By David Snoke
MK: We hadn’t scheduled blog posts for Sundays, but in the flurry of activity this week we ended up with an extra post – so we are slotting it in as a “special Sunday edition.” This post addresses the challenges of migratory movements by looking at a classic American novel (and movie), “The Grapes of Wrath.” While the people movements in the story are not strictly “immigration” – the characters are all Americans – it provides a window into the dynamics we have been exploring. The story is a work of fiction, but it reflects real historical events in our country. Sometimes, fiction can offer a window into real world problems. John Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath is one of the great novels of all time, and also one of the great novels of migration and social justice. It tells the story of poor Scotch-Irish farmers from Oklahoma (“Okies”) who migrated westward to California in the 1930s. The mass influx of these people created a social disaster for several years, as wages were extremely depressed, jobs were hard to find, and a wave of starvation and homelessness followed. A main theme is how the family structure that could support people through hard times can be scattered to the wind by the overwhelming pressures of migration. Steinbeck, a socialist, partly used the story to argue for government social services. The people of California are not especially welcoming of the Okies, and don’t take responsibility to help them. A high point of the story occurs when the main characters, the Joads, find an efficiently run government project to help them. This may seems somewhat quaint to modern eyes, but it addresses a real issue, namely what to do when private charity isn’t sufficient. Another theme is the existence of social evils, forces that make it hard for any one person to do what is right. The main social evil in the story starts when farmers in California advertised widely in Oklahoma to attract workers for their fields. Pressed by natural disaster in their home land (the “dustbowl”), the Okies migrated in great numbers. By the economic law of supply and demand, this suppressed the wages in California drastically. Steinbeck makes it clear that part of the social injustice comes from the farmers in California being happy about the vast number of immigrants suppressing the wages. They had incentives to encourage the migration of the Okies, as it gives them cheap labor. What can we apply from this book for today? On one hand, it seems clear that the role of the church and the individual in California at that time was to help the immigrant Okies as much as possible. To allow them to die in the streets and fields, as Steinbeck portrays, is heartless. On the other hand, we could also take a step back to question the structural aspects of the situation. How do we address the incentives that businesses have to attract cheap labor and suppress wages? Were there alternatives to the situation that played out in the Grapes of Wrath? Would a more just society have worked to improve conditions in Oklahoma, rather than encourage the breakup of families and cultural structures that so often occurs in precipitate migrations? Steinbeck’s novel, remote from our present lines of argument, may help us with a different perspective. By Rev. Matt Koerber
For this post, I interviewed two pastor friends in Pittsburgh. Jon Price and Alejandro (Alex) Martinez are pastors at Covenant Community Church (PCA) in Pittsburgh. In addition to being pastors, they are also family – Alex married Jon’s sister, which led to their friendship. Their church has a vibrant ministry to Hispanics in the Northwestern Pittsburgh suburb of Cranberry. This ministry provides a window into a the little known (but rapidly increasing) world of Hispanic immigration in Pittsburgh. Alex recently completed seminary and pastoral training. He will be ordained as a minister this coming Sunday evening. I recently conducted a phone interview with them and was thankful for their many insights. I opened the conversation by giving them both some background to the blog and then I asked Alex how long he has been in Pittsburgh and how he came to work at Covenant Community. AM: I have been here for almost 5 years. I grew up in Mexico City, but had a scholarship to study in Texas for high school. I returned to finish my college degree in Mexico and met some missionaries who were working for MTW (Mission to the World, the PCA sending agency). I worked with them helping with ministry, and when a good friend moved to Guadalajara they asked me to join them as a liaison to the Hispanic community. We helped to start a nonprofit organization addressing poverty in the community. This included medical care and literacy classes. Praise God, we helped to establish a church and a daycare and kindergarten were also formed. Alex’s trajectory began to change when his missions team hosted a group from Covenant Seminary. The future dean of Covenant, Mark Dalby, met Alex and recruited him to study at Covenant Seminary – they even had Alex live in their home. Alex was interested in ministry and after two years, he moved to Virginia for a ministry position. It was there that he married Jon’s sister and through that connection became aware of a job opening in Pittsburgh. I asked Jon how this came to happen. JP: I was driving around Cranberry one day and I took a different route, passing through a neighborhood that I didn’t normally see. I noticed 5-6 Hispanic families outside the house as their kids came home from school. This coincided with another visit to a local park where I stopped and watched a very serious soccer game of all Hispanic players. It dawned on me that there were these families and people in our community that I hadn’t noticed before. At the time, we had two part-time ministry positions in our church – Alex came to mind and the church was open to the idea. I can’t honestly say that my initial desire to bring Alex on was part of a goal of establishing a Hispanic ministry in our church. I was trying to meet the needs of our church, but the Lord showed me pretty quickly that was not his ultimate goal. I asked Jon about the Hispanic community in Pittsburgh. It is not as visible as other places where I have lived – Boston or North Carolina. Often, we assume that Pittsburgh has been missed by national trends in Hispanic immigration. JP: I think that we tend to be blind to this. Immigrants in general are on the fringes, and the majority culture doesn’t typically look on the fringes. For example, the neighborhood that I drove through that day is easily missed. But, within 10 minutes of our church, the expected growth of Hispanics is 5% per year. That is the highest increase of any people group in our area. It is a very fast growth rate. One reason that the community is not as noticeable is because it is diversified – with regard to the areas in which people work. By contrast, in other big cities, immigrants may be grouped in one industry. I asked Alex what factors were driving this recent growth rate of Hispanics in Pittsburgh and what we could know about the people. AM: It is very different in each case. Many Hispanics come in the summers to do landscaping. They come with a work permit and stay for the summer. You find different types of people. Some are fleeing poverty or unrest, others are chasing the American dream. It is hard to perceive them, and hard to know when to count them. Generally, we would find people from the higher class have permits and those from the lower class are less likely to have legal status. Generally speaking, but interestingly enough, the lower-income people are more open to the Gospel and coming to Bible studies. Alex told me about some Hispanic men that he knows who have recently come to Pittsburgh to start working in the roofing industry. This caught my ear because of a recent post in which we focused on immigrant workers in the construction industry. Essentially, these men had come here because the wages were better and they could compete more favorably in this market where there was a smaller supply of workers. (In contrast, the California roofing industry was flooded with Hispanics.) I asked the hard question about how we think about the negative impact that this can have on the American workers already here. JP: That is a hard question. There are issues there on both the employer and employee side… the immigrant community gets caught in the middle. They would say, “I need to support my family. I’m willing to do what it takes to do that. If this guy is willing to hire me, I am going to take it.” It strikes me that this history is not new to Pittsburgh. It was played out over the generations as immigrants from Europe flooded the three rivers area. The history of organized labor – we can think particularly of the Homestead strike – was inflamed by these difficult questions. This led us to another challenging and difficult question. What is the legal status of the immigrants who come to Pittsburgh, and how should we think about that? I raised the topic and probed into this challenging area. AM: Most often, workers in white-collar jobs have their paperwork in order. By contrast, those who work in labor intensive jobs are often not documented. JP: Their legal status contributes to them being willing to take less money. The company can save money on benefits and take advantage of the situation. Jon continued to reflect on the challenges of this situation. JP: A lot of undocumented immigrants came here as children, through no choice of their own. They have been in the U.S. for many years, and they need to provide for themselves and their families. That group of immigrants is probably the ones who truly get caught in the middle. They have no legal standing, but have to work, so they may undercut the job market, but what else are they supposed to do? From my understanding it is one of the largest groups of illegal immigrants that we have in our country – perhaps as many as 15-30 million. Our biggest issue is how we respond to that group. I asked Alex about how the political controversies about immigration have been impacting the Hispanic community. He told me that a lot of people are feeling more vulnerable. Public expressions of dislike have become more common and many workers are afraid of the authorities and more vulnerable to being taken advantage of. He relayed two stories to illustrate. AM: One of the guys who is a friend, is a Latino who has lived here for years. Recently, he felt the shifted tone of public opinion even in Pittsburgh. Someone spit on his face and said, “Go back to your country.” He told me, “That never happened here in Pittsburgh, before. We had heard of it in other places, but not here. What is happening?” I think that when people hear immigrants being called names in public and in politics they start to act different. I have another case, from another lady who is attending the church. She was working in a restaurant and her boss wanted to take advantage of her sexually, or he threatened to fire her. She had to quit and leave without pay. She was afraid to go to the authorities. She said, “This never happened before. I know that I’m not legal so I can’t ask for protection from the government because I fear being kicked out.” Knowing that we aren’t going to solve all of these problems in one interview or one blog post I asked about how their church was trying to serve in the midst of this situation. JP: Alex has become a social worker! They both laughed at this and Alex expanded: AM: Praise God, we have some connections to the city of Pittsburgh. Many of the social workers don’t speak Spanish and they found out that we have Spanish speakers at the church, so they ask us to help out. For example, there is a refugee couple from Cuba – they speak no English at all. They came to Pittsburgh while they were still waiting for their visa and they needed many things. For about a year, we have helped them – finding a place to stay, getting their driver’s license, just figuring out how to go to the store. JP: This particular experience with this Cuban couple really had an impact on our church. They saw the real visible needs and began to engage in ways that we had never even thought of before. The congregation is excited to serve. A couple of people have begun to explore ways to help them navigate immigration policies. One is considering a masters in ESL. The deacons are really active. 3-4 years ago we would not have been having these conversations. AM: Many people from the church are coming to take classes on learning Spanish. They want to learn so that they can communicate with our new visitors. I asked them how this changed the Sunday worship service. JP: Some Sundays we are getting close to 20% Hispanic attendance, which many see as a tipping point for how a minority culture feels as it is part of the congregation. Practically speaking, they have many in attendance each Sunday who do not know English. AM: We have headsets for people who don’t speak English. I translate everything, from announcements to the benediction. We introduce one Spanish song each month. Fully in Spanish, with words and Latin music and Latin feeling. Interesting, many of the guys who come here do not have Protestant backgrounds. But, they sense that we care about them and they feel welcome. People are open. Jon told me that several people have expressed faith in Christ at an outreach Bible study that Alex has been leading. He also told me that this ministry is impacting the church as a whole. He believes that because his church is immersed in Hispanic ministry, they are able to navigate the challenging topics with more compassion. In the midst of a hard time, God is working out his purposes. There have been bumps along the road and more challenges lie ahead. But as native English-speakers and native Spanish-speakers gather for worship we get a glimpse of God’s kingdom. The nations are streaming to the mountain of God. Jon concluded this way: JP: This is an actual visible representation of the gospel at work. By Rev. Matt Koerber
For this post, I interviewed Andy Alexander. Andy is an elder at City Reformed Church and the owner of an engineering consulting firm. Andy has been working in the computer/tech industry since the late 1980’s and is able to share about how this industry has been impacted by immigration over time. In this post, we are discussing “legal immigration”, almost exclusively. But as usual – it is complex. MK: What is the impact of immigration to the US in the technical world? AA: There’s been immigrants for decades in the technical world. A large part of the US space program in the 50’s and 60’s, after WW II, was populated by Germans. In the 1990’s, immigration law was changed to increase the number of temporary visas (H1B’s) for people with technical skills. To obtain one, an employer is supposed to justify that an open position could not be filled from people already in the US. Also, H1B’s are a special kind of temporary visa with an intentional path to obtaining a “green-card”, allowing work in the US without a need for repeated renewal of that permission. In my experience, it is typical that people admitted under H1Bs are from India and have less experience in their field. They are also mostly people with a background in software or IT. MK: Are most of these people here legally? AA: Yes. I haven’t heard of anyone in the US working illegally in this area. MK: How has this affected you? AA: The earliest I remember working with people here on an H1B was in the mid to late 1990’s at Union Switch and Signal. This was at a time when demand for software skills was very high – the Y2K crisis was in full swing as was the growth in internet and PC application software. The people I met and worked with at the Switch were good friends, with families. Towards the end of my time there, I did sense the competition from India. The company was always looking for ways that they thought it would be cheaper to get things done. Contractors, on a sponsored H1B, were one way. My career path took me in a direction away from that company where there was less of this kind of competition for a while. Even at this new company, after a while I did see the increased push for more hires along with an unwillingness to spend as much on people as they might have otherwise. Since leaving that position and starting a consulting company, I am acutely aware of the competition. A good part of the work my company does requires access to specialized hardware as part of a product development process. This is one of the ways that we compete against lower cost engineering services. Still, I have a need to explain why the rate a potential client might be paying for someone isn’t always going to lead to the lowest cost for a completed project. MK: How is this different than other professional fields? AA: Unlike lawyers and doctors, engineers have not maintained the same legal protections. At least in Pennsylvania, to advertise yourself as an Engineer, you must have a Professional Engineer’s license. Over time, the need for this license in many fields has diminished. Typically, a licensed engineer is only needed in things such as building design and construction, power distribution and chemical plants. MK: What about outsourcing/offshoring? AA: In the late 90’s and early 2000’s, cultural barriers made it difficult to successfully finish software development work outside of the US. One of the methods used by some companies providing offshored services is to place one of their workers at the client’s site. This person provides the direct interaction with the client and then relays the necessary information to the people working in the primary office of the supplier. MK: Since the availability of labor directly impacts wages (supply/demand) some people would be in favor of protecting the market. How do you think about the role that the government should have in limiting the labor force? AA: I’m not sure, exactly. Clearly, all governments are involved in limiting and regulating trade. Consider the concept of “Free Trade Agreements”. If trade was going to be completely free, a free trade agreement would be a simple one liner: “we won’t have any restrictions or tariffs on goods or services between our two countries.” Differences in taxation and other preferences for certain kinds of businesses within a country make this simplicity impossible. My main point in all of this is the complexity of the issue. Adding people to the available pool is good for employers because it reduces the salary they need to pay. On the other hand, it reduces the opportunities and incentives to enter the field. By Rev. Matt Koerber
I asked John Standridge to tell me about his life in Texas. John is a PCA pastor and a good friend from our time in Boston. He is a native of Texas and returned several years ago to work with a church plant. Although John doesn’t literally live on the U.S.-Mexico border, he lives a couple of hours’ drive away. More importantly, the community that he lives in is a “border crossing culture” with a significant Hispanic population. Many of the issues that seem distant to Pittsburghers are part of his everyday reality. MK: You told me that you live only a few hours from the U.S.-Mexico border. How does immigration affect the makeup of your community? Are most immigrants in your community from Mexico? JS: Yes. We live a little less than 250 miles from the border city of Ciudad Acuna, which is in the state of Coahuila. It's kind of challenging to talk about our community in terms of the usual associations we have with immigration, for the simple reason that we live in a part of the world which was for so long part of another country (most recently Mexico). As someone once told me, "My people never moved. It's the border that moved." This creates quite a different community dynamic from, say, Boston, Houston, or New York, which represent opportunity magnets for peoples all around the world. While the immigrant demographics of Cambridge, MA (where I used to live) was wildly diverse, it was that way because of the attraction of the universities, business opportunity, etc. In the town I live in, which is about one-third Hispanic (almost entirely of Mexican heritage), the connection is ancestral (i.e. they've always been here), familial (they come because they have family here), or economic (they’ve come to earn money to send back home). MK: Do people tend to move back and forth across the border quite a bit or is it hard to do that? Once people arrive in the U.S. do they typically stay for good? JS: People still go back and forth quite a bit. On the one hand, the back and forth is just the normal shopping/visiting family stuff that's always gone on. Any time we go to the mall in San Antonio (about an hour southeast of here), the parking lot has a good number of cars with Mexican license plates from some of the adjacent Mexican states (Coahuila and Tamaulipas mostly). At the same time, crossing is much harder than it used to be. Prior to 9/11 you didn't need a passport to cross the border. It was common to pop across for lunch, shopping, visiting friends and family with barely a nod to immigration authorities on either side. The realities that have come in the wake of 9/11 as well as the ascendence of the drug cartels has changed that immensely. I went across recently into a little town called Nuevo Progresso (south of Welsaco, TX, in Tamaulipas), and it was a breeze going into Mexico, but coming back was pretty onerous. There are not only tightened borders, but Border Patrol/immigration checkpoints at various spots along I-10 within the U.S, this has been pretty controversial but it makes the point that this country is very much vigilant about drug trafficking/illegal immigration. Because of this, illegal immigration is actually way down. My sense is that most people who come, come for stints of time, to earn a little money, with plans to return. There are, however many who have come and stayed, managing to function pretty well. This can get pretty complicated in the course of life. Some are illegal, but have children here. Many work in family businesses or even businesses that they have started. Many of them pay taxes, despite their illegal status. A lot of this stuff is changing in the current climate. There are a few local restaurants I frequent, and I have noticed since the election that they are down in staffing, with many of the regular employees no longer there. The rumor is that they were undocumented, and have now either returned to Mexico or decided to stay out of the public eye. MK: From your perspective how do the lines between documented and undocumented immigrants break down? JS: I have no idea what the percentages are, and I think it would be a hard thing to find out. There is nothing in place that would keep families from enrolling their kids in school, there are job opportunities, there are family connections, all of which make it less obvious who is documented and who is not. MK: In what ways does the presence of immigrants impact the community as a whole? JS: From a cultural standpoint, it certainly makes it richer. In other ways, it creates tension. The Anglo and Mexican-American communities coexist in our town, but there is little evidence of seeking connection. Apart from the school system, which necessitates integration, we are divided in the parts of town we live in, cultural values, where we worship, and in many cases, by language. I don't know if you're familiar with Colin Woodard's book "American Nations," but our little town of Kerrville, TX sits right on the fault line of "Greater Appalachia" and "El Norte." Greater Appalachia is largely born out of a Scots-Irish culture, suspicious of those perceived as outsiders, where identity is rooted in a kind of "warrior ethic" bolstered by a strong sense of personal sovereignty and independence. "El Norte" is the oldest of the American nations, running along the borderlands of the old Spanish colonial empire that took root in the late 16th century. This culture is more community-oriented, but in such a way that it values fierce independence, self-sufficiency, and hard work. While there is certainly tension between these communities, the deeper concern is how readily dismissive they can be of each other. Of course, there is also this deep irony in that those communities that are now cast as unwelcome/illegitimate (the Mexican-American culture) preceded the culture that is now in power. If you were to visit the Alamo in San Antonio, you would see that the defenders of it were an incredibly international group, but it seems to me that they cohered around a common enemy, more than a common interest. MK: How does the Hispanic community relate to the dominant culture? What term do people use to describe the "white American culture"? JS: Not being an insider of that culture, this is a hard one for me to answer. One thing that should be pointed out is that in many places in our region, the Anglo culture is not the dominant culture. In our community, which is about one-third Hispanic, on one level, you could be encouraged by the level of integration. The public life of our city churns with a mix of people going about their day, getting along, commonly contributing to its life in commerce, education, public service. On the other hand, my sense is that there is at best a reluctance to venture past the cultural bounds, and probably a pretty deep suspicion of the Anglo culture. This is lamentable, but to some degree understandable given not only the history, but the current climate especially in politics which are charged with fear-mongering related to immigration related issues. MK: As a pastor, how do you try to interact with these issues in your ministry? JS: In one sense, in my capacity as a minister of word and sacrament I continually unearth inescapable biblical themes that supremely bring to bear reconciliation, of being called together into Christ as "one new people," comprised of "every tribe, tongue, and nation." I see that at the heart of how we think about our relationship with God has immediate and palpable implications for how we relate to our neighbors. As Christians we are urged to remember our former alienation and hostility toward God and others, to the end that we would relish the grace that reconciled us not only to God, but has now related us to those we once despised and were suspicious of. I love Peter's phrase, that we are "elect exiles," called to love the home we've been called to for the time we're here, but to never lose sight of our fundamental loyalty to the Kingdom of God. This is not an easy issue to interact with in our context. I have people in my life who would celebrate a mass-deportation initiative, and I have others who have illegal immigrants in their family and are scared about what might happen to them. It seems to me that God has called me to sit in the tension of that, trusting the power of the gospel to change hearts, patiently pursuing folks even as I have been (and continue to be) patiently pursued by my faithful Savior. By Matt Koerber
For this post, I interviewed my uncle, Jim Koerber, who has been a contractor in Asheville North Carolina since the early 1980’s. I worked for Jim for parts of several summers when I was in high school and college. He became a good friend and mentor to me during that time. I wanted to interview Jim because the construction field in North Carolina is dominated by immigrant workers and because I knew that he is a thoughtful Christian who would want to reflect on these issues from a biblical perspective. I spoke to Jim about this project a few weeks ago and called him recently while he was driving around between jobs. (By Matt Koerber) Jim grew up in Pittsburgh and has a good perspective on how job markets can vary from region to region. In spite of our rich history of immigration, Pittsburgh hasn’t seen the waves of Hispanic immigrants that other parts of the country have received. I know from personal experience that when I worked with him 20 years ago, most of the roofers were Mexicans. By contrast, when I interviewed roofers in Pittsburgh 7 years ago, none of the crews had significant numbers of immigrants working for them. I asked Jim how things were different in North Carolina: JK: “Pittsburgh is a highly unionized market and people are also very protective of the construction jobs that are there. In the South, they have ‘right to work laws’ and there is not as much of a union presence. Pittsburgh is a city of immigrants (going back to the early 20th century), but it was very different historically in the South. For example, you rarely meet someone with a Polish name in this part of the country. Most families have Northern European heritage.” But all of that began to change at the end of the 20th century. Waves of migrants from Mexico began to enter the region’s job markets. The construction market was particularly affected. I asked Jim what this looks like: JK: “I would say that a lot of framing crews are now totally Hispanic. Only 10 or 15 years ago that would have not been as much the case. If you had a Hispanic crew framing your house, people would assume that it was not built well. But that has changed. Hispanic workers are now viewed as viable workers in that field. It is the same with the roofing crews, or even more so. Most drywall crews are mostly Mexican. They have to work their butts off – it is a grind. Americans who are willing to do it expect to make a lot of money. Mexicans are willing to grind it out for less. Some crews are owned by Mexicans; you can see the names on the truck. Often the foreman is an American, but he may hire all Mexicans to work for him.” By contrast, some parts of the construction field are still done by American workers. Electricians, plumbers and mechanical workers are mostly American. I asked him where most immigrants were from: JK: “The majority of immigrants are Hispanic, by far. There are increasingly a lot of Guatemalans, but I would say that 90% are Mexican, 5% other Hispanics and then 5% from other places like the Ukraine. We have seen a lot more Ukrainians here, they have a reputation for being good with woodwork.” We talked about the ways in which competition from immigrant workers can undercut wages. “In my experience, immigrants will often be willing to work for less money. They might charge $18/hr instead of the $20/hr that Americans would want. The Americans really want $22/hr and they were getting $25/hr 10 years ago (before the market crashed). They may undercut wages, but it is not typically as much as you think. Here is the thing, if they live here and their kids go to school here, with American kids – they end up being more American than Mexican. The kids are U.S. citizens and they speak English much better than Spanish. The kids end up with really no experience of Mexico. They want the same stuff that American kids want. They all have to pay rent and buy food at American prices. They might live less expensively, but it is not that much different.” I asked him whether workers were typically documented or not. As we discussed it, I began to appreciate the complexity of the situation. I learned that most workers have a number that they can give to their boss that allows a form of quasi-legality. Sometimes the number is a green card number, and sometimes it is a social security number. Sometimes the number is legitimate, and sometimes it is not. Some workers that he knows have been here for decades, but they are still undocumented. We discussed the impact that this had on the job market. JK: “I think that the ongoing undocumented status for a lot of workers has a real negative effect on the economy. It makes it hard for them to negotiate fair wages and the boss is tempted to pay them less than an American. Unless they have a legal right to be here, their employer has the ability to manipulate the situation for their own benefit. A lot of time I see people being treated like (mere) tools and not as someone who is made in the image of God.” But it is not just Americans who feel the competitive pressure. Jim told me a story about a Mexican friend, C, who has worked alongside him in the construction field for 20 years. Sometimes crew members will go back and forth to different crews, and recently Jim’s own kids were working for C on a job. He told them how mad he was about recent migrations of Mexicans from South Carolina. He said, “Those Mexicans from South Carolina keep coming up here. They don’t charge enough and they lower everyone’s wages!” I asked him how he thought American workers responded to this situation and then the interview started to get really interesting. Jim had just arrived at the job site and started to talk with the plumbers who were subcontracted for the job. JK: “This is my nephew from way up in ‘Yankee land.’ He is writing some things online to try to get people to talk about immigration in helpful ways. He is asking how people down here feel about immigrants.” Kevin and Mike, two plumbers on the job, seemed more than willing to weigh in. I could hear their distinctly Southern accents as they spoke into Jim’s cell phone. One of them said, “In general, it is basically this: if they are legal we don’t care. If not, then it does kind of ruffle feathers. I can get along with anybody I know. The bottom line is that I don’t like it if they don’t pay their taxes.” ** The other plumber chimed in as well, “I don’t think that there is a whole lot of resentment between Mexicans and Americans. We get a kick out of working with most of these guys. We have a lot of back and forth jokes going on. But I don’t like it when they don’t learn English. I mean, if I went to France I would learn to speak French. Most of these guys pick up enough English just by being here, but it is hard when they don’t speak English.” I asked Jim how his Christian faith impacted the way that he views the situation. JK: “The ultimate point is that even if we disagree with how things are going, we still have to love our neighbors. We even have to love our enemies. Jesus said that all of the law and the prophets hangs on these two things – love God and love your neighbors. That is pretty much what the fundamentals of Christianity is all about. That was laid out clearly by the Boss. For Christians, it can be tempting to skirt around it because it is so darn hard, and unless you are connected to the Spirit it really seems unnatural. In my experience, I really like working with the Mexicans that I have been around. I feel like they add a really rich fabric to our culture. In my experience most of them do a pretty good job staying out of trouble. Partly that is because that if they are not here legally, they could get deported if they get in any kind of trouble. The other reason is faith. My friend C became an Evangelical when he got here, like many of the Mexicans that I know. Around here LOTS of Mexicans have become Evangelicals since arriving in the U.S.” I had a lot more questions to ask, but the plumbers were not getting paid to talk about my blog post and the building field is highly competitive. I thanked Jim for his time, and as I hung up I reflected on the complex nature of the immigration question. As I listened to these stories, I could see threads of our previous posts showing up here as well. In the midst of migrating people, God is working for his own purposes. We can see the nations streaming to the temple of God. But at the same time, the economic impact of immigration presents real challenges for some American workers. On the other side, many Mexican-American families have members with different legal statuses. The parents don’t have a secure foothold here, but the children have no connection with Mexico and it would not be easy to return. The issues are complex, but like it or not, immigrants and native-born Americans are working side by side – building together in the mountains of North Carolina. ** A significant number of undocumented immigrants pay taxes (an estimated $11.74 billion annually). Many also contribute to Social Security (estimated $13 billion), while not receiving much access to the benefits. See reporting on that here, here, and a personal account here. – Kevin By Kevin
When discussing immigration, some tend to focus on the stories of individual immigrants or families, while others tend to focus on macro-level statistics that describe immigrants as a group. Both stories and statistics are valid and important parts of the conversation. Emphasizing one at the expense of the other can lead to grave errors. If we focus only on statistics, it can be easy to forget that we are talking about image-bearing humans. In this blog, we will hear from the voices of immigrants and those who walk alongside them. We hope this will show the uniqueness of each immigrant’s story; immigrants are not a homogenous group. We also hope that you will be able to relate to and share the cares that they have. If we focus only on stories, we can fail to understand the larger contexts of immigration debates. We can easily pick and choose stories that confirm our prior beliefs. Statistics are helpful for understanding the big picture. Of course, it is also possible to pick and choose statistics that fit into the narratives we hold, so we must 1) be critical of data sources, 2) reason properly and reasonably about data, and 3) be open to new data that others bring up. Since the bulk of this blog will focus on stories, I’ll present some statistics here that may help inform our subsequent conversations about immigration. This post should be taken as a snapshot; there are certainly many other statistics that are relevant. I have chosen a few issues that we feel benefit greatly from knowing relevant statistics. The number of immigrants is high, but it’s not exploding In 2015, there were an estimated 43.3 million foreign-born people living in the US, about 13.5% of the total population. For the last 10 years, there have been just under 1.1 million people being granted legal permanent residence on average each year. In sheer numbers, this is close to the historical highs at the beginning of the 20th century. However, as a proportion of the US population, it has hovered between 0.31% and 0.34% per year over the last five years; it does not seem to have increased significantly.* The figure above shows the estimated number of undocumented immigrants in the US over time. There were an estimated 11.1 million in 2014.** Between 1990 and 2007, there was large growth. The growth tapered off and stopped in 2008, at the beginning of the last administration. This suggests that the number of new undocumented immigrants is offset by the number who are deported or gain legal status. While there are indeed many immigrants coming into the US, the number is not increasing at a high rate. Immigrants take some jobs, but affect different industries differently Similar to the number of undocumented immigrants in the US, the number in the labor force competing for jobs increased until about 2008. In 1995, undocumented immigrants made up 2.7% of the labor force. In 2008, they made up 5.4%. Since then, it has hovered between 5.0% and 5.4% nationally. However, there are significant differences across geographic regions. While some states have seen labor force participation rates by immigrants plateau or even decrease (e.g. CA, NV, GA, SC), some states have seen increases (e.g. PA and VA). Aside from geographic location, these rates alse depend on the particular industry, and also whether we are looking at documented or undocumented immigrants (see the figure below). Generally, jobs requiring less skilled labor and those that are less regulated by professional bodies will have more immigrants. These diverse findings may partially explain why you are either more concerned or less concerned about the economic effects of undocumented immigration than other people (in different jobs and different parts of the country). Any discussion about the economic impact of immigration should bear in mind that different people may feel the impact to different extents. Immigrants are less likely than citizens to commit crimes Increased immigration has sometimes led to fears of increased crime. Several studies (here and here) demonstrate that immigrants (both documented and undocumented) are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens in the US. While about 15 in 1000 natives are incarcerated, only 9 in 1000 undocumented immigrants and 5 in 1000 documented immigrants are incarcerated. This difference may be partially explained by the legal vulnerability faced by immigrants; the stakes (e.g. deportation) are higher, which restrains criminal activity. This does not mean that crime committed by immigrants are more or less important or serious. Wise and righteous policing is needed to safeguard all communities from criminal acts. What the statistics suggest, however, is that political rhetoric blaming immigrants for rising crime is not rooted in fact. Since immigrants (both documented and undocumented) have such low incarceration rates, why does this issue generate so much political attention? Avoiding extremes Statistics are helpful for qualifying our claims: there are a large number of immigrants within the US, but the number is not exploding; immigrants take some jobs, but affect different industries differently. Statistics are also helpful for dispelling some falsehoods: immigrants are less likely to commit crimes. As Matt has said, there are a range of legitimate positions different Christians could take on immigration. But whatever the position, let it be rooted in compassion and truth. Statistics do not equal or guarantee truth, but the right statistics enable us to get closer to it. We will get to practice compassion as we listen to diverse voices speak about immigration in the coming weeks. * Computed from Department of Homeland Security statistics and Census Bureau population projections. ** Another study estimated the figure was less than 11 million. By Rev. Matt Koerber
Here is a reminder of where we are: Week #1: Foundational Thoughts Week #2: Immigration Policy Week #3: Voices of Immigrants Week #4: Refugees Week #5: Engaging with Islam Week #6: Bridging Barriers and Putting Ideas Into Practice The title for the post comes from a line in the Tony Award winning Broadway musical Hamilton as Alexander Hamilton (Scotland) and the Marquis de Lafayette (France) celebrate the continental army’s victory at Yorktown. It is a reminder that immigration issues have been central to the American story from the very beginning. It is also a reminder that “getting the job done” is literally part of the challenge. From New England farms to frontier homesteads to the steel mills of Pittsburgh, immigrants have found new work opportunities in America. In the process they have often clashed with the people already there by threatening to take their jobs or their land. This week we will discuss immigration policy and look at the economic impact of immigration. In my opinion, this is probably the most complicated aspect of the immigration discussion. In the upcoming weeks we will deal with some of those challenges, but this week we will try to address the economic challenges of immigration and think in terms of immigration policies. In order to do that we will begin to include a greater range of voices in this discussion. We have planned to have a wide range of contributors this week who can help us think about the way in which immigration issues are felt by people who live close to the U.S.-Mexico border, by those in construction-related fields, and by those in tech-related fields. We will also try to listen to the ways in which recent immigration debates have impacted the Hispanic community. I want to preempt this by framing the discussion in a couple of ways. First of all, this topic is so complex that it would require a year’s worth of writing to adequately address. Our goal is not to achieve comprehensive coverage in a week of short posts, rather, it is to expand our understanding and model a measured and reasonable dialogue. Not all of our contributors will agree on all points and it is not our intention to seek a single harmonized message. Secondly, we should recognize that there are a range of legitimate positions that Christians can take on this issue. It is reasonable for a country to limit immigration – every country on earth does this – and it is necessary for a nation to enforce border security. Third, the Bible does introduce some principles about immigration that can apply generally to this conversation, so we are not without guidance. Here is what I am thinking about concerning biblical principles. There are repeated references to conduct towards immigrants in the Bible, with many using the language of “alien”, “exile” or “sojourner.” There are repeated warnings that we not take advantage of someone in this condition. (See Ex. 22:21, 23:9, Lev. 19:33, 25:35, Jer. 7:6, 22:3, Zec. 7:10, and Mal 3:5.) That does not mean that a country needs to have completely open borders. But it does remind us that immigrants are often particularly vulnerable and open to exploitation. There is another passage that grounds this concern in a way that is particularly relevant. Deuteronomy 10:19 commands the people of Israel to “Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.” God tells Israel that their conduct towards outsiders in their midst should be rooted in their experience of having been an outsider. That doesn’t meant that this command only applied to the first generation to leave Egypt, but it was the collective experience of their people and part of their identity. Although immigration policy is a complex subject, we should always remember to ground our current policies in the right historical context. We can’t isolate the immigration discussion from our national history of immigration. Here are some ways that can be applied:
By Evelyn
[MK: I asked Evelyn to contribute to this foundational section as our first guest blogger. I knew that she had an important view because she essentially stands with a foot in two worlds. She was born and raised in the U.S., but married to someone who is not a citizen. Her in-laws are an ocean away, and visiting them means a trip into a foreign country. I wanted her to share a bit of that perspective to help us enter into an experience that is different from our own.] I never imagined I would be affected so closely by immigration issues. My husband Kevin came here as an immigrant on a student visa to pursue his graduate education in 2013. We started dating in 2014, married in 2016, and as of two months ago he has a green card that gives him legal permanent residency. Although I work in a university setting where there are many international students, I only started to realize just how complicated immigration is once I joined my life to an immigrant. Many of Kevin’s overseas family and friends thought that he became a US citizen the moment he married me. If only it was that easy! In his case, the laws of his home country do not allow him to hold citizenship in a second country, so if he does decide to become a US citizen when he is eligible, he must renounce his Malaysian citizenship. This means when he returns home to be with family, his own country would consider him an outsider. Or, if he decides to keep his Malaysian citizenship, he won’t have the same legal status as our potential future children. Immigration law affects immigrants around us in many ways that are often invisible to us. Those who are immigrants know just how all-consuming a pending case can be. Terrible phrases like “what if” and “maybe” cause distress, uncertainty, and anxiety. We felt this deeply when the first travel ban was issued in January, because it appeared to focus on Muslim-majority countries. We found ourselves starting to say those terrible phrases, because Malaysia is also a Muslim-majority country. It didn’t take much imagination to see Malaysia being included in any future travel bans. Many well-meaning friends and family tried to tell us that we had nothing to worry about, but the immigration process offers no guarantees. So long as Kevin is not a US citizen, he is here only at the goodwill of the US government. As we have seen with rising tensions between many countries worldwide, that goodwill can change in just an instant. Our immigrant friends and neighbors bear heavy weights. One of the weights Kevin and I bore was the burden of proof to show that our relationship was legitimate. This started a very strange process for us where we scoured our houses for tangible things that proved our intangible love for each other. Neither Kevin or I are overly romantic, and so I never felt like we had enough “stuff” to absolutely prove we were married for legitimate reasons. I found myself obsessively hoarding anything I thought could be evidence, because any one thing by itself (photos, letters, cards, ticket or movie stubs, etc.) felt like it could easily be dismissed as fake. Those terrible phrases came up in conversation between us many times: “What if they don’t think 30 pictures is enough? Maybe we should send 50.” “What if something gets lost in processing? Maybe we should send two copies of everything just in case.” Kevin’s green card application that we mailed in weighed over two pounds. A week after we sent our application, Kevin’s father died unexpectedly from complications in his battle with cancer. When a green card application is in process, applicants are not allowed to leave the US without prior permission from the US government. Due to a technicality of the timing when we submitted Kevin’s application, it was impossible to get permission in time to leave the country and be with his family. He was not able to attend his own father’s funeral. We carry that burden with us, too. Our absence was noted by the many people who paid their respects. Kevin’s mom and younger brother had to explain again and again why he wasn’t there. We carry all these burdens with us. This is just one way my husband and I have been impacted by his status as an immigrant, and compared to what I’ve heard from others, we have had it pretty good overall. I’ve found that every immigrant’s story involves some degree of sadness and sacrifice, and it grieves me that so many immigrants suffer through this alone, out of sight of most Americans. Immigration is not without real cost. Marrying an immigrant made these issues much more personal to me, casting them in a much brighter light. Many of you will never be related to an immigrant, but there are still many ways to meaningfully connect. Immigrants are quietly carrying their burdens among us, even in our congregation. May we strive to bear the burdens of all of God’s image-bearers, especially the immigrants. By Kevin
For the body does not consist of one member but of many. (1 Cor 12:14) On that first Pentecost, God brought together Jew and Gentile into one body. Since then, the church has tried to simultaneously uphold two truths. First, believers in Jesus are members of the same body; there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, no male and female (Gal 3:28). If our diverse nationalities, ethnicities, and political leanings keep us from sharing communion together, we have failed. Second, each member in that body is an individual shaped by a particular culture and unique history. The church, in its very nature, is meant to display the diversity of God’s creation. If our communion excludes or burdens those of different stripes, or is composed of a homogenous collection of people, we have failed. These two truths will inform our discussion of immigration over the coming weeks; they pertain to how we embrace those who are ethnically and culturally different from us. This week, I want to reflect on how these two truths inform how we embrace those within the church who are politically and ideologically different from us. Our ability to do the former hinges on our ability to do the latter. We commonly think of God’s emphasis on unity and diversity as two sides of the same coin. We recognize that they must be simultaneously true in any flourishing church. However, I’ve begun to avoid thinking of these as sides of the same coin, because it implies the right balance can be found. It tempts me to think that if we only found the right balance, we could avoid many sins and hurts. Most dangerously, when there is disagreement, it tempts me to blame others for getting the balance wrong. If the view I disagree with is a minority view within the church, I can reject and silence it in the name of church unity. If the view I disagree with happens to be held by a majority, I can accuse a dominant group of marginalizing my own views. At any given time, I am prone to draw on either of the two truths for political expedience, causing harm to others. I have found it helpful to consider the following questions. What happens when I emphasize unity at the expense of diversity? I am prone to exclusion (see my last blog post). I silence and reject views different from mine. I may think I invite dialogue, but others do not feel they can dialogue with me. In some cases, I try to win them “back into the fold” without first trying to understand their position, and without considering the possibility that I might be wrong. This can feel like an act of violence for the person being “dragged back”. I need to ask myself: Am I prone to excluding views different from mine in the name of unity? What happens when I emphasize diversity at the expense of unity? I am prone to forget my obligation to the others in the body, as I think my views (which may be correct) privilege me over those who are wrong. I start seeing people as friends or foes, seeking out “my tribe” within the larger body. I start excluding foes as oppressors, because there is no reason to care for someone with power over me. I need to ask myself: Am I all too happy to sacrifice unity to advance my perspective? Is our unity and diversity rooted in truth and justice? Sometimes, we may avoid the two aforementioned extremes, but settle on a compromise that is not rooted in truth and justice. For example, men with differing views about slavery compromised to form our republic, which on some level maintained ideological unity and diversity, but sacrificed truth and justice. I am prone to thinking my own views are rooted in truth and justice, but not those of my opponent. I need to ask myself: Am I willing to lovingly correct others when their views compromise truth and justice? Perhaps more importantly: Am I willing to consider that my own views are not perfectly rooted in truth and justice? Balancing unity and diversity, while not compromising truth and justice, is a gargantuan task. On my own, the best I can do is pose such challenging questions. Even then, I will certainly get the balance wrong. However, a body with many members can do better. I need other members of the body who are different from me. I need others with voices, tendencies, virtues, and sins that are different from mine. The strengths of other members may be one way God saves us from my weaknesses. Out of this diverse mess of a body, with us posing hard questions to ourselves and each other, “He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths” (Isa 2:3). By Kevin
“...the ‘others’ need not be perceived as innocent in order to be loved, but ought to be embraced even when they are perceived as wrongdoers.” – Miroslav Volf, “Exclusion & Embrace” As an immigrant in the U.S., I often think of that first Pentecost when God’s people first expanded across national and linguistic boundaries. I’m privileged to worship with Christians who are ethnically and culturally different from me. Differences can bring life-giving diversity, but can also present challenges. At high-pressure points in history, differences can feel especially hard to navigate. We are part of an increasingly polarized society; it seems to demand that we take one side or another on various issues. Our differences have never been more sharply felt than since last year’s presidential election. The church has not been immune to polarization. Most of us have at some point heard fellow believers share views we consider wrong, and have felt that we are on different sides of some great divide, even as we share fellowship and communion. How can this be? In this culture of polarization, every conversation potentially involves the wielding of power: words are not means of dialogue, but tools for exerting superiority. I feel it deeply when I am the victim of this. Rather than seeking to listen to and empathize with my fears, he dismissed them and argued his position. Rather than taking a charitable interpretation of my words, she misunderstood me and took offense. In the midst of polarizing post-election conversations, I became wary of the words of others (especially about issues relating to immigration policy). I started seeing enemies everywhere. So of course, I responded in kind. Everything others have done to me, I am ashamed to admit I’ve done in return. Borrowing from theologian Miroslav Volf, we are prone to exclusion: we either ignore, silence, or mischaracterize the voices of those who are “other”, or we try to reform them in our image (only then can we be sure they are “safe”). We allow communion only on our terms, but we’re fine without it. The polarization in our society is unsustainable – can we exclude from our lives roughly half of the population who don’t think as we do on topics like immigration policy? The polarization in church may feel more subdued, but is in fact worse when we consider the high calling for unity within the church. How do we move forward in mission to serve immigrants and refugees if we cannot agree on what is good and right? How do we share communion with those whose beliefs we may find objectionable, even harmful? How can I empathize with others who are prone to exclude my perspective? How can I express my voice when I fear it will be misunderstood? How can I trust that someone who disagrees with me still cares about justice? I am keen to raise these questions, but hesitant to provide answers. They are complex. This blog aims to reflect on how we can face these questions as they pertain to immigration-related issues. I want to end this post by suggesting that in some cases, try as we might to interpret others’ words and deeds charitably, there is no justifying the exclusion they carry out. Their beliefs may in fact be harmful and sinful. They may in fact be oppressors. We are rightfully offended. But we are called to something even more offensive: to forgive, and to embrace rather than exclude the oppressor. If we’re truly as polarized as I believe, I expect counterarguments at this point. I must of course clarify: forgiveness does not equal endorsement, and we must stand up to oppressors for the sake of victims. But after (maybe even before) these clarifications have been settled, we are called to start imagining what it looks like to embrace our enemies. In doing so, we can enable them to lay down their arms, but we will first need to lay down ours. If we cannot embrace the political “other” with whom we currently share communion, the communion we might offer to the ethnic and cultural “other” will not be as rich and full as it should be. Over the next few weeks, let us move forward together in our mission to serve and love the foreigner, as the church did that first Pentecost. “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies…” (Matt 5:43-44) By Matt Koerber
In the previous post we talked about the first Pentecost. It was a breakthrough day in the life of the church. God used supernatural power to demonstrate the barrier-breaking mission of the church. The gift of tongues allowed the gospel message to be heard in the native language of each listener. It was an early sign that God would empower the church to be witnesses for Jesus – not only in Jerusalem – but to the ends of the earth. We said that this was a good backdrop for our discussions about immigration and the multi-ethnic church. However, it is clear that the barriers that we face in America today are not primarily barriers of language. Instead, political conflict has created a polarized battlefield surrounding Immigration issues. In this atmosphere, talking points become part of a battle to advance each side’s agenda. Complex issues are oversimplified. Fear and slander are tools for power. Truth becomes a victim in the pursuit of political power. For example: Immigrants are scapegoated for large scale economic woes, refugees live under the cloud of our fear of terrorism, and people who favor immigration reform or border security are labelled racist. Our goal in this blog is to provide a way forward that avoids the extremes of either the political right or the left. That requires that we deal graciously with people and that we seek to focus on issues of Biblical concern. There are many issues that we can legitimately disagree on – but we need to disagree in grace and listen carefully. But, there are also important principles that the bible does address. We need to carve out a distinctly Christian ethic on these matters. A Christian approach to any controversial issue includes considering how we argue, not just what arguments we use. In his letter to the Philippians Paul wrote, “Let your reasonableness be known to everyone.” (Phil 4:5) Sometimes I wonder if that is a command that Christians take seriously enough. If we give in to the polarizing influence of our times we will struggle to be reasonable. Rather than trying to understand and listen to other points of view, we will view encounters with opposing ideas as an opportunity to “score points” or to “advance our cause.” Sometimes we fear that listening to our opponents will cause their position to be viewed as more legitimate. But Paul’s admonition to be reasonable reminds us that the Christian life is not just concerned with winning a particular battle. It is also concerned with how we conduct ourselves in the midst of a battle. Because Jesus is the king, ruling with power from heaven, we don’t need to adopt a “win at all costs” attitude. Instead, we can engage with opponents in a reasonable way. In fact, the reasonable manner of our dialogue is, itself, a testimony to God’s presence and power. Let’s look again at the connection in Philippians: Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand; (Phil 4:5) See the connection between God’s presence and our reasonable conduct? It is the presence of God that allows us to back away from the skirmish line and seek to engage in a different way. It is the powerful presence of God that allows us to love our enemies and risk opening ourselves up to challenging dialogue. It is the loving presence of God that allows us to listen to our opponents – even when they are wrong – and love them anyway. We hope that this blog is a small contribution towards reasonable discussion around a difficult topic. By Matt Koerber
This spring, we are spending the season between Easter and Pentecost focusing on themes that relate to immigration and the multi-ethnic church. The theme verse for the blog is from Isaiah 2:2-3: In the last days the mountain of the LORD's temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and all nations will stream to it. 3 Many peoples will come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths." (NIV) The picture that graces this post and the homepage for the blog is a print that hangs on a wall in our home. It was a gift for our wedding and is one of the few wall hangings that has made it through all five homes that we have lived in as a married couple. If you look closely you can see the words of Isaiah 2:2 written into the pathway. People drawn in vibrant colors are walking together to the mountain of the Lord. It is one of my favorite paintings and captures the joyful excitement of God’s multi-ethnic kingdom. It was originally used for ministry purposes with the CCO and it appears in this blog with permission from the artist – Bonnie Liefer. It can be purchased from the CCO website here: https://cards.ccojubilee.org/collections/prints-1/products/mountain-print. But perhaps you are asking the question: What does all of this have to do with Pentecost? When we hear the word “Pentecost” we often think of the Pentecostal movement. We think about the arguments that many Christians have about the place of supernatural ministry gifts in the life of the church. You may be disappointed to find out that is not the purpose of this blog. Instead, we are reflecting on the central meaning of the story of Pentecost found in Acts chapter two. In this chapter, the Holy Spirit falls upon the remnant of Jesus’ followers who are hiding in a house in Jerusalem. Empowered by the Holy Spirit, they go out and preach with boldness to the people of Jerusalem. The events occur 50 days after the Passover. (The Greek word “pente” means “50”). On this occasion Jews from various parts of the Roman Empire had returned to Jerusalem for a pilgrimage. While they may have been fluent in Aramaic or Greek, they each spoke in a language that was particular to their homeland. The miracle of Pentecost is that the apostles were empowered to speak a foreign language that they did not otherwise know. There is, of course, a great deal of controversy about exactly what is happening here. “How did God make this happen” and “should we expect this sort of miracle to happen again”? But the focus of the text is that each person heard the sermon in their own language and then asked about what it meant. Utterly amazed, they asked: "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs– we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!" 12 Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, "What does this mean?" (Acts 2:7-12) In the sermon that follows Peter tells them what it means. He says that it is a sign that Jesus has been raised to heaven and seated at God’s right hand and that now the gates of heaven are open to everyone who believes. The barriers of language, culture and ethnicity will no longer limit the spread of salvation. Furthermore, God’s presence is no longer contained in the temple, but the Holy Spirit dwells in the midst of all believers. Through the witness of the church, people from all nations will come to faith in God. This is how Isaiah 2:2 finds its fulfillment. Before, the temple of God was a physical building and one could only come into God’s presence by traveling to Jerusalem. Language, culture, ethnicities, and national borders were impediments. Now, people of all ethnicities can come into God’s eternal kingdom through faith in Christ. The barriers are being overcome. This vision – a kingdom of every tribe, tongue, and nation – is the controlling vision of the New Testament church. It is the vision that ought to shape us today. It does not eliminate the many complex problems we face related to immigration policy. It does not negate concern for border security or economic protections. But it is the backdrop against which these conversations happen. Modern forces of globalization create new economic opportunities and unprecedented challenges. But the great waves of migration that flow around the world are also part of God’s story. Today, the church is growing in South America, Africa and Asia. Refugees and migrants from the Middle East are encountering the gospel for the first time. The waves are sometimes rough and the future impact may be uncertain, but it is clear that the nations are streaming to the mountain of the Lord. Taking this vision seriously means that we have to talk about tough issues like immigration.. Christians will have legitimate disagreements about particular policies, but we can find common ground in this great story of being part of the multi-ethnic kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ. By Matt Koerber
This year, our spring devotional blog will lead up to Pentecost Sunday, celebrated June 4. In past years we had a blog that covered the season of Lent as we moved towards Easter. This year we will focus on the themes of Pentecost: God’s power to bring all people into his eternal kingdom. The theme verse for this blog is from Isaiah 2:2-3. In the last days the mountain of the LORD's temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and all nations will stream to it. Many peoples will come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths." (NIV) In summary, the blog will focus on the multi-ethnic nature of the kingdom of God and how this relates to the current debates about immigration in America. This is an important topic for a number of reasons. First, City Reformed is a church located in the university community of Pittsburgh and we serve a very diverse population. People come to Oakland from all over the world and as a church we are committed to caring for people from different backgrounds. We currently have members from a variety of ethnic backgrounds and many who have immigrated to the United States. Our own congregation is made up of people “from every nation”. Second, we have a long commitment to supporting ministries that cross ethnic barriers. We support missionaries throughout the world and local ministries like P.R.I.S.M. (international students), YWAM (refugee care), and Ambassadors in Sports (significant refugee ministry.) All these ministries require constant energy and effort. We need to keep reminding ourselves why these are important investments. The third reason is a bit trickier. Over the last couple of years, racial and ethnic issues have emerged as areas of significant concern and controversy. Immigration policy has been controversial throughout American history, but it has emerged with greater tension in the past election cycle. Border security, undocumented immigrants and deportation have become majorly divisive political issues. Furthermore, since 9/11, Americans have been uncertain about how to engage with immigrants from Muslim countries. Worldwide conflicts, especially in Syria, have also produced massive numbers of refugees from the Muslim world. These topics are often highly controversial. They are also highly complex and require deep analysis and nuanced reasoning. Unfortunately, they have become politically polarized. As a result, Americans find it difficult to talk about these things with those who have differing viewpoints. In my opinion, both the political right and the left are guilty of reducing these complex issues to simple statements which they lob at their opponents like hand grenades. This doesn’t help us to understand these issues any better, and it can be destructive to communities where people have different beliefs. As Christians, we are committed to seeking the peace of our city (Jer 29). In this case, it requires us to talk about difficult things. I know that this is a challenging issue that is important to many people in our congregation. Our end goal is not about trying to push the battle line closer to the right or the left on this issue, but to chart a course that is uniquely Christian. (More on that in the coming weeks.) I realize that some people may encounter this blog and be tempted to write it off before they even start to read. Perhaps some are tempted to think that they know in advance where we will be going and are skeptical about our intentions. In our current climate, that sort of cynicism is perfectly understandable. With those possible objections in mind I would like to lay out some guiding principles and our proposed format.
|
AuthorMatt Koerber is the senior pastor at City Reformed Presbyterian church. This is his personal blog that he also asks guest writers to participate on. Archives
August 2018
Categori |