Was Jesus a refugee?
The issue of Jesus' refugee status has once again become a topic of discussion after President Trump began publishing America's first policy on immigration and foreign aid. Strangely enough, those who explicitly assert that Jesus is actually a refugee are the individuals most likely to oppose Trump.
It is essential that Christians learn how to identify when empathy is weaponized as a tool for persuasion against them.
Russell Moore, the editor of Christianity today, is one such example.
in Essay in the title“Yes, Jesus was a refugee,” Moore argued that the evidence that Jesus was a refugee was “simple and unambiguous.” To support his point, Moore cited the term “refugee” and the definition of the United Nations and Merriam Webster, with some (almost unrelated) biblical stories.
Here is where I stand in the question. Whether Jesus is functionally or defined as a “refugee” is debate. Both sides of the argument can present evidence in support of their case. On the one hand, the flight of the Holy Family from Bethlehem to Egypt was a prophesied prophecy, and they did not leave their “homeland” because Egypt was part of the Roman Empire. Meanwhile, Jesus' parents fled the persecution and they sought refuge in faraway lands to protect him.
Again, both sides can argue their claims.
I suspect Jesus is technically a “refugee”, but I think that's strange when people try to map 21st century politics to the Bible, but the more interesting question is not to say “Jesus was a refugee.” why Would you say clearly that he was?
Moore gives us the answer.
After citing evidence that he believed he was in support of his claim, Moore tied the issue of Jesus' refugee status to modern politics. He asked, “So what does it tell you about refugee policy?” And although he admitted it was “not that much,” Moore mapped his claims about Jesus to modern refugee policies.
he I wrote it:
We don't always agree on how to design national refugee policies, but we cannot say that we are not warned about what will happen to us when we learn to cement our hearts to those at risk. We should be so shaped by the story of Christ, “Can we do anything good from Nazareth?” (John 1:46).
Yes, Jesus was a refugee. And he is still in their camp. We should be like that too.
Now it is rather clear that Moore's emphasis on “Jesus was a refugee” is not a simple theological claim. Rather, it is a rhetorical hand hand that rivals emotionally horrifying mail.
I think the goal is clear. Moore wants Christians to adopt a specific stance on refugee policy.
By framing issues about Jesus and theological ethics, Moore creates a (false) binary choice, creating a moral urgency for Christians.
The specific rhetorical effect of Moore's Jesus and modern refugees is an implicit accusation that if you deny a certain taste of refugee policy, you effectively denies Jesus.
This discussion is designed to evoke emotional responses from readers. After all, Christians don't want to find it Opposition Yes, is that so? right. Therefore, Moore uses (and weaponizes) readers' emotions to disengage conversations about refugees from policy nuances. And by using moral absolutes, he drives the argument from “How should we help refugees?” “Since Jesus himself was a refugee, how can we agree with Trump's policies against refugees?”
This type of emotionalism blocks good arguments and makes the opposition appear non-Christian. Just as bad, it oversimplifies serious and complex issues, while preserving alternative perspectives.
flat if Jesus is a refugee, and the debate about US refugee policy cannot be surrounded by moral absolutes alone. Clearly, President Trump and lawmakers must consider the economic, national security and legal implications of policy decisions.
Don't get me wrong: I don't think that its purest form of empathy is bad. Mature people understand how to interact with people who are different from them. They know how to put themselves in other people's shoes. But I fear that empathy is increasingly being used to direct them in a certain direction against Christians.
In this case, Christian empathy is strategically weaponized to drive Christians to specific political objectives. It discourages Christians from supporting Trump's policies on immigration, refugees and foreign aid. What's worse, by clearly declaring Jesus as a refugee, Jesus ultimately becomes a bait that forces Christians onto that particular goal.
It is therefore essential that Christians learn how to identify when empathy is weaponized as a tool for persuasion against them.
Do Americans or Christians, specifically, have a moral responsibility to care for legal refugees? perhaps. We can and need that argument. But it is rigged and manipulative to use that controversial claim to “yes, Jesus was a refugee,” and use that controversial claim to create moral urgency and guide Christians to certain policies and views.
Yes, Christians should be considerate of vulnerable people. Yes, we should care for and meet the needs of vulnerable people. That's what Christians did for two thousand years. However, when it comes to national policy, these issues must be involved in biblical and political wisdom and reality itself. For example, it is unwise to adopt policies that destroy the American community simply because Jesus may or may not have been a “refugee.”
Without the wisdom to balance empathy, we are pawned in someone else's game. Don't fall into that.
