THE CHRISTIAN CASE FOR NATIONAL IDENTITY AND BORDER CONTROLS ARE OPEN BORDERS GODS WILL? With regard to the issue of large-scale immigration the UK churches have generally adopted the viewpoint of liberal secularism, which regards racial and cultural diversity within a society as the ultimate moral virtue. When churches, however, emulate the pc orthodoxy of the moment, Scripture-honouring Christians should always be on their guard, because the word of God warns, Be not conformed to this world (Romans 12:2). From a Biblical perspective we do have every reason to call into question the great migrant influx into Britain in recent decades, whether it be from within the European Union or beyond it. To do this is not remotely to be unfriendly to individual immigrants. All peoples are equal in the sight of God, and the kingdom of God is made up of people of every tribe and tongue. Both as an obligation and as a delight the Christian loves his neighbour, whoever he is and wherever he comes from. Furthermore, the great contribution to the cause of the Gospel in Britain by immigrants who are Bible-believing Christians is heartily acknowledged. All of this, however, does not alter the fundamental point - Does the open doors immigration policy of recent years constitute a conformity to Gods purposes? Is it Gods will that Britain abandons border controls, so as to fulfil the goal of an ever more diverse society? Has the British Government become more Christian in its character because in the decade from 2001 to 2011 it allowed the population, through immigration, to grow at a faster rate than at any time since 1801? (1) If we listen to what most churches in Britain have been saying regarding the migrant influx of the last 50 years, we must conclude that mass immigration is nothing less than a wonderful fulfilling of Gods purposes for mankind. Open borders and the mingling of the peoples of the world together must be the will of God. This is the stated or implied message of the majority of churches. If, however, multi-cultural and multi-racial societies are a moral imperative, then every other country on earth should also be encouraging large-scale immigration. Every country in Africa, Asia, South America and the Middle East should be relaxing its border controls in order to eradicate any prominent mono-cultural or mono-ethnic identity. Every nation upon earth should be less and less concerned about high levels of inward migration, because far more important is the high ideal of creating as diverse a society as is humanly possible. That is the logic of the liberal secularist position which has dominated British political thinking in recent decades. Net migration into Britain in the year to June 2013 was 182,000 (2). Over three million people have arrived in Britain since 1997. Three major English towns now have populations which comprise less than 50% white British people. One London borough has less than one in six white British inhabitants (3). It is not racist, nor even remotely unpleasant, to point out these plain, honest facts. Politically correct liberalism would not condemn any other people for being concerned, were such a transformation to a society’s make-up and identity taking place in an African or Asian nation. To accommodate the great influx of peoples into Britain there is the need to build one new home every seven minutes. By the year 2028 the UK population is due to increase by 7 million, reaching the level of 70 million people, and out of that 7 million immigration will account for 5 million. This represents five new cities the size of Birmingham (4). This population growth will mean further destruction of agricultural land, and further major cultural, religious and social change on top of that which has already occurred. The contention of this article is that there is absolutely no Christian moral obligation to accept such high levels of immigration. 19th CENTURY CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES PROMOTED NON-EUROPEAN NATIONHOOD The contemporary Indian philosopher and author, Vishal Mangalwadi, has written a book entitled, “The book that changed your world”. It is all about the influence of the Bible upon western society. What is particularly fascinating about it is that it comes from someone writing from an Asian and eastern perspective. Mr Mangalwadi points out that in the post-Reformation period in Europe the translation of the Scriptures into national languages, as opposed to the trans-national language of Latin, had a most beneficial effect upon the development of the national identities of Germany, the Netherlands and Britain. As people read Gods word in their own tongue they become more aware of their identity as a corporate grouping in the sight of God. After all, most of the Old Testament is the account of Gods dealings with a specific nation, with a people whom He Himself formed into a nation. When we read in our own tongue of how God dealt with the nation of Israel in, for example, the time of the Judges, the immediate application is, How is God going to deal with our nation today? So the Bible actually encourages us to think in national terms. Mr. Mangalwadi focuses upon the work of the Christian missionaries who came to his native land in the early 19th century. Their desire was that the people might have Gods word in their own tongue. So they worked upon bringing system, form and structure to the many Indian dialects. The endeavours of these missionaries became a major factor in the eventual development of the national languages of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Hindustani is the root language both of Hindi, the national language of India, and of Urdu, the national language of Pakistan. It was the Christian missionary, Henry Martyn, who first translated the Bible into Hindustani, and it was his pioneering work which helped to consolidate Hindustani into a grammatical and written tongue. So the point being made is that Christian missionaries have actually promoted the development of nationhood in Asia. The missionaries William Carey, Joshua Marsham and William Ward studied numerous speech-only Indian dialects to create from them literary languages, which could then become mediums to transmit the word of God, in 1809 Carey completed the translation of the Bible into Bengali, which has since become the national language of Bangladesh. Mr. Mangalwadi writes concerning Carey, Marsham and Ward, They chose to use Bengali rather than English as the medium of instruction (at their college) ... because they wanted Indians to come ... and find the truth that liberates individuals and builds great nations (5). So here we observe how, historically, Bible-believing Christians working abroad have actually promoted national identity in the cause of the Gospel. Mr. Mangalwadi states perceptively, Sovereign nation states serve as a barrier to global totalitarianism (6). God knows men better than they know themselves. He has formed them into nations as a means of restraining them from creating God-rejecting regional and world-wide empires. We mention these facts about missionary activity and Bible translation to show that Christianity, far from discouraging distinctive national awareness, actually helps to foster it. We emphasise this, because in the contemporary secularist west nationhood has now become something of a dirty word. It has also become a discredited concept within most churches. THE BIBLE TEACHES RESPECT FOR NATIONAL BOUNDARIES In Deuteronomy 32:8 Moses tells us that, just as the Lord separated the nation of Israel, so He also ordained the independent existence of all the other nations. He declares, When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. So God created all the other nations with a view to His specific purpose for the nation of Israel. Let us in particular note the wording here : The most High divided to the nations their inheritance ... he set the bounds of the people. So here is Gods own stamp upon the legitimacy of nationhood and national borders. In Numbers 20 and 21 we read of the Israelites travelling from the wilderness to the Promised Land. They needed to pass through the territory belonging to the Edomites and the Amorites. So they asked the kings of these two nations for permission to travel through their lands. Moses, led by the Holy Spirit, told the kings that his people would not stray from the main highway, nor touch any crops, because they did not belong to Israel. Moses even offered to pay for any water that Israels cattle consumed in transit. He thus carefully observed the Edomites and Amorites boundaries as being ordained of God, and worthy of all respect. Let us pass, I pray thee, through thy country: we will not pass through the fields, or through the vineyards, neither will we drink of the water of the wells: we will go by the kings high way, we will not turn to the right hand nor to the left, until we have passed thy borders (Numbers 20:17). Notice here how Moses, led by the Holy Spirit, uses the expression thy country, when speaking to the king of Edom. He assures the king that the Israelites will behave with a particular deference until such time as they have passed his borders. ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM SEEKING Applying this principle to our own day, we learn that to control a nations borders, and to respect the borders of other nations, is righteous behaviour in the sight of God. It also follows from this that there is absolutely nothing immoral about a nation deporting those who are not entitled to be here. Therefore, Christians should not condone illegal entry into Britain. Nor should they call for amnesties for illegal immigrants. Scripture exhorts us to honour the laws of the land. There have been four major amnesties since the early 1990s for illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers. To knowingly break the law by staying in the country without permission is a crime, and governments should not reward such behaviour. This needs to be said, because secular political correctness has swamped Christian thinking in recent years. On the matter of asylum-seeking, it is possible to come to the UK, claim asylum, and then to receive financial support and housing, whilst the asylum application is being considered. If the application fails, an appeal can then be made, which of course prolongs the process. Surely, before God, it cannot be right to enter into a foreign country with the intention of staying there, unless one knows beforehand that one has a legal permission to do so. Many will argue, however, that asylum seekers are refugees, fleeing for their lives, and that this fact alone a creates a moral obligation on the part of Britain. In response to this argument, we assert, Yes, there should be a reception to some degree of people whose lives are in genuine and immediate danger and who have nowhere else to go. There are, however, limitations to this principle, limitations which Christians must face up to. First of all, it must be stated that if a man is fleeing for his life, then he will run to the nearest safe place, but asylum seekers reaching the UK will generally have passed through or over many other safe countries in order to reach here. So the destination of the UK is by no means the obvious direction of flight. This suggests that there may be other motives for choosing the UK. We as a nation have to exert whatever pressure we can to prevent oppressive regimes from mistreating their populations. But it must also be said, that if we have a moral duty to accept just one person being abused by an oppressive regime, then why not a moral obligation to accept 1000 or 100,000 or half a million? They are all living under that oppressive regime. Where does the obligation end? If say 20 million people live under a persecuting government, how many of those 20 million should be allowed to come and take up residence in the UK? At present all around the world there are some 200 million Christians under some kind of oppression or persecution. Add to that the many being persecuted for political, ethnic and other reasons, and the numbers of people who might wish to leave their present countries becomes even greater. Then again add on top of that those who simply desire a better standard of living, because they live in relatively poor societies, and we are left with unimaginably large numbers which represent vast multiples of the existing population of the UK. Are we saying that all these countless millions and millions should have a potential right of asylum in Britain on the grounds of Christian compassion? Surely, in the interests of proper and reasonable immigration control, the tendentious use of expressions such as duty of compassion and helping the oppressed must be challenged. We have to face up to the fact that the political, economic and religious problems of the world cannot be solved by simply permitting vast numbers of people to come and live in Britain. GOD DEALS WITH NATIONS AND NATIONHOOD FACILITATES EVANGELISM All the countries of the world need the gospel. This is the only real solution for lasting social stability and general prosperity. Economic problems are a function of a nations standing with God. That is what the Bible plainly teaches, for example in Deuteronomy chapter 28. So the problems of poverty and economic under-development in various nations cannot be addressed by means of mass transfers of population from one part of the world to another. That is not Gods method. Rather, every individual society needs to humble itself before the one true Trinitarian God, if it desires to become more stable, more just and more prosperous. It is the God of providence who orders the affairs of the nations, and only righteousness before Him can bring a people any lasting blessing. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that God deals with nations as nations. For example, in Isaiah chapters 13 to 23 we have separate prophetic announcements concerning the futures of ten different countries : Babylon, Palestina, Moab, Syria, Ethiopia, Egypt, Edom, Arabia, Judah and Tyre. So God judges nations as nations. Therefore, it is not sinful or un-Christian for those living in any specific nation to have a distinctly national perspective. Furthermore, a nation ceases to be nation, if its borders are not controlled. When Paul was preaching the Gospel in Athens, he stated, (God) hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him (Acts 17:26-27). This text shows us how our common humanity as descendants of Adam cannot be used as a reason to stigmatise the existence of separate nations, as some might be tempted to argue. All peoples originate from Adam and all have the same blood flowing in their veins. This common humanity, however, is not a reason to subvert nationhood, because Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, plainly asserts that national boundaries are Gods holy institution. The apostle states God hath determined ... the bounds of (mens) habitation; that they should seek the Lord. He thus tells us that nationhood and seeking God actually go together. That is what Acts 17:27 says. God has put men into distinctive nations for the precise purpose of seeking Him. Therefore nationhood facilitates evangelism. Yet the churches have tended to teach exactly the opposite, arguing that nationhood is some kind of barrier to the advancement of Gods kingdom. GOD HAS ORDAINED NATIONHOOD FROM MANS EARLY HISTORY The divine institution of nationhood goes back to Genesis chapter 10, where we read of the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth who would form the basis of the various different nations in the future history of the world. Those nations, however, did not immediately come into being, for in Genesis 11 we read of all the peoples then living as not yet being in distinctive national groups, but rather as rebelling against such a prospect, and rebelling against the authority of God generally. Nimrod was the leader of this rebellion : They said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth (Genesis 11:4). Satanic inspired false religion had taken hold of these people. They turned to the worship of the stars and other created objects, and the tower of Babel was an idolatrous temple built in honour of the heavenly spheres. In defiance of their Maker the people were refusing to spread out across the earth to form separate nations, which was Gods purpose for them. Instead, they desired to create a single world empire whose strength lay in its human solidarity. God therefore confounded their languages, so that they had no choice but to disperse into separate units on the basis of their tongues. So we see from this early phase of human history that the Lord was actually imposing nationhood because of mankinds wayward behaviour. Because all men are fallen and in rebellion against God, nationhood is Gods chosen method of ordering His world. Now we read in Genesis 30:25 : It came to pass, when Rachel had born Joseph, that Jacob said unto Laban, Send me away, that I may go unto mine own place, and to my country. Here we see Jacob desiring to return to the land of his birth. He calls it his own place. He has been living in Mesopotamia for 14 years, but Canaan is still his own place. So we see here a man of God speaking of the reality of his national identity and native affiliation. Jacobs return to Canaan was of course all part of the unfolding of Gods plan of salvation for mankind, a plan which centred upon the very institution of nationhood. Indeed, for 2000 years from the time of Abraham God would specifically use nationhood in the unfolding of His glorious scheme of redemption for the world. This fact alone proves that nationhood cannot be intrinsically wrong or morally defective. THE BIBLE DOES NOT ENCOURAGE MASS IMMIGRATION AS A MEANS TO FACILITATE EVANGELISM Evangelical Christians have often viewed the mass migrant influx taking place over many decades as being a wonderful evangelistic opportunity. A publication from one evangelical organisation based in the capital states, The world is gravitating to London in ever-increasing numbers ... You can read the signs in the proliferation of corner shops advertising facilities for sending money to India, Jamaica, Gambia and Costa Rica, with other posters proclaiming cheap phone calls to Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Algeria and Bulgaria ... Solicitors advertise expertise in visa applications. On the high streets of London the ever-growing number of Polish food stores have been joined by others selling the preferred foods of Hungary, Somalia, North Africa and a dozen other countries ... Doctors waiting rooms and local libraries have signs and leaflets in dozens of languages (7). The same article goes on to state how good all this is for the economy. It acknowledges that there may be some people who have reservations about the size of the influx, but it does not offer any specific support or sympathy for them. It rather focuses upon this issue of evangelistic potential, saying, “As long as the peoples of the earth keep coming to set- tie in London, we will keep aiming to tell them the good news of the gospel (8). Now the point for us is this can the society-transforming scale of immigration which we currently witness be treated by Christians as simply being good for the economy and as a wonderful evangelistic opportunity? Or are there other Biblical criteria which should be considered? Of course we agree on the urgency of preaching the Gospel to as many people as possible, but with regard to mass immigration creating evangelistic opportunities we must courteously respond that our Lords injunction is, Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel (Mark 16:15). It is not, Get all the world to come to you. There is no New Testament teaching which demands the eradication of nationhood and national identity in order to facilitate evangelism. Is it not also about time that the churches gave some thought to the effect that the massive migrant influx has often had upon ordinary indigenous people, who have found the character and culture of their neighbourhoods utterly transformed? In a certain London borough a primary school may well find that 78% of its children do not speak English as their first language? Is that situation genuinely beneficial to all concerned? Is it a situation which renders the nation more pleasing in Gods sight? Also, is it a situation which is fair to the parents and the children whose first language does happen to be English? These are questions which Christians need to ask. THE STRANGER AND ONE IN CHRIST’ TEXTS There are a number of references in Scripture relating to Israel and strangers. In these it is clearly taught that strangers, or foreigners, must be treated well. The point of these injunctions is that the strangers are seen as vulnerable individuals, often being listed alongside the fatherless and widows. Any nation in any age will always find smallish numbers of foreign people in its midst, and such should be afforded courtesy, respect and equal treatment under the law. To argue from these stranger passages, however, that it is immoral so much as to question the arrival of whole communities of incomers, comprising tens and hundreds of thousands, is a conclusion which does violence to those texts. The ‘stranger’ texts were never designed to be charters for mass immigration. It is also not legitimate to use the one in Christ’ texts such as Galatians 3:28 to justify the obliteration of national identity. When Paul says, In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek”, he is stating that men of every nation may be partakers of the covenant of grace, not that nationhood should be destroyed. This text has simply nothing to do with immigration at all, and is no way an abrogation of God’s ordination of nationhood for the peoples of the world. SHOULD THE UNITED KINGDOM REMAIN UNITED? How does the Biblical teaching on the ordinance of nationhood impinge upon the existence of the United Kingdom, which is a union of four nations? We have established that nationhood is an aspect of Gods sovereign purpose. This does not mean, however, that nations must of necessity break up into their smallest possible tribal constituencies. Where cousins live adjacent to one another, and where they share a common faith in the Trinitarian God, a union of tribes into a single nation is perfectly compatible with Gods overall purpose. Such a union is not the creation of a supranational empire, which history shows are usually God-rejecting Babels, but it represents a desire to be a single people who are working out their corporate destiny before the Lord. The obvious Biblical example of this principle of providential and beneficial union is the forming of the 12 tribes of Israel into a unified nation at the time of the conquest of Canaan. Aaron, Israel’s first high priest, had inserted into his breastplate 12 precious stones representing before the Lord the single nation : “The stones shall be with the names of the children of Israel, twelve, according to their names, like the engravings of a signet; every one with his name shall they be according to the twelve tribes” (Exodus 28:21). The subsequent division of Israel on Solomons death into two separate nations under different royal houses was a tragedy linked to the adoption of false religion and to the withdrawal of Gods blessing. Both the divided nations eventually fell prey to wicked idolatrous empires. So the abandonment of the union of the 12 tribes was a retrograde and regrettable development. We suggest that this Biblical model has real relevance to the need to avoid the break up in our own day of the United Kingdom. We must also observe the evidence furnished by Gods providence concerning the union of the four constituent elements of the UK. Our observation of the history of Great Britain and Northern Ireland forces us to acknowledge that this distinctly Christian union of peoples has been mightily owned and blessed of God. As in the days of David and Solomon and the union of the twelve tribes of Israel, so in the last three centuries the union of the four tribes of these islands under the banner of Christ the King has experienced the hand of Gods obvious and abundant favour. This union has also been a source of much blessing to the wider world, not least in being a base from which the Gospel has gone forth to many other nations. We therefore submit that the preservation of the United Kingdom in its present form is a most honourable objective. CHRISTIANITY AND NATIONHOOD GO TOGETHER In further endorsement of nationhood, we observe that the apostle Paul, after his conversion, never lost his sense of identity with his own people. He remained a Jew through and through. He declared, I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart ... for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh (Romans 9:14). So Paul poured out his heart to God in concern for his own countrymen. Jeremiah did the same thing. He cried out, “Oh that my head were waters, and mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people! (Jeremiah 9:1). How Britain today needs Christians with a similar Spirit-given burden for their nation such as Paul and Jeremiah possessed. Let us make no mistake, the Bible plainly teaches that God has ordained nationhood and clearly defined national boundaries. To reject this Divine ordinance because of secular fashion is to promote an anti-God, tower of Babel, New Age world order, and Christians should not be doing that. John Wesley once wrote, “We feel in ourselves a strong … kind of natural affection for our country, which we apprehend Christianity was never designed either to root out or to impair” (9). What an amazingly non-pc statement : Christianity was never designed to destroy national identity! As we today look at the godlessness around us, with our society increasingly turning its back upon the one true faith of Christ, and as we look at the indigenous populations appalling descent into unbelief and rebellion against Gods word, we desperately need Christians with an unashamedly national perspective, with a burden for their country and for their peoples standing before the holy God. Therefore let this be our earnest prayer : “Lord, we love our country. Return us to the fear of Thee”. Pastor Peter Simpson, Penn Free Methodist Church realchristianity.org Endnotes 1. dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2213866/Lord-Carey-When-politicians-realiseracist-actually-DO-immigration.html 2. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2517184/PM-David-Cameron-admits-key-migration-target-met.html 3. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2260067/White-Britons-minority-Leicester-Luton-Slough-Birmingham-set-follow-end-decade.html 4. migrationwatch.co.uk/ accessed 01/11/12 5. V. Mangalwadi, The book that changed your world, p32-33 of chapter 10, Kobo edition. 6. Ibid, p37 of chapter 10, Kobo edition. 7. Changing London magazine, Autumn 2012, p10 8. Ibid. 9. Reasons against Separation from C of E, Works of Wesley CD, Providence House Publishers.
Posted on: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 17:40:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015