William Wolfe, Immigration, and Props
Introduction
In William Wolfe's recent article for The Daily Caller, he argues in favor of a bill that could "provide the Secretary of DHS with authority to turn away migrants who do not have valid entry documents" and "require the Secretary to use this 'turn away' authority when an illegal immigrant cannot be detained through the pendency of an asylum claim." In his article, Wolfe responds to Congressman Gonzales (Republican of Texas), who tweeted that this bill is "unchristian" and "anti-immigrant" by making a scriptural case for his style of closed borders.
Frankly, I'm sympathetic to Wolfe's policy position on this bill. While we may disagree with some of the details and the broader policy issue, his focus on stopping traffickers is good. In its relatively narrow focus, the bill may be good policy or at least better than the status quo. And this is coming from someone who's, essentially, open borders. So I want to make that clear from the very beginning. My response to Wolfe is about how he uses scripture and frames the larger issue, not the bill.
Wolfe begins his article like this.
Despite what many in the woke media like to claim, Jesus Christ wasn't an open-borders socialist
Despite the sensationalized political rhetoric of Wolfe, a policy very near to what would today be called "open borders" happens to be the policy of our nation's founding fathers, the US Constitution, and the nation's first century. That makes everyone from Thomas Jefferson to Abraham Lincoln (and far beyond) woke, at least according to Wolfe.
I agree with Wolfe that Jesus wasn't a socialist. Still, I can't help but notice that Wolfe supports a policy requiring more state intervention in private property, more public funding, and fewer individual rights. His view requires more government, not less. There's also the propensity all genuinely socialist nations have had toward strict border control. Many have made rational arguments in favor of stricter border control, but calling less strict border control "socialist" is not what that word means. It's just noise.
Regretfully, most of Wolfe's opinion piece is of a similar caliber of argument. The typical grandstanding and played-out abuses are hurled at those who disagree with his preferred policy. Wolfe is no stranger to Washington politics. None of this is new. None of this is even noteworthy for Daily Caller-style political commentary.
But Wolfe then starts talking theology.
Though the bill in question is worth being seriously examined, today, I need to focus on how Wolfe enlists scripture into his cause.
Of serious note, though Wolfe comes from the political arena (Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the DoD for POTUS Donald Trump) William Wolfe is also a rising influence at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and the Southern Baptist Convention. E.g., Founders Ministries President and former SBC presidential candidate Tom Ascol had this to say about Wolfe's latest take on immigration and scripture.
That is why I'm writing this response.
Before I dive in, I want to say that while I hold a position on immigration (see this, this, this, and this), I also believe Christians can, in good faith, disagree on this issue. Of course, there are limitations to this charity. If you favor criminalizing leaving water in the desert for anyone in need, for example, that's just a wicked position. Likewise, if you believe human traffickers should have carte blanche access to cross our national borders, that's also a wicked position. Still, there are rational and morally upright reasons to hold different views on this subject. Many hold a view for practical reasons, and though I would argue for a more explicitly scriptural view, I can understand where they are coming from. We may have disagreements, and I'll happily argue for my view, but scripture is often not being directly violated or twisted. But oftentimes it is. This is one such case.
Wolfe eisegetically and anachronistically attributes a modernistic understanding of national borders to ancient Israel's interactions with Edom and the Book of Acts’ respect for boundaries. Let's begin with Israel.
Israel & Edom
Wolfe writes:
The Bible unapologetically upholds the concept of sovereign nations. This is seen in various books in the Old Testament, including Numbers, Joshua, and Judges. Of note is Numbers 20, when the Israelites attempt to pass through Edom. First, the Israelites request passage, they do not demand it, nor do they cross illegally (Num. 20:17). Edom denied their request (Num. 20:18-20), and Israel complied with their denial and "turned away" (Num. 20:21). The Israelites did not presume they had a moral claim on the land simply because they showed up at their borders.
Wolfe begins his scriptural argument by standing by the idea that the Bible upholds the concept of sovereign nations. I agree with Wolfe on this point, but it's important to also talk about where God's people unapologetically did not uphold the sovereignty of foreign nations. And Wolfe doesn't do that. Further, he does not mention why Israel respected the borders of Edom.
First, the (at the time) sojourning nation of Israel does not respect the borders of every nation along its path. Most notably, God handed over the Amorites to Israel (Deuteronomy 2:24-33). Much like with Edom, Israel sent messengers and offered peaceful passage. Much of the language is the same. Like the Edomites, the Amorites refused, but instead of sparing Edom, God gave over their entire land as a possession of Israel. Israel did not turn away. Israel does the same to the Canaanites in Numbers 21:1-3. Isreal does not submit to the border control of these nations.
Second, why Israel respects the borders of Edom is a crucial question. Wolfe writes as if Israel held up the virtue of national borders as an intrinsic good. However, this explanation is not in the text Wolfe cites.
And the people of Israel said to him, "We will go up by the highway, and if we drink of your water, I and my livestock, then I will pay for it. Let me only pass through on foot, nothing more." But he said, "You shall not pass through." And Edom came out against them with a large army and with a strong force. Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his territory, so Israel turned away from him. (Numbers 20:19-21)
Though Numbers 20 is silent on why Edom (and not other nations) are spared, Deuteronomy 2 is not silent—God had given Edom to Esau and his descendants.
Do not contend with them, for I will not give you any of their land, no, not so much as for the sole of the foot to tread on, because I have given Mount Seir to Esau as a possession (Deuteronomy 2:5)
Far from having a modern Republican veneration of a national border, Israel spared Edom because God was honoring Esau and his people. God is not silent on this motivation. We do not get to guess.
But the story of Edom and its borders does not stop there.
Though Israel initially turned away from Edom (Numbers 20:21), this policy of respecting Edomite sovereignty was temporary. After some time, Israel did pass through Edom.
Then we turned and journeyed into the wilderness in the direction of the Red Sea, as the Lord told me. And for many days we traveled around Mount Seir. Then the Lord said to me, 'You have been traveling around this mountain country long enough. Turn northward and command the people, "You are about to pass through the territory of your brothers, the people of Esau, who live in Seir; and they will be afraid of you. So be very careful. (Deuteronomy 2:1-4)
There are different interpretations regarding the supposed discrepancy between Numbers 2:21 and Deuteronomy 2:4. Some commentators take my position and believe this is simply a timing issue. I.e., Israel initially respected the border of Edom before their forty years of wandering but then decided to risk it (thus the warning to be careful in v. 4) in their final march to the Promised Land. This requires a time gap between Numbers 20:21 and 20:22, but time gaps are certainly not unheard of in the Pentateuch. This view also sees Deuteronomy 2 as a sort of redemption for Israel—repeating much of the same language and ideas, but this time overcoming their initial difficulties at Edom and passing through. But other commentators believe that Isreal only passed through the border territory of Edom to buy food and water rather than marching through the whole land. Another interpretation is that Edom did not allow access to the main roads, but did allow Israel to pass through the countrysides. Yet another option is that a faction of Edomites allowed Israel to pass through, though the King contested this. Most options also seem to be compatible with the third telling of this event found in Judges 11. In the vast majority of interpretation options, Israel did pass through at least part of Edom to buy food and water (Deuteronomy 2:6).
Before we move on from Israel and Edom, it's significant that much of the conquering of Israel in this time was in service to a singular ceremonial calling Israel had to sojourn to and eventually inhabit the Promised Land. Whether attempting to draw closed-border or open-border policies from these texts, we must not fail to distinguish between normative ethical practices and practices connected to a unique ceremonial and historical context. Even from a theonomic perspective, this distinction is essential. Brothers and sisters, Mexican immigrants are not traveling to the Promised Land, nor is the United States land given to Esau and his people.
Respect for Boundaries
Wolfe also quotes from the Book of Acts to strengthen his point.
In the New Testament, the political reality of sovereign nations is again seen clearly in Acts 17:26: "From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands."
Here Wolfe demonstrates that, normatively, God values national borders. Though, technically, this verse is more about God's sovereignty over borders than the virtue of those borders. After all, if a nation invades another and changes the border, God is still sovereign over those new boundaries regardless of the ethics of that invasion. God is sovereign over borders and the times in history of those borders.
With that said, God does (normatively) care about borders. You just need to, again, look to Deuteronomy for that teaching.
You shall not move your neighbor's landmark, which the men of old have set, in the inheritance that you will hold in the land that the Lord your God is giving you to possess. (Deuteronmy 19:14)
Still, this text also fails to teach directly or clearly what Wolfe is saying. This text is about private or tribal border disputes, not national borders. Specific lands were given to each tribe as an inheritance, and in lieu of modern cartography methods, these markers were used. But even though that's true, I'll grant it to Wolf that by looking at the whole of scripture, God does see ethical value in national borders. God isn't a border anarchist.
But that truth does not equate to closed borders. As I've covered this before, I'll quote myself at this point from this article.
We should be very clear about what we are discussing. Borders are objectively and indisputably necessary, but borders do not necessitate restricting the free travel of non-criminals. In essence, there is a categorical distinction between borders and border control. Borders form jurisdictional legal boundaries, while border control physically restricts free travel by the use of force or the threat of force. Borders are a crucial judicial tool in determining proper jurisdictions and, in the case of private boundaries, property rights. However, border control is a perpetual executive action.
Some strongly feel that having borders without strict border control is untenable or downright bizarre.
From history, however, we see that this was the standard legal position of most Western nations, including the United States, up until the last hundred and fifty years. The first immigration law passed in the USA was in 1882 and restricted the immigration of Chinese. This means that the USA, somehow, existed for over a hundred years with borders but without any notable border control. Crossing into Canada or Mexico was as easy as crossing from Kansas into Oklahoma. Europe was very much the same, so much so that the idea of presenting identification papers at a border was, for many years, considered a nefarious act associated with Nazi Germany as opposed to a normal part of life. Allowing the free travel of peoples across national borders is a far cry from disrespecting, disregarding, or negating the borders themselves.
I'll also add that ancient Israel did not have anything remotely resembling closed borders after they took the Promised Land. Foreigners had open access to travel throughout Israel, sell goods, and even stay long-term (Leviticus 19:33-34). Resident foreigners were even encouraged to participate in certain Israelite festivals and customs (Deuteronomy 16:11, 16:14, 26:11). The buying and selling of land to foreigners was a different issue, but that was also tied to Old Covenant seed laws and the inheritance given to each tribe. Asher land was not permanently sold off to Reuben Israelites, for example, though the use of the land could be sold temporarily. All land sales were temporary and essentially reset on the Year of Jubilee (Leviticus 25).
Boundaries matter, but how they matter also matters. One can not make an argument in favor of restricting travel and immigration by appealing to a Biblical respect for borders. One does not necessitate the other.
Closing Admonition
The cartels are evil. Traffickers are evil. No matter your stance on immigration policy, we must address those evils and do so firmly. The status quo doesn't work, nor does absolute border anarchy. There must be diligent policing of the border against these evil practices regardless of everything else. William Wolfe is proposing one solution that stresses stricter border control. Others are for looser border control. Specifically, Wolfe's support of The Border Safety and Security Act may have some merit. I'm simply not sure.
But what I am sure of is that the Holy Bible does not serve our political positions, no matter how practical your take is. Instead, our political positions should serve scripture. And part of that means not being reckless with God's Word when trying to align Christianity with your politics. As Christians, we do not start with advocacy for a congressional bill and then go mining in scripture for prooftexts. That is not our way. Rather, we look to God's Word and we let it speak. We do not speak for it. No cause, whether it's a wicked cause or a just cause, has license to abuse scripture to favor a political debate. God's Word is sufficient for informing, guiding, and dictating our political stances. However, those stances flow from scripture and into our political agenda, not the other way around.
Toward the end of his article, Wolfe says this:
Now, some "woke Christians" try to weaponize ideas like "Jesus was a refugee" (he wasn't by modern standards) and the command to "welcome the stranger" (which, of course, doesn't include human traffickers). But in both cases, they rip those verses out of context and twist them beyond recognition in service of their open borders' agenda.
Christian ethical standards do not allow for such casual abuse of other believers. The above example is just one of many found in Wolfe’s work. Though harshness is sometimes justified, that is the exception, not the rule. God's wrath must be provoked while his love is internal in himself. Wolfe dismisses the idea that there can be any Christian case for open borders while repeatedly using rancorous, divisive, and harsh speech toward anyone who would disagree. The repeat implication in this article is that those who disagree with Wolfe are "woke" or "woke Christians," as if they're not Christians at all. This extremism is nearing outright blasphemy.
Washington politics is known for its pragmatism, duplicity, and cutthroat strategies. "Whatever works" is the name of the game. That behavior is wicked for politicians and Deputy Assistant Secretaries, but it's also expected. But now Wolfe is in the arena of the church. We have higher standards. Whether intentionally or not, Wolfe has been reckless with God's Word. He has read his political policy into scripture and done so with flippancy and sensationalism.
In his article, Wolfe says that Congressman Gonzales is "using those suffering under the boot of the cartels as a prop."
William, God's Word is not your prop.