Biden's New Border Policy

[GaryK]

So just to be clear, you are advocating for open borders?

Open borders is a political/legal policy. Suppose I advocate for believers (1)"if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well" and (2) everyone should follow Jesus, does it follow that I advocate the legal dissolution of private property rights.

I think the difference is that you are primarily focused on advocating for believers to take on Kingdom values, which I'm on board with, but JBG seems to be making the case that we advocate for earthly governments and earthly systems to adopt these Kingdom values and that in doing so, that will bring about the reign of Jesus' Kingdom on earth.

I am advocating for everyone everywhere, every business, economy, polity, and society, adopt the full Kingdom principles and yield to the rule and reign of Jesus. Every knee bow and every tongue confess. To the extent that that is done, salvation is brought to earth as also in heaven.

When that fully happens the geopolitical nation states, with their artificial borders, will be ended.

[Josh]

What is meant by depending on the context? In what context would you not hire someone who is not compliant with US immigration law? If, because of being in Jesus Kingdom, we as employers are not required to abide by immigration laws and by extension, tax withholding laws, there really should be no problem hiring those who are not compliant.

Hiring a day laborer, or some other person in need, feels like it's in the spirit of the Bible verse I quoted earlier about treating the stranger just as you would a natural citizen. And also loving him as you would yourself. I gave an example of that earlier in the thread.

Hiring someone you know is not authorised to work in the United States is illegal, as is hiring someone without appropriate wage withholding and compliance with employment laws.

But you seem to have invented an ethical framework for yourself where you can ignore a country’s laws at your own whim because you think Jesus’ future kingdom wouldn’t have the same laws. You are indeed following an Anabaptist traditions - but you are squarely in the Batenburger lineage; believing that because the kingdom was at hand, they could do literally whatever they wanted.

Jesus and Paul taught directly against this. Jesus taught to render custom to whom custom is due and to pay taxes. Likewise, Paul taught to submit to the laws of the land. You can do a lot to treat strangers and immigrants well without illegally hiring them to work for you. (For example, you could sponsor them on H2-A visas.)

Jesus and Paul did not lay out a framework to blatantly violate a nation’s laws just because you are politically opposed to them.

[joshuabgood]

So just to be clear, you are advocating for open borders?

Open borders is a political/legal policy. Suppose I advocate for believers (1)"if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well" and (2) everyone should follow Jesus, does it follow that I advocate the legal dissolution of private property rights.

I think the difference is that you are primarily focused on advocating for believers to take on Kingdom values, which I'm on board with, but JBG seems to be making the case that we advocate for earthly governments and earthly systems to adopt these Kingdom values and that in doing so, that will bring about the reign of Jesus' Kingdom on earth.

I am advocating for everyone everywhere, every business, economy, polity, and society, adopt the full Kingdom principles and yield to the rule and reign of Jesus. Every knee bow and every tongue confess. To the extent that that is done, salvation is brought to earth as also in heaven.

When that fully happens the geopolitical nation states, with their artificial borders, will be ended.

Yes and yes. I don't see a conflict between what I wrote/am thinking, and what Harlan captured in nice short way. Whatever position anybody or entity finds itself in, I advocate that they start implementing the Kingdom principles, that is having allegiance to Jesus, and that those actions will usher in more heaven on earth than what is currently in place. And pieces of those folks/entities will then start becoming under the rule and reign of Christ. (However, I am not endorsing nation-state (that kingdoms of this world) theories (violence and coercion) of social change (that is salvation)).

I think, should the centurion, or King Agrippa, begin to yield to King Jesus...they can stay in their positions "as long as they can" - meaning the sorting will occur when/as they refuse to kill their fellowman on the battlefield, or in the electric chair, or as they refuse to enforce geopolitical machinations (including border manipulation) for the cause of the nation state. We don't read though that Paul or Jesus or Peter, ever led with you need to "leave this position." Or, "you and your kingdom are ordained of God to be a terror to evil works so keep up the good work so do it righteously." Instead it just seemed understood, that as one comes under the Lordship of Jesus, an allegiance shift would be underway that would naturally sort itself out.

The truth is, folks that implement the Jesus Kingdom, will never last long in the Kingdoms of this World. Those kingdoms want nothing of it. They desire to use force to protect their way of life. They desire retribution. They desire America first. As a simple example, when Ron Paul, years ago noted that the "blowback" by the Al Qaida on 9-11 makes historical sense when you review American foreign policy in the 20th century, it buried his political chances. (There are many historical examples like this...Jimmy Carter, who in a myriad of ways reflected Jesus much more than did Ronald Reagan, is still mocked - even though the economic malaise he inherited had same as nothing to do with his decisions and was decades in the making thanks to Keynesian economics, loose monetary policy fiat currency, and decades of war by JFK, LBJ, and Nixon.)

[temporal1]

i’m beginning to wonder about hallucinogens.

[joshuabgood]

What is meant by depending on the context? In what context would you not hire someone who is not compliant with US immigration law? If, because of being in Jesus Kingdom, we as employers are not required to abide by immigration laws and by extension, tax withholding laws, there really should be no problem hiring those who are not compliant.

Hiring a day laborer, or some other person in need, feels like it's in the spirit of the Bible verse I quoted earlier about treating the stranger just as you would a natural citizen. And also loving him as you would yourself. I gave an example of that earlier in the thread.

Hiring someone you know is not authorised to work in the United States is illegal, as is hiring someone without appropriate wage withholding and compliance with employment laws.

But you seem to have invented an ethical framework for yourself where you can ignore a country’s laws at your own whim because you think Jesus’ future kingdom wouldn’t have the same laws. You are indeed following an Anabaptist traditions - but you are squarely in the Batenburger lineage; believing that because the kingdom was at hand, they could do literally whatever they wanted.

Jesus and Paul taught directly against this. Jesus taught to render custom to whom custom is due and to pay taxes. Likewise, Paul taught to submit to the laws of the land. You can do a lot to treat strangers and immigrants well without illegally hiring them to work for you. (For example, you could sponsor them on H2-A visas.)

Jesus and Paul did not lay out a framework to blatantly violate a nation’s laws just because you are politically opposed to them.

Our allegiance is to the rule and law of Jesus Christ. Not to the nation-state kingdoms of this world ruled by the prince of this world, the Lord of the Flies, that is Belial. Any laws that go against the kingdom of God, a follower of Jesus cannot obey.

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.

Seems clear - we should treat them just like we do the natives. If we hire natives, we should hire strangers. For you were once strangers - that is foreigners. Love them as yourselves -as you wish to be welcomed, welcome them.

[joshuabgood]

i’m beginning to wonder about hallucinogens.

I am not following this comment. Is it in the wrong thread? The mod's could move it for you.

[Josh]

So, let’s move for a minute into jbg’s fantasy land.

#1. Imagine a conservative Mennonite church, or a mission, where a sociopath is engaging in gross sexual abuse. (Or don’t imagine - we have plenty of real life examples to draw from.)

#2. The abused person, his or her friends and family, etc. engage in “suffering love”, talk to church leaders, etc. who just say to forgive the abuser. The abuser keeps abusing, perhaps with new victims.

#3. Eventually, someone goes to the police. The police get involved. The abuser admits nothing and doesn’t want to turn himself in.

Now, what does jbg imagine is “right” to happen next? He says that all use of force is inherently wrong, so as Christians should we…

#4. Church and mission leaders ask the police not get involved and to let them handle things privately (after allowing dozens of victims to stack up per step #2).

-or-

#5. Acknowledge that the magistrate does not bear the sword in vain. The police arrest the abuser, the prosecution presents the evidence, a judge and jury convict him, and the jailer executes or confines him in prison.

I personally think Christians should have chosen #5 in the Jeriah Mast situation. Yet this “suffering love” nonsense means for years. They chose #2 instead, and then wailed in the courtroom for #4, begging for leniency from a man who molested dozens (or hundreds) of boys, bribed the boys’ parents with embezzled missionary donations to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and acted like a 9 year sentence was some grievous imposition on his children and spouse.

My friends, that is not suffering love. That is being joined to and one with unrepentant, gross sin. Romans is really clear about this.

[joshuabgood]

So, let’s move for a minute into jbg’s fantasy land.

#1. Imagine a conservative Mennonite church, or a mission, where a sociopath is engaging in gross sexual abuse. (Or don’t imagine - we have plenty of real life examples to draw from.)

#2. The abused person, his or her friends and family, etc. engage in “suffering love”, talk to church leaders, etc. who just say to forgive the abuser. The abuser keeps abusing, perhaps with new victims.

#3. Eventually, someone goes to the police. The police get involved. The abuser admits nothing and doesn’t want to turn himself in.

Now, what does jbg imagine is “right” to happen next? He says that all use of force is inherently wrong, so as Christians should we…

#4. Church and mission leaders ask the police not get involved and to let them handle things privately (after allowing dozens of victims to stack up per step #2).

-or-

#5. Acknowledge that the magistrate does not bear the sword in vain. The police arrest the abuser, the prosecution presents the evidence, a judge and jury convict him, and the jailer executes or confines him in prison.

I personally think Christians should have chosen #5 in the Jeriah Mast situation. Yet this “suffering love” nonsense means for years. They chose #2 instead, and then wailed in the courtroom for #4, begging for leniency from a man who molested dozens (or hundreds) of boys, bribed the boys’ parents with embezzled missionary donations to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and acted like a 9 year sentence was some grievous imposition on his children and spouse.

My friends, that is not suffering love. That is being joined to and one with unrepentant, gross sin. Romans is really clear about this.

Keep in mind this is your speculative example, and not mine. Why not just discuss the things I have written if you wish to make a point? Or ask a question...if you wonder how I see Christians interacting with "the magistrate?" Your response feels combative to me but I am not sure why you would feel that defensive.

[Ernie]

I'm not saying it's inevitable that people will lose faith by coming to America and I'm sure there are many who do retain their faith. But the America of today is significantly different than it was in the days of the settlers and I'm guessing it was easier to live out Kingdom values in America then than it was in Europe.

Today, if someone new to the faith would ask me what country is most conducive to being able to live out Kingdom values, I would not suggest that it's America.

I don't disagree with you. Some countries make it harder to live out Kingdom values. I would suggest, though, that the person you know who came to the US and lost out spiritually may have struggled to keep his faith in the country where he was before. A person can have the American dream in his heart, regardless of whether or not he is in America.

[Josh]

That isn’t a speculative example. That’s exactly what happened in the JM situation, and has happened with many other abusers.

Abused victims are told to practice “suffering love”.

People like myself who speak up on their behalf are told they are unforgiving, holding the past against someone, and so on.

When an abuser is finally in the courtroom, the plain people beg for leniency.

The victims are discarded and forgotten; in one sordid case I was involved with, the same people who promote “suffering love” and “forgiveness” called her a “whore”, a “b****”, and when she got pregnant with her boyfriend, her child a “b*****d”.

The abuser escaped prosecution. The plain people rallied around him and interfered with the court proceedings, despite him having a taped confession.

jbg, that is the wicked fruit of the “suffering love” theology; the lack of justice in “restorative justice”.

Here is the truth about following Jesus: if you disobey him and don’t follow him, you face eternal punishment. There is a side to Jesus and God besides just suffering love: there is a side of a righteous judge who will condemn sin and cast unrepentant sinners out into everlasting darkness.