# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2013_S371
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
in my own behalf in a private relationship with my neighbor on the one hand,
and acting (and suffering) in my office, that is, in the responsibility for others
inherent in my station.”86 As an individual Christian, for instance, “when you
consider yourself and what is yours,” you might turn the other cheek privately
and even suffer personally some injustice carried out by your neighbor.87
Positively stated, as an individual Christian, I might also privately assist even
my own enemies when the need arises.88 However, when called to a particular
office and vocation to care for some particular neighbors, I cannot act individually anymore, but must now give priority to and come to the defense of those
neighbors I am called to defend and advocate for in my office and station. In
such a situation, I cannot simply “turn the other cheek” or aid my enemies, if
this means that those neighbors I have been called to serve in my office will
suffer as a result of my individual or private decisions and actions.89
Let us apply further the distinction between the Christian acting as an
individual and the Christian acting in a particular office. Think, for example,
of a border patrol agent. As an individual Christian, he might actually disagree
with current immigration law and see the current system as unjust, noting how
it does not seem to take into consideration the economic needs and the labor
demands that bring those who are poorest into the United States. As an individual Christian, the agent may also show compassion to the immigrant who
is coming illegally into the United States, taking care of his basic humanitarian needs and at times even providing protection from “coyotes” (smugglers)
and others who might want to harm him. As an individual Christian, acting
outside his particular office, he may also share the Gospel with immigrants—
whether here legally or illegally—in his neighborhood and serve their needs
86
Althaus, The Ethics of Martin Luther, 68. Luther writes: “A Christian should be so disposed
that he will suffer every evil and injustice without avenging himself; neither will he seek legal
redress in the courts but have utterly no need of temporal authority and law for his own sake. On
behalf of others, however, he may and should seek vengeance, justice, protection, and help, and
do as much as he can to achieve it” (italics added). See "Temporal Authority," AE 45:101. Lohse
speaks of the distinction between the Christian as “Christ-person” and as “world-person”: “In
order to make clear the Christian’s twofold duty, he [i.e., Luther] spoke of the Christian as being
‘two persons,’ a Christian person and a person of the world.” Bernard Lohse, Martin Luther’s
Theology: Its Historical and Systematic Development (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 321.
87
Commenting on Christ’s words “do not resist evil” (Mt. 5), Luther distinguishes between
“satisfying God’s kingdom inwardly and the kingdom of the world outwardly” as follows: “In
the one case, you consider yourself and what is yours; in the other, you consider your neighbor
and what is his. In what concerns you and yours, you govern yourself by the gospel and suffer
injustice toward yourself as a true Christian; in what concerns the person or property of others,
you govern yourself according to love and tolerate no injustice toward your neighbor.” Luther,
“Temporal Authority,” AE 45:96.
88
“As a Christian, when his own personal welfare is involved, he seeks to do nothing else than
serve his neighbor, even if his neighbor is his enemy. He is prepared to suffer injustice without
protecting himself and resisting evil, without calling upon the authorities and their judicial
power for help, without avenging himself….” Althaus, The Ethics of Martin Luther, 69.
89
“However, as a secular person, fulfilling his office of protecting those entrusted to his care
and acting in matters that affect the welfare of his neighbor, he must under all conditions fulfill
his duty to protect them, to oppose evil, block it, punish it, and use force in resisting it.” Ibid.

42

enemies—when the opportunity arises (Luke 6:27-28). What a high calling! It
is sobering that God demands so much of us. On the one hand, we must rejoice
in our vocations and attend primarily to those neighbors we have been called
to serve. On the other hand, we must have the needs of all our neighbors in
mind when the opportunity to serve them arises—even those neighbors who
are living among us illegally. We must be ready to serve and cannot use vocation as an excuse not to do so. Some Christians may do so acting as individuals,
even if they cannot do so from a particular office (e.g., the border patrol agent).
Other Christians, whose primary vocation puts them in a position where they
are called to care for their immigrant neighbors, will also be able to offer such
service from a particular office (e.g., a pro-bono immigration lawyer).
In the immigration debate, there is also an argument to be made for serving the neediest and most vulnerable neighbors in our midst as we make
decisions about which “neighbor” to serve first. Immigrants are among the
poorest and most vulnerable neighbors among us. The argument for the
priority of love towards the neediest has to be seriously considered.91 Having
said that, some will admittedly argue that other neighbors who are not poor
immigrants are also most vulnerable and needy when it comes to certain protections that the law must seek to provide for them. In those cases, arguing
from some particular vocation and advocating for some particular neighbor
or set of neighbors has taken place. And yet in all their discussions on civil
law, Christians are called to consider not only their particular vocations and
specific neighbors, but also God’s clear and timeless will and command in
Scripture to remember, care for, and deal fairly with the immigrant neighbors
in their midst. Christians will, of course, disagree on how to deal with all the
aforementioned concerns and demands, but that they should do so is not
negotiable.

91
A priority of love towards the most needy should not be equated with the expression “preferential option for the poor” if by the latter term one means that the poor are closest to earning
God’s favor on the basis of their condition in life and thus apart from faith in Christ. Therefore,
in a Lutheran framework, the term “priority of love” should be used only in the sphere of
the righteousness of the law, which deals with our relationship before human beings or our
neighbors. It does not belong to the article of the righteousness of faith, which deals with our
relationship before God through faith in Christ. For the distinction between the two kinds of
righteousness, see Ap IV, 21-26.

44

371

through the congregation’s mercy programs in the community. And yet, in his
vocation as a border patrol agent in the civil realm, he is bound to stop even
the neediest neighbor who wants a better life for his children from crossing
the border into the United States. In doing so, the border patrol agent puts his
office, and the neighbor(s) he has been called to serve under that office, above
his own personal or private relationships to particular immigrant neighbors.
On the other side of the border, let us consider a Mexican husband and
father, who lives in a neighborhood where drug lords put lives in danger on
a daily basis, and who has tried desperately to no avail to find decent work in
his own land. As an individual Christian, apart from his particular God-given
calling and office as husband and father, he may be quite willing to suffer
hunger, anxiety, and death—i.e., to “turn the other cheek,” as it were, and suffer injustice at the hands of some neighbor, trusting in God’s final deliverance.
And yet, in his God-given vocation as a husband and father, the man must
defend and provide for his wife and children. What a man might be willing to
suffer as an individual, therefore, is different from what he has been called to
do for the sake of others whose suffering he is called to alleviate. For example,
even though the husband and father knows that crossing the border without
a proper visa is an illegal act, and that by doing so he might actually affect
other neighbors, his vocation as father may lead him to choose to cross into the
United States to find safety, work, and peace for his loved ones simply because
he is bound to care for those whom God has put in his life.
Although one cannot attempt to fulfill God’s law in some abstract sense
without some concrete neighbor in mind, Luther is also able to teach that the
law of God is above this or that particular vocation, office, and neighbor.90
This insight adds another layer of complexity to the immigration debate
and prevents us from arriving at some exclusivist approach to vocation and
office that will conveniently leave out some important neighbors who might
not fit neatly within our stations. Indeed, despite the distinction made above
between the Christian acting for himself and the Christian acting from his
office, Christians still must find ways, whenever possible, to deal with the suffering neighbor even when he is outside his particular vocation(s).
While one must argue for some specific neighbor, one cannot use that
argument to justify leaving another one to suffer. Unfortunately, vocation
can be practiced in such a way that some neighbors are summarily excluded.
The law of God, however, calls us to serve every single neighbor—even our

90
“The ‘common order of Christian love’ stands above the stations. At the same time, only
those called to a particular vocation are responsible for the special works of that vocation. The
same works are not required of everyone; rather, each has different works according to his station and vocation. All, however, are equally called to love in the same way; through love ‘one
serves not only the three orders, but also serves every needy person in general with all kinds of
benevolent deeds.’ Thus the Christian’s service of his neighbor goes far beyond the regular duties of his vocation…Luther’s ethics is an ethics of station and vocation, but not in an exclusive
sense.” Althaus, The Ethics of Martin Luther, 40-41.

43

Concluding Remarks and a Final Exhortation
As we reflect on our response to immigration issues thus far, some summarizing observations are in order. Lutheran theology contributes a number
of scriptural and confessional guidelines and principles for approaching the
contemporary immigration debate. It leaves room for disagreement among
Christians on left-hand realm issues without disrupting the unity in Christ
grounded in the right-hand realm where the Gospel saves. While Lutheran
theology affirms the responsibility of Christians to obey the civil authorities,
it also leaves room among Christians for various assessments of the level of
justice and righteousness in certain aspects of immigration law. Such assessments and levels of response depend on the neighbor whom one has been
called to advocate for, defend, and protect, and therefore on one’s vocation
and office. Therefore, Lutheran theology compels us to consider civil laws
not only abstractly but concretely by advocating for particular neighbors or
sets of neighbors. There is always a human face to the immigration debate. As
Christians engage in debate over a complex issue for the sake of their neighbor in the spirit of Christian love and humility, they ought to do so not only
by appealing to the use of reason and persuasion but also by putting the best
construction on the neighbor with whom and about whom they speak.
We must also warn against the misuse of Lutheran theology to justify an
unbalanced position. On the one hand, the desire to proclaim the Gospel and
do the work of mercy can foster an unwillingness to deal with immigration
laws. As we consider what the Bible says about God’s command to love the
aliens in our midst, we should also take seriously God’s command to obey the
authorities. On the other hand, the desire to promote the rule of law can foster
an uncritical, passive, and even idolatrous attitude towards government and
civil law that does not lead to a serious consideration of a potentially unjust
state of affairs. Here the Christian should take seriously God’s command to
love the immigrant neighbor, but also seek to be well informed on the state
of current civil law on immigration and its potential problems and injustices,
precisely for the sake of respect for God’s law in general and for the rule of law
in particular. Lutheran theology helps us to avoid extremes.
We should also be aware that Lutheran theology can be used improperly in such a way that no one is led to repent of anything or to deal with the
consequences of their actions or attitude toward their neighbor. Christians
who rightly advocate for the rule of law might falsely think they do not need
to repent if they violate the eighth commandment by portraying the actions
of their immigrant neighbors in the most negative light. Christians may be
so angry about failures to control immigration that they excuse their lack of
compassion for struggling and suffering immigrants. Other Christians, who
advocate for showing mercy and compassion to the immigrant for the sake of
the Gospel, may consider themselves more righteous than others and defame
governing officials or border control agents who are seeking to fulfill their
vocations in a godly way and to protect their fellow citizens and country.

45

2013 Convention Workbook