ICE targets Church Leaders and Christians Fleeing Persecution

[JohnH]

Jesus was very deliberately a-political. So he wasn't a political threat to the empire, only a religious threat to the established religious order.

I think this analysis is only possible from a post- enlightenment world view where gods only exist in the mind and their power is only in the influence of the inner self and the rest of the universe falls under the domain of science and reason. I think the ancient world didn't generally make the distinction of religious vs. political threat.

Nonetheless, the idea that Jesus was killed for "speaking truth to power" is a rather ridiculous one. The purported reason he was executed was for claiming to be the Son of God. The deeper reason was that he wanted to willingly accept the sins of the world - and accept that all of humanity wanted to kill him.

[Ken]

Jesus was very deliberately a-political. So he wasn't a political threat to the empire, only a religious threat to the established religious order.

I think this analysis is only possible from a post- enlightenment world view where gods only exist in the mind and their power is only in the influence of the inner self and the rest of the universe falls under the domain of science and reason. I think the ancient world didn't generally make the distinction of religious vs. political threat.

People were constantly trying to draw Jesus into politics and for him to be some sort of revolutionary independence leader of some sort. He consistently refused to be a king on earth.

The world of the Roman Empire was one in which every of hundreds of occupied peoples in the empire had their own gods and beliefs which Roman paganism mostly accommodated. The Romans really only got annoyed when religion was wielded as a tool of insurrection against Roman rule. And then of course much later when Christianity directly threatened Roman pagan society.

So for example when the Romans brutally crushed the Jewish rebellion in the first century that was a military operation not a religious one. Absent armed insurrection the Romans would not have cared about Judaism or their beliefs.

[barnhart]

Jesus was very deliberately a-political. So he wasn't a political threat to the empire, only a religious threat to the established religious order.

I think this analysis is only possible from a post- enlightenment world view where gods only exist in the mind and their power is only in the influence of the inner self and the rest of the universe falls under the domain of science and reason. I think the ancient world didn't generally make the distinction of religious vs. political threat.

People were constantly trying to draw Jesus into politics and for him to be some sort of revolutionary independence leader of some sort. He consistently refused to be a king on earth.

The world of the Roman Empire was one in which every of hundreds of occupied peoples in the empire had their own gods and beliefs which Roman paganism mostly accommodated. The Romans really only got annoyed when religion was wielded as a tool of insurrection against Roman rule. And then of course much later when Christianity directly threatened Roman pagan society.

So for example when the Romans brutally crushed the Jewish rebellion in the first century that was a military operation not a religious one. Absent armed insurrection the Romans would not have cared about Judaism or their beliefs.

I could contest a few details but the fact I am challenging is that Rome acknowledged the distinction between religion and power. The word religion didn't even exist yet because to Rome worship was power and power was worship, they claimed authority because their gods were stronger. To suggest Jesus was apolitical because his kingdom was spiritual is to intentionally overlook the revolutionary potential of his Kingdom. Indeed, in a few hundred years the roles were reversed and Pilot, in the form of the emporer, was asking, hat in hand, for an audience with Jesus in the form of his church.

[JohnH]

When Jesus walked the earth, the Romans seemed to have no quarrel with him at all. If he really was challenging Roman power, they seemed awfully comfortable with that.

[temporal1]

i’ve always believed Jesus’ threat was He offered His way and salvation to all - without requirement to leave their earthly circumstances, at all. Including slaves and prisoners. That was very new, and frightening.

Just as it remains today.

[Bootstrap]

I would like to return to the subject. These Iranian Christians who fled persecution because of their faith and were treated this way here in the United States. I think it’s important to understand how situations like this have normally been handled, especially for asylum seekers escaping religious persecution.

In the past, when people came here because of their faith and presented themselves lawfully at a port of entry, they were processed through a civil system. Especially Christians who had been persecuted in places like Iran. If there were questions about their eligibility or background, they were given notice to appear in court.

Even if ICE decided detention was necessary, it was usually done in a respectful way. They would be called in for a scheduled appointment and informed calmly that they were being taken into custody. They typically had the chance to call their lawyer, arrange for someone to pick up their children or belongings, and prepare themselves emotionally. Even when deportation was ordered, people were often given weeks to get their affairs in order, so they weren’t blindsided or humiliated.

What happened here was something entirely different.

These Iranian Christians didn’t sneak across the border. They came through the CBP One program—a legal process to request asylum—and were complying fully with all requirements. They were lawfully present while their claims were pending.

But instead of treating them with the respect and compassion due to people escaping religious persecution, approximately six to eight armed federal agents in black tactical gear, helmets, and masks surrounded them on a sidewalk in broad daylight. No notice, no warning. One woman had a panic attack and collapsed on the pavement as her husband stood there handcuffed and powerless to help her. They weren’t even allowed to gather their things or call someone for help.

It looked and felt like a counterterrorism raid. For families who had already fled the fear and intimidation of Iran’s security forces, it must have been terrifying to be treated the same way here in the United States.

This isn’t about left or right. No matter who is in office, we should be able to agree that Christians who are fleeing for their lives—and who have done everything the law asks—deserve compassion and due process, not fear and humiliation.

Whether you favor stricter immigration controls or more generous policies, surely we can stand together and say this is not how America should treat people seeking refuge because of their faith.

[Szdfan]

Whether you favor stricter immigration controls or more generous policies, surely we can stand together and say this is not how America should treat people seeking refuge because of their faith.

Apparently not. Apparently, the Church has no witness when it comes to how the government treats people.

[JohnH]

Whether you favor stricter immigration controls or more generous policies, surely we can stand together and say this is not how America should treat people seeking refuge because of their faith.

Apparently not. Apparently, the Church has no witness when it comes to how the government treats people.

The first-century church didn't have a "witness" to the government in the era of Nero. Instead, they preached Christ crucified and that we should lay down our rights and follow Jesus instead.

I suppose "the Church" could have instead expended effort filing petitions with the (mostly defunct by then) Roman Senate, complaints to the Emperor and so on that he wasn't following relevant law, lawsuits filed in Roman courts...

But we don't have to imagine that, because eventually "the Church" did end up going down that exact path, as Augustine paved a broad way for "the Church" to start to witness directly to the state.

[Bootstrap]

Whether you favor stricter immigration controls or more generous policies, surely we can stand together and say this is not how America should treat people seeking refuge because of their faith.

Apparently not. Apparently, the Church has no witness when it comes to how the government treats people.

The first-century church didn't have a "witness" to the government in the era of Nero. Instead, they preached Christ crucified and that we should lay down our rights and follow Jesus instead.

When we, as Christians, talk among ourselves about how people are mistreated—especially those persecuted for their faith—that isn’t some political act. It’s part of bearing witness to what is true and remembering the suffering of the saints. We don’t have to ban the Martyr’s Mirror or stop reading stories of believers who appealed to rulers for justice.

And even in the early centuries, Christians did sometimes appeal to the authorities. For example, Justin Martyr wrote The First Apology around AD 155, directly addressing the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius. Justin didn’t expect Rome to become Christian, but he did ask for fair treatment. He wrote:

Reason tells people who care about truth to honor and love what is true, not just follow old traditions if they’re worthless. And when you hear what we say, you can either ignore it—like you did with Socrates—or choose to judge according to reason. What we teach isn’t shameful. It’s actually higher than all human philosophy. (First Apology, chapter 7)

He also explained how Christians’ lives had changed:

If you think this is hard to believe, look at how we live now. We used to enjoy sexual immorality, but now we value only purity. We used to practice magic, but now we worship the good and uncreated God. We used to crave wealth above everything, but now we share what we have with anyone in need. (First Apology, chapter 14)

He concluded by asking the emperor to judge Christians fairly:

If you think what we say is reasonable and true, respect it. If you think it’s nonsense, treat it as nonsense. But don’t condemn people who haven’t done anything wrong as if they were criminals. (First Apology, chapter 68)

Likewise, Tertullian, writing in North Africa around AD 197, addressed Roman governors in his Apology. He protested the persecution of Christians and asked for justice. He wrote:

Whenever the Tiber River floods the city, or the Nile doesn’t rise enough to water the crops—if the sky holds back rain, if there’s an earthquake, a famine, or a plague—right away everyone shouts, ‘Throw the Christians to the lions!’ … If you would look honestly at the charges against us, you’d see we are innocent. (Apology, chapter 40)

And simply:

We are only asking for a fair hearing. If we’re guilty, punish us. But if we’re innocent, why do you hate us? (Apology, chapter 1)

These are clear examples of early Christians appealing to government leaders—not to demand special privileges, but to testify to the truth and to call for justice. They didn’t expect Rome to be Christian. But they still said, “This is wrong,” as part of their witness.

[Jazman]

The first-century church didn't have a "witness" to the government in the era of Nero. Instead, they preached Christ crucified and that we should lay down our rights and follow Jesus instead.

Maybe this is the crux of disagreement that spreads out into other things... No doubt the Christians of that era didn't engage in 'politics' as we think of it today, nor thought of 'rights as we do, but I kindly disagree with your claim that they "didn't have a 'witness' to the government. Their movement, their new 'church' did counter, ie witness to the sole lordship of Jesus Christ over the worship/lordship of Caesar and they practiced that belief in tangible ways that countered, confronted the empire (gov, culture, all of it, intertwined together, maybe more in some places, less in others...)

I think even a simple reading of Scripture suggests this; but NT scholars, including conservative theologically ones, teach/write that the early church 'witnessed' to (and against!) Roman gov/empire / culture / civil society (chicken vs egg thing, which came first... either way, early Church confronted it). NT Wright is not nearly the only one, but here's one piece that addresses this I believe, at least in part. I've read/heard similar Biblically based teaching from Scot McKnight, Michael Bird etc to just name a few.