Immigration issue uncovers new biblical literalists

Q: Illegal immigrants are flouting U.S. laws, but does affluent America (or Arizona for that matter) have a larger moral or spiritual obligation to help illegal immigrants who are trying to better their lives? What about religious obligations to welcome the stranger? Are we our brother's keeper?

The issue of immigration has revealed many of my colleagues to be closet fundamentalists. How else to explain their literal application of verses like Exodus 22:21 ("Do not oppress or mistreat a foreigner")?

Few of these freshly uncloseted Bible-thumpers have pressed for the same sort of literal application of the previous three verses, which prescribe the death penalty for witchcraft, bestiality and idolatry, respectively. But what's a little hermeneutical inconsistency among friends?

At the same time, my coreligionists who are normally inclined to see "God's law" as a model for contemporary legislation are strangely silent on the application of this verse (let alone Ex. 12:49, which states that both citizen and immigrant are under the same law, and thus should probably both expect to get in-state tuition for their kids).

No, deriving a Christian (or Jewish, or Judeo-Christian) ethic with regard to immigration reform will take more than callow proof-texting. For one thing, the passages that speak to hospitality to immigrants are specifically directed to a people who had experienced slavery and alienation. For another, they were part of the process of providing a legislative framework for a theocratic nation-state. While many of our forefathers experienced the former, none of them ascended Sinai (or any other mountain) to receive the Federal Code from the Almighty. And at no point did we, the people, dedicate ourselves to being said Almighty's people in sacred covenant with him.

Jesus' commands to be hospitable (as well as those of other New Testament authors) likewise are issued to those who are following him. (Ultimately, of course, we believe them to be binding on everyone; we do proclaim him to be Lord of All, not Lord of Some. But I can hardly demand that my fellow citizens adhere to the moral teachings of my faith any more than they can rightly demand I do the same; the First Amendment wisely keeps church safe from state.)

Nevertheless, I have the privilege of pastoring a church that supports comprehensive immigration reform.

Ordinarily when I write these responses I send my parishioners an email noting that I have posted a piece on On Faith with the disclaimer that the views expressed are not necessarily those of New Hope or its Elders. But here we have an exception. Our church, as a member congregation of the National Association of Evangelicals and as partners since our inception with World Relief (NAE's international relief arm), joins with their efforts to support comprehensive immigration reform.

We do so not because we are so unsophisticated or incautious as to make literal application to our own pluralistic nation of commands issued to different peoples in different contexts. We do so because of the broader, deeper principle underlying it: that human beings -- all human beings, of whatever national origin, wherever they happen to be at any given moment -- bear the image of God and therefore have inalienable rights that just governments must protect.

We do not presume, as indeed the NAE does not, to prescribe specific legislative solutions. Our role is to remind our fellow citizens -- and, if we are honest, ourselves -- that there are principles that a just government must uphold. The messy process of legislating is not our business; we have the responsibility to speak into the process without claiming a role in it that is not our own.

Our role is, further, to suggest that if we do in fact claim to adhere as a nation to certain values then we ought to have laws that reflect those values. If we care about keeping families together, for example, we probably ought to make it easier rather than more difficult for American citizens to make their spouses, children and parents citizens as well. If we care about being compassionate to those in need then we probably ought to (as we do) require hospitals to care for an injured patient regardless of his citizenship status.

Does this mean that we as a society will incur expenses as a result of our noble ideals? Most certainly. And if those expenses become onerous -- if, for example, being in America entitles a person to not only emergency care but expensive treatment of chronic conditions -- then we may (indeed we must) decide how far we can afford to extend our generosity.

Thankfully, ours is a society able to make such decisions. And we must. It is too easy for one side to say that every privilege of American citizenship must be made available to everyone who asks, and for the other to say that if a person is here illegally he must be rounded up and dumped on the other side of the border. It is to our shame as a free and virtuous people that the state of our national discourse on this issue is what it is.

Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) rightly noted that the Arizona law is the sort of thing that happens when good people feel forced to choose among bad options. What is needed is not more demagoguery on the part of our elected leaders but more wisdom, more discernment, more leadership. If we, the people, do not demand this of them then we, the people, have only ourselves to blame.

Quoting Bible verses out of context at one's opponents does not do anyone any good.

By Jason Poling  |  May 25, 2010; 11:16 PM ET Save & Share:                 
Previous: Arizona immigration law outlaws faithful acts | Next: Allowing illegal immigration is not compassion

Posted by: monouno | June 1, 2010 6:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.