Christians should be able to agree with this principle: We are Christians first and Americans second

If the info in this video is true, wouldn’t it be better for the US to just send planes/boats to El Salvador/Guatemala/Honduras and bring them here, rather than to make them trek a thousand miles across Mexico at the mercy of coyotes and other thugs? Is it really compassionate to tell people that IF THEY MAKE IT HERE we have a place for them? Assuming you make it past the rape gangs, drug lords, and common thieves?

I find the immigration issues complex. Simplistic solutions are not going to work: Giant walls … rounding them all up and sending back.

Jim,

I don’t think the issue is all that complex. Break the law; suffer the consequences. I agree that human sinfulness adds to human suffering, but that does not negate the fundamental issues.

THE SEVEN AMNESTIES PASSED BY CONGRESS

With regard to the current situation, you have children fleeing gang violence in Central America (this is disputed). And we have due process laws in place to evaluate such things.

My own position. I favor legal immigration. Just saying the situation is complex

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Jim,

I don’t think the issue is all that complex. Break the law; suffer the consequences. I agree that human sinfulness adds to human suffering, but that does not negate the fundamental issues.

There is an obvious dilemma. Do we, because of legality, turn people away who are trying to escape violence? Or, do we act in compassion by harboring them? To me, there is a more “Christian” response. The fundamental issue is this: the law needs to change.

During WW2 in Germany would you be so firm on the law when it came to harboring Jews? Different, of course, but similar ethical considerations. It’s COMPLEX.

Bad comparison. Were escaping refugees in WW2 seeking to come to America so their relatives in the old country could live well from their monthly Wal-Mart wire transfer? Was the country accepting the refugees seeking to destroy the opposing political party with illegal voting by the new “immigrants”?

[iKuyper]

Chip Van Emmerik wrote:

Jim,

I don’t think the issue is all that complex. Break the law; suffer the consequences. I agree that human sinfulness adds to human suffering, but that does not negate the fundamental issues.

There is an obvious dilemma. Do we, because of legality, turn people away who are trying to escape violence? Or, do we act in compassion by harboring them? To me, there is a more “Christian” response. The fundamental issue is this: the law needs to change.

During WW2 in Germany would you be so firm on the law when it came to harboring Jews? Different, of course, but similar ethical considerations. It’s COMPLEX.

You have spoken like a true liberal. It’s easy to commit other people’s resources, isn’t t? If this is a Christian responsibility, why only help those who make it to the border. Why aren’t you hiring planes to fly to these countries and picking these kids up directly off the violent streets to bring them here? If you are required to offer them safety and sanctuary here, then why aren’t you required to take up arms and go where they are to protect them? Furthermore, why are you only concerned about the illegal immigrants? What about the youths who are facing poverty and violence on the streets of your town? I am sure you have more square footage in your present dwelling than you actually need. Why aren’t you inviting the homeless into your home to live in your spare bedroom, or at least offering them a hot shower and a warm couch in a safe, dry home? It’s all well and good to throw around random Christianese like “it’s our responsibility to help those in need”, but it is much more difficult to actually apply biblical principles in real life. Jesus said the poor would always be with us. In context, the clear implication was that we are not personally responsible to solve every problem for every person in the world.

The WWII analogy doesn’t work either. The Jews were being attacked by the Nazis, the government for whom the German people were responsible. We are not responsible for the governments in question here, and the dilemma these illegal immigrants face is of their own choosing - particularly once they begin breaking laws.

[Chip Van Emmerik] I don’t think the issue is all that complex. Break the law; suffer the consequences. I agree that human sinfulness adds to human suffering, but that does not negate the fundamental issues.

Chip,

This seems a little too simplistic to me. The problem isn’t just that they are breaking the law, it’s also that the President is refusing to enforce the law. If the US government isn’t enforcing the border restrictions at the direction of the President, is it really still ‘illegal’?

I’m not advocating for the influx of illegal immigrants and wish that this wasn’t happening. The President is acting shamefully and in violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution. But that doesn’t give us the right to start ignoring the fact that these are still people in need and we, as Christians, do still have a command to give them the gospel and to train disciples. There are still a wealth of OT commands for ‘social justice’ - as much as I disagree with how that term is usually applied.

I’m thinking a lot about the Good Samaritan today, but I’m not sure that I want to be the Samaritan who rewards illegal activity. I certainly don’t want to be the priest who ignores the person in need, either.

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?” 30 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. 32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ 36 Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” 37 He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”

[Chip Van Emmerik] You have spoken like a true liberal.

Ah, yes. I knew didn’t have to wait until the mudslinging began. There is much irony here. If I accept your labeling or even operate on that level (determining whether or not I’m liberal or you’re a conservative) highlights the point of this entire thread. Are we not Christian first and Americans second? Or, do you even disagree with that distinction?​

[Chip Van Emmerik] It’s easy to commit other people’s resources, isn’t t? If this is a Christian responsibility, why only help those who make it to the border. Why aren’t you hiring planes to fly to these countries and picking these kids up directly off the violent streets to bring them here?

This is why it’s complex. How do we view the situation with our Christian lenses? How do we view these people, children mostly, who are trying to escape violence in their countries of origin? Refugee says, “I’m escaping violence, help me please.” Does the Christian say, “Well, that’s your problem. My law says you need to go back. You broke the law for crossing this border. You’re illegal, so I can’t help you. You’re going back.” Is that the Christian response? Is the Christian response to act lawfully or act compassionately? Again, there are no easy answers for we live between 2 worlds but I do believe that there is a more “Christian” or to use your language, “Christianese” response. I’m not too sure why people dismiss the complexity of the situation.

[Chip Van Emmerik] ​If you are required to offer them safety and sanctuary here, then why aren’t you required to take up arms and go where they are to protect them?

Because taking up arms is the Christian response? I’m confused here. Oh that’s right, we should start a war and make it legal! The irony. If lawfulness is the issue, then why not go through Congress and wage war on these Central American gangs? Would that appease your need to be lawful?

[Chip Van Emmerik] ​​Furthermore, why are you only concerned about the illegal immigrants? What about the youths who are facing poverty and violence on the streets of your town? I am sure you have more square footage in your present dwelling than you actually need. Why aren’t you inviting the homeless into your home to live in your spare bedroom, or at least offering them a hot shower and a warm couch in a safe, dry home? It’s all well and good to throw around random Christianese like “it’s our responsibility to help those in need”, but it is much more difficult to actually apply biblical principles in real life. Jesus said the poor would always be with us. In context, the clear implication was that we are not personally responsible to solve every problem for every person in the world.

Who said I’m ONLY concerned about illegal immigrants? That’s what this thread is about, isn’t it? You’re right, we’re not responsible for every person/problem in the world. But when the opportunity presents itself, what do we do? Turn away?

What biblical principles are you applying in this context? The Christian must be lawful?

[Chip Van Emmerik] ​​The WWII analogy doesn’t work either. The Jews were being attacked by the Nazis, the government for whom the German people were responsible. We are not responsible for the governments in question here, and the dilemma these illegal immigrants face is of their own choosing - particularly once they begin breaking laws.

No. My point was, what if you were a Christian in Nazi Germany? With your logic, the best thing to do was to turn Jews in rather than harbor them.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Jesus said the poor would always be with us. In context, the clear implication was that we are not personally responsible to solve every problem for every person in the world.

[Mark_Smith]

Bad comparison. Were escaping refugees in WW2 seeking to come to America so their relatives in the old country could live well from their monthly Wal-Mart wire transfer? Was the country accepting the refugees seeking to destroy the opposing political party with illegal voting by the new “immigrants”?

Those are peripheral issues, Mark. The issue is, people are dying and those that come across our borders are escaping that high risk..

Chip - It’s easy to commit other people’s resources, isn’t t? If this is a Christian responsibility, why only help those who make it to the border. Why aren’t you hiring planes to fly to these countries and picking these kids up directly off the violent streets to bring them here?

iKuyper - This is why it’s complex. How do we view the situation with our Christian lenses? How do we view these people, children mostly, who are trying to escape violence in their countries of origin? Refugee says, “I’m escaping violence, help me please.” Does the Christian say, “Well, that’s your problem. My law says you need to go back. You broke the law for crossing this border. You’re illegal, so I can’t help you. You’re going back.” Is that the Christian response? Is the Christian response to act lawfully or act compassionately? Again, there are no easy answers for we live between 2 worlds but I do believe that there is a more “Christian” or to use your language, “Christianese” response. I’m not too sure why people dismiss the complexity of the situation.

I’m also thinking about this passage:

For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous. Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you. We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death. Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.

Is the term there for brother clearly indicative of another believer? Or is it brother in the generic sense - as in, “Who is my neighbor”?

I am surprised, Isaac, that the only way you can see to show love is by helping someone break the law. Not only is that not a loving action, since it is open disobedience to God, but it is by no means the only avenue available to those who feel a compulsion to offer aid. You can argue that you have to disobey one command of God in order to obey another one. Instead, find a way to obey all of the commands involved.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

I am surprised, Isaac, that the only way you can see to show love is by helping someone break the law. Not only is that not a loving action, since it is open disobedience to God, but it is by no means the only avenue available to those who feel a compulsion to offer aid. You can argue that you have to disobey one command of God in order to obey another one. Instead, find a way to obey all of the commands involved.

Chip,

I don’t see it as the only loving option. Again, most of us are appealing to the complexity of the issue. In your initial posts, you are making it a black and white issue. I am not. There is more to the situation than mere American legalities. When we configure our Christian responsibilities into the mix, there is an ethical dilemma. That’s the main point that some of us on here are trying to make. As Christians, we have a higher standard to live by and that standard is above American law.

Nobody is helping someone break the law. They have broken it, “What do we do now?” is the question [e.g. What do I do when a Jew in Nazi Germany seeks refuge in my basement]. Have you done any reading/study on Christian ethics? It is rare that there ever is a win-win or “a way to obey all of the commands involved.” I understand your wanting to be a lawful citizen, but when that lawfulness ignores the threat of death that “our neighbors” are fleeing from, that lawfulness , then, becomes merely American and not Christian.

iK

Isaac,

I have not missed the nuances of your position; I just disagree. We as Christian citizens are not being asked to do anything that violates God’s Word by simply following existing legal code. Helping those who have come here illegally to thwart those laws would violate God’s Word. It is both simple and black and white. You are only partially correct when you state they have broken the law (indicating the lawlessness has already come and gone, water under the bridge) and are here now. Being here is an ongoing violation of the law. Any aid we provide in helping them continue breaking the law joins us in their lawless deeds - see 2 John.