http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=5295
Should Christians Favor Accepting Syrian Refugees?
The recent civil war in Syria, involving the Assad regime and various
radical Islamic rebel elements and factions—both Sunni and Shiite
(Seale, 2012; “Syrian Refugees…,” 2012; Cloud and Abdulrahim, 2013;
“Migrant Crisis…,” 2015; “Kingdom Slams…,” 2015) has resulted in
millions of Syrian Muslims fleeing their homeland. This circumstance has
sparked a considerable discussion among Americans and the world
regarding the propriety of refusing to receive refugees into one’s home
country. Setting politics and other considerations aside, the
Christian’s primary concern is to ascertain
God’s will on such a matter. What does
He want Christians to do in response to this “humanitarian” crisis?
The only way to know God’s will on any subject is to go to the only
resource on the planet that contains that will—the Bible. What is God’s
will regarding accepting refugees and immigrants from other countries?
Interestingly, the only civil law code in human history authored by God
Himself is the Law of Moses. When one cares to examine everything the
Bible says about treatment of “strangers” under the Law of Moses, it is
quickly evident that the #1 concern of God in the acceptance of
foreigners into one’s country is
their moral, religious, and spiritual condition. That is, God was vitally concerned about the
spiritual
impact the foreigners would have on Israel’s ability to remain loyal to
Him, untainted by moral and religious contamination. Hence, God issued
several civil decrees that strictly regulated the acceptance of
foreigners into Israelite society. Among other strictures, foreigners
were required to:
-
observe the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; Deuteronomy 5:14)
-
be excluded from Passover (Exodus 12:43,45—unless the foreigner was willing to naturalize via circumcision [Exodus 12:48])
-
refrain from eating blood (Leviticus 17:12)
-
abstain from sexual immorality, including homosexuality, bestiality, incest, and adultery (Leviticus 18:26)
-
not blaspheme the name of God (Leviticus 24:16,22)—an offense that at one time was upheld by American courts (e.g., in People v. Ruggles,
the New York State Supreme Court declared: “Blasphemy against God, and
contumelious reproaches, and profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy
Scriptures, are offenses punishable at the common law, whether uttered
by words or writings.”)
For those who (1) believe in God and trust God, and (2) understand that
His directives in the civil law code given to the Israelites were “holy
and just and good” (Romans 7:12; cf. Psalm 19:7-11; Psalm
119:72,77,97,113,142,163), then such directives—which emanated from the
mind of Deity—carry great weight in sorting out the current discussion
regarding the acceptance of foreign refugees.
It would seem that foreigners who immigrated to Israel were not
required by God to convert to Judaism. However, they were strictly
forbidden from engaging in any religious practices that were deemed
unacceptable according to God’s will. For example, one of the religious
precepts practiced by the Canaanite peoples of Ammon and Phoenicia was
to offer their children as a propitiatory sacrifice to their god Molech.
Such a false religious practice was an abomination to God. He demanded
that the death penalty be invoked for such conduct (Leviticus 18:21).
Religious freedom did not extend to an Ammonite immigrant to the extent
that he was allowed to practice his religion on this point; he was to be
executed if he did (Leviticus 20:2).
Contemplate the following scenario. Suppose in ancient Israel the
Moabites attacked the Ammonites, or the Ammonites themselves experienced
an internal political upheaval, causing thousands of Ammonite refugees
to flee north, west, or south to the corresponding transjordanic tribal
lands of Manasseh, Gad, and Reuben (see map on previous page). Would God
have insisted that godly love for neighbors would require that the
Israelites take them in?
The relevant passages indicate that God would not have wanted them received unconditionally.
He would not have sanctioned a massive influx of pagan peoples into the
heart of Israelite society, bringing their immoralities and false
religion with them, with no safeguards or means by which to protect the
moral and spiritual health of the Israelites. Further, what Ammonite
would
want to come to Israel where he would not be
allowed to practice his religion, and where the morals and customs of
the people would contradict his own? One could only imagine that
Ammonites would not want to be subjected to such rigid moral conditions.
However, they most certainly
would want to come if
they discovered that they could retain their evil religious practices,
get welfare money from the Israelites, and locate in such numbers that
they could take over local city government and schools.
The Founders
The Founders of the American Republic possessed precisely the same
concerns. To them, “freedom” did not mean permission to engage in any
practice deemed by
Christian standards to be immoral or
threatening to the Christian community. Consider, for example,
prominent Founder Gouverneur Morris, who served as a Lieutenant Colonel
in the New York State militia, was a member of the Continental Congress,
signing both the
Articles of Confederation and the
U.S. Constitution,
served as America’s Minister Plenipotentiary to France during the
notorious French Revolution (1792-1794), and also served in the U.S.
Senate. Though the French sought to establish a Republic like America,
Morris’ observations of French life, which he witnessed firsthand, led
him to believe the population of France was incapable of governing
themselves and creating a Republic like we enjoy. Why? Among other
concerns, he saw very little evidence of worship of the true God, and
with an air of regret, he observed: “I do not yet perceive that
reformation of morals
without which liberty is but an empty sound”
(Morris, 1888, 2:7-8, emp. added). As the storm clouds of the
Revolution were gathering over France, writing from Paris in 1789, he
explained:
The materials for a revolution in this country are very indifferent. Everybody agrees that there is an utter prostration of morals—but this general position can never convey to the American mind the degree of depravity…. The great mass of the people have no religion but their priests, no law but their superiors, no morals
but their interest.... Paris is perhaps as wicked a spot as exists.
Incest, murder, bestiality, fraud, rapine, oppression, baseness,
cruelty;…every bad passion exerts its peculiar energy. How the conflict
will terminate Heaven knows. Badly I fear; that is to say, in slavery
(1:68-69,200-201, emp. added).
He concluded that the French were “a nation not yet fitted by education
and habit for the enjoyment of freedom” (1:109). Consequently, the
Founders did not encourage immigration from such countries whose
population would seriously undermine the underpinnings of the American
Republic. [NOTE: For another example among many, see the opinion of the
State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in
Commonwealth v. Nesbit in 1859 which declared the attitude of the Founders and the nation as a whole in its utter rejection of pagan morality.]
The vast majority of the Syrian refugees are Muslims. They do not share
Christian values in several key, critical points (including polygamy,
treatment of women, and severing limbs as punishment—Miller, 2005, pp.
177ff.,192-197). Muslim enclaves already in America, like those in
several European countries, gradually transform their neighborhoods into
Islamic strongholds where Sharia law is applied (Gaffney, 2015;
Hickford, 2015; Hohmann, 2015; James, 2014; Kern, 2015a; Kern, 2015b;
Bailey, 2015; Selk, 2015a; Selk, 2015b; Sheikh, 2015, Spencer, 2014).
Though it may take many years, gradual encroachment on American culture
due to “immigration jihad” will conceivably transform the U.S. into an
Islamic nation. The Founders so designed the Republic that the citizens
govern themselves. Hence, the moral, spiritual, and religious condition
of the majority of citizens ultimately determines which politicians are
installed on every level of government, what laws are made, and what
content the teachers will teach in public schools. In short, the influx
of Muslims will radically transform American civilization. Such an
observation hardly constitutes racism or hate speech.
Good Samaritan?
But what about the “Good Samaritan”? Shouldn’t Christians show compassion?
Most certainly. But how? What does
God
expect in such a situation? The story of the Good Samaritan pertains to
individuals treating other individuals kindly. It does not refer to
God’s will regarding the immigration policies of nations. On the
contrary, God expressed His will with regard to immigration in His civil
law code He gave to the Israelites. Further, when the Good Samaritan
rendered aid to the stranger he encountered, he saw to his immediate
needs (Luke 10:33-35). This attention did not entail transporting the
man to the Samaritan’s own country or home—many miles away.
Many political and religious disturbances occur in many countries of
the world and have for thousands of years. America has long rendered
assistance to a host of needy peoples of various countries. Yet
Christian compassion does not—in God’s sight—necessitate bringing large
numbers of displaced peoples to America without suitable regard for the
potential moral and spiritual threat to the health, safety, and future
of the nation. There is nothing in the Bible that would lead us to
believe that refusing refugees into the country is a violation of the
Bible principle of compassion and concern for others. Should the good
Samaritan have taken into his home a complete stranger without regard to
the man’s moral and religious condition? Should he have jeopardized the
safety of his own wife and children when he left to continue his
business, as the text says he did? The Bible, in fact, teaches that we
have just as much responsibility to be kind and benevolent to ourselves,
our families, and our fellow citizens as we do to peoples of other
countries (Matthew 22:39; Ephesians 5:25,28). Is God, Himself, guilty of
violating His own benevolent nature when He placed restrictions on
immigrants and refugees to Israel? Clearly, carte blanche reception of
refugees into one’s own country does not trump all other
considerations—not the least of which is the spiritual impact of that
reception.
A far more rational, appropriate solution would be to assist the
refugees with returning to their own country, or other Muslim countries,
by interceding on their behalf, whether diplomatically or militarily,
to right the wrongs being inflicted on them by their persecutors. There
is nothing about Christianity that necessitates relocating foreigners to
America who possess conflicting—and counterproductive—moral and
religious values.
So the question of receiving refugees into the U.S. is not about
“compassion,” benevolence, or Christian kindness. After all, America
leads the world
in providing the greatest amount of humanitarian assistance in the
Syrian refugee crisis (Chorley, 2015). Rather, in keeping with God’s own
assessment of nations, the key, all-encompassing issue that our
national leaders ought to be taking into consideration is: what will be
the moral and religious impact with the entrance of these peoples, and
will their presence over the long term affect the ability of America to
retain its unique and historically unparalleled status? Indeed, will the
moral and religious syncretism, that will inevitably result from such
decisions, enable the God of the Bible to continue to bless America?
REFERENCES
Bailey, Sarah (2015), “In the First Majority-Muslim U.S. City, Residents Tense About Its Future,”
The Washington Post, November 21, https://goo.gl/KW5KMc.
Chorley, Matt (2015), “British Aid to Refugees Smashes Through
£1BILLION as Cameron Boasts UK is Spending More Than Any EU Country,”
Daily Mail, September 4, http://goo.gl/Srf17S.
Cloud, David and Raja Abdulrahim (2013), “U.S. Has Secretly Provided Arms Training to Syria Rebels Since 2012,”
Los Angeles Times, June 21,
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/21/world/la-fg-cia-syria-20130622.
Commonwealth v. Nesbit (1859), Pa. 398; 1859 Pa. LEXIS 240.
Gaffney, Frank (2015), “Sharia Shaping a New Europe,” Secure Freedom Radio Podcasts, Center for Security Policy, September 21,
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/09/21/sharia-shaping-a-new-europe/.
Hickford, Michele (2015), “Already Here: Meet America’s FIRST Muslim Majority City,” Allenbwest.com, November 22,
http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/11/already-here-meet-americas-first-muslim-majority-city/.
Hohmann, Leo (2015), “Major U.S. City Poised to Implement Islamic Law,”
July 23,
http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/major-u-s-city-poised-to-implement-islamic-law/#c23Cxzir1klfk84R.99.
James, Dean (2014), “Christians Win Big Lawsuit Against Muslim Thugs in
Dearborn, Michigan!” America’s Freedom Fighters, March 24,
http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/03/24/christians-win-big-lawsuit-against-muslim-thugs-in-dearborn-michigan/.
Kern, Soeren (2015a), “European ‘No-Go’ Zones: Fact or Fiction? Part 1:
France,” Gatestone Institute, January
20http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5128/france-no-go-zones.
Kern, Soeren (2015b), “European ‘No-Go’ Zones: Fact or Fiction? Part 2: Britain,” Gatestone Institute, February 3,
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5177/no-go-zones-britain.
“Kingdom Slams Racism Against Muslim Refugees” (2015),
Arab News, November 25,
http://www.arabnews.com/featured/news/840761.
“Migrant Crisis: One Million Enter Europe in 2015” (2015),
BBC News, December 22,
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35158769.
Miller, Dave (2005),
The Quran Unveiled (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Morris, Anne Cary, ed. (1888),
The Diary and Letters of Gouverneur Morris (New York: Charles Scribners’ Sons).
People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290 (N.Y. 1811).
Seale, Patrick (2012), “What Is Really Happening in Syria?”
Washington Report, August, 17-18,
http://www.wrmea.org/2012-august/what-is-really-happening-in-syria.html.
Selk, Avi (2015a), “Irving City Council Backs State Bill Muslims Say Targets Them,”
The Dallas Morning News, March 19,
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20150319-dispute-on-islam-roils-irving.ece.
Selk, Avi (2015b), “Irving Muslims Join Voter Rolls in Record Numbers,”
The Dallas Morning News, May 10,
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/local-politics/20150510-irving-muslims-join-voter-rolls-in-record-numbers.ece.
Sheikh, Zia (2015), “Islamic Center of Irving Statement Regarding ‘Shariah Court’,” Islamic Center of Irving,
http://irvingmasjid.org/index.php/ici-statement-regarding-sharia-court.
Spencer, Robert (2014), “Dearborn: Muslim at City Council Meeting Calls
for Sharia Patrols, Restriction on Free Speech,” JihadWatch, February
22,
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/02/dearborn-muslim-at-city-council-meeting-calls-for-sharia-patrols-restriction-on-free-speech.
“Syrian Refugees Flood into Turkey” (2012),
The Telegraph, March 13,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9141678/Syrian-refugees-flood-into-Turkey.html.
The
politically correct climate of American culture is characterized by a
host of self-contradictory and nonsensical viewpoints. One example is
the way the left is vociferous in its support and defense of the spread
of Islam via the construction of mosques and permission to teach about
Islam in public schools. The left quickly steps forward and loudly
condemns anyone who would dare to raise a finger of concern about the
impact of Islam on the American way of life.
Q:
Rarely
(if ever) have I read the words “genealogy” and “exciting” in the same
sentence. It seems most people consider the genealogies of Christ as
some of the Bible’s dullest reading. They frequently are described as
boring, dry, and monotonous—full of “begets” that many would just as
soon “forget.” In reality, however, exciting pearls of truth often are
overlooked. One of these truths that escapes the reader who simply skims
(or skips) the genealogies is the virgin birth of Christ.
In a September 2016 New Scientist article titled “Can We Ever Know If God Exists?”
