Many things are said about judging, and confusion persists about whether Christians are to judge or not to judge. I wrestled through the seeming conundrum a number of years ago and came up with 8 Important Points About Judging and Judgment. I didn’t realize, then, how these principles tie into the way we should look at immigration.
In very brief summary, Jesus said, “Judge not, that you be not judged” (Matt. 7:1), and followed immediately with the statement, “For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.” (Mt. 7:2) He was not telling us not to judge; he was telling us to be careful how we judge. This is critical.
The statements in Matthew 7 cited above are the set up for the short parable of the person with a log in his eye trying to take the speck of his brother’s eye. The parable ends with Jesus telling us first to take the log out of our own eyes; then we can see accurately to help take the speck out of our brother’s eye.
Paul riffs on this theme Jesus preached when he said, “If we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged.” (1 Cor. 11:31 NKJV) Paul also picks up on something I missed for years in the log and speck parable. In that parable, Jesus is talking about “judging” our brother (by helping take the speck out of his eye, after I have taken the log out of mine).
Who we judge is just as critical as how we judge. When I first discovered this, I was surprised. I and most Christians I know had it all wrong. Paul says:
“What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?”
1 corinthians 5:12
Jesus only talked about judging our brothers, and Paul makes it clear this means people in the church. We have no business judging people outside the church. “God will judge those outside.” (1 Cor. 5:13) (This is why we need to preach the gospel to them!)
One take away from this is that any time we feel compelled to judge someone else, we should always first examine ourselves. We should always be careful how we judge, because we how we judge others is how we will each be judged. We should never judge people outside the church – because Jesus came not to condemn, and neither should we; he came to save them.
Notice these themes that Jesus preached:
We will be shown mercy as we show mercy to others (Matt. 5:7)
We will be forgiven as we forgive others (Matt. 6:15); and
We will be judged as we judge others (Matt. 7:2);
Consistent with what Jesus preached, the themes of judgment and mercy are tied together by James:
“{J]udgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.” (James 2:13)
When James adds that “mercy triumphs over judgment,” he is highlighting a standard that is based on God’s character. God desires mercy and not sacrifice (Hosea 6:6); God desires mercy, which is why Jesus came to call sinners to himself (Matt. 9:13); and God desires us to be merciful as He is merciful. (Luke 6:36)
So many people view God as an angry God who is full of wrath and judgment. Nothing could be further from the truth. “The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love.” (Psalm 103:8) “The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases; his mercies never come to an end.” (Lamentations 3:22)
God is just because he is merciful! Biblical justice is characterized by mercy. Thus, justice without mercy is not biblical justice:
“Therefore the Lord waits to be gracious to you; therefore he will rise up to show mercy to you. For the Lord is a God of justice; blessed are all those who wait for him.”
Isaiah 30:18
But what does this have to do with judging neighbors? Why did James ask the rhetorical question: “Who are you to judge your neighbors?” This question ripples back to the question, “Who is my neighbor?” The context in which God told us to love our neighbors is a good place to start with answers to these questions.
I went to bed last night concerned I was getting things wrong. Specifically, I have been critical of Donald Trump and what he has done since he took office again, and I have been getting push back from many people. It isn’t the many people that concerns me, but my brothers and sisters in Christ who are calling me out on this.
It seems so obvious to me that the things being done are wrong, and the way they are being done is wrong, but other Christians are not seeing it. I prayed to God last night, “If I am wrong, please correct me.”
This morning my daily reading included this verse:
“I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.” Matthew 10:16
I was doubting myself last night, so my first thought was to check the context, even though I know it. Sure enough, it was what I remembered:
“These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: ‘Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. ‘” Matthew 10:5-6
I have read this passage dozens of times, probably, since I became a Christian over 40 years, but I didn’t realize the context of the sheep among wolves statement made by Jesus until the last year. When I read that passage recently, I said to myself, “Wait a minute! Jesus said that to his disciples when he sent them out to his own people – the Jews.” What!?
He said, don’t go to the Gentiles, and don’t even go to the Samaritans; go “the lost sheep of Israel.” He would later send them to the Samaritans; and he ultimately sent his followers to Judea, to Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.
Of course, he sent them to the lost of sheep of Israel. Maybe not all the people of Israel were lost sheep. Maybe the wolves were only among the lost sheep of Israel.
Surely, the people in the church today are not the lost sheep. The church is filled with the elect. The church is filled with sheep who hear the shepherd’s voice. I believe that is true!
At the same time, I think it is safe to say that not everyone who goes to church is a child of God. The old adage that parking yourself in a garage does make you an automobile is true. Jesus said it this way: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat….” (Matthew 13:24-25)
I am sobered by this. I don’t think that Jesus was saying that all God’s people at that time were wolves. Maybe the wolves weren’t even people. Sometimes, we can take a metaphor too far. He was telling them to be careful, to be circumspect, to remember what he taught them, and not to be lead astray – even among God’s people. We may be sometimes fooled into listening to the voices of wolves, rather than the voice of the Good Shepherd.
This is the story of God and His people. God sent His prophets to His people again and again, and they did not listen. (Jeremiah 26:5) When God commissioned Isaiah, He told Isaiah that the people would hear, but not understand, and they would see, but they would not perceive, and this would continue until the land was in ruins and only a remnant remained. (Isaiah 6:1-13)
Of course, I am not the Prophet, Isaiah. I am a sinful man saved by the grace of a loving God. I have my own faults and biases and sinful tendencies, and I could be wrong. I am acutely aware of this.
Jesus was entered Jerusalem on the colt of a donkey around the time Pontius Pilate entered Jerusalem from the opposite direction, from Caesarea. Picture the incongruity of a full grown man sitting on a colt of a donkey with his legs dragging the ground under the poor little beast. Then picture the Roman ruler of the land came from the opposite direction in a mighty procession with banners and fanfare and a show of force with all the military show of Communist China.
Jesus was coming to die on a cross, but the people greeted him like he was a king who would ascend the throne of David and overthrow the Roman government. They shouted, “Hosanna!” (Save us!) They waived palm branches to herald the Messiah they believed would save them from the Romans like a hammer, and they laid their garments down in submission.
The people didn’t understand that Jesus came to die on a cross. The poignancy of this incongruence is understood best by how the story in Luke ends:
“As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, ‘If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side.They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.'”
Luke 19:41-44
Those people would have said they did recognize the time of God’s coming, right?! They got it right: he was the Messiah! They recognized that Jesus was God’s Messiah promised of old.
In that general sense, they did get it right. Jesus was/is the Messiah, but their expectations of what that meant and what he would do was wrong. They thought he came to conquer, but he came to die.
By the end of that week, the people who waived palm branches and laid their garments down had changed their tune. They wanted Barabbas released, not Jesus.
As discussed in the conversation linked below in the video, they wanted the way of Barabbas – the sword – not the way of Jesus, the cross. They didn’t want a suffering Messiah; they wanted a conquering Messiah. They didn’t want the Lamb of God; they wanted the Lion of Judah.
We aren’t much different than they. For all of our Bibles and bible apps, we don’t even know Scripture as well as they did! Lifeway Research reports that only 36% of Evangelicals read the Bible every day, and only 32% of Protestant, read the Bible every day.
We have our own expectations of the way God should do things, and we tend to lean back into what someone recently called the default stance of the flesh – the appeal of power and influence. But, that isn’t God’s way. Jesus showed us God’s way, and he invites us to follow his way as he followed the Father’s way in this present world.
Paul reminds us,
“But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are….”
1 Corinthians 1:27-28
We need to be careful not to be hearers who don’t understand and seers who don’t perceive. We need to be careful to choose God’s way, which is not our way. We need to carry our crosses and not swords.
Does any of this make me “right”? No. But, I am seeking God. I am trying to be true, to know Him, and to be like Him. That is my heart’s desire. I am trying to recognize and honor God in these times and to reflect His heart and character as best as I can understand it.
The lesson of the words of Jesus to be careful of the wolves among the sheep, the lesson of the prophets, and Paul’s reminder that God shames the wise and the strong by choosing what seems to be foolishness and weakness means that I need to resist the default position of the flesh (to rely on power and influence). I need to be grounded in God’s Word and not everything that anyone who is a Christian says. I need to be aware that weeds grow among the wheat and wolfish things appear among the sheep.
Though every man be a liar, yet God is true! (Romans 3:4) The heart of a man is deceitful above all things. (Jeremiah 17:9) This is true of me and my heart if I am not careful and do no guard it. We need each other, and we need to hold each other accountable, not to political ideologies and cultural ways, but to the Word of God and the way of Jesus.
The story of Gladys and Nelson Gonzalez, an Orange County couple who were deported to Colombia after living in the United States for 35 years, raises concerns about the complexities of U.S. immigration law and the human cost of its enforcement. The Gonzalez’s case exposes the tension between the rule of law and the values of compassion and mercy, values that lie at the heart of Judeo-Christian ethic.
Gladys and Nelson Gonzalez fled Colombia in 1989, seeking asylum from violence, drugs, corruption, and instability. According to news reports, the couple hired attorneys to help them, but those attorneys were eventually disbarred. (See Fox News LA) The news reports don’t provide details on the disbarment or on the long and winding process that came to an impasse in 2021.
During this time Nelson Gonzalez (59) found work in a laboratory as a phlebotomist, and Gladys (55) remained home to care for three daughters who were born and raised here: Gabby (23), Stephanie (27), and Jessica (33). They paid federal and state income taxes for 35 years. They paid into a Social Security and Medicare system that would never benefit them. If they owned a home, they paid real estate taxes, and they paid sales taxes, gasoline taxes, etc. over that time period.
Gladys and Nelson Gonzalez regularly checked in with ICE, and they were granted extensions. They didn’t hide, and they faithfully stayed in contact. Gladys had just been granted another extension when ICE showed up for what seemed like a routine check in, and everything changed. As reported by the local news outlet, KTLA:
“They were put into handcuffs by their wrists and ankles and treated as criminals before getting to these detention centers,” Stephanie Gonzalez told KTLA. “All they said is they extended their stay, even though every year they’ve had permission to be here and they’re law-abiding citizens who show up and are doing their duty to check in with immigration and say, ‘Hey I’m here. I’m not hiding or doing anything wrong.’ Then they just arrested them like that.”
A spokesperson for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement told The Orange County Register simply that the couple had “exhausted all legal options to remain in the U.S. between March 2000 and August 2021,” and they were in violation of immigration law. The news reports don’t explain the details of the legal process or why the attorneys were disbarred.
As an attorney myself, I can say with some degree of confidence that the attorneys they used were not good attorneys. Attorneys don’t get disbarred over mere incompetence, though attorneys who get disbarred are often incompetent, too. Attorneys get disbarred for taking their clients money and doing nothing, missing deadlines and court dates, embezzling client funds, violating court orders and other serious professional misconduct.
Immigrants like the Gonzalezes who leave their home countries because of desperate conditions usually have meager resources. Many of them spend their life savings just to get here. They seek asylum because they don’t know any other way forward, but proving eligibility for asylum is often very difficult. Without a competent attorney, the path is fraught with danger.
To be eligible for asylum, a person must be present in the United States. Such a person, by definition, doesn’t have legal status (yet), but petitioning for asylum requires a person to be present in the US.
Therefore, they must come here at the mercy of the process. They risk everything to seek asylum. It is the desperate path to legal status.
Eligibility for asylum requires evidence of persecution or “a well-grounded fear of future persecution“ from the government of their country of origin or from a group the government is unwilling or unable to control. The persecution must also be based on race, gender, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.
For most asylum seekers, the only evidence they have is personal testimony. Other evidence is left behind in the country of origin. Most people without resources don’t have access to medical records of injuries or psychological trauma, police reports, court documents, or other official records that remain in their home country. The witnesses to their trauma are also not present to testify for them.
Attorneys charge upwards of $500 an hour. Costs can run into the thousands, but most asylum seekers have limited resources. They spend spent their life savings just to get here, often falling victim to the coyotes who prey on the vulnerable.
The immigration system provides no help. Asylum seekers do not have a right to attorney, so many people try to navigate the unfamiliar bureaucratic maze alone. Others are exploited by people who don’t know what they are doing and/or are just in it for the money.
People who are “only” escaping violence, corruption, poverty, and drug culture don’t qualify for asylum, even though no person I know would want to raise a child in such an environment. Run-of-the-mill desperate circumstances do not qualify a person for asylum. A person must be persecuted or face a well-grounded threat of persecution based on race, gender, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group to qualify for asylum.
People who manage to escape actual persecution or threats of persecution without injury maybe found to have insufficient proof. A judge may deny asylum because they suffered no harm or because the judge didn’t find their testimony credible enough. Language barriers don’t help.
The process is complex and can take years, and everything hangs on one determination. The movie, Between Borders, streaming now on Amazon. etc. does a good job of depicting the problems of proving eligibility, even by people who qualify. The outcome of the movie is heartwarming, but that outcome is nothing but fiction for many asylum seekers.
If a judge denies the petition for asylum, deportation is the result. An appeal is possible, but an appellate judge will only reverse the decision (generally) if the trial judge didn’t follow the process or made some other technical error. Appellate judges almost never overturn a trial judge’s factual determination. Handling an appeal, is a technical and unforgiving process, and many people fail because they do not understand the process.
You can theoretically obtain an order withholding removal, but only if you prove “certain harm” would occur if you return to your home country. If your couldn’t convince the trial judge of a “well-grounded fear of persecution in the future”, you aren’t likely to prove “certain harm” on appeal after asylum is denied.
Other countries won’t take you, so must go back to your home country. Typically, you must wait ten years or win the lottery before you can come back and try again.
Other paths to legal status exist, but they require luck or years of planning and legal resources. Without a sponsor (who generally must be a parent or spouse and have sufficient resources), a person must rely on the “Green Card Lottery.”
Only people from eligible countries (which change from year to year) can apply for the Green Card Lottery. “Winners” are chosen at random. Millions apply for the lottery each year, but only 55,000 visas are awarded. My research indicates that the number of lottery applicants has exceeds 22 million, depending on the year. At 22,000,000 applicants, one quarter of one percent (0.25%) of the applicants obtain a visa this way.
The details of the Gonzalez case are not reported in the articles I read. All we know is that, despite their efforts and the appeals they filed, they were not granted legal status. Despite that, they had been granted extensions, and they were given an extension immediately before they were suddenly and summarily deported.
Their case highlights a fundamental problem with current immigration law: it is inflexible and lacks common sense. It is cumbersome, bureaucratic, and full of pitfalls. Without good legal counsel at the start, the an immigrant is often unable to navigate the course well.
They system also fails to account for the human reality of people who come here seeking asylum. They don’t typically have resources, or they would try another way. They don’t have knowledge of the system. They have to pass a gauntlet of crooks who only want to take advantage of them.
If they make it into the country, the process can drag on. Even for 35 years. Meanwhile, people like Gladys and Nelson Gonzalez have children; they find jobs; they pay taxes; and they become productive members of American society. This is where common sense prevail.
Gladys and Nelson Gonzalez had no notice they would be deported. They had just received an extension when ICE showed up for what they thought was a routine check in. Instead, they were handcuffed and shackled in front of their children and grandson and hauled off to a prison in Louisiana.
The Gonzalez story is not unique. Many immigrants live in the shadows, contributing to their communities, paying taxes, and raising families, yet they remain vulnerable to deportation due to complications and missteps with the process to obtain legal status. We don’t usually see their faces, and we don’t usually hear their stories, other than the occasional news report with minimal facts and an impersonal tone.
I met a young woman a number of years ago who volunteered in the legal clinic I run. She dreamed of going to law school from a young age. She is one of the most exceptional people I have ever met, so I have maintained contact with her.
She explained that her parents traveled fluidly back and forth from Mexico to the US for stints of work. They didn’t need a passport to cross the border at that time, so they came and went to obtain temporary work and return home.
She was born in Mexico. Her parents were in the US when 9/11 happened. They were caught on this side of the border when travel restrictions were imposed, and they couldn’t foresee how things would change. They had a son; they continued to work, and to wait, and to hope things would go back to the way they were; and years went by.
Her father is entrepreneurial and started several businesses. The IRS was happy to give him a tax number and to receive his taxes. He employed many people, and he became a mentor to other would-be business owners.
This young woman knows no other home but the US. She has no connections in her home country. She is as Americanized as you and me, but she grew up under a dark cloud with the specter of deportation hanging over her head.
She knew she had to keep her head down. She could not call negative attention to herself. She excelled in school with a purpose, knowing that she would never qualify for a scholarship. Her parents would never receive Social Security or Medicare, though they paid into it for decades.
She graduated high school in three years with a perfect GPA, and she was on a pace to graduate from college in three years with a perfect GPA when I met her. Since that time she has graduated from college, and she graduated from law school.
In Law School, she worked in immigration clinics. She landed a job with a high-end estate planning law firm, but her heart was in doing immigration work. Even though she took a significant pay cut, she left the posh position and became an immigration attorney.
She is a “Dreamer” – children born out of the country who are raised here. She has married a US citizen, but the immigration landscape is dangerously potted with landmines, especially now. Even birthright citizenship (which is in the US Constitution) is up in the air. Her parents still live under a cloud of deportation that grows darker with each passing day.
I write this blog mainly for Christians and people who sense Jesus knocking at their door. I find myself increasingly writing to the Church in America, and specifically to my tribe – evangelicals – in recent years as the polarizing vortex of politics is blowing the country apart. Evangelicals and other segments of the American Church are not immune from the polarizing forces.
I might have remained in my own ignorance of God’s heart for the stranger if I had not decided one day in 2014 (during the Obama administration) to do a deep dive into Scripture to develop a biblical view of immigration. I realized at that time that I didn’t have a biblical view of immigration as I struggled to find solid footing in the gale of the political winds at that time.
Since then, the gale has increased to hurricane force winds. If you are a Christian, and you don’t have a solid, biblical view of immigration, I implore you to do your own deep dive. A study around the time I wrote my first article indicated that only 13% of Evangelicals said the Bible is the source of their views on immigration. My own study changed my mind in 2014.
If you do your own reading of Scripture, you may not come out where I have, but I believe every Christian who takes his/her faith seriously should ground their views solidly in the Bible first, and not in the politics, culture wars, and social media influences of the day. If you want to consider what I have I found focusing on “strangers” and “sojourners” in the Bible – words in the Bible that describe people we call immigrants today – a link is in the image below to the articles I have written describing what I found.
I have listened to all 30 episodes of Season 1 of the podcast, The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God, by Justin Brierley. I have listened to dozens of podcasts, and I think this is one among the best, most well-produced podcasts I have found. The first episode of Season 2 inspires my writing today.
In this episode, Justin Brierley poses the question, “Whether the seeming rebirth of belief in God is right wing?” A return to Christian values seems to coincide with a resurgence in conservative politics, but, let’s look closer.
Is Christianity right wing? The African American church would beg to differ. Does Christianity have a right wing and a left wing? Or is Christianity another bird entirely?
At about the 45 minute mark in the podcast, Glen Scrivener identifies three strains of culture in the current western world. One strain is “blasting off into progressive liberalism.” Another strain is “snapping back to the worship of the strong”, a return to the world of Nietzsche. A third strain involves the “surprising rebirth of belief in God”, as Brierley puts it, where a trickle my become a flood, and Christian revival happens.
Scrivener is hopeful that the signs of Christian renewal in the west foreshadow revival, but he observes that these different strains of culture are moving forward at the same time, albeit in conflict with each other. They each have a trajectory that will continue into the future, and, “It will be a mess,” says Scrivener.
He believes Christian revival will happen, but he believes that progressive liberalism will also continue on its trajectory, divorcing itself more completely than it already has from nature and the Christian story. He believes that a devolution into what he calls “the default nature of the flesh” will continue as well, where might makes right.
Indeed, these things are happening now. Will they continue on the same trajectory into the future? Time will tell, but I think he is right: that there is a “post-Christian right” and a “post-Christian left” that are presently locked in a battle for the minds of the people of the western world.
I would add that the world, generally, is and will continue to be the devil’s playground until Jesus returns. At least, that is what the Bible says (millennium variations aside).
Navigating by Faith 