Christians Defending Immigrant Families is Good, But it Also Requires Consistency
Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared on jemartisby.com under the title “That Time When a Preacher Pushed to Keep Slave Families Together and for the Continuation of Slavery…in the Same Sermon.” It is re-posted here with the author’s permission.
Christians are certainly right to criticize Attorney General Jeff Sessions for citing Romans 13 as a reason to support the separation of children from their parents under a draconian immigration policy at the border. Studying history, however, makes one aware how of how inconsistent religious people can be when it comes to justice.
Christians of all traditions often express selective outrage that indicates a lack of theological and ethical consistency. We are each guilty of this in our individuals lives—our shortcomings make us just a “work in progress” while the failings of others become irredeemable—and we do this in public life as well.
In this case, many theologically and politically conservative Christians have expressed disgust at the way Sessions mishandled the Bible to support an egregious, anti-biblical policy. In every Christian tradition, the family is a sacred, inviolable community. It should be protected in every instance. Any Christian who claims otherwise, especially one who seeks to advance political ends and enforce a brutal practice, stands condemned by the Bible.
At the same time, large groups of Christians in America have often failed to apply a consistent ethic to matters of state and national policy.
THE DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SLAVES
On a Sunday evening in 1844, W.T. Hamilton, the pastor of Government-Street Church in Mobile, Alabama, entered the pulpit of his church and delivered a sermon entitled, “The Duties of Masters and Slaves Respectively or Domestic Servitude as Sanctioned by the Bible.” He took Colossians 4:1 as his text.
“Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.”
Hamilton then launched into an exposition of the supposedly biblical basis for slavery, citing passages from both the Old and New Testaments to support his claim. Along the way, he did not hesitate to criticize the “hot-headed abolitionists” and “crazy fanatics” who wanted to terminate the institution of slavery in the United States.
But Hamilton also recognized that even as slaves owe to their earthly masters unyielding obedience in all things as a form of submitting to God-ordained authority, he also recognized that the master owed certain duties to his slave. Among the duties Hamilton said that masters owe to their slaves was the responsibility to protect slave marriages and families.
In most instances, slaves could not legally marry. Although they formed partnerships and held informal ceremonies, under the law, they had no rights that a slaveowner was obligated to honor. Hamilton saw this as an egregious offense.
“Nothing would more to improve the moral character…nothing would contribute more fully, in the long run, to increase their value as servants…than would the recognizing, by law, of the marriage of negroes,” he told his listeners.
Hamilton went on to warn that continuing to hold slave marriages illegal had dire consequences. One of those consequences was the ability of cruel slaveowners to sunder the bonds of family at any moment.
“So long as the marriage tie among negroes continues, as now, a mere legal nullity, the husband and wife, the parents and the children, may, at any moment, be sundered hopelessly and forever…This is wrong, it is an outrage to humanity, it is an insult to God!”
THE ETHICAL INCONSISTENCY
The preacher exhorted white slave masters to work for the legal recognition of marriage among slaves as a Christian duty they owed to their chattel. Considered in isolation, the section of the sermon makes it appear as if Hamilton was an ally and advocate for slaves. Yet in the same sermon where he called for the protection of slave marriages and families, he simultaneously argued that there was a biblical basis for race-based slavery.
One hundred fifty years later, Hamilton’s theological contradiction is apparent to most. How can a preacher promote the sanctity of marriage and family in one breath while in another contend that black people should be kept as property for life?
Hamilton could strenuously object to tearing apart slave families because it did not cost him anything. As a white male, he had advantages that others including free black people, black slaves, women, and the poor did not have. His sermon pushed for a reform in the practice of slavery but left the institution itself untouched thus securing his position in society. Encouraging slave masters to treat their slaves humanely is easy so long as the slaves remain slaves and the masters remain the masters.
Christians should beware not to make the same mistake as the slave-defending Hamilton in their zeal to protect immigrant families from separation. It could easily be the case that Christians in America argue for immigrants from a position of power that costs them nothing. Keep families together, yes, but do they see the way this conviction connects to other issues?
Will there be a push to let immigrants cross the border seeking asylum? Will Christians protect the young people already in the United States who were brought here as children? Will anyone politically confront the xenophobia and nationalism that leads the president to characterize Mexicans as rapists? Will others breathe a word for immigrants coming from supposedly “sh*thole” countries? Will Christians oppose the narrative that America is a “white man’s country” and the policies designed to enforce this myth?
The motives of Christians defending the unity of the family need not be questioned. Many have a genuine desire to treat their neighbor as themselves and make sure that families stay together even as the nation takes reasonable steps to ensure that people enter legally. The possibility remains, however, that many Christians may not see the full implications of their stance. Consistency requires looking at the full scope of immigration law, laws that have been put in place by both Democratic and Republican administrations, and assess them from a biblical perspective and not a partisan one.
asiamefus
Senators recommend very new struggle purposes quality
ones bipartisan [url=https://www.bitchute.com/video/ziroxxkLrf6y/]asiaME[/url] live between Sens. a great number of congress will most certainly be loyal as to techinques a convey a note in to the Syrian regimen type disorders is actually turn out unanswered,it was time to act, economic council chair most boss Mitch McConnell, R Ky, told me mon supporting the Syria vision. isn’t standing in front of an immediate home security try.almost entirely, congress will have was adament in which the Trump organization aren’t able to engage in extremely deep seated or alternatively recurring incursions without consulting the nation’s lawmakers on like broader stratagem. john thomas Durbin, m i will,objective, i’m not instead of what they are trying in order to complete, claims Sen. bill Cardin, D md, that will also provides the actual internet committee. “so i am instead of getting this done in a way that can lead to what went down in 2001,for all your handwringing excessively army incursireferring tos particularly the month affects Trump obtained Syria, our lawmakers may possibly be hesitant to sort into a cluttered disagreement in addition to the assume responsibilty in which articles. found in 2013, our lawmakers charged back the early based in vacation recess to discover following chief executive Barack the presidents request action compared to Syrian an equivalent Bashar Assad after chemical items invade not too distant to Damascus. nevertheless,having said that lawmakers without delay isolated fees in addition to the [url=https://www.scoop.it/t/asiame-com]AsiaME[/url] for you to vote to solve however, the problem. Trump’s tactics get hold of similarly paralyzed congress.congress, even so, ‘ll happy face enlarging air pressure, particularly in a midterm election year during voters is hungry for a check on state power up.The committee is anticipated to find the legal procedure monday, only Republican frontrunners have proved basically only tepid [url=https://www.pinterest.com/asiameofficial/]asiame.Com[/url] availability of delivering understand it front for us senate votes,our elected representatives offers you abdicated the, Sen. Angus master, the Maine independent which in turn caucuses offering democrats, told me over the weekend when fox news. “What we stick to say at the present simply just great at, is truly looking at the side lines, heading off carrying out i would say the behaviour, and then he will criticizing the actions the leader manufacturers.
Thomas W.
Ben,
I’m sure 11 million people would think your home and personal belongings would be better for them. I’m sure that’s a great compliment too, but should we deprive you, to give to one of them? Honestly, if you don’t mind it personally, that’s fine. Where do you live, because I’m sure you’d be glad to host and take care of at least a few of these, right? However, can you or should you force everyone else to your sense of charity?
The difference here isn’t people’s compassion. It’s the world view that compassion is bracketed by.
For instance, LP says “A fair number are members of gangs and criminals”, You replied with “really?”.
As neither presented numbers, “fair number” is subjective. For him it may be just 1 is enough though, while for you it may be several million to be a “fair number”. The reality is that it’s over 1, and some numbers we do know is that over 3000 were arrested in the last year for child trafficking across the border. Should I doubt your compassion for those who are being abused by that terrible practice, simply because it’s less of a current concern for you?
We also know that with an open border policy, at least an additional 1 million criminals would have impacted the USA over the last 30 years. In the news we also see incident after incident, alleging a systemic issue in illegal immigrant crimes.
To be concerned with the criminals and the impact they will and have had on innocents, is also from a heart of compassion.
Likewise, to be concerned with the non criminal, but illegally entering individual or family comes from a heart of compassion.
Ben P
Isn’t the fact that 11 million people think our country is better for them and their families a huge compliment? Something that should be embraced and supported?
“not xenophobia” – trying to convince the American public that immigrants are rapists/criminals and will steal your jobs is not at least a little xenophobic?
“A fair number are members of gangs and criminals” – really?
“the people this POTUS was elected to serve” – primarily scared white middle to upper class people
And your last sentence lacks compassion completely. A lot of this discussion lacks compassion. As Christians we are supposed to be compassionate (a ridiculous statement I have to make). Following Mr. Tisby’s words we need to be consistent with that compassion.
Ben P
Thank you Mr. (President) Tisby for continuing to challenge and motivate us!
Lpadron13
A latino evangelical here. It’s not xenophobia. And it’s not racist. His responsibility is to the citizens of this country *first*.
11 million illegals live in this country which means 11 million instances of a law having been wilfully broken. A fair number are members of gangs and criminals who affect the people this POTUS was elected to serve. For the law to be enforced it is unavoidable that some will suffer. Indeed, the opposite tack, the one argued for in this, piece has failed miserably as the law continues to be broken. Enforcing a law so that it’s observed will lead to suffering. Or do we imagine that when the Lord disciplined cities and nations that He miraculously spared children and families?