Featured Would or even Should your church provide SANCTUARY for illegal's?

The church is in the world but not of the world. But there is an intersecting of the church and the state.
i.e. A church still has to pass certain safety standards of the building code, zoning restrictions fire safety codes, etc... or they cannot operate

So how much and to what extent and to which venue does that intersection extend?

Well, that has always been a problem. Several of the Caesars required a toast as the "Lord of Lords" to which many/most of the early Christians could not do and some even forfeited their lives.

Personally Christ permeates every avenue of my life including the political.
I don't have a zoned thinking system of the mind.

Christ taught love, in fact he introduced agape love into this world.

However He also said :

Revelation 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten...


HankD

 

A church is the house of the Lord, not a haven for those breaking the law. We are charged with helping the poor, sick and those in need. I do not see what that has to do with local churches in the United States. There are plenty of churches in other nations from which illegal aliens come.

The recent history of the local church is not that stellar for what they are charged with in Scripture. Obviously, the church did not meet the needs of the sick and poor, if they had there would have been no reason for the federal government to become involved with Medicaid, welfare and subsidized housing. This responsibility belongs to the church in Scripture. Another example is during the 50s and 60s, the church should have been at the forefront of proclaiming that all are equal in Jesus Christ. I grew up in Mississippi, and never heard one sentence about the subject. They just conducted their lily white services with no care for what was going on around them. One wonders where those pastors are today, especially being in a leadership position and knowing it was wrong from reading the Bible and seminary.

The point is, if t he church cannot carry out mandated Scriptural functions, why on earth should it create a case for giving safe haven which has no Scriptural basis

 

Great point, for what if the law they had broken actually violated law of God, such as in having all female babies aborted now?

 

I agree with Brother Cassidy. While it seems to me that the case cited in the OP is about liberals who don't like immigration law and the enforcement of it, we must nevertheless be open to obeying God rather than man when necessary (and as Brother Cassidy says, be ready to pay the consequences of that action). The rule of civil authority is not absolute. Only God’s moral law binds our consciences. Obeying God may mean disobeying lesser authorities (Cf. Dan. 3:1-30; Acts 5:29). Government authority ends when and where it contradicts God’s moral law or positive institutions.

 

Separation of church and state. A great privilege which needs to be nurtured and respected which was near to the heart of our forefathers who came to these shores to avoid religious persecution which they suffered in their land. Church law existed in those countries and sanctuary in a church saved them from unruly taskmasters. Out side of the church their were no alternatives. Today's world has asylum and other ways to care for these situations. No one is going to be hung. In today's world we need to protect separation of church and state by insuring sanctuary does not aid persons who do not obey the law. We may feed them, clothe them but cannot aid them disobey the law of the land. They may sleep on my floor, eat my food because this my duty as a Christian but I cannot break the law with them by cloistering within the walls of the church.

 

Welcome Bill.

HankD

 

A better course of action is immigration reform. It's gotten too costly and time consuming. Combined with the median wage in Mexico being similar to the US' minimum wage and the political corruption going on there, it's obvious why people are immigrating here illegally. If they had the financial means to come legally they would.

I know of one person who came illegally, got enough money to become legal, left to Mexico, then re-entered legally.

Sadly most already have families though

 

The church has no business aiding and abiding criminals. The only possible exception would be if it became criminal to be a Christian. Anyone who hides illegals who are criminals also belong in prison.

 

When Mary and Joseph fled with their baby to Egypt to escape the killing of their child, was that a legal action, was it legal for them to leave and to escape the punishment in that manner, if people in Egypt assisted them, was that also illegal?

 

If you are referring to the Syrian refugees:
That was one family not hundreds of thousands of people - a MASS migration of individuals of which we know nothing.
Also, as with Jesus family it is their (Syrian families) to remain in the land of which they call home of their culture and language.

A safe zone is a much better solution.

One nation - Saudi Arabia - has a vast tent city able to house 2 million people with all facilities AND It's EMPTY.

Jesus family was NOT a threat to Egypt.

ISIS has promised a Refugee Trojan Horse.
Their hope is to kill us.

If you are referring to those crossing our southern border again that has amounted to millions of people many of which have proven to be viscous criminals.

Also we don't know if Jesus family crossing of the border into Egypt was a legal crossing or not so there is a definite possibility of a fallacious assumption in this debate point.

HankD

 

the percentage of illegals who are criminals is less then the average American according to politifact which is a fact checking website

 

Fake statistics.

HankD

 

What I and they meant was obvious. Outside of illegally entering.

Also it appears i was wrong when i said the median wage in Mexico is similar to our minimum wage. It's way worse!

"What the problem in Mexico is, there is a great disparity between the mass population of poor and the extremely rich. In a report by INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica Geografia) in 2015, it is stated that if you earned more than $1,250 USD ( $12000 pesos) a month you were in the upper 2.5% of the population"

From: Mexico's cost of living vs income - How do they do it?