Christians seeking to be faithful to the Scriptures want to show kindness and compassion to these individuals but are also bound to respect the law. It is true that many undocumented immigrants have chosen to come to the U.S. illegally under very difficult circumstances, fleeing serious economic hardship or even persecution. However, except for those brought as minors or trafficked to the U.S. against their will, they still did knowingly break U.S. law. This is why I believe amnesty is the wrong approach; it communicates that the law doesn’t matter. Even when laws don’t work well, they shouldn’t simply be ignored.

Scripture describes a subset of King David’s “Mighty Men” from the tribe of Issachar as men who had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do (1 Chron 12:32). That is a description of the band of brothers this podcast is seeking to build—men who understand their times because they view culture through a biblical lens—and who therefore know what their families, churches, and nation should do. As we continue this month’s series on false worldviews that lead our loved ones astray, today, we dig into what the Bible says about the Christian’s responsibility to care well for immigrants, who are called sojourners or resident aliens in Scripture.
When faced with the sight of millions of men, women, and children from war-torn lands seeking to escape tyranny to have a better life, most Christians will voice their approval for open door policies of inclusion, hospitality, diversity and welcome. Some Christians have even argued that failure to have such open-hearted attitudes towards these immigrants is sinfully, selfishly, letting “the gods of fear and security dictate how we respond.” (Mark Galli, Christianity Today). Does the biblical call to care for the sojourner and resident alien, imply that those with true Christ-like love for non-Americans requires us to throw open our boarders to all who want to enter? Jesus, did teach that true believers will hear from Jesus, “I was a STRANGER and you WELCOMED me.” Doesn’t this settle the issue—All Christians must be welcoming to immigrants who want to come into our country. Your children and grandchildren are hearing that argument. Let’s attempt to think biblically about the hot topic today of illegal, undocumented, immigrants coming across our southern border.
All Christians are to Give Special Care to Sojourners
At the core of Christian ethics is the recognition that every human being has dignity as God’s image-bearer, which requires us to care for every human, no matter what his or her social status. Scripture particularly identifies those holding the lowest status for intentional care—widows, orphans, the poor, and immigrants. The OT is filled with laws and narratives about immigrants. Israelites were commanded to provide for them through an agrarian welfare system, where foreigners could glean from an Israelite’s field (Dt 24:19-22) and were required to pay immigrants in a timely manner for their work (Dt 24:15). The Israelites were repeatedly warned not to oppress the widow, the orphan, or sojourner, in words like these in Deuteronomy 24: You shall not pervert the justice due to the sojourner or to the fatherless, or take a widow’s garment in pledge, but you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you from there; therefore I command you to do this (vs 17-18). The prophets frequently called down fire on anyone who claimed to be a follower of Yahweh and mistreated a foreigner. Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place. (Jer 22:3). Indeed, Malachi puts mistreatment of immigrants on a level with sorcery and adultery: Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers…against those who oppress widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner (Mal 3:5).
The NT concern for immigrants is perhaps even more clear. Jesus was a refugee, fleeing with his family from Herod. He confronted his hometown elders over their racist attitudes towards gentile outsiders. He attacked the bigoted Jewish hatred for the Samaritans. Peter tells Christians that we, ourselves, are sojourners in a foreign land. Such status as foreigners should give us a new heart for others who find themselves in similar situations. Moreover, Jesus taught that on judgement day, he will look at true Christians and say, “I was a stranger and you WELCOMED me” and look at those damned to hell and say, “I was a stranger and you did NOT WELCOME me” (Matt 25:35-43). Here are some implications for a correct attitude towards immigrants:

Closing our hearts to the plight of the worldwide poor or oppressed immigrants seeking to flee to our nation is never appropriate.
Supporting a completely closed border, i.e. not having a legitimate way to admit any immigrants legally is, in my view, not a biblical option. As those whose citizenship is in heaven and who are called to a heart of compassion—shutting out the needy because they are not of OUR tribe is wrong.
I see no biblical basis for a merit-based system of legal immigration, which some Republican politicians have proposed. That seems the epitome of selfishness and American ethnocentrism. Though difficult to implement, opening our doors to those seeking asylum to escape oppression still seems most biblical to me.
Unquestionably, outreach to the immigrant population, whether here legally or illegally, must be as high a priority as reaching out to the poor, homeless, widows, and orphans.

The Fallacy of Equating Open Hearts to Immigrants with Open Borders 
The above argument to support justice and provide care for immigrants living in our land provides zero evidence for throwing open the borders of our nation.

The biblical commands require justice and care for immigrants already living in our land. This is an extension of the second great commandment, to love your neighbor as yourself. God is not addressing the issue of eliminating national borders, nor care for those of other nations.
To suggest that love for immigrants requires throwing open the doors of the nation would be like saying that love for our neighbor prevents every Hebrew or Christian family from closing the doors of their house to others at night.
God considers national boundaries important enough to say, When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples (Dt 32:8). In Acts 17:26, we see the same truth, that God himself established boundaries, making distinctions between different groups of people. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place.
Although authors, like Dan Carroll, in his book, Christians at the Boarder, and Preston Sprinkle in his blog, “A Christian Response to Undocumented Immigrants” attempt to justify the un-enforcement of immigration laws protecting our boarder as civil disobedience, they have no Biblical case for doing so. Since there is zero biblical teaching that makes open boarders a moral imperative, disagreeing with your nation’s immigration policy is no biblical justification for civil disobedience. Scripture permits civil disobedience only when a believer is compelled by the government to violate the clear command of Scripture. There is no verse of Scripture that gives a person the moral right to live in whatever land he or she chooses. It is an unbiblical stretch to turn the calling of all Christians to love their immigrant neighbors into a moral principle that gives every human a right to live in any country he wants to.
The argument that many deserving people can’t get into our country legally because the ones who do get in legally have the money to bribe officials has no merit. Bribery is part of every government in the world.

Read More
Related Posts:

Suspicion is not wisdom, so let’s not confuse it with discernment. We don’t begin with the assumption of guilt and then look for evidence; we begin with love and assume the best—bearing with one another, pursuing the truth together, carefully listening to discover what someone means by the words they use, and sharing fellowship as we proclaim and promote the essential elements of the Christian faith.

“We can’t go on together,” sang Elvis in 1969, “with suspicious minds.” It’s a song that laments the breakdown of trust, resulting in the corrosion of a romantic relationship.
More than 50 years on, these words could apply to the American experiment, with increasing levels of distrust toward government officials, media and news outlets, and the “experts” in various fields. Some of this suspicion is justified, as is often the case when trust is violated, and when people see the rules for discourse and debate applied unfairly. A healthy dose of skepticism toward top-down approaches in business and government is necessary for a free people’s flourishing.
What’s more, we’re living through one of the most disastrous periods in American history if you’re looking for reasons to trust in institutions and their leaders. Glaring failures in leadership—waving off criticism by appealing to one’s credentials— lead people to react with suspicion, and understandably so.
Suspicion in the World and the Church
But suspicion takes a wrong turn when we filter everything and everyone through the lens of distrust, always on a quest to discover an ulterior motive. This is one of postmodernism’s most pernicious effects—a hermeneutic of suspicion that claims every proposal or position is just a power play in disguise. Even deeds that appear altruistic must be tainted somehow by the lust for power.
Once suspicion pervades a society, the slightest disagreements—even among people who generally share the same beliefs—get interpreted as signs of betrayal. Seeds of doubt are sown into every interaction, and often it’s the people closest to you who become the subject of your suspicions. After all, you’ve written off the people opposed to your beliefs as the “villains.” You expect your opponents to act the fool; it’s when someone close to you doesn’t toe the party line, or asks uncomfortable questions, or pushes back on something you feel strongly about that you raise an eyebrow and wonder: Are they really with us? Or are they a villain in disguise?
The worldliness of succumbing to suspicion—assuming nefarious intentions behind every position—should not show up in the church. But alas, we too often fail in this area.
Consider how some of the fiercest debates today, as opposed to 10 years ago, are not between “progressive” and “conservative” Christians, but between varying shades of Christians in those respective camps. Brothers and sisters who attend the same kinds of churches, agree to the same confessional commitments, and share the same general outlook on life turn and devour each other over differences in political priorities, or disagreements over the wisdom of particular policies, or the way we should view certain politicians, authors, or theologians.
Read More
Related Posts:

A beautiful church is not something that is only reserved for centuries-old mainline denominations, or congregations with resources to spare. Instead, a beautiful church can be a powerful witness to the community, connect us with the traditions of our ancient and sufficient faith, remind us of the beauty of God and his provision, and shape our spiritual formation week-in and week-out. Beauty in the church should not be an afterthought, but instead a key consideration as we design the spaces we worship our magnificent and glorious God in.

In the last few decades, American churches have gotten a new look—but don’t call it a facelift. Instead, think of it more as a toning-down, as church exteriors have ridden themselves of their steeples and other religious symbols, while their interiors can look more at home as a warehouse-turned-music-venue than a sacred space. American evangelical churches are increasingly taking on a more bare-bones and utilitarian look, often in order to save resources and better attract the unchurched. But is this bare-bones look really what churches should be aiming for? The history of church architecture, research, and our faith suggest otherwise, as beautiful sacred spaces provide powerful opportunities for witness and worship.
The History Of Church Architecture
The history of church architecture doesn’t quite align with Christian history, as churches got their start in homes, thanks to it being largely illegal or unpopular for much of its first few centuries. But once Emperor Theodosius made Christianity the state religion in 381, church architecture took off. Early churches took inspiration from Jewish and Roman architecture, though not their temples—neither Roman nor Jewish temples contained space for a gathering of people to worship, instead allowing only one or two people at a time to petition or offer up sacrifices. Instead, Christian churches mimicked Roman basilicas, which were large public spaces featuring aisles and halls that could fit a crowd.
As the centuries marched on, Christianity spread and had resources to spare, and its architecture became more cutting-edge and meticulously crafted. Churches were soon showing off building techniques that existed nowhere else, like adding a dome on top of a polygonal structure.
The Gothic architecture of the early second millennia continued this trend, as clergy, patrons and builders built taller and taller churches that seemed to reach towards the heavens. Gothic churches often featured cross-shaped floor plans and used lines of windows along the top of their walls to bounce light around and create a sense of mysticism and the Divine.
But with this greater architectural complexity also came greater separation of the public from the sacraments and the word of God. Later churches of the Middle Ages were sometimes made up of two rooms—one space would be for the public to sit in and engage in private devotion, while the other space would be for the clergy and the choir to recite Mass and partake in the sacraments. Often, the two rooms were separated by a screen, severely limiting the congregation’s ability to engage with and see the worship service.
These excesses, among other things, brought along the Reformation, which fundamentally reshaped church architecture. Protestant worship spaces were marked with an absence of saints, screens and iconography, instead preferring to minimize excess ornamentation and the distance between the clergy and their people. (Meanwhile, as a reaction to this split, Baroque-era Catholic churches only increased in decadence, at least for a time.)
Church Architecture in America
As Christianity entered the New World, its churches began to follow the architectural trends of its era, soon taking on the rational and restrained Neoclassical style in the age of Enlightenment. This eventually gave way to the Gothic Revival style, which celebrated the ‘high-church’ look as the Second Great Awakening was taking over the nation and seeding small country churches.
The 20th-century brought with it Victorian churches, Craftsman churches, and even Modernist churches, each demonstrating the architectural preferences of its time. But throughout each of these movements and trends, many things remained the same about American churches—almost all featured steeples, sloped roofs, exterior ornamentation and an overall attention to beauty, even if the buildings now look dated to our 21st-century eyes. But as the midcentury came and went, church architecture underwent a massive shift—suddenly, it was no longer in vogue to look like a church anymore.
Architectural Evangelism
American Christianity in the mid 20th-century was marked by revivalists like Billy Graham and Oral Roberts, bringing people to Christ one soul at a time. But in the ‘70s and ‘80s, the mainstream approach to evangelism changed, as church leaders wanted people to not only be saved, but to enter church life too. Thus the church-growth movement began, which focused more on drawing people into a church and focused less on going out into the community and holding large evangelistic events. And one of the ways churches sought to attract people into them was through architecture—or rather, a lack of it.
The theory was that a church building that looked more like it belonged in a strip mall or shopping center would be more accessible to those from unchurched backgrounds and it wouldn’t carry any of the visual baggage a traditional-looking church might. This approach is called ‘architectural evangelism.’ These types of ‘seeker-friendly’ churches are a dime-a-dozen now, but they can be defined by their use of low-cost materials, their repurposing or repetition of secular spaces, like theaters, warehouses, or storefronts, their boxy shapes, and their use of few or no ecclesiological markers, such a steeple, stained glass, or a cross. (It’s also interesting to note that churches started to act more business-like throughout the 20th-century and needed office spaces for additional staff—perhaps another reason for the move towards strip-mall and office-park-esque churches.)
Read More
Related Posts: