Skip to main content

Repenting of the motivation to immigrate

This continues my series on immigrant ministry.

* * * * *

Immigrants tend to work hard and be successful. This is for at least three reasons.
  1. In most parts of the world, mere survival requires hard work. So ‘normal’ work for immigrants is, by Australian standards, over-the-top workaholism.
  2. The purpose of immigrating is to seek a better life, so immigrants work hard to achieve this.
  3. Australian government policy has for some time favoured skilled migrants, who are more likely to have a strong work ethic.
As a result, immigrants tend to be successful. They get high marks at school; they are appreciated at work; their business prospers. They become wealthy and comfortable, their children become doctors and lawyers, and they bask in the glory of the immigrant dream.

The danger of this is that immigrants might develop a value system opposed to both the gospel of grace, and the call to sacrificial discipleship. They truly are honest, hard-working people – surely that gets them credit with God? And why should they – or even worse, their children! – give up all these honestly acquired trappings of success, to serve God sacrificially by, say, going into paid ministry?

In this case, the gospel calls people to repent of one of their motivations for immigrating in the first place: enjoying a better life.

What do you think, everyone...?

Comments

John McClean said…
Repenting of "wanting a better life" seems a bit undifferentiated. Is it wrong to want financial security, satisfying work, health that comes with a better income, pleasure of travel, influence in society …? No. In fact as God's image bearers we are made for all of that (and more). The problems are pursuing those things in a wrong way, allowing certain aspects of a better life to dominate your aspirations and, most subtle, allowing that life to become an idol and to put your hope in this life and yourself and your family to meet your aspirations.

Of that many Australians need to repent. Perhaps it will be the common idol of migrant families, but like most idols it power lies in its goodness.

The question that I don't think middle class Christians have a good answer to is what does faithful discipleship look like in the midst of 'a better life'. I'm sure migrants need that as much as any of us.
Kamal Weerakoon said…
John - I agree absolutely with your theological point, but I'm more suspicious of the thought-world of "wanting a better life" than you are. I think it too easily slips into an affirmation of greed and materialism, even if we don’t intend it to. That's why I don't differentiate.

While I'm all for the goodness of this creation, I take it that our general attitude should not be that of constantly wanting more, but being content with, and praising God for, what we already have (Php 1:12-18; 4:11-13; 1 Tim 6:6-10, 17-19). If anything, we should seek to be sacrificially generous, like Christ, who impoverished and emptied himself (2 Cor 8:1-9; Php 2:5-11).

In doing, I hope we:
(1) in a small way, mirror God’s grace in our own generosity;
(2) enact what Oliver O’Donovan calls “communication”: we hold things not for ourselves, but for the other.

I’d put two caveats on this:
(1) We must avoid an incipient asceticism. Like I said, I’m all for the goodness of creation.
(2) When being sacrificially generous, we mustn’t neglect people we’re in close relationship with, and whom we have responsibility for. It would be crazy for parents to take bread from their children’s mouths and give it to some stranger. Or for children to neglect ageing parents and give their money to charity, or even ministry and mission work. 1 Timothy 5:8: "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." And Jesus' "corban" comment in Mark 7:9-13.

What do you think? Am I being too cynical...? Maybe it's a reaction against my accounting background...

Popular posts from this blog

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another.  Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24 ). Or something else.  The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrectio...

A better understanding of nonbelief

The Nones Project is an ongoing study into the belief systems of people who call themselves non-religious. A few weeks ago one of the project leaders,  Ryan Burge  of Washington University,  posted some really interesting preliminary results  on his Substack.  1. We've probably heard of people who are spiritual but not religious (SBNRs). SBNRs were "the largest group of nones" in the sample. They believe in the supernatural realm but not necessarily in "a God." They are "deeply skeptical of religion but highly interested in spirituality," therefore individualistic and anti-institutional.  2. But this study differentiated SBNRs from people they called Nones In Name Only, NiNos. They different to SBNRs by being religious about their spiritual. They believe not just in the supernatural but in "God." And they tend to engage in traditional communal religious practices while SBNRs practice individualised eclectic bespoke spiritual practices. The s...

Wax and Wright on the definition of "mission"

Trevin Wax has written a clear, simple, and charitable introduction to a debate about the nature and boundaries of the kinds of Christian activities that validly should be called "mission." In brief:  Should we use a broad definition, where "mission" encompasses all the various purposes which God calls Christians and the church in general to perform, e.g. being ethical at work; general acts of care and charity; standing against systematic oppression and working towards justice instead? If so, "evangelism" is only one part of the church's mission - a central, necessary, and irreplaceable part, but only one part nonetheless. The latter kinds of activities don't save anyone for eternity, but they do genuine good in this world which please God. And that kind of good makes a real difference in many parts of the world which have not benefited from the kind of Christian moral transformation which the West benefited from - the kind of moral transformation...