@AlanLCross I find it a little odd that I would disagree both with @PeteButtigieg and @MattWalshBlog. I've never—not one time—played the Jesus-was-a-refugee card simply because that's not even in the tiniest bit the point of the Matthew account. It's anachronistic politicizing (IMHO).
@AlanLCross @PeteButtigieg @MattWalshBlog That's the part of liberal Christianity-related thinking that I most strongly disagree with: The transformation of the word of God to a cookbook from which one can pick and choose his own ingredients to cook up the stew that suits him best.
@AlanLCross @PeteButtigieg @MattWalshBlog And yet, it's an unavoidable fact that Mary, Joseph, and Jesus fled the domain of a ruler trying to find and kill them. Refugees? Of course they were. Was that the point? Not at all. The point was that they fulfilled a prophecy in Hosea.
@AlanLCross @PeteButtigieg @MattWalshBlog God called one son (Israel) out of Egypt, and he messed everything up in spite of all God did for him (Hosea's initial context). God called another son out of Egypt, and He not only proved to be perfectly obedient, but He also made a way out of Israel's mess of sin.
@AlanLCross @PeteButtigieg @MattWalshBlog It's possible to keep the emphasis upon the actual point of Matthew's narrative without either making this story the plaything of cut-and-paste Leftist politics or making it the subject of revisionist Right-wing politics.
@AlanLCross @PeteButtigieg @MattWalshBlog Mary, Joseph, and Jesus were refugees. Whatever the Bible may say to us about what government immigration and refugee policy ought to be, the substance of it doesn't come from this historical reality.
Thanks for listening.
Thanks for listening.
