Visit Blaze Media
BLAZE MEDUA
Was Jesus a refugee?
The question of Jesus’ refugee status once again became topic of debate after President Trump began issuing America First policies on immigration and foreign aid. Curiously, those who definitively assert that Jesus was, in fact, a refugee are individuals most likely to oppose Trump.
It’s imperative that Christians learn how to discern when empathy is being weaponized as a tool of persuasion against them.
Russell Moore, editor of Christianity Today, is one such example.
In an essay titled, “Yes, Jesus was a refugee,” Moore claimed the evidence that Jesus was a refugee is “straightforward and without any ambiguity.” To back his claim, Moore cited the United Nations and Merriam-Webster definitions of the word “refugee” and several (mostly unrelated) biblical stories.
Here is where I stand on the question: It is debatable whether Jesus was functionally or definitionally a “refugee.” Both sides of the debate can present evidence to support their case. On one hand, the Holy Family’s flight from Bethlehem to Egypt was a foretold prophecy, and they never departed their “home country,” as Egypt was part of a the Roman Empire. On the other, Jesus’ parents were escaping persecution, and they sought refuge in a distant land to protect Jesus.
Again: Both sides can argue their case.
While I doubt that Jesus was technically a “refugee” — and I find it bizarre when people try to map 21st-century politics onto the Bible — the more interesting question is not, “Was Jesus a refugee,” but: Why definitively assert that he was?
Moore gives us an answer.
After citing the evidence that he believes supports his claim, Moore connected the question of Jesus’ refugee status to contemporary politics. He asked, “So, what does that tell us about refugee policy?” And although he admitted it’s “not very much,” Moore mapped his assertion about Jesus onto modern-day refugee policies.
He wrote:
We won’t always agree on how to design a national refugee policy, but we can’t say we haven’t been warned about what happens to us when we learn to harden our hearts to those in danger. We should be so shaped by the story of Christ that we catch ourselves when we hear ourselves saying, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:46).
Yes, Jesus was a refugee. And he is still in their camp. We should be too.
It’s now rather obvious that Moore’s emphatic declaration that “Jesus was a refugee” is not a simple theological assertion. Rather, it’s a rhetorical sleight of hand comparable to emotional blackmail.
The goal, I believe, is clear: Moore wants Christians to adopt a specific stance on refugee policy.
By framing the issue around Jesus and theological ethics, Moore provokes moral urgency for Christians while creating a (false) binary choice: Either you accept his claim about Jesus (faithful Christian) or you reject it (unfaithful Christian).
The rhetorical effect of Moore’s identification of Jesus with modern-day refugees is an implicit accusation that if you deny a certain flavor of refugee policy, then you, in effect, deny Jesus.
This argument is designed to evoke an emotional response from the reader. After all, Christians don’t want to be found opposing Jesus, right? Right. Moore, therefore, is leveraging (and weaponizing) the emotions of his readers to shift the conversation about refugees away from policy nuances. And by using moral absolutes, he moves the debate from, “How should we help refugees?” to “Because Jesus himself was a refugee, how can we possibly agree with any of Trump’s policies toward refugees?”
This type of emotivism discourages good-faith debate and makes dissent seem unchristian. Just as bad, it oversimplifies a serious and complicated issue while pre-empting alternative perspectives.
Even if Jesus were a refugee, the discussion about U.S. refugee policy cannot be framed in moral absolutes only. Obviously, President Trump and lawmakers must take into consideration the economic, national security, and legal implications of their policy decisions…