(Im)migration and In/Out Groups

Due to timing of publication around Columbus Day, this week's post incorporates some not-quite-personal experience--that of my grandparents--because of the topic of immigration to the United States. Here, I hope to expand on some topics from recent posts, specifically about migration, in-groups, out-groups, and implications for Christianity.

Migration and United States History

One physical function that humans (among other creatures) are built to do is to move around from place to place, and when those places are far "enough" apart this is called migration, from Latin migrare, "to move". When one adds a Latin prefix or suffix, one obtains emigration (ex + migrare), "to move out," and immigration (in + migrare), "to move in." This refers to leaving one's country or region of origin to move to a different-enough country or region.

People groups that have moved into the United States at various time points likely included

• North Siberians and East Asians via a land bridge that has since eroded
• Clovis people who passed into what is now New Mexico from the south
• These two large groups formed a number of Native American tribes
• Northern Europeans Leif Erikson and crew
• Western Europeans Christopher Columbus and crew (Columbus miscalculated the circumference of the earth and so misinterpreted the quickest direction of travel and his destination; Greeks centuries before him were much closer to the mark)
• In recent decades, immigrants form approximately 40 million (13-14%) of the current US population, about a quarter of those being unauthorized for various reasons. Top countries of origin include Mexico, China, India, the Philippines, and El Salvador. Most immigrants live around the borders of the US or in Chicago.

So, the phenomenon of people immigrating to the US is nothing new. Laws and regulations around immigration have changed in various countries, as have the proportions and reasons people have moved.

Takes on Columbus Day

Suffice it to say, Columbus Day is a hot-button topic these days. A few decades ago (hard to tell exactly when), some people started to advocate for renaming/replacing/refocusing the holiday to Indigenous Peoples' Day. This day became federally recognized in 2021. As I've seen from recent social media posts, people tend to dichotomize this issue, like many other issues, fitting neatly into the in- and out-group discussion immediately following in this post.

People Groups in Sociology

Sociology is an academic discipline that studies human group behavior in society, which influences much of human behavior at various levels (family group, neighborhood, city, state, etc.). A sociological concept undergirding the book I reviewed last week is that of in-groups versus out-groups.

In-Groups

An in-group is a grouping of people that I feel I am a member of, for one reason or another. Examples of in-groups for me include conservative Anglicans, homeschool alumni/ae, mothers, geriatric physical therapists, and political moderates. One tends to be more loyal toward and tolerant of people in one's own in-group(s).

Out-Groups

An out-group is the opposite of an in-group. Examples of my out-groups include theologically liberal Christians, child-free people, political hyper-conservatives, and political hyper-liberals. One tends to be less loyal toward and less tolerant of people in one's out-group(s). (Complicating this for me is my sensitivity toward noticing the Dunning-Kruger effect almost everywhere, since that is a key concept I incorporate in many courses I teach.)

Implications for Christianity

Beyond counter-perspectives on immigration reform from conservative and progressive Evangelicals (see last week's post), implications for Christian faith and practice of in-groups, out-groups, and (im)migration run deep.

Orthodox vs Heterodox Doctrine

There's a lot more to be said elsewhere about what is truly orthodox and what is truly heterodox doctrine in Christianity. However, a few key questions to ask yourself to make this determination can include these:

• Does the teaching cohere with the whole counsel of the canonical Scriptures in the literal sense (sensus literalis, not literalism)
• Does the teaching adhere to the 3 ecumenical creeds of the Christian Church, as they were originally intended to be interpreted by those who drafted them?
• Does the teaching match or approximate the practice/belief of the early Church as recorded in sources from the time?

Baptism and Circumcision

I've written a fair amount this year and in past years on what Baptism means for the Christian. I adhere to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, which immediately (and unfortunately) puts me in the out-group of many Christian groups. Here, I want to explore the concepts of Baptism, circumcision, faith, and covenant, with a little help from one of my recent favorite scholars, N. T. Wright. Summary:

• Covenant in Israel signified by circumcision and kept (you're living in covenant) by keeping works of Torah
• Covenant in Christianity signified by baptism and kept by faith-based (trusting) living on earth in Christ Jesus

Let's dive a little deeper. Wright wrote a 2005 essay on creation and covenant (contained in one of his longer books on Paul) in which he argues that

• Concepts of God's creation and God's covenant go together by parallel functions (especially in Psalm 19, 74)
• God's covenant to His people is meant to undo the effects of the Fall, and creation is meant to solve problems in the covenant, explored especially in Isaiah 40-55
• Paul draws on these and other passages to support his narrative of God's-story especially in Colossians 1:15-20, 1 Corinthians 15, and Romans 1-11
• In the New Perspective on Paul, a key point is that Gentile inclusion in the covenant is part and parcel of forgiveness of sins (people vs individual)

In the same year, Reformed scholar/Presbyterian minister-professor J. V. Fesko, among others, wrote about Wright's perspective on what signifies the covenant in Old and New Testaments.

• For OT and first-century Jews, boundary markers--signs that one was within God's covenant--were "circumcision, kosher food laws, and Sabbath observance" (p. 30). As such, (male) circumcision marked those who were in covenant.
• Once Christ inaugurated the new covenant, faith in Christ replaced circumcision--if one was baptized (male or female, infant or adult), they were in the covenant and stayed in the covenant. Fesko argues from Colossians 2:11-12 that baptism, "not faith in Christ," is the sign of the new covenant.
• In examining the key baptismal-regeneration text of 1 Peter 3:20-21, Fesko appears to separate baptism (the outward act) from faith (the inward grace). This is typical of the perspective of those who deny baptismal regeneration.

However, I believe Fesko misunderstands Wright. Wright, a conservative Anglican, takes the view (as do I) that baptism is not man's work but God's work (humans having the physical hands that baptize because God the Father does not have physical hands or body)--or, as the Book of Common Prayer puts it, "the outward sign of an inward grace."

Immigrants and Politics

What does all of this tell the thinking Christian about the best way(s) to think about and approach the concept of immigration in a politicized, dichotomized context? I'll play teacher here and give you some brainstorm questions/suggestions . . .

• What is your relationship to the family of God?
• How do you become a child of God?
• Name at least 3 other options besides the 2 polar opposites that you are given.
• Given that God will renew the creation and resurrect us bodily as He did Jesus, what does that say about how we steward the people and things of this creation?