Marvin Olasky Thinks He's Got Everyone Fooled
This just goes to show that book learnin' don't mean much! Intellectual honesty goes straight out the window when you're making an OBVIOUS effort to distance yourself from Christian Reconstruction. Read how the head of WORLD-ly Magazine begins an interview with a Christian leader on how the Bible applies to immigration:
Olasky wants the force of the law without endorsing the written law. In other words, it's less offensive to discuss "principles" than "commandments." Why, Mr. Olasky, is it vital to understand and apply the principles these laws embody? If we understand, embrace, and then apply the "principles" behind Old Testament civil law, would we then end up with a society based upon Old Testament civil law?
And what is Dykstra's point about race and the immigration debate? He says, "Racism and xenophobia have never assisted any country's development." It was my impression that the present debate over immigration is NOT a debate over immigration -- it's a debate over ILLEGAL immigration. Why is it that White Christian leaders are so quick to trash their own race when addressing these sensitive issues?
Certainly, Israel allowed the foreigner within their borders with great stipulation regarding love to them as neighbor (Lev. 9:33-34) as well as the forbidding of oppression (Ex. 23:9). The reason being is that Israel was also once a stranger (Ex. 22:21) in the land of Egypt. However, the issue of concern to Israel was the danger of an introduction to a foreign religion. Since faith was the foundation of Israeli society, it could not allow the introduction of paganism or any foreign faith. But God never bothered to simply warn of paganism -- He would rather make racial generalizations like, "beware of the Amalekites." Why? Because God viewed man as a whole with race, religion, nationality, and culture as simply parts. Dykstra wants to compartmentalize ("put asunder") what God sees as together.
Most Americans are concerned about the dramatic economic and social implications of millions of Mexican, Central and South Americas entering this country illegally. Dykstra has shifted the issue to White persecution of hispanics. Therefore, the problem with immigration is not illegals -- it's White people. Aren't they always to blame?
Dykstra and Olasky are governed more by the principles embodying political correctness and racial self-deprecation than anything resembling Mosaic civil law. By emphasizing warnings of racism in the debate over criminal immigration is equivalent to slapping duct tape over the mouths of millions of White Americans -- who once again must grovel in sackcloth and ashes for BEING BORN THE WRONG COLOR!
Most Christians recognize that the civil law of ancient Israel is no longer binding on us, but it is still vital to understand and apply the principles that law embodies. New Jersey pastor David Dykstra makes such an application in his book, Yearning to Breathe Free? Thoughts on Immigration, Islam, & Freedom (Solid Ground, 2006).What does Olasky mean by "Biblical principles"? Does God speak in principles? Aren't principles somewhat arbitrary and non-binding? Would God give us a book full of non-binding principles? Is God no greater than Buddha?
WORLD: You lay out some biblical principles that can help us think through the immigration debate. First, you note that in ancient Israel foreigners were able to move onto Israel's land and become Jews.
DYKSTRA: Yes, citizenship in Israel was never based on any concept of so-called "purity of blood." O. Palmer Robertson's The Israel of God is helpful in understanding this point. "No legislation in Israel forbade the marriage of an Egyptian proselyte to an Assyrian proselyte. The offspring of such a union would be fully Israelite, yet completely non-Abrahamic in ethnic origin. For these reasons Israel could never be defined along purely ethnic lines." Racism and xenophobia have never assisted any country's development, and God's law made it clear that foreigners not deemed to be enemies were to be welcomed and loved, no matter what their race or ethnicity.
Olasky wants the force of the law without endorsing the written law. In other words, it's less offensive to discuss "principles" than "commandments." Why, Mr. Olasky, is it vital to understand and apply the principles these laws embody? If we understand, embrace, and then apply the "principles" behind Old Testament civil law, would we then end up with a society based upon Old Testament civil law?
And what is Dykstra's point about race and the immigration debate? He says, "Racism and xenophobia have never assisted any country's development." It was my impression that the present debate over immigration is NOT a debate over immigration -- it's a debate over ILLEGAL immigration. Why is it that White Christian leaders are so quick to trash their own race when addressing these sensitive issues?
Certainly, Israel allowed the foreigner within their borders with great stipulation regarding love to them as neighbor (Lev. 9:33-34) as well as the forbidding of oppression (Ex. 23:9). The reason being is that Israel was also once a stranger (Ex. 22:21) in the land of Egypt. However, the issue of concern to Israel was the danger of an introduction to a foreign religion. Since faith was the foundation of Israeli society, it could not allow the introduction of paganism or any foreign faith. But God never bothered to simply warn of paganism -- He would rather make racial generalizations like, "beware of the Amalekites." Why? Because God viewed man as a whole with race, religion, nationality, and culture as simply parts. Dykstra wants to compartmentalize ("put asunder") what God sees as together.
Most Americans are concerned about the dramatic economic and social implications of millions of Mexican, Central and South Americas entering this country illegally. Dykstra has shifted the issue to White persecution of hispanics. Therefore, the problem with immigration is not illegals -- it's White people. Aren't they always to blame?
Dykstra and Olasky are governed more by the principles embodying political correctness and racial self-deprecation than anything resembling Mosaic civil law. By emphasizing warnings of racism in the debate over criminal immigration is equivalent to slapping duct tape over the mouths of millions of White Americans -- who once again must grovel in sackcloth and ashes for BEING BORN THE WRONG COLOR!
