The National Association of Evangelicals will be running an ad in the May 13th edition of the Washington newspaper Roll Call promoting immigration reform (see the Yahoo! News article about it here). As I read the NAE’s 2009 document on immigration, I thought I might comment on it, but it quickly became obvious there were too many comments to be made. I’ll have to break this up into several entries so that you and I can digest each of these without choking. When we’re done with all of these points, we can consider the efficacy of religious organizations making such public pronouncements.
In any event, I invite you to make the journey with me and think it through. Don’t accept my thoughts as infallible, but let’s be careful in our approach.
In the 2009 statement, the document says the NEA feels the need to speak out “boldly and biblically”, mining “Scripture for guidance”. Therefore, “A biblically informed position provides a strong platform for the NAE to make a contribution in the public square that will be explicitly Christian.” This assumption that their view is “explicitly Christian” is interesting since many Bible-believing followers of Christ would not come to the same political conclusion. But we’ll get to that.
Following the opening paragraph is a section entitled “Biblical Foundations”. The first point under this heading is “Discussion of immigration and government immigration policy must begin with the truth that every human being is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-28).” No Christian would have a problem with that, I think. But I don’t ever recall in being forced to think through the issue of illegal immigration having to decide if immigrants were human or not. Is this a human rights issue or a rule of law issue? That seems to be the real question.
The next statement again is solid. “Immigrants are made in the image of God and have supreme value with the potential to contribute greatly to society.” That’s how America got where it got. Few of us are from here originally. Immigration is a great thing and American history bears that out. It’s strange that we have to even avow this.
To their credit, the writers offer some history of immigration in the next section (“National Realities”), but only twice is the adjective “undocumented” paired with the word “immigrant” and never is the adjective “illegal” seen. The closest they come is “Due to the limited number of visas, millions have entered the United States without proper documentation or have over stayed temporary visas. While these actions violate existing laws, socioeconomic, political, and legal realities contribute to the problematic nature of immigration.”
Never do I read anything about a responsibility on the part of the immigrant to respect or obey the laws of the land they’ve come to. The blame seems to fall on America’s shoulders only: “Most undocumented immigrants desire to regularize their legal status, but avenues to assimilation and citizenship are blocked by local, state, and federal laws. This has generated an underground industry for false documentation and human smuggling.”
Wrapping up the “image of God” argument: “Jesus exemplifies respect toward others who are different in his treatment of the Samaritans (Luke 10:30-37; John 4:1-42).” OK, all people are made in God’s image and should be respected. But when making a case for a Christian political position on immigration, it’s a good idea to include all so-called “national realities”. We live in a dangerous time in which America is being attacked by several sources originating in several cultures – a fact this document does not address.
Being created in the image of God does not give any person the license to decide whether they will follow a law or not. You may have objections to a law, and America’s immigration policy may be an encumbrance and an inconvenience, but there are better ways to change law than to coerce the government by breaking that law, then claim moral high ground by blaming the government. That’s how men have justified bombing abortion clinics.
If Christians are to point our world to Christ, we must let Scripture speak for itself and be honest about its application to real-life issues. I would argue (as I do in just about every post) that the church should intentionally pour more effort, resources, training, energy and emphasis on our mandate to disciple the nations (Matthew 28:18-20). However, I realize there are times when we need to instruct our society what the Scriptures say and apply it to current situations. When we do that, though, it must not be colored by any political motivation. And we can’t consider it the highest form of impacting our world. The world’s ultimate need is Christ.
Rotunda Reflections 
May 12, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Dear Brent,
It saddens me to see the poor debates going on regarding immigration. For instance, someone who wants a law abiding solution that screens out potential criminals and terrorists from entering our country — how can anyone say such a person is a bigot?
While I certainly agree that people should be treated kindly and with care, and that the gov’t could certainly do a better job at immigration; there should still be an orderly and safe way to do so. Any kind country to its citizens should properly control and protect its borders to prevent the massive crime wave we already see happening on the border from illegal immigration. This includes Arizona, where I’ve read the kidnapping for ransom is 2nd only to Mexico itself. Such crime affects us all, including even the illegals already here.
People should be considered innocent until proven guilty, and yet it is so easy for some to accuse, even falsely accuse maybe for political gain, about motives and spin up emotions, racial fears, which may encourage possible riots. There is a need to understand what exactly are the facts. How does the Arizona law compare to the existing federal law that is seemingly not being enforced!? Some have said the law is slightly less stringent theFed’s law on the books. We need to encourage peace and love – but part of love is to have godly gov’t that believes not only in making laws, but in actually enforcing just laws to help keep peace, order and safety. Fairness includes considering those ahead in the line who are seeking a legal means to immigrate to this fine country. We use the voting box to vote out politicians we believe to be unfair, not become vigilantes and rioters who believe they need to scare politicians by violence. Romans 12 and 13 come to mind.
Sadly, I heard that while Mexico condemns the Arizona law, that their own law on immigration is apparently much more strict, having heard key parts read over the radio. One needs to ponder why are so many there wanting to come here – to seek a better life which in itself is not wrong. Does any country, however, just want to let people in who may not have any real loyalty and who don’t want to abide by the laws nor possibly pay their taxes, etc? Illegals could be exploited and how come we don’t do a better jog stopping sex-slave trade? Lord, we pray for better gov’t!
Is our media being fair and balanced or are they at times just engaged in spin and emotional arguments that are weak on facts and truth, and perhaps involved in “playing politics” that they might falsely accuse others of engaging in? Will the NEA engage in political correctness and fail to communicate the common sense shared above? The old expression comes to mind “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
But in the mean time reality is reality, and in addition to logic and truth, the lost still need to hear and hopefully be supernaturally changed by God. who is in control and helping to guide the world, full of injustice and sin, to its ultimate conclusion.
vr, Ted