A Christian Response to Border Security
A Christian Response to Border Security
With all the reporting on how the US policy of border security is unethical, one might also consider if Christians should take a firm stance on borders in general. Does the concept of nation, culture, national security, national fiscal safety, and all other issues related to border security matter to us as Christians?
I think the answer to these questions depends upon one’s hermeneutics. Very generally speaking, those who emphasize reading scripture as all encompassing and equally important documents (hereby referred to as “Tota Scriptura” hermeneutics, or “TSH”) tend to emphasize God’s role along and within nation states. Those who emphasize reading scripture as progressive revelation about Jesus, in which Jesus destroys previous scriptural understandings of nation and cultural identity etc, (hereby referred to as “Jesus Centered Hermeneutics”, or “JCH”) tend to think more cosmopolitan, globally, etc.
Since I have fallen in both camps over the years, I think I understand why serious committed Christians have differences on the topic of border security (among other things in the Conservative/Progressive divide). This issue, like most issues Christians fight about in house (and with the world around us) is primarily an issue of hermeneutics. The guiding hermeneutic will influence one’s political trajectory. Each person who considers themselves Christian has to wrestle through their theology in order to have a political ideology. My own personal handling of texts has led me in both directions.
I am currently an adherent of JCH, so my key text for an apologetic of this way of reading scripture is Hebrews 1:1-2 (In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.) This is the framework for how God is speaking to us today- In Jesus-ese.
When discussing issues related to borders and border protection a key text that jumps out is Paul’s explanation of Christian citizenship in Philippians 3:20 (But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ,”). To be clear, Paul also appeals to his own Roman citizenship in Acts and makes distinctions between Jews and Gentiles. But these are not fundamental to one’s identity in Christ. We are sojourners as 1 Peter 2:11 states (“Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul.”)
So, in essence we all have a primary and several secondary identities. Which brings us to the dreaded but necessary territory of identity politics. My thinking with regard to Christian identity politics is that we should be operating first as Jesus within a Kingdom inbreaking into politics. We live within the realm of the Kingdom, under a King, of whom we are mystically part of his very Body. That’s some trippy stuff! And it points to politics that are borderless and loving, with primacy attention given to the poor and oppressed.
If one abandons a JCH in favor of a TSH, it is my opinion that one has to fall into a reconstructionist/theonomic brand of politics to be consistent. This model looks something like a strange libertarian theocracy hybrid (In fact, when explaining my earlier politics to my father my dad asked, “Isn’t that like ISIS?” To which I replied with a shrug, “Yeah, I guess; something like that.”) Many adherents of a THS are not theonomic in their politics though. They seem mostly to adhere to a stream of Two Kingdoms theology. Two Kingdoms supports the powers that be as ordained by God by the mere fact of their existence. Depending on the stream of Two Kingdoms theology there can be more or less political involvement. 2K theologians place heavy emphasis on God’s sovereignty in this world, and that can pan out practically in the form of obedience, or dismissing any political action as a worldly pursuit. One’s eschatology generally guides which way one will turn in this regard. TSH tends to heavily push the politics into in group/out group social theory, so something like the issue of border security becomes very important.
So if one adheres to a JCH, what do the politics look like with regard to border security? Couldn’t the outworking of this hermeneutic put us in danger?
In a nutshell, JCH politics respects the civil authorities of a nation, but also respectfully advances the Kingdom regardless. In other words, Kingdom before country. It operates in a borderless construct within the confines of our borders. At ground level this means sacrificing national security and financial well-being for the sake of human beings who are poor and oppressed, regardless of the potential consequences of doing so. It is a cross bearing politics. This is extremely radical and counter-intuitive. But most of Christianity is such. It makes little to no sense and is foolishness (“but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” 1 Corinthians 1:23-24). The hermeneutic is also eschatological and brimming with hope. The Kingdom is here now and is headed towards its fullness to come. Manifesting its goodness with care for all is one way the Kingdom is recognized. Therefore Kingdom politics is missional politics. The light of Christ is seen IN the poor and oppressed and IN their care. Open borders help facilitate the presence of both.