I understand the concern about the Trump administration’s rescission of protections that allowed churches to act as sanctuaries. This decision is negatively affecting both undocumented immigrants and legal noncitizens who attend our churches or seek refuge within our church buildings and interferes with the church’s mandate to put Christ’s love for neighbor into action. I am grateful that Mennonite Church USA is acting as a prophetic voice by drawing attention to the policy change.

However, I question the use of a lawsuit to challenge this rescission (“MC USA Joins Suit to Protect Houses of Worship from Immigration Raids,” March). This is not the time for rash decisions that adopt the tools of the state and are made without the input of the church body. We need to gather as a community of believers to flesh out the truth, and, through prayer, rely on the Spirit of God to move us toward actions that are biblically based and respectful of our tradition and moral anchoring.

The decision to use a state-sponsored tool — a lawsuit — to challenge the rescission appears to bypass the theological and moral boundaries that typically restrict our actions. It appears that the goal of the action is given more weight than the theological and moral restrictions. This approach resembles situational ethics, where achieving the desired end can justify ignoring or reinterpreting moral boundaries.

To me, the MC USA Executive Board’s reasoning fits this model. An MC USA associate executive director, Iris de León-Hartshorn, justified the lawsuit by saying, “Loving our neighbors outweighs our traditional stance of nonresistance.” 

Where is the love of Jesus in a lawsuit? How are we modeling Jesus’ love for others when we hire attorneys and rely on government mechanisms to force others to conform to our wishes? Christ’s life, death and resurrection model a love that transforms hearts rather than compels behavior through force. Without love, even the most righteous lawsuit becomes, as Paul says, a “noisy gong or clanging cymbal.”

Are we now legitimizing the use of lawsuits as a standard response to injustice? Will situational ethics adapt to the growing threat of the Trump administration, and will our pacifism be rejected if we feel it’s not the best action for effecting the change we desire — perhaps toward even more coercive forms of action? 

I’m in favor of MC USA withdrawing from the lawsuit and turning the decision over to the churches it represents. Through prayer and dialogue, we can determine whether such an action aligns with our theology and moral code. 

Ken Gaeddert, Hesston, Kan.