LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2013, Page 364

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

364

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
I. Immigrant Neighbors Past and Present:
How Should Scripture Inform Attitudes Towards Immigrants Today?
When dealing with the narrow topic of illegal immigration, we must come
to terms with a basic problem of interpretation, namely, that Scripture does
not deal specifically with the narrow question of the church’s attitude towards
“illegal” or “undocumented” immigrants. Scripture deals with the church’s
basic attitude towards immigrants (aliens, sojourners, strangers) who live in
the midst of God’s people without qualifying its teachings on the basis of the
legal or illegal status of these immigrants. While this problem might puzzle
us at first, its recognition allows us, on the one hand, to avoid giving absolute
biblical answers to an issue Scripture does not address directly, and, on the
other, to appreciate fully the foundational biblical values that, as a starting
point, must inform the church’s actions among immigrants regardless of their
status in society.
Immigrants are, quite simply, neighbors. As neighbors, immigrants fall
under the law of God, which calls us to love our neighbor as ourselves. While
the Hebrew word Hebrew rea (‫ ) ֵרַע‬in God’s mandate to love the “neighbor”
applies first and most immediately to the people of Israel, the term also
ֵ‫ )גּ‬or
includes those outside of the covenant community—including the ger (‫)גּר‬
stranger.13
“When a stranger sojourns with you in the land, you shall not
do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with
you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself,
for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your
God” (Lev. 19:33-34, cf. Lev. 19:18, italics added).
This representative text offers the basic narrative and guide in the
Old Testament for a biblical consensus on God-pleasing attitudes towards
immigrants, aliens, or sojourners as “neighbors” whom we ought to love as
ourselves. The New Testament assumes the Old Testament teaching and values in this regard, highlighting the broader use of the term plesion (πλησίον) to
include relationships characterized by a concern for the well-being of those
who stand outside of the religious, cultic, political, and ethnic ties that bind the
people of Israel to one another (e.g., enemies, Samaritans).14
13
“According to Lev. 19:18 the command to love one’s neighbor applies unequivocally towards members of the covenant of Yahweh and not self-evidently towards all men. It is true...
that Lev. 19:34 also imposes an obligation towards the ger who dwells in the land (cf. Dt. 10:19),
and the same words are used in this connection as Lev. 19:18 uses [them] with reference to
Israelites…The commandment is thus given a decisive extension.” Johannes Fichtner, πλησíον,
in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [hereafter TDNT], vol. 6 (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 1968), 315.
14
In Mt. 22:39 and Mk. 12:31 (“You shall love your neighbor as yourself”), Jesus makes reference to Lev. 19:18. Making πλησίον a term that includes love of one’s enemies and persecutors (Mt. 5:43-48), or a Jew helped by an unlikely good Samaritan (Lk. 10:25-37), Jesus defines
“neighbor” more universally or in a way that transcends relationships among the people of

The Hebrew word ger can be translated in any number of ways: alien,
foreigner, immigrant, sojourner, or stranger.15 When looking at these texts and
their call to love the sojourner or alien, however, one must be careful not to
transfer to them a contemporary interpretation or read them in an anachronistic manner. A common approach to such scriptural texts today would tend
to argue that love for the immigrant neighbor in Scripture trumps important
concerns related to immigration law.16 It must be noted, however, that immigrants in Old Testament times did not live in our modern era of sovereign
nation-states where immigration of foreign nationals is arguably much more
regulated according to state law.17 While biblical mandates to love and welcome the stranger in our midst as our neighbor stand as God’s law, we cannot
ignore the demands that civil laws place upon citizens and immigrants alike in
the contemporary U.S. and international contexts. Moreover, we must affirm
the right of the state to establish laws and policies concerning a matter such
as immigration, including laws that limit immigration in various ways for the
protection and welfare of its citizens. Matters such as national security and
human trafficking, for example, are legitimate and necessary areas of governance, which seeks to restrain evil and promote good (Rom. 13:3-4).
It must also be acknowledged that in Old Testament times the law of God
governed both the spiritual and temporal affairs of the people of Israel. In such
a state of affairs, aliens were not ipso facto or automatically the recipients of the
spiritual and temporal benefits of God’s people. A more comprehensive look
Israel—seen as a people sharing either a common religion or a common political identity—in
order to include all kinds of neighbors who need our prayers and help. See Heinrich Greeven,
πλησίον, in TDNT, vol. 6 (1968), 316-317; Fichtner notes that, already in the choice of the Greek
Old Testament (Septuagint) to translate ‫ ֵרַע‬as πλησίον, we have the use of “a term so broad and
general, and which is not in any way restricted to the fellow-member of the covenant.” Ibid.,
315.
15

3:5.

See also Ex. 22:21, 23:9, Dt. 10:18-19, 24:14-15, 24:17-22, Ps. 146:9, Jer. 7:5-7, Zec. 7:8-10, Mal.

16

Amstutz and Meilaender argue that many high-profile public church statements on immigration, which stress love for the immigrant over against the concern for the rule of law,
typically do not deal adequately with “middle” level considerations such as “the purposes
of politics, relationships between insiders and outsiders, and the foundations of international
order.” Mark Amstutz and Peter Meilaender, “Public Policy & the Church: Spiritual Priorities,” The City (Spring 2011), 13. The authors offer as examples of a “one-sided” view the 2009
resolution on immigration issues of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), the 2003
joint pastoral letter issued by the Catholic Bishops of Mexico and the United States concerning
migration, and the 2009 social policy resolution of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
(ELCA) on immigration reform (pp. 4-5).
17
“Unlike either the world of Exodus and Leviticus, or that in which Joseph and Mary fled to
Egypt, the contemporary world consists of independent nation-states, recognized as sovereign
entities under modern international law, among whose sovereign rights (and duties) are to control the flow of persons across international borders and regulate the distribution of national
citizenship.” “Public Policy & the Church,” 8-9; Hoffmeier argues, on the other hand, that “nation states large and small in the biblical world were clearly delineated by borders and were
often defended by large forts and military outposts.” See James K. Hoffmeier, The Immigration
Crisis: Immigrants, Aliens, and the Bible (Wheaton, IL.: Crossway, 2009), 153. His argument is laid
out in the second chapter of his book (pp. 39-57).

11

12

at the use of ger in Deuteronomy shows a mixed picture concerning the relationship of sojourners to Israel. While the representative text from Leviticus
19:33-34 and other similar texts show God’s consistent call to Israel to love and
care for the strangers in their midst, other texts can be read as showing that not
all foreigners have the same status as Israelites.18

employment in the country. Moreover, a lawful permanent resident22 of the U.S.
is given the privilege to work and make a living in the land, but may not vote
in state and national elections or serve in juries. However, should we assume
that these distinctions made in our day and age between citizens and foreign
nationals ultimately find their biblical basis in Old Testament distinctions
between Israel and the strangers in their midst? Just as there is a danger in
using the Old Testament data anachronistically to argue for love of the stranger
without concern for civil law today, there is also a danger of using distinctions
between Israel and sojourners in the Old Testament to defend similar distinctions in immigration law and enforcement of borders today.

This state of affairs, where strangers are not full recipients of the temporal
benefits held by members of an established group, is due partly to the link
between kinship and the inheritance and ownership of land that characterized
Israelite and other Near Eastern societies—a network no longer available to
immigrants who moved to Israel and thus depended in part on the mercy of
God’s people.19 Yet another reason for not incorporating sojourners into the
temporal (and even spiritual) benefits of God’s people at times may simply lie
in the hardness of Israel’s heart towards vulnerable and disadvantaged neighbors even among their own people—a problem not unheard of in the history
of God’s people and one condemned in Scripture.20
Even by Old Testament standards, God’s call to Israel for welcoming and
loving the alien does not necessarily translate into equal temporal privileges
for the alien under the laws that govern the affairs of God’s people. Similarly,
lack of equal status is assumed in the present context of nation-states where
responsibilities towards citizens have a higher priority than those towards
foreign nationals.21 We know, for example, that a foreign national on a tourist
visa is allowed to visit the U.S. for a limited time, but may not seek gainful
18
See Luis R. Rivera Rodríguez for an example of an author who overstates the significance
of the biblical distinction in status between Israelites and foreigners. He views the laws of Deuteronomy as biased and harmful to the foreigner; “Immigration and the Bible: Comments by
a Diasporic Theologian,” Perspectivas: Occasional Papers 10 (2009): 23-36, especially 31. For a
more positive approach in general to Israel’s ways of dealing with sojourners in their midst,
compare the comment by M. Daniel Carroll R.: “Help for the needy had to occur at several
levels: individual families (giving rest on the Sabbath, including sojourners in celebrations),
the community (gleaning laws), workplaces of whatever kind (payment of wages), religious
centers (collecting the tithe), and at the city gate with the elders or other legal gatherings (fairness in legal matters).” See Christians at the Border: Immigration, the Church, and the Bible (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2008), 105.
19
“The challenge that sojourners—those immigrants or refugees who had moved to Israel—
faced when arriving in the land was that they had left behind their kinship network. As a result,
they were without the help that only an extended family could offer. As foreigners, they were
also excluded from the land tenure system. Sojourners, therefore, could be particularly vulnerable to the unexpected and sometimes harsh vicissitudes of life. Without land and kin, many
sojourners would be dependent on the Israelites for work, provision, and protection…. Apparently, a few became successful, but these seem to be the exception to the rule (Lev. 25:47).”
Christians at the Border, 103.
20
“The prophets thundered against those Israelites who did not accept responsibility to care
for these folk. It was a breach of their faith in the Lord, and he would not tolerate this disobedience (Jer. 22:3; Ezek. 22:7; Mal. 3:5; cf. Ps. 94:6). True religion was inseparable from an ethic of
charity toward the disadvantaged (Jer. 7:4-8; Zech. 7:8-10).” Christians at the Border, 103-104.
21
Mark Amstutz and Peter Meilaender argue that, in a representative democracy, the very
existence of immigration laws assumes “a preference for the interests of our fellow citizens over
those of outsiders”; “Public Policy & the Church,” The City 4 (2011): 8.

13

2013 Convention Workbook

Given the context of the New Testament era, where “Israel” refers to the
church and not to a particular political entity, we must be careful not to use
the temporal and political laws of Israel as “a” or “the” biblical blueprint for
defending or designing modern nation-state policies or laws.23 In the New Testament era, for instance, it is quite possible to speak of Christian immigrants
as belonging to spiritual “Israel,” and therefore, as our brothers and sisters in
Christ and as heirs of all the spiritual rights and benefits of being children of
God. At the same time, in terms of the temporal state today, we can acknowledge that these same immigrants may reside in the nation legally or illegally.
On the one hand, as spiritual Israel, Christian immigrants participate in all the
spiritual blessings of God’s people through faith in Christ. At the same time,
one can admit that under the temporal state and its laws these same brothers
and sisters do not share with Christian citizens of the state the same temporal
rights and privileges under the civil law in every case.24
As stated above, when using biblical mandates in the church to love and
welcome the stranger, we cannot ignore the distinction between spiritual and
temporal realms. It is also the case that, in drawing distinctions between Israel
and sojourners, the Old Testament does not offer binding positions or policies on immigration law broadly speaking or “illegal” immigration narrowly
speaking. Some approaches to the scriptural texts dealing with immigrants
might attempt to use the biblical data to defend or justify particular forms of

22

See Appendix II for a legal definition of this term.

23
For a representative example of a discussion concerning Old Testament Israel as a type of
Jesus (New Israel reduced to one) and the Christian church (New Israel through faith in Christ),
as well as of the spiritual (and thus non-temporal) nature of the church in the New Testament,
see CTCR, The “End Times”: A Study on Eschatology and Millennialism (1989), 13-17; online in English and Spanish at http://www.lcms.org/page.aspx?pid=683.
24
Drawing on the distinction between the two kingdoms, Amstutz and Meilaender offer examples where biblical ethics and state policies are not synonymous: “All persons, for example, bear
the image of God and therefore possess equal and innate human dignity. But this equal dignity
does not automatically create membership entitlements. The colleges where we teach admit only
some students out of a large pool of applicants. A person may wish to work for a particular company, but the decision on whether to offer him a job rests with the employer, not the applicant.
Membership in states is carefully regulated, requiring passports, visas, and other documentation before an alien may cross national borders” (“Public Policy & the Church,” 11-12).

14