The Evangelical Alliance has sided against the UK Government on the Migration question, citing Scripture. Are they on solid ground?
On 09 May the Evangelical Alliance (EA) website published an Op-Ed on the Government’s response to the existing Migration situation. The EA was probably speaking for many Church people (and especially for church leaderships) in their overall presentation. Here are edits from the EA opinion. Note these are only extracts and readers should go to the EA website to see the EA’s full ‘argument’:
<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 26 April, the Illegal Migration Bill was passed through the House of Commons by 289 votes to 230. As it stands, the bill will make it extremely hard for women, men and children to claim asylum in the UK. As the bill makes its way through the House of Lords, we are placing the biblical principle of showing compassion to the foreigner at the heart of our engagement, and asking peers to do the same.
The overarching aim of the bill
The Illegal Migration Bill is the government’s attempt to reduce the high number of people who cross the Channel on small boats in order to seek asylum in the UK. The bill will result in anyone arriving in the UK through unauthorised means being prevented from claiming asylum. Those who arrive through so-called ?“illegal” means will be detained and removed to a ?“safe country”, such as Rwanda. Anyone who is removed will be blocked from returning or seeking British citizenship in the future.
The finer details
During the report stage in the House of Commons, the government tabled amendments to their own bill in order to gain support from Conservative backbench MPs who were vocally opposed to parts of it. One particularly controversial aspect of the bill is the power it will give the government to deport unaccompanied children. In order to appease backbenchers, an amendment was passed which specifies the limited circumstances that the deportation of unaccompanied children can take place in. Another amendment contained a commitment from the government to establish ?“safe and legal routes” for asylum seekers to reach the UK. These amendments were passed.
How is the Evangelical Alliance responding?
The biblical command to treat the foreigner well is at the centre of our engagement with this bill. Leviticus 19:33?–?34 states: “When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God”. This is a sentiment that Jesus carried into His teaching. In Matthew 25:40, He explains to His followers: ?“Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me”.
With this as a guiding principle, we are praying for and seeking a system that treats asylum seekers with dignity and compassion. We recognise that the high number of people risking their lives crossing the channel on small boats is a significant problem that should be prevented, and that the asylum system is desperately in need of reform. We also recognise that upholding the dignity of all individuals and providing safety for the vulnerable should be at the heart of the UK’s immigration policy.
As we interact with peers in the House of Lords over the Illegal Migration Bill in coming weeks, we will have three main areas of focus: * Safe routes * Detention and bail * Support for unaccompanied children
What now?
The Illegal Migration Bill will be debated for the first time in the House of Lords on 10 May. It is expected that extensive amendments will be made before it returns to the House of Commons. Follow us and look out for updates as we continue to engage with policymakers over this bill.
<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>
Easy Answers
Christian Comment does not have an answer to the Migrancy question, though we hope to explore its ramifications and implications in the future, as this is a question that is not going to go away. We do, however, wish to critique supposedly “Christian” responses and arguments. Are they Biblical, and do they reflect God’s purposes accurately? For the time being we must limit our observations to responses to EA’s specific claims:
The EA: “The biblical command to treat the foreigner well is at the centre of our engagement with this bill. Leviticus 19:33?–?34 states: “When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God”.
It is fascinating that some Christians quote Leviticus, since it is a widely derided book. Most ‘church’ leaders teach that the specific demands of Leviticus are abrogated under The New Covenant.
Most ‘liberal’ church leaders wince at Leviticus and uphold it as emanating from an ‘older and uglier’ manifestation of God’s revelation (if they believe it emanates from God at all). Yet they are happy to ‘mix and match’, citing verses out of context and devoid of context, background or insight. Some critics in turn call this “verse-mining”, where a commentator just grabs verses – almost at random – where they are seen to support an argument being deployed.
Leviticus plainly does tell us we are to treat all people well. Did not Jesus tell us to love our neighbor as we love ourselves? Yet the Leviticus demand is to treat well those living amongst us. It is a considerable stretch to say we are to open our lands to any ‘foreigner’ who wants to live with us.
Directed towards
Leviticus was directed towards a People (the Hebrews) establishing themselves in their [ promised ] land and working out what it means to be a chosen people in that promised land. God tells them plainly. Whilst the general principle is given by Jesus, to love one’s neighbour selflessly, it implies we are to care for others, but not to become like them. Leviticus demonstrates the importance of being different from the nations that surround, not becoming like them, and to remain Holy – the whole underlying theme of Leviticus. In terms of unrestricted economic migration (and this is not the seeking of asylum status) what ‘costs’ are imposed on host communities? Quite literally, can the entire developing world relocate to the West? Should it be encouraged to do so? What ‘costs’ to the hosts? How does the EA respond to those specific questions?
Apply principles
Throughout the Old Testament, living amongst ‘foreigners’ (which always meant pagans) was the key source of temptation and rebellion against living as God’s people. The direct New Testament equivalent is the apostle Paul’s admonition to remember that we are aliens living in a foreign land and we are ambassadors. We do not take on the ways of the foreigner. In spite of the fact they are pagans, we treat them well and attempt to show them the God of Israel, who self-identified as the God of Jacob. The key thing is that we refuse to be polluted as a chosen people and a royal priesthood, albeit today we still live amongst the ‘foreigner’ who is also our neighbour.
Neighbours and Brothers
?The EA: “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me”.
Is this in fact a misquote, often used by [ some ] Christians to argue that we are ‘to treat all people the same and to treat all people as brothers and sisters’? Jesus was clear that our primary duty is to our brethren (to use an old-fashioned term). Where a choice is to be made we are to attend to the needs of our brethren first, and only then to our neighbours. Whilst we are to love our neighbor as ourselves, yet we owe a primary duty and responsibility towards our brethren. What might that mean in terms of mass migration movements?
Conflating
The EA: …. we are praying for and seeking a system that treats asylum seekers with dignity and compassion. We recognise ………..that the asylum system is desperately in need of reform.
This seems to be a common conflation of the question of Migrancy with Asylum. The two words are often used interchangeably, but the Christian duty is (surely?) for safe haven for genuine asylum seekers, not to provide more advantageous lives for economic migrants. In this the EA displays (perhaps) the same guile that is used by some politicians who for a host of social and political reasons, wish to have an open borders policy. They all deny it, of course, but that is the reality ……
Whilst Christian principles can and must be sought and applied (by Christians) in coping with huge migration pressures, the principle of hospitality applied in scripture was generally in the context of familial and tribal demands and the need to care for our brethren (and note that is quite different from our neighbours). We must do good where we can, but there can be no true biblical mandate for what amounts in practice to an open doors policy. Finally, it is not the EA that will have to resolve resultant problems incurred – they can ‘comment’ from the safe sidelines, but carry no responsibility for outcomes. The government does! Prayers and humility needed!
Recent Comments