Over the past couple of years there have been occasional articles concerning the immigration issue in America and proposed positions that Christians might take.
The first of these that I saw concerned the New Sanctuary Movement that began in the 1980s in response to the flood of refugees from Central American countries. A prominent web site with information on the movement — "allies," links, etc. — is found at the link in the footnotes [1]. It opens with the following paragraphs:
In the early 1980's, thousands of Central American refugees poured into the United States, fleeing life-threatening repression and extensive human rights violations by their governments.The discussion that brought the New Sanctuary Movement to my attention related to the desire of a friend to at least consider this as a way to help in obeying the command to care for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, and the alien. The premise is that it is much easier to help them when they are nearby than when they are at some distance, such as in remote parts of distant countries.
At the time, federal immigration policy would have denied the majority political asylum simply because their governments were allies of the U.S. Many of these refugees had actively participated in the liberation theology movement and naturally sought protection from congregations.
And the article that was presented at the time concerned a particular case in which a mother and father were to be deported as illegal aliens but their child (of uncertain age) was not required to leave with them. As I cannot at this time find the article that started the discussion (it was on a forum that crashed and the old files not recoverable) I probably do not have details completely accurate. But I believe that the underlying premise was that the mother desired the child to remain in America, and would prefer to stay with the child, so had sought refuge in a church that was part of the New Sanctuary Movement.
In the same time frame, there was an article by Keith Giles in THEOOZE titled “Christian Immigration” (repost from "Christian Immigrants" in his personal blog, Subversive1) that speaks somewhat to a position on immigration politics. While THEOOZE is no longer online, the article is archived within Mr. Giles' blog.[2] Some paragraphs that show Mr. Giles' position on the subject are as follows:
Followers of Jesus need to align themselves more closely to the outcast, the poor, the sick, the illegal alien, and the elderly. We should befriend those who are dying of cancer. We should comfort those who are suffering from aids. We should have more in common with the weak in our society than with the strong.
We are not of the world, any more than Jesus was of it. So, why do we continue to support the power structures of this world?
It is followed a few paragraphs later by:
As followers of Jesus, this is not a political issue for us. I know for many others that this is purely a political issue. But, for us it cannot simply be a Republican or a Democrat debate. We have to look to our Lord and our Master. We must consider the code of the Kingdom of God which is our true home, not the party line or the American way. We are the descendants of a Body that has always been counter cultural and Kingdom-minded. Our vision must be focused clearly upon Jesus our King and our feet must walk where He walks.The question that I have for both my friend and Mr. Giles is whether the command of God to deal justly with the widow, orphan, alien, etc. and the politics surrounding how government should allow or disallow people to enter the US are the same issue. It has been suggested that the New Sanctuary Movement better affords the ability to obey the command to justice. And surely it does do that. But to whom is the command made? Is it to the secular government of the United States of America? And what, Mr. Giles, are you suggesting when you question whether we should “. . . continue to support the power structures of this world”?
Now I must point out that Mr. Giles has mostly spoken against our goal being political and also against legislating morality such that we become a kind of theocracy. But when he says “We have to begin to admit the possibility that one can be a Christian without pledging allegiance to the flag, or the nation for which it stands” there is the opening that we are to instead stand against it.
He does not say that.
Or does he? If we rewind to earlier portions of the article, we find these words:
And it is hard to argue against any of this. It is the heart of the biblical call for justice. That is, all except for the first sentence in the second paragraph, and most specifically in the first three words. “In any debate” is a game changer. Not just in a debate about whether we as Christians should be bringing Christian justice to bear in aid for all who are oppressed, but also in one about whether someone who is also otherwise oppressed should be absolved of his status as law-breaker for his illegal entry into the country. At its most extreme, one could argue that “any debate” would include how to punish any person who is, for example, guilty of murder due to the fact that he/she can be found within the demographics of the “oppressed.” And while I do not accuse Mr. Giles of taking this kind of position, where is the line?
What are we to do as Christians? If we are not to support the power structures, are we to instead direct them? Should we require our government to invite all of the poor and downtrodden of the world to come here so that we who live under a higher calling to care for such people can do it more easily? Do we presume that because we live in a society that actually has a say in its government’s policies that one of the commands of God to His followers, the command for justice, should override the demands of the entire nation (not all of which has agreed to follow our God) to have security within its borders?
And what is the purpose of the government of the United States with regard to immigration? The primary aim of immigration policy is the orderly access to enter and leave the country while maintaining order and security within our borders. There surely are arguments that certain proposals for immigration reform are like calls to racial purity or reflect other ethno-centric prejudices. And on the other side, there are those who would open the borders to all comers without concern for security. In an age in which a few individuals crossing unguarded borders are able to seriously compromise the order and security of nations, this latter option is not acceptable. But neither are entirely closed borders.
Society demands a mix of skilled and unskilled labor and professions. And given the propensity within the US to strive for the highest education for which we are capable, there continues to be necessary work at the lower end of the scale that will go begging for takers. That is an opening for those who can improve their lot in life by taking what is, to us, poor pay. (Let’s leave any argument concerning the equity of unfettered economics and capitalism to another discussion.)
But the number who have entered illegally has put certain strains on our system that have nothing to do with Christian justice. First and foremost, they have compromised the security of the nation. You may argue that most are law-abiding residents (ignoring that they have entered, or stayed illegally and are probably working in a way that avoids being part of the tax system — and I will not push that “wrong” here). But as a nation of laws, if the cure is to enforce some kind of immigration law, until each one of them is identified and determined to be allowed to stay or required to leave, there is a security breach.
But second, and somewhat problematic, is the number of indigents who are obtaining benefits from the coffers of the government through healthcare, housing, and other types of “welfare” without contributing to the underlying taxes in a manner that is similar to legal residents. In effect, they are obtaining the forced “justice” of the entire nation, including those who would otherwise refuse to voluntarily give it without truly earning it. I know that “earning it” is not a very accurate statement. It is the lack of sufficient earning that places anyone in the position of having the kind of needs that government, or the Christian, often tries to alleviate.
There is much more that could be said, and more arguments against the kind of nearly open borders that either of these “Christian” positions seem to espouse. But the most important argument is to ask “Who has been charged to care for the widow, orphan, poor, and the alien?” And the honest answer for each of us is “me.” From my perspective, it is not “you,” but “me.” And the problem with the positions taken by the New Sanctuary Movement, and possibly by Mr. Giles, is that they would require “you” to obey God without consideration for whether you even believe there is a God by any name. But the command is to “me.”
Now I am not saying that no one should preach from the pulpit that we as Christians are commanded to obey, and that obedience includes justice toward the oppressed. And I am not saying that we as Christians should refrain from aid to the oppressed simply because they have broken our immigration laws and are here illegally. But neither should we stand opposed to the government’s (and society’s) legitimate need or requirement that certain ones leave the country or not be allowed access. We are also called to obey the rulers and authorities of this world. But “justice” is not defined in scripture as citizenship of, or legal residence within, the United States of America. Provide them justice during their stay. Provide them justice if and when they leave. Let your justice follow them if that is your desire.
And what is justice as spoken of in scripture? It is clearly not about judicial justice as practiced in our system of government. It would seem from the scripture that it relates to not denying them the necessities of living — food, clothing, shelter. But does it call for removal of laws concerning where they would live when those laws serve legitimate purpose and do not discriminate without cause? While that might have been a legitimate requirement put upon Israel, a nation that was intended to be a theocracy, it was never such for the nations of the world in which we are to live as sojourners.
Funny to think that sojourners who are in but not of this world would see their place as fighting against laws of worldly nations (kingdoms of this world) in a manner that is to disobey their own divine Sovereign who commanded them to live at peace in this world.
Now I suspect that if a discussion with Mr. Giles were to occur, we would learn that he had limits in mind. That his rhetoric was aimed at the actions of the Christian with respect to the illegal alien. To buck the system in how we treat them and not to suggest that the government's mandate for security should be undermined. But as he is a somewhat influential person within the Christian community, it is important that he not be understood to be subversive relative to the government. Only with respect to the status quo of Christian thought. To awaken us from our evangelical fog that ignores, and sometimes even disdains, social justice.
Having said that, this is not a call to avoid being part of the process of immigration reform. But that is a secular issue that is much more far reaching than simply Christian justice. Argue for policy regarding the existing illegal population that is less geared to punishment and more to legitimate inclusion or exclusion, as appropriate. Argue to streamline the approval process for those who go through “proper channels.” But remember that all of this is not a substitute for “my” requirement for Christian justice. And none of it should be a forced inclusion of others or everyone in carrying out that justice.
References:
Or does he? If we rewind to earlier portions of the article, we find these words:
In Exodus 22:21 God says, "Do not mistreat the alien or oppress him, for you were once aliens in Egypt". Doesn't that mean that God expects His people to show compassion and love to those who live as strangers among us? Even those who are — in the same way that the Jews were in Egypt — oppressed, mistreated, abused, and treated as slaves should receive special treatment from the people of God.
In any debate, we should find ourselves always on the side of the weak, and the oppressed, not on the side of the rich and the strong and the powerful. Jesus set us an example. He was a friend of sinners. He was found hanging with drunks and prostitutes and lepers. We should be found where Jesus was found most often — among the oppressed and the forgotten.
And it is hard to argue against any of this. It is the heart of the biblical call for justice. That is, all except for the first sentence in the second paragraph, and most specifically in the first three words. “In any debate” is a game changer. Not just in a debate about whether we as Christians should be bringing Christian justice to bear in aid for all who are oppressed, but also in one about whether someone who is also otherwise oppressed should be absolved of his status as law-breaker for his illegal entry into the country. At its most extreme, one could argue that “any debate” would include how to punish any person who is, for example, guilty of murder due to the fact that he/she can be found within the demographics of the “oppressed.” And while I do not accuse Mr. Giles of taking this kind of position, where is the line?
What are we to do as Christians? If we are not to support the power structures, are we to instead direct them? Should we require our government to invite all of the poor and downtrodden of the world to come here so that we who live under a higher calling to care for such people can do it more easily? Do we presume that because we live in a society that actually has a say in its government’s policies that one of the commands of God to His followers, the command for justice, should override the demands of the entire nation (not all of which has agreed to follow our God) to have security within its borders?
And what is the purpose of the government of the United States with regard to immigration? The primary aim of immigration policy is the orderly access to enter and leave the country while maintaining order and security within our borders. There surely are arguments that certain proposals for immigration reform are like calls to racial purity or reflect other ethno-centric prejudices. And on the other side, there are those who would open the borders to all comers without concern for security. In an age in which a few individuals crossing unguarded borders are able to seriously compromise the order and security of nations, this latter option is not acceptable. But neither are entirely closed borders.
Society demands a mix of skilled and unskilled labor and professions. And given the propensity within the US to strive for the highest education for which we are capable, there continues to be necessary work at the lower end of the scale that will go begging for takers. That is an opening for those who can improve their lot in life by taking what is, to us, poor pay. (Let’s leave any argument concerning the equity of unfettered economics and capitalism to another discussion.)
But the number who have entered illegally has put certain strains on our system that have nothing to do with Christian justice. First and foremost, they have compromised the security of the nation. You may argue that most are law-abiding residents (ignoring that they have entered, or stayed illegally and are probably working in a way that avoids being part of the tax system — and I will not push that “wrong” here). But as a nation of laws, if the cure is to enforce some kind of immigration law, until each one of them is identified and determined to be allowed to stay or required to leave, there is a security breach.
But second, and somewhat problematic, is the number of indigents who are obtaining benefits from the coffers of the government through healthcare, housing, and other types of “welfare” without contributing to the underlying taxes in a manner that is similar to legal residents. In effect, they are obtaining the forced “justice” of the entire nation, including those who would otherwise refuse to voluntarily give it without truly earning it. I know that “earning it” is not a very accurate statement. It is the lack of sufficient earning that places anyone in the position of having the kind of needs that government, or the Christian, often tries to alleviate.
There is much more that could be said, and more arguments against the kind of nearly open borders that either of these “Christian” positions seem to espouse. But the most important argument is to ask “Who has been charged to care for the widow, orphan, poor, and the alien?” And the honest answer for each of us is “me.” From my perspective, it is not “you,” but “me.” And the problem with the positions taken by the New Sanctuary Movement, and possibly by Mr. Giles, is that they would require “you” to obey God without consideration for whether you even believe there is a God by any name. But the command is to “me.”
Now I am not saying that no one should preach from the pulpit that we as Christians are commanded to obey, and that obedience includes justice toward the oppressed. And I am not saying that we as Christians should refrain from aid to the oppressed simply because they have broken our immigration laws and are here illegally. But neither should we stand opposed to the government’s (and society’s) legitimate need or requirement that certain ones leave the country or not be allowed access. We are also called to obey the rulers and authorities of this world. But “justice” is not defined in scripture as citizenship of, or legal residence within, the United States of America. Provide them justice during their stay. Provide them justice if and when they leave. Let your justice follow them if that is your desire.
And what is justice as spoken of in scripture? It is clearly not about judicial justice as practiced in our system of government. It would seem from the scripture that it relates to not denying them the necessities of living — food, clothing, shelter. But does it call for removal of laws concerning where they would live when those laws serve legitimate purpose and do not discriminate without cause? While that might have been a legitimate requirement put upon Israel, a nation that was intended to be a theocracy, it was never such for the nations of the world in which we are to live as sojourners.
Funny to think that sojourners who are in but not of this world would see their place as fighting against laws of worldly nations (kingdoms of this world) in a manner that is to disobey their own divine Sovereign who commanded them to live at peace in this world.
Now I suspect that if a discussion with Mr. Giles were to occur, we would learn that he had limits in mind. That his rhetoric was aimed at the actions of the Christian with respect to the illegal alien. To buck the system in how we treat them and not to suggest that the government's mandate for security should be undermined. But as he is a somewhat influential person within the Christian community, it is important that he not be understood to be subversive relative to the government. Only with respect to the status quo of Christian thought. To awaken us from our evangelical fog that ignores, and sometimes even disdains, social justice.
Having said that, this is not a call to avoid being part of the process of immigration reform. But that is a secular issue that is much more far reaching than simply Christian justice. Argue for policy regarding the existing illegal population that is less geared to punishment and more to legitimate inclusion or exclusion, as appropriate. Argue to streamline the approval process for those who go through “proper channels.” But remember that all of this is not a substitute for “my” requirement for Christian justice. And none of it should be a forced inclusion of others or everyone in carrying out that justice.
References:
- New Sanctuary Movement: http://www.newsanctuarymovement.org/build-tradition.htm (please note that this link is no longer valid and I have found no alternative)
- Giles, K., "Christian Immigrants," June 25, 2010, subversive1.blogspot.com/2010/06/christian-immigrants.html
1 comment:
I know this one is long. I originally did not intend it as a blog post, but decided to post it anyway.
Post a Comment