Rights Movement. I don’t mean that they were too young to have been involved, but rather as conservatives they would have seen the whole thing as a big liberal conspiracy. I wonder how many of these people were involved in Operation Rescue. After all, I’ve never heard of OR folks being labelled as liberals.  And how many are old enough to have homeschooled in the 1980s when it was illegal in many states? For many Christians, it was imperative – it was a matter of conviction – to educate their children at home. In some states it was illegal to have an unlicensed private Christian school, especially one that did not have state-certified teachers. Nonetheless, otherwise law-abiding citizens opened them. To a person, these folks were committed to the right wing of the Republican Party and self-identified as very conservative.

I have heard complaints that these illegal immigrants are getting welfare benefits. Most of these people complain that anyone is getting welfare benefits – that, in fact, there should be no state-funded welfare benefits. I can’t disagree with the last bit. There is no biblical mandate for the state to be engaged in the financial support of individuals. That’s good conservatism. However, if the state chooses to provide benefits, it cannot biblically discriminate between the citizen and the stranger. To do so is to violate the mandate of Leviticus 19 – a civil mandate to love your neighbor as yourself including the stranger among you.

But let’s look at Leviticus 19 more closely. While there is no provision for the State to collect and distribute welfare, there is a provision requiring individual property/business owners to provide welfare in the form of unharvested produce. In other words – or in modern, non-agrarian application – to provide work and remuneration. And for whom is this provision made?  The poor and the stranger. This idea of providing for the alien among you is so important that it appears three times in the Torah (Leviticus 19:10, 23:22 and Deuteronomy 24:21). Biblically speaking, non-citizens are not only entitled (I know, a liberal word, but hard to get around) to work-based welfare, they are one of the principal intended recipients.

And while we are at it, it is unbiblical to choose your neighbors, stranger or citizen. Neighbors are yours because they see you have a desirable society and settle among you. Once among you, they must follow the rules – not any more strictly or with any greater consequences than citizens – but there’s no biblical provision for discrimination.

And finally for those repulsed by the theonomic tone in setting out what is biblical and what isn’t – those who say forget the Old Testament and ask WWJD – there is no evidence that the conservative views incompatible with the Torah are somehow more compatible with the New Covenant.

Theologically conservative Christians must begin to discerne where poltical conservatism merges and diverges. The current hot button issue of illegal immigration provides such an opportunity. It is then a matter of choosing which principles take priority.

Advertisements

4 Responses to “A Matter of Principles”

  1. Elizabeth @ The Garden Window Says:

    Sol,

    I very much enjoyed reading this and pondering the implications thereof.

    Should the State refrain from giving “the stranger” infinitely greater and more privileged financial benefits than it gives “the natives” (for lack of a better word) ?

  2. sol Says:

    Absolutely. There is excuse for that. My only point is that the Scripture seems clear that the stranger has to be treated the same. If the State is going to get into an area in which it has not been designed to operate, then it has to bear to full implications of it in order to be a just system. If the State wants to stick to what it is supposed to do – defend our shore, deliver our mail, and keep the hell out of our business – it can do that to everyone alike without massive cost implications.

    I am not making suggestions that could be cured with a single piece of legislation. There is a systemic failure in maintaining a just society because the State is maintaining the wrong aspect of it.

  3. Lee Says:

    Is there not the expectation that the “stranger/alien” will act as a fully realized member of the community by keeping the covenant? It seems that the idea of including the alien, is to welcome them into community, and not simply to provide for the creationor subsistence of a sub-culture. And Paul’s words that the one who would not work, cannot eat, seem relevant here, as well. In so far as American immigration policy is to integrate fully, it seems helpful, and Biblical, but when a sub-culture is allowed to explode, often with the express expectation of public support, then, I wonder if the God and Lord of the alien & stranger has become the Lord of the lawless lazy freeloader. Please do not read this as steretyping, but making a real distinction between types of immigrants, some of which I support, and often for the reasons in the post.

  4. sol Says:

    They are not fully realised members of the community, otherwise they wouldn’t be strangers. They have no requirement of circumcision and as such are not allowed to eat the Passover (Ex 12:43-44). They are clearly a sub-culture, recognised as different from Israelites. (Likewise in the US every immigrant group has been a distinct sub-culture that more or less integrated into and became a component part of the rest of society within a few generations.)

    I’ve already said that one who would not work should not eat. I’m just saying that St Paul’s words apply equally to the alien and the citizen. An immigration attorney recently told me when employers contact him about legalising a worker who they have discovered is illegal (which they can’t – they are required by law to fire them immediately) the employer nearly always says, “But he’s my best worker!” How is that letting him be a fully realized member of the community?

    I’m not sure what you mean by a sub-culture exploding. If you are referring to a sub-culture of welfare, remember that there are far more citizens who are lawless lazy freeloaders than there are aliens of the same description.

    What I anticipate American policy will do is further polarise the situation. It might worth wondering if there is a reason behind the current unrest in a significant portion of the Mexican-American community. Are 82% of Hispanics in Arizona simply trying to preserve the drug trade and promote the violence and killing, the intervention of which is supposedly the reason for the new legislation? Rather than stereotype them by the voices of a few radical leaders – and it generally takes some radicals to push the tide in the desired direction – and given that the legislation is unabashedly aimed at the Hispanic community – all denial of profiling notwithstanding – perhaps it is worth considering their objections and working to accommodate them.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: