ARE CHRISTIANS LACKING IN MERCY FOR NOT WANTING TO RECEIVE MORE MUSLIM REFUGEES?

This is a common accusation. It actually seems to have merit:

* “If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.” (James 4:17)

However, is bringing in more Muslims who want to kill, rape, and eventually take over to set up their Caliphate "the good?"

Also, we are told that we are exercising discrimination and should be caring for these refugees:

* “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” (James 1:27)

However, if we truly care about orphans and widows, we should be careful not to bring among them those who will kidnap and rape them. Sadly, Western society is often unwilling to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent. However, once we fail to uphold this critical distinction, society will decay, and God will be grieved:

* “Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent— the Lord detests them both.” (Proverbs 17:15)

Instead, it is the essence of justice to discriminate between the guilty and the innocent. In fact, God ordained the criminal justice system to make these critical and necessary distinctions:

* “Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” (Romans 13:2-4)

The Islamic faith will not accept non-Muslim institutions and will battle against them. Should not the Christian, therefore, guard against this inevitable eventuality?

This does not mean that we shouldn't show mercy to the Muslims already here. Nor does it mean that we shouldn't show compassion to the Muslim refugees. However, it is better to support them in their own Muslim nations.

LOVING THE BRETHREN BEFORE ALL ELSE

I find it appalling that the church in the USA is not strenuously crying out for the protection of the Christian refugees. They are suffering worse treatment than anyone - slaughtered, forcibly converted, or sold as sex slaves. Yet many Christians will defend their silence claiming, "We mustn't choose favorites among the refugees."

However, God has done a lot of choosing Himself. He chose Israel, but this didn't mean that Him didn't also love the Gentiles and command Israel to do the same:

• “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)

Although God had chosen Israel to be His favored people, He had also required more from Israel. To whom much is give, much is expected:

• “Hear this word that the Lord has spoken against you, O people of Israel, against the whole family that I brought up out of the land of Egypt: 'You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.'” (Amos 3:1-2)

Nevertheless, Israel remained in the center of God's concerns:

• “But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my friend; you whom I took from the ends of the earth, and called from its farthest corners, saying to you, “You are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you off”; fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my righteous right hand. Behold, all who are incensed against you shall be put to shame and confounded; those who strive against you shall be as nothing and shall perish.” (Isaiah 41:8-11) 

Today, this message of God's favoring Israel is highly distasteful to younger Christians. For them, this represents exclusion, an unacceptable "us vs. them" mentality. However, the reality of this distinction is inseparable from Scripture, even within the entirety of the NT.

While, the Christian is to love all, he is instructed to show preference for the brethren:

• “And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.” (Galatians 6:9-10)

This priority would apply even to slave-masters:

• “Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brothers; rather they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their good service are believers and beloved.” (1 Timothy 6:2)

Jesus preferred His brethren:

• “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.” (Matthew 25:40)

According to Jesus, love had to begin with the brethren:

• “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:34-35)

It would be through this love that the saving message of the Gospel would go forth. Jesus therefore prayed:

• “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.” (John 17:20-23)

The greatest way that we can love the world is through the demonstration of Christ in our midst through our love and unity. We therefore shouldn't be embarrassed to show a greater concern for those in the "household of faith." We mustn't turn our backs upon the plight of Christian refugees.

However, as God had been sterner with His chosen people Israel, we must also be sterner with those calling themselves "Christian." Church discipline was therefore reserved for those within the household:

• “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?” (1 Corinthians 5:9-12)

Jesus also reserved excommunication for the "brother" who sinned and refused to repent (Mat. 18:15-19). We therefore give more to the brethren but also expect more from them.

This is also true for our own families. We are to love our own wives and not our neighbor's wife. We are also to place our own children above our neighbor's children. To prefer our neighbor's children above our own can only provoke bitterness, jealousy, and charges of hypocrisy. But we also discipline our children, not our neighbor's.

This is also perhaps the best way to love our neighbors, by providing a loving home for our family. This is also a love that will reach out to others.

Christian love also reaches out to the surrounding world if it starts with the household of faith. The evidence for this is ubiquitous. We can start by comparing the Christian West with the worlds of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or Communism. The contributions of Christ are unmistakable. Writer Paul Copan relates the experience of Canadian Broadcasting Corp journalist, Brian Stewart and his “slow, reluctant conversion”:

• “I’ve never reached a war zone, or famine group or crisis anywhere where some church organization was not there long before me… I’m often asked if I lost belief in God covering events like Ethiopia, then called ‘the worst hell on earth.’ Actually, like others before me, it was precisely in such hells that I rediscovered religion.” (Christian Research Journal, Vol 37/Number 04, 46-47)

Historian Ruth Tucker reports that:

• Missionaries in Africa were opposed to slavery from an early period, and they used a variety of means to oppose it, including buying slaves and establishing plantations for them to work on. (From Jerusalem to Irian Jaya,102)

• The missionaries insisted on treating native people as human beings who are entitled to the protection of the law, and this rubbed salt into the wound. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that colonists and traders often opposed missions.” (103)

• Traders and colonists resisted the evangelism of native people, seeing conversion as the first step to indigenous people gaining access to the resources of Western culture and hence to the power that colonists wished to keep for themselves…Native people who wished to break free of the settler’s stranglehold and worship God were immediately persecuted by the white traders. (103-104)

Many other historians credit the missionaries with opposition to the abuses of colonialism:

• The missionaries [to New Guinea] from the start found themselves in bitter opposition to the white traders and exploiters… [who] placed men sick of the measles on various islands in order to destroy the population through disease. (Stephen Neill, History of Christian Missions, 355

Our new brand of militant atheists competes among themselves to indict Christianity’s impact on society, even to the point of charging “child abuse.” However, there have been many non-Christians who also have noted the contributions of the much-maligned Christianity. Copan cites the example of the late postmodern atheist Jacques Derrida:

• “Today the cornerstone of international law is the sacred… the concept of crime against humanity is a Christian concept and I think there would be no such thing in the law today without the Christian heritage.” (46)

Copan also cites “one Chinese scholar representing one of China’s premier academic research organizations:

• “In the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. This is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible… the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.” (46)

Copan calls atheist Jurgen Habermas “perhaps Europe’s most prominent philosopher.” However, even he admits:

• “Christianity and nothing else is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source.”

Robert Woodberry, professor of sociology, University of Texas, has devoted the last 14 years to investigate why certain countries develop thriving democracies, while neighboring countries are failed states. Andrea Palpant Dilley writes that:

• Woodberry already had historical proof that missionaries had educated women and the poor, promoted widespread printing, let nationalistic movements that empowered ordinary citizens, and fueled other key elements of democracy. Now the statistics were backing it up: Missionaries weren’t just part of the picture. They were central to it. (Christianity Today, Jan/Feb 2014, 38)

To his amazement, Woodberry was discovering that a long denigrated ingredient was actually central to the creation of successful states – the missionary. He writes:

• “Areas where Protestant missionaries had a significant presence in the past are on average more economically developed today, with comparatively better health, lower infant mortality, lower corruption, greater literacy, higher educational attainment (especially for women), and more robust membership in non-governmental associations.” (39)

• Pull out a map, says Woodberry, point to any place where “conversionary Protestants” were active in the past, and you’ll typically find more printed books and more schools per capita. You’ll find too, that in Africa, the Middle East, and in parts of Asia, most of the early nationalists who led their countries to independence graduated from Protestant mission schools. (41)

These few quotations do not do justice to the impact of Christian love growing out of a Christian community which has nurtured it. In America's Blessings: How Religion Benefits Everyone, Including Atheists (2012), Sociologist of Religion, Rodney Stark, provides further evidence that Christian love has profoundly impacted those among whom it had been planted. Jerry Newcombe, whose notes I am drawing from, writes:

• He notes that religion benefits everyone, even the non-religious, who feel the residual effect.

• Those who attend church more often tend to donate much more often. For example, he writes, "…religious people dominate the ranks of blood donors, to whom even some angry humanists owe their lives."

• “Religious Americans are far more likely to contribute even to secular charities, to volunteer their times to socially beneficial programs, and to be active in civic affairs.

• “Religious Americans enjoy superior mental health---they are happier, less neurotic, and far less likely to commit suicide.

• “Religious Americans also enjoy superior physical health, having an average life expectancy more than seven years longer than that of the irreligious. A very substantial difference remains even after the effects of ‘clean living’ are removed.

• “Religious people are more apt to marry and less likely to divorce, and they express higher degrees of satisfaction with their spouses. They also are more likely to have children.

• “Religious husbands are substantially less likely to abuse their wives or children.

• “Although often portrayed as ignorant philistines, religious Americans are more likely to consume and sustain ‘high culture.’”

Having such neighbors will inevitably exert a positive impact on their community. In contrast, the Communist ideal has been to treat everyone in the same manner. However, each of their failed states suggests that brotherhood cannot be imposed from above but must radiate out from concentric circles of intimacy. Love must begin at home if it is to benefit anyone.

Progressive thought must reevaluate itself, and Christians must take a second look at our overriding responsibility for Christian refugees.

FAVORING CHRISTIAN REFUGEES AND THE SEEKER-SENSITIVE CHURCH

At the G20 summit, President Obama stated:  

• “When I hear folks say that, well, maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims, when I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted, when some of those folks themselves come from families who benefited from protection when they were fleeing political persecution, that’s shameful. That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.”

However, Pam Geller countered:

• But it is Obama who is shameful. He’s the one who has applied a religious test to migrants. He has refused Christians seeking refuge from jihad genocide. He has refused to meet with Middle Eastern Christian leaders. They are the true victims of the jihadi wars.

• “Discrimination: 2,098 Syrian Muslim Refugees Allowed Into America, Only 53 Christians,” (John Nolte, Breitbart News, November 17, 2015)

Geller adds that only 53 Christian Syrian refugees have been allowed in since 2011. In light of this, it is Obama who is showing favoritism. Meanwhile, it is the Christians who are suffering the worst victimization.

• Syrian Christians have been singled out for the worst kind of persecution under ISIS, including mass beheadings that do not discriminate against innocent women and even small children.

Geller adds that:       

• Fleeing persecution at the hands of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other jihadist groups, Syrian Christians generally avoid U.N. refugee camps because they are targeted there too.

• Most refugees considered for resettlement in the U.S. are referred by the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

While Obama claims that showing preference for Christians is “not who we are,” this is what we have always been. The US has always discriminated in terms of who we accept into the country.

Meanwhile, Geller adds that:

• The F.B.I. has already admitted that it cannot adequately vet these refuges, and ISIS has promised to use the Syrian refugee process as a means to infiltrate the West with terrorists. Early reports indicate that two of the gunmen that hit Paris Friday snuck in through the refugee program.

It is therefore entirely irresponsible to bring in Muslim refugees who, in light of both religion and history, will practice Jihad on their adoptive country. According to the Koran, immigration is also a means of Jihad for the Muslim:

• He who emigrates (from his home) in the Cause of Allah [Jihad], will find on earth many dwelling places and plenty to live by. And whosoever leaves his home as an emigrant unto Allah and His Messenger, and death overtakes him, his reward is then surely incumbent upon Allah. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And when you (Muslims) travel in the land, there is no sin on you if you shorten your Salat (prayer) if you fear that the disbelievers may attack you, verily, the disbelievers are ever unto you open enemies. (Koran 4:100-101) 

Meanwhile, Obama fails to acknowledge that Christian refugees will not cut off heads or bring down buildings or try to impose their ways on our nation. Instead, it is the Christians who are likely to make the most positive adjustment and contributions to the US. And so why shouldn’t this be a consideration!

Meanwhile, there are other possible humanitarian responses to the Muslim refugees. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said:

·       "It's absurd — just think about it, when the Germans say they will spend billions on providing for the new arrivals instead of giving the money to the countries around the crisis zone, where they [migrants] should be stopped in the first place. It would be better for everyone. They wouldn't come here. It would cost less. And our approach couldn't be called into question morally either."

However, in September, France's Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve attacked the idea of preferring Christian refugees:

·       "I really don't understand this distinction," Cazeneuve said. "I condemn it, and I think it's dreadful. A whole series of minorities are being persecuted in the situation in Syria.”

How many more Paris attacks will be necessary for these multicultural zealots to rethink their position! Even now, they admit that they have lost control of the situation.

However, it is not them alone who need to do some re-thinking. Seeker-sensitive churches, springing up in metropolitan areas, also think it illegitimate to favor Christian refugees. Often, they will not even single out Christian refugees for prayer.

However, loving their brethren is to take preference over all other expressions of Christian love (Galatians 6:10). Even Jesus showed favoritism, identifying so closely with His Brethren that when they suffered, He too suffered:

·        “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.’” (Matthew 25:40)

For Jesus, the way to love the world and to draw them to the light was to demonstrate the light of our love for our brethren:

·       "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:34-35)

·       "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. (John 17:20-23)

The best way to love the world is to start by loving our own. Although such a conclusion is politically distasteful to younger Christians, it will not be so if we would only think about it for a bit. The best way to love our children is to love our spouse, which would create a loving family environment. Likewise, the best way to love our community is to love our children, thereby raising responsible and loving neighbors.

This doesn’t mean that we do not love our neighbor’s children. However, to put their welfare above that of our own children will create bitterness and, eventually, brokenness. Such “love” will also be seen as hypocritical. To care for my neighbor’s wife as I do my own can only bring forth bad results.

To bring in dangerous Muslim refugees who will murder, according to their religion and for the sake of imposing their Caliphate, will also engender bitterness and dissolution.

To ignore these very apparent realities will bring great disrepute on the church. Instead, we are to provide light and leadership and not a pathetic pandering to the prevailing culture.

In light of this, giving must be performed with great discretion and wisdom. It must be conducted in a way that doesn’t endanger the innocent. Bringing in tens of thousands of Muslims into the USA is a sure prescription for violence, and it is antithetical to Christian love. Instead, our hearts must go out first of all to the Christian refugees - the ones who will make a positive adjustment to the West - without forgetting charity to others.

Getting Booted from Redeemer Presbyterian’s Facebook Page

I was recently banned from the Redeemer Facebook page, “Redeemer Presbyterian Church, NYC,” for posting this: http://mannsword.blogspot.com/2015/10/discernment-and-discrimination-case-for.html

In this essay I explored what Christian love should look like in terms of the refugees from the Middle East. I argued that Christian love requires discernment and preference for our brethren in Christ. The Apostle Paul was quite clear about our responsibilities in situations like this.

• Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers (Galatians 6:10).

While we are to help everyone as we are able, the Bible teaches that our first obligation is to our brethren in Christ, as it also is to our immediate biological family. In the essay, I also wrote about the well-founded dangers posed by Islamic refugees.

The first respondent answered:

• "Honestly, man, I don't know what you're trying to do here on Redeemer's webpage, but stop. Your exegesis is terrible. Your points are quite hateful. And your insistence on othering people is destructive."

The two other respondents called upon the administrator to remove my post. However, not only were the posts removed, but I was removed as well. Someone at Redeemer decided that I was no longer welcome on their page. If I had expressed myself in an unloving or unbiblical manner, I could better understand the response. If the subject was of minor importance, I might be more sympathetic towards these Grand Inquisitors. However, this issue represents a matter of absolutely prime importance—the genocide, kidnapping, and sex-slavery of tens of thousands of innocent Christians.

If we are right to shut our ears to their cries, then the churches in Germany were totally guiltless for turning their backs on the extermination of millions. Instead, this warning against the very evident and proven dangers of Islam was indicted as “quite hateful.”

I asked this respondent if his criticism would also apply to warnings about Hitler in 1932. However, he failed to answer, leaving me with the impression that the respondents believe that exposing Hitler is totally legitimate while exposing Islam is not, even when it is costing our brethren everything.

The respondent also charged that my “insistence on othering people is destructive." What does it mean to “other” people? Based upon what is currently embraced by seeker-sensitive churches, it means that it is wrong and unchristian to make the us/them distinction. Even worse, when we distinguish ourselves from others by making this distinction, we establish a basis for hate and marginalization.

However, this distinction is inseparable from Scripture. It’s even a distinction that Jesus routinely made:

• And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: “‘“You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.” (Matthew 13:10-14)

• “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.’” (Matthew 25:40)

• “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you… If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.” (John 15:12, 18-19)

We are a new creation by the mercy of God. Paul explained what this meant:

• Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people." (2 Corinthians 6:14-16)

While it doesn’t seem that Redeemer has much use for such distinctions, Redeemer exercises a great deal of its own “othering.” When they appoint pastors, deacons, elders, committee heads, and teachers, they are “othering,” by setting some to have authority over others – a stratified structure.

When members are excommunicated from the Redeemer page for no other reason than for expressing a politically incorrect opinion, they too have been “othered.” Yet, my “othering” jihadists and caliphatists, is denigrated as “destructive” and “hateful.” Perhaps instead it is these Redeemer respondents who have been hateful to me.

Why then has it become impermissible to expose the victimization of our brethren? Why mustn’t we mention our overriding responsibility for our own household of faith? Hate has this become “hate” speech, even among the Church of Christ? Instead, we are mandated to show the world our love for the brethren, as Jesus prayed:

• "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” (John 17:20-23)

You may call this “favoritism,” but this is the very demonstration of favoritism Jesus advanced to reconcile the world:

• "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:34-35)

While we are to love all, we are also to demonstrate a distinctive love for our brethren in Christ. Even non-Christians are incredulous of the churches’ silence – a silence that has allowed the genocide to flourish.