The movement of people from their place of ‘origin to a destination, or from a place of birth to another destination across international borders’ is a severe contemporary issue (Skeldon 2013:2). Likewise, there are also people who migrate from one community or town within the same country (International Organization for Migration [IOM] 2015:35). The earlier movement refers to international migration, whereas the second movement refers to internal migration. This implies that migration has both ‘internal and international’ features (IOM 2015:35). In other words, international migration is a voluntary or non-voluntary ‘movement of people across borders to reside permanently or temporarily in a country other than their country of birth or citizenship’ because of political, social, economic, natural disasters or climate change factors¹ (United Nations Human Rights 2015:17). Every person who migrates from his or her place of birth to another destination across international borders is referred to as a migrant. The foregoing definition of international migrants includes refugees, victims of human trafficking as well as documented or undocumented migrants. In addressing the subject of ‘migrants in transit’, Gilmore (2016), the deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, maintains that migrants is an umbrella concept as she employs it to represent all people who have a lack of citizenship attached to their hosting countries in common.

IOM (2015) presents a penetrating picture of the extent of international migration as a serious contemporary issue which the international community cannot afford to ignore. It states that:

Likewise, in the Global Challenge of Managing Migration, Martin (2013:2) states that from 1980 to 2010, the number of international migrants has increased by 117 million. In 1980, the number of international migrants was 103 million, which increased to 220 million by 2010. Furthermore, Martin (2013:2) and the United Nation Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2013) reported that ‘the number of international migrants increased from 220 million to 232 million by 2013’. Martin (2013:2) continued to estimate that the number of international migrants is most likely to reach 400 million by 2050. In both confirming and magnifying the extent and gravity of the issue of international migration, the IOM (2014:1) pointedly reported that ‘approximately one in seven people are migrating every day’.

Migration confronts both migrants and migrants’ hosting nations with various challenges. On the one hand, migrants face discrimination in various forms. Some hosting nations do not recognise the foreign qualifications of migrants which result in migrants accepting low-paying jobs in order to survive in their new homeland. This is usually done by adjusting the human rights of migrants through labour polices which favours the civilians of the hosting nations at the expense of migrants (Bose 2014:23; Datta et al. 2006:8; Kul n.d.). Furthermore, migrants encounter the imposition of burdensome migration regulations (i.e. hosting nations’ tightening of their borders and onerous visa requirements) by the hosting nations as a means of discouraging migrants to enter in their country (Chelius 2014:32–33; Gilmore 2016; Rajendra 2014:305; Ridsdel 2014:27–28; Sazonov 2015). On the other hand, the migrants’ hosting countries face the following challenges: (1) the cost of resettling and integrating migrants (Boundless 2015; Nie 2015; Thomsen 2016:17), (2) the increment of the rates of unemployment (Rivera-Pagán 2012:575), (3) the dilution of their native cultures (Corhen & Sirkeci 2011:1; Tan 2012:47), (4) threats from the refugees’ opponents (Pakoz 2016) and (5) the suspicion that migrants, particularly refugees, are intertwined with terrorism (Louw 2016:5; Plucinska 2015).

The surfacing problem is that although the existential challenges of both migrants and hosting nations are real and the international community cannot afford to ignore them, theology has been lowly participating in shaping the discourse of migration (Groody 2009a:640; Heimburger 2015:338; Jackson & Passarelli 2016:46). Nevertheless, this does not necessarily mean that there are no ecclesiological-theological responses and approaches to migration challenges. Although there are ecclesiological-theological responses and approaches to migration challenges, it is apparent that these responses are lacking in numerous ways. Hence, this article seeks to critically assess some theological-ecclesiological responses and approaches to migration challenges in order to identify lacunae for further exploration in Christian ministry engagement. In order to accomplish this objective, the first section will locate migration issues within theological discourse.

In consideration of the state of theological-ecclesiological responses to migration issues, the second section will arguably classify theological-ecclesiological responses to migration challenges into four approaches: (1) the approach that focuses on practical responses from pastoral care that is limited to particular social contexts, (2) the approach that focuses on theological motif and ministry praxis from narrow and single biblical texts, (3) the response that focuses on Israel as a paradigm of how the native churches and hosting nations should treat migrants and (4) a systematic approach which focuses on doctrinal formulations that respond to migration challenges. These theological-ecclesiological responses and approaches to migration challenges will be critically analysed in order to identify their weakness and strengths. Once this is done, the final section will identify some niches from the aforementioned ecclesiological-theological responses and approaches to migration challenges that require consideration for further Christian ministry engagement. This article will then conclude by weaving predominant arguments together and aims to provide a clear indication of a theological agenda for migration ministry.

Migration is a serious theological issue because Christianity itself and its foundational doctrines draw significantly from a history that has a clear thread with migration (Theological reflection on migration 2008:4). In this regard, a considerable number of scholars (Campese 2012:22, 2012:4–7; Groody 2009a, 2013:35–38; Rivera-Pagán 2012:575–589) and the church councils (Catholic Church Conferencia Nacional dos Bispos do Brasil 1981:178; the Lausanne Occasional Paper no. 55. 2004) have concurred that both the Old Testament and New Testament clearly assert migration as a biblical concept. These scholars and church councils subscribe to a theological position that states that we are all migrants, starting from Adam to us (cf. Lausanne Occasional Paper no. 55. 2004). It is in Genesis 3 where the original migration of mankind emerged as a result of Adam’s rebellion against God and was expelled from the Garden of Eden (Gn 3:1–24). In their expulsion from Eden, Adam and Eve migrated into another land in form of judgement. Thus, in linking Adam’s expulsion from Eden as the first migration idea in scripture, scholars are bringing the doctrine of creation and the fall to bear on the biblical notion and philosophy of migration.

However, in reversing the Adamic migration by recreating a new person for himself, God called Abraham to leave his home in order to inherit the promised land of Canaan (Gn 12:1–3; Groody 2013:28; Theological reflection on migration 2008:4). This shows us that in God’s large salvific purposes, Abraham migrated in form of blessing to dwell in foreign lands which God was to give to him and his descendants (Gn 12). In this way, the notion of Adam and Abraham’s migration is juxtaposed. On the one hand, Adam’s migration was in form of punishment and destruction, whereas on the other hand, Abraham’s migration was particular and universal in nature. The particularity of Abraham’s migration was in form of receiving particular blessings for him and his descendants, while the universal aspect of his migration lies in bringing people back to eternal fellowship with God (Torrance 2008:51). This scriptural notion of migration is intensified when Israel, the descendant nation of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, migrated to Egypt as well as their return to the promised land. This aforementioned migration was a pattern for the entire life of Israel in the Old Testament (Theological reflection on migration 2008:4). Given this:

Likewise, the Catholic Church Conferencia Nacional dos Bispos do Brasil (1981) claims that:

That is, the notion and philosophy of salvation in the Old Testament is ‘migration bearing’ (Theological reflection on migration 2008:4).

Furthermore, the New Testament speaks about the incarnational mystery of God and Christian life from a migration perspective (Campese 2012:21–23; Matovina & Tweed 2012:11; Theological Reflection on Migration 2008:4). The former denotes that the migration position of the church is anchored in the mystery of the incarnation in which the infinite, eternal and transcendent God (in and through Jesus Christ) came into our estranged territory in order to save and bring us back to our eschatological homeland in which we will experience full reconciliation between God and us, as well as man and man (Groody 2013:33). Nagy (2015) corresponds with Groody, Matovina and Tweed, and Campese when he affirms that a proper understanding of migration as a metaphorical expression of the incarnational mystery of God will result in one’s ‘deeper understanding’ of the nature of God and his relationship with the world. The latter denotes that the migration position of the church is embedded within the fact that Christians are biblically ascribed as migrants by scriptural texts that describe believers as aliens or strangers in the world (1 Pt 2:11 and Heb 11:13–16; Campese 2012:22–23; Groody 2009a:653; Matovina & Tweed 2012:11; Theological Reflection on Migration 2008:4). Given this, the comprehension of migration as a descriptive metaphor for the incarnational mystery of God and the Christian life is central in configuring migration as a serious theological concern for the church.

Currently, Aymer (2015:1) understands migration as a theological issue by viewing the New Testament as a diaspora space. She arrived at her conclusion about the New Testament as a diaspora space after a thorough examination of the New Testament books. She argues that the seven unquestionable letters of Paul were written by him when he was in diaspora, instead of his homeland (Aymer 2015:1). The four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), Acts and the three epistles of John are mainly identified in the scholarly world as written by some exiled anonymous authors after the siege of Jerusalem by the Roman Empire (Aymer 2015:1). In substantiating her case, she argues that the letters of Hebrews, 1 Peter and James were written within a diaspora space because the authors of these letters identify their audiences as people in exile or aliens. Furthermore, without building a strong case, she simply identifies the letter of Revelation to have been authored by John while in exile (Aymer 2015:1). Therefore, Aymer (2015:1) encapsulates migration as a theological concern for the church because ‘the majority of the New Testament authors wrote as migrants (on the road, in exile, on the move) and that their writings constitute sojourners’ truths, and thus diaspora space’.

Given the aforementioned discussions, it can be affirmed that both the Old and New Testaments present the notion and philosophy of migration as interconnected with the aspect of God as a migrant and the self-identity of Christians as pilgrims on the way. Thus, Christians are expected to shape the migration debate because the fundamental twin doctrines of Christianity (the incarnation and Christian salvation) rest on the notion and philosophy of migration. However, the arising problem is that although other disciplines such as ‘economics, politics, geography, demography, sociology, psychology, law, history, anthropology, and environmental studies’ are at the centre of shaping the emerging field of migration studies, theology is at the margin of the migration debate (Groody 2009a:640). Campese (2012:30) and Jackson and Passarelli (2016) observe that theological reflections on migration are immature. Jackson and Passarelli (2016) continue to note that there is very little that has been done to develop migration theology programmes; hence, in-depth theological reflection and programmes should be developed across the spectrum starting with undergraduate programmes. Groody (2009a:639–640) and Heimburger (2015:338) added that theology has been on the periphery of shaping the emerging field of migration as if it does not have anything to offer. The low participation of theology in shaping the emerging field of migration is a serious theological concern because theology and its fundamental doctrines of salvation draws largely from the notion and philosophy of migration (Campese 2012:21–22; Groody 2009c, 2012, 2013; Matovina & Tweed 2012:11; Nagy 2015; Theological Reflections on Migration 2008:4).

Also, theology and church are intricately linked to society and people’s lives. Magezi (2007:176) rightly maintains that churches are subsystems of society (communities). In view of these realities, it is imperative for theology to reflect on practical life and societal issues such as migration. Furthermore, churches have been on the forefront in responding to social and community issues. Stark (1996) in his book, The rise of Christianity, clearly illustrates the way how churches have been on the forefront in care ministry. The reality of the church as a community and social institution, its theological content of care, and its tradition and history of care challenges theology to play an active role in migration issues. However, as already noted (Stark 1996), this need does not necessarily mean that there are no theological-ecclesiological responses and approaches to migration. The existing approaches have limitations, hence the need to reflect and improve them. The following section shall present four theological-ecclesiological responses and approaches that have been conveniently developed in this article to categorise theological migration discussions. The fourth category as the dominant category will be discussed in more detail.

The preceding section confronts us with four useful theological-ecclesiological responses and approaches to migration crises which are also deficient in various ways. The first theological response and approach focuses on single contexts in drawing migration application principles. Snyder (2012), Heyer (2012), Tan (2012), Adogame (2013) and Matovina and Tweed (2012) are some of the reputable scholars who employ theological responses and approaches that focus on single contexts in drawing migration application principles. The limitation of this theological response and approach lies in its failure to have application to a wider context.

The second theological response to migration crises is the approach that focuses on theological motif and ministry praxis from narrow and single biblical texts. Snyder (2012) is an appropriate representative of this category. The problem with this approach is that it lacks a comprehensive theological reflection on the subject of migration. This is because single context application and single text approaches weaken broader application to theological principles, are incomprehensive and are arguably unsystematic³ in treatment of doctrine hence insufficient.

The third theological response to migration crises is the approach that focuses on Israel as a paradigm of how native churches or Christians of the hosting nations, and the hosting nations themselves, should treat migrants. This approach has a tendency of making a direct application of Israel’s dealing with the foreigners as a response which the current nations experiencing migration crisis have to emulate. This is problematic because Israel is both a theocratic and covenantal nation of God, which is distinct to any other nation. Israel was a distinct nation and has a particular relationship with God. For instance, it was a priestly nation chosen by God as his instrument of salvation to the whole world. This clear distinction between the scriptural nation of Israel and the contemporary nations begs for bridges in bringing Israel as a model of response for non-theocratic nations encountering migration challenges in the contemporary world.

The final theological response is a systematic theological approach that focuses on doctrinal formulation that responds to migration crises. Campese (2012), Groody (2009a, 2009, 2012, 2013), Bedford-Strohm (2008), Rivera-Pagán (2012) and Aymer (2015) are some of the estimable scholars who utilise a systematic theological approach that focuses on doctrinal formulation in response to migration crises. The problem with this approach lies in its failure to proceed in constructing ministerial and ecclesiological models that respond to the existential challenges of migrants. In this way, this theological approach fails to explicitly draw links between reflection and praxis. By failing to draw explicit links between doctrine and praxis, this approach can be blamed for assuming that doctrinal formulations automatically translate to practice. This is because it focuses on reflection and doctrinal formulation and fails to outline the implication of such doctrine to practical life to ensure that theology becomes a life science (Campese 2012:6; Cruz 2010:121; Fowler 1983:154–155; Louw 2014:11).

Given this, the above theological responses to the challenge of migration crises are theologically limited in various ways. Viewed from a missiological and practical theological perspective, these approaches weaken theology’s relevance to broad practical life issues such as migration. At worst, it renders theology as idealistic and impractical. Van Engen (2004:50) counsels that from a Theology of Missions perspective, theology should take the biblical text with complete seriousness. This thorough consideration of the biblical text should result in Theology of Missions’ practical participation in the world in response to the contemporary challenges in which God’s mission occurs. This central aspect of missional theology converges with the entire enterprise of practical theology. Likewise, Dakin (1996:203) sharply sustains that ‘practical theology must not only address the levels of reflection but also provide a perspective and an orientation for the knowledge with which it is concerned’. Louw (2014:11) added that doctrinal formulations must have clear and relevant implications to the existential challenges of people. Hendriks (2007:999) explains that missional theology and ecclesiology focuses on a contextual praxis, which necessitates a reflective engagement of faith communities in the world. The methodology entails fusing and integrating who God and what his word (scriptures) is in this world, the church, the mission and responsive practical actions.

In view of the above, Cruz (2010:121) recommends that theology should dialogue with the current challenges that migrants encounter. Reactive ministerial and ecclesiological models that respond to the challenges of migrants should be developed. Hence, in advancing a useful intercultural theology of migration, Cruz (2010:121, cf. Bosch 1991:494⁴) poignantly points out that ‘Indeed, all theology participates in his/her story (God, my emphasis) to address the issue of the day or the signs of the times’. Theology has to dialogue with current forms of arising issues. An emerging problem indicates that while theology is expected to dialogue with migration, scholars observe that theology has been peripherally participating in shaping the discourse and responses to migration crises. Notably, other disciplines such as ‘economics, politics, geography, demography, sociology, psychology, law, history, anthropology, and environmental studies’ (Groody a 2009:640) are at the centre in shaping the emerging field of migration studies while theology is on the side-lines. This lacuna is indeed of theological concern.

The above-mentioned lacunae indicate a challenge to place theological reflection of migration on the theological agenda. The World Team International (2011:6–7), which is a global missions think tank of researchers, in their global overview and trend mapping on modern missions observed that migration is one of the major global developments that will impact global mission. They state that migration is a central global issue of the 21st century that is shaping the current and will continue to shape the future church and its mission. This arises from the fact that migration is not static. The number of people moving across international borders is rapidly increasing every year as highlighted by statistical data on migration (Campese 2012:5–6; World Team International 2011:6). Thus, the challenge of migration requires the church to rethink its mission in the globalised world where migration is a key reality. Mission is no longer going ‘out there’ but ‘here’ (World Team International 2011:6–7).

Notably, therefore, the lacuna indicated above leads one to observe that a meaningful responsive theology that shapes the debate of migration, as well as informing ecclesiological-practical responses is at stake. In this respect, theology is not simply expected to be involved in the migration debate but it has to contribute to the migration debate. This is why Groody (2009) correctly avows that:

This is because the contribution of theology transcends spiritual reflection to include practical psycho-social, emotional, economic and other dimensions. This enterprise aims at locating theology at the centre stage of migration dialogues as well as exploring ecclesiological-practical responses to the problem to which theology is currently lowly involved and in some instances completely uninvolved.

The purpose of this article was to critically assess some theological-ecclesiological approaches and responses to migration challenges in order to identify lacunae for further exploration in Christian ministry engagement. The article critically assessed the various theological-ecclesiological responses and approaches. It revealed that some scholars are of the opinion that although other disciplines are at the centre stage in shaping the emerging field of migration, theology is at the periphery. From the theological conversations on migration, there are two predominant lacunae that have been observed that should be considered for further Christian ministry engagement in response to migration crises. Firstly, there is the need for theological researches to develop a legitimate biblical and theological position on migration that shapes the discourse. Directly emerging from the first need is the second one, namely the need for an operative ecclesiology that is both missional and practical in nature to ensure development of holistic ministries. These two challenges arguably provide a useful agenda across contexts for meaningful migration ministries. In doing so, theology will claim and strengthen its place at the ‘table’ of contributing to migration response at spiritual and social dimension levels.