When a Politician becomes a Lay Theologian

Some of you have made it clear over the years, especially in the most recent years, that you do not want your pastor to step over the line into politics. But, when a politician steps into my theological arena, I have a hard time not taking up the challenge. Now, don’t get me wrong, I cheer on lay theologians. One does not need an ‘Rev.’ in front of their name to have credibility in teaching God’s Word. I think of Bob Wherry, a gifted and deep-thinking Bible teacher. You never left his class without a tidbit that stirred your thoughts. I think of Linda DeMusz, Paul Payton, Kathy Johnson just to name a few. (It is always dangerous to name just a few, because I know I have left out too many to count.) These dear brothers and sisters love God’s Word and have spent a lifetime immersed in His Word. They don’t just read, they study. They don’t just accept, they ponder as Mary did. When they teach, people lean forward to listen. I am thankful for the lay theologians in our fellowship. They make us richer as a body, and deeper in our faith journey together.

But this particular lay theologian, House Speaker Mike Johnson, had the audacity- or perhaps we could call it bold courage- to challenge Pope Leo XIV. As Johnson lays out his biblical case for border security and immigration enforcement, he plays a dangerous game called proof-texting to justify his decisions and the leadership he is giving to our nation. Proof-texting is when one takes a passage, but neglects the larger text of scripture, leaning on a few words rather than allowing the whole to give full clarity. In his effort to disqualify the Pope’s chastisement of our current government’s treatment of immigrants, he leans heavily on a few passages of Old Testament law, a nod to a verse in Romans, and then proceeds to forget the prophets and the red words of Jesus. I find his choice, as a Christian, to leave Jesus out of the discussion fascinating. For the last 5 weeks, Lenape Valley has been studying some of the Red words- the words of Jesus that some biblical translators highlight in red. I argue that His words are not just a word, but that they are the word that should interpret all other words. To leave Jesus out of the discussion makes the whole argument rather suspect. But then, when we look at the argument given and what Jesus says, it is easy to see why Jesus was left out.

But first, let’s look at the arguments that this lay theologian makes. First, he claims that “Borders and walls are biblical.” Johnson is correct, borders and walls are part of the Bible narrative. Nations have existed from ancient times, and borders and even walls have been used for definition of existence and security. The Bible clearly states that nations exist. But that does not mean that God ordains national existence. Johnson cites God’s blessing of the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s walls in Nehemiah’s time as proof that God blesses walls and borders. Yet, while walls and borders and nation states are in the Bible, that does not mean that division is God’s plan for humanity. There is only one nation in the Bible with defined national boundaries- that is the Promised Land given to the nation of Israel. They are given that land as long as they are obedient to God. And when Israel’s disobedience runs rampant, their city falls to Babylon, their Temple is left in ruins, and the best and brightest are taken off into exile. Their nation and their borders are never the same again.

Nowhere in the biblical record does God ordain the formation of nations other than ancient Isarel. The claim being made by some in our nation today, that our nation is God’s nation, does not have biblical support. In fact, there are many examples in the Bible of how those national divisions incite greed, anger, even war. The Garden that God created (Genesis 1), is the model of God’s good plan for the world. That Garden had no walls, no borders, and no nations. But we live in a fallen world, where humans create their boundaries for protection; where we seek power over others to ensure our security. Our human way is not God’s way… but it is the way we define ourselves now. So, should we strip away all borders? No. We need civil order in a broken world. (Romans 13) But we must not equate our human striving, and God’s allowing of our broken human efforts, to God’s good plan for humanity. God is allowing not ordaining. How we maintain civil order in this broken design must still meet a godly standard.

Johnson’s second argument: “There is a difference between God’s admonition to the individual and God’s expectations of civil government.” Johnson calls out the Leviticus 19 passage often used in the immigration debate. 

The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born.
Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.

Johnson argues that “context is critical,” and then claims that this command is given to the individual, not to the nation. He is right “context is critical,” but he ignores the context. This command (Lev.19) comes to the people of Israel and their leader (Moses) as part of the whole command of God that should order how they function as a nation. Their governance was to be shaped by God’s law and God’s law alone. Throughout the Old Testament, we see times when the King and the religious leaders do not follow God’s law. The prophets call out the sin of the leaders more often than they call out the sin of the people. Every time, the standard is the same for the individual and the nation. The call in Romans 13 for civil government to keep the peace, expects that the peace is defined by a godly standard. God declares: “These are the laws you are to set before the nation.” (Exodus 21:1) Consider then, the call to the nation found in Exodus 22, 23, Leviticus 19, Deuteronomy 10, 23, 27. Again and again God calls the nation: “love the foreigner”, “do not mistreat the foreigner”, “leave gleanings on the edge of your fields to feed the alien in your midst”… and the list goes on. The law for the individual is the same as the law for the whole nation. The call to the leaders of the nation is to keep that godly standard.

The law found in Leviticus 19 reminds the people to remember their “context,” that they were once “aliens” in Egypt. I think many of us have forgotten our “alien” stories. My family came from Germany. My parents were proud of that heritage, sharing with us foods and traditions, encouraging us to learn the language, even using German at times in our home. My parents also told stories of the pain our family knew just after WWII when German Americans were shunned as if they had helped Hitler. Some of us come from Italian heritage. We love the foods of that tradition- pasta, bread and meatballs. But we have conveniently forgotten how Italian immigrants were treated when they came to America. They were seen as the scum of the earth, given only the most base of jobs, and regularly demeaned by slurs. The Irish among us have a similar story. They are so proud of their songs, traditions, and St. Patrick (who was actually English), even corn beef and cabbage (which I never have enjoyed). On St. Patty’s Day, everyone claims to be Irish. Somehow, we have forgotten that the Irish were once treated with cruel disdain. If only we would remember our “context,” as those ancient Israelites were commanded, remembering the harsh realities of being an alien. Perhaps if we remembered our ‘context’, our hearts would be softer in our dealings today with the aliens in our midst.

Speaker Johnson argues that the aliens in our midst must “assimilate.” He argues that ‘they’ must become one of ‘us.’ Johnson should consider the biblical model of assimilation found in Jeremiah 29. God describes the importance of assimilation, but also the limitations of assimilation. God tells the Jews living in exile in Babylon to settle in their foreign city, plant gardens, marry and have children, and be a blessing to the city where they are held captive. God says, “If the city prospers, you will prosper.” But God did not want the people to forget their language, their traditions, their identity, or God’s law. God’s design for assimilation does not require annihilation of the home culture. I have many immigrant friends. I wish Johnson could meet them. They are assimilating into our culture, sending their children to school where they learn the language, and finding work that benefits the community as they support their families. These immigrants in our midst are an important part of our community. I would even say they are a blessing to our community. But just as God calls the Jews in exile in Babylon to hold onto their immigrant heritage, just as we want to pass our immigrant heritage onto our children and grandchildren, so too, our immigrant neighbors want to raise their children with ties to their heritage. Our nation is richer because of the many cultures that make up our national identity.

Johnson ignores the prophets entirely in his thesis. The duty of a prophet was to speak the Word of the Lord (“thus says the Lord”) primarily to the King and to the leaders of the people. The leaders were (are) the ones called to lead the people in faithfulness. In modern times, we have individualized the words of the prophets, but in their original context, they were the call to the leaders of the nation to lead with godly priorities. Consider the call of God through Isaiah (58): 

"What is the sacrifice I have chosen? To loose the chains of injustice…
to set the oppressed free… to break every yoke…
to share your food with the hungry and provide shelter for the poor…
then your light (the light of your nation) will rise in the darkness.”

Perhaps more damming, is the Word of the Lord that comes through Ezekiel (22). The prophet Ezekiel is clear that this Word of the Lord, God’ s exhortation and judgment, is upon the “princes” and “prophets” and “priests.” This is no individualized, or spiritualized message. This message calls out the nation through the actions of their leaders. This passage in Ezekiel should make very believing lawmaker quake in their boots; it should make ever pastor, every religious leader, aware of God’s expectation and judgment on their leadership. “They (the leaders) mistreat the poor, the needy, the alien, denying them justice.” I will leave you to read the full text, but know that I fall on my knees every time I read this passage. I want to be found radically faithful, not only in my own actions, but in my leadership in the church. Yet I know that sometimes I fear your chastisement more than I fear the judgment of God- so I am less bold than I should be in calling out the moral failure of our day.

Then there are the Red words of Jesus that Johnson so conveniently ignores. First, Johnson disqualifies the passage that Pope Leo XIV invokes- the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25. Jesus says: “Whatever you do for the least of these, you do for me.” Johnson again argues that these words are intended to guide our ‘individual’ righteousness, but that they have nothing to say about the right actions of the nation. Yet, remembering Johnson’s insistence that “context is critical,” we must look at the full passage. Somehow, Johnson missed that Jesus’ teaching begins with these words:  

When the Son of Man comes in all His glory… all the nations will be gathered before Him,
and He will separate the nations, one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
Matthew 25:31-32

I fear that when our nation stands before the Lord in His righteous judgment, we will find ourselves in the goat pen. I have often wondered what kind of reception Jesus and his parents received when they fled to Egypt to escape Herod’s sword. In Egypt, they were aliens in a country where Jews were hated and unwelcome. I wonder what kind of reception Jesus and his parents, with their brown skin, would receive in the United States of America, 2026, running from the danger and violence of their home country. Jesus said, “Nations, whatever you do for the least of these, you do for me.”

Consider the many times that Jesus used the outcast, alien Samaritan to teach the Jews God’s just and merciful way. No surprise, the Jews did not like those lessons. They preferred to judge the Samaritans as ugly step-cousins, unclean, and unwelcomed. They chose hate over love, thus Jesus chose to show the value of those aliens in their midst. Then, consider Jesus’ “summary” of God’s law, the “greatest commandment”- to love God and love neighbor. Johnson wrongly claims: “The Greatest Commandment’ was never directed to the government, but to INDIVIDUAL (Johnson’s emphasis) believers.” Yet God’s command to love our neighbor is found in the law to the nation in Leviticus. The full command to love our neighbor, found in Leviticus 19:9-18, begins with a description of how the nation is to care for the alien in our midst. A thousand years later, we see the Greatest Commandment in Jesus’ red words. Jesus remembers the “context” of that Great Commandment. He knows that the command is given first to the nation as a whole and then to the people as individuals, calling the nation to care for the alien in their midst. Jesus’ command to love our neighbor calls us as a nation to love, even respect, the alien in our midst.

I know that the United States of America was not founded to be a Christian nation- this is a nation where we have freedom of religion. But we can expect and even demand that our civil government is moral in its dealings- honest, just, even merciful. Johnson is right to turn to the Bible as a good source for the foundation of our morality as a nation. The Bible teaches a fundamental moral truth that justice and mercy are intricately tied. (Micah 6:8) Let me be clear today, the people of God… our leaders and those they lead… are called to a godly morality that demands justice with mercy, that provides for our security by valuing each human life as created in the image of God, that expects that we will treat the neighbor in our midst (friend and citizen, documented and undocumented) with justice and mercy. God’s law, the Prophets and the teachings of Jesus all call our nation to be just, merciful and good. We ought to expect, even demand, that our leaders are just, merciful and good. Do we see such a godly standard in our national decisions and on the streets of our cities? House Speaker Mike Johnson is free, as all of us are, to choose his own morality- what he thinks is right and just. But, let me be clear, his claim that God’s Word justifies his actions is poor biblical theology.

With you, on my knees, praying for the leaders of our nation,
Anita