Skip to main content

Immigration and the 6th Commandment

The western nations in particular are struggling to keep pace with the implications of increased immigration of foreigners coupled with lax immigration policies. Anders Breivik’s July 22nd 2011 murder spree in Oslo, Norway was fueled largely by anti-immigration fury. Problematically, his perspective was endorsed by Francesco Speroni, a leading member of Italy’s Northern League.[1] 

Jacques Coutela, a member of France’s National Front party, referred to Breivik as an “icon.”[2] Clearly, immigration of Muslims throughout Western Europe, and of Hispanics mainly to the U.S., is fostering a new cleavage in societies in the move toward globalization. As the protectionist mindset of mainly the nativistic “right” entrenches itself in ethno-nationalistic and cultural fervor, the national and cultural identity of “outsiders” is viewed suspiciously if not contemptuously. If some reports are correct that the drift toward multiculturalism and religious syncretism is actually helping groups such as The Muslim Brothers of Europe in their quest for “Eurabia,” and the Reconquistas to take back part of America’s great Southwest, then suspicion is warranted, but not contempt.[3]

What can the sixth commandment offer Western countries that are to a greater extent worried about this issue?  Theologian John Frame goes right to the Scriptures to say that “The Mosaic law does extend the commandment of love to ‘strangers,’ people sojourning within Israel (Lev. 19:34). But it is the New Testament that extends the covenant community to all nations. The Great Commission mandates love to all peoples as we bring good news to them.”[4]  Frame does not mean to diminish the need for strict immigration policies. He means to augment our mandate by divine law to share the Good News of Jesus with strangers, regardless of their legal status or motives. 

In our haste to criticize illegal immigrants, let us remember, as Frame has said, that the commandment, because it speaks universally to all “sin and righteousness” and thus to all life and death issues, points first to our own sin; that we were all at one time without life in God, “strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (italics added, Eph. 2:12). The human response ought therefore to be one of shard identity with our Lord: I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in” (italics added, Matt. 25:43). 

Moderns see the biblical remedy as a castle in the air. But history proves that the gospel alone can tear down walls of suspicion and contempt between severely divided people groups. Can anyone reading this present a comparable solution from history?

[1] John Hopper, Ex-Berlusconi minister defends Anders Behring Breivik, (July 27, 2011).

[2] Associated Press, French party suspends man over Oslo suspect praise, (July 27, 2011).

[3] On the motives of the Muslim Brotherhood, see Brigitte Maréchal, The Muslim brothers in Europe: roots and discourse, (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2008). For a general overview of European perceptions of the Muslim advance across Europe, see Raphael Israeli, The Islamic Challenge in Europe (New Brunswick & London: Transaction Publishers, 2008). A book that includes a large section on the Reconquista movement is Patrick J. Buchanan, The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization (New York: St. Martin’s Press. 2002), esp. 123-146.

[4] DCL, 691.


Popular posts from this blog

Andy Stanley and the “NEW Hermeneutic”

The problem of faith and reason is longstanding in the history of theology. Augustine held that faith aids reason (credo ut intelligam) and that reason aids faith (intelligo un creadam). The church father is, however, inclined to stress the later over the former. It was with Thomas Aquinas, and his Summa Theologica, that the effort to reconcile faith and reason reached its apex. Rejecting the medieval doctrine of double truth, he placed natural reason prior to faith in effectively every area of the Christian life. The restrictions are the mysteries of the faith that reason cannot penetrate.
Thomas’ affirmation of the high role of native reason in Christian belief is linked to his stress on dialectical method in study, seminally set forth by Peter Abelard. The form of study is dependent largely on logic to argue both sides of a theological question. Christian belief is thus the proper result of process or synthesis. Faith then assents to the final proposition arrived at by reason.

Pat Robertson is Warned!

Pat Robertson is taking it on the chin again. Seems each time he opines on why bad things happen to us, there is someone to call him on it.
Most recently, Dr. Richard Mouw has taken up the challenge in response to Robertson's recent statement on the Las Vegas shooting, in which at least 59 people were killed and more than 500 were wounded in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.
In a piece, titled, "You've Been Warned, PatRobertson!" Mouw, for whom I have deep respect, pens,

"It didn’t take long for some preachers to start telling us why God caused the horrible mass murder in Las Vegas to happen. Pat Robertson led the way, declaring that it was divine retribution for the widespread 'disrespect' for Donald Trump in America."
If Robertson had limited his rationale for the Vegas shooting to God punishing us for people dissing the President, I'd be smacking him on the chin myself. But he didn't.
Robertson's brief remarks f…

Is Our Knowledge of God Analogical of Univocal?

As a matter of first principles in apologetics, we can ask, “What does the unbeliever know about God?” However, the biblical apologetic is shaped not only by what Scripture says the unbeliever knows, but also by what it reveals he can know; is capable of knowing, as a believer. So we might also ask, “Is it our hope that the unbeliever can know God as God knows himself or that he can know God reflectively, in a creaturely way?” This is the univocal/analogical problem in Christian epistemology. 

The question arises in the context of the structure of human thought. It bears its own unique dilemma. If we stress too excessively that knowledge of God is univocal we run the risk of lowering the incomprehensible God to the level of the finite and make God as one of us. But if we stress too emphatically knowledge of God per analogiam we may very well deprive God of all likeness to the humanity he has created with the result that all we are left with is a barren, abstraction.

To a considerable…