Get E-Mail Updates

Imagining a New American Church Response to Immigration

This week, a group of 150 Christian leaders committed to the ministry of reconciliation in their churches, communities, schools, and organizations gathered at Duke Divinity School to explore how the church can be more present and engaged in the struggle of racial brokenness that exists in the world. Convened by the directors of the Duke Center for Reconciliation, Chris Rice, who walked and worked in the struggle with John Perkins's son, Spencer Perkins, in Mississippi for years, and Father Emmanuel M. Katongola, a Roman Catholic priest from Uganda, who is also on the faculty of the Duke Divinity School.

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

As the faculty prepared for our week of teaching and learning together, it became very clear that to spend time here in the United States talking about the new journey of reconciliation we are dreaming of in the world, that we must address one of the most pressing issues of racial strife and human rights in our nation's history: immigration.

Through the leadership of CCDA and Sojourners board member Mary Nelson and Jonathan Wilson-Hargrove, who is a young radical, author, and leader in the new monastic movement, we worked together to create both a process of education, engagement, and enlistment with the faculty and attendees of this amazing institute.

The culmination of this process of sharing stories about our immigrant brothers and sisters suffering through deportations and gross discrimination, sharing facts and information about our current broken immigration system (facts which many had never heard before), and of spending time over meals and in small groups to talk, dialogue, and even vent about what our response as Christians should be, was the invitation to sign what we are calling the Durham Declaration on Immigration and the Church. More than 100 attendees have signed this declaration, and the rest of the men and women present have had an opportunity to at least consider this issue in a new way.

We share this document praying and hoping that it may help others searching to find a biblical response to our current immigration situation find new insight, new inspiration, or new courage to enter into the pain of millions of men, women, and children created in the image of God in a new way.

It is also my deepest prayer that love, respect, and grace would be embraced in all of our efforts to turn the hearts and minds of our fellow church members and Americans to become allies in our struggle to imagine a new immigration policy for our nation.

Durham Declaration on Immigration and the Church

Believing that God's people are shaped by memory to imagine new possibilities, we refuse conformity to this world's systems and commit ourselves to concrete practices of God's beloved community.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: jurisnaturalist

06-07-2010 @ 8:28pm

I agree with all of this, as far as I can tell.
That is, some of it is still too symbolic in its language. It has very little to chew on. It does not call for any specific action, or inaction.
I spoke at a community event a week ago where "day workers" were considered a problem. The heat in the community against illegal immigrants is dangerously hot. I was one of three advocates for the migrant community among a group of three hundred.
American politics is not ready for action on the immigration issue, unfortunately.
On the other hand, the Church is always ready for action when Her Master calls!
We have a room, if anyone knows a person whose liberty is at risk.
ndsnow@gmail.com
Nathanael Snow

by: dperiodfreshcomma

06-09-2010 @ 9:43pm

. cc

by: jurisnaturalist

06-07-2010 @ 8:28pm

I agree with all of this, as far as I can tell.
That is, some of it is still too symbolic in its language. It has very little to chew on. It does not call for any specific action, or inaction.
I spoke at a community event a week ago where "day workers" were considered a problem. The heat in the community against illegal immigrants is dangerously hot. I was one of three advocates for the migrant community among a group of three hundred.
American politics is not ready for action on the immigration issue, unfortunately.
On the other hand, the Church is always ready for action when Her Master calls!
We have a room, if anyone knows a person whose liberty is at risk.
ndsnow@gmail.com
Nathanael Snow

by: dperiodfreshcomma

06-09-2010 @ 9:50pm

I think the lack of exact language or certain actions lends more people to agreement with the sentiment of the letter. Although I would like to see proposed actions as well, I think that encouraging any certain boycotts, rallies, etc. could cause problems for those these would directly affect. If we are to find unity, we must find commonality. Differing communities can surely brainstorm and find advocacy ideas. This letter seems to look for common motive, which it seems like they have succeeded in doing.

by: dperiodfreshcomma

06-09-2010 @ 9:43pm

. cc

by: dperiodfreshcomma

06-09-2010 @ 9:50pm

I think the lack of exact language or certain actions lends more people to agreement with the sentiment of the letter. Although I would like to see proposed actions as well, I think that encouraging any certain boycotts, rallies, etc. could cause problems for those these would directly affect. If we are to find unity, we must find commonality. Differing communities can surely brainstorm and find advocacy ideas. This letter seems to look for common motive, which it seems like they have succeeded in doing.

by: dperiodfreshcomma

06-09-2010 @ 9:50pm

I think the lack of exact language or certain actions lends more people to agreement with the sentiment of the letter. Although I would like to see proposed actions as well, I think that encouraging any certain boycotts, rallies, etc. could cause problems for those these would directly affect. If we are to find unity, we must find commonality. Differing communities can surely brainstorm and find advocacy ideas. This letter seems to look for common motive, which it seems like they have succeeded in doing.

by: Chris

06-10-2010 @ 7:10pm

Great stuff from Duke Divinity. The language, while not as specific as some would like, reflects the depth of our faith and our call. For additional resources on faith & immigration, check out welcometheimmigrant.org

by: Chris

06-10-2010 @ 7:10pm

Great stuff from Duke Divinity. The language, while not as specific as some would like, reflects the depth of our faith and our call. For additional resources on faith & immigration, check out welcometheimmigrant.org

by: Chris

06-10-2010 @ 7:10pm

Great stuff from Duke Divinity. The language, while not as specific as some would like, reflects the depth of our faith and our call. For additional resources on faith & immigration, check out welcometheimmigrant.org

by: letjusticerolldown

06-07-2010 @ 2:17pm

I appreciate the work done. I agree with the statement.

However, I have questions:

Where do you fundamentally see broken relationships? How do you see the document envisioning a reconciliation?

What is driving the divisiveness over this issue? Are the interests of the different sides really anti-thetical?

Where has the break in relationship been that now cripples the capacity to create just structures?

It seems to me the failure is one of political discourse and of a national imagination.

I don't see fundamentally competing interests--except for political actors exploiting broad swaths of the citizenry.

I see a national government unable to shape and articulate policy that relates our nation to a global population that is on the move. It is on the move from rural/traditional societies to a modern/urban world. A world moving across borders--physically and virtually and economically. A world with many populations facing geographic upheavals due to the massive population expansions and displacements.

We don't know how to relate this unique immigrant country which has projected a dream to the world--to a world plowing through such unprecedented change.

I frankly have never heard one sermon or political speech seeking to envision God's place for this nation in the midst of this change.

Please forgive us lay folk and citizens for sometimes lashing out at each other over immigration policy; given the fact the dreamers, leaders, and pastors of the nation seem largely visionless.

National immigration policy/practice, borders, citizenship laws, etc. make up one sliver of the issue. It is important. Very important. Comprehensive reform is absolutely necessary. But it only seeks to bring a just administration of legitimate national interests. We have a world of nation-states. There are limits to what this system will produce. e.g. A border is a border or it isn't a border. Many places would function better if there were no border. But then if the integrity of the nation-state is wiped out--you might set loose significant conflict.strife, etc.

I think the United States has collided with its destiny. We have always had tension/conflict between living out our calling or trampling it. But I think it is no longer tension--but a collision. And the church, as has often been the case, is sound asleep. The immigration issue is but one evidence of what is going on. And what I am crudely trying to get at is that we are not framing the issue widely enough. Hence, the language we bring to it is going to be defined by the issue itself. That is evidenced by the final conclusion of the statement. ie that the best route is support of a particular piece of legislation.

by: Robin Vestal

06-07-2010 @ 4:31pm

I love it!

by: jurisnaturalist

06-07-2010 @ 8:28pm

I agree with all of this, as far as I can tell.
That is, some of it is still too symbolic in its language. It has very little to chew on. It does not call for any specific action, or inaction.
I spoke at a community event a week ago where "day workers" were considered a problem. The heat in the community against illegal immigrants is dangerously hot. I was one of three advocates for the migrant community among a group of three hundred.
American politics is not ready for action on the immigration issue, unfortunately.
On the other hand, the Church is always ready for action when Her Master calls!
We have a room, if anyone knows a person whose liberty is at risk.
ndsnow@gmail.com
Nathanael Snow

by: letjusticerolldown

06-07-2010 @ 2:17pm

I appreciate the work done. I agree with the statement.

However, I have questions:

Where do you fundamentally see broken relationships? How do you see the document envisioning a reconciliation?

What is driving the divisiveness over this issue? Are the interests of the different sides really anti-thetical?

Where has the break in relationship been that now cripples the capacity to create just structures?

It seems to me the failure is one of political discourse and of a national imagination.

I don't see fundamentally competing interests--except for political actors exploiting broad swaths of the citizenry.

I see a national government unable to shape and articulate policy that relates our nation to a global population that is on the move. It is on the move from rural/traditional societies to a modern/urban world. A world moving across borders--physically and virtually and economically. A world with many populations facing geographic upheavals due to the massive population expansions and displacements.

We don't know how to relate this unique immigrant country which has projected a dream to the world--to a world plowing through such unprecedented change.

I frankly have never heard one sermon or political speech seeking to envision God's place for this nation in the midst of this change.

Please forgive us lay folk and citizens for sometimes lashing out at each other over immigration policy; given the fact the dreamers, leaders, and pastors of the nation seem largely visionless.

National immigration policy/practice, borders, citizenship laws, etc. make up one sliver of the issue. It is important. Very important. Comprehensive reform is absolutely necessary. But it only seeks to bring a just administration of legitimate national interests. We have a world of nation-states. There are limits to what this system will produce. e.g. A border is a border or it isn't a border. Many places would function better if there were no border. But then if the integrity of the nation-state is wiped out--you might set loose significant conflict.strife, etc.

I think the United States has collided with its destiny. We have always had tension/conflict between living out our calling or trampling it. But I think it is no longer tension--but a collision. And the church, as has often been the case, is sound asleep. The immigration issue is but one evidence of what is going on. And what I am crudely trying to get at is that we are not framing the issue widely enough. Hence, the language we bring to it is going to be defined by the issue itself. That is evidenced by the final conclusion of the statement. ie that the best route is support of a particular piece of legislation.

by: letjusticerolldown

06-07-2010 @ 2:17pm

I appreciate the work done. I agree with the statement.

However, I have questions:

Where do you fundamentally see broken relationships? How do you see the document envisioning a reconciliation?

What is driving the divisiveness over this issue? Are the interests of the different sides really anti-thetical?

Where has the break in relationship been that now cripples the capacity to create just structures?

It seems to me the failure is one of political discourse and of a national imagination.

I don't see fundamentally competing interests--except for political actors exploiting broad swaths of the citizenry.

I see a national government unable to shape and articulate policy that relates our nation to a global population that is on the move. It is on the move from rural/traditional societies to a modern/urban world. A world moving across borders--physically and virtually and economically. A world with many populations facing geographic upheavals due to the massive population expansions and displacements.

We don't know how to relate this unique immigrant country which has projected a dream to the world--to a world plowing through such unprecedented change.

I frankly have never heard one sermon or political speech seeking to envision God's place for this nation in the midst of this change.

Please forgive us lay folk and citizens for sometimes lashing out at each other over immigration policy; given the fact the dreamers, leaders, and pastors of the nation seem largely visionless.

National immigration policy/practice, borders, citizenship laws, etc. make up one sliver of the issue. It is important. Very important. Comprehensive reform is absolutely necessary. But it only seeks to bring a just administration of legitimate national interests. We have a world of nation-states. There are limits to what this system will produce. e.g. A border is a border or it isn't a border. Many places would function better if there were no border. But then if the integrity of the nation-state is wiped out--you might set loose significant conflict.strife, etc.

I think the United States has collided with its destiny. We have always had tension/conflict between living out our calling or trampling it. But I think it is no longer tension--but a collision. And the church, as has often been the case, is sound asleep. The immigration issue is but one evidence of what is going on. And what I am crudely trying to get at is that we are not framing the issue widely enough. Hence, the language we bring to it is going to be defined by the issue itself. That is evidenced by the final conclusion of the statement. ie that the best route is support of a particular piece of legislation.

by: Robin Vestal

06-07-2010 @ 4:31pm

I love it!

by: Robin Vestal

06-07-2010 @ 4:31pm

I love it!

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: letjusticerolldown

06-07-2010 @ 2:17pm

I appreciate the work done. I agree with the statement.

However, I have questions:

Where do you fundamentally see broken relationships? How do you see the document envisioning a reconciliation?

What is driving the divisiveness over this issue? Are the interests of the different sides really anti-thetical?

Where has the break in relationship been that now cripples the capacity to create just structures?

It seems to me the failure is one of political discourse and of a national imagination.

I don't see fundamentally competing interests--except for political actors exploiting broad swaths of the citizenry.

I see a national government unable to shape and articulate policy that relates our nation to a global population that is on the move. It is on the move from rural/traditional societies to a modern/urban world. A world moving across borders--physically and virtually and economically. A world with many populations facing geographic upheavals due to the massive population expansions and displacements.

We don't know how to relate this unique immigrant country which has projected a dream to the world--to a world plowing through such unprecedented change.

I frankly have never heard one sermon or political speech seeking to envision God's place for this nation in the midst of this change.

Please forgive us lay folk and citizens for sometimes lashing out at each other over immigration policy; given the fact the dreamers, leaders, and pastors of the nation seem largely visionless.

National immigration policy/practice, borders, citizenship laws, etc. make up one sliver of the issue. It is important. Very important. Comprehensive reform is absolutely necessary. But it only seeks to bring a just administration of legitimate national interests. We have a world of nation-states. There are limits to what this system will produce. e.g. A border is a border or it isn't a border. Many places would function better if there were no border. But then if the integrity of the nation-state is wiped out--you might set loose significant conflict.strife, etc.

I think the United States has collided with its destiny. We have always had tension/conflict between living out our calling or trampling it. But I think it is no longer tension--but a collision. And the church, as has often been the case, is sound asleep. The immigration issue is but one evidence of what is going on. And what I am crudely trying to get at is that we are not framing the issue widely enough. Hence, the language we bring to it is going to be defined by the issue itself. That is evidenced by the final conclusion of the statement. ie that the best route is support of a particular piece of legislation.

by: letjusticerolldown

06-07-2010 @ 2:17pm

I appreciate the work done. I agree with the statement.

However, I have questions:

Where do you fundamentally see broken relationships? How do you see the document envisioning a reconciliation?

What is driving the divisiveness over this issue? Are the interests of the different sides really anti-thetical?

Where has the break in relationship been that now cripples the capacity to create just structures?

It seems to me the failure is one of political discourse and of a national imagination.

I don't see fundamentally competing interests--except for political actors exploiting broad swaths of the citizenry.

I see a national government unable to shape and articulate policy that relates our nation to a global population that is on the move. It is on the move from rural/traditional societies to a modern/urban world. A world moving across borders--physically and virtually and economically. A world with many populations facing geographic upheavals due to the massive population expansions and displacements.

We don't know how to relate this unique immigrant country which has projected a dream to the world--to a world plowing through such unprecedented change.

I frankly have never heard one sermon or political speech seeking to envision God's place for this nation in the midst of this change.

Please forgive us lay folk and citizens for sometimes lashing out at each other over immigration policy; given the fact the dreamers, leaders, and pastors of the nation seem largely visionless.

National immigration policy/practice, borders, citizenship laws, etc. make up one sliver of the issue. It is important. Very important. Comprehensive reform is absolutely necessary. But it only seeks to bring a just administration of legitimate national interests. We have a world of nation-states. There are limits to what this system will produce. e.g. A border is a border or it isn't a border. Many places would function better if there were no border. But then if the integrity of the nation-state is wiped out--you might set loose significant conflict.strife, etc.

I think the United States has collided with its destiny. We have always had tension/conflict between living out our calling or trampling it. But I think it is no longer tension--but a collision. And the church, as has often been the case, is sound asleep. The immigration issue is but one evidence of what is going on. And what I am crudely trying to get at is that we are not framing the issue widely enough. Hence, the language we bring to it is going to be defined by the issue itself. That is evidenced by the final conclusion of the statement. ie that the best route is support of a particular piece of legislation.

by: letjusticerolldown

06-07-2010 @ 2:17pm

I appreciate the work done. I agree with the statement.

However, I have questions:

Where do you fundamentally see broken relationships? How do you see the document envisioning a reconciliation?

What is driving the divisiveness over this issue? Are the interests of the different sides really anti-thetical?

Where has the break in relationship been that now cripples the capacity to create just structures?

It seems to me the failure is one of political discourse and of a national imagination.

I don't see fundamentally competing interests--except for political actors exploiting broad swaths of the citizenry.

I see a national government unable to shape and articulate policy that relates our nation to a global population that is on the move. It is on the move from rural/traditional societies to a modern/urban world. A world moving across borders--physically and virtually and economically. A world with many populations facing geographic upheavals due to the massive population expansions and displacements.

We don't know how to relate this unique immigrant country which has projected a dream to the world--to a world plowing through such unprecedented change.

I frankly have never heard one sermon or political speech seeking to envision God's place for this nation in the midst of this change.

Please forgive us lay folk and citizens for sometimes lashing out at each other over immigration policy; given the fact the dreamers, leaders, and pastors of the nation seem largely visionless.

National immigration policy/practice, borders, citizenship laws, etc. make up one sliver of the issue. It is important. Very important. Comprehensive reform is absolutely necessary. But it only seeks to bring a just administration of legitimate national interests. We have a world of nation-states. There are limits to what this system will produce. e.g. A border is a border or it isn't a border. Many places would function better if there were no border. But then if the integrity of the nation-state is wiped out--you might set loose significant conflict.strife, etc.

I think the United States has collided with its destiny. We have always had tension/conflict between living out our calling or trampling it. But I think it is no longer tension--but a collision. And the church, as has often been the case, is sound asleep. The immigration issue is but one evidence of what is going on. And what I am crudely trying to get at is that we are not framing the issue widely enough. Hence, the language we bring to it is going to be defined by the issue itself. That is evidenced by the final conclusion of the statement. ie that the best route is support of a particular piece of legislation.

by: Robin Vestal

06-07-2010 @ 4:31pm

I love it!

by: Robin Vestal

06-07-2010 @ 4:31pm

I love it!

by: Robin Vestal

06-07-2010 @ 4:31pm

I love it!

by: jurisnaturalist

06-07-2010 @ 8:28pm

I agree with all of this, as far as I can tell.
That is, some of it is still too symbolic in its language. It has very little to chew on. It does not call for any specific action, or inaction.
I spoke at a community event a week ago where "day workers" were considered a problem. The heat in the community against illegal immigrants is dangerously hot. I was one of three advocates for the migrant community among a group of three hundred.
American politics is not ready for action on the immigration issue, unfortunately.
On the other hand, the Church is always ready for action when Her Master calls!
We have a room, if anyone knows a person whose liberty is at risk.
ndsnow@gmail.com
Nathanael Snow

by: jurisnaturalist

06-07-2010 @ 8:28pm

I agree with all of this, as far as I can tell.
That is, some of it is still too symbolic in its language. It has very little to chew on. It does not call for any specific action, or inaction.
I spoke at a community event a week ago where "day workers" were considered a problem. The heat in the community against illegal immigrants is dangerously hot. I was one of three advocates for the migrant community among a group of three hundred.
American politics is not ready for action on the immigration issue, unfortunately.
On the other hand, the Church is always ready for action when Her Master calls!
We have a room, if anyone knows a person whose liberty is at risk.
ndsnow@gmail.com
Nathanael Snow

by: jurisnaturalist

06-07-2010 @ 8:28pm

I agree with all of this, as far as I can tell.
That is, some of it is still too symbolic in its language. It has very little to chew on. It does not call for any specific action, or inaction.
I spoke at a community event a week ago where "day workers" were considered a problem. The heat in the community against illegal immigrants is dangerously hot. I was one of three advocates for the migrant community among a group of three hundred.
American politics is not ready for action on the immigration issue, unfortunately.
On the other hand, the Church is always ready for action when Her Master calls!
We have a room, if anyone knows a person whose liberty is at risk.
ndsnow@gmail.com
Nathanael Snow

by: dperiodfreshcomma

06-09-2010 @ 9:43pm

. cc

by: dperiodfreshcomma

06-09-2010 @ 9:43pm

. cc

by: dperiodfreshcomma

06-09-2010 @ 9:50pm

I think the lack of exact language or certain actions lends more people to agreement with the sentiment of the letter. Although I would like to see proposed actions as well, I think that encouraging any certain boycotts, rallies, etc. could cause problems for those these would directly affect. If we are to find unity, we must find commonality. Differing communities can surely brainstorm and find advocacy ideas. This letter seems to look for common motive, which it seems like they have succeeded in doing.

by: dperiodfreshcomma

06-09-2010 @ 9:50pm

I think the lack of exact language or certain actions lends more people to agreement with the sentiment of the letter. Although I would like to see proposed actions as well, I think that encouraging any certain boycotts, rallies, etc. could cause problems for those these would directly affect. If we are to find unity, we must find commonality. Differing communities can surely brainstorm and find advocacy ideas. This letter seems to look for common motive, which it seems like they have succeeded in doing.

by: dperiodfreshcomma

06-09-2010 @ 9:50pm

I think the lack of exact language or certain actions lends more people to agreement with the sentiment of the letter. Although I would like to see proposed actions as well, I think that encouraging any certain boycotts, rallies, etc. could cause problems for those these would directly affect. If we are to find unity, we must find commonality. Differing communities can surely brainstorm and find advocacy ideas. This letter seems to look for common motive, which it seems like they have succeeded in doing.

by: Chris

06-10-2010 @ 7:10pm

Great stuff from Duke Divinity. The language, while not as specific as some would like, reflects the depth of our faith and our call. For additional resources on faith & immigration, check out welcometheimmigrant.org

by: Chris

06-10-2010 @ 7:10pm

Great stuff from Duke Divinity. The language, while not as specific as some would like, reflects the depth of our faith and our call. For additional resources on faith & immigration, check out welcometheimmigrant.org

by: Chris

06-10-2010 @ 7:10pm

Great stuff from Duke Divinity. The language, while not as specific as some would like, reflects the depth of our faith and our call. For additional resources on faith & immigration, check out welcometheimmigrant.org