Tag: truth

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.

Colonialism

By Peter Schmiechen

On September 6, 2025

In Community

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 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.

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.

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.