Justice And Immigration, Part 2

In our previous post we introduced the topic of justice and immigration and then looked at the first area in which we must listen to the wisdom of the Bible, what it has to say about immigration itself, as well as the historical contexts behind its teaching on immigration.

Now, in this post we turn to the remaining two areas of biblical wisdom we must discuss.

2. We Must Understand What Wisdom The Bible Gives On Rule Of Law, Borders, And Border Walls

Here we have three main sub-topics to examine.

Rule Of Law

God’s law in the Bible is not a bad thing, but a good thing, for this revelation of what is right and wrong shows people they are sinners who fall short of God and so are in need of his salvation (Rom. 3:23; 7:7; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21). What is more, God’s teaching on what is right and wrong, i.e. his standards, guides the Christian for how he is to live (Rom. 13:8-10; Eph. 4:29-5:4). In addition to this, God ordains governments to bring order and safety to societies and this happens, in part, by the passing of laws—including penalties for breaking them (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pt. 2:13-14). There is also an implication in Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-14 that government officials should also be under or submit to the standards for right and wrong themselves.

Given this understanding of divine and human law, we should see that for a society to be governed by laws as opposed to characterized by anarchy is good for the following reasons: 

• The presence of law and order can form a backdrop (pre-evangelism) for the church to teach others about God’s standards of right and wrong and thus to teach the gospel as the only way of salvation, a salvation that is needed because we all are sinners. 

• The presence of law and order can help the Christian in how to live out his new life in Christ in positive ways within the society. 

• The presence of law and order benefits all in a society (including immigrants) as it encourages order and safety. 

Though there are times when governments must be disobeyed (Acts 5:29: when they command disobedience to God), the starting point and general rule of thumb is that it is best for all involved to be encouraged to obey laws and to keep order. When, therefore, we encourage those coming into our country to disobey laws by either suggesting it is fine to come across the border illegally, or by serving in the capacity of a sanctuary city, we actually are hurting all citizens, including those who have come into the country. In such lawbreaking we are furthering the narrative that right and wrong doesn’t matter (which can also further a narrative that it doesn’t matter before God, which is a distortion of his righteousness) and we are creating a culture in which law and order are not valued and preserved and so it potentially becomes more dangerous and harsh for all.

There is at least one more reason we should encourage the rule of law in society. This was captured in the 17^th century book by the Scottish Presbyterian pastor, Samuel Rutherford, Lex Rex (Latin for The Law Is King). The law needs to rule in a society because typically when it does not, the ruler(s) end up becoming the law. When that happens and the rulers (government) are not under the law but above it, they make decisions and govern in a way that benefits them, harms the citizens, and prohibits society from flourishing.[1]

When it comes to immigration and helping refugees coming into our country, we should desire to help them and we should have laws that enable us to help as many as we can. However, at the same time, the just position, the one best for all involved, is that we do this in ways that preserve the rule of law and do not encourage law-breaking. When we see this principle in light of our previous treatment of immigration in the Bible, namely that it distinguishes between legal and illegal immigration and did not encourage the latter, we conclude that our pursuit of justice must also include the pursuit of the rule of law in society, including the keeping of immigration laws.

Borders

One of the specifics of the rule of law that those coming into a country must acknowledge is the presence of borders. Once a person crosses a border into another country, then they must be subject to their laws. In that country is found a God-ordained government that ideally is there to further order, safety, and to enable citizens to flourish (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pt. 2:13-14). It is right for things to be this way, as we just saw.

But, some might ask the question, “Why not do away with borders in our country in particular or throughout the world in general? Wouldn’t this be the fairest way for all to operate?” The answer is, “No.” This is not what would be fairest or best for the following reasons:

• Without borders we do not know whose jurisdiction we are in and so whose laws we must follow. The Bible is clear that we must “be subject to governing authorities” (Rom. 13:1). However, if we are in the United States, we do not have to be subject to the laws of Vietnam and vice-versa. Each of these countries have different cultures, backgrounds, and situations that necessitate some laws that will be different. Of course, if a citizen of the United States travels to Vietnam, then they must be subject to those laws and the Vietnamese must be subject to U.S. laws, if they come this way. The presence of distinctions between governments (including borders) was not only implied in our above discussion about immigration in the Bible, it is implied by the need to know which governing authorities we are to obey. 

• Doing away with borders in the long run would not be a good thing as it would move authority and ownership of lands far away from where people are at, which would not only oppose the best and most just situations economically for people but would eventually encourage a more centralized government in the world which would reduce freedom. Though this will not be the case when our Lord rules over the world solely and outwardly in the future, it is the likely outcome when sinful humans would be given the opportunity to rule in a centralized fashion. The closer to people that those in authority can be, the more likely they can be kept in check and accountable, and so freedom can be preserved. 

• Similar to the previous point, when people are in authority who are close enough to the people over whom they are governing to know life situations and needs, this provides for the best and most just form of government. It also means that the government that has jurisdiction is more motivated to defend its citizens and enable them to flourish through law and order (key purposes of government: Rom. 13:1-7), than if the governance was from a distance.

• If all borders were removed and the entire world was placed under one authority and one set of laws, this would necessitate taking an approach in which the least common denominator of laws and ideology would have to be adopted—in other words, something upon which all can agree. Given the sinfulness of humans, this would likely mean that it would be even that much more likely God’s wisdom would not be following in governance. This same principle would be true if the point was not to bring all the world under one human governance, but let’s say, all of North and South America. 

• Finally, it is hard enough to pass laws that all can agree upon among sinful humans when we are dealing with one country or even one state or county. Think how much harder it would be to enlarge that scope and to seek to bring law and order for multiple continents or the entire world, with all the cultural difference, worldviews, and various needs. It is not very realistic apart from the kind of complete moral transformation we will see in the new heaven and new earth (Rev. 21-22). 

Given all these reasons, we conclude that it is best for individual countries to have borders and for those borders to be part of each country’s rule of law. This means it is best for prospective immigrants into each country to abide by that country’s laws, including their immigration laws. In other words, it is right for Christians both to advocate compassion shown to those seeking to come into the country and those who have come into the country, but it is also right for Christians to advocate for the rule of law in regard to the country’s borders.

What is more, this can include seeking more just immigration laws, but should not include encouraging people to break immigration laws. Such lawbreaking is not a pursuit of biblical justice.

Border Walls[2]

It follows from our discussion on immigration from the Bible and our discussions about rule of law and borders that having walls or barriers at the borders of the United States to prevent people from entering illegally is a good thing.

Additionally, we can also make the following points from the Bible about why walls are good. 

• “Walls gave peace and security. In the world of the Old Testament, people built walls around cities to protect themselves from thieves, murderers, and other criminals, and from foreign invaders who would seek to destroy the city. People could still enter the city, but they had to do so by the gate, so that city officials would have some control over who was coming in and going out. Today’s debate is about a larger area – a national border, not a city – but the principles are the same. A strong wall gave peace and security to the city, and one prayer of blessing for a city was, ‘Peace be within your walls and security within your towers!’” (Psalm 122:7). 

o   “The pathetic shame of a city without walls is also evident in this proverb: ‘A man without self-control is like a city broken into and left without walls’ (Proverbs 25:28). The implication is that such a man and such a city are both headed for destruction.”

o   “Then Nehemiah needed laborers for the massive task of rebuilding the wall. He challenged the people, ‘Come, let us build the wall of Jerusalem, that we may no longer suffer derision’ (Nehemiah 2:17).”

o   “There is another wall in the Bible – at the very end of the New Testament. The apostle John has a vision of the New Jerusalem, a great city that comes down from heaven, and it includes a wall: ‘It had a great, high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels’ (Revelation 21:12). Whether this is literal or simply part of a symbolic prophetic vision (I don’t know), it is clear that the wall protects the peace and security of those who are within.”

o   “My conclusion from this overview is that the Bible views border walls as a morally good thing, something for which to thank God. Walls on a border are a major deterrent to evil and they provide clear visible evidence that a city or nation has control over who enters it, something absolutely essential if a government is going to prevent a nation from devolving into more and more anarchy.”

• “Objection: ‘We should be a nation that welcomes immigrants.’ I agree wholeheartedly – if they come legally. But it is no kindness to them if the lack of a wall tempts them to risk death by walking across miles of parched desert, at the mercy of violent gangs, and then come into the US without legal documentation, only to live here as a permanent legal underclass, easily exploited, living in constant fear of discovery. In addition, it diminishes respect for the law and destabilizes the nation when millions of people exist in the shadows, living outside the legal recordkeeping functions of the nation.”

o   “The US currently admits over 1,000,000 immigrants per year who come legally and stay permanently – far more than any other nation. If you think that number should be even higher (as I do), then suggest a higher number to your congressman and talk to your fellow citizens. Persuade people to agree with you, and work for a change in the law. But don’t oppose a border wall, for that is just promoting more lawlessness.”

• “Objection: ‘The Bible tells us to care for the sojourner.’ I agree – but we still must have some means of regulating how many “sojourners” we allow into the country and who can qualify to enter – and a wall is the most effective way to do this. When the Bible says, ‘Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt’ (Deuteronomy 10:19), Old Testament professor James Hoffmeier has demonstrated that these ‘sojourners’ (or ‘resident foreigners’ in one translation; the Hebrew term is ger) were people who had entered another country legally, with the permission and knowledge of the country that admitted them. (The unmodified term ‘foreigner’ in some translations is not specific enough to translate Hebrew ger.) A foreigner who had entered a country by stealth and did not have recognized standing as a resident alien was not considered a  ‘sojourner’ (Hebrew ger) but simply a ‘foreigner’ (Hebrew nekar or zar).”

• “Objection: ‘These are good people who are just seeking a better life.’ Yes, many of them are, and we should welcome them – if they come legally. But we can’t ignore the fact that many others will not become ‘good neighbors’ – some are drug runners, gang members, and even terrorists. A wall makes it possible to screen out the people who have previously been deported for felonies and others who are most likely to commit crimes or simply become a drain on the economy rather than getting a productive job.

o   “An effective border wall would also be the best way to keep children together with their parents. Under the present system, families (1) enter the US illegally and (2) are caught, then (3) they plead for asylum, and (4) they are incarcerated until their asylum petition can be evaluated. But if we had a completed wall, such requests for asylum would be decided at the border, before they ever entered the US. We would never have to detain either parents or children on US soil in the first place.”

• “Objection: ‘Walls don’t work.’ That objection is not true. Sections of high, effective walls and fences have already transformed whole regions of San Diego and El Paso from high-crime zones into peaceful, much safer cities.

o   “A high, double wall with modern electronic equipment to detect tunneling would stop perhaps 90-95 percent or even more of illegal border crossings. Once such a wall is complete, most Americans would feel that the border is finally under control, and the remaining questions about immigration could be resolved in an atmosphere of far less tension and animosity.”

o   “Walls that already work: In fact, we already have a highly effective system of ‘border walls’ that nobody argues about – in our airports. Every time I return to the US from a foreign country, I have to go through customs at the airport, and so does everybody else. The room where people wait in line to see a customs officer has walls to make sure that all arriving passengers have to go through passport control. I’ve never seen anyone protesting the existence of walls in the customs area or demanding that a section of the wall be removed so that people who don’t want to go through passport control can simply walk into the country whenever they want. That would be an open invitation to terrorists and other criminals, and it would make it impossible for the US to place any limits at all on the number of people who came into the country and stayed without legal documentation.”

o   “Yet demanding “no passport controls at airports” is, it seems to me, exactly parallel to saying that we should not build a wall on our southern border. Why should airports be any different from other border entry points? Yes, we are a nation of immigrants, and we should eagerly welcome numerous immigrants into the US every year, but they must come in legally, through the gates in the wall, not illegally and dangerously across an open desert.”

I agree with Wayne Grudem that walls at the borders of the U.S. are good and should be there.

3. We Must Understand That The Bible Calls Us To Compassion Toward All Kinds Of People. 

This third and final area of biblical wisdom that helps us put together a just approach to immigration has already been alluded to in this and the previous post. However, it is important enough to look at it more fully.

The kind of compassion to which the Bible calls us toward all kinds of people includes both helping people flourish in regard to their relationships to creation, self, and other people (which could include helping them overcome resource poverty, be re-united with family members where possible, and helping them overcome safety and security poverty), but also helping them flourish in regard to their relationship to God (doing the gospel work of helping them know and follow Jesus Christ).

We know that this includes being kind to and seeking to love and reach all kinds of sinners (which is all of us, Rom. 3:23; 5:8), including those who have been law-breakers, for the following reasons:

• God gave to humans a commission in Gen. 1:28, to “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over…every living thing that moves on the earth,” in other words, humans from the beginning were to bring order to the earth such that it and those in it could flourish, and they were to fill the earth with God-glorifiers and God-worshipers. Once sin entered into the world, this commission became a mandate to help others come back to God. 

• In Mt. 28:19-20 Jesus gave to the New Testament church a whole-world-focused commission that was even clearer about reaching all kinds of people in the world, for he said, “While going, make disciples of all ethnic groups” (my translation). 

• In Is. 25:3 the prophet looks forward to a time of future salvation, when God will do a great work among the nations, especially among those who have done horrible things. He is addressing God about what he will do: “Therefore strong peoples will glorify you; a city of fear-inspiring nations will fear you” (my translation). He presents the world as such a unified system that it is like one city and it is full of people who do horrible things and cause others to fear. Yet, many of these very people will be subdued and brought to worship and reverence the true God. Reading it in light of Isaiah 59:19-62:12, this will happen when the Spirit-led redeemer comes, fills his people with his glory, and they draw the nations to God. By implication, God is promising here that he will bring lawless peoples to him. The church, then, should be focused upon discipling all kinds of people, including the lawless.

• In Acts 9:1-19 we read of Jesus Christ saving Paul, the persecutor and terrorist against the church. Though before he trusted in Christ he was acting in ways he thought were lawful and in ways not opposed by most in Israel, nevertheless he was committing great sin (cf. 1 Tim. 1:15). Here was a very lawless individual that Jesus saved. In fact, this is true of all that our Lord saves: “but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). We must follow his example (Jn 20:21; Phil. 2:1-11).

• In Acts 16:25-34 we see Paul and Silas going the extra mile to save the life of the jailer who was keeping them unjustly in chains. When there was a great earthquake that loosed the chains of Paul and Silas and the other prisoners, not only did they not run away, but they kept other prisoners from running away so the jailer’s life could be spared. The result was that the jailer and his family received and rested upon Christ alone for salvation. Here we see a pattern that we also should seek to disciple unrighteous people, including lawbreakers. 

• In Luke 6:27-36 Jesus instructs his followers to love, do good to, bless, pray for, help, and even meet physical needs of those who hurt, hate, oppose us, and who can’t (or won’t) return anything to us. To do so is to “be merciful, even as your Father is merciful” (v. 36). This would include, in some cases, those who are lawless. 

• Finally, every person we meet is created in the image of God and so to mistreat them is to mistreat one who is part of the crowning creation of God and bears his reflection, whether they realize it or not (Gen. 9:6; Jm. 3:9).

The church in the United States must see that God, in his providence, is bringing much of the world to us—through international students coming here, through legal immigrants coming here, and even through illegal immigrants coming here. Though we never encourage any of these people to be lawbreakers and even while we are advocating for the placement of border walls and the enforcement of border laws, we are called to reflect the mercy of God shown to us as we turn around and extend mercy to all kinds of people, including those who have come illegally (Lk. 6:36). This is what people who are directed by God’s love and the gospel and who are living for the gospel do!

We are called to live for a great cause, not just a great comfort, as we move toward need in this world. We do this as justice pursuers who are directed by the gospel, as gospel people who pursue the gospel’s outcome—justice!  In other words, those of us who know and follow Jesus Christ should pursue justice in regard to immigration, in the ways we have set forth in these two posts.

Joyfully Pursuing Justice With You,

Tom

---

[1] Deuteronomy 17:14-20 seems to acknowledge this tendency for rulers to place themselves above the law when it set forth for future kings the need for restraints on them and the importance of their being under God’s law.

[2] Unless otherwise noted, the material for this section comes from Wayne Grudem, “Why Building A Border Wall is A Morally Good Action,” a July 2, 2018 post at townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2018/07/02/why-building-a-border-wall-is-a-morally-good-action-n2496574, accessed July 10, 2018.

Justice And Immigration, Part 1

These past couple years we have witnessed a debate in our country that at times has been very volatile. It arose because of the Trump administration’s “zero-tolerance” approach to the border and the entrance of illegal immigrants into the U.S, a policy that was announced in April 2018 by then Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Though the result was to enforce already existing border and immigration laws, an outcome was that the separation of children from parents became much more visible. The public reacted:

Massive public outcry has built over children being separated from their parents as they attempt to cross into the U.S. illegally.

After Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a “zero-tolerance” policy in dealing with migrants who cross into the U.S. illegally, nearly 2,000 children were separated from their families during a six-week period in April and May.[1]

Though some news outlets have suggested that, as a general rule, children had not been previously separated from parents,[2] according to charities and border and immigration officials near the border, that is simply not true.[3] In fact these same persons see very little change this year, except that there has been more media coverage and scrutiny.[4]

At the same time, some citizens watching on television or reading about the border in newspapers or in on-line articles, may conclude that people are not arriving at the border because of genuine crises in their countries. Sharla Megilligan dispels this when she tells the story of Oscar Suriano, who left Honduras with his young son in May to make his way to the United States. He did this because he owned and operated a small neighborhood food market. Recently local gangs began stopping by randomly and requesting payment. So far he had been able to pay, but he knew there was coming a time when he would be unable to pay and they would kill him. This had happened with other business owners he knew. Suriano made his way to the U.S. since his sister already lives here. After applying for asylum, being processed at the border, and treated very well, Suriano and his son were given two bus tickets to New York where his sister lives. He hopes to bring his wife and daughter from Honduras to join them. His story seems to be the same as many others.

We must see there is a need to be aware of the events going on at the border so we can make good decisions about how and for what we should advocate. Yet, that is often hard to do with all the divergent voices weighing in on the situation.

What there is also a need to do is to seek biblical wisdom on the topic. Most of us reading this post will not have face-to-face contact with people coming into the country at the border, even though we may have contact with people in our own communities who have come into the United States legally and illegally. If we are seeking biblical justice in this current issue, that is, to seek the equitable and impartial application of the rule of God’s moral law to immigration, then we must prayerfully think through this emotionally-charged topic based upon God’s Word.

Because of the difficulty and complexity of some aspects of the immigration debate, these two posts (and Sunday’s sermon) on the subject will not be able to provide a detailed solution to implement. The goal is more modest, to guide us to think through some key bits of biblical wisdom that should shape a solution. Such information can prepare us both when we vote and in the event we would interact with our political leaders who are in positions to seek more specific solutions.[5]

What we will seek to do is to glean truths from three main areas of biblical wisdom to create a truly just approach to immigration.

1. We Must Understand What Wisdom The Bible Gives On Immigration Itself. 

Many people, especially Christians, refer to the Bible for how to deal with the current immigration issues. Yet, many are doing so without understanding what it really says. Many also fail to interpret the material in its biblical and historical contexts, also failing to take a comprehensive approach to what the Bible says.[6] What we will find from the Bible are divine standards that protect the immigrant and, at the same time, guard the nation (and its laws) receiving new people.[7]

We start by merely calling attention once again to the four foundational relationships to which humans must give attention, if they are to flourish: God, self, creation, and others. Our desire should be to advocate approaches to immigration that can encourage attention to all four. Anything less falls short of full biblical justice. Here are examples of what this might look like:

• When the church in the United States can see that God is bringing the world to us in so many ways and we have opportunities to love, serve, and share with those who come into the country, we grasp that such people can have the opportunity to be saved and thus have a genuine relationship with God (Rom. 10:13-17). Because of this, when possible, we should love, serve, and share with persons coming into our country, even if they have come lawlessly.[8] 

• There are many situations in which people are refugees and fleeing great danger and horror. In such cases there are deep emotional wounds that result. When possible, we should advocate helping such people. At the same time, we also remember that alleviating resource poverty, a poverty of safety, and a poverty of personal well-being are very important, but there are also other factors we must consider and other kinds of poverty immigrants and refugees have that we should not overlook. 

• God has given commands (his moral will) that all people are bound to keep if they are to be rightly related to God, his creation, and to other people (Ps. 100; Mt. 22:37-40; Acts 17:30; Rom. 2:14-15; 13:8-10). This includes obeying authorities whom God has placed over us (Rom. 13:1-7). The best approach to immigration for all involved values such authority and the people-protecting-and-benefiting laws governments have (Rom. 13:1-7). This is best for the citizens of the country and eventually for those who immigrate into it. What is more, it establishes a pattern that is consistent with how God has created the world—that there is right and wrong, and the reason we need a Savior is that we fall short of his righteousness, his standards—in other words, we all are sinners (Rom. 3:9-26, esp. 23). As such, the church should not encourage persons to disobey the laws of the government, unless they are being commanded to do something contrary to the moral will of God (Acts 5:29). 

One other matter we must touch on before launching into the biblical teaching on immigration has to do with the fact that we will refer to material in the Old Testament. We must be clear on how we as New Covenant believers relate to the Old Testament material. Some suggest none of it applies, others imply it all does. How should we relate to it? Here are some simple points that should guide us.[9] 

• When the New Testament makes the point we are no longer under the law (e.g. Rom. 6:15; Gal. 4:5, 21; 5:18), its intent is that we are no longer morally bound under the mosaic covenant and the laws associated with it (Gal. 2:11-14; 3:10-29), a covenant and set of laws that was intended from its inception to be temporary and to prepare for the Christ (Gal. 3:22-29). Material outside of these specific laws (such as Genesis 1-Exodus 19) and that the New Testament clarifies is still applicable, such as the Ten Commandments—all but the sabbath command (e.g. Rom. 13:8-9; Eph. 4:15; 6:1-3; Col. 2:16; 1 Jn. 5:21)—these are commands to which we are still morally bound. 

• We must see all Old Testament commands in light of the differences between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The fact that during the time of the mosaic covenant God’s people were primarily located within a nation that was to attract the rest of the world to worship God, but now God’s people are located throughout all nations and not primarily located in one nation, changes how we relate to laws in the Old Testament that address how that nation was to function. On the one hand we can say we are not morally bound to try and make either the church or the nation in which we live follow the exact details of those laws. On the other hand, those laws still reveal something about God’s will and wisdom for how we are to function.[10] This seems to be how the New Testament deals with some of the Old Testament laws set forth for the nation. For example, the legal standard that a person was not to be convicted merely upon the testimony of one witness, the fact that the more witnesses the better to corroborate the testimony (Dt. 17:6; 19:15) stands behind Paul’s admonition to Timothy in 1 Tim. 5:18 that the same kind of standard should be applied in the church when it comes to accusations against leaders. Such suggests that the matter of considering a person innocent until proven guilty is how we love others by treating them how we would want to be treated (Mt. 7:12), namely to give them the benefit of the doubt until we absolutely cannot (1 Cor. 13:7).[11]

• Similar to and flowing out of this previous point, even in legislation within the mosaic/Sinai covenant, there is to be found wisdom and insight into how we are to love God and love others. So, for example, laws given to Israel regarding those who came into their borders display how God wanted Israel to love others in ways that are consistent with the four foundational relationships humans must address to flourish. Because of this and because of the fact that nothing in the New Testament suggests an overruling of such wisdom or the basic direction of practice, and because these laws and practices form an historical context for how to understand what the Bible would have to say about immigration, it is beneficial to look at and be guided by what we find, even in the Old Testament. 

• All dietary, festival, sabbath, sacrificial, and tabernacle/temple laws that by their very nature were temporary and intended to prepare for and look to the coming of Christ are no longer binding now that Christ has come and fulfilled them (Mk. 7:19; John 1:14; 2:19; Acts 10:15; Col. 2:16-17; Heb. 8-10). 

So, what we discover is that we cannot simply say the Old Testament does not apply in total or it does apply in total. We must be willing to think carefully through specific laws and then decide what applies and how. If we are willing to do this, I believe what we will find about immigration is very helpful to determine what God would want the church to do in particular and also how Christian citizens should call its government to respond in general.[12]

With these preliminary matters covered, we are now ready to take a quick tour through the Bible to see what wisdom it has for a just approach to immigration.

Immigration And Immigrants In Abraham’s World[13]

Even though things were very different in the cultures of the ancient near east, even then “…there were clearly delineated lands or countries, some large and others tiny.”

A question emerges. Were ancient borders taken seriously and was national sovereignty recognized? 

The answer is emphatically yes. 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.  See Numbers 20:16-21 where Israel requested passage through Edom and was denied.  It is worth noting that even a traveler, a foreigner, passing through the territory of another had to obtain permission to do so.

We can even say more. “On the individual, family, and clan level, property was owned and boundaries established…. The Mosaic Law prohibited the removal of landmarks (Dt. 19:14) and an even stronger denunciation is made in Dt. 27:17: ‘Cursed is the man who moves his neighbor’s boundary stone.’” Additionally, we see in Job 24:2: “Theft is associated with moving boundary stones by the sage Job.”

We also discover that Abram was an immigrant (Gen. 11:27-12:3). “In Canaan Abraham identifies himself to the Hittites of Hebron as a sojourner or alien (ger, Gen. 23:4), a person (or family) who resides, temporarily or permanently, outside his or her homeland.”

Because Abraham’s descendants eventually went to Egypt, we should look at immigrants and foreigners in ancient Egypt, a land that, not unlike America today, was a land of wealth and opportunity to other peoples—implied in Gen. 46:34, where it is said, “For all shepherds are detestable to the Egyptians.” Archaeological finds have discovered that Egypt had border guards through which people must pass to enter.  

Clearly the Egyptians were not anti-immigration or against foreigners per se (an impression you might get from reading the early chapters of Exodus), but they did want their sovereignty respected and their borders protected, and they wanted to control who entered their land and why. It is fair to say that this is the attitude of most countries today…. Since 1999 I have directed excavations at Tell el-Borg in northwest Sinai. There we have discovered and excavated the remains of two frontier forts just in Sinai, six miles east of the Suez Canal, that defended a strategic area near the border between 1450 and 1200 B.C.

Since we brought up the subject of Abraham being an alien, we need to define what this is. Several things can be said: 

• “The Hebrew word usually translated ‘stranger,’ ‘alien,’ or ‘sojourner’ derives from the verb gwr, which occurs eighty-one times in the Old Testament. It means ‘to sojourn’ or ‘to dwell as a stranger, become a refugee.’ As a noun, ger is found eighty-two times in Hebrew. More than 160 occurrences of these words indicate just how common aliens were in ancient Israel’s experience.” We must understand that this word group is almost always used differently in the Old Testament than nekhar and zar, both of which can accurately be rendered “foreigner.” 

• “From the Bible and ethnographic[14] evidence it is [clear] that outsiders were able to enter and stay in a foreign land because they were offered hospitality by a host, and one’s status as an alien was an extension of that welcome.” 

•  “The word [sojourner] (ger) is sometimes coupled with the term ‘resident’ (toshav, lit. ‘one who resides’), the second word Abraham attributes to himself [in Gen. 23:4]. Rather than translating this expression as “[a sojourner and foreigner],”the two terms together likely mean ‘resident alien.’ Such individuals or families, a clan or tribe, are those who have essentially taken up permanent residence in a foreign land, as Abraham and his family had done in Hebron with the permission of their host. In fact, the residents of Hebron acknowledged Abraham’s status as being one who is ‘among us’ (23:6) rather than viewing him as a foreigner (nekhar or zar).”

• “The distinction between the two is not only that the aliens (gerim) have resided with a host nation for a period of time, but that ‘they have abandoned their homeland for political[, religious,] or economic reasons and sought refuge in another community. In other words, the ger regards the land of his sojourning as the new home for a protracted time period while the foreigner [nekhar or zar] does not.”[15] “…in the Bible the foreigner and the alien/sojourner were not the same and should not be confused.” 

• “Typically the foreigner is one who travels through a country or is there for business purposes. As a consequence…the Law prescribes for aliens certain legal protection as well as social and religious benefits that foreigners (nekhar or zar) do not get…. This is why the meaning ‘protected citizen’ can also be applied to the word ger.”  Hoffmeier goes on to say that this alien, sojourner, or protected citizen is a prolonged guest. He was not entitled to offer hospitality to others—i.e. to invite them into the country. “The right of granting hospitality is reserved to citizens” (even Joseph as a high ranking official in Egypt had to get permission for his family to come). An exception would be marrying someone from your original community and having them come to live in the new community. 

• He goes on to argue that the alien/sojourner (ger) followed legal procedures to gain recognized standing as a resident alien. So, Hoffmeier suggests they are parallel to legal immigrants today. (emphasis added0

So, what we have discovered early in our tour through Scripture is that in the cultures represented in the Old Testament (and especially that of Israel), borders were to be respected and there was a difference between legal and illegal immigrants and how they were viewed. Immigrants were to abide by the laws of the land. As we move on through the Bible we will discover that these findings stay constant.

The Story Of The Israelite Exodus[16] 

In biblical passages about Israel’s time in Egypt and their subsequent exodus, the Israelites were termed “aliens” (gerim) in Egypt (Ex. 23:9). The terms, as we saw them above, are used very consistently throughout these texts and agree with what we have said above.

One very significant point found in these passages is that once the Israelites had been delivered, they were called to love and not mistreat aliens coming into their land since they had been aliens in Egypt (Ex. 22:9; 23;9). This also forms a backdrop for New Covenant believers who are to prioritize extending mercy to others (Mt. 18:21-35; 23:23), and extend grace and forgiveness since grace and forgiveness have been shown to them (Eph. 4:31-32; Col. 3:13).

The Law And The Alien[17] 

We discover that the Law material in the Old Testament has much to say about aliens or sojourners.

The people of God under the Old Covenant were commanded to “love your neighbor as yourself “(Lev. 19:18) and this involves loving the alien since the Israelites were aliens (Lev. 19:34).

Regarding the difference between aliens/sojourners and foreigners, Israelites could not charge the former and fellow Israelites interest on loans (Lev. 25:35-37), but they could to foreigners (Dt. 15:3). Aliens were to be treated as native-born, not mistreated, and they were to be loved (Lev. 19:33-34). Aliens have the same legal protection as native-born or citizens (Lev. 24:22; Nu. 15:15-16; Dt. 1:15-17). Social benefits were given in the OT to legal immigrants (aliens/sojourners) and citizens alike (Lev. 19:9-10; 23:22; Dt. 24:19-22; 26:12-13).

Since the idea of “sanctuary” has come up in recent times, especially in cities that have made themselves “sanctuary cities” to protect illegal immigrants from the penalties of federal laws, it is needed that we go back and look at the concept of “sanctuary” in the Old Testament, especially since some (though by no means not all) people want to suggest sanctuary cities are in line with Old Testament thought. 

The idea and practice of sanctuary is rooted in the Law given at Mt. Sinai. (Exodus 21:12-14; Nu. 35:11-29)  …The biblical practice of sanctuary, then, was to protect the offender from vigilante justice and to ensure that he received a fair trial. Should a person come to the sanctuary who was guilty of intentionally murdering someone, he would be removed from the protection of the sanctuary and receive his punishment. This practice is clearly spelled out in Exodus 21:24: “Take him away from my altar and put him to death.”  …Sanctuary was never intended as a place to avoid the law but to allow the law to take its proper course rather than retaliation when it was not called for. While both Israelite citizens and aliens qualified for sanctuary (cf. Nu. 35:15 and Josh. 20:9), being an illegal alien was not a criterion for such protection. Consequently, American cities and churches who offer sanctuary for illegal immigrants cannot claim to be following the practice described in the Bible.

Having covered the Old Testament, we now turn to the New.[18]

Jesus And The New Testament[19] 

Right away, we see that Jesus was a refugee and alien in Egypt (Mt. 2:13-15). We know that Joseph and Mary and Jesus would have passed through forts or checkpoints to be given permission to enter and stay in Egypt. Philo of Alexandria affirms there was a large number of Jews in Egypt at this time, which would have given them community and Joseph employment opportunities.

In the New Testament we also discover a new twist with “alien” language.  Christians, that is, true followers of Jesus Christ, are said to be aliens in this world (Heb. 11:8-10, 13-16; 1 Pt. 1:1; 2:11).  Yet, at the same time, they are not foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens, in regard to the people of God (Eph. 2:19). These spiritual realities seem to be built upon and consistent with the more literal uses of the terms in the Old Testament.

One other note we can make from New Testament teaching at this point. Christians are to submit to and obey the laws and authorities over us where we live—and the implication is that all citizens, Christian or not, should (Rom. 13:1-7). As a result, Hoffmeier writes: “Based on this clear instruction, I believe that citizens and foreigners should be subject to a nation’s laws, and this applies to immigration laws and how one enters a country and becomes a legal resident….”

This provides a good transition into our next area of biblical wisdom we must discuss. We will take up that area and the third area in our next post.

Joyfully Pursuing Justice With You,

Tom

---

[1] Kaitlyn Schallhorn, “What Trump's 'zero-tolerance' immigration policy means for children separated from families at border,” at foxnews.com (accessed 9/19/18).

We should note that the separations happen because the way the laws currently read at the time of the zero tolerance policy announcement, when illegal immigrants enter the U.S. and are caught they are detained. Yet, legally there is a limit to how long their children could be detained in the same facilities. As Sharla Megilligan, “At the Mexico-Texas frontier, truth and lies,” World (July 21, 2018), 36ff., has written even the previous administration, because of this law, sent children to federally funded children’s homes. 

[2] e.g. Camila Damonoske, Richard Gonzales, “What We Know: Family Separation And ‘Zero Tolerance’ At the Border” (June 19, 2018), at npr.org (accessed 9/20/18).

[3] Sharla Megilligan, “At the Mexico-Texas frontier, truth and lies,” World (July 21, 2018), 36ff.

[4] Megilligan, “At the Mexico-Text Frontier,” 36ff.

[5] Though I will not offer a detailed solution, I do want to say more than some have. Recently Mindy Belz interviewed Fuller Theological Seminary professor, Matthew Kaemingk, on a recent book he had written. In essence, according to that interview, the main point he is making is that we must be compassionate toward people coming into the country, something to which Jesus called us. Though I have not read the book, that article made it sound like the professor ignored other bits of biblical wisdom that are also important.  See Mindy Belz, “Matthew Kaemingk, “A Space For Freedom: Offering Hospitality To Muslims In America,” in World, August 18, 2018: 26-27. I do not want this discussion about immigration to be truncated and one dimensional. Hopefully we can engage in a reasonably full and balanced treatment of the biblical truths that should shape our approach to the topic.

[6] James K. Hoffmeier, The Immigration Crisis: Immigrants, Aliens, And The Bible (Wheaton: Crossway, 2009, Kindle ed.), ch. 1, agrees with this assessment.

[7] Hoffmeier, The Immigration Crisis, ch. 1 (loc. 265).

[8] As we will see below, we never encourage such persons to break the law.

[9] For a helpful and accessible treatment of this subject, see Wayne Grudem, “Using The Old Testament For Ethical Guidance,” which is chapter 8 in his book Christian Ethics: An Introduction To Biblical Moral Reasoning (Wheaton: Crossway, 2018), 209-263. I am dependent upon his treatment for these points. 

[10] In speaking specifically about Old Testament Scripture, which was all that was in place at the time, Paul wrote that all of it is inspired by God and profitable for us (2 Tim. 3:16-17). See also Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:6.

[11] Another example would be Leviticus 19:15: “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.” This basic principle seems to supersede temporary laws only for a nation, but to communicate how we apply God’s righteous will equitably to all. The history of jurisprudence in the U.S. has been wise to suggest that justice is blind, based upon this biblical wisdom. Another way the Old Testament has provided wisdom for jurisprudence is to distinguish between different kinds of taking of life, whether it be government-induced capital punishment (Gen. 9:6; Nu. 35:31), self-defense (Ex. 22:2-30, an accident (Ex. 21:12-14; Nu. 35:9-34), or pre-meditated (Ex. 20:13; 21:12-14; Nu. 35:16; 31). This is consistent with God’s treatment based upon the intent of their heart (e.g. 1 Sam. 16:7). Intentional unlawful taking of life is very different than unintentional taking of life. God calls people in all times to love, not hate (Lev. 19:9-18).

[12] It was Abraham Kuyper, theologian and prime minister of the Netherlands in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, who coined the term “sphere sovereignty” (especially seen in his 1898 presentation, “Lectures On Calvinism,” as part of the Stone Lectures at Princeton). This label is a helpful description of what the Bible teaches regarding the authority of different institutions or spheres within society (e.g. Mt. 22:21; Rom. 13:1-7; Eph. 6:1-4). This must be kept in mind to guide the Christian in how he or she relates to the different spheres. An example will help. Suppose that Joe, a U.S. citizen who lives just north of the border in southern Texas, is employed by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency. What this means is that he is tasked, as an agent of the government, with prohibiting people from coming into the U.S. illegally. That is a role the U.S. government in general and he in particular has so they can help in the protection, defense, and orderly operation of the country, as well as in penalizing law breakers (Rom. 13:3-4). Joe is also a Christian, part of the church. His local congregation loves, serves, and shares with illegal immigrants who are caught trying to cross the border and detained. They also love, serve, and share with illegal immigrants who are not caught (and part of what they seek to do is encourage them to obey the law). Joe’s role is very different in each sphere (the church and CBP). It is primarily the job of the government to protect and supervise the border and, as we will see, this is a good thing. At the same time, the church is not primarily tasked to protect and oversee the border, even though U.S. citizens who are part of the church are to obey U.S. laws and encourage others to do the same. What this all means is that the church can and should love, serve, and seek to make disciples of people who come across the border legally and illegally as a primary role. At the same time, the government is not tasked as a primary role with those tasks (even though this does not mean the government cannot be compassionate or operate in such a way that love, service, and sharing can take place. So, at one and the same time, the Christian can advocate for compassion and love toward illegal immigrants and, at the same time, they can advocate for border security and the enforcement of U.S. laws. 

[13] Unless otherwise noted, all quotes in this sub-section are taken from Hoffmeier, The Immigration Crisis, ch. 2. All other material, unless otherwise noted, is also dependent upon this chapter from Hoffmeier.

[14] Merriam-Webster (on-line) defines ethnography this way: “the study and systematic recording of human cultures; also : a descriptive work produced from such research.” So, “ethnographic”could be defined this way: “relating to the scientific description of peoples and cultures with their customs, habits, and mutual differences.”

[15] Hoffmeier goes on to say of the nekhar or zar, i.e. the foreigner (both terms used at times parallel to each other: Ex. 30:33; Is. 28:21; Lam. 5:2), he was not a permanent resident as was the ger. “A foreigner could be an invading enemy (…Is. 1:7; Obad. 11) or squatters who moved into Israel when the Israelites were removed to Babylon (…Lam. 5:2). But for the most part in Israel, foreigners were those who were passing through the land with no intention of taking residence, or perhaps they would be temporarily or seasonably employed.” 

[16] All quotes in this subsection are taken from Hoffmeier, The Immigration Crisis, ch. 3. All other material is also dependent upon that chapter. 

[17] All quotes in this subsection are taken from Hoffmeier, The Immigration Crisis, ch. 4. All other material is also dependent upon that chapter.

[18] In chapters 5-7 of his book, The Immigration Crisis, Hoffmeier looks at how terms were used in the rest of the Old Testament and affirms they were used consistently with what has been set forth already.

[19] All quotes in this subsection are taken from Hoffmeier, The Immigration Crisis, ch. 8. All other material is also dependent upon that chapter.

Justice And Economics, Part 3

In 1964 President Lyndon Johnson launched his “War On Poverty” with the goal of bringing about a “Great Society” that would eradicate poverty and also address some of the social problems present in the early sixties. The next year Democrat New York senator, Patrick Moynihan issued a report (“The Moynihan Report”) in which he argued that the African American population (a major, but not exclusive target of the programs of the “War On Poverty”) was crumbling because of family breakdown and a burgeoning lack of fathers in the home. Thirty years after his report, Moynihan issued another report in which he argues things had become exponentially worse: “The biggest change…is that the family structure has come apart all over the North Atlantic world.”

Yet, now, over twenty years after Moynihan’s second report and after throwing $25 trillion into the “War On Poverty,” things have only become worse. Timothy S. Goeglein, “The Moynihan Report At 50,” in The City, 8, 2 (Winter 2015): 7-12, highlights that in most every ethnic group and demographic in America the family is unraveling. The result is a burgeoning poverty of different kinds.[1]

By this point in our discussion we should see at least the following problems in how the United States has approached and continues to approach its “war on poverty”: It has seen the solution as only a material one; it has not taken into consideration a full-orbed approach to the various foundational relationships humans need to consider to flourish (God; self; creation; others, not the least of which is family), and it has not understood the injustice and harm that comes when we encourage people not to work.

However, there is another problem inherent in the approach that has been taken—the ever-growing tendency of the United States to redistribute wealth to help alleviate problems. That problem is found in our fourth truth that forms a biblical view of economics.

4. God’s Moral Will Opposes Taking Away From Others What Belongs To Them. 

Yes, you read that right. Another way to say this is that forcefully taking resources from one person by another person(s), even if it is supposedly for the benefit of other people is immoral. Consider what the eighth commandment says: “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15).

You see, if a person were able to take your identity or hack into your on-line bank account and take your money, we would term this “stealing.” Yet, if that same person went to work for the IRS, demanded that you turn over your money so it can be redistributed to others for their help and then said if you do not do this, you will face greater fines or even jail time, we simply term this “taxation.”

It is not wrong for governments to tax its citizens. When Jesus was asked (Mt. 19:17), “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” he answered this way (Mt. 22:21): “…render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's….” In other words, yes, it is right to pay taxes to a government by which they govern. Paul is in agreement with his Lord when he writes (Rom. 13:6): “For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God….” Yet, we must not miss from our Lord and from Paul these two truths in context:  

·         In Jesus’ answer about taxes he added that we were not just to pay what is due to the government authorities, but also to God (Mt. 22:21): “…and to God the things that are God's.” In other words, though taxes will be owed to governing authorities, not everything should be owed to them. There should be personal wealth and resources we retain for other uses. This is a clear indication that the Bible is not favorable to socialism or communism.

·         In Paul’s teaching about the government and taxation he had earlier affirmed the purpose of government is to be very limited. He mentions the protection of its citizens from enemies within and without and, along with this, to administer justice through its laws (the rewarding of law-abiding citizens and the penalization of law-breaking citizens). There is nothing to suggest that law-abiding citizens are rewarded monetarily, but the sense most likely is they are rewarded with freedom and protection to flourish. 

Arthur Brooks, after discussing the reality that many nations around the world are flourishing and decreasing those in poverty through copying what has worked in the past here in the United States, writes the following that helps describe the economic approach to which we should return if we follow biblical wisdom:

But what about poverty right here at home? Paradoxically, here we have less reason to celebrate. To be sure, poor Americans have made material advances since I was a boy, like the rest of society. And in absolute terms, the American poor live more comfortably than poor people in the developing world. But relatively speaking, our progress in defeating poverty has been utterly substandard. While our values have been beating back poverty around the globe, the poverty rate here in America remains virtually unchanged since Lyndon Johnson’s day. While American-style free enterprise has radically reduced poverty around the world, our own progress against domestic poverty has ground to a halt.^[2]

Brooks then adds: “I learned that American-style democratic capitalism was changing the world and helping billions of poor people to build their lives.”[3]

Brooks is right. And we can add, if we use current economic labels to describe the overall approach the Bible teaches we can do no better than democratic capitalism or a free enterprise system.

As such, if we want to pursue justice economically we can do no better than follow the adominition of Michael Novak: “Social justice is really the capacity to organize with others to accomplish ends that benefit the whole community. If people are to live free of state control, they must possess this new virtue of cooperation and association. This is one of the great skills of Americans and, ultimately, the best defense against statism.”[4] In other words, yes, work together for justice, but this will involved freedom and less state control, not more.

One final area we need briefly to address in regard to God’s moral will leading us away from socialism or communism, and that is equality. It is true that we want to pursue equality in the administration of laws (Lev. 19:15). We also want to pursue equal penalties for crimes committed (Ex. 21:14). And we desire a form of equality in starting lines, i.e. people having opportunities to move toward success and flourishing. What it is not wise to pursue is equality in all ways, especially suggesting that everyone has to have an equal finishing line. This denies the biblical explanations of reality that affirm outcomes are typically commensurate with inputs (Gal. 6:7) and that affirm different people have different talents and gifts, as well as different levels of talents and gifts that lead to different outcomes (Mt. 25:14-30; 1 Cor. 12). To deny this or seek to destroy this reality not only eventually hurts society, but it also encourages envy.

On explaining this latter point we can do no better than quote columnist Andree Seu Peterson at length: 

What do you get if you scratch the equality movement in America?  Answer:  envy…. No one wants to say, “I envy people who have what I don’t have, or who can go where I’m not allowed to go, or who can do what I’m not allowed to do.” They say instead, “I think everyone should be equal.” There exists a place where everyone is equal, and it is hell… (Is. 14:9-11)…. Hell’s ravenous lust for equality is echoed in the unshakable thirst for kings’ blood in the French Revolution’s egalite of results in contrast to the more felicitous fruit of the American Revolution’s equality of the pursuit of happiness…. Turns out that even after you have wrung the last drop of perceived unfair advantage out of the “haves” and handed it over to the “have nots” to quench the voracious god of Equality, there is always someone left in the room with a scintilla more than you to envy, a situation that cannot be tolerated.[5]

Any view of economics or poverty relief that denies this fourth truth or shortchanges it will be unjust.

5. God’s Moral Will Is To Help The Poor, But Not In A Way That Hurts Them Or You. 

As he addresses the myth of black inferiority, Tony Evans writes the following: “A contemporary manifestation of the myth’s impact is visibly demonstrated in the heavily dependent posture of the black community on government-based social service programs. The independent black church during slavery hewed out a community, culture, religious institution, and antislavery resistant movement with limited support from the government or broader culture.” He goes on to say that unfortunately the myth has been perpetrated in this dependence and a “victim mentality.”[6]

Evans highlights here that there are ways to attempt to help an individual or entire group of people, to alleviate poverty or right past wrongs, that can hurt them. We can even create entire systems that are unjust in this way.

Part of the challenge in helping those who are poor is, on the one hand, defining accurately what poverty is and, on the other hand, defining how best to help and in a way that remains aware of our tendency to help in arrogant and harmful ways. We must avoid hurting both the poor and ourselves in these ways.[7]

Due to the tendency for sinful humans to be deceived (Jer. 17:9; Heb. 3:12-13) and to be habituated in ways that are sinful and destructive (2 Pt. 2:14, 19), and this could include either those with material wealth being steeped in pride and God-ignoring self-dependence (James 4:1-10) or the poor being stuck in patterns of fear, hopelessness, and victimization that lead to poverty (Prov. 12:1; 17:22; 22:13), we must take very seriously this truth.

Because we have already said much that pertains to this truth in the previous two posts, we do not need to elaborate on it more. We could say that any approach to alleviating poverty that ignores the previous four truths will be one that hurts both parties.

6. God’s Moral Will Is For Us To Teach These Principles To Each Generation. 

In Genesis 1:26-28 and Psalm 8:5-6, where we read of God creating humans, we are told humans have had a commission from God from the very beginning, that includes serving as his vice-regents who bring order to the world. This would include helping other humans flourish and once humans were fallen into sin, helping them come to God.

This call to reach the next generation, to bring them to God (including those in our own family), includes teaching them to observe all that God has revealed and commanded in regard to himself (Dt. 6:4-7a; Mt. 28:20). One of the ways we know this includes the economic principles we have discussed comes from grasping the original purpose of the book of Proverbs. This was book was compiled like other similar wisdom and proverbial works from the ancient world primarily to prepare young people for leadership in Israel, that is, among the people of God, by teaching them God’s wisdom for all of life. This is evidenced in the book itself (Prov. 1:1-7; 2:1-15; 8:15; 14:28; 16:12; 20:28; 21:1; 22:6; 31:4, 10-31). And Proverbs teaches much about economics.

One of the great needs we now have is to re-insert into education and into our discipling a biblically wise view of economics, government, work, and how to help the poor. This is a matter of righteousness and justice. To do any less is to walk by on the other side of the road and ignore those being deeply hurt by destructive views and philosophies. This does involve taking sides in views, but does not have to be inordinately partisan or caustic.

7. God’s Moral Will Is For The Gospel To Shape Our Approach To Economics. 

This final truth we must take into consideration is very important, for without it we are sure to distort our approach to alleviating poverty and we are sure to encourage those we are helping to miss the most important relationship they need, and that is their relationship with God—that one that is foundational to the other foundational healthy relationships that are needed (self, creation, and others).

We must start by explaining briefly what is meant by the gospel shaping our approach to economics.

Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 that the essence of the gospel (that proclamation of good news that the king has come and delivered his people from destruction at the hands of the enemy, e.g. Is. 52:7; 61:1) is that Jesus Christ died, was buried, and was raised to save sinners. As Paul exemplifies in his epistle to the Romans, to proclaim the gospel (Rom. 1:15) involves explaining why the gospel is needed—i.e. we are separated from God by our sin and under his judgment, thus breaking and twisting our other foundational relationships (Rom. 1:18-3:20); explaining how this salvation is applied to us: We receive and rest upon Christ alone by grace alone through faith in him alone (Rom. 3:21-5:1); and what the results of that application are: We become new people who can follow God and live for his glory, empowered by his Spirit (Rom. 5:1-8:39). Responding to the truths of the gospel is the only way to salvation (Rom. 1:16) and it is the only way to be strengthen and to grow in our relationship to God (Rom. 16:25).

So, what we mean by the gospel shaping our approach to economics is that we understand as followers of Jesus Christ, the only way we can alleviate poverty or teach economics to the next generation in the ways God prescribes (the seven truths we have set forth), with the attitudes of heart God desires (with humility, love, and dependence on God, guarding against prideful deception), and for the purposes God desires (his glory as we display that our obedience is a result of his gracious work in us (Rom. 1:5; 11:36; 16:25-27), is that we must do so in dependence upon Jesus Christ in us. What is more, we understand that as we give aid to the poor and teach economic principles to others, if we are to help them find the four foundational relationships they must have, they must know why we do what we do, for whom we are doing it, and it is only through Jesus Christ they can come to know God and practice these truths themselves (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; Rom. 1:16).

Now that we know what we mean by the gospel shaping our approach to economics we can set forth a few key points to guide us in how to do this.

·         We must be engaged in advocating these economic truths and helping the poor in dependence upon Christ, because we love others, and for the glory of Christ (Rom. 1:5; Gal. 5:6; Rom. 16:25-27).

·         We must be ever dependent upon Christ and his means of transforming grace—not the least of which is having others speak into our lives—so we do not deceive ourselves and fall into pride, frustration, and anger in our advocation of these economic truths and how we seek to alleviate poverty (Gal. 2:20; 5:22-23; Heb. 3:12-13).

·         We must depend upon our good heavenly Father who knows how to and loves to give us and others of his children good gifts through his Spirit as we carry out these truths (Mt. 7:7-11; Lk. 11:9-13).

·         As much as possible we should let others know that we love because of Christ and we help ultimately for his glory (Mt. 25:31-40; 2 Cor. 9:12-15).

·         As much as possible we must help people understand that to apply these truths in their fullest degree, Jesus Christ is needed (John 15:5; Gal. 2:20).

·         We must never conclude that the difference between those of us who grasp and seek to practice these truths and those who do not is our own efforts. No, were it not for the grace of God, we would be no different (Eph. 2:1-10).

·         As we advocate for these truths in the public square, empowered by his grace and the awareness of his grace, we will do so in a gracious and merciful manner, loving those who disagree with and oppose us (Mt. 23:23-24; Luke 6:27-38), and forgiving and releasing resentment against those who seek us harm (Eph. 4:31-32).

·         Finally, though we know these seven truths are vey important to our loving others, teaching the next generation of believers, and helping people flourish, we also grasp that advocating them is not as important as helping others come to know God through Jesus Christ (Mt. 16:26). So, we are steadfast in not wanting to win the battle of advocating sound economic principles in a manner that we lose the war of people seeing whom our Savior really is and what he is like.

One of the most neglected areas of life among Christians today is economics. I pray that as you read these three posts, you have discovered the potential the church has for glorifying God, as well as loving and helping others flourish through teaching these seven truths. They are a significant part of how we do and pursue justice!

Joyfully Seeking Justice With You,

Tom

---

[1] I am indebted to Goeglein and his article for the information on the Moynihan Report and its sequel. 

[2] Arthur C. Brooks, The Conservative Heart: How To Build A Fairer, Happier, And More Prosperous America, 2-3. 

[3] Brooks, The Conservative Heart, 5.

[4] Michael Novak, “Social Justice Not What You Think It Is.” Accessed 6/17/18 at heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/social-justice-not-what-you-think-it.

[5] Andree Seu Peterson, “Inequality And Envy: Ugly Motives Stand Behind The Push For Equality Of Results,” World (July 21, 2018): 63.

[6] Tony Evans, Oneness Embraced, 96.

[7] Steve Corbett, Brian Fikkert, When Helping Hurts: How To Alleviate Poverty Without Hurting The Poor…and Yourself (Chicago: Moody, 2012, repr.).