RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Reclaiming the Church’s Mission and Message on Immigration

by Bill Mefford 06-17-2009

As things begin to heat up on the immigration debate in Congress, the role of the church will be significant. In response to an editorial in Christianity Today calling for suggested reforms and more input from Christians, I want to draw attention to the tone of current messaging on immigration and call the church to a more biblically shaped prophetic voice.

As followers of Jesus, we would do well to remember that the issue of immigration is fundamentally not a national security issue; it is a human rights issue. The media and many of those in Congress have successfully made this a national security issue and as a result, we have allowed the adoption of policies such as indiscriminate raids, indefinite detention, the breakup of families, and a widespread campaign of fear to spread throughout immigrant communities.

To counter this, we must stop framing our message from a national security perspective, and instead, frame our message from the perspective of the suffering of immigrants and their families under the current broken system. Indeed, to frame our message and necessary reforms from the viewpoint of immigrants is to better reflect the witness of Jesus, who was incarnate among the most vulnerable, and who has taught us that in welcoming the stranger, we welcome him.

In focusing on securing the borders, the church’s emphasis on “humane methods” is lost amid an overwhelming chorus calling for what amounts to a greater militarism of the border. When we join this chorus, we also lose the distinctive nature of our voice and our mission, which is to be incarnated among the vulnerable and defenseless in society. Our calling, in its simplest form, is to defend immigrants and their families, not the State.

Further, when the editors of Christianity Today frame their suggested reforms around national security and then encourage the church to do the work of “assimilation” and evangelism among immigrants, they are calling the church to a Constantinian form of missiology. When the focus of the church is blurred from defending the rights of immigrants and their families, to also defending the rights of the State, we come dangerously close to forfeiting our prophetic call to hold the State accountable for its treatment of immigrants. When the church loses its prophetic calling, our mission becomes little more than societal maintenance by assimilating the vulnerable into their assigned place at the bottom of the social, economic, and political order, no matter how unjust that order may be. This is a skewed and unbiblical missiology.

Immigrants are not threats to our nation so that we should recoil in fear and ask for greater militarism on our borders. Immigrants are not mere objects of evangelistic crusades so that we can assimilate them into a culture and society in which they remain powerless and pressed down. Immigrants are people who have families and whose stories are so rich with perseverance, passion, and faith that we will receive God’s good news as we do the simple biblical work of welcoming them into our communities. This is what makes immigration a human rights issue, and this is what must define our calling – and our message – as followers of the migrant Christ.

Bill Mefford is the Director of Civil and Human Rights for the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church. He is a graduate of Asbury Theological Seminary and is based in Washington, D.C.

Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • JamesM
    WOW! You really hit the nail on the head! Thank you.
  • nuclearferret
    Why not just take the next step in attempting to be honest and advocate for no borders whatsoever, especially since national security is of no concern of the Church. People want to come, let them come.
  • BuckeyeDon
    Thank you, thank you, thank you, Bill, for speaking the biblical truth.
  • 1Grace
    thank you, Bill, for speaking the biblical truth.

    whew , thanks Don, anyone who disagrees with you would have the Bible as their reasons.
  • BuckeyeDon
    Mick, my friend. I'm not sure why everything I write reads to you like a personal attack. Take it easy, my friend!
  • JamesM
    Wow, Don, aren't you glad that that was not a personal attack?! It's just too bad that that attacker had to tell you that it was not a personal attack so that you would understand that it was not personal.
  • Ngchen
    As I pointed out previously, the notion that caring for one's neighbor means that *illegal* immigration must somehow be condoned and embraced is quite a stretch. After all, we have immigration requirements and borders for a reason. However, and here's where it gets interesting, one can make a decent case for throwing open the doors to prospective immigrants. After all, if one believes in free-market principles, *countries* should participate in this market of attracting the most talented and skillful people too, right?

    In the meantime, yes of course there is a need to be humane at all times, and every effort should be made to prevent people being left in immigration limbo.
  • WaveTossed
    "one can make a decent case for throwing open the doors to prospective immigrants. After all, if one believes in free-market principles, *countries* should participate in this market of attracting the most talented and skillful people too, right?"

    There are several reasons why our immigration policy needs to be reformed.

    1. We need to allow employers to legally recruit and hire employees that they need. Not just the "talented" or "skillful" but also those who are able and willing to do menial jobs as well.

    2. We need to allow people who are willing and able to work have a chance to do just that, and do it legally with full protection and legal wages.

    3. The reason why there are so many "illegals" is that there is a huge backlog at INS. People have to wait for years to get legal papers. The INS needs to take whatever measures it needs to remove this backlog so that people can come legally to the U.S.

    There are several reasons why this situation with "illegals" is continuing:

    1. A lack of political will by Congress and the government. This is caused primarily by the uproar from many people, both on the "left" and on the "right" who have the primary agenda to limit ALL immigration, whether legal or not. Some of this opposition to immigration is tinged with racism and xenophobia, particularly against Mexicans.

    2. Unscrupulous employers who want a continued source of cheap labor. If they can keep the system the way it is, then they can get "illegals" who will work for practically nothing and won't complain for fear of being turned in and deported.

    Basically what we have here with our current immigration system is exploitive human trafficking. I've seen people here on this Blog and elsewhere protest against human trafficking if it takes place in faraway countries. However, when this exploitive and oppressive human trafficking takes place right in our own back yard: too many people come up with specious reasons to blame the victims of this trafficking rather than those who are primarily responsible.
  • Eric77
    Is it possible to have a just, humane immigration policy in which entry to a country is restricted? Is it unjust to deny a law-abiding person entry to the country? Or does a just, humane immigration policy basically look like a TSA security line - anyone can come through (with restrictions against criminals and others) provided they show an I.D. of some sort, submit to a simple search and can stay as long as he or she wants?

    What would a humane immigration policy look like not just in terms of the immigrants already here, but those to come in the future? I'm genuinely interested in hearing what people think.
  • WaveTossed
    "Is it possible to have a just, humane immigration policy in which entry to a country is restricted? Is it unjust to deny a law-abiding person entry to the country? Or does a just, humane immigration policy basically look like a TSA security line - anyone can come through (with restrictions against criminals and others) provided they show an I.D. of some sort, submit to a simple search and can stay as long as he or she wants?

    What would a humane immigration policy look like not just in terms of the immigrants already here, but those to come in the future? I'm genuinely interested in hearing what people think."

    Good question. Check out http://www.cato.org/researcharea.php?display=7 for the latest research on how immigration benefits our economy.

    Basically, a good policy would be what you suggested above: "anyone can come through (with restrictions against criminals and others) provided they show an I.D. of some sort, submit to a simple search and can stay as long as he or she wants?" However, I would qualify this to mean that anyone who can work (plus their families) who can find a legal, legitimate full-time job can come in. There would be no welfare provided. They would qualify for whatever medical insurance plan that we have in place for working people. They would pay taxes and contribute to Social Security and Medicare.
  • ando
    In reading Acts, and how the apostles "evangelized" to both Jews and Gentiles, one wonders whose biblical truth is correct. Did not Peter and the other apostles talk about Christ as the only way to salvation to the outsiders to Jerusalem? Were they wrong in doing so? I know it's not politically correct in the climate of today's society. I get more and more confused each day about whose form of Christianity is real, mainly because of reading the Sojo blog. So let's open up the borders. But let's not hinder the preaching of the word. Otherwise we're just blowing a bunch of hot air -- and I hear we don't need anymore of that in the atmosphere.
  • paradoxtor
    "As followers of Jesus, we would do well to remember that the issue of immigration is fundamentally not a national security issue; it is a human rights issue."

    First, this seems to be assumed and not proven. More importantly, why is it either/or. It would appear to me that both are true. Furthermore, to assert that it is a security issue is not to defend the rights of the state over against defending the rights of immigrants. It is to defend the people who are here, not some government power. The one sidedness of this post gives rise to the logical conclusion that nuclearferret poses. Why do we restrict immigration at all? To bring it down to personal level, does following Christ teaching require that I let any move into my house that wants to? (I actually think a better case can be made for that from scripture than immigration at a national level.) I would ask with Eric77 for a discussion (unless you choose to throw the borders wide open) on what is a reasonable basis to decide who comes and who does not. I'm not sure I have a good answer for that and would like to hear ideas. I do have some issues with the call to reunite families because 1. it was their choice to separate (and) 2. it creates a never-ending stream because the relative you bring in to reunite is then separated from another relative. I think everyone agrees that the process needs to be streamlined.
  • evangeliberal
    The fact that so many people are having a hard time hearing the intent of this author probably means he is right on target - enforcement of our borders is too much of a given and has gained too great a foothold in the language and theology and worldview of Christians. We have too great a history of forgetting what our true mission is.

    I don't think I can tell the difference between most Christians and Lou Dobbs in the way they talk about immigrants. So much talk about being legal by people who are followers of one who was killed for being a subversive - and all for our benefit! I didn't hear the writer ignore the importance of national security, he rightly urged the church to focus on what our true calling is: caring for the oppressed and marginalized in society.

    I hope readers will take this for what it is: not a final statement on this issue, but an important corrective for the church that too often goes way off track.

    He or she who has ears to hear, let them hear...
  • letjusticerolldown
    I am not sure there are so many people having trouble hearing the intent of the author. Who are you referring to?
  • letjusticerolldown
    I concur with the prophetic sentiments of the author. But I think the case is better made by acknowledging the legitimate place of the state, borders, laws, enforcement, etc.

    "Our calling, in its simplest form, is to defend immigrants and their families, not the State."

    That is like arguing that either I defend speeders going down the highway or defend the state. I think I prefer to assert the state ought defend and protect the least of these versus the church and immigrants being in service to the state.

    Fundamentally, I think both Christianity Today and this author miss the opportunity to frame tghe global nature of this issue. The peoples of the worlde are on the move--both into the modern world, across borders, into cities, and connected around the world.
  • Excellent Article, I hand not put much thought into this issue before. Thanks for getting me to think
  • graceandtruth
    I respect all of the comments that have been posted thus far. However, I think this article, the Christianity Today article and the church fail to address the root of the problem. The problem is that the economic conditions of various developing countries around the world. Many of the legal and illegal immigrants that I know would rather be home with families and friends, but the political corruption and economic exploitation in their countries of origin (and in the U.S. for that matter) place immigrants in desperate no win situations. I've heard immigration reform advocates speak about how ICE raids separate families and destroy communities in this country, but do they speak about how illegal immigration destroys communities abroad. I hear others speak about how illegal immigration takes jobs from hard working Americans, but rarely hear about economic injustice in places like Mexico or South America. The media speaks about the threat of terrorism and national security while millions of people south of our boarder live in terror of drug dealers and dictators. And how can the Church excuse illegal immigration from people south of our boarder while thousands of people from places like Africa, Asia, and South America obey immigration law (even though the law is inefficient, ineffective, and out dated). Don't legal immigrants deserve justice too??? Until the church address these problems in systematic and practical ways, the immigration problem will never be solved. It is my humble opinion that this is the prophetic voice that is missing in this debate.
  • mimiB
    In the recent days I have been doing a lot of searching on immigration reform and this is how I found your web site. The immigration reform can't come soon enough for me and my family! Having lived legally in this country for the last 18 years, being married to a legal permanent resident and having a son who is a US citizen, I am facing the possibility of having to leave the country in 3 months because my permanent residency path has been nothing but painfully slow, frustrating beyond words. Please keep us who are here LEGALLY in mind when talking about immigration reform! We also want to keep our families together. PLEASE!!!!!
  • Eric77
    These are the types of cases that make me sick. We need immigration reform and cases like yours are the first that should be addressed. If a case can be made that separation of families of immigrants who come to the U.S. illegally is unjust, surely an even stronger case can be made that separating the families of legal immigrants is unjust. I wish the immigration reform advocates would plead cases like yours just as strongly as they do the case of immigrants who are here illegally.
  • WaveTossed
    As I mentioned earlier: this is the result of the backlog at the INS. Plus the complete lack of political will to do anything about this backlog.

    Behind this lack of politcal will are the attitudes of too many people: xenophobia and racism. Putting out racist stereotypes about how those lazy, do-nothing Mexicans will take over the U.S. and force everyone to speak Spanish and have loads of kids, all who are on welfare, blah, blah, blah.
  • MattyK
    I'm going to take issue with many of Bill Mefford's points here. There is no arguing the Church needs to be a voice for vulnerable and marginalized people like immigrants and undocumented workers, but it is really kind of absurd to argue the church should have no concern for the security matters related to immigration. Completely unregluated immigration does no favors for either the U.S. or Mexico, for citizens and immigrants. There are humane and compassionate responses to immigration that don't preclude working towards safety and security. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops position paper heavily sides with immigration activism, but even it endorses the right of the State to police and protect our civil borders.

    The topic of immigration has been bogged-down by the xenophobia of the extreme right-wing, but this blog is nearly as asinine with its critique of Christianity Today's editorial. We can debate the nuance of the word "assimilate"; but the truth is that as it stands undocumented workers in the United States are currently very vulnerable-- ESL programs and citizenship pathways are attempts to assist them out of their vulnerable state. For Mefford to critizize this approach seems to be knee-jerk reactionism against anything coming from a more conservative evanangelical position.

    I firmly believe the Church can find its prophetic and compassionate mission in this immigration crisis without being so dogmatic and antagonistic.
  • Eric77
    Your thoughts on assimilation are interesting. While I'm sure there are a few on the far right would like immigrants to completely lose touch with their native customs and never speak their native language again, this doesn't mean assimilation has to mean that.

    Partial assimilation can be a benefit for an immigrant. Learning the language of one's adopted country and learning it's culture, customs and governmental system can be a boon to an immigrant. That doesn't mean forgetting where you come from and your own culture and customs. In time, the adopted country may even adopt some of the customs of its immigrants.
  • WaveTossed
    Eric, I completely agree with you.
  • evangeliberal
    MattyK,

    I think you need to be careful about calling Medford's article a kneejerk reaction. His writing seems to be a corrective and even in that he never calls for open borders. His article is not directed at the policy makers, but at the church and rightly, in my view, he directs this towards the Church. The Church, especially evenagelicals, is way too focused on national security and not enough about the families that are suffering, regardless of their legal status.
    So, I hope folks can hear this not about where the policies of our nation should be - then you would have a point - but where the church should be.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008