Are Woke Immigration Policies Consistent with a Biblical World View?

A friend of mine, who is a Christian musician who was nationally prominent in the 1970's, wrote this on his Facebook page after then President Donald Trump issued his executive order on immigration early in 2017;

Compassion is a Christian value and I believe an American one as well. ... , and I'd like to think basic human decency, demands that I not turn a blind eye to the suffering masses who are fleeing war ravaged regions of the world.  How exactly to meet their needs will be debated, but surely Christian folks can agree that Christ taught us to serve the least of these. Compassion shouldn't be a partisan issue.  The book of Matthew speaks to me today… "For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

He and many Christians I know and many evangelical leaders argue that a Christian world view demands that we let people into our country because of  their need to have a better life. It is our national responsibility to provide care, services and protection to those cannot get them or are denied them in their home country. Many in the modern social justice wing of Christianity assert that wealthy, secure countries must allow the poor and oppressed of other nations access to their wealth and security because Jesus called to provide for "least of these(Matt 25: 31 - 36). Sometimes the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10: 25- 37) is used to assert that those in positions of power must provide for the hurting if we are love our neighbor as Jesus taught. Many pastors and teachers today asserts that our national affluence belies any responsibility to close our borders to the disenfranchised. These teaching are completely false doctrines. They have no bearing on what the Bible teaches about the advance of God's kingdom. This is the second in my series on social justice Christianity's incompatibility with the gospel. In which we will examine what the Biblical text says about national sovereignty and borders.  

First, let's look at what the Bible says about immigration and immigrants. We are to care for, love, treat fairly and advocate for justice for immigrants who are among us or the oppressed wherever they are? The term "immigrant" is no where used in scripture, however, there are many references to welcoming, and caring for foreigners, sojourners or aliens (the biblically equivalent terms) who are living among us (Gen 23:4; Deuteronomy 10:9, 27:19; Leviticus 19:34; 1 Chroicles 16:19-22; Job 29: 15-17: Psalm 146:9; Jeremiah 7:5-7: Ezekiel 47:22; Zeh 7: 9-10; Romans 12:13; Col 3:11; Hebrews 13:1-3 et.al) Immigrants who are living in our land are to be treated with respect, compassion, fairness and justice,. We are called to welcome, winsomely ,The Muslim family living in our neighborhood, or attending our child's school, caring  for them and respecting  in the same way the Good Samaritan took care of his neighbor. 

The Parable of the Good Samaritan is often taught as Jesus view on ethnic diversity, some say the point is we are to treat all ethnic groups the same. Yet, as is true, with all Parables Jesus taught it is to be understood illustratively of his  teaching point in a particular context:

[25] And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” [26] He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” [27] And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” [28] And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live."[29] But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:25–29ESV)

An expert in the Jewish law asks Jesus how to "inherit" eternal life. The lawyer was "desiring to justify himself." Many of the religious establishment of the time believed that justification, and salvation came to the one who obeyed the law and that since the law was given to the Jew, they alone had access to the covenant.   So Jesus tells a parable to illustrate how one who professes saving faith loves both God and people who are different then he:  An unidentified man, whom we presume to be a Gentile,  was beaten and left for dead by the side of the road.  Both a Priest and a Levite were repulsed by his ethnicity, so refused to  help. Then a Samaritan, a non-Jew, an outcast to the Jews, came and saved the wounded man. (All of this comes after Jesus has commissioned 72 disciples to preach the gospel to Gentiles.) The Priests' and the Levites are those responsible for carrying out the law for maintaining the purity of the Jewish faith. The point of this parable is that the scope of God's compassion and the gospel goes will beyond the law. Broken people are not helped by religiosity; they are helped when other broken people who have experienced God's love, reach out with love to them. One who is justified who has eternal life, will be transformed to such and extend that they will love even those who are most undeserving. The passage is not about ethnicity, but about the scope of the gospel going beyond religious identity. This passage has no direct link to immigration; whereas Matthew 25 is a little harder to understand.

One of the most common passages that is used to defend opening the borders to anyone who may need to escape their country is Matthew 25: 31-36.  I have addressed Matthew 25:31-36 in detail in other places. In this post I will simply address the many problems one encounters when she interprets it as my friend did above, "that the gospel mandates that we allow the hurting masses into our country. " As with any of Jesus' stories or parables it is illustrative of the teaching point of the context. In the case of Matthew 25 the context is the persecution and trials that will come on believers at the time immediately preceding Christ's Second coming. Jesus divides those whom he redeems one group to heaven and condemns the other to hell. In this parable salvation comes solely to those who do the right thing towards "the least of these my brothers."  The problem we have with using this passage as a command to care for the hurting masses is that, if that, is correct, the correct interpretation. Then Jesus is here teaching that salvation is based on what we do rather than our profession of faith. If we adopt that understanding of Matthew 25, then we recant the entire meaning of the Reformation. So how can we understand this passage consistently with gospel teaching?

First it is important to understand the both groups, the righteous and the unrighteous are both confused by his answer. Neither group expect their salvation to base on what they do.  The key to understanding the passage is Jesus answer to those who question his action. Jesus says to those whom he turned away that despite their confession of him as their Lord their neglect of  "the least of these my brother" discredited it They are not, rejected because of their failure to act, but because their confession that he was their Lord was proved counterfeit by the way they responded to "the least of these, my brother." 

So that brings us to the next question? Are we saved by association. Is salvation based on a right relationship with "the least of these my brothers". Who are the "least of these, my brothers?" In every case in the book of Matthew where Jesus speaks of "his brothers," he refers to his followers rather than his siblings. "The least of these" is used throughout the gospel as a reference to those have come to Christ by faith in Christ alone. In the immediate context Jesus reference is to the persecuted faithful at the end of times. That those who name Christ as their Lord and are duplicitous in the persecution of the saints at the end times belies their claim to his lordship. The broader point is that our confessions are authenticated by how we live especially in regard to our fellow believers. The bible has much to say about helping the poor, and imprisoned and refugees, but that is not main sense of this passage. It is not a command to open our borders to masses of hurting people. Rather it is a warning that our  profession is more important than our confession, That the way we respond to the downtrodden, especially the hurting believer validates our confession. It is warning to those who profess Christ at the end-times, but are complicit with the Anti-Christ. A profession of Lordship, is insufficient for salvations, unless our salvation drives us to help the hurting, our confession is inauthentic if not accompanied by works (Eph 2: 8-10). We are not saved by works, but salvation works in a way that drive us to love and help others. Neither of the two common passages used by Christians to defend allowing masses of immigrants into our country or to sanctuary those who are here illegally have any application to immigration policy. 

We have already established that their is no directly translatable word for immigration in the Bible. The scripture usually refers to those who are expatriating from one culture into Israel as "aliens, foreigners or sojourners." When we trace the word alien we discover that foreigners had lived among the Jewish nation at least from the time of the Exodus (Exodus 12:38; Numbers 11:4; Jos 8:35); however, they were denied full citizenship or covenantal status unless they converted and fully assimilated into the culture. Immigrants were required to obey the Law of Israel and adopt Jewish culture. (Leviticus 17:10 & 15; 18:26; 20:2; 24:16). Jews themselves were expected to assimilate into non-Jewish cultures whenever they became expatriated, while maintaining the distinctive of the Jewish faith (Jeremiah 29:1- 9; Daniel 1: 1-6). The concept of a pluralistic society where immigrants maintain their cultural identity, where the host country's beliefs, values and resources are overwhelmed  is antithetical to  how scripture views immigration.  Although aliens living in Israel were to treated with respect immigration was  restricted. 

Immigrants could only participate in the sacrifices if they became circumcised (Ex 12:48) However, certain ethnic groups were to remain separated from Israel (Ex 34:11- 16). They were not allowed to enter into the country. They were permanently banned from immigration. The book of Obadiah is a pronouncement of judgment on the Edomites, who share much in common culturally and historically with Israel. Immigration is clearly rejected when it threatens to transforms the culture. Households were separated to protect cultural identity and national sovereignty. In one case Israel is commanded to annihilate a country (Deuteronomy 14:21). The High Priest Ezra ordered the separation of couples who were married cross culturally, and repatriated  the non-Jewish spouse and their children (Ezra Chapter 10: 9-11) to their country of origin. While everyone living among the Jews was to be treated fairly and compassionately. It is clear that Jewish Laws and government did not view immigration as the means of providing livelihood and security for the oppressed masses. It was used for the purpose of preserving both sovereignty and security even if doing so required the separation of families. In fact, the book of Nehemiah is about the building of a wall to keep people out of Jerusalem. 

So are immigration policy to mirror those? Are we to prohibit cross cultural marriage? Of course not. We are not a theocracy I am merely responding to woke Biblical  responses that God would not deny "the suffering masses who are fleeing war ravaged regions of the world" the wealth and opportunity in a nation he favors. Christ compassion makes no  demands that immigration be free and easy, if not borders open altogether. Nor are we to intentionally use immigration either to transform our culture or to preserve the cultural distinction of others.  Equally invalid is the claim that God would "never approve" the separation of families for someone who broke immigration laws. While taking care of the needs  of the poor among us or abroad is  all ways an obligation for the believing person, the scripture place a high regard on preserving culture, and national identity, in order, to preserve a culture so the message of salvation could be proclaimed.  

The responsibility of the individual to his neighbor is different from the responsibilities of governments to maintain order in society. The Old Testament civil law is no longer obligatory for  New Testament church. Yet many of the principles of the Old covenants are illustrative of the social relationships and obligations governments have to foreign peoples. Our citizenship is in heaven; our responsibility is to care for all people no matter what race, yet doing never requires the abolition of borders and the destruction of cultures. 

The following principles give us insight to what a Biblical view of immigration might be:

First, God establishes every nation so that through his dealing in their culture and history  the gospel might be advanced.

[26] And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, [27] that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, (Acts 17:26-27 ESV).

 The preservation of national and cultural boundaries is consistent with the work of God.

Second, God establishes governments to bring about his purposes so that people might live in peace and harmony with each other (Romans 13) and with other nations. Governments can make and enforce laws to bring order and security, even laws that regulate entry and exit from a country.  While we are not under the law in the same way Israel was, the principles of the Biblical civil law can give us an example of what a just government looks like. While we are not obligated to the Law it is relevant to us. Jesus said, he came to fulfill the Law not abolish it; in other words.  Paul speaking of the Old Testament said, "it was written for our instruction." We can be guided by the principles and practices in the law. Thus as God lead the leaders of Israel to preserve their national order and identity through the regulation of immigration, regulating our borders and controlling the flow of immigrants to our country is responsible and just governance. 

Third, there are some areas of responsibility that God grant individuals and some to government (Matthew 22:15-22) and a Christian who is faithfully following Christ will be a good citizen. While we may legitimately differ on what we think our national immigration policies should be I think the following scriptural boundaries make a fair and felicitous national immigration policy:

• A good just government establishes and protects cultural and geographical boundaries for the purpose of maintaining civil order and a healthy economy.
• God's works differently with nations than with individuals, because his work with individuals is redemptive; his work with governments is social. Jesus states the same principle when asked about taxation, "He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”  
• Honoring people's human dignity does not mean everyone is entitled to the same economics goods social services, nor the same citizenship rights. Obviously the scripture teaches that prisoners and criminals should be treated with dignity, but it gives governments rights to punish them and deny them certain privilege and rights and to separate from their society and family's to enforce the law. 
• Family separations are sometimes necessary for the enforcement of laws. While separation of family's at the border should be avoided at all cost. Massive caravans flooding the borders sometimes make it necessary.
• Fourth, the church needs to be at the forefront of carrying for these immigrants regardless of why they are here. What can churches do to keep unaccompanied minors a the border from being trafficked? Christians are at the forefront of ministering to refugees in crisis around the world. How are we mobilizing those resources at our own border. 

A Biblical immigration policy therefore, protects our God ordained sovereignty and defines as a matter of law who can enter the country and under what grounds they can stay and may treat some groups different depending on whether they are our enemies or friends.

I believe Christians individuals and churches should help the needy without asking for identification or citizenship papers. Every time I see the pictures of  families separated at the border I ask, where is the church providing the food, shelter clothing reunification or sometimes repatriation for these people. In view of what Jesus said about the least of these, what are we doing to feed, and clothe them. If we carpool neighborhood kids to their school. We should offer rides to foreigners in our own neighborhoods. We can teach immigrants or language and provide immigrants in our town human needs and assist their assimilation into our culture. These actions will give credibility to the gospel we will most certainly offer them.  However, providing sanctuary and opportunity to violate laws is disobedience. If you know of a material or spiritual need of your neighbor you are to meet it, regardless of ethnicity or legal status. When Christians or churches provide food shelter or help to someone it is without regard to ethnicity or nationality (Luke 10:25 -37). We simply do not ask? It is not our concern. We need not verify citizenship before providing help. We help them because they are human beings created in the image of God, not because they are immigrants, nor do we protect them and hide them from those legally enforcing the law. As Christians we help them assimilated into society and become law abiding residents. 

While we may differ on what is appropriate to help immigrants, or which government policy is best solution,  the modern social justice view that we must allow masses of people into our country to overwhelm is infrastructures and economy lacks any Biblical or Theological justification. We are required to lift the oppressed out of oppression to care for those in need anywhere.  A healthy church will recognize the tension that sometimes exist when we are trying to live out the gospel in a broken world. We will seek to love, care and share the gospel with all nations and peoples, but the border  is to be managed by a just government who responsibility is to protect our sovereignty, security and safety. 

So while those us who claim that America first policies that build walls and restrict immigration are xenophobic, one can make a Biblical case for them. On the other hand those who would argue that compassion and the mission of the church require open arms and free movement across borders clearly belie a Christian world view.  While on the other hand some of us who are concerned about our national sovereignty and security who "turn a blind eye" to the human trafficking, oppression, and destitute condition of the migrants among us or on our border are dishonoring the Lord, his gospel and defaming our own profession of faith.

A Christian world view envisions the enforcement of secure sovereign national borders? A nation built on Biblical principles will secure it's borders. We can differ on how strictly immigration policy is to be enforced, and what role immigrants are going to be allowed to play in society? "BUILD THAT WALL" is not a biblical aphorism, but neither is it a xenophobic or hardhearted. This is an area where we as believers can and should have robust debate, not every situation is the same. But when we resort to degrading those who hold to one side or the other we have lost focus on the mission of the gospel. To love  we be proactive in helping the hoards of people coming to the border. Whether they are let across or returned is an issue for Caesar, caring for them and providing for them is a gospel mandate.