I, like many of you, have been watching with great sorrow the events that have unfolded in recent days with terrorism against Russia, (An airliner bomb) in Paris (Multiple coordinated attacks of an Islamic group), and in other places. There are thousands of people directly affected and millions more that are indirectly affected through the strategy of causing terror and disrupting social order (terrorism).
These events have been read into the narrative of the US policy to accept Syrian Refugees (political and humanitarian cause refugees) as 10,000 have been relocated to the United States as part of an international effort to alleviate suffering.
I am not going to opine on the wisdom of such actions. The problem is complex and cannot be solved with a few sentences on one pastor’s “blog site.” I believe there are scores of people who are far more qualified to offer a solution to the two-pronged problem of humanitarian assistance and national security. [NOTE: I believe that we have a tendency to drift toward one pole or the other in this complex situation and the ultimate solution may ver well be a balance of interests between both extremes].
Today I am a bit perplexed by some of my fellow pastors and missionally-minded individuals that have weighed into the discussion. Some have advocated a fullscale approach of receiving all refugees as a means by which we have an instant audience for the gospel. Others have advocated that we secure the borders and reject all refugees as an effort to provide security for our nation’s citizens because there is a clear lack of security protocol in screening the refugees.
What I find most curious…many of these pastors were the loudest critics of the church engaging in political causes through the years. These precious servants of God argued that the will of a previous generation of pastors to seek to engage the political process, help like-minded believers get elected, and prevent candidates of a different values system from coming into office was totally MISPLACED and HURTFUL to the missional purpose fo the church. These dear brethren trumpeted a position that the church was “supra-political” and should not seek to identify with or even be overly concerned with the political will of a nation since the Christians’ first and highest loyalty was to a King and not a political entity.
The arguments notwithstanding, is not your current demands for the national government to act in a certain manner the antithesis of your previous position on the church and politics?
I think, it would do well for us to remember that our nation has a role. Our government has a function as ordained by God to be a means of bring good to a people (common grace) regardless of their religious or ethnic backgrounds. The national government of the United States is not an instrument of the church to accomplish any particular act of will.
In other words, if you think the church should get out of politics, then you are inconsistent to argue for a Christian immigration policy. There is no such thing. There is, however, a responsibility for Christ-followers to care for and help the needy among them…including the widow, the orphan, and the foreigner/refugee. We can and should do that because our King tells us too.
In closing, the words of a really wise philosopher seem appropriate: “Before you tear down a fence (i.e. argue for the church to remove itself from politics), you ought to consider why someone may have built it. Perhaps there is a “bull” you don’t want to tangle with just beyond the former fenceline.
Love to hear your thoughts…