The Mother of Exiles

Photo by UNHCR UN Refugee Agency

Have you ever read the complete poem by Emma Lazarus entitled "The New Colossus"?  It is engraved upon the base of the Statue of Liberty.  I read it again the other day in light of the growing Syrian refugee crisis and was deeply moved.  In case you have never read it, take a moment now to reflect upon Lazarus' incredible words:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. 

From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

An Open Letter to Displaced Syrians

Photo by JMC Photos

Dear friend,

I recognize that the odds of you reading this are not good.  You are tightly packed in refugee camps that are ill-equipped to provide you with adequate food, water, medicine, housing, and more.  I doubt that many of you have internet access.  Even if you did, it wouldn't be likely that you would discover my little blog.  Still, you are on my heart today and I wish to say something to you.  And, insha'Allah (God willing), this message might reach one or two of you.  Anyway, my message is simple:

I am a citizen of the United States of America and you are welcome here.

Today, I am praying that our government agrees to resettle many of you to our nation.  I want you to come.  I am deeply saddened by what you have had to endure and by the conditions that you are even now enduring.  I am not considered rich by my country's standards.  But, I have so much compared to you and I am willing to share.

I am willing to share my money, my time, my nation, and my life with you.  And, if the Lord opens the door for you to come as refugees to my country I promise to do everything in my power to welcome you.  I will greet as many of you as I can at the airport.  I will take you grocery shopping and to medical visits.  I will teach you English and help you adjust to life in the United States.  I will spend time with you as a friend and try to learn your language and culture.  I will learn to love your food.  I will listen to your stories if you are willing to tell them to me.  Not only this, but I will mobilize and equip as many people as I can to do the same.

Some of you will be concerned that I will try to convert you to Christianity. I should say first that I would never put it in those terms.  But, let me be as honest as possible.  The Lord Jesus (Isa al-Masih), has changed my life and has given me an overabundance of love, peace, and hope. It is impossible to keep this to myself.  I've not had to suffer like you.  But, when I have suffered, he has been a constant presence and help.  He has always saved me.  So, I will certainly pray for you in His name.  And I will tell you about His life.  And, if you desire to follow Him, I will teach you what I know about how to do that.  But, even if you don't. I will still love you and serve you with all my heart.  Indeed, I must do this because the love of the Lord Jesus compels me.  When I teach you English or pick you up at the airport or take you shopping or eat a meal in your home -- this will all be because of His love.

I cannot promise that every American will welcome you in this way.  Many will not.  Some will even be afraid of you.  But, I will not be.  I want you to come!

We have a famous statue in our country called "The Statue of Liberty".  You may have seen a picture at some point.  On the statue is an inscription which reads as follows:

Give me your tired, your poor, 
Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free, 
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, 
Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

This is the heart of our country and also the heart of the Lord Jesus.  It has become my heart as well.  I hope you will come.  I hope America can become your home and I hope you will become my neighbors and friends, my brothers and sisters, my uncles and aunties.  

Blessings and peace to you,

Cody

Should Syrian Refugees be Fed to Polar Bears?

Photo by David

First, let me say that I feel somewhat embarrassed to be a citizen of the same country as many of the people who are voicing such racist and evil comments on the article I shared here last night.  Sometimes, I wonder really what has happened to this nation.  For years, I have been hearing from fellow Christ-followers about how our nation has drifted from it's original, godly foundations by the promotion of abortion rights, the degradation of marriage, and the like.  What must be understood however is that the growing, anti-immigrant sentiment in this nation is just as much a departure from the great American tradition as anything else.  Our hatred of aliens and foreigners is a moral collapse not less severe than anything evangelical Christians have spoken out against in recent memory.

To give you a taste, one commenter suggested that resettling Syrian refugees in the United States would mean bringing thousands of new terrorists into the country.  Another thought that this was simply a tactic of Barak Obama to get additional voters.  Another suggested instead that the 1.6 million Syrian refugees should rather be shipped to the North Pole to feed starving polar bears.  Still another believed that not only should we not accept Syrian refugees into the US but that we should send "our Mexicans" over there.

Sick. Disgusting. It is difficult to imagine lower forms of humanity.

Most disciples of the Lord Jesus are quite familiar with what he called the the second greatest command: "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matt. 22:39).  We are also familiar with the story that Christ told to illustrate what obedience to this command looks like (Lk. 10:30ff).  What we are less aware of is the fact that the famous parable of "The Good Samaritan" is the tale of an immigrant who behaves in a more Christ-like way than the local religious elite.  I have little doubt that in the current American evangelical context, the Lord would make the hero either an undocumented Mexican or rather a Pakistani Muslim immigrant. And who would play the role of the priest, the Levite, the scribe?  Perhaps an evangelical pastor, a middle class suburbanite, or a congressman?  Perhaps someone a lot like you and I?

Do you know this command?

"Love the immigrant as yourself" (Lev. 19:34).

Jesus did.  Perhaps that has something to do with why he told the story the way he did.

My ancestor, Johannes Lorentz came to this nation in 1710 as a refugee from the region of Germany called the Palatinate.  Information suggests that he converted to Protestantism during his lifetime and consequently left his homeland with his family to escape persecution.  Originally arriving in New York, he later settled in New Jersey and established a life for himself, built a house, helped to plant a German-speaking church, and multiplied into many different branches of Lorentz, Lowrance, and Lorance clans throughout this nation.  This  is the classic American story.  But, sometimes I wonder if this is who we are anymore.

[Look for another post later today on the Syrian refugee crisis, as well as my post from last night.]

Give me your tired, your poor ... send these!

By Philocrites

As the power hungry grab for votes in this election year 2012, I feel so often that we in the United States have drifted from our calling as a nation.  I find myself increasingly uncertain if either party would embrace the words of Lady Liberty:

"Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breath free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

It seems to me that no candidate is able to see the immigrant as anything more than a potential voting bloc.  As a nation, we've lost the ability to see those coming to our shores as the strength of a nation and the hope for tomorrow.

And I wonder if the Church in the United States isn't just as guilty.  During the past week, I have seen gifts of the Holy Spirit manifest in Bhutanese-Nepalis as we made visits house to house.  I have seen the power of God bringing deliverance to bound people during the all-night Ghanaian prayer service.  I have heard the testimony of an Indian leader who is in the midst of 40 days of fasting and prayer.  I have experienced the presence of the Lord again and again in fellowship with a precious Ugandan sister here for a visit.  And, as I reflect, I am fully convinced that God's movement of peoples from everywhere to the USA represents the single greatest hope for revival and renewal and mission that my nation now sees.  

May the Lord unveil our eyes to see a fuller picture of what He is doing!

I have linked below to a NY Times article which tells the story of a refugee summer academy that is focused preparing youth for school in the United States.  This academy seems to "get" the fact that such students are more than mere object of charity.  They are hope and they are the future.

Young Immigrants Helped by Refugee Youth Summer Academy - NYTimes.com: "This year, more than 100 students enrolled in the six-week program, which offered an academic curriculum supplemented by creative-arts classes, field trips and other activities. They hailed from at least 13 countries, including Nepal, Burkina Faso, Iran, Iraq and Cameroon. Some had been in the country for a couple of years; others, like the Diallos, had just arrived. They spoke at least 17 native languages. Some could speak and read English fluently; others could not write their own name in any language. Some had attended school in their home countries; others had never been in a classroom."

Does the U.S. have "Sinister Motivations" for Resettling Bhutanese Refugees?

I've come across an article posted on Revolution in South Asia entitled "Bhutanese Refugees in the U.S.: Pawns of Imperial Interests".  The author is known only as "redpines".  The site is dedicated to the promotion of communist/Maoist movements throughout South Asia and, in this article, seeks to slander U.S. efforts to resettle refugees as having sinister motivations.  I find the article to be a deceptive piece of communist propaganda designed to discourage 3rd country resettlement and recruit more people to the Maoist cause in South Asia.  At the end of the day, this sort of talk is pretty harmful to people who remain in the camps.  They shouldn't be deceived into thinking that life in the U.S. or Canada or wherever will be easy all the time.  But it is also wrong to spread and prop-up falsehoods like the ones in this article.  Those remaining in the camps are being fed a steady stream of lies:  "America will make you into slaves", "black people will shoot you",  "everyone gets divorced in America", and more.  The resulting fear cripples far too many, leaving them stagnating in camps without hope or a future.  Below, I offer a repudiation of the article referenced above.  I have notified the author of my post and invited a response.  Let's see what happens.

Here is the article with my comments:


While in Nepal, I heard a lot of discussion about the situation of Bhutanese refugees who had been resettled in the US [Right away, the author seeks to establish his/herself as an expert having been to Nepal and having spoken to people.  Redpines derives his/her information from having spoken to presumably Maoist-leaning people who remain in the camps (or worse, Maoists from out of the camps who just like to talk about the refugee situation) about those who opted for 3rd country resettlement.  Redpines doesn't at all acknowlege that those remaining in the camps might have an ax to grind which renders them a bit biased.  The fact of the matter is that there is a minority element among the refugees who, in seeking to promote their cause of repatriation to Bhutan, threaten those who desire to resettle to another country with violence and death. This party is prone to speak ill about 3rd country resettlement and desires to spread as much negative PR as possible about living in the United States. If Redpines wants accurate information about refugees that have settled in the US, he/she should speak directly to them]. People were outraged at the fact that the US would only accept these refugees on the condition that they repay their airfare and other costs. [Redpines is being deceptive here.  First, the issuing of travel loans is the standard procedure for refugees entering the U.S. and not a special requirement for the Bhutanese. Second, it is a loan to cover travel expenses.  What are the "other costs" Redpines is referring to?  Thirdly, the interest-free loan is provided by the International Office of Migration to make it easier for refugees to leave the camps for their new home.  The loan is issued by the International Office of Migration which pays for the immediate expenses of travel to the United States (i.e. airline tickets). The U.S. State Department is involved as a donor, furnishing the capital to make the program possible.  IOM also provides travel loans to refugees resettling in Australia.  It is considered a means of assisting with resettlement.  In the case of Canada, refugees are issued interest-bearing loans for travel and an initial medical examination.  Redpines simply doesn't know the facts.] In an economy where real unemployment is more than 20% in some places, it is not clear how this resettlement plan is different from a state of indentured servitude. It is a grotesque example of the way the US immerses the world’s people in debt and subjugation–even within its borders . [This is just untrue.  Bhutanese refugees are not being immersed in debt by the United States.  The loan they are issued (which they voluntarily sign before leaving Nepal) is interest-free and issued by the International Office of Migration, not the United States government.  The loan begins to be repaid only after about 3 months following resettlement and may be adjusted/deferred during periods of financial hardship.  The term of the loan is usually 46 months.  I have worked with many, many families and have found that it does not result in too great a financial hardship.  On the contrary, it actually serves to allow the families to begin to establish credit soon after arriving in the U.S.  Under ordinary circumstances, we find that the Bhutanese refugees do not end up drowning in debt.  The U.S. government provides (directly and indirectly through grants to resettlement agencies) thousands of dollars worth of free medical care, food, cash, rental assistance, job training and placement, English classes, education, and more.  To be sure, the current economic situation has resulted in some layoffs and difficulties.  But it is difficult to conceive of how such a situation benefits the U.S.  or is in anyway parallel to indentured servitude. How is becoming a recipient of unemployment benefits during a layoff the same thing as indentured servitude?]

There may be sinister political reasons for the US deal to accept Bhutanese refugees. This embassy cable from 2007, exposed by Wikileaks, shows the US government’s concern over Maoist organizing in the Bhutanese refugee camps, as well as the potential for communists to gain power in Bhutan itself:

“…each confirmed that the Maoists could pose a significant threat. Rutland alleged that the BCP openly threatened to use the refugees in the Nepali camps to overthrow the monarchy and the new government.”

[Let's be clear.  Redpines is suggesting that the United States stepped up to offer resettlement opportunities to 60,000 Bhutanese in order to quench the Maoist-leaning elements present there.  The US did this because they were afraid that Maoists would take over the camps and, then somehow gain power in Bhutan.  Let's forget for a moment the fact that the Bhutanese refugees have no access to Bhutan and no real prospects of repatriation in the near future -- thus rendering some kind of refugee-led Maoist takeover of that country impossible.  The question remains, why would the United States, which remained essentially uninvolved during the Maoist revolution in Nepal that eventually led to the overthrow of the monarchy there, be concerned about a Maoist takeover of a few refugee camps in an already Maoist-led nation?  This doesn't make any sense to me.  And even if the US was trying to remove the supposedly Maoist-leaning refugees from the camps, why would they want to resettle such people within the borders of the United States?  Wouldn't that simply increase any perceived threat?  And, what is Norway's motivation?  Denmark's? These and other countries are also resettling refugees from Bhutan.  Is it an international conspiracy?]

Revolution in South Asia also reported in 2008 that two Maoist groups did emerge within the refugee camps. Whether or not there is a direct connection between the resettlement scheme and the potential for strong communist organizations in Bhutan, it seems impossible to believe that the US is involved in this situation for altruistic reasons [Impossible for whom?  For a communist propagandist who is incapable of objectively considering all the facts or interpreting them in a rational way?  Perhaps.  The fact remains that the United States is the international leader in the resettlement of refugees from all over the world.  Would Redpines have us believe that in every situation the US has some sinister scheme in mind? Or is it just in this case?]. 

Maybe Nobody is Hindu

(The following post is a "blast-from-the-past" article that I'm transferring over from my old blog especially in light of some new conversation going on at the Lausanne Global Conversation as well as at Cape Town 2010.  It is intended as "food for thought" and I look forward to your discussion.)

A friend of mine recently sent me a couple articles that I thought were worth passing your way.  The first here is an article by Lisa Miller entitled "We are All Hindus Now."  It appeared in an August 2009 issue of Newsweek. Miller's basic argument is that while Americans still tend to self-identify as Christians, their worldviews are becoming much more Hindu than Biblical. Miller's position is that America is on its way to becoming Hindu in terms of the worldview shared by most of the population.

In an October article published by Break Point entitled "Are We Really Hindus?", Regis Nicoll provides a well-conceived rebuttal.  He doesn't totally dismiss Miller's contentions, but provides a balanced perspective that should give the follower of Christ pause.  In Nicoll's mind, Americans aren't really becoming more Hindu.  Rather the problem is that American Christians have traded in a belief system based on creeds for one based on personal needs.

I thought both articles were interesting.  At the end of the day, I'm not sure it matters a whole lot for my daily life as a follower of Jesus engaged full-time in God's global mission of redemption.  Lost is still lost, regardless of the label.  It is essential to understand an individual's worldview and background, sure.  But I feel that believers sometimes read these kinds of articles in a doom and gloom sort of way. Like they'd be happier if people were lost but didn't believe in reincarnation.  I don't get that.

As for the question at hand, "Is America becoming more Hindu?" I'd like to suggest a totally different option.  That is, maybe no one is really Hindu.  Now, wait, I'm actually a little serious.  The word Hindu itself has very little meaning.  It is a term that was coined, it seems, by Persians to refer to the Indus river valley and the people who lived there.  Later generations of Arabs and other foreigners to India used the appellation to refer collectively to everyone living in "Hindustan" (India) regardless of their religious beliefs. It was only in relatively recent times that Europeans started using the term as a religious label, but they did this somewhat uncritically -- lumping different religious groups together that often had little in common. 

Literally, "hindu" just means someone from India, but the Hindi / Sanskrit word for India isn't even "India".  It is Bharat.  So, if "India" is no more than what foreigners call Bharat, can we really say that anyone is from India?  Are there really any Hindus?

More seriously, "Hinduism" can claim no universal tenets, doctrines, practices, or literature that explain why Buddhists are not Hindu, BAPS devotees are, and Jains are kinda-sorta.  Just try. Just try to explain what makes a Hindu a Hindu and not a Christian, Scientologist, Taoist, or Muslim.  Try.  Really, I'm not looking to be difficult, but I'd love to get a conversation going.