It struck me in a different way, this week, as this evening I’m moving my furniture into a new apartment in a town I’ve never lived in before. I just got back from five months in Bolivia (and two weeks in Guatemala). Although I’m jobless, few potential landlords doubted I will find a job that can support me. My educational and work history, combined with my familiarity with the area, probably give this impression. I can count on my ethnicity and national background not to count against me here. If I were moving from a country outside the US and/or had a darker-complected appearance… who knows if anyone would have been willing to rent to a person who is currently unemployed?

Taking deep breaths helps me, too, Tom. It’s easy for me to get agitated when discussing this issue. I have to remind myself that biting anyone’s head off won’t change minds or lower defenses.

You asked how this way of thought informs a response to immigration. Mostly, it just lowers my expectation of the government, but it doesn’t really change how I live. I still try to build bridges towards the immigrant community, and do what I can to make them feel at home here. I get really pissed off when I hear people talk about “building up the wall,” or other things to cleanse America of people that have been labeled illegal, but after I take a couple of deeps breaths I think, “Well, that is a normal response for a government/people that is not seeking to follow Christ….they’re just looking out for their own best interest.” Although I think this is shameful, I think it is reality, and this reality informs my theology.

I agree with you Nathanael that in many ways we have let the state define the way we talk about migration. I had not earlier thought about that fact, so your point is one I will continue to process. I wonder though, is the way we talk about this issue dependent on our audience? It seems like on YAR we could have a good discussion about the state’s role in defining the debate, yet if we were presenting this to a more rural Mennonite congregation, would they be able to latch on? In those situations it seems important to decide what message we’re trying to communicate. Are we encouraging/challenging them to be more open to recent “immigrants” in their community or are we trying to explain how the church has allowed the government to dictate how the issue is framed? Perhaps it is possible to have both discussions, but in most cases it seems like a little much (especially if the issue hasn’t been discussed in the past). I acknowledge that I could be taking the easy way out here, so please correct me if this approach seems too cautious.

Tom, thanks for bringing up the two-kingdom/Lordship of Christ divide. I grew up with two-kingdom theology and more recently have been trying to wrap my mind around the Lordship of Christ understanding. I would be interested to hear more about how you’ve grappled with these theologies since you and I have moved in opposite directions. But, more importantly, how would you see the two different theologies informing a response to migration? Would the approach differ based on one or the other?

I would be interested in discussing what Nathanael mentioned. Over the last couple of year I have found myself leaning more towards a two kingdom theology as my cynicism of governments has grown. Isn’t it the role of any government to protect itself, provide for its people, etc. In so doing, said government/state is inherently going to contradict the message of Jesus. The state’s job is to look out for #1, the whole job of a follower of Jesus to love the Lord, and look out for others, forsaking yourself in the process.

I went to Bluffton University where the tradition two kingdom theology was looked at as a “has been” and they taught that now everything, even state governments, are under the Lordship of Christ. I can’t argue with the idea, but in practice it seems pretty hopeless to me.