Personal Responsibility at the Border and a Prayer

Some people try to blame migrant parents for the unbelievably tragic deaths of migrants at the U.S. border. The photo above of the young man with his 23-month old daughter tucked in his shirt with her arm around his neck, haunts me. They died attempting to cross the Rio Grande River in order to seek safety within the U.S. 

While I disagree wholeheartedly with those who put blame on the migrant parents (because seriously, how can you blame people who are *literally* running for their lives?), they are right about one thing: This is indeed an issue of personal responsibility:

Our personal responsibility to be accountable for what our government does under our name with our tax dollars. The law is one thing but enforcement is another. There is no excuse for the inhumane, abusive treatment of desperate migrants. We can--and must--do better. 

Our personal responsibility for addressing the consequences of our actions when we destabilize other nations through brutal regime change or equally brutal trade policies, such as what the USA does in Honduras, El Salvador, etc. Migrants are fleeing the resulting violence and chaos.

Our personal responsibility to deeply and sincerely hear the cries of those begging for help, taking them abundantly seriously and doing all in our power to welcome, show compassion and be a vehicle for God's mercy.

Our personal responsibility to be our brothers' and sisters' keeper, as outlined in Scripture (Genesis 4).

Our personal responsibility to follow the Gospel call to love one another. This is in fact the Greatest command that Jesus himself gives. I want to give Scripture verses here but I could list dozens and dozens of places in Scripture telling us to do this very thing.

Our personal responsibility to welcome the stranger (Matthew 25).

Our personal responsibility to be merciful. Numerous examples all through Scripture attest to this, from the mercy of the Good Samaritan to the Beatitudes. The whole of Scripture is a story of mercy, it can be argued. But do we listen?

Yes, this is all about personal responsibility. Our individual and collective responsibility as members of our United States society.

And being accountable for our own actions. 

And facing the consequences of our political, cultural, social and individual decisions in the voting booth, in the marketplace, in our communities and globally, and in our personal relationships, our personal budget and with our time and talent.

If you say:  "It's not my problem! It's the migrant parents fault! What do you think I am... my brother's keeper??" Just remember who first used that line of reasoning:

Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?” 

He said, “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?”

And the Lord said, “What have you done? 

Listen; your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground!

Genesis 4:9-10

Or perhaps our brothers' and sisters' blood is crying out to God--and to us--from the rivers, as well.  

I don't want to share this photo. But I think I have to. How many of you out there are fathers? Perhaps with a 23-month old daughter?

I am a father with a 2-year old daughter. I know I'm going to hold her closer tonight than ever. But I'm not sure I can hold her as tight as this daughter and father were holding each other on this fateful journey. May their arms be forever joined in love and safety for all eternity.

My Prayer

May God have mercy on the U.S. for creating the conditions abroad that are so desperate people are forced to flee for their lives.

May God have mercy on the U.S. for making it as hard as possible for these same desperate people to find safe shelter here. Turning them away--when we have ample space and resources--at the very moment of their greatest, most desperate need. They had nothing but the hope to beg for help.

May God have mercy on the people of the U.S. who find the flimsiest excuses to turn them away, turn their backs to them and suspect the worst in them, without even bothering to find out for sure.

May this father and daughter find the peace they were working so hard to find in the arms of their loving God, Father and Mother. Because they certainly didn't find it here in the arms of their fellow Christians, their fellow humans, their neighbors to the north, their brothers and sisters on earth.

May their love and embrace echo through eternity.

***

Have you prayed for the migrants at the border?  

If you haven't, I ask you to do it now.

Then I ask you to pray for yourself--that God may open our hearts, open our minds to God's wisdom, and turn our paralysis--or indifference--into action on behalf of those suffering the most.

All Christians are Asylum-Seekers

A Christian IS an asylum-seeker.  

All of us.  Each of us.  

By definition.

As refugees, don't we need to flee from the sin of this world? Don't we come to the proverbial Gates of God's Kingdom as asylum-seekers, begging that God may allow us to enter?    

Some have argued—without exaggeration—that the entire Bible is a story of migration.

In the Bible, we read that Noah was adrift at sea until God brought his ark to a safe landing. Abraham set out with little more than his family en route to the Promised Land. Moses led the Israelites out of captivity and slavery. Jesus the Good Shepherd leads his sheep from the sin of this world to enlightenment and to His Kingdom, both on earth as it is in Heaven. The Apostles went forth into the world sharing the Good News. 

In the Catholic Church, we understand that we are a "pilgrim people." It's our very identity. See this link for quotes from documents of Vatican II as well as from Pope John Paul II on this. We are a people on the move.

Movement of people is an underlying theme in all of Scripture—in particular the movement of desperate people. I rarely say that "the Bible" has one message, but in this case it truly does. You could argue that it's there on every page, in every passage.

To not self-identify as a migrant is to understand neither the Bible nor Christianity.

To not understand that moving out of your comfort zone toward trusting in what God has prepared for you is to miss so much of the Biblical message. This can be an interior movement as your own thoughts mature or it can be an exterior change in your surroundings. It can be a movement you undertake as an individual, a family or as a whole nation of people.

Aren't we ALL asylum seekers who seek refuge in God's kingdom?

If there is ANY role that can best emulate our relationship with God, it should be that of refugee and asylum-seeker. This is how we come to God: We are the huddled masses of desperate, poor people gathered outside God's gate, begging for mercy and a warm welcome in—a welcome we can't purchase or deserve. And may God have mercy on us for how we treat others who are migrants, immigrants, refugees and asylum-seekers. We will want safe passage and a warm welcome into God's kingdom, but did we grant safe harbor to others when they begged for it, when we easily could have provided it?

This is the migrants journey—but not just any migrant.  This is the journey of a refugee—but not just any refugee. This is the journey of an asylum-seeker.  This is the position we are in when we come to God.  We are at the gates of God's Kingdom, begging for entry, and there is nothing we can do to merit it, earn it, buy it or deserve it. We have nothing to barter with. Only God's mercy will let us in, and thank God there is mercy in abundance!

It would be wrong to ignore many passages in the Bible which claim there is a direct relationship between the mercy we give in this world and the mercy we receive from God. Look at the story of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37 or the parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25:31-46. I know it is tricky as that enters into the whole "works vs grace" debate, and I don't want to get into that here. Furthermore, some people may not interpret these "Kingdom" passages to be about an afterlife in Heaven, but this blog post is written for those who do. Perhaps these passages have more to do with how well we "know God" rather than whether or not we get a ticket to Heaven.

So when you see the huddled masses who have traveled thousands of miles with little more than the clothes on their backs approaching the U.S. border begging for safety—THAT is exactly what we look like when we approach the proverbial Gates of Heaven.  

More importantly: Does that change our attitudes about them at all? 

Sometime we feel lost at sea, like Noah, doing all we can to just hold on for the ride. Sometimes we set out daringly like Abraham. Sometimes our whole family—and our whole people—are running for our lives like the Israelites out of Egypt. Sometimes we agree to our mission as formed disciples, like the Apostles. But in all this, we are a people on the move, trusting in God.

Maybe you'll "get to Heaven" whether you help out these asylum-seekers or not—after all, our God is a God of mercy. But then again how can you get to Heaven if you don't know God, and if you see these huddled masses and see neither yourself nor Christ in them, then can you really say you know God? And furthermore, don't you want to know God just for the sake of knowing God, whether or not that comes with a ticket to Heaven or not?

Innkeeper Spirituality

...and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them. - Luke 2:7

As the migrant caravan of asylum-seekers makes its 2,000 mile trek toward the U.S., I'm reminded of two characters from the Gospel of Luke:  The Innkeeper of Bethlehem and the Good Samaritan.

Whose example do we want to follow?

The Innkeeper

Many Christians today practice what I call "innkeeper spirituality." Like the innkeeper in Bethlehem, they can't seem to find any available time, talent or treasure to answer when God knocks on the door in real need.

They have no shortage of excuses, however. I can imagine the innkeeper saying things like:

"I am tired!"
"I have already helped others! In fact, I'm the most generous innkeeper around!"
"The census is the busiest time of the year!"
"I have to protect my time with my family!"
"I don't trust outsiders--what if one of them is a thief or murderer?"

Maybe those excuses are valid... maybe not so much.

Some characters in the Bible get a bad rap, and the innkeeper is no exception. Truth be told we don't know much about this person. How much can we infer based on a single line of text from a 2,000+ year old document?

It's even more confusing when the document doesn't even say what we think it says. There was no actual mention of an innkeeper. All we are told is that there was "no guest rooms available" and then it says "for them" (as a side note, were rooms available to others and just not to this particular family?)

Still, it's not hard to imagine what went down. Here is a family traveling from out of town and the woman is about to give birth. Joseph as husband and protector probably explored every possible option, promised every favor imaginable and left absolutely no stone unturned. I'm sure he inquired with at least one innkeeper. Perhaps he approached several innkeepers.

The innkeeper probably felt more than a little twang of guilt. We imagine him sternly saying "No!" and then slamming the door to the Holy Family. The more guilt he felt, the harder he had to bite down on that guilt in order to push away this family in need.

But seriously, he couldn't ask some young person to move off the proverbial couch to make way for an expectant mother-to-be? A pregnant woman about to give birth should be the one condition that would cause most everyone--even some of the most fearful or hardest hearted people--to make some space available! If a woman was literally about to give birth and knocked on my door at night, I couldn't imagine saying, "yeah, go outside to the shed... watch out for raccoons" It's almost inconceivable.

The Good Samaritan paying the innkeeper

The Good Samaritan

What could the innkeeper have done differently?

Luke himself actually gives us the answer later in the gospel in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). Again, here is a stranger in need and another person who comes in contact with him by chance. Unlike the innkeeper in Bethlehem, the good Samaritan reaches out to the injured man. The Samaritan goes toward him. He takes the initiative. He takes personal responsibility for this man. He makes sure there is a room available for him by not only paying the innkeeper himself but also promising to return to personally check on him--to see if additional money were needed but perhaps also to check up on the innkeeper to make sure he did what he was paid to do.

This is no doubt a different innkeeper than the one in Bethlehem. Luke seems pretty hard on innkeepers. Still, isn't it curious that those who are in the business of providing hospitality seem to be the least hospitable in his gospel? It is outsiders who don't have as many resources to leverage who show us God's abundance!

The Samaritan does more than he is asked and goes the extra mile. The Samaritan was obviously busy and had somewhere to be, but he still made arrangements for his absence. Hopefully, he also reflected on why the man was injured in the first place and would raise his voice in public so that the road to Jericho could become a safer place in the future.

The Samaritan could have made all the same excuses as the innkeeper. No doubt the priest and the Levite who passed by the injured man gave those same excuses--the same excuses we tell ourselves when we drive by a person asking for a handout or when we close the border to people begging for help.

"Make every effort"

Hebrews 12:14 instructs us to "make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord."

It is clear that the Good Samaritan "made every effort." It is also clear that the innkeeper did not.

Perhaps sometimes we do need to say "no." Even the most charitable people will speak of the need to set limits or risk burning out. But are we making every effort before we arrive at that point?

Back to the migrant caravan: The U.S. has large tracts of available land and empty housing. It is the richest nation in the history of modern civilization. On top of that, immigration of all types is generally a boost to the economy. Despite that, many Americans say to migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers: "We don't have room! We can't accommodate!"

Meanwhile, a much poorer nation like Uganda hosts the world's largest refugee settlement. How is Uganda willing and able to open its doors while the U.S. is not?

We have a choice: We can practice the innkeeper spirituality that always says "we can't." Or we can follow in the footsteps of the Good Samaritan who said, "Yes, I can do something here."

But if we turn them away, I have to ask:  How could they possibly be a burden? We could welcome in this whole migrant caravan of asylum-seekers and the vast majority of Americans would not feel even the slightest inconvenience.

My prayer: I hope each of these asylum seekers find safe harbor and a warm Christian welcome here in the United States.

Inclusion: The Default Christian Stance

Picture taken from here.

Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy;

without holiness no one will see the Lord. 

- Hebrews 12:14

News of the "migrant caravan" on its way to the U.S. border from Honduras has taken over the news cycle.

How are Christians to respond?

In all the arguments on all sides, there is one perspective I almost never hear:  "Make every effort" as the quote from Hebrews states.

There is no shortage of debate in this country. Arguments run the gamut from securing borders to opening them, to making short terms allowances to long-term immigration reforms.

Christians often get tangled in the tediousness of moral arguments.  They ask:  "Does a nation have a right to secure its borders at all?" "Can a Christian ever make the decision to exclude someone?"

The problem with the way we ask those questions is that we easily get lost in the details. Most theologians and pastors would argue that there are indeed times when we can exclude. But the question is: Should we? And should we now in this particular instance?

The fact that we can exclude in some very limited scenarios does not give us license to exclude in every scenario. This is the logical fallacy I hear being played out in debates on this subject ad infinitum. Those times it may be regrettably the right decision to exclude someone may be few and far between and in very specific cases.

The Christian ought to the on the side of the outsider. The Christian should be listening to the cries of the poor. The Christian should be bending over backwards to include. In fact, "inclusion" should be the default stance for a Christian: There is always room at the table for more. There is always extra food in the pot. And when we're not sure if there's enough, we'll trust in God to help us find a way to make way.

“…I am making a way in the desert and streams in the wasteland.” 
Isaiah 43:19

Let the theologians argue whether it is ever possible to exclude someone. Perhaps it is. But are we making every effort, as the quote from Hebrews above says? Are we showing sorrow when we have to close the door? Do we believe that God is "making a way" or do we throw up our hands after making little effort and say that nothing is possible?

The U.S. is the richest and most powerful nation in the history of the modern world. We have ample, available land for newcomers. On top of that, immigrants are most often a boost to the overall economy. If that weren't enough, it is quite often U.S. policies in the first place that may be forcing much of this migration of asylum-seekers. Looking at all that, under what criteria can we actually exclude those who come to the door seeking safe asylum?

We should make every effort to include. That should be where our heart is. That should be where our efforts are. If we ever make a decision to exclude some people, we should do it with a very heavy heart. We should regret it and feel sorrow. Most people who are against welcoming newcomers are those who almost certainly have not even tried to sympathize with their circumstances or have even tried to make room for them before reaching their decision to exclude. This is the scandal: The Christians who want to exclude migrants are most often those who haven't even tried to include them, and I don't see much sorrow about their decision.

If we have to reach the unfortunate decision to exclude someone who comes seeking safe refuge, we should do with all the sorrow as if we have indeed closed the door on Christ himself, because, in a very real way, we have (as Dorothy Day from the Catholic Worker movement reminded us over and over).

Christians, the Law and Romans 13: Immigration Considerations

The Apostle Paul in prison . . .
writing favorably about submission to earthly laws?

What part of 'illegal' don't you understand?

Romans 13 has been getting a lot of attention lately in the U.S. immigration debate. To paraphrase what I hear: We're a nation of laws, and too bad if you get punished, because you shouldn't have broken the law! It is often used in an attempt to shut down discussion about the economic, political and cultural drivers of immigration into the U.S., especially humanitarian concerns.

At this point, some Christians like to add theological muscle and cite Romans 13 as a command to blindly follow all the laws of the land. They read that passage as saying that earthly authorities are all divinely appointed by God and that citizens must accept that this is God's will for them at this moment in history. That certainly seem to be what Romans 13 is saying, at first glance.

However, you don't have to be a scholar of the Bible to realize that there must be another way to understand this passage. There have been (and still are) all sorts of cruel and inhumane governments all through history. Do you think that the North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un was appointed by God to be a brutal dictator?

In most communist countries, it has been illegal to practice religion at all. That presents more than a small logical conundrum. That would be like saying: God commands in Romans 13 that you don't believe Romans 13. It's the theological equivalent of an M.C. Escher painting.

In Nazi Germany, it was illegal to helps a Jewish person escape the concentration camps. After World War II, Nazi soldiers were put on trial for crimes against humanity. In their defense, many said that they were just "following the law." That argument did not hold at the Nuremberg trials.

We don't have to go that far to find examples. If that strict read of Romans 13 were true, that would mean that every action by Barack Obama, Donald Trump and every other president and Congress has been "divine inspired" and deserving of our blind obedience. I'm sure virtually all Americans would not be okay with that statement, regardless of their political party affiliation.

Scripture itself gives us a clue that there must be another way to understand Romans 13. There are plenty of instances where God encourages people to go against the law of the land. In Exodus, the captive Israelites rebel against the commands of Pharaoh, just to give one of many examples. Blind obedience to the law of the land does not seem to be what God is asking of us.

Further, Jesus told us to give to Cesar what is Cesar's (Matthew 22:21), but his idea of what belonged to Cesar seemed to be different than just following blindly the letter of the law. Jesus broke both Jewish and Roman laws: He fed the hungry on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-13) and overturned tables in the temple (John 2:15, among other passages). He said that love of God and neighbor are the greatest commandments and that "all the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:40).

So then what does it mean when Romans 13 seems to tell us to submit to government authority? Apostle Paul, right in line with Jesus, gives us the right lens himself at the conclusion of this passage. He writes: "Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law" (Romans 13:10).

Slavery was practiced in North America for nearly 400 years. In the U.S., People faced severe consequences (even to the point of death) to assist runaway slaves in any capacity. Today, we call those folks heroes. Why? Because the laws were unjust. This is key. The underground railroad may have been violating the law of the land, but it was right in line with God's law.

I am not suggesting that Christians should go around breaking laws willy-nilly. But we also can't shrug out shoulders and say, "too bad, that's the law." Unjust laws have no right to exist and must be changed. People who break unjust laws should be given extreme leniency, if not an outright pardon.

So yes, people have the responsibility to follow the laws, but the nation has a responsibility to enact only just laws in the first place. Both are required for an ordered society. I think this is actually what both the Apostle Paul was trying to tell us in Romans 13.

Thomas Aquinas and Government

Catholic teaching has typically had a favorable view of government. As my grad school professor in Catholic Social Teaching taught:

People in the U.S. often say that 'government is a necessary evil.' In Catholic teaching, we would simply say that it is 'necessary.'

America has that strong libertarian and isolationist streak. By contrast, the Catholic tradition is aware of the problems that can come by and through governments, but it also is aware of the good. In addition, it recognizes that there is no getting around the necessity of humans having to learn to work together. Government is one of the major ways in which we do that.

However, that favorable view is not open ended.  Theological juggernaut St. Thomas Aquinas weighs in from the 13th century:

“... in so far as it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence."

Government may be necessary, but not all government is good. We have a moral duty to oppose unjust laws, which, as the great Dominican saint tells us, is really just a form of violence.

In the Walking, Talking and Breaking of Bread: The Road to Emmaus and Immigration

I usually like to have things all figured out before I do something. I don't support charities without researching them nor vote for politicians without applying the same scrutiny. You can get burned if you don't do your due diligence.

However, many aspects of the faith only become apparent once we take that first step on the journey. We can still research and verify as we go, but we have to be moving in the right direction to get an accurate read.

Case in point: The two disciples on the road to Emmaus traveling with the Risen Christ (Luke 24:13-35). Their hearts burned when they talked with him, but they didn't realize what this meant until they had time to reflect later. They finally did recognize Christ in the breaking of the bread. Talking, walking and breaking bread is what it took for them to understand. Had they only seen Jesus standing by the side of the road without interacting or journeying with him, they could easily have dismissed him.

A lot of Christians are unsure what to do about immigration problems in the U.S. However, I am convinced that if we just do what the Bible says, the wisdom will be clear in time. Let's follow the biblical mandate of hospitality and give them a warm welcome. Let's attend to their immediate needs and take time to listen to their stories. Let's walk on the road with these immigrants and break bread with them. We may not have all answers figured out, but once we do this we will recognize Christ among us.

You simply have to trust in the words of Jesus and in the Bible. The wisdom will become apparent as you follow his way.

At first glance, some arguments against hospitality to immigrants may seem reasonable. Our country has a right to secure borders and immigrants can come here legally if they want to, right? Once you start justifying the breaking of some laws, how can you have an ordered society? Can you reward somone who breaks the law?

However, it quickly becomes apparent in the walk with immigrants that these concerns do not adequately frame the discussion. Here are some points to consider:

Does the punishment fit the crime? Separating families over a legal misdemeanor is out of scope. Imagine if the police took your children from you just because you got a speeding ticket! That's a parallel situation. Colonists were frustrated with English laws that could imprison someone for years over small debts. The U.S. Constitution is built with the idea that the punishment ought to fit the crime. Further, all human beings have the right to due process under the law, whether they are here with documents or not.

Even worse, asylum seeks are not actually breaking any law at all.

As Glenmary's President Fr. Chet Artysiewicz says in a recent statement:

"There is an adage which states, ‘The cure is worse than the disease.’ That could well apply to enforcement activities that separate families. We are a nation of laws and affirm that reality, but the application of laws must be done in a way that improves a situation, rather than exacerbates it... The families affected by ICE detainment and deportation are our neighbors. Our country must find a better and more moral way of dealing with these issues."

Imprisoning children and separating them from their parents—possibly for life—is cruel beyond all belief. They should not be kept in cages in warehouses under any circumstances.

Many immigrants coming to the U.S. face an impossible situation in their homelands. Many face death if we send them back. They are here desperately seeking safety. Very often, the situation they are running from is at least partly the result of U.S. policies in the first place, which speaks to our responsibility to do something.

In many cases, there is virtually no legal path to entry. Our nation has needed to overhaul our immigration system for many years now. Quotas and other parameters do not match the current needs of our business community nor the wishes of immigrants. The immigration system should be continually updated and reformed as circumstances change. Instead, immigration reform has been the victim of political gridlock now for more than a couple decades.

Multiple studies show that the overwhelming majority of undocumented immigrants are simply hard-working, family-oriented people who are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens. As a result, they pose no national security risk. They are simply well-meaning people caught in an impossible situation attempting to do the best for their families that they can. We have plenty of room for them!

Myths abound about immigrants taking welfare money from the U.S. On the contrary, undocumented immigrants pay substantially more into the system than they could ever hope to extract.

On top of all this, some laws are simply unjust. Yes, we must respect the law but the laws must be just. 150 years ago, slavery was legal and people who helped runaway slaves could face serious consequences (including death). Back then, runaway slaves were "illegals." Now, we call them—and the people who helped them—heroes.

Christ tell us that when you see the people who are the "least of these" you will see Christ (Matthew 25:31-46). It is hard to find a group that qualifies as "least of these" more than undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Most are fleeing life-threatening circumstances in their homelands and they face persecution, family separation and unending prison sentences in the country they are going to for asylum. They are desperately poor and willing to work for less-than minimum wage and without the safeguards that U.S. citizens enjoy. 

Christ tells us to be close to the poor and marginalized, because that is in fact where we will find him. Sometimes it takes the rest of us some time and effort to see the Christ within.

The people who have close, personal relationships with undocumented immigrants almost always have a favorable, sympathetic opinion of them and overwhelming disdain for their circumstances. Maybe like the disciples on the road to Emmaus, they were only able to see the Christ within while on the journey with them.

Where Charity and Love Prevail: The Matthew 25 Solidarity Test

Our society is so divided over many hot-button issues. There are conservative and liberal viewpoints, with variations of all kinds in between. It can be confusing to know what to think when half of the population seems to have strong opinions one way and seemingly the other half of the population has just as strong views on the other side.

When people express opinions about a particular issue, I always look to see how charitable they are in this. Do they take the concerns of others seriously and try their best to get to the bottom of it? Or do they simply dismiss their concerns outright without getting involved? That is often a clue as to whether their opinions are in line with Christian discipleship.

Jesus promises that he is close to the poor and suffering of the world. He is so close that he can say whatever is done to the "least of these" is also done to him (see Matthew 25:31-46). In this passage, he compels us to do the same through the works of mercy. This is a great model for how Christians can move and act in this world.

If you are trying to figure out what position to take on a controversial issue, you can use what I call the Matthew 25 Solidarity Test: Do you know the people who are affected by this issue? Have you walked in their shoes? Have you heard their concerns in their own words rather than from a third party? Are you so close to them that whatever happens to them also happens to you?

I'll use two hot-button issues to illustrate this point:  Racism in the U.S. and the struggle of refugees and undocumented immigrants.

Reports have been mounting in recent years of unarmed black people in America being killed or otherwise brutalized by police officers. There are so many reports that it is hard to dismiss them all as simply isolated incidents. Yet, some people are quick to say, "There is no racism in the U.S.!" It is strange how that is their first thought. It comes across as defensiveness and frankly just flat out denial. 

Anyone who studies statistics can tell you that a string of incidents does not necessarily prove that there is something like societal racism in play. Such things are difficult to prove and it can take years for the proper data and studies to come in. However, anyone who is even remotely charitable should recognize that we have a big problem. All indicators point to it. Even if we were to find out later that this treatment of African Americans is somehow NOT systemic racism (which I sincerely doubt), we should still be acting as if it were racism until we know for sure. That is what a charitable person would do. Until we get to the bottom of it, we should be doing everything possible to solve this. We should be sensitive, compassionate and diligent until this problem is solved. The fact that so many resist any effort to work on this issue just about proves the legitimacy of the charge of racism.

For example, if someone falls out of a tree and thinks he has broken his arm, the best thing to do is take him to the hospital. It is possible that the arm is not broken, but doctors will treat that person as if the arm is broken until they can properly diagnose. It would be cruel and inhumane to say, "quit crying, your arm is not broken!" without actually doing the necessary evaluation to know for sure. Yet, that is exactly how many in our culture are treating African Americans who present strong evidence of racism and are met with resistance, dismissals of their concerns and overall lack of interest.

The people who say that racism is not a factor are rarely (if ever) close to the issue. They seem to pronounce their judgement from their comfortable living rooms in very white neighborhoods. They aren't the people who are consoling grieving family members or helping a wounded and angry community heal. Those who are involved seem to have no problem recognizing the footprint of racism at work.

I see the same pattern over how we treat refugees and undocumented immigrants. The people who are closest to migrants—who hold their hands when a loved one is missing or who simply listen to them with open minds and hearts—these people overwhelmingly support a merciful approach to welcoming immigrants and granting hospitality whenever possible. Those who want to shut out immigrants and refugees with strict rules are usually people who have had no meaningful contact with those migrants and have rarely taken the time to fully understand their concerns.

An important note: It takes more than physical proximity to truly be in Christian solidarity with others. For example, police and the people they arrest are very close. The police physically touch them and they share a ride in a police car. However, despite sharing that space, they are often very far apart in terms of their life experiences and perspectives. People in segregated communities can often think they are close to each other. They see each other from behind their car windows or in limited interactions in public. They can fool themselves into thinking they understand the concerns of the other group. Segregated or confrontational relationships are not relationships of solidarity, and solidarity is what Jesus is requiring in Matthew 25.

Being in close solidarity with the poor and suffering of the world is no guarantee that you will always form the best opinions. However, in our culture that seems almost evenly divided on so many important issues, we are actually not very divided when we factor in solidarity. Looking at the issues of racism and immigration, those who are in solidarity with the affected groups overwhelmingly have a supportive, sympathetic opinion of their struggles while those with differing opinions are almost always those who are not in solidarity. I'm sure there are exceptions, but quite frankly, I have never met one. Exceptions must be very rare, if they exist at all. This is a pretty clear indicator to me that opinions on both sides are not equal in validity.

I'm reminded of the lyrics to the old church hymn:

Where charity and love prevail,

there God is ever found;

Brought here together by Christ’s love,

by love are we thus bound.

Why Do Americans Keep Saying "We Can't"?

Why do we keep telling ourselves that we can't do things?

I keep hearing it over and over again: We can't have . . . Universal health care. Public education that includes college. Higher minimum wage. Sustainable energy. Humane immigration reform. Safe harboring of refugees.

We can't. We can't. We can't.

Every doomsday scenario is predicted by these naysayers:  The economy will be ruined, taxes will go through the roof, terrorists will destroy this country and the poor will be worse off than ever before! It echoes like a chorus of lions, tigers and bears, oh my! If you believe all the hype, death panels will decide who gets to live and zombies will eat our brains out.

There are a lot of things that are difficult. There is much we haven't yet figured out how to do. But if we value something--and if we want to do it--we should set it as our goal and work towards it. We should at least try our best before coming to the conclusion that it can't be done. 

In his May 25, 1961, address to Congress, President John F. Kennedy said:

"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth."

President Kennedy gives us an example that we should model today. It is empowering to name a goal and make a commitment to it. On July 16, 1969, the first human being stepped foot onto the moon. Had JFK not made a public commitment to this goal AND then put resources behind it, it is unlikely that it ever would have been achieved. This is what leadership looks like. 

We can apply Kennedy's words to our current national debate on health care, poverty, immigration reform, environmental sustainability and any number of other issues: We should say what we want to do, set a timeline, then focus our attention and resources to achieve that goal. I'm sure many people said Kennedy was ridiculous and that travel to the moon was impossible. Those are the same kinds of folk who today say that universal health care is impossible and that environmental sustainability can never be achieved.

Some of these challenges may be difficult, but most Americans like to believe they are good at doing difficult things. We went from horse & buggies to cars, airplanes and a-man-on-the-moon in a few decades while also fighting two world wars and pulling out of a great economic depression. In light of all that history, it's more than a little embarrassing when our first response today is "we can't."

The problem standing in the way is not a lack of technology. The real crisis is a lack of vision. We can figure out the nuts & bolts of a problem. What we need first is to have the courage to name our goal and make a commitment to it with specific numbers and dates.

When I'm faced with a problem, I don't waste my time whining and moping around saying "it can't be done" without even attempting to put a plan together. Yet, that is exactly what Americans are doing. We should be embarrassed that we have allowed ourselves to be lulled into thinking we can't do so many things that are, in fact, very do-able.

We know they are very achievable because most of these have, in fact, been done before. Other nations around the world are far head of us in transitioning to renewable energy and have long ago settled the universal health care debate. We know it is possible to significantly reduce, if not downright eliminate, poverty: Over a century ago, the vast majority of our citizens wallowed in industrial revolution-era sweatshops, but their descendants enjoyed a middle class lifestyle. Dramatic change in a short span of time is very possible, even though many people said it could never be done.

There will always be naysayers. People who have power and money tend to be conservative by the simple fact that they like things the way they are now. They are hesitant--if not downright hostile-- towards change, simply because they are doing well now. Their power and money gives them a big soapbox with a huge megaphone to project their message. They want us to believe that change is impossible. It's our job not to fall for it.

Let's save "we can't" for things like time travel, light sabers and crisscrossing galaxies at the speed of light. But who knows, maybe some day in the future those will be possible, too. These other challenges are, in fact, very much achievable.