In 1973, Jean Raspail published a novel The Camp of the Saints, about Muslim immigrants overrunning Europe. Another novel had a similar theme, this one by Charles Williams, but I don’t remember which one. Since I read that book it has been lo, these many years — but enough years to make Williams seem really prescient in my fogged memory. The title of Raspail’s book is taken from Revelation 20:9, which gives you some idea of his slant on the whole thing.
Refugees and immigrants are in the news again, this time because of Syria. Presented with this problem — almost entirely of our own making — we divide into two hostile political factions. One says that of course we should take in the refugees, you heartless beasts, and the other asks if the first group is crazy, because what about the terrorists?
But there is a third group — I am among them — that says that if these are the judgments of God, then there is no political solution. Every experienced counselor knows what it is like to be giving advice to someone, knowing that no advice whatever will be of any help to him. The reason for this is that the counselee’s only hope is to stop being him.
What should “we” do about the refugees? Should “we” extend hospitality? Or should “we” be firm and say no, we can’t risk it? Both sides have a point. Our feckless foreign policy created the refugee column, and so doesn’t that mean we have to take in the refugees? But the opposition has a point when it says that if we admit tens of thousands of Syrian refugees, there will be terrorists in their ranks, and we don’t want a replay of Paris here. Both sides are right, which means that neither side has the solution.
So then, the first question to ask is, “Who are ‘we?'” The reason this is not a “camp of the saints” scenario is that we are not the saints. Because we have turned away from the biblical foundation for law, our remaining liberties are largely diseased. We now talk about liberty as though it were a subsidized housing shelter for pot-smokers and fornicators.
Of course a healthy society has nothing to fear from immigrants. A free society is therefore one with open borders. So in the abstract, the question is easy enough to settle biblically.
“One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you” (Ex. 12:49).
“But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God” (Lev. 19:34).
A healthy society has nothing to fear from immigrants but — and this is the rub — we are not a healthy society. And that means that if we say yes to the influx, they will pour in and we will not be able to assimilate them — we will become Dearbornistan. But if we say no, and build the Great Wall of Trump, we will find at the end of the day that walls can be used to keep people in as well as out. The Berlin Wall was not meant to discourage excessive tourism from the West. The Berlin Wall did keep out Mexicans, but that is not what it was for.
The problem with our immigrants is not the fact that they are coming, but rather what they are coming to. Some of them are coming to a long retold story of what America used to be. Some of them, like the terrorists, are coming the way diseases are attracted to a person with immune system deficiencies. Many of them are old fashioned refugees, fleeing persecution and death. But regardless of what they think they are coming to, they are actually coming to a nation that has lost its way. They are coming to a nation that has rejected Christ, and so whatever they think they are doing, they are not coming to a place of blessing.
If you are the tail and not the head, then whatever it is that is happening is no good (Deut. 28: 13, 44). If you are the head and not the tail, then it is simply a blessing when people are attracted to it. Let them come. The queen of Sheba came, and the spirit went out of her when she saw it. But what is necessary for that to happen? You must “hearken unto the commandments of the Lord thy God, which I command thee this day, to observe and to do them.” And to ask, eyes darting left and right, if there mightn’t be any other solution apart from such repentance is like asking if we could please have salvation without a Savior, forgiveness without a cross, deliverance without a God. We want to be saved from drowning but don’t want to leave the bottom of the pond. It doesn’t work that way.
And so this is why it is irrelevant to ask if you are in favor of letting them “in” or keeping them “out.” The pressing need is for us to settle some other questions first. Into what? Out of what?
Well said
I think you mean Shadows of Ecstacy. Never re-read that one and don’t remember it very well either.
How interesting! I love The Place of the Lion, and didn’t dislike Descent into Hell too much, but I bounced hard off of the beginning of War in Heaven, and haven’t read more Williams than that (though I have reread Lion a few times).
War in Heaven ended up being my favorite but it did take a false start or two before I got into it. Williams gets evil and conveys it better than his buddies and that’s saying something.
I may have to give it another try. :)
I still adore how weird, haunting, scary, and amazingly beautiful the Forms invading our world are in Lion, though.
As now, so then. If a godly church has an immigrant outreach ministry, then they will reach out minister to these people and some will shortly be converted to Christ. Problem is few godly churches consciously reach out to immigrants and refugees.
The issue is complicated, since giving assistance to lawbreakers who have little chance of ever assimilating and being productive in society only encourages them to stay and continue expropriating from the native population.
What percentage of the refugees are lawbreakers?
No one knows for sure, but those who have observed closely in Europe say
1) 70% of “refugees” are able-bodied young men
2) Refugees are instructed to fake medical conditions, avoid fingerprints and evade the law
3) Some refugees have trashed areas where they hang out
Yeah that seems like a not very empirical answer to the question.
In Islam, Dar-al-Harb is a thing and Europe is in it; so is America.
The “70% of refugees are able-bodied young men” was shown to be false. It is true that 69% of refugees coming by boat have been men, but that’s only by counting all men, not specifically able-bodied young men, and only if you only count boats, the most dangerous way to enter and one that women and families often avoid. If you count all refugees entering Europe, the majority have been women and children. As far as faking medical conditions or avoiding fingerprints, if you understand the American process for refugees, you’d see that that’s clearly impossible in our case. Refugees… Read more »
So the MSM throws around some stats, so they must be true? Here’s a first-hand account, complete with plenty of pictures. And we can’t screen for jihadists (current of future).
http://www.dangerandplay.com/2015/11/14/the-syrian-refugee-crisis-and-paris-shooting/
You read Danger and Play? Did you see a while back where Mike Cernovich went on Twitter and attacked the left-wing Jewish “movie star” Seth Rogen for his hatred of Christianity and white people, and then Rogen attacked him back? So Mike says “Hey, Seth, you’re a fat loser with marriage problems whose wife won’t f*** him.” And not too long after that, Rogen’s wife went on Twitter and said “I may not want to f*** Seth, but I’d sure like to f*** Mike Cernovich.” It was pretty wild. (And I’m pretty sure Mike knows the truth about Sandy Hook.)… Read more »
Danger and Play? Seth Rogen hates that guy. But Rogen’s wife seems to disagree. http://www.returnofkings.com/73146/will-boycottthenightbefore-and-cuckrogen-lead-to-the-end-of-seth-rogens-career-and-marriage
The ugliness of the manosphere never ceases to amaze me. Is one following Christ or is one following the red pills?
Those are the official UN numbers, who confirms every refugee coming in. If they didn’t come in via the UN, they don’t even have refugee status. If you seriously think that pictures that one guy took of a few dozen people somehow proves something, then there’s no point in continuing the discussion. Those men may have just come in on a boat – which, as we said, are 70% men. Or he might have simply only taken photos where men were waiting – because, like he said, he went there with an agenda. If you don’t think screening is possible,… Read more »
Care to tell us why letting Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik into our country via your wonderful, effective, totally awesome “screening process” is a good idea?
Also, where are you getting your talking points?
In regards to Syed Farook, we generally have to let people in who are born to US residents.
Ok, why then the other two?
Syed Rizwan Farook was born right here in the USA. No one screened him or “let him into our country”, though I can see how you might suggest that since he’s the wrong color or has a funny name for you. You have absolutely no cause to blame refugees for that one – the problem lies squarely within our own borders. In fact, one of the victims who died was a refugee from Iran who came here 40 years ago when she was 18 and had been a wonderful contribution to our country until she was shot down by that… Read more »
though I can see how you might suggest that since he’s the wrong color or has a funny name for you.
He is muslim. He practiced Jihad.
As for his wife, I can tell you right now that the USA is not about to
ban marriage visas for people marrying native-born US citizens.
I don’t care.
I can already tell you how many were due to refugees: absolutely zero.
Your distinction between “refugees” and “Jihadist” is absurd. You are unconvincing.
I don’t even understand what you’re trying to argue. Are you saying that because he is a jihadist, he is a refugee? Or that there’s no distinction between jihadists and refugees?
He was a US citizen, born in the USA. Therefore, not a refugee.
Answer my question please. Where do you get your talking points?
Islam is the problem . Importing Muslims imports Islam, It is a murderous faith that is at war with everthing not in their ‘house’.
Now you have home-grown jihad. Born and raised and you use this as a reason to import more muslims.
Answer my question please. Where do you get your talking points?
I’ve never gotten my “talking points” from anyone. I do my best to live and advocate for a life in obedience to the God of Jesus Christ. Now, answer my question please. For the 350 or whatever mass shootings (where 4 or more people were hit) that have occurred this year, you want to hazard a guess as to how many were due to immigrants and how many were due to native-born citizens? You want to guess how many were due to people of Muslim heritage? And since American Muslims are by and large not radicalized (less than 200 Americans… Read more »
For the 350 or whatever mass shootings (where 4 or more people were hit)
that have occurred this year, you want to hazard a guess as to how many
were due to immigrants and how many were due to native-born citizens?
You want to guess how many were due to people of Muslim heritage?
Where do you get your factoids. That is my question. Did you do this research yourself? If not, what are your sources. If you did, what is your methodology?
Once that is settled, then we can discuss the nature of Islam.
My main source of issues that I think are worth commenting on and my positions on those issues are what I read and understand of God’s heart as shown to us by our Lord Jesus Christ. It’s been almost 17 years now since I turned towards God and chose to follow Him, and more than 16.5 years since I realized that He should have total authority over every part of my life. Because of that commitment, I have felt it absolutely necessary to spend my time engrossed in God’s word with the specific question of what it means for my… Read more »
That is very nice of you. Thank you for taking the time. You are obviously well-meaning and earnest.
I was only referring to those who cross the border without going through the proper channels. That’s breaking the law.
So, does your church actively reach out to any immigrants?
Not that I know of. It’s a fairly small and insular church. We have a lot of large home school families with dads trying to put food on the table in a bad economy, so that’s not a priority, nor, in my opinion, should it be.
Ben, they are breaking a law that is inherently unjust. Unjust according to what standard, you may ask?? The Holy Bible.
Ex. 12:49 ; Lev 19:34
I agree that it’s unjust for the government to restrict travel, as it does not legitimately own property and therefore has no such authority, but it’s even more unjust for them to invite unfriendly and unproductive people from far off lands to join them in their expropriation of the productive within their jurisdiction.
I myself was thinking about getting out of this diseased place pretty soon. America aint the kind of place to raise your kids. In fact its cold as hell. Not sure why a bunch of middle-easterners want to set up shop here. Maybe its the lack of giant insects.
Because those Middle Eastern countries, to put it as eruditely as possible, suck. They are comprised of largely backwards, traumatized, low-IQ people. As much as America sucks in many ways, there are a plethora of reasons that it’s still one of the best places in the world to raise your kids, one of them being that you can have a church service without worrying about getting shot.
You make a good point, to be sure. Still I worry also about my boys growing up daily hearing that every form of sexual licentiousness is ok, as long as all involved parties agree to it, that killing babies is ok if its a womans choice over what to do with her body, that smart people understand that we evolved from lower life forms and any claim of objective truth is just masked hatred, that their merely being born as white makes them some priveleged class that needs social punishment and shaming. Sometims I think that obvious evil like a… Read more »
I’m not quite as pessimistic regarding the encroachment of progressives into our society, and really only for one reason: money. It is not an exaggeration to say that there is literally no money for anything. Eventually our society’s debtors will realize their bad investment and will pull out, or there will be a massive hyperinflation. Either way, the system will collapse, and no amount of screeching from the left can stop it. All of their tactics will be shown to be useless in the face of hard arithmetic. When this happens, the idiots will adjust. They will accept that there… Read more »
There might be a brief period of uncontrollable rioting, but I agree with Ben that reality will force a rapid transition to life without government charity of any kind. The Church may even recover some of its abdicated societal roles, by necessity.
The point about the church recovering its crucial role in society is a good one, and It seems you could apply that same line of thinking to our foreign policy: Without money for the warfare state, our society would have to act more friendly on the world stage, and there would be a greater incentive to send missionaries to those horrible Middle Eastern countries rather than bombs.
The problem with these migrants is not that they may be terrorists, the problem is that they are not like us, do not desire to be like us, and (since Western societies are diseased) will not be required to become like us. Comparing the Berlin Wall to a wall on the Mexican border is ludicrous. In what possible world will there be hordes of Texans aching to escape into a receptive Mexico? (Mexico’s immigration and border laws are notoriously strict.) I agree that a healthy society can successfully host people truly afraid for their lives, but the way in which… Read more »
“In what possible world will there be hordes of Texans aching to escape into a receptive Mexico?”
In the possible future where the U.S. has turned into a worse place than Mexico?
And you really think Mexico will suddenly reverse its immigration policies in that situation? It’s a good premise for a sitcom but not much else.
No but why would that stop people from trying?
The problem is that you think that “us” is some monolithic assimilation of cultural and ethnic values, but in reality the “us” has always been elastic and multicultural (which is one of those bad words, but it is also just a fact of American life). I think you want to live in Scandinavia.
This lie only gained popularity in the 20th century.
Your dream on a utopia of conformity doesn’t exist and has never existed in America. Do you really think that African slaves and Native Americans had to effect on American culture? Do really believe that Asian and Irish immigrants had no effect on American culture?
Lots of things have had an effect on various cultures. That’s different from “multicultural”. A responsible government is one that provides the best possible quality of life for its subjects — and since nations are different, it’s especially rare for a single government to be able to do that for multiple cultures.
The effects that various cultures have within the American experience is an integral part of its culture. Maybe you think it’s unfortunate, but but its a fact of our history and we’ve done pretty well with its existence.
“America” isn’t a single culture (and won’t be a single political entity much longer).
Are you going to start your own “political entity”? Who can join and where will it be?
Look slightly to the left and take a guess.
Ha I’m not entirely sure I know what that means, but I’ll give it an upvote. People who own tractors?
I say we just mark off one part of the country, like Alaska or something, as a no holds barred area of anarchy in which men and women can enter into at their own risk, free from the rule of law. However, that also means that whomever is the most powerful get to make the laws, which means that there will be laws (possibly). But it’s the place to go if you don’t want to pay federal income taxes (you may still have to pay taxes, but you don’t as long as you can fend off whatever local government exists… Read more »
You could probably get Alaska to go for that if it wasn’t for all the goverment infrastucture already in place.
When classic Italian, and French, and Spanish, and Greek, etc, cultures have all given way to monochromatic Wal-martization, maybe no one will remember or care about the loss. But perhaps someday there will be another renaissance of specialization and cultivation of distinct cultures and distinct regional offerings and specialties. I don’t mean in the sense of nationalistic pride, but in the sense of generational integrity, and covenantal succession of particular blessings and talents and etiquette, passed down. Those Huguenots make the finest jeans. That sort of thing.
Secular monoculture is boring. Multiculturalism has become a uniform, pluralistic, gray goo.
This. The Florida I love has been transformed into just what you describe. There are pockets of the old wonder about it, but the urban/sub-urban landscapes are the same. Remember how the Baroque (and possibly/probably other) civic spaces where organized around the Cathedral/Church? Now, they are organized around “shopping” or ‘commerce’ . The tallest buildings are banks. Even the new Urbanism, which does some good things makes commerce its center. God help you if you live in the suburbs. I took a road trip out of my remote, well-fortified enclave in the Appalachian Redoubt to a suburb and I now… Read more »
“Those Huguenots make the finest jeans.”
Or, “those Huns know how to make a mean omelette.”
I have a feeling we could have a lot fun with this formula.
What do they make in Moscow?
Ham sammiches?
Angry feminazis!
Not particularly. Scandinavia is being overrun by barbarians.
Basic rule of survival, medieval edition: be where the barbarians ain’t
Payback’s a…..thing.
It certainly will be, once the Scandinavians remember they used to be Vikings.
I wish you would define this mystical “us”. Who are “we”? Do you have to be a white Protestant Christian from the British Isles to qualify? Do your ancestors have to have arrived at least 300 years ago? Is an Italian Catholic part of “us”?
Naturally there’s a variety of groupings one can use. Families are made of people — nations contain many families; Christendom or “Western civilisation” contains many nations. Point is, whichever definition one wishes to use, Muslims from North Africa and the Middle East aren’t included. I do think Italian Catholics and British Protestants are more likely to get along if they aren’t trying to rule each other, but that’s a secondary issue.
What definition of “us” includes Native Americans, Africans, Chinese….but doesn’t include Middle Eastern Muslims? Middle Eastern Muslims share more cultural/religious heritage with White Europeans than those three groups do…and yet all three of those groups had a significant part in forming America.
Well, Islam invading and conquering Christendom back in the day followed by their expulsion by Christians could be considered ” Middle Eastern Muslims share more cultural/religious heritage with White Europeans”.
“In what possible world will there be hordes of Texans aching to escape into a receptive Mexico? ”
One in which Texans are arrested for preaching Romans 1? One in which Texan county clerks are arrested for refusing to issue marriage licenses to two chicks?
I know those things are ludicrous and could never happen, but …
He means Camp of the Saints and it is a disturbing book. Just as no battle plan survives first contact intact, here liberalism does not survive full implementation of its ideals vis a vis immigration intact.
Since it depicts the utter failure of the bleeding heart set to solve the intractable immigration issue, it has been labeled by the SPLC as an immigration version of the Turner Diaries.
I posted this on the wrong thread by accident. Here it is: Um, I’m not sure how to say this diplomatically, so I’m just going to say it. This post is pretty idiotic. It’s political correctness gone mad. It’s downright insane, or incredibly stupid, to say that a healthy society has nothing to fear from terrorists coming in as refugees: But the opposition has a point when it says that if we admit tens of thousands of Syrian refugees, there will be terrorists in their ranks, and we don’t want a replay of Paris here. Of course a healthy society… Read more »
Pastor Wilson, I find this essay odd and hard to understand. Yes there are messes that need to be cleaned up here in America, but were I a Syrian refugee hoping to get my family away from ISIS and Assad’s barrel bombs I doubt I’d have the patience for a discussion about the dangers of pornography. The question of who gets visas and who doesn’t is one that will not wait for us to get our house in order (which may never happen because maybe we never had our house in order). And when did Christians become so afraid of… Read more »
A favourite leftist rhetorical ploy. “If you don’t do <thing I want> then it’s because you’re cowardly.”
I agree. As somebody whose default mode is to long for my off-grid place in the woods and have a gunfight with any who would threaten me and mine, I must constantly remind myself that that is not a biblical way of thinking. We are supposed to be willing to give our lives for the Gospel if need be. The cause of our God is greater than ourselves, our families and our jobs. We are supposed to be willing to go to countries like Syria and share the Gospel with members of isis and beg the Lord to “forgive them… Read more »
Is that what you would have told Charles Martel or the defenders of Vienna?
I wouldn’t tell anybody in a life or death situation what to do with their own life. It just seems like one of the Bible’s difficult teachings that is tucked away from sight because it’s unpleasant. We are supposed to put the glorification of God above all. In the NT, it seems like that usually means becoming a martyr. I’m not saying I like it, but that is what I see. I don’t think 10,000 refugees will do more to usurp this nation’s greatness anymore than the left is doing. And I understand that I wouldn’t be so accommodating if… Read more »
We are in a life or death situation. The choices being made today determine what battles our children and grandchildren will have to face.
You’re correct that progressivism is the real enemy, though — this is just the latest iteration of the 500-year long civil war.
500 years?
If one counts from the English Civil War.
Similar to Ashv’s point: the Great Commission doesn’t preclude nations defending themselves or maintaining a non-suicidal foreign policy.
If America is so fragile that Syrian refugees can topple it Then perhaps we should just move to Canada.
Take off, eh? :)
That made me laugh. Really hard.
Sure: if you can lift a brick, you can lift a house, and everyone can lift a brick. If you can’t lift a house, might as well turn in your man card now.
It’s not about manhood. It’s about whether or not we as a nation will be generous or not. If we’re going to claim to be a “Christian nation” it seems a little bit silly to turn around and declare that there just isn’t any room left for potential victims of genocide. We’re all doing Christmas shopping. Do we really have to little to share?
Well, first, America in its present iteration is by no means a Christian nation. So that should take a weight off your shoulders. Second, I don’t think that the virtue of charity implies bringing an evidently endless mob of foreigners into our communities. In fact, to me charity dictates the opposite. Since sufficient diversity in sufficient proximity inevitably leads to violence, to make that our national policy is worse than folly – it’s unkind.
We don’t need to accept an endless mob of foreigners. We should accept some foreigners though. And while I agree with you that the USA isn’t a Christian nation I think it’s sad that a good portion of this countries Christians are the ones advocating hardest to send the refugees somewhere else. The church should be ready and willing to open its doors to refugees. I can think of a dozen reasons why refugees might not be good for America. But none of those reasons sound to me like Biblicaly sound justifications for shutting the door. To me it’s like… Read more »
I would like to know in what way you want “America” to be charitable. Because its one thing for individuals to, say, invite a foreigner into their homes out of pity. For the government to force the foreigners on people is, to me, a different matter requiring stronger justification.
Is “if we don’t let them in they’ll be crucified or left in massive tent cities for decades” not justification enough? Add in the fact that America hasn’t exactly been Switzerland when it comes to Middle Eastern excursions. Iraq’s current situation is at least partly our nations fault, no?
I don’t think the mere existence of sadness and problems elsewhere means we have to do anything in particular. Recall, will you, that Iraq was a horrible, widely impoverished place ruled by a rotten tyrant before we got there. It’s not as though we have a responsibility to average out all the world’s great maelstrom of grief.
Iraq was not at all as bad as it is today. We bear the responsibility for how it is now. That’s what happens when you topple a government for being super evil. You need to replace it with something better than super evil. Otherwise people might reasonably ask what the whole point of the excursion was in the first place. It’s ridiculous to say America owes Iraq nothing after we did a whole invasion. “It’s not as though we have a responsibility to average out all the world’s great maelstrom of grief.” America doesn’t have that responsibility. Christians do. And… Read more »
The question for the church is not ‘should we let the refugees in?’ but ‘how are we going to help the refugees?’
Let me pose the question to you this way: does being a Christian mean you abdicate all responsibility to defend your family?
I don’t think so, but does the threat (which has been stated is minor, yet possible) overshadow the great commission. Look, I may be playing devil’s advocate here, but I’ve started to really try to think about the scriptures that are problems for me, that threaten my safety and comfort. This is just one of those issues. That’s why although this is a struggle for me, I still sleep with a pistol in the nightstand.
I am less talking about a specific threat that about the principle. You frame the question in terms of desire – I would like to defend my (self, family, land) from invaders, but perhaps I am called to something higher. I am trying to recast it in terms of duty: my duty to be do good to all, to be kind and compassionate to foreigners, et cetera, as against the no-less-critical duty I owe to family and community.
If I understand your drift, you are asking a rhetorical about what is one to do when faced with a situation in which two commands could seem opposed to each other? If that’s the case, and with the above example, I choose family first. But, for argument’s sake, let’s say some Muslim is going to execute allah’s will on my family and me because we’re Christians. I have the ability to shoot him and I do. Game over, we live, he dies. Or what if I try to convey the Gospel to him and he ends up killing my family… Read more »
Muslims aren’t “unreached people”. They know who Jesus is and decided to disbelieve Him.
I think you have a perfect right to sacrifice yourself. It seems a major dereliction to let him kill the people with whose protection you were charged.
I’m more afraid of drunk drivers killing my family than Syrian refugees killing them. If a church is afraid to help refugees then maybe the church deserves to kick the bucket..
Doing it again. “Do what I want or I’ll call you a scaredy-cat.”
I just can’t see another underlying reasoning. If your argument isn’t “we shouldn’t help them because they’re dangerous” then what is it exactly? Is it that you don’t think we have a calling or a responsibility to help them? Is it a reading of scripture that excludes Syrians from people God calls us to serve/minister to etc? Is it a concern that the Muslims might not want to convert and our flimsy churches are to fragile to resist them?
EDIT: I edited my post to make it a little more civil. I can be a hot head sometimes.
I didn’t say “we shouldn’t help them”. I think anyone who wants to help people on the other side of the world should go there and do it, instead of importing the problem they think they can fix to share with their neighbours. My argument is this: resources are finite, and it’s sinful to put the well-being of strangers and enemies above the welfare of one’s own family, neighbours, and nation. Take care of your own first, and help others with what’s left over. I think we should take a cue from the church of the 11th century and emulate… Read more »
How finite are our resources really? Is anyone starving in America? And those few who are hungry aren’t suffering because of a lack of food. We literally just celebrated a holiday built around joyful excess. Less than a week later we’ve suddenly run short of supply? There’s still turkey in my fridge.
Since when are Christians supposed to protect our own first? And what groups in America are so at risk that we can’t possibly divide our attention from their needs lest they die? Is anyone you know here in the states at risk of being crucified?
As long as the only thing that matters to you is money, you’re never going to get it.
I’m not the one advocating for a fortressed church. Nor am I the one committed to protecting America’s resources from the hungry masses. I’m the one asking for America (and most importantly) the church to open its doors to a group of people who have fled genocidal loonies. It’s your side that conveniently keeps the dollars in the bank.
What I tell you three times is true: supporting churches and relief ministries in the afflicted areas is good. Providing refuge to Christians is good. But what’s on the table is importing Muslims, and there’s no reason to do that at all.
Feeling any better about a “fortressed church” today?
No. Because if anyone thinks they can come up with a policy that would have prevented or predicted this horrible tragedy they’re either very naive or they have a very 1984 style solution (take away all the guns, or national registries etc).
And as I said before, how can we claim to belong to churches that want to reach the world if we are openly advocating for keeping needy destitute people away?
“deport all Muslims” is very naive? It worked in Spain.
No one but the antireligious are saying that we must help them here
I think the “anti-religious” are simply being “nice”. And where else are we supposed to help them? How many airstrikes are we talking about here and until we can build someone a house by drone I suspect this isn’t going to solve the Refugee’s problems. How many American boots on the ground are we talking about? Do we get to go for the hatrick? 3 Middle Eastern Invasions!? Great! And while we’re re-destroying portions of the middle east, what about the refugees? Should we send them to another Muslim country (where there are few Christians)? Or should we send them… Read more »
So because there is an unrelated risk that is, under certain conditions, more likely, we ought not to pay attention to any other problem. If you’re more likely to die in a car crash than have your house burn down, getting fire insurance is irrational. Have I got that right?
I just don’t think there’s any reason to fear Syrian refugees anymore than you already fear drunk drivers. How much do you really modify your behavior because of them? As a matter of fact there are dozens of things far more dangerous. And even if they were more dangerous than drunks why would that be a justifiable reason to deny them entry into our country. We’re supposed to be a city on a hill, hope to a fallen world etc. How can we bring light to the world if we refuse entry to the world’s most threatened people?
If I know there is a drunk driver around, I try to avoid him. I don’t invite drunks to practice ramping their Camaro’s on the street where my children live. That’s the point here: you can’t eliminate all risk, but you can avoid going out of your way to find it. Inviting a sufficient mass of people from a very different culture (who neither want nor need to assimilate) is to bring about the conditions for genocide here. That’s how wars happen. I submit that doing so is stupid and also, because we ought to know better, wicked.
But doing God’s work is risky. It’s supposed to be risky. If it isn’t risky it’s probably not God’s work. We worship a man who got tortured to death. Then we read books written by other guys who got tortured to death. And now suddenly a bunch of unarmed refugees are too dangerous for us? Suddenly we need to make sure things don’t get too risky? Suddenly God wants us to have them go to some other nation poorer but apparently more generous than we are?
When the risk is of civil war and genocide happening here – less a risk of mass migration than the inevitable result thereof – I think it behooves sensible people to tread lightly. You are very cavalier about this. But sure, I grant that if it were clearly God’s will for us to accept as a refugee whoever wants to come here, then we should accept that risk and do it. But I don’t see anybody making that case in a rational manner. For instance, why these Syrians? Because there’s a war on in their country? Well, there are conflicts… Read more »
What “should” happen to these people is they shouldn’t be refugees in the first place. But the ME is what it is and their coreligionists aren’t very nice people (hopefully the nice people is where the church people come in). And these aren’t random victims. These are people who are former citizens of the nation we torched (thanks Bush!) and then hung out to dry (thanks Obama!). It’s a little odd to then claim that these people’s situation has nothing to do with our nation.
Well… at the moment we are talking about Syrians, no? We didn’t make Assad be a horrible repressive dictator, nor did we make Islam a barbarous religion of violence and destruction. So I guess I don’t see where you’re going with this.
What I mean is that we get the world we have with all its injustices and hypocrisies. And we’re not just talking about Syrians. Many of the refugees in question are Iraqis. Also, ISIS invaded Syria which helped make our current situation the ultimate crap-storm that it is. Without ISIS, Assad would have already won his civil war or would have passed some “reforms” which would have likely ended most of the civilian slaughter (not the best outcome, but better than what we have now).
You mean the Middle Eastern Christians who are being murdered and enslaved? Sure, I’d be more willing to let them in.
Not so hot on allowing in the ones who are either doing, or not stopping the raping and enslaving, which, it just so happens, are the ones that the government seems keen on importing.
Also, we can bring light to the world, by leaving our country and. y’know, going to the world.
It’s hard to stop ISIS when you have satellite guided super bombs and apex predator style fighter jets. It’s a little harsh to expect a random dude with kids to take on suicidal, monsters who torture people for fun. And surely you can at least sympathize with the women and children who aren’t taking on ISIS.
I just think the potential to Glorify the Lord through our handling of this outweighs the risk.
A perfectly defensible opinion. We all have to balance our various responsibilities as the Lord gives us light. I suppose you see why others might assess the matter differently in this case?
I definitely do see the other side. Especially in light of yesterday’s events.
You are dealing with two questions here: one should we let the refgugees in and two how do we treat the refugees if they are here.
I think the answer to question 1: is Yes. And the answer to question 2 is: with all the love and kindness I would hope churches are offering the other poor and destitute people in the USA. We live in the richest country on earth. I think it’s weird for the church to respond to the world’s largest current humanitarian crisis with NIMBYism.
I am not convinced that letting the refugees in is the best or wisest course of action available. But I also think it’s likely that they will show up regardless and once they are here we have to attempt to “assimilate” them.
Or we could love them. God isn’t asking us to be coldly logical. Radical love is supposed to be dangerous. It’s supposed to be stupid dangerous. Frankly I don’t think these refugees are that dangerous.
I agree we should love them. Simply letting them into the U.S. isn’t loving them and there is nothing preventing us from loving them when they aren’t here.
“I love you, just don’t expect me to help you” doesn’t sound very loving to me, especially when you’re someone with very real and understandable needs like a home country with schools, running water, and no beheadings.
“”I love you, just don’t expect me to help you” doesn’t sound very loving to me”
Neither does “I love you, I’m going to have these people help you” If we love the refugees we can work to meet their needs wherever they are geographically.
A recent Orthosphere post addressed this with an insightful argument: if we know we struggle with temptation to not love our neighbours, why would we pick new neighbours even harder to love than the ones we have now? Shouldn’t we master the basics first?
http://orthosphere.org/2015/11/19/daredevil-morality-and-the-neighbor-problem/
While there is some logic, I do not see the virtue of only loving those who are easier to love.
Do you see any virtue in neglecting your family to show love to strangers? It’s the same kind of issue.
I absolutely agree that neglecting your family is wicked – that comment strikes me quite close to heart, as I’ve watched families who are not taking care of the children, adopted and birth, that they already have decide to continue adopting, and being friends with some of the children has really wrung my heart at the situation. It’s not a pretty situation at all, and as I said, I see the logic in your remark. I still maintain, however, that there is no virtue in being nice to those who are like you – even the pagans do that.
I don’t see any virtue in non sequiturs.
Personally, no. But the Bible says otherwise, take Lot for instance. Or Mat. 10:37-39, the “he who loves his family more than me is not worthy of me” verse.
If you can’t distinguish between “strangers” and “Jesus” then I think I’ve found your problem.
I’m not substituting strangers for Jesus here. And I think you know that. One of the ways God is glorified is through His mercy extended to sinners. His mercy is made known through the testimony of the saints. When a saint chooses to not share the Gospel because he fears for his safety, he is putting himself first. I just find it kind of wrong that so many Christians here are saying it’s a solid “no” over a an area that is gray at best. A “no” based on the fact that there is a chance that we might be… Read more »
If, as you say, it’s a “gray area”, why’s it wrong to say no?
I guess I shouldn’t have said it’s “wrong” just that it seems like the other way of viewing it, which is also Biblical, is so easy to shy away from. As I stated before, I’m not even sure what the right answer is for me yet.
If you can’t identify “Jesus” in “strangers”, then I think I’ve found your problem.
Proper worship of Jesus will result in love and mercy towards strangers. But it’s also possible to worship strangers instead of Him.
Yes, I guess that’s techinically possible, but it’s certainly not a fault that I’ve seen the Church in general or any particular Christians I know fall into.
The early Church was absolutely extravagent in its love for strangers and poor, far better at it and more defined by it than we are today, and yet I never saw suggestions that the Church was beginning to “worship the poor instead of Him”.
The U.S. accepting refugees is not the church showing hospitality.
Not really seeing any necessity in neglecting any family to show love to strangers. The ancient Christian community was far poorer than American Christians today, yet they seemed to still be able to give sacrificially and practice extreme hospitality for the sake of their poor.
Do you support kinism, ashv?
No.
I suppose the rich young ruler would have been much happier if Jesus had suggested a simple payment plan of 10% a paycheck. But that’s not the Jesus we have.
I think you missed the point of the parable if you think it was about money.
Insightful argument? He’s a typical bedwetting liberal, just like you and your Confederate SJW pals. Hatred is a sin, and the prudent man treats it as such. Show me anything like that in the Bible. It used to be that people who liked the Confederate flag were fairly conservative. But you accuse me of “hate” above for saying that Pastor Wilson is being really stupid when he says that healthy societies have nothing to fear from terrorists immigrating to their country. Now you’re praising this freak for saying hate is wicked, when the Bible makes it quite clear that the… Read more »
Word-choice issue. Suppose he said “malice” instead of “hatred”.
He didn’t say “malice”. He said “hatred.” If he’d meant malice, he would’ve said malice. He’s a Confederate SJW, like yourself. What’s your excuse for accusing me of “hate” above when I pointed out how stupid Doug is for saying that immigrants will bring terrorists with them, but there’s no reason for healthy societies to fear the terrorists? You could’ve said “No, it’s perfectly sane and very smart to say that healthy societies should welcome terrorists as immigrants, and here’s why….” Or, if you didn’t want to look like an idiot, you could’ve said, “Yes, that’s pretty nonsensical, and Doug… Read more »
I do not think you’ve read any of my other posts in this thread (and you can’t take a joke).
I’ve read them all. I never said you were consistent. You like to pretend like you’re a conservative, while accepting a lot of the basic premises of radical leftists – hate is bad, anyone to your right can be dismissed by accusing them of being filled with hate, etc.
And you weren’t joking.
If you had been joking, you would’ve taken Doug to task for saying immigrants will bring terrorists, but healthy societies should welcome them anyway, because that’s insane. You should’ve at least asked him to clarify. But you’ve done neither. Why? Because you’ve adopted the ethics of SJWs – he’s your tribe leader, and SJW’s don’t attack or question their tribe leader, no matter what.
An equivilient argument would have been that the rich man would have been better off just using a different exit from his home so that he wouldn’t have to pass by Lazarus.
Avoidance is not a substitute for love.
And Jesus asked us to strive for perfect obedience from day one. We’re 2000 years into this church thing, there’s no excuse that we should avoid the difficult obedience because we still need some time to “master the basics”. There isn’t a minor league list of easy commands.
Avoidance is a good substitute for malice, though. And no one said anything about not loving strangers and enemies.
Then you do think that it’s more virtuous to avoid drunkenness while keeping a flask in your pocket at all times? And that it’s inexcusable for a man who knows he is tempted to drunkenness to avoid alcohol entirely?
Keeping a flask in your pocket does not fulfill any command that I am aware of.
Showing hospitality to strangers and loving one’s neighbors (where a neighbor is shown by Jesus to simply mean “the one in need”) is a clear command.
Need doesn’t make neighbours. If that were so, why did Jesus rebuke the Pharisees for giving to the temple instead of supporting their parents? Why did Jesus not listen to Judas when he objected to money being wasted on expensive perfume instead of used to feed the poor?
“Hospitality” is not the issue. No one is seriously proposing actual hospitality and there aren’t really any Western societies that can support it right now. Hospitality means personally taking on the burden of hosting a stranger, not shoving the job onto your actual neighbours.
The moral of the Good Samaritan is clearly that need makes the neighbor. Your two supposed counterexamples are complete non sequiturs – I don’t see what they have to do with the case at all.
Saying that we can’t support actual hospitality right now is an amazing claim. The Church has more excess wealth and land at its disposal at this point in time than at any other point in history. The vast majority of American Christians are far more likely to be led into sin by their excess materialism than by scarcity of material goods.
It’s certainly not about money. Again, I repeat: those who wish to help with the need they see should go to where the need is, rather than trying to push the problem onto their neighbours.
Or using other peoples money to meet those goals.
Disagree. Sure, the weaselly lawyer does speak the words (insincerely, we are told) “who is my neighbor?” But why do you assume that Jesus is answering precisely that question? Does he ever engage with his interlocutors on their terms?
Thank you for this post, Doug. I’ve been struggling with this issue as well, and this gives me a lot of help.
Ideally, the Syrian refugees would be settled in places closer to their
homes.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/11/syrian_refugee_crisis_an_alternative_to_resettling_refugees_in_europe.html
God said in the last days many so called “believers” would be fooled by strong delusion. This post is proof that that’s coming true. So is the fact that millions of Americans still believe that Sandy Hook really happened, in spite of all the indisputable evidence that it was fake. This post is very disappointing. I thought since you were doing battle with a lot of feminazis that you had your head screwed on straight. Obviously, I was way off. You’re good in the feminazi area, but you’re out of your freaking mind when it comes to immigration, refugees, etc.… Read more »
does SMDH stand for “So Much Doug Hate”?
So, if I think it’s pretty stupid for Doug to say that yes, some terrorists will come in, but no, healthy societies have nothing to fear from the terrorists coming in with refugees, that means I hate Doug?
There are some very deep thinkers on this site.
Few things are quite so amusing as a man who chooses an avatar to suggest that he’s a fearless rebel against all things PC, but in true SJW fashion, when someone disagrees with him, he doesn’t try to rebut them, but instead just accuses them of being guilty of the worst crime of all, “hate.”
They say a racist is someone who’s winning an argument with a liberal. I guess a hater is someone who’s winning an argument with a Confederate sympathizer.
Just looked at the Wikipedia entry and it clearly needs editing. You better go fix it.
I’m pretty busy. Knock yourself out. Here’s all the info you need. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxTafqejV6k
Busy doing what?
While we are working on those other questions, I will gladly take the Great Wall of Trump.
So to be a free nation we need to be Christian nation or else we aren’t actually free?
What else would “free” mean?
Free to choose our own religion, our own way of life…or else we aren’t free but living under religious persecution disguised as freedom.
Que the not whether but which argumemt regarding the cointries official religion.
Why do we need an official religion? It doesn’t serve a purpose as religion is a personal issue and choice.
The argument is that an official religion is inexcapable even if it isn’t officialy recognised.
I believe the only group who views Christainty as the official, unofficial religion of America are Evangelicals, Southern Baptists and those running for political office. Most of us see freedom of religion and do not give it much thought after that. A free nation does not require an official religious doctrine to be a healthy society.
I agree with you, and I think that the “not whether but which” argument sometimes forces a false dichotomy. However, many people who post here do believe that the two choices are: an explicitly Christian form of government based on Biblical principles; or, a government based on the “religion” of secular humanism which many people here see as being essentially inimical to Christian liberty.
If I had to guess I’d say the religion of the U.S. is capitalism.
The Mayflower Compact was our Christian founding. http://www.scifiwright.com/2015/11/wiser-than-god In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc. having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into… Read more »
Where do you get the idea that “religion is a personal issue” from?
Religion is a personal matter. Even if we went to the same church, mosque, temple etc…we would practice our religious beliefs differently due to our personal differences. Yes, all religions usually gather on a certain day to learn, pray, meditate etc…but those moments affect each of us differently thus religion is personal.
Then in that sense, Christianity is not a religion.
Why is that?
It’s become clear from your other posts that you believe “religion is personal” because you do not love Jesus.
Yes, that is correct. I could have stated this if you had asked. Does that make my comments not worthy of discussion?
Correct.
Well that clarifies who is intolerant and hateful here. Sounds like a religion we should all be apart of…
Well, that’s one person’s opinion. There are many others we could draw insight from.
Now, now. There are plenty of Christians here with diverse viewpoints. A religion that encompasses me and ashv and Timothy and others can’t be so easily characterized.
I don’t know, it’s done often enough, it seems pretty easy to me. ;-)
(And hey, isn’t there something in the Gospels about “Woe to you when all men speak well of you”..?)
There certainly is, but who is it that all men speak well of?
According to Luke 6, looks like the answer is “false prophets”.
We have regional religions and if states and cities get more ability to live these beliefs out to their conclusions, I think we would have a good chance of Christianity declaring Monopoly. States, counties and towns should have have the say here. Screw the fed.
But even in terms of regional religions, we have to be concerned about minorities even within Christianity. Where I live is overwhelmingly Catholic. If you were a Reformed Christian here, and the city declared Catholic Christianity to be the official religion, who would protect your rights? What if you had serious objections to parts of Catholic doctrine and practice?
Move, I guess. Someone’s gonna win and in Portland it looks like the pervs have the upper hand at the moment.
Then you could just sail west to America and practice your non-conformism. Wait a minute….
That’s not freedom, that’s anarchy. “Religious freedom”in that sense is not a Christian concept. (Religious toleration, on the other hand, has a respected place in the history of Christendom.)
Read Psalm 2. Jesus is King of kings (and presidents, and chancellors, etc). Nations will either serve Christ or be crushed.
That is one book (The Bible) there are many religious texts which we could draw insight from.
I believe you have wandered on to the wrong website by mistake.
Isn’t a discussion that goes against our own ideology better for us? If we constantly pander to own way of thinking and living then we won’t make any progress
What “progress” are *you* willing to make? Can progress move toward believing the bible is the word of God we need because as sinners we can’t really get anything right on our own?. That God sent his Son to dwell with us, die for us, be resurrected and established as the King of the Nations calling all nations to himself until the overwhelming population of the planet believes?
Believing and acting on scripture is the farthest thing from “pander[ing] to our own way of thinking and living”.
If you aren’t Christian then the fundamentalist belief would be a wasted discussion because we will never agree. I dont believe that one person was sent from a God to us to diemfor our sin. Yes, I am sure you can find many quotes in the Bible to say otherwise but I view it simply as a book of stories from a time welll before my own, nothing more and nothing less. Religion at its core teaches us to be kind to one another, treat others how you wish to be treated and be tolerant of others. We can then… Read more »
No thanks.
No thanks what? You all shut down at the slightest notion of an actual discussion.
No thank you; I have no interest in your society or your culture.
How about a religion that uses “hate-speech” “homophobia” or Polygamy. Can we practice those?
So, for one thing, let’s dispense with that canard, “progress”, as our desirable end, then shall we. Progress for you means us leaving our beliefs and joining you headed for who knows where, grounded it who knows what.
Well, actually we do know. We are headed for the land of release from the next constraint/restraint. And we expect our children won’t follow our example. If you are comfortable in the admixtured world of fear and fascism that is the modern college campus then press on….
I am in shock. I basically agree with pastor Wilson
“If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.” We either gonna let some in or not. We (‘merica) are in need of repentance and renewal, but what kids need right now is to not wash up on a shore…dead. Don’t know the best way to go about it, but Christians should be leading the way.
If two or three boats were sunk by the navy or coast guard, people would stop putting their kids in them.
which requires killing some little kids first… Hiroshima style eh?
Or like the ship the St. Louis full of Jewish refugees that we sent back to Nazi Germany. About a quarter of them were murdered by the Nazis.
Are you still falling for the “but the chilluns~!” gamibt?
Desperate people have been dying to get to safer pasture. Can’t say I blame them for wanting something better, not perfect, just better
Sounds not so Christian to me
Battle of Lepanto.
Are you drawing an equivilence between warfare and shooting down refugee ships?
I certainly agree that even warfare has no support whatsoever in the New Testament or early Church. But I hope that you retain enough sense to realize that sinking refugee ships would be another matter altogether.
I am saying the current, purposeful, funded by you and me invasion of Islam into the Christian West is warfare. That a severe response now will prevent even more horrific necessities later.
The fact that Doug allows you to spew your evil garbage without outing who you really are is just awful.
I notice a pattern in your comments, namely someone says/or does something that you feel is wrong and you somehow find a way to blame DW for something. What does this say about you? Do you think it is healthy to be the sort of person who is constantly slandering your Christian brothers? Satan is known as the accuser of the brethren. It seems as if you have taken his role. Does this concern you?
Ummm, I didn’t blame Doug. I called out the person who made the comments.
Bwahahahahahahaha
Dude, quit being the captain of the tattle brigade and trying to get people to stop whatever you don’t like on this blog. Engaging in discussion and leading towards consistency is helpful. Your outrage is boring.
That would be an act of war, and going to war with Syria would create more problems than the refugees.
Nice RUSH quote, by the way…
Over here in Europe many of these refugees are not Syrian, but from other Muslim countries (or they are Syrian, but fleeing from Arab nations because they’ve seen the mass migration). And a good slice of them are persecuted Christians.
But great post – there are some things that don’t have a (human) solution. People need to humbly admit that.
Yeah, it’s not like the good old days, the days when we were building our nation on the backs of the heinous slave trade and attempting to use the Bible to keep slaves, slaves. Those days we would have gladly welcomed in these refugees…I mean can you imagine all the free labor?
“Despite what Doug says, I have attempted to avoid this whole deal, and now officially will remove myself from this blog community where the only sort of craziness Doug wants is those defending his craziness.”
Maybe you missed it…I changed my mind…not going to leave because some are trying their best to encourage me to go that route. Truth is worth more than my annoyances.
You seem more interested in condemning Doug than the truth.
When standing for the truth results in condemning some of Doug’s ideas, so be it…But I don’t condemn Doug, Jesus has already taken away all condemnation since he is in Christ. This banter is about the process of sanctification.
I appoloize in advance and I’m only going to do this once because it’s bad form and isn’t conducive to good discusion. But, posting in all caps that “DOUG WILSON LOVES BEING IN BED WITH RAPISTS AND PEDOPHILES” is not standing up for the truth.
He said as much on his blog, and even more so in his letters to judges asking for leniency in punishment (after he said men who commit these heinous acts deserved death penalty in his previous writings) for the heinous crimes of men who raped girls and sexually abused children. You don’t like my use of descriptive language, I’m sorry. But the truth is Doug decided to stand on the side of the predator in very visible and public ways while also shaming parents and in Natalie’s case her own physical appearance as partly to blame, and that has had… Read more »
“and in Natalie’s case her own physical appearance as partly to blame” is inaccurate.
Direct quote from Doug Wilson, “And did you know that she was eight inches taller than he was at the time, and carried herself as a mature woman, such that her parents were fooled by it? Are you going to allow her parents to be fooled by her demeanor, but not allow Jamin to be fooled by it?”
In which Doug argues that Jamin is not a pedophile.
Nope, in which case he argues he’s not a sexual predator…nice try. Don’t let truth get in the way of a good excuse though.
Btw, you’re the one who went trolling to discuss the sexual abuse cases on this thread, not me.
I thought you said you were done?
Please don’t feed the troll.
Sorry I’m done now.
On-topic is fine. Its just the thread derailing. One could liken self-imposed discipline to borders about the topic keeping the thread safe from hostile invaders.
(:
https://youtu.be/eWu0wChlWjw
Pastor Wilson says: Of course a healthy society has nothing to fear from immigrants. A free society is therefore one with open borders. So in the abstract, the question is easy enough to settle biblically. “One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you” (Ex. 12:49). “But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God” (Lev. 19:34). He says this is what a… Read more »
Heaven doesn’t have open borders.
If Babel was the beginning of ‘nations’ then it is reasonable that God created them for good reason.
I believe India and Hinduism was founded first.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoZwIDlIL5Q
Recently seen on Twitter: “deporting all the muslims could be a good smaller scale beta test for trump’s mexican deportation program”