I came across this<\/a> recently.\u00a0 Where to begin.\u00a0 When I read things like this, I often wonder how it was possible I spent so much time in that world.\u00a0 Was I really that obtuse?\u00a0 Was I really that impervious to logic and a proper hermeneutics?\u00a0 Yes, yes,<\/em> I was.\u00a0 And I am still often obtuse and still often unmoved by logic; and yet, even I can see these sorts of arguments for what they are: Nonsense.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s work our way through this:<\/p>\n \u201c\u2026there are clear, biblical principles on why no one should be confused about God\u2019s position on immigration and borders. Let\u2019s look at borders first. In Acts 17:26, Paul says that God established nations and borders. Daniel 2 says He raises up leaders and nations, and He puts them down.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n First, notice it is \u201cGod\u2019s\u201d position, not the writer\u2019s.\u00a0 He\u2019s just agreeing with God.\u00a0 He\u2019s not interpreting Scripture, he is telling us the very position and mind of God on these matters.\u00a0 Wow.\u00a0 A direct line to God.\u00a0 It must be nice.<\/p>\n Second, that God provided an initial framework or order to human communities, does not mean that those same human communities cannot change them, for good or ill.\u00a0 We know Hitler moved borders.\u00a0 We know Stalin moved borders.\u00a0 We know the Western powers, including America, moved borders.\u00a0 Borders, even if allowed by God, are artificial boundaries.\u00a0 Was God working with Hitler when he moved borders?\u00a0 The writer has clearly not thought this through.<\/p>\n Third, no one is saying we shouldn\u2019t have borders (another question entirely).\u00a0 The question is this: Are borders, the articulation of their use, and walls, the result of our fear, nationalism, and racism?<\/p>\n Moving on\u2026<\/p>\n \u201cWithout borders there\u2019s no order, no law, no justice. Without borders, God\u2019s promise to bless the nation whose God is the Lord could never occur. God\u2019s plan of redemption revolves around nations. In time, God will judge all nations who reject Him. Is it any wonder that the coming anti-Christ and globalists demand open borders?<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n Wait, what?\u00a0 Of course there could be order, law, and justice, borders or not.\u00a0 And, of course God could bless a people, borders or not.\u00a0 Does the writer think God that stupid that if \u201che\u201d couldn\u2019t make out the artificial lines on a map, he could not bless certain people?\u00a0 And God\u2019s plan of redemption doesn\u2019t revolve around nations.\u00a0 The plan revolves around Jesus, the one who represents all nations, all people.\u00a0 You know, the one who ultimately shows no partiality, who sees hearts, not skin color, ethnicity, nationality, nor borders or boundaries.<\/p>\n And where are we told the anti-Christ demands open borders?\u00a0 And globalists<\/a>?\u00a0 I think most reasonable globalists are talking about international cooperation, more than open borders.<\/p>\n \u201cIf borders or walls are immoral\u2014as even some religious leaders contend\u2014then Nehemiah was wrong. And even more so, God Himself is wrong, because heaven has walls and gates, and Jesus says that whoever circumvents one gate and climbs in another way is a thief and robber.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n I wondered when the \u201cwall\u201d would come in.\u00a0 Well, borders and walls are two different things.\u00a0 A border or wall is not intrinsically immoral, obviously.\u00a0 The question is how they are being used, or the motive behind their existence or articulation.\u00a0 Was the Berlin Wall immoral?\u00a0 Yes.\u00a0 Thus, some walls and borders are<\/em> immoral.\u00a0 None of that makes Nehemiah wrong or God wrong\u2014it makes people wrong.\u00a0 And Jesus was talking about himself, not actual gates or walls.<\/p>\n Also, the city that comes down in Revelation 21, which may be mystical rather than physical, has, \u201cgates\u201d or doors, that will never \u201cbe shut.\u201d\u00a0 So, the idea any wall is moral because of this picture in Revelation is wrong, logically, and doesn\u2019t even comport with the writer\u2019s point (keeping people out), as the door is always open.\u00a0 Here, the writer is committing hermeneutical malpractice.<\/p>\n The writer then cites some Bible passages having to do with strangers, or foreigners, noting the Hebrew word, ger<\/em>.\u00a0 He misses the point.\u00a0 Whether or not the passages he cites pertain only to those immigrants who assimilate, or come legally, such has nothing to do with how we are supposed to treat the, \u201cleast of these\u201d or the fact we are supposed to treat others the way we would like to be treated.<\/p>\n If the situation were reversed and for whatever reason we found ourselves having to flee this country and seek refuge somewhere else, even if it meant entering illegally, we would do whatever we could to protect ourselves and our families.\u00a0 And we would pray to God the people in the land to which we were fleeing would show us mercy and help us.\u00a0 If the writer, as a purported Christian, cannot see that, then I can\u2019t help him.<\/p>\n Jesus summed up the law, including every verse the writer cites, and his summation (love God, love neighbor) goes completely against the way the writer is trying to use those passages.\u00a0 In other words, even if an immigrant doesn\u2019t assimilate well, or enters illegally, they are still a human made in God\u2019s image.\u00a0 Many of them are Christians.\u00a0 Such trumps any artificial boundary, man-made law or immigration policy.<\/p>\n The issue is not walls or borders.\u00a0 The issue is how we treat people who we view as different, whether they are here legally or not.\u00a0 It\u2019s clear Trump\u2019s anti-immigrant rhetoric (see here<\/a> and here<\/a>) has given too many people a green light to harbor ill-will and racism toward immigrants, whether legal or illegal.\u00a0 The writer is buying into that same sentiment and using the Bible to justify it.\u00a0 Shameful.<\/p>\n Finally:<\/p>\n \u201cOur government has a unique duty to God and to the citizen\u2014one might even call it a moral duty. Different from the Church\u2019s duty to care for the sick and reach out to those who don\u2019t yet know the God of heaven, government\u2019s duty according to Romans 13 is to enact justice, enforce the law and protect the citizen.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n Here the writer shows the influence of the, \u201ctwo kingdoms\u201d theology, which has been debated for some time now (see here<\/a> and here<\/a>).\u00a0 Regardless of where one comes down in that debate, to use that type of theology for the reasons the writer does here is dangerous.<\/p>\n After all, what type of \u201cjustice\u201d, what \u201claws,\u201d and what type of \u201cprotection?\u201d\u00a0 Certainly, the writer must know that every tyrant or corrupt state in history has argued they were protecting their people through their own laws and understanding of justice.<\/p>\n The writer wants the Church to act like Jesus, but he absolves the state of any moral duty to treat others as they, whether institutionally, or as individual people working for a government, would want to be treated.\u00a0 This view has allowed Christians and the institutional Church over the centuries to either conspire with tyrants or look the other way as those tyrants worked their destruction.<\/p>\n Finally, the writer forgets himself.\u00a0 According to 1 Peter 2:11, where the word, paroikous<\/em> is used, we have more of a reason to identify with the immigrant, and those in exile, than we do with our country of birth.\u00a0 According to Norman Hillyer<\/a>:<\/p>\n