I’m interrupting the heartwarming choir tour stories to get to one of the reasons I started this blog: to talk about how important it is to wrestle with the hard questions, because quick and simple answers can be wrong. I want to address a story in the news before it gets cold.
A Collin County commissioner introduced a resolution saying that Collin County should not use any of its resources to deal with all the children coming over the border. The Commissioners Court passed The Proper Role of County Government in Providing Temporary Housing and Care for Migrant Children, which says it is not the function of county government to provide aid beyond what are considered core functions of county government: law enforcement, health care services, and child protective services. They applaud the work churches and charities do in caring for these children. Please take some time to click on the link and read the resolution. (I had a little trouble with the link; hit the refresh button if the document doesn’t appear.) Part of the point of wrestling with hard questions is working from primary sources.
There are many important points on both sides of this situation. The children are in this country in violation of US immigration law. On the other hand, these children are fleeing political unrest and lawlessness in their home countries. Our immigration system couldn’t handle all the people who would enter the country if we dropped all immigration restrictions. On the other hand, we have an obligation to protect defenseless children. We have an obligation to uphold the rule of law. On the other hand, we could be sending these children back to their deaths. As citizens, we’re obligated to wrestle with the questions this situation raises.
The commissioners start each meeting with a prayer. Most Commissioners Courts do. There is usually a lot of outrage when they don’t. The argument usually runs that the country was founded on Christian principles and blocking a public prayer is contrary to our founders’ intentions. They should do the Christian thing and open their meetings with prayer. But those who opposed this resolution think accepting and sheltering these children is also the Christian thing to do. The Commissioners Court acknowledged it is a Christian duty, but the county is also responsible to state and federal law. However, we also remember Judge Roy Moore, who erected a monument of the Ten Commandments as an act of civil disobedience.
What makes a country (or a county) “Christian”? Is it measured by works of piety or works of mercy? This is not about separation of church and state in the First Amendment sense, but it is about drawing some kind of boundary between the two. Where does county stop and church start? When we open a meeting by asking God to guide us, are we prepared for what God might do?
I would love to hear your thoughts. This is controversial, so please remember your manners. I will delete hateful or profane comments.
I promise my next post will be a heartwarming story.
The Feral Deacon 
David, thank you for surfacing such an interesting and perplexing interpretation of what being a Christian means, as well as a citizen, right here in our own backyard. I can honestly only shake my head in trying to understand the rationale behind insisting on a prayer at a council meeting while passing measures such as this. Apparently, the “line” between church and state is clearly established when it comes to providing for human needs that require money, but can easily be rolled up in order to enforce what is considered some peoples idea of “right.” I wonder, does the Line get rolled up on a big spool, or is it like masking tape where you just throw it away and reapply a new one when needed?
LikeLike
It’s human nature, but it’s interesting to see how quickly things can happen and how lines can be changed with enough motivation.
LikeLike
I find it striking to compare the responses of people who live in the high traffic reality zones to those who debate and pass edicts from a socially comfortable distance. Especially because I grew up so close to the border, I have always been aware of the need for legal consequences while simultaneously dealing with inescapable, humane shelter/care issues. I am always grateful for those who will risk reputation to stand in the gap, who seem to genuinely understand the answer to, “Who is my neighbor?” Saw this article today while checking on the weather. The responses described in the brief article are what I call Christ-like.
LikeLike
(Not sure if the web link attached to the comment, Mr. Moderator.)
LikeLike
Sorry, the link didn’t make it through. I get e-mail notifications of posts and the link wasn’t there either. Sorry.
LikeLike
From my (albeit, relatively limited knowledge) of the Bible, children seem to have a special place in God’s eyes. Jesus loved children, and children are often victims of the cruel, adult world they live in. Not that the answer is this simple, but from the Church’s point of view the Bible is pretty clear about how we should treat those in need, especially children.
In theory, this sounds great, but I’m well aware that we aren’t at a point (as a church or a country), where we have the resources to help this massive number of children in need. However, I want to make the distinction between what we can *currently* do about this problem, and the mindset that we ought to take looking into what we can *start* doing for the future.
For starters, I personally feel that the Church’s political activism has its priorities in the wrong order. As a Church, we need to sit back and question what issues Jesus would be pushing for the government to act on. We ought to question whether the energy, time, and money Christians put into protesting issues like abortions and gay marriage could be better spent pushing for more government-provided resources for these children in need [Note: I am not commenting on whether the issues of abortion and gay marriage are worthwhile for the Church to put our resources into, I’m bringing into question if they are *more* worthwhile than helping the children]. If the Church were to push for revised immigration laws for children from the State AND help to provide resources for these children once they are in the country, there would be less dissonance between what legally should be done, what morally should be done, and what is actually feasible to do.
I also would like to bring up the difference in the Church’s Doctrine and the State’s doctrine. I can’t say that I’ve read either the Constitution or the Bible cover to cover recently, but the Bible is much more clear about what its followers responsibilities are regarding the poor. The State is not ‘legally’ obligated to help these children in need but the Church ‘morally’ is. The Church can’t simply shrug this issue off as an ‘illegal immigration issue’, because our set of rules don’t ever mention ‘illegal immigration’. The Church and State obviously need to work together on this issue, but because the Church bases a large portion of our ideology in helping those in need, we need to be the driving factor.
I’m aware that instead of answering your questions about an already complex issue, I just brought in more issues to make it more complex. Clearly I don’t have an answer to this issue of Church/State separation, but I think that at least part of the answer lies in what the Church asks of the State, and the priorities of the Church’s political activism.
LikeLike
I think part of the Church’s role is to ask the tough questions from the State, and of course the Church should be prepared to provide relief. But my burning question is how city/county/state/national elected officials apply their faith to how they do their work. Praying at meetings is already putting God’s foot in the door, so to speak, so how far do you let God into the rest of the house?
LikeLike
First, I need to point out that the concept of “separation of church and state” is not a constitutional concept and those words are nowhere to be found in our founding documents or the Constitution. The first amendment places a restriction on government’s ability to interfere with the church, but it places no restriction on the church’s involvement in government. Of course, we should take care of the children as far as food and primary medical care, and perhaps travel back home. We have no right or obligation, moral or otherwise, to take all the children of the world to raise as our own, even if we could afford it. The real tragedy is that our government is putting these children at risk solely for political purposes.
LikeLike
You’re correct that the words “separation of church and state” don’t appear in the Constitution, but I’m not really approaching it from a First Amendment basis. This is more about how far we let Christianity influence our governing processes and what that means from a practical standpoint. The rest of your post speaks to that point, so thanks for the post.
LikeLike
If you check the following link: http://www.constitution.org/tj/sep_church_state.htm, you’ll see that although the words “separation of church and state” aren’t in the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson believed the concept was included.
LikeLike
David, the redline version of the council’s… statement(?) is very interesting. It seems the author had a lot of ideas about what it should say and someone (an attorney perhaps?) made some significant edits. Do you have any knowledge of how it developed?
LikeLike
The Plano Star Courier says Commissioner Reid did the first draft, which was then amended by the other commissioners. Commissioner Webb is an attorney, so he could have offered up the right words to use.
LikeLike