An Open Letter on Identity, Belonging, and Witness

Summary

A recent Federalist article criticizes Rep. Delia Ramírez for stating "I am a proud Guatemalan before I am American" at a conference in Mexico City. Author John Daniel Davidson argues this reflects a broader leftist ideology that promotes multiculturalism over American assimilation, citing examples from France, Canada, and England where he claims mass immigration has led to cultural displacement and declining national identity. He contends that without enforced assimilation, immigrants become "colonists" rather than true Americans.

Reply to John Daniel Davidson

An Open Letter on Identity, Belonging, and Witness

Dear John,

I write as someone who shares your concern for America's wellbeing, though I believe we may differ on the path forward. Your recent piece raises important questions about identity and belonging that deserve careful examination through the lens of Scripture and the founding principles you've championed.

On the Biblical Understanding of Identity

You argue that Rep. Ramírez's statement reflects dangerous dual loyalty. Yet consider Paul's words in Philippians 3:20: "But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ." Paul maintained his identity as a Roman citizen (Acts 22:28) while declaring primary allegiance elsewhere. Was Paul engaging in the same "anti-nationalism" you describe?

I anticipate you might respond that Paul's heavenly citizenship doesn't negate earthly patriotism. Fair enough. But then consider his teaching in Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Paul consistently elevated spiritual unity over ethnic nationalism. When Peter showed favoritism to Jewish Christians, Paul "opposed him to his face" (Galatians 2:11) precisely because ethnic identity was being elevated above the gospel.

You might counter that America is a Christian nation requiring Christian unity. But this raises a question: if Christianity transcends ethnicity, why should "European and Christian culture" be privileged over, say, Guatemalan and Christian culture? Are Guatemalan evangelicals somehow less Christian than their European counterparts?

On the Constitutional Framework

The Constitution you revere states in Article VI that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office of public Trust under the United States." The First Amendment prohibits establishing religion. Yet your argument seems to require not just Christian faith, but specifically "European and Christian culture" as a qualification for true American identity.

Madison, in Federalist 10, warned against "the violence of faction" and praised the "extended republic" precisely because diverse interests would check dangerous concentrations of power. He wrote: "The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States."

You might argue that cultural unity, not religious establishment, is your goal. But Hamilton in Federalist 1 asked whether societies can establish good government "from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force." The founders chose reflection and choice over inherited cultural dominance.

On the Nature of True Conversion

Your critique of weakened citizenship oaths parallels concerns about cheap grace in Christianity. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, whom I suspect you admire, wrote: "Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession."

But here's where your argument becomes problematic: you seem to demand cultural conversion rather than civic commitment. The oath requires renouncing political allegiance, not cultural heritage. When Jesus called Matthew the tax collector, did He require Matthew to abandon his Jewish customs? When He encountered the Samaritan woman, did He demand she adopt Jewish practices?

I anticipate you'll say civic loyalty requires cultural assimilation. But consider the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-40). Philip baptized him without requiring him to become culturally Jewish or Greek. The eunuch returned to Africa as both a Christian and an Ethiopian. Was his conversion incomplete?

On the Parable of Neighborhoods

Your examples from France, Canada, and England deserve examination. But consider Jesus's parable of the Good Samaritan. The religious leaders—those most committed to cultural purity—passed by the wounded man. The Samaritan, culturally despised, showed mercy.

You write about the Moroccan man lighting his cigarette at the war memorial with apparent disgust. Rightfully so—such disrespect is troubling. But Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners. He didn't excuse their sin, but He engaged them with love. Might our response to cultural disrespect be more effective through patient engagement than through cultural exclusion?

You might respond that I'm conflating individual relationships with national policy. True, but consider Jesus' method: He transformed hearts, which then transformed culture. Forced cultural conformity produces Pharisees—outward compliance masking inner rebellion.

On the Question of Colonization

Your "colonizer" language echoes replacement theory, but it contradicts Christian theology. In God's economy, the Kingdom grows through inclusion, not exclusion. Isaiah 56:3 records God saying: "Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, 'The Lord will surely separate me from his people.'" Verse 7 continues: "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples."

You might argue that spiritual inclusion doesn't require cultural accommodation. But Jesus himself accommodated culture—speaking Aramaic, observing Jewish customs, yet ultimately transcending them. Paul became "all things to all people" (1 Corinthians 9:22), adapting culturally while maintaining doctrinal fidelity.

On the Founding Vision

You invoke the founders, but consider Washington's 1790 letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport: "It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens."

Note: Washington required good citizenship, not cultural uniformity. Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists about the "wall of separation" precisely to protect religious minorities from cultural establishment.

You might respond that these founders assumed Christian cultural dominance. Perhaps, but they still chose inclusion over exclusion in their founding documents.

On Practical Love

Your concern for assimilation raises practical questions: What does love demand? If Rep. Ramírez's statement troubles you, how might patient dialogue serve better than public condemnation? Jesus said, "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone" (Matthew 18:15). Did you attempt private conversation before public criticism?

I anticipate you might say public figures deserve public accountability. Fair enough. But even then, Paul instructs: "Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness" (Galatians 6:1).

On the Deeper Question

Here's what puzzles me most: your argument seems to assume that American culture is so fragile that it cannot withstand diversity, yet so superior that it deserves preservation through exclusion. But if American ideals truly reflect biblical principles of justice, liberty, and human dignity, shouldn't they be attractive enough to win hearts rather than require enforcement?

The early Christians transformed the Roman Empire not through political dominance but through compelling witness. They were accused of "turning the world upside down" (Acts 17:6) precisely because their love transcended cultural boundaries.

You might respond that naive tolerance enabled cultural decline. I understand this concern. But consider: when Christians have historically wielded political power to enforce cultural conformity, has it strengthened or weakened gospel witness?

A Path Forward

What if our goal shifted from cultural preservation to cultural transformation? Instead of demanding that immigrants abandon their heritage, what if we invited them to contribute their gifts while embracing shared civic virtues?

The New Testament vision isn't cultural uniformity but cultural sanctification—taking what is good from every culture while purging what contradicts the teachings of Jesus. This requires discernment, not wholesale acceptance or rejection.

Your closing warning about colonization might be prophetic, but consider this: the greatest threat to American Christianity may not be external colonization but internal apostasy. When we elevate cultural preservation over gospel proclamation, do we not risk becoming like the Pharisees who strained gnats while swallowing camels?

I close with a question that I hope might prompt reflection rather than defensiveness: If Jesus were walking through the Hindu temple in Ontario or the Muslim neighborhoods of London, what would His response be? Would He see threats to be repelled or souls to be reached?

The same Jesus who overturned the money changers' tables also wept over Jerusalem. The same Jesus who condemned religious hypocrisy also welcomed foreign seekers. Perhaps our response to cultural change requires both His righteous indignation and His redemptive love—applied with wisdom that can only come through prayer, Scripture, and humble dialogue with those whose experiences differ from our own.

"For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility" (Ephesians 2:14)

If you have a reply, I'd be happy to link to it here.