Tag: Theology

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.

Easter Confirmation

By Peter Schmiechen

On June 8, 2025

In Grace, The Church, Theology

On the Sunday after Easter, the Gospel reading (John 20: 19-30) presented us with two stories of Jesus’ appearances to the disciples. In the first, Jesus appears to all the disciples except Thomas and shares with them gifts as signs of his resurrection. Directly following is the second story of doubting Thomas, which seems to legitimize doubt in the life of faith since it involves one of the disciples. I also suspect that Thomas is popular in a modern world which is suspicious of traditional religious authority and favors the right of the individual to seek independent confirmation of religious claims. That Thomas should become a model for faith is surprising, since the ending of the story includes a mild rebuke of Thomas, which is easily overlooked. Given the differences between the two stories, each offers a distinctive perspective on confirming the resurrection. Here’s why.

Let’s start with the story of Thomas: After Jesus appeared to the other disciples, Thomas refuses to believe their testimony unless he sees Jesus himself and can touch him. When they are all together, Jesus appears to all of them and tells Thomas to touch his hands and side. Jesus tells him to believe and not doubt, where upon Thomas declares: “My Lord and my God.” But the story does not end there, with Thomas being the great example of finding faith while struggling with doubt. Instead Jesus says: “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen but yet have come to believe.” (John 20: 29)

That’s a strange ending if Thomas is the hero. Is he the model for faith or not? To understand the last verse, we must consider the context. John is writing to Christians 60 to 80 years after the resurrection. None of his readers have seen Jesus before or after the Easter event, nor have they even seen any of the witnesses. They are what we might call second generation Christians. They only know about the gospel and Easter by reports from the witnesses. In fact, they do not have the option of insisting on a new appearance of the risen Lord. From this perspective, Thomas’ request sets him apart from all the readers of John’s gospel. He is demanding special treatment which none of them may receive. Also bear in mind that even though we come centuries later, we too are second generation Christians, i.e., we depend on the witness of the women and disciples.

So, what is John’s purpose for including the story of doubting Thomas in his gospel? The question is important in light of the fact that holding up Thomas as the dramatic model for faith stands in tension with the need to address the second generation. Let me explain.

The initial theme is presenting Thomas the apostle as the definitive witness to the resurrection, set against the background of doubt regarding all the other witnesses. Such a story would appeal to the second generation, which never saw any of the witnesses. Not only does the story have what some would see as the apostle’s courageous refusal to believe unless he sees and touches the body of Jesus, but the center piece is the appearance of Jesus who encourages Thomas to believe and not doubt. Then this culminates in the bold confession of Thomas. It should be noted that “Jesus is Lord” is the oldest confession regarding Jesus and becomes widespread in the early church. So it would appear that the Thomas story is loaded with things to aid the second generation in believing.

But then a second theme emerges, which cuts deeply into the adulation of Thomas. It begins with a rebuke of Thomas for believing only because he has seen. Remember that Thomas asked for something no one else can ask for or receive. It is here that the story is disappointing: by receiving an answer to his request, Thomas becomes a witness, like all the others. For the story to be persuasive, we must trust Thomas as a witness, which is exactly what Thomas refused to do with the other witnesses. What began in the hope of getting beyond trusting the witnesses now ends up just there: having to trust Thomas and the other witnesses. While his story may be more dramatic than others, it leaves the second generation with the question whether they can believe without seeing. But then another twist occurs: Jesus blesses the second generation for believing without seeing. It is not Thomas that is blessed but the readers of John’s gospel. This is disappointing because the most definitive and dramatic account of the resurrection still leaves the second generation having to trust the witnesses. It would appear that they do not have any other option. Or do they?

It is at this point that the first story offers some help. Again, it is set in the evening when the disciples are together in a room (except for Thomas). Jesus appears and shares four gifts: 1) peace; 2) a mission (“As the Father has sent me, so I send you…” 3) the Holy Spirit; 4) the authority to forgive sins. Let me say that such gifts are mentioned at the close of the other gospels in various ways, the most notable being the Great Commission in Matthew 28. It might be best to call signs of the resurrection.

This brief story strikes me as a very different from the story of doubting Thomas. Instead of focusing on seeing and touching the body of Jesus, the story centers on what we might call signs of resurrection which form the community in new ways. In this story the appearance of Jesus moves directly to instances of transformative power: peace, a mission, the Spirit and the ability to forgive sins and resist the powers of anger and vengeance. In the context of our divided and violent world, these are significant. Peace is not an ordinary, common practice. Nor is accommodation to violence unusual, as today the world stands by while Russia reduces an entire country to ruble, Gaza is destroyed by bombs and its people starve, and Jews are killed on the sidewalk in Washington. For good reason the first word spoken by Pope Leo XIV was “Peace.” In a similar way, where there is clarity of mission, people reconciled to one another by forgiveness, or the presence of the Spirit, there is confirmation of Jesus’ resurrection.

Once again we are confronted with the question whether faith is necessarily tied to other people or specific actions. Can you believe in the resurrection and reject the four signs? It is hard to imagine, but we need to avoid expecting all believers to live out their faith in the same way. But the accounts of the resurrection draw believers together and they are given the Holy Spirit and sent on a mission to proclaim the gospel. (cf. Acts 2) In the Gospel and Letters of God, it is unimaginable to speak of faith in God without loving one another. Now we must be clear: the signs of resurrection are not the resurrection, but it is safe to say that where there is resurrection faith, there are the signs of peace, mission, the Spirit and forgiveness.

For a moment, consider these two scenes as two perspectives on the resurrection. Both involve reference to Jesus’ physical presence, but for different reasons. In the first story, Jesus’ presence is connected to experiencing the impact of Jesus as risen Lord. The appearance of Jesus becomes a Pentecost event for the writer John. In the story of Thomas, seeing and touching the body relate to certainty about the resurrection itself¸ as played out in the struggle between doubt and belief, but then is suddenly placed in the context of the second generation.

Now before we drive a wedge between these two views, let me affirm that both are part of the Christian witness to the resurrection. If there were no bodily resurrection, questions would be raised whether it was all in the imagination of the disciples. Conversely, without the experience of new life stemming from the risen Christ, the witness to the resurrection would lack spiritual power. From the standpoint of the needs of the second generation—which is our situation—the first story is more helpful and persuasive. This is not to disregard questions about the resurrection itself. There is always a need to include the accounts of the witnesses. They are the ones who insist that something happened to cause them to affirm that Jesus is Lord. But as Thomas illustrated, if you do not have that experience, one can be caught between doubt and belief. In contrast to Thomas, we do not have his experience.

I conclude from these observations that in the task of confirming the resurrection, the signs of resurrection become decisive. The church needs to be spending time on how the resurrection forms the community in a new way and gives direction as to who we are, what we shall do and how we shall relate to one another. This is not unusual, since there have always been two approaches to confirming the resurrection: the appeal to the witnesses and the offer of signs of resurrection: peace, mission, forgiveness and the Spirit testify to Jesus as Lord.

In other words, confirming the resurrection now relates to whether:

You are at peace or know anything about what makes for peace.
You have purpose connected to the Rule of God. (Note Jesus said you cannot serve two masters)
You have received a spiritual rebirth.
You know anything about the forgiveness of sins (Note that the Amish consider forgiveness of sins a social practice required in order to hold back the power of vengeance and violence).

Viewed from this perspective, we seem to be moving toward saying that the accounts of the witnesses inspire faith when the signs of resurrection impact our lives. The testimony of the witnesses to the resurrection needs to be joined with a community where lives are changed by a mission, the presence of the Spirit of Christ, peace and the forgiveness of sins.

Given all this it should not surprise you when I say that it is very difficult to talk about the signs of the resurrection apart from the common life of believers gathered in churches. The idea of an individual Christian set apart from all common life may be possible, but it is the exception. All of the signs of resurrection imply a common life of worship, prayer, study, service and fellowship. Peace is found among people struggling with divisions and violence and the need to be reconciled to enemies. To struggle with the need to forgive requires a community inspired by the Spirit, which celebrates that we were born to live for one another. Participating in congregations is not a popular thought today, as so many seem to be seeking individual forms of spiritual life apart from churches. I will never say that Christ or the Spirit are confined to churches. What I will say is that when believers gather to hear Scripture, where the gospel is proclaimed and there is a common life based on sharing bread and wine, in such places we may find signs of the resurrection.

Being and Doing

By Peter Schmiechen

On May 4, 2025

In Grace, The Church, Theology

One way of exploring the life of faith for both Jews and Christians is to use the terms Being and Doing. Let’s begin by saying that Being has to do with the state of a person, i.e., heart, mind and soul; while Doing has to do with how a person expresses themselves in momentary or extended actions. I would even add that Doing includes the way we think, since thinking happens within a person formed with a specific Being. Thinking and doing are not the same in everyone because they are derived from different forms of Being in different cultural settings.

But things get complicated: On the one hand we assume that actions grow out of a person and so we ask: “Why did he do that? But on the other hand, what one does can influence and form a person’s Being. Much education includes training, even practice, in performing certain actions (and prohibits other actions) on the assumption that such repetition will become habits, which in turn will be internalized. That is, the child will come to understand the reason for such actions and will eventually do them voluntarily. The actions no longer need supervision by parents and teachers but become habits of the heart.

So why is this distinction important? To begin, the goal of true religion for both Jews and Christians is a new form of Being and Doing, formed by the gracious action of God. This gives Being a certain priority since it represents the relation of the believer to God in terms of faith and commitment, love and gratitude. But Doing is also essential, since the Being formed by grace finds expression in specific forms of Doing. Take for example the Shema: ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is One and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your might.” (Deuteronomy 6:4-5) The passage goes on to say that “…these words shall be written upon your heart…” and you shall teach them to your children. Jesus affirms the same point: faith in God means voluntary and intentional love of God and neighbor, arising from the person transformed by grace. Such heart religion can never be reduced to a list of things to believe, unrelated to the heart. Luther and Calvin insisted that faith was not a good deed to gain acceptance by God, but the joyful trust of the heart toward a gracious God. To the extent that religion becomes defined only in terms of ideas or actions, it runs the danger of lapsing into lifeless repetition of seemingly good words or deeds which have no relation to the state of mind or heart. From what has been said, we can see the dynamic relation between Being and Doing. Doing is dependent on Being as a relation to God, and Being as a relation to God cannot exist without acts of love. Paul’s great sermon on love (I Cor. 13) affirms acts of love as greater than faith or hope. The First Letter of John declares that if one does not love, one does not know God. (I John 4:8) In this light Being and Doing cannot be separated. When pressed, this leads to a surprising point of view, namely that anyone can do something good for a neighbor in need, by design or accident. But true religion involves hearts and minds in joyful love of God and neighbor.

We now are at a point to ask: Given the way hearts and minds have been orientated in the ways of the world and our own self-centeredness, how is this new form of Being and Doing possible? When the New Testament speaks of redemption, reconciliation or liberation, it is pointing to the possibility of a major change in our Being. Whether we describe it in terms of a re-orientation, or a deconstruction of the old form of self-hood and the re-construction of the new, what is being affirmed is the possibility of change, resulting in a new form of Being.

Consider several examples:

1. The first thing Jesus says in Mark 1:14 is to announce the presence of the Kingdom of God followed by a call to repentance and faith. The sequence is crucial: something is happening which requires and makes possible a change. Repentance is a turning of hearts and minds from current commitments to trust in the Rule of God. The disciples are called to give up the standards of the world and accept the rule of love. Referring to the old ways of ruling over others, Jesus says: “But it shall not be so among you.” (Mk 10:43) We cannot serve two masters: One must choose to let go of the old and receive new life.

2. The Gospel of John begins with the declaration that the very Word of life and light “…became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.” Such an event makes possible such a drastic change that it can only be compared to a new birth. (John 3) This makes no sense to Nicodemus, and Jesus makes clear the new birth is not something we can control, but comes of the Spirit. In a similar way Jesus speaks of living water and the bread of life.

3. Paul thinks we are so weighed down by sin, fear and the powers of this world that the change must be comparable to dying to the old life and rising with Christ to new life. Transformation is possible because it involves one no longer living to oneself but living in the power of Christ and the Spirit. In Galatians 6:3-4 he declares that he can expect great things of believers because they are a new creation. Years ago Paul Tillich re-phrased these words, suggesting we think of this as a new being.

In these three cases, we need to note the peculiar sequence: First, the agent of change is God. These are not self-help stories. We do not improve, heal or restore ourselves.

Second, all talk about something new in us and the world is dependent on something God has done. For Jews, there is a constant remembrance of God’s liberation of Israel from bondage in Egypt. For Christians it is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus which constitutes the new event. Whether you wish to point to Christmas, his calling of disciples, healing the sick, liberation from demonic power, creating a new covenant, his faithfulness unto death or God raising Jesus to be Lord, all of these constitute the new reality in our midst which generates a new Being.

Third, from this new Being there comes the mandate to act in new ways. Note the order: we are not called to bring in the Kingdom by ourselves, or to do things if we think they are good. Rather, we are commanded to act because we have been drawn into the new Being by the grace of God. As I learned years ago, the indicative always precedes the imperative. What is in Christ becomes the basis (or possibility) for a new Doing. Nowhere is this more evident than in Paul. He begins with what is: God in Christ changing the world. Then he admonishes us to be what we already are in Christ. Take his words in II Cor. 5:16, where he makes the transition from what is to what is possible with the words: “From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view….” In a sermon on this passage I stopped and said: Take a card and write on it: “From now on, therefore!” When you want to know what time it is, pull it out and read it. No matter what the time is at Greenwich, England, the real time is always: “From now on, therefore!”

Fourth, and so important because our culture ignores this: The new Being is always a communal existence. The exodus culminates in a Covenant; Jesus calls disciples into a New Covenant community. The new Being of the community, as well as that of each individual contained therein, is sustained by worship, prayer, the sacrament of the new covenant, as well as acts of fellowship, service and evangelism.

Now let me raise the question: How is this affirmation of Being and Doing affected by the church crisis and does what has been said offer any clues regarding the way forward? For seven decades, mainline churches have lost members (from 30% to 50%), hundreds of congregations, a decline in seminarians and a loss of funds. The decline in members has been especially painful since data suggests that mainline churches were not able to retain confirmands. In effect we lost our children. With little success at evangelism, decline and loss have dominated the mindset of church leaders. That is the current world of mainline Protestant churches, but we should add that Roman Catholics and Conservative Protestants have experienced their own form of the crisis. We need to ask about how religion has been affected by the culture and why people choose life on the edge of churches or completely outside of churches. And I would hope we would avoid thinking that the new Being is only in churches.

Here’s several things we know. First, since the 1960’s the culture wars have dominated the way churches define themselves. We have struggled with divisions over wars, civil rights, women’s rights, the environment, LGBT rights and many more issues. This has generated a tense situation between liberal and conservative Christians, but just as importantly, divisions within every local church. In America the church has been defined as a voluntary association of like-minded people. But the culture wars revealed that we are not like minded. In this respect, the culture wars exposed the fact that the church of agreement is dead and that we were not at all sure about the basis of unity. Was it a matter of belief or just a political process of majority rule?

Second, in American society, religion is something the individual chooses. As a result, people can be religious or speak of Jesus outside the church. Religion does not naturally involve a community with spiritual and social practices. As a result, congregations are not seen as an essential part of being religious—in fact, they are too often seen as merely a means to do certain things.

Third, Americans are optimistic and tend to claim innocence, be they liberal or conservative. In fact, conservatives now use the power of the government to forbid the discussion of certain issues like racism, lest such discussions make people feel pain. In such a culture, there is confidence that people can realize personal goals of happiness or solutions to moral problems by themselves. In the context of the traditional link between sin and grace, the claim to innocence undercuts a distinctive way Christians talk about faith in terms of human need or the call to repentance.

Fourth, we can enumerate some reasons why people left the church. Some left because they did not agree with church practices, especially in the culture wars. Others were deeply wounded by practices which affected them and felt like they were pushed out, to become refugees. For many, the disconnect from churches occurred along with the movement from rural areas to cities or cities to suburbs. For young people it occurred during the time in higher education or the pursuit of careers. In such cases, pluralism appears to be a factor since it undercuts claims by individual churches to be the only church. At times one gets the impression that churches simply did not appear to be the place to be. In the years after WWII, this was not the case, but it appears to be the case in the last fifty years. People speak of being busy, having second jobs, or engaged in other things (like sports for kids on Sunday mornings).

It is appropriate to cluster all these factors together because I don’t think there is one central factor and the reasons for leaving churches probably overlap. In more than one way it is unsettling to find that over this period many left churches because of the Christians, i.e., oppressive matters of faith and practice, as well as violations of trust by priests and ministers. Leaving seemed the appropriate thing to do, as in the movie The Graduate, where the young couple flee the church and lock family and friends inside with the cross.

There are some important things we have learned about losses and gains.

>We ought to be cautious regarding judgments regarding the spiritual life of those outside the church.

>While many left churches because churches appeared to be on the wrong side of issues relating to justice and peace, they did not appear to return to churches when the churches engaged in causes for justice and peace, i.e., churches active in such causes did not necessarily avoid losses or grow. This does not mean churches should not join in action for justice and peace, but that such practices should not be simply a strategy for adding members.

>It would be helpful to know more about how people outside the churches nurture their being and seek to be transformed. Here I am not just referring to self-help programs but the way people seek to participate in something which makes a difference or ways to be transformed.

>Much of the language we use to speak of sin and grace needs to be re-considered. For example, the traditional formula of beginning with sin so as to prompt a need for grace may not work because of general confusion about sin and innocence. Or, those who find themselves suffering from oppressive systems do not feel a sense of guilt, but of shame. They may not need forgiveness as much as liberation.

But here’s an alternative: In one discussion on finding an approach to those outside the church, one pastor in Lancaster, Jeff Shanaberger, suggested that we model regular Sunday worship on the great festivals of Christmas and Easter. In thinking about this, several things came to mind. The fact that many people do come to these two services may suggest that they are not as secular as we might think they are. But more important, these two services have the power to attract because they begin with a gracious event which changes things. This is the logic of the gospel and the proper order of Being and Doing. Christmas and Easter celebrate with joy (note: that is crucial) the birth and resurrection of Jesus, the agent of God who brings salvation as well as a sacred presence. They also celebrate the new Being of the community as the beginning of a movement to restore life and light in the world. Need I say it, they begin with grace.

Think for a moment of the powerful words in John 1: the Word becomes flesh; light and life are present so that we have seen His glory. Is it possible that we could envision the worship between Christmas and Easter, as well as Easter and Christmas, not simply as our attempts to interpret the meaning of these two great holidays, but to celebrate the glory of God revealed in our midst? The old piety of gratitude, so mindful of grace extended to sinners, was not wrong and will always be part of the gospel. But in our situation, what if we saw worship as a way of overwhelming and inspiring listeners with the glory of the new being in Christ. In the middle ages, cathedrals did that for people and still do for some. In the Protestant revolt, the proclamation of grace captured the imagination of people weighed down by the judgment of God. To see the glory of God in the community at worship, at the table, in fellowship, and in service may be a way to point to the good news. This might move us to reform the Supper liturgy so that it is not a sacrament of penance, but a glorious celebration of the cosmic salvation in Christ. I can also dream that it might prompt a new lectionary focusing on broad themes regarding the gospel, with clusters of texts which might focus our attention on proclaiming the gospel in the current crisis of the church. And if our preaching followed the sequences in the gospels, where men and women were called to make a decision, it might be just the way to invite listeners today to choose and to decide what one will do with one’s life. A piety of glory would be an amazing turn of events.

Note: For a more detailed discussion of some of these issues, see Tradition in Crisis: The Case for Centric Protestants.

A Favorite Verse

By Peter Schmiechen

On November 22, 2024

In Grace, Nature, Theology

On my opening page is a verse from Psalm 104 in the Jerusalem Bible. Allow me to share with you why it is so decisive for me. But first, here is the complete Psalm, which may make it obvious.

Bless Yahweh, my soul. Yahweh my God, how great you are!
Clothed in majesty and glory, wrapped in a robe of light!
You stretch the heavens out like a tent, you build your palace on the waters above;
Using the clouds as your chariot, you advance on the wings of the wind;
You use the winds as messengers and fiery flames as servants.
You fixed the earth on its foundations, unshakable for ever and ever;
You wrapped it with the deep as with a robe, the waters overtopping the mountains.
At your reproof the waters took to flight, they fled at the sound of your thunder,
Cascading over the mountains, into the valleys, down to the reservoir you made for them;
You imposed the limits they must never cross again, or they would once more flood the land.
You set springs gushing in ravines, running down between the mountains,
Supplying water for wild animals, attracting the thirsty wild donkeys,
Near there the birds of the air make their nests and sing among the branches.
From your palace you water the uplands until the ground has had all that your heavens have to offer,
You make fresh grass grow for cattle and those plants made use of by man,
for them to get food from the soil: wine to make them cheerful
oil to make them happy and bread to make them strong.
The trees of Yahweh get rain enough, those cedars of Lebanon he planted,
Here the little birds build their nests and, on the highest branches, the stork has its home.
For the wild goats there are the mountains, in the crags rock badgers hide.
You made the moon to tell the seasons, the sun knows when to set;
You bring darkness on, night falls, all the forest animals come out:
Savage lions roaring for their prey, claiming their food from God.
The sun rises, they retire, going back to lie down in their lairs
And man goes out to work, and to labor until dusk.
Yahweh, what variety you have created, arranging everything so wisely!
Earth is completely full of things you have made:
Among them vast expanse of ocean teeming with countless creatures,
Creatures large and small, with the ships going to and fro
And Leviathan whom you made to amuse you.
All creatures depend on you to feed them through the year;
You provide the food they eat, with generous hand you satisfy their hunger.
You turn your face away, they suffer, you stop their breath, they die and revert to dust.
You give breath, fresh life begins, you keep renewing the world.

Glory for ever to Yahweh! May Yahweh find joy in what he creates,
at whose glance the earth trembles, at whose touch the mountains smoke!
I mean to sing to Yahweh all my life, I mean to play for my God as long as I live.
May these reflections of mine give him pleasure, as much as Yahweh gives me!
May sinners vanish from the earth and the wicked exist no more!
Bless Yahweh, my soul.

Ever since I saw this translation of Ps 104, I was hooked. In lively, poetic language it invites you to see all the wonders and terrors of creation. In its variety and wise order, “Earth is completely full of things you have made.”(v. 24) At times Ps. 104 brings to mind Gen 1, though my hunch is that the Psalm came first, since it is more poetic, less formal and shows less interest in logical order. It also avoids the sweetness of Walt Disney and refuses to gloss over instances of nature in tooth and claw. Our life, suffering, or death are placed in dependence of the God who gives or stops the breath of all living things. There is no apology or retreat from that cluster of affirmations so essential to the Jewish world view: All things are created by God and they display wondrous variety and order. There is no attempt to cover up frightening stuff or only talk about what we might think is the good stuff. And, this is interesting, what was once created continues to exist only by the sustaining power of God. The world is not a wind up clock. God is not beyond the world, uninvolved or unaffected by what happens. Finally, this is our intended home. We are not to long for a spiritual existence void of work or physical sufferings. We are a part of this world, capable of rejoicing in God, just as God rejoices in the wonders of creation.

Ps. 104 is in the form of dramatic poetry with wonder filled images. Can such metaphorical images be a basis for descriptions of God, the world and human life? In my life time, one school of thought has insisted that the Hebrew mind was simply not interested in what we would call the nature of things, especially in terms of philosophical analysis. This meant that the Hebrew Bible was interested in the history and the salvation of Israel but not discussing God or the world in technical terms. Now, the issue here is not the use of poetry or metaphorical language, since both forms of speech might convey something to be true in a descriptive way. For example, liberals object to Gen. 1-2 as a literal account of creation not because it uses poetry but because it does not accord with our view of the created order. So what are we to do with Ps. 104?

Some might be put off by the suggestion that the world is surrounded by water—an image which reappears in the flood story of Noah, where the flood occurs because the waters of the deep rise to cover everything. Or, were the large sea monsters (Leviathan) really created to amuse God? Or again, one might ask why there is no rationale for giving or taking away the breath of life: are we at the mercy of divine whims or is there some clear purpose to the divine providence? These are legitimate questions and we should note that they assume that poetry in praise of God can convey descriptions of God and the world.

For myself, I have never been convinced that material like Ps. 104 speaks only to the heart and makes no claims about God or the world. The Psalms affirmed God the creator of all things and that humans were created for life with one another, nature and God. That such affirmations are embedded in poetic language of praise only makes them more powerful, since they are statements about God and the world bound up with faith and love toward one another and God.

If, on the other hand, the Psalms do not give us statements about God and the world, then a different kind of problem is created. Where are we going to find descriptions of God and the world to fill in the picture? If you know Christian history and theology, you are probably laughing. In an effort to give the Psalms a surer foundation, Christians in every age have borrowed language to fill in the void in the hope of giving the Psalms a surer foundation. Too often, they turned to Greek philosophy, which relies on the sharp distinction between the real and unreal, the infinite and finite, the spiritual and physical. For example, the great debate over the Trinity basically was a clash between Platonic versus Biblical assumptions regarding God. Could the Infinite God, who created all things actually enter this world of finitude and fallen creatures. Arius said No, and Athanasius said Yes. The modern variation on such a view is the attempt to protect the majesty of God from the way God is portrayed in this Psalm. God is the absolute and infinite, is above and beyond the created world, does not need to be entertained by monsters in the sea, nor is God willing to get involved in the complications of this messy world. God created everything but now lets it run and is watching, as the song says, from a distance.

At other times, elements from non-Christian views crept into the church to compromise the Psalmist’s perspective. In the early church opposition came from Gnosticism, which held that this world is fallen, prone to decay and death. The solution is to escape to the ideal realm of truth and light. This is made possible by the secret knowledge given by a divine messenger. The world is not our home but the problem. The other great option in the ancient world which nullifies Ps. 104 is cosmic dualism, which offers a simple explanation for the presence of good and evil. The answer is that there are two gods, one good and one evil. But the Psalmist will have nothing to do with this kind of polytheism.

These are the kinds of things on my mind when I read Ps. 104 and yes, that says something about me. But they are also a part of our culture: on the one hand, the world is a mixture of good and bad stuff and the best we can do is stay close to the good and avoid the bad. Then along comes Ps. 104 and shocks us with a powerful set of affirmations. There is one God, not two or many, in constant warfare. This one God creates the heavens and the earth, things majestic and wonderful and the sorrowful and sad. There is no attempt to divide the world between good and evil, nor any hint that we are spiritual creatures exiled to planet earth. Human existence is not to be explained by using two separate categories of spirit and matter, since physical things appear to be enlivened by spiritual power, yet are still made of dust. You can’t imagine how much religion that excludes. Then there is the insistence that creation is not a once for all deal, but whatever exists continues to exist only by the power of God. That certainly is an invitation to some interesting discussions. And finally, there is a total disregard for placing God on a pedestal beyond this world, free from whatever happens and totally unaffected. God takes pleasure in the creation and rejoices in it. Certainly, not all questions are answered, but it is clear that the rich poetry makes multiple claims about God and the world.

All this brings us to the ending. Verse 33 proposes that singing is the appropriate response to the God who has created all things, including us. Singing wakes us up, pierces the heart and elevates us to a higher level. It is important because when done from the heart it is not utilitarian but offered as a gift to God. It’s not elevator music. When needing to praise God, Deborah sang a song, Hannah sang her song and Mary expanded on it. David is said to have been good at singing to the Lord. There is no purpose to singing to God except for the praise and love of God. It reveals one’s heart, which is where your treasure is.

Then there is the whimsical idea of playing for God all my life. As far as I know, the Jerusalem Bible stands alone in substituting the word play for the word sing in v. 34. The word play can refer to playing musical instruments, children playing games or young and old playing in sports. Even professionals play the games. Bart Giamatti proposes that play takes on a new and special meaning in the modern world: play is that free and spontaneous activity, striving toward personal fulfillment, in contrast to all the required activities and work, which for so many have become repressive and void of meaning. (Cf. Giamatti, Take Time for Paradise, (New York: Summit; 1989) Some people work harder at their play because it is free and gives meaning to life. In such activity the individual or group gives expression to what is truly desired, authentic and fulfilling. Thus play becomes the quintessential expression of one’s self (heart, mind and soul). This modern use of the word play was certainly not on the mind of the Psalmist, but it may have been on that of the translator. To play for God is to give to God the free expression of one’s heart. It is done spontaneously without regard to what is required by forces outside oneself. It is to love God. And to do that all one’s life. To ask how one can do this all one’s life is already to miss the point. It is to gather together all things in the love of God, so that the varied and wonder filled life created by God is given in praise of the Creator. Such action points to both the Shema: “Hear of Israel: The Lord is your God, the Lord alone. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your might” (Deut. 6: 4-5) and Jesus’ summation of all the commandments by affirming love of God and love of neighbor. (Mark 12: 31).

Last but not least is the ground breaking affirmation that our reflections give God pleasure, “…as much as Yahweh gives me.” In one simple verse, without much fanfare, the Psalmist excludes the possibility that God is so perfect that God is unaffected by mere human beings. God, who created all things, takes pleasure in the wonders of the world, knows and grieves our sufferings, and rejoices when we rejoice. You matter to this God.

Psalm 104 is like a wakeup call, but one needs some time to comprehend it with heart and mind. This world is not all there is. We are not alone, forced to find whatever meaning we can in more material things or by abandoning them altogether? I suspect the writer of this Psalm knew people who lived and worked in a world where God did not matter, or just as scary, never dreamed of finding goodness or meaning in this world. Here is the writer’s response. There is no holding back or fear of unanswered questions. In our time, when secularism crowds out reference to God, or references to God seem pointless, these words are a great example of middle speech. Indeed, singing and playing for God might be most appropriate for mean times.