Matthew Schmitz: Immigration Idealism: A Case for Christian Realism

Matthew Schmitz, “Immigration Idealism: A Case for Christian Realism” First Things (May 2019).

As usual, the writing of Matthew Schmitz, senior editor of First Things, is clear and cogent—and courageous. He fearlessly tackles daunting topics such as, in this case, immigration. It is a genuine pleasure to follow his almost seamless integration of personal testimony, social environment, rational investigation, and theological articulation. I particularly appreciate Schmitz’s compatible juxtaposition of Protestant ethical and social theologian Reinhold Niebuhr’s realism and Catholic natural theologian Thomas Aquinas’s political theory. Well done!

I will confess up front that I am in a position of a high level of agreement with what I take to be Schmitz’s primary assertions. Liberal idealism is an impractical and unworkable assumption about the world in which we live. It arises out of an over-realized eschatology rooted in an inaccurate assumption that utopia has already been achieved if people will just act like it. Further, liberal Christianity’s idealism has an anemic hamartiology. It simply does not realize the depth and extent of human sinfulness.

I am in something of a shock over the intensity of Schmitz’s insistence that outright contempt is behind liberal attitudes toward American citizens in general. Indeed, religious elitists do often ascribe ignorance and inferiority to their opponents (John 7:49). But I wondered if Schmitz overstated his case here. I fear not. I know liberal Christians of whom contempt for others would not be an accurate description. Yet I must admit in my own dealings with liberal Christianity I have often encountered an arrogance and animosity toward conservative Christians that is nothing short of contemptuous.

On the second anniversary of 9/11 I participated in a symposium conducted, in part, in a beautiful cathedral on the campus of New York’s Union Theological Seminary. In a break out session several liberal colleagues engaged in a concerted effort to educate me regarding an appropriate response to the tragic events of that fateful day. Mostly they wished to convince me that increased security is not a legitimate response. In a nutshell, they argued that Americans needed to be more open and tolerant of others. While I agreed that openness and tolerance are essential elements of an ethical approach to relations with religious others (terrorists aside!), I did not agree that national security concerns are overstated and therefore should be jettisoned. They appeared convinced that if they could simply make me understand their view I would convert. They were mistaken. I well remember when at one point a particular colleague seemed to come to a startling realization. He suddenly exclaimed in apparent amazement, “Oh, you do understand. You just don’t agree.” We had worked together in other contexts for a couple of years and were, I thought, becoming friends; that ended immediately. Apparently, I committed the unpardonable sin of a thinking conservative failing to fit in with liberal stereotypes.

Nevertheless, although my journey and that of Matthew Schmitz have much in common, they have different starting points—and that affects their direction. Schmitz initially assumed the need for open borders and viewed with contempt those who thought otherwise. His life experiences and development eventually changed his direction toward a more closed border mindset. I had the opposite experience. I initially assumed the dire need for strictly enforced closed borders. My familial background is Pentecostal Christian. Pentecostals are very conservative, both religiously and politically. Furthermore, my first jobs included construction work, working in a truck stop, and factory labor. Immigrants were frequent rivals for scarce resources. My brother-in-law lost his job as a sheetrock hanger because he could not compete with the low wages undocumented immigrants were constrained to endure. Secure borders were a matter of economic survival for us … even before 9/11 and another whole set of security concerns.

Yet in my pastoral and educational journey I began to get to know some immigrants in a personal sense. A significant number of immigrants from south of the US border are Pentecostal Christian. I was impressed (and blessed) when I met these sisters and brothers in our churches and schools. Eventually, I traveled to Central and South America, mostly preaching and teaching but with some humanitarian efforts. I became much more aware of the deplorable conditions which drive immigration from that part of the world. It became increasingly difficult to be impartial and objective. However, I didn’t change my mind. I still believe sovereign nations have a divine right, and a responsibility, to secure their borders for the wellbeing of their own citizenry (Ex 23:31; Ps 147:15). As shocking as it may be to liberal idealists, it is quite possible that national borders may in some sense continue eschatologically as well (Isa 60:18). Yet the Lord of Israel will be magnified beyond Israel’s borders (Mal 1:5). And beyond America’s borders too. After all, Jesus traveled along both sides of the borders of his day (Luke 17:11). Biblically speaking, national borders are recognized and respected; they are not regarded as ultimate.

Here’s how, in amicable conversation with Schmitz, I navigate the ethical and theological maze of immigration. First, I totally agree that heavenly citizenship and earthly citizenship be held together in careful relationship. The former does not entail the dissolution of the latter. Neither does the latter usurp the priority of the former. Yet it is not simply an equalizing balancing act. The reign of God is determinative in setting the direction of authentic Christian citizenship. Accordingly, Christian citizenship avoids idolatrous nationalism while embracing energetic patriotism. Significantly, Christian citizenship tends toward inclusion and universalization without diminishing distinctions of ethnic or national identity and responsibility (Rev 7:9).

What does a theology of Christian citizenship mean in terms of policy and practice? It is not enough to be committed to secure borders. At least equal commitment to reforming outdated and sometimes unjust and inhumane immigration laws is necessary as well. Christian citizenship must not become an either/or equation.

Second, like Matthew Schmitz I largely resonate with a political theology of Christian realism in the tradition of Reinhold Niebuhr. I am constantly reminding myself of two sides to Christian realism. On the one hand, are its concessions. Christian anthropology teaches that human beings are fallen, sinful creatures. Crime and violence do occur. Realists approach the world as it, not as they wish it were. On the other hand, are its aspirations. Progress—be it ever so incremental—is possible. Christian soteriology teaches that Christ redeems and transforms. Christian realists may never forget realism’s concessions but their focus must always be on its aspirations. Being salt and light (Matt 5:13-16) does not jell well with the status quo; in this specific sense, Christian ethical and social theology is genuinely progressive.

Third, in addition to a well-known emphasis on realism Niebuhr famously put forth the idea of the irony of American history. Tragically, all-too-often rash pursuit of America’s highest ideals have had the opposite of the intended effect. Liberty is foundational to the American ethos. Yet in its pursuit Americans imprisoned First Nations Peoples on reservations. And Americans built “the land of the free” on the backs of African slaves. Americans seized property from Mexico and then labeled its long-term inhabitants “foreigners” and “trespassers”. Isn’t the irony evident? Now a nation of people descended from immigrants refuses to address honestly and holistically the plight of immigrants on and within its borders. Have we so soon forgotten a just God’s love for the alien (Lev 19:33-34; Deut. 10:17-19)? Oppression is inconsistent with liberty. Oppression under the guise of liberty actually produces loss of liberty. Whether liberal or conservative, it is wrong. It is un-American. And un-Christian. Why can’t American Christians support both national security and human liberty? Are these values really antithetical? As a conservative Pentecostal Christian realist, I think not.

Reviewed by Tony Richie

 

Read the full article (available at the time of publication): https://www.firstthings.com/article/2019/05/immigration-idealism