Alan Cross blogs at Downshore Drift and delivers devastating nominating speeches!
Admittedly, this is just going to be one side of the story. And, I am used to not getting my way or have people listen to me, so that is not the issue here. But, today, I submitted a resolution to the Alabama Baptist Convention during our annual meeting that sought to address the balance between our duty to obey the law of the land and our duty to obey God’s law in loving all people and helping them, despite whether they are here legally or not. It did not make it out of committee and I wanted to explore some possible reasons as to why. Here is the text of the resolution:
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE AFFIRMATION OF ALABAMA BAPTIST CHURCHES TO PROVIDE A WELCOMING, HOSPITABLE ENVIRONMENT FOR THE IMMIGRANTS AND ALIENS IN OUR MIDST
WHEREAS, the people of God are always considered aliens and strangers in the land (1 Peter 2:11); and
WHEREAS, God commanded the people of Israel to “not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt” (Exodus 22:21); and
WHEREAS, We are commanded to be hospitable “to strangers, for by doing so some people have entertained angels without knowing it” (Hebrews 13:2); and
WHEREAS, Many of the immigrants to our state from other nations, both legal and illegal, have many physical, financial, and social needs; and
WHEREAS, Jesus says in Matthew 25:40 that whatever we do for the least of these, we do for Him; and
WHEREAS, Alabama has enacted some of the strongest laws in the nation in response to illegal immigration to our state;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, we the messengers to the Alabama Baptist State Convention meeting in Montgomery, Alabama, November 13-14, 2012 affirm the call for Christians to show hospitality, Christian love, and care for immigrants and aliens in our presence; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that though we are to submit to the governing authorities and live quiet, peaceful lives (1 Peter 2:13-17; 1 Timothy 2:1-6), we are to first show love and concern for all people according to God’s higher law as we love our neighbor as ourselves (Matthew 22:36-40); and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we encourage Alabama Baptist churches and individual Christians to care for all of those in need as God places them in our path whether they are here legally or not; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we share the gospel of Jesus Christ with all people in all circumstances praying that all come to salvation in Christ; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we seek to make disciples of all nations, including the immigrants of the nations that God has sovereignly brought to our state through various means according to Matthew 28:18-20; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that we seek to be good citizens in our state and nation only because we are first citizens of the Kingdom of God who represent Christ as His ambassadors.
______________
So, that was it. I wrote it up and submitted it today at the convention (which is allowed) thinking that this would be a good, non-controversial way to affirm our requirement to obey the law of the state while also valuing the command of God as the higher law. I wrote this because Republicans in Alabama enacted the nation’s toughest immigration law in 2011 and this law was largely supported by Southern Baptists in the state. Or, at the very least, it was not opposed. The political lobby of Alabama Baptists is closely supportive of Alabama Republicans on a host of issues. The majority of Southern Baptists in Alabama also support the Republican Party, so there is a place of influence there. I thought that it would be helpful for Alabama Baptists to speak to this issue and declare that yes, we understand and will obey the law. But, we should first and always seek to minister to people in need, whether they are illegal immigrants or not, because we are to first obey God’s law requiring us to love others sacrificially.
My simple hope was that we could send a clear message to Alabama Baptists that when they met a Hispanic person in need, they should first seek to love and minister to them instead of worrying about if they might get in trouble with the State if that person is here illegally. We could have done that today.
Here is the law, called the Hammon-Beeson Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act:
http://www.openbama.org/index.php/bill/fulltext/3154
The Wikipedia page on the law provides a helpful summary of the law and the controversy surrounding it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_HB_56
After declaring that illegal aliens would not be provided services, education, employment, or any other benefit from the state of Alabama, the law also states:
(f) Every person working for the State of Alabama or a political subdivision thereof, including, but not limited to, a law enforcement agency in the State of Alabama or a political subdivision thereof, shall have a duty to report violations of this act. Any person who willfully fails to report any violation of this act when the person knows that this act is being violated shall be guilty of obstructing governmental operations as defined in Section 13A-10-2 of the Code of Alabama 1975.
I asked a couple of lawyers if I was reading this right and they confirmed that I was. It appears that every state employee is Alabama is required by law to report any violation of this law and if they do not report it, then they are guilty of obstructing governmental operations. This is very problematic for churches and Christians, in my opinion. Our church is in the state capitol of Alabama. We have a lot of state workers who are members of our church. If our church is helping a Hispanic family in need, are the state workers to try and figure out if the people are here legally or not? If we do ministry in a nearby community that we know has illegals living in it, will the state workers not engage in the ministry for fear that they might come in contact with illegals and be forced to report them or report other church members who help them in any way? Even though the law does not say this, will confusion arise if our church is giving food or shelter to a Hispanic family who might be here illegally causing state workers in our church to think that they must report this or face prosecution? My concern is that Christians be free to help people in need who live in our community without fear that they are breaking the law. There should exist a reasonable expectation that those living in our community are here legally and private citizens, whether they work for the state or not, should not be called upon to act as law enforcement or as an immigration agent.
When clergy in Alabama challenged this case on the basis that the law would keep Christians from obeying God’s Word in ministering to people in need, Judge Sharon Blackburn of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, ruled that the clergy had no “standing” in the case and that no harm had yet been done. But, it should be understood that religious speech and activity is protected speech and activity according to the First Amendment of the Constitution and it cannot be overruled by a state law on immigration. So, my resolution fits both the Biblical requirement to minister to the stranger in our midst and to those in need and it also fits the legal requirement of being protected speech and activity according to the Constitution. There really should not be a problem.
But, there was a problem for the Resolutions Committee of the Alabama Baptist Convention, it seems. I spoke to several people as to why the resolution was dismissed. It appeared to me (and this is just my judgment – I might be wrong) that the concern for the law of the state might have higher than concern for God’s command to actively love all people, regardless of the consequences, in this context. It also appeared to me (again, I could be wrong) that some might have been more concerned with having political access to Republicans than they were with clearly affirming a path of action for Baptists to obey the clear mandate of Scripture to love their neighbor as themselves. I am not saying that all on the committee thought this as I believe that some wanted to approve the resolution. But, it seems that the voices against it were louder than the voices for it since the resolution did not make it out of committee. There might have been other reasons it did not make it out and I was not in the deliberations, so, admittedly, I am left to speculate from piecing together things from here and there.
I affirmed that we should respect the law and obey it as long as it did not cause us to disobey God. This is a classic Christian ethical argument calling for submission to the authorities up until the authorities force us to sin, at which point we are allowed to engage in civil disobedience. To see a brother in need and not help him is to sin. 1 John 3:17 says, “If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?” In talking with the representatives of the committee after the decision had been made, I told them that I was trying to demonstrate how Alabama Baptists should affirm the civil laws while being sure to help all of those in need who are in our neighborhoods in obedience to God’s higher commands.
Instead of making a prophetic statement on this issue that appealed to God’s higher law over man’s law whenever it came into conflict, we took a pass for some reason. It is sometimes easier to affirm our place of power in society by maintaining the status quo that benefits us than it is to consider the needs of others and be willing to suffer alongside them. And, we sometimes think that it is more beneficial to try and make sure that we do not confuse our political allies or enemies about where we stand than it is that we send a clear message to Christians about how they should conduct themselves Biblically in a complicated situation. The irony is that what I was calling for in the resolution was both Biblical and legal. What was controversial about what the resolution said? If there was a concern for political access, this gets back to my constant call that we be prophetic on issues instead of political so that we can bless good wherever we find it and address wrong wherever we find it, irrespective of what political party we find it in.
We must not work to affirm our “way of life” at the expense of others and we must always seek to obey God rather than men – if conflict arises between God’s law and man’s. I know that the committee believes and affirms this. But, as Christian leaders, we need to chart a clear course as to how we are to do that, especially on issues like immigration. While I believe that strong laws regarding illegal immigration are important, I also firmly believe that it is the responsibility of the Christian to provide for those in need and to care for the poor. The Alabama immigration law actually does not forbid this, but confusion can exist as to how Christians are to legally and Biblically proceed. We would do well to clear that up.
Are Alabama Baptists wrong to minister to illegal aliens? I don’t think so. I don’t think that the government says that we are nor do I think that the resolutions committee thinks that we are wrong if we are showing Christian love to illegal immigrants. I actually think that they all very much want to show love to all people and minister to people, whether they are here legally or not. If that is the case, then we should state that clearly so there is not any confusion. Perhaps we will do so in the future. But, as for now, something seems to be holding us back.
They did ask me to resubmit the resolution next year. I was thankful for that. God willing, I will do just that. Resolutions can be important barometers of what we think is important at the time. I am confident that we will begin to see this issue differently and I pray that Baptists in Alabama will begin to lead the state in this area. In the meantime, we should seek to help all those in need despite where they come from and pray that Christians will see clearly the person that God has put before us. Whatever we do for the least of these, we do for Him.
This is a tough topic. My “law and order” side says that people who come to this country in violation of the laws should not be rewarded with citizenship or other (very expensive) rights.
My compassionate Christian side (which has had first hand experience in ministering to illegal aliens) says we should display the love of Christ to people regardless of their immigration status.
Should be an interesting discussion, Alan.
As I commented over at Alan’s blog, I believe the book of Philemon is a good case study on this topic. In many ways, Onesimus, as a runaway slave, was the counterpart in that day and context to an “illegal immigrant” today. We do not know how Paul first came into contact with Onesimus, but we do know that he led him to Christ. I don’t think it is a far stretch of the imagination to assume he first ministered in some way to his physical and/or psychological needs. We do know that Paul took the initiative to intervene on his part, writing a letter to Philemon, requesting lenience for Onesimus’ disobedience, and asking that, beyond that, he treat him as if he were not a slave. Paul even offered to pay himself all the legal costs involved in the exchange. I believe it is significant that the letter to Philemon is also addressed to the entire church of which he was a member, thus insinuating that he expected the whole church to be involved and to take an active role in responding to his request to Philemon.
As we attempt to apply these principles to the situation today of “illegal immigrants,” I think that, as Christians, and as churches, we should reach out to them and show them the love of God, with the hope of winning them to Christ. We should not just turn a blind eye to their illegal situation, but should rather become personally involved, doing what we can to help them to remedy it, even it means putting our own time, energy, and resources on the line to help make it happen.
Minister to the person first, then lead him to get his life situation figured out.
That’s such a good summary, it’s worth having it here twice.
🙂
Minister to the person first, then lead him to get his life situation figured out.
David Miller,
Is it really appropriate for a Christian to have separate “sides”? If we aren’t simply Christians, full stop, then we’re not Christians. We can’t serve two masters.
All the best
I am both unsure as to what you are saying and fairly sure you misunderstood what I said.
I often feel pulled from both sides on issues.
I might be missing the point, but why are we determining anyone’s citizenship before we share the Gospel or minister to one in need?
Would you consider that part of ministering to illegals may be to encourage them to not continue to break the law?
I would not think that would be a priority with lost folks. At some point after salvation, that would become an issue of discipleship.
1) We as a country, and states within this country, have the right to set immigration laws and Alabama’s is more than reasonable.
2) No, Christians do not have to avoid ministering to people in fear that they might be illegal. Don’t ask the question. Duh! If someone needs food and you want to give them food or if they’re sick and you want to pay for them to go to an urgent care facility that is a good and right thing to do. You don’t need to know where they’re from or how they got here. The subject of their immigration status shouldn’t even come up. Help them.
Lastly, we should remember they don’t have the right to be here in the first place. There are thousands of folks from all over the world who come here legally. The only people who try to get in illegally do so because they want to hide something. If they did things the right way, legally, we wouldn’t even have to have this conversation. And yes, if someone who is legally required to report an illegal finds out someone is illegal they should report them if they don’t they should be punished to the extent the law allows.
I am very proud of Alabama for their reasonable, measured response to illegal immigration. I hope other states follow suit.
Joe,
From my experience, 99% of “illegal immigrants,” if they had the chance to be here legally, would jump at it as quick as they can. There is a long waiting list of those hoping to come legally.
And I am perfectly ok with that. Again–them WANTING to be here and having a RIGHT to be here are two completely different things. On the other hand, we have the RIGHT to make our immigration laws as strict or as lax as we want. And no, making them strict does not mean we’re hoarding wealth for ourselves. If Mexicans want a better life, they could work to make their country a better country. Everytime I hear “Oh, it’s so bad for them over there. They just can’t make a living” I hear a string orchestra playing an arrangement of “So What” by Miles Davis in D flat which is really weird because I think it was originally in the key of G.
Is there no place for compassion toward such people?
I’m not saying there’s no place for compassion. All I’m saying is the excuse that if you believe immigration laws should be enforced that you’re a racist and have no compassion might work on someone who cares. Once they’re here, if they need help, by all means we shoule help them. Hungry? Here’s some food? Kids need a jacket? Here ya go. We don’t need to know where you’re from or how you got here to help. But I won’t allow someone to call me a racist just because I believe we have the right to make and enforce laws about who can and cannot enter this country.
“Everytime I hear “Oh, it’s so bad for them over there. They just can’t make a living” I hear a string orchestra playing an arrangement of “So What” by Miles Davis in D flat which is really weird because I think it was originally in the key of G.”
Quite insensitive. Maybe someone here has experience in Mexico. I don’t know their economics and labor opportunities. But I do know about Haiti. Been there many times. Their economic situation is likely worse than Mexico.
I suspect if Haitians could get to the US (boats attempts) they would try. I would hope that such a remark as “Everytime I hear “Oh, it’s so bad for them over there. They just can’t make a living” I hear a string orchestra playing an arrangement of “So What” by Miles Davis in D flat which is really weird because I think it was originally in the key of G.” would not be made about the Haitian people. Fact is, it is bad over there. Mexico? Maybe not as bad. But still worse than the US.
“I suspect if Haitians could get to the US (boats attempts) they would try.”
well, they do try . . . Coast Guard cutters frequently intercept them off the coast of FLA . . . my son’s first cruise found a boat in trouble and saved the people, taking them into custody and giving them food, water, and blankets . . . these people were returned to Haiti eventually
my son’s comment about what he witnessed stays with me . . . ‘Mom, they were pitiful. They had nothing.’
Well, maybe they had some hope of a better life, at least for a while. My son said that some boat people don’t make it and perish in the attempt to reach Florida. Many are intercepted.
But some do make it.
Christiane,
Thanks for your comments. I do know they try. That’s why I mentioned boat attempts. And yes for so many there, life is very hard. My point is that it is very insensitive for us to suggest that they should just get to work and make a living, in Haiti and the poverty stricken areas of Mexico. It’s just not quite that simple. And I would suggest that those who think it’s just as easy as “get to work and make a living” just move on down to Mexico and spend a few years there showing the Mexicans how it’s done.
Many years ago I helped take a group of senior citizens on a tour to Mexico. We went by train from Nuevo Larado to Mexico City. On the way back two of us were standing between the cars watching the desert roll by. The other man commented, “Bennett, I have a lot more sympathy for the wet backs than I did before this trip.” It is a difficult country with lots of problems–even before the drug related violence.
But Haiti is even worse.
Matthew 25:31-46. 1 John 2:9. 1 John 3:17-18. 1 John 4:20-21. James 1:22-25.
And not one of those verses says or implies in any way, shape, form, or fashion that a civil government is not allowed to make any immigration laws that it wishes. I suppose making puppy dog eyes and pulling at heart strings is easier than actually proving from scripture that the US doesn’t have the right to make those laws.
Oh, and just for grins and giggles, although I’d oppose it because Democrats are for it, if the US changed those laws that would not be wrong either. As a soverign country, we have the right to do either.
Joe,
No one here is denying that the U.S. government or state government doesn’t have the right to make laws regarding immigration reform. I have no problem with that.
I am not opposing the law. I am saying that no matter what the law says, we, as Christians, are to obey a higher law. We should help people in need no matter who they are no matter what the law says. From your previous statements, you seem to agree with that. So, what is the issue here?
On another note – and this is an entirely different subject, but since you brought it up, I’ll bite – not all laws are just laws, even if they were enacted legally. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, but I consider it an immoral and unjust law. Everything that Hitler did, he did legally according to the law of Germany. Christians like Bonhoeffer were right to oppose the law. So, while we should submit to authority, there is a place for civil disobedience when the law enacted by men is unjust according to God’s law. I am not saying anything new here, of course. This line of thought has been established in Christianity since Acts 4:17-20 happened: “But to stop this thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn these men to speak no longer to anyone in this name.”
Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.”
I am not opposing the law.
Right. That’s why on LIttleton’s blog you called the law “Draconian”. That was a compliment, right? Of course you’re not opposed to the law.
I am saying that no matter what the law says, we, as Christians, are to obey a higher law.
What part of the immigration law prohibits you from helping people in need? Employees of the state are supposed to report illegals? Puh-leeze. That’s as much a barrier to helping people in need as toilet tissue would be to a bullet fired from a .38 caliber.
not all laws are just laws, even if they were enacted legally.
Where did I saw all laws are just laws? Please, point out the specific spot where I said ALL laws were just laws. What I said WAS that the immigration law passed by Alabama was good, right, reasonable, and not at all opposed to any biblical principal. On a side note, I enjoyed reading about the mass exodus of illegals once the law was passed.
“”””rom my experience, 99% of “illegal immigrants,” if they had the chance to be here legally, would jump at it as quick as they can”””
Well, isn’t that sort of the point? A famous bank robber once was asked, “why do you rob banks?” His answer, “because that’s where the money is.”
We have something of value which is why they “jump the line” to get here. That is no excuse for doing what is clearly illegal. Of course, nobody is trying to “cross into Mexico.” There is nothing of value to take.
If someone steals an expensive piece of jewelry we do not excuse the action based upon the value of that which is stolen.
If we want to protect our way of life then we must protect our borders. It also simply a matter of “fairness” that we do not encourage “cutting in line.” I remember learning that rule in First Grade.
Frank L, I think (as the TV commercial we see in Texas says), “You need to get out more.” At the risk of being severely put down, when was the last time you went to Mexico? There is nothing like going there to make one a little less positive about how things should be done.
Bennett. I’ll try not to indulge your insult.
I’ve been to Mexico several times.
I’ve also worked in Guatamala. I’m also helping support two Mexican families at this point.
I also recently helped an Iranian mom get asylum.
Yet I admit I no doubt am not an expert as you apparently are.
I’ll try to get out more so I can be an expert too.
…..And herein is an example of the just how complicated this problem is.
Frank L. is a conservative Christian. He seeks to live by a biblical worldview. What he states is true. “We must protect our borders.” I also believe Frank L. would share the gospel with any person God brings his way, legal or illegal.
Then we have Bennett Willis, an Old School SBC Liberal and a political liberal also. He speaks with a degree of compassion toward the plight of illegals who come into this country, but would be in diametric opposition to properly addressing the problem.
Arrg–the great feared put down. You got me, Frank L. Clearly you do understand the issues and have come down where you are.
When and where did you go in Mexico? Since I have not been there in 15 or so years, I was concerned that I was out of date.
Did you know that we are rapidly approaching the same concentration of wealth in this country that they have in Mexico? I have always thought that the concentration of wealth was one of Mexico’s major problems.
CB, I was once more politically conservative, but I got out and now I do tend to be more politically liberal–especially when talking with “conservatives.” Actually, I think that I just understand the contradictions in my thinking better than I used to. You have the problems and then you have the people who have the problems. There should always be a conflict in ones responses to the two. To come down completely on one side or the other is not appropriate. You have to recognize both–or not. Clearly, a lot of people manage to not pay much attention to the people when they are thinking about the problems.
Bennett
At the risk of sounding a little cliched, I guess we should be thankful that we have to guard our borders to keep people from coming in illegally rather than guard them to keep our citizenry in.
I agree this is a difficult topic. I think as I ponder it more and more over the last couple of years that my view is moving from a hard line “turn ’em in if you find ’em” toward a more compassionate and probably more biblical view expressed in the resolution. But I’m still trying to work through the biblical principles.
Donald, I’n not sure that the issue is “determining anyone’s citizenship before we share the Gospel or minister to one in need,” though that is an issue for some. At least a large part of the issue is as Alan says,
“If our church is helping a Hispanic family in need, are the state workers to try and figure out if the people are here legally or not? If we do ministry in a nearby community that we know has illegals living in it, will the state workers not engage in the ministry for fear that they might come in contact with illegals and be forced to report them or report other church members who help them in any way? Even though the law does not say this, will confusion arise if our church is giving food or shelter to a Hispanic family who might be here illegally causing state workers in our church to think that they must report this or face prosecution? My concern is that Christians be free to help people in need who live in our community without fear that they are breaking the law.”
Well, after reading this closer, maybe it is as you question Donald. Must the state worker who is also a member of xxxxx Baptist Church ask about the Hispanic family and their status before getting involved in the church’s ministry. It is a sticky situation for sure.
It is said in my Church, this:
“The families of migrants . . . should be able to find a homeland everywhere in the Church.”
As people who pride ourselves on following the Word of God, we should take these words to heart: Leviticus 19: 33-34 “‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.
I think we should minister to the folks that has come into this country through improper channels, and put a stop to those comming into the country without permission.
Our economy is not what it should be to take on folks that are not citizens. It seems to me, We must manage ourselves before we can be in a position to help others as we should.
I saw on the news a few months ago that there are people comming from Mexico into the U.S. to work every day and then going back home to Mexico at night. Is it me, or is something wrong with this picture.
I’ve done work for some of those companies were the large majority of their workforce crosses the border to work and then go back home at night, all done legally. Without this labor pool the businesses would not be able to operate.
There are also school children that cross the border to attend school in the US.
Alan,
We have a young lady who lives a little South of us, she is hispanic. My girls have been very close friends with her for probably 7 or 8 years. I love her, she is my favorite of my girl’s friends. She has lots of kin who are illegal immigrants and this young lady feels very strongly that our nation ought to treat them better and I can’t blame her.
Quite frankly, if I were Mexican, or El Salvadoran I would do everything I could to get into the United States. So when it comes to hispanics and my ministry to them I will minister to them without asking questions concerning their national status. God’s kingdom operates irrespective of borders and we should do the same. Am I for enforcing our immigration laws and protecting our border? Absolutely, but when you actually meet an illegal immigrant you make a tremendous discovery, you discover that they are human beings.
I would certainly agree with Donald’s sentiment:
We are not in the immigration status-checking business. We are here to spread the Gospel.
The truth is this: there are many laws that we tend to be “casual” about following, especially when inconvenient. The number of church vans that pass me on the interstate are testimony of that–my own rate of speed when they pass show that, too.
Yet do we check on whether or not someone sped before coming to church or intends to go on doing so? Do we consider whether or not someone is current on their property taxes before passing them Communion or letting that person sing in the choir?
We don’t. Yet these are among a myriad of the laws that apply to our lives but we tend to discard at our own whim. Not because they are unjust or sinful.
What is the theological/Biblical difference?
There really is not one. It’s just that one is within our political interest and the other isn’t.
In general, I agree that, in the case of immigration status, “don’t ask, don’t tell” is a good practice. However, if you are really seeking to minister someone, and if you lead them to Christ (sometimes even if you don’t lead them to Christ), and you are discipling them, you are going to get to know them at a deeper level. In the real world, when you get to know someone at a deep level, you wind up finding things out, things like their immigration status. If we are going to think through this consistently, we are also going to have to think through what ought to be our response upon learning that someone we are ministering to is undocumented.
If we are going to think through this consistently, we are also going to have to think through what ought to be our response upon learning that someone we are ministering to is undocumented.
They’re not undocumented. They are illegal. They have commited a crime and they have committed a sin (Romans 13:1). The Christian response is to call them to repentance.
If, Joe,you led someone who was here illegally to Christ, would you then immediately demand they turn themselves in and leave the country?
Dave,
That’s a thorny question. Off the top of my head I’d have to say, “I’d encourage them to be obedient to the laws of the land and do what would bring honor and glory to God.”
I once led a young man to Christ and then offered to give him a ride to the police station to turn himself in. He said, “No, I’d rather walk and take the time to think about my life.”
I’m sure you would agree–correct me if I’m wrong–being saved does not relieve one of the legal consequences of one’s actions.
I’m not sure if the way you phrased your question to Joe meant that you would encourage someone who is illegal to continue in that path.
It is in many cases a multi-tennacled beast with years in this country and young children.
Personally, I am open to some form of a path to citizenship that does not send one back, but does cost something greatly. I’m not sure on the details.
No, I wouldn’t demand it.
I would encourage them to make things right but I’m not law enforcement so making them do that wouldn’t be my job nor would informing anyone else. It’s not the same thing as someone cheating on their spouse. Or maybe it is. I don’t know. But to answer your question, no, I wouldn’t demand they turn themselves in.
But I’m also not going to sit and be told you’re a heartless person who isn’t following the commands of scripture to love your neighbor unless you support immediately allowing whoever wants in the country to come in the way it seems some people (i.e. the political left and their allies) would.
The Christian response is to follow the example of Paul with Onesimus and do everything within our power to help them to either get legal, or, if in no wise possible, help them return to their country, get a job, get their kids and family taken care of, etc. Actually, very complicated. But sometimes being a Christian calls for doing difficult, complicated things. In the early church, the Christians took care of people who were dying of the plague, often putting their own lives at risk, when no one else was willing to do so. From what I’ve read, the explosion of growth throughout the Roman Empire came largely as a response to this example of sacrificial love.
Most immigrants I have met (and I know quite a few) are motivated primarily by trying to provide a better opportunity for their families, and many times fleeing from dangerous situations in which their lives are at risk. There are some exceptions. But, then again, it is a good thing the Father didn’t judge us according to the pureness of our motives before sending Jesus to die for us.
So, they’ve broken the law but they’re not responsible to repent? And you can justify that from scripture where, exactly?
Joe,
It’s not may place to speak for David, but wouldn’t getting legal or returning to their own country be an act of repentance?
Joe,
Like Paul with Onesimus, we should encourage repentance, but we should also be willing to help out, even sacrificially so, when the consequences of this repentance will likely mean personal hardship for the one doing the repenting. Our goal is not punishment, but heart change and ministering Jesus’ love.
I have two questions that may be applicable to this situation.
Is there any comparison to this situation and the Lord’s ministering to people on the Sabbath in spite of authorities objecting?
If a person was convicted of a non-violent crime and did not report to jail when told to, would you minister to such a person or turn him in if he showed up at your office?
it is a mark of respect for the Church that the government hesitates to enter into the ‘sacred space’ of the Church to arrest immigrants who have sought sanctuary there
no one knows why the government hesitates, but perhaps the ancient practice of honoring ‘sanctuary’ is deeply embedded in the collective conscience of our people of whom so many came from countries where sanctuary was respected,
and also whose ancestors came to THIS country to find a safe place to practice their own faith freely
It is not uncommon to hear about an illegal alien who lives in a Church under the protection of sanctuary, and it is known to officials, and nothing is done to retrieve the person and send them home on the next plane . . .
so, regardless of what is felt about ‘the government’ and ‘the Church’,
there is still seen in our land this strange government respect of ‘sacred space’ where for a while, a hunted person may find rest in the peace of Church sanctuary and be cared for with Christ’s love, just beyond the reach of the hunters who will not enter there to remove them
it is strange . . . and it says a lot about ‘who we are’ as a country
I’ve never really understood the power of resolutions – until they are denied. It seems your Alabama Baptists have decided they would rather be seen as Republicans than believers. As for the quandary that this may present for your church members that is another matter, they may want to find different employment.
I live in a fairly small community and yet when I had a need for an emergency root canal a few years ago only two dentists would speak with me. One was going out of town and was unable to help me and thankfully the other dentist was able to help. My wife was told, politely, by many Christian receptionists, that without insurance the good dr. would have to work me in – in two weeks.
Interesting to note is that many of these dentists would have taken me had I gotten past their watchdogs and spoken to them personally. From this experience I began to watch the behavior that many Christians have towards their jobs and the results are very disheartening. Many believe that they must follow rules and procedures above showing the love of Christ. I am very thankful for the dentist my wife now works for who shows the love of Christ daily to his patients and employees, but many are willing to separate the two. Your resolution just highlighted this problem.
I am afraid that you are right, Daniel. Resolutions mean little when we pass them, but speak volumes when we refuse to consider them.
To the extent that we copy anything in the Bible, the rules regarding sojourners seem strangely applicable.
Have any of you thought about the damage that is done to illegals who cross the border and die of hunger, thirst, heat and violence by those who promise safe passage for a price?
I guess not.
Katie, has anyone here said anything about supporting the transport of illegal aliens? I sure haven’t seen it.
The discussion is about ministering to people in our communities – regardless of their immigration status.
Chief,
My general point of view is that perpetuating this process by turning a blind eye and making “illegal” no longer mean “illegal,” we are hurting as many as we are helping.
For a religious group to dictate a policy that even appears to skirt the law, which is not overly burdensome, seems misplaced and harmful to me.
That does not mean we need to neglect the physical and spiritual needs of anyone who shows up at our door regardless of status of any kind.
I think the resolution goes a step further than the Bible allows me to go.
Katie,
I have no sympathy for “coyotes” who make a living out of taking advantage of people, promising them jobs, etc., for their own self-aggrandizement. I also have little sympathy for those who illegally employ undocumented workers because they don’t have to pay them as much as legal workers, or give them benefits, etc., and they can exploit them because they are afraid of being turned in to the authorities. These are the ones who should be prosecuted and made to pay for their crimes.
The system is broke, and there are too many interests at play, both economic and political. We need comprehensive immigration reform ASAP.
Katie,
I, like David Rogers and probably you also, have no sympathy for “coyotes.” They are slave traders.
Also, I think that if the government agencies involved would “handle” two-legged coyotes the same way four-legged coyotes are treated in some agricultural areas, the “coyote business” would have a great number of “retirees” and the number of new coyotes entering the “business” would become,…..shall we say, rather slack.
Have you considered that they are not coming on vacation? I guess not
Alan Cross,
You are my friend and I am proud to say my friend wrote and presented this resolution to the state convention. I wish it had come out of committee. I do not understand why it did not.
Alan, I am no longer in Alabama, but had I been, I would have gladly stood by you and would have fought to get that resolution out of committee. I wish I had been there, Alan.
Round up support from now to next year. Go to the new president of the convention and press him hard to see that resolution out of committee. I will call him myself from time-to-time and challenge him to push that resolution as you have it presently worded.
You did right, Alan Cross. Hang in and don’t let this go. Push it hard and just let the devil take the hindmost parts with the rest of it.
Shame on Alabama Baptists.
Thanks, CB. I had lunch with Bob and Peg Cleveland and we talked about you a lot. All good. I will present it next year and will work between now and then to see things change. I will also take you up on those phone calls. I know that they will be a help.
I appreciate the encouragement. Thanks again.
Great post. I am Hispanic, and serve in a Hispanic church in NC. This is an issue near and dear to my heart. Though I am 100% Latino, not only was I born in the states, but my family is Puerto Rican, which means that we are automatically granted US citizenship.
The majority of people in our congregation are here legally, but many are not. Biblically, our responsibility to take care of the stranger and sojourner in our land is clear; but at what point does this become tacit approval of their illegal status? Is it not sin for them to be here, at least those who came here and stay here under false or dubious circumstances? How do we “love the sinner” while not condoning the sin?
To be honest, I don’t know that I have worked out an answer yet.
Inherent in the resolution seems to be that Christian cannot “show hospitality, Christian love, and care for immigrants and aliens in our presence” while at the same time obeying illegal immigration laws.
Why?
Why can’t Christians care for the illegals, and then upon finding out they are here illegally, follow the law and call the authorities?
I’m not sure the Scripture quoted entails knowingly breaking the law while caring for people. Many times there are more crimes involved other than just breaking into the country. Those crimes range from identity theft to driving illegally. If you found out your neighbor was fencing stolen items or drugs to get their family by in this tough economy you could still minister to them, pray for them and call the police about their activities.
I agree that the topic of this post poses a difficult situation without an easy answer.
Mark,
The authorities already know the illegals are here illegally. Have you ever followed up on what happens when a citizen does call the authorities?
It is my opinion that what is going on with a great number of illegals in this country is a form of slavery and in many cases the various government agencies simply look the other way. Why?
They look away because it is financially beneficial to look the other way.
Should we enforce the law in this nation regarding illegals? Absolutely. Should we, as David Rogers has pointed out, reform our immigration laws? Yes.
Should we also demand that Mexico and Canada do their part in dealing with the problem of illegals coming into the country? Yes.
Our immigration problems are complicated to say the least. Yet, for the followers of Christ, the Great Commission is rather simple.
CB,
My point is that it has not been clearly defended that carrying for an illegal and at the same time alerting the authorities about them are at odds with God’s word.
Often these scenarios are set-up as if it is an either/or proposition rather than a both/and.
I appreciate the points you made though.
Mark,
It truly is a hard situation. Flesh traders are an evil people and we, in this country, have become to desirous of being politically correct to truly do what is needed to take the burden of evil people off the backs of the poor and unfortunate.
CB,
I have worked along side of illegals. I have seen illegals who are decent people struggle, but work hard. When someone comes face to face with an illegal immigrant and gets to know them even a little it can change one’s whole perspective.
Some of the biggest law breakers in this whole situation that normally get a pass are those who take advantage of illegal workers’ good, cheap labor.
BTW, my (new) church recently provided about $200K in legal advice for local illegals to met with attorneys to make their first step toward applying to be legal.
“Some of the biggest law breakers in this whole situation that normally get a pass are those who take advantage of illegal workers’ good, cheap labor.
Mark,
You have identified the biggest reason immigration reform has been all but impossible.
CB & Mark,
You are both right. The reason that they are here is very complicated and is a much bigger deal than just some Mexicans sneaking across the border and breaking the law. They are here because of a collaboration between big business wanting cheap labor and the government, particularly the liberal side, wanting future constituents who will vote for them because they have benefitted from the government. So, you have potentially forces from both the left and the right working together to allow illegal aliens into our country to work and live and receive government services without being actual citizens. And, this has been happening for 40 years.
So, it is very complicated. Alabama’s law is a bad law that did not take this reality into account. A bunch of freshmen Republican legislators wanted to make a statement, so they did. But, it created a mess. This resolution is not about that law, though. The law is what it is and I am not trying to repeal it.
All that I am saying is that Christians should minister to those in need without reference to asking for their citizenship papers. There is an expectation that if we meet someone in the U.S. that we assume that they are here legally. We should not be held liable for helping the people that God sovereignly places in front of us. The Alabama law gets close to infringing upon our religious liberty to do so. My bigger concern in writing this resolution is to speak to the Christians who might be intimidated to pass by the wounded traveler on the other side of the road out of fear of the government. No matter how this law is written or enforced, we, as citizens of God’s Kingdom, are commanded to first obey the Lord and do what He tells us to do. Whether or not this law is a good thing or will continue on is really not up to us, at least as Christians doing ministry in the moment. If Christians want to work within the system to repeal this law or amend it, that is another issue entirely and one that I am not trying to address here, although I personally believe that adding some type of a “Good Samaritan” clause for people to help those in need and/or to exercise freedom of religion in carrying out their God-given duties would solve any problems.
For the record, I am completely fine with a state having strong immigration laws and enforcing them. But, I am not an official of the state or a law enforcement officer and I should not suspect wrongdoing if I simply see an individual or family in need because of their race, ethnicity, or language.
This is worth speaking about, I think.
I haven’t read all the comments back and forth. I just don’t have the time ;-).
As a lay minister in a Spanish-speaking congregation, immigration comes up sometimes, but never in the context of hypothetical situations regarding “those” people. It’s always about real people and real situations. We don’t check IDs, we just minister.
We’ve all talked at one time or another about what happens when obeying God calls for us to violate man’s law, and what would we do. Normally, we pontificate that of course we’d go ahead and obey God rather than man.
But we sure shy away from ever letting that happen, apparently.
CB is right. Shame on us for not bringing this up just how you wrote it, Alan. IF, that is, we’re interested in ministering to people according to scripture and their need, and not the inevitable result of our national failure to enforce immigration laws and border security, which the government does not now care to deal with but expects the citizenry to.
I absolutely believe in secure borders and a stable, unbiased immigration policy.
I also believe that individual christians should have a deep desire in their hearts to help every human being in need regardless of race, politics, legal status, etc.
Worse would be to have the mindset that they are “taking something from you” that is disguised as regard for the “rule of law”.
I agree, Adam. I do not begrudge any nation the right to secure its borders. I think that America should do the same. I also do not think that it is morally wrong for America to have strong immigration laws and arrest and imprison every illegal alien that is found here by immigration officials.
But, therein lies the rub. Everyone in our city knows where the illegal aliens live. They live in the apartment complexes and trailer parks on the south side of our city. If there was a real desire to find them and send them back, the government could do so easily. They know where they are too, although there are less of them here now since the law went into effect.
I have no problem with government executing its laws to provide for a safe and secure nation. But, we also need to take into account how the illegals got here, why they are here, who wanted them here, and who still wants them here. The problem does not lie in private citizens or churches who help people in need or state workers who are members of those churches. The problem also did not spring up last month. They are here and they are here because the powers that be wanted them here. To pass strong laws that make the state inhospitable to them without addressing the real issues is an unjust action. But, my primary concern has to do with religious liberty and the right of Christians to obey God and love all people sacrificially. I am not even trying to change the law – I simply want to encourage Christians to obey God no matter what kind of legal environment they are in related to illegal aliens.
They are all here because someone wanted them here. Many of them have children that were born here and are now U.S. citizens. Deportation has become really tricky. So, while the State tries to work that out, we should care for those in our midst as God provides opportunity. It really should not be that controversial and am still confused why it was for Alabama Baptists and the resolution committee. Hopefully, we will have a different outcome next year.
Yikes.
Not sure about the “arrest and imprison”. Our prisons are jammed as it is. More like “detain and deport”. I dont think we should punish folks (hold in prisons) that want to come here. Have you been to Mexico? If I lived there I would leave too. Scoop em up and ship em out as quickly as possible. This would work with a secured border.
I dont really have a problem with them being here (legal status notwithstanding)…regardess of how they would vote or whatever. The actually would be bringing back what white americans have allowed to get away…faith, family and hard work.
I do have a problem with the attitude of late that conservative evangelicals have toward conspiracy theories. This is a very dangerous road to walk on, especially when race is involved. German Christians fell for them headlong in the 30s and we would be wise to remember.
Adam, that would not be my personal wish. If I were writing and enforcing laws myself, I would take into consideration the actual situation and probably declare amnesty at this point.
What I did say is that I do not think it would be morally wrong for America, or any nation, to arrest and imprison those they found breaking immigration laws. Of course, if the next step is deportation, I would understand that as well. My point is just that I think that the United States, and any nation, for that matter, has the right to defend its borders. I travel abroad once a year or so, and I cannot get into nations if I do not have the right paperwork. I have no problem with that and I would understand if I tried to sneak into a nation and they arrested me.
Again, I would not advocate that. The reality of why they are here is much more complicated. Either we are going to round up 12 million illegals and deport them (which we obviously have no intention of doing or we would have done it) or we need to provide amnesty and move on. Having 12 million illegals in perpetual limbo while many of them have children here that are legal U.S. citizens is a disaster. I would prefer amnesty just because I think it is the only thing that makes sense given the fact that we are clearly not going to deport.
If the other option is to make life very difficult for them so they will leave – which seems to be Alabama’s approach – is adopted, then you are going to have a lot of human suffering take place. Many cannot get back to their native land. Many are not able to travel and they are making a small income here. That is where the church should be available to minister to those in need right in front of us.
Again, I am not advocating for anything in regard to the law at this point. I am simply saying that the church should always minister to the people in need that God brings to us.
Agree. Very well stated.
Why doesn’t the U.S. help Mexico? Mexico does not have to be a poor country and their are rich and powerful people there. Mexico has some strict immigration laws, yet they have no problem practically encouraging people to break our immigration laws.
That said, Mexico borders the U.S. so why can’t we help them rebuild their economy and government? We’ll invade countries across the world, but ignore a country with whom we share a border.
Personally, I would favor an invasion of Mexico. Not to harm the civilians, or the government, but to destroy the drug cartels which I believe are a large reason why Mexico has the equivilant of a 3rd world country’s economy.
I agree with Bro. Miller this is a very problamatic issue. the question that lulls in my mind over this is: “Why is a resolution necessary?”. Why can’t, as Baptist tradition has it, do we not let each person, church, association function as the Holy Spirit leads them.
I beleive this resolution is going to divert the ministry to discussing the issue instead of solving the problem.
The word “WELCOMING” in the resolution gives the appearance of contempt for the laws of the state.
Further: A review of the word ‘ALIEN” in my Hebrew research books it certainly does not refer to an “ILLEGAL ALIEN” but to those of a foreign culture.
I absolutely agree that “we should minister to those in our path” but don’t want to encourage people to violate the law expecting me to help them.
God Bless and I pray this does not get on the books, as I feel it will cause dissension, but that the spirit of it goes to our hearts and as individuals or churches we meet the needs of people in distress.
This comment, like several others recently, got caught in our spam folder. Not sure why. If a comment disappears, let me know at davemillerisajerk@hotmail.com.
Al,
I am all for changing or adapting language. If there is a better way to say it, I am all for it. Usually, a resolutions committee will alter some language to keep the spirit of a resolution while dealing with anything confusing or that is in error. I am fallible and am happy to be corrected. But, for some reason, that option was not taken here.
I believe that the Hebrew word for “alien” does not refer to an “illegal alien” because the concept was unknown back then. Unless I am badly mistaken, it is a 19th Century (AD) concept, else most of my ancestors, who came over in the 17th & 18th centuries, would have been illegal aliens. They did not have permission for the people who ran the country back then (the Native Americans). They just came, claimed the land, and pushed the Indians farther and farther west, and into smaller and smaller pieces of the land they once roamed freely.
John
I am an Associational Missionary (not DOM) and our Association has taken the position when it comes to illegal aliens is “Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell.
Alan,
Without having all the facts surrounding the Resolution Committee’s decision and their specific decision regarding your resolution let me offer the parliamentary instructions for such a case. You can find it in the 11th Edition of Roberts Rules of Order (RONR), p. 635, ll. 28 and following.
The Resolution Committee is required to report all resolutions referred to it unless the Constitution or Standing Rules allow it not to. The Committee does not have to agree with the resolution and can refer it with no recommendation.
Under situations where a committee is empowered to withhold a resolution it can only do so if 3/4 of the committee members agree.
YOUR RECOURSE, under such a situation is:
1) Obtain recognition of the Chair to ‘Raise a Question of Privilege,’
2) Inform the Chair saying, ‘I rise to a Question of personal privilege affecting ….. (the Committee’s refusal to refer my resolution on – ‘title’) and therefore APPEAL the Committee’s decision to Assembly.’ The Assembly then decides whether to hear your resolution or to accept the Committee’s decision not to refer. It is decided by majority vote.
(Reference RONR (11th ed.), p228, ll. 26 and following.
Hope this information can help in future cases.
Though nothing can be done on the Convention level now that the meeting is over you could still pursue the adoption of your resolution by churches within the Convention by sending it to each one and asking them to vote on its adoption at a special or regularly scheduled Business Meeting and communicate their action to you. If a significant number of Convention churches adopted the motion you could then ask the State Office/Paper to publicize its adoption. You’ll have to decide if the effort is worth it or not.
Blessings
Thank you, Richard. You have definitely become the go-to person in Baptist life on parlimentary procedure! I actually asked the resolutions committee chair if I had any recourse to try and bring it out of committee and he said that I did not since the Alabama Convention was structured differently from the SBC. They also did not report what was submitted and did not make it out of committee like the SBC does.
They have a parlimentarian in the committee meeting, so I doubt that they violated their own rules. They might have an altered set of rules from Robert’s Rules of Order.
Thanks for the insight! I will definitely refer to that next year.
Parliamentarians don’t usually act to correct rule violations unless they are called upon to do so.
I’m for ministering to anyone, anytime, anywhere. When the opportunity is there, take it.
That being said, I passtored a church that started a Hispanic church. We gave money, location, and any help as the need arose. The mission pastor and I had a good relationship. He was a strong preacher and good pastor. The mission grew. People were saved.
Then came a Sunday when he and several others didn’t show up for services. Some of the people were there, but he was nowhere to be found. After some inquiry I learned that he was hiding from immigration. He was illegal. I sat down with him and several others from that fellowship and explained our church’s position on illegal immigration. While we offered ministry to all, we couldn’t support a man in leadership who was in the country illegally. I offered to help him get his papers. I made it clear that, as the leader, he was obligated to follow the law so that no disrepute would come on the church or the name of Christ.
He refused to submit to the legalities of our nation’s government. We removed him from leadership in that church. Many of the members of the mission couldn’t understand why it was such a big deal. After all, you don’t need “papers” to preach the Gospel. While that is true, we are to do all we can to advance the cause of Christ while maintaining integrity and godly character.
I wish there was a “like” button on here. What a wonderful story and testimony.
The Government, in light of the fact that they have consistently avoided their responsibility to protect our borders, has now attempted to make it everybody’s responsibility to deal with the problem. And never has the old saw been more true: Everybody’s responsibility is nobody’s responsibility.
In this hero-less age, the problem is not going to be solved, so Alan, you’re probably right. Amnesty is inevitable.
Someone who has looked at all sides of the problem and reluctantly arrived at the inevitable conclusion. Hide the children! Reality may be coming.
What else are we really going to do? I suppose we could just continue the mess we have. If you are going to have a solution, it will be amnesty.
Alan,
I have no problem following God’s command to be kind and help the stranger with-in our borders. I believe we should preach the gospel to all, legal and illegal. We should confront everyone with the claims of Christ. I believe we should offer the necessity’s of life; food, emergency medical care, shelter from the elements, to all we can AS we give them the gospel. And we (the church) should do that. The church I pastor does this and we have had immigrants in the church. All are legal one way or the other now.
But to be kind to the stranger is not all the commands we have. We must balance the whole counsel of God. The illegals pose many more problems than just the fact they have broken one law (here illegally). My wife has worked as a recruiter for a job placement company. They deal weekly with stolen identities, false SS cards, stolen SS cards, etc. Most if not all of these are illegals attempting to thwart the system the rest of us have to abide by. We have several law enforcement agents in our church. It is a regular and consistent thing to hear of illegals with stolen identities and ‘moonlighting” in the local drug business. Illegals who send their money out of the nation hurt the overall economy for those of us who are legal. Those immigrants who choose to break the laws hurt those who try to do the right thing. Do we want to support that?
My own son has had business taken from him by the under bidding process of illegals that local officials have no time to deal with and was underbid by as little as $5 a week on jobs. It is impossible to compete with illegal people who will work well below min wages because they are ILLEGAL. My 82 year old mother is now dealing with a stolen identity problem when illegals stole her pocket book which contained her SS card (careless I know, but hers all the same). They take jobs that natives would do in the Mountains here where I live. They work on cattle farms, feed lots and build fence for the cattlemen. The cattlemen use them because they rationalize like you all are doing (I know this because I was a cattleman here till called to preach). It helps their billfolds and they feel they are helping out the immigrant (illegal that is). One particular house I watched go up near my bank during this economic down turn, the contractor used nothing but illegals on the house. How did I know? I asked…no one really cares anymore, the contractors nor law enforcement. Why did he do this? LOL, money, he could work them at skilled trades for $8-9 an hour undercutting LEGAL labor. This certainly is not doing justice to our LEGAL neighbors who are looking for work and a livable wage.
So you see in taking a head in the sand approach you are hurting people all over. We (the church) can give them the gospel and give them food and needed medical care, but to prop them up and continue to allow them to operate as is, is to support many other illegal activities that hurt other innocent people.
We do not act in a vacuum. Let us give the gospel to the illegals and part of the gospel is to live a righteous life which includes OBEYING the laws of the land one resides in. When we give the gospel we should also tell them to “go and sin no more”. I would tend to believe that after one seems to respond in the positive to the gospel and then continue to willfully act illegally, then one probably wasn’t really affected by the gospel at all.
Alan Davis
Alan,
I see nothing that you have written that I disagree with. You are beginning to get at the heart of the problem, which is very complex. It is an economic problem and we have businesses and customers that use the illegal aliens to save money. The illegal aliens have come here and they benefit from that greed. So, we are all breaking the law.
I had a roof put on my house a few years back. I did not ask for Green Cards. I imagine that there were illegal aliens on the crew, but I did not ask. Our church had a roof put on a while back. Same story. The government knows where to find them and can do something about it, if they would. I have no problem with enforcing the law. But, as Christians, we should minister to the person in front of us. As we get to know them, disciple them, etc., then when these issues come up, we should address them and help the person follow Christ. Good word.
Really, I think we agree.
Alan Davis,
I agree with your comment as to what has happened and is happening.
You did make one comment that is far too much of a broad brush. You stated, “The cattlemen use them because they rationalize like you all are doing…”
I don’t think we are all rationalizing. I know I am not and I do not think Alan Cross is either.
This is a complicated problem. It is so because of the evil men do. If you red my comments in this thread, you will see that I do not think our government really wants to deal with this issue.
Yet, the Great Commission is simple. We must fulfill it.
I think we have to keep in mind the fact that our churches are already full to the brim with lawbreakers, of various degrees. Speeders, tax cheats, creative accountants, poachers, etc. We aren’t police.
Reasons why I am not (anymore) a Southern Baptist, and why 50 million Hispanics in the US will never attend Southern Baptist churches.
I am not Republican and apparently I need to be one. Ideology drives the denomination rather than Christology
SBC is an ethnocentric religion (not denomination) that operates in a colonialist fashion in the US and abroad, dividing the globe by race in the name of reaching “people groups”.
Bible is not as important as they claim. Pick, choose and champion topics such as abortion, marriage to fit ideology, ignoring topics such as the “care for the alien who live among you” for the same reason.
Minorities are the only SBC churches growing. Less than 3% of members are Hispanic, 50% of new SBC churches are ethnic, If ethnic churches are the only part of SBC growing, and if 70% of Hispanics voted for Obama, that may be an indication that 70% of Hispanics will not attend or become part of an SBC church, in other words, the future of SBC maybe in the hands of a small percentage of minorities and illegal immigrants. SBC marketability among Hispanics (the future of the denomination) in the US maybe less than 15 million people (including children, women and men of all ages). 1 in 6 Americans are Hispanic while 91% of SBC members are White or Caucasian and less than 3% of SBC members are Hispanic. While Hispanics grew at a rate of 43% during the last 10 years, while membership of SBC churches decline every year unable to reflect population growth rates
Only 6.6 millions SBC members attend church, based on that number and if statistics are correct less than 180 thousand Hispanics, less than 240 thousand African-American and less than 60 thousand Asians attend SBC churches regularly. ONLY .36% of Hispanics in the US attend SBC churches regularly, many of them illegal immigrants. Hispanics are not a priority for SBC churches or organizations
Are you really as angry and bitter as you seem to be on this post?
Typical reply.
It is so easy to lob bombs at the SBC.
I tend to disregard those who just hurl insults and seem to enjoy enumerating our problems. We need to seek solutions (as Alan is doing) and not just pile on.
It is one thing for us within the family to bring constructive criticism to improve the SBC. It is quite another for people like this to just vent their spleen against us.
Aaron, I’ll shoot straight with you. I realize you seem to hold some sort of disdain for me and my views – I don’t have a problem with that, since I don’t really agree with your views either.
But you are different than most of the left-leaning folks that come on SBC Voices. Most of them do what Dave did here – hurl insults and disdain on our denomination.
While you are certainly not sympathetic to the theology and aims of Southern Baptists, I always sense that you do not harbor ill-will against us. I appreciate that.
I do not see that in comments like the one “Dave” left, and I don’t have time to argue with those who simply rejoice in our struggles.
If that does not please you, well, it is what it is.
Sometimes insults and disdain are hurtled our of genuine hurt and authentic frustration. Dave might have made the mistake of beginning in his comment in a way that was off-putting, using absolutist language.
But the rest of his comment was worthy of being heard.
I’m a believer in listening. I think it is helpful to listen first.
The SBC has a whole host of problems, stagnating growth, constant in-fighting over stuff that just doesn’t really matter to the average Southern Baptist. Lifeway has shown the SBC has a very negative image too.
It might be helpful to listen to some of those critiques, even if those critiques are delivered in a way that is off-putting. Listening leads to understanding and understanding can lead to better ideas. And you obviously need some better ideas moving forward.
I’d like to see a SBC that is known for compassionate conservatism. I think the idea of compassionate conservatism mixed with a bit of populism is a good thing for Christianity in America. I do think that much of the SBC’s PR problem is due to the influential hyper-partisan elements of many leaders. The hyper-partisan bent sure doesn’t help in the outreach to Hispanics as Dave’s stats indicate. Nor does it help with regard to African-Americans as Dwight McKissic has noted.
You might ought to consider that there are probably many folks out there who would become more involved in the SBC or return to the SBC if the SBC headed more in the direction that folks like Ed Stetzer and Alan Cross would like to take it.
Many who criticize are simply expression frustration for a denomination that they once loved and were invested in. Those frustrations, even sometimes the very vitriolic ones, are not always about rejoicing in anybody’s struggles.
To be honest, I read the first paragraph or so, got disgusted, and pretty much stopped reading.
For the record, I am fully supportive of the direction Ed Stetzer and Alan Cross would like to take the SBC (though we may find points of disagreement along the way).
I’ll bet Alan feels honored to see his name attached to that luminary name!
Reasons why I am not (anymore) a Southern Baptist…I am not Republican and apparently I need to be one.
Well, since the Democrats platform is the exact opposite on every position to God’s stance, I would say “yes”. Why would anyone want to stand with folks who take the opposite stance to God on every issue?
Bible is not as important as they claim. Pick, choose and champion topics such as abortion, marriage to fit ideology, ignoring topics such as the “care for the alien who live among you” for the same reason.
Well, since the Democrats version of “care for the alien who live among you” involves ignoring justly enacted, perfectly fair immigration laws and/or the government taking money out of the pockets of hardworking, good people and redistributing it to people who could work but either don’t want to or don’t want to do enough the Democrat position falls woefully short of what the Bible commands. Opposing socialistic entitlement programs is not “ignoring topics” in scripture. It’s called applying common sense to find real solutions to real problems.
Oh really?
Southern Baptists have put more missionaries in service and on the field that any other entity in the history of earth.
In general, Southern Baptist preachers preach the biblical gospel with more clarity and passion that any other “brand” of preachers on earth.
I know we have some nut cases among us, but hey, who don’t? Some of them frequent this blog.
Nonetheless, if Baptists in Alabama truly catch on to what really happened in the meeting of their Resolution Committee during the recent annual meeting, things will be far different next year.
Alan Cross brought a good resolution to the committee and the committee should have given it to the body to hear it. It is sad that it did not happen, but that is what is good about Southern Baptists. We can make right the acts of ignorance among us in the next meeting.
So, Dave, whoever you are, I am as glad you are not a Southern Baptist as you are. That makes just a little less ignorance to overcome next year.
You said it well, CB.
Thank you, SBC Boss #3.
“””Southern Baptists have put more missionaries in service and on the field that any other entity in the history of earth.”””
CB, I appreciate your sentiment and support for the SBC, but I question if this is, in fact, true.
It may be if you are only talking about evangelical missionaries, or Baptist missionaries, but I’m not sure that SBC missionaries outnumber all other groups.
My point is: we should be doing much more. We have 45,000 plus congregations but only (and I’ve not looked up the recent number so feel free to correct me) about 6000 full-time, career International Missionaries.
That means it takes 8 or more churches to support just one missionary. I don’t think that is so great a number that we can jump up and down.
And, if I remember a post not long ago we are in danger of needing to reduce that number.
Again, I’m not disagreeing with your sentiment at all. I’m simply saying that I would hope that our mission “pride” would be matched by our mission “sacrifice.”
This is a Lottie Moon time of year.
Frank L.,
I love you buddy and agree with much of what you write here, but I will put my understanding and knowledge of church history and theology to compete with yours any day.
When I make such a statement, I do not count anything done by the RCC as missionary actions. Their actions were more about conquest than the message of Jesus. I stand by my statement. I am right.
And while we’re at it, just for the sake of being a bit curmudgeonly, I suggest you do your homework on the stats for YWAM. I’m not sure about totals throughout history, but they definitely have more workers overseas at present than IMB.
CB,
I’m not sure why you jumped to the Catholic Church.
I didn’t even remotely have them in mind. I was thinking more of groups like Assemblies of God, or Seventh Day Adventists.
However, you seem to have spilled your coffee in your lap and missed my point. My point was, is, “are we really doing all that much to brag about” (and I do share your desire to brag about our mission efforts)?
Your post simply sparked a thought that is a bit off the track of this post.
I do hear what your saying and will get back to the point of this post. We are a “mission-passionate” people and every pastor I know or have ever known over 36 years of ministry has had a wide heart in regard to people of different backgrounds.
I’m in California, and a multi-ethnic church desiring to have a diverse ministry is one that reaches out to while people. (That’s a bit tongue in cheek).
In fact, a few years ago (not many in fact) I considered taking a position as the “Minister to Anglos” in a Chinese church.
I think Alan’s resolution will eventually fall upon fertile ground.
Kudos to David Rogers for getting the word curmudgeonly into the discussion.
David, are not a high percentage of YWAM’s mission force short term?
David Rogers and Frank L.,
Please notice that I used the words “have put” in the statement. My comment was in relation to the work of biblical Christian entities throughout history.
Frank L., I am old now, but still have better than average hand-eye coordination, so I did not spill anything and most certainly not my coffee since I take coffee in by an I.V. directly into my veins.
Now, let me explain also for David “The Curmudgeon” Rogers and for you, California Frank. I made the statement to challenge Dave The Unknown Downer in his remarks about the SBC.
I realize we have a lot of problems in the SBC, but we are not the mangey dog that we are often made out to be.
Dave,
From what I was able to find on my Google search, in 2006, YWAM had over 16,000 long-termers on the field. Now, they may define long-termers differently than the IMB. I don’t know for sure. But that is, in any case, quite a few more than the IMB. Someone else may want to research this further.
Also, Cru currently employs more than 25,000 full-time missionaries. I am not sure how many of these are in the States and how many in other countries.
CB,
Nothing against you. And nothing against Frank. Just being curmudgeonly.
No offense taken, David Rogers.
I understand. Once a curmudgeon, always a curmudgeon.
Seriously David Rogers, you should write an article about the subject of Alan’s resolution and get it published here on Voices. If a couple of articulate guys like you and Big Daddy and maybe Bart Barber would write articles about immigration, illegals, and the mandate of the Great Commission, it might help get Alan’s resolution on the floor of the convention in Alabama and other state conventions next year.
Here a couple of posts I wrote back in the day…
http://www.sbcimpact.net/2007/12/10/i-was-a-stranger-and-you-invited-me-in/
http://sbcimpact.org/2010/08/04/resources-on-evangelicals-and-immigration-reform/
David Rogers,
Those are good articles. Maybe you should tweak them up a little, take out the reference to Richard Land and republish them here on Voices.
Dave (not Miller),
You are right about much of what you say. The thing is that I am Southern Baptist too. And, am happy to be so, not because of what others do but because of who Jesus is and the fact that our polity gives us freedom to follow Christ and his commands in Scripture without having to bow before ecclesial authority or ask for permission.
So, I will bring the resolution again next year. We have an Hispanic congregation that meets in our church building that we support and partner with. I want to talk with them about what we can do. We are reaching into the African American community as well and are seeking to be a truly multi-cultural church. We work with Christians in India and Haiti directly to serve and help them in their propogation of the gospel. So, while much of what you say is true on a macrolevel, in the micro-experience, you often find stories just like ours and even better than ours. And, we are Southern Baptists too.
I am motivated to tell a better story than we have in the past. I am actually encouraged because sometimes fighting for something strengthens you and enables you to see things more clearly. Dave, your criticisms are heard and just know that there are many people who are seeking to Lord to address these issues. Yes, we are a denomination full of Southern White people. It is not bad that we have a lot of Southern Whites. They need a church too. The problem is that we are struggling to reach others. I am praying for THAT change and believe that we will see it.
I am optimistic because my faith is in Christ and not in what the people of the SBC will do. Jesus makes all things new.
“I am motivated to tell a better story than we have in the past.”
I hope many others will join you in telling that story.
Big Daddy,
Why don’t you contact Alan Cross and offer your help to get the resolution passed?
You are a research guy. You could shed some light on the situation. Write a paper on it. Publish it on SBC Voices.
It is time for you to cowboy up, Texas boy, and help your brothers in Alabama brothers out of a bad spot.
BTW, when Georgia meets Bama in the SEC Championship game, I will be thinking about you when we take the Trophy.
Aaron, I would welcome the help and any insight you could provide. CB makes a good suggestion. A paper here at Voices would be great. Thanks for the link to the group in Texas trying to do some of these things, by the way.
This is not a “left-right” issue and I refuse to let it be framed that way. My primary concern is how the churches respond in whatever environment that we are in. If we do our job, then we have a platform to address the powers and call for change. If we just sit back, then it really doesn’t matter what our opinions are.
I extend the invitation to publish any such document.
“This is not a “left-right” issue and I refuse to let it be framed that way.”
Amen to that, Alan Cross.
Last weekend Karen and I were out for lunch together. Across the way, we watched as several old school buses pulled into a Wal-Mart parking lot. A great number of Hispanic folks were “herded” off of those buses and led into Wally World to do their shopping.
Later they were herded back on the buses for the trip back to the farms wherein they worked and lived.
Fellows, we can say what we want, but that is just wrong to be happening in this country. And, in truth, that is a really small thing compared to what is happening to so many people who are brought into this country illegally.
As anyone who has read what I write on blogs will confess, unless he is an idiot, is that I am to the far right on most all things theologically and politically and I am certainly one of those Hawks that Big Daddy would hate to see as the Secretary of Defense of the USA.
However, I detest to the most inward parts of my guts the abuse of the weak by the strong and am willing to risk my own blood to stop it and have many times. In addition, I have been bought by the blood of Christ and have been given marching orders by the King to fulfill the Great Commission.
Therefore, I believe that Alan Cross wrote and presented a good resolution to the Resolutions Committee and it should have come to the floor of the state convention, but it didn’t. Now I have learned why it didn’t . Some folks let politics overrule the mandate of the Great Commission in their hearts. What happened was wrong.
The resolution Alan Cross wrote should be Resolution Number One next November if the Lord Jesus tarries in His return and Alabama Baptists should pass the resolution and then every state convention affiliated with the SBC should follow suit and pass a similar resolution. Then in the following June at the SBC we should have a party to celebrate a job well done by those state conventions who have done the right thing.
Dave: It is obvious that you are not happy with the SBC. That’s fine. Sometime’s I’m not either. But you don’t really state what you want. What do you think we should do to make our churches more minority friendly, if that’s the term I want? Abortion is indeed an issue most of us are passionate about. It is my understanding that most hispanics are of the same mind but I don’t know that for sure. You seem to be frustrated that Southern Baptists seem to be in lock step with the Republican party and I often share that frustration.
Most of the folks on this thread are in full agreement that anyone and everyone should be recipients of the message and material help from SBC churches, regardless of their citizenship status.
So that is my question. It is not rhetorical or snarky or sarcastic. What do you think we should do?
Dave,
Is not this person not right on some of his figures. I was expecting a better answer on your part.
Jess, I have a long history with comments such as this – drive-by shooters who just pop in and lob a few bombs and go on their way. Maybe I am grumpy, but I get tired of those who seem to gloat about our problems as a denomination and do nothing to help.
“”I get tired of those who seem to gloat about our problems as a denomination and do nothing to help.”””
Same here. I have a lot of gripes these days, but as long as I continue to where the uniform, I’m going to continue to try to be a positive influence.
I am teetering on the brink of a complete break, but will leave with no malice and nothing but appreciation for great ministry partners over the years.