Parables and Politics

Introduction

“And who is my neighbor?” a lawyer asks Jesus in Luke 10:29. In the Parable of the Good Samaritan, the familiar morality play that follows the interrogative, Jesus tells the story of the Good Samaritan. A person whose mixed ancestry made him a pariah to the Jewish majority, the Samaritan provided care and comfort to a stranger who had been beaten and robbed and thrown into a ditch. Through his story, Jesus teaches the concept that all other humans are our neighbors.

Though 2,000 years have passed since this New Testament book was written, the question of defining one’s neighbors is still at issue as Americans argue over the treatment of illegal immigrants. As the United States government and the states spar over who has authority for immigration policies, churches and church leaders, whose Biblical doctrine requires charity, are asking themselves the same question but within a difference context. What are the roles of the church and church leaders in setting immigration policy? Is immigration a political issue or a social issue, a human rights or a civil rights question? And do church leaders consider illegal immigration a subject best left to the state or justification for the charity that is a Biblical mandate?

Protestant and Catholic churches, like individual clergy, are a mixed lot. Some see illegal immigrants as taking jobs and not paying taxes, yet benefitting from U.S. health care and schools. Other churches have put out the welcome sign, establishing special ministries to address immigrant issues and have set up alternative church services in second languages to meet the needs of immigrants, both legal and illegal. There are soup kitchens and clothing drives, and in some cases, churches have literally provided physical sanctuary to immigrants at risk of deportation (Byassee, 2006). Like their government counterparts, some church leaders are unsure about meeting the competing needs of charity and the rule of law or how to manage the conflict between, as a letter from an organization of state elected officials put it, the “security and economic needs of states and communities while acknowledging our history as a nation of immigrants” (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2011).

In June 2011 the State of Alabama passed House Bill 56, one of the country’s most stringent laws on illegal immigration. In late September 2011, a federal judge in the Southern District of Alabama struck down some of the law’s provisions, but wrote in her decision that the federal government had not made its case for supremacy in five other areas. The Alabama law requires the following:

The effects of the law’s passage were almost immediate. According to The New York Times, “Statewide, 1988 Hispanic students were absent on Friday [after the federal court ruling on September 29, 2011], about five percent of the entire Hispanic population of the school system” (Robertson, 2011). Dozens of television news stories featured farms where crops had rotted in the fields because immigrant field workers had vanished.

Soon after the bill’s passage in June 2011, Alabama churches sprang into action with marches, vigils, and even a lawsuit jointly filed by two Catholic bishops and the Bishops of the Episcopal Church and the North Alabama Methodist Church (Faulk, 2011). While the sections of the law that would have potentially criminalized church outreach to illegal immigrants were overturned by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, many Alabama congregations have continued to be vocal about the new tough-on-immigration policies in light of Biblical teachings. The purpose of this research is to investigate, within the highly charged political context of the illegal immigration debate in Alabama, the attitudes of clergy and, by extension, their congregations toward illegal immigration as seen through the lens of Biblical teachings. This article uses existing literature on religion and the immigration debate to develop seven hypotheses concerning relationships between clergy and church membership and state policies regarding immigration and explores these hypotheses through descriptive and statistical analysis of survey responses from participating clergy.

Immigration Politics and the Church

Churches in the United States have long been involved in political activity, but support for immigration has seldom been a primary target for Christian activism. In fact, for much of the early 20th century, mainline churches opposed immigration. Van Ham (2009) explains: “From the dawn of the Progressive era through the Great Depression, religious institutions and spokespeople were generally among restrictionist ranks, including Social Gospel mavens who proclaimed the relevance of Christianity to public policy” (p. 625). Fears that immigrants would disrupt the “cultural bonds that hold Americans together” (Martin & Midgley, 2006, p. 3) are reflected in some churches that eschew involvement in the immigration reform controversy, while others hold steadfast to their belief in the separation of church and state. Martin and Midgley (2006) write that the “Catholic Church and some other religious groups oppose immigration controls because they believe that national borders artificially divide humanity” (p. 4). Catholic churches have also benefitted as they have seen their dwindling memberships stabilized in part by Hispanic immigrants (Goodstein, 2007; Putnam & Campbell, 2010), the majority of whom are Catholic.

Alison Greene (2011) describes the post-Depression era, when, she writes, “the clergy had begun to acknowledge that the Great Depression sapped American religious institutions’ power to face social crisis and alleviate individual suffering” (p. 602). The shift of charity far from complete, the New Deal helped fast forward the role of government as a social services provider in lieu of what had traditionally been the role of religious and philanthropic organizations. Smaller church movements focusing on charity to immigrants were often more regional in nature. Among these were the 1980s Sanctuary Movement for Central American immigrants in the southwestern United States and church efforts to sponsor and support Haitian refugees in the southeastern United States, which peaked in the early 1990s (Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, 2002). Van Ham (2009) describes the differences between treatment of Haitian immigrants and those from Cuba, the latter more warmly welcomed by churches, particularly in Florida, sparking complaints about selective immigration policies. In the Sanctuary movement are the roots of the debate between “obedience to God” (Van Ham, 2009, p. 633) and obedience to the laws of the country that have continued to divide many Christians.

The theme of religious and secular conflict is demonstrated in Alabama’s recent public battles between the church and state after passage of Alabama House Bill 56. The Rev. Dr. Ellin Jimmerson, who holds a PhD in American history and is a Baptist minister in Huntsville, Alabama, views immigration issues as a conflict between “legal” and “moral” claims (as cited in Cuthbert, 2008). In an interview with The Tennessean, Jimmerson, the writer of two documentaries on immigration, poses the question in Biblical terms: “Ministers have to decide whose side they are on,” she said. “Are they on the side of God, or are they on the side of Pharaoh?” (as cited in Smietana, 2011). Using the analogy of the flight of Joseph and Mary to escape Herod, Birmingham Catholic Bishop Robert Baker is reported to have commented, “Jesus did not have a green card” (as cited in Garrison, 2011, p. 15A).

Much research exists to explain why clergy and congregations become active in social and political issues. Clearly, part of the impetus for action is Biblical. Van Ham (2009) writes, “Over the last 70 years, church-based immigrant advocates have regularly pled their case on biblical grounds, quoting, in particular, Matthew 35-40 and Leviticus 19:33-34. They have used these injunctions to welcome the stranger and love the alien . . .” (p. 623). There are other factors, however, that foster a church’s decision to participate in public policy discussion and action. Political participation and outreach are influenced by the salience of the issue (Djupe & Olson, 2007) and the church leadership’s desire “to remain relevant and assure that their values are applied in a consistent way” (Djupe & Calfano, 2012, p. 93). In Alabama the number of immigrants doubled from 2000 to 2010 (U.S. Census, 2010), and since many of these first-generation immigrants live in poverty (Rector, 2006), immigration has become both salient and relevant. Poverty is a frequent topic of sermons (Djupe & Gilbert, 2002, p. 599), and church action in response to sermons may help assure that values are translated into action.

The first hypothesis explored in this article is, therefore, the following:

Knoll (2009) opines that in churches where religious leaders have spoken out on immigration, members may be more likely to do the same. Some political and religious writers describe the “prophetic” role of the clergy (Calfano, 2010; Djupe & Gilbert, 2002) in translating religious beliefs into congregational actions that reflect the church’s social theology. Calfano’s (2010) research, however, indicates the “bidirectional nature of the relationship between leaders and those they lead” (p. 649) and demonstrates the reluctance of clergy to express political opinions when such expression could reduce contributions upon which the church and the minister are dependent. Calfano (2010) points to the decline in membership of the more politically liberal “mainline” denominations as an example of what can happen when denominations become associated with political activism rather than spiritual focus. The “combination of parishioner financing and voluntary association places clergy in a potentially precarious position should they undertake behavior that alienates parishioners” (Calfano, 2010, p. 653). As a means of looking at the clergy and congregant attitude about illegal immigration in Alabama, this article hypothesizes the following:

In his study on religion and attitudes toward immigration, Benjamin Knoll (2009) explores the “ethnoreligious perspective” (p. 314), which theorizes that one’s attitudes toward issues like immigration are influenced by one’s religion. As Putnam and Campbell (2010) have pointed out, religion is today more of a matter of nature versus nurture, that is, people are more likely to choose the church that coincides with their philosophy as demonstrated by the fact that “individual Americans freely move from one congregation to another, and even from one religion to another” (p. 4). Knoll (2009) agrees with that assessment: “Given that the religious affiliation of many Americans is now determined by deliberate choice rather than early socialization, religious tradition affiliation is even more likely to be associated with political policy preferences” (p. 314). Consequently, church members are increasingly selecting congregations that are aligned with their political preferences, rather than with some longstanding relationship with a specific church or denomination. In partial exploration of this theory, this article hypothesizes the following:

A second theory offered by Knoll (2009) is the idea that those persons who have been marginalized in American society are more sympathetic to illegal immigrants. Khari Brown’s (2010) research demonstrates that in African American congregations, parishioners’ attitudes are directed by clergy, although the message they hear depends more on the status of the individual congregant than the minister. Brown (2010) writes:

African Americans who see themselves as economically vulnerable are particularly likely to pick up on cues that place blame on external forces that limit African Americans’ life chances, among which are immigration policies. Consistent with the racial heuristic thesis, this finding may be a consequence of many African Americans linking their economic experiences to their affiliation with a racially marginalized group that faces system obstacles to finding jobs and decent wages (p. 155).

This theory gives rise to two additional hypotheses:

Given the decline in membership of Catholic congregations (National Council of Churches, 2011) and the fact that most of the new immigrants in Alabama are Hispanic, this article hypothesizes:

This research also explores the Biblical basis for clergy attitudes on illegal immigration. While most of the questions about theology were open-ended, respondents were invited to select a character from the Parable of the Good Samaritan with whom they most identified. Because the Good Samaritan assisted the “stranger,” as many clergy assist their parishioners, the following hypothesis is offered:

Method

An anonymous survey was conducted with Alabama Protestant and Catholic clergy via a web-based survey tool. Survey questions addressed attitudes and actions taken by the clergy and church in response to illegal immigrants in their communities within the context of Biblical teachings. The instrument, created by the author, was tested among Georgia clergy, after which it was refined. The survey introduction provided a brief synopsis of the Alabama immigration law passed in 2011. Twenty-one multiple choice, yes-no, and short answer questions were included in the survey to gather information on demographics, church affiliation, church membership, and both clergy and clergy assessment of church member attitudes about illegal immigration.

The survey was distributed directly to approximately 200 members of the clergy purposely selected to represent Catholics, different Protestant denominations, and different races from those with an Internet or telephone directory presence. Approximately 20 ministerial associations throughout Alabama were also contacted and requested to share information about the survey with their members. To expand the list of respondents, a purchased commercial list of 7000 email addresses described as “Alabama Clergy” resulted in about 60% of total responses. After follow-up with associations and conferences with requests to share the survey, over 500 clergy members responded to demographic portions of the survey. Responses to open-ended responses drew a 50% to 70% response rate. Respondents who dropped out of the survey after the second question were omitted, resulting in 426 total respondents, some of whom skipped questions.

Outside of demographic information, all data collected in the survey was nominal. Review and analysis includes the use of descriptive statistics, statistical significance using χ², and strength of association using Cramer’s V, when appropriate. Although there are some differences of opinion in interpreting Cramer’s V, for purposes of this article, given a sufficient χ² score that indicates significance, the assumption is made that a weak relationship exists when Cramer’s V is from .10 to .19, a moderate relationship exists when Cramer’s V is from .20 to .29, and a strong relationship exists when Cramer’s V is higher than .30 (Botsch, 2011; LeRoy, 2009).

Results

Survey Questions and Summary Statistics

Table 1 describes the survey and provides descriptive statistics for responses to survey questions.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Summary Statistics From Survey of Alabama Clergy (n = 426).

Demographic information
Age of respondents	71% between ages of 36 and 65
	Mean age of grouped data—51 years
Race of clergy	8% White; 2% Hispanic; 6% African American; <1% Asian; 5% - NA
Majority race of congregation	7% African American; 2% Hispanic; and 91% White
Size of community	<24,999—41%; 25,000-99,999—30%; 100,000-199,999—13%; 200,000+—17%
Protestant/Catholic	Protestant—94%; Catholic—6%
Protestant denominations	Baptist—19%; Church of Christ—5%; Episcopalian—3%;
	Lutheran—1%; Methodist—57%; Nondenominational—2%; Pentecostal—1%; Other—5%
Clergy attitudes and actions
In the last year, have you delivered a sermon that mentioned illegal immigration in relation to your church doctrine?	Yes—38%; No—59%; NA—4%
Which general category would you select for the issue of illegal immigration?	Civil rights issue—8.2%; Human rights issue—40.1%; Political issue—38.3%; Religious issue—8.5%; NA 4.9%
Which of the following most closely reflects your personal opinion on Alabama’s new immigration law?	Agree with law—34%; Believe this limits our church’s ability to serve—57%; I don’t mix religion and politics—6%; NA—3%
Which most accurately reflects your personal opinion?	I am opposed to illegal immigration, but I believe in helping individual illegal immigrants—62%; In my world, politics and religion are separate—1%; My religion conflicts with the new law—33%; NA—4%.
As a minister (pastor, preacher, reverend, priest, vicar), with which role in the Parable of the Good Samaritan do you identify?	Good Samaritan—69%; Levite—3%; Priest—9%; Victim—10%; NA— 9%.
Do you think the Parable of the Good Samaritan commands Christians (Protestants and Catholics) to provide charity to illegal immigrants?	No—26.8%; Yes—69.5%; NA—3.8%
Clergy information about church and congregation
Which of the following best describes your church?	Conservative—44%; Moderate—50%; Liberal—6%
Have any church members asked for religious advice about handling of situations that involve illegal immigrants?	No—67.1%; Yes—30.5%; NA—2.3%
If you had to pick one answer from those below, how do you think most people in your church organization feel about illegal immigrants?	It is the church’s responsibility to provide help to illegal immigrants in need—49%; They are illegal, and our church supports the rule of law—32%; We feel sorry for them, but they have taken our jobs and are a drain on our economy —13%; NA—7%.
Has your church ever provided outreach to illegal immigrants (charity, invitations to worship, or other forms of support)?	No—27%; Yes—66%; NA—6%.
Will the changes in the law affect your future outreach programs?	No—69%; We have never done outreach—16%; Yes—13%; NA—2%.

Clergy and Congregant Attitudes and Actions Related to Illegal Immigration

Thirty-nine percentage of the 410 clergy who responded had preached a sermon on illegal immigration in the past year. Nearly 84% of those who believe that “the law limits our church’s ability to serve” preached a sermon on immigration, perhaps reflecting both the emerging salience of the issue as the immigrant population has grown and the desire to ensure that the church’s values are put into action around a current event. Clergy who believe the new law “limits the church’s ability to serve” were 6.5 times as likely to preach a sermon as those who said they “agree with the law.”

Survey results only weakly support H1, which states that in churches where ministers have preached a sermon on immigration, congregants are more likely to conduct outreach, (Cramer’s V = .13, p = .01). When parishioners have heard a sermon on immigration, 78.6% have provided outreach, compared to 66% in churches where immigration has not been addressed. Outreach is also more likely in churches where clergy are concerned that the law potentially “limits the church’s ability to serve.” This suggests that even if clergy attitudes are not revealed in the pulpit, they may be reflected in program planning or communicated in other way as a means of means of fulfilling the prophetic role (Calfano, 2010; Djupe & Gilbert, 2002) of interpreting political issues.

H2 states that congregational attitudes about illegal immigration will mirror clergy attitudes. Survey responses indicate that when the clergy member agrees with the law, nearly 65% report that their church members state that “they are illegal, and our church supports the rule of law.” When the clergy member believes “the new law limits the church’s ability to serve,” 67% say that it “is the church’s responsibility to provide help to illegal immigrants in need.” This may imply, as Putnam and Campbell (2010) and Knoll (2009) have theorized, that churchgoers seek like-minded pastors and congregations. An alternative explanation might be described as “clergy capture,” that is, the clergy member is influenced by the membership of the church. Whether the pastor-parish relationship is a “match made in heaven” or demonstrates clergy concerns about congregational satisfaction and financial support, as Calfano (2010) suggests, could not be determined from the responses.

H3 correctly predicts that the more liberal the church, the more supportive are the clergy and members of illegal immigrants. (See Table 2.) Three out of four clergy in conservative churches, as identified by their clergy, have not preached a sermon on immigration; clergy in moderate churches are about evenly split on immigration as a sermon topic at 48% yes and 52% no; and in liberal churches, 65% of clergy have preached a sermon on immigration. Clergy were asked to select the answer that reflects how “most people in your church organization feel about illegal immigrants.” In the liberal congregations, 77% of respondents said their parishioners believe that their “religion conflicts with the new law” compared to 17% in conservative churches. Despite these attitudes and the new law, according to clergy assessment of congregant attitude, 61% of conservative churches still believe in helping illegal immigrants. In this case, political philosophy does not necessarily correlate with religious outreach. Perhaps the most interesting finding from the research is that, regardless of attitude toward the law, about the same percentage of churches, regardless of political philosophy, provide outreach services to illegal immigrants. Worthy of note is that over three quarters of churches where clergy believe that their congregants “feel sorry for illegal immigrants, but they have taken our jobs and are a drain on our economy” continue to provide outreach.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Clergy Personal Opinion on New Immigration Law and Clergy Description of Church Political Climate.

	Clergy assessment of church political climate
Clergy personal opinion on Alabama’s new immigration law	Conservative churches	Moderate—liberal churches
I am opposed to illegal immigration	21.3% (38)	7.7% (17)
I am opposed to illegal immigration, but I believe in helping individual	61.2% (109)	43.2% (96)
My religion conflicts with the new law	17.4% (31)	49.1% (109)

Note: χ² = 48.04. p < .0001. Cramer’s V = .347. n = 400.

Other factors may influence attitudes about illegal immigrants, including the racial makeup of the congregation. H4 predicts that majority minority congregations are more likely than majority White congregations to have positive attitudes toward immigrants. H5 predicts that minority churches are more likely to conduct outreach than White churches. These hypotheses are based on Knolls’ (2009) notion that minorities are more likely to identify with and be empathetic to discrimination and marginalization faced by immigrants. Survey results support H4: in the view of clergy, nearly 84% of clergy of majority-minority churches compared to 45% of majority White churches believe it is the church’s responsibility to provide help to illegal immigrants in need. “They are illegal, and we support the rule of law” is the clergy’s view of congregant attitudes for 36% of White churches but only 8% of minority churches. H5 is, however, unsubstantiated. White churches conduct almost 19% more outreach than minority churches. There is no statistically significant relationship between the race of the pastor and personal attitudes toward immigration.

H6 accurately predicts that Catholic clergy and their congregants will demonstrate more positive attitudes toward illegal immigration, reflective of efforts to recruit new Hispanic immigrants, many of whom are Catholic (Goodstein, 2007; Putnam and Campbell, 2010). Over 81% of Catholic clergy indicated that it is “the church’s responsibility to provide help to illegal immigrants in need,” compared to 50% of Protestant churches. Thirty-six percent of clergy of Protestant churches said that their members believe that undocumented immigrants “are illegal, and our church supports the rule of law” as compared to only 11% of Catholics.

Discussion

Religion is important in Alabama. A 2008 Gallup poll indicated that 82% of Alabamians considered religion an important part of life (Gallup, 2009), ranking the state second in religiosity. A Pew Religion and Public Life (2009) survey conducted in 2007 issued a similar report using religiosity, belief, and prayer as indicators in their finding that 74% of Alabamians considered religion “very important.” The passage of a stringent immigration law in Alabama in 2011 makes relevant the question of the juxtaposition of religious belief and attitudes toward illegal immigrants as seen through the lens of Biblical teachings.

Over 72% of respondents to this research survey indicated that they believe that “the Parable of the Good Samaritan commands Christians to provide charity to illegal immigrants,” and nearly 71% of churches acted on that mission. Respondents demonstrate that there is widespread underlying belief in charity to illegal immigrants, yet a simultaneous respect for the rule of law. As one Methodist minister put it:

I think it’s important to help those in need of help. But God also expects us to obey the law of the land. You can do both. We should design a program that helps them become citizens legally. Then they can pay taxes and get healthcare. It’s about helping them become legal.

In a sense, many churches espouse one political philosophy, but live out another through their religious codes. Of the 53 clergy members who said that their congregations “feel sorry for illegal immigrants, but they have taken our jobs and are a drain on our economy,” 77% provided outreach programs. Of congregants who think outreach is a duty, 78%—nearly the same amount—provided charity to illegal immigrants. This is perhaps the most significant finding in the study, that is, that regardless of political philosophy or attitudes about immigration, the great majority of churches in Alabama continue to carry our missions of charity to those recognized as illegal immigrants.

What seems to matter not at all in attitudes toward illegal immigration are the size of the community and the race and age of the pastor. Variables that are most closely associated with the clergy member’s attitude toward illegal immigration are the church philosophy—conservative, moderate, or liberal—and the ethnicity of the church membership. Closely related are two other variables: the attitude of congregants toward illegal immigration and the attitude of the clergy toward illegal immigration. Whether the minister is serving in a prophetic leadership role (Djupe & Gilbert, 2002) or, as Calfano (2010) suggests, the minister’s attitudes are a response to the membership and his or her fiduciary role in the church, cannot be determined from this data. The results of this research provide supportive evidence for the work of Putnam and Campbell (2010) who theorize that people attend church with like-minded people, and they seek out like-minded pastors.

This study raises additional questions that warrant further study. Of great interest would be a more detailed study of clergy and church attitudes by denomination, given changes in church membership and church attendance. As the number and membership of nondenominational churches grows and mainline church membership declines in the United States (National Council of Churches, 2011), a pertinent question is whether mainline churches, like Catholic churches, will be incentivized to find new recruits among immigrants. Also of interest for further study is a sociological discussion on the distinction between church attitudes toward groups versus individuals. Only a brief reference to helping individual immigrants was included in this survey, but as in other current civil rights and human rights debates, there may be significant differences in congregational responses when the discussions on immigration relate to stereotypes like “immigrants” or “aliens” versus individual responses to and attitudes concerning acquaintances, friends, and neighbors.

Church attendance is both a religious and social function, therefore, further study might be directed to the source of attitudes in the community and in the church, that is, does the community affect the church or does the church affect the community? The political ramifications are also important and relevant. As a first step in preparation for this study, an analysis of immigration bill votes in the Alabama legislature by legislators’ religious affiliation was attempted, but the effort was unsuccessful because too many legislators described themselves simply as Christians, as opposed to Protestant or Catholic. Further analysis of voting on the immigration issue by religiosity or denomination would be useful.

Rev. Jimmerson’s reference to “legal” and “moral” claims has great resonance in light of this survey data. Clergy and, perhaps to a lesser degree, their congregants clearly are torn between Biblical mandates and political realities, between the law and desire to serve as Good Samaritans. Just under 18% of respondents described illegal immigration as a civil rights or religious issue, while the remaining respondents were almost evenly split about whether illegal immigration is a human rights or a political issue. Survey results indicate a disconnect between politics and religion, not in words, but in deeds. What stands out is the strong connection between human rights and church responsibility that is translated through outreach ministries across Alabama churches, regardless of their political philosophies.