The pastoral office in Graham, Washington, has become an unexpected pulpit for one of America’s most contentious immigration enforcement debates. Pastor Eric Lundberg of Living Word Lutheran Church has ignited a firestorm of criticism by publicly defending recent shootings involving Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, delivering his justifications both to his physical congregation and his digital flock on Facebook. His comments, which frame ICE agents as dispensers of justice and characterize protesters as violent agitators, have drawn condemnation from online communities, fellow clergy, and observers who see his rhetoric as a dangerous fusion of political ideology and religious authority.
A Pastor’s Defense of Controversial Enforcement Actions
In recent sermons and social media posts, Pastor Lundberg has directly addressed specific incidents of violence involving ICE. His commentary extends beyond general support for immigration policy to explicit defenses of lethal force. In one instance, discussing the shooting of Renee Good, Lundberg presented a convoluted rationale: he initially conceded the shooting “wasn’t necessary,” yet swiftly pivoted to declaring the act “justified.” This theological and legal justification for state violence, delivered from a position of spiritual leadership, represents a significant escalation in the public discourse surrounding immigration enforcement.
The pastor’s arguments follow a consistent pattern of shifting blame and moral responsibility. He asserts that individuals who interfere with ICE operations bear culpability for any resulting violence, effectively positioning law enforcement actions as inherently legitimate regardless of circumstance. This framework removes any burden of proportionality or restraint from agents, creating what critics describe as a blank check for aggression under the guise of executing official duties.
Theological Justifications for Political Violence
Central to Lundberg’s message is the characterization of ICE targets as “the wicked” upon whom justice is being meted out. This language imports Old Testament concepts of divine retribution into contemporary enforcement contexts, effectively sanctifying government actions. By framing the conflict in metaphysical terms—as a battle against wickedness rather than a complex policy implementation—the pastor elevates political disagreements to spiritual warfare, making compromise appear morally suspect.
This theological framing extends to his analysis of broader political movements. Lundberg has claimed that America has been “infiltrated by Marxists who wanted to ruin the country,” positioning immigration protests not as civic engagement but as existential threats to national survival. Within this worldview, opposition to ICE becomes synonymous with opposition to America itself, and forceful suppression of dissent transforms from controversial to necessary.
Digital Congregation and the Amplification of Divisive Rhetoric
Lundberg’s message reaches beyond his physical church through deliberate social media engagement. His Facebook platform serves as a digital extension of his pulpit, where he presents the same arguments to a potentially wider audience. This dual-platform approach reflects a modern ministry strategy but applied to particularly divisive content. The digital dimension also exposes his teachings to immediate public scrutiny and reaction, transforming what might once have been contained congregational discussions into national conversations.
The online response has been overwhelmingly critical. Comments on forums like Reddit reveal deep discomfort with the fusion of Christian messaging and defense of state violence. One particularly resonant critique, “No hate like Christian love yet again,” captures the disillusionment many feel when religious language is deployed to justify actions they perceive as fundamentally un-Christian. This sentiment reflects a broader cultural tension about the role of faith leaders in political discourse and the ethical boundaries of pastoral authority.
Denominational Distance and Theological Rejection
Significant context comes from Lundberg’s ecclesiastical standing. As observers have noted, Living Word Lutheran Church belongs to a splinter group that separated from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) primarily over the larger body’s acceptance of LGBTQ individuals. This break means Lundberg’s views do not represent mainstream Lutheran theology. The ELCA, like many mainline Protestant denominations, has issued statements emphasizing compassion and humane treatment in immigration matters, creating stark contrast with Lundberg’s rhetoric.
Other pastors have been quick to distance Christian theology from Lundberg’s interpretations. One pastor, identifying as theologically moderate rather than “hyper progressive,” publicly countered: “I oppose this immigration policy because it dehumanizes and endangers humans, humans that I believe are made in the image of God. The violence that occurs happens to the personhood of immigrants when we rob them of their dignity.” This rebuttal centers on imago Dei—the belief that all humans bear God’s image—as a theological foundation for humane treatment, directly challenging Lundberg’s focus on enforcement authority.
The Psychology of Fear-Based Ministry
Critics have analyzed Lundberg’s approach through a psychological lens, suggesting he employs fear as a pastoral tool. One particularly pointed online comment described him as “a con artist who preys on people’s fears and insecurities. He encourages them to persecute ‘those other people’ lower than them on the socioeconomic ladder to justify their feelings of superiority.” Whether this characterization is entirely accurate, it highlights how perceptions of religious authority can be weaponized to validate pre-existing prejudices rather than challenge congregants toward higher ethical standards.
This fear-based model creates a self-reinforcing cycle: perceived threats justify extreme measures; defending those measures reinforces group identity; questioning the measures becomes tantamount to betrayal. Within this framework, ICE agents transform from government employees executing difficult policy into frontline defenders of Christian civilization, making theological support for their actions seem spiritually necessary rather than politically optional.
The Tangible Consequences of Pulpit Rhetoric
When religious leaders sanctify state violence, they alter how congregants perceive real-world consequences. The shooting of Renee Good ceases to be a tragic incident requiring investigation and becomes, in Lundberg’s telling, a justified outcome of righteous enforcement. This narrative affects not only how people view past events but how they anticipate future ones, potentially creating greater tolerance for violence against protesters or immigrants deemed obstructive to enforcement actions.
This rhetoric also impacts the immigrants themselves, many of whom are Christian. Portraying ICE actions as holy justice creates spiritual trauma for believers who find themselves targeted by policies their co-religionists have theologically endorsed. The dissonance between being part of the Body of Christ yet subject to “righteous” enforcement creates profound theological and psychological distress that extends far beyond legal status.
The Broader Pattern of Political Ministry
Lundberg’s case is not isolated but represents an increasingly visible model of ministry that explicitly aligns with partisan political positions. This approach contrasts with more traditional models of pastoral care that emphasize spiritual formation over political advocacy, or that engage political issues through ethical principles rather than partisan loyalty. The Graham controversy thus serves as a case study in the risks and rewards of overtly political ministry in polarized times.
The digital age complicates this dynamic further. Before social media, a pastor’s controversial sermon might have sparked local discussion or denominational review. Today, the same sermon can instantly become national news, attracting commentary from outside the faith tradition entirely. This exposure creates new accountability but also new opportunities for finding supportive audiences beyond geographical or denominational boundaries, potentially amplifying extreme views.
Navigating the Intersection of Faith and Civic Life
The fundamental question raised by this controversy transcends immigration policy: What is the proper role of religious leaders in matters of state violence? Different traditions offer different answers, from complete separation of spiritual and temporal authority to models of prophetic confrontation with government power. Lundberg’s approach—theological endorsement of specific enforcement actions—occupies one end of this spectrum, while pastors advocating for sanctuary policies occupy the other.
This diversity of approaches within Christianity itself underscores that there is no single “Christian” position on ICE or immigration enforcement. What exists instead are competing interpretations of scripture, tradition, and ethical reasoning applied to complex policy questions. Recognizing this diversity is crucial for public discourse, as it prevents any single voice from claiming exclusive religious authority on political matters.
The ongoing debate about immigration enforcement in America involves profound questions about security, compassion, legality, and human dignity. These questions deserve rigorous debate in the public square. When that debate enters the sanctuary, it carries additional weight—the weight of spiritual authority and eternal consequence. The Graham controversy demonstrates how this weight can be deployed to justify violence or to plead for mercy, to divide communities or to bridge them, to heighten fear or to inspire courage. In an era of deep polarization, the choices religious leaders make about engaging political violence will continue to reverberate far beyond their church walls, shaping not only policy debates but the very soul of their communities.
