Board index ‹ Government and Politics

[Recent Decent]

How can you reconcile a Christian being against immigration for those seeking refuge?

I had a philosophical debate (turned into a heated argument)
I asked a very catholic and very conservative family member how they can reconcile the greatest commandment (Mt. 22.35)and being against immigrants seeking refuge or asylum.

They said they could because of law and order and a nation should have the ability to allow people in as they see fit.

How can a Christian not be all in favor of allowing immigrants in while reconciling loving their neighbor?

[jimwalton]

The question is not being against immigration or rejecting those seeking refuge, but whether or not our borders should be controlled, and, if so, what are the conditions and rules going to be? Not everyone who claims to be seeking refuge really is. Some are seeking a better life. And there's nothing wrong with that either, except that every country has a right (and probably a responsibility) to control their borders. The issue isn't "Should we keep everybody out or should we let everyone in?" No one who is against immigration is against loving their neighbor. Rather, they are against letting everyone in who wants to come in. Every country in the world controls their borders.

The injunction to love our neighbor is a personal ethic, not a national one. We love our neighbors, but that doesn't mean I want terrorists, drug lords, criminals, and murderers just allowed to come in at will. We love our neighbors, but if we don't control our borders we'll have other growing social problems that are difficult to deal with. Everything, and every policy, has its pros and cons, its benefits and examples that seem tragic. There's no getting around that. "Love your neighbor" doesn't mean "let anybody into the country who wants to come in." It's unbalanced to reduce the immigration debate to "But don't you love your neighbor?"

[Recent Decent]

For starters, it is my opinion that you clearly in your last paragraph are misappropriating: "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" by blanketing "The injunction to love our neighbor" is a personal ethic by outsourcing the entire job of handling immigration to the secular government that you wash your hands of any direct personal association with providing comfort to those in need. Whereas in my opinion, to fulfill your obligation to the Beatitudes (Matt. 25:35) you should be petitioning the government to comply with "I was a stranger and you invited me in" by advocating more lenient immigration laws, specifically towards those seeking asylum.

Now, rendering unto Caesar is fine and dandy if you hold no exceptions. I emphasize that juxtaposed to the single-issue abortion voters, of which my family is a part of. They vote for people SOLELY based on their single abortion position -- I am a Catholic and I am against abortion - but I recognize and believe that using the single issue of a secular government allowing abortion when making a decision on voting but NOT taking into consideration petitioning the government to comply with the Beatitudes.

> 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

...is quite hypocritical. It's not a pick-and-choose what you will judge how you vote for a secular government. It's all or nothing.

As an aside, I'm quite happy, I see as an evangelical (your flair) you alluding to the fact that the government is secular.

[jimwalton]

That's odd. I didn't say anything about "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's,..." etc.

> you alluding to the fact that the government is secular.

Of course the government should be secular. Aside from ancient Israel, which was designed to be a theocracy, the Bible doesn't advocate for the blending of church and state.

> "Render to Caesar" and "Love your neighbor."

Neither of these teachings purport to have anything to do with immigration laws. The "Caesar" statement came in response to a question about taxation. Jesus's quote is about their religious hypocrisy and about the limits of governmental authority. Government is to be respected and its rule honored, but worship is reserved solely for God. Church and State have clear and distinct roles. We have legitimate obligations to the government as well as to God. The only comment this verse would have on the immigration debate of 2018 is to recognize that the government has authority to create policies commensurate with what government is for: to do good, to recognize and reward the good, to punish bad, and to work for the wellbeing of its citizens.

"Love your neighbor" is clearly a personal ethic in every occasion the Bible uses it, and is never a rule for political policy. Providing comfort to those in need is our obligation as Christians regardless of the government's stance on immigration. The two are unrelated.

> Matthew 25:35

Just for your information, Matthew 25 isn't the Beatitudes. But to respond to your sentence, the "I was a stranger and you invited me in" doesn't mean that nations cannot morally or politically control their borders. It does mean that we should have compassion for displaced peoples, for the homeless, the needy, and the foreigner. But again, this doesn't speak specifically to immigration policy but more to our acceptance of the outcast and meeting their needs.

It's OK to have lenient immigration laws, but it's also OK to have stringent ones. God doesn't dictate the shape of society as much as He is interested in our inner lives. God doesn't dictate an ideal kind of government (monarchy vs. democracy); he doesn't dictate a system of marriage (arranged vs. love) or even polygamy vs. monogamy; he doesn't dictate the way that a society is stratified (slaves and free); he doesn't dictate a certain sort of economy (market economy vs. barter). Every social structure is flawed. Nor does He dictate what a country's immigration policy should be. As believers we should meet the needs of the poor and needy ("I was a stranger and you invited me in"), but that doesn't mean America is under biblical obligation to have lenient immigration laws.

> It's not a pick-and-choose what you will judge how you vote for a secular government. It's all or nothing.

I disagree radically with this. We don't live in a black-and-white world. Morals are certainly not black-and-white. Nor are candidates, parties, or governments. Certainly we have to weigh pros and cons and eventually make a choice, but I certainly do pick-and-choose how to vote for a secular government. Every system has its strengths and flaws, as does every candidate and every policy established. Very little about politics and government is all or nothing.

[Recent Decent]

You clearly made a distinction between government and personal opinions—that’s where the Caesar quote comes into play.

I somehow disagree even more with you than after after your first comment, but faith is meant to be personal, not dictated. If you reconcile your ideals after reading scripture, that’s all that matters.