No, Your Ancestors Didn’t Come Here Legally - by Ben Railton

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. FB friend S.B. posted a link to this article.

First my comment, then the article, followed by the FB conversation.
--------------------------

This is a case of using an innocuous phrase (“My ancestors came here legally”) to divert the conversation to impugning an idea not presented rather than evaluating the issue at hand, illegal immigration. The objective is to suggest a group of people are stupid for having the idea. The author does this by imposing an implication not warranted by the statement in question.

The author asserts that absent a law, your behavior is neither legal nor illegal. However, laws always restrict the range of what is available. Laws never, ever broaden available choices, unless they modify an existing, more restrictive law. 

The total absence of law means nothing is restricted, aka anarchy. The first law passed necessarily limits unrestricted choices to "everything minus this one thing."

Illegality does not define legality, because legality is the default state. If the body of law is silent, that is, it hasn't restricted a range of choices, then every choice is definitionally legal. 

Laws make us conscious of what is wrong to do. Interestingly, the Bible makes this very point: "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin." (Rom 3:20)

Here's the article:
------------------------------

I guarantee you’ll hear the phrase “My ancestors came here legally” in the aftermath of President Obama’s immigration address. It’s almost impossible to find any conversation about immigration—between elected officials, pundits, online commenters—in which at least one participant doesn’t use the phrase. It’s an understandable position, through which the speaker can both defend his or her family history and critique current illegal immigrants who choose to do things differently. It helps deflect charges of hypocrisy (since most Americans are descended from immigrants). It’s hard to argue with. And it’s also, in nearly every case, entirely inaccurate.

Prior to 1875’s Page Act and 1882’s Chinese Exclusion Act, there were no national immigration laws. None. There were laws related to naturalization and citizenship, to how vessels reported their passengers, to banning the slave trade. Once New York’s Castle Garden Immigration Station opened in 1855, arrivals there reported names and origins before entering the U.S. But for all pre-1875 immigrants, no laws applied to their arrival. They weren’t legal or illegal; they were just immigrants.

Moreover, those two laws and their extensions affected only very specific immigrant communities: suspected prostitutes and criminals (the Page Act); Chinese arrivals (the Exclusion Act); immigrants from a few other Asian nations (the extensions). So if your ancestors came before the 1920s and weren’t prostitutes, criminals, or from one of those Asian nations, they remained unaffected by any laws, and so were still neither legal nor illegal. This might seem like a semantic distinction, but it’s much more; the phrase “My ancestors came here legally” implies that they “chose to follow the law,” yet none of these unaffected immigrants had to make any such choice, nor had any laws to follow.

The 1892 opening of Ellis Island didn’t change these fundamental realities. Ellis arrivals had to wait in line and answer a list of questions, and could be quarantined if they had a communicable disease or were visibly insane. But if they weren’t in those aforementioned few illegal categories, they still weren’t affected by any law, made no choice of how to immigrate. Moreover, many arrivals during this period came not through Ellis but across the borders, which were unpatrolled and open.

Only with the 1920s Quota Acts did Congress establish national immigration laws encompassing most arrivals. But those acts were overtly discriminatory, extending the Exclusion Act’s principles by categorizing arrivals by nationality and drastically limiting certain groups; South Carolina Senator Ellison Smith put it bluntly: “It seems to me the point as to this measure is that the time has arrived when we should shut the door.” Since immigrants had no control over their nationality, it’s difficult to argue that post-1920s arrivals “chose” to immigrate legally or illegally. And since the borders remained largely open and there were multiple entry points, it’s hard to say that any individual arrival was under the quota and thus legal or illegal.

The 1965 Immigration Act ended national quotas, instituting preferences based on less overtly discriminatory categories such as family connections and educational/professional training. Subsequent laws (such as the 1986 IRCA) further adjusted national policy. But as the ubiquitous “my ancestors” phrase proves, current immigration debates aren’t just about present policies—they’re always informed by ideas about history, and specifically about legal and illegal immigration in our past. So it’s vitally important that we begin to use those terms accurately—to recognize that for so many of us, our ancestors were neither legal nor illegal immigrants. That they came in the same way contemporary undocumented immigrants do: by crossing a border.

Ben Railton is an Associate Professor of English at Fitchburg State University and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.
---------------------------
And here's the FB conversation:

Me: "... the phrase 'My ancestors came here legally' implies that they 'chose to follow the law...'” No, it implies no such thing. It implies they violated no laws when they came.

C.K.: But there were no laws to follow. So it is still hypocritical.

Me: No, there were no laws to violate. Definitionally, violating no laws means legal. A law creates illegality, not legality.

C.K.: So maybe we should go back to the way things were when your family arrived so that we all get treated the same. The point is that at no point did you family jump through the same hoops today's immigrants have to go through so you are in no position to judge them.

Me: Agreed. However, in the meantime, let's just continue to ignore existing law as it suits us.

Me: And no one has issued any judgments.

SUPPLEMENTARY REVELATION? BY STEVE FINNELL

Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------------------------------

The author recycles his arguments periodically, presumably because he needs to have something to post. Thus, we have already dealt with his arguments elsewhere.

However, there is a persistent misapprehension present here that is worth discussing. We shall attempt to explore that. 
--------------------------------------

Is God supplying additional revelation to express His commands for mankind? No He is not. God has not been adding to His word since the Bible was completed. All of the Scriptures found in Bible were written by 100 A.D.. All that men need to know in order to receive salvation and live the Christian life is found in the Bible. There is no need of SUPPLEMENTARY REVELATION! (The author helpfully includes most every misstatement, non sequitur, and failure of logic in one paragraph. Those are:

1) additional revelation = adding to His word

2) additional revelation = adding to the Bible

3) Bible compiled = revelation ceased

4) additional revelation = additional requirements

It is clear to us that the author is unacquainted with what the charismatics actually believe and teach about the prophetic gift in the modern church. He prefers to discuss characterizations that have nothing to do with the subject in order to vilify those with whom he disagrees.)

An analysis of church leadership - a pastor's teaching on having a head pastor

This was written by someone as a teaching for the local church. We think it is flawed, so we're offering this rather long analysis. Our comments in bold.

---------------------------------

Local Church Leadership

By Pastor Bob

1. Purpose of an Elder

• Care and protection of the flock.

1 Peter 5:2 (AMP) Tend (nurture, guard, guide, and fold) the flock of God that is [your responsibility), not by coercion or constraint, but willingly; not dishonorably motivated by the advantages and profits [belonging to the office], but eagerly and cheerfully;

• To alleviate the burden of the leader of the flock so that they might be cared for more effectively. Ex 18:13-27
***
Here’s a quote from that passage: 

Ex. 18:19-21 “Listen now to me and I will give you some advice, and may God be with you. You must be the people’s representative before God and bring their disputes to him. Teach them the decrees and laws, and show them the way to live and the duties they are to perform. But select capable men from all the people — men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain — and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.”

This is a specific corrective action that was taken because Moses’ father in law noticed a problem. It is not prescriptive to how the Church leadership should be organized. It is not a model of leadership to be implemented by the Church. Moses, a workaholic, had to be told that governing a entire nation by himself was not possible.

In addition, Moses' position over the nation was typical for the ancient world, one man over a kingdom. And importantly, the biblical role of elder does not describe it as alleviating the burden of a singular leader.

Thus, this account does not presume to instruct us about anything other than Moses’ flaw.
***

2. Leadership structure

a. "Appoint a man over this community!"

Numbers 27:16-17 (NIV) "May the LORD, the God of the spirits of all mankind, appoint a man over this community to go out and come in before them, one who will lead them out and bring them in, so the LORD’s people will not be like sheep without a shepherd."
***
Here’s a more extended quote so we can get the context: 

Nu. 27:15-23 “Moses said to the LORD, ‘May the LORD, the God of the spirits of all mankind, appoint a man over this community to go out and come in before them, one who will lead them out and bring them in, so that the LORD’s people will not be like sheep without a shepherd.’ So the LORD said to Moses, ‘Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand on him. 19 Make him stand before Eleazar the priest and the entire assembly and commission him in their presence. Give him some of your authority so that the whole Israelite community will obey him. He is to stand before Eleazar the priest, who will obtain decisions for him by enquiring of the Urim before the LORD.

“’At his command he and the entire community of the Israelites will go out, and at his command they will come in.’ Moses did as the LORD commanded him. He took Joshua and made him stand before Eleazar the priest and the whole assembly. Then he laid his hands on him and commissioned him, as the LORD instructed through Moses.”

The first thing to note is that this was a prayer of Moses (“Moses said to the LORD…”), and the purpose was to ask God to choose Moses’ successor. God responded by telling Moses to commission Joshua. This method of succession is not prescriptive; it is not the way leaders are chosen in the church, and it does not tell us how the Church should be structured. Also note Moses’ reason: “…so that the LORD’s people will not be like sheep without a shepherd.” Jesus echoed this language in Mk. 6:34: 

“When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. So he began teaching them many things.” 

We must note that the elders in the church are to be the shepherds, and Jesus is the Chief Shepherd: 

1Pe. 5:1-4 “To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow-elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers… And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.”

Therefore, the elders (plural) are to shepherd  and oversee the flock, and Jesus is the Chief Shepherd. There is no leadership position between Jesus and the elders of the church. In fact, as we will read later, Paul writes to Timothy to tell how an elder is to be chosen, and it’s not like this passage in Numbers at all.

***

• There is ultimately one man over the local church - the angelos, Rev 2-3

In Re. 2:1 we read: “To the angel of the church in Ephesus…”
***
Seven churches are mentioned, and each has a letter addressed to the “angel of the church.” We need to do two things. One, we need to know how the angel is related to the specific church; and two, we need to know what is meant by “angel.”

First, angel (Angelos, a messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger from God) is used 181 times in the NT, like Mat. 4:11 (“Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold , angels came and ministered…”) and Mat 11:10 (“For this is he, of whom it is written , Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.”). There is only one time in the N.T. where “angel” ever refers to anything other than a celestial being, and that is John the Baptist.

So who are these angels? Re. 1:20 informs us: “The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.”

It seems pretty clear that these angels are of special note, for ”one like the Son of Man” holds them in his hand. He also walks among the seven lampstands, the seven churches. This is a picture of the Supernatural presence in the Church of the One with the two edged sword (the Word) coming from His mouth.

These seven churches were literal churches who were appointed to receive a message from the Alpha and Omega. Indeed, we find John telling us in Re. 1:4 that he is writing to the seven churches. John then proceeds to tell us the story of how the message came to him. He then tells each of them the message, which continues to the end of chapter 3. The message is delivered to the messengers (angels) of each church. These angels were told the message and they were to tell these churches.

Various angels continue to appear throughout Revelation. When we get to Re. 21:12 we find this: “It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel.” So not only are there angels who represent the seven churches, there are angels who stand for the twelve tribes. 

God uses angels to do a variety of things, including, I believe, watching over churches. And we who believe have angels as well, who minister God’s grace to his people: He. 1:14 “Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?” Apparently we even meet them from time to time: He. 13:2 “Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it.” 

The conclusion is these seven angels are ministering spirits to those churches, and clearly not the pastors of those churches.
***
• First and Second Timothy were written to one man (Timothy) giving him instructions about elders, deacons, and church life.
***
Timothy indeed was dealing with a group of believers. But Scripture does not tell us that Timothy was a pastor! Timothy was actually a valued associate of Paul, who labored alongside him, went to various churches on assignments, and generally did his bidding.

Paul and Barnabas was one such partnering in this work:

Ac. 14:23 “Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.”

And Timothy also worked with Paul:

Ac. 17:15: “The men who escorted Paul brought him to Athens and then left with instructions for Silas and Timothy to join him as soon as possible.”

Timothy was sent to various places at Paul’s behest:

1Co. 4:17: “For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.”

In fact, at one point Paul told him to stay in Ephesus and correct some errant believers:

1Ti. 1:3 “As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer…"

Some of Paul’s epistles were co-written with Timothy:

Ph. 1:1 “Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi…”

Paul commends Timothy to the Philippian church:

Ph. 2:22 “But you know that Timothy has proved himself, because as a son with his father he has served with me in the work of the gospel.”

Paul tells us why he was writing to Timothy:

1Ti. 3:14-15 “Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

Paul was planning to come himself, and the purpose of his instructions was to help Timothy deal with this particular church until Paul arrived. 

1Ti. 4:13: “ Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.”

Paul points out to Timothy that it is the elders who lead the church:

1Ti. 5:17 “The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honour, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.”

And lastly, Paul counsels Timothy that Paul has trusted him with the assignment. Paul wants Timothy to keep the church intact and on the right path.

1 Ti. 6:20 “Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care.” 

In sum, there isn’t a single passage that indicates that Timothy was pastor or head of this particular church. Rather, it is reasonable to conclude that Timothy was on assignment from Paul as a young church planter charged with setting up elders and correcting doctrine in this church, and Paul was advising him how to do it.
***
b. Decision making process in the early church: Acts 15:1-29

• 15:5, Apostles and Elders meet to discuss.
• 15:7 -11, Peter shares his revelation.
• 15:12, Barnabas and Paul share their experience.
• 15:13, James brings it to conclusion by summing up and relating it to scripture, (15:13-18)
• 15:19, James makes a final judgment. (19-21)
• 15:22, The apostles, elders, and the whole church make application.
• 15:23, a letter is unanimously sent.
• 15:28, This was the leading of the Holy Spirit!
***
In this account we find that there was a problem in the church in Antioch. This church decided to send Paul, Barnabas, and some other believers to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles and elders.

Ac. 15:1-2 “Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: ‘Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.’ This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.”

So they arrived and described the problem to the apostles and elders:

Vs 4-6 ” When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them. Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, ‘The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.’ The apostles and elders met to consider this question.”

Peter has some input to the apostles and elders:

Vs 7 “After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them…”

Then Barnabas and Paul started telling stories about the great things God was doing among the gentiles:

Vs 12 “The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.”

Then it was James’ turn:

Vs 13-18 "When they finished, James spoke up: ‘Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written: `After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’ [Amos 9:11,12] that have been known for ages.”

James then expresses his insight and opinion:

vs 19-21 “‘It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.’”

Then the apostles and elders consult with each other to render their decision:

Vs 22-25 “Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul…”

Clearly, James did not make the decision. A reading of the passage indicates a plurality of leadership listening to the evidence brought by various parties, then rendering a decision, which was communicated back to the Antioch church. There is no singular leader in any part of this text.

To conclude, in my opinion this teaching offered by Pastor Bob does not demonstrate its intended thesis, that a single leader is a scriptural position.

The Case Against Liberal Compassion - by William Voegeli

This is good stuff, from Imprimis, Hillsdale College.
----------------------------

WILLIAM VOEGELI is a senior editor of the Claremont Review of Books and a visiting scholar at Claremont McKenna College’s Henry Salvatori Center. After receiving a Ph.D. in political science from Loyola University in Chicago, he served as a program officer for the John M. Olin Foundation. He has written for numerous publications, including the Christian Science Monitor, City Journal, Commentary, First Things, the Los Angeles Times, National Review, and the New Criterion. He is the author of two books, Never Enough: America’s Limitless Welfare State and The Pity Party: A Mean-Spirited Diatribe Against Liberal Compassion.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College on October 9, 2014, sponsored by the College’s Van Andel Graduate School of Statesmanship.
**

Four years ago I wrote a book about modern American liberalism:Never Enough: America’s Limitless Welfare State. It addressed the fact that America’s welfare state has been growing steadily for almost a century, and is now much bigger than it was at the start of the New Deal in 1932, or at the beginning of the Great Society in 1964. In 2013 the federal government spent $2.279 trillion—$7,200 per American, two-thirds of all federal outlays, and 14 percent of the Gross Domestic Product—on the five big program areas that make up our welfare state: 1. Social Security; 2. All other income support programs, such as disability insurance or unemployment compensation; 3. Medicare; 4. All other health programs, such as Medicaid; and 5. All programs for education, job training, and social services.

That amount has increased steadily, under Democrats and Republicans, during booms and recessions. Adjusted for inflation and population growth, federal welfare state spending was 58 percent larger in 1993 when Bill Clinton became president than it had been 16 years before when Jimmy Carter took the oath of office. By 2009, when Barack Obama was inaugurated, it was 59 percent larger than it had been in 1993. Overall, the outlays were more than two-and-a-half times as large in 2013 as they had been in 1977. The latest Census Bureau data, from 2011, regarding state and local programs for “social services and income maintenance,” show additional spending of $728 billion beyond the federal amount. Thus the total works out to some $3 trillion for all government welfare state expenditures in the U.S., or just under $10,000 per American. That figure does not include the cost, considerable but harder to reckon, of the policies meant to enhance welfare without the government first borrowing or taxing money and then spending it. I refer to laws and regulations that require some citizens to help others directly, such as minimum wages, maximum hours, and mandatory benefits for employees, or rent control for tenants.

All along, while the welfare state was growing constantly, liberals were insisting constantly it wasn’t big enough or growing fast enough. So I wondered, five years ago, whether there is a Platonic ideal when it comes to the size of the welfare state—whether there is a point at which the welfare state has all the money, programs, personnel, and political support it needs, thereby rendering any further additions pointless. The answer, I concluded, is that there is no answer—the welfare state is a permanent work-in-progress, and its liberal advocates believe that however many resources it has, it always needs a great deal more.

The argument of Never Enough was correct as far as it went, but it was incomplete. It offered an answer to two of the journalist’s standard questions: What is the liberal disposition regarding the growth of the welfare state? And How does that outlook affect politics and policy? But it did not answer another question: Why do liberals feel that no matter how much we’re doing through government programs to alleviate and prevent poverty, whatever we are doing is shamefully inadequate?