Take your turn to advise the president
Assume the role of the president's spiritual advisor. He asks you for a summary of Bible themes and content that could be helpful to him and his administration as they manage the growing immigration controversy on the U.S. southern border. What summary do you offer? (I mean this as a spiritual, not political, exercise!)
To start the thread, I offer these observation:
The main message I would give is that migration to foreign nations and the status of immigrants are both crucial to biblical Israel's identity.
- Israel's roots are in God's call to Abraham to leave his home nation in order to migrate to a foreign land (Genesis 12.1-3)
- The national birth story Israelites are to tell includes an affirmation of Jacob as "a wandering Aramean" who lived as a foreigner in Egypt (Deuteronomy 26.5-8)
- On several occasions, God commands Israel not to mistreat immigrants, the most frequent rationale being that Israelites once lived as foreigners themselves (Exodus 22.21, 23.9; Leviticus 19.33-34; Deuteronomy 10.18-19; Deuteronomy 23.7; Deuteronomy 24.17-18)
- There are also more specific and practical guidelines for the nation's response to immigrants: 1) Farmers are to leave excess crops in the field for foreigners (Leviticus 23.22; Deuteronomy 24.19-22); 2) The way Israel welcomes immigrants who fall on hard times sets the example for how Israel is to treat fellow Israelites who fall on hard times (Leviticus 25.35); 3) Every third year, Israelites are to direct a special tithe of their crops and give it to widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deuteronomy 26.12-13).
Certainly there are other texts and passages, but when I think immigration, these are the first images that come to mind.
Please share the verses/passages/themes that in your view best summarize the Bible's counsel on immigration matters.
Comments
-
@Bill_Coley said:
Assume the role of the president's spiritual advisor. He asks you for a summary of Bible themes and content that could be helpful to him and his administration as they manage the growing immigration controversy on the U.S. southern border. What summary do you offer? (I mean this as a spiritual, not political, exercise!)To start the thread, I offer these observation:
The main message I would give is that migration to foreign nations and the status of immigrants are both crucial to biblical Israel's identity.
- Israel's roots are in God's call to Abraham to leave his home nation in order to migrate to a foreign land (Genesis 12.1-3)
- The national birth story Israelites are to tell includes an affirmation of Jacob as "a wandering Aramean" who lived as a foreigner in Egypt (Deuteronomy 26.5-8)
- On several occasions, God commands Israel not to mistreat immigrants, the most frequent rationale being that Israelites once lived as foreigners themselves (Exodus 22.21, 23.9; Leviticus 19.33-34; Deuteronomy 10.18-19; Deuteronomy 23.7; Deuteronomy 24.17-18)
- There are also more specific and practical guidelines for the nation's response to immigrants: 1) Farmers are to leave excess crops in the field for foreigners (Leviticus 23.22; Deuteronomy 24.19-22); 2) The way Israel welcomes immigrants who fall on hard times sets the example for how Israel is to treat fellow Israelites who fall on hard times (Leviticus 25.35); 3) Every third year, Israelites are to direct a special tithe of their crops and give it to widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deuteronomy 26.12-13).
Certainly there are other texts and passages, but when I think immigration, these are the first images that come to mind.
Please share the verses/passages/themes that in your view best summarize the Bible's counsel on immigration matters.
Typical. Liberals always want separation of church and state until they see something they can use to bash a conservative politicial or organization.
- These were given to Israel and Israel alone. Israel was also told to destroy foreign lands, would you like that done as well?
- The Trump Administration is not against immigration. It is against ILLEGAL (also known as CRIMINAL) Immigration.
These people who come illegally are CRIMINALS and are actively breaking the law. Quit victimizing them when they are the law breakers and deserve punishment.
-
@reformed said:
Typical. Liberals always want separation of church and state until they see something they can use to bash a conservative politicial or organization.
- These were given to Israel and Israel alone. Israel was also told to destroy foreign lands, would you like that done as well?
- The Trump Administration is not against immigration. It is against ILLEGAL (also known as CRIMINAL) Immigration.
These people who come illegally are CRIMINALS and are actively breaking the law. Quit victimizing them when they are the law breakers and deserve punishment.
Reformed, in my OP, I asked people to assume the role of the president's spiritual advisor, and in that role, provide "a summary of Bible themes and content that could be helpful to him and his administration as they manage the growing immigration controversy on the U.S. southern border." Is your response here the summary of Bible themes and content that you would give to the president?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Typical. Liberals always want separation of church and state until they see something they can use to bash a conservative politicial or organization.
- These were given to Israel and Israel alone. Israel was also told to destroy foreign lands, would you like that done as well?
- The Trump Administration is not against immigration. It is against ILLEGAL (also known as CRIMINAL) Immigration.
These people who come illegally are CRIMINALS and are actively breaking the law. Quit victimizing them when they are the law breakers and deserve punishment.
Reformed, in my OP, I asked people to assume the role of the president's spiritual advisor, and in that role, provide "a summary of Bible themes and content that could be helpful to him and his administration as they manage the growing immigration controversy on the U.S. southern border." Is your response here the summary of Bible themes and content that you would give to the president?
I don't think it is necessary. I, as a spiritual advisor to a politician, would see no problem with current policy.
-
- Bill, wouldn't it be nice (from your perspective) if you could make all the rules, and then bully everyone into playing by your rules?
- Wouldn't it be nice (from the Bill Coley take on things) to narrow down little pieces of actual data, isolate it from context, present it in false context and then demand others defend it within your pre-determined limits?
- Wouldn't that make really really bad hermeneutics as well as really really bad science?
- Wouldn't it be nice (as Bill Coley often defends) if Jesus was not God, if the Bible was not true, if Christians would stop making baby-killing an issue, if Christians would stop getting in the way of LGBTQXYZ freedom to sin openly with abandon?
- Wouldn't that be a really really foolish way to have a conversation about anything whatsoever?
We do respect free speech and your right to think as you do. We equally reserve the right to occasionally point out the foolishness or to bypass engagement.
-
@reformed said:
I don't think it is necessary. I, as a spiritual advisor to a politician, would see no problem with current policy.In this thread's OP, the hypothetical I created didn't ask whether you thought the president's request for "a summary of Bible themes and content that could be helpful to him and his administration as they manage the growing immigration controversy on the U.S. southern border" was necessary. It asked only for the summary you would provide once the president requested one.
But in the spirit of the OP's hypothetical, and because I made clear my intention that this be a spiritual, not political, exercise, could you provide a summary of Bible themes and content that underwrite your conclusion that you "would see no problem with current policy"?
-
@GaoLu said:
1. Bill, wouldn't it be nice (from your perspective) if you could make all the rules, and then bully everyone into playing by your rules?
2. Wouldn't it be nice (from the Bill Coley take on things) to narrow down little pieces of actual data, isolate it from context, present it in false context and then demand others defend it within your pre-determined limits?
3. Wouldn't that make really really bad hermeneutics as well as really really bad science?
4. Wouldn't it be nice (as Bill Coley often defends) if Jesus was not God, if the Bible was not true, if Christians would stop making baby-killing an issue, if Christians would stop getting in the way of LGBTQXYZ freedom to sin openly with abandon?
5. Wouldn't that be a really really foolish way to have a conversation about anything whatsoever?We do respect free speech and your right to think as you do. We equally reserve the right to occasionally point out the foolishness or to bypass engagement.
Gao Lu, in my OP, I asked people to assume the role of the president's spiritual advisor, and in that role, provide "a summary of Bible themes and content that could be helpful to him and his administration as they manage the growing immigration controversy on the U.S. southern border." Am I correct to infer from your response that you do not intend to provide such a summary?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
I don't think it is necessary. I, as a spiritual advisor to a politician, would see no problem with current policy.In this thread's OP, the hypothetical I created didn't ask whether you thought the president's request for "a summary of Bible themes and content that could be helpful to him and his administration as they manage the growing immigration controversy on the U.S. southern border" was necessary. It asked only for the summary you would provide once the president requested one.
But in the spirit of the OP's hypothetical, and because I made clear my intention that this be a spiritual, not political, exercise, could you provide a summary of Bible themes and content that underwrite your conclusion that you "would see no problem with current policy"?
If you insist:
Romans 13. People should be subject to the governing authority. In other words, immigrants need to obey laws as well.
-
@reformed said:
Romans 13. People should be subject to the governing authority. In other words, immigrants need to obey laws as well.Good. Now we have texts that I would include in my summary to the president, and we have the text that would underwrite your conclusion that such a summary isn't necessary.
I am eager for us to use our cited texts as the focus of serious, thoughtful, non-political, and non-personal Bible study on what is currently a prominent issue. Are you willing?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Romans 13. People should be subject to the governing authority. In other words, immigrants need to obey laws as well.Good. Now we have texts that I would include in my summary to the president, and we have the text that would underwrite your conclusion that such a summary isn't necessary.
I am eager for us to use our cited texts as the focus of serious, thoughtful, non-political, and non-personal Bible study on what is currently a prominent issue. Are you willing?
No, because your passages are taken out of their original context and intent. Those are not general principles for all nations. That was to a specific nation, at a specific time, for a specific purpose.
Even still, we have laws, those laws can either be followed or broken. Immigration is not the problem. ILLEGAL immigration is. They are criminals and an insult to those who come here legally.
-
@reformed said:
No, because your passages are taken out of their original context and intent. Those are not general principles for all nations. That was to a specific nation, at a specific time, for a specific purpose.So I ask whether you're willing to engage in Bible study, using our respective cited passages as our focus. In response, you say "no," but then in the rest of the same paragraph... engage in Bible study on my cited passages! So it's obvious that your "no" in response to my invitation to do Bible study did NOT mean you're unwilling to comment on my cited Bible texts. What DID your "no" mean?
Even still, we have laws, those laws can either be followed or broken. Immigration is not the problem. ILLEGAL immigration is. They are criminals and an insult to those who come here legally.
Because, as I reported in my OP, I mean for this thread to create a spiritual, not political, exercise, to this comment of yours I simply thanks for sharing your views.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
No, because your passages are taken out of their original context and intent. Those are not general principles for all nations. That was to a specific nation, at a specific time, for a specific purpose.So I ask whether you're willing to engage in Bible study, using our respective cited passages as our focus. In response, you say "no," but then in the rest of the same paragraph... engage in Bible study on my cited passages! So it's obvious that your "no" in response to my invitation to do Bible study did NOT mean you're unwilling to comment on my cited Bible texts. What DID your "no" mean?
It means no, I will state these verses are unrelated to United States Immigration policy and I don't wish to do an in-depth study on them.
Even still, we have laws, those laws can either be followed or broken. Immigration is not the problem. ILLEGAL immigration is. They are criminals and an insult to those who come here legally.
Because, as I reported in my OP, I mean for this thread to create a spiritual, not political, exercise, to this comment of yours I simply thanks for sharing your views.
The topic cannot go without entering the realm of politics. Not sure how you think it can.
-
@reformed said:
What DID your "no" mean?
It means no, I will state these verses are unrelated to United States Immigration policy and I don't wish to do an in-depth study on them.
Okay. And I will state that these verses ARE related to the United States immigration policy, and I DO wish to do an in-depth study on them.
The topic cannot go without entering the realm of politics. Not sure how you think it can.
Clearly, the topic has political roots, so no, it would not be possible to avoid all things political in our discussion. But in my view, a Bible study is political primarily when politics drive our interpretation of texts. A study is NOT political, however, when our interpretation of texts drives our politics. Such is the kind of Bible study I propose.
-
Maybe you have friends somewhere that want to discuss your topic the way you want it addressed. Ask them. Just a thought,
-
To-date, this thread has attracted the collection of texts I included in my OP, reformed's rejection of the relevance of those texts, and his reference to Romans 13. That is, there's plenty of room for you and your views.
A reminder of what I request: NOT your views on US immigration policy! Rather your summary of Bible themes and content that in your view could assist the president, his administration, members of Congress, and everyone else as we all respond to the immigration controversy on the nation's southern border.
Post edited by Bill_Coley on -
I also reject your "Bible" passages.
- You have stated various ways that you do not believe the Bible to be true
- Your passages are all entirely irrelevant to the topic you raise.
- Your "rules" for engagement are not tenable.
But maybe someone out there will see it your way...(waiting for a new name to pop up on the forums).
-
@GaoLu said:
I also reject your "Bible" passages.- You have stated various ways that you do not believe the Bible to be true
- Your passages are all entirely irrelevant to the topic you raise.
- Your "rules" for engagement are not tenable.
Gao Lu, in my OP, I asked people to assume the role of the president's spiritual advisor, and in that role, provide "a summary of Bible themes and content that could be helpful to him and his administration as they manage the growing immigration controversy on the U.S. southern border." Am I correct to infer from your three posts in this thread that you do not intend to provide such a summary?
