In this article from the Christian Post, several prominent, conservative Evangelicals have recently pressed for new immigration reform, citing from the Bible that we ought to be “welcoming the stranger.” Leith Anderson, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, has persistently urged the U.S. government to present new immigration reform this year, criticizing that current laws tend to break up families during the immigration process. Anderson urged Evangelicals as well to immerse themselves in the immigration debate because “those people we talk about, those immigrants, those aliens, they are us as part of the church.”
What was striking about this particular article is that we rarely see Evangelicals in this light. The Evangelicals in this article break from the “us versus them” mold of James Morone's Hellfire Nation that usually pervades their attitude, especially in regard to issues such as stem cell research, abortion, and same-sex marriage. But with Anderson there was no call to arms, nor any of the rabble rousing rhetoric that often accompanied a debate. In contrast to the “us versus them” mentality that has been so pervasive in their characterization, the Evangelicals in this article actually contend that “immigrants are not the 'others' … they are 'us.'”
Leith Anderson's views by no means encompass the popular Evangelical attitude toward immigration; in a poll conducted in 2006 by the Pew Research Center, about 63% of the Evangelicals polled believed immigrants were a “threat to American customs and values.” While the attention inevitably centers on the more noticeable and inflammatory figures who are commonly associated with this “us versus them” rhetoric, it is important not to lose track of a more holistic view of the Evangelical community, which includes figures such as Anderson who emphasize a dialogue that promotes inclusion rather than exclusion.
Posts
4 comments:
I really liked David’s point that we need to make sure to pay attention to the entire evangelical community, and not just the members who are outspoken and inflammatory. The evangelical argument in favor of immigration certainly makes sense from a religious perspective, and is an important one to consider in the midst of all the groups who are arguing against immigration reform. I can see much more of a Christian position in those who argue for welcoming immigrants and keeping them from losing their families than in those who claim that immigration is destroying American values; isn’t America a nation founded on immigrants and the concept of a “melting pot”? I think David’s post is also valuable to evangelicals, because it reminds us that members of this community are not always the rabble-rousing figures we see on the news and television.
David makes a very good point about the need to recognize the variety of opinion even within one fairly cohesive movement. The Religious Right is often viewed as farther right than it is religious—in other words, their conservative policies often color our view of them before we can consider that they are a Christian group, and, as such, consist in some part of people who are pacific and charitable.
That being said, it would be a mistake to ignore reality. The R. Right is easy to caricature and pillory for a reason: many of its members take reactionary stands and hold them well past the historical time for such views is over. I think David does a good job conveying this reality, particularly in light of the 63% polled who think immigration is, above all, a threat.
The concept of immigration is a loaded one for Christians, and for a group operating under the auspices of evangelism not to think very hard before condemning immigration is irresponsible. Voyages are iconic in Christian literature, and the warm reception of travelers is also considered an important charity to maintain. Leith Anderson seems to get that, but the rest of the movement has a harder time swallowing it.
As Tanya noted, television and the news tends to establish a more narrow and confined narrative of Evangelicals. Nowadays, the term “religious right” comes with a loaded image, and it is all too easy to characterize them as a singular, homogeneous entity. As David notes, while the religious right seems to be quite a cohesive movement, we cannot push our general perception of the religious right so much into the foreground that we remove the other members of the Evangelical community from the background.
I believe that this is a wise decision on the part of the Evangelical community. The current debate over immigration is a human rights issue, with thousands of people dying over the course of a given year tying to come to the United States. Furthermore, the people who do make it into the U.S. are treated as second class citizens, receiving jobs that pay less than a living wage and loosing their rights to complain about poor working conditions to the authorities. The Christian thing to do is to ensure that every human being is safe and healthy, which means working for immigration reform and helping people safely and legally enter the United States.
Post a Comment