Protect or Love? Thoughts on the Refugee Crisis
The issue regarding the refugee crisis has become more than a political and religious hot button. It is now causing division among nations, churches and friends. “My brothers, this should not be!” (James 3:10)
The first thing to consider when engaging in a matter of this complexity is to admit we do not have the necessary biblical knowledge, since Scripture does not expressly address the subject. None of us possess all the necessary information to make a “thus saith the Lord” declaration over this heated issue. In other words, humility must be at the forefront on a matter of such import. There is no singular answer to multi-complex issues. The refugee problem is cultural, religious, social, economic, and national. Any misstep in the handling of it could prove catastrophic for the future of the world. The Bible is clear on many matters, but not on all matters. Immigration of refugees is one of those debatable subjects. Let’s take a look at why this is such a difficult issue to navigate.
Suppose you strongly believe we should allow all refugees into the U.S. The verses you might employ in defense of your position will contain love, compassion and mercy. You will talk about how Jesus loved all people and went after the poor and disenfranchised. You will want to bring in the fact that God is not a respecter of persons. And these are all valid points. However, if you are on the side of those who say don’t let any refugees in, you will select a very different set of verses. Certainly you will want everyone to know that God’s chosen people didn’t just let anyone into their world. In fact, you will point out that God told Israel to wipe out whole nations.
We also need to factor in our spiritual gifting and personal biases. If you are a mercy person, you may say, “Let’s care for all these people!” But if you’re a prophet or more truth-oriented person, you might say, “Let’s protect our own people!” There is also the issue of mixing apples and oranges. Some commands in Scripture are given to an individual (such as “thou shalt not kill”) while others are given to governments (such as “rulers do not bear the sword in vain.”) The government is commissioned to protect us from evildoers (Romans 13:3-4). By contrast, the love chapter of 1 Corinthians 13 is directed toward the individual and says, “Love always protects.”
So who is right – the let’s bring ‘em in or the let’s keep ‘em out? Which is it? Protect our families from terrorists at the expense of letting innocent people suffer? Or let all of the refugees in, knowing terrorists will enter with them and innocent people will be killed?
Who can answer all these questions? Not me. I have some thoughts, but none of which I would die for. What we are facing is the call to show compassion to all and the call to protect our own. These seem to be competing views, yet both are found in Scripture, and we are called to hold to the truth that God never contradicts Himself. Abraham was given the promise of God that he would have a son, but when the son arrived, he was told by God to offer up his son. We now have God’s promise being negated by His command. Now what? Abraham was certain God could not lie, and thus believed the only way out was that God would raise his son from the dead.
Perhaps that’s where we are with these two competing commands in Scripture – protect and love. I believe the answer is found in the church humbling itself before the Lord and seeking His guidance on this matter. He may actually give different directions at different times and in different ways. He has certainly done so with Israel and the church in the past. He may do it again. No matter what side you are on, you will be confronted by the other side with endless statistics and verses that prove the rightness of their position. You will no doubt return the favor. At this moment, I am really praying and reading Scripture while also getting advice from people who know far more than I do on the subject. So no, I don’t have a hard and fast stand. When I do, I will put it out there.
But here is what I do have a strong view on: the way Christians are treating each other over this issue. A recent post on Facebook says that if you don’t believe in bringing all the refugees in, then you don’t believe the gospel. I have no problem with this person expressing their view, but I do have concerns as to how it was expressed. Using Scripture as a weapon for the purpose of intimidating those who disagree only angers the other side and exacerbates an already volatile situation. Suppose I said if you don’t witness everyday you don’t believe the gospel? How might you react?
There are clear guidelines in Scripture as to how we are to communicate. “Let your speech be seasoned with salt” (Colossians 4:6), and “Let no corrupt communication proceed from your mouth but that which ministers grace to the hearer” (Ephesians 4:29). Could it be that such divisive issues become training grounds for believers to learn the value of “Iron sharpening iron” (Proverbs 27:17), or “Speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15)?
Perhaps if we learn to obey what is clear, God will reveal to us what is not clear. One thing that is certain: Obedience leads to greater illumination of his revelation, and unity is the fruit of corporate humility.
Blessings,
Mike
This video illustrates the concern and pause that many have with letting Muslim/Syrian refugees into our country at this time. In this video a female Muslin student of the University of California San Diego claims she is for is “for it” when referring to the Jews returning to Jerusalem so they (i.e, Hamas) wouldn’t have to hunt them (Jewish nation) down. This is not peaceful and these are not the attitudes or a religion that is peaceful. So, like others, I have great concern allowing these people in our country with so many others already here with these beliefs and or attitudes. As far as others saying you are not a Christian if you do not let Syrian refugees into the country – how about those so called believers at RBC that vote every four years to allow genocide of the unborn? If you vote for that particular party you are voting for the right for abortion. How can these believers say we are not christians for being concerned about our safety, yet believe in and vote for a political party that allows killing innocent children up to the moment of birth. No political party is innocent or has the answer to all the issues facing this country – however, the distinguishing differences of Christian morality are clear between the two parties.
I have many good friends, those I have good reason to believe have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, who see ‘politics’ from a very different lens than do I. Given both major parties in this country can be accused of supporting some ‘wrong’ position, I’m unconvinced that one party is inherently anti-God and morality and the other not; I wish it were so simple. Our nation, as a whole, has been inching and lurching away from basic truths about life and living for a long time – as the body of Christ, we need to be engaged in the debates EVEN while demonstrating our humility and unity of spirit. This unity does not, apparently, mean we will all come out with the same answer to everything. Stand up for what we believe is right? You bet, but as this blog notes, many issues are far more complex and not specifically addressed in the Word. People I interact with seem far more impacted by seeing how God is at work in me, and my true care and concern for them, all shown in action followed with ‘why’ I am who I am … than they are by my “smartness.” (and I think I’m fairly smart 😉
As for this specific situation, I wonder if there would be the possibility of providing safety and sustenance to the refugees, yet without simply bringing them in to the US. Given the breakdown of gov’t and society in Syria, gathering the needed information to ‘vet’ refugees seems an impossible task, so the risk seems real. Is it a greater risk than ?? Something to ponder.
I agree that both political parties have issues, however, determining whether or not one political party is not inherently anti-God has been well established, and by their own words and actions. This link is indisputable, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxA_ZzPZleI.
All sin is sin in the eyes of the Lord, but as we learned in service this weekend, some sins vary in degree. Murder, is one of the worst sins, and we as Christians need to be unified against such acts, especially the genocide of the unborn. Justifying such an act through one’s political beliefs is wrong and indefensible and clearly separates one political parties morality from the other. We have no right in the sight of the Lord to justify such actions by claiming separation of Church and State. The Word is clear on the subject of abortion and same sex marriage. Jesus cares nothing about the separation of Church and State and it will not serve as a viable defence when we stand before Him.
Compassion and prayer is needed in this particular case and all cases such as these. However, much of the disagreement is with how to execute that compassion with regard to helping the Syrian refugees without putting innocent American lives at risk of injury or death.
Maybe compassion and resources from a distance, apart from American soil is the answer. Intelligence is relative.
It is a false choice to make it an either-or proposition. We hear these false choices a lot. Another example is feeding the hungry–teaching a man to fish is a practic way of meeting the hunger need while not creating dependency on your constant giving of free fish while also not showing lack of concern for those in need. In this case, there is much that American Christians can do personally, and there is much that our Government can do. For example, we can personally donate to causes that assist the refugees, pray for them, and vote for politicians who will help solve the problem. As for our Government, it can use force and/or other means to protect the refugees in their own or neighboring countries, arm them and teach them to defend themselves, and stand ready to assist them in a quest for a better society. It is a false choice to say you must open your borders or allow them to die, just as it is to falsely equate personal with governmental action.
Laws for entering this country are already in place to keep the freedoms we cherish.
Someone close to me went through it many years to become a US citizen, which includes the oath of being willing to die for his country. He is someone who adds value to our society, which is more than I can say for many native born Americans.
Being a world leader means helping people and getting involved but we cannot take on every problem of the world, that is not our job. Would it make sense to ignore the problems in our homeland whilst helping another country? Beware of Gibeonites. Do you really know the psychology and history of every people group? That is part of the job of our venerable defenders in higher positions.
All of the division in the guise of politics in the US is a fruit of the sleepy church (across the US) of the past few generations. We are comfortable, complacent, and trying to lean on being “un-judgmental” to the point where the babies of churches never grow up, learn the word, grow out of personal immaturity, and grow beyond themselves. Jeshuan you have grown fat and kicked!
Now, wouldn’t the irony of things that work to His good pleasure be: if a people group from an area of the world where we fear their entering our country were to come and revive our church?