Obviously, I have no expertise on this topic. I am no lawyer, politician, or historian. I am not a big picture type thinker, or a grand scale problem solver. That’s not my goal.
I’m not going to give a survey of the history of U.S. immigration, because that gets into the debates of our origin, and those are for another time.
The phrase “third way” has developed from groups of believers that feel “politically homeless” or even “religiously homeless” in light of recent events. Due to increasing polarization between conservatives/progressives/liberals or Democrats/Republicans, many proposed solutions are seen as insufficient. Conclusions are not as simple as a platform or this or that policy. So a “third way” shows that we belong to Jesus’ kingdom, and we answer to His sense of morality/ethics, His law of love, not necessarily what works best for any other group or agenda.
(Note: Tim Keller has recently posted about how this is technically a “fourth way,” since “third options” are usually a compromise between left or right sides of the spectrum. A consistently Christian approach is no compromise. It exists, as Keller proposes, off the spectrum and answers to no one but Jesus.)
This kind of thinking is ripe with tension for the believer. It’s not easy. There are no simple solutions, but we have to be okay with this. It requires listening to those around us, thinking outside our own echo chambers (whether a favorite news channel, a group of friends, or the worst—just our own minds), and applying biblical ethics in an ever changing culture.
The topic of immigration allows us to see this tension. Again, I have no stats. I haven’t been to “the border.” And even if I had, I would only be one other eye witness. Hundreds of people have thousands of perspectives of the “immigration crisis,” based on their own biases.
So let’s start easy. Do I want tons and tons of illegal drugs flooding through the nation? Absolutely not. I understand the opioid problem (though probably not to its fullest extent). Do I want to pay more taxes than “required,” because we have more people living in the country than registered? Not exactly. Yea, that’s pretty frustrating. Can we compare demographics regarding crime in cities and who commits them and debate the dangers of immigration? Sure. The presence of crime and dangers as a result of illegal immigration are a real threat.
Do I have any answers? Absolutely not. I already conceded that. I get the benefit of being a living room quarterback and critiquing everyone else’s proposals. And this is where the “third” or “fourth” way comes into play.
What is my standard for finding solutions? What would be my primary goals anyway? And do my goals as a follower of Jesus always align with (or are they sometimes in tension with) the goals of the state?
Something to chew on.
The state has goals of protecting its citizens. I firmly support that goal, though I am still in a position to critique the chosen methods. Yes, I want drugs to be minimal, crime to be minimal, and safety/security/prosperity of the country to be maximized.
But my highest goal is not to honor the state. My priority is the kingdom. I’ve lost count of how many passages discuss loving the foreigner, the outcast, the poor. I will argue for keeping families together at any and all cost. It’s biblical and follows the law of love.
How can I do both? Most of the time it’s easy. I can vote certain ways. I can have conversations that honor all people. But there may be a time when tension surfaces, and I have to speak up for those in need. Those who are made in God’s image. Even those who also belong to the kingdom.
The state has its role. I believe in it, and I support it. But when it either dishonors its intended function or oversteps into the kingdom’s domain, I have higher priorities. Jesus is king.
No comments:
Post a Comment