In which famed theologian Mike Johnson, who doubles as Speaker of the House, kindly explains the Bible to Pope Leo. Among other things we learn, God loves borders. Borders are biblical.
Mike Johnson has decided to pick a fight with the first pope from the United States.
Moments after a vote on immigration enforcement, a reporter asked about Pope Leo XIV’s sharp criticism of American immigration abuses, Johnson didn’t blink.
Johnson launched into a psuedo-theological defense of border crackdowns. The Bible, he insisted, calls for strong national borders. Justice, he claimed, demands the sword — not sanctuary.
That night, he published a sprawling, essay-length tweet attacking the pope’s claims, dismissing Catholic teaching, and casting migrants not as neighbors to love, but as threats to be managed.
It’s a breathtaking moment in American religious history: the highest-ranking Catholic in the world and the highest-ranking lawmaker in the House are now locked in a public clash over the Gospel’s meaning.
Pope Leo has stood with immigrants. Speaker Johnson has stood with ICE.
Only one of them speaks for the Church.
The House speaker’s attempted use of scripture to defend Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown drew backlash online.
www.huffpost.com
Despite Pope Leo XIV repeatedly calling on Christians to honor the Bible's multiple instructions to care for and welcome immigrants and refugees, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is insisting that the scripture says otherwise.The Daily Beast reported Tuesday that Johnson was confronted in a...
www.alternet.org
Despite Pope Leo XIV repeatedly calling on Christians to honor the Bible's multiple instructions to care for and welcome immigrants and refugees, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is insisting that the scripture says otherwise.
The Daily Beast reported Tuesday that Johnson was confronted in a Capitol Hill hallway by a reporter who asked him about the pontiff's words on providing a safe haven to immigrants fleeing oppression. Pablo Manriquez — a reporter with liberal outlet MeidasTouch — asked the speaker: "Pope Leo has cited Matthew 25:35 to critique Donald Trump’s mass deportation agenda. How would you respond to Pope Leo in scripture?"
"So you want me to give you a theological dissertation? All right. I tell you what. I’ll post it on my website later today, but let me give you a quick summary," Johnson said. "When someone comes into your country, comes into your nation, they do not have the right to change its laws or to change a society. They’re expected to assimilate. We haven’t had a lot of that going on."
In early February 2026, House Speaker Mike Johnson generated significant debate by providing a, lengthy, public, theological, scriptural, and, in his words, a "theological dissertation" in response to immigration criticisms made by Pope Leo XIV (the first American pope)
. Johnson argued that biblical teachings support strong, secure borders, countering the Pope’s previous calls for greater compassion toward migrants.
Here is an analysis of the interaction, the arguments presented, and the surrounding backlash.
The Context of the Debate
- The Catalyst: Pope Leo XIV cited Matthew 25:35—"I was a stranger and you welcomed me"—to criticize mass deportation policies associated with Donald Trump.
- The Response: When asked by a reporter how he would respond to the Pope in scripture, Johnson—a Southern Baptist—did not shy away, offering a "quick summary" followed by a 1,300-word post on X.
- The Setting: The response was delivered to reporters on Capitol Hill in early February 2026.
Key Arguments by Speaker Johnson
Johnson’s argument focused on distinguishing individual Christian duties from the responsibilities of a sovereign nation-state.
- "Borders are Biblical": Johnson argued that the Bible supports the concept of separate, distinct nations and that constructing walls (referencing Nehemiah) is consistent with biblical principles.
- Assimilation Duty: Johnson contended that while the Bible welcomes immigrants, it also expects them to assimilate into their new society rather than change its laws or culture.
- Individual vs. State Obligations: Johnson argued that while individuals are called to show love and charity to strangers, governments are tasked with maintaining law, order, and security. He framed strict border enforcement as an act of "love for the people on the inside".
- Misinterpretation Correction: Johnson suggested that the left and, by extension, the Pope's rhetoric on "open borders" (though the Pope did not explicitly call for open borders, but rather better treatment of migrants) often takes scripture out of context.
Analysis and Reaction
The move to "out-Bible" the Pope resulted in intense, polarized reactions:
- Accusations of "Mansplaining" Religion: Many critics labeled the move as arrogant, with headlines and social media comments accusing Johnson of "mansplaining" the Bible to the head of the Catholic Church.
- Cherry-Picking Accusations: Critics argued that Johnson cherry-picked verses to justify current political policies, while ignoring numerous biblical commands regarding the compassionate treatment of the "sojourner".
- Theological Differences: The debate highlighted the divide between a Southern Baptist interpretation (focused on specific, often Old Testament, examples of separation) and the Catholic social teaching emphasized by the Pope (focused on the dignity of the migrant).
- Defense of Policy: Supporters applauded Johnson for using biblical reasoning to defend national sovereignty and for not backing down from defending policy in religious terms.
Summary of the Conflict
The interaction was not a private meeting but a public, ideological, and theological standoff. Johnson sought to reframe the debate from a moral obligation to welcome the stranger to a civil duty to maintain order, essentially arguing that secure borders are a higher, or at least equal, biblical priority than unrestricted hospitality to migrants.
The devout Southern Baptist broke down scripture for the American pontiff.
www.thedailybeast.com
Talk about making a fool out of himself, lol:
“Despite the unfounded claims of the Left, supporting a strong national border is a very Christian thing to do. The Bible tells us so”.
Basically you cannot have Christian Nationalism, (which is not a religious faith, but rather a right leaning political ideology pretending to be a spiritual belief, and since Christian nationalism is primarily an American phenomenon, it’s anti-Christian messaging means one could say America is where the tenets of the Christian faith went to die. Christian nationalism is the result of that, is that death), without rejecting the actual tenets of the Christian faith! Of course, Christianity as a faith is far from dead. But the Right in America have, in part, distorted that faith to permit an anti-Christian ideology to develop that rejects separation of church and state, and, in reality, has the dream of a Christian theocracy as the ideal form of government in the United States. Speaker Johnson is ignorant of that fact, ignorant of his mistakes, because he does not recognize Christian nationalism is not a religious faith.
Hence, ignorant of his own errors, ignorant of his distortion of the “faith” he “claims” is Christian, we have the absurd scene of the Speaker of the House boldly explaining the Christian faith to the Pope.
www.mediaite.com
