Posts from Profs
Publications and Media
Resources for Preaching
Friends, Faculty, and Staff Posts
News & Information
The final of four sneak peeks into the main plenary presentations for the 2014 Theological Symposium (September 23-24).
Considering immigration on the eve of Independence Day
I find it interesting and disturbing that it seems like a majority of those who oppose immigration reform and helping those less fortunate call themselves Christians. I’m afraid this includes many fellow Lutherans.
Can anyone explain this? Thanks
I have sensed the same thing, Alan. I wish I had a good explanation myself, although it may be a part of the reality Robert Putnam describes when he says that politics often drives theology, and not the other way around.
In discussing immigration and relating it to Independence Day, citizens, including Christians, need to distinguish between legal immigrants and illegal aliens (or whatever euphemism may be substituted).
Furthermore, citizens, including Christians, must recognize that regulations of legal immigration are to be established for the benefit and welfare of the United States. Unregulated or unrestricted immigration can harm the citizens of the United States, including those who are Christians. Such unrestricted immigration has been used to benefit a certain political regime within the United States.
In his book,The position of Christianity in the United States, in its relations with our political institutions,and specially with reference to religious instruction in the public schools (Lippincott, Grambo & Co., Philadelphia, 1854, p. 21), Stephen Colwell (1800-1871) explained:
“In offering these advantages of civil and religious liberty to the people of every creed and nation, they, our ancestors, did not concede any principle of the great work they had just finished; they did not propose to take down their fabric or fashion it to the taste of all who might take refuge within its walls; they did not propose to place the existence of Christianity and Christian civilization in our land at the mercy of those who should make their abode with us; they intended to extend a real Christian toleration to all people, but they did not mean that the idolators or pagans who might come among us should be regarded in their turn as tolerating Christians. They intended that it should remain a Christian land, and that the glory of its toleration should continue to be ascribed to its true origin, Christianity.”
Click here to cancel reply »
Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.
Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.
Mail (will not be published) (required)
You can use these tags:<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.
Trying to see clearly in #Ferguson’s haze
David Schmitt’s opening plenary at the 2013 Theological Symposium.
The journey from text to pulpit can be a long and winding road, filled with false starts, surprising discoveries, and hard choices along the way. On a semi-regular basis, the homiletics faculty of Concordia Seminary …
Back by popular demand: David Peter presents “Decoding the Apocalypse: Part Two.”