Thanks for visiting my blog, Serving Bread. Here you'll read stories, insights, reflections and ramblings from a campus minister, father, husband and Jesus-follower. If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Our [tag]immigration[/tag] policy has been brought up to the forefront in our national (political) dialogues. The (stalled) senate bill has enough provisions to make everyone hate some aspect of it, even those who support it.
My sense is that the [tag]Christian[/tag] response to immigration will be pivotal, especially as a vast number of the immigrants (especially those with no legal status) are from latin and central America. Though the “browning” of America is most clearly visible in Southern California, the rest of the country will (sooner or later) confront neighbors of latino descent.
It seems to me our response to the “[tag]alien[/tag]” among us will define the growth of our churches and the depth of our faith. It is sad for me to see the way that many (more conservative and white) churches have been more concerned of “enforcing the laws of our land” than caring for the alien.
Just last week, a prominent Latino pastor in Southern California explained to listeners on a radio station that when confronting illegal immigrants and illegals, we should be teaching them Romans 13—to obey the laws of the land.
It is unfortunate that [tag]Romans 13[/tag] has become a trump to support government policies that on their own merit would be deemed immoral or unethical. And it is unfortunate that this pastor’s (and many others’) response to illegal immigration is to focus on the law and less on extending grace and compassion to our neighbors. It is a gross misread of Paul’s intentions in Romans 13.
The story of the [tag]migrant[/tag] is tied to the story of God’s people in scripture—from their deliverance in Exodus and journey to a promised land. [tag]Jesus[/tag] was a migrant (Matthew 8.20), his family were migrants (Matthew 2.13-23), and he called people to consider a migrant lifestyle (Matthew 28.18-20).
While we may have varying opinions on government policies, Christians need to stand apart from the policies of the government (regardless of our agreement with those policies), and embrace the migrants among us.
First, we need to recognize challenges to our theology. If our lens toward immigration is primarily through Romans 13, we will fail to embrace the heart of God. Theologians such as Justo Gonzales and Carl Ellis have much to say to shape our theology.
Second, we need to advocate on behalf of the aliens among us. Exodus 22.21 challenges us to “not mistreat an alien or oppress him.” If churches are mistreating or contributing to the oppression of immigrants or immigrant communities, they need to stop. But more complicated is the call for churches to advocate on behalf and against institutional oppression or mistreatment of the aliens.
Third, we need to recognize that the kingdom of God is available to all. When the laws was given through Moses, it was clear that it wasn’t just for the Jews but to the aliens living among the Jews. Our teaching needs to recognize the experiences and context of the migrants.
For example, the American church was “surprisingly” silent on the issue of war in Iraq (and especially when it was revealed that the war was waged on false premises). For most Americans, this is not an issue, but for those of us who have experienced war and we know the horrors of war, the silence of the church and it’s poor theology on war undercut the authority of believers in other matters.
Regardless of our immigration policy (whether it be too lenient or too oppressive), we are to love, care, and empower aliens and neighbors. In other words, shame on us if the church becomes the extension of American policy.
One of my favorite pictures of this came four years ago in Bethlehem. During an unfortunate incident between Palestinian militants and Israeli defense forces, the militants holed themselves up in the Church of the Nativity where it is believed Jesus was born. The stewards of that church refused to let IDF into the building and give up the militants. Though the church did not intend to take sides (and I would not doubt that it was not too excited to have these militants take refuge in the church), they recognized that their responsibility is to care for the refugees among them.
As much as they may disagree with the religious philosophy of the militants, this church recognized its role in caring for these refugees.
We may have strong feelings and thoughts about the legal status of the aliens among us, but as believers we are called to extend not just a hand of compassion, but to provide refuge for the alien among us.
-----
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to grab the RSS feed. Also, please take a moment to submit this post through "Share This" above.
-----
|
Related Posts: |
I want to thank you for your thoughts on this matter, Eddy. Romans 13 is a challenging passage for Americans who (rightly, in my opinion) celebrate the fact that we rebelled and revolted from another nation. If we interpret Romans 13 narrowly, on what basis could the US have done that? I fear that Romans 13 is generally used when we want to give some theological credence to laws with which we agree. But if Romans 13 is interpreted as it usually is in conservative circles — as a defense of the right of the state to make and enforce its own laws — then we also need to ask why is it acceptable for some to shake off dictators and oppression in favor of another government? Where are the biblical and theological data (that is a plural word) for protest and change? It’s all throughout the Bible, but if in forming an understanding of how Christians are to interact with the state we only look to Romans 13 and interpret it narrowly, we will miss out on very important traditions of reform.
I appreciate that you’re trying to get Christians to think about immigration in a Christian manner, not letting the current policy debates be the only resources that shape our views. I too want to look at a Christian idea of the alien — a topic that receives much attention in the Bible and Church texts. I think I agree with much of what you said here, but if you’ll allow me to play the devil’s advocate, I’d like to ask you some questions — I think these questions bring out some of the issues at play in shaping a Christian response.
1. You write that “we need to recognize that the kingdom of God is available to all.” I don’t think any thoughtful Christian would disagree that God’s kingdom is available to all — especially since most of us are Gentiles these days. But what does God’s kingdom look like in your understanding? Are not the kingdom of God and modern nation states different entities? And just because God’s kingdom is available to all, does that mean that nations must therefore open themselves to all?
2. You write, “If churches are mistreating or contributing to the oppression of immigrants or immigrant communities, they need to stop. But more complicated is the call for churches to advocate on behalf and against institutional oppression or mistreatment of the aliens.” What does that mistreatment and oppression look like to you? For some, policing and deportation of people who come into a nation illegally, are practices of justice justice, means of protecting the rights of citizens and immigrants who came into a nation through legal means. How would you respond to this?
3. Is it justified to differentiate immigrants in the US into legal and illegal? Are there such things as illegal or legal immigration?
4. You do a wonderful job showing us that we shouldn’t just look at Romans 13 and you bring up texts like Exodus 22.21 and others found in the Torah. What of texts like Ezra 10.11-17 in which the people of Israel are told to separate themselves from their foreign wives? Does that text show us anything about immigration and treatment of the alien? If so, what? If not, why not?
Thanks for your thoughts Tyler. You bring up a lot of important and undeveloped points (on which I hope to elaborate in future posts, which is why I just titled this one, Part 1).
One point of clarification on your first point: Yes, most Christians would say that God’s kingdom is available to all, and this is where my general statements with no elaboration dis-served what I’m trying to communicate–realistically, we don’t function that the Kingdom is open to all. Our structures and theology can sometimes serve as a limiting factor.
And another point of clarification, I was not trying to equate the kingdom of god to the nation-state. In other words, when I’m saying “open to all” I don’t mean that as a contrast to the nation-state that may close its doors to aliens. What i simply meant is that whenever we are operating as gate-keepers to the Kingdom, let’s keep in mind that it’s we don’t discriminate based on legal status or skin color.
I really like your points, Eddy. They remind me of something Cardinal Roger Mahony said in protest of an immigration bill going through the House last year (I blogged about it here). What I hear in your argument is that as Christians we are called to make the values of the kingdom our starting point and measure rather than assuming the laws and values of the state onto our obligations as churches.