I think it should first be distinguished between how we, as Christians, should act toward the illegals, and how our government should act. It is possible to argue two different ways. The government, being the law-enforcer, shouldn’t necessarily show the same mercy and love that we as Christians should show them.
But if we were to just focus in on how we Christians should behave, doesn’t the parallel between the illegals of today and Onesimus kind of break down in the aspect of the illegals of today not necessarily being Christian?
Paul’s entire push for Philemon to accept Onesimus is based upon the common bond that they share, they both are children of God. Therefore, Philemon’s response toward Onesimus should be one of a brother toward another, rather than a slave owner toward a slave.
But in the case of how I should treat an illegal, it cannot really be argued that I should treat them as brothers. They are not all brothers. So the Philemon/Onesimus relationship would be somewhat inapplicable.
This is not to say that it cannot be argued that I should treat them with kindness and love. I am not saying that. We, as Christians should treat all of God’s creatues as we would want ourselves to be treated.
I am merely arguing that we cannot use a dictate for brother/brother treatment and attempt to apply it to brother/non-brother relationships.

The Protestant Pub » Blog Archive » King’s McKnight

[...] Scot McKnight attempts to draw a parallel between Philemon’s action toward Onesimus, and the American Christian’s actions toward the illegal immigrants (Immigration: What about Onesimus?) [...]

Sofyst,
Your comments seem to uphold the “who’s in, who’s out” mentality. How did Onesimus become “a brother”? What does that imply about how Paul viewed the “illegal”? You even observed, “We, as Christians should treat all of God’s creatues as we would want ourselves to be treated.” What if we treated illegals as brothers and sisters and found to our amazement that is what they actually become? Otherwise what does it mean to extend “grace” to others?

I’m not saying we can’t or shouldn’t treat the illegals as brothers, or extend grace to them. I am saying that you can’t argue that we should based upon Paul’s admonition to Philemon.
Yes, treat them with hospitality, treat them with kindness, treat them as you would want to be treated. But don’t argue that you do because Paul told Philemon to. That is a bad argument.

Sofyst,
You wrote and emphasize, “I am merely arguing that we cannot use a dictate for brother/brother treatment and attempt to apply it to brother/non-brother relationships.”
Let’s introduce Felix another non-run-away slave in Philemon’s household who is not a “brother.” Felix sees the incredible change in both Philemon and Onesimus and longs to be treated that way as well. Philemon says, “Sorry, Felix, Paul dictated this kind of behavior only for Onesimus and me. You’re not a brother; you’re a non-brother. Too bad.”
Really?

The state and the believer do have separate mandates from God. However, in our(US) society, believers are part of the state, so we have the right to influence the way the state acts.
1. As for the undocumented aliens already in the United States, I would set some path of citizenship, for those who have been in the US for some time.
2. As for those who crossed illegally and are in some kind of real distress – dehydration in the desert, etc, we must provide some level of medical assistance. That does not mean we necessarily allow them to stay.
3. Build a fence. A nation has every right to protect its borders. Frankly I’m not all that concerned with the guy from Mexico coming to try to find work. I am concerned with an open border, that drug dealers have it way too easy to bring their poison into the US. This certainly won’t stop it, but may make it harder and might reduce the flow somewhat. I am also concerned that eventually some terrorist organization will use our rather open border to bring terrorists into the US. This is especially a concern since Mexico is the transit point for many from central and south america. I don’t want some idiot like Hugo Chavez of Venezuala forming an alliance with Iran or something and becoming a launching point for terrorists up through Mexico. I’m not saying this will happen. It just seems reasonable to put some impediments in place.

Sorry, left out the key part of this.
I believe that it is critical for believers to extend grace and love to the stranger. That is our mandate. Again, it is different than the state’s mandate.
Which means that those that the state determines should be allowed to stay, (with our input as citizens of course), we need to make sure that they are treated fairly and humanely and not as some permenant underclass.

If that is Philemon’s response to Felix, then Philemon is disobeying Jesus’s command to treat others as you would want to be treated. But He would not be disobeying Paul’s command. Paul does not command Philemon to treat all his slaves as brothers, but only the slave that is a brother as a brother.
This is not then license for Philemon to treat the others badly. To posit that that is what I am arguing is a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what I am saying.
If Felix comes before Philemon and wants to be treated as a brother. Philemon’s response should be, ‘I know that Paul tells me to treat Onesimus as a brother because Onesimus is a brother. And I know that you, Felix, are not a brother. But who the hell cares if you are a brother or not. I am going to obey Jesus when Jesus says to treat you as I would want to be treated. I then am going to treat you as a brother.’
I am not disagreeing with McKnight’s insistance on treating these illegals compassionately. I am disagreeing on his reasoning for doing so. If he would have just said, ‘lets treat them compassionately’. I would have been in full agreement.
Let me offer a parallel. If I were to tell you to give to the poor, then I would be telling you to do somethin good.
But if I were to tell you to give to the poor so that you would be honored among men. Then I would be telling you to do it for the wrong reasons. While I may be telling you to do something good, I am giving you the wrong reason for doing so.
The same is true here. While McKnight is indeed arguing for something good, he is doing so for the wrong reasons.
I really cannot see why you can’t understand that.

Sofyst,
I don’t like to respond to anonymous bloggers, since it is probably accurate to say that your name is not “sofyst.” And it is really hard to defend a point that I have not made that you accuse me of in this last comment.
Now tell me how I’m arguing for something good but doing so on the wrong grounds. I haven’t so far as I can see even made an argument in this post: I’ve sketched Paul’s letter and asked some questions.

SmartChristian.com » Blog Archive »

[...] [...]

My name is Adam King. I apologize. I normally just type sofyst everywhere.
Were you not attempting to draw applicability from Paul’s admonition to Philemon? This is how I read your post.
We have the scenario of Paul commanding Philemon to take back Onesimus regardless of Onesimus’ crime. To treat Onesimus with kindness even though the law demanded his death.
I had assumed that given your questions of ‘How they transcended law of the land to do what was right before God?’ that you believed that the scenario of Onesimus/Philemon was similar and therefore applicable to our current day scenario.
Have I misunderstood your post? If so, I apologize.

Adam,
I do think it is worth thinking about, so I asked the questions, hoping that we’d think about this together today.
Paul seems to have transcended the law; don’t you think? As a Roman citizen he chooses not to turn Onesimus in to the authorities; he may have done so because he was a brother though we don’t know that. And he is clearly asking Philemon to do even more than that. Is he asking him to set him free, too?

I understand what you’re saying. I am simply attempting to focus upon Paul’s intent behind his ‘transcending the law’. He does so not because it is the right thing to do only, but because it is the right thing to do becuase Onesimus is a brother.
I would ask the question of whether Paul would advice the same if Onesimus was only a pagan? Or would he quote Jesus’ render to Caesar what is Caesar’s?
Is Pauls motivation for kindness toward Onesimus because Onesimus is a fellow human being? or because Onesimus is the child of a King?

Are we Christians who happen to be American or Americans who happen to be Christian? Shouldn’t we think outside of country and toward New Creation?

I think so…

I don’t know if this will throw light on the matter or not, but there is a statement somewhere in the Torah — I forget which reference — that Israelites are not to force run-away slaves that they happen to meet to return to their master. At least Jews would have abided by this commandment in regard to slaves according to Jewish law. I’m sure they would have applied it to slaves under Roman Law as well. I don’t know what the Roman law would have said about it.

Isn’t it interesting that Paul did not appeal to the Torah in that case then…that he rather appealed to the bond of brotherhood for reason why Philemon should accept Onesimus?

In terms of national policy this example does not work. Clearly, matters of national law and individual “law”, i.e. “acceptance” if you want, are dynamically different. One cannot expect to apply rules that are bound to personal relationships to political geographic relationships to achieve socioeconomic stability. Nation states are bound only by principle of order and chaos. For example, if we spend all day to build a castle in the sand, and waves come and wash it away. Does that make the destructive force of water evil? Sorry, water does what it does.

“Now what does this say about how Christians dealt with the State?”
I doubt that Philemon would have been REQUIRED under Roman law to turn Onesimus in to be punished. But he would have been within his rights to do so, as the injured party. It’s like a civil suit instead of a criminal one. The injured party is an individual, not the state.
So it seems that the Paul/Onesimus/Philemon scenario might lead us to give up our rights for the sake of loving & helping our brother (or sister). I’m just not sure I see a connection between that and the current immigration debate… except perhaps for those who have gone through the arduous struggle to immigrate here legally. It seems that they are the ones who would be most directly “wronged” if those who have entered illegally are given some form of amnesty.
(Forgive me if this has all been said here already. I’ve not read the discussion on previous blog posts.)

The Protestant Pub » Blog Archive » test 3

[...] Scot McKnight attempts to draw a parallel between Philemon’s action toward Onesimus, and the American Christian’s actions toward the illegal immigrants (Immigration: What about Onesimus?) [...]

Harpo, I think that Mr. McKnight would acknowledge the difference in national policy and personal policy. I do not think he posted these questions asking what America should do, but rather what we Americans should do.
Mr. McKnight, I offer an apology (upon my real blog).
http://protestantpub.com/2006/04/15/an-apology/

Just a thought provoking note from
Leviticus 19:33-34…Seems as if a principle is to be had in viewing this…: v33 ‘And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.
Lev 19:34 [But] the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I [am] the LORD your God.