4 responses

  1. Sonny Sanders
    February 5, 2019

    Amen brother.

    Reply

  2. Paul Smith
    February 5, 2019

    I have to admit to using Ephesians against Trump’s wall. In my defense (if there is any) I was arguing that Paul’s point was that Christ broke down the “wall” that divided Jew from Gentile, or any other racial/ethnic division as well. Trump’s wall, IMO, is more than just a physical barrier, it is an ethnic and racial barrier – it is designed in part to keep *those* people away from *us*. So, I don’t think it is appropriate to use Ephesians to advocate for the absence of all physical barriers, I do think it legitimate in the sense that no ethnic or racial barriers should exist, ESPECIALLY in the church – and I see Trump’s wall having serious repercussions within the church as members argue over what is appropriate in terms of making our borders safe. Thanks for the pushback, we all need to be careful how we see, and use, the biblical text.

    Reply

    • Allen Townley
      February 5, 2019

      To say trump wall is racist is not right every time I hear the race card it’s because some did something they should not have done and thrown the race card up to get people to back down many of the same people who will throw the race card say they cannot be racist there are many things in America where there is reverse racism (black history month ,miss black American and statements like black lives matter when all lives should matter

      Reply

  3. Jason
    February 5, 2019

    The principle of the wall in Nehemiah has merit in that part of it that was for protecting people. In that case we see an example of the general principle put into action. That general principle is that a group of people have the right to protect themselves from harm from others. You’re correct that the doors were open to anyone except foreign armies, and I would add to that group thieves and others who can harm those people. The intention of only keeping people out by that wall does not imply (however) that they were necessarily welcoming people to come live in that city. They were opening the doors to trade and commerce, visits by friends and/or family. And (if space allowed) maybe new residents.

    The parallel stops there though I suppose.

    My point is that using this to teach the principle that a people has the right to protect themselves is valid and CAN be used in the discussion about any wall–and about any other measures for protection for that matter. It does not prove or provide all the answers, but it does have merit for consideration.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back to top
mobile desktop