S P R I N G 2011
to control the flow of persons across international borders and regulate the distribution of national citizenship. How should Christians evaluate this international system? What is the moral standing of international boundaries, of sovereign states, and of international law? If churches are to contribute to the moral debate on immigration, they must address middle-level political questions such as these. Articulating principles—like compassion for migrants and hospitality to strangers—is important but insufficient in promoting a biblical perspective on complex issues like immigration, peacekeeping, or Third World development. Sorting out the ethical and political complexities of this middle level of analysis may not result in neat, clear policy recommendations. One suspects, indeed, that this is the real reason why the NAE—like the Catholics, the Wesleyans, and the ELCA—avoided them, opting instead for unhelpful generalities and unjustified recommendations. But if churches are to maintain their spiritual independence and moral credibility, they should refrain from issuing simplistic policy pronouncements without carrying out the hard work of political ethics. The danger here is more than simply offering poor advice; rather, the real threat to the church lies in the misuse of biblical authority for political ends.
I
t may seem unfair to spend so much time criticizing the NAE’s short and disappointing immigration resolution. But that statement provides a window onto larger issues, in which potentially much is at stake. Historically, Christian churches have varied in their level of political engagement. Some denominations, especially mainline Protestant ones, have been active in issuing pronouncements on a wide variety of domestic and foreign policy concerns. During the Cold War, mainline churches frequently offered advice on arms control and disarmament, nuclear strategy, the Middle East peace process, revolutionary wars in Central America, and the like. Evangelical and fundamentalist denominations, by contrast, made comparatively few pronouncements and were more reluctant to lobby government officials. Ironically, as the influence of mainline Protestants has waned in recent decades, evangelical political engagement with both domestic and international political issues has increased. While many factors have contributed to the decline of mainline churches, their loss of 9