Pro-amnesty advocates love quoting the Bible in their
defense: “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and
you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in.”
(Matthew 25:35).
Jesus’ statement is directed toward individuals who welcomed
strangers into their own homes
voluntarily.
Any form of amnesty imposed by our government is not voluntary.
My consternation with these Biblical arguments has grown
since
reading this article in the Christian
Post, when evangelical leaders, many of whom I respect, pressured
Congress to pass some kind of DREAM Act. Pastor Samuel Rodriguez of Sacramento,
CA stated in a January press conference:
"The wall is a physical object
created by man. 800,000 human beings created in the image of God by God.” Walls
are Biblical, affirmed by God in Scripture. In fact, God commands the
construction of walls around Jerusalem both the Old (Nehemiah 1:1-7:3) and the
New (Isaiah 54: 12; Ezekiel 42:20).
In another letter to
Congress, Evangelical leaders wrote: "Roughly 700,000 young people are
poised to lose their right to work lawfully in the U.S., not to mention their
dreams of a future in this country—the country they were brought to as
children, without choice.” First of all, this country is not responsible for
their parents’ crimes, which has harmed their children. Children should not be
punished for the sins of their parents (cf. Jeremiah 31:29), but natural
consequences remain. A mother breaks into my home, steals my car, and her
children use the ill-gotten gains for good. I am still entitled to restoration
of my property (Exodus 22). Illegal aliens are stealing this country’s space,
resources, and wealth.
In response to these pro-enforcement arguments, preachers
cite The New Covenant (Hebrews 8:10-012), that we are no longer under law, but
under grace. However, grace is not arbitrary. Jesus died on a Cross for the
sins of the world, the just for the unjust (1 John 2:2; 1 Peter 3:18). A
payment must be rendered. Why should law-abiding citizens pay for lawbreakers?
If Christian leaders want to preach accurately on immigration,
they should first acknowledge a few things:
1.
Nations are God’s idea, not merely man’s
construction, and rewarding illegal immigration harms nations. Genesis 11
reports God created multiple languages—and nations—to stop mankind from building
the Tower of Babel. The dissolution of border security and national sovereignty
are unholy gestures. To contend for amnesty based on a misplaced understanding
of scripture is not tenable. There will come a time when every knee will bow,
and every tongue confess Christ Jesus as Lord, but for now nation-states remain
as part of God’s plan. Rampant amnesties only erode national boundaries.
2.
Citizenship is defended in the Bible. Strangers
were respected (Leviticus 19:34, Deuteronomy 10: 19), buT expected to adopt Israel’s
all the customs (Numbers 15: 14-29). Paul the Apostle asserted his Roman citizenship
to redress the abusive treatment of Roman soldiers (Acts 22:22-23:11). He also
addressed his fellow Christians as “citizens of heaven” (Philippians 3:20, Colossians
3:5-16). Membership in a defined, national compact matters and should not be
pushed aside. Many illegals in this country, especially DREAMers, are hellbent
on retaining and imposing a neo-pagan culture in this country, estranged and
unsubmissive to our country’s constitutional rule and civic culture.
3.
Christians are called to honor their rulers (and
rules!) among the nations (1 Timothy 2:1-2; 1 Peter 2:17). To dismiss the
authority of temporal rulers, especially on matters of immigration, is unholy
and unwise.
Instead of championing amnesty, Christian leaders should
reference the ideal immigrant: Ruth the Moabite. She did not break into her
adoptive nation. She had a sponsor. There were other factors which Ruth obeyed,
too (Ruth 1:16-17):
a.
“For whither thou goest, I will go”: She would attend
to Naomi, recognizing her place in her new country as based solely on the
goodness of her mother-in-law. She did not enter into Israel as a political
radical or busy-body.
b.
“Where thou lodgest, I will lodge”: She would
live with Naomi, not depending on someone else, particularly the state or
taxpayers, to provide her housing. Her needs would come from her sponsor, not
by force from other inhabitants in Israel.
c.
“Your people will be my people”: This statement
sums up assimilation perfectly. She pledged to become an Israelite. How often
do our leaders today talk about the importance of immigrants adopting American
customs, rather than demanding that we accommodate their foreign ways?
d.
“Thy God [will be] my God.”: while our free society
does not demand religious adherence to one creed, we should expect immigrants
to embrace our cultural and moral values. For this reason, I am adamant against
accepting adherents of Sharia Law, for example, or other religious sects which
endangers life and property.
e.
“Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I
be buried”: Ruth pledged a complete break with her pagan country and culture.
She refused to abandon her new country or identity.
 |
| Ruth and Naomi |
At the very least, liberal politicians and pastors should
stop shaming the public by misusing Scripture. Christians should have a ready
defense when amnesty advocates distort Scripture for selfish political ends.
Every country has a right to strong borders, safe citizens, and a secured
sovereignty. These are not un-Christian expectations in the slightest.
Standing Together,
