I’m still not sure where I land on the issue of Syrian refugees. This statement is likely to draw the ire of folks on both sides of the debate.
One will say, “How can you not see that the way of Jesus is to love victims? We as Christians are refugees—so how could you possibly not open wide our hearts to the ones who are trying to flee persecution?
Another will say, “How can you not see that this is dangerous? We would not be protecting our own citizens by opening up our borders and then housing potential terrorists? Besides we have millions of homeless in our own nation—how can we be expected to care for an influx of homeless people from another nation?
Now as I look at the issues (albeit somewhat briefly), I know which side my gut reaction puts me on. But I’m not willing to give an answer yet on what I’d do or believe our response ought to be. And here is why:
If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame. –Proverbs 18:13
I take that proverb to mean that I really need to hear the other side and not just listen to them talk for a bit. In order to give an answer the wise servant will really weigh both sides of an argument. He will hear not only the first case but also the case of the one who examines (Proverbs 18:17).
No matter what side of this argument I come down on, I want to be able to say that I’ve really truly heard the other side. I want to know the other side of the argument as best as I can—and to know it well enough that I could argue for it persuasively. At present I cannot do this and so I don’t consider myself able to give an answer.
So what keeps us from truly listening to the other side? If we really are correct, then won’t it hold up under a microscope? Why the vitriol and assumptions that the other side are either filled with bleeding-heart liberals who don’t care about the security of our nation or xenophobes who don’t understand anything about the love of Christ? Lady Wisdom will not win the day if we refuse to acknowledge that there might be more to this than what we see at first glance.
—
Photo source: here
I hate the way I’ve been seeing the arguments go. I’ll go with the belly button terms and label the two sides as “innies” and “outies”. The innies want to bring the refugees in. The outies want to keep the refugees out. Simple as that.
Many innies seem to ignore the fact that terrorists will come in with the refugees. They either have wholehearted faith in the government to be able to vet every last one of the terrorists or they think that the admonition to minister to people trumps any potential danger. Secular innies have no moral basis for helping refugees. Christian innies ignore the fact that the government doesn’t have the Christian admonition to care for foreign refugees. They also ignore the fact that the same risk will be borne toward fellow citizens who aren’t Christians. We are putting people at risk who aren’t saved yet in order to help people who aren’t saved yet.
Many outies, on the other hand, claim that that the government can’t be trusted to vet the terrorists and the risk of major attack is a certainty. If they admit that we have a Christian admonition to help hurting people, the risk to families and the nation in general trumps that admonition.
Up to the last point, I think the outies have a stronger case. The reason is precisely because the government isn’t the Church. The government must protect the people it governs first. (It hasn’t been doing that in recent years, but that’s beside the point.) The Church must be willing to go into harms way for the Gospel, but it can’t expect its non-Christian neighbors to do the same. I have friends who are taking the Gospel to dangerous places, even into Syria out in the open under the knowing protection of Assad. This is where we have needed people spreading the Gospel.
That said, the debates we have are fairly pointless. With an apparently even split even among conservative evangelicals, the governing authorities will do what the governing authorities will do. If they bring refugees here, then we should be the first to go and care for them, sharing the Gospel explicitly in any way we can. If they turn down the refugees, then we should be the first ones to go where they are, minister to their physical needs, and take the Gospel to them. Unless we are willing to either one, any other argument we make is irrelevant and untrustworthy.
Love love love this comment, Jim. Well put. And anytime you can throw labeling people with belly-button terminology, it’s gonna be a plus.
Proverbs 29:25