In a press conference a few weeks ago, US House Speaker Mike Johnson responded to a question concerning Pope Leo’s condemnation of the mass deportation agenda under the Trump administration. In his response, Johnson emphasized Romans 13 and the responsibility of civil authorities to maintain order. While there is a lot to unpack here (see Russell Moore’s recent discussion for commentary on Romans 13), I wanted to focus on Johnson’s specific comment about what we should expect of the immigrant.
“Immigration is not something that is frowned upon in Scripture, in fact it is welcomed. We are to welcome the sojourner and love our neighbor as ourselves. But what’s also important in the Bible is that assimilation is expected and anticipated and proper. When someone comes into your country, comes into your nation, they do not have the right to change its laws or to change its society. They are expected to assimilate. We haven’t had a lot of that going on.” Mike Johnson, Press Conference 2/3/26
What Johnson centers in his statement is a specific vision of what the Bible teaches about immigration and society: immigration requires a specific form of assimilation. That is to so, you are welcome, so long as you become like us. But is this understanding as straightforwardly ‘biblical’ as Johnson leads us to believe?
Early Christianity has much to say about how to relate to society, especially living in the margins under Roman rule. These Christians considered themselves to be ‘foreigners and exiles’ (1 Peter 2:11) in this context, and while assenting to Roman law, did not see assimilation into culture as an inherent good. Perhaps the witness of the early church can inform our answer to the question: what might we expect of the immigrant?
The Assimilation of the Immigrant—a Biblical Expectation?
To begin exploring Johnson’s comments, it is worth noting that the Bible does not discuss assimilation into a society as an expectation for immigration in a uniform way, as Johnson implies. In the Old Testament, there are certain requirements for the foreigner, especially to follow many of the same laws as the Israelites. To name a few examples, the immigrant was not to work on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10, 23:12), nor consume blood (Leviticus 17:10-15), nor curse the name of Yahweh (Leviticus 24:16). While they are not required to follow God in the same way as the people of Isreal, there was an expectation that they become like the Israelites in more than just basic laws. Importantly, all of these laws were given while Israel’s only head of state was God: there was no king enthroned, and we see no similar commands once the nation of Israel has a king and governing structure that looks like the societies around it. Instead, the rest of the Old Testament emphasizes care for and welcome of the foreigner, with repeated reprimands in the writings of the Old Testament prophets when Isreal failed to do so (for example: Jeremiah 7:5-7, Zechariah 7:9-10).
While many of the Mosaic laws set out in the Old Testament require the foreigner to become like an Israelite to reside there, the New Testament speaks differently about this. The reason is obvious: Christians were no longer living under a theocratic nation ruled by God as in the Pentateuch, or even under a king of their own nation, but under the Roman Empire. While Christians are commanded to obey the civil laws that are just and in continuity with God’s law (Romans 13:1-7), they are nowhere commanded to become like a Roman. Rather, in the previous chapter of Romans, Paul exhorts the church to do the opposite: “Do not be conformed to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Romans 12:2). Importantly, “this world” is not (only) shorthand for sin generally but has a historical referent—the world that Paul’s listeners resided in, the Roman empire. In this sense, there is not one biblical theology of ‘assimilation’ for the immigrant, as Johnson claims.
Assimilation to the Law—Early Christians Civil Obedience
Johnson mentions there are two ways that the immigrant must assimilate: “When someone comes into your country, comes into your nation, they do not have the right to change its laws or to change its society.” Assimilation means conformity to a country’s laws and its society, then. On conformity to the law, this seems fair and obvious—few if any would argue it should be otherwise. There is a widespread consensus that immigration should be done in accordance with the law and that the immigrant must follow the laws of the country in which they reside.
Early Christians generally saw this form of assimilation into the Roman culture as good and acceptable, as the authority of officials was ordained by God. Thus, Christians were exhorted to pray for civil leaders and live peaceable lives (1 Timothy 2:1-4), acknowledging the authority of Rome: “You, Master, have given them the power of sovereignty through your majestic and inexpressible might, so that we acknowledging the glory and honor which you have given them, may be subject to them resisting your will in nothing” (1 Clement 61.1-2). Further, some Christians argued that the mosaic law is in continuity with Roman law (Tertullian, Apology 45.2-4; Didascalia Apostolorum 25). Finally, amidst persecution, many early Christian apologists tried to demonstrate how the Christian was an excellent Roman citizen: they respect civil authorities (Martyrdom of Polycarp 10), prayed for Rome and the emperor (Tertullian, Apology 30), and “more than all other men, are truly your (the Roman emperors’) helpers and allies in fostering peace” for their upright lives (Justin Martyr, First Apology 17).
Assimilation to the Culture—Did Early Christians strive to be good Romans?
The more ambiguous and problematic idea that Johnson puts forth concerns conformity to society: the immigrant must assimilate in such a way as to not change its society. What does this mean? He is not immediately clear, though it seems fair to interpret it as follows: the immigrant must assimilate to the culture of a given place—speak the native language, follow the cultural norms, etc. Indeed, there is some sense of this baked into the law: the first three requirements for acquiring US citizenship are as follows: 1) you are 18 years old, 2) able to read, write, and speak basic English, 3) and be of good moral character. At the very least, you must be able to know the most widespread language of a country and be a ‘moral’ person (though that is tricky to define!).
If expressed this vaguely, one can see how this would be helpful—it is a good if people in a country are able to communicate in a common language (though, this need not imply that they only speak the common language) and have enough shared moral values to flourish. What seems dangerous is that this idea is being employed in a more restricted sense, which demands a particular way of being an American. So, despite residing in the US on a legally obtained visa, speaking English, and breaking no laws, some individuals have been detained or deported.
This is where early Christian ideas about assimilation into society are more complex. To assimilate to a culture is, at least in some sense, to conform to their self-understanding. Roman identity and self-understanding can be considered from a variety of starting places, such as ethnicity, culture, citizenship, and religion—none of which are inherently exclusive from one another (for discussion, see: Schott, Christianity, Empire, and the Making of Religion in Late Antiquity, 1-14). Importantly, most of these identity markers were not officially a part of Roman law, but they did hold great weight in society. Sacrificing to the gods, for example, was not required by law (until the Decian Edict in 250), but was essential to Roman identity.
Early Christians, at least in principle if not always in practice (See: Williams, Cultural Christians in the Early Church), were far more careful about which aspects of society they were willing to participate in. The most obvious, of course, is their unwillingness to worship or sacrifice to the gods of Rome. So, in a correspondence from around 112 AD between Pliny the Younger (a Roman magistrate) and Emperor Trajan, the latter tells us how to discern whether a person was a Christian: “whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it—that is, by worshiping our gods … shall obtain pardon through repentance” (Pliny, Letters 10). Performing sacrifices to their gods—an essential part of Roman identity—is not practiced by Christians.
One could go through a number of examples of Christian abstention from Roman practices: they rejected the widespread practice of abortion and infanticide, were unwilling to participate in cultic feasts and festivals, and condemned serving in the military, to name a few. While none of these were proscribed in the law, Romans found these abstentions extremely problematic. Accordingly, Christians were viewed with suspicion: rumors began to circulate that Christian worship included cannibalism and orgies (Eusebius, History of the Church 5.1.14) and persecution occasionally flared up, mostly because it seemed that Christians were subverting society (See: Kinzig, Christian Persecution in Antiquity).
Mike Johnson employs rhetoric later in the interview which parallels the type of rumors and polemics that were aimed at early Christians: he claims these illegal immigrants in the USA are of the worst kind: “hardened criminals, child molesters, rapists, murders, all the rest, terrorists, who came into the country.” Perhaps there are some despicable people who have crossed the border illegally, but this rhetoric is not substantiated by evidence, here. Rather, it seems Johnson (and many others) are using rumors to paint an ugly picture of a group on the margins: for Johnson, they are not like us, so they are subversive to our society. Therefore, we have grounds to condemn them.
Demanding Conformity
Mike Johnson is trying to justify the harsh and inhumane treatment of immigrants with the Scriptures, arguing they must ‘assimilate’ to American culture to be accepted. But his interpretation seems to reflect his problematic understanding of American identity more than what the New Testament teaches. No early Christian thought the Bible called them to assimilate to Rome—if this was the case, it would be the goal of every Christian in the first few centuries to become like Romans. This is obviously not how Christians were taught to act.
That does not mean that ancient Christians went about breaking laws and causing chaos, of course. Early Christians were, at least in principle, supposed to be upstanding members of Roman society: they leaved peaceably, followed laws, even prayed for their leaders. So why were they persecuted? They did not assimilate to the cultural markers of Roman identity, consciously abstain from certain cultural and religious practices that conflicted with their convictions. This is where Johnson’s comments might be particularly dangerous: this can easily lead to a narrow definition of what an ‘American’ is. That is, an immigrant is welcome so long as they are a particular way, whether ethnically, culturally, or religiously. The result of this, for early Christians and current US immigrants, is the same—the civil authorities find you inherently subversive and are often willing to marginalize and persecute as a result.
Finally, it is worth reiterating that the goal of the Christ follower has never been to culturally assimilate to any earthly society. As Christ’s “kingdom is not of this world,” (John 18:36) but of heaven, so “our citizenship is in heaven” (Philippians 3:20). This means living differently than any culture or society, insofar as every earthly society is enslaved to wickedness and sin. So, we must take the words of 1 John 2:15 seriously: “Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them.” In sum, we are called “to be conformed to the image of his Son” (Romans 8:29), not to Rome nor America. If Christians are not to assimilate to the cultural values of an earthly society, using Scripture to demand immigrants conform to an earthly society, no matter which one, seems exceptionally problematic—or rather, unbiblical.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In