I'm Not What I'm Not

Victor Davis Hanson observes in a recent blog that Obama’s, “Bush did it” declaration does not constitute a foreign policy. It is consistent, however, with his I'm not Bush response to the troubled economy. It also remains true to his entire presidential campaign theme: Change (from those dreadful Bush policies.) I think history will record his handling of the Gulf oil disaster as very un-Bushlike as well: the Bush response to Katrina, though clumsy at times, was operational within seventy-two hours; Obama took fifty-two days to get rolling on the spill (in equally clumsy fashion, it seems.)

One third of the way through his first term as President, Obama is still defined largely by what he is not. He is not, for example, patriotic. He chose to spend Memorial Day vacationing in hometown, Chicago, rather than appearing at the ceremonies at Arlington National Cemetery (another sad story sits there.) While he did bend to pressure to wear a US flag pin occasionally, he still displays the “crotch salute” while others around him either salute or place their hands over their hearts honoring the flag in public ceremonies. He continues to apologize for American exceptionalism like a lonely schoolboy craving acceptance whenever he speaks abroad.

Nor is Obama demonstrably Christian by biblical standards, despite his assertions to the contrary (see his 2008 interview in Christianity Today.) Again, he is certainly not Bush. Whatever one thought about Bush policies, there was no doubt as to the role his faith played in his governing. Obama seems to consciously avoid linking faith to actions. This may be due to the nature of his faith; though he denies affinity with Reverend Wright, he did spend twenty years listening to militant black liberation theology. Perhaps he shields the public from his faith because it would alienate about ninety-seven percent of the population. Or perhaps we should pay more attention to his statements that Islam and Christianity are equally worthy of respect. Perhaps he cannot act on faith because he does not have one.

This defining by negation is quite normal. People used to define Christians as those who “don’t smoke; don’t chew; don’t run with girls who do.” More recently Christians seem to be defined in our culture as those who are not tolerant, not politically correct, not modern, and not open-minded. I wonder if we took pains to be more proactive to define ourselves by actions if we could change that perception. What if we were gracious, forgiving, kind, loyal, hardworking, and truly loving in the I-did-this-just-for-you Jesus kind of way? What if the fruit of the Spirit was the taste we left in our wake? What if we elected people who stood FOR something instead of embracing change for change’s sake? “Throw the bums out,” is a popular sentiment these days. I agree that we need to clean house; let’s just be careful about whom we put in their place.

Think or Swim

The current trouble in Arizona raises the question, "Is there a Christian view of illegal immigration?" I believe there is, but it is not simple. The most obvious starting point is the word “illegal.” The Bible teaches us to be subject to the powers that rule us. We are a nation of laws, without which our society could not exist. Therefore, Christians should not support law breakers unless the laws they break would force the law keeper to violate a higher law, namely, the teaching of Scripture. After the founding fathers, Martin Luther King is our country’s most renowned civil disobedient; his campaign to remove segregationist laws stands of firm biblical ground in my opinion.

But one must ask what higher law is violated by requiring immigrants to follow a prescribed method to enter the United States. Proponents of relaxed immigration laws play on public sympathy by detailing the sad plight of many people in Mexico. They need the financial opportunities provided by the US economy to support their families, so the argument goes. Christians have two options in response: charitable giving, a core principle, can be directed to truly needy people, and informed debate can be held regarding current immigration policies to see if allowing more immigrants or shortening the wait to emigrate would be beneficial to all parties concerned. Neither of these choices condones or supports law breaking.

There is a deeper issue implicit in this discussion. All societies have defining characteristics, primary among them are borders, language and culture. Borders define the extent to which societal expectations govern; language is the vehicle by which expectations are transmitted; culture is the text which describes the society. Our current problem at the Mexican border tramples all three of these. Illegal immigrants ignore the border crossing rules, speak primarily Spanish, and form culturally segregated barrios when they settle here. If you listen to the most radical among their number, they do not desire to assimilate; they have invented the term “reconquista” to imply not a friendly melting pot, but a forceful take-over.

The only nation that ever belonged to God was ancient Israel. God no longer chooses nations; he chooses individuals. Yet as His people in this nation, we have every right to order our society by standards which reflect biblical values if we have the votes to accomplish that. Set aside the fact that illegal immigrants are breaking the law simply by coming here; they are taxing an already overburdened system to the breaking point. Schools, hospitals and the courtrooms are being overrun by illegal immigrants in many parts of this country. This is costing legal citizens billions of dollars, a sum which we do not willingly pay. This is robbery. This is not something we need to condone, no matter how destitute the immigrants might be.

Christian charity does not require that we relinquish all rights to private property. Yet the move to allow unlimited numbers of immigrants into our country or to forgive those already here illegally effectively does this. The debate over Arizona's effort to curb the cost of illegals in their state suggests some people believe only the illegals have rights. Although we are a rich country, we do not have unlimited resources. If we don't limit the number of people we invite in to eat at our table, soon there will not be enough food for anyone to make a meal.

When the Titanic went down, there were not enough lifeboats for all the passengers who were cast into the sea. The people who did have seats in the lifeboats had to make a terrible choice. Either limit the number of people in the boat or keep adding swimmers until they swamped the boat and everyone ended up back in the water. The world economy hit the iceberg some time ago; if we don't start making some hard choices, we may learn the answer to the old question, "How long can you tread water?"