The Technicality of Citizenship
Recently I posted an article on Facebook about a Georgia teenager, 18, who arrived illegally into the country as an infant with his parents from Mexico. For this young man, America is his only home and he has been enculturated. Per this article, his estranged father and three siblings are now U.S. citizens. Unfortunately, this young man was arrested for marijuana possession and deported to Mexico -- a nation he has only legal ties to. This young man is a de facto American by way of his Americanized upbringing. Surely, he broke law and is due punitive measures, but deportation in this case is really not what is needed, since he is essentially transferred to a nation he doesn't know. Exile is a better term for what has happened here.
I posted this article on FB to demonstrate the ridiculousness of our immigration laws and technicalities, and I called for reforms. I was met by contemporary conservative apologetics in favor of this young man's deportation. In my responses, I called the deportation sin and I stick by it. The utter disregard for immigrants, refugees, biblical provisions toward these classes, and special circumstances in favor of legal absolutism -- even if shown to be unjust and in conflict with biblical morality -- is moving me closer to abandoning the Republican party wholly (yes, I am a registered Republican). The partyy has lost any sense of moderation and is now polemically fringed. Even George Bush Sr. and Ronald Reagan were more considerate of the immigrant plight.
Below are my theological conclusions from a brief paper I wrote on the biblical theme of land and borders, which I feel qualifies my concerns over this young man's and others' experiences. I will follow with my opinions on open borders in general and in the present American political milieu.
____________
“I never said the land was mine to do with as I choose. The one who has a right to dispose of it is the one who has created it.” –Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce
An unfortunate side-effect of modern biblical interpretation has been a tendency to proof-text Scripture through a modern lens of understanding, taking contemporary realities and eisegetically recasting ancient paradigms in ways that correlate to current notions. The concept of land and the ownership of land is no different, and many modern interpretations of the Bible (such as the Revised Standard Version) have blurred the distinction between two Hebrew words—earth (’eres) and ground (’adamah)—often rendering both as land. This conflation has helped to create a skewed understanding of each original word, creating an artificial sense of entitlement and ownership, as can be seen in present Zionist tendencies in western theology and near-east politics. To adequately understand the intended purpose of land in Scripture, we must begin by restoring the particularity of each of the above words, independent of any amalgamation.
From a modern English usage it may seem as if the distinction between ground and earth is negligible and that each word is synonymous, which is perhaps where modern translations of Scripture fail, save the King James Version (KJV), which in most cases applies the distinction. Unfortunately, even the KJV muddies the proper context of each word —’eretz (’eres) and ’adamah — in the book of Ezekiel when rendering the words in relation to Israel, translating both words as land when the closest English correlative to land would be ’eretz alone and not ’adamah.
The distinction between the two words might best be summed up in macro and micro ways, with the earth representing the totality or spatial reality of the world God made, which man inhabits and co-exists with all creatures in, and the ground being seen as the immediate or substantive portion of that expanse that mankind relates to more intimately. Nonetheless, an obscured use of the word land — including the immediate ground that man might manage — can seemingly create a false sense of possession or the ownership of real-estate, as if it were any man’s or a nation’s property, rather than merely an expanse of earth where people reside.
In this impropriety toward the earth as possession or national land, there is a continual admonishment of people — especially Israel — seen throughout the Old Testament against such centralization of people and property. The very first encounter we have in Scripture regarding the elevation of centralized territory comes with the story of the son of Adam and Eve — Cain — in Genesis 4. This narrative sets the tone for how people should relate to the land that we see unfold in later biblical texts.
To understand Cain’s abrogation of humanity’s appropriate role in the land, we first need to elaborate on the interconnectedness of man to the ground. First, the word ’adamah is a cognate of the word used for mankind—’adam (i.e. Adam). In relation, ’adamah is actually the grammatical feminine of the masculine ’adam, creating an imagery of the ground as maternal progenitor of humanity; therefore, the land pre-exists the necessity of mankind and so supersedes his potential ownership.
This alone may not allay any impression of humanity’s potential rights over land, but after considering that even the animals were created to occupy the same ground as man and in fact belong to the earth just the same, we see that the emphases in creation is the fullness of what God has made, being centered on the shared earth, as mankind lives in close connection with the animals under his dominion. Mankind, therefore, cannot be seen as the priority of God’s purposes, despite his ordered purpose to manage the creation he resides in. Any elevated status seen in mankind’s position should not and cannot appropriately be seen in a light of specialness; rather, man is but a creation on the same earth as the animals, so his role must instead be seen functionally. So then, in regard to verses like Genesis 1:26-28, which speak of man’s role in kingly terms (image, likeness, and ruling over), such should be viewed in light of humanity’s failure in Genesis 3 and his propagative nature—being on par with the animals—is demonstrative of an ascribed or imparted role and not an intrinsic nature, of which the latter would be reflective of kings in the ancient schema, who are often viewed as deity or the rightful descendants of deities. This is unpacked in two terms used for the descendants in progressive rule, being either sons of man or sons of God, with the former referring to the creatural lineage that embodies only an imparted authority [over the land], and the latter being a natural intrinsic monarchical reign. Humanity can never rightfully posit a natural claim to the material world he resides in (earth) or manages (ground), since it is above his created disposition; therefore, mankind can only ever be seen as the stewards of the earth and not owners of it.
This alone may not allay any impression of humanity’s potential rights over land, but after considering that even the animals were created to occupy the same ground as man and in fact belong to the earth just the same, we see that the emphases in creation is the fullness of what God has made, being centered on the shared earth, as mankind lives in close connection with the animals under his dominion. Mankind, therefore, cannot be seen as the priority of God’s purposes, despite his ordered purpose to manage the creation he resides in. Any elevated status seen in mankind’s position should not and cannot appropriately be seen in a light of specialness; rather, man is but a creation on the same earth as the animals, so his role must instead be seen functionally. So then, in regard to verses like Genesis 1:26-28, which speak of man’s role in kingly terms (image, likeness, and ruling over), such should be viewed in light of humanity’s failure in Genesis 3 and his propagative nature—being on par with the animals—is demonstrative of an ascribed or imparted role and not an intrinsic nature, of which the latter would be reflective of kings in the ancient schema, who are often viewed as deity or the rightful descendants of deities. This is unpacked in two terms used for the descendants in progressive rule, being either sons of man or sons of God, with the former referring to the creatural lineage that embodies only an imparted authority [over the land], and the latter being a natural intrinsic monarchical reign. Humanity can never rightfully posit a natural claim to the material world he resides in (earth) or manages (ground), since it is above his created disposition; therefore, mankind can only ever be seen as the stewards of the earth and not owners of it.
It is this sense of stewardship that seems to escape Cain as he usurps the natural order through the exertion of his own authority in the taking of his brother’s life, implying intrinsic rights over shared rule and co-habitation. This self-prescribed elevation of authority is sourced from the same root or entitlement over creation that first came to light with Cain’s parents. Yet, it is what follows in Cain’s confounding relationship with the ground that expands on his errant uptake of prerogative, as he is cursed from the ground he was called to care for to assume the life of a wanderer. This new nomadic role, which was designated further away [east of] Eden, suggests the right relation mankind should have with the ground, which is illuminated by its absence, and so too is gone a sense of life-sustaining security.
Furthermore, Cain's experiences also highlight the fact in wandering, the whole earth remains the sole property of its maker—God—and so is not void of blessings. This latter point is made clear in that Cain is still able to propagate the earth he dwells in, as he and his wife birth a son named Enoch.
Furthermore, Cain's experiences also highlight the fact in wandering, the whole earth remains the sole property of its maker—God—and so is not void of blessings. This latter point is made clear in that Cain is still able to propagate the earth he dwells in, as he and his wife birth a son named Enoch.
Enoch, whose name comes from the Hebrew root hnk or hanok, meaning dedication, further illustrates Cain’s bent toward self-rule over his life and earth. It was Cain’s hubris in following the birth of his son that he names a city after Enoch, which contravenes God’s direction of Cain to be a life-long wanderer, showing an assumption toward rights over specific plots of land rather than life in the wilderness. This intentional act by Cain demonstrates his sense of propriety, where he should have dedicated (hnk) his son to God, he instead dedicates the city he built in his son’s name, seemingly assuming that the gift of propagation was self-serving, as though Enoch was predominantly a product of his innate abilities in procreation.
Regardless of Enoch’s relationship to a dedicated city as his namesake, the fact that a city becomes the center-piece to Cain’s existence evidences the human fallen-bent toward independence. This trend toward a centralized and controllable civilization over reliance on what God has given repeats itself many times through the Old Testament, from Cain’s city to Babel, to the call for a king by Israel over an appointed Judge (keeping in mind that monarchs are usually typified as divine and by nature are a challenge to God’s sovereignty), and so forth.
Regardless of Enoch’s relationship to a dedicated city as his namesake, the fact that a city becomes the center-piece to Cain’s existence evidences the human fallen-bent toward independence. This trend toward a centralized and controllable civilization over reliance on what God has given repeats itself many times through the Old Testament, from Cain’s city to Babel, to the call for a king by Israel over an appointed Judge (keeping in mind that monarchs are usually typified as divine and by nature are a challenge to God’s sovereignty), and so forth.
This continual rebelliousness of people toward self-determination is recurrent in the people of Israel, who are united to one another and God through covenant, but continually betray that unity for what is expedient. It would seem that the people in continually choosing the ground of self-governance actually show a misplaced trust in the creation as the protector and provider of human beings — perhaps because of its immediate, physical, and tangible nature — over the God who made them, sustains them, and holds covenant with them. The covenantal call for humanity, as represented by Israel, is the trust and obedience toward God, precisely because “man does not live on bread alone” — Deuteronomy 8:3.
The covenant call should not be seen as Israel-specific as in self-regard or exclusivism, especially since the promise given to Abraham, one of Israel’s progenitors, was toward the nations (all families or tribes of the earth, not city-states per se). In God’s promise to Abraham (Genesis 12), we see how the plan was largely a restorative one where the land of Canaan parallels that of Eden, being a land of sustenance where humans (not specific nations) can dwell. The fact that the descendants of Abraham (i.e. Israel) are called to settle this land should not presume that it also refers to a set perimeter of territory, as is highlighted by the construction of Genesis 13:17, which calls for Abraham’s settlement (and that of his descendants) to expand the length and breadth (rhb) of the land, which is another way of saying “where the eye can see.” This is perhaps best understood as nomadic or shepherding phraseology, which is not to be seen as merely a prescribed land, but wherever in the land one settles. This cannot be understood as divine transaction between God and man for real-estate, but rather as a mode of redemption for those who follow and trust in God.
The covenant call should not be seen as Israel-specific as in self-regard or exclusivism, especially since the promise given to Abraham, one of Israel’s progenitors, was toward the nations (all families or tribes of the earth, not city-states per se). In God’s promise to Abraham (Genesis 12), we see how the plan was largely a restorative one where the land of Canaan parallels that of Eden, being a land of sustenance where humans (not specific nations) can dwell. The fact that the descendants of Abraham (i.e. Israel) are called to settle this land should not presume that it also refers to a set perimeter of territory, as is highlighted by the construction of Genesis 13:17, which calls for Abraham’s settlement (and that of his descendants) to expand the length and breadth (rhb) of the land, which is another way of saying “where the eye can see.” This is perhaps best understood as nomadic or shepherding phraseology, which is not to be seen as merely a prescribed land, but wherever in the land one settles. This cannot be understood as divine transaction between God and man for real-estate, but rather as a mode of redemption for those who follow and trust in God.
In this regard, for a people to maintain their presence in the land, retention is predicated not on some inalienable right, but rather how the people relate to God and one another. We can see in the act of the covenantal sign of circumcision that obedience is broader than the merely physical, as Scripture speaks not only to a physical response of one people group, but also to any person or people who fulfill the obedience assumed by circumcision, to which even Deuteronomy 10:12-19 speaks. The open-ended nature of circumcision toward any people is even shown physically in the fact that Abraham’s other child — Ishmael — is also circumcised according to the covenantal formula and is not to be discounted from the blessings God made to Abraham. Ultimately, the promises of God to all people is esteemed through covenantal obedience, regardless of any physical demarcation.
Then, when we consider that shepherding language is used with regard to Canaan, coupled with the obedience factor, we can see in biblical chapters like Ezekiel 34, a broader context than merely a singular nation being recipient to God’s promises of land. Inhabitation is expansive, with God fulfilling the role of a Shepherd, uprooting any sense of a nationalistic monarchy, thus the indwelling of land will always be subject to obedience of the proverbial sheep following their Master’s voice (reflective of a circumcised heart). Other prophetic contemporaries of Ezekiel (Isaiah and Jeremiah) make comparative note of the Hebrew peoples’ captivity being the result of living disobediently as idolaters, who often exclude or disregard the marginalized, of whom by default functionally lack ground of their own (widows, orphans, and sojourners). The challenge presented by the prophets toward the Hebrews is to repent in order to return to the land, but this return is not a return to some arrogant privilege unto themselves, for it also includes other nations. In this, there can be seen a devaluation of centralized human nationalism in so far a city-hood and monarchy is concerned; even Jeremiah has been typified as the city of God himself; a mobile replacement for the foundations of human endeavored security.
Through Jeremiah, the emphases on temples made by man have been supplanted by the voice of God being brought forth through Jeremiah and the call toward repentance. This means that God is not bound to a locus, but goes where He wills and so all nations then would logically fall under His purview. With the Hebrews having been products of their geographic sphere, it is likely that they yielded to a regional and ancient paradigm of a monarch’s reign being first within an area of influence, and then broadening outward as determined by mastering neighboring nations; therefore, with God established as King and Owner of the land, though He is not bound to a location — as is earthly royalty and their deities — He is still seen as initiating from a center-point on earth (i.e. Zion), at least relationally. This stream of understanding may have also served to cloud the overarching nature of God to all the nations, so the prophets then serve as beacons toward a more robust grasp of God, the role of the Hebrews amongst the nations, and an appropriate view of land.
Through Jeremiah, the emphases on temples made by man have been supplanted by the voice of God being brought forth through Jeremiah and the call toward repentance. This means that God is not bound to a locus, but goes where He wills and so all nations then would logically fall under His purview. With the Hebrews having been products of their geographic sphere, it is likely that they yielded to a regional and ancient paradigm of a monarch’s reign being first within an area of influence, and then broadening outward as determined by mastering neighboring nations; therefore, with God established as King and Owner of the land, though He is not bound to a location — as is earthly royalty and their deities — He is still seen as initiating from a center-point on earth (i.e. Zion), at least relationally. This stream of understanding may have also served to cloud the overarching nature of God to all the nations, so the prophets then serve as beacons toward a more robust grasp of God, the role of the Hebrews amongst the nations, and an appropriate view of land.
In conclusion, as the expression states, sometimes it becomes difficult to see the forest for the trees. Throughout the Old Testament, God presents humanity’s proper juxtaposition to the land, as he is intimately rooted in the ground which he works for sustenance, and is responsible as a functionary of God’s earth. Yet, with the sickness of self often interjecting autonomy, clarity of the land’s purpose is obscured with control and ownership claims being made. Unfortunately, despite the clarity of Scripture in context, that same sickness of self that distorts things practically can also provide the interpretive lens by which Scripture is read. As is often said in biblical interpretive circles, “A text without a context is a pre-text.” Bottom line, humanity is not the arbiter of the land, but consists of its members and caretakers.
_______
Based on my theological understanding, I am unequivocally in favor for open borders as God's intention outlined in expanse of a singular human family to care for HIS earth. The division of the land is related to human hubris and desire for autonomy from God.
In a modern context, there is evidence that open borders may have economic advantages and it should be explored. There was a time in our national history that our borders were essentially open. We began to close them primarily because of irrational fears predicated on discomfort of change (especially with regard to racial fears). Yet, since security concerns exist and we live in a society with multiple sociopolitical opinions, we need to have bi-partisan legislative reforms.
In the end, I AM NOT advocating for open borders, but rather work on compassionate law making, and bringing reasonable and efficient policies to life. I want to see a reduction in the fear-mongering propaganda and a real evaluation of statistical research. I want to see reforms in processing and the administrative state, with the reduction in bureaucratic hang-ups. And, I want to see a return to a broader guest-worker program. Alleviating pressure at the ports of entry will help quell illegal entries. I will address this in follow-up blog articles. But for now, I am putting this out there... I am pro-open borders as a concept and from a theological disposition. But, I am a realist and know that it takes two to tango, so we need to at least work on issues in a reformative and non-partisan way.
_______
Based on my theological understanding, I am unequivocally in favor for open borders as God's intention outlined in expanse of a singular human family to care for HIS earth. The division of the land is related to human hubris and desire for autonomy from God.
In a modern context, there is evidence that open borders may have economic advantages and it should be explored. There was a time in our national history that our borders were essentially open. We began to close them primarily because of irrational fears predicated on discomfort of change (especially with regard to racial fears). Yet, since security concerns exist and we live in a society with multiple sociopolitical opinions, we need to have bi-partisan legislative reforms.
In the end, I AM NOT advocating for open borders, but rather work on compassionate law making, and bringing reasonable and efficient policies to life. I want to see a reduction in the fear-mongering propaganda and a real evaluation of statistical research. I want to see reforms in processing and the administrative state, with the reduction in bureaucratic hang-ups. And, I want to see a return to a broader guest-worker program. Alleviating pressure at the ports of entry will help quell illegal entries. I will address this in follow-up blog articles. But for now, I am putting this out there... I am pro-open borders as a concept and from a theological disposition. But, I am a realist and know that it takes two to tango, so we need to at least work on issues in a reformative and non-partisan way.
Comments
Post a Comment