The following is a monthly article written by Rev Kenneth Stewart to the Stornoway RPCS congregation…

Dear congregation

Those of us who value the integrity of our nation as a Christian nation are concerned at the vast numbers of (mainly) young men arriving in the country illegally who do not share the Christian faith or its values.

To be clear, any Christian nation should welcome asylum seekers: We should not forget that Moses was an asylum seeker when he fled Egypt for Midian and who could forget that for anywhere between a few months to a few years, Joseph and Mary, with their holy child, were asylum seekers in Egypt until it was safe to return to Israel. And, uncomfortably, neither should we forget the terrible blot upon our own national history when we did not allow Jews fleeing Germany to enter British controlled Palestine during the war or, indeed, after the war when so many of them were housed in displaced persons camps in Europe.

But it is difficult to imagine that all these men arriving in Britain are really seeking asylum. If they were genuine asylum seekers – that is, fleeing danger at home – why are they prepared to leave their wives and families in that danger and choose, for asylum, a nation very far away from these families? Usually, when male heads of households leave their families behind, that is an indication that asylum cannot be the real driver.

Of course, the real driver behind such family separation could be economic. But normally, economic migration will not involve family separation: Abraham was, effectively, an economic migrant when he fled Canaan for Egypt during famine (Gen 12:10) but he took his wife with him. Similarly, Elimelech took his wife, Naomi, and the whole family to Moab in a time of scarcity (Ruth 1:1-4) Admittedly, however, in unusual circumstances, economic emigration could result in family separation: Indeed, it was known to occur in our own islands when emigration sometimes took the form of the head of the household leaving his wife and family at home and providing for them from a distance until he would either return or take the family with him.

However, aside from the obvious and important questions to do with the provision of housing, health care, education, welfare and employment for such people, my concern is to do with the little mentioned or perceived potential threat to the Christian identity of our nation.

It is our duty, as politicians, citizens, and Christians, to ensure that this Christian identity remains and, as always, the Bible guides us as to how to protect it. And of particular interest to us is that God instructed Israel how to deal fairly with ‘sojourners’ (the sojourner was someone, from another country, who had come to Israel to live for an indefinite period of time, although they had no land, property or family in Israel)

First, God commanded Israel not to ‘mistreat a sojourner nor oppress him’ and, as an incentive, reminded them that they, themselves, ‘were sojourners in the land of Egypt’ (Exodus 22:21). This sojourn, which began with Jacob’s extended family, was to last for hundreds of years but remained a sojourn in that it was always the intention of the emigrants to return to the promised land of Canaan. Of course, the sojourn was extended due to Egypt’s change of perspective when she decided that they constituted a national threat and proceeded first towards a policy of slavery and, later, that of genocide.

Second, and more positively, as well as not mistreating or oppressing sojourners, God required Israel to, ‘love the sojourner, giving him food and clothing’ (Deuteronomy 10:18) Indeed, this text links the stranger to both the widow and the orphan as, potentially, the most vulnerable of people; ‘…the Lord your God…administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. Therefore, love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt’ (Deuteronomy 10: 17-19) Again, ‘if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God’ (Leviticus 19:33-34)

The requirement to give food and clothing may indicate that the sojourner was an asylum seeker or someone in severe hardship and is to be understood in connection with the sojourner’s lack of land or family in Israel. The reference in the text to justice leads us to:

Third, God’s requirement for equal treatment for the sojourner under the civil law (Deuteronomy 24: 14-15) When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God (Leviticus 19:33)

Fourth, God’s required all of Israel, in their communities, to participate in making these provisions. He stipulated that the sojourner could share, with the widow and the fatherless, in the left-over gleanings in the field. Concerning these, the Lord had commanded that, ‘when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corners of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather every grape of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger: I am the Lord your God’ (Leviticus 19: 9-10)

Evidently, then, the Israelite was leaving a provision behind in his harvest which could as easily be taken by a stranger as by a widow.

Finally, and similarly, the sojourner could also share in the tri-annual tithe (different from the regular tithe) raised for the Levite, the widow and the fatherless (Deuteronomy 14:28-29)

By being grouped in with the widow and the orphan, it is clear that this kind of provision is being made until the sojourner is able to provide for himself – just as the widower, for example, is not included with the widow and the orphan on the basis that he should be willing and able to provide for himself.

However, the responsibilities did not all flow in one direction.

Regarding civil and criminal law, the sojourner was bound by the civil and criminal law of Israel: ‘You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, either any of your own nation or any stranger who dwells among you…lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you. For whoever commits any of these abominations, the persons who commit them shall be cut off from among their people. (Leviticus 18:26-29)

Among ourselves, therefore, sojourners who are protected by law are, themselves, required to keep our laws and to be subject to them without prejudice. This is clearly teaching that it is unacceptable to allow the implementation of Sharia law – or, indeed, the civil and criminal laws of any other nation – in our own nation. To do so is to undermine the integrity and credibility of our status as a nation and, particularly, as a nation founded on our National Covenants and the Treaty of Union in 1707.

Regarding matters of religion, God strictly forbad the worship of false Gods and false religious worship. However, as to the true worship, God permitted the sojourner to offer sacrifices (Leviticus 17:8) and required the sojourner to observe Israel’s holy days – including the Sabbath (note, ‘the stranger – sojourner – within thy gates’ Exodus 20:10) He was not, however, allowed to participate in the Passover until he expressed his participation in the true religion and was then, accordingly, circumcised.

This is teaching that the asylum seeker or any immigrant, however long their sojourn, should not expect their religious beliefs or practices to be endorsed in any official capacity whatsoever. While people professing a false religion may be welcome in our land, under our law, and entitled, when in need, to the protection we would give to our own citizens, their false religious systems have no such entitlements and should receive no backing of any kind, whether by way of tax breaks or promotion.

Our forefathers were quite right in being critical of the public advance of false worship in our nation The breaking of the Ramadan fast in Windsor Castle, in the home of the monarch who took the Protestant Oath of Succession recently, is an alarming sign not so much of where things are going but of where already are in this nation.

Furthermore, sojourners should be required to observe any religious days lawfully appointed – including, pre-eminently, the Sabbath Day. Again, in the spirit of the above, while they would be permitted and, indeed, very welcome to join in our services, they would be required to observe the public rest of the Sabbath.

Much more could be said on these things but suffice for now to highlight that the current method of dealing with immigration, in all its forms, is a sure way of not only destroying the cohesiveness of the nation but, more importantly, its identity as a Christian nation.

Your minister