Syrian Refugees Part 4 - How to Enter the United States

This is the fourth in my series of blog posts dealing with the Refugee Crisis.  Please make sure you have at least read my first post to understand what I am hoping to accomplish with this post.  We have broken the issue down and looked at a purely Christian response to refugees.  Next we looked at the government’s role in dealing with refugees.  We tried to keep the role of Christians separate from the role of government.  Obviously, these two issues are not independent of each other.  However, I wanted to keep the different spheres of debate separate.  It is up to you to choose how you combine the Christian response with the government’s role.  

In this post, we are going to look at the different ways somebody could enter the United States.  The most frustrating part of this refugee debate for me has been seeing the misunderstanding of different terms related to entering America.  I want to talk about the differences between being a refugee, seeking asylum, immigrating, obtaining a work visa, and the visa waiver program.  

We will start by looking at the definition of a refugee.  According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, a refugee is defined as, “Someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war, or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Most likely, they cannot return home or are afraid to do so. War and ethnic, tribal and religious violence are leading causes of refugees fleeing their countries.”

When a refugee applies to be part of the Refugee Resettlement Program in the United States, they go through an extensive vetting process prior to entering the country.  A refugee will generally apply with the United Nations while living in a refugee camp.  The United Nations will then screen them to determine if they fit the definition for being a refugee.  They then refer the refugee to the United States for resettlement.  At this point, US Citizenship and Immigration services of the Department of Homeland Security conduct interviews and provide additional screening to determine whether the refugee will be accepted for resettlement.  For reference, as of 11/16/15, only 30% of Syrian applicants were passed on from the United Nations to the department of Homeland Security.  Of those, only 29% were accepted for resettlement.  In other words, only 8.8% of applicants make it through the screening process.  This process takes an average of two years during which time the refugees are living outside of both the U.S. and their home country in refugee camps.  When the United States government discusses taking in refugees, this is what is being discussed.  

There is an important distinction to be made between a refugee and an asylum seeker.  While technically, refugees are seeking asylum, they are doing so through the refugee program.  It is also possible for a refugee to show up in a country such as the United States and request to be given refugee status.  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees defines an asylum seeker as being, “When people flee their own country and seek sanctuary in another country, they apply for asylum – the right to be recognized as a refugee and receive legal protection and material assistance. An asylum seeker must demonstrate that his or her fear of persecution in his or her home country is well-founded.”  Wikipedia elaborates on how an asylum seeker demonstrates well founded fear of persecution.  “First, an asylum applicant must establish that he or she fears persecution.  Second, the applicant must prove that he or she would be persecuted on account of one of five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, and social group. Third, an applicant must establish that the government is either involved in the persecution, or unable to control the conduct of private actors.”  The key difference between an asylum seeker and a refugee is that the screening process for an asylum seeker takes place while the asylum seeker is already in the country.  When we read about refugees in Greece and Europe, they would generally be considered Asylum Seekers by this terminology.  They are taking boats across the Mediterranean and asking for asylum once they arrive.  This is obviously less secure than somebody entering the United States through the refugee Resettlement Program.  As such, Europe’s acceptance of refugees is vastly different than what is being discussed in America.

The other ways to legally enter the United States involve applying for a Visa.  There are three types of Visas which are granted in the United States.  Immigrant Visas are needed if a person wants to establish permanent residence in the United States.  Nonimmigrant Visas are needed if a person plans to come to the United States for any reason other than permanent residency.  These two visas involve applying and then being interviewed at an embassy.  The final type of Visa is the Visa Waiver Program.  The Visa Waiver Program “enables most citizens or nationals of participating countries to travel to the United States for tourism or business for stays of 90 days or less without first obtaining a visa.”

These definitions are critical when we discuss the United States’ response to the Syrian refugee crisis.  I discussed these methods for entering the U.S. in order of difficulty from most difficult to least difficult.  While someone could always find a way to work around any screening process, the fact is that the Refugee Resettlement Program is the most difficult way to enter the country.  It is also the longest at an average of two years to be approved.  To me, this emphasizes that the risk of accepting refugees is minimal.  This would be the least likely method a terrorist would use to infiltrate the United States.  A terrorist could come from a nation who is part of the Visa Waiver Program, essentially undergo zero screening and be allowed in the country for three months.  With just a little more effort, terrorists could apply for work or student visas.  Although this is not the case as much in the U.S., a terrorist could just enter Europe and ask for asylum and then be allowed to live there.  However, a terrorist trying to enter the U.S. with official refugee status would risk being caught in either the U.N. or the U.S. screening process and would also have to wait at least two years to even get into the country.  If we are worried about security, we should spend our time trying to come up with ways to make things such as the Visa Waiver Program more secure.  In fact, our government did just that with the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015.  When America talks about accepting more refugees, they are not referring to taking in asylum seekers like Europe is doing.  The situation being discussed here in the U.S. is much safer.  

Sources:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/resource/the-us-refugee-resettlement-program-an-overview

https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/visit/visa-waiver-program.html

http://www.unrefugees.org/what-is-a-refugee/

https://www.usa.gov/enter-us

https://www.whitehouse.gov/campaign/resources-on-syrian-refugees

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States#Relevant_law_and_procedures

Syrian Refugees - Part 3

This is part 3 of a series.  Please make sure to read the previous two posts:

Part 1

Part 2

In my last post, we looked at what the Christian response should be to refugees.  However, our country’s policies are only as Christian as its citizens.  Our refugee policies may not be based on the Biblical mandate we as Christians have towards refugees.  In this post I want to look at the role of government and what our government’s responsibility is towards refugees as a separate topic from our Christian responsibility towards refugees.  I believe that much of the debate on this topic comes from one side arguing that as Christians we should help refugees while the other side argues from a different perspective.  

What is the purpose of government?  This is a very controversial issue.  At their simplest, governments protect people from conflict and provide law and order.  This seems to be the most straightforward purpose for government.  Governments also tend to have responsibility over the economy, public services, and social programs.  The extent to which a government is responsible for these things is controversial and ultimately outside the scope of this article, although where an individual lands on these topics will influence their opinion on the details of a refugee policy.  I am more interested in the most fundamental purpose for a government.  Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” The preamble to the Constitution states that the purpose of the United States’ government is “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”  

So it appears that the purpose the founding fathers had in mind for our government was to secure the fundamental human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and to unite the people, carry out justice, ensure domestic peace, provide defense, promote welfare, and secure liberty.  

The next question becomes who is the government responsible for?  Only its own citizens or all people?  Romans 13:4 states that the government is a servant for our good.   In the Old Testament, we see that kings were held responsible for whether Israel followed the law.  The law included treatment of foreigners.  So, in the Old Testament, government was responsible for the protection of foreigners living in Israel.  In fact, as we saw in my last post, the law made very little distinction between Israelites and foreigners living in Israel.  Our government has taken a similar stance.  Since the founding of this country, we have accepted immigrants who were fleeing persecution in their home countries.  Although they were not originally citizens, America took them in to protect their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  More recently, in the 1960’s, the Supreme Court established the concept of strict scrutiny which means that the government cannot treat someone differently based on their place of birth unless such treatment would preserve life or the state’s existence.  In other words it is allowed if a person is a potential threat to people.  This combined with laws detailing what to do with asylum seekers and refugees shows that historically, our government has taken responsibility for protecting the rights of those who are facing government persecution.  The way it appears we have historically operated is that a government is responsible for protecting the rights of their citizens.  The American government is not responsible for the rights of British citizens, the British government is.  However, sometimes a government refuses to protect the rights of its citizens, or even violates those rights.  In that case, it becomes the responsibility of the rest of the world to protect the basic human rights of those citizens.  

There are so many factors which go into the role of our government.  Which factors a person emphasizes will determine what he thinks our government should do about refugees.  If someone believes our government is only responsible for its citizens instead of all people, then they will be inclined to avoid helping refugees.  Some people see refugees as security threats and emphasize the government's role in ensuring domestic tranquility and the common defense.  In this case, they would say a government's primary role is to protect its citizens and it is not the role of government to help the needy.  So refugees are a security risk and should not be helped.    However, if someone sees our government as being responsible for protecting the fundamental human rights of all people, then the responsibility of the government to establish Justice, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity would involve being a place of refuge for those who are facing persecution.  

To conclude, the role of government is complex and there are many different facets to it.  Your position on refugees will probably be driven by both which facet you emphasize and whether the government is responsible for the fundamental rights of non-citizens being persecuted by their own countries.  Historically, our government has accepted that responsibility.  Keep in mind that there is not an absolute answer to the question of the role of government.  If this is at the root of your disagreement about the refugee situation, then you should not single out refugees but rather shift the discourse to the role of government.  There are also some assumptions which can affect someone’s opinion on the government’s responsibility towards refugees, namely, if refugees are a security risk or not.  I am going to write about this in a future post.  In my next post though, I am planning on discussing the various ways someone can enter America.  The refugee program is just one of many.  We will look at the differences between them and let that inform the next post about security risks.  

Syrian Refugees - Part 2

In my previous post, I stated that there are lots of different angles to the issue of refugees.  I want to look at one of those angles in this post.  What is the Biblical response to refugees?  This is completely separate from other issues such as the government response.  What do we do if, hypothetically, there are refugees living in our neighborhood?  What do we do about refugees who are living in Europe?  Do we as Christians have a responsibility in this area?

           

Old Testament

            I wanted to keep this discussion as Biblical as possible.  I looked up the word for “foreigner” in both Hebrew and Greek and looked at what the Old and New Testaments have to say about how we are supposed to treat foreigners.  The results surprised me.  The Hebrew word for foreigner is גָּר or ger.  It is often translated sojourner.  This is the closest Biblical equivalent to refugees.  It has the sense of a temporary inhabitant.  A newcomer who does not have inherited rights in the country.  It shows up all throughout the Old Testament. I give a list below of some of the passages.  What amazed me when I looked at how this word is used in the Old Testament is the number of times God makes no distinction between Israel and sojourners.  Foreigners are supposed to obey the laws of Israel.  They are allowed to take part in religious feasts.  They have many of the same benefits an Israelite has.  I often think of Israel as having been set apart to be separate from the nations.  What I tend to forget is that Israel’s mission was to be set apart so that they were an example to the nations of who God was.  They were not supposed to shun the nations, they were supposed to demonstrate God’s character to the nations.  If someone from another nation came to live among Israel, they were treated well and allowed to worship God because that was the end goal.  If a foreigner did not follow God, the consequences were serious, but no more serious then if an Israelite did not follow God.  The fact is that God is the God of both the Israelite and the foreigner, of both the Jew and the Gentile.  I believe this has profound implications for how we view immigrants and refugees.  

           

            The way this played out in Old Testament law is demonstrated in these passages.  There are a few common themes.  The first is that foreigners are grouped with widows and orphans.

Exodus 22:21-24 ²¹“You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt. ²² You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child. ²³ If you do mistreat them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry, ²⁴ and my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless.”

Leviticus 19:10 And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the Lord your God.

Deuteronomy 10:18-19 ¹⁸He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. ¹⁹ Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.

There is also a common theme that the reason Israel was not supposed to mistreat sojourners is that they were once sojourners themselves in Egypt.  Not only were they sojourners in Egypt, but Leviticus 25:23 points out that they are also sojourners on Earth.  

Exodus 23:9 “You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.”

Leviticus 25:23 “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine. For you are strangers and sojourners with me.

Leviticus 19:33-34 ³³“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. ³⁴ 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.

The previous passage and the following passage illustrate that not only were Israelites supposed to treat foreigners like they were native to Israel, but God expected both foreigners and Israelites to follow his laws.

Leviticus 18:26 But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you.

Interestingly, while Israelites were not supposed to eat things which had died naturally, they were allowed to give it to the foreigner.  The laws designed to distinguish Israel from the nations did not necessarily apply to foreigners.  The laws involving worship of God did apply to both equally.  So even if the food was not allowed for Israelites, they were allowed to use it to provide for the foreigner living among them.

Deuteronomy 14:21 “You shall not eat anything that has died naturally. You may give it to the sojourner who is within your towns, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God.

These next couple of verses illustrate that the expectation was that Israelites would host strangers and foreigners.  The passage in Job is in the context of Job discussing his devotion to God, which involved opening his home to foreigners.  

Leviticus 25:35 “If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you.

Job 31:32 (the sojourner has not lodged in the street; I have opened my doors to the traveler),

To conclude the Old Testament’s discussion of foreigners, here are two passages which show the seriousness of ignoring the needs of foreigners living among us.  In Ezekiel, God explains that the primary sin of Sodom was that they did not aid the poor and needy.  We have already seen that God seems to put foreigners in the same category as the poor and needy.  In addition to being foreigners, refugees have lost their homes and families.  Many refugees are widows and orphans.  Any warning about ignoring the poor and needy includes refugees.  If this is not clear from Ezekiel, God makes it very clear in Malachi 3.  The list of who God is going to judge begins with the people you might expect: sorcerers, adulterers, those who swear falsely, those who do not fear God.  But there are two other people lumped into this list who we may not expect: people who oppress those in need and people who thrust aside the sojourner.

Ezekiel 16:49 Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

Malachi 3:5 “Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the Lord of hosts.

One of the big reasons people do not want refugees to come to America is fear.  The fear is understandable since there is risk in bringing foreign people into the country.  We will discuss that risk in some of the next posts.  However, the way I see it, that fear does not factor into a discussion of the Christian response to refugees.  We are to fear God, not man.  A lack of a fear of God is the last point in this list in Malachi.  When we operate out of a fear other than a fear of God, we are in a dangerous place.  I would argue that there is plenty of scriptural support that since God is so clear about our responsibility to welcome the foreigner, turning away refugees and foreigners cannot be motivated by a fear of God.

In the Old Testament, God makes it clear that Israel is supposed to take care of and love foreigners who are living among them.  This is serious enough that God puts people who thrust aside foreigners into a list of people such as sorcerers and adulterers who will be judged when He returns.  Now, it is possible that these passages refer to foreigners who have submitted themselves to God’s commands.  Israel was not expected to treat their enemies like this right?  This is relevant because the concern about accepting refugees is that terrorists and enemies of Christianity and America may come into our country.  While I firmly believe that statistics show that the vast majority of refugees are not terrorists, even if a refugee was an enemy of Christianity scripture speaks to that.  The Bible speaks a lot about enemies of the people of God.  I believe that looking through the Old Testament, it is clear that the enemies of God will be destroyed.  However, the authority and responsibility to destroy those enemies belongs to God.  Israel conquered their enemies with the help and power of God.  If an individual who belonged to a nation who was an enemy of Israel chose to come live in Israel, I believe that the previous passages applied to that individual.  This is based on Exodus 23:4-5.  “If you meet your enemy's ox or his donkey going astray, you shall bring it back to him. 5 If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying down under its burden, you shall refrain from leaving him with it; you shall rescue it with him.”  While this does not specify a foreigner, the word enemy refers to someone who hates someone else.  So I think this passage would apply to both native and foreign enemies.  

New Testament

The New Testament actually has much less to say about sojourners.  This is most likely due to the fact that Israel was living as foreigners in Roman land.  The main passage which mentions how we as Christians are to treat strangers is Matthew 25.  I have included the full passage below.  

Matthew 25:31-46 ³¹“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. ³² Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³ And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. ³⁴ Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. ³⁵ For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, ³⁶ I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ ³⁷ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? ³⁸ And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? ³⁹ And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ ⁴⁰ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

⁴¹ “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ⁴² For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,⁴³ I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ ⁴⁴ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’⁴⁵ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ ⁴⁶ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Just like in the Old Testament, the stranger is in the same list as the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the sick, and the imprisoned.  The stranger is someone who is in need.  As Christians, we are supposed to move towards needs we see around us.  This includes the needs of foreigners and strangers living with us.  This is our main responsibility as Christians.  As Galatians 5:14 says, “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”  Jesus makes it clear in Luke 10:29-37 who our neighbor is.  In his parable, our neighbor could be anyone, even a Samaritan.  What is our cultural equivalent to Samaritans?  Samaritans had broken off from Judaism and had their own religious system.  Jews and Samaritans hated each other.  I would argue that if Samaritans were the neighbors of Jews, then Muslims are the neighbors of Christians.  If we are supposed to both welcome the stranger and love our neighbor, which includes Muslims, then when a Muslim foreigner comes to live in our community, I would argue that the Christian response is to welcome them in.  In the same way the Old Testament Jews were supposed to be motivated to welcome the sojourner because they were once sojourners in Egypt, as Christians, we also understand what it is to be a sojourner. Ephesians 2:12 and 19  say “¹² remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. ¹⁹ So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,” Hebrews 11:13 says, “These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.”

To conclude, I believe that there is a common thread throughout all of scripture that the people of God are supposed to move to meet the needs of people around them.  This very clearly includes foreigners living in our communities.  Scripture is also clear that we are to show love to our neighbors.  This includes people we would call our enemies.  When we put these facts together, I firmly believe that the Christian response to refugees living in this country is to welcome them in and to show them love.  We should welcome the opportunity to demonstrate the character and love of Christ to people from other nations.  What better opportunity to do this than when they come and live with us.  Nowhere in scripture are we told that it is legitimate to fear either foreigners or our enemies.  I would argue that as Christians we need to be very careful to not push away the sojourner among us.  I want to be clear that the needs of refugees are not more urgent than the needs of the hungry, the widow, or the fatherless.  There is so much need in the world.  However, I do want to say that the needs of refugees and immigrants are just as important.  This post does not address what the government's response to refugees should be.  All I am arguing in this post is that if refugees and immigrants do come live with us, we need to build relationships with them and show them love.  We, as Christians, should advocate for them.  Our long term goal is to see God glorified by people from every tribe, nation, and tongue.  How does our view of refugees fit into this long term goal?

I want to close by discussing what we can practically do to meet the needs of refugees.  The biggest thing you can do is get to know a family of refugees.  Teach them about American culture.  Try to understand their needs and sacrificially meet those needs.  Often times, refugees have experienced trauma.  Just being there and being willing to listen to the hard things can help them process some of what they have experienced.  As an American, you also speak English, a language refugees generally are trying to learn.  Conversing with them can not only help build a relationship, but it can also help them grow their confidence in their ability to speak English.  Other things we can help refugees with is teaching them basic things about life in America: how to budget, how to drive, how to not get their identities stolen, how to file taxes, how to find a job, how to enroll in school, etc.  They have been uprooted from their homes and are living in a place they do not know, separated from family and friends and often with little knowledge of the language they need to survive.  These are all needs that the average person can meet if you are willing to invest in a relationship.

Many refugee families never meet and interact with a Christian.  Why is that?  They live in a culture where they are surrounded by Christianity.  All it takes is reaching out to one family and showing them the love of Christ.  Many refugees come from cultures which have a much higher focus on community than we do in America.  Just spending time with them and helping connect them to community here goes a long way to helping them feel welcomed.  If you do not know where to start, there are solid Christian organizations who work to build relationships with refugees and help them assimilate into the culture in cities around the country.  Connect with one of those organizations and they will be glad to help you see how you can use your gifts to meet the needs of the foreigner living among us.

Next Post

            The goal of this post was to isolate what the Christian response to refugees is.  The goal of next week’s post is to isolate what the government’s responsibility to refugees should be.  I will try to put the Christian response aside and focus on what the role of government is.  This is an area which I do not have a lot of experience with, but I will try to look at the different sides of the issue.  Since I will avoid talking about how Christians should respond in the next post, let me say right now before I get to my government post that regardless of what the government’s role is, I believe that Christians should advocate to the government for refugees.  In America we have a representative government.  That means the government should reflect the values and ideals of the people.  While our government is not Christian, if the nation is Christian, the government should have Christian values.  If the nation is humanistic, we would expect the government to reflect that.  Since we are Christians, I believe it is our responsibility to bring our values to the table when it comes to our interactions with the government.  Even if our government was not representative, I think it is our responsibility to advocate for justice whatever the government’s responsibility is.

Syrian Refugees - Part 1

For a while now, I have been thinking about how some issues we face in our culture today are so complex, that they are really hard to discuss.  These issues have so many different facets and angles that discussions tend to stall out because the two sides discussing the issue are not actually discussing the same side of the issue.  With this in mind, I had the idea to take some of these controversial and complex issues and try to look at them from one angle at a time.  I feel as if the Syrian Refugee discussion is a good discussion to try this approach out with.  

After the ISIS attacks in Paris, the question of whether or not to allow Syrian refugees into America became the hot topic in the news and social media.  I have seen a lot of good points from each side of the debate as well as some pretty bad points and misinformation.  After reading a lot of posts and articles about the situation, I see several angles which I would like to discuss about the issue.  The first angle I will talk about is what is the Christian response to refugees?  How does the Bible inform our individual response to refugees?  What does the Bible say about safety?  Next I would like to discuss what is the government's responsibility towards refugees?  This is going to get into the role of the government?  This and the Christian response are separate issues entirely, yet both have to factor into our own position on the issue.  Next I would like to have a post about the different ways to enter America.  What makes a refugee a refugee?  How is that different from other ways to enter the country?  I would then like to post about security risks for the different ways to enter the country.  I would also like to discuss the nature of Islam in a post.  What makes a Muslim a Muslim?  Are they required to kill non-Muslims?  Finally, I will post about how does religious freedom interact with this issue?

This is not an exhaustive list.  I will add more facets to the discussion if I think about them.  If you have any you would like discussed let me know.  I am going to post these posts on this blog and then link to the blog on Facebook.  Please feel free to comment and discuss, but please limit your responses to the particular angle being discussed in the post.  I reserve the right to copy comments I feel were made on the wrong post and move them to the correct post.  Hopefully some consensus can be reached for each individual angle.  At that point, people can decide how they want to take all of this information and turn it into an overall opinion.  I think it is important to not rush to black and white conclusions without looking at all the angles though.  Hopefully this series will help with that.  If this is successful, I may try tackling some other tricky issues later.

Thanks for your cooperation! I hope this is a beneficial experiment for all of us!

Haggai 2

About a month after the people began building the temple, God sent another prophecy to Haggai.  Apparently the people had been comparing this temple to Solomon's temple and noticing that this new one would be inferior.  This apparently had caused them to stop working.  God's message to them was that He was with them.  His Spirit remains in their midst.  God tells them to fear not.  He also tells them to work.  He promises to provide the materials for them.  Gold and silver belong to God so He is able to provide them.  God then promises that the latter glory will be greater than the former glory of the temple and in this place He will give peace.  This is ultimately fulfilled when Christ comes to the rebuilt temple.  It indeed had more glory than even Solomon's temple.  I think this prophecy can be applicable to us when we compare our ministry to other ministries.  Sometimes we can get discouraged when we see another ministry has more fruit than ours.  When that happens, it is important to focus on God's promise to be with us and provide for us.  It is our job to obey Him more than it is our job to have an effective ministry.

Two months later, God has another message for the people.  Apparently they had this idea that since they were doing something holy, they should be seen as holy and should be blessed.  This hadn't happened and they were actually dealing with a famine.  God then asks the priests if something holy touches something else does that item become holy?  No it does not.  However, if something comes in contact with something unclean, it becomes unclean as well.  Doing something holy does not make you holy.  Since we are unclean. our uncleanliness spreads to whatever we touch.  Anything we offer God is unclean.  God then calls them to turn to Him and he will bless them.  This is definitely applicable to us.  It reminds us that no matter what we do we are sinful.  There is nothing good in us, it is only because of Christ's mercy that we even have an opportunity to serve God.  God makes us holy, not what we do.

This last prophecy comes on the same day as the previous one.  This is directed to Zerubbabel specifically.  God promises to shake the earth and destroy the strength of kingdoms.  When that happens, He will make Zerubbabel like a signet ring.  God has chosen Zerubbabel.  There is some back story here.  In Jeremiah 22:24, God curses Jeconiah by telling him that though Jeconiah was the signet ring on His right hand, He would tear him off and give him to Babylon.  Jeconiah was the grandfather of Zerubbabel.  This promise at the end of Haggai is basically God telling the heir of the throne of Judah that he was chosen to be a signet ring.  This was after his grandfather was the signet ring which God had given into the hands of Babylon.  These last few verses of Haggai are a beautiful picture of God redeeming and reconciling the line of David and Zerubbabel specifically and placing him back into favor.  Sure enough, in Matthew 1, we see that Zerubbabel is in the line of Jesus.  This entire book is a cool picture of God motivating, correcting, and restoring His people.

Haggai 1

Haggai occurred during the reign of Darius.  These prophecies are unique in that we are given the exact day and recipient of each prophecy.  The first prophecy came to Haggai on the 1st day of the 6th month.  The recipient for this prophecy was Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest.  Here is some background on this book.  The people of Judah had been in exile in Babylon for 70 years.  Cyrus conquered Babylon and then allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem so they could rebuild the temple.  This is written in Ezra 1-2.  As you can see in Ezra 3 and 4 however, opposition arose and the rebuilding of the temple stalled.  This prophecy is to these people who had stopped rebuilding the temple.

The opening statement reveals the attitude of the people.  "The time has not yet come to rebuild the house of the Lord".  God replies by chastising them for living in paneled houses while His house lies in ruins.  He then points out that their labors have not been blessed because of this.  He then commands them to gather wood and build the Lord a house so that He may take pleasure in it and be glorified.  God reveals that he has caused a drought to come because his people busied themselves with their own house but left the temple in ruins.  The paneled houses the people lived in are significant because there is not much wood in Israel.  The people would have had to go far away to gather wood for their homes.  Indeed this is exactly what God tells them to do for His home.  I would say that the issue was not that the people were working on their homes or putting efforts into their homes.  The problem was that they were looking after their own homes and ignoring God's home.  Their priority was themselves.  They busied themselves with their own houses.  This was a heart issue more than anything.  Their priorities were wrong.  It was okay for them to work on their homes, but it should not take priority over what God wanted them to do.  Shea Sumlin at the Village Church said in his sermon on Haggai that "The worst thing you can do with your life is be totally committed to it."  There is definitely truth to that.  

The people's response to this prophecy is important.  They obeyed.  They feared the Lord.  Throughout the Old Testament we see Israel and Judah fail to obey the Lord so it is good to see an instance where the people were moved by the prophet and obeyed.  The Lord affirmed them by reminding them that He is with them.  The Lord then stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel and Joshua and all the people and they began rebuilding the temple 23 days later. 

I think there is an interesting application to this prophecy when we consider what the temple represented to the people of Judah.  This was where God lived.  He dwelt among them in the temple.  By putting off rebuilding the temple they showed that giving God a pure house and having Him live among them was not a priority.  Their security came before the presence of God.  This is ironic since God punished them by making their labors fruitless.  The security they sought was denied them by God.  1 Corinthians 3:16-17 says, "Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him.  For God's temple is holy and you are that temple."  What do we do today that shows our priority is our own house and not God's house?  How do we neglect keeping ourselves pure and holy since God's Spirit dwells in us?  I personally spend very little time in the word or in prayer compared to the time I spend on my own needs.  It is something I have been working on with some success lately, but it really shows that I do not have a great grasp on the need for the temple of the Lord to be holy.  This should be an area where I ask God to stir up my spirit in this area as he stirred the spirit of Zerubbabel, Joshua and all the people.  

Zephaniah Summary

         To sum up Zephaniah, I think I would say that this is a book about where our security comes from.  Do we look to false gods?  Do we look to money? Do we look to ourselves and no one else?  There are two types of people mentioned in Zephaniah: the arrogant and the humble.  Here are some characteristics of each.  The arrogant are idolatrous, violent, fraudulent, weighing out silver, complacent, shameless, prideful, taunting, boasting, having false security, rebellious, defiled, listening to no voice, accepting no correction, not trusting the Lord, not drawing near to God, roaring lions, evening wolves, fickle, treacherous, profaning what is holy, doing violence to the law, proudly exultant, haughty.  Meanwhile, the other group is described as humble, doing His just commands, calling upon the name of the Lord, worshipping, serving God, humble, lowly, doing no injustice, speaking no lies, and not afraid.  The fate of these two groups is also vastly different.  Some examples of what will happen to the first group are they will be swept away, cut off from the face of the earth, come to a full and sudden end, etc.  For those people the day of the Lord is a day of wrath, distress, anguish, ruin, devastation, darkness, gloom, clouds, and distress.  The other group has a much better fate.  On the day of the Lord, they will be hidden.  They will be given the seacoast, their fortunes will be restored because the Lord their God will be mindful of them.  They will plunder Moab and possess them.  their speech will be changed to a pure speech, they will not be put to shame, their judgments will be taken away, God will be in their midst, He will rejoice over them with gladness, He will quiet them with His love, He will gather them to Himself, He will save the lame, He will gather the outcast, their shame will be turned to praise and renown.  This all ultimately comes because the love and mercy of God allows a remnant to survive his just judgements.  What is our responsibility in all of this?  This all seems out of our control doesn't it?  Zephaniah 2:3 is what our responsibility is.  "Seek the Lord, all you humble of the land, seek righteousness; seek humility; perhaps you may be hidden on the day of the anger of the Lord."  As we read Zephaniah let us humble ourselves call on the name of the Lord, the just judge, for mercy and safety.  Let us rely on Him for our salvation.  Let us worship and serve Him and offer ourselves as living sacrifices to Him.  Let us hold to the hope of His promise to save us and rejoice over us with gladness and quiet us with his love.