On Sound Bytes

This morning I ran across a post by Scot McKnight on his blog about a famous sound byte in some Christian circles, especially in reference to homosexuality.

"Love the sinner, hate the sin."

You've heard it. I've said it. But do I or any of us actually live it consistently? I know that I don't expend nearly the effort that Jesus did to seek out those who have fallen short to love (other than myself, of course). I know that I spend too much time letting others know where I stand on things for the purpose of placing myself safely in one box or another. In one simple sound byte on say, homosexuality or the war or abortion or who I'm going to vote for or my view of the Bible, etc., I have defined for you my "friends" and "enemies." I have told you who is "us" and who is "them." I, and those like me, are right, and they are wrong. The reason that the platitude above is so popular, methinks, is because it allows Christians, in six words, to stake out their position on a controversial issue (one that has become a litmus test of litmus tests) and still maintain an appearance of compassionate inclusion.

I often roll my eyes at most bumper stickers, especially ones that try to be funny. Why, I wonder, must I be told that in case of the rapture, the car in front of me will swerve out of control or that I should celebrate diversity? Has anybody ever been persudaded to change their convictions (preferences are a different story) by a sound byte?

I have used a lot of room on this blog to stake out my position on immigration. I suppose if I had to create a bumper sticker that would reflect my position, it would say something like, "Amnesty Rules!" with the Spanish translation underneath. Or maybe not.

The challenge I came away with from Scot's post is to spend more time seeking out and loving sinners (people very much like myself) and a lot less time "hating sin" with what I write and say. If someone ends up questioning where I stand on a particular issue, maybe that's the ambiguity that can lead to constructive conversation.

I love what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 2, that he did not preach using clever words (sound bytes), but rather a demonstration of the Spirit and its power. That power is the same love that put Jesus on the cross. Not the love of the sound byte, but the love of a life lived to the full and poured out for others. That is my privilege--to love sinners created in God's image.

The Spirit of God is stronger than any sound byte.

Linda Chavez and Her Critics

Former Labor Secretary nominee and staunch conservative Linda Chavez has been taking a lot of flack the past couple of weeks. Why? She has dared to challenge the reigning "conservative" position on immigration. She even went so far as to accuse some of her friends as pandering to racist and nativist sentiments in our society. After being soundly criticized for those remarks, she went on to apologize and respond at length on National Review Online.

What interests me more than Chavez' well thought-out (although sometimes poorly articulated) position is the vitriol of her critics. She has been told to go back to Mexico (she is a 5th generation American) among other niceties. Mark Krikorian, director of the anti-immigration Center for Immigration Studies, tells her on NRO today to "grow up" for being upset. Apparently, he wishes to add patronizing chauvanism to his charming resume. John Derbyshire in the same piece makes no apology for consistently referring to Hispanics as "Aztecs," defending the practice by suggesting that those with multicultural sentiments would heartily approve, and if not, well, tough you-know-whats. Finally, Heather MacDonald reaffirms her position, contra Chavez, that second generation Hispanics (presumably only those born to illegal immigrants) are becoming a social nuisance and that alone should disqualify their parents from ever attaining legal status. Thomas Sowell and others have made similar arguments, never mind the fact that such pathologies as single-parent families, gang violence, and illegitimacy are hardly unique to poor Hispanics. Illegal immigrants have the added misfortune of being cut off from many avenues of advancement, so yes, the fact that Hispanics fare better than some other minority groups is quite significant. The "sins of the children" is a weak and desperate argument to limit or ban Hispanic immigration (or any people group considered undesirable) and in so doing flies in the face of conservative attempts to create a colorblind society. Race-based policies are race-based policies (quotas, et al), regardless of why they might be implemented. That, of course, is the heart of Linda Chavez' argument.

What is so clearly missing from the anti-immigration crowd (and lets be clear that Tancredo, CIS, FAIR, National Review Online, Lou Dobbs, conservative talk-radio hosts, Pat Buchanan, et al are all anti-immigration, not just anti-"amnesty") is any concern for the human dignity of those involved. What do these folks really care about the unsolved murders in poor areas of Los Angeles anyway other than to exploit them in a desperate attempt to seal the borders and turn our nation into an underpopulated and over-resourced country club for the affluent? (A rhetorical question, not an accusation.)

Are evangelical Christians really willing to be identified with all this? What biblical principles am I missing that I don't see the justice in shunning all those who are statistically likely to cause trouble or who might refuse to give up their native language? Why aren't there more Christians speaking out on this nonsense, instead choosing to stick to a wimpy and inconsistent "enforcement first" position? Why is it that more Christians in this country have not answered the call to mission and by their suffering sacrifice become the solution to the social ills they fear and detest (multiculturalism, crime, depressed wages, etc)?

I have lost much respect for many conservative pundits over this issue alone. Patriotic platitudes alone are not motivation enough for a person to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with his God. We must choose justice for all even if it means discomfort for some.

New Family Photo

This week we decided it was time to take a family photo. Not the kind you pay lots of money for at a studio, but rather, standing on the deck behind my parents' house here in Louisville. For some reason the image is pixelated... (e-mail me if you want a better copy!)




I'm on my way to finishing up my reading for my next class which starts a week from Monday. In the meantime, we're going to a world food and music festival here in town today, and going to hang out with my mom's family in Perryville, MO next weekend. Fun times!

In other news, "televangelist" Bill Keller in Florida has called Republican presidential contender and devout Mormon, Mitt Romney, an agent of Satan. Seems that not just immigrants are getting a bad rap these days.

Question: If the pagan kings Cyrus and Nebuchadnezzar in the Bible could be called God's instruments, why do some assume that a non-evangelical (Mormon, Catholic, Muslim, non-believer, etc.) cannot be God's man or woman for the job?

On the other hand, it is a bit strange to me to see so many evangelicals lining up behind Romney because of his (current) stance on abortion. (And perhaps because they seem him as more electable than some others.) Philosophically and historically, Mormonism has more in common with Islam than orthodox Christianity. I guess you can write it off to the democratic process requiring strange bedfellows at times. I'm more concerned, however, that some people are so motivated by a handful of causes that will sell their souls to the highest and best looking bidder. That goes for the pro-justice crowd as much as the pro-life one. But if I remember right, that strategy (trusting in less-than-honorable political structures to save the day) didn't work so well for the German Lutherans or the ancient Israelites.

Update: After my last post on immigration, someone I know and love raised the question as to whether I advocate slave labor.

Answer: No, I don't advocate slave labor. But neither do I believe the best course of action for the US to follow is to seal the borders and feather the nest of a whole generation of rich kids who are quickly losing the motivation to work hard. (If you want to see what that looks like, take a look at the student riots in France last year.) The reality is that whenever you bring cookies to school, you have to bring enough for everybody, or else there's gonna be a throwdown. Those who have come are not looking to overthrow the system, just benefit from it the same way that many European immigrants did in years past. We can choose to close the door and make our kids richer and less motivated, or we can legalize the people who are here already and open the door to fair competition in the labor force and plain old human decency. You can call it amnesty. I call it good sense.