We Need a Wall Because the Bible Has Walls
Yesterday, Wayne Grudem came out on the side of building a wall along the Southern border. His reason: The Bible has walls.
Walls gave peace and security. In the world of the Old Testament, people built walls around cities to protect themselves from thieves, murderers, and other criminals, and from foreign invaders who would seek to destroy the city. People could still enter the city, but they had to do so by the gate, so that city officials would have some control over who was coming in and going out. Today’s debate is about a larger area – a national border, not a city – but the principles are the same.
The principles are the same, says Grudem. We need a wall to keep out all those thieves, murderers, and criminals who are invading. He seems to be channeling Trump who famously said in 2015:
They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
It doesn’t sound like either person has a very high view of people seeking to come here.
Coming to America
Throughout his article, Grudem doesn’t seem to recognize that people can seek asylum legally.
Objection: “We should be a nation that welcomes immigrants.” I agree wholeheartedly – if they come legally. But it is no kindness to them if the lack of a wall tempts them to risk death by walking across miles of parched desert, at the mercy of violent gangs, and then come into the US without legal documentation, only to live here as a permanent legal underclass, easily exploited, living in constant fear of discovery. In addition, it diminishes respect for the law and destabilizes the nation when millions of people exist in the shadows, living outside the legal recordkeeping functions of the nation.
Grudem says we should welcome immigrants if they come here legally. It is legal to request asylum. A wall won’t change that. People will still need to make the journey from unsafe homes to request asylum.
A Wall Isn’t a Policy
Grudem seems to assume that a wall is a policy.
Objection: “These are good people who are just seeking a better life.” Yes, many of them are, and we should welcome them – if they come legally. But we can’t ignore the fact that many others will not become “good neighbors” – some are drug runners, gang members, and even terrorists. A wall makes it possible to screen out the people who have previously been deported for felonies and others who are most likely to commit crimes or simply become a drain on the economy rather than getting a productive job.
An effective border wall would also be the best way to keep children together with their parents. Under the present system, families (1) enter the US illegally and (2) are caught, then (3) they plead for asylum, and (4) they are incarcerated until their asylum petition can be evaluated. But if we had a completed wall, such requests for asylum would be decided at the border, before they ever entered the US. We would never have to detain either parents or children on US soil in the first place.
I don’t believe a wall by itself would do anything he says it would. The present system is the way it is because of a mash up of current law and Trump administration policy. A wall alone doesn’t create the policy which governs what happens with people who want to come into the country.
Congress must craft legislation to make sane and compassionate policy. According to polls most people want families kept together, and DACA recipients to remain in the country. Most oppose the wall. Most citizens don’t want open borders, but rather secure borders with compassionate application for refugees searching for a safe and better life.
America Doesn’t Use the Bible to Settle Policy
I don’t think the Bible has much to say about walls in a republic which is not a theocracy. America isn’t a Christian nation so it doesn’t matter much if the Bible seems to teach it or not. We need a consensus which is humane and compassionate while protecting everybody’s interests. In my opinion, Grudem badly misses the mark.
Like this article and want to see more like it? Support this blog at Patreon.com.
Nice try. I think we desperately need a wall and I cannot stand Grudem. What has been going on is spitting in the face of those who came here legally. And try going through the hell of being in a devastating accident with an illegal. Insurance here is out of reach for working poor, rule following citizens. These citizens cannot go to the hospital for sinus infections and receive “free” treatment and meds. I could go on and on. I think it’s cruel that so many cannot see the burden our rule following working poor citizens carry while we shower illegals with free services. Did I mention housing costs? They can live off the grid using fake ID’s. And thanks to motor voter, they vote here. How hateful of me to care about our rule following working poor citizens who carry the biggest burden of illegals.
What “free services” do undocumented get that US citizens (at the same income level) don’t get? Can you document any of these claims?
As for this wall you are advocating for, it is a worthless waste of money. In places on the border where there have been long stretches of fencing/walls, immigrants simply climb over or tunnel underneath. A border wall will only waste billions of dollars, that could be better spent on the working poor you are so concerned about.
Even a modicum of searching about the problems of making a border wall would show how it is an unworkable proposal.
You don’t understand how they live off the grid, do you? They use public schools, emergency services, hospitals, drive on roads with no insurance and we serve them because we are not barbarians. They increase housing cost because they will live 20 in a two bedroom apartment because they don’t have to worry about CPS taking their children away . They just get new fake IDs and move on. But it’s at a breaking point in some urban areas. You know it’s bad when the legal Latinos are fed up too. Go live in an urban area with many illegals. You sound like an elitist who despises working poor citizens.
I’m actually quite familiar with how some of them have lived and have paid taxes in the US. however, I’m curious how they can be “off the grid” yet still have their children in public schools? I think you are using some alternative meaning to “off the grid” here.
“They increase housing cost because they will live 20 in a two bedroom apartment”
how does having a lot of them living in a small apartment “increase housing costs”?
“You sound like an elitist who despises working poor citizens.”
No, I’m just someone asking for proof of the claims you made (which you have yet to provide any).
What kind of proof would you accept? You may not be aware of large how urban school districts deal with illegals. It’s a very taboo subject. Immunization is a big problem because they move around and even change their identity. As to the rest, common sense should help you understand how it would affect housing costs in low income areas for working poor citizens. You have to dig to become educated because it’s very hard to find information. The center for immigration studies can be a start. I can sense that you are not really interested in how illegals affect working poor citizens so I will leave it for now. Ironically, The arguments for illegals are the same ones that were used for slavery. It simply doesn’t occur to people that they could apply to come here legally.
Peer reviewed studies, research from reputable journalism news sources, government reports, etc are valid sources of information.
Specifically evidence that supports these claims you made:
that undocumented get “free” medical treatment that US citizens (in the same economic brackets) can’t get.
that undocumented get “free services” (and I’d like the list of these services) that US citizens (again in the same economic brackets) can’t get.
that “They increase housing cost because they will live 20 in a two bedroom apartment”
What you are “sensing” isn’t that I’m uninterested in the facts, it is that I believe your claims are based more on your own personal prejudices rather than any factual information.
I doubt you and I would agree on what is a reputable news source. But this is not really about news stories. And as for peer reviewed —academia does not exactly have high standards in my book, anymore.
I think it’s always better to take care of your own family first before you tell other people what they should do. I think the same thing about nations -put citizens ahead of illegals. I suppose in your world that is a white supremacist thing or perhaps a redneck thing? Or so I have been told. I just asked that you don’t go violent on people—like most of the left is doing to anyone who disagrees
So basically you just want to be able to make whatever outrageous claims you want and not have to provide any proof of them. You’ll find that on this blog that doesn’t go over very well.
If you can’t support the claims you make, you shouldn’t make them.
It appears the answer to that one is, “yes.”
Still looking for a single bit of evidence of even one of your claims.
lydia – I am trained as a social scientist and evaluate studies all the time. If you have something leave a link. It isn’t persuasive to do what you are doing now.
I have not been able to get the CIS link to work on this device. I am not that impressed with social scientists professors these days so doubt any disagreement in this echo chamber would be “persuasive”. I have appreciated your work on church issues and their charlatans. Will bow out.
If I am a good source on charlatans in church, why wouldn’t I be a good source on charlatans in my own field?
I said I “appreciated your work” on church charlatans. I did not say, “good source”. I think you are too obviously partisan to be a good source. That is just an opinion given in your echo chamber. And, I would imagine, a really good social scientist would recognize the inherent problems of drug cartels, human traffickers and exploitive coyotes for children taken on such a trek. Yes. We need a serious wall for many reasons. Too many illegal teens here are offering free “hits” (heroin) to bring on new customers for the cartels. Teens! It’s a big problem here. The wall is just one deterrent. It’s a start.
And I say that as someone who disagrees with just about everything Grudem teaches. I suppose we both believe there is a God. Lol.
Of course, those problems exist, but I think existing structures are in place to deal with them. Catch the bad guys but don’t turn all asylum seekers aside. And certainly don’t use false data to make people of color look like they are “invading” our country. They are doing what you and I would do if we faced what they face — leave to find a safer life for our children.
My goodness if you are worried about bias, then don’t listen to FAIR which was started by a white supremacist.
You have the PC terminology down. Nice try making it racial. I don’t think you got the memo that labeling and marginalizing those who disagree with shame censoring isn’t working as well as it used to. Go spend some testimoniala at #walkaway. My guess is if what you say about illegals were correct they would ALWAYS go to a point of entry.
It’s naive to think they don’t know how our system operates better than we do. There also comes a time when people need to make their country better. The silliest thing people do is romanticize it all as you do. I can always tell when I am talking to people who do not live among it daily. Perhaps you hire them to work your yard. You do not live among it like the working poor (of all colors shapes and sizes) do. As I can’t link from this device, there is an interesting study from Harvard showing something like 80% of African Americans do not want illegal immigration. As an expert social scientist who uses proper PC language, I suspect you might have already read it. There are other studies that are equally surprising. So which “People of Color” will you choose? Sad people can’t be individuals anymore. They have to be put in a political identity group for virtue signaling. Just remember that you can sponsor people into this country. But that would mean putting your money where your mouth is.
All that attitude about “PC” in your comment was over his use of the term “people of color?” There is a difference between wanting illegal immigration and understanding why most people do it. None of it justifies demonizing human beings whose only crime is entering the US without due process to escape dire or deadly circumstances.
We need a comprehensive, humane response to the issue,yes. But this is far from our greatest problem at the moment and a wall is not the solution anyway. Your argument is long on emotion and short on facts, which is why it is not particularly persuasive. You chastise Warren for pointing out the racist component of the data you were asking us to consider as a source, yet you accuse him of being detached and not caring about the working poor.
Perhaps he should have just thrown a fit over your use of the PC term “working poor.” And because an individual themselves cannot afford to sponsor an immigrant, you imply they have no right to any input on the issue. I’m thinking that you are not unfamiliar with speaking in your own “echo chamber.”
“Nice try making it racial.”
You think race has nothing to do with attitudes about immigrants from Mexico and Central & South America?
“There also comes a time when people need to make their country better.”
And how would these immigrants go about doing that? Not long ago you were insinuating you were very knowledgeable about the immigrants and there situation. Apparently you don’t seem to know much about the situations they are coming from.
“There is an interesting study from Harvard showing something like 80% of African Americans do not want illegal immigration.”
I thought you weren’t “impressed with social science professors these days”?
“Just remember that you can sponsor people into this country.”
Really, how is that accomplished?
(and why is it relevant to this discussion?)
Ken, There are millions of LEGAL immigrants from South of the border here. Wouldn’t illegal immigration be discrimination against them and their efforts to do it legally? There are quite a few of them weighing in on this over at #walkaway on Facebook. You might find it interesting. Many of them do not see it as fair at all. Do they not matter?
“There are millions of LEGAL immigrants from South of the border here. Wouldn’t illegal immigration be discrimination against them and their efforts to do it legally?”
No, I fail to see your logic here. And I note, you didn’t actually answer my questions. So I’ll ask them again:
Do you think race has nothing to do with attitudes about immigrants from Mexico and Central & South America?
“Just remember that you can sponsor people into this country.”
Really, how is that accomplished?
(and why is it relevant to this discussion?)
Unfortunately, the information lydia wants us to review comes from the Center for Immigration Studies (basically another FAIR). https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/center-immigration-studies
Has a Civil Rights Stalwart Lost Its Way?
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/28/morris-dees-splc-trump-southern-poverty-law-center-215312
“In February, the group again raised eyebrows by adding to its list of hate groups the hard-line Center for Immigration Studies—an anti-immigration think tank criticized for pushing bogus claims about the dangers of immigrants, but which has also been invited to testify before Congress more than 100 times.
Is tough immigration control really a form of hate, or just part of the political conversation? Does rejecting a religion make you an extremist? At a time when the line between “hate group” and mainstream politics is getting thinner and the need for productive civil discourse is growing more serious, fanning liberal fears, while a great opportunity for the SPLC, might be a problem for the nation.”
The Politico piece is mostly opinion, but that’s fine. Read the information presented by the SPLC, verify it with third party sources and decide for yourself. There may be some close calls, but the case against FAIR and CIS is not one of them. There is no nuance on these, and it’s not as if the SPLC just prints a list with a name on it expecting us to trust that alone. Read the facts and check them out.
We’ve had bonafide KKK members serve in congress. There is little doubt we have members right now with essentially white supremacist views. That an organization like FAIR with a carefully crafted image has managed to testify before them is sad, but unfortunately not surprising.
yes, it is important to NOT use the SPLC list as a binary setting (Hate group/Not Hate group), because their are varying degrees. And the SPLC is very good about documenting why a group is on the list.
lydia – I’m curious about which urban areas have reached a breaking point. I live in a large urban area and immigrants are not on our lists of issues. Potholes would come way before immigrants in a heartbeat.
“Living off the grid” means living in such a way that doesn’t involve using public utilities, like power, water and sewer, usually by replacing them with solar, wells and septic tanks. It’s a renewable and sustainable way of living versus fossil fuels use.
It’s not elitist to understand the terms you are using before throwing them around. It sounds like you’ve been stirred up by some powerful propaganda regarding immigrants and it’s nice that you care about poor people. The thing is, the US is not a zero sum nation and there is room physically and politically for policies that help both groups.
If you are ever in a bad accident with an illegal you will understand “off the grid”. (Wink)
What do you call it when you get in a bad accident with a US citizen with no insurance (or who is severely underinsured)? About 13% nationwide have none, though in my state (Florida) it’s over 25%. You still haven’t responded with anything which differentiates “illegals” from others in any meaningful way.
They are no different from “legal” immigrants? Hmm. Reading through the many #walkaway testimonials on Facebook over the past week, I was stunned at how many were from “legal” immigrants fed up with illegal immigration.. It might be instructive to hear their side of the story. If you were hit by a citizen with no insurance, as I was a couple of weeks ago, you can actually find them. If we are comparing bad things illegals do to the same bad things citizens do, I have to ask why we would want more? Why reward lawbreaking at all? What other laws do you think can be broken that is also a virtue and you want to reward?
I haven’t heard anyone here say that we should encourage more people to come here via illegal means. However, using those that have as scapegoats for our woes is not helping anything. We should also remember that being here without due process is not a capital crime.
These are human beings who largely just want a chance at a decent life, and in some cases to survive at all. We do need them to follow a legal path in but what they are doing is understandable. The burden of proof is on those making the accusations, and I’ve not seen much meat there.
I haven’t heard anyone here say that we should encourage more people to come here via illegal means. However, using those that have as scapegoats for our woes is not helping anything. We should also remember that being here without due process is not a capital crime.
These are human beings who largely just want a chance at a decent life, and in some cases to survive at all. We do need them to follow a legal path in but what they are doing is understandable. The burden of proof is on those making the accusations, and I’ve not seen much meat there.
What “free services” do undocumented get that US citizens (at the same income level) don’t get? Can you document any of these claims?
As for this wall you are advocating for, it is a worthless waste of money. In places on the border where there have been long stretches of fencing/walls, immigrants simply climb over or tunnel underneath. A border wall will only waste billions of dollars, that could be better spent on the working poor you are so concerned about.
Even a modicum of searching about the problems of making a border wall would show how it is an unworkable proposal.
Yes, we already know. Jesus—the dark-complected Middle Eastern refugee crossing borders—is not welcome in Trump’s White Evangelical-approved America. We already knew this.
I am not an evangelical. And I don’t see Jesus Christ as a refugee or an illegal. I think that is one of the silliest arguments I have heard yet. But it plays well to the ignorant. Btw, Jesus was Hebrew. Not sure if you understood that or not. There used to be a lot of them in the ME until they were run out of a lot of countries. Racism?
That’s a specious argument at best, however that you are blaming these woes on the undocumented with such anger and fervor illustrates that the idea of a wall is doing exactly what it was created to do.
Your response sounds angry and fervent. (Wink). But nice try
I am disappointed that you have bought into the myth that undocumented immigrants receive all sorts of benefits that citizens cannot. This is untrue.
Undocumented immigrants do not receive medical treatment that citizens can’t. They can’t receive welfare. They have taxes withheld from paychecks that they can never receive refunds on, the way citizens can. We don’t “shower” undocumented citizens with free services – this is demonstrably untrue. And every actual scientific survey of voting systems shows undocumented immigrants do not vote illegally, save in extremely isolated incidents that prove the point of how rare such a thing is.
I am dumbstruck that just about everything in your post is false.
The fact that you don’t think any illegals receive welfare of any kind shows your suburban elitism and ignorance so you can virtue signal your idea of moral superiority. Ok. Then. You know them as your roofer or gardener. I get it. I suggested you start with the center for immigration studies site but I doubt it fits your virtue signaling shallow faux Christianity standards of reputable. And I will try hard to get over your disappointment. (Wink)
You are aware you can sponsor immigrants, right? Why not put your money wherever your mouth is and stop moralizing what others should think?
I’ve not seen anyone telling you what you should think. They have simply requested data to support your statements. What you have said doesn’t ring true and you seem to fall on some pretty tired ad hominems when you can’t support it.
If this is an example of where you get your information, then it is understandable that your data is flawed. John Taton also started FAIR, which along with CIS is an SPLC designated hate group. They hired someone that was too racist even for the Heritage Foundation. Their agenda is not a secret.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/center-immigration-studies
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/federation-american-immigration-reform
We just discussed FAIR after someone used them as a source of some equally biased, inaccurate information. One can be aware of the need for secure borders and a regulated immigration process without falsely demonizing an entire demographic.
Grudem is either ignorant of (or more likely deliberately ignoring) key differences between a “city wall” as described in the bible and a border wall as proposed by Trump. The city walls were manned, i.e. guards patrolled the top of the wall to prevent people from simply climbing over the wall (or tunneling under). That isn’t possible with a border wall, which would make such a wall useless for the “security” he claims it would bring. Let alone all of the other logistical problems with trying to build a border wall.
Grudem also plays to the fear-mongering and racism Trump touts as well claiming
“some are drug runners, gang members, and even terrorists.”
which again, a border wall will not stop such people from getting into the US and will likely barely even hinder them.
so is it really “moral” to waste billions on a useless wall, while ignoring problems with the US infrastructure, schools and debt?
Yeah, if we had a wall no 9-11.
Oops, guess not. Too bad we didn’t have the trump Muslim ban then. Then no 9-11. Nevermind, Saudi Arabia isn’t on the list.
Just agreeing with your wall statement.
Afternoon, Dr. T. — Loosely following your writings over the past few years and appreciating frequently while seldom engaging. Today, however, in light of a general thought induced by reading this post, I wanted to add a question: What do we do with the past good work(s) — thinking here of past writings/books/teachings/music/etc. — of those Christians who later in life compromise or at times altogether forsake their biblical moorings?
A recurring pattern in today’s world seems to be this forsaking of what I will generally (sorry to be so broad) refer to as “traditional biblical teaching and principles.” While critique of current material is important — lest we lose our ability to practice discernment — I’m also curious as to how we should perceive and treat good work(s) in a person’s past when all seemed well and in accord with sound theology and biblical orthodoxy.
A case in point here would be how we view/treat Grudem’s work, “Systematic Theology.”
Good question. I think it all should be taken on the merits. Usually work gets better as one grows and matures and the early work is put aside but in Grudem’s case, I see your point. Problems with later work might be good reason to reevaluate but not to automatically toss early work. I confess I am not familiar with his Systematic Theology so I can’t comment about that. However, if it is sound, I would continue to use it even with his later drift into using the Bible as political proof text.
Good question. I think it all should be taken on the merits. Usually work gets better as one grows and matures and the early work is put aside but in Grudem’s case, I see your point. Problems with later work might be good reason to reevaluate but not to automatically toss early work. I confess I am not familiar with his Systematic Theology so I can’t comment about that. However, if it is sound, I would continue to use it even with his later drift into using the Bible as political proof text.
It seems Grudem’s corpus could be studied as “historical artifact” in light of his decision to cement himself to Trump. His work would therefore be studied as a theological equivalent of a Shakespearean tragedy, not unlike a modern-day television season of Breaking Bad.
Grudem went off the rails before he latched on to Trump.
His Politics According to the Bible came out in 2010 — where the God of his Bible was created in the image of a Fox News right-winger.
Thank you for this clarification. 2010, huh? It seems Obama did indeed help U.S. White Evangelicals realize the object of their idolatry: White Nationalist hatred of society’s most vulnerable.
So we should all ride donkeys in the US since Jesus rode one?…..eyes rolling….
Regarding “America isn’t a Christian nation so it doesn’t matter much if the Bible seems to teach it or not”: There are people who think that the Bible does teach what a country should do with respect to immigrants and refugees, and that it teaches a country should have policies which are “humane and compassionate while protecting everybody’s interests”–insofar as this is possible. There are a minority of Americans who will believe that their interests will not be fully protected unless no immigrants are allowed to come here.
I think it is not right to say that Dr. Grudem believes we should build a wall along our southern border because “The Bible has walls”. I think he is simply pointing out that a wall was a common and practical means of protection in ancient Israel, and it can be one for America today, albeit on a much larger scale. (I am not endorsing his call for building a wall.)
The problems we have with immigration are complex, and if we are serious about solving them, we must have complex solutions. Part of the solution is having a secure border: with or without a wall. Another very important part is a Mexico which is much better able to enforce its laws, so that it can work with us to prevent criminals from crossing the border, and protect people who would like to come here from becoming the prey of smugglers and traffickers. Yet another very important part is the restoration of law and order in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, so that their citizens will not flee for their lives to Mexico and America.
Notice that Mexico also has a complaint about illegal entry across our shared border: namely, the illegal entry of firearms from the United States into Mexico, which are used not for hunting nor by a “well regulated militia”, but by criminals, e.g. gangs which smuggle illegal drugs from Mexico into the United States.
I think the point being made is, regardless of what one sees as the biblical view on this, US policy is not made by what is or is not condoned or recommended by any scripture. Sometimes the two have elements in common, but in our secular form of government it can’t be the determinant. This is not a rebuff of the Bible or any other, but a recognition of the plurality of beliefs in this nation and the structure our Founding Fathers set up to handle them all fairly.
I tend to agree with the rest of what you have said, and consider it a much more rational and progressive outlook that I hear from most these days. A nation needs secure borders or it is not a nation, but in this day a wall is not likely the best solution. It rather seems to be a convenient prop for this president to use to facilitate his demagoguery. We should not lose our national character in the pursuit of secure borders – as you say, “humane and compassionate while protecting everybody’s interests”.
By far the best way to achieve this is to help create a more stable world with less suffering and strife and fair rule of law. If it were only so simple as building a wall.
Americans have appealed to the authority of the Bible in support of political positions since the founding of the nation. As you know, this includes both people who were pro-slavery and people who were anti-slavery. It includes both Christians and people who are not Christians but who believe the Bible contains wisdom about morality. Apparently you think no one should do this, including progressives who say that governments should care for “the least of these”.
I think that Grudem cited the Bible in order to counter the notion that it is immoral to build a wall for protection. In fact, it isn’t moral or immoral per se. It is moral or immoral depending on the circumstances. It is also prudent and imprudent depending on the circumstances.
Citizens get their ideas from lots of places, including the Bible. That is, however, irrelevant to the original statement. Our form of government cannot form policy based solely on any religious teaching. Whether the Bible advises for or against building walls means exactly nothing with respect to whether the US should build a wall on our southern border.
My problem with Grudem’s comments is that they do not address the real issue – the demagoguery in which this absurd wall idea plays such a central part. We have agreed that any nation needs secure borders with fair and humane immigration policies. But instigating frothing-at-the-mouth hatred towards millions of people who are largely average folks with the exception of how they got here is something Grudem should have used his considerable talent for exegesis to stand against.
Babbling about walls in ancient times being useful and recorded in scripture is simply inane and makes him appear complicit in all this horror. Honestly, what does it take to bring these supposed Christian leaders out of their stupor? What line will be crossed next without their objection?
Grudem does not advocate building wall on our southern border “based solely on any religious teaching”. He knows that some people have said that it is immoral to build such a wall. Most notably: Pope Francis. You may recall there was the controversy of February 2016 in which, in answer to a question asked by a journalist, he made a remark in Italian which some interpreted as meaning that Trump is not a Christian because he wanted to build the wall. He has spoke against the idea of building the wall at least once last year, too.
Thus my explanation in the second paragraph of the previous comment. Grudem cited the Bible to convince people that to build a wall for protection is not immoral per se. Then he gave reasons why he thinks we should build one on our southern border–reasons which are not mentioned in the Bible.
I am not in favor of building the wall, and I am vehemently against Trump’s demagoguery and dishonesty–especially with respect to migrants.
I never said he did. I was expounding on Warren’s comment in light of your response to him.
There are many reasons not to recommend such a wall, not the least of which is that we have much better methods for dealing with the issue. However, as a general observation, that walls were used in ancient times without any condemnation recorded in the Bible does not preclude the possibility that doing so in another circumstance could be considered “immoral.”
I don’t pretend to be able to divine Grudem’s true purpose in what he said, only that it was woefully deficient – nearsighted at best – considering what is going on.
I never suggested otherwise. My closing comments were aimed at those who have the platform and responsibility to lead in the faith, including Grudem.
I didn’t think you “suggested otherwise”: I stated my position on the wall and Trump’s demagoguery to ensure that no one who read my comment would think that my defense of Grudem was an endorsement of his article and that I do not care about Trump’s demagoguery, especially with respect to migrants.
I’m glad that you agree with what I said about the possibility of it being immoral to build a wall.
It had seemed to me that you were implying that Grudem advocated building a wall on our southern border “based solely on any religious teaching” because your sentence which immediately follows that remark is: “Whether the Bible advises for or against building walls means exactly nothing with respect to whether the US should build a wall on our southern border”. Now I see that you say that you “never said he did”, and that you were “expounding on Warren’s comment in light of your [my] response to him”.
As I said, I largely agree with your original comment on the issue.
The bible has lots of teachings that are inoperable now, such as not eating certain foods or using certain fabrics. Dietary laws were based on facts that no longer matter – we know how to fix pork safely, for example.
As for walls, it’s totally irrelevant to modern times. The reason some European city centers are so small is that the cities were walled when built to repel invaders. Armed invaders who were essentially armies. That doesn’t happen now, by and large, and anyone who suggested that Chicago, say, needs a wall around it to repel armed invaders would be thought delusional.
Same with a border wall.
Wouldn’t this logic also imply that slavery was a good thing to practice? In my experience, the argument that the Bible condones slavery is countered by Evangelicals with incessant droning about how “just because it is in the Bible doesn’t mean God approves of it.” Are we now to believe that because city walls were a common defense in the ancient world that it is a good and godly thing to build a wall on our southern border? By what logic would one then counter the idea of slavery being a good and godly thing, or at the very least biblical?
I seem to remember a 100% failure rate of fortifications mentioned in Scripture. Thought Grudem was better then that.
Wait. Just remembered one. The first siege of Tyre. The city proper fell, but the offshore fortification was re-supplied by sea. So that is why Alexander scaped the city proper for fill dirt, and constructed the siege causeway.
Excluding the Jerusalem siege of Hezekiah, those who took up defensive positions starved.
Ironically, the US is not capable of feeding itself despite images to the contrary. Grain and oilseed crops are mechanized commodities. Fresh produce can’t be raised without migrant (read illegal) labor. It doesn’t matter what the law says. It’s a matter of, do you what a diet of bread and water or not? If you desire something other then toast, learn to love hard working illegals.
If only people realized this was the rule for Grudem’s method and approach, not the exception…
It appears that Grudem studied at the “AG Jeff Sessions’ Cherry Picking School of the Bible”.
Having for the first (and last) time visited https://townhall.com to see this article, all I can say is:
1. So much ignorance and fear!
2. They’re embarrassing themselves with their slavish praise of all things Trump.
3. Yuck. I feel the need to wash any residual townhall.com off my person.
Having for the first (and last) time visited https://townhall.com to see this article, all I can say is:
1. So much ignorance and fear!
2. They’re embarrassing themselves with their slavish praise of all things Trump.
3. Yuck. I feel the need to wash any residual townhall.com off my person.
Grudem is forgetting about that little story in the bible about Joshua and the Battle of Jericho (where the walls came tumbling down).
Just what I was thinking! As soon as I read it, I started singing, “Joshua fit the battle of Jericho….and the walls came tumbling down.”
“I don’t think the Bible has much to say about walls in a republic which is not a theocracy. America isn’t a Christian nation so it doesn’t matter much if the Bible seems to teach it or not.” Why is it that Warren needs to school one of evangelicalism’s most highly regarded theologians on the 101 of Bible interpretation? This is a sad indictment on the state of evangelical hermeneutics.
Good point. It’s one thing to say “We see walls working like this in the Bible, which demonstrates that they can be an effective tool (when God doesn’t knock them down).” Sure, fine.
It’s another thing to say “I saw this in the Bible, so we should do it.” I’ve read enough of the book of Judges to know that I need more than that to know what wisdom is!
Grudem is entitled to his own opinions about immigration, and it’s not unreasonable that they would be informed by the Bible as he understands it. But it’s odd that his coverage of kindness to foreigners and sojourners is so meager. (I also find myself unimpressed by the mention of legal vs. illegal immigration. Did ancient cities/countries really have these concepts in the way that the U.S. currently does? A few sentences from another academic on word differences are not enough to convince me that he is properly representing the way things were back then, and this seems a far more important principle to dig into with respect to immigration than whether walls are celebrated in the Bible.)
He’s also wrong. The law requires that asylum claims be made on U.S. soil. They can’t be made before entry. And entry to seek asylum is legal. Nor does it have to be at some “point of entry” – the law says no such thing.
The refugees seeking asylum now are following the law.