America is “addicted to oil.” We know that because President Bush said so in his last State of the Union speech. And he is trying to cure us of that addiction–even if he has to go after every fossil fuel pusher in the Middle East. But in the meantime, we are faced with an even greater threat: high gas prices.

This past Monday, President Bush assured us that he was going to do something about the high cost of fuel: “We’ll make sure that the energy companies are pricing their product fairly. If we catch them gouging, if we catch them–unfair trade practices–we’ll deal with them at the federal government. That’s what you expect the federal government to do.”

(At this point, I found myself wondering how America’s oil addiction figured into Bush’s plan to lower gas prices. To me, it makes as much sense as complaining about someone’s crack habit while at the same time working to bring down the cost of the drug and punish crack dealers for price gouging. But I digress.)

On Tuesday, the president repeated his promise to take action: “First thing is to make sure that the American consumers are treated fairly at the gas pump. Americans understand, by and large, that the price of crude oil is going up and that the prices are going up, but what they don’t want and will not accept is manipulation of the market. And neither will I.”

I’m not sure how the president managed to keep a straight face during that speech. After all, our “leaders” in Washington are the ultimate masters of market manipulation.

The feds manipulate the market by arbitrarily increasing and decreasing the money supply. They use the Federal Reserve to tamper with interest rates. They stifle competition by filing antitrust lawsuits against “monopolies” (i.e., companies that are a bit too successful for the government’s taste). They single out particular goods for taxation–like alcohol and tobacco–in an attempt to influence the rate of production and consumption. They enact pieces of legislation–affirmative action and minimum wage laws come to mind–that favor social engineering over free enterprise.

Yet another way the government manipulates the market is by waging war. Who among us really believes that our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq–not to mention our threats against Iran–have nothing to do with the cost of fuel?

When it comes to filling up our gas tanks, my advice to you, Mr. President, is to just stay out of it. The government remedy for price gouging is price control, and that is about as anti-free market as you can get.

On the other hand, if you really want the federal government to be involved, try addressing those factors that help keep the price of gasoline artificially inflated. One thing you could do is persuade Congress to repeal the federal gas tax. Another action you could take is to relax restrictions on the building of new refineries and remove the requirements that call for specific blends of gasoline. You could also call for an end to federal environmental regulations that place an undue burden on gasoline production.

Another thing you could do is help reduce the cost of crude oil. Lay off the saber-rattling awhile and allow the market to stabilize.

Contrary to what most Americans may think, the federal government is not our benefactor. We don’t have to like paying higher prices for a particular product, but we need to realize that price “gouging” is as much a part of the free market as price slashing.

You know, it is rather amusing that the same people who complain about paying $2.89 for a gallon of gas will think nothing about driving an SUV six blocks to the local movie theater and plop down $4.75 for a 16-oz. soda. Americans really are a strange people.

The Purpose of the Christian Life

Before getting too far ahead of ourselves, we should think about and define the purpose of the Christian life. The Westminster Catechism begins by saying that the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. In other words, Christianity isn’t primarily about individual soul-saving, but glorifying the Creator of the cosmos.

Today, there is a tremendous need for Biblical evangelism that surpasses tract passing, personal testimony, and “Just As I Am.” What is needed is a comprehensive program that brings the comprehensive message of salvation to every individual—and institution.

Evangelicals tend toward an extremely narrow view of God’s Kingdom and His purposes. What is the purpose of the Great Commission? Is it merely an edict to the Church to witness in a hopeless and dying world, snatching a few desperate souls from the fiery cauldron of the lake of fire? Or should Christ’s directive give us hope that the Holy Spirit will empower the Church to promote salvation against the world, the flesh, and the evil one?

In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus asks His disciples the BIG question that we must all answer—”Who do you say I am?” Peter responds by saying, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” Next, Jesus tells Peter that upon his confession, “I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” The picture painted by our Lord is of a militant and empowered body of believers, taking the light of the Gospel message into the world and scattering the darkness. It is the forces of evil manning the barricades against the Church, not visa versa.

Though Satan is a mighty enemy, described as a roaring lion, Scripture gives us comfort that in light of Christ’s victory at Golgotha; the strong man has been bound, and we are to plunder his house (Matt. 12:29) and occupy it until Jesus returns.

Thankfully, we have not been left powerless to fulfill our mission. We have the Word of God, which is sharper than a two-edged sword, and access to God through prayer. Most importantly, we have Jesus’ promise that He will be with us always in the person of the Holy Spirit, who was sent to be our counselor and minister.

Aside from the purpose of the Great Commission, Evangelicals also frequently misunderstand its nature as well. Is it merely individualistic, with the hope of saving individual lost sinners and training them in their private “walk with God” and public worship? Or is its goal to transform individuals with the expectation that they will make a difference in the world, creating a Christian culture?

Discussing the perversion of the “individualistic” Gospel, Dr. David Alan Black writes:

One of the perversions of the Gospel I think needs eliminating today is the emphasis upon personal evangelism to the detriment or exclusion of any social emphasis. I do not question the fact that salvation is personal and individual, but it is far more than that. However, for many evangelicals the emphasis on the personal and individual has increasingly made salvation individualistic. The whole of the Christian experience is thought to be one’s personal relationship to God – often to the exclusion of one’s relationship with others or to the culture in general.

Salvation is both personal and social. Since sin is personal, each individual is guilty of sin and must be forgiven for his sin, not someone else’s. However, salvation is also social. Jesus is Lord of all. Politics, education, economics, the arts – all these are included under His divine Lordship. Thus Christians must come to understand that although salvation is individual and personal, the kingdom of God is far broader than just our personal salvation experiences.

It is true, as Dr. Black says, that sin is personal, as are the consequences, and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit is the starting point for Christians. Those who are dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1) must be given a new heart and a new spirit. The Apostle Paul tells us “the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law” (Rom. 8:7).

Regeneration, however, is just the beginning. In Christ, we become a new creation and are prepared to accomplish the good works for which we were created (Eph. 2:10). We are dead to sin, and slaves to Christ. In the strength of the Holy Spirit, we also have the ability to obey the commands of the King, and we are obligated to do so out of love (John 14:15, I John 2:3-5). The theological term for this growth process is progressive sanctification. In effect, we become more Christ-like in our attitudes and actions. This process of progressive growth ought to be foundational to any Christian strategy of cultural and political activism. In other words, the transformation of individuals must precede the transformation of institutions and culture.

Discerning God’s Will

The “purpose driven life” is a life lived seeking conformity to the will of God. But what is God’s will for us? D. James Kennedy writes, “God’s answer to the question of human purpose and meaning centers around two great mandates He has given us in His Word. A mandate, of course, is a directive or command that points us in a specific direction.” Those two mandates are the Cultural Mandate, given at the creation of man, and the Great Commission, given with the creation of the new man.

The first of God’s two mandates – the Cultural Mandate – is found in Genesis 1:26-28:

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Nancy Pearcey says that to “‘be fruitful and multiply,’ means to develop the social world: build families, churches, schools, cities, governments, laws. The second phrase, ’subdue the earth,’ means to harness the natural world: plant crops, build bridges, design computers, compose music. This passage is sometimes called the Cultural Mandate because it tells us that our original purpose was to create cultures, build civilizations—nothing less.”

Here we see the Trinity conferring upon man the role of vice-regent, ruling and reigning with God, bringing the world under His dominion. Man’s task in accordance with God’s command and our own nature, having been created in His image, is to exercise dominion and develop culture. As a “federal head,” Adam did not merely act on his own behalf, but as a representative for all of mankind. The command to Adam, which is stated again in the Noahic Covenant (Genesis 9) is still in force today. To quote Kennedy again, “As the vice-regents of God, we are to bring His truth and His will to bear on every sphere of our world and our society. We are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors – in short, over every aspect and intrusion of human society.”

Adam’s fall into sin was imputed to all humanity and perverted the God-given desire to exercise authority in God’s name, and replaced it with a desire to become God ourselves. Consequently, Christ’s representative and vicarious death was necessary to restore and renew the image of God to allow redeemed men to bring the creation into submission to God. It is only in Christ, through the power of the Holy Sprit, that man can fulfill his original mandate. Thus, there is an intimate connection between the Great Commission and the Cultural Mandate, for without salvation, we can do nothing. Therefore, evangelism and discipleship takes precedence over other activities.

However, as Christians our duty is not simply to fill our churches and drag new converts into the baptistery. We are to make disciples for our Lord, and teach them to obey everything God has commanded.

True Christian discipleship recognizes that every sphere of life is under the authority of God, and Christ’s salvation and healing is not merely for individuals, but also for the creation that groans under the impact of sin (Rom. 8). As Gary North has written, “Nothing is to be excluded from Christ’s healing: not the family, not the State, not business, not education, and surely not the institutional church. Salvation is the salve that heals the wounds inflicted by sin: every type of wound from every type of sin.”

Too many of my fundamentalist and evangelical friends (and I would claim to be both an evangelical and a fundamentalist) think that Christians must merely preach the Gospel, bring souls to Jesus, and everything else will simply fall into place. But this is a denial of a Christian worldview. Chuck Colson writes:

The only task of the church, many fundamentalists and evangelicals have believed, is to save as many lost souls as possible from a world literally going to hell. But this [is an] implicit denial of a Christian worldview. It is unbiblical and [it] is the reason we have lost so much of our influence in the world. Salvation does not consist simply of freedom from sin; salvation also means being restored to the task we were given in the beginning—the job of creating culture.

We must also recognize that God created the world and called it good. Thus, though contaminated by man’s sin, the created order is still good, and the redeemed in Christ are called by God to work toward restoring the world to a Godly order.

What Has This Got to do With Politics?

Thus far, I have attempted to demonstrate that the purpose of the Christian life is to pursue God’s glory in obediently seeking to fulfill the Great Commission and the Cultural Mandate. But what has any of this to do with politics?

The word politics comes from the Greek word “polis”, meaning the state or community as a whole. Politics is the means of organizing a just, equitable, and peaceful society by providing mechanisms to resolve conflicts that arise between men, by means of discussion and rational compromise. Politics is not feasible without government and authority.

However, for Christians, Christ has been given all authority in heaven and on earth, and the government, all government, rests upon His shoulders. The Scripture is clear that Christ holds all things together and through Him, all things will be reconciled to the Father. “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross” (Col 1:15-20).

When Paul says “all things” does he really mean all things except politics, economics, literature, and culture? Similarly, when Paul says that we are to take every thought and make it captive to Christ (I Cor. 10:5), does that exclude politics? When he writes that we must do all things to the glory of God (I Cor. 10:31) does Paul really mean “all things other than politics?”

Also, Jesus says that His people are the salt of the earth and the light of the world, and the rule and reign of Christ is extended by His people. Christians perform a common grace function. Our presence serves as a preservative and a light scattering the darkness. Does God desire justice, equity and peace and is He the source of those blessings? If so, why would it make sense that His followers and disciples should flee the battlefield and leave society in the hands of humanists?

The Bible describes believers as exiles in the world (I Peter 1:17, I Peter). Typically, my brothers and sisters use that passage to defend obscuratinism and retreat from the culture. “We’re just passin’ through, ’cause our citizenship is in heaven,” they say. At the same time, they recite the Lord’s Prayer and sing “This is our Father’s world” without any recognition of cognitive dissonance.

Christians are indeed exiles in this world, captives if you will (I Peter 1:17, I Peter 2:11, etc.). So how do we seek dominion at the same time that we are “exiles?” Dominion is achieved primarily by service. Jesus, King of Kings, came to be a servant, and as His disciples we are to be conformed to His image and follow His example. But it is through true servanthood that dominion is established. Writing to the Jews is captivity, Jeremiah explains what it means to be an exile:

4This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says to all those I carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: 5 “Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce. 6 Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease. 7 Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper. (Jer. 29:4-7)”

This sounds strikingly like the Cultural Mandate—have babies, build houses, till the soil and grow crops, seek prosperity and wealth. This is the heart of loving God with our whole being and loving our neighbors.

What is Government?

Modern man frequently makes the error of equating “government” with the State. The Cambridge Dictionary defines government as “the group of people who officially control a country.” In fact, government belongs to God. He has established numerous “governments” with various prerogatives and powers to advance His holy purposes.

For example, God created the family as the primary source of earthly government. The family, has been given stewardship over children, authority over property and inheritance, and control over education. The family is also the institution preeminently responsible for social welfare. Paul says that the failure to care for our own marks us as “worse than an unbeliever” (I Tim. 5:8) and James says that “pure and undefiled religion…is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble” (James 1:27).

The early church did not depend on the Roman civil authorities to meet social needs. Likewise, we see Jesus on the cross with His dying words ensuring that His mother is taken care of by John (John 19:25-27). The modern State has encroached into all these areas that rightly fall under the purview of family government. Strong and stable families, jealously guarding their prerogatives, are the foundation of strong and stable communities, and only these mediating institutions can protect the naked individual from the maniacal, power-hungry State.

There are other “governments” as well, foremost among them, the school and the church. The point here is a simple one – God has established various institutions and given them responsibilities in their spheres of influence. More importantly, the jurisdiction of these institutions has been limited and circumscribed by the Scriptures.

Christians need to realize that the State is not sovereign. Only God is absolutely sovereign. All human agencies have limited degrees of authority. Scripture tells us that all power and authority reside in the resurrected and ascended Christ who is enthroned at the hand of God (Matt. 28:18) and that it is in Christ that all things are held together (Col. 1:17). The institutions created by Him are to serve as His ministers, working out His will.

The State’s power is also limited and circumscribed by the Word. According to the Bible, God established civil government for three primary reasons:

1. To protect human life that is made in the image of God: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man” (Gen. 9:6);

2. To defend the law-abiding from lawbreakers: “For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Rom. 13:3-4);

3. To provide for a peaceful, orderly society: “I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone– for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness” (I Tim. 1:1-2).

Today, however, the State has usurped virtually all power to its bosom. Historically, the State has been an object of worship, God walking on earth, as Hegel says. Rushdoony has written that the state is intrinsically religious, “Every state or social order is a religious establishment. Every state is a law order, and every law order represents an enacted morality, with procedures for the enforcement of that morality. Every morality represents a form of theological order, i.e., is an aspect and expression of a religion.”

Is there any doubt that a cosmopolitan, anti-Western, and vigorously anti-Christian elite has established control of virtually every viable institution, including the instruments of cultural dissemination and political control (i.e., the State)? Is there any question that said elite is an ally of humanism? Should such a state of affairs be endorsed or accepted by God’s people?

Many Christians point to Romans 13 as a proof text for inaction, or even retreat in political and cultural matters. However, I think these texts are frequently misunderstood in such a way as to leave the State free to rampage about in an unbiblical way. Paul says, “there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God” (Rom. 13:1). So even the State is established and ordained by God for the purpose of being God’s servant (deacon) “to do you good” (v. 4). In other words, the State is also under the authority of God, accountable to Him, and must rule in accordance with His divine rule as revealed in Scripture. The Church, therefore, must prophetically proclaim the Lordship of Christ in all spheres of life, and as a Christian who takes God’s Word seriously, I have an affirmative duty to speak and toil for the establishment of a social order that takes God’s law-word seriously.

Virtually every American has his or her own opinion about immigration and what should be done about it. Some would like to see things remain as they are. A few believe our borders should be open, with people allowed to come and go as they please. Others think that only immigrants from certain countries or ethnic backgrounds should be allowed entrance into these United States. And, of course, there are those who believe that immigration should be scaled back dramatically, at least for awhile, and extra measures taken to ensure that those who are here illegally are deported. No matter what your position, I’m sure you have good reason to believe the way you do. It’s a difficult issue and, quite frankly, I’m not entirely sure where I stand. I will, however, share some of my thoughts on the subject.

President Bush’s “guest-worker” proposal isn’t the answer because it rewards those individuals and businesses that continually violate our immigration laws and singles out one particular group of immigrants for special treatment. It is a stop-gap solution to a long-term problem, and until we differentiate between the “jobs Americans just won’t do” and the jobs American businesses just aren’t willing to pay Americans enough to do, we won’t make any progress.

But I am hesitant to jump on board the anti-immigration bandwagon. One reason is that I am concerned about what might happen to the otherwise law-abiding immigrants who are affected by circumstances beyond their control and find themselves lumped in with those who willingly, knowingly, and flagrantly violate our laws.

One such example is a close family friend. He came here from Russia on a student visa in 1991, before the collapse of the Soviet Union. He applied for asylum in the U.S., was denied, and filed an appeal.

Years went by while his appeal was being “reviewed.” During that time, he found himself in a catch-22. He couldn’t travel on his current passport because it wasn’t valid; the Soviet government that issued it no longer existed. What’s more, he couldn’t obtain a new passport or visa because his Russian citizenship expired when he was unable to return to his home country before the arbitrary deadline set by the new government.

When the ruling he had been waiting for finally came, the news wasn’t good. His appeal had been denied and he had thirty days to leave the country. He retained the services of an immigration lawyer who was able to get an extension, but that meant plunging headlong into the nightmarish quagmire that is the American immigration system.

The treatment he received courtesy of Uncle Sam was inexcusable. In order to prevent him from fleeing—as if he had anywhere to go—he was forced to wear a monitoring device on his ankle. He was allowed to go to work, but he had to show up at the immigration office three times a week to check in with his case worker. He also had a curfew, and he faced harsh consequences if he wasn’t home to answer the random phone calls and surprise visits from immigration officials.

Needless to say, our friend wasn’t too happy with the situation. All these years spent as a law-abiding resident in the “Land of the Free” only to end up being treated like a common criminal.

My wife got to see firsthand how our government handles the “threat” posed by these immigrant “criminals” when she accompanied our friend on one of his visits to the immigration office. She met a Laotian woman in the lobby who, along with her four-year-old daughter, was waiting for her husband to take his citizenship test. Unfortunately, he never got the chance.

It turned out that he had been arrested on a misdemeanor charge back in the early 1990s and that meant he was ineligible for citizenship and subject to deportation. As he was escorted into a holding cell, his wife kept insisting that everything was going to be all right. The daughter, who started to cry and say that she didn’t want her daddy to be taken away, seemed to have a better understanding of what was happening.

My wife tried to console the little girl and to convince the woman that she should seek the services of an immigration lawyer right away. We never found out what became of them. We can only hope that whatever happened, the family was allowed to stay together.

Relief for our friend only came when the Russian consulate finally provided our government with a letter officially declaring that he was no longer a Russian citizen. I suspect that this caught the immigration officials off-guard. They didn’t know what to do. They weren’t about to grant him the permanent residency he wanted, but, ironically, they couldn’t bring themselves to ship him back to a country where he would be treated as an illegal immigrant.

In light of this development, the tracking device has since been removed and he only has to check in with immigration officials once a month. But he is still in bureaucratic limbo, a man without a country. Meanwhile, he continues to work, pay taxes, purchase goods and services, and obey the law. What more could Americans expect of their fellow citizens?

We live in a truly amazing country. Whoring crack heads can be elected mayors of major cities and be looked upon as role models. Drunken murderers can serve lifetime terms in the Senate and retire as millionaires on their fat pensions. Lying rapists can win the presidency, be allowed to fornicate in the White House, and win a special place in the hearts of feminists everywhere. Coke-snorting cheerleaders can send teenaged girls off to fight a war, kill tens of thousands of foreign civilians, and still be held up as model Christian heroes.

And these are the “good guys”? These are the ones who get to make the rules for the rest of us?

I’m sorry if I can’t muster up the energy to get passionate about the immigration issue. Given the current state of affairs, I just don’t see how immigrants, legal or otherwise, pose the most immediate threat to this nation.

One of the most annoying qualities of the immigration debate is that enthusiasts for immigration often appear to hold their own countrymen in disrepute and impute to foreigners character traits that we natives are obviously lacking. Here is an extended quote from a recent column by NY Times columnist, and Neocon-at-large, David Brooks, that I hope makes my point.  We’ll call Brooks a proponent of the ideology of Messianic Immgrationism.  Brooks writes:

My first argument is that the exclusionists are wrong when they say the current wave of immigration is tearing our social fabric. The facts show that the recent rise in immigration hasn’t been accompanied by social breakdown, but by social repair. As immigration has surged, violent crime has fallen by 57 percent. Teen pregnancies and abortion rates have declined by a third. Teenagers are having fewer sexual partners and losing their virginity later. Teen suicide rates have dropped. The divorce rate for young people is on the way down.

Over the past decade we’ve seen the beginnings of a moral revival, and some of the most important work has been done by Catholic and evangelical immigrant churches, by faith-based organizations like the Rev. Luis Cortas’s Nueva Esperanza, by Hispanic mothers and fathers monitoring their kids. The anti-immigration crowd says this country is under assault. But if that’s so, we’re under assault by people who love their children.

My second argument is that the immigrants themselves are like a booster shot of traditional morality injected into the body politic. Immigrants work hard. They build community groups. They have traditional ideas about family structure, and they work heroically to make them a reality.

This is evident in everything from divorce rates (which are low, given immigrants’ socioeconomic status) to their fertility rates (which are high) and even the way they shop.

Hispanics and Hispanic immigrants have less money than average Americans, but they spend what they have on their families, usually in wholesome ways. According to Simmons Research, Hispanics are 57 percent more likely than average Americans to have purchased children’s furniture in the past year. Mexican-Americans spend 93 percent more on children’s music.

According to the government’s Consumer Expenditure Survey, Hispanics spend more on gifts, on average, than other Americans. They’re more likely to support their parents financially. They’re more likely to have big family dinners at home.

This isn’t alien behavior. It’s admirable behavior, the antidote to the excessive individualism that social conservatives decry…

My fourth argument is that government should be at least as virtuous as the immigrants themselves. Right now (as under Bill Frist’s legislation), government pushes immigrants into a chaotic underground world. The Judiciary Committee’s bill, which Senator Brownback supports, would tighten the borders, but it would also reward virtue. Immigrants who worked hard, paid fines, paid their taxes, stayed out of trouble and waited their turn would have a chance to become citizens. This isn’t government enabling vice; it’s government at its best, encouraging middle-class morality.

Social conservatives, let me ask you to consider one final thing. Women who have recently arrived from Mexico have bigger, healthier babies than more affluent non-Hispanic white natives. That’s because strong family and social networks support these pregnant women, reminding them what to eat and do. But the longer they stay, and the more assimilated they become, the more bad habits they acquire and the more problems their subsequent babies have.

So if Brooks is to be believed, mass immigration from Mexico will produce the following:

1) Less violent crime
2) Increased chastity
3) Fewer teen suicides
4) Patriarchal families
5) Less divorce
6) Higher fertility rates
7) More gift giving
More family dinners
9) Healthier children
10) The end of rapacious individualism.

I’m sure I’ve missed something, but doesn’t that sound great? I had no idea that there was a causation between immigration and all those social benefits.

My last entry drew some interest. In this letter I am trying to answer the objections raised. 

 

Hello Barb,

Thanks for asking these questions. I hope I can respond in a way that is clearly not humanistic but is thoroughly Christian so that you and your friend can see the difference.

First, the difference between Brimelow’s analogy and that of value’s clarification is that in 8th grade values clarification you are told that death is the result of throwing people overboard. Now, I did use the idea of death but I was speaking metaphorically in terms of the death of a culture. I wasn’t speaking literally. If 12 million illegal immigrants aren’t allowed to stay in this country 12 million illegal immigrants are not going to die as a result of going back home.

Secondly, it is irrefutable that if we cannot control our borders we lose our National identity. If large amounts of the third World can come here then this nation will no longer be this nation but rather it will be the third world. Surely, you and your friend must agree that if you have a quart of water in a container and over time you keep adding a ½ a cup of whiskey that eventually you will have whiskey and not water in your container. Now, we may be able to absorb the 12 million illegal immigrants that are here now, but unless we get control of our borders there will be 12 million more in short order. It is irrefutable that with those kinds of numerical additions we will eventually no longer be America but something else, and it is at least open to question if that something else will continue to be a place where the World wants to come. My conviction Barb is that third World people will bring a third World belief system that is alien to the World view belief system that made America, ‘America’, and the consequence will either be a third world America or in the case of the Southwest, perhaps even secession as the Aztlan movement gains steam.

It is also undeniable that it is what is particularly non-Christian about America that is drawing a large portion of illegal immigrants. Large numbers of illegal immigrants are attracted by our Welfare system, which is thoroughly unbiblical. The Welfare system has the State stealing from my ability to provide for my children in order to provide for the children of illegal immigrants (and children of legal Americans.)  Scripture tells me that I am to provide for my own household and the Welfare system that draws illegal immigrants makes it difficult for me to be obedient to Scripture in this regard. Further, supporting a illegal immigration policy that is driven by a system that is organized in defiance of the 7th commandment would be dishonorable to God. The really compassionate thing for American Christians to do would be to give the third World the Biblical Jesus in the way of missions, understanding that where the Spiritual freedom of the Gospel takes root other freedoms (economic, political, etc.) follow. People groups that are in bondage to Satan will never be free and moving to a place that is comparitively free will not result in their freedom.

I agree with your friend that to think Biblically requires some kind of solution that does not treat these people as disposable. I believe that part of the answer is to send particular kinds of missionaries to the countries from which they arrive. They need Missionaries that will teach them the whole counsel of God. They need missionaries that will teach them a Biblical Christian World and life view and who will help connect the dots in order to reveal to them the relationship between spiritual freedom and all other kinds of freedom. The best thing that could happen to people who feel the need to immigrate would be for their countries to be transformed by the Gospel.

What I love about your friend is her compassion for the ‘least of these.’ I insist though that we must ask ourselves to think about compassion. As Christians we must not only have compassion on one group of ‘the least of these’ but we must also have compassion on other ‘least of these’ Americans. After all, charity does start at home. Statistics suggest that American Blacks, for example, are disproportionally disadvantaged by large-scale arrivals of illegal immigrants. Are we lacking compassion for American blacks by being compassionate to illegal immigrants? Also we must have compassion on the middle class. Statistics suggest that due to the illegal immigration there is a wealth transfer occurring from the middle class to the Corporate class. Should this reality continue (a reality driven both by illegal immigration and what has come to be called ‘outsourcing’) one of those things that have always made America, America (a strong middle class) will be in serious danger. If, over time, serious enough damage is done to the American middle class we won’t need to worry any longer about illegal immigration since with the disappearance of the middle class we will have created Meximerica. It is ironic that in our compassion towards illegal immigrants we are lining the pockets of those who the Scripture most consistently rails against (cmp. James 5:1-6). So, compassion is good but we must pause to look around to see all the people out there who need our compassion.
 
 The problem with your friends support for a category of guest worker is that this kind of thing as been tried before in 1986. That policy was supposed to tighten up illegal immigration problems. It obviously failed. Consequently, you will not be surprised if I am skeptical regarding a similar solution in 2006. The problem is that Corporate America (created by statist government) believes it needs illegal immigration to compete and as Corporate America make big contributions to political parties our politicians are not going to do anything to stop illegal immigration. Secondly, even should illegal immigrants (guest workers) pay taxes that amount will be nothing compared to what is being paid out in Welfare subsidies. Third, paying taxes means that Corporate America will no longer get away with paying illegal immigrants below the minimum wage and so the lure of hiring illegal immigrants begins to dissipate. Finally, your friend misses the point that one reason why politicians are soft on this issue is that they realize that these people either are already voting or will soon be voting. Surely, you have heard of those districts where the dead vote. If the dead are voting we can be fairly sure that illegal immigrants are voting.

I hope this answers some of Pauline’s questions,

Bret

Dear American Christians,

Peter Brimelow, in his book, Alien Nation, uses a lifeboat as an analogy for the current immigration situation. Lifeboats are made for a certain number of people to rescue. Should the whole world, because of some disaster to their ships, attempt to get in the American lifeboat; the consequence would not be rescue for everyone but rather death for everyone.

The lifeboat that is America cannot take in the entire World without capsizing. Such action would lead to death, not only for those swamping the already overfull boat, but also for the owners of the lifeboat, who wanted to rescue as many as they could to begin with.

The West, uniquely crafted by the influence of the Christian faith, is dying. It may already be too late to rescue, but if it is not too late, surely the refusal to define our borders will be another nail in the coffin. Conversely, perhaps the unwillingness to deal with the issues that threaten us is one more piece of evidence that, as a people, we have lost the will to live. Surely we must see that we cannot, without seriously adverse consequences, embrace millions and millions of people who have no touchstone with the few remaining shards of the worldview that has defined us as a unique people. Can we not see that those who have no capacity to share in the ‘mystic chords of memory,’ that make a nation a nation, cannot be brought into a host nation without remaking the host nation into the image of the shared ‘mystic chords of memory’ of the alien people? If we continue to pursue this madness we will extinguish the very flame that attracts so many of the World’s huddled masses. America will be of no help to anyone if she becomes a third world nation. 
          

Depending on whether you are in the Mark Twain camp when it comes to believing statistics, you can take this or leave it, but these statistics caused some righteous indignation on my part, so I will share them so Bret can get mad(der), too:

Estimates show that half of my state’s (California) prison population is made up of illegals.

17 percent of the federal prison population is illegals, though they are only 3 percent of the total population. (This article places it at over 29 percent.)

Up to a third of the prison poplulation is non-citizens, but not all of these are here illegally.

Illegals are 50 percent more likely to be on welfare than citizens.

Ed Rubenstein says that in 1980, less than 9000 criminal aliens were in American prisons. Now there are around 267,000 non-citizens there.

It’s the anniversary of the problem with Apollo 13, when the famous message sent from the broken spacecraft was: “Houston, we’ve had a problem.” Well, Houston and Miami and San Diego and Phoenix and even Seattle, we have a much bigger problem: the melting pot is broken and the conservative poseurs, instead of fixing the problem, are pouring foul-smelling liquids into that cracked pot and murmuring vain incantations as they stir their evil brew, hoping to hang on to some shreds of power, even if it’s through ill-gotten gains.

I’m off to read Macbeth to see how it ends.

More food for thought on illegal immigration:

Director Ron Maxwell writes an open letter to the president, begging him to quell the flood of immigrants which is overwhelming our country, many with no desire to become Americans.