The immigration law recently enacted in Alabama (HB 56) has expectedly stirred and awakened responses from religious leaders in the state. An interesting article this week in the New York Times speaks of the passionate reactions articulated by some of them. The article primarily highlights those who stand in opposition to the law: Mitchell Williams, pastor of First United Methodist Church in Cullman, Ala., being a leader most prominently featured. What the article unfortunately only mentions in passing is the many ministers who stand in agreement with the law. They seem to be relegated to the shadows, as though their perspective bears less weight, and is less representative of the Christian experience. Retired Methodist minister Mac Buttram expressed astonishment at some of the comments he has heard – including that of his own bishop – implying that those supportive of the law are mean-spirited and un-Christian.

The issue of the Christian duty to "welcome the stranger" is a real and complex one. Religious leaders who are opponents of the new law claim that it impedes them from exercising their ministry, criminalizing acts of mercy towards these vulnerable members of the flock. Bishops from the Methodist, Episcopalian, and Roman Catholic traditions have asserted that being a Good Samaritan (i.e. one who reaches out to the downtrodden stranger) is now a crime. However, as the article says, "framers of this law say this is broadly exaggerated. The provisions, they say, clearly pertain to human traffickers or employers actively seeking to skirt the law."

What exactly does the law say, a law that clearly articulates that "race, color, or national origin" may not be a consideration in its enforcement, and that the "final determination of whether an alien is lawfully present in the United States shall be made by the federal government pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1373(c)"?

Section 13. (a) It shall be unlawful for a person to do any of the following:

(1) Conceal, harbor, or shield or attempt to conceal, harbor, or shield or conspire to conceal, harbor, or shield an alien from detection in any place in this state, including any building or any means of transportation, if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien has come to, has entered, or remains in the United States in violation of federal law.

(2) Encourage or induce an alien to come to or reside in this state if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that such coming to, entering, or residing in the United States is or will be in violation of federal law.

(3) Transport, or attempt to transport, or conspire to transport in this state an alien in furtherance of the unlawful presence of the alien in the United States, knowingly, or in reckless disregard of the fact, that the alien has come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of federal law. Conspiracy to be so transported shall be a violation of this subdivision.

If I am reading it correctly, the law is actually crafted very carefully and respectfully. Allow the operative word(s) for our purposes here to be "reckless disregard" – used in all three of these provisions. Actions that entail reckless disregard of immigration law are unlawful. The law seems to allow for a legitimate distinction between punctual assistance and systematic assistance. Helping "on the spot" someone who appears on the church doorstep (with food or clothing or money) is not the same thing as developing an entire program that necessitates a deliberate lack of cooperation with the legal system. The latter indeed disregards, disregards the common good of the community, which implies an open collaboration under law. The only way to consider "deliberate lack of cooperation with the legal system" to be legitimate is to consider the persons benefiting from the actions to in fact be members of the community. In other words, it means, as regards immigrants, erasing the distinction between legal and illegal.

As the very traditions of these bishops, however, have always stated, national sovereignty must be respected by the Christian community. For the Christian community, the distinction between legal immigrant and illegal alien is a real one. In a Christian perspective, all are members of God’s family. But the political, human reality remains.

In ministry, for a Christian, there is going to be an inevitable tension. Such tension, however, is not necessarily bad, nor does it suggest that the law is bad. It simply means that human reality and human community is complex. Ministry never takes place in a social vacuum. Ministry always takes place always in a society. And the Christian community has never disregarded this reality. Ministry in society, therefore, requires respect. Like the state must respect the church, so the church must respect the state. If the context for ministry is complex, then ministry in society requires ongoing discernment. Each situation is unique, requiring one eye on the individual to whom one ministers, and one eye on the broader community and the common good (and thus law). "Reckless disregard" is in fact a facile, dare I say, lazy approach to such discernment and thus to ministry.