;)
tagged: Andrew Wencl, Compassion, Dave Miller, Featured, Gospel, Immigration, resolutions, SBC Annual MeetingDeporting Compassion, the Gospel, and Illegals
Posted by Andrew Wencl in Baptist Life, Church & Missions, News & Culture
Illegal immigration is a present reality for many people who work in Hispanic ministry. Surprisingly, most people curious for my opinion aren’t those I work with, but those who have little if any involvement in this area of ministry. Sometimes it feels more like a loyalty test rather than an honest inquiry. We will get nowhere if we approach this issue as Americans first and Christians second. That does not mean, however, that we will all come to the same conclusion.
I wasn’t at the SBC Annual Meeting this year, but I saw David Miller’s comments about some hubbub over the following line in a resolution that was up for a vote and his fuller analysis of the SBC and illegal immigration:
RESOLVED, That we ask our governing authorities to implement, with the borders secured, a just and compassionate path to legal status, with appropriate restitutionary measures, for those undocumented immigrants already living in our country.
Anxiety, Fear, and Unrest
CNN ran an article about the new state anti-illegal immigration laws that have been passed in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, and Utah. Oddly enough they didn’t mention the law that was passed in Indiana that runs along a similar vein. I almost feel left out.
According to the story, illegal immigrants whose children are American citizens are afraid of what will happen to their children if they, the parents, are arrested and deported. Is this really news? Not to me. Believe it or not, prior to the passing of the Arizona law many illegals were afraid of what would happen to their children if they ended up deported.
We don’t often think about what would happen to our loved ones if we were suddenly killed in a car accident, but the danger is certainly there every day. Our awareness and fear isn’t evoked all that often. Similarly, some illegals have been afforded great freedom in many states until now. They’ve grown accustomed to living out their quiet and peaceful existence without thinking of the ever-present possibility of deportation. But as more states pass laws and others consider new laws, the awareness factor goes up. This anxiety is certainly present, both in those who are afraid of being sent home and the people who fear losing them.
It’s not uncommon for extended families to live in close proximity of each other, with some in a legal status and some not. These people have to grapple with the difficult decision of what to do if something goes bad and someone is sent to his country of origin. Are the kids too Americanized to go back to a Spanish-speaking country? Could they really live with relatives in the States? What if one spouse is legal? Should the family split, with one parent going back?
Imagine being afraid every time you see a police car in your rearview mirror. Imagine going to your job and wondering if you’ll be nabbed in a raid on your workplace. Imagine the fear of being sent back to your country of origin: living in the midst of a drug war, the threat of kidnapping, rape, and murder, the possible recruitment of your children into the drug cartels, the challenge of unemployment, no medical care, and no family support.
Are there adverse affects for Americans? You bet. Are there adverse affects on illegals? Absolutely. That doesn’t make illegal immigration right, but we can’t pretend that life is wonderful for illegals and terrible for us. It is easy to condemn illegals because they choose to live here, it still doesn’t negate the fact that illegal immigration really does hurt them.
Apart from the splitting up of families, there’s also the likelihood of earning less than minimum-wage, being cheated and victimized by others who know they have no legal recourse, suffering without medical care, etcetera.
As bad as these things may be, it can be worse in their countries of origin, as I mentioned before. And many people think it must be easier to take the legal path to citizenship than to avoid detection and deportation while you wait 21 plus years for your “anchor baby” to be able to advocate for your citizenship. The truth is, a lack of faith in our system and the violent and economic realities of their home countries drive many to despair.
Compassion and the Gospel
Some complained that the SBC resolution was advocating for amnesty. But a path to legal status (which does not mean citizenship) does not constitute amnesty, especially when you include “restitutionary measures,” which could take any number of forms. Compassion does not constitute amnesty. Not applying the stiffest penalty allowed by law does not constitute amnesty. I think many people are just miffed that illegal immigrants could “get off light,” as though they have never experienced grace themselves.
If you’re still reading, you might be mistaking my compassion here for condoning illegal immigration. That’s understandable. Jesus was criticized for eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners, as though he were condoning their sin and proving Himself a sinner. I realize that compassion for illegals will likely breed the same kind of response from the enemies of grace.
By choosing to associate with the tax collectors and sinners I will be called a tax collector and a sinner, a man who’s betrayed his country and the values of his religion. Names and vitriol, however upsetting, will not dissuade me from my ministry. If anything, I take comfort in the fact that some white Americans consider me too liberal on this issue while some Hispanics (both citizens and non-) consider me too conservative.
Though John 7:53-8:11 was not likely part of the original Gospel of John, most agree that it is a true story from the life of Christ. I seek to emulate Jesus’ attitude in this passage (and others that we are sure are original like Matthew 9:9-13 and Luke 7:36-50) in my ministry. Jesus had compassion. He did not compromise on the truth or condone sin. But the emphasis is on His compassion. I want to have compassion.
Jesus came to save the lost. And many illegals are lost and bound by dead religion, practical atheism, or Satanic oppression. It is not right to wait for a political solution before we reach these people with the gospel. It is not right to say that the IMB can reach them if we send them “home”. They aren’t there anymore. They’re here. We need to reach them now.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Very well stated. I am an attorney and I have had the occasion to help undocumented Hispanics. I know how much they are exploited and reviled. I understand the rule of law but I find myself leading with my heart. I have come to see that these are people who want something better for themselves and their children and I have a hard time trying to maintain some sort of legal argument about the “law” which, after all, is simply legislation that can be changed to reveal our compassion instead of our prejudice or fear. I cannot help recalling that my ancestors were Irish and how they were reviled and despised when the arrived. Secure borders are important to protect our liberty and lives against terrorism or violent crime; secure borders for any other purpose should reflect our values as embodied in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence – and our hearts. Thank you for saying what you did.
[...] article via SBC Impact Compassion and the [...]
These issues are far more complicated than most make them. Thanks for asking the questions we should be asking about the implications of our political stances on this issue. I think there are areas where we as good Christians can legitimately disagree about the order of steps taken to end this problem of allowing dangerous open borders and the problem of immigrants being exploited when many are trying to feed their families and secure a better life for their children. I thought the resolution’s original language clearly did not promote amnesty (as it discussed restitutions, a “just path” and the need for secure borders), but to focus on that area seems to miss the broader purpose of the resolution: Treat immigrants (legal or not) as fellow human beings in need of Christ.
Criminals are afraid of reaping the consequences of their crimes, and this is supposed to make me feel sorry for them?
John,
I don’t think we should feel “sorry” for anyone, but we should certainly be compassionate for them. Jesus criticized the religious leaders of His day for being so calloused towards outcasts. I pray that you would be more tender-hearted towards “criminals” than your comment suggests.
A very Gospel centered response to this difficult issue. I never cease to be amazed by the angry reactions of some Evangelicals to “illegals.” Many Christians around the globe suffer under “illegal” status due to anti-Christian governments. I suppose we should advise them to be patriotic and follow the Law of their land — or perhaps compassion and God’s Law trumps Caesar’s law.
A) John, thanks for showing how caught up in your Americanism you are.
B) Yes, you ought to feel sorry for sinners lost in their sin. If the law of the US is more important to you than reaching the lost with the Gospel then keep ignoring them/reporting them. God gives the sword of justice to the governments, not to you. You just focus on the Gospel.
That the resolutions committee brought a resolution on immigration reform to the covention floor made me sick, as sick as I feel when I hear right-wing Christian radio personalities spewing forth positions more representative of regional politics than biblical principles. The Bible does not answer how this country should move forward concerning immigration. However, since the resolutions committee thinks that it does and right-wing personalities think that it does, Christians are fighting against one another over politics when they should be working together to preach the gospel to all people. On the one side, some are calling their fellow brothers in Christ Pharisees and bigots without compassion for the lost or an understanding of the gospel. On the other, some are calling their fellow brothers in Christ fools who are falling fast into the pit of liberalism. When we start calling each other Pharisees, compassionless bigots, and liberals, we have lost the ability dialogue with any meaning. Sad. But this is what happens when we mix politics with the church’s spiritual mission; the two have a habit of ruining one another when mixed.
Chris,
First, almost all resolutions touch on politics at some point, including ones dealing with the sanctity of human life, adoption, homosexuality, etc. Though the Bible may not specifically say how the U.S. should respond to illegal immigration, it is sufficient to guide is in every area of life.
Like it or not, this issue is not going to go away and it is important for Southern Baptists to grapple with it. I think the main issue over the controversial part of the resolution stems more from ignorance and fear than from legitimate concerns.
Republicans and democrats recognize that it is not feasible to deport over 11 million people. It will not happen. A call to the U.S. to come up with a pathway to legal status for illegal aliens is only radical to 1) those who falsely believe legal status equals citizenship, and 2) those who believe anything less than deportation is injustice.
I have no intention of slinging around the words “Pharisee” or “bigot,” but I will stand firm against those who deny grace by their actions (cf. Matt. 18:23-34).
Andrew,
I agree with you that most resolutions touch on politics and would argue that they do so inappropriately, even concerning issues with which most Southern Baptists agree. The Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, we should preach that it is sin and come alongside those who are repentant and compassionately help them to continue on in the struggle of lifelong repentance toward God and faith in Christ. We should discipline those who are not repentant. However, to take an official position on federal marriage amendments and civil unions is to concern ourselves on how the state should respond to this issue. The Bible answers how the Church should respond to homosexuality not the state. Christians can disagree on the latter, but not the former.
Concerning immigration and other issues, individual Christians should think through the issues biblically and come to decided conclusions. However, since the Bible does not answer this question, it is possible for Christians to come up with two legitimately different findings. Therefore, a convention of churches should not take one position over another. There are things that the convention can say. The convention can appropriately recognize lost immigrants as sinners in need of the gospel and work together to evangelize them. But when we take official political stances through resolutions, we start a fight, not a discussion, in which those of differing positions are called ignorant and scared.
Chris,
It seems that your issue is not so much on making a statement about illegal immigration as it is making politically charged statements at all. I don’t see the SBC dropping that at all. As a matter of fact, I think the SBC has always believed that as member of a democratic society we should let our voices be heard, both individually through voting and engaging in politics, and corporately through discussion and resolutions.
The church should be involved in our society and political processes to the extent allowed. Illegal immigration is not an issue on which we can afford to be silent. We must dialogue on these things even if we may disagree. Unity at the expense of open communication is not unity.
We will probably just have to agree to disagree on this one. Perhaps you can propose doing away with resolutions at next year’s meeting.
Andrew,
You are right my brother to recognize that I am against making politically charged statements in general, not just on this particular issue. I agree that individuals should vote and engage in politics as individual citizens and that it is appropriate for individual Christians to discuss this matter. I disagree that a convention of churches should make official resolutions concerning the political side of important issues. I also do not think that a church as a church should meddle with political processes. My brother, I do think that churches, pastors, and laypeople have something much more important to say concerning immigrants and this issue than what can be said in the political realm. We have the good news of the forgiveness of sins and the hope of eternal life. Why isn’t that message enough? If we hold particularly to that message unbelievers and society at large will see us as irrelevant, but to those who hear the message and turn to Christ it will be the power of salvation.
Finally, it is not true that Southern Baptists have always believed that they should speak out on political matters as a convention of churches. The opposite is the case. In his book “Liquor in the Land of the Lost Cause: Southern White Evangelicals and the Prohibtion Movement,” Joe L. Coker discusses how Southern Protestants held strongly to the doctrine of the spirituality of the church (the position I am defending), but began abandoning it not long after Reconstruction. They abandoned it, because they became convinced that one political issue emerged on which they could not be silent: the abolition of alcohol. As late as the 1888 Southern Baptist Convention, James P. Boyce led Southern Baptists in rejecting a resolution proposed on temperance, ruling “that the delegates were out of order because they were introducing a political question” (Liquor in the Land of the Lost Cause, 95).
Discussion on this matter not as a convention of churches is appropriate, but not when we accuse those who disagree with us of deporting compassion and the gospel and certainly not when we call them enemies of grace.
Chris,
I will be the first to admit that I hold certain political views regarding illegal immigration, but I don’t believe I was arguing for a specific political view in my article. As a matter of fact, I said up front: “We will get nowhere if we approach this issue as Americans first and Christians second. That does not mean, however, that we will all come to the same conclusion.” I never said someone had to agree with me on a political solution or else be an enemy of grace. As a matter of fact, I expect differences of opinion.
I find it unfortunate that I can’t advocate associating with illegals, having compassion for them, and seeking to reach them with the gospel without it being “too political”. If anything, that just shows we can’t take a biblical stand on important issues without if having some political component.
My last paragraph is biblical. If it is political, then so be it. “Jesus came to save the lost. And many illegals are lost and bound by dead religion, practical atheism, or Satanic oppression. It is not right to wait for a political solution before we reach these people with the gospel. It is not right to say that the IMB can reach them if we send them “home”. They aren’t there anymore. They’re here. We need to reach them now.“
Andrew,
I am afraid that our presuppositions on church and society are so profoundly different that we are speaking past each other at this point. I am arguing that as Christians we should approach such people not as undocumented immigrants or documented immigrants, but as sinners in need of the gospel, which entails associating with them, having compassion for them in their lost condition, and seeking to reach them with the gospel. That is not being “too political” or political at all for that matter. That is being about the church’s spiritual mission. I commend you for your work among immigrants and pray that it bears fruit.
However, even if it makes me sound ignorant and fearful, I do think that the section of the resolution that you refer to in your article is inherently political, because it concerns granting legal status to undocumented immigrants and is calling on politicians to take certain actions. That part of the resolution does not concern associating with them or preaching the gospel to them no matter how much people throw around “gospel” approach language. Inasmuch as you defend and promote that part of the resolution, you are promoting a political solution.
Finally, you employ the term enemy of grace and explicitly say in your title that at least some who disagree with you are deporting compasssion and the gospel. Perhaps your article was reactionary against some people whom you’ve come in contact with who are against associating with undocumented immigrants, having compassion for them, and sharing the gospel with them. I don’t know. I know that those who spoke on the floor against the resolution were not taking such a position, no matter how uncomfortable so many might have been or are concerning their inarticulate, unpolished demeanor. But, the type of language that you use (enemies of grace/deporting compassion and the gospel) seems to nullify your opening statements about having an open, non-political discussion as Christians about an issue on which Christians can have legimately different positions.
Chris,
I agree 100% with your opening paragraph here. That is what I was writing about in my article. I do hold political views on this issue. I do not, however, believe you have to hold my political views to be compassionate toward illegal immigrants.
I recognize that not all Southern Baptists will agree with the resolutions passed at the annual meeting. I know I don’t always agree. And there is a political aspect to this resolution. I have no intention of debating whether or not the SBC should propose and adopt resolutions with political implications.
Regarding the resolution in question, I disagree with those who maligned the resolution by falsely saying it supported “amnesty.” Those who said we should deport them so the IMB can reach them truly have no heart for these people and are setting themselves up as enemies of grace. I will stand by those words.
Not everyone who disagreed with the resolution fits that bill. If you disagreed with it because you didn’t like the SBC making a political statement or for some other reason, that’s fine. I’m not calling you a bigot.
Andrew,
While I think enemy of grace may be a strong phrase, the argument that undocumented immigrants should be sent back so that the IMB can evangelize them is certainly wrongheaded. Was that argued by someone at the convention? I have discovered that there was further discussion after the initial spat that I did not view. (I was watching over the Internet while trying to do other things.)
Sorry, if it seems that I hijacked your comment section. I just felt like the spirituality of the church position that I have argued for has not been represented in the immigration discussion.
I will save any further comments for another time and venue. I appreciate your compassion for the lost and desire to emulate Christ. May God bless your life and ministry.
Just a quick question Andrew. I understand that many times my thoughts on these types of questions is often unwelcome, so I will make it short. I often times am a quick read, and will readily admit that I tend to skim things and read things incorrectly. But I digress – let me ask the question. Can one hold to the idea that governments make laws such as sovereign borders and orderly immigration under the auspices of heaven and all the consequences of violating that law which may include deportation(Romans 13) and at the same time be a graceful and generous Christian in Christ’s church who give to those in need irregardless of the recipient(s) sinful circumstances? Would these same “Christians” (I use quotes because it would be hard to imagine a true believer as an “enemy of grace”) be fitted under the title “enemies of grace”? As a useful reminder, I am a proponent of your “third way” but the reality is it currently does not exist in law. What now?
Rob
Rob,
To answer your question, yes. I’d like to believe that is my position as well (as I’ve said, I don’t condone illegal immigration). I generally wish the government well in securing our border and returning people to their country of origin as soon after their illegal entry as possible. We have the obligation to share the gospel with all people, especially those who reside in this country’s borders.
To disagree with the above is grave. To disagree with what follows is not:
One issue I have with labelling all illegal immigration as sinful is the fact that there are plenty of illegal things done against sovereign states that we don’t consider sinful. Though I was a kid when the Berlin wall fell, I know that it was illegal to emmigrate from East Germany and we weren’t calling people sinners for violating the laws of their country of origin by leaving the country illegally. If Paul expected citizens, residents, and slaves in the Roman Empire, a military dictatorship, to follow the nation’s laws, certainly we should have expected people living in East Germany to not emmigrate illegally.
Additionally, some of these new laws make the action of knowingly transporting an illegal immigrant a crime. Would that prevent me from taking an illegal to church? What about a hospital, immigration hearing, or grocery store? I’m not sure which would be the greater sin.
In a few cases, children were brought here by their parents at a young age. At what point are they sinning by being here illegally? Is it when they become adults? I struggle with each of these questions.
I’d like to see illegal immigration similar to fouling in basketball in order to get a chance to steal the ball. Fouling isn’t a sin, and if you do it hoping to get the ball, you shouldn’t be surprised if the player makes both shots or gets the rebound. Unfortunately it’s not that simple or easy.
For now, I encourage people to be submissive to the governing authorities and leave it up to their conscience.
Andrew,
Your analogy of Cold War politics is a bit not on point IMHO. While it was illegal on the East German side to go across the border (with dire consequences if one was caught) on the West German side the “law of flight” was pretty open – if you got across, you were received with open arms (with various checks to see if you were a spy or not). Another time and place with two competing laws on both sides of the fence. Governments are not required to be consistent. Christians are required to be consistent in following Government directives. Even when Governments require that Christians go against conscience (and I would argue that list is fairly small) Christians are not immune from the consequences of breaking the law. If you support working with those who are breaking the law (the example here is undocumented non-citizens) then just be prepared to receive the full penalty of law if your caught without gripe. That does not mean we don’t help people no matter what in order to save a few – all that means is we can’t believe we are immune from the sword of government if we stand in the way of law breakers – and by the definition of Romans 13 all who violate the authority are lawbreakers as if against God Himself.
“But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler. Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And
“If the righteous is scarcely saved,
what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?”
Therefore let those who suffer according to God’s will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good.” – 1 Peter 4:15-19 ESV
Rob
Rob,
I want to know how the principle applies. That’s why I’m giving you these situations about violating emmigrating laws, driving someone to the hospital or minors and minors turning 18. I’m looking for that consistency in approach. Please share your humble opinion about these very specific examples in light of Romans 13.
After reading my reply, I just realized that it comes across really snarky. Pretend I have a few smiley faces and I think you’ll get my intention as I wrote it. Really. I’m serious.
Andrew,
I will not copy Romans 13 here (the relevant portions are Romans 13:1-7 as reference). I believe (and you will probably agree) that the reference is “generalist” – that is, its expanse is general, in reference to the ultimate authority (God) who delegates ruling authority to human governments. No human government rules without the “ordinance of God” (vv2) or exists without being established by God (vv1). Authorities make rules both large and small and expect those under authority to follow them all, with consequences following them if they don’t (vv3).
We can get into a discussion of what makes “consistency” here. I don’t believe that the specific law on immigration is “in-consistent” or “racial” – if you are an undocumented non-citizen from Ireland ICE would be forced to respond just as much as from a Latin American country – the press however (and sheer numbers) seem to focus on Mexican non-citizens as any other group. If a Christian helps get a un-documented non-citizen to the hospital (without or even with knowledge of their law-breaking) this is not a “crime” – not on the same level of helping a murderer or a pedophile from fleeing justice. The law recognizes this – so no fear there.
There is the matter of what I call the “slippery slope”. I understand the tenuous problems of such arguments, but nevertheless it is a distinction which I fear that some Christians who preach overwhelmingly “grace” miss. In some quarters it is pure “hypocrisy” – in others it is pure ignorance. For most I suspect it is the internal “scales of injustice” who would overlook certain lawbreaking. In example, no one has a problem reporting a pedophile caught in the act to the authorities – but most I talk to do not report the underage drinking party hosted by parents in the neighborhood. Every minister I know would encourage a confessor of murder or theft to take it to the authorities. Yet no one that I have heard in these type of discussions has encouraged the undocumented worker to do it right by putting in the necessary documentation. I have heard arguments about how we should help sinners, but not a word about how we should encourage all sinners to be righteous and holy. How about starting a program of encouragement and resources to help the undocumented worker while they go back to the country of origin, get the paperwork right, and we could be their sponsor? How “just” is that?
I can’t comment on snarky replies. I give out too many myself to judge
Rob
Rob,
It’s that despair in both the system and the situation in the country of origin that drives people to become illegal aliens instead of putting in the documentation. There are really only a few ways an illegal can get legal residency status:
1) Apply for assylum. Even with the drug war going on in Mexico, this is very difficult for Hispanics to get.
2) Leave the country and remain in their country of origin for at least 10 years before beginning the application process. Most wouldn’t get it due to previously having been an illegal alien.
3) Wait until one of their American citizen children turns 21 and can advocate for his parents’ citizenship.
If a little boy from England can’t visit Disneyland, just imagine what it’s like trying to get legal residency when you’re from a country that already has millions of illegal immigrants living here.
Andrew,
Despair is not a reason for lawlessness. I can understand the despair of a single mother struggling to make ends meet who then succumbs to the temptation of shoplifting to feed her family. Perfectly understandable from her point of view as to why she did it. It is also perfectly understandable that folks want to look the other way, or even say nothing to anyone if they have knowledge of her crime because of her great need. But does that in any way lessen the fact that she went the illegal route versus the legal one? What will we tell our children – if one’s situation is so dire and filled with despair with multiple roadblocks in doing it right that it is okay and understandable to take shortcuts? Our is a faith placed in God despite the obstacles – if we do it right, does not that have a better, more just, and more righteous reward? What exactly are we teaching and preaching now-a-days? “Taking up our cross” is not the easy road, and there is no short cuts.
I perfectly understand the criticism, “that is easy for you to say.” Under the providence of God I was born here to middle class parents and never had the problem of these dear precious ones. But I have had obstacles just as perplexing, just as despairing, just as tempting as these. Sometimes I did take the shortcut and regretted it latter, for no matter the justification in my mind for it was never any good in comparison to the absolute truth of God’s Word. So yes, I can relate to these – I can feel their pain, and understand their plight. Some believe that the immigration laws are superfluous and arbitrary and in need of change. I agree. What I do not agree with is this widespread usurpation of our mission in the name of “social justice.” If we believe that the laws are unjust, seek to change them. Until then, if we as believers wish to support people in need of both physical needs and to hear the Gospel, support them in legal means by supporting their cause, sponsoring them by legal channels to support their families and encourage their taking legal steps to allow them across the border in defiance of the 11 million or so who did it the wrong way in the name of despair and expediency. We do all of this so that God will be glorified and work miracles again among us.
Rob
Rob,
I agree. My hangup is with putting everyone in the same basket. The drug dealer, the single mother, the 12-year old boy, the man hunted by the cartel, all of them are called “criminals.”
Thus far you haven’t helped me with the latter group. Maybe my mind is just clouded on this, but it is hard to say that none of these people are refugees and that all of them have sinned for coming here illegally.
Chris,
I don’t know if you are still reading this comment stream, but in case you are…
Personally, I am sympathetic with Andrew’s post here, and also with the view expressed by the resolution under discussion. I have written about this same issue here from time to time in the past.
However, I am intrigued by your view that conventions of churches should not go on record taking stated positions on political issues. I am not totally sure what I think about that. Maybe you can help me think it through some more.
1. How would you define “political issue”? Where is the dividing line between a “political” issue and a “non-political” one?
2. What is the biblical argument against conventions of churches making political statements? I know “conventions of churches” did not exist, per se, in the NT. But, can you show me a series of biblical principles that we might build our case upon in this regard?
David,
I have written a brief position paper on the spirituality of the church that I think would be helpful. I could possibly post it on facebook or something like that for the reading public. Any suggestions? I am quite technologically ignorant! Without going into too much detail, since Andrew’s post is not about debating this issue, I will only list a few of the biblical principles here that undergird the spirituality doctrine.
First, God created and instituted (and thus legitimated) both government and church and rules over these two spheres differently, has given these two different institutions distinct roles, and has equiped them distinctly to fulfill those roles.
Second, specifically concerning the Church, Christ instituted the Church and has given her her instructions for government and mission by the Holy Spirit in the Word of God through positive commands and example. The Church must therefore set up her government, conduct her worship, and construct her mission according to what Christ has commanded. Whatever Christ has commanded and said in His Word, she is to say. Where Christ is silent, she is silent.
Third, a church and her members are bound by what Christ has commanded in His Word through positive command and example. Therefore, church leaders and a voting congregation or a voting convention of churches should not bind the consciences of church members or churches where Christ has not bound them. To encourage church members or a convention of churches to associate with lost poeple, have compassion for them, and share the gospel with them, as Andrew stated and admirably does, is to encourage them to do what Christ has commanded. To take a stand on a political step concerning immigration that Christ does not mandate is to bind a church member or a church in a way that Christ does not and is a breech of Christian liberity. To call on the government to take a certain route that Christ does not mandate is to bind them as well, and it also causes the convention of churches to turn their focus away from the particular mission that Christ has given them.
Fourth, a biblical distinction exists between the church as an institution of Christ and individual church members. Individual Christians are citizens of both spheres: they are citizens of Christ’s spiritual kingdom and the nation where they are citizens. They take part in voting and the legislation of both kingdoms. Therefore, it is appropriate for individual Christians to think through the best possible scenarios for them and the nation to love their neighbors. However, a Christian should not call it a sin for another Christian to come to a different conclusion, when the Bible has not answered the question, although, as Andrew has pointed out, they can be charged with sin when they are hateful towards another person created in God’s image.
Fifth, the church does have a responsibility to speak where Christ has spoken, even on a political issue. However, as some have stated concerning biblical principals and immigration, politics are complicated. For instance, the Bible is clear what an individual church should do concerning homosexuality, as I mentioned above. But what about the nation as a whole? Should a church as a church or a convention of churches demand that a federal marriage amendment be passed? Possibly, but wouldn’t that bind the conscience of a church member who believes all that the Bible says about homosexuality, but is against a federal marriage amendment because he/she does not believe the federal government should make such powerful decisions for individual states who have their own governing bodies elected by the people?
Finally, the Church or a convention or churches has a wonderful message and an eternally more important mission than the state. She has the words of eternal life and the message of reconciliation with God. This message may seem irrelevant and out of touch to those who are perishing, but to those who believe, it is the power of salvation.
Chris,
It seems to me you make a very good argument. I would be interested to hear of anyone else who might have any counter-argument.
How long is your paper? I think this question might be worthy of a whole separate post.
Well, I read that paper again after I posted this morning and decided it was not as helpful as I remembered! If I were to write further on this, I would elaborate on the principles that I laid out above.
Chris,
Could you send me an e-mail at loveeachstone@gmail.com?
Well put, well received, Andrew. Hopefully, your church helps balance the drive you have for evangelizing the Hispanic people who have broken the laws of the United States and are allow to roam free and reproduce here. That statement sounds almost opposite of what you are saying but has the same truth attached. Balance and truth are important in our approach to the Great Commission. If we are commanded to be baptized upon receipt of Christ’s free gift, that should be our first act of obedience. Realistically, in our approach to evangelize these people we must request of them a second act of obedience to the obvious and that is to turn themselves in as illegal’s after they have been discipled properly. Hopefully, they would return to their country as missionaries with the gospel of Jesus Christ and suffer for His sake as they began church planting.
Much more can be said. Good post.
Just a thought:
When we approach a brother who trespasses against us, we have one of two (2) roads we are committed to; 1. Forgiveness and restoration. 2. Discipline and/or Expelling them from fellowship.
When we present Christ to an unbeliever we should also have the thought that; 1. They will have eternal life. 2. They will suffer at the hands of family, employment and country.
[...] “Deporting Compassion, the Gospel, and Illegals,” by Andrew Wencl on the SBC Impact blog, with further commentary on the SBC Phoenix resolution on immigration. [...]
On first read Wencl, very proud of what you have done here. I have every intention of bringing it to the attention of two passionate UMC ministers here in Alabama who are fighting the good fight against the draconian measure moved through the state legislature by Albert Lee Smith’s widow; a parishioner of Steve Gaines when he was at FBC, Gardendale, State senator Scott Beason; and Alabama Baptist Ex Dir. Rick Lance’s former deacon at FBC Tuscaloosa, Governor Bentley.
My views and best links can be found at SBC trends of Baptistlife.com if anybody wants to wander over there.
I like what David Rogers is saying as well. For the religion and politics matter, explore Dochuk and Williams latest books on the history of the religious right in America. SBC has prominent exploration in both books.