Author: ricstewart

Over the past year or so, I’ve heard and continue to hear many Christian pastors use the label “Jesus is a refugee” as leverage for their advocacy of refugee asylum for illegal migrants on the southern border of the USA.

My sense is that these pastors are using this label to attempt to gain the moral high ground over those who disagree with them on how immigration laws and border control policies are carried out in our sovereign country. It seems they consider those who don’t agree with them 100% on all points of this issue, to be on the wrong side of God’s morality.

So, just to make my position clear, I am a common-ground centrist with conservative roots who is not in 100% agreement with these pastors on this issue. And, I do NOT consider myself to be on the wrong side of God’s justice/morality.

Jesus, a refugee – Yes or No?

Historical Evidence [primary source, Wikipedia]

The 500-year-old Roman Republic which preceded the Roman Empire was severely destabilized in a series of civil wars and political conflict, during which Julius Caesar was appointed as perpetual dictator and then assassinated in 44 BCE. Civil wars and executions continued, culminating in (1) the victory of Octavian, Caesar’s adopted son, over Mark Antony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE, and (2) the annexation of Egypt [as a province].

Octavian’s power was then unassailable and in 27 BCE the Roman Senate formally granted him overarching power [of the Roman Empire] and the new title Augustus, effectively marking the end of the Roman Republic. The imperial period of Rome [Roman Empire] then lasted approximately 1,500 years compared to the 500 years of the preceding Roman Republic era.

Biblical Evidence

Jesus was born between 6 and 4 BCE in Judea (Israel), a province of the Roman Empire. The birth date is not pinpointed precisely along that two-year continuum, since no exact date is given in the Bible or history references. The birth date could have been early, middle, or late in that two-year period.

However, from the Bible, we know that Herod the Great was the client King of Judea (Israel), a province of the Roman Empire, at the time of Jesus’ birth. We also know that Herod got a visit from Wise Men from the far east as they searched for the child Jesus, the prophesied King of the Jews, pointed to by a bright guiding star. We know also because of (1) the Wise Men’s travel time from the far east being as much as a couple of years, and (2) the threat to Herod’s reign over Judea (Israel) by Jesus, the promised King of the Jews; Herod ordered that all male children under the age of two be killed. We know an angel warned Mary and Joseph to flee Israel, and they fled to Egypt to protect Jesus from death at the hand of King Herod’s executioners.

We know that Herod died in 4 BCE. We know that Joseph, Mary, and Jesus returned immediately to Galilee/Nazareth upon the death of Herod.

So, we are left to speculate on how old Jesus was when the family moved to Egypt, two years or two weeks? Also, how long the family actually stayed in Egypt, two years or a few weeks.

By the evidence presented, the answer is “Jesus was not a refugee”

The dictionary definition of refugee is: “a person who has been forced to leave his/her country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.”  This label brings along with it some hefty legal rights on the international stage from the 1951 Geneva Convention.  It should not be used without serious thought about the accuracy of the claim and the ramifications of its implications and associations.

Although Jesus and his family were threatened with persecution by King Herod, effectively “forcing them to leave” the Roman province of Israel and travel to the Roman province of Egypt, the full definition of refugee does not fit. Why? They did not actually leave their country, the Roman Empire. They traveled freely and legally without a requirement of documentation between two provinces of the same country. This is akin to traveling from Oklahoma to Texas in the United States. No passport is required and no refugee status with asylum need be requested.

I’m sure there are readers who will want to challenge my evidence and conclusion.  So please point me to your evidence through a comment on this post.  I’ll research this new evidence and update the post if warranted.

Loving Way Forward

Jesus Christ did not come to divide people by being an activist on one side or the other of any government issue. He also did not need to take on an unsubstantiated label such as refugee to make his case about being the way, the truth, and the life. Since Jesus obviously never brought up being or not being a refugee in his travels with his family in Egypt, I’m going to make an educated guess that he didn’t consider it an essential  element of his ministry on earth – Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself.

He did not, nor does he today, shame people, rather he spoke to their hearts about what is right, what is merciful, and the importance of walking humbly with God, i.e., not contending for supremacy with God (being prideful). Just as we experience today, once people, past and present, truly understand in their hearts and souls what Jesus is talking about, they shame themselves and ask for forgiveness.

Christ clearly loves all people and forgives them, and he commands his followers, Christian lay and clergy, to “…go and do likewise.” [Matthew 6:14-15, Luke 10:37, John 8:7]

Even if we strongly disagree on points of the US Code of Law on immigration and its enforcement, we must all respect each other’s opinions. Then, we must care for each other and work together to determine common ground to assure laws or policies are just. We do this by proposing new/modified laws and policies through our Congressional representatives; also, by voting for our President and Congress in accordance with our Christian and humanitarian values. [Matthew 22:37-40, Matthew 25:31-40]

Whether we agree or disagree among ourselves, Jesus’ love for each of us does not vary. So please, Christian pastors, don’t create untested wedges such as “Jesus is a refugee” to divide the people of the USA into tribes any more than we already are.

Rather, as you use words from God to change people’s hearts, please encourage people to “…speak the truth in love…do so with gentleness and respect…speak evil of no one…be peaceable and considerate…always be gentle toward everyone.” [Contraction-paraphrase of Ephesians 4:15, 1 Peter 3:15, Titus 3:2]

Recently, I read a Facebook post by a Christian minister who used quote marks around the words civil and uncivil to make a point about the behavior of the early counter-traditional church of Jesus Christ.  I guess he was modifying the true meaning of these words with quote marks to better fit his point about the people of the early Christian movement and their stance relative to people of tradition and power at the beginning of the Current Era (CE).   In my opinion, this minister was wrongly using the early Christian church example to encourage people of the Christian church today to become less than loving activists against the current USA government, its leaders, and its people who don’t agree 100% with him about social justice.

In the USA today, there is too much polarized hate coming from liberals in the conservative direction and vice versa.  This is in fact the absolute wrong approach for the church, the maturing body of Jesus Christ.  Jesus is all about love for ALL humankind, including those with whom we disagree.

For clarity, I personally believe it is best to use civil and uncivil without quote marks.  In that way, the true nuanced meanings are not ambiguously lost in the author’s mind.  Our soul (made in the image of God), conscience, and common sense tell us clearly what civil and uncivil mean and what their associated actions look like.

I believe the fruit of God’s/Jesus’ Spirit as conveyed in the Bible and my personal spiritual experiences with Jesus clearly define civil: love, joy, peace (orderly), forbearance (patient), kindness (helpful), goodness, faithfulness (to Jesus, his teachings, civility), gentleness and self-control.

Uncivil is simply not civil.    

USA Civil Laws; e.g., Constitutional Bill of Rights, Congressional Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Voting Rights Acts of 1965; at a minimum provide ALL citizens (including President Trump and recently in the news Congresswoman Maxine Waters and their supporters) protection in the expression of their employment choices, political views, and religious beliefs as they express them peacefully in a legal, orderly, and nonviolent manner.  Obviously, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, President Trump’s press secretary, and her family were not given this civil respect and right by the owner of The Red Hen restaurant, Virginia.  The restaurant owner would not serve them dinner because of Sanders’ political views and associations and escorted them out of her restaurant.

Civil discourse (conversation) and respectful treatment allow people from opposite points of view to peacefully resolve differences and possibly persuade others to espouse their points of view.

I personally refuse to believe that Jesus approves of civil behavior counter to his Spirit’s fruit.

On the one hand, Jesus would not approve of Congresswoman Maxine Water’s behavior the other day when she incited her constituents to harass supporters of Trump in public by saying, “For these members of his [Trump’s] Cabinet who remain and try to defend him they’re not going to be able to go to a restaurant…not going to be able to shop at a department store, the people [Maxine Waters’ supporters] are going to turn on them, they’re going to protest, they’re going to absolutely harass them.”

On the other hand, Jesus also wouldn’t approve of President Trump’s unkind and threatening tweet reply to her: “Congresswoman Maxine Waters, an extraordinarily low IQ … just called for harm to [Trump] supporters…be careful…Maxine.”

Common sense defies either of these powerful public figures using the excuse before Jesus that she/he was just counter-punching in self defense, therefore justifying his/her uncivil behavior.

My mother and father would have said to both Waters and Trump something like “two wrongs don’t make a right.”  To summarize a portion of Jesus’ take on this, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” “forgive others the wrongs they have done, and I’ll forgive you (and them if they ask), “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,” and “God’s grace and forgiveness are for everyone [including President Donald Trump, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and their supporters].”

All of the uncivil hate between conservatives and liberals in the USA today is not helpful to the health of the USA and all of its people.  We are tearing our country apart, and unless we reverse this fight fueled by group identity politics led by those who mainly leverage personal power from the people they claim to be helping, the USA’s future is at grave risk.  Consider this very scary thought, a world without the USA.

Shame on all of us, conservative and liberal, not just President Trump and Congresswoman Maxine Waters for our uncivil behavior to those who disagree with us.

My prayer is that we all; conservative, liberal, and people of all races/creeds; begin to think like one human race/USA citizens and work diligently to be polite and respectful in our public discourse, by first listening and trying to understand the facts and others’ points of view before civilly expressing our own.  If we do this, we’ll actually come up with solutions for many of our complicated national and world issues.

If anyone personally believes this ultimate “civil war” cannot be averted in the USA and will be cathartic/good for the country and the world, I would prayerfully ask that you rethink your position in light of these words:

Based on his life and actions, I have no doubt the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King agrees with Henri Nouwen, Dutch Catholic priest, professor, writer and theologian.

I know Jesus does.

I’m a capitalist, so I don’t agree with Pope Francis’ solution on this issue.  While this article about the Pope’s position on capitalism is almost four years old, in more recent articles, the Pope really hasn’t changed his position on capitalism, wealth, and poverty.

In this article, the Pope is proposing political and economic change in the world from capitalism to socialism, even though world history has repeatedly shown socialism to be a failed economic system.  Also, he is presuming that all wealthy people are in the same socioeconomic bucket he labels “new tyranny.”

Quite the contrary, I think the majority of wealthy and not so wealthy people have loving hearts and are willing to share some of their wealth, small or large, with those less fortunate, e.g., through proportional, fair-share taxes and charitable giving from private wealth.  For example, Warren Buffett in 2006 gave $30B of his $43B net worth at the time to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.  The Gates Foundation works on big world issues under the vision that “All Lives have Equal Value.”  Warren Buffett’s net worth just 10 years later is $75B.  I won’t be surprised when he gives another $30B+ to the Gates Foundation.

Although I haven’t put in the time, I’m confident there is research of the past and present that shows there are many more “Warren Buffett’s” out there.  Is it smart for our society to take wealth beyond fair-share taxes and charitable giving from these people to distribute to others who are much less capable than they in leveraging private resources to generate wealth?  Sounds disingenuous to me at best and dangerous at worst for the overall financial and innovative advancement of our society.  Of course, we need religious leaders such as the Pope and ultimately Jesus to work on the hearts of those of us in humankind who are not as generous as Warren Buffett, Bill, and Melinda Gates.

I believe the Pope is a disciple of Christ, a caring person, and has good intentions with his proposed solution.  I just think on this issue he is ultimately wrong in his analysis, conclusion, and solution.  I think we’ll all be better served if he and other world religion leaders spend their time speaking to changing the hearts of individuals who need a “generosity of heart” tuneup.

Our Lord Jesus gives the Pope as well as all of us the following guidelines to use when talking about generosity of heart: (1) Matthew 26:11 – The poor you’ll always have with you, (2) Matthew 22:39 – …love your neighbor as you love yourself, and (3) Luke 12:48 – …much is required from the person to whom much is given.  Also, the parable of the Talents in Matthew 25 is a practical story explaining how God will use those who are “wealth generators” for the advancement of all his creations.

A final economics lesson comes from John F. Kennedy, former President, 1961-63, USA – “A rising tide raises all boats.”  Ronald Reagan, former President, 1981-1988, USA,  espoused the same view with his support of trickle-down economics.  They both believed that people like Warren Buffett are like a tsunami tide for improving the economy for all.

I’m a big believer in separation of church and state.  I’ll leave the responsibilities of state to a later discussion.  I completely believe it is the responsibility of the church to shine the light of Jesus on individual hearts, ultimately changing the people of our democratic-free society and their government from the inside-out.

I don’t believe the church should spend its time trying to change the government system from the outside-in to force the members of our society with private wealth to distribute it equally among all in our society.

In fact, I believe history would bear me out that such a socialistic action would ultimately dramatically increase poverty within our society.  .

I believe there are very real and valid concerns on both sides of the President Trump Immigration Executive Order (IEO) issue. As a common-ground conservative Christian, I struggle with the concerns on both sides. I want the USA to help as many immigrants and refugees as possible while also preserving the security and values of the country and its citizenry. How do we reach a balance? It is my strong belief we must seek common ground and then compromise to a common solution.

As a starting point, I hope we can all agree the Presidency of our country is a very, very difficult job. What an understatement. How would you like to have the enormous responsibility and burden, even for a day, of keeping 320 million people including 50 million immigrants safe and secure in the USA borders? And, while doing that, also registering 1 million immigrants plus 85 thousand refugees a year in the USA? No simple task.

With these impressive numbers, it’s difficult for me to understand how someone can call the USA anti-immigration.

In a democracy, which can be messy at times, we don’t have to like each other’s varied political ideologies, but for the good of all, we in the USA must unite as partners with our current government and work together to discover common ground solutions on immigration. The health of our country depends on it.

My observation is that President Trump always opens a deal negotiation with hyperbole, but I do believe underneath all the hype and theatrics, he is pro-immigration and will look for common ground solutions going forward. In my opinion, for President Trump it is all about opening a “business deal” with an outrageous stake-in-the-ground.  Such an opening action leaves plenty of wiggle-room to compromise during negotiation.

I don’t think it is a zero-sum (win-lose) game for him, rather a positive-sum (win-win). And, in case an executive order doesn’t become more reasonable during negotiation, we have three equal branches of government that provide checks and balances for extreme cases. As I write this article, the second version of the IEO has already been launched. It appears that some of the more contentious points of the first have been eliminated or modified.  That is a step forward.

Unfortunately, based on social media comments and news/opinion publications I’ve read recently, not everyone is ready to look beyond differences and seek common ground solutions. Across our great country, there is a hardened ideological resistance against the current President and his cabinet that is wider and deeper than I’ve ever seen before in the USA.

I know the current political climate has gotten all of us “off our game,” but I think it unfortunate that some of this activism type resistance is coming from leaders in Christian organizations.

For example, I have read derogatory remarks from Christian pastors and organizational leaders about Franklin Graham and his Christian organizations, Samaritan’s Purse and Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA). As best I can tell, the reasons for these remarks against Franklin Graham center primarily on statements he made in support of the President Trump IEO.  It is never good in my mind when church leaders in the same “body of Christ” universal church denigrate others in the body who are ultimately working for the same goals, i.e., loving God and loving neighbors around the world.

Personally, I’m just not ready to throw out all the good deeds (great commandment) and gospel story-telling (great commission) Franklin Graham and his Christian organizations have done in the Kingdom of God on earth because of a few disagreements on theology, methodology, and personal politics.

In my opinion, Franklin’s statements can be too easily misinterpreted through thin-slicing of only the highly inflammatory words of his statements. For instance, Franklin said, “It’s not a biblical command for the country to let everyone in who wants to come, that’s not a Bible issue.” If one’s attention is drawn only to the words “not let in country…not Bible issue,” it’s easy to see why people of Christian faith would have a problem with the statement. Factoring in the phrase “not…everyone in who wants to come” makes a material difference in the interpretation of his statement.

It is clear to me that Franklin Graham was saying allow access through a legal immigration process to the peace-loving people of the world who share the USA values, but exclude all those “who want to come in” so they can do harm to the USA way of life,  e.g., ISIS.

I believe God gave the government, not the church, the responsibility to establish sovereign borders (Ezekiel 47:13-23; Proverbs 22:28) and maintain order/safety for the citizens in those borders (Romans 13:4).  The most practical and compassionate way of doing that is though USA immigration laws and policies determining which immigrants and refugees share the USA’s social, economic, and governmental values.  For sustainability of our country’s societal-values health, it is reasonable that we must also determine how many immigrants can be successfully assimilated into the USA annually without causing irreparable harm to our society’s macro systems.

While I believe immigration and border security are primarily “state” issues, there is also an ancillary Biblical/compassion responsibility expressed in Matthew 25:31-40 that should be a ballast.  The church, “the body with Christ as head,” is responsible for setting an example in the world (salt and light), speaking boldly, and shining light on Jesus’ commands such as “when I was a stranger (foreigner/Hebrew nocri) you invited me in.”

I take Jesus’ words literally, “when you do this to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you are doing it to me.” Jesus did not set a cumulative acceptable count of these ones for the USA for a year.  He left it to us to make that determination based on what is practical for sustainability so we can continue to help others in the future.

It doesn’t make practical and logical sense to me that He meant everyone “who wants to come in” must be received. To help others, we must first be healthy ourselves by vetting and only receiving immigrants/refugees who want to live in peace and harmony with the citizens of the USA. This is not a new process instituted by President Trump. This is the process we’ve had in place for a long line of Presidents.

Unfortunately, our immigration laws have not kept up with the times over the past several decades.

Because of this, I think it makes sense for the USA to take a temporary respite via President Trump’s IEO to see how well the national security policies and procedures are working since 9/11.  Also, the US Congress which has failed to act for decades on immigration must update our immigration laws.

Have we learned new things over the past 15 years since 9/11 that will make our USA immigration law, policies and procedures better? We certainly should have, and we need to apply them.

How we go about improving our immigration law, policies and procedures is a subject for discussion, which should occur with common goals in mind, e.g., protection of general human rights for all peace-loving people of the world and the protection of USA National security and sustainability.

All involved in creating immigration law solutions should have the attitude of (1) respect for diverse points of view, (2) listen first and then seek to be heard, and (3) seek common ground solutions for the common good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a video clip going around Facebook that actor Martin Sheen has directed with numerous entertainers that is imploring the states’ Republican presidential electors to place their votes other than with Trump-Pence.  Doing so would be directly counter to what the  people of their states have asked them to do.  Of course, it is just an ask in many states, since the electors of those states are not legally bound by the states’ popular vote. The clip rightfully points out that only 37 Republican electors need to step up and “…be heroes” (their words, not mine) for the good of the country by denying Trump-Pence at the electoral college level.   This would then shift the selection of the President to the House of Representatives.

The entertainers actually do tell part of the story accurately in my estimation.  The founding fathers of our country being noble, reasoned men themselves did not want demagogues to railroad an election.  The irony is that the entertainers are acting a lot like political demagogues themselves by appealing to “popular desires and prejudices” rather than by “rational arguments.”  Oh, and by the way, the electors of the states that voted for the Democrat ticket could take this as empowerment to vote for Trump-Pence.  After all, the Trump-Pence ticket so far in the President-elect stage and prior to the electoral college vote is really showing an openness to opposition ideas by talking seriously with serious people across the aisles and issues.

The switching electoral votes numbers are working against the Martin Sheen et al plan ever happening.  Of the 57 US Presidential elections in our country’s history, only 157 electors have voted against the popular vote majority in their states.  And, 29 + DC of the states in the US do bind their electors to the state’s popular vote.  Nevertheless, even with faithless electors (those who switch) being possible in the remaining states, this 157 total is on  average less than or equal to 3 faithless electors per election.  Another mitigating factor is that almost half of those faithless elector votes were because the candidate died before the electoral college vote. Apparently, faithless electors have affected the outcome of only one election in the history of the United States.  In that one case, the vote was sent to the US Senate to resolve, and the “shunned” candidate eventually won.  Therefore, the Martin Sheen et al proposal can happen, but the odds of it affecting the outcome of the electoral college vote are not favorable at all.

My hope and prayer is that we as a country unite as a people and engage with “all” of our elected officials. That doesn’t mean we must like or agree with them on all issues, but I think it does mean that we give them the benefit of the doubt until their actions prove they are not generally operating in the best interest of all the people of our country. As a president-elect, Donald Trump is operating counter to his campaign-mode persona. One example, his daughter Ivanka and he had a serious discussion with Al Gore about climate change. He is also changing his early tune about deporting 11 million illegal immigrants “overnight.”

In my opinion (and this has been my thought since early in the Republican primary season), Donald Trump is an entertainer and business man, not an ideologue, i.e., Republican or Democrat.  He is all about the art of the deal. Which basically means, say anything outrageous to put a stake in the ground and draw attention to the matter, but leave plenty of room to move to a reasonable position during the negotiations.