“Ideas have consequences…” was a refrain in my Foundations of Christian Thought course from my first semester at Biola University, now 23 years ago. It speaks to both the truth and the seriousness of that refrain that it has stuck with me all these years and animated my efforts to think carefully about what Scripture does and does not say about politics and the exercise of state power. It’s probably why I have a special sort of disdain for sloppy political theology that occludes the thinking of Christians earnestly seeking to discern God’s will. So, it’s been with frustrated interest that I’ve followed the intra-Christian debate over immigration policy in America being mapped onto events in Minneapolis over the last couple of months.
As is so often the case, Romans 13 has once again been bandied about amid debates over the proper use of the government’s “sword.” The cavalier way conservatives in favor of immigration enforcement have deployed Romans 13 has opened them up to the rejoinder from progressives of Christian hypocrisy as it pertains to opposition to COVID-era restrictions. So, when it comes to ICE, which is it: should Christians submit more or less straightforwardly to the governing authorities, or should they resist the government where its dictates seem contrary to Christian teaching?
On February 10th, Axios reported on a growing network of clergy and parachurch leaders leading protests against ICE’s activities, claiming that their religion compels them to resist ICE in reference to Jesus’ teachings on caring for the poor, the vulnerable, and the stranger. In a similar vein, Todd Lyons, acting director of ICE, was questioned by Congresswoman LaMonica McIver (D-NJ), who asked him “how do you think judgment day will work out for you with so much blood on your hands?”
The through line in these stories is a debate on whether or not ICE operations, as in Minneapolis and other cities, constitute a just or unjust use of the state’s God-given moral duty to wield the sword in defense of good and in punishing evil. Or, in terms of just war theory, does ICE’s raison d’être, the enforcement of immigration, meet the criteria of ius ad bellum? Many Christians, including clergy, believe that they do not, but they are wrong. Very wrong. Pauline-level “having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions” wrong (2 Timothy 4:3).
Critically, Paul’s articulation of state power as being ordained by God in service of defending God’s moral order is rooted in an assumption of a knowable, revealed moral order with defined moral goods toward which civil society is oriented. The state thus defends against the encroachment of moral evil. But since the line of good and evil runs through every human heart, that necessarily means that the state’s defense of the good faces “enemies foreign and domestic.” Citizens can turn rebellious just as easily as the state can turn rapacious. Why else would Paul so sternly warn against rebelling against the state, especially after spending the first seven chapters of his epistle outlining the depth of human depravity? Put differently, Paul appears more concerned about Christians self-righteously abusing their Christian freedom to the point of civic unrest than he is about the injustice of the Caesars. This isn’t because Paul is concerned about politics per se. It’s because he is primarily concerned about the spread of the gospel and the growth of the church in Christlikeness.
Returning to the notion of Christian resistance to ICE and the Trump administration: There is certainly room for disagreement and debate over American immigration policy, law enforcement institutions, recruiting and training of officers, the Trump administration’s general approach to governance—which corresponds to the ius in bello of just war theory by describing the necessary moral limitations that must be placed on the pursuit of even legitimate goals. But focusing exclusively on these issues misses the larger theme of the state as ordered toward domestic tranquility. To become overly-focused on any single issue without first becoming properly oriented towards that bigger question of “What good ought the state be aiming at?” is to miss the broader telos of the state.
So, what is the good toward which the state should aim? What good is the Trump administration justified in wielding the sword to defend and, conversely, what evil is it justified in opposing? Biblically, the good of the polis is universally understood to be physical security of citizens, their access to equal justice before the law, and economic welfare for the socially vulnerable (widows, orphans, sojourners, etc.). One could also argue for a certain level of cultural cohesion under the law of God, but that is fairly specific to Old Testament Israel and a subject for another essay
Additionally, the state is further justified in actively opposing those moral evils that would undercut these goods: invasion, violent crime, terrorism, fraud, corruption, a breakdown in law and order, etc. From that basic framework, we can evaluate the broad contours of ICE operations in the last year, and in Minneapolis specifically.
Has the physical safety of American citizens been under threat? Yes. Violent crime rose sharply in the late 2010s and during the COVID years, a trend that was well-documented prior to the Trump administration. More recently, violent crime has declined nationwide, including during the Trump administration’s renewed emphasis on immigration enforcement and the removal of non-citizens with serious criminal records. While violent crime trends are shaped by many factors, the federal government’s effort to prioritize the removal of individuals with violent criminal histories falls squarely within the state’s responsibility to protect public safety.
Has there been equal justice before the law? While opponents to the Trump administration would immediately say, “No,” it’s important here to point out that the Trump administration is enforcing standing laws on immigration. Failing to ensure people don’t enter the country illegally or overstay visas is a dereliction of duty. Incentivizing those actions through sanctuary cities and economic inducements, and not prosecuting criminal activity as the state of Minnesota has done (and other states continue to do) is a gross injustice.
There will be some who maintain that such attention to individuals with violent criminal records is a straw man of sorts since undocumented immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans, thus giving the lie to an administration policy of systemic injustice against the sojourner. This is itself a red herring.
First, a government’s primary duty of protection and care is to the citizens of that country. Second, entering a country illegally is a crime the world over. This is not a unique policy position of the United States. Entering a country illegally is a criminal act in that it violates the principle of national sovereignty, the specific laws of that country, and the broader social contract that undergirds that particular polis. To allow or normalize such undocumented entry as sanctuary states and cities have done undermines the legitimacy of the state, and actually harms the undocumented immigrants in two major ways. First, by presenting civil society with a false choice between law and order on the one hand and showing hospitality to the stranger on the other when a people governed by laws should feel in that the security to extend hospitality to the stranger. Law and order ought to encourage generosity. Second, sanctuary policies create an incentive structure that denies the undocumented full participation in the community out of fear of discovery. The undocumented are denied the opportunity to develop a sense of rootedness and communal belonging, while the native-born are denied full access to communal goods like education and healthcare. In sum, the illegal entry is an injustice as are the policies that enable and incentivize the continuation of illegal entry.
So, in Minnesota and other ICE operations across the country, there is a situation where federal law enforcement is seeking to remove violent criminals, and generally enforcing standing law under its jurisdiction (customs and immigration).
You really can’t ask for a clearer case of a justified wielding of the sword of state. Yes, we can certainly debate the how—ius in bello—of wielding that sword. But the basic template of ongoing ICE operations is well within the bounds of Paul’s articulation of state power, thereby placing a duty on Christians to be submissive to the implementation of that state policy even as they advocate for justice when evidence of unjust acts surface. Those clergy and lay leaders who say otherwise are actually doing what Paul said not to do: resisting the authorities. And there are real consequences to this. Paul explicitly states that such rebellion will “incur judgment” (Romans 13:2).
To be clear, this doesn’t mean Christians can’t go to a “No Kings” protest, advocate for due process for detainees, or publicize evidence of illegal acts by law enforcement. Nor does it mean ICE and the Trump administration are to be uncritically lauded in their work. It does mean, however, that the categorical demonization of ICE, its people, and the administration directing it to the point of aiding and abetting direct resistance to it is sinful and ought to be repented of, at least on the grounds of failing to love one’s (perceived) enemy if not on the grounds of resisting a legitimate, God-ordained authority.
Thankfully, Paul has a straightforward remedy for right relations between the Christian and the state: “Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good (Romans 13:3-4).”
Are you afraid of a state and its government that has been duly elected and is seeking to enforce the law? Then seek to do good. Actively, even violently opposing the agents of the state in their work in such a context as this does not fall under the heading of doing good. There are better ways to love your neighbor and even the enemy you see in the agents of the state. Paul talks about that too (see Romans 12:9-21).
