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.
Border security is simply a foundational prerequisite to any system of immigration law excepting that of "open borders" ( that is, no regulation of immigration).
In the Reagan years, a fairly extensive amnesty was granted to unlawful immigrants in a promised two-step plan to then "secure the border." Sadly, step two just never happened (and we've been dealing with the dysfunctionality resulting from that in the decades since).
One of the biggest barriers to progress on this is evidenced by California's newly elected Governor Gavin Newsom, whose very recent announcement declared that his state would be open to all. Newsom is an "open borders" guy and not afraid to say it. Germany was that too not so long ago (but since has abandoned that perspective). Many more are also "open borders" advocates but are unwilling to simply say that. Instead, they argue about how a wall might not be the smart way to solve the problem, or that ICE should be abolished because it has been so mean, and then do nothing to secure the border (which is a de facto open border policy).
It is not Trumpian to say that if a nation doesn't regulate entrance to its geographical territory, it is, by definition, not a nation. Germany could do that only so long. If Newsom has the power to open California's border to all (which he may not), he could do that only so long without threatening California's existence as a political sub-entity (a state within a federalist nation).
Yes, it is complicated. Which is why repeating simple mantras like "welcome the stranger" and "immigrants are a blessing and not a burden" are less than constructive. Indeed, repeating mantras like that only increase the political polarization.
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.
All smoking should be prohibited on church property. I haven't seen anyone smoke on my church's property for decades. I'm not sure it's formally banned but it probably doesn't have to be.
Using marijuana for medicinal purposes? Ok, fine, but still no smoking of it, or anything else, on church property. (By way of explanation, smoking invades the airspace of others).
As a side note, the medicinal elements of marijuana can be extracted and separated from those that create the "high." I know this from a highly qualified bio-chemist who had actually done this for family members for quite some time now. It can also be cultivated to diminish it as a "high producing" substance while not diminishing the medicinal effects.
In general, marijuana use as a mind altering substance should be viewed as roughly the same as the use of other substances (e.g., alcohol, cocaine, ritalin, other prescribed medications of all kinds, etc). If council believes a church member is using any substance to recreationally achieve mind alteration, it needs to pay attention to that person. In what way exactly? The answer to that question depends on a thousand or more variables. Human life is complicated.
One more point: from the perspective of US federal law, the sale and use of marijuana is not "legalized." That fact should not be ignored or overlooked.
Thanks for the post Dan, and for attending. It's always good to know, from first hand observation, strategies employed by movements that want to change institutions and culture.
Nothing you report is too surprising to me, but hearing a report from someone who was privy to the conversation is helpful.
Leviticus 18:22 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. Leviticus 20:13 =If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. Romans 1:27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Certainly, Scripture's language about homosexual sex could be said to be very strong in the negative. See above. One would think that if that strength of characterization were to be overcome (e.g., like the prohibition against eating unclean animals), there would be some strength of language in the other direction. But I am unaware of any, or even weak language in the other direction.
And the language of these passages seems to be quite clear in condemning all gay sex -- at least there is never an exception made. If then one were to make a case for the goodness of gay sex IF there was monogamy and "commitment" (whatever that exactly means), wouldn't there be at least one passage suggesting that? Even weakly?
Scripture has quite a number of references to the goodness of heterosexual sex in the context of marriage, even when it condemns heterosexual sex outside marriage. Where's the parallel? Even one instance of it?
It's not like homosexual relationships didn't exist in both OT or NT times. Homosexual relationships weren't invented in the 20th or 21st centuries. So if the world entertained homosexual relationships in OT and NT days -- presumably including committed ones, we have no reason to conclude otherwise -- why would biblical writers NEVER comment positively on monogamous, committed homosexual relationships?
For what it's worth Dan Zylstra, while I suspect Dan W wouldn't argue with your nuance as to his post, it never crossed my mind that Dan W was suggesting A1B wanted "the CRC to normalize and celebrate" anything but "committed or monogamous" gay (etc) relationships. I've certainly never had that impression of A1B.
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: Immigration Justice Requires Border Security
Border security is simply a foundational prerequisite to any system of immigration law excepting that of "open borders" ( that is, no regulation of immigration).
In the Reagan years, a fairly extensive amnesty was granted to unlawful immigrants in a promised two-step plan to then "secure the border." Sadly, step two just never happened (and we've been dealing with the dysfunctionality resulting from that in the decades since).
One of the biggest barriers to progress on this is evidenced by California's newly elected Governor Gavin Newsom, whose very recent announcement declared that his state would be open to all. Newsom is an "open borders" guy and not afraid to say it. Germany was that too not so long ago (but since has abandoned that perspective). Many more are also "open borders" advocates but are unwilling to simply say that. Instead, they argue about how a wall might not be the smart way to solve the problem, or that ICE should be abolished because it has been so mean, and then do nothing to secure the border (which is a de facto open border policy).
It is not Trumpian to say that if a nation doesn't regulate entrance to its geographical territory, it is, by definition, not a nation. Germany could do that only so long. If Newsom has the power to open California's border to all (which he may not), he could do that only so long without threatening California's existence as a political sub-entity (a state within a federalist nation).
Yes, it is complicated. Which is why repeating simple mantras like "welcome the stranger" and "immigrants are a blessing and not a burden" are less than constructive. Indeed, repeating mantras like that only increase the political polarization.
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: Is Your Church Ready for Legalized Pot?
Ok, I'll bite. :-)
All smoking should be prohibited on church property. I haven't seen anyone smoke on my church's property for decades. I'm not sure it's formally banned but it probably doesn't have to be.
Using marijuana for medicinal purposes? Ok, fine, but still no smoking of it, or anything else, on church property. (By way of explanation, smoking invades the airspace of others).
As a side note, the medicinal elements of marijuana can be extracted and separated from those that create the "high." I know this from a highly qualified bio-chemist who had actually done this for family members for quite some time now. It can also be cultivated to diminish it as a "high producing" substance while not diminishing the medicinal effects.
In general, marijuana use as a mind altering substance should be viewed as roughly the same as the use of other substances (e.g., alcohol, cocaine, ritalin, other prescribed medications of all kinds, etc). If council believes a church member is using any substance to recreationally achieve mind alteration, it needs to pay attention to that person. In what way exactly? The answer to that question depends on a thousand or more variables. Human life is complicated.
One more point: from the perspective of US federal law, the sale and use of marijuana is not "legalized." That fact should not be ignored or overlooked.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Thanks for the post Dan, and for attending. It's always good to know, from first hand observation, strategies employed by movements that want to change institutions and culture.
Nothing you report is too surprising to me, but hearing a report from someone who was privy to the conversation is helpful.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Dan: I'm curious. What do you do, e.g., with:
Leviticus 18:22 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
Leviticus 20:13 =If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Romans 1:27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Certainly, Scripture's language about homosexual sex could be said to be very strong in the negative. See above. One would think that if that strength of characterization were to be overcome (e.g., like the prohibition against eating unclean animals), there would be some strength of language in the other direction. But I am unaware of any, or even weak language in the other direction.
And the language of these passages seems to be quite clear in condemning all gay sex -- at least there is never an exception made. If then one were to make a case for the goodness of gay sex IF there was monogamy and "commitment" (whatever that exactly means), wouldn't there be at least one passage suggesting that? Even weakly?
Scripture has quite a number of references to the goodness of heterosexual sex in the context of marriage, even when it condemns heterosexual sex outside marriage. Where's the parallel? Even one instance of it?
It's not like homosexual relationships didn't exist in both OT or NT times. Homosexual relationships weren't invented in the 20th or 21st centuries. So if the world entertained homosexual relationships in OT and NT days -- presumably including committed ones, we have no reason to conclude otherwise -- why would biblical writers NEVER comment positively on monogamous, committed homosexual relationships?
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
For what it's worth Dan Zylstra, while I suspect Dan W wouldn't argue with your nuance as to his post, it never crossed my mind that Dan W was suggesting A1B wanted "the CRC to normalize and celebrate" anything but "committed or monogamous" gay (etc) relationships. I've certainly never had that impression of A1B.