Posted on

Reforming Our Understanding of Romans 13 on Immigration Reform

This piece was originally published at the Evangelical Immigration Table.

121119 P I Can't Wait for Christian America to DieA student from Arizona once remarked in a class discussion on justice and immigration that it was against Arizona law to give a cup of water to an undocumented person. As a result of his understanding (or misunderstanding) of the Arizona law, he said he would not provide relief to someone he knew was undocumented. He was surprised when I asked, “What would Jesus do?” if our Lord faced the same situation. After all, Jesus often disobeyed the Sabbath laws of his day, for example, by healing people on the Sabbath (e.g., Mark 3:1-6). Regardless of the intricacies of the Arizona law and accuracy of the student’s claim, the discussion raised an important issue for Christians to discuss. Is civil disobedience ever warranted of Christians?

It is worth noting that, under current law—at least in most of the United States, most churches are not currently faced with this question of civil disobedience: nothing in federal law prohibits churches from ministering to undocumented immigrants in need, and there is no requirement that a church or an individual report someone whom they suspect of lacking legal status. Neither ministering to undocumented immigrants nor advocating for reforms to our immigration legal system puts a church or individual followers of Christ outside of submission to the governmental authorities. However, the political climate the past several years could put pressure on certain elements of a church’s ministry to the undocumented, making it appear unlawful, in view of ambiguously-worded immigration bills at both the state and federal levels. In this climate, the question of whether civil disobedience is ever warranted (or even required) of Christians in view of biblical texts on care for the stranger is worth considering (See for example Exodus 22:21, Leviticus 19:34, Matthew 25:43, and Luke 10:36-37).

The question of civil disobedience becomes more complicated when one considers such biblical texts as Romans 13. For many Christians like the student in my class, Romans 13 preclude the possibility of ever disobeying a government’s law in good conscience. Romans 13:1-7 reads,

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed (ESV).

From a surface reading of the text, it might appear that Christians are to offer blind obedience to the governing authorities. Such is not the case. We are to subject ourselves to the governing authorities as they do good, not evil, for God has authorized them to nurture and protect the good of all, not to do harm (Romans 13:4). Ultimately, Christians are to subject themselves to Christ in the sphere of the state. From the vantage point of Christ’s lordship over all spheres, the church and state are subject to Christ’s kingdom.[1] Thus, Christians and the church are to approach the subject of obedience to the state in view of their ultimate allegiance to Christ and his call on his people to care for the stranger and neighbor in need.

In this context, it is also worth noting that the text that immediately follows in Romans 13 (verses 8-10) focuses on what is essential to fulfilling God’s law as revealed in the Old Testament—love your neighbor as yourself:

Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

The church is to dedicate itself to fulfilling God’s law, which centers on love of neighbor, as well as the love of God (cf. Mark 12:30-31), even if that puts it at odds with the state from time to time.  Jesus redefines for us who our neighbor is. He is not the person like us or who likes us or whom we like. It is the person who stands or lies before us, including the person in need, as in the story of the Samaritan of exceptional mercy in Luke 10:25-37. It could very well be the case that the Jewish religious leaders who passed the beaten and robbed man lying on the road did so because they feared he was dead and to have touched him would have made them ceremonially unclean. Jesus calls them and us to a higher law—love of neighbor. Only the Samaritan cared for their neighbor that day. Only he proved to be a neighbor to the person in need. And, as Pastor Rick Warren says, “A good Samaritan doesn’t stop and ask the injured person, ‘Are you legal or illegal?’”

Martin Luther King, Jr. demonstrates for us how to apply Romans 13 in our current democratic context. The Apostle Paul had no way of influencing legislation of laws in his day, but Christians, just like King, do so in our society. Providentially for us, King did not offer blind obedience to the state. If he had, we might still be experiencing forms of Jim Crow legislation today. Or else, the overturning of these laws might have come through violent forms of disobedience, not civil disobedience as with the movement inspired by King and the African American church.

From his Birmingham Jail cell, King responded to the white clergy who were troubled by his civil disobedience:

One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

King understood the consequences for disobeying governing authorities—jail or worse. But King also understood the consequences of not obeying one’s own conscience and God himself, who calls us to promote just laws that favor the love of neighbor as ourselves regardless of the cost. King had the King of Kings as his exemplar: it is lawful to do good, not harm, to save life, not to kill, even if one gets killed in the end by the authorities for doing so, as happened with Jesus (See Mark 3:1-6).

The Evangelical Immigration Table offers a balanced approach to the subject of immigration reform in a democratic system. Rather than having to pursue blind obedience to unjust laws or dismissing the rightful rule of law, its principles include the following: respecting the God-given dignity of each and every person, whether documented or not, respecting the rule of law, and establishing a path toward legal status and/or citizenship for those who qualify and who wish to become permanent residents. Our current immigration laws are out-of-synch with the needs of our labor market and thus have been only selectively enforced for decades, sending mixed messages to immigrants desperate for work; a biblically-appropriate respect for the rule of law should guide us to reform a system that is not currently functioning well, restoring the rule of law while also respecting the human dignity of each person made in God’s image.

In the end, Christians have a responsibility in our democratic society to promote and live by laws that promote God’s law of love of neighbor—documented or not, as disclosed in Scripture and embodied in Jesus Christ.

[1] Karl Barth writes of Romans 13 that “the last thing this instruction implies is that the Christian community and the Christian should offer the blindest possible obedience to the civil community and its officials.” Karl Barth, “The Christian Community and the Civil Community,” in Against the Stream: Shorter Post-War Writings, 1946-1952, ed. R. G. Smith, trans. E.M. Delecour and S. Godman (London: SCM Press, Ltd., 1954), p. 24. According to Barth, the church is to submit to Christ in the sphere of the state (See p. 29). The church’s ultimate allegiance to Christ puts a check on its submission to the dictates of the state. The church and state are subject to Christ, who is Lord over all spheres.

This piece is cross-posted at Patheos and at The Christian Post. Comments made here are not monitored. To join the conversation, please comment on this post at Patheos.

Posted on

Reconciliation Is More Than a Hugathon

RunnersReconciliation apart from justice is not reconciliation. So, too, biblical justice entails reconciliation. To adapt Immanuel Kant’s famous claim from his critical epistemology and apply it to a critical and constructive model of race reconciliation, it would read: reconciliation without justice is empty; justice without reconciliation is blind. What does each side of this claim look like? We’ll take up each one of these items in successive posts. First, reconciliation without justice is empty. We find an instance of this in Luke’s Gospel. In Luke 19, the account of Zacchaeus reads:

Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. 2 A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. 3 He wanted to see who Jesus was, but because he was short he could not see over the crowd. 4 So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way.

5 When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” 6 So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.

7 All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a sinner.”

8 But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”

9 Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”

Zaccaeus was not simply a tax collector, but a chief tax collector. His wealth was made, at least in part, from cheating people. Jesus’ determination to dine with Zacchaeus at his home did not sit well with the people since Zacchaeus was a sinner: in this case, someone who assisted and benefited from the unwelcome Roman regime by taxing and cheating Rome’s Jewish “subjects.”

We will return to the Zacchaeus story in a successive post to discuss how justice without reconciliation is blind. For now, however, we are focusing simply on how reconciliation apart from justice is empty.

Here we find that Zacchaeus is overwhelmed by Jesus’ presence and mercy. As a result, Zacchaeus responds to God’s reconciling love and repents of his sin. When Jesus hears Zacchaeus’ confession that he will give half of his possessions to the poor, and if he has cheated anyone he will pay back four times the amount, the Lord proclaims that salvation has come to Zacchaeus’ house; he, too, has the faith of Abraham. Abraham’s saving faith was active. He believed God and followed where God led. So, too, with Zacchaeus. In his case, reconciliation with God leads him to go and be reconciled to his fellows whom he has swindled economically; he is moved to pay them back—and with interest. It’s not that Zacchaeus’ actions saved him, but saving faith always entails repentance, as our hearts are transformed by God’s mercy and grace to make things right with those we have wronged.

What would this discussion on Zacchaeus entail for such matters as race reconciliation? To the extent one has cheated someone else—anybody else, but specifically for the purposes of this post, someone of another ethnicity, to that extent one should pay back—and with interest. To the extent one has benefited from an economic system in the United States that has oppressed Native Americans, African Americans, and other people groups over the generations, to that extent repentance economically is also required. Reconciliation that begins and ends with a hugathon is not a marathon race for justice; it is not biblical reconciliation. So, we need to peel off our spiritual bumper stickers that reduce race reconciliation to “Have you hugged a black or native person lately?” My late friend, Lakota Sioux Christian leader Richard Twiss, once said at a conference I attended that white Christians have washed his feet as an act of love and reconciliation; but in the end, all he comes away with as a First Nations Christian is clean feet. Nothing has really changed.

This point also came home to me through the story often attributed to Dr. John M. Perkins who speaks of redistribution as key to Christian community development. The story goes that two teams have been playing baseball for seven innings, one white and the other black. Around the seventh inning, the black team realizes the white team has been cheating the entire game. As a result, the score is 20-0 in the white team’s favor. The white team is confronted and “repents” by saying that they will play fair the rest of the game. The only problem with their repentance is that the score is still 20-0.

In view of the Zacchaeus story, it would be accurate to argue that there is no transformative repentance if nothing is done to rectify the situation: at the very least, the white team needs to award 20 points to the black team, or go back to 0-0.

While it is true that people of various ethnic backgrounds oppress one another and even their own, and while the white majority has also been oppressed in different ways at times, the dominant white culture(s) has been guilty of a far greater share of oppression, including economic oppression.

Here are some questions to address: what does racial repentance entail economically for individuals who have oppressed people of diverse ethnicities? How far can one take the Zacchaeus story to talk about corporate repentance involving economic reparations? How does the Zacchaeus story apply to people who might not directly “tax” and cheat individuals like Zacchaeus did, but who benefit economically in one way or another from such economic oppression? Future posts will address these questions.

This piece is cross-posted at Patheos and at The Christian Post. Comments made here are not monitored. To join the conversation, please comment on this post at Patheos.

Posted on

Jesus’ Hands Halt Oppression and Offer Forgiveness

Irvington Covenant Church PictureThe image of the stained glass window of 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama hangs behind the worship platform in my church in Portland, Oregon. The picture displays Jesus with outstretched arms and hands—the right hand halting oppression and the left hand opened and offering forgiveness. The stained glass window was given to the church in Birmingham by the people of Wales after the bombing of the church orchestrated by the KKK on Sunday morning, September 15, 1963. The horrific bombing killed four young African American girls.

I thought about that incident and the stained glass window this past Sunday as my pastor preached on Luke’s Gospel. Jesus brought reconciliation—his ‘right hand’ halting oppression and his ‘left hand’ offering forgiveness—throughout his ministry. Our church is seeking to live into that reality—living between Jesus’ two outstretched arms.

In view of Jesus, it is right to say that reconciliation that does not pursue justice is not truly reconciliation and justice that does not pursue reconciliation is not truly just.

This burden for justice and reconciliation is too great to bear on our own. Only Jesus can bear the burden. But that does not excuse us. Jesus carries our burden and longing, halting oppression and offering forgiveness. His actuality makes it possible for us to live into this reality, no matter how hard it seems, as we live between his outstretched arms.

I’m speaking on these and related themes this week at the Mosaix 2013 Multiethnic Church Conference.

This piece is cross-posted at Patheos and The Christian Post. Comments made here are not monitored. To join the conversation, please comment on this post at Patheos.

Posted on

Is the Cross the Crux of the Divide between Christianity and Islam?

???????????????????lThe other day my world religions class visited a mosque. The Muslim lecturer and friend of mine asked: “Is one [who is a Christian] losing Jesus when one converts to Islam?” He responded by saying that one does not lose Jesus, but gains Muhammad. It was interesting that this Muslim leader claimed that Muhammad is not greater than Jesus on his Muslim view, even though he is the final prophet. According to the lecturer, the reason why Muhammad is seen as the greatest of the prophets is because the prophetic import of his teaching is universal and final, not local or temporally conditioned. Moreover, he established his community of followers during his life. So, the finality occurred during his life, not after it. According to the Muslim leader, Muhammad’s life is so well documented during his life that one has sufficient authority for all teaching and practice. Given that Islam is not on this Muslim leader’s view a new religion, but the continuation and fulfillment of all true religion, its finality is not one of qualitative superiority, but of quantitative fulfillment by way of succession—bringing everything together. In fact, according to the Muslim lecturer, the first pillar—Declaration of Faith—is not a distinction, but a reminder: Muhammad is not the Messiah, as in equal with God (deified); rather, Muhammad is God’s messenger.

I was struck by what this Muslim leader said. One of the questions I raised came in response to his claim that a Christian does not lose Jesus in converting to Islam. I asked, “Could a Christian say that the Muslim who converts to Christianity does not lose Muhammad, but gains Jesus?” My Muslim friend objected, since for him that would entail accepting the doctrine of the Trinity, which he said Muslims reject. It would also entail for him affirming Jesus’ death by crucifixion, which he also rejects.

The exchange showed how important it is to get clear on the meaning of terms. We need to be clear on what we mean by Jesus, Christian, and Muslim, for example. Certainly, my Muslim friend and I hold to different definitions of Jesus and Christian, and view the cross in dramatically different terms. For my Muslim friend, a true prophet could not die on the cross, whereas for me, the great prophet Jesus died on the cross to bring about a new order of reality in his resurrection.

Certainly, the cross is not the only issue that generally separates Christians and Muslims. Nonetheless, it is certainly central to the discussion. Here I am reminded of Lesslie Newbigin’s claim in The Gospel in a Pluralist Society:

If it were true, as the Qur’an affirms, that Jesus was not crucified, then indeed he would simply be one of the messengers in the series that culminates in Muhammad. But the earthly mission of Jesus ended on a cross. The corn of wheat had to fall onto the ground and die. The new reality born of that dying, the new creation of which the risen body of Jesus is the foretaste, is of a different nature. It is not simply a prolongation of the life of Jesus. It is the beginning of a new epoch in human history in which the guiding clue is held in trust for all by that community which lives by the life of the crucified and risen Jesus.[1]

According to Newbigin, the cross conveys finality—death to the old order of life. The resurrection of Jesus from the dead reveals a new epoch. The Christian community participates in the life of the crucified and risen Jesus. There can be no going back to the old order—life lived prior to and apart from Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. Rather than converting to some other religious tradition, we are converted anew each day as the Christian community as we live into the reality of Jesus as the Alpha and Omega (Revelation 22:13).

While for Islamic scholar Daniel W. Brown, it is disputed that the Qur’an denies the crucifixion, still he argues,

The cross remains the point at which Islam and Christian theology clash not just because the Qur’an denies the crucifixion (a disputed point), or because Muslims reject its historicity (some do not), but because the cross, viewed as the ultimate self-manifestation of God, demands a response of faith—Jesus is Lord—that the Muslim reserves for the revelation of the Qur’an. Ultimately, Muslims and evangelical Christians are divided over whether the character of God is most clearly revealed in a perfect life culminating in redemptive death or in a perfect book giving rise to a perfect life.[2]

What difference does it all make for Christians that we have been converted to the new order that arises out of the death of the resurrected Jesus? If the character of God is most clearly revealed in a perfect life culminating in redemptive death, what does it entail for those converted to the Jesus way? In short, I cannot be engaged in prolonging the old order but must live according to the new order of being. Easier said than done. While short and succinct, it will take a great deal of unpacking with one’s life to get at the contrast between the old and new orders. With this in mind, we must ask: what is the old order, and what is distinctive about the new? More to come.

This piece is cross-posted at Patheos and The Christian Post. Comments made here are not monitored. To join the conversation, please comment on this post at Patheos.

[1]Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989),

[2]Daniel W. Brown, “Clash of Cultures or Clash of Theologies? A Critique of Some Contemporary Evangelical Responses to Islam,” in Cultural Encounters: A Journal for the Theology of Culture, vol. 1/1 (Winter 2004), p. 84.

Posted on

The Multi-Ethnic Church Movement – Not Some Fad, More Than a Conference

multi-ethnic church conf. image

The multi-ethnic church movement is not some passing fad. It is more than a two-day conference. It is here to stay.

I am looking forward to participating in the Mosaix 2013 Multi-ethnic Church Conference November 5 – 6.  A thousand people will be coming together in Long Beach, California to interact with one another on the subject of the multi-ethnic church from various perspectives in service to Christ.

My plenary talk will be “We Shall Overcome” and I will be presenting a workshop called “Owning the Pond Together.” Here I will claim that “Community transformation involves redistribution of relational need, responsibility, and resources. This workshop will address race and class tensions bound up with the myth of scarcity that impact churches negatively today, and how to get beyond this for Kingdom impact in the communities we serve.” I will be developing further themes that first appeared in my book, Consuming Jesus.

I am excited to hear and engage friends, John M. Perkins, author of Let Justice Roll Down, and Soong-Chan Rah, author of The Next Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity, among many others.

 

Here are some words of commendation from earlier endorsements I wrote for other conference presenters’ works. Can’t wait to hear them speak!

Derek Chinn’s 1 + 1 = 1: Creating a Multiracial Church from Single Race Congregations:

“You don’t need to be a math wizard to understand 1 + 1 = 1 by [Derek] Chinn . . . Based on biblical wisdom and practical advice gleaned from years of experience in leading a multiracial congregation, this timely and strategic book helps lead the way in resolving church growth and racial problems and puzzles for the sake of church transformation through the gospel of reconciliation.”
Christena Cleveland’s Disunity in Christ: Uncovering the Hidden Forces That Keep Us Apart :

“In Disunity in Christ: Uncovering the Hidden Forces That Keep Us Apart (InterVarsity Press), [Christena] Cleveland helps readers view people of diverse cultural backgrounds as God’s gifts, not thorns in the flesh. She provides invaluable insights, practical recommendations, and tools to help the Christian community identify and address the dynamics that fracture Christ’s body… My hope, ultimately, is that Disunity in Christ will create new momentum toward fulfilling Jesus’ prayer for unity amongst his followers. Those involved in building and supporting multiethnic Christian communities will be moved by Cleveland’s stories, perspectives, and gracious spirit. Her book will, I hope, help us resolve generational, economic, political, and theological differences—and teach us to see that, truly, we are better off together.” (Read my full review of this book at Christianity Today).
Mark DeYmaz’s Ethnic Blends: Mixing Diversity into Your Local Church, co-authored with Harry Li:

“Ethnic Blends is a prophetic, Christ-centered road map that offers practical, pastoral wisdom on how to form multi-ethnic congregations. Mark DeYmaz and Harry Li are redemptive voices crying out in a wilderness of homogeneity for the church in all its ethnic diversity to be one as God is one. I thank God for their biblical vision and mission and firmly believe that Christ’s church will bear more authentic witness to the world that God has sent his Son the more we heed the authors’ multi-ethnic church claims.”

David Stevens’ God’s New Humanity: A Biblical Theology of Multiethnicity for the Church:

“This book isn’t politically correct. It’s biblically correct. The church is God’s New Humanity in union with Christ Jesus. This driving conviction has a profound bearing on how we see ourselves and how we approach diversity in the body of Christ. We need to come to terms with the radical call to unity envisioned by God’s breaking down dividing walls between people through Christ’s atoning work and our new life in the Spirit. Drawing from the whole counsel of God, my friend Dr. David Stevens has provided an invaluable resource to the church in responding to the New Testament mandate for ecclesial existence: We are to experience and model our New Humanity identity in Christ rather than revert to our old ways bound up with various forms of societal separation. In God’s New Humanity—the church—there are no ethnic, economic, and related divisions. So, be one as God is one.”

These and other conference participants will be drawing our attention to what God is doing in cultivating a church that is truly multi-ethnic. This is no passing fad. It is more than a two-day conference in Long Beach. Along with a host of practitioners and academics coming together this coming week, our hope is that the multi-ethnic church will be coming soon to places near you – established by Christ and served and led by Christians of diverse ethnicities – people just like you.

This piece is cross-posted at Patheos and The Christian Post. Comments made here are not monitored. To join the conversation, please comment on this post at Patheos.