Secure Borders in a Christian Context

Image taken from here. 

Jesus commanded us to "love one another." A lot of Christians today talk about having "secure borders" in response to immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers.

Loving one another and having secure borders are not necessarily opposites—but they can be.

Most Christian schools of theology affirm that people have the right to private property. Along with this right comes the notion of having secure borders—whether those are the walls of your private home or the borders of the nation.

However, we can fall into the trap of assuming that the command to love one another and having secure borders are somehow opposites held in tension. It's like we instinctively know that anything that forcefully separates us from our neighbors with locks and armed guards is antithetical to the command to love. But that's only because we don't properly understand "secure borders" in light of the Gospel. They don't have to be opposites when done properly.

Most Christian theology affirms that the right to private property comes with strings attached. It's not open-ended. You have the right to private property so that you can use it for the common good. For example, you can buy a piece of land so you can chop down the trees to make lumber to build a shelter for refugees. Without the right to make decisions about that property, you may not have the agency to fully live out your Christian vocation to "welcome the stranger" (Matthew 25:31-46), for example.

God may respect your freedom to do nothing with that land and lumber while refugees suffer outside in the cold. However, that may be a sin. You certainly have the freedom to sin, but that doesn't make it right.

[I highly recommend Pope John Paul II's Laborum Exercens for a riveting and detailed look at the dignity of work and where I got the ideas of the relation between private property and Christian vocation, especially.]

Americans like to celebrate the notion of freedom. However, Christian freedom is not simply the absence of oppression and restraints. It is the freedom for living out our Christian vocation. In other words, it's not just freedom from a problem, it's the freedom for doing something good. It is in this way that all rights bestowed on us by by Creator are dovetailed with responsibilities. God wants us to have the right to freedom so that we can exercise our responsibility to live out God's commands.

We can have "secure borders" so that we can love one another, offer mercy to refugees and make peace in the world. If the borders do not accomplish that, then they are not of God.

Therefore, all this talk of "secure borders" must be in service to the Greatest Commandment to love one another which Jesus directly tells us should be our chief concern. We can have secure borders not to keep out and abuse vulnerable people but rather to protect people who need to enter for safety. In other words, the purpose of the border is to create a space to allocate resources to help them, not to exclude them. In extreme circumstances the border may be necessary not to exclude refugees but to keep out the ones persecuting them.

Because of the commandment to love, it is our duty to make room for those who are seeking refuge from a long season of running for their lives. Since love if our chief responsibility, the only times we should be talking about exclusions are in very dire, desperate situations. Those may include times when there is simply no room or resources left and when the threat to everyone else is extreme. Obviously we are nowhere near the position to make that claim in the United States:

•     We are the richest nation in the history of human civilization. 
•     We have plenty of open, available land. 
•     We have several decades of experience with undocumented immigrants living in our nation with virtually no national security risk to speak of. Despite the hype, they commit far less violent crime than even native-born citizens.

As you can see from the above list, it is hard (if not downright impossible) for a Christian to justify exclusion at this point in history based on Gospel values.

Besides, a "secure border" does not mean we keep everyone out. It means we reform our immigration system so that people can smoothly come in and out as they need without interference from the government. Part of the reason our border now is insecure is because our current immigration system is too rigid and hostile and fails to respond to current economic and human needs.

But what happens if our secure borders interfere with our ability to love one another and care for the common good? If loving one another and having secure borders ever become opposites, then the Christian responsibility to follow Jesus's Greatest Commandment must come first, as it has a significantly greater standing than the right to have borders. Yes, the Christian tradition affirms the right secure borders, but that right is never absolute and is always secondary to the dignity of the human person, the common good and our exercise of Jesus's Greatest Commandment to love one another.

So what do we do?

Let them in! Offer a warm welcome. And help them get started building and rebuilding their lives here in the U.S.

The Smile Test

Can you say it with a smile on your face?

Whenever I made a decision about serious topic, I always ask myself:

Can I say it with a smile on my face?

I use this tool whether it's a decision about politics, health, relationships or anything.

It's certainly not the only way to know if I have made the right decision, but it's an important factor. If I can't say it with a smile on my face, that troubles me greatly. Why not? Is my conscience trying to tell me something? Have I become too cold and hard-hearted? Is the decision being made with fear or with an open heart?

Take the situation with asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border. I know I could go up to them with arms outstretched, saying:

Welcome! Let's look after you! Here is food and water and fresh clothing. Here is a clean bed to rest from your journey. Please tell us your troubles and we will do our best to be good neighbors and help the best way we can.

Despite the seriousness of their situation, I could see myself smiling while saying those words, at least, smiling on the inside.

By contrast, I can't imagine how someone could say the following with a truly open, warm smile:

Go back to Mexico! Lock up the children! Kick them out of our country and tell them follow the laws! That's what they deserve! We don't need to listen to them, just send them back!

Those words are filled with anger—aggressiveness—meanness—a refusal to listen—a refusal to acknowledge the good in others. The wall has already been built, and it is inside their hearts. They have to spend a lot of energy maintaining that wall.

People with this attitude do not simply have a disagreement with a policy decision. They have some kind of resistance built up inside of them. My mentor would always tell me that there's a huge difference between disagreement and resistance. Does someone disagree with your message or do they resist it? Resistance always tells you there is more to the story—most likely they are not listening to their heart or conscience.

The smile test is not perfect. I have had to bite down on my smile while making a decision a time or two, but I still think those were the right decisions. But I know why I had to do it, and I had to balance several competing factors when making those decisions. But who knows, maybe I was wrong and perhaps I should have listened to my body language more?

I'm sure there are some people who can prove me wrong. Bullies can beat up a helpless person while mocking and jeering at them. I have even heard horror stories of crowds laughing while African-Americans were being lynched. But these are not the open-hearted smiles of warmth. They have a sinister edge.

On the flip side, not all anger is bad, either. There are times for righteous anger. But righteous anger always has to come from a place of love.

Look at the graphic at the top of this post. I can't help but smile when I see it. I like that feeling. When I talk about politics, religion, or any other important issue, I want to make decisions with that same feeling in my heart.

A Prayer for Immigrants, Refugees and Asylum Seekers

Photo by USA Today

I was participating in a social media discussion with someone who began his comment with, "I love my immigrant brothers and sisters, but..." He then proceeded to write a couple of extremely long paragraphs about all the ways he wants to exclude them, is suspicious of their motives and wants to deny what they ask for. He complained about what he perceives is their lack of assimilation to his culture and language. He felt he had valid concerns in the context of securing borders.

Where exactly is the love in all this?

Imagine going up to your wife and saying, "I love, you honey, but here's a list of two dozen behaviors of yours I want you to change pronto, thanks." 

You may indeed love your wife, but you are not showing love at that moment in time.

Despite this person's claim of having love for immigrants, he gave no evidence for it. There was no talk whatsoever about how he shows love to these people or even his desire to show love. There was no evidence that he was struggling over how to better demonstrate love for immigrants.

Love is not easy. It takes time, attention and lots and lots of work. It is a goal we should apply ourselves to every day. It is a concern we should bring to prayer. You can't just say "I love them" and shrug your shoulders as some kind of a blow off. Love involves constant work and attention.

A counselor once told me that a loving relationship is one where there are 10 positive things said for every negative thing. Given this, can most Christians say they are acting in a loving way toward immigrants?

If love if your focus, that's where your attention would be. Think about and write about all the ways you can learn to love your neighbor in even better and bigger ways that you did before. When your attention is on all the exceptions, exclusions and disclaimers, that is not a good witness to Christian love.

Perhaps that person has never been shown how to bring these concerns to prayer . . .

A Prayer for 

Immigrants, Refugees and Asylum seekers

I've visited lots of churches of various denominations. Many Christians have strong opinions about immigration, ranging from the most conservative to the most liberal. However, I can't recall many times when the congregation has bowed its head in prayer and brought its concerns to God in an open way simply asking God to provide guidance in light of His Divine Word in the Bible.

Let's do that now:

Loving Father, we give thanks to you for all you have given us:  

The gift of life and the gift of creation around us,

The gift of your son Jesus who shows us how to love as sisters and brothers, and

The sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit in our world and in our lives today.

We acknowledge that all we have is through your grace alone and not by our works.

Lord God, you command us to love one another and you tell us that this command is the command on which all the others hang. 

In your Beatitudes, you tell us to be humble, to be merciful to others, to be peacemakers of your Kingdom "on earth as it is in Heaven" and to look to and prefer the poor. You tell us to hunger and thirst for righteousness and justice.

In the Parable of the Sheep and Goats, you tell us to welcome the stranger, feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked and look after the imprisoned and sick.

We acknowledge the words you have spoken to us and the seriousness of your commands.

Teach us how to do this. 

Your children—our sisters and brothers—come to our door as refugees, immigrants and asylum seekers. Show us how to love more deeply, to welcome more warmly and to grow in tenderness and mercy.  Help us to look after their needs as they undergo their perilous journey longing for peace, safety and wholeness for their families. 

Help us to open our ears to hear their concerns better, 

and open our eyes to see their struggles more clearly,

So we can discern—with your guidance—how to respond as Christian disciples.

God the Father, how can we love refugees more today than we did yesterday? 

Jesus our brother, how can we show mercy to the asylum seeker knocking at our door and be the good neighbor you call us to be?

Through your grace in the Holy Spirit, how can we help cultivate peace in a world torn apart by war, poverty and violence?

Some borders and divisions may be regrettably necessary in this fallen, limited world. Help us to discern that whatever borders and locks we choose will only exist to serve your will and help foster the Kingdom "on earth as it is in heaven."

We pray to be your instruments in this world, giving to others out of thanks for all that you have given us. Without you we would have nothing. You remind us when you say:

Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt (Exodus 23:9).

For the gift of discernment 

     of your will 

          and not ours, we pray.

Amen.

***

Scripture references (unless cited above):

Greatest Commandment: Matthew 22:34-40

Beatitudes: Matthew 5:3-10

The Good Neighbor: Luke 10:25-37

Parable of the Sheep and Goats: Matthew 25:31-46

The Words of Jesus We Ignore

Imagine a person praying at bedtime. He is confused. Unsure of what to do in life. What are his next steps, he wonders? He prays fervently to God for direction.

Amazingly enough, God answers!

Love God
Love one another

The person praying listens. Stops. "Okay, God, I still have no idea what you want me to do..."

Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give drink to the thirsty, welcome the stranger, visit the prisoner, look after the sick

"God, I beg you... please give me some direction, anything..."

Do good to those who hurt you
Love your enemies
Forgive over and over again
Turn the other cheek 

"Anything, God..."

Hunger for righteousness, don't be afraid to mourn, be a peacemaker, 
Be merciful, meek and pure of heart
Always look to the poor, prefer them and celebrate those persecuted for justice...

The person stops praying and shakes his head, frustrated by the emptiness he feels. He rolls over and falls asleep, hoping that by some miracle God might provide some kind of answer in the future.

You can laugh, but this is how many Christians actually respond to Jesus's words to us.

Let's break it down:

Most Christians believe that Jesus is God—and not just in some metaphorical way, but literally God in actual flesh and bones.

Many of Jesus's words are recorded in the Bible. Most Christians believe that the Bible itself is the Word of God.

Going further, many of Jesus's words in the Bible are actual commands to us.

Some Christians take the Bible literally. All followers should take it seriously.

What I find so puzzling is that so few Christians seem to pay much attention to what Jesus said at all. That's a very strange reaction to a guy most Christians claim is actually God who walked among us in flesh and bones. I mean, here's God actually coming down to our level and talking to us. He lays out the path. He tells us what to do. He even helps us prioritize:

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’  This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” 

— (Matthew 22:37-40)

I don't know how to be more clear. Jesus himself—you know, God—directly says it is a command. On top of that, he makes it clear that it is the greatest of all the commands. And then going further, to erase any possible doubt, he describes that everything else hangs on it. Love comes first and then all other considerations are not only secondary but dependent on it. So any other command, rule or doctrine you find in the Bible must be viewed through the lens of the Greatest Commandment.

Did I mention that this was a command? By God. A command by God.

After that comes the Sermon on the Mount, found in Matthew 5-7. It begins with the Beatitudes:

Blessed are the poor in spirit,

    for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are those who mourn,

    for they will be comforted.

Blessed are the meek,

    for they will inherit the earth.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,

    for they will be filled.

Blessed are the merciful,

    for they will be shown mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart,

    for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers,

    for they will be called children of God.

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,

    for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Then there's the The Works of Mercy (Matthew 25: 31-46):

Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give drink to the thirsty, welcome the stranger, visit the prisoner, look after the sick

The Bible is full of commands, advice and assorted lessons of all types. It has profound understandings that only open up to us as we pray deeply, do our Christian work and grow in our discipleship. It speaks in riddles, parables and paradoxes. It speaks out of a context that is thousands of years old. Even with a lifetime of constant study you will never mine all the depths of its teachings.

But some things are clear! Especially when Jesus himself is quite direct about it.

Even with those commands, life can still be extremely difficult to navigate. Jesus tell us to love doesn't tell us how to do it. He does not micromanage but rather gives the blueprint. That can be frustrating, but I think that's the point: Jesus probably doesn't want us to passively check activities off a list but rather put our whole heart, soul, mind and hands into what we do. We are to struggle with the question. With every step we take, every decision we make, we should be constantly asking ourselves—am I serving the Greatest Commandment in this action or not? Do my actions reflect the Beatitudes? How can I apply the Works of Mercy right now in this situation? Those should be our first considerations always and never an afterthought. We are never without some advice from God as to what to do next.

***

So how do we apply these teachings to important issues today?

Many Christians are worried about refugees and undocumented immigrants coming into the U.S. I assume that Christians bring these concerns openly to prayer before coming to a conclusion: "God, what shall we do?"

Love one another. Be merciful. Welcome the stranger. Be a peacemaker.

"But God, what about securing our borders?"

Love one another. Be merciful. Welcome the stranger. Be a peacemaker.

The Christian tradition acknowledges some value in securing borders, but it's certainly not mentioned as a direct command of Jesus. His commands were more about expanding borders to find ways to make room for all. Securing borders should never be our first concern! First: Welcome, show mercy, be a peacemaker, look to and prefer the poor! Then later, much, much later, there is some value in having a border and having some kind of regulations for crossing it but only if that border allows us to love abundantly and show mercy.

You don't get to talk about securing borders until you have done the other things! Only after you have welcomed and loved and shown mercy abundantly are you in any position at all to talk about what a "secure border" can and should look like given the circumstances and the people involved. And that "secure border" must serve love and mercy, not the other way around. A secure border can only be legitimate if it serves the God who commands us to love, show mercy, make peace and look after one another. If a border allow us to do that, then it is just. If it doesn't, it is not of God.

Love of God and neighbor is the greatest commandment and all else hangs on it, as Jesus says above. Let's imagine that the Greatest Commandment is a tree. We hang "secure borders" on that tree as an ornament. Those secure borders are not just a secondary consideration, but they are also dependent on the tree for structure and support. We can only hang them on the tree if they do not break or disrupt the tree on which they hang. It is in this way that love is primary and all else is not only secondary, but in a dependent position to love.

***

Keith Giles wrote a fantastic piece entitled Christless Christianity. I love his words and they help inspire this post. They resonate with topics I've explored elsewhere, particularly in my series "What Makes a Christian." 

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.

Why Evangelicals Should Discover Early Christian and Catholic Authors

Image by @ChulHYoo posted in Twitter. Caption:
"The times they are a changin!! #SBC18 #SBCAM18"

I've seen a dramatic change in book tastes in the last four years of attending Southern Baptist Conventions.

Two year sago, the first messenger I met—upon hearing that I was representing the Catholic Church—asked me for a good Thomas Merton book recommendation. He had just finished The Seven Storey Mountain, loved it and wanted to know where to go next.

The Lifeway book selection in the exhibit hall is often a good barometer of the interests of the people and what is currently politically acceptable in the culture. After all, Lifeway is an official body of the SBC and subject to the rigors of orthodoxy and the demands of voting and tithing member churches.

In the Christian classics section this year, in between the predictable sellections of Jonathan Edwards and C. S. lewis, I was surprised to find works by St Augustine, church historian Eusebius, St Athanasius and Thomas a Kempis. I also found G. K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy, with an introduction by Charles Colson which never mentions Chesterton's Catholicism.

It goes without saying that only a few short years ago this never would have happened. In fact, I remember Lifeway selling either a Merton or Augustine book (I can't remember which) years ago and receiving formal complaints on the convention floor as a result.

I applaud Southern Baptists for finding value in these authors. They are not just Catholic authors—they are part of your heritage, too.

Growing up a Catholic, I was always disappointed when my evangelical friends would go to great lengths to avoid learning anything about the first 1,500 years of Christianity. Some of the more scholarly-inclined would apply themselves rigorously to study of Ancient Jewish tradition and culture in order to better understand Scripture. However, most of them refused to learn much of anything about the first 1,500 years of their own religion—Christianity. I guess the fear of  Catholicism was strong.

A key word here is "refused." It wasn't that they simply weren't interested—many outright resisted any suggestion that they would benefit from putting attention there.

I'll be honest and say I took it personally when I was younger.  They were not just rejecting some detached aspect of Church history—I felt they were also rejecting me as a Catholic. But even more so, in order to reject me as a Catholic it seemed like they were willing to reject their own history and a part of themselves—to cut their nose to spite their face, as the saying goes.

I would argue that whether you like or dislike Catholicism, a Christian is mostly shooting him or herself in the foot to stubbornly cut themselves off from their own family tree in this way.

As one Christian brother to another, I would advise that this may not be the best decision. I say this not to gloat or try to "push Catholicism" at all. But modern Christianity came out of this period in no small way. The Biblical canon was finalized and theological understandings such as the Trinity and the dual natures of Christ were hashed out in no shortage of very open and passionate debates. Many of those debates have been preserved in writings and are a treasure trove to read. Good and holy people walked the earth and bore witness to Christ. No, their understandings of their faith are often markedly different from modern day evangelicalss—but they are also markedly different from some modern day Roman Catholics. Things change over time.

It seemed there has been a refusal among evangelicals to believe that anything good has come out of this thing called the pre-Reformation Catholic Church. If there were any doubt, it was important to close the door to make sure never to find out otherwise.

Thankfully, many evangelicals today are rejecting this isolationist position and coming to many of the same conclusions here. They want to reconnect to this part of Christian tradition. They want to connect to a part of themselves.

I was glad to read this blog post by a Baptist scholar.

And while Merton is a post-Reformation Catholic, his faith is so deep and his mind so sharp that he belongs to the universal Church. Heck, why limit our curiosity just to the pre-Reformation era when Christians of all denominations are giving a witness worthy of our attention today. Again, why cut our nose to spite our face and turn way from all the wisdom we can find, regardless of which denomination it comes from?

Last but certainly not least, I was glad to see prominent displays of women authors and works about racism. Two works by Dietrich Bonhoeffer were conspicuously displayed. In these disturbing political times, it may be worth listening again to the lessons of this Lutheran pastor martyred by Nazi Germany.

A Catholic Arrives to the Southern Baptist Convention

Getting to this year's Southern Baptist Convention felt like a reenactment of that classic 80s movie Planes, Trains and Automobiles.

First, there was an early morning drive to the airport only to discover that almost all parking lots were full. A couple drives around the airport and I found an option. 

Next was a turbulent flight crouched tightly in the middle seat while a hyperactive kid was incessantly bugging me: "What game are you playing? Who are you texting? Can I set this food on your tray? Can you push the button for the stewardess? I can't reach it." Queue headache medicine. 

After landing, it took what seemed like hours of wrong turns and coaxing drivers to get a transit to the right airport terminal to find the light rail that took me downtown. Even work weary Dallas travelers remarked to me, "man... you look tired." 

I got off about a half mile from the convention, so with a week's worth of clothes on my back, I made the walk in nearly 100° heat and full Texas sun. Afterwards, the journey to my hotel involved missed trains, wrong trains and even longer walks in the heat with my feet clearly feeling the blisters by now.

What is the point of all of this? Aside from demonstrating a clear case of first world problems, I guess my point is that I would tell all my evangelical friends: Don't ever say I don't make personal sacrifices for the cause of Christian fellowship across denominational lines!

And how small those sacrifices are compared to what so many others have gone through (and continue to go through) elsewhere in the world. I'm safe, well-fed and there's a comfortable bed waiting. We can do better without even much risk.

Before closing for the night, I'll leave you with these thoughts. I saw a sign in the convention area: Every church has a part to play in reaching every nation (posted by the IMB - International Mission Board).

I don't know the intentions of the authors. How wide of a scope did they imagine in this statement? More importantly, how wide of a scope do YOU think it has? 

Is this just for Southern Baptists, or at least other evangelicals?

Can Catholics think this way of Protestants? Can both liberal and conservative churches regard each other this way? Can we all believe that each church, each denomination, each theological system has a unique role to play in reaching people that other churches, denominations and systems either can't or won't reach--despite their imperfections (or maybe even through their imperfections)?

Sure, there are limits, but what if our limits are too, well, limiting?

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.

How White Male Privilege Leads to Fragility and Violence

"To make the kind of society where it is easier for people to be good."

 —Peter Maurin, co-founder of the Catholic Worker movement

Society can be tough on white males these days, especially if you are a white male with a conscience. White males have had a disproportionate amount of power for a very long time. The rest of society is clamoring for justice and equality. And rightly so. We are becoming increasingly aware of just how much power and privilege white men have had and just how much that power has been abused.

Most commentators level criticism more at while male privilege than at while males as individuals, but not every person makes that distinction.

What is hard for the rest of society to understand is not just the amount of power that white males have had but rather the abuse of that power.

Mass shootings in the U.S. are a perfect example. Virtually all mass shootings in the U.S. are perpetrated by white males. This can be difficult to understand, since terrorism is usually the last desperate tool used by groups who lack institutional power. Given all the horrors and injustices committed against other demographic groups, for example, it might seem more likely than a white woman, an African American youth or a Native American male would buy and AR 15 and shoot up a crowd. Yet, we almost never see that.

Sexual violence is another place where we see abuse of power. Experts tell us that sexual violence is almost always done out of a grasp for power rather than sexual desire. But how can this be when the perpetrators are almost always people who seem to have more power to begin with? Certainly not all sexual predators are white males, but given their position in society, it is surprising that so many of them are.

We are forced to come to the surprising conclusion that white males in these situations obviously do not feel very powerful!

How in the world can this be when males (particularly white males) seem to have more power than any other demographic group?

One idea that gets floated around a lot is "white male entitlement." The theory goes like this: White men feel so entitled to their power and privilege that whenever reality does not match it, they feel they have the right to simply destroy everything and everyone around them to get what they feel is theirs—or if they can't have it then no one else should, either.

Indeed, whenever stories circulate of mass shootings or sexual violence, my social media feed is quickly filled with accusations of "toxic masculinity," "white male entitlement" and "white male fragility." There is a lot of truth in this, absolutely. We need to continue to explore the concept of entitlement as a lens for understanding white male privilege. However, there is another way of looking at this. It's on the flip side of the coin from entitlement: I'll call it white male expectations.

It's a chicken and egg scenario where entitlement and expectations create a feedback loop, constantly building on each other. When white men are expected to be dominant in all circumstances, and when the world is increasingly not working that way, some men—particularly those who lack better coping mechanism—may take up violence to compensate for that gap between reality and expectations. 

A white male feels he must be dominant in all circumstances. He has to be the hero who saves the day. He is expected to provide for his family, or at the very least, make more income than his wife. If a while male wanders into a group of people comprised of mixed races and genders, the white male will assume it is his job to be the leader, the loudest or the funniest. After all, it's what he sees in the movies. John Wayne, Clint Eastwood and generations of Hollywood figures show us that the white male can singularly take on the whole world and rise to the top in every circumstance. If he can't, it's an indictment against his character and a mark of his shortcomings—this is key.

The white male does not simply enjoy his privilege as a free gift. Rather, he is told he must be capable of achieving that dominance solely through his superior skills, savvy and character. In other words, he feels like he earns his position. When he doesn't rise to the top, he feels like a failure. Society neglects to tell white men that their dominance does not come solely through their own efforts but rather through complex and numerous mechanisms of privilege—legal, historical, inertial and social infrastructures—that push him to the top.

It's a double-edged sword. Whatever dominance he has, he believe he has earned through his own merits. He believes he is getting a 1st place trophy when all he really deserves is a participation trophy. This is bad enough, but it gets worse: The dark side to this is that when he does not achieve dominance, he feels it is a reflection of his own shortcomings. A fragile, insecure man is very dangerous. He's going to augment himself with guns, steroids or all manner of aggressive trappings. He's going to find someone to dominate. His very sense of self is on the line. He is going to lash out as if his own life were at stake, because in a sense it is. Cue spousal abuse, sexual violence, mass shootings and just general bullying.

I think this is why many white males do not recognize their privilege. What others see as a privileged position, white males see as the bare minimum. They don't get to enjoy it as much as others might think. It's a never ending battle of king of the hill and their very worth as human beings depends on the outcome.

These high, rigid expectations create fragility. It's actually quite horrible when you are never allowed to be weak or to even come in second place. It creates incredible brittleness. In my own experiences, I am always stronger when I allow myself to be weak. I win more often when I allow myself the possibility of losing. That's the paradox. Fragility begets violence because something that is fragile is prone to breaking.

White male privilege creates a dynamic that is akin to bullying behavior. Like a bully, white males are rarely happy about their circumstances. They may hurt a lot of people to maintain their standing but they are rarely satisfied for long. It's never enough. Everyone else feels their privilege—except them. If you take away the privilege, they may feel "oppressed" because they can no longer dominate others anymore. It's a problem of perception, because that was power they never should have had in the first place, but yet white males are led to believe that this power is necessary for them to feel complete. White male privilege is a rotten system that causes a lot of damage and rarely brings out the best in white males. There are no real winners but there are many who lose.

Perhaps society is not ready for a sympathetic treatment of white males. Perhaps there is simply too much anger and a perception that society has already been overly sympathetic to white males. After all, who is going to shed a tear for the plight of the white male? They can get in line behind everyone else, right? But if what I wrote above is true—that white males lash out violently out of a sense of powerlessness and a lack of self worth—then heaping a message of negativity on top of what is already a message of negativity is not likely to yield a better result. In truth, no one is justified lashing out violently, and I'm not writing this to make excuses. But we know people are in various stages of emotional health and maturity, and some have better coping mechanisms than others. As the Peter Maurin quote above states, let's "create a society where it is easier to be good." Let's remove the stressors that drive some people to commit violence and assert dominance so that it'll be easier for their better selves to shine forth.

Recognizing and understanding privilege is key here. Yes, it can be a blow to the white male ego to realize that his dominance does not come through his own efforts or natural superiority but rather through the unfair advantage of privilege. However, there is tremendous freedom in this message when he realizes his self-worth does not have to be tied to his ability to dominate in every circumstance. He is created good exactly as he is.  He does not have to augment that with weaponry, "conquest" marks on his bedpost or any other marks of dominance. He can re-join the rest of society as an equal member, give up false narratives of superiority and save the wasted energy proving something he's not. He does not have to feel threatened when women and men from all demographic groups make strides in education, the workforce, politics and elsewhere.

This may sound counter-intuitive and even completely unfair, but I am here to suggest that the answer to white male privilege is that white males need more compassion, sympathy and understanding rather than less—even though it seems they already have all of that in abundance. Their actions tell us something is missing. Truly confident, self-assured people are rarely violent. White men are constantly being told to give up their entitlement, power and privilege. In order for this to happen, we ought to offer them something to replace all that with, and the answer is a positive self-image for themselves as they are. We have a choice. We can either say that white males are dirty, rotten scoundrels by their very nature, or we can say that they are reacting to the expectations put upon them. 

Entitlement and high expectations go hand in hand, Both are important in understanding white male privilege. I hope this essay has shown that the high expectations that come with white male privilege have at least two outcomes: First, they makes it difficult to recognize that privilege, and second, they creates the fragility that leads to violence.

Jesus, the Rich Young Man and White Guilt

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me. When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth." 

– Matthew 19:21-22

There is one reason for racist behavior that does not get talked about enough.

One reason why so many white people behave in racist ways is not necessarily because they openly hate other races—they may or may not (although they probably have at least some implicit bias). No, the reason for their racist behavior is that they feel those other races have legitimate grievances—this includes grievances against them. Instead of facing up to that responsibility, looking that guilt square in the eye and working to mend those wounds, it is simply easier to turn their backs on that pain and the people behind that pain.

It sounds crazy. It doesn't seem to make logical sense. But one reason we push away people is not because we hate them, it's because we actually love them—but to actually acknowledge that love and then adjust our actions and lifestyle in light of the truths of this love would require far too much. We instead turn away like the young man in the quote from the Gospel of Matthew above. That young man was far too attached to his possessions and his lifestyle. He was not ready for the radical changes in his life that following Jesus would entail.

We all know at a deep level that we are all sisters and brothers to each other. We just know. The Bible tell us. But once we admit that, then we quickly realize that this truth requires drastic changes in our life.

It's easier to blame the victim than do the hard work listening to their pain. Listening to their pain means feeling their pain. This is hard to do not because we hate them but because we don't hate them. Their pain hurts us because we genuinely care about them and feel solidarity with them.

If we really hated them and didn't value their lives, hearing about their pain would not matter. But it hurts us because their pain reminds us of a kinship that we don't want to be reminded of. Their pain reminds us of our common humanity and family relationship to one another. Their pain reminds us that we have responsibilities to each other.

This is probably poor consolation to the black man being assaulted by police officers or the young high school student walking home terrorized by profanities coming from a truck with a Confederate Flag displayed.

You might think that once people recognize that they are doing something wrong that they would stop it. But sometimes it just makes them do it more.

This goes far beyond racism and into other issues of social concern. It's much easier to mock the homeless person or yell at the poor unwed mother than it is to take their concerns seriously. If you blame them for their circumstances, then you can try to rest easy at night. I'm not convinced that we ever really convince ourselves to blame them, but we sure try.

Guilt Management USA

A whole industry has sprung up in America to help people rationalize away their guilt.  My uncle once told me this was the driving force behind Rush Limbaugh and so many radio commentators like him.

At a deeper level, the point of Rush is to help listeners feel okay about not giving a damn about their neighbors. The reasoning goes like his: Not only do you not have to care about your neighbor's welfare, but they are in fact better off if you don't. Instead, let the 'free market' take its course, let nature take its course and all shall be well. It's the moral adjustment that has to be made to live in to the neoliberal philosophies of Ayn Rand which drive most of our current politicians.

We know in our bones that this is wrong. This is why we people like Rush, Sean Hannity, the FOX News Network and so many others have been pushing this message over and over and over again for years. It's not natural to believe this way, but people can be pushed (dare I say brainwashed) into believing it if it is the only message they hear.

For a well-to-do white person, listening to Rush can be somewhat comforting. His message can be summarized as: You're okay just as you are, and you don't have to do anything. In a twisted way, I can sort of appreciate that. He helps assuage guilt. It's okay to tell people they are okay as they are, but it's not okay to tell them they have no responsibilities to their fellow sisters and brothers.