Category: Love

The Sojourner

On January 21, 2026

In Community, History, Love, Politics, The Church, Theology

The current federal efforts to detain and deport immigrants in order to make our country safer only seem to make things worse and expose the fact that we have immoral tactics without clearly stated goals. For one thing, we again hear of separating children from parents, denial of hearings and basic rights, and physical abuse. After a while one realizes that these practices are very cruel by intention. The goal seems to be to punish and intimidate people if they dare to cross the border illegally. Some think the reign of terror is preparation to scare people away from the polls in 2026. Then there are clear signals that the program is not about the border but removal of certain racial and ethnic groups in order to affirm the racism of white nationalists. There is talk of closing the border to people from the third world, insults directed toward Somalis and a clear preference for white immigrants. Programs designed to save America turn out to be very un-American and unholy.

The government claims the problem is with the immigrants and the need to secure the border. It talks about hardened criminals: murderers and terrorists flooding the streets, making cities danger zones. It calls immigrants vermin. But it is hard to support the tough tactics against parents and children. Why send ICE agents to schools and churches if they looking for criminals?

If a person enters without papers or overstays a visa, one is breaking a law. But it overstates the case to call all 11 million immigrants without papers hardened criminals. Violent abduction and removal do not make us safer and consider the cost in dollars and moral injury. It tends to ignore some important facts.

For one thing, it is not at all clear whether our government—national or state—opposed or allowed such crossings. The immigrants came for work and employers wanted a cheap labor force. It would appear we are complicit in creating an underclass of low paid workers to fill basic needs. A second relevant factor is that this has been going on for decades, involving up to 12 million people. It is estimated that there are 2.5 million dreamers in the US, who have been denied citizenship but can only dream of it. Calling all these people hardened criminals does not reflect either why they came or what they have been doing for decades.

Given what has been happening, it is clear we need a new general policy on immigration. But who is going to draft such a policy? Shall it be written by those who publically express prejudice toward people from the third world? Or, should tactics be developed by those who think it is quite appropriate to employ cruel practices such as separation of children from parents or threats to imprison people in third party countries?

My purpose in discussing this is to explore how our faith offers support for a positive and realistic policy. This is especially needed since the current government and its supporters wish to speak in the language of Christian faith and co-opt its themes, or substitute very negative values for the tradition. Here are four themes in the Bible relevant to forming immigration policy.

The first is that God has created all people: all are of value and are joined together as children of God. This affirmation of equality also appears in the prophetic demand that justice and mercy be applied to all, not just the select few. And it boldly appears in the New Testament in the inclusive nature of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, signifying our new creation. Note that people have not been excluded from baptism because of race, ethnicity, political or class differences, gender or disability. To be sure, the institution of slavery in the American colonies created a serious crisis as to whether slaves should be baptized, since baptism conveyed equality among the members. In the end, the result was to deny equality. Such a decision was wrong both on Christian grounds and on the grounds of the newly affirmed equality in the Constitution.

There is no way to avoid the fact that the Biblical view of creation rejects any attempt to define our nation by racial or class superiority. Yet the goals and slogans of white nationalism keep appearing in the government’s statements on immigration. In recent weeks we hear of excluding people from third world countries, or the denigration of people from Somalia by referring to them as garbage. The special welcome of white South Africans sends a clear message about racial and ethnic preferences, as did the reference to Norwegians being an ideal source of immigrants during the first term of the President.

Given our history, which included the removal of indigenous peoples and the institution of black slavery, the whole issue of who belongs has never been far from the daily news. The Founders set forth a vision of a nation not defined by race, class, ethnicity, or religion, but as we know, they were unable to put it fully into practice. Many had hoped that the blood of those who died in the Civil War would wash away the sin of racial supremacy. It did not. In spite of the suffering of Black people and their noble witness to a peaceful America, we still find that the issue has not been settled. In fact, white supremacy is now advocated by the President and he publically gives support to white supremacy groups. For this reason, Christians must decide whether they will be faithful to Scripture and the teachings of Jesus.

A second theme is the need to show justice and mercy to the poor. This is repeatedly affirmed by the prophets. It is illustrated unambiguously in the parable of the Good Samaritan and the teachings of Jesus. As a consequence, the presence of people in need requires that those in power and those with eyes to see shall come to their aid. Roman Catholics have learned this since childhood. The new Pope chose the name Leo because the other Pope Leo expressed a deep concern for the poor. In a similar way, Protestants live with the commands of Jesus, where he tells us that when we aid the thirsty, we provide water to him.

The challenge is what shall we do about some 11 to 12 million people without legal papers living and working in our midst? The vast majority are not criminals. Most work, pay taxes and send their children to school. Because of their legal jeopardy take on difficult jobs for less—which constitutes an underclass of low paid workers not eligible to vote or receive social security or most government programs. In the name of truthfulness, Christians need to affirm that these people are human beings, beloved by God and people who have certain rights. As the poor of Latin America, they are under multiple Biblical mandates to receive our protection and aid.

A third theme is that love, reconciliation and peace are higher goals than hate, division and violence. This goes to the heart of the Christian faith. At the Memorial Service for Charlie Kirk, after Kirk’s wife declared that she had forgiven the assassin of her husband, the President declared that he disagreed: he hated his opponents. Here was a dramatic challenge to the Christian affirmation that we should love our enemies and seek reconciliation and peace. The problem is that hate only divides and does not settle anything. The world will not be redeemed by hate but by love and the will to be reconciled to those who oppose us. In the first week of December, when denouncing the Somalis, Mr. Trump also warned that we are at a tipping point. I think he is right, though disagree which way we ought to go. One way is the way of white supremacy which can only lead to division and violence; the other way is the way of affirming the humanity of all people, which can lead to inclusivity and peace.

Now is the time to oppose the attempts to denigrate and subordinate racial or ethnic groups. We have seen what this did by the institution of black slavery in America as a means to create cheap labor. The denigration of Hispanic immigrants by branding them as hardened criminals is the first step to the denial of rights and to maximize mistreatment. The government has made it very clear that it wants to define the future in terms of white nationalism. Its attack on equality and inclusion of non-white people violates the affirmations that God has created all people and we are called to live in peace.

A fourth theme is found in a set of passages which relate directly to strangers and sojourners in the ancient world whom we would call immigrants (cf. Ex. 23:9; Dt. 10:19 and Lev. 19: 33-34). They are formulated in a twofold way: On one level we are commanded to show mercy and aid to strangers and sojourners. Recall that the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) were nomads who ended up in Egypt during an extended drought and famine. There is also an interesting twist in the translation of two of these passages: in the Revised Standard Version (1952), all three passages refer to strangers. But in the New Revised Standard Version of 1989, the Exodus verse changes to resident aliens and the Leviticus verse changes to alien. This emphasizes the seriousness of the situation: the command has to do with people who are strangers, or aliens or very different and definitely people we don’t know.

On a secondary level, what is unique is about all three passages is how the general idea of helping strangers is personalized. It is placed in the context of Israel’s own history and identity. It is the God who brought you out of the land of Egypt who now commands Israel to show hospitality and mercy to the strangers or aliens because you (Israel) were strangers and aliens. This drastically changes the mandate based on prudential considerations (for example, be kind to people and maybe they will be kind to you). The reason now is that the Israelites were once strangers and sojourners rescued by God. Therefore, out of gratitude to God we are to show kindness and mercy to strangers. Once the mandate is personalized in this way, then remembrance becomes a key to one’s identity. We are to show kindness to sojourners because we were sojourners; to forget is to deny what God has done and who we are. Thus the Book of Deuteronomy defines faithfulness as remembering who you are and sin as forgetting.

If by now you are not seeing fireworks and red flashing lights, then you need to re-examine the structure of the Biblical command. The moral command (i.e., help the sojourner) is placed in the context of Israel’s history and identity. Aid to the sojourner has to do with what God has done for you and who you are, i.e., a sojourner. To make the point from the negative side: if you do not obey this command, then you are denying what God has done for you and who you are. It is to claim that someone else is responsible for your salvation—maybe yourself—and that you are not one in need or the recipient of aid or kindness.

Some will say that all this is very nice, but it is all tied to the Old Testament. That does not shield Christians from this very personal way of being obligated to help the needy. In the New Testament Jesus takes the abstract command of loving one another and declares that aid given to the needy is aid given to him. By not aiding, you are turning your back on Christ.

By now I assume you are able to make the connection of all this to the issue of immigrants, our modern day strangers and sojourners. There is no doubt in my mind that in the present situation, Christians are obligated to provide aid and mercy, because God did so to us and we ourselves were once strangers and aliens from the mercy of God. On what basis can a nation of immigrants turn its back on new immigrants? But I must admit that this still does not give us a blueprint for what to do with 11 million immigrants. That is why we need a new policy with new procedures. Of course Christians must provide aid, but they must also lobby effectively for policies which would establish how many immigrants may be welcomed and how specifically cities, states and the federal government are going to provide the means for housing, health, education and work for people who are already part of our society or who will enter in the future.

It is frightening to consider that many in the government and in support of the current government refuse to place the current crisis in the context of our history and identity. The deliberate attempt to deny major portions of our history seems intended to deny any personal obligation. I can only assume that by denying that we were once strangers and immigrants, such denials are intended to relieve us from helping the poor in our midst.

How strange that seems in light of the celebration of Thanksgiving, but two months ago. There we paused to remember and give thanks to God and others for the ways we are indebted to so many—past and present—for what we have and take for granted. For good reason Deuteronomy insists that we remember what we have received. The key to life is remembering, lest we forget. Once we start forgetting, then we are tempted to think that we are responsible for all that we have and we begin to forget the ways others came to our aid. It is to live under the pretense that the upper half of the society never received help or aid from the government or anyone else. Even worse, it leads to the illusion that we deserve all that we have and that the poor should not receive aid because they do not deserve it. In the face of that temptation to think we did it all ourselves, we are given the command to help the sojourner because we ourselves were once sojourners in need of help.

Christians and Jews: Part I

By Peter Schmiechen

On August 7, 2025

In Love, The Church, Theology

Israel and matters relating to Jews and Christians are in the news: There is the war between Israel and Gaza, the US-Israeli strikes on Iran, Israel’s strikes on enemies in the region and debates in the US regarding antisemitism. In recent days two writers in the New York Times have made impassioned pleas for us to re-think matters: David Brooks thinks that in spite of many problems with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s policies, we ought to support his attempt to eliminate Iran’s efforts at building nuclear weapons (6/26/2025); Bret Stephens thinks it is incorrect and morally wrong to speak of Israel’s war in Gaza as genocide (7/23/2025).

I suspect you have opinions on these matters, as do I, and want to get right at them. But before I do that I need to be clear about my perspective, which only raises a very serious issue: can we talk about our perspectives or the specific issues without making things worse? I realize it may seem indecisive to do this while wars rage. Nevertheless, the stakes are so high that I think it is necessary. So I offer an essay in two parts: the first on finding a point of view; the second on what it might mean on the hot topics.

Part I.

Christians and Jews: Finding a Perspective Without Making Things Worse

How do Christians see their relation to Jews? To get at this topic I want to examine Paul’s view in Romans 9-11. This is a major text in the New Testament for Christians on this subject. Two things are of interest: first, the way Paul speaks of the positive bonds between Christians and Jews and second, the great difficulties Paul has in talking about this very subject.

Paul’s View:

Let us begin by reviewing the crisis at the small and struggling church in Rome. The issue is the relation of Christians and Jews, given their disagreement over whether Jesus is the Messiah, with the Christians claiming that salvation is by grace received by faith. The debate is complicated because it involves Jews, Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians.

At stake are questions like: does faith in Jesus bring with it Jewish traditions and the Law? If Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah, should Christians reject Jews? What about God: Has God rejected those who reject Jesus. In other words, what is the relation of Christians to Jews? Things have heated up and there is serious anger and division.

All this leaves Paul in a conflicted state: as a devout Jew he had joined in the persecution of Christians, resulting in the death of Stephen. Now, he is convinced that God has called him to a mission to the Gentiles while still affirming the legitimacy of Israel in God’s plan of salvation. So he states repeatedly that God has not rejected the Jews. The promises to Israel still stand: Israel is God’s people, a light and blessing to the nations and God will not abandon them. In Christ, God creates a new covenant as a mission to the Gentiles. The covenant of Moses and the covenant of Jesus are two parts of God’s gracious work of salvation.

Paul wants to make peace between these divided factions. By the looks of his message, it appears that he thinks this is possible only if he deals with major and minor issues. But it is very hard to follow his train of thought. While Jews might understand some of the references to the history of Israel, it is not clear how such appeals will be received by Gentiles. But he is convinced, based on his conversion and call to a mission to the Gentiles, that God intends both Jews and Christians to live in peace. This general message is based on three arguments, which I have summarized:

The first is to neutralize some of the claims the two sides are using which might suggest advantage or superiority. So he wants to undercut the possibility of either side boasting about moral or cultic claims. To do this he offers an extended argument that all have sinned and neither can claim advantage.

The second argument begins with reminding the readers that Abraham was declared righteous by faith in the promise of God. Since Abraham lived prior to the Mosaic covenant and the Law, his salvation was not based on the Law or any kind of works of the Law, but on faith in the promise of grace. Given this standard, Paul makes a bold move: the Covenant of Moses and the Law must be interpreted by grace, which is also to say that the Law cannot be fulfilled by works, but by faith. (9:30-32) Once this point is made, Paul can remind us of what was said in chapters 3 and 5; namely, that while we were sinners, Christ died for us. This is the sign that God creates a means to reconcile us to God. Thus, like the Mosaic covenant, the covenant of Jesus offers salvation by grace and not any claim to human achievement. As a result, faith in the grace of God is the ground of salvation for both groups, as expressed in two covenants of grace.

Third, if God has not rejected the covenant with Israel or the Law, and if both Jews and Christians rely upon the mercy of God, the two covenants should exist side by side until God shall reconcile all in a future time. Christians are to accept the presence of Israel as God’s people while continuing their mission to the Gentiles. Both are called to wait peacefully for the final reconciliation.

If Paul’s answer is that God has initiated a new covenant for the inclusion of Gentiles, but retains the covenant with Israel, then it is necessary for Christians to affirm this without qualification. Such affirmation would begin with a rigorous examination of our Scripture, teaching and preaching so as to develop ways to deal best with antisemitic language. But equally important is the task of waiting for God to resolve the tensions between Christians and Jews. Paul’s mandate is for us to live in peace, side by side, and wait for our reconciliation by the mercy of God.

The Problem of Troublesome Baggage

But waiting is hard to do, as we say and do things which often only make things worse. One reason for choosing a passage from Paul is that while it gives us his positive view, it also contains troublesome baggage. In style, Rom. 9-11 presents a challenge. Instead of a closely argued theme, moving forward step by step, things move back and forth in a somewhat haphazard fashion. Is he trying out all kinds of ideas in hope one or more will work? It is very difficult to sort out all the major and minor themes and fit them into a coherent argument. But beyond style, the larger issue is that in seeking to balance things between competing groups, Paul ends up saying things that are damaging to Jews. When they are taken out of context centuries later, they can be seen as supporting hostile language and/or actions against Jews. I think Paul’s answer may in fact help us in our times, but to use it we are going to have to deal with the negative baggage tied to the answer.

Paul is speaking to Jews and Christians in Rome in the first century. This is no time for easy answers. He wants an answer he can live with if faced by Jews, Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. There is a No and Yes spoken to both sides; neither side wins everything, neither side is destroyed, both sides are affirmed. Consider some of the judgments he makes regarding Jews:

>Israel has stumbled (9:32), but not fallen. (11:11)

>Israel has rejected the new work of God, but God has not rejected Israel. (11:1)

>God has hardened the hearts of Israel until the Gentiles are saved, but all of Israel shall be saved (11:25-26).

> “As regards to the gospel, they (the Israelites) are enemies of God, for your sake, but as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers, for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” (11:28)

It is tempting to seize the word paradox to explain this complicated style, but that does not seem to fit. Paul is not talking about seemingly contradictory ideas but an actual struggle—verbal and violent—between two groups. Israel exists, Israel appears to reject the new covenant in Jesus, Christians exist, and Christians are asking whether they and/or God need the Jews. I would prefer to describe these chapters as qualified speech. Every statement about one side must be qualified by another statement, every statement stands in tension with another. The word contingent also comes to mind. Each statement may not be isolated or held up as the answer, since it depends on another which sheds light on the matter.

All this is extremely important when we turn to the most harsh and damaging language regarding Israel being an enemy of God. On the one hand, here we have Paul’s qualified speech. In the context of this very bitter debate, Jews appear as enemies of what God is doing, but are also beloved and their calling is irrevocable. The word enemies applies only in the context of the current debate where the two sides are opposing one another. He seems to want to concede to the angry Christians that Jews are indeed opposing the gospel. But then he qualifies this harsh comment by reference to God’s election of the Jews and how God’s gifts and calling are irrevocable.

On the other hand, it is shocking that Paul would introduce such hostile language in the very text where he wants to de-escalate the tensions. It is also disturbing that in his attempt to qualify everything and criticize both sides equally, he does not refer to the Christians as enemies of God for wanting to reject Israel and the covenants. In all this we are confronted with the fact that Paul’s attempt to discuss the central difference between Jews and Christians and make peace may have aroused even more hostility among the Christians.

It is at this point that I want to introduce a proposal made by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik in 1964. Given the fact that it is so difficult for Christians and Jews to talk about the basic doctrinal points of view in each tradition, he proposed that the two groups not discuss them, but confine their discussions to matters of humanitarian concern. Such a proposal flies in the face of our assumption that peace starts with face to face discussions over central issues. But the fact is that the history of Christian-Jewish relations demonstrates that how we talk about what divides us affects how we live with one another. And this has too often involved anger and violence.

Why is this? I fear it is precisely because the disagreements involve our most heartfelt beliefs, which increases the potential for rhetoric which wounds rather than heals. In all discussions is the fact that one side claims Jesus as the Messiah and the other does not. Add to this the fact that it is a familial matter. Christians have adopted the history of Israel with its promise of a Messiah. In general one does not get excited about some unknown person on the other side of the world disagreeing with you. But when your parents, brothers and sisters, or another branch of the family rejects what you say, that arouses passions. For rejection to come from those close is threatening. This would tend to support Rabbi Soloveitchik’s proposal: we are too close to one another to discuss things dispassionately.

But there is even another dimension to the problem we face: Even when a writer with ties to both sides tries to make peace, things can become very problematic. This is evident in Rom. 9-11 and it is distressing to admit it. But how are we going to limit the damage? Shall we, for example, use that traditional method of dealing with troublesome texts: just ignore Rom. 9-11. For example, some Protestants ignored the Letter to James because it did not appear to be compatible with their theology. Others have ignored the Book of Revelation because of its apocalyptic themes. Ignoring Romans 9-11 will be hard to do because Romans has been seen as a foundational text for most Protestants. Also, for some 60 years some have argued that the whole point of Romans is not to justify Luther’s principle of justification by faith, but to address the issue of Jews and Christians and the mission to the Gentiles. If that is the case, then we are going to have to read, teach and preach about Romans 9-11 in a twofold way: to affirm Paul’s conviction that God affirms both that the covenant of Moses and the covenant of Jesus are to exist side by side in peace, and at the same time remind ourselves how easy it is to violate the mandate for peace by using harmful and hostile language. In effect, this would mean that we take Paul’s admonition to affirm two covenants and live in peace as reason to avoid relying on some of the divisive things included in the argument. Paul’s admonition is to wait peacefully. But that is hard to do. It would appear that we prefer to divide and justify such action by righteous language overflowing with anger. We seem to prefer immediate plans to resolve tensions, even to the point of violence. But such actions overstep and mislead us in the direction of permanent divisions and warfare.

I am not ready to say that religious divisions inevitably lead to hostile and violent action, though given our history I have to admit that Rabbi Soloveitchik’s proposal is supported by our history. This does not mean we can or should do nothing. For one thing, our situation is very different from Paul’s. Since Christians are a majority and Jews a minority in our country, Christians ought to take seriously the obligation to protect Jews (and other religious minorities—even Palestinians.) We might even consider going beyond that: we could pray for one another and repent of that certainty which brims over with hostile language and makes us think that we are the ones to resolve the tensions. While we wait, it might be well to do some listening. If one cannot find reason to do any of these things based on Romans 9-11, then I recommend that you simply go back to Scripture which commands us to love one another.

A Disruptive Christmas

By Peter Schmiechen

On January 12, 2025

In Love, Theology

Once again Christmas gives rise to glorious celebrations including music and carols, Christmas trees and candles, and gifts given and received. The actual stories, however, expect more. Take a look at Matthew and Luke. Most people know the cast: Mary, Joseph and Jesus, shepherds and wise men. Less known are Elizabeth and Zechariah, the parents of John the Baptist, born a few months before Jesus. Then there is King Herod, who rules by permission of Roman occupying forces, and finally an old man, Simeon, who gives a blessing.

Key to the stories is the tension between the angelic announcements and responses of those involved. The announcements proclaim new acts of salvation which will restore the nation, bring release from enemies, revelation to the Gentiles and peace on earth. The responses are quite varied: the women display confusion and fear, leading to excitement and praise of God, while Zechariah is so disturbed that he is struck speechless. There is fear among the shepherds, and even King Herod is so afraid that he plots to destroy all new born males if he cannot find the child predicted to be king. The wise men wish only to bring gifts and avoid aiding Herod’s plans. Zechariah recovers his speech to sing a new song, but only after allowing his wife to give his son the name of John, rather than his father’s name according to tradition. Then there is a final blessing by Simeon, who was granted his wish to see the salvation promised by God. There’s a lot of things packed into these stories and you may be able to identify with some aspect. No wonder the Christmas carols show no limits in joyfully celebrating reconciliation and peace at the appearance of the Messiah.

What we have, then, are stories of great joy mixed with fear and death of new born children and a final escape in the night taking Jesus to safety in Egypt. It is obvious that the writers could not forget that the salvation revealed in Jesus generated resistance and conflict. Indeed, the New Testament is dominated by the question: If Jesus really is the Son of David and the Christ, why did he die? It is therefore fitting that the story includes fear and resistance because the birth of Jesus intends to disrupt things as they are. In the songs of Mary and Zechariah there is the contrast between the humble, the faithful who fear God, and the hungry (or poor), versus the proud, the rulers and the enemies. The contrast between light and darkness represents the difference between the peace generated by faith and righteousness versus the violence and warfare of the world. .

Some of the songs intend to calm our fears. First, we are reminded that what will happen is in line with the promises to Abraham and the covenant of Moses. Time and again the fears of parents and shepherds are allayed by the assurance that God is faithful to the oath sworn to Abraham and our fathers. Bringing John’s birth into the story of Jesus is a step toward uniting the followers of John and Jesus. A dramatic move is the way Mary, who is young, unmarried and without child, ends up singing a song derived from Hannah, the mother of Samuel. Mary is therefore connected not only to Hannah, but also to Sarah, Rebecca and Rachel, the patriarchal wives, who all bear children late in life as promised by God. Since Mary is not old or barren, the point seems to be to place Jesus’ birth in this history of children born by God’s unexpected grace against human doubt and fear.

Assuring us of God’s faithfulness does not rule out that God intends something radically new. The references to rulers, the proud, and enemies probably refer to the current ruler who has collaborated with the Romans in occupying Israel. Besides being a political and economic burden, foreign occupation violates religious law, meaning that everyone has been compromised and in need of ritual purification. No wonder that John the Baptist will end up preaching repentance and washing in the Jordon as the first step toward true religion. Likewise, Zechariah’s reference to light and darkness can refer to keeping or violating the law. So he proclaims that the rescue from their enemies enables the pursuit of holiness and righteousness. Such liberation is, according to Simeon, extending light to the Gentiles and peace to Israel, or as the angels said to the shepherds, God is glorified in heaven and there shall be peace on earth.

But here’s the hard part: If Christmas is about a new act of redemption, a transformation of the world, and then Christmas will involve changing lives, with tensions and struggles. The early Christians knew this because that is exactly what happened in the story of Jesus. There was resistance, opposition, suffering, and death. We must therefore recognize that the uncomfortable and shocking side of the Christmas story reflects what happened between Christmas and Jesus’ death on the cross. So in our time there is resistance to the celebration of Christmas if it means disrupting things as they are. Either the promise of Christmas is confined to a limited time and space, or the promise is adjusted downward so that it does not threaten the world, be it those in power or average folk who would rather leave things as they are instead of having them change.

To illustrate the disruptive nature of Christmas, consider the way Christmas intends to transform time and space. For us in the northern hemisphere, our calendar consists of twelve months, all properly named and associated with the four seasons. Days of the week have specific names and repeat themselves every seven days. Time is organized and regulated as to what we should do and expect. Then along comes Christmas, always on the 25^th of December, but not the same day of the week. It sets up a distinctive configuration of Christmas Eve and Christmas Day—this year being Tuesday and Wednesday. We are not accustomed to have sacred things on Tuesday or Wednesday, but maybe Sunday. Suddenly two days of ordinary time are the stage for changing the world. Ordinary time tells you when to work or attend to personal interests. It tells you that some own most of everything and others are supposed to be happy with little food or health care. It reports where wars are destroying children and cities but not when they will end, since they are considered a normal way of doing business. Sacred time tells you that God is near, mandating repentance, reconciliation and peace. Thus Christmas is disruptive, since even we who are worn out by ordinary time are not sure we want things to change. Of course shepherds are afraid since they have little to say about anything, but so are rulers, who fear losing power, even to the point of killing children. Mary is called to accept a role in God’s plan without knowing how this is possible. Like Abraham, long ago commanded to kill Isaac, she must trust God. Then, almost in comic relief, but not quite because it too is so serious, against tradition Zechariah allows his wife to name their child and regains his speech. These things do not happen in ordinary time but are made possible because the sacred is disrupting things.

In a similar way our space is changed. A tree is brought into the house, decorations change the interior space, and at the center of this sacred space is a manger with a child surrounded by people summoned by God to bear witness to what God is doing in this world. Words and actions confined to the sacred space of churches now appear in our homes but also public squares and the airwaves. Recall again how the carols talk about some very heavy stuff: God being near, people reconciled, peace on earth. All this is very threatening to those who rule according to their own interests, as even today they would keep to their schedule of killing children in Ukraine and across the Middle East. They resist the encroachment of the sacred, but since they are unwilling to declare outright war on it, they try instead to confine it to a few days in December or to small sacred spaces. They ask us to capitalize on the joys of shopping and parties in the hope that you will have a “Merry Little Christmas.” The very words make one wonder what a Big Christmas would look like. Nevertheless, Christmas, with its fear, sorrow and joy, resists being confined in the hope that we will dare to celebrate a world transformed. In spite of the cultural forces organized to mute the message, it still intrudes with news of peace on earth, good will among all people. In one sense what defines the church is precisely this: it is a community on earth that persists in living in the reality of God’s reconciling love all the time.

Let me close with two things. First, my son and editor, Nathan, in these days of remembrance of President Jimmy Carter, ran across these words of Carter from his speech upon receiving the Nobel Peace Prize: “War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other’s children.”

The second is a memory of mine from our years living in the Chicago area. On the roof of the Merchandise Mart in downtown Chicago, every year they would light a big sign proclaiming Peace on Earth during the Christmas season. Then I discovered that the sign was there all year, only the lights were not on. It made me wonder what would happen if they were left on all year. It was culturally acceptable to have the lights on in December and part of January and to then turn them off so we could get back to ordinary time. A little bit of disruption is acceptable but having the lights on all year would be too much. That, no doubt, would raise all sorts of questions. And that is why Christmas is disruptive.

Love and Justice

By Peter Schmiechen

On October 25, 2024

In Family, Grace, Love, Politics, Theology

In 1961 my wife, Jan, and I joined CORE, the Congress of Racial Equality. We were 23 and I was in seminary in St. Louis. Core was committed to breaking down the walls of segregation. The organizing committee consisted of about ten people, holding meetings Sunday evenings. They were all professional people, older than we were. One young man by the name of Clay later became a U.S. Congressman. We didn’t know much about the racial problems in St. Louis or about how to change things. So we listened. I was especially interested in the interplay between theory and strategy.

Mainline Protestants had developed a consensus about the priority of love. Love can be defined in many ways, from satisfying our needs to love of another or God without regard for oneself. Given the priority of Jesus giving his life for service of God and neighbor, Protestants leaned toward thinking of the highest form of love as self-sacrifice for God and others.

But how does love as self-sacrifice relate to the struggles of justice which involve conflicting self-interests and struggles of power, or even restraining evil doers to protect the defenseless? And of course, many wanted to know how such self-sacrificing love related to the clash of national interests which demanded citizens to join military action against another state. One solution was to argue that the church was bound by the standard of love, while the state was obligated and permitted to use power to resist evil and achieve justice. But that left some questions. For example, were believers as Christians obligated to be pacifists? Or, could Christians utilize power in politics or in the pursuit of justice in society? My Father, a pastor, leaned strongly toward pacifism, although he supported WWII. Yet he did not know what to make of political action, which routinely involved power. His caution also extended to the direct action programs in the civil rights movement. As a result, the split between love and justice involved theoretical issues and personal decisions.

In the face of this impasse, Reinhold Niebuhr had presented a bold alternative. He declared Christians must chose both: love as self-sacrifice was indeed the highest ethical standard but Christians were also obligated to pursue justice and protect the defenseless. But here’s the catch: In most cases, justice in this world can only be achieved with various levels of coercion. This was obvious for Niebuhr in WWII, but long before that he discovered that achieving justice in social struggles involved some form of coercion, as in the case of removing the practices of segregation. Then, having shocked all his liberal religious friends by arguing some degree of coercion is permitted, he turned and argued that non-violent coercion was morally and practically superior to violent coercion.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. took this idea and developed a strategy for change, based on non-violent coercion. Other groups, such as CORE, followed in developing effective strategies. In our small group meetings we were asked to think about applying non-violent force to change segregation. This meant we would interrupt business at “Whites Only” lunch counters at Woolworth’s, but not do physical harm to people or property and not respond in word or act with violence if something happened to us. We were also told that we could be arrested. That caused us some pause. We had never been arrested and we had no idea what effect such would have on Jan teaching in a public school or my being in seminary. We knew that our parents would not be pleased about our getting arrested, or even just participating. After weeks of discussion and soul searching we decided to go ahead.

As I recall, the sit in succeeded in disrupting business as usual at the lunch counter. Some white people were not very happy and said so. A reporter took our names and we were listed the next day in the newspaper. But no one got arrested. This of course was small stuff compared to the sit-ins and demonstrations that would come across the south where demonstrators were beaten and some were killed. Soon the City Council introduced a proposal to require public places to be open to all people. This brought an interesting twist. At the CORE meeting prior to the vote, someone asked by anyone knew a respected member of the Council. To everyone’s surprise, the student in the back row (me) raised his hand and I was asked to call him. He was a member of the church my Father had serviced in St. Louis. But I had last seen him when I was 8 years old. Somewhat nervous I called him and we had a good talk and he said he would think about it. He voted for the change. Somehow, his own moral compass and his friendship to his pastor prompted him to reverse course. Even in the rough and tough politics of City Hall, love and friendship still displayed great power. We continued to be a part of the group until we went off to the east for further study.

During that time, I heard Dr. King in St. Louis. One statement stuck with me: he said he was not asking us to love black people but to refrain from lynching them. That always reminded me that the issue was not an attempt to suddenly reach the highest level of moral achievement (loving one another, or the white fear of intermarriage) but justice as freedom from violent and repressive practices. Segregation was and is a form of terrorism because it devalues some people. It is state sponsored violence. Those that deny that sin can be embedded in the social practices and laws of society need a history lesson. People were suffering and dying. Right then. So what were we going to do about it? Appeals to love seldom did much to change systemic racism and violence. Dr. King offered an alternative: An incremental plea based on a non-violent strategy to reduce violence against blacks and facilitate the possibility of living together. Now this may not sound like much, but back then it was a huge step forward.

There was no doubt that non-violent coercion was a use of force. At that lunch counter we prevented people from eating there. The sit in took money away from waitresses and Woolworth’s. We could claim it was not violent but it still was coercion. Was it justifiable? For Dr. King (and Niebuhr) it was justifiable in light of the suffering and threat to life. Read Dr. King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail to get a sense of his deep disappointment when religious leaders told him he should be patient. Patience and appeals to ethics had not changed much. The same can be said when “thoughts and prayers” are extended to the victims of gun violence today, or when only condolences are offered to women denied medical relief by force in the face of rape and incest. The disregard for suffering knows no bounds. That is why Dr. King sought a third alternative of non-violent coercion in the cause of justice. It is less than self-sacrifice, though many have been sacrificed in the process. Acts of non-violent coercion are a form of justice that spares us the terrible consequences of violence and perhaps embodies the hope of reconciling love. In spite of all the resistance and suffering, even Dr. King could dream.