On February 1-3, over 100 United Methodist activists and church leaders gathered in Lake Junaluska, North Carolina for a conference entitled “Our Call to Hospitality: A Biblical Response to the Challenges of Immigration.” The Conference was sponsored by the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society (GBCS) and the leadership of the Southeastern Jurisdiction, where most of the conference participants live.
The conference urged more liberal U.S. immigration policies as an imperative for Christian faith.
According to the Rev. Dr. Eliezer Valentín-Castañón of the United Methodist General Commission on Religion and Race, “What we’re seeing today is a continuation of the same racist policies” as the explicit discrimination in the nation’s earliest immigration laws. GBCS staffer Bill Mefford complained that allegedly massive amounts of money were being expended by “the anti-immigrant forces,” such as NumbersUSA and the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
Mefford complained about the immigration reform proposal passed by the U.S. Senate last year—which included an earned legalization path for illegal immigrants, the establishment of a guest worker program, and the building of hundreds of miles of fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border. It was “not a good bill” because it did not offer citizenship to all illegal immigrants. But Mefford thought it was preferable to alternative legislation that more strongly emphasized law enforcement.
In his sermon, the Rev. Clark Jenkins declared: “It’s appalling to me how we celebrated the fall of the Wall between East and West Berlin,” but now Americans have proposed their own border fencing. This provoked thunderous applause from the conference participants, who apparently saw little difference between the two.
At times some of the speakers found it relevant to delve into broader political themes. Several strongly criticized such free trade agreements as NAFTA and CAFTA. Jenkins also invoked his opposition to the Iraq war, demanded the dismantling of “the wall between the Israelis and the Palestinians,” and appeared to defend former President Jimmy Carter’s recent equation of Israeli policies with South African apartheid.
Bishop Hee-Soo Jung of Chicago, himself a Korean immigrant, complained: “The hypocrisy of this nation’s (and Europe’s) system of undocumented labor requires us to speak truth to power: It is the economic exploitation and domination of the third world by the U.S. and Europe, and the history of colonialism, which has caused immigrants to come to the United States. It is not simply an American dream.”
Supporters of more conservative immigration policies were described as espousing “so much demagoguery” and “vitriolic” immigrant-bashing (by GBCS staffer Clayton Childers), promoting “nativist fear-mongering” and even “violent rhetoric” (by Bishop Timothy Whitaker of Florida), and being driven by “race hatred and protection of white sin privilege” (by Bishop Jung).
Referring to illegal immigrants as “the undocumented sojourner,” Bishop Jung described the sinister forces that advocate stricter immigration policies: “First the force that advocates homeland security (out of fear); Secondly the force advocating cultural purity (out of racism); and finally the force advocating continued availability of cheap labor (out of greed).” The Chicago bishop added that “Immigrant wages must be fair and not undercut wages of citizens.”
At a couple of points, Mefford acknowledged that there are legitimate concerns about immigration, such as “how does it impact low-income communities.” At another point, he cautioned against simply labeling “the other side” as simply “racist,” as “that’s not helpful.” But he insisted that “there’s xenophobia bubbling under the surface” of opposition to liberalized immigration policies.
In her plenary speech describing the Bible as “the ultimate immigration handbook,” ordained United Methodist minister and the Director of the York County (PA) Council of Churches Dr. Joan Maruskin listed Mohammed, the Buddha, and Gandhi as among “the great spiritual leaders of history” while pointing out that they were migrants. At one point she noted that not everybody believes in the Trinity, and asked, “does it make you not a Christian if you don’t believe in the Trinity?” This oddly provoked a chorus of “No’s” from conference participants.
In a panel discussion with Bishop Jung, Bishop Whitaker responded by defending the Trinity as “a very important doctrine for the church” and “what we as Christians uniquely bring.” As for the conference theme, he said that the church’s ethic of hospitality was ultimately grounded in the teaching that humanity is “created in the image of a relational God.”
Bishop Whitaker reported that he came to this gathering because Florida has a large immigrant population and he has had some of his church members deported with their children being left behind. In his opening sermon, he explained that the church was a distinct community that “bears witness to Christ in all things.” Throughout its history, “the church has born witness to Christ through offering hospitality,” and the U.S. church “can do nothing less” in the response to their immigrant neighbors. Whitaker contrasted this approach to those who “don’t respond as we must as Christians” and see immigrants as a threat to their language, culture, race, or class. The bishop said these people center their identity on such things rather than on Christ.
Whitaker argued that the church needed to speak publicly from its experience in “get[ting] to know immigrants and see[ing] how laws affect their lives.” He listed four specific things that should compose the church’s public voice on U.S. immigration issues: reminding Americans that “we are a nation of immigrants”; calling for legalization—rather than “foolish” mass deportation—for people “who are here illegally” and “who are good neighbors”; “demand[ing] justice” from “those who employ immigrants”; and lobbying the U.S. federal government to work with leaders of Mexico and other countries in order to create better economic conditions there so that “they wouldn’t have to move here.”
In the panel discussion, Whitaker said that while “we can’t help but be aware of the political dimensions” of immigration, “the church does not claim any expertise at the legislative level.” “The church’s enduring role” is in shaping a society’s underlying values, he said.
At various points, Bishop Jung referred to his experience with Elvira Arellano, who joined a Chicago church when she was arrested for immigration violations. That church offered “sanctuary” to her and her U.S.-born son. She then publicly warned immigration officials that if they attempted to remove her from the church, “they won’t be dealing with me” but “with the wrath of God.” Amidst the height of the controversy, Bishop Jung released a statement defending Arellano’s defiance of immigration officials as a stand of “civil disobedience.”
Responding to a question about respect for the law, Jung said that he did not think that the church could “endorse” Arellano’s violation of the law. But he still stressed that the church is governed “by a higher law than human law.” Jung characterized his response to her as simply being a “pastor to this lay leader” while her church “stood with her” after careful reflection.
In response to a similar question, Bishop Whitaker said that “of course” national governments have the right and responsibility to maintain an orderly society and economy and enforce “legal borders,” which he had elsewhere said must be “workable.” He affirmed that immigration policymakers could not simply say “anyone can come here without any kind of screening,” as “then you would have chaos and anarchy.” Whitaker added that the church needed to respond to the “unhelpful attitudes towards people who are turning out to be good neighbors.”
When asked how church people could remain hospitable to each other amid differing political opinions, Bishop Jung responded: “I don’t think that unanimity is possible.” However, “with hospitality” he said that he was “not trying to mold all into one” but simply heed “what God calls us to.” He stressed that he did not see his involvement in immigration as “a political issue” but rather “a faith issue” on which he hope to see the church become united.
In response to the same question, Bishop Whitaker affirmed that “as Christians, we are called to be hospitable to each other” and “need to make every effort to be civil” and to “fairly represent each other.” He went on to volunteer that on the “important issue” of abortion, “I stand against the [United Methodist] Church’s compromised position, in conformity with the historic Christian position.” He said that it was important to avoid “shouting at each other, even though lives are at stake, as they are” in debates over abortion.
Rev. Eliseo Mejia was asked how he thought church leaders should respond to a conflict between a church member’s violating immigration laws and the biblical call for submission to civil laws. He admitted he had “wrestled with that” same question. As leader for Hispanic Church Development in the Kentucky Conference, he knew of numerous individuals who, after spiritual growth in a church home, felt strongly convicted about breaking immigration laws and moved back to their home country.
According to Mejia, the “Latino population is going to fuel the growth of our denomination; otherwise, we are going to die.” But Bishop Whitaker acknowledged that the United Methodist Church remains 93 percent Anglo in the U.S..
No comments yet
Leave a Reply