It happens every time someone suggests that the immigration debate should take into account the people and circumstances involved. Whenever one suggests that we do not have to use law as an impersonal club against people that some wish removed from our country,  he or she is called a “bleeding-heart-liberal.”    Apparently, such has become unUSAmerican. Visit the “blogosphere”  anytime that immigration issues are discussed, and you will quickly see what I mean.

Might there be a truly Christian perspective to be applied here?  Hmm.

One day as Jesus was busy teaching about the meaning of the “kingdom of God among humanity”, his attention was diverted by a commotion, growing in intensity and drawing closer.  Suddenly, he was faced with city authorities who, in association with the “good people of the city”, thrust a young woman before him.

She was taken in the act of adultery, they informed him. They wanted to know what he, a professed interpreter of the law, had to say about this disgusting wretch before him.  Now there were clear laws on the books about this crime against society.  Under strict application of the law, she would be stoned to death.

Although stoning for adultery was not normally practiced, the city leaders felt that this was a good “test case”.  In addition to humiliating the woman, and embarrassing a teacher who they did not sanction, they had another motive.  They wanted to force him to go on record as being soft on the law.

“Law is law, and we are truly a people of laws”, they no doubt declared!  “Now Mr. Teacher of the Law, what do you say?”

Never mind that he was busy teaching folks about the transcendent nature of a loving God; his class that day was over.  He said nothing. In reflective thought, he sat down in his open-air classroom, leaning over, marking the sandy ground with his fingers.

The silence was deafening and the tension palpable.  Then the officials, frustrated with his passive behavior, insisted that he make a verbal response.

“Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. Our laws command us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”

What was this Jewish teacher to say?  They were technically correct.  There was such a law on the books.

Yet this law in and of itself could not speak to the mistreatment of women, as characterized by their actions.  It could not address the effort to entrap this woman, who was conveniently handed over in spite of the curious absence of the man involved. This law, in and of itself, could not speak to the corrupt and insensitive hearts of the religious leaders.  Nor could it expose their hidden agendas. So he wrote and thought.  Thought and wrote on the sand.

Finally he had an answer.  “Very well then, stone her, you who are oh so righteous.  In fact let the most righteous among you cast the first stone.  That’s right, you who have no sin, go ahead.  Cast the first stone at this trembling creature standing before me.”

Then refusing to look at them, he returned to his curious position on the ground, continuing to write in the sand.

I suppose she closed her eyes, awaiting the first blow.  It never came.  The outdoor classroom was slowly evacuated– in the order of age, the oldest followed by the younger.

Once they left, he stood and made eye-contact with her.

“Where are the accusers?  Who is here to condemn you? ”

“No one”, she replied.

“Then neither do I.  Now go make a fresh start!”

Based on the gospel of John, chapter 8:1-11  Read it for yourself.

God did not make immigration laws.  Those are a product of man. We are responsible for the quality of their substance and their application.  Our motives can be humanitarian or racist.

I am nearly 62 years old.  I remember the other laws that extended the enslavement of a people well beyond the Emancipation Proclamation.  I remember being taught by my white segregationist culture that some folks just were not as important as others. That they could be cast off at any provocation.

I remember the laws that made it illegal for a friend of mine to eat with me in a restaurant because his skin-tone was not acceptable.

I remember as a boy  seeing dark-skinned men, women and children, loaded up on police wagons and taken to jail, because they were not the right color, because they spoke differently, because their culture and experience were not the same as their “white superiors.” And because “they” were asking to be treated as “our” equal.

I remember the laws that allowed for “keeping people in their place” and away from our neighborhoods, and our jobs.

I remember our laws that made it impossible for “them” to ever vote, because if the white man ever lost his political advantage who knew what terrible thing might happen?

And that’s only the part of our past, as a nation of laws, that I can remember.

I know what racism sounds like, and when we are attempting to use law to summarily dispose of a people that we care nothing about.  As a nation of laws, we’d do well to not  be overly impressed with ourselves, or our collective righteous behavior.