The Evangelical Immigration Table "is trying to take evangelicals and their congressmen for a ride"

Chip, I apologize for using “dodge”….I think that could be perceived as snarky…or at least dismissive. I would change that to “nice theological gymnastics”. I think you really have to dance around the issue to arrive at your conclusion. As I stated, I prefer a straight-line approach to the discussion.
I’m perfectly fine with border control and immigration rules. But I advocate mercy and humane treatment for those that are here. I can appreciate a more hard-line approach, but I do not think that Christians should be leading that charge. I do not believe that the kingdom of Christ is best advanced by calling for deportation of individuals that need the Gospel and its fruits. Would I rather be known as a Christian that meets the needs of the “dregs” of society or as a Christian that waves the flag and banishes the dregs (obviously a caricature and most likely not representative of your actual position).

I don’t have time to fully address a robust theology of immigration, but I think that certain principles (which i will not develop) can color the discussion. 1) Not visiting sins of fathers to the next generation (God does it, not us) 2) Christians caring for the poor and unfortunate 3) Fair treatment of “strangers” in OT times (and pathway toward entering the covenant community [which is not a direct parallel, but there are similarities] ) 4) The aggressively cross-cultural focus of NT missionalism 5) A focus on heavenly citizenship rather than earthly citizenship. 6) Jesus’ ministry to Samaritans (perceived by Jews to be unlawful residents) and outcasts (prostitutes/sinners/thieves/publicans) 7) Jesus’ acknowledgement of legal citizenship (render to Caesar) while “staying on task” (I am the King of the Jews).
Feel free to respond, but I’m not planning on fully developing these thoughts. Its more of a “string of pearls” approach that broadly shapes my opinion on this matter.

Todd,

I am still not seeing how your position is justifiably different when it moves from the national immigration debate to the homeless guy who breaks into your home and crashes on your couch. Mercy and humane treatment toward those who are here illegally does not have to equate to pardon and enablement does it?

I really don’t think your points apply here.

1) Not visiting sins of fathers to the next generation (God does it, not us) - the illegal children are still here illegally, though I agree the primary offenders are the parents who brought them here. But if the homeless guy crashing on your couch brings his kids with him, you’re not going to have the cops arrest the homeless guy and let the kids live in your living room.

2) Christians caring for the poor and unfortunate - nowhere in scripture requires us to permit law breakers to go unchallenged or allow them to continue stealing from us

3) Fair treatment of “strangers” in OT times (and pathway toward entering the covenant community [which is not a direct parallel, but there are similarities] ) - not a parallel at all; the U.S. has a pathway for visitors to come legally and for those who wish to transfer national allegiance.

4) The aggressively cross-cultural focus of NT missionalism - likewise completely confused with helping law-breakers continue in their rebellion against God and God-given authorities.

5) A focus on heavenly citizenship rather than earthly citizenship. - not jeopardized in any way by upholding the legal immigration laws of the land

6) Jesus’ ministry to Samaritans (perceived by Jews to be unlawful residents) and outcasts (prostitutes/sinners/thieves/publicans) - no the Samaritans were not considered unlawful residents. Despised and outcast=yes, but not illegal.

7) Jesus’ acknowledgement of legal citizenship (render to Caesar) while “staying on task” (I am the King of the Jews).- but you are ignoring the legal citizenship and rendering to Caesar in the name of your self-proclaimed task.