The Elephant in the Old Testament

Photo by Indorock

Social media is a minefield for conflict. Seldom a day goes by that I do not see some sort of heated argument appearing in my news feed. Something about being able to type out responses in an online social media format makes even the shyest person bold in sharing their thoughts and opinions. Maybe you're one of those people who loves conflict and heads into it straight on. Or maybe you'd rather avoid conflict at all costs and only post about neutral, everyday topics.

Regardless of which category you find yourself in, I know you have at some point seen what I like to call the "Holocaust argument." I would say that the Holocaust argument is the argument of all arguments in the Facebook realm. The Holocaust doesn’t even have to be directly related to the argument at hand. As long as you can somehow insinuate that someone's stance is in some way anti-Semitic, their point automatically becomes invalid.

Here's a case in point:

Owned by my own mother. ;)

In the same way, the argument to win all arguments in Christian circles is genocide in the OT. The issue of genocide is a stumbling block for both believers and skeptics/cynics alike. You can say anything about the Christian faith and someone will inevitably refute Christianity on the basis of the genocides in the Old Testament. The mass killings that God commanded make God seem untrustworthy. They make us question his goodness. How do we rationalize God’s seemingly cruel and insensitive behavior in the OT? How do we explain God’s seemingly different disposition in the NT? Is God really a good God if he ordered the killing of so many people?

There are three positions, and only three positions, that can be taken on this issue:

1. The Israelite God is an absurdly vengeful God, and Jesus is the Christians’ attempt to redeem this side of Him. Some very fundamental Christians take this view, as well as many atheists, such as Richard Dawkins. This is probably the only time that fundamental Christians and Richard Dawkins will be found in the same category!

2. The people who wrote the Bible were mistaken about God. They justified their zeal as God’s commandment to them to kill other people. Believe it or not, there were many students during my time at seminary who believed this. This is an easy answer to the problem. However, it creates many more problems. It makes the Biblical authors liars and downplays the inspiration of Scripture. If we cannot trust their account about God, how can we trust the rest of Scripture?

3. God is a God of love, but he is also a Holy God. These two traits may seem contrary, but they coalesce. The genocides in the Old Testament do not damage God's goodness but actually reaffirm it.

We are going to unpack this third position and discuss how it is Biblically accurate. The Bible tells us three different things about the genocides in the Old Testament.

1. The genocides in the OT are an act of justice.

The first thing that must be understood is that God is not a toddler who is throwing a temper tantrum because someone took what belonged to him! By commanding the Israelites to annihilate the Canaanite nations, God was administering justice.

Take a look at what God tells Abraham in Genesis 15:16. God just finished promising Abraham that he would give him and his descendants land to inhabit. But he tells him that they can't have it just yet. Why? God says, "After four generations your descendants will return here to this land, for the sins of the Amorites do not yet warrant their destruction.”

God does not give Abraham the land immediately because the Canaanites’ sin had not reached the “no turning back” point. God was patient with the Canaanites and even gave them opportunities to repent. Take Rahab, for instance. When the two spies entered the land at the beginning of Joshua, they came across a prostitute named Rahab who knew all about Yahweh. Somehow word reached the Canaanites about the exodus from Egypt and the people were afraid of Yahweh (Joshua 2:8-11). However, as we will see in a little bit, their Canaanite religion offered them far too many comforts for them to abandon it in favor of Yahweh.

     Finally, it must be understood that God is not guilty of ethnocentrism. God is not racist. God does not favor Israel over the Canaanites because their race is somehow more appealing to him. God orders the killing of the Canaanites out of judgment. They knew about Yahweh but refused to repent. We know that God is not racist because he later punishes Israel because she disobeys him and refuses to repent, just like the Canaanites did! Through the prophet Amos, Yahweh asks his people, "are not you Israelites the same to me as the Cushites" (9:7)? God is a God of justice, and he does not show partiality.

2. The genocides in the OT are an act of salvation.

This is perhaps the most difficult point because it does not fit into a neat, little package like we would like. But sometimes the easy answers are not the best answers.

It is important to remember that the commandment to kill an entire people group in the OT was a unique part of salvation history. God had the plan since Eden and the fall of humankind to redeem the world. This plan culminates with Christ. In order to bring Christ into the world, though, God had to establish Israel as a nation. For reasons we do not know, God chose Israel as the context through which to reveal his Son. By granting the Israelite's land and setting them up as a nation, God is creating the conditions necessary for Christ's Incarnation.

Although it is not perfect, as no analogy is, I like how N.T. Wright puts it. He thinks about the Biblical narrative as a drama. This drama has several different acts. It begins with the first act of Creation. It progresses to the Fall. Then Israel is introduced in the third act. The plot culminates with the Incarnation of Christ, but you cannot jump from act one to act four. You need to have Israel before you can have Christ.[i] 

As such, the instances of genocide in the Old Testament are a unique part of salvation history that are not to be repeated. Why did God choose to do act three this way? Couldn't he have done it some other way? Why didn't he give Israel a different land to inhabit? We simply don't know. We can't know. I wish I could give you an answer, but this is just simply the way God chose to do it. 
Regardless, act three is finished. We cannot use this special instance in salvation history as justification for genocide today. We now have the life and character of Jesus Christ as a model for dealing with conflict. We are not called to rage holy war; we are called to turn the other cheek.

3. The genocides in the OT are an act of hope.

Here's the big question that needs to be asked: How much does God want to save the world? The hope of salvation depends on the preservation of the Israelite faith. The Canaanite faith was deeply enticing, and if the Israelites had occupied the land with them in it they would have undoubtedly succumbed and renounced their faith in Yahweh.

You see, we tend to confuse Canaanites with “cave men.” Generally speaking, the Israelites were the “cave men.” The Canaanites were a very sophisticated and cosmopolitan civilization. They had extravagant cities, beautiful architecture, an advanced temple system. Compare this with the Israelites. They were nomads who had little material positions. They traveled in tents. They were ex-slaves. Think of how seductive the rich, prosperous Canaanite world would have been to the poor wilderness wanderers!

I always picture an Israelite boy and a Canaanite boy playing together in a sandbox. The Canaanite boy explains to the Israelite boy what his gods are like. "Our gods live in our magnificent temple. Have you seen our temple yet? It's HUGE! Our gods are rich and give us all sorts of riches too. They also live in the trees and ground and air. They give us what we want if we worship them. But they don't require us to live upright and moral lives. What are your gods like?"

The Israelite boy responds, "Well, we actually only worship one God. He's invisible. He lives in that little, grungy tent we have over there, although he does so willingly. He doesn't really give us lots of material possessions. Oh, and he commands us to be holy like he is holy."

Can you imagine the Canaanite boy's reaction? "Your god's 'invisible.' Riiiiggghhhtttt." The poor Israelite boy would get beat up.

The Canaanites believed that the divine was imbedded within creation. Their gods were not transcendent, or outside of nature, like the Israelite God was. They could see their gods and control them. Their gods granted them their immeasurable wealth. This kind of religion is extremely attractive to our human nature. We crave control without surrender. We only want what a religion can give us. We do not like to fully devote ourselves to something if we can manipulate it to our advantage.

In a very similar way, the Israelites were ready to abandon their faith in Yahweh for a false religion that promised them riches and success. If they followed the gods of the Canaanites, they could enjoy all of the benefits without having to commit to anything. The Israelites would have escaped Egypt only to get as far as Canaan before blowing it. But God was desperate to save the world. He was so intent on saving the world that he risked his very reputation as a good God.  He ordered the sacrifice of thousands of sinful people so that the Israelites faith would be preserved for us. He wanted me to be saved. He wanted YOU to be saved!

In Joshua 24:14-23, the Israelites have finally obtained the land God had given them. Before his death, Joshua gives the Israelites an ultimatum. "Serve Yahweh, or serve the gods of the Canaanties and Amorites." Those are the Israelites only two options. Not serving is NOT an option. The Israelites quickly choose Yahweh, and Joshua reprimands them. "You are not able to serve the Lord. He is a holy God; he is a jealous God. He will not forgive your rebellion and your sins." 

What is going on here? Joshua just gave this amazing evangelistic speech, and people start pouring down to the altar. Instead of welcoming them with outstretched arms, as any good preacher would do, Joshua sends them back to their seats. 
You see, Joshua knew that the Israelites weren't ready for total commitment. He knew their hearts. They would serve Yahweh for a while, but then they would turn their devotion to other gods when they had something better to offer. Much like the video we just watched, the Israelites were seduced by the benefits that God would give them. It would not be long before a religion that offered something shinier and newer would replace their faith in Yahweh.

Unfortunately, we often do the same thing today. We follow Christ for what he can give us. When he does not meet our every desire, we begin following after other idols. 

Perhaps we are uncomfortable with the issue of genocide in the Old Testament not just because it is difficult to explain. Perhaps we are also uncomfortable with the issue of genocide because it makes God a God who is very serious about sin. God is a jealous God, and he takes idolatry very seriously. It would be so much easier for us if God fit into the mold we wanted him to fit into. It is so much easier when God becomes an idol that we can meld and alter according to our every whim. We want an easy-going idol who is lenient about sin. We want the God who looks the other way when we follow other gods. We don't want the God who commands the deaths of thousands because they follow other gods.

But God takes idolatry very seriously. And we don't want that kind of God. We want the idols of the Canaanites who did not demand much of their patrons. We want to serve God AND our career. We want to serve God AND success. We want to serve God AND comfort. 

Our God is a jealous God. He wanted to save us so desperately that he risked his reputation as a good God so that salvation could eventually come to us. 

God requires absolute devotion from us. Following half-heartedly is not an option. 

So choose for yourself this day whom you will serve: Whether it be a form of Christianity that meets your present desires, or the God of the Old Testament and New Testament who wants so desperately to save you from idolatry.

The issue is not whether you will serve, but whom you will serve.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i] http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm

Confessions: Fragility

Photo by AL Photography

Growing up, my mom had a large cabinet filled with two sets of fine china. As a little girl, I would peer into the glass windows, tracing the soft blue and pink floral patterns with my finger. I begged my mom to let me take them out so I could play tea party with them. My mom insisted that the plates and teacups were very valuable. Someone very special had given them to her as a wedding present, and she didn't want to risk breaking them. They were only to be used for very special occasions. But I never remember using them to dine on. It made me a little sad thinking about how they were never really enjoyed. Did they feel like Mrs. Potts and Chip from Beauty and the Beast, longing for someone to come waltzing into the house to dust them off and put them to use?

Lately, I have felt just as fragile as those pieces of china. This summer has left me feeling insecure to the point of paralysis. I doubt myself, I doubt my abilities, and I'd rather stay locked up in the china cabinet where no one has the opportunity to harm me.

I'm supposed to be writing a thesis about the Old Testament prophetic features of Revelation. But I feel like it won't be "new" and "cutting-edge" enough and I keep procrastinating, dreading the thought of having to defend it in front of my committee of world-renowned Biblical scholars. I might be chipped.

I just accepted a teaching position at a small Christian university, where I will begin teaching Bible courses full time this upcoming fall. I try to appear calm and confident about this new job, but inwardly I'm not sure I have what it takes to do well. What if the students ask something I don't know? What if I say something inaccurate? What if I'm boring? I might get chipped. 

To make matters worse, I have received so many kind words of congratulations. My friends have started calling me "professor." It all makes me cringe. I don't feel like I deserve any of this. I know I don't deserve any of this.
It amazes me sometimes how highly some people think of me. More often, it sends me into fits of despair. So often, people have only seen the best side of me and assume that that's the "normal" me. In reality, it's the side I want everyone to see as my "norm" as I hide the ugly counterpart. It's easy to do in this day and age by carefully controlling the content on my Facebook profile. This blog. I can easily present the illusion that I'm a perfect person who is completely confident and in control.

But I'm not. I'm flawed. I'm fragile.

I know how cynical, vain, and lazy I can be. I fear that these flaws will overpower the best parts of me. I also fear that the very best parts of me aren't enough and that if I do offer them, they'll be criticized, chipped. Then they'll be far less valuable than I initially thought they were worth.

But maybe, my gifts, no matter how little value I seem to give them, are too valuable to God not to be used. Maybe leaving the china in the cabinet thwarts the intentions of the Giver.

Maybe, like me, you feel like what you have to offer isn't good enough. You fear being vulnerable and "throwing yourself out there" will ultimately break you. But God, the Great Giver, only gives good gifts. Even if they may seem imperfect and insufficient, criticizing the gift is criticizing the Giver.

So take the risk. Open the china cabinet. Use the dining pieces indulgently. Enjoy the carefully-crafted teacups and saucers. 

The tragedy is not chipping and breaking the plates. The tragedy is never appreciating the gift that the Giver gave you.

Creativity as Divine

"Creative Mess" by CasseteFace

I ran home in record speed.

As I threw open the door and dashed into the house, my husband looked up from his reading, startled. I gave him a "can't-talk-now" look and hurried past him to my art studio. I grabbed my comic's storyboard and started writing, praying that the creative impulse that had just struck me would linger long enough until I connected the vivid world hovering in my imagination with the physical pencil and paper. I couldn't help but to chuckle to myself, thinking, Aaron probably mistook my urgency for a very necessary trip to the bathroom. 

For the past few months, I had been un-inspired to do any sort of art. Every time I sat down to draw or paint I'd stare at the blank sheet of paper or canvas, waiting for something to "hit" me. So why, out of all the times I intentionally set time aside to create, did I suddenly become inspired while on my daily run on the neighboring nature trail?

For reasons I cannot explain, sudden moments that are pregnant with creative possibilities seize me without forewarning. These are moments that only artists, poets, and musicians can understand. When these moments come upon me, I feel so alive. It's almost as if I've tapped into some sort of infinite creative energy. It's all I can do  but to pray the moment doesn't leave me before I've managed to crudely assemble it onto paper. Even then paper can't completely encapsulate the immense imagery and ideas of the ethereal, creative realm.

Finishing up my second degree in Biblical studies, where creatively is ironically minimized and occasionally even scorned, I began to think that my interests in art and creative writing wasn't really all that important. But then I read this passage from Scripture:

Exodus 35:30-36:1

Then Moses said to the Israelites, “See, the LORD has chosen Bezalel son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, 31 and he has filled him with the Spirit of God, with wisdom, with understanding, with knowledge and with all kinds of skills— 32 to make artistic designs for work in gold, silver and bronze, 33 to cut and set stones, to work in wood and to engage in all kinds of artistic crafts. 34 And he has given both him and Oholiab son of Ahisamak, of the tribe of Dan, the ability to teach others. 35 He has filled them with skill to do all kinds of work as engravers, designers, embroiderers in blue, purple and scarlet yarn and fine linen, and weavers—all of them skilled workers and designers.1 So Bezalel, Oholiab and every skilled person to whom the LORD has given skill and ability to know how to carry out all the work of constructing the sanctuary are to do the work just as the LORD has commanded.”

What first comes to your mind when you think about the Spirit of God coming upon someone? Do you think about Samson and his supernatural strength? Do you think about Isaiah, and his profound prophetic messages to apostate Israel? Very rarely have I ever thought about God's Spirit sweeping down upon someone for the task of creating!

God didn't need a tabernacle to house him, because as Solomon later recounts in I Kings 8:26 even the heavens cannot contain God. How much more the earth, or the tabernacle/temple? But God graciously complied with the Israelites' house. Here's what tickles me - He essentially says in this passage from Exodus, "Well, if I'm going to dwell in a house it might as well be pretty." Yahweh saw the aesthetics of the tabernacle as something of importance, even to the extent that he gifted certain people with the job of overseeing the tabernacle's visual appearance.

When someone is complimented for their work, they typically reply, "I get it from my dad," or "I come from a long line of artists." But maybe we shouldn't attribute creativity to mere genetics. Sure, Bezalel's grandmother may have been a jewelry-maker. But what if Bezalel's artistic abilities was also given to him by God, simply because God sees creativity as important and he just wanted to give this ability to him?

In ancient Greece, it was believed that a person's capacity for creativity was not a product of his own ability but was a mark of the divine. An artist was merely the vessel, or conduit, of creativity. Poetry, woodworking, and music were spawned from what they called a "muse." This muse would come upon someone and grant them supernatural ability. Thus, if someone's sculpture came out disproportionate or lumpy, if wasn't the human creator's fault; he just had a bad genius. Similarly, when a person created a breathtaking masterpiece, it was attributed to the muse.

In Roman thought the "muse" was called a "genius." Now, in our modern world, a person no longer has a genius. A person is a genius.

But maybe we need to begin thinking about creativity as the mark of the Divine. Maybe we are mere conduits of God's creative activity and his Spirit comes upon certain people to create beauty, order, vision, and joy for His Kingdom. Maybe God's Spirit doesn't just come upon warriors like Samson or kings like David, but upon artists like Bezalel and Oholiab.

People who know the Creator should be the most creative people in this world. May we surrender ourselves to the purpose of God's Kingdom so that we may become the point of contact between heaven's creative power and earth's destructive captivity.

Loving the Strangers Among Us - Part 5: A Call for Biblical Human Rights

Two Somali boys I tutored in Columbus, Ohio

--------------------------------------------------
This is part 5 of a 5 part series that theologically critiques the perceptions that underlie the U.S. immigration issue. This final part explains the Biblical roots of human rights and explains why civil rights should not trump human rights.
Read part one here
Read part two here
Read part three here
Read part four here

--------------------------------------------------

Looking Forward: A Call for Biblical Human Rights

Thus far we have delved deeper into three different perceptions on the immigration issue in the United States, exposing their mythic structures and addressing them in light of Scripture. What if, however, some of these perceptions were true? What if in a few years we discover statistics that undocumented immigrants are taking from our economic resources, or that the majority of Hispanics living in the U.S. are negatively affecting our American identity? Should this affect how we treat them Biblically?

The answer is an emphatic “no.” Undocumented immigrants are human beings created in the image of God, and for this reason alone they have intrinsic value. Their impact on our society has little to do with how we should love them and show hospitality toward them. We have this idea in the U.S. that all people are equal, yet we fail to treat undocumented immigrants with the same kind of equality we treat other people who are here legally. One of the famous lines from the Constitution is that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." Somewhere along the way, however, we've agreed that these "unalienable rights" are for citizens of the United States only and not for "all men." In the cartoon series The Simpsons, the writers satirize this concept by placing the words “Liberty and Justice for Most” above the U.S. insignia in the town’s courthouse. We as Christians need to restore justice so that it is “for all” and not merely for "most." By rooting our understanding of human rights within the Christian tradition, we can assure that citizen/legal rights do not trump human rights. 

Natural rights, or what we frequently call “human rights” are given to people simply because they are part of the human race. In Western tradition, human equality does not typically need to be defended. It is the starting point in the issue of human rights, not the conclusion.[1] Westerners, then, fail to realize just how much our current understandings of human rights are rooted in Biblical principles. Even the German philosopher Nietzsche remarks, "the poison of the doctrine of 'equal rights for all' - it was Christianity that spread if most fundamentally [...] Christianity has waged war unto death against all sense of respect and feeling of distance between man and man."[2] Similarly, Michael Perry, an American law professor, notes that “the conviction that human beings are sacred is inescapably religious.”[3]

It is easy to think about “rights” as being simply political privileges granted to citizens, such as the “right” to free speech, the “right” to carry arms, etc. Human rights are more than this political “right.” If we are to take human rights seriously, we need to realize that a human right is a claim. It is an “ought-ness.” Ramachandra so rightly concludes the following concerning human rights: “When we use the language of human rights we are not appealing to the generosity of governments, civil institutions, or other individuals. Rather, we are making a claim as a matter of justice: to receive what is owed to us. We do not beg for rights, we claim them.”[4]

Therefore, human rights involve more than solely being “left alone,” or infringed upon. All humans, regardless of their social or legal status, have the right to receive certain things, such as food, shelter, and medical care. When we withhold these things from people, even undocumented immigrants, we are withholding justice from them. Ronald Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action summarizes this best by saying the following: 

The goal of justice is not only the recovery of the integrity of the legal system. It is also the restoration of the community as a place where all live together in wholeness. Opportunity for everyone to have access to the material resources necessary for life in community is basic to the biblical concept of justice.[5]

Water companies in Alabama should not refuse to supply undocumented immigrants with basic necessities.[6] This is something that all humans are entitled to, not just legal residents. When human rights are debated, the debate is really about who should have the power and authority to “interpret the community’s traditions and culture.”[7] This is usually because people are vying for political and economic power. When we value law, money, or our nationalistic identity to an idolatrous state, we withhold Biblical human rights from undocumented immigrants. As followers of Christ, we are called to actively seek this kind of justice in our communities by welcoming and loving the “strangers” among us.

One summer when I was in college, I learned much about loving the "strangers" who were in my own neighborhood of Columbus, Ohio. I worked extensively with an Ethiopian woman named Hawa who had just immigrated to the U.S. There was one particularly stressful day where I multi-tasked between helping the husband fill out applications for jobs and sifting through the utility bills, trying to explain the process to Hawa. I remember looking into Hawa's worried brown eyes. Much shorter than I, she tottered back and forth, trying to balance the baby in her womb who was due very soon. Her husband spoke very little English, and I knew that she felt burdened trying to understand the American lifestyle solo. 


To my surprise, I looked at her and said, "Let's pray about all of this." Hawa immediately agreed. I don't know if I was more astounded by my bold suggestion or by this Muslim woman's eager reply. We prayed right there in the little apartment that God would take care of them. I prayed silently that others would see not a foreigner who was "taking advantage" of the free natal clinics, but a fragile human being who was very much in need.
I called the water company afterward and begged the person on the other line not to turn off their water just yet -- the check was on its way. Praise God that they were understanding of the situation!


From working with people like Hawa and many others (Fadumah, Omar, Mohammad, Hayu, Lisbeth...) I've seen just how alone and often neglected legal immigrants and undocumented immigrants can be. The immigration laws in our country are broken and they definitely need to be fixed. But more than that, as followers of Christ we need to start thinking Biblically about the human rights that undocumented immigrants already living in this country are entitled to. If we are serious about loving God with all of our hearts, souls, and minds, we will be intentional about treating immigrants as human beings created in the image of God.

Loving the Strangers Among Us - Part 4: The Identity Argument

Joel, the Nicaraguan boy my parents sponsor with his friends

--------------------------------------------------
This is part 4 of a 5 part series that theologically critiques the perceptions that underlie the U.S. immigration issue. This third part analyzes the American identity argument prevalent in the United States and critiques it Biblically/theologically.
Read part one here
Read part two here
Read part three here

--------------------------------------------------

Argument Three – Undocumented Immigrants Threaten Our Identity

“We send troops thousands of miles away to fight terrorists, but we refuse to put them on our own border to keep them out. We will never be able to win in the clash of civilizations if we don’t know who we are. If Western civilization succumbs to the siren cong of multiculturalism, I believe we’re finished.” [1]

The more foreigners who come to the United States, the more the culture of the United States changes. As any sociologist will tell you, people are resilient to change. We like our world to remain constant. Consistency assures us of our identity. With thousands of undocumented immigrants coming into our country each year, we have grown wary of change and often view their cultural identities a threat to our own. According to the Migration Policy Institute, 76% of undocumented immigrants come from Hispanic countries in North America. A high 78% of these come from Mexico.[2] To many Caucasian Americans and African Americans, this is too much change!

This influx of undocumented immigrants has raised many significant questions about the concept of national identity. What does it mean to be an American? Who can be a part of this identity? Many Americans do not want Hispanics to be a part of their nationalistic identity. Samuel Huntington, for instance, accuses Hispanics of being unwilling to assimilate, become citizens, or to set aside their cultures, languages, and customs. He maintains that the heart of American’s national identity is Anglo-Protestant beliefs and values, which includes the English language and Western European culture.[3] Strangely, though, Huntington views undocumented immigration as a positive shaper of American culture because it unites Americans against an enemy. He writes, “If external threats subside, deconstructionist movements could achieve renewed momentum.”[4] In other words, the meaning of American identity is already under attack internally due to multiculturalism. Americans thus need an external enemy (i.e., undocumented immigrants) to maintain our identity. This gives us a common creed that unites us, whereas multicultural creates multi-creeds, which tears us apart.

In his book In Mortal Danger, Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo raises his concerns about undocumented immigrants’ negative contributions to American society. They not only hurt our public services, but they participate in gangs and drug trafficking. Victor Davis Hanson, too, has issued grievances against undocumented immigrants. He nicknames his home state of California as “Mexifornia,” claiming that the multiculturalism there makes governing California difficult. He accuses undocumented immigrants of viewing themselves as victimized, which has further created “tribalism.”[5]

Many of these ideas have come to fruition through recent laws that have been passed that restrict undocumented immigrants in Arizona and Alabama. Within the past 2 years, both states issued laws that immigrants must carry their required documents on them at all times. Government officials are free to question anyone’s legal status and detain those who are not able to present documentation. Further, those who aid undocumented immigrants by providing housing, employment, or transportation are in violation of the law. Ironically, these increased restrictions have actually isolated them more, forcing them to become a separate sub-culture. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Theologian Vinoth Ramachandra reflects on the inconsistencies in American culture regarding this issue. He writes that, due to technological advances, “globalization and the idea of a global village are being constantly touted, [but] national borders in rich nations have been vigorously reasserted and fortified to keep out refugees and undesirable immigrants.”[6] We applaud the idea of being technologically connected to people in a global scope. We want to be able to transfer money to someone in Japan, video chat with a business partner in India, but as soon as foreigners show up in our back yard we do not want them here. What kind of values are we attaching to being “American” that we do not want others to be a part of it?

Yet, Americans are resistant to deem this kind of exclusion as racism. We claim that it is not based on their race, but based on their status. Although this distinction seems clear, the escalating discrimination against undocumented immigrants has blurred the two lines. We may dislike undocumented immigrants on the ground of their legal status, but this dislike has stereotyped the ones we are feeling threatened by. We have become to associate undocumented immigration with the Hispanic race, and this has created racial profiling and racial discrimination. 

It also affects how we perceive those in the country legally. Thousands of Hispanics, including legal residents of the U.S., have fled Arizona and Alabama out of fear of discrimination.[7] An owner of a deli shop in Alabama, for instance, spoke out against the fear his Hispanic workers felt from the recent rulings. Although his employees had shown proper documentation prior to their hiring, the deli owner was verbally attacked by the community for being “un-American.”[8] Perhaps we are reluctant to think of this issue as racism because Americans typically associate race as having to do with the color of a person’s skin, not as having to do with the legal status stereotyped by a certain race.

In New Testament times, the dominant culture was prejudice against people called barbaroi, the Greek word from whence we get our word for “barbarian.” The word barbaroi referred to a non-Greek speakers and was an onomatopoeia. Their “primitive” languages sounded like “bar bar bar” to Greek speakers, hence why they were characterized by this name. Like undocumented immigrants today, these kinds of people were seen as “foreign invaders.” They were viewed as uncultured and unintelligent. They were looked upon with scorn because they did not assimilate with the dominant Greek culture.[9]

Paul makes a profound statement about the barbaroi when he includes them in his list of people who are “one in Christ” (Col. 3:11). The “barbarians” were not to be seen as inferior or as less than human. They were the majority culture’s equals, and the Christians thus had the responsibility to welcome them into their communities. Christians should not fear “threats” of other cultures, for our identity resides within Christ. If anything, we should embrace other cultures and people groups and be inclusive of them in our communities, as this is a complete picture of what God’s kingdom looks like. 

---

[1] Tom Tancredo, U.S. Representative of Colorado at the Family Research Council event in April 2006. Qtd. in Soerens, Matthew and Jenny Hwang, pg. 93. 

[2] Schildkraut, Deborah J., Americanism in the Twenty-First Century, pg. 3
[3] Who Are We?
[4] Ibid., pg. 177.
[5] Carroll R., Christians at the Border, pg. 42.
[6] Subverting Global Myths, pg. 113.
[7] Epstein, Reid J., “Hispanics Flee From New Alabama Immigration Law,” .
[8] Jamieson, Dave. “Alabama Immigration Law: Deli Owner Defends Documented Latinos, Receives Boycott Threats,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/alabama-immigration-law-deli owner_n_1022535.html?ir=Latino+Voices.
[9] Witherington, “Lecture on Acts 28.”