Really appreciate the way you direct attention to how Harrison's letter suggests that belonging to the body of Christ is contingent on correct legal status.
Harrison apparently interprets “Render unto Caesar” to include human beings. It neatly exemplifies what Christian Nationalism does to people’s theology.
I don't think this is a bad response at all. We are called to obey the land and still not consider ourselves citizens of this world so it's definitely a needle to thread. I do feel like there has been a subversion of churches to serving political goals on the other end. I think we do need a better Christian response overall to illegal immigrants. One thing I think would help is Right of Sanctuary but to have that we have to be seen as an important and natural institution in our own right. That definitely involves having a good response to these issues. I think maybe viewing ourselves as engaged with helping the poor (in Christ) but not helping any specific poor is a good mindset. In that case we don't become committed to transitory political movements. If we have more connections between churches we can engage in helping illegal immigrants whatever their state is, even across borders.
Are you under the impression that Lutheran churches and charities specifically and exclusively serve undocumented immigrants? If so, let me tell you that it's not true. First of all, most of the line items identified by Flynn and Musk have nothing to do with immigrants particularly at all, but concern senior housing, foster care, and other social services. Second, church-related charities have neither the capacity nor the role of checking every single person's immigration status. People are welcomed and served *as people* without reference to their status either way. That's what Jesus did and that's what he commanded us to do.
Yes, exactly. I agree with all that. I guess I was referencing Christianity in general as a piggyback to your points. I do see the references where some churches specifically help people based on their political goals (instead of being destitute, poor or even brothers). I haven't really met a church that I'd say was not Christian but I've seen churches say they are pro this, that or the other and the second they do that, I feel like they cease to view the poor and destitute as that or brothers and instead as political weapons. Keep in mind, I'm not talking about Lutherans consciously at all. My experience with Lutherans is as them being conservatives.
Edit: I will say some of those churches I'm referencing don't have a deep enough theology to ever get Right of Sanctuary. A lot really tie some of their theological views to political ones.
I am deeply sympathetic to your argument, but I am curious how you would respond to the objection, “Illegal immigrants are living in impenitent disobedience to the governing authorities in violation of Romans 13, and therefore cannot be considered Christians.”
Thanks for the comment. I don't think that's a very serious argument at all. First, Paul is not a giver of divine positive law. Moses is a lawgiver, Jesus is a lawgiver (though this is disputed by some Confessional Protestants), but neither Paul nor any other apostle has the power to create a new sin. He interprets, he exhorts, he counsels, but his authority is not sufficient on its own to establish that something is a sin.
Second, even if Paul were granted an authority equal to that of Moses or Jesus, it would be an absurd reading of Romans 13 to say that all human civil law, by any governing authority, is automatically incorporated into divine law. Paul himself didn't act as though he believed this. And certainly American evangelicals, who were all excited about a "Bonhoeffer moment" until noon on January 20, 2025, don't believe this.
Third, even if Paul can make a law and even if that law can be read as incorporating all human laws without remainder, it is still not the case that a person who sins--even habitually--is not a Christian. This is obviously true of, say, someone who habitually violates the speed limit. But it is even true of, for example, the Catholic understanding of people in invalid second marriages. On this view they are erring and their sins prevent them from receiving the Sacrament, but that doesn't make them not Christians. To say that only people in a state of grace are Christians is itself a rather serious heresy.
In any case, this is an argument that popped up in the last few weeks and is reflected nowhere I know of in Christian thought. It's a rationalization.
Really appreciate the way you direct attention to how Harrison's letter suggests that belonging to the body of Christ is contingent on correct legal status.
Harrison apparently interprets “Render unto Caesar” to include human beings. It neatly exemplifies what Christian Nationalism does to people’s theology.
Could you please please please post your list of American Church Power Rankings???? Imagine the comments section!
Honestly I’m struggling with the tone. It’s half serious, half jokey. Doesn’t work as it stands. But I won’t give up!
“The serpent did beguile that other ecclesial branch, and they did eat.” Christians really need to work on their fraternal care.
Amen!
I don't think this is a bad response at all. We are called to obey the land and still not consider ourselves citizens of this world so it's definitely a needle to thread. I do feel like there has been a subversion of churches to serving political goals on the other end. I think we do need a better Christian response overall to illegal immigrants. One thing I think would help is Right of Sanctuary but to have that we have to be seen as an important and natural institution in our own right. That definitely involves having a good response to these issues. I think maybe viewing ourselves as engaged with helping the poor (in Christ) but not helping any specific poor is a good mindset. In that case we don't become committed to transitory political movements. If we have more connections between churches we can engage in helping illegal immigrants whatever their state is, even across borders.
Are you under the impression that Lutheran churches and charities specifically and exclusively serve undocumented immigrants? If so, let me tell you that it's not true. First of all, most of the line items identified by Flynn and Musk have nothing to do with immigrants particularly at all, but concern senior housing, foster care, and other social services. Second, church-related charities have neither the capacity nor the role of checking every single person's immigration status. People are welcomed and served *as people* without reference to their status either way. That's what Jesus did and that's what he commanded us to do.
Yes, exactly. I agree with all that. I guess I was referencing Christianity in general as a piggyback to your points. I do see the references where some churches specifically help people based on their political goals (instead of being destitute, poor or even brothers). I haven't really met a church that I'd say was not Christian but I've seen churches say they are pro this, that or the other and the second they do that, I feel like they cease to view the poor and destitute as that or brothers and instead as political weapons. Keep in mind, I'm not talking about Lutherans consciously at all. My experience with Lutherans is as them being conservatives.
Edit: I will say some of those churches I'm referencing don't have a deep enough theology to ever get Right of Sanctuary. A lot really tie some of their theological views to political ones.
I am deeply sympathetic to your argument, but I am curious how you would respond to the objection, “Illegal immigrants are living in impenitent disobedience to the governing authorities in violation of Romans 13, and therefore cannot be considered Christians.”
That's the standard argument I've heard.
Thanks for the comment. I don't think that's a very serious argument at all. First, Paul is not a giver of divine positive law. Moses is a lawgiver, Jesus is a lawgiver (though this is disputed by some Confessional Protestants), but neither Paul nor any other apostle has the power to create a new sin. He interprets, he exhorts, he counsels, but his authority is not sufficient on its own to establish that something is a sin.
Second, even if Paul were granted an authority equal to that of Moses or Jesus, it would be an absurd reading of Romans 13 to say that all human civil law, by any governing authority, is automatically incorporated into divine law. Paul himself didn't act as though he believed this. And certainly American evangelicals, who were all excited about a "Bonhoeffer moment" until noon on January 20, 2025, don't believe this.
Third, even if Paul can make a law and even if that law can be read as incorporating all human laws without remainder, it is still not the case that a person who sins--even habitually--is not a Christian. This is obviously true of, say, someone who habitually violates the speed limit. But it is even true of, for example, the Catholic understanding of people in invalid second marriages. On this view they are erring and their sins prevent them from receiving the Sacrament, but that doesn't make them not Christians. To say that only people in a state of grace are Christians is itself a rather serious heresy.
In any case, this is an argument that popped up in the last few weeks and is reflected nowhere I know of in Christian thought. It's a rationalization.
Thanks for the response. As a confessional Lutheran, I think your second point is most convincing, but I'll think on this more.