Leviticus 19:34, the Treatment of Aliens, Supreme Court Justices, Abortion, the Hearts of Man, and Going the Distance…

 

It is fascinating to me that before the events of the last few weeks on my home country’s southern borders, very few people I know personally knew about Leviticus 19:33-34.

So, for those who fancy themselves scholars in the Torah, (read: Monday Morning Quarterbacks) let’s expand the key of that text a little bit, shall we?

“ ‘When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong.You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.’ ”

(Leviticus 19:33–34 ESV)

“When a stranger sojourns”

That phrase for “stranger sojourns” is translated “sojourner sojourns” as those two words are related to the concept of sojourning.

A sojourner is someone who is present in a country through turning aside to stay there.  That implies they are there with permission of whatever authority approves.

So, mistreating sojourners has to do with people who come a particular nation with the leave of that nation’s prevailing authorities.

Second:

“You shall love him”

Personally, there is a way in which I do not really like the current discourse and the way we have used the phrase “you shall love” and the concept of love; as a nation,  many of us (I would argue most) do not love these immigrants, legal or no, as a group, out of altrusitic motives or real, principled follow-through.  Rather, we parrot the love argument with and eye on a secondary agenda:  the passage of whatever legislation keeps us or our legacy in office one more term.  It is about another term, another law, another justice on whatever court floats your boat and gives you a political or prophetic hard-on.   And when you engage in love that has a bigger motive to manipulate, you have gone whoring after political lovers there, “whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses”.

The perpetuation of whatever status-quo agenda that allows us to putter around with people’s money.  When we use arguments of love and passion for people to advance an agenda that has little to do with love, then we engage in mesmerizing the people.

Thus, appeals to, “you should not do this with a family” or “you should not separate parents from their kids” are not even on the table, precisely because bought-off politicians are using those arguments from twisted motives to argue their particular cases forward.

We are responsible as a nation of laws, to work in the context of those laws, without a thought to our personal motives, and without a though to what is in it for us, politically.

We are responsible as a nation, to keep those people out, or allow them in, in accordance with our laws that are not supposed to be here, and are not using the legal means of coming here.

The problem is that our government is manipulating the law for political points with voting blocs.

Separating parents from kids is wrong.  Keep them together, and ship them back together, if you are going to follow the laws.

Secondly, if you are looking for the hearts of men, then…

Do not abuse Scripture to bash a Democrat.

Do not abuse Scripture to bash a Republican.

Quit bitching.  I am going to repeat that so you catch it.

Quit bitching about one side while at the same time disavowing the problems that inhere to your own party.  You are not the Secretary.  This is not IMF. Disavowal is not an option.

And until we as a nation can find a way to quit polarizing and poisoning the conversation with love out of a twisted motive, and figure out how, in the context of all our corrupt government, to have a discourse that includes material from both sides, that loves BOTH sides, and that refuses to make an enemy out of flesh and blood and until we can find real, practical solutions, in the midst of all that is untoward, that work, we will not be going forward as a nation.

Elect nine pro-life justices all you want and overturn Roe V. Wade.  MP Wilberforce understood that you change the discourse by changing the hearts of men and women.  100,000,000 conversations complete with Wedgewood China.

Also, real, principled discourse based on principles and what the law actually says has not existed in years.  Smarmy, non-realistic discourse that is motivated by scoring political points, on both sides is what prevails these days, sadly.

Further, beyond this, until we repent for buying into a mesmerizing spirit and nominating a criminal and a braggadocious pervert (neither of which were believers through any substantive testimony) for the work of leading us as a nation, we will continue down this path of destruction.

And yes, abortion may be overturned in the laws of the land, and deportation of illegals may happen through the passage of new laws or the enforcement of existing laws, but we have yet to have an Exhorter who understands that both arguments has to be won in the hearts of men.  And yes, it will take an Exhorter or a series of Exhorters to lead us well as a nation, provided that Exhorter or those Exhorters have seriously transformed hearts.

And I think Wilburforce would rather see the latter come to pass in our nation, the transformation of hearts, before the former, the passage of laws.

Prophet nation, there is a better way to win the causes of immigration and abortion, without embittering adversaries.

It takes conversations, millions of those, complete with the Wedgewood China of our day and culture, in order to really and substantively make the case.  Another justice in a court will not fix the problems that we have in our passionate yet vitriolically poisoned hearts and reins.

So, gang, who knows where to find the china of our culture, and who knows how to have the conversations well with the people?

It is time for a real solution, and it is time for someone–or a bunch of someones willing–to go the distance.   The law discussion happens dispassionately.  On the other hand, the millions of conversations have to be had with some attention to both passion and wisdom, to know how and when and where to wisely have those conversations.

Neither abortion, nor illegal immigration, or legal immigration, will be clarified without both actions on both fronts.

And it is not about fasting so we get the right justice.  It is about fasting so that we will go the distance and engage in real substantive WRESTLING with the principalities and authorities so we can find ways to keep turning the conversation in such a way as to long-term direct the course of the nation, given that we, not the President, are the kings and the higher powers of Romans 13 and 1 TImothy 2:1-8, as specified by the Preamble of the Constitution.

And the real question, are you praying for those who are actually in authority?

Are you praying for your fellows in the electorate that make up We The People?

And are you engaging out a pure and unbeguiling affection, not out of a twisted motive, but out of the Father’s heart?

 

Advertisements

3 responses to this post.

  1. The context to me is that if they want to live like you in the land? any comment?

    Reply

    • The context in Leviticus 19:32 is more along the line of the golden rule. The Israelites were once strangers in a foreign land where they did not fit in because they herded animals, something despised in that land. The disdain for them in that land was so severe that the native people refused to eat at the same table as them. They were first forced to live separately, then imprisoned or enslaved. The Israelites were to remember that and not treat others the same way. This scripture is so applicable to the United States because unless you are a Native American, you or your ancestors were immigrants. Remembering your heritage is an encouragement to treat others walking the same journey with kindness.
      Additionally, every culture has a treasure. If we insist that they give up their culture, we are also rejecting some of their treasure. The United States has behaved abominably in the past in the way in which they destroyed the culture of the native Americans, sending them to schools where they were punished for speaking their native languages or doing their dances. Also, all their native clothing and possessions were taken from them. To get on my soapbox, sometimes I wonder, so, just who is it who determines what cultural expressions are or are not appropriate in the United States? The majority? This country’s culture is a result of the conglomeration of all the different peoples who have come to this country. At what point does it become inappropriate for this process of development and change in our culture to continue?

      Reply

  2. Posted by Christine on July 11, 2018 at 2:44 am

    Thank you. Some time ago, as I was arguing this issue, the Lord broke in on me and said “give me your tired, your poor…” and I knew He was deeply committed to the immigrants. This issue is not simple, but we do have to make sure we are motivated by love.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: