# Moore's Final Examination Question



## Derick Dickens (Nov 15, 2011)

Russell Moore asks this final examination question for his ethics class at Southern. What would you say?


----------



## Fly Caster (Nov 15, 2011)

Bottom line, I would say -- "Baptize the man and counsel him that, while Romans 13:1 requires submission to lawful authority, the passage does not bind strangers in our land to the oppressive whims of a tyrant."


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 15, 2011)

I got a good chuckle out of the question. I found it humorous how much effort was used to paint this illegal as an all-together wonderful guy. Additionally, the circumstances and details given are so emotionally laden as to induce sympathy in any decent human being. Finally, the laws are imagined as being cruel and counter to decency. In short, this question seems designed to emotionally lead someone to say "be silent as to his legality" or to say "I'd side with the man because of his sob story."

I wonder how the student will fare if he says "I'd baptize the man, thank him for his hard work and dedication, and have the INS waiting for him in the church parking lot."


----------



## sastark (Nov 15, 2011)

Citizenship in the United States is not required for citizenship in heaven. As baptism is related to the latter and not the former, his legal standing in this country should have no bearing whatsoever on his legal standing in the church. Exodus 12:48-49, "And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it. 49 *One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you*."

The only *legal *requirement for baptism of adults is profession of faith. That law is the same for "native-born" and "stranger" in our land.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 15, 2011)

I think there's emotions involved. But I think the question was posed with more than mere emotion in view. And I think the professor included the emotional elements NOT in order to make the question easier, but harder. I would like to think the student that gives an answer that shows emotions behind the wheel, rather than principle, will have to reckon with corrective points from the professor. But, I also think that the person who makes his decision based on a simplistic and strict application of law-categories will also be asked if compassion has anything to do with his answer.

I will offer this one observation: the man coming to the pastor is showing his pastor a *conscience* issue. He appears convicted that he is not doing the right thing by violating a national law. He told himself all along he was doing right or better for himself, and he was helping his mother/niece (i.e. law-righteousness), which was enough to keep him going in self-righteousness. However, his being confronted by the law of God and the gospel may have overturned his old categories. The man seems to be wondering if he's really a true disciple, because he presents himself conflicted now concerning his situation.

I think the vital thing is to help the man face the conscience issue, and to do so in such a way that the authority of the Word of God over the conscience is honored in everything.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 15, 2011)

It's not surprising that Dr. Moore would ask this question, and particularly in such detail. This Summer the Southern Baptist Convention adopted a Resolution on Illegal Immigration that was the cause of some confusion as well as division. Dr. Moore appeared to be one of the driving forces behind this resolution, with proponents proclaiming that this is a "gospel issue."


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 15, 2011)

If we changed the man from Mexican to East German during the Soviet days and made the issue an escape from the Communist East to the Captialist West, I am sure the opinions of some might change.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 15, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> If we changed the man from Mexican to East German during the Soviet days and made the issue an escape from the Communist East to the Captialist West, I am sure the opinions of some might change.



The East German defector would have been granted Political Asylum.


----------



## seajayrice (Nov 15, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> If we changed the man from Mexican to East German during the Soviet days and made the issue an escape from the Communist East to the Captialist West, I am sure the opinions of some might change.



Excellent observation and one that hints at the racial component in this all to real dilemma. Economic predation and political persecution are forms of oppression. Christians are not obliged to follows laws that are inherently unrighteous. The dilemma is largely one of legal versus lawful actions. The solution requires the Believer to apply natural law to the equation. Pergy gets to the heart of the matter right quickly. If you must, kick the Nazis in the crotch; it is they that have brought the unrighteous use of the law to bear on the defenseless. As Christians, we are hardly obliged to comply with unrighteousness and particularly so when aiding the Brethren. We could stand for a little less Rush Limbaugh and profit from a little more R.J. Rushdoony these days.


----------



## Tim (Nov 15, 2011)

Perhaps not _racial_, but _national_?


----------



## sastark (Nov 15, 2011)

Pilgrim said:


> The East German defector would have been granted Political Asylum.



He would still be breaking the laws of East Germany by attempting to defect/immigrate.


----------



## jogri17 (Nov 16, 2011)

I would counsel him to be baptized and go to the next border legaly in Canada which hopefully still has a more open, nuanced, and avoid an oppressive and nationalist country.


----------



## JoannaV (Nov 18, 2011)

The immigration issues were _slightly_ over-stated, as the ten-year ban from the US is actually the worst case scenario not the best: there is the possibility of the ban being waived if it can be proven that undue hardship to his wife would result.

For the rest, I'll leave it to you pastors 

Oh wait, I missed it, this is 20 years in the future when immigration policy is tighter than it is now. 

Well anyway, if the hypothetical pastor has had time to consult with "several outside financial consultants" I'm sure he can discuss this with other godly men


----------

