Discussing
Mockingjay’s Syrian Refugees

A scene in Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2 particularly resonates in the aftermath of the Paris attacks and the subsequent conversation surrounding refugees.

Josh: You leave unanswered who you refer to when you say "we," in "Scripture is clear that we should respond graciously to the foreigner seeking refuge." Are you referring to the government or we as individuals (whether alone or in groups we associate with (e.g., church))?

Aren't there really two questions at play here, the first being what the government should decide and the second what we should do assuming the government lets in these (or any other) refugees. Post Viet Nam, our local church sponsored 3 refugee families from SE Asia, but the government needed to decide whether to permit the refugee immigration in the first place. Those were two different questions it seems to me, directed at two different actors (government and citizens), each actor having a different set of criteria, presumably, that formed the foundation for their answer, not? Or do you think this is really just one question?

Could it be that the ambiguity that you sense comes from the fact that we have to first separate these two questions?

In Reply to Doug Vande Griend (comment #27625)
----------------------------------------
By "we" I mean Christians. And that could refer to Christian legislators, Christian citizens or Christian citizens with the power to affect (by voting and other means) governmental policies and actions.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments on the Syrian refugee/migrant issues.

Scripture speaks to the entirety of our lives as individuals, and our work as pastors, entertainers and legislators. It would be wrong to think that Scripture would speak to one and not the other. It is in our work that I think the question needs to be divided. Governments are called primarily to provide justice and therefore government needs to address the issues from that primary focus. While Scripture speaks to us as individuals and as institutions, it is when for example a pastor and a legislator approach questions from different angles but a common understanding of our world that we hopefully find helpful answers.

In agreement with Jerry I think, I certainly agree that scripture speaks to the entirety of our lives, but at the same time when I act as father, or school board member, or legislator, or any number of things, I need to first ask what the task is of the position/role I have. If I am a legislator, I can't just say, "God tells us to turn the other cheek and so no one should be convicted of any crimes." Instead, I have to decide what the God given task of government is, then analyze the question in that light. Not?

Another example from my own life. I live in an area where perhaps a third or more of the population is hispanic and of that, perhaps anywhere from 20% to 80% may be here unlawfully. As myself, a person who lives in the neighborhood, I simply welcome the stranger. It is not my task, as neighbor in east Salem, to do otherwise. But when I take political positions, I act as a citizen whose job it is to advocate good government. In that position, I take note that unrestrained immigration blesses our society in some ways but not in others. Larger businesses, for example, are favored by an more abundant source of low skilled labor. On the other hand smaller businesses, as well as lower skilled Americans, are disfavored by the added competition brought by unrestrained immigration. In short, as to this question, my task, and the analysis associated with it, is, must be, quite different.

Which of course is why I think it really important that when we say "we" on topics like this, the "we" be defined. And if the "we" is undifferentiated (not defined), the problem of whether government should prosecute murderers (because Christians are called to forgive 70 times 7) becomes a very real one.

In Reply to Doug Vande Griend (comment #27630)
----------------------------------------

Doug, I don't have an opinion to register on the refugee issue. I'm still too uneducated on the factors to comment.

Nevertheless, I do think your comments here are helpful. There does seem to be a degree of appropriate Christian "role analysis" that needs to be involved in how "we" (meaning Christians generally) respond to any matter...particularly ones where the "we" of Christianity elides with the "we" of other identity groups (like US citizens generally).

It seems to me that where things start to get messy is when there's sharp friction between what seems best to an individual with loyalties to two "we" groups with competing interests in the same issue...which is what you're describing here. In such times, the real question becomes, "To which 'we' is my loyalty more unconditional on this issue...even if it means abrogating or tempering my expression of loyalty to another group?"