My local church did just that, Dan, in the late 1970's for two post-Vietnam war refugee families. This is the tradition of CRCers and CRC churches.
Where we (in the CRC) have departed since then is in two ways: (1) these days we focus much more on the political instead of the personal, trying, it would seem, to make government our proxy; (2) when we do things directly, we tend these days to do it with our own more centralized organizations instead of with our local churches or individual families within a local church.
I don't think "legitimate asylum seekers are being stereotyped as 'illegals' or criminals," Steve, at least by most people, on whatever side of the aisle.
The underlying reality, which may make it seem as you claim, is that most asylum claims, especially from south of the border, are in fact faux. Our immigration laws have created practical but unlawful avenues by which effective admission to the US can be achieved by (falsely) claiming the right to asylum, even if most of those claims are later (assuming claimants show up for later) not shown to be real.
Sure, the fact that so many asylum claims are faux will create for some a sterotype mindset, but the vast majority know there are legitimate asylum claims and asylum seekers. No substantial groups advocates against real asylum seekers, but faux claimants cause legitimate claimants to be hard to see and find.
Keep in mind that the definition of asylum is actually pretty narrow. There are many non-asylum seekers who notwithstanding seek to immigrant. The analysis there is more complex. And the real disagreement is about those people.
Steve: Numbers of faux claims: check out https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/80-percent-of-asylum-cases-at-southwest-border-arent-legitimate-dhs-chief-says
I also office with an attorney who does immigration law full time. She would verify, even if based on anecdotal evidence.
Now it probably is the case that that many of those seeking asylum think they should get asylum because they perceive (and perhaps correctly) that life is not good for them in the country where they are from. But that (life is not good) is not a basis for being granted asylum. I'm not intending to bad mouth immigrants, even unlawful ones, in saying this. Hey, they would rather live in the US (or Canada) because life would be much better for them here than where they come from. I suspect I would be of the same mind in their shoes.
My guess is that many Americans are unaware of what constitutes a right to asylum and what doesn't. And I wouldn't be surprised if that unawareness is itself the cause of much argument. It seems to me that the fundamental argument in this country is whether the US government should allow whoever wants to enter the country to enter (minus perhaps terrorists and certain levels of criminals) -- that is, a de facto open border -- or whether the US government should regulate (by limitation) the actual numbers of immigrants (asylum seekers and non-asylum seekers) that are allowed entry. If the government does regulate (limit), some who want to come to the US, even for understandable and "good" reasons, will not be permitted (or perhaps permitted by years down the road).
Ken: I think the more focused question is whether the CRCNA should, if it is, pitch an open border policy. The CRCNA has been public in affirming the need for "border security" but hasn't defined what that means. Further, the recurring and oft-repeated mantras from the CRCNA are two-fold: (1) we must "welcome the stranger," and (2) "immigrants are a blessing and not a burden."
These two mantras, combined with DoJustice articles, OSJ recommended books, and other CRCNA proclamations (e.g., a recent OSJ political action alert encouraged opposition to any increased border security funding in the upcoming federal budget). So much of what the CRCNA says "around the question" would cause many reasonable observers to conclude the CRCNA did support "open borders," even if it didn't directly say so. After all, how can your "welcome the stranger" (proposed as a biblical mandate) while not allowing them entrance into the United States? And if indeed, the singular thing we say about immigrants (legal or not) is that they are "a blessing and not a burden" then why would we want to exclude anyone? And why would you lobby your members to oppose an increase in border security funding in the upcoming federal budget?
There is an old but still valid saying: Government sponsored lotteries are just a sneaky tax on stupidity.
The good news is that any individual person can opt out of the tax. The bad news is that government sponsored lotteries are also a form of public education, and the lessons taught, as explained in part by this article, are not good at all but rather destructive.
Thank you for the valuable contribution Dan. Nuts and bolts considerations for local churches are, I believe, under-rated, until at least things threaten to collapse for failure to attend to nuts and bolts considerations.
A local church is a number of things, but one of them is an organization of multiple people. And any organization, churches not excluded, benefit from geeky work. I appreciate yours. :-)
Lou. I don't think I'm kidding myself at all. I think you are wrong about the motivation. Sponsoring the two Hmong families we sponsored advanced no anti-communist agenda that my church had or knew about. We were asked to sponsor Hmong refugee families. We said yes.
What has changed between then and now is that "processing" refugee families has become big business (even if big non-profit business). This reflects the general trend toward centralization (e.g., federalized home loan market which buys mortgages at subsidized rates from local banks and non-bank brokers).
Would my church sponsor a refugee family again if asked? I'd guess yes. Do I expect it will be asked to? Nope.
Now, if you ask whether my church would take in a refugee family that was here unlawfully (refugee by their own declaration only), that would be a different question, just as it would have been different had the Hmong families been smuggled here.
Adam: You may be correct that CRCers have not sufficiently come alongside those who are gay, or for that matter those who are hetero but single and not of their choosing.
Or you may be incorrect.
It probably depends on which CRCers you are talking about -- because there are lots of them.
But isn't the question you raise a different one than the question at issue here, not to mention one about which there is near unanimity of answer among CRCers. Ok, you think CRCers should more practice what they preach and they should. It's likely that some do, some don't.
But again, that's a different question, isn't it?
There are many kinds of people that CRCers should come alongside of, aren't there, included those who have, by CRC standards gone astray from what Scripture provides for our lives -- in any numbers of wsys?
Isn't the question here whether the institutional CRC should bless the actual going astray? And what the CRC should tell CRC parents to teach their children about a number of questions?
Laura: You say that celibacy is "too much a burden" for LGBT. Two questions.
What about "B" (which I assume is bi-sexual)? What burden is imposed on them by a church that would constrain it's members to marry in heterosexual monogamy or remain delegate?
Second, what do you say to those, and some very much do, that monogamy is too much a constraint (burden) for them? That God made them in such a way that they will only be "fulfilled" by, e.g., open marriage or some variety of polyamory? Why, if you would, would you have the church deny these church members to deny themselves (they have prayed and wrestled too) of ways Of living that they have concluded is right for them?
Thanks for the answers Laura. Let me push back on them a bit.
If the "bi" of bisexual has any meaning, even if less than a 50-50 meaning so to speak, you still claim as your reason that bisexuals should be required to marry heterosexually because they should not have the burden of telling a same sex person which whom they have "fallen in love" that they can reciprocate but have to find a heterosexual person to fall in love with instead. So how is that burden greater than that of a heterosexual person who "falls in love" with someone of the opposite sex but who isn't "eligible," (whether because that person is biologically related, or already married, or hasn't reciprocated in "falling in love," etc). In fact, lots of hetereosexual people "fall in love" but can't act on it (some wanting to marry all their lives but never being able). Assuming the injustice of relative burden is meaningful, I'm not understanding how that injustice is at all unique for bi-sexual people as opposed to some heterosexual people.
As to the "monogamy question," while you may not know of people saying they knew at ages 5, 8 or 10, there may well exist (high schools are full of "two-timers," evidencing those inclinations at early ages), but even if not, there are adult people who declare they have a irresistible desire to marry -- or just have sexually imtimate lives -- with more than one spouse (or partner). And I've seen "Christian married couples" who describe themselves as "needing" an open marriage (not polyamorous but in many respects the same). Isn't is burdensome to all of these people for the church to deny them the polyamorous or open relationship they say they want and need?
I realize you, and perhaps A1B, may just want to talk about some things and not others, but those CRCers who believe scripture speaks rather clearly about prohibiting gay marriage also think it critically important what justification is used by gay marriage advocates. If the, or a, key pro-gay marriage argument is "burden," then we believe there can be no constraint at all on human sexual behavior. To add another example/category, people who have a bestiality fettish (and there are lots of those too even if they might rarely "come out of the closet") are also clearly burdened by cultural/religious constraints against their inclination. The list could go on.
How would you or A1B respond to these concerns? They aren't slippery slope concerns but rather concerns that the gate is swung completely open if the, or a, key argument is about unjust burden.
Posted in: Immigration Justice Requires Border Security
My local church did just that, Dan, in the late 1970's for two post-Vietnam war refugee families. This is the tradition of CRCers and CRC churches.
Where we (in the CRC) have departed since then is in two ways: (1) these days we focus much more on the political instead of the personal, trying, it would seem, to make government our proxy; (2) when we do things directly, we tend these days to do it with our own more centralized organizations instead of with our local churches or individual families within a local church.
I favor the more distant CRC tradition on this.
Posted in: Immigration Justice Requires Border Security
I don't think "legitimate asylum seekers are being stereotyped as 'illegals' or criminals," Steve, at least by most people, on whatever side of the aisle.
The underlying reality, which may make it seem as you claim, is that most asylum claims, especially from south of the border, are in fact faux. Our immigration laws have created practical but unlawful avenues by which effective admission to the US can be achieved by (falsely) claiming the right to asylum, even if most of those claims are later (assuming claimants show up for later) not shown to be real.
Sure, the fact that so many asylum claims are faux will create for some a sterotype mindset, but the vast majority know there are legitimate asylum claims and asylum seekers. No substantial groups advocates against real asylum seekers, but faux claimants cause legitimate claimants to be hard to see and find.
Keep in mind that the definition of asylum is actually pretty narrow. There are many non-asylum seekers who notwithstanding seek to immigrant. The analysis there is more complex. And the real disagreement is about those people.
Posted in: Immigration Justice Requires Border Security
Steve: Numbers of faux claims: check out https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/80-percent-of-asylum-cases-at-southwest-border-arent-legitimate-dhs-chief-says
I also office with an attorney who does immigration law full time. She would verify, even if based on anecdotal evidence.
Now it probably is the case that that many of those seeking asylum think they should get asylum because they perceive (and perhaps correctly) that life is not good for them in the country where they are from. But that (life is not good) is not a basis for being granted asylum. I'm not intending to bad mouth immigrants, even unlawful ones, in saying this. Hey, they would rather live in the US (or Canada) because life would be much better for them here than where they come from. I suspect I would be of the same mind in their shoes.
My guess is that many Americans are unaware of what constitutes a right to asylum and what doesn't. And I wouldn't be surprised if that unawareness is itself the cause of much argument. It seems to me that the fundamental argument in this country is whether the US government should allow whoever wants to enter the country to enter (minus perhaps terrorists and certain levels of criminals) -- that is, a de facto open border -- or whether the US government should regulate (by limitation) the actual numbers of immigrants (asylum seekers and non-asylum seekers) that are allowed entry. If the government does regulate (limit), some who want to come to the US, even for understandable and "good" reasons, will not be permitted (or perhaps permitted by years down the road).
Posted in: Immigration Justice Requires Border Security
Ken: I think the more focused question is whether the CRCNA should, if it is, pitch an open border policy. The CRCNA has been public in affirming the need for "border security" but hasn't defined what that means. Further, the recurring and oft-repeated mantras from the CRCNA are two-fold: (1) we must "welcome the stranger," and (2) "immigrants are a blessing and not a burden."
These two mantras, combined with DoJustice articles, OSJ recommended books, and other CRCNA proclamations (e.g., a recent OSJ political action alert encouraged opposition to any increased border security funding in the upcoming federal budget). So much of what the CRCNA says "around the question" would cause many reasonable observers to conclude the CRCNA did support "open borders," even if it didn't directly say so. After all, how can your "welcome the stranger" (proposed as a biblical mandate) while not allowing them entrance into the United States? And if indeed, the singular thing we say about immigrants (legal or not) is that they are "a blessing and not a burden" then why would we want to exclude anyone? And why would you lobby your members to oppose an increase in border security funding in the upcoming federal budget?
Posted in: Since When Does Winning $1.6 Billion Mean You’ve Made It?
There is an old but still valid saying: Government sponsored lotteries are just a sneaky tax on stupidity.
The good news is that any individual person can opt out of the tax. The bad news is that government sponsored lotteries are also a form of public education, and the lessons taught, as explained in part by this article, are not good at all but rather destructive.
Posted in: Assessing Congregational Volunteer Capacity: A Few factors and Limits
Thank you for the valuable contribution Dan. Nuts and bolts considerations for local churches are, I believe, under-rated, until at least things threaten to collapse for failure to attend to nuts and bolts considerations.
A local church is a number of things, but one of them is an organization of multiple people. And any organization, churches not excluded, benefit from geeky work. I appreciate yours. :-)
Posted in: Immigration Justice Requires Border Security
Lou. I don't think I'm kidding myself at all. I think you are wrong about the motivation. Sponsoring the two Hmong families we sponsored advanced no anti-communist agenda that my church had or knew about. We were asked to sponsor Hmong refugee families. We said yes.
What has changed between then and now is that "processing" refugee families has become big business (even if big non-profit business). This reflects the general trend toward centralization (e.g., federalized home loan market which buys mortgages at subsidized rates from local banks and non-bank brokers).
Would my church sponsor a refugee family again if asked? I'd guess yes. Do I expect it will be asked to? Nope.
Now, if you ask whether my church would take in a refugee family that was here unlawfully (refugee by their own declaration only), that would be a different question, just as it would have been different had the Hmong families been smuggled here.
Posted in: "How Could We Say 'No?'" Gateway CRC Responds to Need for Homeless Shelter
I absolutely love this approach to "dealing with the homeless." Kudos to Gateway CRC (and 5 and 2 Ministries).
Can you imagine how much the world would change if more churches did this? This is Micah 6:8 in raw action.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Adam: You may be correct that CRCers have not sufficiently come alongside those who are gay, or for that matter those who are hetero but single and not of their choosing.
Or you may be incorrect.
It probably depends on which CRCers you are talking about -- because there are lots of them.
But isn't the question you raise a different one than the question at issue here, not to mention one about which there is near unanimity of answer among CRCers. Ok, you think CRCers should more practice what they preach and they should. It's likely that some do, some don't.
But again, that's a different question, isn't it?
There are many kinds of people that CRCers should come alongside of, aren't there, included those who have, by CRC standards gone astray from what Scripture provides for our lives -- in any numbers of wsys?
Isn't the question here whether the institutional CRC should bless the actual going astray? And what the CRC should tell CRC parents to teach their children about a number of questions?
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Thanks for the link to Dr. Cooper's paper. Was excellent (as I expected it might be). :-)
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Laura: You say that celibacy is "too much a burden" for LGBT. Two questions.
What about "B" (which I assume is bi-sexual)? What burden is imposed on them by a church that would constrain it's members to marry in heterosexual monogamy or remain delegate?
Second, what do you say to those, and some very much do, that monogamy is too much a constraint (burden) for them? That God made them in such a way that they will only be "fulfilled" by, e.g., open marriage or some variety of polyamory? Why, if you would, would you have the church deny these church members to deny themselves (they have prayed and wrestled too) of ways Of living that they have concluded is right for them?
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Thanks for the answers Laura. Let me push back on them a bit.
If the "bi" of bisexual has any meaning, even if less than a 50-50 meaning so to speak, you still claim as your reason that bisexuals should be required to marry heterosexually because they should not have the burden of telling a same sex person which whom they have "fallen in love" that they can reciprocate but have to find a heterosexual person to fall in love with instead. So how is that burden greater than that of a heterosexual person who "falls in love" with someone of the opposite sex but who isn't "eligible," (whether because that person is biologically related, or already married, or hasn't reciprocated in "falling in love," etc). In fact, lots of hetereosexual people "fall in love" but can't act on it (some wanting to marry all their lives but never being able). Assuming the injustice of relative burden is meaningful, I'm not understanding how that injustice is at all unique for bi-sexual people as opposed to some heterosexual people.
As to the "monogamy question," while you may not know of people saying they knew at ages 5, 8 or 10, there may well exist (high schools are full of "two-timers," evidencing those inclinations at early ages), but even if not, there are adult people who declare they have a irresistible desire to marry -- or just have sexually imtimate lives -- with more than one spouse (or partner). And I've seen "Christian married couples" who describe themselves as "needing" an open marriage (not polyamorous but in many respects the same). Isn't is burdensome to all of these people for the church to deny them the polyamorous or open relationship they say they want and need?
I realize you, and perhaps A1B, may just want to talk about some things and not others, but those CRCers who believe scripture speaks rather clearly about prohibiting gay marriage also think it critically important what justification is used by gay marriage advocates. If the, or a, key pro-gay marriage argument is "burden," then we believe there can be no constraint at all on human sexual behavior. To add another example/category, people who have a bestiality fettish (and there are lots of those too even if they might rarely "come out of the closet") are also clearly burdened by cultural/religious constraints against their inclination. The list could go on.
How would you or A1B respond to these concerns? They aren't slippery slope concerns but rather concerns that the gate is swung completely open if the, or a, key argument is about unjust burden.