# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2013_S367
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
by some as inadequate or unjust, “Christians have the right and duty to work
for the repeal of unjust laws and the proper enforcement of just laws through
due process of law.”41
At the same time, because it is not always clear when due process has actually been exhausted in any particular case, Christians will likely differ on the
degree to which a call for more adequate legislation seems likely or unlikely in
a particular political climate. They will therefore respond differently to cases
where they believe a particular aspect of civil law is unjust or inadequate. As
conscientious citizens and residents of the state, for example, some Christians
may simply determine that immigration law, while not perfect, is nevertheless sufficiently fair and reasonable as it currently stands. Other conscientious
Christians, while acknowledging that ordinarily “the rights of individuals and
proper standards of justice must be established by the government through
legislative processes,” may “in the evident failure of due process… in good
conscience participate in public demonstrations to dramatize the injustice”
they feel a particular law promotes.42 Yet others who are not content with the
current state of the law may choose not to do what they could otherwise do,
namely to protest publicly, choosing instead to “exercise restraint in using this
privilege because of the danger of lawlessness.”43
Scripture requires Christians to obey God rather than man when the
civil authority and its laws are set in opposition to the law of God. Christians
obey God rather than man (Acts 5:29) “when a civil law conflicts with a clear

exhibiting its own value. Secure borders, national security, policy enforcement, national stability, inexpensive labor, decent income, budget limits, human rights, and work opportunities are
only the beginning of the long list.”
41
CTCR, Civil Obedience and Disobedience (1966), B, p. 4. Since the document applies the language of due process specifically to situations “when one’s own legal rights are infringed upon,
but also and especially when one joins others deprived of their legal rights,” one could conclude that the statement does not apply technically to immigrants who are in the nation illegally because they have no “legal rights.” Even if that were the case, however, the broader
principle of working to repeal unjust laws or enforce just laws still applies to Christians as
citizens of the nation-state who, in good conscience, are convinced that certain aspects of immigration law are unjust.
42

Ibid. The CTCR statement encourages a Christian who considers a particular law to be in
conflict with the “higher law of God” to “be quite sure that all legal means of changing the law
have been exhausted,” “consult with men of good conscience to test the validity of his judgment,” and “direct his act of disobedience as precisely as possible against the specific law or
practice which violates his conscience.” Ibid., C.1-2, 4, p. 5.
43
Ibid., C.5, p. 5. This particular argument is immediately followed by a concern for avoiding association of Christians “with groups and individuals who may be protesting the same
law from apparently wrong motives and who may be seeking to capture a movement for their
own improper ends.” Ibid., 5-6. The same principle applies to Christians who feel they should
protest against illegal immigration, but refrain from doing so together with others who feel the
same way “from apparently wrong motives”—i.e., motives that are incompatible with God’s
law of love or hostile to the Christian faith (e.g., the idea that God wants the U.S. to be a stronger White-European country, or that Mexicans are more prone to criminal behavior than people
from other ethnic groups).

precept of God.”44 But when is that the case in current immigration law? Most
Christians are not against immigration law in general, but some (if not many)
question how fair and reasonable some aspects of such law are. What is an
appropriate response when there is no clear and broad consensus among
Christians on the way in which immigration law specifically conflicts with
God’s law?
If a Christian considers a civil law to be in conflict “with the higher law
of God,” and thus decides to engage in some form of civil disobedience, he is
encouraged to “carry out his act of disobedience in a nonviolent manner,” and
“direct his act of disobedience as precisely as possible against the specific law
or practice which violates his conscience.”45 He must also be willing to bear the
cross and thus suffer the potentially “punitive consequences” of his actions.46
For example, a Christian might provide assistance to a father who is seeking
to avoid (or evade?) deportation because it will separate him from his family.
But such a Christian should also be prepared willingly to accept the possibility of penalties imposed because his involvement.47 Similarly, if a state were to
criminalize pastoral care such as providing transportation for undocumented
immigrants to worship services or other church activities, pastors and other
Christian leaders would face the dilemma of obeying God or man and should
again be willing to accept potential legal penalties for their behavior. 48
Furthermore, because it is not always clear among Christians when immigration laws actually go against God’s will, it is expected that legitimate and
passionate disagreement among them will take place on the godliness and justice of particular immigration laws. “Since in the ethical field we do not always
see eye to eye,” the LCMS should “encourage its members to exercise the
greatest care in judging one another in their individual and different responses
to complex social problems as each endeavors to apply the divine principle
of Christian love to the specific human situation.”49 While “the breaking of
an unjust law, as civil disobedience is at times defined, need not necessarily
44

Ibid., C, p. 5.

45

Ibid., C.3-4, p. 5.

46

Ibid., C, p. 5.

47
While a Christian may in good conscience provide assistance to an undocumented immigrant in dire need, offering extended sanctuary to the same in order to avoid dealing with a
deportation order can be construed as concealing or harboring an immigrant illegally while lying to government officials. This is especially problematic if the immigrant has a criminal background. If Christians believe that they might find themselves in such a situation, they should
proceed with caution and seek legal advice as soon as possible (see n. 90 below).
48
SRIC mentions briefly how such state legislation, if it were approved, might also prevent
Christians from exercising acts of mercy. SRIC states: “Meanwhile, in order to fulfill our Christian obligation, we also request that the charitable act of providing assistance to undocumented
aliens not otherwise engaged in illegal activity not be criminalized ipso facto.”
49
CTCR, Civil Obedience and Disobedience, D, p. 6; SRIC notes that “Christians equally committed to God’s Word may reasonably arrive at different conclusions on specific aspects of these
issues and their resolution.”

24

25

reflect a spirit of anarchy, criminal intent, or general contempt for laws,” and
may even be interpreted to “reflect an earnest desire to respect the rule of law
and to test the validity of a specific law and so to provide a larger measure of
justice,” Christians should be careful to avoid “an exaggerated individualism
that breeds contempt for law and due process of law” and “the asserting of
individual rights at the expense of the rights of others.”50

In a less than perfect world, civil law (including immigration law) will not
always be fair, just, or adequate in every aspect and for every neighbor. Christians who are equally committed to obeying the civil authorities will differ
on how they respond to particular immigration laws. In seeking to fulfill the
demands of God’s law, which commands us to obey the civil authorities and
love our neighbor (including the immigrant), we will as sinners inevitably fail
to come to the aid of or advocate for some neighbor. Because we cannot fulfill
the law of God perfectly for every neighbor in need every time, we will always
need to confess our sins, receive Christ’s forgiveness, and strive to do better.

The commands to love our neighbor (including the alien) and to obey civil
authority are both included in the law of God and, therefore, Christians are
required to fulfill their demands. Because both mandates are comprehended
in the divine law, fulfilling them is itself a matter of love. In this sense, love
of one’s immigrant neighbor (fifth commandment) and obedience to civil
servants (fourth commandment) are not antithetical to one another, for the
immigrant is not the only neighbor Christians are called to love. There is also
the neighbor citizen or resident of a nation, who may or may not be as vulnerable or needy as the immigrant neighbor in every case, but whose well-being
is also a matter of concern for both the government and for Christian citizens.

367

Christians who are residents or citizens of a nation are legitimately called
to love that neighbor or sets of neighbors with whom they share a common
national identity or the bond of nationhood. Admittedly, there are times
when a moral dilemma arises in the matter of obedience to two equally valid
demands placed on us by God’s law of love and, therefore, some logical priority must be given to one neighbor over another given a specific situation.
In such cases, one inevitably sins boldly for the sake of some neighbor and
suffers the consequences of one’s actions. It can be argued, for instance, that
a citizen has an obligation to put his fellow citizen first.51 This approach will
inevitably place one’s immigrant neighbor further down in the scale of priority. It can also be argued, however, that a foreigner who has lived long enough
in the nation without recourse to proper documentation is no longer just an
alien but actually one of those who shares the way of life of the citizens and
residents of the state, and therefore citizens should now have moral obligations towards them.52 How might such a position towards some immigrants
affect negatively or positively the well-being of citizens and society?
50
CTCR, Civil Obedience and Disobedience, G.2, G.3.a, c, p. 6. The document also cautions Christians against “the anarchic spirit which pits one segment of the population against another”
(G.3.b); cf. CTCR, Guidelines for Crucial Issues in Christian Citizenship (1968), Section Two, VI, p. 6.
51
Note Meilaender in “Immigration: Citizens & Strangers” (11), “We are called to recognize
the image of God in every human being, and we owe something to each person simply by virtue of his or her humanity. But we also stand in particular relationships to certain persons for
whom we bear special responsibilities: sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and
neighbors, fellow citizens. These special relationships channel our potentially endless obligations and make them practicable.” First Things (May 2007):10-12.
52
“Those who have lived in this country for an extended period, starting families and putting
down roots, at some point can no longer reasonably be regarded as outsiders. De facto, if not de
jure, they are one of us. Our obligations to them gradually begin to mirror those we owe fellow
citizens, of which the refusal to expel them from the country is basic. Various conditions—such
as the payment of back taxes or proficiency in English—should be attached to an amnesty

26

provision, to underline the importance of the rule of law and the need for genuine integration.
But to those who are already, whether we like it or not, members of the American people, our
obligations are strong enough to prohibit outright deportation.” Ibid.

27

2013 Convention Workbook