ChristiansUnite Forums

I don't know where I've been (  ;) ) but the first time I heard of this "movement" is when we got a newsletter from the church we used to attend.  It refers to a small number of churches that are giving sanctuary to illegal aliens on church premises.

Have you all heard much of this?  (Other than the woman that recently got deported back to Mexico.)  The church where I used to go (quit there because they are very liberal now, even condoning "gay" lifestyle) is giving sanctuary to a woman and her daughter.  (They even built a room inside the church for them to live in.)  Note:  Some church members were against doing this.

I know we are supposed to welcome the alien and the strangers, but in this case if the person is illegal and the government is seeking to deport her, to me it seems like this church is defying the government.  (I do not know if the daughter was born here or not.)

Calling themselves the New Sanctuary Movement (NSM) a nod to the 1980s effort to assist refugees from Central America fleeing the carnage of U.S.-sponsored wars--churches and religious activist groups held press conferences around the U.S. May 9 to announce plans “to protect immigrant workers and families from unjust deportation” by giving shelter and material aid to the undocumented.

The initiative comes in the wake of efforts by immigrant rights activists to pressure local governments for sanctuary city policies of non-cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

A key inspiration for the NSM organizers is the struggle of Elvira Arellano, a Mexican immigrant who last year made international headlines for publicly defying a deportation order that would separate her from her U.S.-born son, 8-year-old Saúl.

Arellano last year moved into Adalberto United Methodist Church in Chicago, and religious leaders and activists from around the city came to express their support. International media covered the story, and solidarity messages poured into Adalberto from around the world. The woman that recently got deported back to Mexico.

THE CALL to join the movement was made by groups affiliated with a range of Protestant denominations, the Catholic Church, and Muslim and Sikh organizations.  You noticed, four different groups acting as one..........

To participate, individual places of worship must pledge to host immigrant families in which a family member is facing an order of deportation. According to a document posted to the NSM Web site, eligible immigrant families are those with adults with a “good work record,” a “viable case under current law,” and “American citizen children.”

THIS PLEDGE to defy the federal government and right-wing groups recalls the original sanctuary movement of the 1980s, when a coalition of some 500 churches and religious organizations helped refugees from Central America fleeing from death squads and counterrevolutionary forces aligned with the U.S. government.

No my Church is not involved with this program, and will not be involved. The NSM is illegal, so it is against the law, but thats only my opinion.

Not only are they setting up sanctuary churches but they are also working toward sanctuary cities, both of which is illegal to according to the law.

Should churches work against the government or should they work in accordance to the laws of the government even if it means going against Biblical standards? This can be a difficult decision and one must be careful exactly where they draw the line on this. I feel reasonably certain that most of the regular members on this forum will agree with me on this.

Yes, these illegal aliens did in fact break the law but then so did those that were persecuted and killed in Nazi Germany. You can see by this what I mean by being careful where we draw the line on these things.

The U.S. is supposed to be a sanctuary in itself for the poor and the oppressed. If we allow the free flow of open borders to anyone and everyone that wants to cross them then it won't be long before it will be changed completely and will no longer be a sanctuary nation. This nation will become filled with those that wish to build an oppressive nation. In fact it already is working in that direction already.

We have muslims here that wish to remove the Constitution and even our current government and replace it with sharia law and the caliphate. We also see other factions that are working hard to turn this nation into a socialistic if not a fully communistic society (one is just a few steps from the other). There is also a very dangerous gang that has moved in that wishes to take over and rule according to their gang codes. What a ruthless ruling party that would be. I am sure that there are other such groups that have not been mentioned here that also have their own agenda of an oppressive government.

Unfortunately we have those in our current government that are actually supporting one or another of these various groups.

It is inevitable that there will come a time that we all will have to make this decision, to draw the line. We as Christians will need to be very, very careful where we draw that line and on which side of that line we will be standing. We also need to be very, very careful in how we draw that line. After all it is the Lord that we need to be the most concerned about more so than any earthly government.

There is a means whereby these illegal aliens can come to this nation legally. Yes, it is a difficult and sometimes long road. Once here there are laws that need to be obeyed by them also. These laws need to be enforced. If they were then it would become easier for those that are truly coming here for a better life. Instead we have chaos and anarchy building. We have those that have come here that are advocating violence and the overthrow of the government or breaking other various laws. Some of these came here legally. According to current laws these individuals need to be jailed and or deported. Once deported there needs to be a means to prevent them from re-entering the U.S. and if they do succeed in re-entering to be jailed on a very stiff jail term.

After making the post above I went to check out the news. The following article is the very first one that I came across. Coincidence?


________________________


Obey? Bible says yes, if government's 'good'
'No civil rulers should be followed if orders inconsistent with God's'

In Romans 13, the Bible instructs Christians to obey the government because God has placed it in power, but several experts and leaders, both historic and modern, have indicated that cannot be interpreted as an unqualified loyalty.

The issue arose after WND reported on a government program to train members of the clergy to be used to quell dissent in the case of a national emergency or disaster.

In that report, Durell Tuberville, chaplain of the Shreveport, La., Fire Department and the Caddo sheriff's office, and said the mission of such Clergy Response Teams would be to express the sentiment: "Let's cooperate and get this thing over with and then we'll settle the differences once the crisis is over."

The Bible, he said, states "the government's established by the Lord, you know. And, that's what we believe in the Christian faith. That's what's stated in the Scripture."

Tony Perkins, chief of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., said it's certainly correct that Christians should obey the government, when the government is good.

But he said, "You have to realize the government has been undermining its very basis of support by trying to remove the Christian ethic, the Bible, the Ten Commandments from the public square.

"It is not unqualified obedience to the government," he said.

Perkins told WND he's familiar with emergency situations, such as the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina – he was there working with church organizations to provide help to victims while various government agencies still were wondering what happened.

"I was there during Hurricane Katrina," he said. "People are going to obey the government to the degree that the government is there to help."

"But you're going to see, as I saw, people disobeying the government when they were told they could not go into the city to help rescue people," he said.

An earlier report by reporter Jeff Ferrell on television station KSLA in Shreveport, La., said the Clergy Response Teams already were operating then.

The station's video is available on a link on its website, and also available on YouTube. It speculated whether martial law ever could become reality in the United States, following a nuclear, biological or chemical attack.

"KSLA News 12 has discovered that the clergy would help the government with potentially their biggest problem: Us," the report said.

Sandy Davis, director of the Caddo-Bossier Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness said members of the "clergy would already be known in the neighborhoods in which they're helping to diffuse that situation."

So government orders to abandon homes, turn over guns, leave livestock behind, or whatever would come to the minds of various officials during an "emergency," would be easier for people to accept, the report indicated.

While the report said clergy could cite Romans 13 in encouragement for Christians to obey the government, civil rights advocates raised questions about the idea of using clergy in such a fashion, noting the balance clergy would have to maintain when asked to do what the government wants under color of their status as a religious leader.

A blogger for the Christian education site, Chalcedon noted that the training has been going on in secret for over a year already.

"The clergy are being advised to use Romans 13 to encourage parishioners to submit to the sudden and massive expansion of government control that takes place during martial law," the writer said.

WND already has documented a series of executive orders by the president, that so far give the government broad new powers to address private property if it's related to any one of several issues, all of which are foreign so far.

Perkins' perspective, however, is supported by leaders from America's history.

A sermon by Jonathan Mayhew, from more than 250 years ago, sets out the same perspective.

His sermon has the unwieldy title: "A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers." The work by the Harvard graduate and lifelong Congregationalist minister first was published in Boston in 1750.

The Scripture, he said, "urges the duty of obedience from this topic of argument, that civil rulers, as they are supposed to fulfill the pleasure of God, are the ordinance of God. But how is this an argument for obedience to such rulers as do not perform the pleasure of God, by doing good; but the pleasure of the devil, by doing evil; and such as are not, therefore, God's ministers, but the devil's!"

"Is resisting those who resist God's will, the same thing with resisting God?" he asks.

"'Wherefore ye must needs be subject not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.' Here the apostle argues the duty of a cheerful and conscientious submission to civil government, from the nature and end of magistracy as he had before laid it down, i.e. as the design of it was to punish evildoers, and to support and encourage such as do well; and as it must, if so exercised, be agreeable to the will of God. But how does what he here says, prove the duty of a cheerful and conscientious subjection to those who forfeit the character of rulers?" he wrote.

cont'd

"Thus, upon a careful review of the apostle's reasoning in this passage, it appears that his arguments to enforce submission, are of such a nature, as to conclude only in favor of submission to such rulers as he himself describes; i.e., such as rule for the good of society, which is the only end of their institution. Common tyrants, and public oppressors, are not [e]ntitled to obedience from their subjects, by virtue of any thing here laid down by the inspired apostle," he wrote.

"All civil rulers, as such, are the ordinance and ministers of God; and they are all, by the nature of their office, and in their respective spheres and stations, bound to consult the public welfare," he said.

He even went further.

"We may very safely assert these two things in general, without undermining government: One is, That no civil rulers are to be obeyed when they enjoin things that are inconsistent with the commands of God: All such disobedience is lawful and glorious; particularly, if persons refuse to comply with any legal establishment of religion, because it is a gross perversion and corruption (as to doctrine, worship and discipline) of a pure and divine religion, brought from heaven to earth by the Son of God, (the only King and Head of the Christian church) and propagated through the world by his inspired apostles," he said.

"All commands running counter to the declared will of the supreme legislator of heaven and earth, are null and void: And therefore disobedience to them is a duty, not a crime," he said.

Mayhew's comments were directed not at the U.S. government, which hadn't yet been formed, but the tyranny of King Charles of England, who had been beheaded after what Mayhew described as "illegal and despotic measures."

Columnist Chuck Baldwin wrote unbelievingly that, "in order to convince American citizens to surrender their firearms to the government during a time of martial law, DHS is enlisting the assistance of America's pastors. According to the DHS, my job as a church pastor, is to tell my congregation that, according to Romans 13, they must surrender their firearms when the government asks them to do so."

"Let me address the issue bluntly: According to Romans 13, every citizen is only bound to obey his or her governing official to the degree that the governing official does not violate the duty of the citizen to obey the 'higher powers' which, for Americans, are God and the U.S. Constitution," he said.

"Properly understood, Romans 13 teaches that each and every government official (including the President of the United States and all those under him) must submit to the U.S. Constitution," he said.

"Don't tell me that the Bible teaches pacifism, because it doesn't. I am a Christian, and I am a pastor. And I agree with Charlton Heston who said that they could have his guns 'over my cold, dead hands.'"

Pastor David R. Wills, of Miamisburg, Ohio, was concise in his assessment of the text for WND.

"God commands our obedience not to ungodly, despotic rulers, whose 'authority', according to God's Word, is illegitimate and unlawful by virtue of such persons' rebellion against GOD's Authority – from which all lawful authority must derive and be answerable to," he said.

"Mayhew's eloquent sermon brings out these very same points and issues. In fact, his sermon was singularly enlightening to my mind, in my early Christian life, regarding the questions herein addressed," Wills continued.

"Mayhew demonstrates that God ordained not this or that particular ruler (as many would have it), but God ordained the institution of civil government, for the stated purposes. God vested his authority not in this or that man (Stalin, Hitler, Ghengis Khan, Pol Pot, etc.) to rule over those for whom Christ died. Rather, God vested his authority, through his Word, in the principle, the ideal of civil government. Notwithstanding it has sometimes been the case that God has used wicked rulers to inflict punishments upon a rebellious people; nevertheless, even in such cases, the Word of God does not impose upon the godly (those who know and obey the Word of God) the duty to submit to and obey evil persons and/or their institutions of government, whatsoever they may be," he said.

Perkins noted the U.S. Congress and the government courts repeatedly have worked to eliminate the Bible, the Ten Commandments and prayer from any part of the formal proceedings of the government.

Further removing the government from the "good" side, he said, is the support from Congress for "hate crimes" legislation, which many Christian pastors fear eventually could be used to silence their exhortation of biblical condemnation of behaviors such as homosexuality.

"The government increasingly is pushing legislation such as 'hate crimes' which pastors see as targeting them. They're (the government) weakening that base of support among Christians."

"Romans 13 addresses a government as an authority of good, not evil," he said. "I saw this when I was coordinating relief efforts among churches, when the federal government came in and confiscated truckloads of supplies we had coming in."

"Romans chapter 13 by no means instructs – much less does it command – Christians to render unqualified submission to the dictates of secular government," a pastor wrote to WND. "I do perceive a real danger not only in the case at hand but, in a much wider sense, in the fact that contemporary societies, including the majority of churchgoers (I'm quite sure), are practically ignorant concerning the Bible's teaching regarding both the duties and the limitations imposed upon individuals, by God's Word, with respect to obedience – or resistance, as the case may be, to secular government."

Thanks for the very informative posts, Pastor Roger.

I had thought of Nazi Germany after I made my initial post.  But I thought in that case it was alright for Christians to disobey Hitler's government because he was murdering people simply because of their religion/ethnic group.

Whereas, in the New Sanctuary Movement, they are harboring people that have broken our laws.

I really am not involved in politics too much....but getting the newsletter from that church the other day prompted me to post this, I guess.  It used to be a good Bible preaching church but now they seem to be all about "issues".....

We as Christians do need to be in politics but it must be a good balance between politics and preaching the word. After all it was because so many Christians ignored politics that we have so many horrible things happening here in the U.S.

As in the case of that church you mentioned we must be careful which side we take on things.

Yes there is a difference between the sanctuary churches and what happened with Hitler. That was a part of my point. What the sanctuary churches are doing is setting us up for a situation like that with Hitler.

Yes, that's true.  We need to be aware and willing to speak up....but not to the extent of where it's just about politics.

Brothers and Sisters,

There are some very complicated issues in this thread that every Christian should think about and pray about.

First, some things would obviously depend on the country where you are living, and what their laws, Constitution, and rights guarantee.

As an example, the government is also required to obey the law in most of the countries of this part of the world. The people are the boss and they vote people in and out of office based on the quality of their performance FOR THE PEOPLE. This makes a huge difference when we begin to think about things and pray about things.

Most of the people in this part of the world also have rights that are guaranteed by law and Constitution. Again, this makes a big difference in our thoughts and prayers. We certainly have the right and obligation to protect and defend our families, and we have the right to keep and bear arms. In the case of America, there were countless and lengthy discussions by the framers about why the people would always have the right to keep and bear arms. Their remembrance was of tyranny and the eventual need for a revolution to fight for freedom and a different way of life. Religious freedom was one of the biggest freedoms our founders demanded and would obtain one way or another. It became "another", and it was assumed that an armed people would tend to hold their elected government in check. YES - this was a primary purpose for the right for the people to keep and bear arms. OUR government does not have the RIGHT to do long lists of things unless the people vote and tell them to. Our government certainly doesn't have the right to change our form of government or remove ANY RIGHTS from the people except in very short times of emergency that the people have already authorized.

It's one thing for a law to say that a citizen can't carry a gun in a public place, but it's quite another to say that a citizen can't own and keep firearms. Any law that prohibits a citizen from keeping firearms is against the law and unconstitutional.

There are many other examples we could talk about in this thread that would be complex and controversial. As an example, it would be my opinion that it's just plain wrong for a church to give sanctuary to an illegal alien. The beginning of this situation is an illegal entry into a sovereign country, and the reasonable laws of the people already adopted demand that won't happen and those laws will be enforced. It really doesn't get any more simple than this. Their is nothing immoral about laws of the people that have absolute control over who does and who does not enter this country.

There would be harder questions about illegal aliens and responsibilities under that law. Example:  could I feed them if they were starving? Would I have responsibilities to report them to the proper authorities.  I say YES and YES. However, I would have to say "NO" to helping them avoid capture or helping them avoid completely legal processes that are and have been the law. In the case of a church, I think it's a horrible example for a church to help fugitives from the law avoid capture and legal process. On the other side of the coin, I could see the church reporting them, feeding them, and providing needed care as long as they did nothing to help them avoid legal process.

Now, let be get back to what the main purpose probably is of the thread. If they made a law that said I couldn't teach my children about JESUS, I would disobey it - plain and simple. First, that isn't the government's right to demand that. Second, it is my right to teach my children about JESUS, and nobody will be allowed to remove that right. If the people vote and change that right, I will leave this country. Lastly, ONLY a vote of the people can change the rights we have under the law and the Constitution. A change without a vote of the people is illegal and Unconstitutional - and it WILL NOT be tolerated. The government belongs to the people, and the government WILL BE held to the LAW and CONSTITUTION. The ONLY rights of government will be temporarily given to elected officials and ONLY remain so long as those elected officials obey the LAW and CONSTITUTION. HOWEVER, the RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE are PERMANENT, and they will be removed or changed ONLY by a vote of the people. The PEOPLE are the MASTER of the government, and the government HAD BEST remember this at all times. If there is to be a dictatorship, ONLY the PEOPLE can put it in place by voting - NO OTHER WAY!

By the above, it should be assumed that the answer would be "NO" for many things the government might want to do without the permission and vote of the people. For me, "NO" would not be an assumption, rather a BOLD and CERTAIN "NO"! It should also be noted in long-established LAW that the people have the RIGHT to resist ILLEGAL ARREST! These laws are not written in vague terms, rather in very bold and specific terms that say just this. In fact the amount of resistance allowed to resist illegal arrest is up to and including deadly force. Obviously, the use of deadly force must be appropriate for the circumstances present, and they would have to be justified in a court of law. The overall point is simple:  many laws are put in place to hold the government in check and in their proper role as SERVANT - NOT MASTER! There are many laws designed specifically to prohibit the government from abusing or removing rights from citizens. The "Founders" certainly considered the possibility of government getting out of control, out of their place, and in a position of needed replacement. AGAIN, this is just one of the reasons why the people have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. An "Out of control government" was a specific part of the debates when the "RIGHT to keep and bear arms" was established. It should be clearly known that right existed long before it was formalized by the law and Constitution. It was formalized because of the fear that the government might at some time try to disarm the people.