A pastor friend recently made an observation about political discussions that deserves careful reflection. In years of ministry, he has never met a Christian who believes there should be no laws or no borders at all. Neither has he met a Christian who believes immigrants should simply be rejected because they are foreigners.

In practice, almost everyone agrees on both principles: governments should enforce laws and borders to some degree, and Christians should welcome and care for immigrants. The disagreement lies in how those two commitments are applied in concrete policy.

Yet if that’s true, much of the public debate we hear among Christians is strangely distorted. Instead of arguing with what the other side actually believes, people often argue with caricatures. One group imagines their opponents advocating open borders and total lawlessness. The other imagines their opponents are motivated by hostility toward outsiders, racism, or indifference toward suffering.

We Need a Reality Check

In both cases, the other person’s real position disappears. What remains is a simplified and exaggerated version that is easier to attack. This observation reframes the moral problem. The central issue may not be immigration policy itself. It may be the way we represent one another when discussing it.

We imagine we are defending principles or protecting society. Yet in the process we often commit a sin Scripture treats with remarkable seriousness: slander (= bearing false witness).

The ninth commandment forbids bearing false witness against one’s neighbor. In its original context the commandment concerned legal testimony, but the moral logic behind it extends much further. The commandment protects a person’s reputation by forbidding misrepresentation. One must not attribute to another person claims they did not make or motives they don’t hold.

Caricatures Kill Constructive Conversation

Political discourse, however, often runs directly against this principle. A common rhetorical tactic is to reduce complex positions into extreme slogans. If someone supports stricter border enforcement, they are portrayed as opposing compassion toward immigrants. If someone emphasizes the biblical command to welcome the stranger, they are portrayed as endorsing lawlessness. Neither description usually reflects what the person actually believes.

Once these caricatures are in place, the debate becomes easier but less honest. Instead of wrestling with the genuine moral tension between order and hospitality, participants attack an exaggerated version of the opposing view. In effect, they testify falsely about their neighbor’s position.

The irony is that the Bible itself holds both principles together. Scripture affirms the legitimacy of civil authority and the rule of law. Paul writes in Romans 13 that governing authorities exist to maintain order and administer justice. A functioning society cannot exist without laws, and the regulation of borders is one expression of a government’s responsibility to maintain order.

At the same time, Scripture repeatedly commands care for foreigners and immigrants. Israel’s law included numerous provisions protecting the “sojourner.” The people were instructed to remember their own experience as strangers in Egypt and therefore to treat foreigners with generosity and justice. The thrust of these commands is unmistakable: the outsider must not be exploited or ignored.

These two strands create a genuine moral tension. Law and hospitality must both be taken seriously. Determining how they intersect in contemporary immigration policy is a complex question involving economics, security, humanitarian concerns, and political judgment. Christians may reasonably disagree about the best policies that balance these concerns.

Debating without Slander

But disagreement about policy does not justify misrepresenting one another.

When debates descend into caricature, something deeper than intellectual disagreement is occurring. The goal shifts from understanding to mobilization. The most effective way to rally one’s own side is often to exaggerate the danger posed by the other side. In this environment, accuracy becomes secondary to persuasion. The result is not merely poor reasoning but a violation of the command to speak truthfully about one’s neighbor.

Christians should be especially alert to this danger because the ninth commandment addresses speech itself. Words are not morally neutral tools. They shape reputations, influence judgments, and determine whether conversations pursue truth or reinforce suspicion. When a believer attributes extreme motives to another Christian without evidence, he may be doing exactly what the commandment forbids.

This does not mean Christians must avoid political debate. Public questions require careful reasoning, and policy disagreements are inevitable in a pluralistic society. Nor does it mean that every political position is equally wise or equally moral. Scripture does not prohibit strong disagreement.

What it prohibits is false testimony.

Do You Really Care About Truth?

A healthier Christian political discourse would begin with a simple discipline: represent the other side in a way they themselves would recognize.

If someone advocating stronger border enforcement also affirms the importance of compassion toward immigrants, that fact should be acknowledged. If someone emphasizing hospitality toward immigrants also affirms the legitimacy of immigration laws, that too should be acknowledged.

Only after accurately representing the other position should criticism begin.

This discipline does not eliminate disagreement. It clarifies it. Instead of debating imaginary extremes, Christians would confront the real tension between two biblical values:

1. the maintenance of social order and
2. the call to care for outsiders.

The debate would then shift from accusations about motives to substantive questions about policy and prudence.

In other words, the conversation will move from moral theater to moral reasoning. Wouldn’t that be refreshing?

Political Debate in General

From this angle, the immigration debate exposes a broader problem in Christian political engagement. Many of our fiercest conflicts are sustained not by irreconcilable moral principles but by distorted portrayals of our neighbors. When the caricatures are removed, the distance between positions often becomes smaller than expected.

That realization should encourage a certain intellectual humility. Policy questions are difficult precisely because they involve competing goods rather than obvious evils. The presence of disagreement does not necessarily signal moral failure on the part of those who differ from us.

But misrepresentation does.

The ninth commandment, therefore, gives us a surprisingly relevant lens for evaluating modern political conversation. Before asking whether our policies are correct, Christians might ask a more basic question, “Are we telling the truth about one another?”

If the answer is no, then the first step toward faithful political engagement is not winning the argument. It is repentance for the ways we have spoken falsely about our neighbors. Only after truthfulness is restored can meaningful debate begin.

For a constructive conversation (the one that inspired this post), click here.