Bryan Fischer
An evangelical responds to the Evangelical Immigration Table
By Bryan Fischer
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"
The Senate debate starts this week on the disastrous Rubio amnesty bill, which has problems too numerous to list, beginning with its astronomical cost of $6.3 trillion.
Sadly, a cluster of evangelical luminaries has signed on to this bill, and is using socialist money to publicize their view.
The EIT, in an ad funded by hardcore leftist George Soros, insists that a respect for the "God-given dignity" of every human being demands that we reward illegal aliens for breaking the law. This, of course, is preposterous, but right out of the pseudo-evangelical Jim Wallis socialist playbook.
The EIT will no doubt cite Rubio's nostrums about the back taxes illegals will have to pay. That's a bit like saying to a car thief you can keep the Jag as long as you pay the sales tax. Instant legalization is a massive reward.
Just ask the 4 million people who are waiting patiently in countries all around the world to migrate to the United States. They are looking to be invited in through the front door instead of breaking and entering through the back door. They'd love to be able to cut to the front of the line, like illegals will be able to do under Rubio's bill, but they can't, for one simple reason. They are obeying the law and playing by the rules. We should be rewarding law-abiders and punishing lawbreakers, not the other way round.
The EIT has produced another ad in which various personages sonorously recite Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats, with the clear implication that if we do not agree with them about rewarding lawbreakers, we are headed straight to hell, "into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41).
These evangelicals conveniently forget two things about Jesus' parable: it isn't a command to government, it is a command to individuals, and secondly, it doesn't say a single solitary thing about illegal immigration whatsoever. Other than condemning ordinary evangelicals to the lake of burning sulphur and twisting the the words of Jesus out of all recognition, the ad is spot on.
The Rubio bill, by guaranteeing a path to citizenship for folks who have been in criminal violation of our laws for years, is a travesty to anyone with evangelical sensibilities whose view of the rule of law and human responsibility is shaped by Scripture.
In fact, a respect for human dignity would lead us to hold people accountable for their own lifestyle choices, which includes proper sanctions for illegal conduct. To expect less of people, to give them a pass, nay, reward them for criminal behavior, is to insult them through the soft bigotry of low and unbiblical expectations.
Surely, if they are created in the image of God, they are free moral agents who are capable of making responsible, mature and law-abiding decisions. To expect anything less of them is to treat them patronizingly as children.
From a theological standpoint, the EIT ignores the entire story of Moses' encounter with the government of Edom in the journey of Israel from Egypt to the promised land (Numbers 20:14-21). Moses asked permission from the king of Moab to "pass through your land," and pledged that his people would not pass through any fields or vineyards or drink any water from their wells. In other words, they pledged that they would not be a burden to the taxpayers of Edom.
The king of Edom said no and denied the Israelites permission to cross his border and enter his land. Moses, rather than sneaking across the border and then insisting on amnesty, "turned away" and went in another direction.
Surely this passage illustrates two biblical truths: nations have borders which they have a right to defend, and each nation has the right to decide for itself who will be allowed to enter its sovereign territory. And this is not just an Old Testament concept. Paul, in Acts 17:26, says plainly that God has "determined...the boundaries" of the nations in which men live. A boundary, of course, means a line that others cannot cross without permission.
In truth, we do not in fact need immigration reform. We need immigration enforcement. The first and greatest need is a secure border, which can only be accomplished by the building of a double-layer security fence all across our southern border.
In fact, I would suggest a thoughtful evangelical position on immigration, at this point, would consist of one plank: no fence, no deal. We do not lack the resources to do this, we lack only the will. If we can build the Empire State Building in 17 months in the middle of the Great Depression, we can build "the danged fence."
The Evangelical Immigration Table is in league with Marxists on this issue, and on the wrong side of both Scripture and history. Here's hoping they wake from their slumber before it's too late.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
© Bryan Fischer
June 11, 2013
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"
The Senate debate starts this week on the disastrous Rubio amnesty bill, which has problems too numerous to list, beginning with its astronomical cost of $6.3 trillion.
Sadly, a cluster of evangelical luminaries has signed on to this bill, and is using socialist money to publicize their view.
The EIT, in an ad funded by hardcore leftist George Soros, insists that a respect for the "God-given dignity" of every human being demands that we reward illegal aliens for breaking the law. This, of course, is preposterous, but right out of the pseudo-evangelical Jim Wallis socialist playbook.
The EIT will no doubt cite Rubio's nostrums about the back taxes illegals will have to pay. That's a bit like saying to a car thief you can keep the Jag as long as you pay the sales tax. Instant legalization is a massive reward.
Just ask the 4 million people who are waiting patiently in countries all around the world to migrate to the United States. They are looking to be invited in through the front door instead of breaking and entering through the back door. They'd love to be able to cut to the front of the line, like illegals will be able to do under Rubio's bill, but they can't, for one simple reason. They are obeying the law and playing by the rules. We should be rewarding law-abiders and punishing lawbreakers, not the other way round.
The EIT has produced another ad in which various personages sonorously recite Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats, with the clear implication that if we do not agree with them about rewarding lawbreakers, we are headed straight to hell, "into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41).
These evangelicals conveniently forget two things about Jesus' parable: it isn't a command to government, it is a command to individuals, and secondly, it doesn't say a single solitary thing about illegal immigration whatsoever. Other than condemning ordinary evangelicals to the lake of burning sulphur and twisting the the words of Jesus out of all recognition, the ad is spot on.
The Rubio bill, by guaranteeing a path to citizenship for folks who have been in criminal violation of our laws for years, is a travesty to anyone with evangelical sensibilities whose view of the rule of law and human responsibility is shaped by Scripture.
In fact, a respect for human dignity would lead us to hold people accountable for their own lifestyle choices, which includes proper sanctions for illegal conduct. To expect less of people, to give them a pass, nay, reward them for criminal behavior, is to insult them through the soft bigotry of low and unbiblical expectations.
Surely, if they are created in the image of God, they are free moral agents who are capable of making responsible, mature and law-abiding decisions. To expect anything less of them is to treat them patronizingly as children.
From a theological standpoint, the EIT ignores the entire story of Moses' encounter with the government of Edom in the journey of Israel from Egypt to the promised land (Numbers 20:14-21). Moses asked permission from the king of Moab to "pass through your land," and pledged that his people would not pass through any fields or vineyards or drink any water from their wells. In other words, they pledged that they would not be a burden to the taxpayers of Edom.
The king of Edom said no and denied the Israelites permission to cross his border and enter his land. Moses, rather than sneaking across the border and then insisting on amnesty, "turned away" and went in another direction.
Surely this passage illustrates two biblical truths: nations have borders which they have a right to defend, and each nation has the right to decide for itself who will be allowed to enter its sovereign territory. And this is not just an Old Testament concept. Paul, in Acts 17:26, says plainly that God has "determined...the boundaries" of the nations in which men live. A boundary, of course, means a line that others cannot cross without permission.
In truth, we do not in fact need immigration reform. We need immigration enforcement. The first and greatest need is a secure border, which can only be accomplished by the building of a double-layer security fence all across our southern border.
In fact, I would suggest a thoughtful evangelical position on immigration, at this point, would consist of one plank: no fence, no deal. We do not lack the resources to do this, we lack only the will. If we can build the Empire State Building in 17 months in the middle of the Great Depression, we can build "the danged fence."
The Evangelical Immigration Table is in league with Marxists on this issue, and on the wrong side of both Scripture and history. Here's hoping they wake from their slumber before it's too late.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
© Bryan Fischer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
