Religious groups stand firm against biblical defense of border policy
Attorney General Jeff Sessions cited scripture to defend the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance policy that split families at the border.
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said that “it is very biblical to enforce the law” in regards to the policy.
But many American Christians, after seeing images, video and audio of children separated from their parents at the border, called the practice “immoral,” “unjust” or “simply wrong.”
After continued protest from all sides of political and religious aisles, President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed an order halting his administration’s policy of separating migrant families at the U.S.Mexico border.
For many Christians, the policy was simply incongruent with their faith.
“I don’t think there’s much inner turmoil in most people,” said Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. “Everyone from Franklin Graham to Willie Nelson has registered grave moral concern.”
That’s not to say all religious Americans opposed the policy unanimously. The Rev. Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Dallas, told the Dallas Observer on Monday that he found the reports of children being separated from their parents “gutwrenching,” but also referenced a 2015 case when an unauthorized immigrant accidentally shot and killed a woman in San Francisco.
“Any American who commits a crime is going to [be] separated from his or her child,” Jeffress said, according to the Observer. “You don’t send children to jail with their parents in America, so I’m not sure why the only criminals who would get a pass on that policy would be illegal immigrants.”
Still, Jeffress was in the minority of religious leaders by speaking in favor of the administration’s policy. Even among white evangelical Christians, who supported Trump by 80 percent in the 2016 election according to exit polls, the separation of families appears to run contrary to the faith community’s rallying cries of protecting families.
Interdenominational opposition
Experts say when Sessions and Sanders used religious language to defend the zero-tolerance policy, it transitioned from a political issue to a theological one.
“Evangelical Christians are getting uncomfortable with that specific part of this policy,” said Lilian Barger, a historian and author who studies Latin America and religion. “They pushed it a little too far.”
Last week, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops criticized the policy as well, specifically with concern to its impact on immigrant families.
“Families are the foundational element of our society and they must be able to stay together,” Daniel DiNardo, archbishop of GalvestonHouston, said in a statement. “Separating babies from their mothers is not the answer and is immoral.”
Wednesday, Pope Francis also called the policy “immoral.” In Dallas, Bishop Edward Burns said he is working with the Catholic Diocese of Dallas’ immigration task force to see how local Catholics could help.
“We are prompted to respond to this situation with love, compassion and mercy,” Burns said in a prepared statement. “It is my prayer that our legislators and lawmakers will do the same -- and do so quickly -- in order to alleviate the unjust pain and suffering occurring at our borders.”
Opposition to the policy spread beyond typical religious divides, Moore said. The fact that Sessions and Sanders used religious language in the first place shows the administration’s attempt to gain support among Christians, he said.
“I’m energized by the depth and breadth of support for children and families,” Moore said. “I’m dismayed that we even have to have this conversation.”
In a news conference late last week, Sessions turned to a verse with a controversial history to help justify the administration’s zero-tolerance policy.
“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order,” Sessions said. “Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves and protect the weak and lawful.”
Experts say his use of Romans 13 in particular can be problematic.
“Theologically, it is a very weak, weak argument,” Barger said. “It was almost like a desperate attempt to shore up support for the policy.”
The chapter has been used to justify all kinds of unpopular policies, including American slavery. In context, it tells early Christians to obey Roman laws in order to survive as a struggling minority community.
“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established,” reads the first verse in the chapter. “The authorities that exist have been established by God.”
William Lawrence, professor emeritus of American church history at Southern Methodist University’s Perkins School of Theology, said that the passage has been hotly debated among theologians.
“Either intentionally or unintentionally, he was citing an extremely controversial interpretation of that passage,” Lawrence said.
Moore said that particular verse must be understood within the context of laws that support the common good and punish evildoers. Sessions’ reading, he said, did not stand up.
“There is no Christian theologian in history who has argued that whatever a government decides to do is morally right,” Moore said. “It is a very hard case to make that children are evildoers.”
Bishop Michael McKee of the North Texas Conference of the United Methodist Church said Sessions’ use of the first verse of Romans 13 without additional context was an incomplete reading of the scripture. Just a few verses after the passage Sessions cited, the Apostle Paul writes to “love your neighbor as yourself.”