Category: Politics

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 II: Current Issues and the Goal of Peace

By Peter Schmiechen

On August 8, 2025

In Politics, Theology

Central Thesis

In Part One I summarized Paul’s view, set forth in Romans 9-11, that the New Covenant in Jesus in no way meant that God had abandoned the Covenant of Moses. Indeed, God intends for the two communities to live in peace until a final time when God will reconcile all things. I want to use this perspective for understanding the current relations of Christians and Jews, especially in light of contentious issues in the Mideast as well as the United States.

1. The State of Israel should have access to land in Palestine.

Anyone who has looked at material relating to the creation of the State of Israel after WWII finds that while there was general agreement that Israel should have land, it has never been decided how much or how Jews and Palestinians should share the land. As a result, the history of the State of Israel has been one of several wars and continuous disputes over land. For the record, I am in favor of the existence of the State of Israel, but even more, that Jews live in peace.

If peace is the ultimate goal, then it follows that such a peace must involve the Palestinians. This is implied in the persistent attempt to find a Two State Solution—an idea that no one has been able to achieve. But the idea is essential for peace, since it affirms that Jews and Palestinians both have some level of claim to the land and that the two sides can only find peace if they acknowledge this.

This brings us to the great problem, leadership on either side seems unwilling to make this commitment. Mr. Netanyahu and Hamas have opposed the Two State Solution and actions by both sides further alienate the other side. (I am referring to the brutal massacre of Oct 7 and the war against Gaza since then.) Hamas must take responsibility for that atrocity and Netanyahu must take responsibility for the military strategy since Oct 7. Most important, Netanyahu and Hamas must take responsibility for not pursuing a settlement before Oct. 7, 2023. Recall that Netanyahu first came to power in 1996. There were precedents for the two sides seeking a solution. For example, in 1993 Israel and the PLO chose to work toward peace. From the standpoint of all the violence and suffering this was unthinkable. But when the alternatives are more war or some form of settlement, it is necessary. It was this which prompted Yitzhak Rabin to say: “Peace is not made with friends. Peace is made with enemies, some of whom—and I won’t mention names—I loathe very much.” (New York Times, Sept. 5, 1993, sec. 4, p. 1)
There is an inevitable dynamic between possessing the land and peace. Israel wants land and peace, but there can be no peace if it does not involve peace for Palestinians. Another way of saying this is that peace in the region cannot be found by military force. In fact, it might be said that attempts to acquire all the land makes the chances for peace less likely.

Given this complexity, it becomes all the more important for there to be leadership toward a settlement from states in the region as well as Europe and the United States. One of the disappointments is the failure of American presidents to work for peace on a continuous basis and not just when it is politically appropriate in terms of elections. My impression is that while Biden disagreed with Netanyahu, he was unable to change the war policies, whereas Trump has given unqualified support to Netanyahu and has been intermittent in pressing for a settlement. Now, in the midst of a crisis of starvation in Gaze, Trump makes public statements about the need for assistance, but without comment on the military policies of Netanyahu which produced the humanitarian crisis. This is also unfortunate in that while the current warfare works against a solution, it would appear that in 2025 there are more Arab states open to a settlement than in many years.

2. Issues in the US

In Part One, the point was made that Christians need to examine their own tradition and documents, as well as preaching and teaching, in order to determine whether there is an anti-Jewish bias. The point is worth repeating. This is something Christians should do in order to change the way Christians think about Jews. It is the basis for a comprehensive strategy of living with Jews in peace. It is not enough to show remorse and sympathy when violence occurs against Jews and places of worship. Before dealing with public crises we need to have in place a culture of friendship and trust.

If Paul wrote in a time when Christians were the minority with respect to both Jews and Gentiles, today we find that Christians far outnumber Jews in the US. Given that, it is appropriate to emphasize the need for Christians, as citizens, to ask how government and other institutions can protect the Jewish communities. Living in peace does require some restraint of those intending ill will.

Another issue is evangelization of Jews. In light of the long history of tensions, the tragedies of the 20^th century as well as the current problems, I think it is inappropriate to sanction programs to evangelize Jews. To seek to convert Jews to Christianity is to take away their tradition and identity as Jews. If we are to live in peace and wait for God to resolve the differences between the two covenants, then we should not threaten families and synagogues with the loss of members to Christian churches.

Finally, if we are to live in peace, then we might consider simple acts of religious friendship: we ought to pray for Jews; engage in celebrations together (e.g., Thanksgiving), learn to listen to our Jewish neighbors, and as Rabbi Soloveitchick has proposed, share in discussing humanitarian concerns.

3. The current war in Gaza

The attack of Oc. 7, 2023 by Hamas involved a campaign of terror which included murder, rape and destruction of communities. Over 2000 Israelis were killed and around 250 were taken hostage. Some hostages have been return, but not all, and some have died while held prisoner. Netanyahu responded with a general military response leading to over 60,000 dead and the destruction of much of Gaza. The food supply has been interrupted and reports of starvation and lack of medical care appear each day.

Given the brutality of this attack against Gaza, it has been very difficult to talk about this war. Any expression of sympathy for the people living in Gaza, as well as charges of genocide against Israel, prompt charges of lack of support for Israel and antisemitism. By contrast, support of Israel’s military strategies is criticized for being blind to the horrors of this war and enabling the war to continue. The immediate needs, however, are a ceasefire and enabling food supplies to reach Gaza.

In this situation I would prefer to keep separate Mr. Netanyahu’s military strategies from the State of Israel. In the United States it is assumed that one may criticize a president and still be a loyal American. War is a strategy which must be chosen from many military and political options, in light of consequences and goals.

The first problem with Netanyahu’s military strategy is the difference between the harm done on Oct. 7 and the effects of the war in Gaza since then. Not only are the consequences disproportionate, it must be asked how high must the death count go before enough is enough. Some would dismiss this question by referring to the fact that all war is horrible and compare the damage in Gaza to that of other wars; where the US has engaged in examples of indiscriminate killing of civilians. But such a reference does not justify more examples of this. The bombing of German cities in WWII, which has come under serious criticism both from the perspective of whether it was effective as well as whether it was moral. Nor is it effective to argue that the bombing of Gaza is justified because Hamas uses civilians and hospitals as shields. But that assumes the strategy of bombing civilians is the only alternative. If we declare Hamas to be a terrorist organization, should we not be held to a higher standard? If the bombing has not been enough to prompt a call for a ceasefire, certainly the current crisis of starvation should motivate the Netanyahu government to rethink the indiscriminate military campaign and allow the food and medical supplies to reach the people of Gaza.

The second problem is the lack of clarity regarding goals. Upon taking office in 1996, Netanyahu rejected the idea of a Two State Solution. It is also the case that Hamas has rejected it as well. While the Two State Solution was never achieved and may be difficult to enact, endorsing it at least made clear that one recognizes the right of the other to be in Palestine. Without it, one’s intentions are unknown. This becomes important when we see the general destruction of buildings in Gaza as well as the crisis of starvation. Without knowing what Netanyahu intends, it would appear that the goal is the annihilation of the Palestinians in Gaza, or at least their removal. At the current rate of destruction, Gaza will become uninhabitable. Moreover, since both Netanyahu and Trump openly discussed the removal of the Palestinians from Gaza, there is a serious need for a clear statement of goals.

The final issue that needs to be raised is the lack of American leadership in discussions for a ceasefire and ultimately a settlement. The recent bombings of Iran also raise this question. To be sure, there can be no peace in the region as long as Iran funds and encourages groups like Hamas or on its own seeks nuclear weapons. But these matters cannot be settled solely by military force. It is difficult to see how Iran will change its policies without initiatives from the US, Europe and Arab states. In that process, the US has usually taken a leadership role.

This two part essay started out with an interest on my part to talk to Christians about the relation of Christians and Jews. I was also concerned about the danger of making things worse by the way we speak about this very subject. The discussion of Paul’s views in Romans 9-11 brought me to something which I can heartily affirm: God had created the covenant of Moses and has not abandoned the Jews: God has also created the covenant of Jesus as a message of peace to all nations. In the comments offered her, I have tried to draw out the implications of this Pauline perspective.

Whether these comments are helpful is not for me to say. I have tried to stay within the perspective provided by Paul: God intends Christians and Jews to live in peace. By extension I think this must include Muslim neighbors. Many things have not been addressed. I do not think it helpful to raise the question of genocide, since such a category only enflames passions. Nor is the discussion aided by rejecting all comment on the war as antisemitic. It also needs to be noted that behind the Pauline perspective are the traditions which Christians share with Jews regarding the sanctity of life, the need for justice and the ultimate goal of peace. Paul clearly speaks from within those traditions, namely, that God intends us to live in peace. History has demonstrated that while military action may be necessary in the cause of peace, such action alone cannot generate a ceasefire or a settlement for the long term.

The Truth Shall Set You Free

By Peter Schmiechen

On March 12, 2025

In Grace, Politics, Theology

When I was teaching courses on the Bible at Elmhurst College, John 8:32 was a wonderful opening to what religion was all about: “The truth shall make you free.” Enrollments had shifted to the Social and Natural Sciences, reflecting the cultural shift that truth had to do with facts and the ability to use and control all sorts of things: institutions, markets and even nature itself. So it was very counter cultural to suggest that Jesus was not thinking of truth as facts but the relation between ourselves and other people, nature and God. It had to do with life rather than death, harmony rather than division. For this reason I don’t do very well on a Bible quiz dealing with people and places.

Christian writings often appeal to Genesis 2 to describe how things were meant to be, before they were torn apart by deception and falsehood. This idyllic picture can be helpful even though one need not take Genesis 1-2 as a literal description of the origin of things. So consider the image: The newly created humans know the truth: they know that they are human and not God, that God is God and may be trusted; and that freedom and life are found in loving one another and God. It may be called Paradise because of the harmony between all. The humans trust one another and there is no fear, even though they are naked, i.e, defenseless. But when they seek the knowledge of good and evil, which belongs only to God, the harmony is broken and they are afraid of one another and of God. In that state, they must protect themselves from one another (therefore they put on clothes) and hide from God. Note, in that situation they are no longer free but are governed by fear and the need to defend themselves. From this perspective, the truth which brings freedom is the truth that restores relations between humans and God. In other words, truth is the means to repair the damage of deception and falsehood.

But things change. We are now at a point where it is necessary to affirm that truth also has to do with facts and that whatever our intentions, messing with facts can cause a serious break in relations with nature, one another and with God. This is not surprising. Facts tell us about specific things, but also about the relations between things. If I say Cleveland is in Ohio, that means that it is east of Chicago. But that’s an easy one. When your wife asks the question: “Where were you last night?” this seemingly factual question could prove to be a very important relational question.

Human discourse requires that we tell the truth about facts. Family life, business, education, history, science, health and yes, politics, are all about getting the facts straight. All my life it has been suggested the politicians sometimes misrepresent things, shade the truth, and even say things which are false. But I have never known a president who willingly and without shame, tells us so many false things as the current president. It first appeared that he just had a penchant for exaggeration or making sweeping statements. But then it was declared that what he said were “alternative facts.” It took a while to understand this, but it is hard to accept is as normal or right.

Insisting on falsehoods is marked by two things. The first is that it is not just exaggeration, but a deliberate attempt to create a new reality or alternative world. By misrepresenting oneself one theoretically becomes what one hopes to be—a successful business man, a great deal maker, and even a candidate that never loses. All the limits and setbacks which most people have to accept are dismissed. All the adjustments one has to make living with the people in the real world are unnecessary. Life is defined any way one chooses. It really is an alternative world, which can only be maintained by continually defending it and adding on extensions to the original falsehood. The whole thing is a house of cards. When it finally falls apart there is a sense of betrayal, like unto the exposing of false idols.

The second aspect of living in an alternative world is that it requires accomplices and enablers. In the micro-world of the family, the whole family has to adjust and go along. In larger communities, those who are supposed to be the guardians of reality in all its forms must decide to accept the aberrations imposed by the alternative world. Take for example, the attempt to create an alternative history of America, where the facts of slavery, segregation and repression are suddenly never to have happened, or at least in their true form. We are supposed to somehow work out a new relation with African Americans without any reference to the real history, which is banned because it makes some uncomfortable and allows others to perpetuate an alternative history, as in the attempt to redefine the Civil War by saying that it was about States’ Rights or economics. The problem with this is that it misrepresents reality and thereby perpetuates the original inequality. White and black people are not seen as who they are, or what they have experienced, or what is currently the state of America. The truth is swept aside and replaced by false claims. Truth, as respect for facts, is thus betrayed.

The consequences of insisting on falsehoods and trying to live in a bubble of make believe are obvious. One is that it initiates a continual process of defending what is false in order to perpetuate the original falsehood. Some states have now resorted to using the power of laws to force people from challenging the falsehoods. With our President it began with arguments about crowd size at his first inauguration, and culminated in the false claim that he won the 2020 election. This was followed by the false claim that January 6 was not an attempt to overthrow the election. Four years later it required pardons for hundreds of people convicted of crimes relating to January 6, since their convictions repudiated the claim that the event was a peaceful protest. At each point he sought to create an alternative world and in each case people around him were forced to play the game. Elected officials, party leaders, religious leaders, news media chose to take up residence in this fantasy world rather than resist and acknowledge the truth. Most recently, in February 2025, he repeated the false claim that the U.S. spent 350 billion in support of Ukraine. But to everyone’s surprise, the President of France would not accept this and corrected the President in the White House: in fact the figure was closer to 110 billion, while NATO allies had contributed 130 billion. Yet he repeated the false claim when he berated Mr. Zelensky. So it goes, on and on, to perpetuate an alternative world.

When a President insists on misrepresent the truth, those around him are forced to accept what is not true. Even though so many defer in silence or share in confidence that they don’t believe the fabrications, the damage is done. They are forced to lose their integrity in order to be loyal and keep their jobs.

The larger consequence is the way disagreements over facts lead to breaks in relations between people and groups. All these years of maintaining false claims creates a general breakdown in political discourse. Those in the president’s orbit no longer may say what they know to be true. The culture of false claims therefore sets people against one another, at all levels from family and friends to political opponents to world leaders. No wonder things fell apart in the Oval Office on Feb. 28. Mr. Trump wants to create an alternative history regarding the war, where Mr. Putin is not an aggressor, and move on to business regarding precious metals. But the man sitting next to him was trying to save his country from destruction, which includes loss of thousands of soldiers and civilians, cities laid waste and the unimaginable, 20,000 children being abducted. It is hard to get past the refusal to deal with these facts. This is why we need to tell the truth. False claims distort and malign people. We must tell the truth because it is the first step toward right relations. Recall that in the South Africa Peace Process, the process toward reconciliation began with telling and owning the truth regarding what happened.

There was a time in Protestant theology when it was very fashionable to make a distinction between facts and broader values and relations. So, one could point to Jesus as the One who brings the truth about salvation, which has little to do with the facts of this world. That distinction may or may not have been appropriate in the 1960’s and 70’s as I struggled to find a point of connection with college students. But it is not appropriate now. Creating an alternate world of false facts only isolates and divides. And that means, even if it is not the real intent, that division and war never end. On the very eve of Lent, it is worth remembering that Jesus’ announcement of the presence of the Rule of God began with the call to repentance. And what is repentance other than telling the truth about what is, about what we all have done, and about the consequences of our actions. In this world, telling the truth can be painful. Of course it makes us uncomfortable, but since when is our comfort the standard for what we say. Only the truth about what has happened in our history, about what is happening in Ukraine and Russia, or Israel and Gaza, can set us free, no matter how uncomfortable or painful it may be.

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.