Ralph Drollinger Says He’s Not a Christian Nationalist But Exhorts Legislators to Please God with Immigration Policy

Provider of Bible studies and counsel to members of Donald Trump’s Cabinet Ralph Drollinger doesn’t like to be called a dominionist or a Christian nationalist. Loosely, these terms refer to people who believe the laws of the United States should reflect and be based on the teachings of Christianity. Any other influence is false and will lead to bad government.

In a recent newsletter Drollinger uses (misuses) Hebrew words for foreigners to inform legislators about what he believes U.S. immigration policy should be. In essence, he concludes “May God grant you, our lawmakers, wisdom in crafting this last point into a policy that is pleasing to God. I pray for you in this regard.”

The heart of Drollinger’s message is a rigid classification of non-natives based on different Hebrew words. He apparently hasn’t done the study himself; he based his classification on the work of James Hoffmeier. Hoffmeier’s work on these words has been criticized as overly rigid attempts to apply modern legal concepts of citizenship to the ancient Hebrews (see this article).

I am not going to repeat Bojidar Marinov’s article but what stood out to me was Marinov’s research into the use of the words for foreigner in the Old Testament and the lack of legal structure matching our own. The words aren’t always clearly differentiated. Furthermore, the words don’t correspond to categories which make sense in modern America. Marinov wrote:

In this specific case, to know if Hoffmeier’s interpretation of the terms is correct, we need to look not to our modern legal concepts but to the Bible. Does the Bible contain any practical example of the legal difference between ger and nekhar? Does it have an example of an illegal alien arrested and deported back to his land? Does it have any legal stipulation in the Law of God declaring “illegal immigration” to be a crime? Does it contain the specific penalties for such a crime? Does it mention an institution charged with issuing visas or permits? Does it mention a legal procedure that grants a ger status to foreigners? Simply sticking our modern concepts on top of those terms is poor scholarship; we need to be consistent with the Bible, not with our modern times, to know if a hermeneutic is correct.

The Bible has nothing like this. There is no such crime mentioned, no penalties, no institution charged with enforcement, no permits, no visas, no deportations. The very concept of immigration control is missing; it’s nowhere to be seen. If Hoffmeier is correct in his interpretation of the terms, where would the Hebrews take all these definitions he is proposing? Suck them out of thin air? Go to Edom or Egypt? But even Edom and Egypt didn’t have specific laws nor legal definitions of these concepts; all they had is the whim of a ruler. How would a Hebrew know all the specific details Hoffmeier claims were present in the terms? And how would the Hebrew society know how to enforce them?

Drollinger wants his politician followers to enact his anti-immigrant interpretation of biblical words into law without regard for the fact that Christian interpreters differ about the meaning and significance of the words. He claims he has the correct Bible teaching and that it is wrong to craft policy on any other basis. How can this not be evangelical Christian nationalism?

Even if we use these words as guides, there isn’t evidence that those people referred to by Drollinger as “illegal” were not allowed into Israel. Word studies demonstrate that so-called “illegals” were allowed to cross the borders into Israel lawfully and in fact were drawn to the nation in a positive manner.  For instance, I Kings 8:41-43 says:

As for the foreigner who does not belong to your people Israel but has come from a distant land because of your name— 42 for they will hear of your great name and your mighty hand and your outstretched arm—when they come and pray toward this temple, 43 then hear from heaven, your dwelling place. Do whatever the foreigner asks of you, so that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you, as do your own people Israel, and may know that this house I have built bears your Name.

Where is the Hebrew version of ICE? Foreigners were treated differently and had different requirements, especially respecting religious ceremonies but they were allowed to be in the country. This is a far cry from what Drollinger is advising Trump’s cabinet.

While America is not Israel and we are not a covenant nation, we are attractive to those who long for freedom. Ronald Reagan put this in religious terms with his “shining city on a hill” motif. Today’s evangelical Republicans have twisted their Christianity to make it exclusionary to match the political mood, not the biblical text.

 

19 thoughts on “Ralph Drollinger Says He’s Not a Christian Nationalist But Exhorts Legislators to Please God with Immigration Policy”

  1. Drollinger and I almost surely disagree about what kind of policy God finds pleasing, but I don’t disagree with him that an elected official (who is also a believer) should have as a goal putting place a policy that’s pleasing to God.

    1. God of the Bible. If you’re a believer who is also an elected official and you become convinced that a particular policy is pleasing (or displeasing) to God, then you should act accordingly.

      1. Pentateuch God, wisdom books God, Paul’s God, Jesus’ God are (IMO) all the same God, so…

        A pro-slavery position would not be pleasing to God, no. Granted, people have been (and are) mistaken about this, as they are for a great number of positions.

        You seem to be arguing against the concept of supporting policies that please God by pointing out people who are wrong about what pleases God. That’s like arguing Muslims shouldn’t seek to live their lives in a way that’s pleasing to Allah *in general* by pointing out that *some* Muslims think it pleases Allah for them to harm infidels. It doesn’t follow.

        1. On the one hand, I grant that it’s open to interpretation. People clearly (and frequently) get it wrong. On the other hand, what pleases God is actually fixed and doesn’t change because someone fails to understand it. If you say something in a crowded restaurant and I perceive you to have said something you didn’t, that doesn’t change what you actually said. You said what you said.

          Someone who’s a believer should be living his or life, in all areas, in a way that’s pleasing to God. If you’re a sanitation worker you should collect trash in a way that pleases God. Likewise if you’re a legislator. Likewise if you’re Ilhan Omar.

          That doesn’t imply I must support every person who’s endeavoring to please the God of the bible, or Allah, or any other God, since that person may be severely mistaken about what actually pleases God. This is almost surely the case with Drollinger.

          From my reading of the bible, the set of policies that are pleasing to God are largely the ones we categorize as “progressive” (with the one big exception being abortion). The over-arching principle is to support policies that maximize human flourishing, care for the poor, sick and old, care for creation, recognize citizens of other countries as equally valuable in God’s sight, and curtail freedom only when necessary to protect us from directly harming one another.

          Per those principles, here are some things I think are *not* pleasing to God:

          * mistreating would-be immigrants and asylum seekers
          * excessively limiting immigration due to fears of cultural change
          * making gay sex a crime
          * making porn a crime
          * imposing the Christian understanding of marriage on a secular nation
          * weak laws that allow corporations to pollute the environment
          * allowing (some) hard-working citizens to struggle to achieve a reasonable minimum standard of living
          * allowing incarcerated individuals to be abused in all manner of ways
          * punishing Americans (and particularly those of color) for using, possessing or selling a substance that’s not significantly more dangerous than alcohol
          * so-called “blue laws” that, e.g., prohibit alcohol sales on Sundays
          * empowering public school teachers to proselytize their students and/or lead them in faith-specific activities during class
          * refusing to account for biological differences related to child-bearing that disproportionately impact women in the workplace

        2. On the one hand, I grant that it’s open to interpretation. People clearly (and frequently) get it wrong. On the other hand, what pleases God is actually fixed and doesn’t change because someone fails to understand it. If you say something in a crowded restaurant and I perceive you to have said something you didn’t, that doesn’t change what you actually said. You said what you said.

          Someone who’s a believer should be living his or life, in all areas, in a way that’s pleasing to God. If you’re a sanitation worker you should collect trash in a way that pleases God. Likewise if you’re a legislator. Likewise if you’re Ilhan Omar.

          That doesn’t imply I must support every person who’s endeavoring to please the God of the bible, or Allah, or any other God, since that person may be severely mistaken about what actually pleases God. This is almost surely the case with Drollinger.

          From my reading of the bible, the set of policies that are pleasing to God are largely the ones we categorize as “progressive” (with the one big exception being abortion). The over-arching principle is to support policies that maximize human flourishing, care for the poor, sick and old, care for creation, recognize citizens of other countries as equally valuable in God’s sight, and curtail freedom only when necessary to protect us from directly harming one another.

          Per those principles, here are some things I think are *not* pleasing to God:

          * mistreating would-be immigrants and asylum seekers
          * excessively limiting immigration due to fears of cultural change
          * making gay sex a crime
          * making porn a crime
          * imposing the Christian understanding of marriage on a secular nation
          * weak laws that allow corporations to pollute the environment
          * allowing (some) hard-working citizens to struggle to achieve a reasonable minimum standard of living
          * allowing incarcerated individuals to be abused in all manner of ways
          * punishing Americans (and particularly those of color) for using, possessing or selling a substance that’s not significantly more dangerous than alcohol
          * so-called “blue laws” that, e.g., prohibit alcohol sales on Sundays
          * empowering public school teachers to proselytize their students and/or lead them in faith-specific activities during class
          * refusing to account for biological differences related to child-bearing that disproportionately impact women in the workplace

  2. So far, Drollinger is advocating for a policy that would prevent entry of immigrants who have serious criminal records. I don’t see anything unbiblical about maintaining such a policy.

    1. No, that is completely false. You are spreading misinformation. Drollinger doesn’t require that for a person to be banned from the country, just that they entered in a manner that the current administration deems to be illegal.

      1. There is nothing in the link stating that Drollinger’s views are simply based on what Trump thinks is illegal immigration. We all know that for the past 40 years, US government would not generally allow anybody with a criminal record, especially felony, to immigrate into the country. This is how Drollinger defines illegal immigration and then correlates it with his proposed immigration policy and theology:

        Note in this regard Romans 13:4:

        . . . for [Government] is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

        In this passage, Paul, a citizen of the Roman Empire, is addressing believers who are citizens of the Roman Empire living in the capital city of Rome. Not only does he state here the need for citizens to abide by the rule of law, which includes immigration law, but in addition, he implies what the motive should be behind the legislators’ (ministers [diakonia], meaning “servants”) lawmaking: to look out for the welfare of citizens; i.e., such laws are intended to you for good.

        It is not overreaching to reason from this passage that immigration laws, like all of a nation’s laws, should stem from a desire to protect the nation and its citizenry.6 That protection should deter a myriad of intrusions by illegals: weapons of destruction, disease, property and job theft, the importation of illegal drugs, and the like, which could result from illegals who have never pledged their allegiance to the nation and its laws, but rather have broken the laws of the land by entering the country illegally.

        Why do you have to be Trump to see somebody doing such things mentioned above as a threat to a society thus would want to prevent such people from entering the country? I think any person with a common sense would do that.

        A: Foreigners should not be allowed unregulated entry into a country. Borders and oceans should be impenetrable so as to discourage illegals entrance.

        B: Foreigners should not be able to partake of any governmental entitlements. (Governments should not be in that business to begin with.) Nor should they be allowed to have any licenses, legal identification, or enrollment in any institutions.

        C: Foreigners who can help advance (not detract) should be afforded sojourner/ immigration consideration. It follows then that foreigners who are already in the country seeking citizenship should have citizen-sponsors who can testify to their past value, productivity, present character, and loyalty.

        D: Foreigners should be required to pay taxes similar to those paid by citizens, both present and past due.

        E: Illegal entrants, whether headed toward citizenship or expulsion, should be justly punished.

        F: Not all of the responsibility of illegal immigration should be placed on the shoulders of each illegal immigrant because of the simple fact that the institution itself, the Government of the United States, has continually violated the biblical principles associated with immigration. The repeated, long-term violations of the institution itself in specific regard to having fostered and prolonged illegal immigration need to be taken into consideration in working out the problem.

        Weren’t Clinton, Bush, and Obama also toting around similar concerns regarding immigration policies?

        Look, I understand that some people have a dislike for both Trump and Drollinger, but there is no need to create a sensation about them for more than they actually deserve. My only problem with Drollinger is that he seems to be more concerned with influencing Trump but hardly other politicians. As far as I understand, if you a pastor, you are supposed to minister to as many people as possible, so why is he is not reaching out to prominent members of the Democrat flock, like Sanders and Pelosi? It appears that these people’s souls are as or even more lost than of Trump’s.

        1. Drollinger also states

          “People who are illegals are a threat to the welfare of those who are citizens. It is out of an inherent desire imbued by their Designer, that governments want to protect their citizens as a mother does her child — and if they don’t, they should. In terms of immigration, for a government to be pleasing to God and receive His blessing, it has no option but to protect its citizenry from illegal immigration per Romans 13:4 and 1 Peter 2:13-14. It must always protect its borders and punish those who enter illegally.”

          Just stating this or even what you stated doesn’t mean the Bible words Drollinger used refer to people entering a country illegally. He isn’t just referring to people who are criminals. Nobody wants to allow criminals into the country. Nobody. This is a deflection tactic. People who are refugees from other nations have a right to claim asylum and if they are found to be criminals that claim would be denied. There is no debate about that. Drollinger conflates criminals with those who enter illegally. He says they all must be punished. In fact, the Bible word he says requires such a thing doesn’t require it at all and in fact is used in a passage which anticipates people will want to come to Israel.

        2. If so much immigration is illegal the first true humans who were in Africa wold still be there. The various precursors to humans (homo sap) like the Neanderthals wold never have met the humans. The Puritans might have recognized that they had no right to come to The New World, and they might have stayed in England to have changed much of England’s history. I am a secular Jew who regards this mucking around in Hebrew to be bloody irrelevant.

  3. The New Testament itself gives the answer to the question “who is Israel now?” – it is the church.

    Galatians 3.29

    And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

    “Abraham’s Offspring” refers to the children of Abraham, namely Israel. And “heirs according to the promise” is based upon God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 12. Those who have inherited this promise, according to Paul, is anyone who belongs to Christ.

    This understanding helps short-circuit dominionism. The OT laws do not apply to the nation we are in but can be applied to the church. But without the civil laws of Israel, no church can “punish” a member with anything but expulsion. The woman caught in adultery in John 8, for example, (the “cast the first stone” passage) was told by Jesus to sin no more. Jesus recognised her sin of adultery but the OT demand for the death of an adulterer is no longer in place. This is why in 1 Corinthians 5, Paul orders the church to “expel the immoral brother” and does not say anything about capital punishment.

  4. How about the Dominionists and others follow the admonition to not “add to or subtract from” the Word .

  5. Trying to recast every situation in a explicitly biblical mold and correlate everything is kind of a crackpot endeavor. I think the way the Bible informs us on contemporary issues is a lot more simple and overarching than that. That said, Warren, I would be interested to hear you identify any influence which is actually antithetical to Christianity, which would not also be a detriment to the nation.

    1. Which Christianity?

      Do you mean slaveholder Christianity or abolition Christianity? The wallbuilding version or the shining city on a hill version? Pre-mill or post-mill?

      Ultimately Jesus took us out of that game by saying his kingdom isn’t of this world. His followers ought to agree with him when it comes to their religious activities. If Drollinger was just about evangelizing politicians he wouldn’t need to opine on policy, just preach the gospel.

      1. That was a great dodge of a specific question, Warren. Do *you* believe that Christianity calls for legalized slavery and building walls, or are you throwing that out there (even though you personally believe it is complete baloney) just to confuse the issue?

        Yes, the examples of how the Bible (and God, and love, and loyalty, and oaths, and authority, and government, and marriage, and parenthood, and health, and patriotism, and church, and high IQ, and family, and just about every other thing that has ever existed) has been abused for wicked purposes by people with power of any kind are literally countless.

        My point is that when you vilify anyone who wants the nation’s laws to reflect their own beliefs about what is moral according to the Bible (or some other less than unanimously embraced source), there’s virtually no one left. The point of my question, if you could answer it, is to demonstrate that you also believe the nation’s laws should reflect biblical principles. If not, I’d think that would be an easy answer to give.

        So there is something much more narrow about the way Drollinger operates than that he invokes Scripture. He’s not my thing, but it’s not because he invokes the Bible. In fact, the way you define Christian nationalism, there would hardly be an American luminary that could meet with your approval, new or old.

  6. I’ve been rereading Leviticus and I’m leading an evening Bible study in Isaiah. What keeps standing out is how the Hebrews were to welcome foreigners and provide for them (not over-harvesting a field, for example) and how the Messiah would be accepted by those from other nations. I was an overseas missionary for a number of years, but I needed to return to the States due to health reasons. However, my “mission field” is the many different nationalities and cultures I find all around my community.

  7. What a good thing that Drollinger was not advising the Government of Egypt in AD 1! [cf. Matt. 2 : 13]

      1. Well, yes, indeed.

        Egypt is still a very welcoming place today, its own religious problems notwithstanding.

Comments are closed.