Christian Ethics Final Exam, Fall 2011
— Tuesday, November 15th, 2011 —
Every year my Christian ethics class at Southern Seminary ends with a final examination that amounts to answering a hypothetical question. The point is not to get to any particular answer, but to see how they get to where they get. Do they have the tools to think through ethical decisions with wisdom and discernment. Here is this year’s question. How would you answer it? Note: if you’re in the class, you may not read the comments to this post until after you’ve turned your exam in.
You find yourself far away from this ethics class, twenty years from now in your ministry, serving a church in south Florida. Pablo is a man you met, with his wife Hannah, after they attended a small-group Bible study in the home of a family in your church. Both of them, after hearing you explain the gospel, were convicted of sin and, after several weeks of conversation, both announced they were ready to confess Jesus as Lord and to follow him in baptism.
Before the baptism, though, Pablo approaches you to say that he’s not sure he meets the requirements for Christian baptism. He’s not sure he’s a repentant sinner. He sees himself as guilty, he is sorry for his sins against God and others, and he wants the forgiveness that comes through Jesus’ bloody cross, the new life that comes from Jesus’ empty tomb.
But there’s something that kindles fear in him.
Pablo tells you he is an undocumented worker, what some would call an “illegal immigrant.” Years ago he left conditions in El Salvador that, due to famine there, led him to near starvation. Moreover, he worked, like others in his village, for a multinational plantation where he was physically beaten and sexually abused. There were no other options for him, as the only employers in the country were made up of similarly exploitative companies. He slipped into this country undetected and has since lived with an artificial Social Security number he purchased on the black market, enabling him to work in this country.
Pablo’s employer knows his immigration status, but operates with a “don’t ask/don’t tell” policy when it comes to such questions about his workers. Indeed, several outside financial consultants say that, without such labor, this employer’s business would be financially unfeasible and would have to close, since there is not a sufficient employee base among native-born Americans willing to work in such a job.
The employer is Tyler Rogers, also a member of your church, one of your most Christlike people in the congregation, and he teaches the Bible in a large Tuesday night small group. It was at his family’s house that you met Pablo and Hannah, since he had been sharing the gospel with them for months and inviting them to hear more through your church.
The United States immigration policy is, if anything, more restrictive than it was when you were in ethics class at Southern Seminary. No longer can a green card be obtained by marrying a U.S. citizen, so Pablo’s marriage to Hannah is irrelevant to his immigration status. According to current law, if Pablo turns himself in, or is caught, he will face immediate deportation to El Salvador, along with a penalty making him ineligible to apply to entrance to the United States for no less than ten years.
Moreover, returning to El Salvador and applying for immigration is a process that takes, in the best of scenarios, ten years from start to finish. An admission of illegal status, plus a return to El Salvador, would mean crushing poverty, possible starvation, and almost certain bodily harm in dangerous working conditions. It would also mean being separated from Hannah for ten to twenty years.
Pablo and Hannah have three children: an eleven year-old girl, a six year-old boy, and a two year-old girl. Hannah is also pregnant with their fourth child, due next Spring.
Pablo has, since arriving in the United States, been sending a portion of his paycheck back to El Salvador, to his elderly mother who is caring for Pablo’s nieces and nephews since Pablo’s brother was killed due to the unsafe working conditions in the factory and his brother’s wife abandoned the children. Without this money, Pablo fears the children, two of whom are babies, and his mother would starve to death.
Pablo wants to do what Jesus would have him to do, to be a godly man. What do you advise him to do? If you advise him to turn himself in or to return to El Salvador, how do you square that with the biblical mandate that one who “does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim. 5:8)? Can you really, from that point forward, consider yourself “pro-family” or “pro-orphan” or even “pro-life”?
If you advise him to stay with his family, how is he keeping the biblical mandate to “obey the governing authorities” (Rom. 13:1)? How also is he avoiding the sin of bearing false witness, about himself and his legal status? Can you baptize Pablo? After all, is he really showing repentance from sin?
What do you do or say, if anything, about Tyler and his employment practices? If nothing, then why not?
How do you equip the congregation to understand how to deal with this situation, and what implications does it have for how you respond to the mission field where God has placed you, with a large and growing community of undocumented Latin American workers, many of whom need to hear and believe the gospel, and are watching how you respond to this family.
Walk through each step of ethical reflection, showing why you reject some options and why you embrace others. Ground your answer in Scripture, the gospel, the Christian tradition, natural law, and common grace. Think through the implications of your answer in each situation for unintended consequences, and show how those can be ethically resolved.
57 Responses to “Christian Ethics Final Exam, Fall 2011”
Trackbacks
- Moore's Final Examination Question
- What I Read Online – 11/16/2011 (a.m.) | Emeth Aletheia
- Ethically Tough Questions | Chris Burfield
- Saturday Survey #7 | Southern Gospel Yankee
- What I’m Reading Wednesday | A Wilderness Life
- Could you pass the test? « No Regrets Living
- Fobos
- торрент-трекер
- Continuing Education In Rice
I’m glad I’m not one of your students! Wow. How long do they have to take this exam? Because I wouldn’t dream of dealing with a situation like this without bathing it in fasting and prayer, asking God for HIS wisdom and insight before I moved an inch….
James 1:5
I have a feeling this is going to stick with me awhile ;)
Dr. Moore,
After your exams are all turned in I would love to hear/read you process this question.
“Note: if you’re in the class, you may not read the comments to this post until after you’ve turned your exam in.”
I think that’s the test in itself…lol
Wow.
This makes Spring 2009’s final exam about John/Joan seem easy.
While I’ll be personally working this scenario out on my own, I’m not envious of the students who will be working this out on paper for a grade. :)
The surrounding details given are such that they seek to invoke an emotional response without regard to right and wrong. My answer is: “Philemon.”
Onesimus escaped his servitude. After obeying the Gospel he was sent back by Paul to his master. Though reborn, Paul recognized that his status was still that of a slave (Phl. 1:14-16; cf. 1 Cor. 7:17-24). However, the party that would receive him back was of the household of faith whereas the government from which Pablo escaped would not likely be.
The context of Paul’s admonition to Timothy about providing for one’s own had to do with widows. The family was to provide for the widows so that the church would not be burdened. However, the underlying principle is one that applies as used within the inquiry. Pablo could take his family with him back to his country. He doesn’t have to leave them in America. If they were not permitted to come back with him, he could make periodic visits as needed. This absence — if it were to occur — would be no different than a soldier’s deployment. Sometimes a man has to be absent from his family in order to provide for them. There’s no shame in that.
Furthermore, if work was not abundant, Pablo could become a missionary to his own country with his family all the while receiving support from the brethren in the States. The responsibility then falls upon the saints who have needs and should steward them for the benefit and benevolence of others and the Gospel (cf. 1 John 3:17).
To break the law is to break God’s command. To not provide for one’s family is to be likened unto a heathen. There is a middle ground. Pablo is obviously an ambitious person, so he is willing to do what it takes. Furthermore, would Pablo not want to take the saving message of Christ to his mother in their homeland? One would assume so.
In short, he should turn himself in after prayer. He should — prior to such an admission — receive the life saving graces of Jesus (baptism). He should entrust this matter to God’s grace, and perhaps he would be given a temporary work visa. We wouldn’t know until we tried. Perhaps he would be sent home where he could take his family, begin a church, receive support, and advance the cause of Christ. Although limited suggestions were given by the initial post, one must think outside the posts’ parameters. We must not be led by the restrictions of the inquiry, because that was like a lawyer leading a witness.
After reading that questions I am so thankful that I am a pharmacist turned home school momma and not in the ministry. I’ll leave the hard theological stuff to the men that the Lord has called to His service. Can’t wait to hear the answers though.
@Julie Schramm, We’re all called to love God with our minds. Someone who takes a shortcut to leave the hard thinking to the “professional Chrisians” is guilty of intellectual suicide. Though you may never be in a position to make this specific kind of decision, the entire goal of ethics classes is to teach you how to make these kind of choices we face in everyday life. Learn to think for yourself!
@Hiram,
We all need counsel and on some issues where we may not have the depth of insight, consulting others is commendable. Most of us will not have thought through a lot of these issues until we are faced with them. At that point seeking out others who have thought through these things for a long time (and for a living?) is good thinking.
I do agree that we need to think for ourselves, and if we have an issue we are wrestling with in our own hearts and minds we can’t shirk that responsibility, and run from those questions and doubts. (I doubt we would get away, anyway). I think Julie is not abdicating thought at all, just saying she doesn’t think she has the Biblical theological acumen to discern the right way forward in this case. Fortunately God has given the church those with the gift of discernment to the benefit of the rest of the church.
@Hiram Foster: I’m with Julie, as I read this, I had to get up a few times myself to tend to my children. If I was REALLY in this situation and it was not hypothetical, I WOULD tackle it, as I’m sure Julie would also. To chose to spend time differently, and humbly learn by hearing how others hash this out is not “taking a shortcut” or “intellectual suicide,” it’s called using our time wisely. Also, if you spent a few days as a stay at home mommy, you would find that no other job has required you to think for yourself more. Some take an ethics class for the glory of God and some get to wipe dirty noses and change diapers for the glory of God. Praise God it’s not one or the other!
@Hiram Foster, perhaps you didn’t intend it, but your comment to Julie sounds harsh and insulting. Yes, we’re called to love God with our minds, but we’re also called to love one another. There was nothing in Julie’s comment that required you to take a superior tone as though you were scolding a child.
While we must all strive to think biblically, not all of us are called to make the weighty decisions that church leaders often face in ministry. Julie was merely expressing gratitude that the burden of making a decision in regard to such a grave matter is not on her shoulders, but on those of godly men whom God has equipped for ministry leadership. A little grace goes a long way, especially when interacting with others online.
Obviously, Julie is concerned about deep spiritual matters, or she probably wouldn’t be reading Dr. Moore’s blog, now would she? =)
All laws are subject to a greater law. Unjust laws deserve criticism, civil disobedience, and opposition in the public square. Christians ought to be at the forefront of these discussions. While we are to pay taxes to Caesar, Pablo is doing so, albeit under a false name.
To tear apart a family and to force a human being into inhumane working conditions is far more sinister than telling him to remain in his current state. While the Church rests under protections of the State, her greater responsibility has and will always be to her true King.
@Asa Dawg,
His family couldn’t go with him?
And the taxes to Caesar decree isn’t solely limited to literal taxes, but rather what is owed to the state give it to the state. What is owed to God give it to God. (The whole “Image” aspect of this passage blew me away the first time I saw it.)
The Church should take on the responsibility to do the right thing in the situation and help the family through this time and as someone above posted even funding Pablo as a missionary during his time away (or with the family if that were possible.)
Really what you are advocating here is to subvert the law because we don’t believe God to be a promise keeper. God is our provider, so to honor the gov’t’s over us is what we should do. The other things are just fears of what might happen. Or what we think would happen. And yet God is bigger than all of it.
1. Admit his status and ask for asylum from the conditions in El Salvador. If not received then …
2. Seek for another country to which he could move as a tentmaker missionary which would be free both from the legal obligations and poverty. If not possible …
3. Then return home with help from people in the states with the goal of owning and running a business in a way that helps people escape from poverty. Bring his family with him at the first opportunity.
It is hard to argue that immigration laws are somehow unjust. But the Bible never makes that the standard anyway. There is nothing about living in El Salvador that is contrary to the revealed will of God, and thus, there are no grounds for civil disobedience. This should be looked at as an opportunity for missions and ministry.
Propaganda pandering to racial identity politics. Sad to see you stooping to this level. I’m reminded of the pro abortion film from the 90’s (Cider House Rules iirc) where a clearly immoral premise sought to be validated by emotional manipulation.
As another commentor has mentioned, the Bible has dealt with this situation, only in that case the man was a literal slave.
@John Balog, What is wrong with you?
@John Balog,
I don’t find this pandering at all. If you have followed Dr. Moore’s writings for very long, you will see he has a knack for pushing the envelope and forcing readers to think critically. I am in another ethics class at SBTS and I am thoroughly enjoying being challenged in my preconceived notions about things. What i appreciate about Dr. Moore and the faculty at SBTS is that they unapologetically believe the Bible to be the final word concerning our life and relation to God. However, they are not content to allow studetns to be intellectually lazy in their pursuit of Truth. Sometimes ‘thus sayeth the Lord’ is just not good enough…especially if that’s not what the Lord actually said. But that’s a topic for hermeneutics class.
Lastly, I am not blindly following Dr. Moore, in fact I read with great interest his views on a subject I was dealing with a few months ago and I found myself disagreeing profoundly with him, and as such did not take his advice. But at no time did I accuse him of anything and I did not stop reading his material.
If Pablo committed murder and had the same spiritual experience, we should tell him to turn himself in because there are Earthly consequences even with forgiveness of sins committed. So now the question is whether “sin is sin” or “law is law”.
Let’s say Pablo was an legal American who had his spiritual experience but committed tax evasion. Tax evasion is clearly “less” severe than murder and probably equal with illegal immigration (in terms of perceived severity). Should we tell Pablo to pay his taxes? We should based upon Christ’s command to “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s”. It does not matter if Pablo evaded to help make ends meet to support his family. Respectable sins are still sins and so respectable crimes are still crimes.
The level which we should be thinking about this is not on the level of direct “advice” concerning his legal situation but of what conclusion Pablo should come to on his own given advice as a converted follower of Christ specifically. In other words, the Biblical advice necessarily determines what Pablo’s self-determined choice should be. Namely, that he turn himself in (the law not being unreasonable, given that there are legal ways to become an American) and understand that God works everything for the good of those who love Him. God may be calling Pablo back to his Country and if he does not “hate” his family in this sense, where he is unwilling to do anything that would separate them then he is not a disciple. Is it excruciating? Yes. It’s about as hard as willingly dying… in fact, that’s exactly what it is.
I’ll echo what Mr. Andrew Walker said above: This exam makes previous exams look like a cake walk. I’ll be eagerly awaiting Prof. Moore’s response once the exam is over.
Hmmmm…I definitely have an opinion about Pablo. However, I’m surprised there are no comments regarding Tyler.
I sort of wonder whether in most SBC churches there’s a higher % of Tylers than there are Pablos.
Pablos exist because of Tylers are willing to hire them. Don’t see many comments on asking Tylers that they should also come clean w/ the appropriate authorities regarding their illegal hiring practices.
@Abraham Armenta,
Yes I was just wondering where all the confront Tyler posts were.
Oh my. Looks like I’ll be repeating your class next semester.
For starters, baptize the dude! That is, if he is willing after effective council to understand that his acceptance before God is not conditioned on works, but his faith in Christ. (show him Romans 5:8). The fact the he is bringing forth this issue on his own accord and is wrestling with conviction shows the Spirit is at work in his life. The mindset of cleaning oneself up FIRST and then coming to God needs to be slayed in this young believers mind before it becomes a pattern.
Afterwards, this issue must be walked through with him as a repentant follower of Christ. Maybe this is an issue in his mind because the Spirit is calling him to come clean. The pastor needs to be sensitive to the work of the Spirit in this individual as he applies scripture. Is the US immigration law an unjust law? Probably not… the issue seems to be more the unjust treatment he will likely receive back in his own country. As far as 1 Tim 5:8 vs. Romans 13:1 goes, God will not call him to obey Him in one perspective and disobey in another. These scriptures are not in opposition to each other. They both must be made to square in his life. I think on the face of it, you must come clean with immigration (honesty issue) and trust the Lord to provide honest avenues for supporting his family. God may use the church to provide support where Pablo cannot. Pray, pray, pray and work patiently with Pablo, with tears, as he wrestles towards trusting God with his family as he follows the path of honesty. How he comes clean and prepares to do so should be done carefully and amidst much wise counsel.
As for Tyler Rogers, he should be confronted in love. Let him explain his reasons for why he hires illegals. Is it compassion for them, to increase profits, or both? That would dictate the type of council he should receive, but definetly moving him towards running his business according to the law of the land.
Where it gets more difficult is if either are unwilling to follow this council over time; does church discipline become relevant? I’ll leave that one for the seminarians! I’m just an engineer.
This ethical case study is very timely in that it happens in churches every day. With over 10 million illegal immigrants in the US, pastors must work through this situation with real people, real suffering, and real uncertainty. I look forward to reading the answers, and pray that they might bring clarity to the minds of pastors ministering to their own “Pablo” even today.
I’ve not seen anyone comment yet on the responsibility of the congregation that this man pastors. Clearly Pablo has had a salvation experience and seeks to obey God’s commandments -making him a great candidate for baptism- but does the pastor and his congregation not also have responsibly here to this man and his family, including his extended family?
This is excellent.
It is not hard to read the Bible and know, by the grace and will of God, the heart of God towards the immigrant, the stranger, the foreigner.
Leviticus 19:33-34 When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
For centuries past, American laws lined up with this idea about accepting immigrants and it is easy to abide by God’s law when you are abiding by the law of land. Likewise, the reverse is true. No conflict, nothing more to discuss.
But somewhere along the way, some of the sons and daughters of America have taken this stance against the very idea that made America great. We no longer need foreigners in our lands because we need turn inwards and focus on ourselves.
I shudder and fear such outcries because this was the very root of the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah. They, too, became inwardly focus, shunned and diminished the foreigner, and thus, became in complete opposition to the very heart of God. What do we expect when we oppose God head-on?
As far as what to do with Pablo, my only response would be that of Peter and the Apostles in Acts 5:29 “We must obey God rather than men.” especially in this case since the laws of man opposes the heart of God. Therefore, I would have to consider any and every action, including going as far as Shiphrah and Puah, the Hebrew housewives in Exodus 1, in order to pray, work, help and assist Pablo while he gets his citizenship.
To that end, I have to consider this is a very sensitive moment when approaching Tyler. If I call attention to Tyler’s not-so-honest business dealings, this could create a bad situation for Pablo. However, I would have to trust in the Lord and upon His pressing, I would humbly approach Tyler, giving him a chance not only to repent but reconcile by helping any of his employees in Pablo’s similar situation.
In my assistance, if I am held liable for assisting Pablo or any other ‘illegal immigrant’, so be it. If I even claim to know the heart of God, then my conscience could not bear otherwise.
@Joseph Louthan,
Not trying to pick a fight here, as some posters have clearly done, but I wonder why you feel the need to label Tyler as ‘not so honest?”
I happen to agree with you, but you take such a hard line in your defense for Pablo, yet you feel the need to hold Tyler accountable. I’m not sure your ethical reasoning is consistent.
Lastly, I agree there is much to glean from the Scriptures concerning the immigrant (both in the original context and modern settings) however, you must treat all Scripture with equal weight. There is much to be said about disobeying civil authorities & the consequences thereof. I don’t think Scripture offers a promise of protection (physically at least) from those who choose to disobey the law, even if they do feel it unjust.
And lastly, for the second time (see there is my inconsistency), you were very clever to tie your perceived oppression of illegal immigrants to infanticide. Nice try, but the two are not even on the same level and should not be brought to bear in this discussion.
Respectfully,
-Zach
@Joseph Louthan,
Oh wow…and not sure how I missed your take on Sodom & Gomorrah but you have shown your theological hand here my friend. You have harkened to the rallying cry of liberal Christians (and secularists alike) who wish to defend homosexuality and claim the sin in those cities was really about lack of hospitality.
Have an original thought and try not to be so obvious in your post next time. If you’re going to criticize so strongly, at least be intellectually honest and not manipulate the biblical text into what you want it so say.
Just say that you think American immigration policy is wrong as a matter of your conscience, but do not appeal to the Bible as you authority when you are not respecting the plain language revealed therein.
The commandment to submit to authorities is not without exception. A German Christian in the 30’s and 40’s was not justified for participating in genocide because the government told him to.
While the Bible instructs us not to kill, few would condemn the man who shot a home invader attacking his wife or children.
Given the fact that we agree that there are exceptions to almost every Biblical mandated action, what is the litmus test used to make an ethical decision? I would suggest that it is simply this; which course of action results in the most good?
Some might twist this to say “the end justifies the means.” That is not at all what I am saying. The previous examples are consider acceptable exceptions because the lives of the people saved are better (more good) than the violation of the respective Scriptural mandates.
In the case of Pablo, I would suggest that it is possible that the violation of American immigration law is not as bad as letting abandoning his God-given responsibly to provide for his family. In other words, 1 Timothy 5:8 trumps Matthew 22:21.
Mr. David L, I think the difference between this case and the murderous one you describe is that laws which prohibit murder are clearly just, whereas the argument laid out here might be that immigration laws as they stand are actually unjust.
Then the question becomes whether or not we are called to submit to unjust authority, especially in concerning the extenuating circumstances which surround this scenario.
@OAA,
the question becomes whether or not we are called to submit to unjust authority, especially in concerning the extenuating circumstances which surround this scenario.
Jesus did.
@OAA, My previous comment seemed to have been lost so if this comes up later as a duplicate, I offer my apology. You said, “The question becomes wheter or not we are called to submit to unjust authority, especially in concerning the extenuating circumstances which surround this scenario.”
I would counter with Philippians 2:5-11 and the fact that Jesus submitted Himself to very unjust authority and calls us to do the same. And John tells us that whoever would call himself a disciple of Jesus must walk as He walked. We dare not become a law unto ourselves nor flout the law simply because it seems right in our own eyes to do so. Over and over again, under very oppressive and unjust rule, the early Christians in the NT are called to submit themselves to the authorities - the only time they refused was when the Gospel of the Kingdom was forbidden to be proclaimed. Other than that, they were called to conduct themselves under their ruling authorities and among the pagans in a way that would bring no reproach upon them but only praise and glory to God. We already see too many people raising their fists up against their rulers in opposition to Romans 13, and they do it in God’s name. This is a travesty and brings dishonor.
One would hope that there is a good church in El Salvador who will take this man and his family in and help support them as they transition. One would hope that the church in the US would make contact with them and seek the best way to help him stop breaking the law as soon as possible so that he can then live a Christ-honoring life in accordance with the laws of whatever land he lives in, though that discipleship comes with great cost, and that in the process he will come to know something more of our great living Savior who provides daily bread and Living Water for His people.
When it comes to losing one’s livelihood as a cost of discipleship (either in the case of Pablo and family or Tyler and his family) I’m reminded of the folks in Ephesus in Acts 19. They burned 50,000 pieces of silver worth of their sorcery books. They lost their livelihoods and had to start over with nothing materially, but they had Jesus. They counted the cost and found Jesus to be worthy. It seems that this question puts rubber to the road when it comes to the question of what price is too high a price to pay to follow Jesus, and when do His requirements become unreasonable to us? And when we recognize this in ourselves, that we do have a price, what do we do about it then?
I have thought about this quite a bit, as my full-time vocation with a Christian organization involves immigration issues and intersects with undocumented persons on a regular basis. Coincidentally, I also have a graduate degree in ethics.
While I have formed views on the basic issues here, I would just like to point out (for the sake of readers who might believe this is an entirely plausible situation) that keeping immediate families together is a major underlying value in U.S. immigration law. I can assure you that as long as marriage exists in this country, the United States will never eliminate lawful permanent residency provisions for spouses of U.S. citizens. The family separation factor is significant to your prompt, but probably unrealistic. Where it could come into play would be a situation with an undocumented couple where one spouse trusts Christ and one does not.
Nevertheless, you’ve succeeded in creating a thorny hypothetical scenario for your students!
Great question but a hard one especially for one who is conflicted about US immigration laws. I can see both sides. I am at work and do not have time to give a full answer but I think this is one that has to be made after discussion. I think trying to make a judgment without talking to Pablo and his family and then deciding will always be wrought with folly and failure. I think one would have to speak about options with Pablo and guide him.
What I find intersting is that some are so sure of what the Bible says about this issue and almost flippant (if that is the right word) in their answers. I remember one stated that “The Bible has already dealt with this issue.” Or something like that. And another stated that one shoudl not get emotional when looking at this issue. I think such answers in the end are unhelpful. I know this is a hypothetcial issue but if it were real then I do not see how those types of statements help or show Godly wisdom.
Maybe I am just a very intuitive soul or maybe as I grow older I see the need of speaking the truth to one another in love much more. Maybe it is my training as a chaplain that makes mewant to really listen to Pablo and his family. I do not know for sure. But I think that if one has not gone through real poverty and suffering then quick and easy answers are easy.
Okay enough rambling and ranting. I wil lget off my soapbox.
@Carl Peterson,
I couldn’t agree more with the refusal to accept the quick and easy answers. It is so easy to deal with this on an intellectual basis only, particularly as it is posed on an exam, but wait until life presents you with real live couples with similar issues. Unless we take the time to wrestle through the issues both logically and compassionately we have not demonstrated an ethics that is based in love (not mere rationality).
AS for my asnwer I think first you baptize Pablo. He seems to havea change of heart and attitude and is just asking for wisdom in a very tough situation.
I think a series of discussions with Pablo and his family, the elders/ deacons (session) of the church, Tyler Roghers, and possibly local authorities (represenatives to try and find options) would be helpful. Possibly as some say that Pablo and his family would desire to become missionaries and the church can help support him. Maybe there are other avenues that other people can help illuminate. Maybe the government can actually help Pablo and his family. Maybe with Tyler’s help something could be done. I think there is still much that we do not know about what could be.
I think after these discussions then one has to find the right balance between obeying the law and protecting the helpless (widows and orphans). I think if obeying the law means that a child or baby goes hungry then there can be at the very least discussion about how one can feed the helpless baby and still be okay with the law. The OT is full of statements that the Isrealites were being condemned becasue they were not on the side of the widows and orphans. They did not protected and were champions of the helpless. I think the church has the same mandate to protect and servce the helpless. God is the same God. So again I think that given this huge Biblical mandate in the OT (almost every prophet speaks aobut it) and the NT that one can discuss options instead of just saying that one has to leave the country . . . .
Possibly in the end Pablo does go back to his home country but I think he deserves more from the church.
As far as Tyler I think it is more clear cut. He needs to obey the laws of the land. He can work to try and change them but to disregard them so blantantly is not an option. I still think one sohuld speak to him and let him give his reasons for hiring illegal immigrants but I do not see what reasons he might have that woudl persuade me that he is not in the wrong for disregarding the law. I do however think that He and the church should speak about how to treat the illegal workers since he has hired them. I do not think he should jsut fire the illegals without helping them.
Anyways those are my further ramblings.
WWGN-What would Gary North do?
The most pressing issue for Pablo is to first resolve whether he is willing to follow Christ regardless of the implications of his decision. Pablo seems to have grasped this dilemma which is at the core of true commitment and is always an impediment to genuine faith. The important ethical question initially presented to the pastor is whether or not he will allow the Holy Spirit to use him to help Pablo to see that to forsake all for Christ opens the door to God’s inestimable possibilities.
Something I haven’t seen anyone discuss is the role of the church. His deportation could be horrible if left alone. But are we not the BODY of Christ? If he truly is a brother, why not (as some have mentioned) make his family a missionary team. The church can financially “adopt” his family to help him pay for his expenses (IMB does a very similar thing. Why not a local church?) . If he could provide for all those people on his limited income, sure a local church could more than cover it. Then start sending ministry teams to the country to encourage him and maybe plant some churches.
If he is a believer and our only response is “sucks for him” and “there are consequences for sin”, but we don’t seek to help him support his family (including the extended family he supported) then perhaps the real ethics question is will the church remain selfish or will we be sacrificial in our giving for the sake of our brother?
I’m all for him taking responsibility and working hard. I more for him living faithfully and sharing the gospel. But the church is more than building, we are a body.
@Kevin Gates,
Clarification: some people have addressed the church’s role. My mistake.
And also the tone in the above message is loving and not angry (always hard to tell when all you have to go by is text.)
Thanks!
I would begin with my belief that obedience to God’s law always supersedes man’s law. The commandment, “You shall not murder,” I understand to include causing human death through carelessness or negligence. (This reminds me of situations in the days of slavery when christians had to choose whether to help a slave escape or obey the law and return him to his ‘owner’.) Secondly, I would ask the Lord for wisdom and trust that He would give it for this specific situation. I think He answers each person according to their need, never violating His character. The Lord might send Pablo back or He might deliver him. I believe the Lord would assign this situation to the church member for his sanctification, to make him more like Jesus.
Looking forward to your answer.
This is a complex situation, but (IMO) there is a simple solution. This all began because our man broke the law; all the secondary points are connected to this. His home country is a BIG place; he did not have to cross the border, he could have chose to move to another part of the country (a safer part). The solution, you can baptism him (based upon his profession of faith and repentance), tell him to take his entire family back home, but look for a safer environment. It is a large country; there are safer places to flee. This would allow him to be in line with 1 Tim. 5:8 and Rom. 13:1. He could also see this as an opportunity to share the gospel in his country.
As far as Tyler, you confront him about hireling illegal immigrants. Since he is the most Christ-centered person in the church, he should be able to accept correction. He would need to take action on this, keeping in line with the law.
When asked about paying taxes to Ceaser Jesus said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” (Mark 12:17 NKJV).
The Word of God also states in Romans 13:1, “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.” If you follow this verse to the end of the chapter you will find Romans 13:11 which states, “Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.”
Though God commands us to respect the authority appointed above us He also makes it quite clear who appointed that authority. God’s authority therefore supersedes the authority of man.
God commands us to “Love our neighbors as ourselves.” Then He goes on to say, “Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” We also know that Love is the greatest of the three; Faith, Hope, and Love.
All this being the foundation for the following statements:
Pablo does not belong to the government. However, proper respect for the government was not given and that respect is deserved and should be given to them. It is not the responsibility of me as the minister to turn him into the authorities. What he has spoken to me he has spoken in confidence. The law protects me as a minister in this situation. However, I have a responsibility from God to encourage others to uphold the law and I cannot knowingly let this deception continue. Out of love for Pablo I will not turn him immediately over to the government. For I know that it will most likely lead him to physical harm. I also do not want to separate his family. The family being established by God should be upheld with the authority of God.
In regards to Tyler and his business practices, I said before that I cannot knowingly let this deception continue. We have to be able to trust God to provide the things necessary for our business and lives to continue as we obey the law. By deceiving the law in this way we are dishonoring God. I would go to Tyler privately and discuss the matter. Not to condemn him but to show him that there are other options. I would encourage him to hire a lawyer and fight the law concerning the marriage of an immigrant to an American as well as the law concerning the process for becoming a legal citizen of the United States. Hopefully he will at least be able to get temporary working visas for those working in his business. I do not personally know the law of the United States so I do not know the extent of the possibilities. There used to be a law concerning immigrants that if there was an American family living in the United State willing to take responsibility for an immigrant that the immigrant would be allowed to stay with them and obtain a working visa of some sort. There is even the option of driving them all the way to Canada in hope that maybe they could become a citizen there.
All of this would be to show two things. The first thing it would show is that we respect the authorities put above us by God even though we are fighting it we are respecting it by going through the proper channels. The second thing it shows is a love for those illegally working under him and a personal love for Pablo. This is what is important. No matter what happens love will win.
Our authority comes from God and while we must respect mans authority we only must do so to the point where it clashes with the authority of God. At that point God’s authority interjects and supersedes. I would tell Pablo that this reservation he has about becoming a Christian and being baptized is very good. Because, it shows that he respects both God’s authority and man’s authority. I would encourage him to proceed with the baptism and then tell him that he should address the issue of him being illegal with the authority and power of God. He needs to then trust God through whatever happens. No man comes to Christ without a fight. And the battle doesn’t stop once we become a Christian it only rages on further.
This all began because our man broke the law; all the secondary points are connected to this. His home country is a BIG place; he did not have to cross the border he could have chose to move to another part of the country (a safer part). The solution, you can baptism him (based upon his profession of faith and repentance), tell him to take his entire family back home, but look for a safer environment. It is a large country; there are safer places to flee. This would allow him to be in line with 1 Tim. 5:8 and Rom. 13:1. He could also see this as an opportunity to share the gospel in his country.
As far as Tyler, you confront him about hireling illegal immigrants. Since he is the most Christ-centered person in the church, he should be able to accept correction. He would need to take action on this, keeping in line with the law.
I would provide this gentleman the guardrails of ethics as the safe boundaries as he discerns God’s heart in this matter, and at the same time teach him how to hear God’s voice on this matter.
If our faith is based on a relationship with Jesus, on “my sheep hear my voice”, instead of on religion and rules and principles, then this man would best be served by leading him to Jesus and not a Christian ethics decision-making matrix. There is great value in knowing the word of God as revealed in scripture to confirm that our convictions and discernment is being shaped and prompted by the Spirit instead of self. But let us not make ethics the end of our Christian walk, else we become simple moralists with no distinction apart from the other religions of our world.
As for the matter itself, in creating our ethical guardrails, I would like to submit that Romans 13 tells us there are times to accept the judgement of punishment for breaking our civil government’s laws, just as Paul himself did when he was killed for breaking the laws of Rome. Paul says our rebellion in these situations is against what God has instituted - not God Himself. We happily rebel against communism’s law for our silence concerning Jesus. We happily rebel against institutionalized discrimination against the weak. We happily rebel knowing Jesus is our savior and not laws so that even if we rebel in error we do so dependent upon His Spirit to convict us of all sin.
My thoughts after some contemplating and opening my mind, lend itself to a more philosophical approach. I ultimately would choose the path for Pablo to stay in his current state. While we are told to follow our governing body, there has to be a line that can be crossed when it comes to a healthy life. Are those that disobeyed Hitler and his rule sinners since he was part of the governing body? My thoughts are that Pablo isn’t bearing false witness, but is creating a new witness. How is this any different than the pilgrims that came to our land to form the United States because they didn’t like the religious persecution they were forced to live under in England? Pablo is doing what he needs to do to provide for his family, raise his children and help his family back in his home country. He wants to do his best to live a godly life and given the circumstances surrounding his situation, it would make sense for him to stay. The way I see it, the US would need to look at their immigration laws to help people that need and want citizenship to get it much quicker than 10 years. If that would be resolved, these situations would never happen and the illegal immigrants facing deportation would more than likely be the ones that are causing our country more harm than good (drug or human trafficking for example) while the ones like Pablo would be able to gain proper citizenship swiftly. I can see that there is no real corret answer and these are just my thoughts. I welcome any comments.
I can’t believe no one has mentioned the “Productively Working, Married, and now a Baptist” clause in our immigration law that was established in 2017, which clearly states, “Any person who is currently employed, is married to a natural-born US citizen, has undergone Christian baptism by immersion, and is officially accepted into membership in a local Southern Baptist Church shall receive full US citizenship.”
Baptize the dude, apply for the waiver, and voila! Confront Tyler in love, and move on to the next crisis.
…In all seriousness though, that’s a tough issue. I think my solution would begin with several meetings with Pablo and Tyler (including some with both of them together). I’d explore all options, including moving Pablo’s family back to El Salvador with support from the church, applying for refugee status (he was beaten and sexually abused in his native country), and even looking for other countries that might accept Pablo and his family as a citizen. Hopefully, I’d be able to find someone in our church who has experience, or knows someone who has experience, in immigration (and international) law to help. Many, many, many conversations later, we might find a solution that enables Pablo to care well for his family and honors the laws of the ruling authority.
I am a student in Dr. Moore’s class. You can read my response on my blog @ http://swarren340.blogspot.com/2011/11/christianity-and-illegal-immigration.html
What about the pastor’s responsibility to the congregation? What happens when the word spreads through the congregation, as often happens, and the congregation sees that the pastor is condoning breaking immigration law?