On March 10th, I wrote a piece on my blog praising the Biblical character Boaz for showing compassion to Ruth, whom I referred to in the article as an "illegal immigrant." Ruth, as you may know, was a descendant of Moab and according to the law at the time was supposed to be excluded from the congregation of Israel (Deuteronomy 23:3). God apparently was so angry with the Moabites that He even tells the children of Israel "not to seek their peace nor their prosperity all their days forever" (Deuteronomy 23:6) and yet when we read the Book of Ruth we all seem to know instinctively that Boaz is a hero in the story precisely because he showed compassion to Ruth despite what the law--even God's law--said.
Within days the article appeared on several high traffic sites. Almost immediately people began accusing me of twisting the Scriptures by calling Ruth an "illegal immigrant." After all, Ruth was married to an Israelite and the law said that Moabites were only supposed to be excluded from the assembly of the Lord, not from the people of Israel (Deuteronomy 23:3). The response was so strong that I even began to second guess myself--until I read Nehemiah chapter 13 and it dawned on me that it was against the law for a child of Israel to marry a Moabite in the first place--which is exactly what Boaz did in the story of Ruth. No matter which way you look at it, Boaz did what even God's law forbade and He was commended for it--by God.
In the interests of clearing some things up, I'd like to make a few clarification points:
1. Many people have called me blasphemous because I wrote that Joseph discovered his wife was pregnant with an "illegitimate child." I thought it would be obvious to the average reader that after Joseph discovered his betrothed wife was pregnant and before his dream, it certainly would have appeared that Jesus was conceived in an illegitimate way. People have written me and said that Mary should not have been stoned according to the law because she was innocent. Of course! But did Joseph know that before the dream? No he didn't, and yet the Scriptures still refer to him as a just man precisely because He chose compassion over the letter of the law. (Compare Deuteronomy 22:20-21 with Matthew 1:19)
2. People have commented that my illustration of Jesus defending the disciples picking grain on the Sabbath was taken out of context. The argument goes that all Jesus was doing was proving that He's the Lord of the Sabbath, therefore He can do with it what He wants. I agree that Jesus was showing His lordship over the Sabbath, but that still doesn't negate the fact that Jesus used the word unlawful to describe what David did when he ate the showbread in the house of Abiathar the priest--and commends him for it (Mark 2:25-26)! I go back to my original question. If God commended people for breaking His laws because of compassion for their fellow human beings, what might He think of people today who challenge man-made laws for reasons of human compassion? I can understand why some would take issue with using the word break, but is the word unlawful any less offensive? The point is still the same. It appears that in Scripture, God commends people for choosing human compassion over the letter of the law.
3. I realize that calling Ruth an "illegal immigrant" isn't a direct correlation to the situation we have today, but that's not the point. It would have been very easy for Boaz to think of Ruth in terms of an illegal immigrant, and he could have used some great "the Bible tells me so" justifications to deny her compassion according to the consensus of the religious elite of his day.
That was before the new Arizona immigration law. I realize that the law is controversial and that there are legitimate issues of border security that need to be addressed, but who would have known that within a few weeks of my article appearing on the Free Republic, the state of Arizona would pass a law that, among many other things, criminalizes compassion to illegal immigrants? As Eugene Cho points out in his post, The law states that those who “knowingly transport or harbor” undocumented immigrants will be at risk of arrest. In other words, if an individual, or perhaps a church or faith institution, takes an illegal immigrant to a grocery store or provides food, clothing, and shelter for an illegal immigrant, they could be arrested.
How does that square with the direct command of Jesus to take in strangers (Matthew 25:35)? The answer is it doesn't. Showing compassion to another human being should never be illegal, and if it is, then Christians are obligated to "obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). I'm not saying that I have this conundrum figured out as to how followers of Jesus should balance upholding the law with human compassion. So with that, my parting words on this issue will be a quote from the beloved Apostle Paul. "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Corinthians 3:6).
Showing posts with label Deuteronomy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Deuteronomy. Show all posts
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Friday, September 11, 2009
Sept. 11: The right way to remember (guest contributor Mark Orfila)
When I was in the States I saw lots of bumper stickers that said: "9/11: We will not forget." I'm all for remembering, but I think that there's a right way and a wrong way to remember.
The book of Deuteronomy is all about remembering. Over and over God commanded the people of Israel not to forget. Among the things that they were to remember were their years of slavery in Egypt. Whenever they are told not to forget the evil that had been done to them it was usually in the context of a social justice command. Take for example Deut. 24:17,18: "Do not deprive the alien or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the Lord you God redeemed you from there. That is why I command you to do this." In other words, "Don't forget what it's like to be under someone's thumb in order to make sure that you never turn around and do the same thing to someone else."
Living here in the Balkans I've seen first-hand the danger of the wrong kind of remembering. Members of every ethnic group have committed enough atrocities against one another that everyone has something terrible to remember; everyone can justify the hatred that his group nurses; everyone can see his people as the victims and the others as the aggessors. Remember when you were a kid and you got into a fight with your sibling and your parents intervened and you and your sibling both said, "But s/he started it!"? As a parent I know how tricky it can be to sort how who really started it and what exactly constitutes "starting it". Much of the debate among Balkans people seems to me to come down to a deadly, grown-up version of "Who started it?". Memories are the chips with which this high stakes game is played.
I want to be careful not to be misunderstood here. I'm not trying to suggest that all parties in the recent Balkan wars were equally guilty or that all atrocities were equally atrocious. I certainly don't want to feed that arrogant American attitude which says, "Those guys have been killing one another for thousands of years. If it's not one it's the other. Why should we care?" This kind of statement is not only unbearably smug but also historically inaccurate. The truth is that in the Balkan wars of the 1990s I believe that the Serbs were the primary aggressors, but the point I'm getting at here is that I don't think that we Americans are willing to admit how much we have in common with them. Both of us have caused a lot of devastation in the name of fighting Islamic fundamentalism -- and ultimately fueled its fires.
As September 11 rolls around again, by all means, let's remember. Let's remember the destruction, the economic disruption, the national trauma and humiliation, the suffering of thousands who were injured and maimed, and the anguish of tens of thousands who lost family members in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. And as we remember let's repent of the fact that our very first response was to turn around and inflict the very same destruction and death on someone else.
I'll close with a 9/11 quote -- this one from September 11, 1915. It's by Stanley Frodsham, a Pentecostal pioneer and an early editor of The Weekly Evangel (the forerunner of Today's Pentecostal Evangel.)
When one comes into that higher kingdom and becomes a citizen of the ‘holy nation’ (1 Peter 2:9), the things that pertain to earth should forever lose their hold, even that natural love for the nation where one happened to be born, and loyalty to the new King should swallow up all other loyalties. …National pride, like every other form of pride, is abomination in the sight of God. And pride of race must be one of the all things that pass away when one becomes a new creature in Christ Jesus. . . . When seen from the heavenly viewpoint, how the present conflict is illumined...The policy of our God is plainly declared in the Word, "Peace on earth, good will toward me." Stanley H. Frodsham, “Our Heavenly Citizenship,” The Weekly Evangel, 11 September 1915, 3, quoted in Shifiting Allegiances in the Assemblies of God by Paul Alexander.
As followers of the Prince of Peace, we must make sure that our remembering is not poisoned by national pride. If it is, we will only perpetrate on others the evil that was done to us.
(this article was posted with permission, the original article can be found at www.kosovacajun.blogspot.com)
The book of Deuteronomy is all about remembering. Over and over God commanded the people of Israel not to forget. Among the things that they were to remember were their years of slavery in Egypt. Whenever they are told not to forget the evil that had been done to them it was usually in the context of a social justice command. Take for example Deut. 24:17,18: "Do not deprive the alien or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the Lord you God redeemed you from there. That is why I command you to do this." In other words, "Don't forget what it's like to be under someone's thumb in order to make sure that you never turn around and do the same thing to someone else."
Living here in the Balkans I've seen first-hand the danger of the wrong kind of remembering. Members of every ethnic group have committed enough atrocities against one another that everyone has something terrible to remember; everyone can justify the hatred that his group nurses; everyone can see his people as the victims and the others as the aggessors. Remember when you were a kid and you got into a fight with your sibling and your parents intervened and you and your sibling both said, "But s/he started it!"? As a parent I know how tricky it can be to sort how who really started it and what exactly constitutes "starting it". Much of the debate among Balkans people seems to me to come down to a deadly, grown-up version of "Who started it?". Memories are the chips with which this high stakes game is played.
I want to be careful not to be misunderstood here. I'm not trying to suggest that all parties in the recent Balkan wars were equally guilty or that all atrocities were equally atrocious. I certainly don't want to feed that arrogant American attitude which says, "Those guys have been killing one another for thousands of years. If it's not one it's the other. Why should we care?" This kind of statement is not only unbearably smug but also historically inaccurate. The truth is that in the Balkan wars of the 1990s I believe that the Serbs were the primary aggressors, but the point I'm getting at here is that I don't think that we Americans are willing to admit how much we have in common with them. Both of us have caused a lot of devastation in the name of fighting Islamic fundamentalism -- and ultimately fueled its fires.
As September 11 rolls around again, by all means, let's remember. Let's remember the destruction, the economic disruption, the national trauma and humiliation, the suffering of thousands who were injured and maimed, and the anguish of tens of thousands who lost family members in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. And as we remember let's repent of the fact that our very first response was to turn around and inflict the very same destruction and death on someone else.
I'll close with a 9/11 quote -- this one from September 11, 1915. It's by Stanley Frodsham, a Pentecostal pioneer and an early editor of The Weekly Evangel (the forerunner of Today's Pentecostal Evangel.)
When one comes into that higher kingdom and becomes a citizen of the ‘holy nation’ (1 Peter 2:9), the things that pertain to earth should forever lose their hold, even that natural love for the nation where one happened to be born, and loyalty to the new King should swallow up all other loyalties. …National pride, like every other form of pride, is abomination in the sight of God. And pride of race must be one of the all things that pass away when one becomes a new creature in Christ Jesus. . . . When seen from the heavenly viewpoint, how the present conflict is illumined...The policy of our God is plainly declared in the Word, "Peace on earth, good will toward me." Stanley H. Frodsham, “Our Heavenly Citizenship,” The Weekly Evangel, 11 September 1915, 3, quoted in Shifiting Allegiances in the Assemblies of God by Paul Alexander.
As followers of the Prince of Peace, we must make sure that our remembering is not poisoned by national pride. If it is, we will only perpetrate on others the evil that was done to us.
(this article was posted with permission, the original article can be found at www.kosovacajun.blogspot.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
