202 — An Elder (candidate) with a problem
Now that we are up in these high numbers, I am getting questions I’ve never gotten before. This is a good example…
We are beginning the process to appoint deacons. We have members who are not in the country legally. Should we allow an illegal immigrant to serve as a deacon, or even an elder for that matter? One man who we paid support to attend a local school of preaching has now admitted he is in the country illegally. What should our position be toward church leadership (preachers, elders and deacons) who are being recommended by the congregation (not necessarily knowing their status) to serve in these capacities?
I have written here before about our need to show love and hospitality to immigrants — even illegal ones. I have also said that I cannot see a way that putting 10 million (or more) people on trains and shipping them south could be called “right” or “Christian.” I am totally opposed to illegal immigration but I have a different way of fixing that than others do: repeal the Kennedy immigration bill and open up the borders. Rather than the outmoded, inefficient, and unfair system we have today, allow in anyone who passes a background check, has skills they can bring to bear, and who stays away from public funds. As soon as they take public funds, their green cards are canceled. I could go on and on (and I think I already did…) but what about this particular situation?
I would say the man is not qualified to be an elder. I really, really appreciate his honesty in coming forward, but the fact is that he is breaking the law. It might be a law you agree with or disagree with but it is the law. While I have great sympathy for the man, I cannot see any way that he could serve as a shepherd of God’s people until and unless he becomes “legal.” If he got in touch with an immigration lawyer and worked to make this right, it would be a sign to the congregation of the seriousness of his desire to put things right.
Let’s use another example — and one which might get me in trouble. There are States that allow the medicinal use of marijuana. Those with glaucoma or intractable pain are given prescriptions and use the drug, thereby living a normal life whereas they would otherwise be incapacitated. I have no problem with the medical use of marijuana. I’ve reviewed the medical literature (no, not all of it) and seen arguments for and against it but my sympathies are always with the person in pain. I could respect and follow an elder who used marijuana to treat his pain or glaucoma. However, what if he used it illegally? What if he didn’t live in California, Oregon, Michigan or one of the other states that have legalized that use of marijuana? I could understand it if he decided to break the law and use the drug, but I think that would disqualify him from serving as an elder.
I’m sure others will have other viewpoints… and that’s what the comment section is for! Sorry for not posting more often, but this hotel’s internet keeps going in and out. Mostly “out.”
August 27th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
I think I agree with you on these situations. I wonder, though, where do we draw the line? For example, how many traffic tickets does it take to disqualify a deacon or an elder? How many disputes over taxes (which aren’t always as clear-cut as we’d like to think)? How about a man who is in dispute with his zoning board or his HOA?
In those cases, the question is “does he have a good reputation in and out of the church?”
August 28th, 2009 at 1:41 am
I don’t really have anything to add to the conversation, except to say: that is an excellent question!
Patrick, I appreciate your thoughtful response.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
“I cannot see any way that he could serve as a shepherd of God’s people until and unless he becomes “legal.””
I don’t think that is what determines his ability to be a deacon. I didn’t know Christ’s church was confined to the US .
At the risk of encouraging you, Laymond, it always amazes me at your ability to speak in non sequiturs and miss the point at the same time.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Laymond, I don’t think it’s about breaking a law in the US, it’s about breaking a law and not trying to stop breaking that law.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
This is an interesting post. The only thing that I wonder is this: if the church is a colony of heaven that answers to Christ first and foremost, what then do we make of one who feels that he is being called to a ministry that places him in conflict with “the law of the land”? Situations like this surely happen, particularly in places where Christianity is banned.
Lets put this back into the contest of immigration law: what if the Spirit is leading a foreign citizen to a ministry in the United States and he/she is unable to obtain a Religious Workers Visa?
While I think God may lead us to break immoral laws, that is a long way from allowing a minister or elder to serve who is knowingly breaking civil laws. Make a law that I have to help out at an abortion clinic? That’s immoral and I won’t do it. Like Paul and Peter, I’ll go to jail rather than lead a riot against the government. But if I think God is leading me to cross a border illegally I have to ask if God would do such a thing and if it would be immoral for me to minister where I already am.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Many Christian leaders broke the law in South Africa in the apartheid era. It was often the only way to keep God’s law.
August 28th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Lisa, if a man got up before your congregation seeking the office of deacon, and declared he agreed with the law established by “Roe vs. Wade” how many votes would he get? it is the law, you know. or is it just certain laws that we are to obey.?
August 28th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
I don’t think Patrick is advocating a blind adherence to the law of any land, though he is welcome to correct me. What I think Patrick puts forth here is an ethic of civic-mindedness which allows us to function within the society of we are a part. U.S. Law is referenced here because that is the law where this person lives.
In Romans 13 Paul talks of obeying the government as a way of obeying God. In the past this text was used as a carte-blanche to allow atrocities to continue to happen without Christians feeling a need to intercede. I believe Paul qualifies this obedience however when he says that rulers hold no terror for those who do right, that a ruler is God’s servant. When that ruler, or set of rules goes against God’s Law (such at The Holocaust, or Jim Crow laws) then the authority itself is in rebellion against God, and as Christians it is our duty to rebel against the ruler (or in a democracy, perhaps just the unjust law). What does that rebellion look like? Is it a sit in? Is it legal action? Is it outright defiance of the law? Mobilizing others to action? I believe each person convicted by the unGodliness of that law must prayerfully consider how they ought to respond.
Well said.
August 28th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Being an illegal immigrant is essentially committing theft. A person who is knowingly in this position must set himself right before God before he can be placed in any position of church leadership.
Romans 13 is pretty clear on the command to submit to authority.
“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”
August 28th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
I am going to agree with Patrick on this one. There is a place for Christians to break laws. If the conscientious objector status for doctors and abortion is removed then I think it is the place of Christian doctors to ignore the law and follow Christ rather than man. Additionally I think many of the peaceful demonstrations of civil rights activists were appropriate breaking of the law. However, I personally put this in a separate category. I do not think that illegal immigrants are in the category of the southern (and many northern) blacks. However, my personal thoughts on the matter are irrelevant.
What is relevant-
1) This is obviously an issue in the church. The mere fact that this is a question means there are probably strong feelings on either side. If there is a choice between splitting the church and the man stepping down, then he better step down. The Kingdom would not be furthered by splitting the church over who should be an elder. I do not think there are many sins more grievous than splitting a church over non-essentials of the faith, and this would likely cause that. The man may even function as an elder, but without the title (I have seen many elders in churches who were not bestowed the title).
2) This will probably not positively affect the witness of the church to the world. I may be wrong if the church is located in an area with a very large illegal immigrant population.
Suggestion – work with the man to try to get him legalized. Allow him to worship with you, and allow him to be an active member of the church as long as he is attempting to fix his status. Do not place him in such a position of leadership until those issues can be fixed.
August 28th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Here are some additonal concerns:
1) Workers (even Christians) in our country who are not legal often use “alias’s” on their employment records as well as school records when they enroll children. To me this compounds deciet.
2) If one is not in the country legally, he/she would be subject to deportation. To me it would be a negative for the church if one of our elders/deacons were not able to fulfill his duties due to being deported, in addition to the potential public embarassment.
3) When we “lay hands” on anyone to confirm the Holy Spirit’s gift in his/her life, we “share” in that person’s works for good or ill.
This is a tough question I am sure many congregations are currently facing. Thank you for your courage to address it.
RR
August 29th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Medicinal marijuna use in California is still FEDERALLY illegal.
CA has a habit of passing state laws that break Federal ones …
that is true. It is sad when federal law creeps into every aspect of our lives and dethrones State law which was originally planned to be superior in all but a very few things.
August 29th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Patrick, in regards to comment #3.I don’t see anything illogical or irrelevant, about my comment.
I don’t believe God looks at things through the eyes of human civil law, nor country and state boundary lines.
Mt:28:19: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
I really doubt this man came to this country with the single intention of becoming a deacon in the church, I do believe he is just trying to do his duty “where he is at the time.”
And I would not want to be the one to interfere with God’s work.
August 30th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
No,illegal immigrants should not be allowed to hold any leadership position in the Church. You said it yourself, they are breaking the law.
I’ve spent 20 years protecting our boarders one one side or the other. In fact, I continue to do so. Open up our boarders? Our Government can’t even provide cost effective healthcare for those of us who are American Citizens by birth.
I have difficulty seeing the perspective of others who believe we should do the “Christian thing” and open our boarders. Let’s do the Christian thing and give the handouts to U.S. born citizens who are struggling to survive in today’s economy.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
I agree with you about obeying the law. When we break a law no matter how small we are in effect lawbreakes. I have yet to read an article in the news or publications where and elder, deacon or preacher showed up at a courthouse to pay for a speeding violation that he was not cited for, but becouse his conscience was bothering him. Let alone step down from his position.