Tag: power

Colonialism

On September 6, 2025

This spring I read the first two volumes of Rick Atkinson’s history of the Revolutionary War. By the 4^th of July I was ready to honor the sacrifice and courage of those who fought for independence. Their achievement is crucial for our attempt to affirm community in our time for two reasons: the first is that our nation was not founded on claims to land, race or religion, but allegiance to liberty and equality; the second is that whenever community is compromised, it is helpful to celebrate liberty and equality. Since these compromises are perennial, usually elevating people in ways relating to land, class/wealth, race and language, the American ideal requires continual renewal of hearts and minds to the very things at the heart of America, allegiance to liberty and equality. Given this, I find reading this history a profoundly spiritual exercise, wherein we are called again to own our heritage in the face of all manner of compromise.

This was a terrible war, preceded by a breakdown in relations between the King and those wanting independence. Before a shot was fired, the British governing class and military saw the rebels as ungrateful and disobedient. The colonists, by contrast, saw themselves as people who had created a new world by their invention and hard work, deserving equal status with citizens in England. They thought their life should be governed by the same values and rules at work in their home land. But things only get worse when people on both sides started being killed. Families were changed for the worse and women and children were on their own. The final stage of most wars is the destruction of property, mass burning of towns and ports, rape and pillage. In numerous cases it was official military policy to burn ports and cities along the coast for the purpose of punishing the rebels and destroying ports. One other thing running through all these reactions to the war: the Revolutionary War was a civil war. It divided families as well as neighbors. One of the sons of Benjamin Franklin remained a loyalist. One cannot imagine any restoration between the two sides except for the British evacuation. It is not surprising that many loyalists felt constrained to go to Canada or Nova Scotia or return to England.

One thing which caught my eye was the rigid stratification of people. The colonies were ruled by governors answerable to King, Parliament, and trading companies, supported by a ruling class of white men owning property. Then came the ranks of those not owning land but secure in their life as merchants, craftsmen, farmers and laborers. Women were of course part of all these classes, but dependent on men by marriage and family.

There were two other groups in this colonial world of great importance. One was the native people of North America, who were continually pushed westward toward the wilderness as white settlements expanded. This produced a sad and violent history. In the recent War with the French, some tribes sided with the French but in the new war for Independence, some sided with the British against the colonies. The western regions were terrorized by violence which included killing, torture and scalping. The killing of whites in upstate New York and Pennsylvania was so brutal that Washington sent an army to the region for the purpose of destroying Indian villages, food supplies and crops. Reading these parts gives one the impression that a basic pattern was set: either native Americans were to accept western expansion and occupation of their land or die.

The other group was black Africans. It is estimated that there were 500,000 black Africans in the colonies in 1776, with roughly 450,000 enslaved. While the majority were in the southern colonies, (e.g., Maryland had about 63,000 and Virginia had about 163,000), there were about 4,700 in Massachusetts, 19,000 in New York and 5,500 in Pennsylvania. In other words, all the colonies participated in the practice of slavery.

What we have then in each colony is a rather volatile set of social, economic and political relations. The idyllic perspective of Europeans coming to America for the freedom to forge their identity and fortune, or even coming for religious freedom, tends to obscure the tensions. In actuality the colonists of 1776 were subject to the demands of trading companies, Parliament and King. The increase in taxes (dare I use the word tariffs) and the desire for more profits by the trading companies increased the demand for more workers (white settlers or slaves). This in turn implied more land, which in turn triggered more troubles with native Americans. The King in turn needed more money to pay for the military to keep peace on the frontiers and to deal with ancient hostilities between Great Britain, France and Spain. When the navy could not recruit sailors, men were pressed into service by force. So, we have the strange contradiction: the founders began talking of equality of all people when everyone knew that was not the case: slaves were not free and serious divisions existed between landowners and common people as well as men and women. It was not a good time to either raise taxes or talk about taxation without representation.

As one works one’s way through two volumes (a third is yet to come), one begins to sense that the real problem between the rebels and the Crown was that the majority of the colonists were English. To be sure, they did not live in London or Birmingham, but they thought they were subjects of King George and ought to be treated as citizens equal to their relatives throughout Great Britain. When you read the list of charges against the King and his government in the Declaration of Independence, one gets the sense of profound disappointment and even betrayal. These practices are not things you do to English citizens. But the King, Parliament and Trading Companies saw very little wrong in treating colonies that way. They thought colonists were different. Being colonists changed their status and created a world where many things were permitted, not just repression of indigenous peoples and designation of Africans as slaves.

In this sense the war was about freedom from oppressive colonial structures. This is not new or surprising, since we have been told this since grade school. But here is something to think about: the irony of the American Revolution is that while it threw off allegiance to an oppressive King, the founders basically maintained far too many aspects of the colonial world view and structures, thereby determining that the new nation would in fact be a colonial nation in law and spirit.

How so? Well, let’s take the most obvious example, slavery. There has always been agreement on the great achievement of the founders, but in my lifetime we have gone from a begrudging admission that slavery compromised that achievement to a full acceptance that slavery was an outright contradiction and regrettably laid the basis for a century of conflict. This is very difficult to deal with and is usually treated as some sort of enigma or paradox at the personal level (e.g., Jefferson) or a political compromise to gain votes for the union (e.g., Adams). In both cases they appeared to know their achievement was flawed but were unable to avoid it. It should be noted that we are now confronted with an administration which wishes to reject all that talk of compromise and the history of injustice involved before and after the Civil War, all for the sake of a more positive view of our history.
A second obvious example where the colonial world view persisted was the acquisition of land. Recall that England, like its European neighbors, assumed that each nation could claim land by force or purchase. And I must admit that it was often justified for religious reasons. Called colonies, such lands were expected to produce natural resources, manufactured products for trading companies and function as military outposts for political interests. Apparently the ability to do this was part of the divine right of kings and was somehow transferred to the newly formed government. So, Jefferson’s approval of the Louisianna Purchase in 1803 ushered in over a century of land acquisition by war or purchase of Florida, the large southwestern region from Spain and the northwest region from England, Alaska in 1867, then an attempt to gain and hold Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines from Spain, and the annexation of Hawaii in 1889 and the Virgin Islands in 1917. How does a nation wishing to loosen the bonds of colonial structures take over so many territories and lands, all with indigenous peoples?

Just as theories about land acquisition extended into the 20^th century, the colonial mindset regarding cheap labor also extended to the present time. Black slavery arose to meet this need and was justified by all sorts of theories. In theory, emancipation was supposed to change that, but Jim Crow laws, segregation and election laws worked to make movement toward freedom a slow process, especially since it was vigorously opposed by white supremacists and actual law.

Another important but limited example of bringing into the country low cost workers was the reliance on Chinese workers to build the trans-continental railroad in the 1860’s. Then came waves of European immigrants who met the need of cheap labor, but in most cases did not become a permanent under-class.

The long history of immigrants from Hispanic countries to the south presents a very different and complex history. Most of the immigrants came to America for asylum, work or opportunity for new life. The Pew Research Center estimated that there were 14 million immigrants without legal status in the US in 2023. They have found work in major sectors of the economy: construction, agriculture, food processing, manufacturing and the service sector. This creates an unusual development: since their work is essential to the total economy and there does not appear to be replacements, governments at local and state levels have not been quick to send them home. But since they do not have legal status, they are in no position to object to their living conditions. The result is that they have become a permanent underclass offering cheap labor, which means there is not much incentive for governments to improve their situation.

Many are of the view that the solution must involve a path to citizenship, for the sake of these long-suffering people as well as the restoration of the principle of equality and the hope tied to the American dream of welcoming immigrants. That makes sense since the vast majority of these people came for political asylum, work and a way to improve their lives. Citizenship would break with the colonial past of subordinating some as a sub-class of cheap labor. But it would require extending to these immigrants fair housing, education and health programs, which in the current political climate is a major challenge

In recent years the compromise of the principles of liberty and equality over slavery has been called our original sin. As a theologian, I find this comment insightful. Original sin, in the logic of Christian doctrine, refers to an act and a state of being. The act was the decision to enslave and transport humans from Africa to the colonies. But this became a policy as well as the acceptance by the majority of people in the colonies to live with this inhumane practice. In other words, slavery consisted of a specific act but it soon became embedded in the culture and laws of the land. Moreover, by 1776 it was so out of control that the founders had to compromise their understanding of equality of all people in order to gain support for the new Constitution.

In this essay I am asking that you expand your understanding of that original sin. Slavery was part of something much larger, namely, colonialism. This was the original sin: that the King and trading companies and colonists could take the land by force, dispel by force indigenous peoples, bring over slaves, and use the land with one thought in mind, namely return on investments. It is frightening to consider how the Founders rejected the idea that King and aristocrats possessed the entitlement to arbitrarily rule over others, but then to find that the Founders transferred such entitlements to themselves, claiming the right to take other people’s land or enslave people. While the Civil War finally rejected this idea, holding people in a subordinate status was then recast as segregation and written into all sorts of laws denying liberty and equality. That willingness to deny the humanity of people reappears in the creation of a permanent underclass of immigrants providing cheap labor. It also continues to appear in the exclusion and subordination of women—another group excluded from full equality in the founding documents.

Running through our history is the question: Who belongs? If the answer is not certain people defined by race, religion or class, it would appear that the answer is those who love liberty and equality. But history shows many answers have been given, some being the source of great pride in our nation, but others revealing great sorrow. Apparently we are continually tempted to forsake liberty and equality. It may well be that some, like white nationalists, never made such a commitment.

It is absolutely necessary that our re-telling of our history include the acknowledgement of those original sins, not to wound or make people feel bad, but because allegiance to America involves repentance as well as loyalty. No one expressed this better than Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address. What happened at Gettysburg was a call to re-commit to the original ideal: a national founded on liberty and equality. But now we are confronted with those who refuse to speak of the contradictions, or how very destructive ideas like colonialism have impacted our history. Prohibiting certain speech and banning books are openly affirmed. But you cannot cover up or deny the truth of our history. Any attempt to do that only makes things worse, since in such a case you compound the original problem by proposing that we tell what is not true. We can only affirm the greatness of our history by accepting the whole truth. One can only get to the truth by going through the hard truths in our history. That is very challenging work but it is the only way to overcome the things which would destroy us. If you want a text to understand this, then remember that only the truth can set us free.

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.

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.

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.