A Theology of Borders: The Dignity of Work

Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.

-- Pope John Paul II, Homily at Camden Yards, Baltimore, October 8, 1995

Most Christian denominations affirm the right to life, the right of people to work and migrate and the right of nations to establish and maintain borders. These must all be held in balance*.

But how does Christian theology derive the right of a nation to have a border? What does that have to to with the Bible or the life of Jesus?

Let's break it down: Theologically, a border is an extension of the right to private property--which is an extension of the dignity of work--which is related to the dignity of life itself.

Okay, that sounds like so much gobbeldy-gook! Let's use this example to break it down further:

Imagine yourself a carpenter. 

All human life has dignity, being created in the image and likeness of God. We are all in agreement here, right?

But human life is not static--we are built do move and to do. Another word for "life in motion" is our vocation--our life's work. It's not enough to simply be alive in the narrowest sense, we also have our life mission to do. After all, to be fully alive is to "do" as well as "be." Everyone with me so far?

All humans have the same vocation--to love and God and neighbor. Jesus made that abundantly clear (Jesus himself is recorded as having instructed this here: Matthew 22:36-38; Mark 12:28-34; Luke 10:27; John 13:34-35. Other examples: Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:14). But each of us lives out that mission differently. Some have the vocation to be a carpenter.  

So where do borders and private property come in?  It is simple, actually: In order to properly follow God through your vocation as a carpenter, you need access to tools. If you have to wait several months to borrow a hammer and saw, that will negatively affect your ability to live out your God-given vocation. So having reliable access to tools is essential. [In truth, privately owning tools is not the only way to guarantee access, as collective ownership arrangements can also serve this purpose quite well, but for the purposes of this piece let's stick with talking in terms of private ownership.]

Borders function is more or less the same way. If you are are building furniture, for example, you need space to do that. If you build furniture in public areas, your work may be disrupted when nature has other plans or when children or farm animals stampede through. There are also safety concerns in that. So in order to live out your God-given vocation to be a carpenter, you have a right to establish a "border"--you may erect a building in which to do your work uninterrupted and safely. 

God respects our freedom, but our rights are neither absolute nor totally open-ended. Our right to have tools and create borders is for the purposes of loving God and neighbor. See quote at the top from Pope John Paul II.

Nations

The same rights that an individual has can also apply to groups of people. People have the right to congregate together to form nations. But our collective and individual vocation is the same--we congregate in order to love God and neighbor better than we could on our own. And nations have the right to access to resources and space to do this work. This is how Christians understand it even if your secular neighbors see it differently.

This is where the concept of social justice comes in. Just as there are individual rights and responsibilities, so too are there rights and responsibilities for whole societies and systems.

Hierarchy of Rights

Ok, so people have the right to life and to work and nations have a right to establish space for themselves with a border. What happens when these rights come in conflict?  

Some rights serve a higher purpose than others. 

For example, your right to establish a private carpentry shop is valid. But if people are fleeing from high flood waters due to a hurricane, they certainly have the right to break into your shop and disrupt your work to find safety.

If someone's life is in danger, or if their life is so seriously restricted that they cannot live out their vocations, Christian theology would say that their right to life trumps your right to a border (all else equal). They may cross your border--even without your permission--in order to save their life or to fully live out their life mission.

However, sometimes it may seem like rights are in conflict but in a deeper look we may see that they are actually not in conflict at all. The purpose of your carpentry shop is, after all, so that you can love God and neighbor more fully. Your shop being a safe refuge would certainly accomplish that. Perhaps you are building furniture for the poor.  So their intrusion may certainly disrupt your carpentry work, but those folks won't need furniture if they aren't alive. Perhaps instead you can use your carpentry skills and resources to build shelter for them and go back to furniture making after the crisis.

So nations have a right to establish a border, but that right is never an absolute. It has to be weighed against other needs, some of which may be more important. The earth was created for all, after all. Having private property and space can serve a God-given purpose and may even be essential to fully living out our vocation. But hoarding resources while others are starving or severely limited is never of God. Yes, that means those of us with abundant resources may have to give a little--or a lot--and that's okay.

So people have the right to migrate in order to protect their lives and well as to live out their own vocation to work. The rest of us have an obligation to make room for them.  After all, a border is not just to exclude but rather to create a space where you can include others in a better, safer, richer way!

In a way, when people come to the border--or across it--begging for help, they are in a sense making our work easier. I say this not to make light of a genuine crisis and the difficulties that arise on both sides. But it is "easier" in the sense that we don't have to go looking for people to serve or spend time discerning what to do--the people we need to love are literally right there.

***

For a deep dive into related concepts, some of which inspired this piece, I highly recommend Laborem Exercens by Pope John Paul II.

***

* -- This piece is mostly built on Catholic theology but many of the same principles are articulated in Protestant and evangelical theology, as well.

Church Fire: Christian Unity Comes to the Rescue!

This reflection was shared by a Catholic pastor who lives and ministers in rural Mississippi.


My greatest experience of Christian unity happened about 12 years ago. 

It was late in the evening after a long Wednesday. I was ready for bed but reading.

There was a knock on the door. I was getting settled in and was not in the mood for visitors. 

The person announced that there was a fire! I grabbed my wallet, keys and some clothes and ran out the door, grateful for this intrusion.

Within 14 hours, the church, the rectory (where I lived) and the parish hall were completely consumed in the flames.

It was a hot August day. It never went below 90 degrees all night and was mostly over 100—and that was before adding the extra heat from the fire itself. Seven firefighters went to the hospital due to heat exposure and exhaustion. 

Despite the calamity, I was amazed to see blessings everywhere I turned. The wider Christian community responded virtually immediately:

Representatives from the Mennonite community were at the fire and helped organize relief all through the night. They brought ice water and cold towels for exhausted workers.

The next morning, the local Presbyterian Church told me:  "Our classrooms and hall are yours. We'll have to work out a schedule and lines of communication, but we can do it."

The Episcopal Church said it has an unused office for the Catholic pastor. It even has a private entrance. In time, they put a beautiful sign up.

The Methodist congregation agreed to take over duties of the local food bank that the Catholic Church had been doing.

The Disciples of Christ offered to host local AA meetings and made sure people who needed this group did not miss even one meeting in the transition.

About a dozen Baptist churches took up a collection and sent money.

A Pentecostal pastor shook my hand. When he walked away, I realized he had put $100 in my hand. I remember a conversation I had with him about a week before when he confided in me that he was hurting financially.

Months later, I found myself in need of heart surgery. This was probably due in no small part to the stress brought on by the fire and all its consequences. When I woke up from heart surgery, sitting beside me was an Assembly of God pastor—literally holding my hand and praying for me.

When we think of Christian unity (sometimes called ecumenism) we often think about it in terms of theological dialogue. We imagine representatives from different Christian groups and denominations coming to terms with our various doctrinal differences. Perhaps some of those differences are mere misunderstandings, perhaps some can be resolved through dialogue and study, and perhaps we just have to learn how to sit with the differences that we just can't figure out how to get past at this point in time.

However, the work of Christian unity is also at least partly about discipleship—living out the call of Jesus to "love one another as I have loved you" (John 15:12).

Just do it! Just get out there and love one another! 

Be Christ to one another.

Forgetting

The huddled masses, desperate, weary, worn, scared but hopeful.

When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.

Leviticus 19:33-34 

I've seen this quote from Scripture a lot lately in reference to the immigration debate in the U.S. I'd like to focus on a part that we often gloss over:

"for you were foreigners in Egypt."

Let’s break this down.

So much of the Old Testament is about a people who are always forgetting where they have come from. When times were tough, they would beg to God and to anyone else who'd listen. But when the good times came, their haughtiness returned. They were quick to forget what it was like before. They judged others more harshly, lost sympathies for the suffering and generally forgot the poor. We  resonate with these stories because today we are still at risk of falling into the same habits.

Native Americans have been here for thousands of years. Africans were brought here as slaves. Virtually everyone else is either an immigrant or a descendant of immigrants. And most immigrants did not arrive in the best of shape. Many were fleeing war, persecution of all kinds or poverty. In short:  Most didn't come here because life was all that grand back home. Most were begging for help, an opportunity or just a space to live in peace.

Even if you don't have a living memory of being a foreigner, you still would not be here today if people mistreated your ancestors when they were foreigners in need. It doesn't matter if all of your ancestors came here "legally." Besides, that's always a debatable point. When the first European settlers arrived to the New World, they made no hesitation about pushing out the people who were already here. Driving out established cultures of people certainly meets any thinking person's definition of "illegal." On top of that, dig into the past and learn the finer details of how waves of immigrants from different countries arrived and you'll find that the process was a whole lost messier (and yes, very often illegal) than you might have thought:  See this link for explanation.

So many Americans living today are descendants from the people on the Mayflower. But those folks would probably have died if it weren't for the generosity of the Wampanog. Have we been as generous to them and their descendants as they were to us?

If you are white, somebody probably helped your ancestors when they arrived here. At the very least, they created a safe, peaceful system to live in and thrive. Someone almost certainly helped your ancestors when the chips were down, when one person's--or one nation's--generosity made all the difference between life and death. You would be not here today otherwise. That should still matter to you today. That should be a permanent reminder to walk more humbly, judge less harshly and be merciful to all--because we were all in that position at one time.

The quote from Leviticus doesn't say "your ancestors were foreigners." No, it says "you were foreigners." Whether you were born yet or not doesn't seem to matter. Most Americans today--especially white Americans--simply do not think of themselves as "a people." Their ancestors were just some people who came over on a boat, but we rarely think of them as "us." It is not normal for humans to be so disconnected and to lose the ability to identify with one's own ancestors and say "we" when referring to them.

Lack of Collective Identity in the White Community

Part of the issue is something I've heard in a paneldiscussion on racial reconciliation at the Southern Baptist Convention in Birmingham, Alabama: The white community does not think collectively. In fact, most white people do not even self-identify as members of "the white community." We think individualistically.  However, the African American community has developed a more collective understanding--what happens to one black person happens to all. I think their approach is much more honest and much more human than what white people do, and I appreciate this panel for making these points.

If you think individualistically as most white people are trained to do, then it's hard to notice all the ways that the system has supported, encouraged and enabled you and your efforts. It's easier to take credit for successes and downplay all the ways the community and the system has helped you. It is also easier to disavow any responsibility for helping your neighbor if individual effort were the sole determiner for success--you can simply blame them for their struggles and rest easy with a clean conscience.  However, this is not an honest nor a responsible read of the situation. 

And in light of the Scripture verse at top:  It's easy to forget that what happened to your ancestors still matters to you today.  The past matters. Our families matter. We would not be here today if somebody didn't help out our ancestors.

The prevailing idea in the white community is that we are disconnected individuals. There is no such thing as a "system." Your own hard work and enterprise is all that is needed for success.

Why would people in the white community gravitate toward this idea? Simple:  If you are the group with virtually all the power, wealth and privilege, and all white people are so some extent (yes, even the very poor), it behooves you to deny the system because the system is unfair.

Black people tend to see themselves as members of the black community. They have a more collective identity. What happen to one black person happens to them all. And the successes of one black person also is felt by all. This is normal and natural. It is the white community which is unusual because we try to divorce ourselves from that.

White people forget that we are a people, we have a history, we have inherited both a good and a bad legacy that we have responsibility for. We forget that we belong to each other and have responsibilities to each other. Why?  It is easy when a group has most of the power, privilege and wealth to want to divorce themselves from a collective identity. It's easy to want to duck responsibility and to take credit for things that are at least partially the result of  class and racial privilege.

The Church is Failing the Gun Debate—and Young Men

The church is failing the gun debate.

More to the point: the church is failing its men—especially young men.

There are a many young men who are aimless, uncertain and who feel something is lacking. They are looking for meaning and purpose in life. They may not even know they are searching. Doesn't this describe each of us at some point in our lives?

Our communities, congregations and families are fragmented. Everywhere these young men look, people and institutions have little meaning to offer and even question whether there is meaning at all—at least, nothing worth finding.

One day, a young man holds a gun. Suddenly, he feels powerful—important-—impressive.

He never forgets that feeling.

Of course, limiting access to weapons of mass destruction is common sense. Random individuals walking around with loaded assault rifles and zero accountability to anyone or anything was never the intent of the 2nd amendment. If you need proof, just look at the thousands of weapons the military already has off limits to the general public. This should be obvious to anyone.

But all the well-reasoned arguments in the world won't compete with that feeling of meaning and power that an adrift young man suddenly stumbles upon when he holds a gun. There are great arguments here about the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. But those arguments fall on deaf ears when many feel like their very life is at stake if they were to lose access to certain guns—and they are right, but not in the way they think: They sense they would lose their identity and that feeling of meaning and power they have unfortunately never felt anywhere else. So they fight for gun rights with intensity.

These people, mostly men, have never felt meaning and power anywhere else in their lives—THIS is where we are failing as a society. The church especially is failing because it has a message that far surpasses what guns or gun culture could ever hope to offer.

What the Church offers

Unfortunately, the church often enters the gun debate in the same ways as the secular culture—either arguing for or against gun control. But that's not where the church can be most effective in this debate.

There are lots of ways—and much better, more edifying ways—to find meaning, power and stature in life than through gun ownership. There are other place to take risks, rise up to challenges and be brave. There are other ways to make a difference in the world—and I would argue, far better and more satisfying in so many ways. But we are failing as a society for neglecting to introduce these to young men.

Reaching out to the poor, the needy and lost can take more bravery than anything you could ever use a gun for. It takes more creativity and is more of a challenge, too. I've seen it and felt it. And I will never forget that feeling. The excitement of church missions—to build, to serve, to preach the good news—takes all the guts you could ever hope to muster and leaves you with a deeper sense of fulfillment than possibly anything else—but we aren't inviting young men into this!

Think of how Abraham followed God's call and led his family from the wilderness to the Promised Land. Or how Noah built the ark against all odds and against public scorning. Or how Joseph guided a pregnant Mary to a safe place to give birth, and then shepherded them all to Egypt as refugees to escape Herod's wrath. Think of men in mission today, such as Rev. Gregory Boyle who has befriended many of the nation's most dangerous gangs. Or those bringing medical supplies to war zones—or water to remote, parched areas—or education to impoverished children. Good fathers, husbands and workers. The list goes on and on. There is more excitement, challenge, belonging and meaning there than anything else you could imagine!

The excitement that comes from gun ownership is merely about power, and power is never as meaningful or satisfying as the mission that Jesus calls us into through the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-10) or the Parable of the Sheep and Goats (Matthew 25:31-46), for example.

Even more fundamentally, the church teaches that every person has dignity and worth. Every person has the image of God and shows us something of God.

It's one thing to own or use a gun for self-defense or for hunting. However, a line is crossed when that gun becomes enmeshed with a person's identity—when that gun is necessary for a person to feel good about themselves. In this case, gun idolatry has set in.

We Can Do Better

We can do better as a society. We can't simply neglect our men and boys as a society and then be surprised when society starts to crumble—and mass shootings are a very good indicator of that crumbling. Catholic priest Fr. Richard Rohr has a great video series about this. He argues that just about every traditional society had rites of passage and a system of mentorship for the young, especially for young men. We don't have that today and the results are disastrous. 

I walked by a gun store the other day. There were a few guys in there perusing guns, holding them. You could see how that very environment—that access—that privilege—that ritual... changes their posture, it changes their energy. It gives them a sense of importance, power and meaning. You could just see it radiating off of them. Having all that power at their disposal gives a sense of awe and responsibility. In this way, gun stewardship is a kind of a rite of passage for some men. Maybe for some guys that sense of responsibility can be a good thing—good training, mentorship and a culture that supports these goals about guns can help people manage that great responsibility and rise to the occasion (but this goes back to being "well-regulated"—the example of Switzerland shows how a well-regulated gun culture could work). But for so many others this power does not come with an equal share of responsibility, and innocent people are paying the price with their lives and well-being.

The Plight of Young Men

Young men are under a lot of pressure:

1.  They are expected to achieve and to provide for their families. Yet, society has made it increasingly difficult for this to happen.

2.  Hollywood tells them that they must lead and dominate at all times. Yet, real life doesn't work that way.

3.  On top of that, these men are also fed a message that success is solely determined by one's individual efforts. They are told you can't point to any societal factors but only your own hard work and enterprise (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, this myth persists).

4.  Even further, there are fewer and fewer places where men gather for camaraderie, support and private conversation. My barber used to tell me what his shop used to be like a generation ago: Men would gather on a weekend morning for far more than a haircut and shave. They played pool, smoked cigars and talked about family, sports and the nation. This was once common and is now rare.

5.  Then on top of all this, society tells them that they are over-privileged! Make no mistake: White, male, hetero, Christian privilege is real. But people who assign those labels rarely give witness to the whole story, and this only makes it more difficult to talk about and address the real problems of privilege.

So what do these men do?  They try to boost themselves to make up for it. They carry guns. Some take steroids or drive big trucks. Then many in society make fun of them for that. It's a no win situation. Many young men respond by isolating themselves with their own friends and tune out the rest of society, since the rest of society clearly doesn't understand them. They are trying to live up to the impossible standards that society and Hollywood have set, without having much of a stabilizing influence of older men in their lives offering a better vision and a chance to be part of something good and decent.

We are failing males in our society, including—maybe especially—the ones we call "over-privileged." Yes, their privilege is real, but underneath it is a more complex story. They don't have good mentors, they don't know where else to find meaning—and more importantly, they don't seem to have a sense of their own value and dignity without needing a gun (or wanting to overpower others) to feel good about themselves. Whether or not they discern a gun can be useful for self-defense isn't the issue... the issue is they shouldn't need a gun to feel complete or whole as a human being. We can complain about them and talk about the dangers of fragile, insecure men—and that danger is real. But I actually feel for guys in this situation. We don't know how to raise men, how to talk about men and how to support men. And we see the results.

Is it any wonder why so many young men, especially white men, fall through the cracks and find meaning and belonging in gun culture and in internet chat rooms where this unspoken rage finds an outlet? All this pressure, and a poor understanding by the rest of society of what it means to be male today, leads to stress. They carry a profound internal rage and don't know how to manage it. Some cope with their rage by finding another group to pick on—immigrants, other races, the disabled, lgbtq+, etc. Add in the experience of being bullied or unpopular and many simply reach the breaking point. There are so many young men who are just one mentor away from succumbing to this.

The feminist movement has created space to talk about what it means to be female and what it means to be a woman. Unfortunately, we have made the tragic mistake of assuming that men do not need the same kind of conversation about what it means to be male and what it means to be a man.

Whether or not people discern a gun can be useful for self-defense isn't the issue... 

the issue is they shouldn't need a gun to feel complete or whole as a human being.

Christians: Are your issues with immigrants really about the law?

I want to ask Christians a very serious question. I ask for your sincere prayer on this. Many Christians say they have no problem with immigrants as long as they come here legally. They cite Romans 13 to support this. They demand that immigrants "respect our laws." They say it's just that simple.

I have heard thousands of complaints about undocumented immigrants over the last several years. However, I have very rarely heard any public outcry over the business owners who knowingly hire them--an act which is often a much more serious illegal offense than simply being here without proper documents, as this article points out (see comments for article).

If you say that the business owners are just caught in a difficult circumstance where the market forces them to hire undocumented workers or go out of business... then perhaps it is also easy to believe that the people coming here without papers are also being forced to do so due the very same market forces.

This is what makes it so difficult to believe objections over undocumented immigrants are really about the law. Because if it is about the integrity--or even as some say, the sanctity of the law (in light of their interpretation of Romans 13)--then that judgment would be applied more consistently to all. In fact, the native-born citizen business owners no doubt have a team of lawyers to make sure they know the law whereas an undocumented immigrant from another country would most likely not have those kinds of resources. But few decry the whole system that illegally exploits and benefits from the labor of undocumented immigrants... virtually all complaints are about the immigrants themselves.

People get offended when they are accused of being "racist" or having prejudices against another culture, language, race or ethnicity or just a general unwelcoming of "outsiders" or people who look or seem "different" (it wouldn't be a religious objection, because the immigrants from Central America are almost all Evangelical, Pentecostal or Catholic Christians--you would think the common religious tradition would form a bond between people but in this case not so much). I don't enjoy making those accusations, either, if for no other reason than it tends to interrupt the possibility for a discussion and puts people on the defensive. However, I hope you understand that inconsistencies like those pointed out above lead people wonder what the REAL reason is for the hard hardheartedness when it comes to immigrants. It really does not seem like the stated reason (the law) is the real reason.

Further, many immigrants (such as asylum seekers) are NOT even doing anything illegal but the negative outcry is the same. Many who are speaking out against immigrants do not even bother to hear directly from the immigrants themselves as to why they do what they do and the difficult circumstances they are in and the hard choices they have had to make. Quick, harsh judgments are made about them without a sincere, thoughtful, personal inquiry.

There are people so upset over immigration they want a wall almost 2,000 miles long to keep "them" out. Some are so upset they demand armed militia "protect" the border--a ridiculous idea but I mention it here to illustrate a point: I don't hear any proposed ideas to discourage business owners or hold them accountable for their illegal practices. I don't see protests outside of the HQ of these businesses nor do I hear a desire for these business owners to be subjected to the same dehumanizing and abusive conditions which immigrants are subject to in our immigrant detention facilities (just for the record, I don't support that either, but I mention it to illustrate a point). Usually Christians don't see themselves as enforcers of the law of the state, and it's rarely the business of the church what relationship people have with the secular law. But in the case of immigration, I hear so much seething moral condemnation. The only factors that correlate to the outrage seem to be race, religion and ethnicity.

My neighbors set off illegal fireworks all year. Many hunt outside of season without a license. Speeding and other traffic offenses are just a way of life. People buy and sell "under the table" to avoid taxes. What about respect for these laws? I don't hear much outrage over this, at least nothing that compares to the utter moral disgust that people claim they have for immigrants--and just to be clear, only immigrants from south of the border. There are actually many undocumented immigrants from Europe and Canada, but again... I don't hear much outrage. But LEGAL immigrants who are refugees from Africa--or who are Muslim--or LEGAL asylum seekers from Central America--and there's all sorts of outrage.

So is it REALLY about the law? I sincerely ask you to take some time and bring this question to prayer. Where is the outrage really coming from, and is it fair? is the outrage proportional to the actual offense you have identified, and are you equally offended by all parties according to the metric (i.e. the law) that you are using to base this judgment? If not, are you willing to do better? Are you willing to repent, seek forgiveness and "sin no more" (John 8:11)?

Pray about it.

Sensible Weapons Regulations: A Longstanding Tradition

When talking about gun violence, gun enthusiasts often act like any regulations on firearms would be some kind of radical, unprecedented break with our fundamental rights outlined in the Bill of Rights. Lions, tigers and bears, oh my!

However, this is not true at all.

I always remind these folks that the vast majority of weapons are off limits to the public and only the military has access to them. We have a longstanding tradition of banning weapons from public use and always have. Loaded tanks, missiles, grenades, machine guns... the list goes on and on. It's NOT a radical break in the 2nd amendment to suggest that assault-style guns and rifles should be included in the list "for military access only." 

There are thousands and thousands of weapons restricted from civilian use. Further, these regulations are very effective at keeping them out of public access.  Adding a couple more (like the AR-15 and its class of weapons) would only move the needle slightly but studies indicate it would have a significant impact on public health. There are some weapons so heinous even the military won't use them, but it is still the only group authorized to research them or keep them in any way. Sure, you can buy some stripped-down, neutralized versions at a surplus store, but that's not the same, of course.

Just for the record, I don't know which weapons are included on which list or which ones specifically need to be banned, so before you respond with "But what about the XYZ semiautomatic which falls in between categories??" that misses the point: CLEARLY the line between civilian and military weapons needs to be re-evaluated significantly in light of new technologies and in light of public risk. If someone is willing to shoot up a shopping mall and doesn't seem to mind getting killed in the process or spending the rest of their lives in prison, you simply don't give them easy access to firearms, especially those of mass destruction. Arguing semantics about gun categories is fine when it comes time for an official committee to set proper parameters, but we in the general public do not need that to make an informed decision NOW.

It's the same rationale why bombs, nukes and related items are severely restricted from civilian use. If your neighbor wants to blow up a city with a nuke, whether or not you retaliate with a nuke of your own is not going to matter a whole lot. Prevention works better than cure here. Something clearly has to be done in our culture and arming more people won't fix this.

The same reason we don't want North Korea to have nuclear weapons capabilities is the same reason I don't want my neighbor to have access to an AR-15.

Look at the recent Dayton shooting: I believe the gunman was shot by security within seconds of opening fire. It's hard to imagine a better response time. Nevertheless, it didn't stop the shooting, it didn't stop the deaths, and it didn't seem to deter the killer in any way. Many were dead in that short time. We can't arm our way out of this. A whole room full of people fully armed will not stop a mass shooting. The shooter can fire off an AR-15 and kill several before anyone could respond.

The US military confirms this:  In their words, you can't defend an infinite number of targets. You can successfully defend specific individual people or buildings. For example, you can guard a building, like the Capitol or a museum. You can have protection around a president and defend him effectively—well, sometimes this doesn't work, as Ronald Reagan was shot despite being surrounded by Secret Service guards. So even this is debatable, but in theory it can be done. But when the potential targets are literally anybody, anywhere, anytime, you have to address this on the supply side of prevention, not cure. It's the same problem the military had with suicide bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Arming the population or having more checkpoints isn't going to stop it. It has to be addressed further back in the supply chain of access to materials, in addressing systemic injustices and root causes of violence. It won't be successfully addressed by having more security, by more people employing "open carry" or by arming teachers.

You might say: "They'll use knives! They'll make their own homemade bombs!" However, as tragic as that might be, in both instances, the scale would be substantially smaller and the startup effort required would be significantly higher, which would reduce bloodshed exponentially and perhaps even prevent some tragedies from happening at all. Of course we have to look at root causes of violence and seriously revamp our society on may levels, and I would be thrilled to have that conversation. I would love to do everything to create a society based in peace and nonviolent conflict resolution which builds up its members. Let's do it! I wonder if gun enthusiasts really know what they are asking for when they talk about addressing root causes of violence outside of guns! Peace and love is the way!

But in the meantime—and for all times—we don't give easy access to weapons of mass destruction to people who want to commit mass destruction on the public! Simple. It's the guns. If you look at the example of how we limit weapons to the military only, we are not even following our own logic and policies here. We've always limited them. We've always had regulations. Adding a couple extra models of weapons to the list of thousands and thousands and thousands which are off limits to civilians is not a radical departure from what we've always done. The only radical departure is that our regulations have not kept pace with the increasing technology of weapons.

Adding a couple extra models to the list of thousands and thousands and thousands of weapons which are off limits to civilians is not a radical departure from what we've always done.

We have to remember that both the Constitution (5th and 7th amendments of the Bill of Rights) and the Declaration of Independence guarantees the rights to life, liberty and property IN THAT ORDER (rendered slightly differently as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence). We forget that last part: In that order. It may not be written in the text but it has always been understood and interpreted that way. There are reasonable limits to all of the rights enshrined in our founding documents as a result. When one person's pursuit of happiness interferes with other person's life, we choose life. Period. When we live together in an ordered society, one person's behavior can and will impact another person, and this is why we have a hierarchy of rights and liberties to assure the best for all. This is especially true when the liberty of carrying a gun is NOT associated with any increased safety for the gun owner or anyone else—in fact, it is only correlated with increased risk to life, liberty and happiness. 

When someone walks into a Starbucks with an AR-15, my pursuit of happiness is over, my liberty to spend time there is effectively limited, and I'm worried about my life. I'm planning my exit immediately and so is everyone else. I don't know what the person's intentions are or what their training has been. Besides, accidents happen even with trained people. Even armed security could not stop a person from shooting up a crowd with an AR-15. That is why even just brandishing the weapon—and not using it—is already an act of aggression—even unused it causes a disturbance and it inflicts trauma—and this is why they must be banned immediately and effectively.

Root Causes of Gun Violence

My ears perk up when gun enthusiasts say we need to address root causes of violence and not look at regulating guns. 

Do they really know what they are asking for? 

You mean... you want to create a society that fundamentally reshapes the way we approach and manage stress, which trains in nonviolent conflict resolution (like MLK showed us), and which blossoms in peace and love everywhere? 

That our whole society would band together to continuously work on this openly and enthusiastically? 

To love the lost, to tend the wounded, to make sure no one is isolated, bullied or forgotten? 

To breathe in peace and breathe out pain as an all around way of life? 

I say, bring it on!

To Trust in God's abundance and not make false idols out of weapons?

To learn how to share the earth with one another and to cooperate? To create mutually beneficial relationships rather than exploit vulnerabilities for profit?

Yes! Yes! Yes!

God created all that we know out of love.

God redeemed the world through the cross out of love. 

God has continued to sanctify the world through Pentecost and beyond out of love.

All of Scripture has to be read through the lens of this continual outpouring of love.

Violence only begets more violence, as Scripture also shows quite well. Violent revolutions seem at first to fix one problem only to create another violent society in its place. Oppressive empires are replaced by another evil empire. The king of the hill who bullies others is knocked off the top only to be replaced by another king of the hill doing much of the same. Violence is a chain reaction that only leads to move violence. In the movies, violence seems to puts people in their place and allows goodness to flow, but in reality it just doesn't work that way. Hollywood movies speak to the simple solutions that we all long for on some level, but they shouldn't be taken as a script for real life.

Nonviolent movements for social change have been wildly successful (but woefully under-reported).

The only reasons nonviolence is hard is because it involves mutual change to resolve a conflict. Both parties have to take risks, be vulnerable and be open to transformation.

Yes, part of human nature we struggle with is to be competitive. But we forget that an equal part of human nature is to be cooperative. Humans have always lived in tight-knit villages, clans and families where work and its rewards are shared. People work according to their ability and are given according to their need.

Modern civilization has advanced so rapidly that we have forgotten so many longstanding traditions. Most tribal societies have brilliant, compassionate and very human ways of addressing wrongdoings of members. Mennonite scholar Howard Zehr has lead the movement for restorative justice which resembles much of what human cultures have always done but which we in the modern world have forgotten.

I leave you with this absolutely brilliant video series by Catholic spiritual leader Richard Rohr who talks about the need for "male initiation." Male initiation is something virtually every traditional culture does but our modern one does not. The results are catastrophic—violence, spousal abuse, substance abuse, mental health problems and suicide. In most cultures, young men are groomed through a system of mentoring, challenging adventures such as vision quests and interaction with proper role models. This link is part 1 of a 4 part series, well worth watching for the full hour all together (Parts 2, 3 and 4 should follow automatically). There is much to be said about how we are neglecting men and boys in our society which may be at the root of the violence we are seeing today.

Racism and African-American Poverty

Picture taken from linked article.

I highly recommend this article for anyone engaged in discussions on race in America:

Black Poverty Is Rooted in Real-Estate Exploitation

This article is a must read. It does a fantastic job explaining succinctly so many of the themes we've been talking about on this site regarding racism.

Redistribution of Wealth

Many in the U.S. don't like the term "redistribution of wealth." They say it sounds "socialist." However, the U.S. has been engaging in redistribution of wealth through its entire history. Slavery literally stole the labor, the freedom, the lives and family structures of millions of people. The theft was not merely financial. This continued through oppressive Jim Crow laws. It continued even after Civil Rights became the law of the land 50 years ago through housing practices that literally stole wealth from African Americans. The linked article above makes this case so well.

Despite Civil Rights legislation, there has not been a massive move of African Americans out of poverty into the middle and upper classes. Some individuals managed to achieve this, but it was largely unavailable to the vast majority. Why? 

One of the primary ways to "move up" in the U.S. is through home ownership. As you can see in the linked article, black people have faced very different housing and finance options compared to white people. This has has very real, tangible, visceral results.

Booming Economy?

They say the economy now is booming--the stock market may be going up and there are available jobs, but that doesn't translate into a better standard of living for the vast majority: 

*    Wages have been stagnant since the 1970s.

*    Young people are finding jobs that pay $10/hour but require college degrees. 

*    Those college degrees mean that a person in their early 20s is often saddled with the equivalent of a home loan in student loans--nothing any previous generation has had to face.

*    Retirement options are minimal and pension plans are virtually nonexistent. 

*    Many do not have full access to health care, and those that do often go into bankruptcy in order to get it.  

STILL, the white people I know do fare better than African Americans. Why? Inheritance.

I've seen this play out with people I know. I know a white couple who run an organic farm. They moved onto land that the husbands's parents owned. There is no way they could have acquired land with only their own money or credit. So even in a tough economy, white people are faring better because so many have access to houses or land that they got from their parents and grandparents. Since black people largely do not have this option, they struggle far more. This white couple are able to use this inherited land to establish a business and perhaps build equity.

As you can see in the linked article, home and land ownership was far more difficult for black people to get than for white people. These policies continue to have a lasting effect for generations, even if cases were the policies themselves are no longer in effect.

It's not just Home Ownership

There are certainly other reasons for disparity along racial lines in America. Mass incarceration and the well-documented disproportionate treatment of black people in every stage of the criminal justice system factors heavily. So is implicit bias and other covert forms of racism that impact everything from a sense of belonging in this country to getting jobs and securing higher salaries.

Individualism in the White Community

So white people: Before you take too much credit for "pulling yourself up by the bootstraps" and claiming you achieved so much with "no one helping you," first make sure that is actually accurate. You most likely did work hard and you did struggle. No one is going to deny your right to say this. But you also had help that a black person in the same situation would not have had: In the case of the linked article above, that help included reasonable home loans, the G.I. Bill, sensible financing options, access to any neighborhood you wanted to live or conduct your business, etc. 

All of these translate very directly into upward class mobility, and their impact lasts for generations. Case in point: Most wealth in America is inherited (at least 60% of private wealth according to this link), NOT earned by the individuals who have it.

We white people can be humble about this and give thanks to the community and nation that supported our goals and work hard to make sure that all of our sisters and brothers have those same opportunities that we had.

"Make Way!" says the Lord. "Clear a path."

A voice of one calling: 

"In the wilderness prepare the way for the Lord; 

make straight in the desert a highway for our God."

-- Isaiah 40:3 

God promises abundance over and over in Scripture (John 10:10, for example).

However, we live in a world seemingly surrounded by scarcity and limitations. How do we trust in that abundance? I hear the prophet Isaiah in the quote above--echoed later by the prophet John the Baptist (Luke 3:4)--telling us to make way! 

What does this mean for us today?

It means: Make room. Clear a spot. Bring an extra chair to the dinner table. Make a bed for an unexpected house guest. Move out of the way when an elderly person walks by. Take time to listen to the cries of someone suffering. Clear space in the center for folks who have spent far too long in the margins.

In short: Give a little. Or a lot.

Isn't this at the core of issues we face as a society? In order to make space for others in this world, we often have to give a little? I know this runs completely contrary to what we are told in our popular culture. That culture tells us to "get more"--and more and more---and that we shouldn't have to be inconvenienced ever. Everyone is entitle to fulfillment of all their individual desires. 

But that's not reality. Humans are built for self-realization, yes, but we are also built for cooperation. We find our fulfillment in community even though--or perhaps because--community is difficult. Community requires bending, adjusting and making room. It involves facing difficult stuff so that we can become better. Our individual self is full realized not when we are granted every desire but when we give. That's the paradox spoken of in Scripture: By giving, we receive.

Asylum seekers come to our border. They are fleeing horrific violence and devastating poverty. If we take time to truly listen to them, this becomes apparent. What do we do? Surely, the richest nation in the history of modern civilization has resources to offer. Following the Biblical mandate, we should make way for them--for starters, that means offering them a safe place to rest from the journey, nourishing food to heal their bodies and a friendly ear to listen to them. We can do this while doing whatever legal work we need to process their cases. Then, once admitted into this country, we can work to help find space to settle in, get comfortable, heal wounds and build a new life. We can offer a warm welcome in the short term and also the long term.

Some people are afraid to open the door--what if something bad happens? What if we can't face the truth that their pain is the result in some way of our actions as a nation? What if we are called to give more than we are comfortable giving?

For God has not given us a spirit of fear, 

but of power and of love and of a sound mind.

2 Timothy 1:7

"What if" is the language of fear, not the language of God. Bad things may happen and we have to be on alert, but good things can also happen. Our new guests could be wonderful neighbors. They could offer new foods, new attitudes, new wisdom and new growth for our society--all because we made space for them and took a chance.

It's simply selfish and short-sighted to refuse hospitality when we have so much and their needs are so great. 

Very often, what seems like extra effort is only an extra blessing. We may think these people and circumstances will hamper us but this is Gospel freedom we are talking about. This ins't the freedom of unfettered individualism, but rather the freedom to follow our deepest callings of love, hospitality, compassion and hope. It is the freedom to trust in the God of abundance, not the devil of scarcity.

Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;

in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.

Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear the LORD and shun evil.

This will bring health to your body and nourishment to your bones.

Honor the LORD with your wealth, with the firstfruits of all your crops;

then your barns will be filled to overflowing, and your vats will brim over with new wine.

Proverbs 3:5-10

We need to prepare the way as if God is personally the one we are greeting--because if we take Scripture seriously--that's exactly who we are welcoming in:

“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, 

whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, 

you did for me. (from Matthew 25:31-46).

A voice of one calling:

“In the wilderness prepare

the way for the Lord;

make straight in the desert

a highway for our God.

Every valley shall be raised up,

every mountain and hill made low;

the rough ground shall become level,

the rugged places a plain.

And the glory of the Lord will be revealed,

and all people will see it together.

For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”

Isaiah 40:3-5

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.