Top 5 Demands of Christian Hospitality

Syrian refugees arriving into Greece.
Source: http://tinyurl.com/ha535a5

 

Discussions about refugees and immigrants almost invariably include people who strongly express the need to protect borders.

Pope Francis has a helpful perspective that hits the nail on the head:

A person who thinks only of building walls, wherever they may be, and not of building bridges, is not a Christian.

The key word here is "only." 

Protecting our borders is important. I can't think of a single Christian denomination that does not value the need to protect borders, big or small. After all, most of us lock our houses and cars. Similar reasoning can apply to the borders of a nation.

However, protecting borders should be one of the last things on our minds as Christians--not the first. The biblical demands of hospitality are pretty strong, especially given so many statements by Jesus himself.

So if protecting borders isn't the only consideration, what else should a Christian do?

1. Welcome.  If someone is a stranger in your land, the least you can do is acknowledge them kindly and be nice to them. You don't know the circumstances that brought them to your land. Even if you do, the Bible would not give you license to be mean to them.

Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God. Romans 15:7

2. Compassion and Dialogue.  If someone is at your doorstep begging for entry, you ought to at least ask why. Sit and talk with them. Hear their story. I've found that people who want to uniformly exclude refugees and immigrants are those who have never had a meaningful conversation with them about their circumstances. Their position is based on what they have heard from other sources.

The world "compassion" literally translates as "to suffer with" someone. Being compassionate means you have listened so deeply and are so emotionally invested that it is like you are walking right beside them in their struggles Then and only then are you in any position at all to make a decision that may impact their lives (if ever).

They will neither hunger nor thirst, nor will the desert heat or the sun beat down on them. He who has compassion on them will guide them and lead them beside springs of water. Isaiah 49:10.

3. Benefit of the Doubt. No amount of dialogue can ever replace the visceral experience of walking a mile in another's shoes. We still have to try, but it can be a long process to truly understand someone else's situation. I have struggled with this. I have heard people talk about all sorts of issues ranging from addiction to racial discrimination to mental health problems to political views. Sometimes it has taken years before I finally get it and understand their point of view. In the meantime, before we "get it", we can at least give the benefit of the doubt. This means that I may not fully understand someone else's point of view, but I will trust that something has brought them to this place in life and respect that. When in doubt, I will trust their testimony unless I have very strong reason to believe otherwise.

1 Corinthians 13:4-8 is a great guideline here: Be patient and kind. Do not be resentful. Bear a burden for your brother or sister. Trust in them and know there is a deeper reason for everything. This is how we should relate to others, especially when we are in that limbo phase of not truly understanding their situation.

4. Recognizing Rights. Christian churches almost universally affirm that people have the right to migrate to support and protect their families. Most people generally want to stay in their native land and only move when circumstances are extremely dire. Many families are caught in an impossible situation--either respect a border and watch their family suffer or break a law in hopes of saving their family. What would you do in this situation?

The Bible reminds us that we have all benefitted from a warm welcome from others when we ourselves were facing hard times:

Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt. Exodus 22:21.

5. Protecting borders. I've worked in homeless shelters. Most are places of enormous hospitality for people who often find little of that on the streets. However, nearly every shelter has well-established rules for conduct and access. For example, most shelters would not allow someone who comes to the door in a drunken rage wielding a loaded gun. As hard as it may be to refuse entry on a cold night, it may also be wrong to put the whole community at risk just to offer a bed to someone who is actively a threat.

Excluding someone is never a happy circumstance. People will often feel like they have "closed the door on Jesus." Based on Matthew 25, there is a solid biblical reason to feel this way. But a small shelter trying to make the best decision in a world of limitations has to make tough choices.

Excluding someone should never be taken lightly. It is always a very sensitive, delicate matter. The duty of a Christian is to welcome, give the benefit of the doubt, walk in compassion and recognize the rights of others long before putting up a wall. All throughout, the duty is to listen--and then listen some more--and then listen still further. At some point in the process, you may come to an unfortunate place where the only decision you see is to exclude someone, and pray to God you are making the best possible choice. But it should only be the method of last resort. You should be able to easily demonstrate that all else has been tried. 

Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink?  And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing?  And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.’ Matthew 25:37-40.

Refugees Today

In light of the above criteria, it makes no sense for the US to turn away refugees at this time. Our vetting system is one of the most effective processes of the whole government. There is no evidence that refugees bring with them risks of increased crime or terrorism. They are some of the least dangerous and most productive members of society.

Refugees are in a dire situation. They are literally fleeing for their lives from war and most have generally lost everything. By definition, this is what makes them a refugee in the first place. The risks are minimal and the needs are great. On what grounds can we possibly refuse them from a Christian standpoint?

Conclusion

I hear Christians making impassioned arguments about the need to protect borders. It often seems to be the only consideration they express. I'm left with the eerie feeling that many Christians spend enormous amounts of energy justifying why they should NOT reach out to their brothers and sisters in need. Protecting borders is a sobering, responsible consideration. However, it should be the method of last resort after all else has been reasonably tried.

This crisis which can be measured in numbers and statistics,

we want instead to measure with names, stories, families.

Pope Francis, Homily from a Mass in Mexico

Strangers and Aliens

Deuteronomy 10: 19 You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Leviticus 19:34 The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.
(NRSV)



From: www.freebibleimages.com

See this article:  Jeff Sessions got it right on immigrants and the Bible. It has been circulating around social media, and it has caused quite a stir. 

The basic argument of James K. Hoffmeier is that "social justice advocates" often employ a simplistic read of the Old Testament when they use it to advocate for amnesty for undocumented immigrants.

"Strangers" and "aliens" were not broad terms referring to just anybody who happens to wander into a foreign land, Hoffmeier argues, but rather people with varying levels of permission to be there.

Hoffmeier writes: "I would argue that if one wants to apply biblical passages ... to our context, green card holders would better correspond. They need protections so as not to be abused and exploited as we have unfortunately seen. Old Testament law simply does not address how people in the U.S. illegally should be treated."

He may be right in the Hebrew language translation, I don't know. I support all efforts to employ good scholarship and make sure we are reading as accurately as possible. But using his own argument, he is wrong on at least two points.

The first: Is he actually suggesting that those without a green card should be abused and exploited? Abuse and exploitation are never appropriate actions, regardless of whether the Old Testament fails to mention them or not. The argument that legal status is the determining factor for protections from abuse and exploitation is morally empty by any standard. People do not void their human rights just because of their legal status. That's why they are called "rights." They don't go away just because they are in an awkward situation.

For example, if a cop pulls you over for speeding, the fact that you broke the law does not mean that it's a free-for-all and the cop can suddenly do whatever he wants to do. Absolutely not. You have a fracture in your relationship with the state that needs to be addressed, but all your other rights remain intact. The only issue between you and the state is whatever specifically relates to your speeding. The cop cannot rape you, take your money or attack you just because of speeding. The same is true for immigration status.

Second point: The main premise of Hoffmeier is that "green card holder" is the closest modern equivalent of the aliens and strangers mentioned in these texts. I would argue that green card holder is not inclusive of all the immigrants in question. Instead of an "alien" being compared to a green card holder, the alien could also be compared to a refugee. Green card holders often have the means to live comfortably and safely in their home country. Some are refugees, some are not. Refugees specifically come because they are fleeing a hostile situation. Refugee is a necessary category (along with green card holder) to describe these sanctioned aliens, because of the next point:

There are two kinds of refugees. The first are those approved and brought over by the State Department. The second are those who should be considered refugees but due to political games are not. Most undocumented immigrants in America meet the moral definition of refugee. They may not be sanctioned by the state, but they are sanctioned by God. Many of them are not "officially" declared by the US government as refugee, but that is a sin on us, not them. They meet the qualifications. Many are fleeing violence, war or life-threatening poverty, much of it brought on by the actions of our own country. They should be welcomed in our land with full rights. The fact that they are not is OUR sin, not theirs.

Hoffmeier used the example of Jacob. Due to a drought, Jacob's family fled to Egypt. They got the permission of the Pharaoh to do this. That's wonderful. However, what would Jacob's family have done if the Pharaoh did not grant this permission and give the equivalent of a "green card"? They would be faced with a tough choice—either watch their family and flocks die in the drought or escape into Egypt without permission. Every responsible father would do the right thing and break a law instead of watch his family die. You would do it. I would do it. And we would be called heroes, not criminals. This more accurately captures the situation of undocumented immigrants in the USA today. If the Pharaoh (i.e. US government) does not grant permission, the one who commits the sin is NOT the undocumented immigrant trying to feed his family—the one who commits the sin is the one who denies permission.

The Scripture quotes at the top of this post tell us to treat the stranger as we were treated in Egypt.  What happened in Egypt? We were in a desperate situation and needed to escape a drought. The Pharaoh welcomed us. Our job, according to Scripture, is not to differentiate between those who are welcomed legally and those who are not—rather, our job is to do the welcoming and grant legal permission to those who need it.

The term green card holder is helpful, but it is not inclusive of all the people and situations that Scripture is describing.

We are to treat people as we were treated in Egypt. How we were treated there? We were welcomed.  Hoffmeier starts his definition after the welcoming had already happened. It seems to me that the decision to do the welcoming is an integral part of the moral decision that Scripture is describing.

What's on TV Tonight?

A scene depicting an American heartland barn dance
by William Medcalf

I didn't intend to write a series on smart phones and social media. This is a blog about spirituality, religious harmony and related topics, after all. I try to keep on topic. However, given the tumultuous 2016 presidential election, many people have been rethinking how we use these new technologies. Does it serve our faith life? Does it improve our culture and society? Is this really the best way to evangelize? One thing led to another.

I stumbled upon some thoughts that have been sitting with me a long time. 

It's tragically ironic when older folks criticize young people for using smart phones and social media. It was precisely those older folks--the World War II generation and the baby boomers--who gave us the television.

I don't want to get into a battle between the generations, but I can't let this one go.

Absolutely nothing in human history has lulled more people into a lifestyle of blatant passivity than the television. Probably nothing else has eroded the foundational interactions of community itself more than the TV. Smart phones and social media are actually an attempt to re-discover community and reclaim an active role in our own lives. They come with their own problems, for certain, but they are an attempt to recover what our culture has lost. 

Compared with TV, when I surf Facebook I'm actually communicating with other human beings directly. I'm debating and interacting. This includes geographically distant family and friends. I have access to all sorts of independent news and opinion sources. Yes, the rise of "fake news" is a problem, and choosing social media instead of interacting with the people physically adjacent to us is problematic, but the Enquirer was in print and the TV embedded in every western home long before the internet came along.

I found parallel thoughts when reading How Did We Get Into This Mess? by George Monbiot. To paraphrase one of my favorite contemporary authors: The last few generations have had more free time and recreational income than perhaps any other people in human history. Yet, we squander our lives passively watching others live their lives on a flashing box in our living rooms. 

I will challenge Monbiot by saying that watching other humans is nothing new. Humans have been acting out skits, performing theater and sharing story narratives since the tribal days. But at least in those older forms, presenters and audience members had more active roles compared with a TV viewers. The TV is categorically different than tribal kids acting out a skit they made, but it does feed a similar need to interpret and observe human drama as it unfolds.

If you ask people what did human beings do before the invention of the television, most will stare at you blankly. Few people have any idea. It should scare the living daylights out of us that we can't answer this question very easily. The fact that it doesn't scare us should alarm us even more. The rise of the TV is perhaps the most quiet revolution ever but perhaps the most destructive.

Yet, the human race has existed for thousands and thousands of years. The television has only been a mainstay in our culture for less than 75 years, and yet we have completely lost all ability to imagine life without it. We have also lost the ability to function with it, too, as it is a very passive activity that erodes our very functioning--the fact that we don't even know what people did before it is a testament to its destructive influence. 

People played sports. They talked. They make their own fun. They planned events, knew their neighbors and got invested in hobbies. Small towns would organize dances and shows. People sat on porches and chatted with neighbors as they walked by. Families sang together. They played parlor games. Kids probably got into all sorts of mischief. People knew how to be social in a way that we no longer do.

The TV doesn't have to get in the way of this. Families can use the TV as a focal point to gather together in one room and talk, read and play games while the glowing box is playing. But far too often, TV has been a replacement for human interaction rather than a stimulus for it. Like any technology, on the surface, it seems like it's neither good nor evil, it's more about how you use it. But I don't think it's completely innocent, either: The TV can help community, but more often than not, is makes it difficult for that to happen.

Just like smart phones and social media, the TV is not going away anytime soon. I'd love to issue a rallying cry of "blow up your TV!" but I'm far too cynical that this is a realistic scenario to hope for. The TV is probably not going away, so we best learn to live with it. But since this is indeed a blog about Christian hope, let me dig deep and say we must hope against hope, even for things that seem impossible. 

But let's not be so quick to attack the newer technologies that give users a more active role, because TV has probably been rock bottom when it comes to active community interaction. Maybe, just maybe, smart phones and social media represent some of our first steps out of the pit we've been in and not a step further down.