Trump’s Spiritual Advisor Calls Babies Smuggled into the U.S. “Sinful”

White House spiritual advisor Paula White was recently interviewed on CBN. In her interview, White was asked about how her religious beliefs impacted her position on unaccompanied minors and other children arriving in the U.S. with their families, to seek asylum. White’s answer comes with bizarre theological consequences.

During the interview White was specifically asked if there were any biblical scriptures that came to mind during her visit.

“I think so many people have taken biblical scriptures out of context on this, to say stuff like, ‘Well, Jesus was a refugee,'” White responded. “Yes, He did live in Egypt for three-and-a-half years. But it was not illegal. If He had broken the law then He would have been sinful and He would not have been our Messiah.”

First of all, the nativity story is actually a good argument for generous asylum laws—if Mary and Joseph had not been permitted to leave Judea, their child would have been in grave danger (King Herod had, according to the nativity story, ordered that all babies in Bethlehem be killed—even leaving that city might not have been enough, for anyone knowing they had just left Bethlehem might have turned them in). It’s a good thing Egypt didn’t have strong border security.

But honestly, this is not the thing that is really hanging me up here. I’m bewildered by the idea that if Jesus had been taken illegally into Egypt as an infant—if there had been quotas, and lengthy (or unending) application processes, and his family had paid to be smuggled in rather than staying in danger in Judea—that would have made him sinful.

Think about that for a moment.

For one thing, White equates breaking the law with sin. Breaking the law is sin, she suggests. Not to go all Godwin, but this does make me curious—was hiding Jews sinful? Or, to pick another period—were lunch counter sit-ins sinful? Is breaking the law in an authoritarian country with a history of human rights abuses de facto sinful?

Yes, Romans 13 does command obedience to civil authorities.

1. Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. 

This passage has long been used to pummel those who engage in various forms of civil disobedience. From a scholarly standpoint, it seems fairly likely that this passage was written as a direct counterpoint to claims that early Christians were anarchists and anti-Roman—and perhaps there were some early Christians who thought that being obedient to God’s law meant they could wantonly flout that of civil authorities.

There is another side conversation that could be had as well—what is sin, exactly? Growing up, I was taught that sin is disobedience to God’s law, not disobedience to man’s law. Romans 13 urges Christians to obey civil laws and authorities, yes—but is that enough to make disobeying them sin? Does Romans 13, something like the Fourteenth Amendment in Constitutional Law, turn man’s laws into God’s laws, rendering them sin?

Still, while Romans 13 is not without some controversy in how it is understood and applied—even those who use it to clobber civil rights protestors or others on the Left engaging in civil activism typically apply it only selectively to themselves—this is the first time I’ve ever seen the passage applied to infants.

White told CBN that if Mary and Joseph had taken Jesus into Egypt in violation of the country’s customs and immigration law, he would have been “sinful” as a result. Does White think that infants who ride in cars without being properly buckled in are sinful? What about babies whose parents feed them food purchased with illicitly obtained money? The idea that babies could commit sin with no conscious involvement on their part is horrifying.

(Certainly, the teaching of “original sin” posits that babies are born sinners despite never having taken an action or had a thought; still, the idea that a baby could itself commit sins with neither conscious action or thought feels different.)

After White’s comments were reported, Jesuit priest James Martin objected to her statements, posting several tweets responding to her claims:

No. Jesus “broke the laws,” both religious and civic, several times, which is one of the reasons he was crucified. He healed on the Sabbath, permitted his disciples to pluck grain, had contact with the unclean, and so on. Plus, he was indeed a refugee: https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2017/12/27/were-jesus-mary-and-joseph-refugees-yes

Why did Jesus “break the laws”? Because he understood that there are higher laws. Jesus always followed the Father’s laws, even when it brought him into conflict with the authorities. And what is God’s law? Jesus told us plainly: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

In other words, even White’s core claim—that Jesus could not have been the Messiah if he had broken a civil law, because breaking a civil law is a sin—falls apart on the least inspection. Jesus did break civil laws. Consider what he did in the Temple, when he overturned the tables of the money changers, for example.

There has been a lot of talk, in the past few years, about fascism. Of everything I have seen over the past couple of years, the thing that has worried me perhaps the most is a growing elevation of the rule of law. Yes, laws are important! I wouldn’t want to live somewhere where murder was legal and assault unpunished. But law does not matter more than human beings. And laws are not always right. Breaking a law is not some sort of cardinal sin.

I have increasingly seen the Right break the world into law-abiders and law-breakers, dehumanizing those who break laws (regardless of the law or their reasons) and treating their lives and rights as expendable. This is wrong. A baby who is smuggled into the U.S. by parents fleeing violence or economic hardship is not sinning against God.

This train of ideas is wrong, and it is dangerous.

I have a Patreon! Please support my writing!