Part one of this series on critical race theory discussed how Christians often wrongly frame questions around critical race theory as an all-or-nothing proposition.

Part two pointed out ways critical race theorists help us understand the history of racism in America and the role Christians have played.

Here, we will examine and evaluate the claims of a few critical race theorists. It bears repeating: Critical race theory is a diverse field, and not everyone in the field makes these claims.

Critical studies generally proceed through three steps—gathering facts, drawing conclusions based on those facts, and proposing or implementing solutions. My confidence in the work of critical race theorists generally diminishes with each step.

Let’s consider two conclusions reached by critical race theorists.

Conclusion one: Christianity invented racism

The critical theorist looks at the history of America and sees Christians responsible for racism at every step. At one level, I do not dispute that. The racism in our history as Christians is to our deep shame. Acts of racism by Christians lie about the character of the God we serve.

However, while we agree Christians have been responsible for acts of racism, it is too far to say Christianity invented racism, or even the American version of it.

Critical race theorist Rebecca Anne Goetz argues as much in her celebrated book, The Baptism of Early Virginia. Her examination of conversion and baptism laws vis-a-vis slavery in early America is as meticulous as it is depressing.

Goetz concludes with this analysis: “This story is one of transformation, from an early seventeenth-century understanding of Christianity that stressed its universality to a mid-eighteenth-century understanding that stressed its exclusivity. … English people struggled to explain the differences they observed between themselves and Africans and Indians, and they saw religion as a way of articulating and explaining those differences. The qualities they assigned to themselves as Christians, as well as the rights and freedoms they believed derived from their Christianity divided them from Indians and Africans.”

I disagree with her, but I can see how she got there. If someone views religion as a sociological phenomenon, it makes sense that if Christians are involved consistently in racism in history, they might be responsible.

Rather than reflexively object and call the claim ridiculous—as Christians on social media are wont to do—why not sit with the claim to see if it has any merit at all?

Have Christians been responsible for racism? Sadly, yes. Solely responsible? No. But if the world thinks that way, it is important for our witness to have an answer to that claim, and we need a better answer than falsely claiming we have been right all along.

Conclusion two: Racism is permanent

Critical race theorist Derrick Bell looks at the way the South organized after losing the Civil War to disenfranchise Black people. He provides penetrating insight into the American psyche and offers compelling examples of how racism persists throughout history.

I cannot disagree with him up to this point, and I would do well to consider these facts that make me uncomfortable about my country.

Bell wrote in Faces at the Bottom of the Well: “We rise and fall less as a result of our efforts than in response to the needs of a white society that condemns all blacks to quasi citizenship as surely as it segregated our parents and enslaved their forebears. The fact is that, despite what we designate as progress wrought through struggle over many generations, we remain what we were in the beginning: a dark and foreign presence, always the designated ‘other.’ Tolerated in good times, despised when things go wrong, as a people we are scapegoat and sacrificed as distraction or catalyst for compromise to facilitate resolution of political differences or relieve economic adversity.”

He draws the conclusion from facts of history that racism is a permanent fact that cannot be changed given the existing power structures. All apparent advancements against structural racism are a sham.

As a Christian, I have to disagree with that conclusion. Jesus reigns. All authority in heaven or on Earth has been given to him (Matthew 28:19). It has been this hope which has kept so many in the Black church working to fight racism for so many years, and God has blessed those efforts.

Because the Lord reigns, racism is not inevitable. Perfect justice will be established forever when our king returns, but God’s people always have been those who dare to hope in justice now.

Proposed solutions

The final step for critical race theorists is determining what should be done about racism. If racism is Christianity’s invention, and if racism is permanent according to the power structures enabling it, then the solution to racism is to tear down the existing power structures that have created a racist society.

That means Christianity has to go. So-called traditional values have to go. The deeper you go, the more that has to come down. This kind of thinking has become so mainstream that a U.S. governmental agency recently suggested monotheism and the “Protestant work ethic” create racist social norms.

We could be reflexively outraged. Many Christians were. But it is better to take the time to see how this view developed in scholarship.

It came about through a set of facts we agree on—Christians, particularly ones who claimed to be Bible-believing, perpetuated racism for years. It is too simplistic to claim these were the only ones perpetuating racism, but the fact others were doing it does not absolve people of faith.

We need answers for how Christians so often were so wrong on race. We need to come up with solutions for racism rather than leaving that work to those who believe our very faith is responsible for the problems we face.

And we need the humility—as those who have grown up within those tribes—to acknowledge we might have persisting blind spots.

Ways you can pray:

1. Lament racism by Christians that lends credence to these faulty conclusions.
2. Pray God will purge his church of all ethnic partiality.
3. Pray Christians will be interested in pursuing good solutions to racism rather than just decrying solutions with which we disagree.

Austin Suter is the editor of United? We Pray. He is a member of Oakhurst Baptist Church in Charlotte, N.C. This article originally published Sept. 19, 2020, and is republished here by permission. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Baptist Standard.

In the introduction to this series, I argued that we often think of critical race theory in the wrong ways. We think of it as a unit to be taken up or discarded as a whole. We view it monolithically, rather than seeing it as a complex field of study occupied by social scientists and historians who make contradictory claims.

Rather than talking about critical race theory as a unitary discipline, we instead will engage with and evaluate some claims by individual critical race theorists.

There are plenty of things to critique about critical race theorists’ claims, and we’ll get there. But first, let’s see how critical race theorists can help us be more faithful Christians by helping us understand our own national history.

The racial history of American Christianity

Christian theology is not meant to be practiced by hermits independent of any society and history. We need to understand our situation to apply Scripture faithfully to it. Just as missionaries labor to understand their specific contexts and pastors get to know their people, so we all must understand the world around us to make a compelling and faithful witness to Christ.

The problem is, when it comes to American history, white Bible-believing Christians have not done well on the issue of race. Actually, in looking at the history of racism in America, we have done terribly. Christians too often have been active participants in racism and have failed to reckon fully with the historical failings of predecessors we otherwise claim and cherish.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., wrote to white clergy from the Birmingham, Ala., jail that the biggest stumbling block to justice wasn’t flagrant racists, but white Christians who didn’t care enough to step up and help.

In essence, Christians have been accused of complicity in an unjust system. While that may be true in some cases, I think reality is far worse. Christians were not just silent in the face of injustice. Much of the racial injustice of American history was carried out by people who called themselves Christians. Worse than that, by people who claimed to make much of truth and care a lot about theology and fidelity to the Scriptures. What do we do with that?

Our national narrative

We can call it something like a troubling inconsistency. Or an unfortunate misstep. Or we could brush it aside and not talk about it. Downplaying is its own form of lying.

The Westminster Larger Catechism Question and Answer 145 defines lying, in part, as, “undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others.”

But some lie even more boldly and buy into the lost cause narrative. In surveying historiography on race by people who call themselves Christians, these are the approaches you are likely to find.

Racism and all its heinous children—slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow, redlining—are thought of as unpleasant footnotes on an otherwise idyllic society and heritage. We lionize our heroes and minimize their sins.

Here is where critical race theorists can help us, if we’ll let them. They have no heroes whose reputations they feel compelled to protect. Many of them have taken stock of the racial sins of American Christians and paint a condemning picture. While that might make us feel badly, is it true?

Did early Christian settlers practice and spread chattel slavery, or didn’t they? Did pastors and theologians from Whitefield to Dabney come up with reasons to defend the institution of American slavery, or didn’t they?

When political pressure mounted against slavery, did brand new, Bible-proclaiming Presbyterian and Baptist denominations form to protect the practice, or didn’t they? Even a century later, during the civil rights movement, did the political muscle of conservative Christianity get behind it, or did Southern Baptists such as Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms politically oppose it?

Perhaps the worst sin of white Christians was not complacency. It wasn’t just that King did not have allies in the pews of white moderate churches, as he called them. He had all-out enemies, like Thurmond and Helms.

Critical race theorists have done good historical work in outlining the complacency, sins of omission, and outright racism of American Christians through the centuries. We ought to let them do it. It will help us understand the heritage of racial tension and ignorance we inherit. It will help us understand how we are perceived by the world. And it will help us decide what corrective actions need to be taken.

A proper use of critical race theory

You probably have heard an argument that goes like this: America needs to return to the values and practices of yesteryear in order to achieve our desired moral or political outcome. But getting this pill down requires us to ignore a number of incontrovertible facts.

Was America morally better in previous centuries? If so, who benefited? This is where Christian historians and critical race theorists suffer from opposite problems. Many Christian historians ignore facts in order to bolster our preferred narrative about the past. Critical race theorists thoroughly collect facts, but then run them through ideological prisms to project a vision of the future we must not support.

We must not buy into solutions that run counter to the word of God. But it would be irresponsible to ignore facts that do not fit our preconceived notions of our history. We should learn from critical race theorists who shed light on historical blind spots we have.

Many pieces on critical race theory by self-identified evangelicals or Reformed Christians will admit Christians can benefit from insights of critical race theory. But the conclusion of many such pieces is that critical race theory has foundational incompatibilities with Christianity and as such is too dangerous to read and study. If that’s the conclusion, admissions of helpfulness amount to mere lip service. What one hand gives, the other takes away.

Our own historiography on issues of race is woefully lacking. Let’s not turn away common-grace insights. The right way to evaluate a truth claim is not by asking whether the individual who makes it has been infected by critical race theory.

Once we establish the truth of historical claims, we come to an important question: “What do we do about it?” We will address this question in the third part of this series.

Ways you can pray:

1. Pray that God makes us receptive of truth, regardless of who is telling it.
2. Pray that God makes us humble enough to recognize facts we do not like.
3. Pray that God’s people would care more about eradicating racism than defending ourselves from accusations of racism.

Austin Suter is the editor of United? We Pray. He is a member of Oakhurst Baptist Church in Charlotte, N.C. This article originally published Sept. 10, 2020, and is republished here by permission. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Baptist Standard.

In The Challenge of Pluralism, Stephen V. Monsma and J. Christopher Soper posed a question facing every democratic society: “How far can a democratic polity go in permitting religiously motivated behavior that is contrary to societal welfare and norms?”

During the past year of the pandemic, states and local communities grappled with this long-asked question on multiple fronts.

As Monsma and Soper wrote: “There is general agreement that when the exercise of religious freedom by one group has the effect of endangering the health or safety of others … the claims of religious freedom must yield to the welfare of the broader society. … But this leaves many questions. How serious must the threat to public health and safety be before the government insists that even religiously motivated practices must be curtailed?”

The recent Supreme Court injunction in Tandon v. Newsom pertaining to California’s restrictions on religious gatherings conveys the complexity of answering such questions.

Proper limitation vs. free exercise

Under the U.S. Constitution, no right is absolute, even when it comes to free exercise. For example, no one argues the government cannot restrict religious child sacrifice. We accept that as a proper limitation.

However, this becomes murkier in other areas. For example, at what point are individual religious rights of parents overridden by a government’s concern for proper health care for a child?

These complicated matters require thoughtfulness and nuance for both the individuals claiming rights and the government limiting those rights.

In Religion and the American Constitutional Experiment, John Witte Jr., wrote: “At the heart of a free exercise case is a conflict between the exercise of governmental power and the exercise of a private party’s religion. … Their claim is that the law at issue infringes upon their beliefs of conscience. It inhibits their acts of worship. … It commands them to do something, or to forgo something, that conflicts with the demands of their individual conscience or collective faith. It discriminatorily singles out their activity, organization, or property for duties or exclusions that are not imposed on other individuals or groups similarly situated.”

Ultimately, a healthy separation of church and state depends on the Supreme Court recognizing the uniqueness with which the free exercise of religion is treated by the First Amendment.

Reducing free exercise protections

As state and local governments grappled with how best to handle COVID-19, governmental regulations clashed inevitably with deeply held religious beliefs. How should the government balance public health needs with free exercise rights?

When considering the proper role of the government in limiting free exercise, it is desirous for the Supreme Court to use a strict scrutiny approach, which means free exercise rights may be infringed only narrowly in pursuit of a compelling state interest. The burden, then, is on the state to justify the restrictions on free exercise.

In Sherbert v. Verner (1963), the state was required to demonstrate “the conduct or actions so regulated have invariably posed some substantial threat to public safety, peace or order,” and that the government has “some compelling state interest” that “justifies the substantial infringement of appellant’s First Amendment right” only when “’the gravest abuses, endangering paramount interests, give occasion for permissible limitation.’”

However, in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), Justice Antonin Scalia rejected the need for strict scrutiny, thus lowering the state requirement to mere neutrality, resulting in the weakening of free exercise protections.

Under neutrality, the state no longer needs to demonstrate a compelling interest, as long as the law is generally applicable. This unfortunate decision granted the state the upper hand in free exercise cases.

As church-state scholar James E. Wood Jr., wrote at the time: “Without any real basis for exemption given to the free exercise of religion, the majority opinion in Smith gives to the state the right to force compliance with all its valid laws without any balancing of the claims of the free exercise of religion with a compelling state interest.” This approach has been the standard for the court over the last 30 years.

Strengthening free exercise protections

However, the recent opinion by the Supreme Court in Tandon v. Newsom appears to lean toward requiring a compelling state interest in order to limit free exercise. In the opinion, the majority explains that “government regulations are not neutral and generally applicable, and therefore trigger strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause, whenever they treat any comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise.”

Specifically calling out California’s COVID-19 regulations on worship gatherings, the Court cited strict scrutiny reminiscent of Sherbert, stating: “[T]he government has the burden to establish that the challenged law satisfies strict scrutiny … where the government permits other activities to proceed with precautions, it must show that the religious exercise at issue is more dangerous than those activities even when the same precautions are applied.”

Placing the burden on the state, aside from whether the law is applied neutrally or not, grants greater protections for free exercise rights.

Balancing free exercise and public health

Obviously, responsible conduct for gatherings during a pandemic has been discussed widely this past year. In states that do not restrict worship gatherings, some churches have returned to business as usual, while others have opted for a more reserved approach, remaining online or meeting in smaller groups. But in those states, the government grants the freedom to the individual houses of worship to make responsible choices.

One can argue how responsible various actions are; however, how individuals practice free exercise is separate from the need for the government to protect free exercise.

In our constitutional democracy, requiring a compelling state interest to limit free exercise protects all faiths. However, churches must never abuse the right just “because we can.” Instead, we should respect the common good, realizing our actions not only impact our congregations, but the community as a whole.

Inevitably, church and state will collide. As Witte writes: “Today’s state is not the distant, quiet sovereign of Jefferson’s day from whom separation was both natural and easy. Today’s modern welfare state, whether for good or ill, is an intensely active sovereign from whom complete separation is impossible … Both confrontation and cooperation with the modern welfare state are almost inevitable for any religion. When a state’s regulation imposes too heavy a burden on a particular religion, the free exercise clause should provide a pathway to relief.”

In Tandon v. Newsom, the Supreme Court recognizes the complexity of this relationship. Erring on the side of free exercise should be the government’s aim. Erring on the side of the public good in society should be the church’s aim.

In other words, concerning church-state matters, practicing the Golden Rule by “doing unto others” should be a guiding mantra for all in our communities, our churches, our states, our nation and our world.

Jack Goodyear is the dean of the Cook School of Leadership and professor of political science at Dallas Baptist University. The views expressed are those of the author and not intended to represent any institution.

A seminary professor recently told me the three most controversial letters in Evangelicalism are “CRT.” If you Google the acronym, you will find an overwhelming amount of information, much of it conflicting, about critical race theory.

How should Christians think about critical race theory? Is it a helpful influence, a fresh perspective, a poison pill or some mixture of them all?

This is the first in a four-part series on critical race theory, what commonly is referred to as CRT. My goal is not to give you an exhaustive exploration of critical race theory and its implications, but to set some guardrails.

What is critical race theory?

There are many definitions or summaries of critical race theory. Whenever possible, I find it helpful to let folks speak for themselves.

Critical race theory scholars Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic explain their field in Critical Race Theory: An Introduction as a “collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, setting, group and self-interest, and emotions and the unconscious.”

Notice: This description is more an approach to study than a statement of faith. That might drive some of us crazy, because we are used to detailed lists of affirmations and denials. I do not think such a definition of critical race theory is possible.

While there may be shared opinions between scholars, we need to be very careful not to paint with too broad a brush when summarizing such a complex field of study, saying things like, “Critical race theory teaches _______.”

Perhaps a scholar engaged in critical race theory makes a specific claim. That doesn’t mean everyone in the field has reached the same conclusion. For this reason, when evaluating specific ideas, it is fairer to all involved to speak of the specific critical race theorist making the claim rather than assuming everyone else in the field shares the same opinions.

What should we do with it?

Critical race theory is complicated. Many have argued we need to reject critical race theory as a framework but should learn from its insights. My own denomination adopted a resolution making this point. While I think that’s basically right, it’s not quite that simple.

Some in this conversation take great pains to point out what they see as a foundational incompatibility between biblical Christianity and critical race theory. Others who disagree are more willing to see where critical race theory leads and evaluate whether certain conclusions are consistent with Christianity.

I fear too often this Christian conversation about critical race theory engages the issue at the wrong level. We talk about critical race theory as a complete unit, as if it’s something we either need to accept or reject in total.

Even when we recognize we may use it in a limited capacity, we’re still talking about how and when to use this unit of thought or tool called critical race theory. But I think there’s a more helpful question: How can I read critical race theory in a discerning and Christian manner?

Avoiding pitfalls

If we are not careful, viewing critical race theory as an inflexible unit can reduce us to little more than language police. We will find ourselves unable to participate in public conversation or learn from people outside of our own bubbles, because others have different frames of reference or use different language.

Consider the following exchange between two Christian sisters:

Molly: “I’ve really been confronted lately with my own white privilege.”

Sarah: “You know, you shouldn’t say that. That phrase has Marxist origins incompatible with Christianity.”

Sarah rightly wanted to guard her biblical worldview. But she engaged neither Molly nor her idea.

What did Molly mean by white privilege? Did she mean she believed herself personally culpable for all injustice ever committed by white people? Or did she mean she is realizing how little racism had mattered to her in years past? Sarah will never know. The conversation is over.

If this is our approach, we will dismiss true things said by critical theorists, because we judge too impulsively the individuals and their language to be ideologically impure.

I’ve written previously about how Christians should be willing to learn from folks outside our own theological tribes. Part of the reason for this is, frankly, the American church’s terrible track record on race and racism.

Conversations on racial justice began long before many white Christians were interested. We need help from people who have been working on the problem, even if we don’t always like all the ways they’re going about it or the words they’re using.

This is just a brief introduction to set the stage for where we hope to go. This series will not be a masters-level study. The next article will explore some ways critical race theorists can help Christians. My prayer is we will be helped to be good conversation partners and discerning disciples of Jesus.

Ways you can pray:

1. The critical race theory discussion is not going away. Pray Christians would be discerning and loving in the ways we engage.
2. Pray Christians would guard the integrity of our faith, even from our own experiences, biases and blind spots.
3. Pray Christians would be humble enough to learn from non-Christians, recognizing God’s common grace.

Austin Suter is the editor of United? We Pray. He is a member of Oakhurst Baptist Church in Charlotte, N.C. This article originally published Sept. 3, 2020, and is republished here by permission. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Baptist Standard.

Irony accompanies migratory birds as they fly past my window near the U.S.-Mexico border. They come and go as they please. No drama in their lives. No spectacle on their journey.

Yet down here on the ground, reports about unaccompanied migrant children arriving at that border and migrant families being released into the United States have become a daily trend. The humanitarian tragedy compelling migrants to journey hundreds of miles to our border has been exploited for political benefits. Here in the Rio Grande Valley, we are accustomed to this.

But the crisis unfolding at the border is not new. Spikes in border arrivals occurred in 2014, 2016, 2018 and 2019. What is the difference now?

The approach the Biden administration is taking to address the migrant flow is new, as are the number of migrants arriving at the border and COVID-19’s constraints on assisting both migrants and immigration officials.

The current situation

Mexico has stopped accepting some migrant families, and the U.S. government has altered a couple of immigration policies.

First, the government—with the help of the United Nations—began allowing orderly entry of migrants who lived in poverty more than two years under the Migrant Protection Protocols, better known as “the Remain in Mexico policy.”

Second, the government began exempting unaccompanied migrant children and families fleeing their home countries for compelling humanitarian reasons from its COVID-19 order, better known as Title 42, authorizing rapid expulsion of undocumented migrants at the border.

Under the previous administration, the U.S. government expelled almost all immigrants, including unaccompanied migrant children, through Title 42. Christians and numerous faith groups disavowed the practice.

Still, while most migrants continue to be expelled, exempting unaccompanied migrant children and families who have justifiable cause to fear returning home has overwhelmed the immigration system.

A backlog of migrant children in border patrol’s custody and the flow of migrant families released into the country are testing the limits of immigration authorities, local governments, transportation systems and the governmental organizations assisting migrants and immigration officials alike.

Pastor Carlos Navarro, who leads Iglesia Bautista West Brownsville to feed, clothe and shelter immigrants in Brownsville, stresses, “The issue is not the increase in the number of migrants, but COVID-19.”

The pandemic is affecting everything, from the number of volunteers willing to assist in the ministry to the capacity of organizations to help migrants, he says, explaining: “The COVID-19 protocols slow down the whole process, because you can’t serve the same amount of people as you used to. Also, you can’t congregate as many people in one space, and, understandably, there aren’t as many volunteers willing to risk their health.”

Root causes

Meanwhile, expelled migrants continue to enter the United States, new migrants arrive at Mexico’s northern border and another migrant caravan is organizing in Central America. All this was predictable. In fact, on the day Biden took office, I wrote a column noting migrant caravans were forming and heading for the southern border.

This escalation of border activity is not surprising; for years, the U.S. government has refused to address factors driving migration and to propose a regional solution.

Climate change has produced unprecedented drought in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, leaving millions of people hungry and without work. They believe they have no alternative but to move north. Studies predict 4 million Central Americans will become climate migrants by 2050.

Thousands of asylum seekers have fled persecution from organized crime, which cemented control over some Central American countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. Other immigrants have left home to avoid domestic violence.

Some are fleeing their own governments, which are unable or unwilling to tackle corruption. Moreover, since the 20th century, the U.S. government has intervened politically and militarily to protect its commercial interests in Central America, contributing to instability.

Last year, hurricanes decimated the region. According to UNICEF, the storms left 200 people dead and 5.3 million others—including 1.8 million children—in need of assistance. That report indicates the hurricanes destroyed 200,000 hectares of staple foods and cash crops.

The solutions

In the short term, the U.S. government must continue to produce emergency beds and relocate minors as quickly as possible.

To become a licensed foster parent, click here to learn how. Providers are looking to expand capacity, and they particularly seek bilingual candidates. If your church wants to assist in this process, encourage members to become licensed, and help them print the documentation they need to become foster parents.

Finally, Congress must acknowledge migration does not happen in a vacuum. The only sustainable solution is the one it has ignored for decades—reforming the immigration system and addressing root causes of migration.

The situation will continue to mushroom if Congress continues to ignore it. “Now is not the time” is a horrible argument. Congress could have stopped this crisis if it acted years ago, and the crisis will persist for years if Congress doesn’t act now.

President Biden proposed the Citizenship Act of 2021, which includes a section on addressing the root causes of migration and managing the southern border. Even if bipartisan support cannot be achieved for immigration reform, Congress still can agree on and respond to root causes of immigration.

Congress also can re-introduce the Central American Women and Children Protection Act introduced with bipartisan support in 2019. You can urge your elected officials to support and co-sponsor CACPA by clicking here.

Lately, I have seen legislators who don’t represent nearby communities visit the border—taking pictures and making videos—but not present solutions for the problems. Appallingly, they offer only excuses when asked for legislative solutions to the problems they claim to abhor.

Now is not the time for excuses. Immigration reform must repair a system that doesn’t meet the needs of anyone anymore. The current immigration system fails to meet the economic needs of our businesses, the family reunification needs of our citizens, immigration officials’ need to provide streamlined-yet-humane law enforcement, and the humanitarian needs of our suffering neighbors. Who, other than private detention-center and security-services contractors, benefits from this system?

This is a time bomb, and inaction is not an option. I wonder what migratory birds think about life down here as they watch from above.

Fellowship Southwest provides ongoing financial support to pastors who serve migrants all along the U.S.-Mexico border. You can help these pastors and their ministries by donating to the Fellowship Southwest Immigrant Relief Ministry by clicking here.

Elket Rodríguez, an attorney and minister, lives on the U.S.-Mexico border, in Harlingen, Texas. He is the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship’s and Fellowship Southwest’s immigrant and refugee specialist.

Christ himself is the paradigm of our life, our preaching and our conduct as Christians.

In Matthew 25, Jesus highlights the stranger among the “least of these.” He goes as far as to say that whatever we do to the “least of these” we do to him. In that sense, Jesus commands us to welcome the stranger, because we should see him in the stranger.

Jesus calls us to see the image of God in migrants and to focus on the kingdom of heaven rather than our fleeting kingdoms.

God’s concern for strangers and foreigners

The stranger or the foreigner commonly are equated in the Bible with widows and orphans. We see God commanding his people to care for them.

In Hebrews 13:2, we are required to show hospitality to strangers, and the story of the Good Samaritan compels us to be merciful to the stranger. Therefore, we as Christians are called to care, love, welcome and see Jesus in the foreigner and their struggles.

Where can we find more vulnerability compounded by the image of God than in the circumstances of unaccompanied migrant children? If Pharaoh’s daughter responded with love, tenderness and protection toward an unaccompanied migrant child such as Moses, how much more should we the redeemed show toward migrant children in our midst?

On the other hand, it is important to recognize God was deeply interested in Israel’s immigration laws (Exodus 22:21; Leviticus 19:33-34). Several times the people of Israel were reminded to treat foreigners as equals to the natives (Exodus 12:49; Leviticus 24:22).

In fact, God goes further and directly declares he “loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt” (Deuteronomy 10:18-19).

Also, the prophets constantly advocated for the rights of immigrants (Ezekiel 22:6-7; Jeremiah 22:3; Zechariah 7:10).

As you can see, God is concerned with immigration, immigrants, migrants and unaccompanied migrant children. And if God is concerned about them, how can his people not be concerned about them, especially with a subject as prevalent all throughout the Bible as God’s love for the stranger? In that sense, God does not ignore immigration laws and policies, and neither should we.

Our relationship with Christ is tied up with immigration.

Our relationship with Jesus grows in interaction with others, and it should be manifested in the way we treat the “least of these.” Otherwise, we are goats, based on Matthew 25.

It is impossible to say we love Christ and not love those whom Christ loved and defended. It would be a contradiction to the explicit deep love of God for migrants, especially given the context of judgment that frames Matthew 25, which is precisely Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 25.

In that vein, advocating and loving immigrants is not a requisite foreign to our spiritual experience, but is linked intrinsically and intimately to our relationship with a God who always has exhibited a special zeal for strangers and their plight.

Why should Texas Baptists care?

Texas churches are perfectly positioned to make an impact for the kingdom of God. The current increase in the number of migrants arriving at our southern border and the brokenness of our immigration system are opportunities we cannot ignore.

Texas churches have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to model the gospel and express Christian love to the stranger.

The mission field no longer is outside our borders. Texas itself is the mission field now. We can preach the word of God and transform the lives of generations through our acts of hospitality, care and love to migrants. Bilingual churches in Texas have an unprecedented missional opportunity to engage their communities through immigration.

In addition, many of our brothers and sisters in Christ are immigrant themselves or have immigrant family members. This means their uncertainties and burdens must be ours as well.

The question should be how Texas Baptist churches are welcoming the immigrant and expressing God’s love to the least of these.

Ten verses revealing God’s love for the stranger

1. Exodus 12:49 & Leviticus 24:22—The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.

2. Exodus 22:21—Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.

3. Leviticus 19:33-34—When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt.

4. Deuteronomy 10:18-19—God defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.

5. Ezekiel 22:6-7—The princes of Israel were condemned for oppressing the foreigner and mistreating the fatherless and the widow.

6. Jeremiah 22:3—This is what the LORD says: “Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of the oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow.”

7. Zechariah 7:10—Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor.

8. Luke 10:36-37—When Jesus asked who of the three “was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers,” the expert in the law answered, “The one who had mercy on him.”

9. Romans 12:13—Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.

10. Hebrews 13:2—Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the first of a two-part series. The second part will explain practical application of this understanding of biblical instruction.

Elket Rodríguez, an attorney and minister, lives on the U.S.-Mexico border, in Harlingen, Texas. He is the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship’s and Fellowship Southwest’s immigrant and refugee specialist.

Nations of the world regularly have opened their arms to those fleeing tyrants, terrorists and authoritarian governments. This openness has been a hallmark of the United States, whose response to refugees, especially in the past 40 years, befits the heritage of a nation founded by those fleeing religious persecution.

Since 1980, the United States has admitted more than 3.1 million refugees, many of whom fled persecution because of their faith.

Religious restrictions on the rise

The Pew Research Center has found religious restrictions are rising around the world. Thousands of refugees are fleeing from Myanmar, where the Rohingya people are being brutalized by their government because of their faith and ethnicity.

Many are fleeing Iran, where conversion to Christianity is viewed as an effort to undermine the government. Christians, Yezidis and other religious minorities in Iraq and Syria have been targeted by ISIS.

Thousands continue to flee from China, where, according to a recent U.S. State Department determination, Uyghur Muslims are victims of genocide at the hands of the Chinese Communist Party.

Refugee resettlement on the decline

In light of increasing religious restrictions, the drastic reductions since 2017 in the number of refugees admitted to the United States is alarming. In just four years, the overall number of refugees resettled to the United States declined by 86 percent, a trend only accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Religious minorities have been harmed along with those persecuted for other reasons. In fiscal year 2020, the number of Christian refugees resettled from the 50 countries on the Open Doors World Watch List of countries where Christians face persecution was down by more than 80 percent compared to fiscal year 2016. The declines among Jewish and Bahá’í refugees from Iran, Yezidis from Iraq and Syria, and Muslim refugees from Myanmar were even more stark.

This closing of America’s “golden door” to the persecuted “yearning to breathe free” is shocking, which is why a recent announcement from the current administration offers hope to religious minorities fleeing persecution.

Restoring refugee resettlement

President Biden recently declared his intention to raise the annual cap on refugee families from 15,000 to 62,500 for the remainder of fiscal 2021 and to 125,000 for fiscal 2022, and to bolster the United States’ refugee resettlement program.

These are not small numbers, but they need to be placed in context. On average, the United States has set the refugee ceiling at 95,000 every year. During the early 1980s, the United States resettled over 200,000 in a single year.

Both Republican and Democratic presidents have welcomed refugees in response to global events.

Currently, more than 340 million Christians around the world—more people than the entire U.S. population—face persecution each day. This kind of duress is not limited to Christians.

Religious minorities from Bahá’i in Iran to Yazidis in Iraq to Muslims in China do not enjoy any of the same rights and protections we are afforded by the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, a life without the First Amendment is a frightening one for people of faith, as families, communities and livelihoods are placed in danger simply because of religious convictions.

Moreover, when families flee, it is a gut-wrenching choice. It often means separation from loved ones for years at a time, traveling through foreign lands with no guarantee of safety, and the prospect of being rejected at a border if there is not enough documentation to validate claims of persecution.

U.S. refugee resettlement policy

This is where American policy comes in. By expanding refugee resettlement, we can offer a safe haven to those being rooted out by their own governments simply because of their faith. Just as the United States was a place of shelter for outsiders and religious minorities in its earliest days, it still can choose to be one now.

A move to increase the number of refugees admitted is consistent with our values, and it also is an effective means to drive a global response to the needs of persecuted minorities.

By setting an example, as we have in so many other policy arenas, the United States can encourage our diplomatic partners and fellow nations to show greater compassion and material care for the most vulnerable people in our world. As a global leader, what we do with respect to persecuted religious minorities, and how we do it, will set the tone for the rest of the world.

Admitting more refugees matters, because it will give hope to so many who are being persecuted. Accounts of those fleeing for safety are harrowing, and the hope of a better life, in addition to their faith, often is the difference in what allows them to press on.

If the United States can provide that extra bit of hope, it will make a measurable change in the lives of so many who are fleeing from threats many of us can only imagine.

These steps will take time, which means we might not see immediate change. However, we all can urge our representatives to stand up for the many religious minorities being persecuted around the world. To speak up on behalf of those who do not enjoy the same freedoms we do in America will be a credit to our nation—and to our faith.

Jenny Yang is the senior vice president of advocacy and policy at World Relief, a global Christian humanitarian organization that brings sustainable solutions to the world’s greatest problems.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This Daily Article has been edited from the original to focus on Jim Denison’s discussion of critical race theory.

Postmodernism has taught our secular society truth claims are personal and subjective. Since, in this view, no one can claim objective or absolute authority for their beliefs, tolerance is now our highest cultural value. To suggest lost people need Jesus or the Bible is God’s authoritative word is seen as intolerant and oppressive.

How critical race theory views the world

In this context, a worldview called critical race theory has gained enormous ascendency in our culture. John Stonestreet and Timothy D. Padgett of the Colson Center’s Breakpoint describe critical race theory being influenced by a Marxist ideology that views the world in terms of power dynamics. According to this ideology, social evils such as crime, poverty and oppression result not from human failures and sin but from Euro-Americans seeking to secure and increase their economic and social power.

Critical race theory is complex and multifaceted, but many of its adherents claim people experience society either as an oppressed minority or as an oppressing majority. Social structures perpetuate and exacerbate these realities.

In addition, seeing oppressed people as equals or offering equality of opportunity is not enough, since social structures enacted by oppressors continue to oppress them. As a result, some critical race theory advocates believe those who benefit from systems enacted by oppressors should make reparations to victims of these systems, offering not just equality but equity to them. And we should all work proactively to remove systemic injustices that continue to oppress minorities.

The future for evangelicals

It is beyond the scope of this Daily Article to respond to critical race theory in depth, but I will offer three biblical observations.

One: Systemic racism exists.

It is not enough to seek a colorblind society that does not recognize ongoing inequalities or work for a just society for all. God’s word is still his will: “Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” (Amos 5:24). We should work to end systemic racism wherever we find it and care for those oppressed by society (cf. Acts 6:1–6; James 1:27).

Two: The gospel is the ultimate solution to our social challenges.

Many evangelicals are using critical race theory to expose systemic racism in our culture. However, because critical race theory views humans through the prism of race and gender rather than as individuals, some of its other adherents can minimize the biblical responsibility of persons and their sacred value as God’s creation. The fact is, we all are sinners (Romans 3:23) in need of salvation by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9). The ultimate solution to all our social problems lies in transformation by God’s Spirit (2 Corinthians 5:17).

Three: We must prepare for a growing threat to religious freedom.

God cares deeply for the poor and the marginalized (cf. Proverbs 17:5). At the same time, a worldview that views minorities as oppressed and majorities as oppressors can be used to claim that evangelicals who defend biblical morality are oppressing those with whom they disagree. This is not an assertion of critical race theory per se, but it can be an application of its worldview to “moral minorities.”

As we have noted in recent articles, many claim today that evangelical appeals to religious freedom should be disallowed if they are viewed as harmful to others. The so-called Equality Act is an example with regard to LGBTQ persons. This denial of religious freedom can be extended to abortion, “death with dignity,” and a host of other civil “rights.” In this future world, Christians would not be able to appeal to their faith in refusing to perform an abortion, sex-change surgery, same-sex wedding or a variety of other services.

Three reminders and a fascinating interview

We should continue to monitor and engage with biblical clarity the cultural trajectory we have discussed today. To that end, I’ll close with three biblical reminders.

First, we should live with such integrity, consistency and compassion that others see the difference Jesus makes in our personal lives (Philippians 4:8; 1 Peter 3:16). Our opponents are not our enemies but people who need the same grace we have experienced and are called to share.

Second, we should show our culture the compelling logic and positive outcomes of the biblical worldview apart from personal religious beliefs (1 Peter 3:15). We seek not the “right to be wrong” but the “right to be right.”

Third, we should pray and work for the spiritual awakening that will change hearts and minds before it is too late (2 Corinthians 3:18). In this context, a recent interview in Christianity Today greatly impressed me.

Michel Abs was selected last fall as the new leader of the Middle East Council of Churches. He discussed the persecution of believers in his part of the world and his vision for the future. He stated: “We are the salt of the earth; we should be everywhere and spread good things. When salt is kept in its jar, it hardens and becomes like a stone, unusable.”

He also noted: “The Muslim is not our enemy. Maybe at times he could be our rival. But he is my neighbor, and Christ told us to love our neighbor.”

How usable is your salt?

Asked differently: How well will you love your neighbors today?

Jim Denison is the co-founder and chief vision officer of Denison Forum. He pastored churches in Texas and Georgia and now speaks and writes to empower believers to navigate cultural issues from a biblical perspective.

Critical race theory and the call to love our neighbor was first published in The Daily Article by the Denison Forum. Daily Articles are republished in the Baptist Standard under agreement with Denison Forum and are not intended to represent the Standard’s views.

(RNS)—Black Americans are leading the charge when it comes to religious practice in America. According to Pew Research, nearly 8 in 10 African Americans (79 percent) identify as Christian—more than any other ethnicity.

It is worth noting this legacy of faith was forged under slavery and in the years of oppression that ensued, even as their oppressors attempted to keep slaves from engaging with God’s word.

Bible’s influence on Black Americans

The Slave Bible, for example, widely distributed to reinforce slavery, omitted significant passages about freedom. Many Christian organizations in the 1800s were ambivalent at best about encouraging enslaved Blacks to read the Bible and in some cases even refused to distribute it to slaves.

Yet despite these challenges, Black Americans persisted in faith and hewed closely to the Bible as a means of survival. It has been a source of healing, hope and refuge from danger. Its stories were passed on through songs and sermons, so they infiltrated their common language, even among those who could not read.

During the Civil War, freed slaves joined the Union Army and found jobs or places to settle in the North, and found new freedom to read the full Bible and express their faith in powerful ways.

Demand for the Bible became so strong that on May 20, 1864, Capt. Charles B. Wilder, superintendent at Fort Monroe, the largest of the camps for former slaves, asked the American Bible Society to provide 1,000 Bibles and 2,000 New Testaments for the refugees. Earlier in the war, the Bible society had faced criticism for failing to require its Southern affiliates to distribute Bibles to freed slaves. In this case, however, it responded to Wilder’s request by providing 18,424 volumes of Scriptures to the freed slaves at Fort Monroe.

“The eagerness of these poor people to receive and to learn the Scriptures is most affecting,” said the society’s 1865 annual report. “They have kissed the Bibles and Testaments when given them, wept over them, carried them upon their persons, and rejoiced in them with joy unspeakable.”

The Bible was also a source of hope and driving force for American civil rights leaders, from Bishop Richard Allen to Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman to Sojourner Truth, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. to Congressman John Lewis.

These Black heroes of the faith, including my grandparents, knew the Bible had to be at the center of life as free men and women in the United States. They were forging the path we all benefit from today.

Bible distribution

Henry Louis Gates Jr.’s documentary series on PBS, “The Black Church: This Is Our Story, This Is Our Song,” shares many of these stories of resilience through faith.

Consider Henry Dray, born and raised in slavery in Texas. He gained his freedom and became an educator for freed people, making it his mission to get the Bible into the hands of former slaves.

In 1876, Dray wrote to American Bible Society and other ministries for copies. Christian leaders like Dray—and later John Percy Wragg, who established American Bible Society’s Agency Among the Colored People of the South, and the Rev. William F. Bard—spurred a movement among African Americans to establish Bible societies of their own throughout the South to meet growing demand.

In 1911, S.E. Harris became the first Black female colporteur, selling Bibles door to door. She helped establish Bible distribution in Oklahoma, including in the historic Greenwood District of North Tulsa, also known as Black Wall Street.

By 1920, 16 more Bible salespeople traveled the South and among them put nearly 625,000 holy books in the hands of Black residents of Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Texas, Florida and Oklahoma. As Blacks moved north in search of more economic opportunity, Black Bible distribution expanded as well.

African Americans today are “the most Bible engaged in the U.S.,” according to our American Bible Society 2018 State of the Bible study. Black Christians generally demonstrate a higher regard for and deeper devotion to Scripture than other demographic groups in America.

A 2017 Barna study showed many more Black Americans own a Bible—93 percent versus 82 percent of Americans overall—and Blacks are more than twice as likely to say Bible reading is crucial to their daily routine.

The deep faith and spiritual traditions of African Americans, as well as Christians of all backgrounds, need to be highlighted and taught in our families and houses of worship. The teachings of the Bible sustained many of our forebears through the trauma of slavery and through segregation and other injustices throughout the generations.

The journeys of the leaders before us tell a compelling story of conviction and commitment to unity and justice for all, with God’s word as their guide.

Rev. Dr. Nicole Martin, an assistant professor at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Charlotte, N.C., is vice president of church engagement and executive director of trauma healing at American Bible Society. The views expressed are those solely of the author.

NOTE: This article is for educational purposes only. While the author is an attorney, the article is intended only to provide general information and a general understanding of the law, and does not provide specific legal advice. The information contained in this article should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a professional attorney licensed in your state and tailored to your specific case.

More than half a century after Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it remains one of the most important and influential pieces of legislation in American history. Among other things, the Civil Rights Act—which amended previous civil rights acts—outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The act is broken down into 11 titles.

Since creating this seminal nondiscrimination law, Congress periodically has passed additional legislation to offer similar protections based on other protected characteristics in certain contexts.

For example, in 1967, Congress passed the Age Discrimination in Employment Act to prohibit employment discrimination based on age. In 1990, Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act to prohibit employment discrimination based on disability. These acts were intended to offer similar protections to those offered to other protected classes under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

The Equality Act

In the legislature

In May 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives introduced the Equality Act. Similar versions of the Equality Act were introduced in 2015 and 2017. Unlike the 2015 and 2017 versions of the bill, which died in committees of both the House and the Senate, the 2019 bill passed the House of Representatives.

The 2019 bill is not a stand-alone piece of legislation like the ADEA or ADA. Instead, the Equality Act would amend the Civil Rights Act to add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes.

In the judiciary

In the landmark decision of Bostock v. Clayton County last summer, the U.S. Supreme Court held “an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII” of the Civil Rights Act. The Supreme Court ruled the language “because of … sex” in a Title VII context included sexual orientation and gender identity.

In one sense, the Equality Act seeks to apply this Supreme Court ruling to all 11 titles of the Civil Right Act. It also would add similar language to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected characteristics under the Fair Housing Act (Titles XIII and IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1968).

In the executive branch

Though there has been little action regarding the Equality Act over the past two years, President Biden said passing the Equality Act during his first 100 days was a top legislative priority. Additionally, Biden signed an executive order the day of his inauguration directing the heads of all federal agencies to “review all existing orders, regulations, guidance documents, policies, programs, or other agency actions” that would be inconsistent with his administration’s policy to prevent and combat discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Based on the actions of all three branches of the federal government, it increasingly is clear sexual orientation and gender identity will be added as protected characteristics in most civil rights statutes. As a result, the method and means of adding sexual orientation and gender identity as protected characteristics is of critical importance to houses of worship, religious organizations and people of faith. These nondiscrimination rights will have to coexist with the free exercise of religion.

The Equality Act changes little for churches

Though in its current form the Equality Act would add new protected characteristics to the Civil Rights Act and Fair Housing Act, it also would leave the religious exemptions to those laws in place.

When it comes to discrimination claims, there is strong protection for churches in these laws. For example, under the Fair Housing Act, with certain exceptions, churches can give religious preference to those who share their faith when selling, renting or deciding who occupies a dwelling.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, many employees are prohibited from bringing a discrimination claim against a religious organization employer under a legal doctrine called the “ministerial exception.” These protections, built into the respective statutes, would not go away under the Equality Act.

Some of the changes regarding church employment are in place because of the Bostock ruling, and churches should be aware of them even if the Equality Act does not pass. When hiring a staff member who doesn’t serve an important religious function for the church—such as a custodial staff member—that employee may not fall under the ministerial exception. If the employee does not fall under the ministerial exception, the employee could bring against the church a claim of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Still, the Equality Act would bring some changes for churches. While churches are not generally considered places of public accommodation, they will need to remain vigilant in connecting the rental of their facilities to the church’s religious mission and behaving in a manner that doesn’t put them in competition with secular rental venues.

Concerns that churches no longer will be able to restrict what weddings take place in their facilities or restrict who can use certain bathrooms in the facilities are, for the most part, misplaced. Still, church leaders should be cognizant of the changes the Equality Act would bring to laws regarding public accommodations.

The Equality Act could mean big changes for individuals and parachurch organizations

Unfortunately, the Equality Act as currently written would roll back important protections for individuals and non-church religious organizations asserting religious protection from discrimination laws.

In 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act without a single opposing vote in the House of Representatives and only three opposing votes in the Senate. President Clinton signed the bipartisan and remarkably uncontroversial bill into law.

The RFRA protects the “sincerely held religious beliefs” of people of faith. Under the Equality Act, however, “The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.) shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title.”

In other words, the protections provided to individuals and religiously affiliated organizations under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act no longer would apply to Civil Rights Act and Fair Housing Act discrimination claims.

What happens next

Here are some realistic possibilities for what could happen next:

1. Despite President Biden’s insistence the Equality Act is a top priority, it’s possible the measure does not pass the Senate. There currently are 50 Republican senators and 50 Democrat senators. It may be not all senators vote along party lines and that some of the more moderate senators vote in favor of or opposition to the Equality Act.

2. The text of the Equality Act could be changed before the law is passed to remove the language that would damage protections afforded under the RFRA. Policy advocates already are contacting their elected representatives to request this change.

3. If the law is passed as it currently is written, it seems likely to face several legal challenges. While the protections afforded by RFRA are statutory, freedom of religion is not. Free exercise of religion is enshrined in the First Amendment. It’s possible courts may strike down certain parts of the Equality Act as unconstitutional.

John Litzler is an attorney and the director of the Church Law Division of Christian Unity Ministries. The views expressed are those solely of the author and should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a professional attorney licensed in your state and tailored to your specific case.

Dreamers are young people brought to the United States as infants, toddlers or young children by their parents. This, above all other immigration issues, long has been the focus of our broken immigration system.

The Dream Act first was introduced in the U.S. Senate in 2001, 20 years ago. Think about where you were and what you were doing 20 years ago. These children now are working adults with families of their own.

A Dream Act has been on the floor of the Senate every year since 2001. Why? Because there is a biblical principle at play here. We should not punish children for the offenses of their parents.

These particular immigrant parents have come to our country unlawfully or, nearly as often, overstayed a lawful temporary visa for many reasons, some of them very sympathetic, but they did violate U.S. immigration law. However, the children whom they brought with them, who usually had no say in the decision to come to the United States, should not be held responsible for this violation of law.

Dreamers, including those currently protected by Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, should have an expedited process to become U.S. citizens. Their parents and other undocumented immigrants who came as adults also should have the chance to earn U.S. citizenship over time, but it’s fair to ask them to pay a fine as restitution for having violated U.S. immigration laws. Most, in my experience, would be more than willing to do so for the chance to get right with the law.

How I got to this point

In 2009, I was invited to teach, along with several other women in our women’s ministry. I was excited. This would be my first opportunity to teach, to be a part of the women’s ministry. My assignment was to teach on hospitality—or philoxenia in Greek—defined as “love of strangers.”

As I began researching, I realized this was not going to be a popular subject. I expressed my concern with our group leader, who took a deep breath and said: “Well, Brenda, I did not choose you, nor did I choose the subject matter. However, I do know this is what you have been called to do.” I did not realize at the time that God was preparing me for something new.

As I would learn, the Bible makes abundantly clear God loves immigrants and commands his people to love and seek justice for them. The defeat of the Dream Act in 2010 was when I began praying for justice for these remarkable young people known as Dreamers.

A Christian response to immigrants

Throughout the Bible, God commands his people to love and seek justice for vulnerable foreigners. In the gospels, Jesus reserves some of his harshest words of judgment for those who would cause a child to stumble.

Christians who take these biblical principles as their authority have an opportunity to advocate for a policy change that would rectify a longtime stumbling block built into our immigration laws. The longstanding policy prevents individuals brought to the United States as children—who were too young to make that decision for themselves—from becoming fully integrated U.S. citizens. As a Christian, I believe it’s past time for our elected officials to make this right.

We all recognize the passages throughout the Bible about the vulnerable groups we are called to love, to treat justly, and to protect from exploitation and mistreatment—orphans, widows and the poor. However, if we look a little closer, these passages include immigrants.

One way we can demonstrate love to immigrant children is by urging our elected officials finally to pass the Dream Act to allow vulnerable immigrants to move forward with productive lives. Doing so also will restore immigrants’ faith in God and country.

Political responses to immigrants

More than any other group, Dreamers have been bounced around like a political football. Over the past 15 years, both Republican and Democrat presidents have tried, but ultimately failed, to reform our immigration laws comprehensively.

Failure to pass the Dream Act in 2010 led to the executive order in 2012 known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. DACA enabled almost 800,000 eligible young adults to work lawfully, attend school and plan their lives without the constant threat of deportation. However, unlike federal legislation, DACA did not provide permanent legal status to individuals and must be renewed every two years.

DACA recipients and other Dreamers who have been educated in the United States are contributing in many ways as workers, taxpayers, entrepreneurs and consumers. A pending court challenge in Texas could lead them to lose their ability to work lawfully.

After our society has invested in their education, it would be poor stewardship to deny them the ability to work and contribute back to this community. The only way to provide them that certainty permanently is for Congress to work on a bipartisan basis to pass the Dream Act.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and Democratic Senator Dick Durbin recently re-introduced the Dream Act. 2021 could be the year my prayers are answered. But it will take senators like John Cornyn, who has expressed his commitment for a solution for Dreamers, to hear our support for a bipartisan Dream Act.

Please contact Senator Cornyn, and ask him to be a co-sponsor on the Dream Act 2021. Polls have shown the majority of Americans, including evangelical Christians like me, support this legislation.

Brenda Kirk has been an advocate for the Evangelical Immigration Table since 2012. The views expressed are those solely of the author.

The second impeachment trial of Donald Trump begins today in the U.S. Senate. One of the major questions is whether a former president like Mr. Trump can be impeached and convicted after leaving office.

One might think this is a clear-cut constitutional question. However, such is not the case.

Arguments for and against impeachment

Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (my emphasis).

It would seem a person who is no longer in office can no longer be impeached and removed from office. This is why Sen. Tom Cotton (R.-Ark.) claims, “The Founders designed the impeachment process as a way to remove officeholders from public office—not an inquest against private citizens.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R.-S.C.) warns that this action “sets up a never-ending retribution.” Numerous other Republican senators agree.

As precedent, after Richard Nixon resigned the presidency in August 1974, Congress ended the impeachment inquiry it had begun the previous May, believing impeachment no longer was appropriate.

However, for a former president to be disqualified from future office, he or she first must be impeached and convicted. This fact leads some to argue the founders meant for impeachment to apply to individuals even after they leave office and is motivating many who support Trump’s conviction. They also note he was impeached while still in office and claim it is necessary to hold him accountable for his alleged incitement of the January 6 attack on the Capitol.

As precedent, some note even after William Belknap resigned as secretary of war in 1876, the House voted to impeach him and the Senate chose to try him “for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office.” The Senate failed to convict him, however, in large part because many did not believe they had the right to convict a person after leaving office.

If you’d like to read a survey of the arguments for and against impeaching and convicting a former president, I recommend this exhaustive paper by the Congressional Research Service.

“The most competitive era of presidential politics”

Here’s an unsurprising fact: Those who were Trump’s strongest supporters when he was in office are most opposed to his conviction; those who were his strongest detractors in office are most supportive of his conviction.

Such partisanship affects every dimension of our culture.

According to FiveThirtyEight, “We’re living in the most competitive era of presidential politics in the nation’s history.” The 2020 election was the ninth consecutive presidential election in which the national popular vote margin was smaller than 10 percentage points. This is the longest run of single-digit margins since the end of the Civil War.

Our partisan views significantly influence our social networks and affect our willingness to date those who disagree with us. As a result of such divisiveness, it is unsurprising that only 16 percent of Americans think our democracy is working well or extremely well.

However, notice the partisan divide: Before the 2020 election, 68 percent of Republicans felt American democracy was working at least somewhat well; in January, that figure plummeted to 36 percent. Last fall, only 37 percent of Democrats felt our democracy was working at least somewhat well, compared with 70 percent today.

A prayer for our time

In response to our divided and divisive culture, God’s word calls us to hold three principles in balance:

1. God’s word is truth (John 17:17). What Scripture says on subjects such as abortion, sexuality, marriage, racism, immigration, poverty and other moral issues is what we are called to believe and promote.

2. All people are fallen and broken (Romans 3:23). Lost people are not our enemies but victims of our Enemy (2 Corinthians 4:4). We are called to share truth in a spirit of love (Ephesians 4:15; 1 Peter 5:5).

3. Our ultimate trust is not in ourselves but in Christ. As King David testified, “Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God” (Psalm 20:7).

As a result, followers of Jesus are to be bold in declaring and defending unpopular truth, gracious with those who disagree, and humble in dependence on our Lord. In other words, we are to be like Jesus.

If we will ask the Spirit of God to make us more like the Son of God, he will answer our prayer to the glory of God.

A breakfast I’ll never forget

I’ll close with an example.

George P. Shultz died Feb. 6 at age 100. He was one of only two people ever to hold four Cabinet positions in the U.S. government, including secretary of state under President Reagan, where he helped end the Cold War. A graduate of Princeton, he served in the Marine Corps during World War II before receiving a doctorate from MIT. In addition to his remarkable government service, he taught at MIT, the University of Chicago and Stanford.

I was privileged to sit next to Shultz and his wife at a National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C., 10 years ago. They were enormously polite and most interested in me and my work. We talked for perhaps 30 minutes before the program began.

As conservatives, they were deeply concerned about the direction of our country under the Obama administration. But the humility, respect and grace with which they discussed the president and his policies left a lasting impression on me.

It was no wonder we were talking at a prayer breakfast—Dr. Shultz was a “faithful eight o’clocker” at his church in California.

That morning, I heard President Obama, other well-known political leaders and Randall Wallace, the screenwriter for Braveheart and the director of Secretariat. But I was moved most deeply by George Shultz.

I left the breakfast with this conviction: If this man of faith who had lived and worked at the highest levels of global leadership could combine Christian courage and compassion, I could endeavor to do the same.

So can you.

Jim Denison is the co-founder and chief vision officer of Denison Forum. He pastored churches in Texas and Georgia and now speaks and writes to empower believers to navigate cultural issues from a biblical perspective.

Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial begins today: Three biblical principles offer hope in divisive days was first published in The Daily Article by the Denison Forum. Daily Articles are republished in the Baptist Standard under agreement with Denison Forum and are not intended to represent the Standard’s views.