Nuance is an endangered species. Few people offer it, few people seem willing to tolerate it. But a lack of nuance leads to a confusing cognitive dissonance.

On the far right of the Christian political spectrum are those who contend America was and should be again a Christian nation. This group wants to reintroduce biblical principles and Christian laws to some degree. Some embrace the moniker “Christian nationalism”; others, before that label was in usage, used terms like “theonomy”, “Christian reconstructionism”, or “dominion theology” to describe their beliefs. There are differences between those labels, and there are hard-core and soft-core variegations within those camps, but they belong to the same genus. The common thread was a commitment to enforcing Christian moral standards in the public sphere. So, sins like adultery, homosexuality, blasphemy, or Sabbath-breaking are criminalized.

But among the same group, if you mention the biblical concern for the alien or refugees, if you preach the biblical truth that we are all exiles and sojourners, or point people to the command to “love your neighbor as yourself” and dare to connect the dots to the parable of the Good Samaritan….well, then, you’re woke! The cognitive disconnect can be jarring.

And those on the far left fare no better. The left is quick to point out any time religion creeps into policymaking. Laws against transgender women playing on a women’s team aren’t common sense; it’s religion being imposed. Or laws against abortion isn’t care for the unborn life, it’s Christian views being jammed down women’s throats. Or a legal definition of marriage that limits it to one man and one woman isn’t upholding the basic definition of a word, but a step towards Taliban-like theocracy.

But the Christian left loves to point to frequent biblical commands to care for the poor, the widow, and the foreigner. So all the biblical commands about sexual ethics need to be kept out of the public sphere, but the command to care for the alien gets paraded around. The inconsistency is hard to reconcile.

And now that I’ve offended everyone… let me offer some nuance regarding the biblical commands to care for the alien and sojourner. At the end, I want to engage with a recent article by Costi Hinn, who attempts a more nuanced approach and applies it directly to the immigration debate.

When considering what the bible says about aliens and sojourners, we ought to pay attention to the fact that there were different kinds of foreigners mentioned in the Bible. Remember, when Israel left Egypt, a “mixed multitude” went out with them, permanently attaching themselves to the people of Israel. Those foreigners who went out with Israel were not a part of a tribe, and hence, were not assigned a portion of the land. Moreover, Palestine was, at the time, a major land crossroads, often traveled by traders, etc. During Solomon’s census, there were over 150,000 foreigners living in Israel.

There are a few key words used to describe non-native Israelites (here, I am very dependent on the work of Christopher Wright and Marcel Macelaru in an article from 2018, “The Refugee Crisis – a Shared Human Condition”). The most common word for the foreigner in the Hebrew Bible is ger, commonly translated as “alien” or “foreigner.” These people were permanent residents, though not ethically Israelite. Again, they had no share in the land, which made them economically vulnerable. They worked the land, not as slaves and not as visiting foreigners. This group was protected legally and economically – wages were not to be withheld, the edges of the fields weren’t to be gleaned, but left for the foreigner, and the widow (Deuteronomy 24:19). A ger was fairly assimilated into Israel’s community and life and could even, if circumcised, participate in the Passover. They were expected to abide by Israel’s laws – Sabbath keeping, ban on idols, etc.

A second word appears in the OT corpus. Tosah is often used in connection with ger but is not synonymous. By itself, it would mean something like “foreign guest” or “hired worker”. This group enjoyed some legal protections (i.e. cities of refuge open to them also, see Numbers 35:15), but not the same level as the ger. So, for example, the Jubilee laws did not apply to them (Leviticus 25:45).

A third group is designated by the words nokri or zar. These were true foreigners with no permanent status – traders, mercenaries, spring break vacationers, etc. They were not protected by the same laws and could, for instance, be charged interest. They were treated with a level of suspicion because, it could be assumed, they worshipped foreign gods. Yet, this is the word Solomon uses in dedicatory prayer for the temple:

“Likewise, when a foreigner, who is not of your people Israel, comes from a far country for your name’s sake 42 (for they shall hear of your great name and your mighty hand, and of your outstretched arm), when he comes and prays toward this house, 43 hear in heaven your dwelling place and do according to all for which the foreigner calls to you, in order that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you, as do your people Israel, and that they may know that this house that I have built is called by your name.” (1 Kings 8:41-43)

When Old Testament passages are quoted amid conversations on immigration, it is usually passages that use the term ger. So, it must be pointed out, these sojourners were in the land with the approval of Israel, had largely assimilated into Israel, and were held to the same laws as Israelites. Those who were not permanent residents or had not assimilated were less welcome in the community and afforded less legal protection.

Having said that, abusing or mistreating any category of foreigner would have been a sinful breach of Israel’s covenant with God. And, as Christians, we need to be reminded that Jesus expanded the category of “neighbor” beyond what his contemporaries believed was the breaking point. Essentially, everyone counted as a neighbor and deserved love and care. Moreover, as Christians, we are called to show hospitality to the stranger (Hebrews 13:2).

But how should this inform immigration policy? Simply saying “as Christians, we ought to…” does not always translate to public policy. Christians should show mercy. That doesn’t mean there should be no punishments for crimes or that a Christian judge should set everyone free as an act of mercy.

In what follows, I want to engage that indirectly by interacting with Costi Hinn’s article “A Biblical View of Immigration: Compassion without Naivety, Order without Cruelty.” Hinn makes the case that Christian compassion has little to do with immigration laws or enforcement.

Costin Hinn hopes to offer some nuance in his article, stating that the immigration debate “is often framed as a false dichotomy: either you love your neighbor and support open borders, or you care about law and order and lack compassion.” I believe he is correct in this. This is a false dichotomy. There are ways of advocating for stricter immigration laws and enforcement based on love, not xenophobia or racism. And there are ways to criticize current enforcement and policy without completely jettisoning law and order. He is correct, “the Bible calls God’s people to both mercy and wisdom, both compassion and order, both love for the sojourner and respect for the rule of law.”

But does Hinn’s article and his approach deliver on this calling? Hinn is right, the Bible verses about the sojourner are often misapplied because we don’t pay enough attention to the nuances of the text (see above). But I have some concerns regarding significant points of Hinn’s argument.

First, Hinn asserts as the first major thesis of his article that “the Bible affirms nations, borders, and law.” No argument here, but I can see where this is going. He moves quickly to Romans 13 and contends that “to ignore or undermine the law is not a morally neutral act. Illegal immigration is, by definition, a violation of the law.” I’ve written elsewhere on Romans 13. Let it suffice to say that, in addition to Romans 13, the Bible does expect and command believers to break the law under certain circumstances – “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Hinn doesn’t say a thing about unjust laws, or unjust enforcement of laws, nor does he address the fact that, in the enforcement of immigration laws, those with power are actually breaking the law (trampling the Constitution, disregarding court orders, etc.). In the current context, these omissions skew the conversation in a particular way, making it seem that unquestioning support for current immigration policies is the Christian mandate, or that protesting policies and enforcement is a violation of Romans 13, and hence, sinful.

He writes, “Individual Christians can and should find ways to help immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers through charity, ministry, and hospitality, but should never break the law in doing so.” I couldn’t disagree more. Currently, in Oklahoma, there is a proposed bill, Oklahoma’s Senate Bill 1554 (SB 1554), that, if enacted into law, would make it a felony for non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to provide “material support” to undocumented immigrants or asylum seekers. In other words, a church or homeless shelter offering food or shelter to someone of questionable status could be a felony. Should we refuse aid because it would be illegal? Or consider a parallel issue from history – runaway slave laws. Hinn would have you believe that it was wrong to help self-emancipating slaves get north through the underground railroad because it was breaking the law. Let me say it clearly, or let Augustine say it, “an unjust law is no law at all.” Christians can (sometimes should) break them with a clear conscience before God.

Second, Hinn is battling a straw man. He rails against open borders, a concept few actually endorse. Calling for less restrictive immigration or more compassionate enforcement is not the same as advocating for open borders.

Third, Hinn contends that the church’s role is distinct from the state’s role. “One of the greatest errors in the immigration debate,” suggests Hinn, “is confusing the mission of the church with the role of the state.” Agreed! But Hinn does exactly this. In the paragraph before, he writes, “Israel repeatedly suffered when it imported pagan practices under the banner of tolerance.” But America isn’t Israel! A parallel can be drawn between the church and Israel, and the church shouldn’t allow pagans into membership. But America has neither the right nor the responsibility to keep the church pure or protect conditions that “allow the gospel to flourish.”

Lastly, Hinn calls for wisdom and discernment in determining who, as a nation, we allow to cross our borders. This makes sense. However, he ignores what is actually happening in the nation right now. Imagine a church where one of the pastors is arrested for abusing his wife. The next Sunday, after this crime is made public, the senior pastor wants to address the issue and preaches a sermon about wives loving and respecting their husbands. Should wives love and respect their husband? Yes. But a failure to address the abuse issue will scream louder than the true words the pastor speaks from the pulpit. The same issue plagues Hinn’s article.

Hinn writes, “not everyone who crosses a border comes with peaceful intentions. Some have criminal histories…” That is true. But some men abuse women. Some women are prostitutes. Some kids are criminals. Some bankers are swindlers. Some police officers are on the take. You get my point – we don’t judge a whole group of people by what some do. Right now, only 28% of immigrants detained have any criminal history. So even including this line in your article skews the conversation. World Relief estimates that approximately 80% of those in danger of deportation are actually Christians! Churches in immigrant communities are devastated. As a nation, we may end up statistically less Christian as a result of mass deportations. What Hinn ignores is the brutal fact that many of the people detained and in danger of deportation came here legally or obtained legal status. Refugees were vetted by multiple agencies and invited to come, and now are in the crosshairs of immigration enforcement. Asylum seekers have had their legal status revoked. They didn’t come here criminally, but policies or laws changed and people are being judged based on the new laws rather than the ones they came under (ex post facto is generally not allowed in criminal courts but is allowed in immigration because immigration is a civil matter, not a criminal matter).

In his conclusion, Hinn states, “Refugees should be treated with dignity and compassion.” But in his article, he fails to address in any way whatsoever how this principle is being violated. And, in the end, that is my biggest gripe with his article. It isn’t that what he has said is untrue, but it ignores the reality of what is actually happening in our cities and small towns.

A nuanced and truthful approach will assess not only the biblical words and truths, but the current realities Christians need to navigate when coming to positions on immigration.