Unworthy rebels, redeemed by the King of Kings and made servants fit for His use.

Tag: Christian

Are They Truly Sojourners?

There has been much discussion regarding the issue of illegal immigration within the United States. Merriam-Webster defines an illegal alien/immigrant as “a foreign person who is living in a country without having official permission to live there.”[1] In other words, illegal immigration involves persons who are citizens of another nation who have violated immigration laws to enter into and reside within the borders of a different nation. In the United States, the issue of illegal immigration has been one of growing concern, with some statistics showing the number of immigrants growing to 11 million during the summer of 2024. [2] The political debate over the last several years has been between two rather notable positions: first, illegal immigration is detrimental to the health and safety of the nation. Therefore, the border should be closed, and illegal immigrants must be deported. Second, we are a nation of immigrants, and no person should be considered illegal. Therefore, the border should be opened, and all should be welcomed.

The Christian church has also waded into this debate, with positions being held on both sides. Many biblically conservative Christians have argued that, by entering into the nation illegally, immigrants have violated the nation’s laws and should be held accountable. As such, to allow them to remain in the country is to permit them to continue in sin without any accountability. However, more progressive Christians attempt to thwart this position by appealing to Scripture wherein they argue that we are to be a people who care for the sojourner just as Israel was commanded to do in Leviticus 19:34 which states:

You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

They charge that if we cast out immigrants who are merely looking for a better life, we are violating the commandments of God Himself. The question, however, that needs to be asked is whether these persons are indeed sojourners if they are violating the national borders. Furthermore, does Scripture permit nations to create and uphold borders to prevent other nations from entering without permission? The answer to both of these questions must define the Christian position.

It is helpful to understand how Israel herself was considered a sojourner in Egypt. Following Joseph’s rise to power in Egypt and the saving of his family during the years of famine, we see in Genesis 47 that he was permitted to move his family into Egypt. In fact, they were given the land of Goshen to live and raise their families. They did not sneak into the land or invade by subterfuge; they were invited and welcomed with open arms. They lived in Egypt approximately 430 years before Moses led them out of the land. Their harsh treatment by that point was not due to their being in the land without permission but because the Pharaoh, who had risen to power, did not know Joseph and irrationally feared the Israelites would rebel against them. The time of their sojourning included many generations who had lived in peace with a nation that had welcomed them into their lands openly. It is this period that the Israelites are commanded to remember by God for how they are to treat sojourners in their midst.

Those who wished to sojourn with Israel had permission to do so. The law even instructed the Israelites to allow them to provide for themselves by picking up the gleanings from the harvest of the fields and vineyards (Lev. 19:9-10). Sojourners could even enter into indentured servitude under Israelite masters (Lev. 25:44-46), which would necessitate their obedience to their owners. However, sojourners could not participate in the covenant feasts of Israel unless they became circumcised and became “as a native of the land” (Ex 12:48). They were not part of the covenant and not genuinely part of Israel unless they entered into that covenant. Still, God did expect the sojourner to be obedient while living among His people and told Moses, “There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you” (v. 49). Sojourners could not simply come in and do as they pleased. God would provide for them, but they were expected to live in obedience to His commandments. And, if they wanted to receive the blessing of His covenant, they were to assimilate by becoming an Israelite. One could not arbitrarily hitch themselves to Israel without seeking to honor the nation God had made.

It must also be understood that borders matter to God. He raises nations and brings them down. Their existence is by His hand alone. When God established the nation of Israel, He gave her defined borders (see Ex. 23:31-33). When He sent His people into Israel to occupy the land, He drove out the pagan people before them. Those borders were set by God, and He would punish any nation that sought to assault His people. Interestingly, lines of demarcation were so established by God that He even prohibited His own people from moving the landmarks within the nation that established the property lines of their neighbors. Borders were important to God and His people. To cross over those lines or to attempt to alter them without permission was to offend the Most High. God even permitted and called for the defense of His nation multiple times, as seen in the books of Joshua, Judges, 1 Sam, 2 Sam, 1 Kings, and 2 Kings. God even commanded Nehemiah to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem after their time in exile. Borders, walls, laws, and other means of controlling the flow of persons entering a nation are both necessary and biblical for the defense of a people.

While much more can be said about this debate, Christianity has no opposition to a nation protecting its borders and its people from those who would seek to enter without permission. God has shown time and again in His word that a nation’s borders are His provision for that nation’s existence. Furthermore, He has given governments for the protection of a nation’s people and the punishment of evildoers (see Romans 13). Those seeking to enter the country and live as sojourners are required to live according to the laws of the land. Likewise, if they desire to benefit from the blessings of that nation, they should seek to assimilate and become part of the culture. Christians should desire to see such persons in the land and welcome them with open arms. Yet, there is no sin in Christians seeking accountability of those who flaunt the nation’s laws and borders, those who demand the freedoms of the country without submitting to the laws that protect those freedoms. Christians should have no fear in wanting to see their neighbor’s homes, jobs, and families protected from those who do not obey the laws of the land. It is right and biblical to do so.

As Christians, we should call upon our government to uphold the laws of immigration so that those who violate the law will be held accountable. Yet, we should also desire to see a refined and robust legal immigration process that will allow those who wish to live in the land given ample opportunity to do so. We should love the sojourner who looks to come and live among us; we should do all that we can to help and honor the process of bringing them here. However, that love includes protecting them from those who would dishonor their hard work to enter the land legally from those who break the law and take what is not rightly theirs.

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illegal%20alien%2Fimmigrant

[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-know-about-unauthorized-immigrants-living-in-the-us/

Note: This article was also published at X.com

Elitists Lecturing the Church About Abortion

Today, I read articles by both Karen Swallow Prior and David French regarding making abortion “unnecessary” and “unthinkable.” In both cases, they give token acknowledgment to the fact that Christians for hundreds of years have actually done the hard work of caring for those in need. But, their solution isn’t to praise that work and call for churches to keep doing the same.

Rather, it is that Christians simply have not done enough to address those issues, so we must now abdicate that responsibility and give it to the government. Both articles advocate for government-sponsored social and financial programs, appealing to the sense that women who are pregnant seek abortions due to societal and monetary issues.

Both Prior and French call for society at large to be responsible to fund and care for pregnant women through government-enforced taxation and redistribution of resources. What I find interesting in both articles is that neither is willing to recognize that it has been government-based programs that have caused much of the societal and financial decay in our nation.  Welfare programs have repeatedly made women and minorities dependent on handouts. They do so by punishing recipients the moment they obtain any kind of self-sufficiency by ending those benefits. Social and financial programs are very much not an opportunity to provide a “leg up” but force people to live on the meager dolling of what the bureaucrats give them.

Also, rampant sexual immorality in our nation can be traced to the government-sponsored promotion of “safe sex” education over abstinence. And it is the government force-feeding acceptance of “alternate lifestyles,” teaching sexual perversion as virtuous and freeing.  Nowhere in either article do Prior and French call for churches to hold the government accountable for helping to further the depravity that has resulted in “unwanted pregnancies,” yet we are called upon to make this same bureaucracy responsible for solving the problem it helped cause.

Also interesting is their appeal to statistics which say abortion has decreased since Roe. Yet, neither address that abortifacient contraceptives have risen in use (i.e. “the morning after pill”). Countless numbers of babies have been aborted after conception because these “medications” prevent implantation after initial conception. Children that are conceived, yet lost because the pill caused them to be flushed away are still murdered, even if they were not injected with saline, burned, and dismembered.

Both Prior and French want to lecture Christians and take the “moral high ground” by saying we can’t really be pro-life unless we endorse government-based solutions. Yet, their arguments are spurious and vapid. They mostly ignore the work done for centuries by the Church, use statistics slanted in their favor to make their case, and conveniently fail to address the government’s own hand in our current mess.
In short, their solution is no solution at all.

The Next Edition of Voice of Reason Radio

The newest recording of Voice of Reason Radio will be posted later but this is the video message given by David Platt, Chris and Rich discussed.  David Platt’s Message to NOBTS Chapel

Doctrinal Disputes and Loving Our Brethren

bible-open-to-psalm-118 (1)It can be safely said that, since the birth of the church on Pentecost, for every opinion expressed there have been divisions in the body of Christ. Professing followers of Jesus always have and always will struggle with temptation and sin until the day we are glorified in Heaven with the Savior. Prior to being redeemed, sin permeated every last aspect of our nature. We were enslaved to it, there was nothing we did or thought that was without its foul taint. Yet, in Christ, we have been set free, no longer slaves to the passions that drove us. From that day until we are called home, we go through the process of sanctification. We are changed day by day, being purged and purified. God brings our sins to the surface so that we might repent and be changed. This takes a lifetime, and it is hardly an easy journey.

With that said, we must understand that divisions in the church come as a result of sinful pride. Were we already perfected in our flesh, we would all rightly understand the Word of God and we never would be in disagreement. However, given our lack of perfect comprehension, we must understand that as we grow in knowledge, so we can also grow in our pride. We are prone to lifting ourselves and our accomplishments up high. So, when we begin to grasp the greater and deeper truths of scripture, there is a great temptation to act as though this knowledge was gained of our own accord. And as doctrine becomes more open to us, we begin to have disdain for the shallowness of understanding in which we once walked.

If you have ever engaged in doctrinal discussions, especially on the internet, you know just how easy a rigorous debate can transform into a vile argument with character assassinations and name calling in abundance. Sadly, much of the public face of Christianity today, especially in the arena of social media, has reflected this. I am not referring to the debates between liberal or false theology and sound doctrine. Those debates will clearly be contentious as though who seek to downplay biblical truth will almost always engage in emotional rhetoric in order to claim victory. Rather, what I am referring to are the heated arguments between Christians who fall within diverse, but orthodox, doctrinal views. Such debates can be necessary to help us grow and understand the nature of God and the Christian faith. However, pride in our doctrinal stances can often result in a lack of grace being shown to our brethren. It doesn’t take long for us to move from debate, to argument, to anathematization of one another when pride gets in the way.

Continue reading