Bryan Fischer hijacks Christianity to defend un-Christlike behavior regarding the immigration issue.

::::::::

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. -- James 1: 27 (ESV)

Beloved, this may not be an easy message for everyone. I want to challenge us however to view the events we see unfolding every day through a pure Biblical lens, uncorrupted by carnal arguments. American Christianity has long sold its soul for the politics of this carnal world. Do we even realize that one of the fastest growing and popular false teachings in the church today is the dominionism of the New Apostolic Reformation? They do not teach to keep oneself unstained from the world as our key verse teaches but rather to conquer it. To take dominion over this fallen world to facilitate the second coming of Jesus Christ. Is this Biblical? Not even remotely. But that has not stopped Bill Johnson of Bethel, Mike Bickle of IHOP, and the entire false signs and lying wonders network of Charisma News, the NAR and the Kansas City Prophets from leading millions into this apostasy and eventually hell itself. Even if churches are not blatantly dominionist they may embrace the false teachings without acknowledging they do. Churches that have sold out politically to one party, who think that the church needs to influence culture instead of bring people to the cross, or aspire to change things legislatively instead of spiritually have all embraced this jingoistic nationalism in the name of Christianity when God has already said that our citizenship is supposed to be in heaven and we are but pilgrims and sojourners through this land.

Wait a minute preacher! Are you saying that we are not supposed to positively influence culture? No beloved. That is what God has said. At least not through the carnal methods we see the church employ today. Being a shining city on a hill does not mean getting your flawed sinful candidate elected. The lesser of two evils he may be but evil he remains. Being a shining city on a hill means we stand out because we are different. We do not get sucked into taking carnal and political positions that automatically alienate half of the people we want to reach with the Gospel.

You remember the Gospel don't you?

The Gospel is the vehicle we are to use to influence culture because only the Gospel has the power of God to save people from this hell bound culture. It is not surprising that the purpose driven church, which no longer believes in the power of the Gospel would see it as insufficient to battle the cultural forces of evil. That may sound harsh but what does it say when pastors today think they have to dress up the Gospel with pop culture, parlor tricks, and relevant sermon series'? When they need to draw people to worship not with the prospect of how great God is but with smoke machines, disco lighting and professional musicians? When sermons are designed to tickle the ears and improve our secular life instead of preaching the uncompromised Gospel? No beloved. Make no mistake about it. The church today in this country does not believe in the sufficiency of the Gospel so it is no wonder they view it as not being enough to deal with whatever issues arise in society. Then to compound our carnality, those who claim leadership in the church use the Bible and pseudo-piety to assign a moral superiority to their wicked political stances. The latest offering comes from Charisma News, via Bryan Fischer of American Family Radio.

http://www.charismanews.com/politics/opinion/63896-sanctuary-cities-are-nothing-like-the-biblical-cities-of-refuge

The main objection here is that some have been comparing the Biblical concept of Cities of Refuge with the modern day Sanctuary Cities. Let us first understand what each mean. Within the theocracy of Israel, God had set up governing laws. One such law was that if someone committed murder they were to be put to death. For causing death accidentally however, there were six designated cities set up that the accused could flee to for asylum from the "avenger of blood." This was the oldest male relative of the deceased who would be legally covered for killing the offender outside of these six cities. The congregation of people would rule if the death was indeed accidental and if so the accused would be absolved from guilt. If not however, he would be removed from the city and receive death as his punishment.

Sanctuary Cities grew out of faith based initiatives during the early 1980s. That is right; the idea came from the church. They loosely based the concept on Cities of Refuge, no matter how much Mr. Fischer does not want it to be true. The essential concept of a Sanctuary City is that it refuses to assist the Federal Government in deporting people. So, let us reason together beloved and see if Mr. Fischer can keep his politics and Scripture straight:

"We are all familiar with the term "sanctuary cities," communities which have pledged to be a place where undocumented immigrants may be safe without fear of apprehension and deportation by federal authorities." -- Bryan Fischer

It is never a good sign when the author has to start with a fallacy. Being a sanctuary city does not have any form of legal delineation. It carries no weight of law whatsoever. A city could not prevent the federal government from enforcing federal laws. ICE officers could legally and without restraint operate in any sanctuary city they wish to and they do so currently. They just will not find any assistance coming from local law enforcement. By contrast, in a non-sanctuary city, ICE will work with local law enforcement to round up and deport people. Fischer continues:

"So are today's "sanctuary cities" a modern biblical expression of the Bible's "cities of refuge? No, not even close. For openers, cities of refuge were legal, sanctuary cities are not. Sanctuary cities are illegal and outside the justice system altogether." -- Bryan Fischer

Not even close? Really? Now, let us recognize that of course they are not exactly the same. The forms of government are completely different. Our modern law prevents the concept of an avenger of blood seeking retribution for a death. Is Bryan Fischer so obtuse in his dominionism and carnal politics that he cannot see the obvious connectedness between Cities of Refuge and Sanctuary Cities? Both places people can seek asylum in. Both offering protection for those seeking it. Only a fool would say that they are exactly alike but I have seen no one make such a foolish argument. Even the Wikipedia page understands the nuances that escape Mr. Fischer:

The concept of a sanctuary city goes back thousands of years. It has been associated with Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Baha'i, Sikhism, and Hinduism. - Wikipedia

The larger problem however is the false assertion made by Mr. Fischer that Sanctuary Cities are illegal. They most assuredly are not. As previously noted they actually carry no legal definition. Perhaps Mr. Fischer is unaware that the courts have already ruled that states do not have to help enforce federal law. In 1997, Printz v. United States ruled that the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal commandeering of state governments to assist in the enforcement of federal law. By the way, the majority opinion in that decision was written by that great liberal icon, Antonin Scalia. Seems Mr. Fischer, who by default must be a huge "state's rights" guy, is very squishy on his own politics as long as it serves his overall ideology. That is for another day however as it is largely a carnal argument. The bottom line is Sanctuary Cities are not illegal.

"But sanctuary cities, in contrast, do not exist to protect due process. They exist to enable the guilty to escape punishment altogether. The mere presence of an illegal alien on American soil is an illegal, criminal act which is the proper subject of law enforcement." -- Bryan Fischer

Fischer first makes the argument that Cities of Refuge were solely set up to protect due process but that misses the mark. They were set up to protect the individual, not the process. Yes that person would eventually face a trial of sorts to determine their fate. As for Sanctuary Cities, it seems Bryan Fischer doth protest too much. Once again, federal officials are not prohibited from doing their job. Realize also that he has cleverly engaged a debate comparing apples and oranges. The individuals who ran to Cities of Refuge had committed murder or accidental manslaughter at best. The individuals seeking asylum in Sanctuary Cities have immigrated illegally. Most of which have lived here in this country for decades, raised families, started businesses, worked hard, but because their initial act of coming here was outside of the law, they have always lived in the shadows for fear of being forced to leave. Fischer continues:

A city of refuge worked with law enforcement; a sanctuary city works against it. A city of refuge served to guarantee a man his day in court; a sanctuary city works to prevent the accused from ever facing a day in court. A city of refuge existed to ensure that every man received a fair trial; a sanctuary city exists to enable a man to avoid a fair trial altogether. So, no, sanctuary cities are not a modern embodiment of biblical cities of refuge, and only Christians with a shallow understanding of Scripture could believe they are. As James Hoffmeier of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School puts it, such Christians "are twisting biblical statutes to political ends and subverting federal law." -- Bryan Fischer

No Mr. Fischer. A City of refuge did not "work with law enforcement." Do you know why? Because there was no law enforcement in the theocracy of Israel. There was no militia. No police. No ICE. No jail or prisons. As for Sanctuary Cities, there is no "day in court" and Mr. Fischer is well aware of it. There is no "fair trial." Notice the shift here in what he is claiming? The title simply deals with whether these two types of cities are "alike." Halfway through it shifts to whether Sanctuary Cities are a modern day expression of Cities of Refuge. Now he is trying to shift the debate as to whether they are the modern embodiment of Cities of Refuge. This entire faux-Christian article is just a thinly disguised political hack piece designed to support a political stance. No one in their right mind would say these two concepts are identical. There are thousands of years between them. That would be absurd. No one of course is making that argument. It is a strawman argument made by Fischer to veil his intent. Only Christians with a shallow understanding of Scripture would believe that these two concepts are related? Seriously? Did you count how many Scriptures Mr. Fischer used to defend his political position in this article? Zero. Because he has none.

Christians however have the key verse for starters which reminds us about what true and pure religion means to the Father. The concept of visiting orphans and widows is simply taking care of the least of these in society. It is by far the number one topic in the Bible after salvation. As important as this is let us not lose sight of the second half of this verse. We are to keep ourselves unstained from this world. Bryan Fischer appears to worship this world or at the very least this country. Because of this, he has lost sight that his primary concern should be for people. It should be about the Gospel. Cities of Refuge only dealt with one specific issue -- accidental manslaughter. If you really want to see the heart of God read the same Old Testament and how God says Israel is to deal with the outsider or the stranger. Read how God wants Israel to treat the poor. When Jesus gave the Parable of the Good Samaritan He used the Samaritan as the hero because He knew His listeners despised them. They reviled them. They felt about the Samaritan the way Bryan Fischer apparently feels about the immigrant. Yet in that Parable we see religion pass on the other side of the wounded man on purpose. They may have had very sound and even Scriptural reasons in their own heads.

If they came in contact they would be unclean!

The mere presence of an illegal alien on American soil is an illegal, criminal act which is the proper subject of law enforcement!

Actually when you put these next to each other you can see that Bryan Fischer does not even pretend this is a Scriptural issue for him. We see him try pitifully in his closing to draw them together:

Finally, with regard to this network of sanctuary churches, should not the role of the church of Jesus Christ be to help its members become law-abiding disciples rather than law-breaking ones? -- Bryan Fischer

Yes Mr. Fischer but to strain out the gnat you have swallowed a camel. Your political myopia does not allow you to see that there might be multiple solutions to this problem. In the world of Bryan Fischer the Church of Jesus Christ's first obligation to its members is to ensure that if they immigrated to this country illegally that they be deported. Not to protect them and their families. He must own a different Bible than me. In his Bible I assume Jesus ends up stoning to death the woman caught in adultery because after all, that was the law.

Listen beloved, I understand this is a very difficult issue for some Christians because the church has done such a poor job of explaining that we are not citizens of this country first. We are citizens of heaven. Then the Bryan Fischers of the world come along and write articles like this that are clearly designed with one purpose. To make xenophobic, hateful, or just frightened Christians OK with their xenophobia, hate or fear. Are Sanctuary Cities similar conceptually to Cities of Refuge? Of course they are. You have to have a real shallow agenda to not admit that. Are they exactly the same? Of course not. But was this conceptual debate really what this article was about? No. Beloved, if you can read the Gospel accounts of the ministry of Jesus Christ and think He would be pro-deportation I kindly suggest that you read them again. Jesus sat with sinners. He ate with tax collectors. He touched the lepers no one else would dare to touch. He rebuked those in religious authority who used religion for their own means instead of what God intends. Yes, those sinners were lawbreakers. Those tax collectors were lawbreakers who routinely stole money from their own people. Yes, He wanted them to stop sinning and to turn from their evil ways. But seeing this through a true Biblical lens one must conclude that the people come first. The primacy of the Gospel must be adhered to. Are we to encourage and foster the breaking of laws? Of course not. But where is loving mercy? What happened to doing justly? But for the grace of God go

Bryan Fischer does not represent Jesus Christ or His Gospel. He is akin to the Westboro Baptist nuts. He once claimed that God did not stop the mass shooting of children in Connecticut because He is "a gentleman who doesn't go where he is not wanted." He has claimed that Jesus would be in favor of restricting immigration because after all heaven must have extreme vetting with those pearly gates. Ugh. Bryan Fischer is who gives Christianity such a repugnant name in this world. He is a political shill disguising himself as a Christian. We would be wise to stay away and rely on Scripture, not rhetoric.

Reverend Anthony Wade -- April 1, 2017

Authors Bio:
Credentialed Minister of the Gospel for the Assemblies of God. Owner and founder of 828 ministries. Vice President for Goodwill Industries. Always remember that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.