Help! Love, MOM

Understanding 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 in the Context of Immigration Policy

Is it possible, prudent and politically expedient in today’s world to operate the southern border of the U.S. in such a way that

• Day laborers can easily enter and exit the US?
• American shoppers and tourists spend dollars and pesos in Mexico?
• Families and individuals from anywhere in the world press their legitimate claims to asylum and protection may find safety and be able to quickly and efficiently file application?
• Individuals and families searching for a new start in a new place have a clear and legitimate path to citizenship?

The political discourse surrounding immigration has become increasingly polarized, with debates often focused on the perceived economic, social, and security implications of allowing undocumented individuals to live and work within the United States.

One such contentious issue is the policy of deporting undocumented persons. In the U.S., political opinions on immigration policy are diverse and complex. It’s worth taking a moment to consider how these issues might be viewed through the lens of faith—specifically the teachings of the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:1-3.

1 Corinthians is a book of the bible written by one of the men who saw Jesus when he was alive. Those men are called apostles. Not all of the apostles also wrote scripture, however, Apostle Paul did. Actually, the Apostle wrote a lot of scripture!

This passage, often associated with the timeless, biblical themes of love and selflessness, offers profound insights that can be applied to our current political and social context. I believe that, if you’re a Christian, these themes must be applied.

Let’s take a closer look at these verses and how they might wisely instruct us in navigating the ethical dilemmas surrounding immigration, the just treatment of the undocumented and showing “borderly love.”

1 Corinthians 13:1-3 — The Passage

“If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.”

1 Corinthians 13:1-3 (NIV), Apostle Paul

The human author, Paul, emphasizes that, without love, even the most impressive acts of spiritual power or sacrifice are meaningless. When the Apostle writes of the “tongues of men or of angels” he is speaking of eloquence and wisdom, while the “gift of prophecy” is a reference to divine, supernatural knowledge and insight. Even these, Paul asserts, are possible to possess without the underpinning of love.

In a world where national borders, immigration laws, and the treatment of migrants are hotly debated, Paul’s call positions love as a guiding principle, potentially governing and elevating our spiritual and secular lives.

This is not to say that love negates the need for laws, or security measures including the severe border controls of arrest and deportation. Indeed, the balance between securing national boundaries and offering compassionate treatment to undocumented immigrants is a challenging one.

However, a lesson that can be applied to the central lessons of 1 Corinthians 13 is that love and mercy can guide decisions around border security, preventing them from becoming driven purely by divisive fear.

Love and Immigration Policy

The issue of undocumented immigration is often framed in terms of municipal or national security and economics. While, of course, these concerns are extremely important, I am also suggesting that, even if we have the best interests of America in mind, without love, our most well intended actions may fall short of their full moral and ethical value.

For example, are we compassionately concerned for those who are suffering even if they are in the country illegally? Are we considering their dignity as human beings made in the image of God, or, are we treating them as mere statistics or burdens?

The “Othering” of the Undocumented

In the case of deportation policies, it’s easy to fall into the trap of viewing undocumented immigrants as a problem to be solved, to “return to sender” rather than as people with their own stories, struggles, and humanity.

In other words, we routinely, “other” the undocumented. You know what it means to “other” groups of people, don’t you?

Alan Jacobs calls this person (s) the Repugnant Cultural Other in his book How to Think: A Survival Guide for a World at Odds

Jacobs says that, in fact or in speech we treat the undocumented as “them;” our speech identifies “them” as if “they” are so different from “us,” the native born or naturalized citizen.

As applied with an immigration focus, “they” do not deserve basic human rights and dignity. Therefore, “we” cannot deprive “them” of rights. “They” have no rights, nor have “they” any right to rights.

The undocumented are often “repugnantly, culturally, othered.”

Terministic Screens

I know, hang with me for a bit.

Terministic screens is a theory of language which suggests that how persons use language profoundly affects the way they perceive the world. The term was developed by Kenneth Burke in a 1966 essay compiled in a book titled “Language as Symbolic Action.” 

Burke understood that language, by it’s very nature, tends to filter certain things about the world which then influences the judgements and observations that we can make about the world.

For example, would you speak of your life as a glass that is “half empty” or “half full?” Do you view your life circumstances as complete with opportunities? Another person with the same circumstances may, conversely, view those “opportunities” as problems?

The difference may be simply how you speak of your glass.

In the case of immigration policy the very way we speak about immigrants often bespeaks our propensity to love or loathe.

Burke further cautions that the use of certain terministic screens directs our attention toward a particular thing but away from others. Because of its power and near invisibility, Burke wants us to be aware of our terministic screens and its attention directing capability.

Love as the Foundation of Policy Decisions

To operate in “love” does not mean that the we are naive or that we lack concern for the well-being of the nation’s natural-born or naturalized citizens. If we apply Paul’s teachings to immigration policy, we might first ask: How do we define “love” in this context?

Love in biblical terms is not simply a feeling; it is committed, sacrificial, and self-giving actions.

True love, the Apostle might say, does not only look after its own interests but considers the needs of others, especially the vulnerable.

The Challenge to Show Love to the Undocumented as they Face at least 3 Significant Hardships

Sometimes these persons live in the shadows of society, often fearful of being detained or deported, they face the real possibility of being separated from family members due to mixed statuses: some family members are citizens while others are not.

Often the undocumented struggle to access basic human and workers’ rights.

As they occupy jobs that, often, citizens will not take —love would involve a willingness to engage in difficult conversations about justice, mercy, and fairness. It would also involve recognizing that the humanity of these individuals matters as much as the security and well-being of a nation’s citizens.

The undocumented face the persistent rhetoric that they allegedly commit crimes more frequently than citizens.

Though there certainly have been well reported individual cases to the contrary, statistics consistently show that the undocumented DO NOT, overall, commit more crimes than native born persons.

The undocumented are challenged to learn or improve their command of the language of the host country, in this case, English.

The undocumented will tend to earn higher salaries at better jobs as they learn the language of the host country. However the challenges of limited access to ENL/ESL programs, fear of authorities, work and financial constraints create barriers to this pathway.

The Challenge of Love in Political Action

When attempting to apply 1 Corinthians 13:1-3, especially in the current fervor of debate, it is easy to focus on arguments and statistics that validate a particular party’s political stance.

Yet, Paul’s message serves as a reminder that true wisdom and understanding come from love which, at the societal level, may look like political leaders, policymakers, and citizens considering not just the practical implications of their decisions, but, also the human cost.

Love, writ large, remembers that indiscriminate, quota-driven deportation of individuals and families especially for those who have lived in this country for years, and, who have contributed to the American story just by their presence and positive contributions and to the economy through their taxes and work ethic, forgets the human stories behind the rhetoric.

Arguably, a policy that sends families back to dangerous situations in unstable countries or separates loved ones can hardly be described as an act of love, regardless of its legal justification.

Conclusion

1 Corinthians 13:1-3 serves as a potent reminder that, no matter how noble our actions may seem—whether in political policy or personal life—without love, they are empty.

As society grapples with the difficult questions surrounding immigration policy, we must ask ourselves and our elected officials whether our choices reflect a love that values the humanity of all individuals, regardless of their country of birth or their legal status.

Though America is a beautifully pluralistic culture, the Christian call to love our neighbors compels us to consider the impact of policies on the most vulnerable. Christian love also asks us to ensure that our laws and decisions are rooted in compassion and empathy, rather than in political showmanship.

By integrating the wisdom of 1 Corinthians 13 into discussions, and, I am further suggesting, policy about immigration, we may be able to move toward a more just, humane, and compassionate society—one where love guides both our personal relationships, our political actions and protects our nation from unnecessary acts of violence.

Let “borderly” love continue,

xoxoKimberly