The word Alien used in the Bible does not mean illegal alien. The church is leaing the downfall of our nation.
I was priviledged to testify along with James Edwards in Washington C on May 27, 2007.I will post his wonderful testimony, that will give Christians great talking points on this matter.
If you do not see a leader...BE A LEADER!!
How many people does this NEA represent? Is this another phony leftist imitation?
They set up organizations to imitate anything.
Dear Rev. Anderson - I am not in favor of amnesty. Therefore the support is no longer unanimous. Please retract your statement.
Socialists infiltrated the theological seminaries at roughly the same time they infiltrated academe at-large.
They have been pushing Socialism into the pulpit and God and Jesus OUT of the pulpit for over a century, albeit very gradually and very subtly.
And, as C.S. Lewis points out, a typical tyrant is bad, but a tyrant who believes his tyranny is based in religion is about as bad as you can get.
And some of my most vicious debates over current-events issues have been with fellow “brothers in Christ” who absolutely refuse to give up their socialist world view in favor of inconvenient facts, and who refuse to consider the possibility that their interpretation of scripture has been skewed by pastors and preachers with an ulterior motive.
Beware the wolf in sheep’s clothing.
If your church body belongs to this Leftist group, protest. If that does no good, leave. There is nothing in the Bible that gives law-breakers a pass, unless the government directly goes against God’s law, such as allowing the killing of babies.
Testimony of James R. Edwards, Jr., Ph.D.
Adjunct Fellow, Hudson Institute
House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration
May 22, 2007
Madam Chairman, Ranking Member King, members of the subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to present a faith perspective on the immigration issue. I commend you for giving serious
consideration to this important aspect. My remarks represent the earnest, considered views of a lay
Christian who has sought to honor the Lord God (as Colossians 3:23 instructs, to work heartily for the
Lord’s pleasure) as I have engaged in my calling to the public policy sphere.
I certainly don’t claim that my conclusions are infallible because, like every other human
being who has ever lived (except Jesus), I am imperfect. As Francis Schaeffer said, “Having been
made in the image of God, man is magnificent even in ruin. God made man to be responsible for his
thoughts and actions . . . .” That wonderful description instills both humility and love.
I don’t claim to be a theologian. But as C.S. Lewis said, you don’t want theologians writing
civil laws; that’s outside their calling. Rather, you want faithful believers whom God has called into
the public policy field and equipped for that work.
On many subjects, Judeo-Christian Scripture is clear.
It contains proscriptions on murder,
theft, and perjury, for instance. But on immigration, as with other areas of public policy, Scripture isn’t
definitive. That would leave the specifics of immigration policy in the realm of prudential judgment.
In other words, one would need guidance from applicable biblical principles, to apply those
principles according to the specific facts known from general revelation and particular circumstances,
and to exercise sound judgment.
This process would necessarily involve a fair reading of the Bible,
taking passages in context, weighing various texts, and giving prayerful consideration to how those
texts should be regarded here, now. It would require reason, logic, and dispassionate weighing of
these factors. And, of course, a biblical approach would require removing, as much as humanly
possible, ulterior motives.
Thus, while different Christians may arrive at different conclusions as to policy specifics on
subjects like immigration where Scripture is silent or unclear, that fact would represent the freedom
they have in the Lord as His creatures and His followers — not that the Lord is Himself of a divided
mind. With many policy matters, more than one course of action that would pass muster with the
Lord God exists, or fulfill His will.
I believe this is the case with immigration.
Nine Biblical Principles
How might those seeking to exercise prudence approach the immigration issue? From what
biblical guidance can we derive sound immigration policy? I submit that we might begin with five
general principles from Scripture.
First, the two cornerstone commandments: Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, and mind;
and love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus said these summarize God’s moral law, the Ten
Commandments (Matt. 22:37-40). They are timeless. They oblige each person, and that standard,
exercised by individuals, would thereby be reflected in civil society.
Second, God has given both temporal and eternal obligations. In Matthew 22:21, Jesus
says, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” This principle implies that some
binding moral commands may apply differently to individuals and to civil government.
Third, God doesn’t contradict Himself, and God’s principles don’t contradict one another.
Thus, His principles of justice, fairness, and equality don’t contradict, but are complementary to His
principles of mercy. Also, both justice and mercy principles obligate us more to some people over
others.
Elements of both sets of principles apply to us individually and as a body politic, but not
always equally. For example, Exodus 23:2 warns us “not [to] show favoritism to a poor man in his
lawsuit.” But James 2:1 says “don’t show favoritism [to the rich].” James 2:9 calls showing favoritism
“sin.”
In the context of the Golden Rule, the obligation to show mercy is greater for individuals than
could rightly be expected of civil government. Luke 6:30-31 says, “Give to everyone who asks you,
and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have
them do to you.” Obviously, that would be unjust for civil government to attempt, and such an attempt
at mercy would result in injustice (as well as be unwise and profligate with public resources).
The
state can’t turn the other cheek (Luke 6:29-30). The state can’t give its tunic. The state can’t turn a
blind eye toward someone who has stolen. The state can’t forgive someone 70 times seven times
(Matthew 18:21-22).
Read More..............
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/May2007/Edwards070522.pdf
Evangelicals don’t have a president.
This is insane. They have to earn it. There are so many waiting to get to this country LEGALLY it isn’t fair to them. And these people break our laws to get here and are getting all kinds of free handouts, taking jobs from other American’s. They should not be just allowed to stay.
Sounds like some churches need to have their tax-exempt status yanked.
I have been saying for a couple years here on FR (and being pilloried for it) that evangelicals are no more likely to be conservatives than your average licensed driver.
Conservatism <> religious belief.
Wonder what the National Evangelicals have to say about the RULE OF LAW? Crickets. I still want someone to explain to me how legalizing 30 million or so illegals is going to discourage other illegals from coming here.
Evangelical just doesn’t mean what it used to.
On the other hand, many churches see their work on earth as spreading the gospel to every person, converting the lost and bringing them to Christ.
It has nothing to do with defending national borders, which often are seen as impediments to sharing the gospel.
So you will find churches will end up on the other side of the immigration debate, since they have a heavenly, not earthly, focus.
The Catholic church is often on the pro-amnesty side of the debate.
Illegal immigration is one of those issues that divides the conservative movement — which is why the liberals love it so much, even though it apparently splits their coalition as well.
You simply can’t get a majority coalition together that agrees on every issues. So over time, we’ve come to emphasize issues that are easy to define and split people cleanly, to try to maintain the coalitions. immigration wasn’t one of those issues.
Rev. Anderson answered that there was no dissent in adopting the pro-amnesty resolution on the 75-member NAE board of directors.
______________________________________________
75 for AMNESTY...
299,999,925 against...
Do these idiots NOT understand that there will not be a United States of America after amnesty occurs. Are they so friggin’ blind to the reality??????
Do these idiots NOT understand that there will not be a United States of America after amnesty occurs?? Are they so friggin’ blind to the reality??????
Herein no pro-amnesty candidate will ever get my vote; doesn’t matter who they are.
The Catholics and the Happy Clappys both want more “nalgas” in the pews, hence the support for amnesty.
If Shumer invited this guy, you can bet that this is a leftist, evangelical look-alike construct from the left to make it look like the left has the support of evangelical christians in this immigration/amnesty monstrocity.
As a whole, they do not...and they know it. It is more slight of hand, smoke screen, bravo sierra from the left being eaten up by the MSM.
ping
Average church membership in the US is 180. All the member denominations seem to be quite small. Just another Evagelical claiming to speak for all Evangelicals.
Which is hard to do ‘cause we don’t join organizations like this.
Instead, we need to deport the illegal aliens. President Eisenhower did it. And yes, it can be done and should be done. No country can survive if it does not protect its own borders.