The Gospel and Immigration

If you want to disrupt a beautifully harmonious dinner party, all you have to do is bring up the radioactive issue of immigration. There might not be a more heated political topic in contemporary American life.

And yet pastors, by virtue of the changing diversity of their congregations and their role as community leaders, can't afford to avoid the subject if we are to be faithful ministers of the gospel. Not only are we inundated with opinions from our parishioners, we're forced to wrestle with real-world implications of immigration policy, whether our churches are located in Arizona or Alaska.

A sampling of political opinion, on all sides of the issue, reflects a failure on the part of many evangelicals to articulate a gospel-centered approach both to immigration policy and to immigrants themselves. A recent survey from the Pew Forum on Faith and Public Life suggests that just 12 percent of white evangelicals see this issue primarily through the lens of their faith. We think this presents a golden opportunity for pastors to reframe the debate from a missiological standpoint.

Pastors' wariness to discuss the issue may stem from the politically charged nature of the national dialogue on immigration, or from the fear that by addressing the issue they will inevitably offend some in their congregation, putting attendance, tithes, and offerings at risk. We suspect that others avoid the issue, though, because—in a U.S. context where nearly a third of immigrants are present unlawfully—they see a paradox between the repeated biblical commands to welcome and love immigrants and the equally biblical commands to be subject to the governing authorities. Unsure of how to reconcile these seemingly conflicting commands, some pastors just avoid the issue altogether.

Continue reading at thegospelcoalition.org

« Previous Article

Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

keyboardshark

To my knowledge, the Bible does not say anything about which immigrants (strangers-KJV) we should allow into the country, or how many. It simply declares how we should treat them:

"Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt."
Exodus 22:21

"But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God."
Leviticus 19:34

"Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them."
Numbers 15:29

"Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares."
Hebrews 13:2

"Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work."
I Timothy 5:10

So I do not see any contradiction regarding immigration laws vs. the Biblical commands to treat immigrants properly. The immigrants should be expected to obey the laws to gain entrance, and once here legally, should be treated with kindness as any other citizen should.
- Deep_Thinker
  
  Yes, imagine if when Jesus was born and Mary and Joseph had to flee to a country that didn't allow "illegal" immigration…
  - keyboardshark
    
    Utter nonsense. They were not "illegal immigrants". They were ordered to go there by the Roman authorities. They were not going there to gain entrance as immigrants.
    
    "1And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
    
    2(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
    
    3And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
    
    4And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
    
    5To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child."
    
    Luke 2
    
    When they fled to Egypt later, they were only staying temporarily, not taking up residence:
    
    "14When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
    
    15And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son."
    
    Matthew 2
    - keyboardshark
      
      Illegal immigrants to the US have no intent of returning. Otherwise, why is there such contention about whether to deport them? If they were planning on leaving in a short period of time, there would be no need to deport them, would there? Mary and Joseph most certainly DID intend to return, as the verses clearly indicate. I do not know why you cannot see the difference.
      
      You also say "I also find it funny how in your first response you quoted all OT passages…" Better go back and read it again. I quoted Hebrews 13:2 and I Timothy 5:10, which, the last time I checked, were in the New Testament. But it doesn't really matter, because both Old and New Testaments are equally inspired by God and complement, rather than contradict, each other.
      - Deep_Thinker
        
        So you have the ability to know the intentions inside each and every immigrant? Wouldn't God want us to open our doors for them?
        
        And there wouldn't be a problem if all property was privately owned. We allow them to thrive because of the public coffers they live off of.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Deep_Thinker says: "So you have the ability to know the intentions inside each and every immigrant?"
        
        I don't need to know their intent, but if they are planning to enter the U.S. it is their obligation to know the laws. If they only intend to be here for a specific time period for a specific purpose, such as a student visa, then they should go through the proper legal procedure to obtain the visa.
        
        If they intend to immigrate with the intent of being a permanent citizen, then once again, they should be held responsible for doing it in a legal manner and following proper procedures.
        
        I do agree with you that we should not be giving illegal immigrants money out of the public coffers. That only encourages illegal activity. I'm not sure that the problems would be solved by 100% private ownership of property, because we still need sovereign borders and laws to govern those borders.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Actually, that very thing is happening right now.
        
        The number of Mexican migrants returning to their country — mainly from the United States — has increased dramatically in the last five years compared with the previous five years.
        
        According to the most recent numbers released by the Mexican census bureau, the increase was 31.9% in the period from 2005 to 2010, compared with 2000 to 2005 numbers.
        
        The Mexican Institute of Statistics and Geography — INEGI by its Spanish acronym — says that during the last five years of the decade, 1.1 million Mexicans left their country. According to the government agency, by the time the national census was taken last summer, more than 351,000 Mexican migrants had returned to Mexico.
        
        The economic downturn that hit the United States towards the end of 2008 had a negative effect on American manufacturing firms that traditionally employed Mexican migrants, legal or otherwise. Many Mexican laborers with no specialized training had no option but to return home.
        http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-04/world/mexico.r…
      - keyboardshark
        
        Jeff says: "The number of Mexican migrants returning to their country — mainly from the United States — has increased dramatically in the last five years compared with the previous five years. "
        
        While that may be true, it is simply because they could find no work, not because they had only intended to stay a short time. Their original intention when they arrived was to set up permanent residence, whether legally or illegally. And of course, some do stay even if they do not find work, so that they can collect government benefits. The ones who do return because of lack of work at least have some kind of a reasonable work ethic compared to the moochers who live off the gov't, but it still does not excuse them being here illegally.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        I did not say it excused them for being here illegally. I wish we had tighter immigration laws and enforcement. The source I used also said that lack of employment was one of the reasons they were returning to Mexico. However, you said they had no intention of returning, not that they might return if their situation changed. You have an interesting way of trying to change the goalposts when you are presented with information that contradicts what you say.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Sorry I don't word everything to cover every possible contingency. Maybe I should put a legal disclaimer at the end of each post :-)
    - daves
      
      Thinker said to imagine.
      - Deep_Thinker
        
        People hear what they want to hear.
      - Evermyrtle
        
        Knowledge speaking, especially when we refer to outselves.
      - Eric
        
        OK. Then imagine what Shark said is accurate and Jesus' birth cannot be used as a club for an emotional plea to allow illegal immigration.
      - Deep_Thinker
        
        Who has a right to tell me who I can or can't have on my property? If I want a foreign wife, I should have one. The issues you speak of are only issues because we have public property.
      - keyboardshark
        
        I agree with you to a point, D_T, in so far as we should be free to do what we want on our own property, or who we allow to be on it. But that is not the issue with immigration. Even if all property was privately owned, we still have to have a sovereign nation with borders, and laws to govern those borders. Nations are formed because those who form them have a common purpose, and you cannot simply let whoever wants to come and go as they please unless they are citizens of the nation, otherwise it would be anarchy.
      - Evermyrtle
        
        Anybody has as much right, as any other person has.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      Of course the fact that there is no Roman record of this decree is meaningless to Christians.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Jeff says: "Of course the fact that there is no Roman record of this decree is meaningless to Christians."
        
        "Caesar Augustus ruled from 44 BCE to 14 CE. An edict of Caesar Augustus decreeing a census for purposes of taxation for all the inhabited earth, or essentially the Roman Empire, is recorded by Dio Cassius.4 By 5 CE the military expenditures for the widespread Roman legions exceeded income, and "Augustus lacked funds for all these troops." (Dio Cassius, Roman History LV 24:9) No tax plan was accepted at that time. In 6 CE Augustus established a "military treasury. . . .
        
        Now Augustus made a contribution himself toward the fund and promised to do so annually, and he also accepted voluntary contributions from kings and certain communities; but he took nothing from private citizens, . . . but this proved very slight in comparison with the amount being spent." (Roman History LV 25:3-4)
        
        To overcome this deficit, Augustus "established the tax of 5%, on the inheritances and bequests which should be left by people at their death to any except very near relatives or very poor persons, representing that he had found this tax set down in Caesar's memoranda. It was, in fact, a method which had been introduced once before, but had been abolished later, and was now revived. In this way, then, he increased the revenues." (Roman History LV 25:5-6)
        
        In 6 CE Caesar Augustus issued a worldwide decree that for a second time there would be a 5% inheritance tax on estates, something beyond the normal taxation. Such a taxation would require a census to register transferable assets, such as land, and to record genealogies to establish "very near relatives." As the benefactor, this taxation would have had the full support of the Roman military.
        
        Josephus noted the effects on non-citizens of this decree in Judea in 6 CE: "Now Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to be a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance. Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews. Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus' money; but the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it." (Ant. XVIII 1:1)
        
        However, to the north, "a certain Galilean, whose name was Judas, prevailed with his countrymen to revolt; and said they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans, and would, after God, submit to mortal men as their lords." (Wars II 8:1) And, later he wrote of "Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews." (Ant. XX 5:2)
        
        Caesar's 5% tax was to be on the estates, as noted by Josephus. The census attached to this taxation was also noted by Luke: "Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away some people after him, he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered." (Acts 5:37) The peoples of Judea and Galilee were already being taxed, and yet they protested this taxation. "
        http://doig.net/NTC05.htm
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Jeff might read this, but he will absolutely ignore it, as he always does.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Jeff appears unable to objectively look upon data in order to draw a valid conclusion.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        In 6 CE? So, years after Jesus supposedly was born, this occurred? I realize there is no common agreement on when it was supposed to have happened, so let us see if there is anything else to refer to.
        
        The three empire-wide censuses were in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and 14 A.D. The one in 8 B.C. is the closest to the timeframe of when Jesus supposedly was born. The only apparent difficulty with identifying the census that Luke mentions in the Christmas story with the one in 8 B.C. is, ironically, something Luke seemingly included to clarify the dating. He tells us in 2:2 that "this was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governing Syria." Seems simple. All we have to do is find out exactly when Quirinius was governing Syria and then we will know exactly when the census was given, right? Right. But the problem is, according to records available to us, Quirinius was governor of Syria in 6-7 A.D. — eleven years too late!
        
        And where exactly is the requirement that everyone go to the home of their ancestors? They are going to require that the citizens all make journeys for this and completely disrupt the state? That is simply absurd.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Here is a clearer explanation than the source listed above:
        
        In the Biblical account, we know these facts are presented:
        
        Caesar Augustus ordered a census
        Quirinius was governing Syria (hegemoneuontos tes Syrias Kyreniou)
        Each family must register at their familial city of origin
        Further, Matthew chapter 2 reports that Herod the Great ordered the slaughter "all the male children who were in Bethlehem and all its vicinity, from two years old and under"(Matt 2:16). We know that Herod died 4-2 B.C., so Jesus birth had to have been before his death – most likely by two or more years. Given these facts, scholars generally date Jesus' birth anywhere between 6 B.C. to 4 B.C.
        
        Now, let's turn our attention to the Josephus passage. In 17.13.5 of The Antiquity of the Jews, Josephus writes:
        
        "So Archelaus' country was laid to the province of Syria; and Cyrenius, one that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of people's effects in Syria, and to sell the house of Archelaus."1
        
        From the Josephus account we derive the following facts:
        
        Caesar ordered a census
        Cyrenius (Quirinius) was sent to account for Syria and sell the house of Archelaus
        Cyrenius (Quirinius) "had been consul"
        We also know from other historical records that Herod Archelaus was deposed in 6 A.D., so this census must be about 6 or 7 A.D. So, the question goes, if Herod the Great died in 4 B.C. and Josephus tells us Quirinius' census wasn't until 6 A.D., then isn't this a contradiction?
        
        More than One Census
        
        Although on its face we seem to have a difficulty here, there are several pieces that we must consider before jumping to the conclusion that Luke and Josephus were speaking about the same event. Indeed, it seems that Caesar Augustus was the type of leader who ordered many censuses in his day. Records exist to show that Roman-controlled Egypt had begun a census as early as 10 B.C. and it was repeated every 14 years. And Augustus himself notes in his Res Gestae (The Deeds of Augustus) that he ordered three wide-spread censuses of Roman citizens, one in 28B.C., one in 8 B.C. and one in 14 A.D.2 In between there are several other censuses that happened locally across Rome. Luke's account corroborates the idea of multiple censuses for Judea when he writes "This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria." Certainly, the word "first" implies that more than one census happened.
        
        On another occasion, an enrollment of all the people of the empire happened to swear an oath of allegiance to Caesar. In Chapter 34 of Res Gestae Augustus also notes, "When I administered my thirteenth consulate (2 B.C.E.), the senate and Equestrian order and Roman people all called me father of the country, and voted that the same be inscribed in the vestibule of my temple".3 Josephus also mentions a time "When all good people gave assurance of their good will to Caesar".4 These types of tributes would also require an enrollment of individuals from across the empire. Orosius, a fifth century Christian, links this registration with the birth of Jesus saying that "all of the peoples of the great nations were to take an oath".5
        
        Taking all of this together, we have at least three censuses in the area of Judea – one in 8 B.C., one starting around 2 B.C. and one in 6 A.D. The only point that is really in question, then, is whether Luke was mistaken in ascribing this census to the time when Quirinius was in the role of Syrian Governor. Since Quirinius wasn't governor of the Syrian province until after Archelaus was deposed, critics claim Luke misidentified the census as the smaller one, which happened some 8-10 years after Herod died. Either Luke is wrong on his dating of Jesus' birth or Matthew made up the story of Herod the Great and the killing of the infants. Is this an accurate objection?
      - keyboardshark
        
        PART 2
        
        "The Governorship of Quirinius
        
        In studying this problem, there are two main solutions that Christian scholars offer, and each has some good merit. The first point is the terminology Luke uses when writing about Quirinius' governorship over Syria. In stating that Quirinius controlled the Syrian area, Luke doesn't use the official political title of "Governor" ("legatus"), but the broader term "hegemon" which is a ruling officer or procurator. This means that Quirinius may not have been the official governor of Judea, but he was in charge of the census because he was a more capable and trusted servant of Rome than the more inept Saturninus.
        
        Justin Martyr's Apology supports this view, writing that Quirinius was a "procurator", not a governor of the area of Judea.6 As Gleason Archer writes, "In order to secure efficiency and dispatch, it may well have been that Augustus put Quirinius in charge of the census-enrollment in Syria between the close of Saturninus's administration and the beginning of Varus's term of service in 7 B.C. It was doubtless because of his competent handling of the 7 B.C. census that Augustus later put him in charge of the 7 A.D. census."7 Archer also says that Roman history records Quirinius leading the effort to quell rebels in that area at exactly that time, so such a political arrangement is not a stretch.
        
        If Quirinius did hold such a position, then we have no contradiction. The first census was taken during the time of Jesus birth, but Josephus' census would have come later. This option seems to me to be entirely reasonable. "
        
        Read more: http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con100.asp#ix…
      - keyboardshark
        
        "Herod's Slaughter of the Babies
        
        If Herod committed such an atrocity as killing all the male babies "two years old and under" as Matthew recounts, how could historians such as Josephus completely ignore it? Well, let's think about this for a moment. Bethlehem at the time of Jesus' birth was a very small city with no more than a few thousand people. The total number of infants who would have been murdered under Herod's edict could be pretty low. As James Patrick Holding writes "How many boys aged two and under could there have been in and around the tiny city of Bethlehem? Five? Ten? Matthew does not give a number.
        
        Josephus says that Herod murdered a vast number of people, and was so cruel to those he didn't kill that the living considered the dead to be fortunate. Thus, indirectly, Josephus tells us that there were many atrocities that Herod committed that he does not mention in his histories – and it is probable that authorizing the killing of the presumably few male infants in the vicinity of Bethlehem was a minuscule blot of the blackness that was the reign of Herod.
        
        Being that the events of the reign of Herod involved practically one atrocity after another – it is observed by one writer, with a minimum of hyperbole, that hardly a day in his 36-year reign passed when someone wasn't sentenced to death – why should any one event in particular have touched off a rebellion, when others in particular, including those recorded by Josephus, did not?"8
        
        I hope these discussions have helped you further your understanding of the difficulties historians face when trying to piece together events from the limited records of the past. There is certainly no slam-dunk evidence that the Biblical accounts are wrong here. In fact, one must also remember that the Biblical accounts are themselves historic documentation and therefore have historic merit in themselves. The fact that we have outside corroboration of the possibility of multiple censuses strengthens Luke's report of the events as he has written them. To say that this is an error would be premature. God bless you as you seek Him."
        
        http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con100.asp#ix…
msjallen

My father was an immigrant and became an American citizen as soon as he could, adopted American ways and when he married and had children he taught us to be good American citizens. We were also raised in a Christian home. Yes, we should welcome those who come legally and want to accept our culture instead of those who come to only take from us and not obey the law of the land. However, if we have the opportunity to witness to those who come illegally or legally it is our responsibility as believers to do so.
http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman

This article keeps talking about "Immigrants". I don't think anyone is concerned with "Immigrants" per'say. It is the invasion of "Illegal Immigrants" that most American citizens object to. Let's keep the terminology straight before we discuss the subject. If it is Legal Immigration, let's keep it there, and call it what it is. If the subject is Illegal Immigration, lets use that terminology, shall we? Remember. anyone who aids Illegals in this country is breaking a number of the Ten Commandments, and encouraging Illegals to commit sin. THOU SHALT NOT STEAL, THOU SHALT NOT COVET,just to name two.
- Liam
  
  Your post is so simple and yet so profound. It amazes me how poorly equiped the average American appears to be to discuss or debate an issue and remain on point and focused upon the real subject matter and the core of the issue. Very few Americans do not have their roots from immigrated ancestory, mine included and I personally do not know anyone who would despise or abuse a legal immigrant. "Illegal" is indeed the central issue. Thank you Watchman…
  - http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman
    
    Thank you, Liam!
blackhawk

Islam was NOT a religion during Jesus's time. Look at what they are doing in Europe . The U.S. is next .Soon they will have the population to elect THEIR KIND. It's a terrible thing to put your descendants through.
The Latino's ; Come here legally not in the dark of night with your murderous gangs .
- daves
  
  41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' 44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life”.
David

Immigration is not the issue – it's the ILLEGAL immigrants; that is the issue that needs to be resoleved. Want to live here? Then do it the correct and LEGAL way!
- Deep_Thinker
  
  Illegal, so if I want to bring a wife back from Ecuador, I have to get permission from my country first?
  - Evermyrtle
    
    Are you thinking of doing that??
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    Yes
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    Deep, your rights do not outweigh the rights of all other citizens.
    - myth buster
      
      Actually, the spouse of an American citizen is automatically granted permanent residency, which confers the right to enter and remain in the US in good behavior.
BOB

IMMIGRATION has down graded are MEDICAL SERVICE 30 FOLD more then anyone thing. ARE TAXES have went up10 fold, IT PUT A BURDEN ON THE HOUSING. Loss of jobs. SCHOOL ARE DOWN GRADED BECAUSE OF IT. PRESCRIPTION DRUGS have went up.
PTTA

First, I do not mind any nationality who comes to the United States to become a citizen. Second, I do not mind a part of my tax dollar going to helping people, medical aid, school aid, housing aid, but I really get up set when tat person is not a American.

God himself establishes borders, and gives that country it's allotted time. The Lord Jesus held up a coin, and asked the people who's face was on the coin, they replyed Ceasar, and the Lord Jesus told them, "Give Ceasar what is Ceasar's, give the Lord what is the Lord's ". In other words, obey the laws of the land or country you are in. Illegal immigration breaks our countries laws.
http://twitter.com/lambsev11 @lambsev11

To understand why immigration is such a sad issue, and only a symptom of greater social illness in our nation see: http://beyondpolitics101.blogspot.com/2012_01_19_…
Korean Vet Ray

Yes, Deep Thinker, that is the law, if one decides ti marry a forign national, there is protocall for getting permission for that forign national legally entering these United States. And that is as it should be.
Korean Vet Ray

Yes, and I might also add that there are, as has been quoted many places in the Bible telling is to treat well strangers among us. However, from
Genises 1:1 through Maps there is not a single, nada, zilch passage instructing a stranger or any one else that it is ok to violate any Nation's immigration or any other Laws.
Winston

We left a local church affiliated with the national leadership of the "Church of the Nazarene" because that body of leaders were pro-amnesty for illegal aliens. That ideology is anti-Constitution and anti-Rule of Law, so as a professed Christian how could a entire denomination outright slap the face of the Laws of government? It's an ungodly act and will be judged by God. The problem with Christianity today is that most professed believers have become "man-followers" and not followers of Jesus. They have falled for the lie of Nicolaitanism which Jesus said he hates.
aceituna

God has told us Let everything be done decent and in order. That should also be applied to immigration.
- Winston
  
  You err in your interpretation and application of Scripture. The specific you speak of deals "within the church", not outside the church in the world. The problem lies with a growing socialist culture in our nation and government leadership with their forgetting, or slamming aside, the Constitution and Rule of Law. So, has American fallen prey to socialists who now push a national acceptance of LAWLESSNESS? If so, then America is in the hands of Satan already.