Immigration

I need to begin with a certain degree of humility. I am the descendant of immigrants. Most of my ancestors came to America in the 18th century. They were probably among those who came into this country and took it over from its original inhabitants, and I must admit that was wrong. Roger Williams was one of the very few who tried to do it the "right way."

I am not against immigrants. I believe our country’s diversity of races has helped make it the strong, robust nation that we have today. I’m not anti-Hispanic, either. One of my sons is married to a Guatemalan woman, and another son has step-daughters who are part Hispanic.

But I do believe that we are a country of law and order. In the current immigration debate, I take a somewhat nuanced stance. First, I believe we must begin enforcing our immigration laws. It isn’t right that people who live near our southern border should be able to enter the country freely, when there are many people around the world, just as needy, who must go through proper channels to emmigrate. In order to remain a strong, healthy “land of opportunity” we cannot allow unlimited immigration. Part of our goal must be to do what we can (in a peaceful way!) to help other countries overcome poverty and raise their living standards.

Second, I am convinced that the very first step we must take is to secure our borders. If we had spent on border security just a fraction of what we have on the Iraq war, we would be much better off. Once our borders are secure, we will be able to enforce our immigration laws properly.

Third, I don’t think the idea of deporting all illegals is practical, nor is it humane. Doing so would break up family groups. Their presence here is partly our fault for failing to enforce our laws. I am in favor of the proposed plan to fine those who want to stay here, make them learn English and “go to the end of the line” to get their citizenship. But illegal criminals, drug and human traffickers, and terrorists should be cleaned out of our country immediately, and the only way that can be done is by allowing our officials free rein to ask people for their citizen status. If that looks like racial profiling, so be it.

On the other hand, I oppose giving immigrants any special advantages that regular citizens do not have. And I have very mixed feelings about the kind of citizens some of these illegal Mexicans, who demand their supposed rights, who refuse to learn English or who fly the Mexican flag, would make.

We need to have a common-sense, middle of the road approach, showing neither softness nor harshness, but simply our traditional respect for law and our willingness to help the "huddled masses" who also respect our country's laws.

Unity is not Uniformity

So many world religions are obsessed with the idea that only their concept of truth is correct, and that they must convert as many as possible to their way of thinking. In today's context, Islam comes to mind. But Christianity provides many examples, too.

I just finished reading a book about the French Catholic persecution of the Huguenots in the 17th century. Earlier this year I read Dogs of God where I learned that Spanish royals Isabel and Ferdinand sponsored Columbus' voyage, at least in part, that he might convert any natives he found. Of course there were the Crusades and the Inquisition. And the Puritans escaped persecution in England, only to impose it in their new colony on those who differed with them.

I've tried to understand the reason behind this attitude. In my own church, and many other churches that conduct missionary activities, the reason given is to save souls, as Jesus instructed before he returned to heaven - certainly an altruistic goal. But sometimes I wonder if it's completely selfless when I see the emphasis placed on the number of converts, and even competition between districts or pastors, as well as pride in attainment.

In my church, and perhaps in others, there is a strong belief that the gospel must go to all areas of the world before Jesus can return. Of course, that has been the great hope of the church since the days of the apostles, but the question might arise - are we trying to save souls for their own sakes, or is our goal more focused on Jesus' return and our heavenly reward?

When force has been applied to obtain converts, several possible reasons have occurred to me. Maybe the religion using force needs agreement to feel secure in its beliefs? Or perhaps the desire to feel comfortable with others who are "just like us" is the motivation? Or the human need to exercise power may be in back of religious groups that attempt to control the consciences of others.

When Jesus prayed for his disciples shortly before his death, "I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as we are one," I don't believe, as my church sometimes interprets this text, that he wanted the Adventist church to be unified! Rather, I think the text is quite clear that he was praying for all of his future followers to be one.

But I don't see the "oneness" he prayed for as complete uniformity in belief, whether in my own church or in the wider Christian world. After all, God created each of us as unique persons who have a uniqie relationship with him. We each have a unique perspective and understanding of God. It seems to me that we can enrich each other's understanding of God by sharing our insights and appreciating those of others, rather than insisting that we must all conform to one person's view. There are those who like to insist that there is only one way to read and understand the "plain sense" of Scripture, but they deny that they, too, interpret what they read.

I believe that the unity God desires for his followers is a unity of spirit, a close relationship such as God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit enjoy, where they are one in purpose and their love is completely other-centered.