I have edited Dan's post #13 in this thread to remove language that was disparaging of Jerry Porter. We are free to discuss the content of Dr. Porter's message but I will delete any comment that speaks to Dr. Porter's motivation/intent in posting his message or that call into question his integrity or character.
--Host Post--
Post Thanks / Like - 10 Thanks, 0 LaughingEd DiSante, Roy Richardson, Hans Deventer, Valisha Trammell Hall, Gina Stevenson, Paul DeBaufer, Craig Laughlin, Cynthia Prentice, G R 'Scott' Cundiff and 1 others - "thanks" for this post
Also, I pulled Dan's comment about his feeling about the PTT forum (and the resulting conversation) out of this thread because it's totally unrelated. Hopefully we can get to a meaningful conversation about Dr. Porter's important article.
It is available here: http://www.naznet.com/community/show...-Forum-Decorum
--Host Post--
Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I can't speak for anyone else, but I find the article shallow as well. Of course we are to respect, protect, assist, evangelize, disciple, and love all the immigrants near us. I don't think many would disagree with that. But the last part of his article, he starts discussing how somethings that are legal are not morally right. While there are cases where that is true, I don't believe you can say that with immigration laws. Perhaps there are some immigration laws that need changed, but to equate slavery with our immigration laws is not looking at the big picture. There are reasons we have these laws. The laws are not perfect, but they were put there for a purpose and that purpose was not to enslave anyone.
I do believe his article was political because it is a social issue and most social issues are political. I think he has every right to share his opinion on this, as did Dan Boone when he shared how happy he was a few years ago with the Affordable Care Act passage. They're just stating their opinions. It doesn't mean I have to agree with them and it doesn't mean I can't think their opinions are shallow. There is much more to these pieces of legislation than the surface. On the surface they are "we just want everyone to not have to worry about their situations any longer and Jesus would want us to relieve them of this burden." (healthcare or immigration). But there is much more to the story....how do we pay monetarily for this (healthcare or immigration).....how do we protect our borders from those who would do us harm? (immigration)
When Dr. Porter states, "If all laws were in keeping with the kingdom of God, then breaking the law would always be morally wrong. Nations around the world, however, have crafted laws that often run counter to clear biblical instructions to assist immigrants. We need laws that grant documents to productive immigrants."
he is opening a can of worms that cannot be covered in a few sentences of a H.T. article.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Perhaps some of the issue is differing definitions of "shallow". For me something is shallow if it is vain, vapid, or lacking in substance. Dr. Porter's article was a short piece (probably relating to space constraints in the print magazine). The issues are very complex and the article could have (if print space were no issue) been longer, but it wasn't. Yet there was still quite a bit of substance in that short article, that is why to me it is not shallow.
Personally, I think that our immigration laws exists not to protect us from those who would do us harm, but to make sure we stay rich. I view them as oppressive against those who would like to come here and make a better life. It's actually really hard for poor uneducated people who are not facing political persecution to get legal visas to the US. To my way of thinking that makes our immigration laws immoral. Of course if we break any immoral laws, we must be willing to pay the consequences of our choices.
Post Thanks / Like - 5 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Perhaps it's me being "shallow" but most of the posts in which the article is described as "shallow" sound more to me like "I disagree" than "I think the article is lacking in depth." After all, it's a short editorial in a magazine, and it's plenty "deep" for it's format. If I want really want "depth" I read a book.Originally Posted by Kevin Rector
Post Thanks / Like - 9 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I agree. For me the word "shallow" typically means something is very apparent on the surface, does not challenge, and does not require much thinking, contemplation, and reflection. I am being completely honest when I say that I was very challenged by this short piece, and it has caused me to reflect a lot on how I treat others. I am not sure how being motivated to look more deeply into myself can be "shallow" unless there is not really much of anything to look deeply into (i.e. I am shallow), and if that is the case, then I am perfectly content being "shallow" as I am called and motiviated to compassion.
Rob Bell, Love WinsSo when the gospel is diminished to a question of whether or not a person will “get into heaven,” that reduces the good news to a ticket, a way to get past the bouncer and into the club. The good news is better than that.Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I took the 'shallow' characterization to mean, "yeah yeah, we have heard all the biblical proof texts about the alien at our gate before. Tell us something that we haven't heard ad nauseum from the liberals."
I understand, because I feel the same way about the 'official' reminders from the BGS about why we shouldn't give the devil a foothold on the issue of gay marriage.
So, yes...shallow = disagree, but it also means trite or 'same old argument'.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us wthout end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C.S. LewisPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I have stayed out of this, but this statement requires me to simply say, "I could not disagree more." The American people are generous to a fault and have never been as "shallow" as this makes them sound. I have worked beside and with -- even hired (true) people whom I knew (some told me it was true....they trusted me with that info.) to be in the country illegally. I have always treated them fairly and with respect. BUT!!!!, I support strong laws that control immigration into our country -- just as I respect the laws of other countries designed for the same purpose. I strongly support those men and women of ICE who work to secure our borders.
If the immigration laws are wrong, then work to change the laws, but don't tell me that they should be ignored or willfully broken. And don't tell me that it is morally right to encourage the willful breaking of these laws. Jerry and I have been casual friends for years, but he is wrong about this opinion. And I contend that there is no scriptural basis for such an opinion.
Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Since I'm the guy who has been using "shallow" and since you are the official "king" of this thread. (fear not those who can delete a modify posts, rather fear the first poster who can delete the whole thread.) I thought that I should explain to you what I mean when I say "shallow."
Yes I do disagree with Dr. Porter on this, but I wouldn't use the term "shallow" for this reason alone. That would be "trite" and I would be using the word as a put down, I'm not doing this.
My read of his piece brings back two components, one political and one theological.
On the political aspect, he appears to be advocating for disobedience of our laws, as he questions their morality with his comparisons to prostitution and slavery. Speaking also toward laws which in his estimation run counter to clear biblical instruction. The problem is that he is all over the place, he speaks of the terms "we" use to describe such persons, and the terms he brings forward appear to be American. The "we" then are Americans? Or not, as the immigration laws he speaks to are from "Nations around the world." Who is he speaking to? One could easily claim that he is speaking to Americans about how they treat immigrants, but not to our laws? This brings a disconnect, so I need to assume that he speaks to our laws regarding unfairness and that they should be changed, and that we should ignore them? Maybe? There is no specificity here regarding laws, countries, or peoples. I can't apply the word "shallow" to this, clarity however appears to be absent, this is a shot fired into the air.
From a theological perspective he is urging kindness and compassion for all. I absolutely agree with him here, yet this is about as "shallow" as it gets. This properly is a theological no-brainer. I agree with him, is there anyone here who doesn't?
He works through the etymology of the word immigrant, yet he fails to connect it properly with current language. An "immigrant" properly called is a subset of folks properly described as "alien" the difference being legal status. Dr. Porter appears to be pointing to "aliens" rather than immigrants. While it suits his premise, it isn't accurate, which brings me to the second place where I find his take to be "shallow"
He mentions passages where we are to be kind to immigrants, we are to treat them fairly etc... However not once does he bring passages forward where equal treatment is not contemplated, he fails to bring forward passages which bring requirements for the immigrant. In short, he is skimming from the top, there is no depth to his argument, thus it is "shallow."
I believe that depth is what brings his error to light. Should we reach into Scripture we will see that there is more to the story, we will see that is was imperative that the immigrant was not to change the people of Israel, rather the immigrant was to be assimilated. Should we delve deeper into U.S. immigration law and policy we will see more similarities to Scripture than we will see differences. I don't believe that Dr. porter's take on this could survive a trip to the deep end of the pool, his take requires shallow water.
Not trying to get your thread killed Billy, I'm glad you revived this.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison KeillorPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
You must have missed this;
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
My original intent was just to find out what happened to the original thread, but since it has legs, I'm running with it.Since I'm the guy who has been using "shallow" and since you are the official "king" of this thread. (fear not those who can delete a modify posts, rather fear the first poster who can delete the whole thread.
Yes I do disagree with Dr. Porter on this, but I wouldn't use the term "shallow" for this reason alone. That would be "trite" and I would be using the word as a put down, I'm not doing this.
..
Not trying to get your thread killed Billy, I'm glad you revived this.
You probably haven't changed any minds with your explanation, but maybe you won't be accused of an ad hominem attack at least.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us wthout end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C.S. Lewis
Changed minds? The thought never crossed my mind, minds don't change here, it's not a problem for me. After being spotlighted a dew times for my use of the word "shallow" i thought I should explain my reasoning.My original intent was just to find out what happened to the original thread, but since it has legs, I'm running with it.
You probably haven't changed any minds with your explanation, but maybe you won't be accused of an ad hominem attack at least.
If the conversation continues, I'll get accused of an ad hominem attack just the same. Although I've taken to not responding to those who roll this way, so who knows?
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
I would like to point everyone to POST #11 on this thread
http://www.naznet.com/community/show...ation?p=150786
by John Dahl. When I said, there is much more to the story than what Dr. Porter is pointing out....how do we pay monetarily for this (healthcare or immigration). Dahl bringS out the point that we have a welfare system in place for these immigrants. Do we do away with the welfare system so we can afford it?
Is Dr Porter for Open Immigration and all of the ramifications that go with it? It sounds like he is. Is he for doing away with the welfare state?
It's all well and good to say to respect, protect, assist, evangelize, disciple, and love all the immigrants near us. But when he implies that it's okay to break the law because it's immoral, isn't it just as immoral to ignore all the ramifications of what will then happen? Those ramifications should have been discussed. It seems like he is forgetting THERE ARE REASONS FOR OUR LAWS.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Let's not forget that there were "unjust laws" on the books in these United States. There were laws that protected the practice of slavery, and many slaves paid with their lives when they decided, like Augustine, that "an unjust law is no law." Immoral laws should never be allowed to prevail, but should be challenged.
http://www.ceci-orlando.orgPost Thanks / Like - 9 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Oliver,
Butler By'note was featured in the Columbus Dispatch today. I'll post the story.
*Now back to your regular scheduled programming*
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."-Bilbo BagginsPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
We are not forgetting this Oliver, Dr. Porter mentioned this in his article and he made a similar comparison. The argument fails to convince because our immigration laws are not unjust, unfair, nor do they differ from Scriptural principles outlined in the immigration laws determined by God for Israel.
While illegal immigration in this country might resemble slavery, our lawful immigration policies and laws do not.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
Lorie, I believe John's post tries to force us into an extreme either/or situation that just isn't even close to what Dr. Porter was suggesting. Not only that, it exposes the real fear and motivation about immigration- not that we are worried about legality of those who are here "illegally" but that we don't want them here at all because we fear they will take from us. There is no reason to think that immigrants who are welcomes in to our country with a broader path for legalization (which I think is all most people who are concerned about our single file system are concerned about) won't be productive citizens who can contribute to our country.I would like to point everyone to POST #11 on this thread
by John Dahl. When I said, there is much more to the story than what Dr. Porter is pointing out....how do we pay monetarily for this (healthcare or immigration). Dahl bringS out the point that we have a welfare system in place for these immigrants. Do we do away with the welfare system so we can afford it?
Is Dr Porter for Open Immigration and all of the ramifications that go with it? It sounds like he is. Is he for doing away with the welfare state?
It's all well and good to say to respect, protect, assist, evangelize, disciple, and love all the immigrants near us. But when he implies that it's okay to break the law because it's immoral, isn't it just as immoral to ignore all the ramifications of what will then happen? Those ramifications should have been discussed. It seems like he is forgetting THERE ARE REASONS FOR OUR LAWS.
Furthermore John's assertion that we who lock our doors at night are just as "immoral" as single file immigration laws which make it unnecessarily difficult to become a citizen legally is frankly way out of line. Broadening the path for immigration and being more welcoming to the "foreigner" is not the same as leaving the boarders unguarded and having no requirements for citizenship at all.
All I hear from you and John is fear, not that you should not be treated with compassion and that we should not do our best to try to ease your fears, but fear is a terrible basis to build public policy on.
Edit: Let me add that I got sucked into a political answer here that is my own political application of how I interpret messages like that of Jerry Porter. Still I believe the spirit of such a message is to always be looking to expand kingdom living in ways that look to break down the barriers between us and others. I believe it speaks about movement toward, combined with out expectation of, the advent of God's Kingdom. It applies to our attitude in politics and is political as much as politics is simply negotiating life together in larger community. I believe as Christians we need to be looking for ways to better embrace the foreigner- that does not mean it is always possible more than mustard seed ways as we often have to also negotiate aspects of these things through our man made nations and governments- but our dream still needs to be bigger than the dreams of nations.
Last edited by James Diggs; July 17th, 2012 at 10:48 PM.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
This is really the issue. You have posited before that the US is supposed to be a Christian nation in which Christian principles are ensconced in law.
A lot of us understand the people of God to be a universal designation, thus making all borders and boundaries sinful human constructs.
I got rid of the original thread because people began applying the content of the article to US political debate. As I said then and now, it has nothing to do with it. As the people of God we are conscientiously bound to ignore the boundaries and borders created by humanity (not that we necessarily flout them) and love people. We should be working for a world in which everyone can live wherever they chose and have their needs met; our vision of the Kingdom can't be confined to our own nations.
It is a political article, but it's not all about politics.
...just my $.02.Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Jim, you've stated that in a "matter of fact" manner. Therefore, I just thought I'd remind you that your statement is not a fact, but an opinion.
I hold to a different opinion: Our immigration laws are unjust, unfair, and they differ from Scriptural principles...
Wilson
"But by the grace of God I am what I am." (1 Cor. 15:10)Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
A lot of you may hold this opinion, yet it appears that you are at odds with Scripture on this. There is sufficient evidence given as to legitimate borders and immigration policy as set forth by God for His people. In a way you are correct, it's not about politics. The politics currently in place are not the issue, rather this is a theology which appears to me to be without Scriptural basis. As people of God we respect laws that are just and we most certainly respect borders. Personally, I know the border well enough and where the sensors are located, I could pass back and forth between here and Canada without detection. I wouldn't think of insulting the Canadian people by doing so, I will give respect to their border and their sovereignty. I check in and out every time, even at crossings where there is no customs office and I have to ride a couple of miles to check in at the nearest office.
I believe your understanding to be faulty, I also believe that you are well aware of this. If you are truly interested in a more charitable discourse, you could begin by offering scriptural support for your position. Simply calling me wrong is not charitable at all.
Loving people and providing for their needs is not at issue with me or anyone in this thread as far as I know. I have said this twice already, I would appreciate it if you could give me the courtesy of acknowledging this. This will be the third time I have had to repeat this in this thread. Courtesy would be much appreciated.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison KeillorPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I've offered opinion on haw and why I believe our policy to be fair and in line with Scriptural principles. Could you be so kind as to do the same?
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
Without getting technical:
I know a guy. He's a great guy. He's a friend and Christian brother. He's also a "foreigner." Our policy and law would have this guy arrested and deported. Having this guy arrested and deported does not meet my understanding/definition of treating him kindly or compassionately (which I believe Biblical principles dictate we do).
Wilson
"But by the grace of God I am what I am." (1 Cor. 15:10)Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Since the United States (or Mexico or Canada for that matter) are not mentioned in Scripture the burden of proof is with you to show this to be true. On a really long stretch you might be able to build a case for Israel but the understanding of borders and immigration were so different then from what we are talking about today that I seriously doubt you can build much of a case at all.
Bottom line, you have to make your case. Maybe we should take your post and mine to the Theology board and you can lay out your exegetical evidence and your hermeneutic for applying that to modern day nations and laws. You have stated this belief several times I would be very interested in your perception of ancient Israel's understanding of boarders and immigration and the exegetical work you did to get there.
It is not enough to be right, you have to be like Jesus.Post Thanks / Like - 5 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I'd like to see a poll on that question. I really doubt many will agree with this view. In any case, I'm often ashamed by how our immigration laws are, and then I haven't even started on how people are treated, being sent back to countries where they face certain death. But I'm sure it's all legal.
Laurie suggested laws are good by definition. Oliver made clear such is not the case at all. Therefore, something being legal says little or nothing on something being just. So in the case of immigration, the current discussion, the legal side is irrelevant to the moral side.
In the Netherlands abortion is legal. I'm sure you agree it isn't just.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Your correct, our response should not be toward looking to have him arrested and deported, neither should it be toward giving him shelter from the authorities. Our compassionate aim should be looking toward how we can really help this "guy", we should be looking toward hiring an immigration attorney to help get him "legal" or or look into other possible options, ways to help this "guy" find a life where he isn't constantly looking over his shoulder, a life where he can work for a wage comparable to others instead of one where he is exploited.
Still this fellow has nothing to do with the issue at hand. We are still in shallow waters here. We need to compare and contrast God's direction in this area for his people with our own direction. Otherwise we are only looking at an emotional argument, this is not sufficient. A crooked stick is revealed by laying a straight stick beside it.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison KeillorPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Good Morning,
This thread could be the poster child for everything we've been talking about re. the spirit of NazNet.
Hans, Wilson, Craig and Ryan are very apparently (imho) arguing for open borders.
Jim, bless his lonely soul, is advocating for the rule of law (a couple other people have spoken in favor of the rule of law, but mostly, Jim has been carrying the alternative view by himself).
So, what is a guy to do with this? Bless Hans, Wilson, Craig and Ryan and give them the run of the thread? Or, create a toxic and suffocative atmosphere by pressing the opinion that immigration laws have validity? That is the question.
I'd just like to point out that it could be true that open borders could (imo would/will) result in the destruction of our ability to lend health and well-being to the undocumented. To put it simply, what good is it for us to open our borders to, say, Mexico and, thereby, become Mexico? Would a bankrupt US, then, do to Canada what "Mexico" has done to us?
The bleeding heart aspect of this issue reminds me so much of the philosophy of weak-minded people who are going to "have a good Christmas" knowing full well that they cannot offord it and that putting off a "good" Christmas or two will put them into a position to do Christmas with prudence, planning and maturity.
This, scenario, imo, takes this discussion out of the ambiance of "slavery" as suggested by another post. I'd say that "slavery" becomes a MUCH greater threat when good and healthy (though threatened in our case with unsustainable debt) cultures, governments and nations fail to come to grips with the issues that could destroy entire systems and create breathtaking opportunities for despots. "Out there" it is quite likely that the very thing undocumented people and their supporters are seeking will become an impossibility and the greater tragedy of the destruction of an economy that "could" have provided hope and healing for multitudes is sacrificed to a "good Christmas."
The other outcome that seems to me to be unavoidable, revolves around the issue of errant civil disobedience. If we disregard our current laws (laws, imho, that could ultimately save innumerable people), how are we going to deal with the message we are sending out to others that breaking laws is okay based on "feelings"? I think it is unrealistic to believe that ignoring the rule of humane, sustainable, wise law in this subject (illegal immigration) will not bleed over into other important areas of culture.
Friend,
Wes
Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Don't know about others but I am not. As long as we have the world wide economic injustice that we do have, open borders are impossible. Therefore, as sad as it is, we just cannot let everyone in who so desires.
However, I do argue against sending people home who are true refugees and face a certain death if we send them back. Unfortunately, such is very often the case. Right now, the Dutch system depends on the so called "embassy messages". These give information on the situation in a specific country. They are made by the people of the embassy in that country. The Immigration Authority (IND) rules according to this information. One can appeal, but the minister decides, again, based on this information. Then you can still appeal in court, but the judge decides, again, based on this information. Only if you are able to make it in appeal to a European Court, you may be so lucky that there is more truthful information. Because the government wants people out, and the embassies work by order of the government. So much for truthful information! It is a shameful system of injustice.
I haven't even mentioned that the system is so slow, you can have people who have stayed here for 10 years or more, have children who have been born and raised here and never even knew their mother country and speak mostly Dutch, and then reach the end of the appeal process and are sent home. Disgraceful.
This is my view, including the notion that I am totally against the idea that because something is the law, it is therefore just. People who think so have thereby defended abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage, which are all legal in this country. Need I say more?
As to breaking laws, sometimes a Christian has to. No problem, as long as you accept the consequences you're going to face. It's called a concious objection. And it's in the Bible, Ben already quoted the verse.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Thanks for your post Wes, as usual you impart much wisdom as you look to reason rather than emotion. I'm of the opinion that we need not, in fact must not, create a toxic atmosphere by reason of disagreement. I'm also of the opinion that there is much I need to learn so that I don't contribute in a toxic manner. One of the things I have learned as I've prayed and thought on how I can better fellowship here is that with some I have great difficulty having a discussion where there is disagreement, there is no real back and forth and unless I'm willing to agree with them, the conversation becomes toxic. Usually because I lose my patience and temper when I realize I've been wasting my time thinking we were actually trying each to understand the other. So I need to stay positive, and I need to avoid conversations that have inevitable led to conflict.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison KeillorPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I agree, Jim, but I have become less optimistic. I think we actually have been trying to understand each other, but I have come to believe that it simply isn't possible. The paradigms from within we work are too different. In order for communication to happen, words have to have a meaning that at least broadly overlaps. If for instance a concept like "justice" means something totally different for people, chances are, no understanding will be achieved. I'm obviously just giving an example.
So what we then see is argument upon argument, but it's getting nowhere because the basic agreement around the concepts simply is not there. This leads to much frustration, losing temper and patience from my side, and I understand I'm not alone in this.
Now if anything could be done to resolve this situation, I would do it, but I don't see it. It is as if people talk Chinese to me, the words make no sense. Sometimes I think I see a connection, an overlap. But if we delve deeper, it appears to have been a mirage.
Btw, my apologies for answering you and making it look like I see a discussion. That is not the case. I just felt you wrote some stuff that helped explain the situation and upon which I could expand. I guess we at least do agree upon the fact that we don't.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)
I am not disputing anything in the article that has to do with welcoming the immigrant, or being Jesus to the immigrant. I'm disputing making a blanket statement about disobeying what someone believes as an unjust law, without looking at the ramifications that disobeying it will lead to.
I have no doubt that the vast majority of immigrants are hard working and very industrious people. But I do believe that most of them would utilize our safety net services once they were legalized. I'm sure you've noticed that our country is broke. We are borrowing from our great grandchildren now. That is immoral.
I don't call this playing on fear, I call this a reality check. There is no money there to pay for what would come with an influx on the safety net. As John D. said, if we want to get rid of the safety net and have everyone start from zero with assistance from whomever will help, I'm all for it. But I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I've not even gotten close to anything vaguely resembling this. I've posted twice in this thread the first was to point out that Han's command of English, at least in written form, is better than mine. The second was a challenge to what I believe to be a miss application of scripture, which is a bit of a hobby horse for me and frankly should be for all of who are ordained and trained theologically.
In the previous thread I posted that as followers of Christ who affirm the authority of scripture we had to begin with what scripture teaches then move to politics. Unless you are implying that scripture teaches open borders then I'm not sure why you think I'm for open borders.
I'm for quality exegesis and careful hermeneutics. Then I'm for the authority of scripture. I would like to think we are all for that, even if it conflicts with our personal politics.
It is not enough to be right, you have to be like Jesus.
Hans,
You mentioned in you next post that you have come to the conclusion that agreement between people of polar opinions is impossible (paraphase). Well, I mostly agree with this post and having you state it like this helps me to understand from where you are coming.
Thanks.
Friend,
Wes
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Not to speak for Oliver but he didn't actually compare slavery and immigration, his post was much more narrow than that. (As one who tends to write narrow posts I know how frustrating it is to have people assert that you said something you clearly did not say) He asserted that historically laws are not always just and in fact in the United states we have a long history of unjust law. The example (for us preachers that means illustration) of an unjust law was slavery. Clearly we can all agree that slavery was an unjust law? This is not the same as saying immigration and slavery are the same. He was questioning the idea that because something is law it is just.
Can we all agree that the United States has a long history of unjust laws? Can we also agree that the law of God supersedes the law of man? Again, this is not to say that you think our immigration law is unjust but that these two principles (Unjust laws and God's law is supreme) stand regardless of the specifics of this particular debate.
It is not enough to be right, you have to be like Jesus.Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Craig,
Great clarification. Thank you. Really helps me understand what you were/are saying!
Friend,
Wes
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
In light of the continued conversation here I went back and reread the article with this thread in mind. Some have insisted that the article is political in nature, upon rereading it I can see why they say that. There's not much, but there is this: "Nations around the world, however, have crafted laws that often run counter to clear biblical instructions to assist immigrants. We need laws that grant documents to productive immigrants."
I can see how people have read this and concluded that the article is political.
I wish Dr. Porter hadn't included these two sentences, or at least worded them differently. The entire article is about the Biblical mandate to show compassion to the foreigner among us. It's how God's people behave, the Christian way. The two sentences near the end of the article, though, add another dimension to his editorial. Here, we're talking about nations and and the "laws we need." Obviously, to get the "laws we need" passed, Americans at least, need to vote for people who will pass those laws - and that's political in nature.
After reading the two threads here I can't help but wish he had left those two sentences out - without them I think most every NazNet regular would accept his wisdom that we're to show compassion to the outsider in our number no matter what their document status. However, in the politically charged atmosphere in which we live it doesn't take much of a spark to create a fire.
The whole situation reminds me of a preacher delivering a sermon that is otherwise solid meat and potatoes, but near the end they say one thing that people take issue with. All the good work that was done is buried by a couple of sentences that certain individuals focus on. When that happens, we can blame the individuals, but had the preacher not said it in the first place they wouldn't have reacted as they did.
Post Thanks / Like - 8 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Craig,
Ha! Not to speak for Oliver either (!), but in the context of this thread, it seemed to me that he was saying that our immigration laws are parallel to slavery laws and we should participate in civil disobedience to insure open borders.
Perhaps Oliver could speak for himself here!
Friend,
Wes
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
These immoral laws are really good for the nation. Alabama enacted a law that made it a criminal offense to give aid to an undocumented alien because such people are bad for the economy taking jobs from good Americans. Well the result was the collapse of agriculture last year. Americans are so spoiled they could not lower themselves to work in the fields so the crops sat and rotted. This ridiculous law hurt not just the targeted demographic, but the entire state. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...on-law-workers
Unjust laws need to be broken. This idea that all laws are just because they are laws is nonsense. IF Paul and the rest of the Apostles followed every law there would be no church today. If Jesus hadn't broken the law, both religious and secular, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. For the life of me I cannot understand our love of legalisms.
You can be right or you can be in relationship
Paul,
Would there be any space in your thinking for "unjust laws need to be CHANGED" not broken?
It seems to me, uninformed as I am about Alabama's inner legislative process, that they may back up and construct laws that reflect their need for (legal) alien workers. If the use of undocumented aliens is necessary, then create a track/path that makes it possible for the workers to have temporary, documented access to do work that our locals will not perform.
Friend,
Wes
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Wes, I have no problem with changing unjust laws. In Alabama's case the negative effects of this piece of legislation was demonstrated without civil disobedience but by the fear it created. It was effective in ridding Alabama of undocumented aliens. However, some laws need to be broken for the need for change to be shown, IMHO. Think of the churches in countries where Christianity is illegal, would you tell those churches that they should disband to comply with the law? Or support them in their continued efforts in clear violation of their local laws? I support their existence in violation of the law.
You can be right or you can be in relationship
I agree that only Oliver can tells us what was in his heart and mind but he is an accomplished writer so I think it is unfair to accuse him (or anyone else) of meaning more than they actually said. This is his post.
His post is clearly about unjust laws and slavery is simply an example of such. Maybe he didn't mean what he wrote, but in my experience he has always been an effective communicator.
Lets not represent that people said things they did not say. Hard enough to defend what we actually say, no one wants to have their words twisted. You and I and all of us may misunderstand from time to time but do not deliberately distort. Based solely on what was written, the slavery reference was not a comparison but an example.--- Maybe this is becoming another hobby horse for me... ?
It is not enough to be right, you have to be like Jesus.Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
