I had a couple of follow-up thoughts to my earlier post, Immigration: The Hidden Underbelly.
And they center around some thoughts on the idea of allegiance. I fear that in most conversations about immigration that both sides (at least the people of God) get lost in thinking and seeing things through a purely American, national, and patriotic lens.
In response to immigration, our responsibility as Americans (specific, national, local) may be to close our borders to illegal immigrants. But as compassionate, concerned members of the kingdom of God (embracing, global) where does our responsibility lay?
As members of the kingdom of God we are not defined by borders and flags . . . imaginary lines on pieces of paper . . . concrete walls separating the same dirt and air. We are defined by a cross.
As members of the kingdom of God, this is not our home, prompting Hauerwas to call us resident aliens and for Derek Webb to sing, “My first allegiance is not to a flag, a country, or a man. My first allegiance is not to democracy or blood. It’s to a king & a kingdom.” And as the writer of Hebrews says, “This is not our home. The insider world is not our home.”
As members of the kingdom of God we can not approach immigration from a purely American perspective. Obviously, illegal immigration is not in the best interest of us as individual people or as a individual nation.
As members of the kingdom of God we have to approach immigration as members of a community and family that is larger than America. As members of the kingdom of God we are to wrestle with the kind of broad reform that makes immigrating to another country and unnecessary.
As members of the kingdom of God we can not fight to close our borders to those who do not belong when our call as members of the God’s family is to open our arms to those who do not belong.
As members of the kingdom of God talk of turning desperate, hopeless, poor, and hurting people away is difficult to reconcile with the words and actions of Jesus.
As members of the kingdom of God nationalism and patriotism are irrelevant terms to us. They make little sense unless they are framed in the larger story of diversity in the global community of nations.
This is why I’m so frustrated with the current conversations about immigration coming from those who are pushing hardest for reform. As I said yesterday, we need distance and a consistent ethic in our positions. And we need to approach the conversation as compassionate, concerned members of the kingdom of God as opposed to staunch proponents of the flag that happens to be sticking into a particular point on this rock floating through space.
For some larger context, although I’m about 7 months late in posting this link, Aaron Monts has a great post that he wrote back in June of last year on the differences between nationalism and patriotism. You definitely need to read his distinctions.
on 
on 
on 
on 
on
14 Comments
As usual… a couple of points to make.
America is a very new, unique governmental implementation. Before America, government and religion were nearly always mixed. This was not true with Christianity for the first 300 years, but that changed until America was founded upon religious freedom.
Paul made use of his status as a Roman citizen. He didn’t renounce his citizenship. I think there is an appropriate balance to be made here.
I do think the distinction between nationalism and patriotism is important. Another thing to consider, though, is that the more the government’s job is to take care of you (the direction of modern liberalism towards a more socialistic society), the more people will really want to keep “them” out. For example, if you do something like guarantee health care to everyone, it encourages more immigrants and creates a huge drag on that kind of entitlement, greatly increasing the cost, reducing the quality, or more like both. We are already seeing problems of this nature because of illegal immigration, and much of the reaction against illegal immigration is related to this.
To put it another way, the bigger and more intrusive the government, the more the government will depend upon nationalism, instead of just patriotism, for support and sustainability.
Finally, until Christ returns, God has appointed human governments and human leaders. He will use one to punish the other. And it is the only means upon which we have to secure our fundamental, God-given rights. So I’m not so quick to toss out arbitrary things like borders. They’re here for a reason.
while I agree that the Church, the Kingdom of God, is all those things, we will be sorely disappointed if ever we require a worldly kingdom to abide by kingdom principles (american or not … and I don’t hear the GLOBAL kingdom of God requiring open borders of North Korea or China or a host of other nations … often the same people who criticize American border issues make excuses for despots like in Venezuela and Cuba).
No worldly government is capable of living up to the standards unique to the Body of Christ, and while it sounds noble to do so, Peter, Paul, James, John, nor Jesus ever expected a worldly government to ever have those characteristics.
In other words, I have no problem with a people of God corporately unconcerned with borders or background or socio-economic status or whatever distinction we choose to make. But it is supremely unwise to expect a kingdom of this world to act like the Kingdom of the Next One. They live by different rules and powers.
Peace.
britt. fair enough. i’m not expecting republicans or democrats to model the kingdom of god in their politics. although i think it wise for the community of god to be engaged in a political level.
but let’s be honest now, at least half of the republican party these days is made up of evangelicals. or those who claim a religious affiliation with christianity.
at what point do we move past our allegiance to a nation and begin to discover our allegiance to a kingdom? and what does that look like.
To put it another way, the bigger and more intrusive the government, the more the government will depend upon nationalism, instead of just patriotism, for support and sustainability.
i think i can be on board with this. but i guess my larger question is how come most of the conversation coming out of the church on immigration is relegated to a purely nationalistic posture and not one of the kingdom? that is the larger question i’m concerned with.
Josh, beautifully expressed. As pointed out, putting into practice a balanced approach that is practical considering what we are working with is complicated, but you are on the money holding accountable those who claim an evangelical identity, yet promote harsh treatment of illegal immigrants in a nationalistic, self-protective manner that is all guns and testosterone and grunts about God bless America with very little of the compassion for the Other which marked Jesus’ ministry, or the meekness that Christ said would inherit the earth.
Another aspect is messed up legal immigration quotas, which make it impossible for many good, often educated people to come to America if they are not from the right part of the map.
My husband has a good friend from Nepal who is upstanding, educated and employed. He has been trying to come to America for years and his Visa has been consistently denied.
A friend from Seminary who is the wife of a major Bishop in Botswana could only a get a two-year student visa, making it impossible for her to participate in an Mdiv program.
What of the nobodies who have an American Dream?
Derek said, Paul made use of his status as a Roman citizen. He didn’t renounce his citizenship. I think there is an appropriate balance to be made here.
It looks like Josh said that, and wisely so, I think;
“As members of the kingdom of God nationalism and patriotism are irrelevant terms to us. They make little sense unless they are framed in the larger story of diversity in the global community of nations.”
I agree with Josh that this talk of citizenship only makes sense in the larger context of the world; it has value in us talking about our U.S. citizenship, but only in a limited way. And I think the apostle Paul was right on board with that. He used the benefits of his Roman citizenship while ultimately dying because of his commitment to the kingdom of God above and beyond his Roman citizenship. Again, it only makes sense as a lesser commitment, far behind our “first allegiance,” as Derek Webb has said so well.
Finally, until Christ returns, God has appointed human governments and human leaders. He will use one to punish the other. And it is the only means upon which we have to secure our fundamental, God-given rights.
Really, Derek. That’s the only means that secures your fundamental, God-given rights? How about God himself, irregardless of whether we live under a despotic psychopathic tyrant or utopia. Nobody secures our rights but God himself. Our only role is to be faithful in the life he has given us.
And Britt, I used to be in the place you’re at, but I’m not quite there any more. The boundaries and lifestyle of the kingdom of God only make sense as the ultimate purpose of the whole world. We’ve been created to live in a way that causes us to beat our swords into plowshares and takes care of “the alien within our gates.” All humans. And the citizens of the kingdom are to live and love in such a compelling way that others recognize it’s the reason for their lives too. Which it is.
So I don’t see the distinction as much as I used to. And I’m not sure God’s gone and tossed this world of his in the toilet and consigned it the fate of destruction. He created it, called it good, and gave it to us to take care of. Faithfulness is about whole relationship with God, with ourselves, with others, and with the world. God doesn’t settle for any less. We shouldn’t either. All human beings.
The instinct to nationalism, or patriotism, or, come to that, outright racism, is incredibly deep-seated. It comes up over and over again: even in loyalty to our tribe, to our own kith and kin, maybe. Wanting to protect one’s own family seems just and right … but by the time it reaches the level of “people like us” against “people like them” it is clearly a distortion of the image of God in us, isn’t it?
I can’t really speak to the American immigration debate, not knowing enough about it. We have our own version over on this side of the pond. I’m torn, on the one hand by the total lack of compassion from some, and a naive kindness from others. Neither quite seems to address the problem, though instinct tends to side with the latter.
For example, people have been known to risk their lives by stowing away in refrigerated trucks, or by clinging to the underside of a train, in order to get into the UK. Those are signs of desperation: how can anyone simply dismiss them as “economic migrants who don’t belong here”?
Conversely, many attempts to deport people are met with howls of protest from those who know them: “she may have been here illegally, but she’s a really nice person, and has become part of our community”. As soon as you go from the abstract to the individual, all rational argument goes out of the window — but every immigrant is an individual!
In a globally-connected world, where many people *can* move freely, this issue is going to continue to develop.
Here is my germ of hope: within the European Union, we have free movement of people. Anyone can move to any other country and get a job (or even live on welfare for a while, looking for a job). I *think* that is slowly dissolving the mistrust of the foreigner; that many are starting to conceive of themselves as Europeans, rather than British, or German, or Polish. That may be naive optimism on my part. Moreover, though, there is really little sense of nationalism or patriotism for “Europe” as an entity, so there is some prospect of this becoming an ever-wider, more embracing community of peoples.
Andrew,
Well thought out point you made, cheers to you for that.
The only question I would ask you would be about the “Europeans” rather than British, German, or Polish. I agree that there is not a strong sense of nationalism or patriotism amongst Europeans when comparing them to the U.S. or some other hyper patriotic country. But dont you think that as more countries in Europe are joined up with the EU that the potential for a marked increase in EU pride could be seen?
In the future people may not focus as much on what country they are from as much as what union they belong to.
john,
very nicely expressed. as a political scientist and former congressional staffer and also follower of Jesus i exist in this weird tension between valuing and desiring to pursue the marks of the Reign of God, while also being realistic about the responsibilities of an entity like a government to its own citizens and State; while I am an idealist and long for God’s Reign to permeate all strata of Empire America, I’m also a realist who says 1) that’s not entirely going to happen because the values are pitted against each other and 2) individuals States (as in nation-states) are God provided institutions to maintain order and protect it’s citizens from threats within (crime policy) and from outside (foreign policy) and have the right to set policy to make that happen.
I’m sure I think I’ve read you say else where that this discussion is incredibly nuanced, so I know you know that. the hard part is not reducing such a nuanced conversation to setting two value systems and roles over against each other, to not try and bring complete reconciliation between an apple and a hamburger who function very differently
anyway, thanks for tackling such a big beast. for me it heightened the sense of tension, but I guess I can live with that!
-jeremy
oh wait…I meant JOSH!!!! doh! of course that happens on my first post…grrr
Josh, Dropping a line to say that I’ve enjoyed acquainting myself with your blog. Subscribed to it. Look forward to reading more.
I was brought almost to the point of tears at the articulation here – it was as if my heart had words finally for what I feel.
If we are not first members of Gods kingdom and governed by His indwelling spirit, then we are nothing. On so many other levels these things can be fought out – but for those who kingdom minded – how can it be less than open arms?
Utter arrogance to claim that anything is ours to truly govern. I don’t know what the answers are – but the “protecting what is ours” when it came only by the grace of God is a foreign concept to me.
Must *snicker* and tease previous commenter who called you “john” – a post about immigration and josh brown being changed to john brown – having lived in Harpers Ferry, WV resonating with the name of the infamous abolotionist John Brown –
interesting faux pas!
thanks eugene. i love your site as well.
jewls. i’d be lucky to be mistaken for john brown. and i agree, if god doesn’t create in us a desire for open arms, then we are severely missing the point.
andrew. well said man. well said.
and jeremy. i’m with you. it’s definitely nuanced. and not as simple or as binary as i make it out to be. i wish the answers were easy. sometimes i think they would be really easy if it wasn’t for that pesky jesus. but here’s to living in that tension and figuring it out. even when it means jesus messes things up for me.
2 Trackbacks
[...] Richard Hoffer made a good point, one good enough to post. It’s a call to consistency like Mr. Josh Brown’s a couple of days [...]
[...] Josh Brown tackles our wayward patriotism. [...]