Introduction: A while back, there was a report on the Prime Time America radio broadcast about pastors leaving the ministry. They reported that ministers are leaving the ministry at a rate of 1800 a month. They mentioned ways to reverse that and seemed generally good. One thing caught my attention. At one point, the announcer said that if you attended a pastors conference, the people there would not be the most physically fit you have ever seen. He then said that God commands us to take care of our bodies and “pastors really need to consider their disobedience to God in this matter.”

Though I am neither a pastor nor out of shape, when I heard that pastors “need to consider their disobedience to God” I thought, “Oh great, another way I am disappointing God. Just put that on that big pile over there.” There are those listening to that program who may take that kind of appeal seriously but my guess is that the majority of burned-out pastors already feel overwhelmed by their own list of how they are “failing” God. On the other hand, the speaker clearly thought this was a good thing to say and, as I said, there probably were some listeners who thought this was a good point. What this illustrates, if we can step back from the specific example of physical fitness, is there are different ways to appeal to action. Likewise, there are different ways that people respond to appeals.

Background: I once taught at the local Moody Extension School. Though I hoped to teach a Biblical Studies class, I was assigned a course called Christian Ethics. Having not even taken such a course, I purchased and read several books on the subject*. Ethicists write that there are basically three appeals to ethical action. Most writers have all three appeals. Some writers have only two basic appeals, the first and the second. Christian writers commonly say that of the appeals only the second is the biblical ethic. I believe this is because the second seems objective while the other two, more subjective. My problems with that breakdown include: It is the third appeal that strikes me the most. All three appeals are found in Scripture, so how can one say that only one is biblical? Finally, I felt that if such a thing as Christian Ethics existed, its appeal had to be Christianly unique in more ways than “We have this big God who is going to strike you” (To be fair, Jesus seemed to use that Luke 12:5). The three appeals would be unchanged if God did not exist. There is a fourth appeal. It is not only found Biblically, it is an

appeal that people do not naturally give a flip about and so is uniquely biblical (revelatory).

The first appeal is called Teleological (Gr. Teleos – Goal, End). It is defined as Ethics in which moral choices are based on a goal. So, in a given situation one makes his ethical choice based on the goal or end to which he is committed.

This is often criticized for its subjective nature. Commonly referenced here is Situation Ethics (a book by that title was written by an Episcopal Priest Joseph Fletcher) which has as its goal to show love, which has at its most extreme applications stories of “loving adultery”. Ultimately, WWJD is a goal-based ethic. I make it my goal to act like Jesus and approach decisions by asking myself “What would Jesus do?” In the end, a goal-based ethic’s value really is a function of the chosen goal, whether it is being like Jesus or being a millionaire by age thirty.

There are times the Bible uses a goal based ethic. In 2 Corinthians 5:9, Paul writes that he makes it “our ambition to please him”. Further, people have as their goal that at the end, they will hear “well done, good and faithful servant” (Matthew 25:21). Were I to put the appeal of losing weight into a goal based appeal, I would speak of the ultimate benefits associated with good health, including better endurance for the tough times.

The second appeal is Deontological (Gr. Deon – Duty). This is defined as Ethics in which moral choices are based on duty or law. This, as I said before, is often stated as the only “Christian” ethic. It is also the base of the call to action quoted above, “the Bible says it, this is your duty, consider your disobedience.” In ethical situations, one considers what his duty is when choosing. Need I say that this is often the type of appeal we hear from our theologically conservative churches? It also is the most common caricature of church people used by the world outside the church. “Obey!” they screech, in mock imitation of the stereotypical pulpit pounder.

It is also true that the Bible uses appeals to duty. “If you love me, you will obey my commandments” (John 14:15). “For you know what commands we gave you through the Lord Jesus. For this is God’s will: that you become holy, that you keep away from sexual immorality” (1 Thessalonians 4:2,3); “Now by this we know that we have come to know God: if we keep his commandments. The one who says “I have come to know God” and yet does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in such a person” (1 John 2:3,4). So then, brothers, we are under obligation. (Romans 8:12)

The third appeal is Areteological (Gr. Aretos – Virtue). This is defined as, Ethics in which moral choices are based on virtue or character. In some ways, this can be a variation of the first appeal, but it specifies admirable characteristics. It is shown negatively in the expression “what are you, a coward?” People do not want to hear something like that. His choice is a reflection of his character. So, in situations, one chooses based on what virtue or characteristic he has developed or considers most important.

Scriptures contain appeals to virtue. “for you were at one time darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of the light” (Ephesians 5:8); Appeals to the character of light. “He has shown you, O man, what is good. What does Yahweh require of you, but to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8) appeals to the virtues of justice, mercy and humility.

As a summary: the three ethical appeals are based on Goal, Duty and Character. A not so recent illustration was when the US Army changed their advertising slogan from a goal-based appeal (“be all that you can be”) to a character-based appeal (“The Army of One”) while their “corporate

personality” is duty based. I have found this to be a helpful grid through which to think of my and others’ actions and reactions.

But, as I reached this point in my studies, I was dissatisfied, thinking there was something missing. A light finally came on when I thought of: Doxeological (Gr. Doxos – Worship). This can be defined as Ethics in which moral choices are based on the Worship of God. As I said earlier, this has as its base something uniquely Christian—The Glory of God is something the world opposes.

This is indeed found in Scriptures. “Whether therefore you eat, or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31). “Whatever you do, in word or in deed, do all in the name ofthe Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father, through him” (Colossians 3:17).

This appeal strikes me as over-arching in its application. The other three are at play, but unless they are subject to the Worship of God (Submit your members as weapons of righteousness to God – Romans 6), they are just so much flesh even when they are being used to make ethical decisions.

Excursus: Luke 20:21-26 I’ll have to explain this a bit. This is the well-known story of the Pharisees trying to trap Jesus by asking whether they should pay tax. Jesus asks to see a coin. “Whose likeness is this? Caesar. Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” What belongs to God? That which has His likeness (how it is determined what goes to Caesar). Every one of us is created in the image of God. It is true that how we treat the image is how we would treat the reality (that is why burning in effigy is a popular protest). If the Christian ethic is one based in worship of God, then how we treat His image is important. If we treat others with honor, then we treat the One whose image they bear with honor. If we treat them disrespectfully, we disrespect the One whose image they bear. James applies this concept this way: “With it (the tongue) you bless God and curse man who is made in God’s image” (James 3:9)

*My favorite books which I found most helpful at the time of my teaching:

The Moral Quest by Stanley Grenz

An Introduction to Biblical Ethics by Robertson McQuilkin

Christian Ethics: an Essential Guide by Robin W Lovin

The text I chose for my students was A Public Faith by Charles Drew

Currently I am reading an excellent book (if more philosophical), To Will and To Do by Jacques Ellul

Technorati Tags: ethics, law, sabbath, xulon

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

See, the question you’re thinking is that I’m introducing myself but, if you’re reading this any point after I wrote this, considering how I’ve changed from unknown events, wouldn’t you be meeting me a past version of me? I mean, in 1974 there was a Rey Reynoso (R1.0)that was born in New York City and that thought certain thoughts about life and self. Years later (2010) there is another Rey Reynoso (R2.0) who lives elsewhere and has very different thoughts about life and self—how are these two Rey’s related?

Maybe there’s something behind the mind (Rey’s thoughts) that is connects the Rey Reynoso’s—a meta-person of sorts. So even though RR2.0 is different from RR1.0, they’re both “driven” by this meta-individual who is the real Rey Reynoso. But how would we ever get to know him (me)? He transcends the physical, transcends thought, and transcends characteristics.

Poppycock someone else might say: there is no invisible you that is behind the real you. The fact that you think of yourself as “I am Me” doesn’t mean that there’s some infinite regress of real you’s that drive the real you—it just means that you are self-aware. You have consciousness. That fact is the only thing that makes you, you.

Which generates questions about folk who aren’t self-aware—does that make them non-persons? Someone might be quick to say “yes!” but then have a problem if some non-self-aware person comes back (say out of a coma), picking up from where they were before. What happened? Did they momentarily stop being a person? Did the invisible driver go elsewhere? Or is the picture even more fictional than we thought?

For example, when RR2.0 goes to sleep and dreams he is completely unaware of his life but RR2.5 kicks in and has his own unique experiences. When RR2.0 wakes up he taps into what he remembers about RR2.5 and incorporates it into his “story”. Maybe RR1.0 and 2.0 are just variations of a dream by someone else? Worst, if RR1.0 is equally real as RR2.0 and the future RR3.0 (which would be the one you don’t know about as you’re reading this post) maybe they are all real beings that together make up I—sort of like a trinity but with many more beings that permanently exist in different moments of time?

Of course some of this can be cleared up if the problem isn’t what makes up RR2.0 or RR1.0 but rather if RR1.0 is numerically the same being as RR2.0. If so, then questions about multiple beings existing through time start to recede as well as the different between RR1.0 and RR2.0 being any real differences at all. We can just say that Rey Reynoso was born in 1974 and today, 2010, Rey Reynoso wrote this post without anything at all about versions. Sure, we’ll still have some questions about Rey Reynoso going on into the future—especially if parts of Rey Reynoso dies—but that’s for another post. I’ve butchered enough philosophy for one day.

Technorati Tags: fridays, identity, personality, philosophy, self

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

My Heavenly Father, I thank You, through Jesus Christ, Your beloved Son, that You kept me safe from all evil and danger last night. Save me, I pray, today as well, from every evil and sin, so that all I do and the way that I live will please you. I put myself in your care, body and soul and all that I have. Let Your holy Angels be with me, so that the evil enemy will not gain power over me. Amen

Technorati Tags: luther, prayer mondays

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Covenants and the Ancient Near East
The Old Testament is threaded with covenantal language. You read the text expecting it. Sometimes the language is employed in making allies (Gen 14:2, Eze 30:5) and other times it means terms or a treaty (1 Kings 20:34, 1 Sam 11:1) . Sometimes the language is there preempting a covenant (Gen 12) but it’s readily admitted that the Covenant isn’t officially ratified until specific activity (Gen 15). Sometimes the language is there (2 Sam 7) without mentioning that it is a Covenant,  but everyone recognizes it as a covenant (2 Sam 23:5; Psalm 89). Other times the language is there but it’s reiterating something said earlier so there seems to be no need to add anything else to solidify it as a Covenant(Gen 17, Eze 37).

Stepping back from the text, the Ancient Near East culture was threaded with Covenantal language as well. A study of late bronze era ANE covenantal treaties reveals a general pattern, some scholars calling it the ideal pattern of: (A) Preamble, (B) The History (C), The Stipulations, (D) Provision for Deposit of Public Reading (E) The Witnesses (F) curses and Blessings and (G) Ratification Ceremony. These covenants would always be set up in creating a new relationship (between two parties, one stronger, one weaker), always be ratified, and almost always with a ratification ritual, frequently by animal sacrifice.

They were always declared in a literary or oral form to ensure that all parties knew how to think of themselves and later action, were usually affecting a sense of gratefulness resulting in self-obligation, and the cloud of curses and blessings were pretty much connected to the divine but really not implemented by the Divine. Iron Age ANE treaties were exceedingly more brutal and were totally focused on the diminished recipient party.

Divine Constitutions
The Divine Covenants (specific texts that don’t only use Covenantal language but are completely based on God toward Man) in Scripture do not always follow the exact pattern of ANE covenants and don’t even really read as covenants, but more like self-contracts by the Deity. Gen 15 for example, is definitely a Covenant but it’s a Covenant by God with Himself toward Abraham as beneficiary—so much so that God performs the ratification ceremony without Abraham’s participation. 2 Samuel 7 has David ready to do some great work of building a house for God, and God preempting him by building up his house while removing any activity on the part of David. These Divine Contracts (I’m not even sure that’s a good word for it; maybe a Constitution would be better) were explicit and binding, not merely between the parties, but in the part of Yahweh as giving them. These Divine Constitutions also do not always create a new relationship but are predicated on pre-established realities. 2 Sam 7 already assumes the Kingship is in place, but solidifies it; Gen 9 already assumes people will govern and fill the earth, but solidifies how they will be preserved; Gen 15 already has Abraham as involved religiously (Gen 12) but solidifies the relationship.

So it is not possible to define Covenant as merely binding or merely Constitutional when it’s littered throughout the text doing different things at different times but it is possible to see the Divine Covenants working an explicit way. You always know who is enacting them (Yahweh), you always know what He is intending and promising, and they are always based on a relationship that already exists but solidifying that relationship in a special way that makes transfers those under the covenantal borders under the purview of God. Further the Divine Constitution are more often than not unilateral (when they are bi-lateral they start bearing more similarities to ANE covenants) and they are enacted in such a way that all parties are to remember the benefits that are given.

Covenant of Works and the Ancient Near East
But is Genesis 1-3 explicating a Covenant of Works (a Divine Covenant in which the recipient party is afforded a status as representative but with covenantal responsibilities and duties—like the Mosaic Covenant—which can result in break of Covenant) as argued by just about every Covenant Theologian? Well, according to the Ancient Near East Covenantal language, I think we can see some similarities with ANE covenants and even the Divine Constitutions in other parts of Scripture.

• 1) The creation account can be taken as the History of the relationship of the sovereign over the vassal (compare to (B) above)
• 2) The heavenly hosts (Let us create man) could be seen as witnesses (compare to (E) above)
• 3) There are blessings and curses.(compare to (F) above)

But there are some major differences from any ANE Covenant:

• 1) There is no explicit preamble about who is creating the covenant (contra (A)). The character is assumed and he goes about making everything. Unlike Deuteronomy where the entire book is structured in this ANE Covenantal form ((A) Preamble (1:1-6), (B)History (1:7-4:49); (C) Stipulations (5-26; General/Specific); (D) Deposit and Public Reading (only implied: Exo 20,27, Deut 27:11-26, later Josh 24);(E) the witnesses are the people listening to the reading (F) curses and Blessings (27, 28);(G) Ratification Ceremony (Exo 19:8 Assent; Exodus 24 Sprinkling of Blood), the same compiler didn’t bother doing the same thing here.
• 2) The  stipulations don’t speak in terms of obligation to Elohim (contra (C)). In Genesis 2, the obligation seems to be assumed by the fact that the man is contingent on the one who made him. Indeed, this is the same contingent obligation that belongs to every parent from their child as evidenced in Genesis.
• 3) There is no provision for the depositing of the covenant stipulations (contra (D)). No record of the blessings are being mandated to be recorded by God. What is repeated is the cursing (Gen 4,5) which makes us assume that people took with them the future hope of being redeemed from the curse—but that doesn’t mean that they were covenantaly bound to keeping true to that.
• 4) The curses and blessings are divorced from each other (contra (F)). ANE Covenantal language pairs these things (If you X then Y, if you Not-X then Q) but none of that exists in this text. Indeed, they are blessed apart from Lordship (YHWH is never used in Genesis 1 but in Genesis 2) and a curse is stipulated as a warning—but this is expected in a relationship from Father to Son (notice Genesis 49 and the blessings and curses of Jacob with his 12 Sons)
• 5) There is no ratification of the covenant (contra (G)). No Sacrifice. No shed blood. Surprisingly, the only shedding of blood occurs after the point where most Covenant Theologians would say the Covenant was broken. Here it might be good to mention that in 2 Sam 7 there doesn’t seem to be any ratification ceremony (unlike Genesis 9 and Genesis 15 which both contain explicit ceremonies, as does Deuteronomy and even the Mosaic Covenant at Sinai). But there is the fact that after receiving the promises, David goes “in before the Lord” which would mean the tabernacle where the sacrifices are offered. If Genesis 1-2 has a tabernacle where the sacrifices are being offered but we don’t even have a shadow of cultic activity until after the Fall and expulsion from the Garden (Gen 5).

Covenant of Works as A Divine Constitution versus Familial Accountability
Even if we tried to really stretch it by saying that this is the first temporal Divine Constitution of which all other covenants then find their source, we would still encounter problems:

• 1) The future language of Genesis 6 (ie: “I will establish my Covenant with…”) which implies Divine purpose but it doesn’t state that there was a Covenant that was broken to begin with.
• 2) The Divine Covenants are redemptive after the Fall but one has to wonder why there is a Covenant (of works) that works antithetically to God’s grace before the Fall. I mean, if every Covenant after the Garden is based on faith and God’s grace, then why would the Covenant of Works before the Fall (and in an ideal situation) be based on Works over Faith? Technically, faith winds up being only a substitute (and lowered bar) for works which makes no theological sense to me. Salvation is always by faith, so if there was an Adamic Covenant it would have the intent of ensuring that Adam remains in the family, not setting him up for a fall. Of course, I’m ignoring any discussion of previous Covenants from eternity past to make what occurs in the Garden a necessity.
• 3) The Divine Covenants always (repeat always) make it a point for the recipient party to know the covenantal blessings that come with being part of the covenantal community. Not so the Genesis account. The blessings are not only are granted, but they carry over even outside of what usually is stated as being the breaking of the Covenant.

In fact, I think there are some really good reasons to think that what we see in Genesis 1-3 isn’t the establishment and failure of a Covenant of Works, but rather the establishment of a family via the birth of a Son:

• 1) Genesis 2 reflects something more akin to the bat’ab where the Father is immediately over his son (since he has birthed him), the son has specific obligations to the family (cf Deut 21:18–21), the Father trains the son (placing him in a garden in the midst of a non-Garden world) and the Father ultimately gets a wife for the son (who the son immediately recognizes as wife). The Father even seems to have the right to declare a death punishment on his own child (Genesis 38:24) or a curse if need be (Gen 49). But this relationship is the one that naturally occurs without a covenant.
• 2) The text goes out of its way to declare genealogical (familial) lines (Genesis 5:1 This is the written account of Adam—then speaks about Adam’s kids; Genesis 6:9 This is the account of Noah—then speaks about Noah’s kids;  Genesis 11:10 This is the account of Shem—then speaks about his kids; Genesis 25:19 This is the account of Abraham—then speaks about Isaac; Genesis 37:2 This is the account of Jacob—then speaks about his kids; Genesis 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created—then speaks about Adam and Eve.
• 3) The blessings (Genesis 1) carry over outside of the Garden and at some points are even points of contact for punishment (Gen 5, 6, 9). As children, the father naturally provides for them and they are naturally to be fruitful and fill the earth, taking over the family business. Still retaining their familial connection, they are punished when they kill their brothers, where they are incited in violence and when they refuse to restrict their own activity in regards to violence via government. Indeed, this likeness to the patriarch of the family (Lord God) winds up affecting thinking in the New Testament in the treatment of other people.
• 4) The creating of people in the image and likeness of God doesn’t merely seem to imply representation (which Covenant Theologians draw from Romans 5 to further the covenant of works position) but seems to point to a tighter relationship of parent to child. For example, when Adam later births Seth, the man doesn’t only stand as his representative but the familial blessing that is given by the father to the son—the inheritor via firstborn status (not temporal firstborn position). And in Adam’s case, we see the language that Adam became the father of a son who was in the image and likeness of Adam (Gen 5:3) and Adam named his son Seth. In the same exact way, Adam is made in the image and likeness of God and God names his son Adam. Indeed, Luke easily sees the connection when he draws up the genealogy of Christ by calling Adam the Son of God—not as mere representative, but as his Dad (Luke 3:38)

Covenant of Works in Later Scripture
So much for the near context. There are two later texts that some use to prove that there was a covenant at creation.

• 1) Jeremiah 33:20-26 speaks about the covenant of night and day. Some have (incorrectly) taken this to mean the establishment of the covenant of works. Well, the furthest they can go with this text is to establish that there is a covenant with the day and the night at their appointed times. That’s it. God established this either on the 1st Day of Creation or the 4th Day but in either case, it is speaking about the unending system that day follows night and night follows day. If the Covenant at Creation was solely that God established things with order then we wouldn’t have a problem—but people seem to make more of that then what it is.
• 2) Hosea 6:7 is also used but ignoring the serious textual issues. Is it “[At Adam] where the people have broken [the] Covenant” (cf. Josh 3:16)? Is it “[like Adam transgressed the Covenant] the people also transgressed when they broke [the] Covenant”? Is it “[Like covenant breaking men], they have broken The Covenant? Is it “But they have broken a covenant in Adam”?  Or could it be [Like Men] they have broken covenant?Well contextually, the passage is speaking about the way Ephraim/Jacob (spoken of in the third person) has proved that their loyalty is useless: here for a little bit and gone shortly later (Hose 6:4-6). It may be referring to a town where specific activity occurred but I don’t know how we can contextually justify that beyond showing that other cities are mentioned (ie: Gilead, Shechem).

  Further on (Hos 6:8-10) we see how they are acting in different spheres of activity which are all completely antithetical to their calling. Gilead is tracked with bloody footprints (of people who are wont for violence), the priests are murderers, and Israel’s house there is harlotry (likely religious) going on. We might automatically assume then the covenant being spoken of here is therefore the Mosaic covenant (ie: Exo 20:13) between the Lord God and Israel but why does Hosea avoid having God speak about the Covenant as his own, as he does elsewhere (Hos 8:1). Furthermore, we can see this sort of indictment repeated (Hos 10:4) when they make inappropriately make treaties: their covenants are empty; they speak mere words.So I think it is safer to conclude that God is referring generally about the Mosaic Covenant but specifically about Ephraim’s actions being similar to men’s activity with covenants in general. “Like men [treat covenants poorly] they have broken covenant; they dealt treacherously with me [God] (by treating me as a mere man, they offered their sacrifices while constantly disobeying me)” So the text is highly unlikely to refer to any Creation Covenant at all. As Calvin brusquely says in his commentary on Hosea:

Others explain the words thus, “They have transgressed as Adam the covenant.” But the word, Adam, we know, is taken indefinitely for men. This exposition is frigid and diluted, “They have transgressed as Adam the covenant;” that is, they have followed or imitated the example of their father Adam, who had immediately at the beginning transgressed God’s commandment. I do not stop to refute this comment; for we see that it is in itself vapid.

Is there a Covenant of Works or a Covenant of Creation in the Biblical record?
If covenant is taken to mean the establishment of order, maybe; but if it is taken with theological weight that is usually afforded to the term: explicitly No. There might be some peripheral similarities to covenantal situations in the ANE as well as in Scripture (with later Divine Constitutions (Gen 9, Gen 15, 2 Samuel 7, Jeremiah 31)) but those similarities can easily be explained by the familial relationship that makes more sense of the text as it stands. Not only is there strong evidence against a Covenant of Works, but there’s also some serious theological evidence against it skewing the whole thing more likely the imaginative fabrication of Cocceius than anything found in the text. Since the entire three chapters are rather structured as the retelling of the first family (God and his children Adam and Eve) I don’t think there’s any need to go further: what we see is the establishment of the first family and the way the relationship was broken. Every Divine Covenant seems to be aimed at fixing what was broken; bringing the family back home.

Now there have been people that have said that all of Genesis is part of the introductory formula of an ANE covenant in Deuteronomy. This would make the Genesis and early part of Exodus portion both the Historical and the Introductory portion of a formulating or presented covenant—that being the Mosaic Covenant. Genesis 1-3 may very well function in this way in the minds of the Israelites and even as solidifying the importance of what happened at Sinai but it is a far cry from seeing into this some unstated covenant in which works(instead of faith) is the ultimate means of the salvation.

I think it’s fair to consider a warning. When it comes to the promises and curses of God it is better to see the text as it stands rather than assume covenantal promises where there are none explicitly stated. We are to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God not those words which we have tried to stuff into His mouth.

Technorati Tags: adam, covenant of works, federal headship, federal theology, genesis

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Ideally (within the realm of my intended purpose of these posts; we can always conceive of something even better) there shouldn’t be a problem of illegal immigration at all. It would be great if people from other countries could come to America to better their own situation and America would comply in fulfilling that dream. As part of this openness, Americans would have a process by which aliens can come in, be given work with a proper salary that fulfilled areas that people aren’t currently jumping on board with (and still addresses the skill set of the Aliens) while offering them government sponsored health benefits which they partially pay for with some sort of tax. As part of their involvement in the country, they would also be steeped in an integration program where they are taught the lingua franca, some basics about economics (banking, smart shopping, coupons, etc), supplied some sort of housing with cultural support, with the end goal being that they become citizens. As citizens they would be afforded a basic public education (that would include college, if they want to go there) and hopefully become a productive part of American society. All of that would be ideal.

Realistically all of that wouldn’t be perfectly possible in a fallen world. Cultural support neighborhoods might look more like the ethnic barrios we have now. Realistically, I think that America should have a public health plan that offsets the costs of emergency room visits by illegal aliens via offering a public health plan for all aliens and people who can’t afford health insurance. In this way, the undocumented aliens would still hit the hospitals but the costs have been curbed by addressing all the other people who also hit the hospitals instead of doctors or clinics. I think there should be some sort of background check process for undocumented aliens to see if these folk are criminals before trying to integrate them in society. I think that companies should have a citizen integration program that allows them to hire undocumented workers to perform what they need doing at a wage-to-skill equivalent pay grade but with a program that similarly looks at making these folk Americans.

Christians though should think realistically about all this since I don’t think that the problem of illegal immigration will be properly addressed at the governmental level without hurting loads of people. I think that a lot of this sort of thinking should come from American Christians.

So, I think that it is up to the Christian’s conscience if he will hire the illegal alien or not, but if he does hire one (against the state’s laws), he better be paying the person how he would pay an American, be concerned for the alien’s health, and be concerned about getting the alien to become documented. The American Christian should be seeking to integrate this person while respecting their culture, constantly reflecting the Gospel imperative with the balm of loving one’s neighbor—even these distant neighbors. A Christian in a different situation, who sees that there’s someone hiring undocumented workers and mistreating them, should be similarly concerned for them and (I say this carefully) report the person who is mistreating the aliens. I don’t think this reporting should be done blindly though. I think that the Christian should first speak to the aliens (and their managers), get to know them, speak to them about the importance of getting documented and of getting away from the mistreatment. It may be that the situation will be dealt with by the employer himself. It might not.

The point is that American Christians should be concerned about this in the national level, be willing to act on their conviction, and concerned enough to seek to properly reflect how the nation looks like under the Lordship of Christ. There’s a fair amount of nationalism in my statement but it is a nationalism that is Christ centered—that seeks the betterment of others and the best representation of itself in the now only insofar as it hinges its existence on the resurrected Christ. Of course the nation will not achieve this on its own because it is not Christian, so each Christian will have to deal with each illegal immigration situation personally and in the place that they have been found.

This post has concessions, concerns and qualifications; but it’s all fraught with the problems of looking through a dirty window. We’re mired in sin so any solution won’t be pat and proper.

In other words, this is a tough spot. At this side of eternity Christians will have to choose between choices in the grey that are very much sullied with of sin. Sometimes Christians will have to choose between supporting a war and allowing attacks on citizens; sometimes Christians will have to choose between denying an alien citizenship and denying the government the right to send the alien home.

As for me, I started this whole thing thinking I wouldn’t have any suggestions of what we should be doing and at the other side of it; I have suggestions and the kernel of a conviction forming. I think the importance of the image of God should inform a lot of our thinking on this issue; and yet I also think that the importance of individual conscience and vocation is something not to be shrugged aside with blanket statements (be it about the image of God or about the mandate to obey governments or whatever).

I encourage you to look over the rest of the series, examine the passages that I cite and, God willing, offer your own thoughts. Perhaps, the Lord will use you to work on me. Or vice versa. Either way, think through it.

I wound up summarizing my series on illegal immigration with some of the solutions consisting of public policy implemented at the governmental level and then some vocational wisdom that is likely the only real world activity we can practically implement. The problem with some of solutions I gave is in what I didn’t say resulting in making some of the solutions the moral superior ideal even though I noticed they technically aren’t.

The problem point is found in the second paragraph: I listed government sponsored health benefits, public education, government programs to train with banking, and public housing with cultural support. Why is this situation listed as ideal? What makes it morally superior?

When I wrote later on about American Christians reflecting a proper nationalism that consists of a version of society that reflects the Gospel within that society, it was apparent that what I saw as ideal was that society was participating in the activity that made it in its entirety be the best version of itself. But the fallacy is found in concluding that this means that this is implemented at the governmental level.

In other words: a public solution isn’t morally superior to a private one at all.

For example, if the government said that there was to be a public health plan for illegal aliens, public schooling funded by tax dollars, and public training for education and yet every single person under the purview of this mythical government hated illegal aliens and only did this to not have to deal with their smell or worse, to prepare them all for a private execution, would their action on the public level be morally justified? Yeah, I know that’s ridiculous but the point is that if something isn’t going on at the private level that doesn’t automatically make the public level good.

This is most obviously seen when you invert it. If a private institution is supporting all its members for their good that doesn’t make the public government the private institution belongs to morally good in the policies that it implements.

And yes, I know that I started the summarizing post with the point that we can always conceive of something better—but this doesn’t have to do with that. This has to do with the fallacy of assuming that only the governmental programs way would be the ideal when I could have easily envisioned a way that Americans would do everything I said in the post at the private level and still be morally good while reflecting the best version of America available.

I’m going to tack this on to the end of that summarizing post to clear up any confusion there.

Technorati Tags: immigration, politics

Bookmark It

Hide Sites