Posted on

Thinking About Immigration: some guiding principles, pt. 2

Earlier this week, we shared a set of principles for immigration reform developed by a community group in Oregon. Today, we have a similar set of principles developed by an Evangelical group.

The Evangelical Immigration Table is a (big!) group of Evangelical Christian leaders who have developed and signed onto six basic principles for immigration reform. We’d love to know: what do you think of these principles, from a biblical standpoint?

Our national immigration laws have created a moral, economic and political crisis in America. Initiatives to remedy this crisis have led to polarization and name calling in which opponents have misrepresented each other’s positions as open borders and amnesty versus deportations of millions. This false choice has led to an unacceptable political stalemate at the federal level at a tragic human cost.

As evangelical Christian leaders, we call for a bipartisan solution on immigration that:

  • Respects the God-given dignity of every person
  • Protects the unity of the immediate family
  • Respects the rule of law
  • Guarantees secure national borders
  • Ensures fairness to taxpayers
  • Establishes a path toward legal status and/or citizenship for those who qualify and who wish to become permanent residents

We urge our nation’s leaders to work together with the American people to pass immigration reform that embodies these key principles and that will make our nation proud.

Posted on

Evangelicals and the Supreme Court Decision on Same Sex Marriage

This piece was originally published at Patheos on March 26, 2013.

Listen to this piece.

iStock_000019628246XSmallThis is not a post on what the Bible says about homosexuality, but about some of the questions I believe Evangelical Christians should consider when thinking about the Supreme Court’s decisions on Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act this week.

What kinds of ethical stances should we as Evangelicals seek to implement as laws of the land in our democratic society? I would assume most Evangelical Christians support adherence to speed limits in school zones for the sake of our children’s safety. Would we put forth laws that keep men and women from living together outside marriage? Why or why not? From a different angle, should we seek to support gay couples who have determined to live in monogamous relationships and who have adopted children, giving them stable homes rather than leaving them to grow up in foster care?

What kinds of ethical stances should we as Evangelicals take and seek to enforce in our post-Christendom, democratic society? While Christianity is still the largest representative religion and Evangelicalism may very well still be the largest Christian movement in the States, we live in a society where a large percentage of people don’t share what many Evangelicals take to be biblical stances on homosexuality.  Rather than seeking to enforce those biblical interpretations on others, would it be seen as more discerning to make sure that we of these convictions are not forced to go against our consciences to officiate same sex marriages in our churches?

What kind of missional stance should we Evangelicals take? Is it our kingdom calling to make America a Christian nation or the church truly Christian, including its approach to sexual conduct? Jesus did not make it his calling to take back Jerusalem, but to lay down his life for Jerusalem and build his church—a church that cared for people of alternative lifestyles while calling its members to holiness in all its relationships.

One of the fears I have as Evangelicals address the issue of the legalization of gay marriage is that we might win a battle on shooting down gay marriage and lose a war of building caring relationships with gay people. Will Evangelicals influence the morality of our culture on marriage most by enforcing its overarching view on marriage on others or by embodying its ethic of marriage and family in a way that demonstrates loyal love and self-sacrifice?

For a recent discussion of my view on what Scripture says about homosexuality and how Evangelicals should address the issue, see the chapter “Homosexuality, Holy Matrimony, and Hospitality” on this subject in Connecting Christ: How to Discuss Jesus in a World of Diverse Paths (Thomas Nelson, 2012).

Posted on

Thinking About Immigration: some guiding principles, pt. 1

A community coalition in Lane County, Oregon developed a set of guiding principles for immigration reform. We’d like to know: what do you think of these principles, from a civic standpoint? (We’ll be sharing a group of principles developed by an Evangelical group in a few days.)

With the historic and ongoing arrival of immigrants to our community, we recognize the growing diversity that has occurred in Lane County.  As leaders in business, education, government, labor, law enforcement, social services, faith-based, and community organizations, we value the economic, social, cultural, and civic contributions that immigrants have made and are continuing to make in building  stronger and more vibrant communities.

In an effort to create a more welcoming environment for our immigrant neighbors and promote a more thoughtful public dialogue about immigration, we affirm the following principles:

  • Committing to Inclusion and Integration

Our economic, social, and civic success as twenty-first century communities hinges on our ability to help immigrants become fully involved in all aspects of community life.  We recognize that successful integration is a two-way process in which immigrants and all communities work together to achieve common goals.

  • Recognizing the Contributions of all Immigrants to our Society

For many generations, immigrants have come to the United States seeking better futures for themselves and their families.  Their financial and cultural activities have enriched our communities.  We value immigrants’ historic and contemporary contributions as business owners, workers, consumers, taxpayers, civic leaders, artists and craftspeople.

  • Supporting Immigrant Families

The family is a vital source of strength and security for immigrants and the foundation for a strong, vibrant community.  We endorse community-based organizations, programs, and policies that strengthen and support immigrant families and their children, especially in the areas of education, health, and employment.

  • Promoting Respect and Non-Discrimination

We commit to creating a community that respects the human right of all members of our society to be free from discrimination.  We deplore all forms of racism, bigotry, or acts of harassment that are directed at any person, regardless of their country of origin or legal status.  The rights of immigrants as workers and community members should be recognized and respected as a matter of both law and morality.

  • Affirming a Common Sense Approach to Public Safety and Community Partnerships

In keeping with Oregon state law (ORS 181.850), we believe that public safety resources are best focused on the prevention of criminal activity and the protection of community members. Public safety is enhanced when law enforcement officials cultivate relationships of trust with all members of the community, including immigrants, regardless of legal status.

  • Advancing Humane and Just National Comprehensive Immigration Reform

National immigration policy needs to be addressed at the federal level.  We encourage local elected officials and other community leaders in Lane County to support all efforts to achieve comprehensive federal immigration reform that makes our nation’s immigration policies more consistant, just, and humane.

Posted on

Jim Crow Immigration Reform and Eating Crow

This piece was originally published at Patheos on March 22, 2013.

Listen to this piece.

Poster Preview (4.5x6.5)Some Republican leaders like Jeb Bush have called for the legalization of undocumented immigrants without a pathway to citizenship. Other Republicans who actually oppose immigration reform leading to legalization argue that legalization without a pathway to citizenship would go against American values. One such representative of anti-immigration reform remarked that the legalization of undocumented immigrants without a path to citizenship would lead to a Jim Crow system of two tiers of Americans—those who have citizenship and those who cannot. While the group hopes that legalization of undocumented immigrants fails to pass, they are making a good case in view of democratic values on equality against the compromise position held by Jeb Bush and others.

One way or another, if one of these two positions wins out among Republicans, Republicans may end up eating crow during the next Presidential election. Some Republicans fear that the Democrats will be viewed increasingly as the representatives of equality and justice and the Republicans the advocates of a two class system. The Republicans have a long way to go to be viewed as a party that welcomes minority groups.

Last year, after the Presidential election, I wrote a post that included a discussion about what Republicans could do to become more open toward minority groups.  My recommendations still stand and bear on the present discussion. Among other things, I hope that Republicans make the shift and become more welcoming of minorities, including those who are undocumented immigrants. Such initiatives must not be based on political expediency and survival, but based on the firm conviction that justice and American values require such moves. If the only reason for avoiding Jim Crow is based on opinion poll appearances, then the rationale against Jim Crow is only skin deep. Minorities sympathetic to the concerns of undocumented people of minority status will likely be able to see right through such shallow moves and realize Republican views will change as soon as expedience goes in a different direction. Such minorities (who are becoming a significant voting bloc) will be sure not to vote for these political opportunists whose resulting diet of crow will be most fitting.

Posted on

Illegal Families

This piece was originally published on March 19, 2013 at Patheos.

Listen to this piece.

American Evangelicals place a great deal of emphasis on protecting the nuclear family. One would think Evangelicals would also concern themselves with keeping families together in America, where one of the spouses is not here legally. While not all Evangelicals make this connection, many  do.

I appreciate the Evangelical Immigration Table’s emphasis on “protecting the unity of the immediate family” and its call for a bi-partisan solution to the situation of immigration reform that “establishes a path toward legal status and/or citizenship for those who qualify and who wish to become permanent residents.”

Some will argue that failure to deport an undocumented individual who is married to an American or a legal resident is condoning disobedience. Actually, I am condoning and promoting compassion. I cannot do anything about the choices such a couple made to this point, but I can advocate for the government to make the right choice and help them stay together and raise their family in a nurturing environment where both parents are present legally.

This is no ivory tower issue that I engage as a seminary professor. A Hispanic pastor came to my office and presented to me the challenge he faces as an Evangelical to support an American father who is raising his baby alone now that his wife has been deported. The pastor told me how during a pastoral visit the father shared his angst about trying to work and care for the crying baby in his arms.

We cannot wash our hands of this situation or those countless other stories similar to it. Either we need to help raise the child or we are condoning separating families. People can say all they want about such couples needing to suffer the consequences of their past acts of disobedience alone. Where do they get the justification for that claim biblically? It is so calloused. I am thankful Jesus didn’t operate that way. He suffered the consequences of our actions for us and in our place, dying for our sins. Christians are called to a radical obedience of solidarity with offenders of the law no matter the consequences. Otherwise, from God’s vantage point, we’re not legally Christian.