New Orleans, Confederate Monuments, and the Dismantling of our History
The New Orleans City Council voted Thursday (12/18) to remove four confederate monuments—effectively dismantling a part of the history and culture that I was raised in.
As the youngest of four boys, I was usually the only one that my mother would drag along when she would make her monthly visit to her Aunt Dot, who lived on Hennessey Street right off of City Park.
Three things remain in my memory from the ritual. One, we usually took Aunt Dot to get her hair done somewhere (not incredibly exciting for an 7-year-old boy). Two, we would stop for a lunch at Five Happines, a Chinese restaurant on S. Carrollton. And three, in both coming and going, we would pass the statue of P.G.T. Beauregard.
History is in my blood. Since as long as I can remember I’ve always enjoyed history, monuments, artifacts, old stuff, etc. As a child, I would sit in my dad’s bathtub and read about the history of New Orleans. I love a good story. And most old things are better than the new stuff they make today. I’d still rather live in an old house (like the 1906 Craftsman I live in now) than a newly built house any day. I appreciate the old and value the stories from our past.
So as a kid, how could I not love that statue of Beauregard—beaming down at me from its pedestal, whispering to me the mysteries of New Orleans’ glorious past? And aside from the historical part, the statue of P.G.T Beauregard just looked so cool. As kids, we liked to “play war”—both with toy guns and plastic “army men”—and Beauregard was like a giant army man, but only on a horse, which also made him like a knight–even cooler.
There’s no doubt that this guy is a boss. When P.G.T. walks into the room, everybody knows he’s in charge. The hat he is wearing tells you he’s sporty. The raised leg of the horse tells you to move the hell o
ut the way or you’re going to get trampled on. Did I mention he is wearing what looks like a cape? And did I mention that there was a public middle school named after him 5 miles away from my house?
Because of all this, I knew (even before I knew about the Civil War or slavery or anything about ole’ P.G.T) that the guy on the statue must have been awesome.
Because every 7-year-old kid knows that only the awesomest people have statues made of them. (And only super heroes wear capes).
And if there’s a statue of you and you look like a knight-in-shining armor, you must really be, in some sense, a savior. You must have done something worth remembering, something worth celebrating.
You must have been so amazing that you deserve to captivate the attention of every 7-year-old boy riding by from now until—well until eternity, because whatever they made this statue out of, it looks like it’s going to outlast us all.
So whatever it was that I would learn about the Civil War or the horrors and injustice of slavery, I would learn them with the prior “knowledge” that those men who fought for the South and for slavery were led by noble, heroic, and brave men whom we remember, celebrate, and emulate.
No one every told me this. They didn’t have to. The statue did all of the talking. My parents didn’t have to say a word. They just had to drive on by (on the way to the park or on the way to hair-dresser or the way to a Chinese restaurant) and I would get the lesson.
Alexander Doyle’s masterpiece of a statue of ole P.G.T. conveys a crystal clear message about the South, the supremacy of white people, and the nobility of their cause in the Civil War and the struggle thereafter to free themselves from the tyranny of the conquering U.S. Federal Government which sought to impose their way of life and values on us—the civil, godly, Southern gentlemen.
When these kinds of messages are on a website or in a book—they are far less effective and often recognized as what our society thinks of as an archaic, blatant version of racism, the kind that even Donald Trump publicly decries. But this message in the form of a masterpiece statue, this message encapsulated in beauty, this message artistically crafted and displayed for the world to see on a pedestal in front of the most beautiful park in the whole city is extremely effective in captivating the hearts and minds of all who pass by.
Lee Circle, Aerial View
I already knew how great General Beauregard must have been, because I had seen his statue. I already knew that General Robert E. Lee was worthy of honor and praise. His image was raised on the highest pedestal I had ever seen in the middle of the only traffic circle I had ever driven around.
So whatever they tried to tell me about slavery being bad or that black lives matter as much as white lives or who was at fault in the Civil War, their message could only get so far. And even as some of their arguments for Civil Rights began to make sense, I had to balance them out with what I knew to be true from the messages of the statues. It was, after all, the message I had heard from the beginning.
Today, there are a lot of folks in New Orleans who are unhappy about the removal of these masterful pieces of our culture—and included among the unhappy are no doubt many of my own friends and relatives. There is even a group that is suing the city in an attempt to block the removal. Their suit reads:
Regardless of whether the Civil War era is regarded as a catastrophic mistake or a noble endeavor, it is undeniably a formative event in the history of Louisiana…It is the source of much of the cultural heritage (of) this city and state, including countless novels, short stories, plays, monuments, statues, films, stories, songs, legends and other expressions of cultural identity.[1]
The Civil War could have been a noble endeavor on our part, right? Well, that is what our statues have been telling us since we were old enough to look out of the car window.
But even if it was a catastrophic mistake, it’s history folks! The Civil War was a “formative event” in our history. We can’t just forget it.
Right. We cannot forget it.
But can we change the way we remember it?
I’ve traveled Europe quite a bit. So I’ve been in a lot of museums and I’ve seen the heads and in some cases the busts and sometimes the whole bodies of Greek and Roman gods.
These statues represented thousands of years of history and culture for the Greco-Roman world. They were “undeniably formative.” These gods were the way of life. And their images were enthroned in the highest places, put on pedestals, and their stories were honored and remembered.
But pagan culture and religion was eventually replaced by Christian 
culture and religion. The very temples where people praised the statues of Zeus were eventually converted into cathedrals. According to the Christians, their God (the God of Israel, a God of love and justice) was the only true God. Following the God of Israel would lead to the greatest human flourishing, because his gospel was capable of producing the most good, just, beautiful, and true society imaginable. The pagan gods and their stories had led the people astray and brought about a society that was incapable of true love and justice and of rightly appropriating beauty and works of art. This is, at least, the story that Christians tell.
In various ways the Christians dismantled and reconfigured the history of the Romans. Many artifacts, which had been important to the pagan culture, were now forgotten. Masterful pieces of art and sculpture fell by the waste side while others were reappropriated.
Today, the only home poor Zeus has is in a museum. But there, his statue doesn’t get the praise and honor due to him—at least as his sculptor intended it.
What was wrong with those ancient Christians? Couldn’t they have just celebrated the cultural history of paganism even after most of society has moved on to a radically different way of existing?
They didn’t think so. The Christians were trying to destroy a powerful ideology—a system that was ingrained in the very fabric of Roman life. They recognized not only the power of truth (i.e. logic) but also the power of beauty. Even if the majority of the people bought into the message of Christianity, if the most beautiful monuments in town were pointing them to another way of life, they would always be drawn to re-imagine their old life as pagans as more noble, more heroic, and more just than it ever was. This is the power of art.
Should New Orleanians do away with their Confederate monuments? Should the statues of Generals Lee and Beauregard suffer the same fate as that of Vladimir Lenin’s statue in Berlin, Germany—which was unceremoniously removed in 1989 from it’s prominent, public location and then broken in 130 pieces before being buried in the ground?[2]
I prefer the “Zeus solution.” Let them be removed and forgotten about for a while. And then after a few centuries, display them in museums so that people can see the gods of Southern white supremacy—those beings that were curiously once regarded by (white) society as honorable, praise-worthy and deserving of reverence.
Then the people will look on with wonder (in quite the same way that we stare at a bust of Aphrodite or Zeus) and say, how is it that people truly worshiped these men?
[1] Cited online in the Washington Examiner http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/groups-sue-to-keep-confederate-monuments-in-new-orleans/article/2578760
[2] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/11/giant-head-from-lenin-statue-unearthed-for-exhibition-in-berlin
What is a deacon? And what to they do?
Janna and I were just ordained as deacons in the Anglican Church. We’ve been congratulated by some of our friends and family members—but many are still asking questions like, “What is deacon? And what do they do?”
So here’s an explanation.
One of the Three: the Threefold Ministry
Deacons are ministers (i.e. servants) of Christ who have been set apart for service in his Church and his world. While “every Christian is called to follow Jesus Christ, serving God the Father, through the power of the Holy Spirit. God calls deacons to a special ministry of servanthood directly under their bishop. In the name of Jesus Christ, deacons are to serve all people, particularly the poor, the weak, the sick, and the lonely.”[1]
Since her earliest days, the Church has set apart certain members to lead in special capacities. We first learn of the “threefold ministry” of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons in the Bible:
Bishops (episcopoi) are mentioned in Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet 2:25,
Priests[2] (presbuteroi) in 1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5; Jas. 5:14, and
Deacons (diakonoi) in Rom 16:1-2; Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:8.
During the time of the Apostles, these terms were used with fluidity.[3] For example, Paul refers to himself as a diakonos (deacon) and Peter calls himself a presbyteros (priest) although both were Apostles—an office of much higher rank.[4] However, when the Apostles died, they left a system in place with their disciples in which the functions of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons were more specified.[5]
The First Deacons
In Acts 6, the Apostles realized they couldn’t do it all. The Church was growing. More people were being changed by the gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit—which meant more people where sharing their possessions and food….Read the rest of the article at http://goldlinechurch.com/what_is_a_deacon/
Disclaimer: This post was written for a specific audience (a group called AG Ministers Under 40) and might be difficult to understand outside of that context. It is sort of an explanation as to why I am leaving the group. This post does not attempt to explain what Anglicanism is. It also uses language that would probably not make much since for someone unfamiliar with AG theology and practice.
INTRO During this past year, I made a very difficult decision to leave the only church I have known. I grew up in an Assemblies of God (AG) church. My family has been AG since the 1930s and is one of the oldest Pentecostal families in New Orleans. My father is an AG pastor and I have two brothers who are ordained AG ministers. I have held AG ministerial for a couple of years, but with the recent transition of the New Year (2015), my AG ministerial credentials have lapsed. God willing, I will be confirmed on January 25th into the Anglican Church by Bishop Todd Hunter at Holy Trinity in Costa Mesa. I am not leaving with hurt, bitterness, or resentment. Quite the contrary, I maintain a deep love and respect for the church that taught me the name of Jesus. The last AG congregation I was a part of (in Pasadena, CA) was a wonderful group of people led by a theologically capable pastor that I appreciate greatly. I am excited about the direction of the AG (under George Wood) and I am confident that it will continue to thrive in the decades to come. Because of my positive wishes toward my friends and family in the AG, I was not planning on sharing publicly my reasons for leaving. That is, I am not trying to convince people to leave the AG or even that it was a good idea for me to leave the AG. I actually want people to stay and make the AG even better. (I tried myself really hard to stay, and finally had to acknowledge that God was calling to the Anglican Church—or perhaps more accurately, God was making me into an Anglican). However, my friend (and fellow AG minister) Dan suggested that I give a public explanation for why I am leaving. His reasoning was that if people continue to leave silently, how will the AG address those issues which led to their exit from the church? I think Dan is right and so I am taking some time to explain how I became Anglican. But before I do, I will explain exactly what I mean by “Anglican,” as there exists a wide range of theology and practice within the Anglican communion (ranging from liberal to fundamentalist, low church to high church, Calvinist to Arminian). I am joining the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) which considers itself to be evangelical (prima scriptura, Christo-centric), charismatic (Spirit-filled), and catholic (embracing the universal practices of the ancient church, especially regarding sacraments, liturgy, and the episcopate).
HOW I BECAME ANGLICAN I am not becoming Anglican in spite of my AG pastors and mentors, but rather it was (at least in part) because of their influence that I have continued on this journey. Here I will name some of the shifts that resulted in my theological transition.
1. Recognizing the importance of Discipleship While in Chi Alpha (XA) at UL Lafayette, my pastor Eric taught me about the importance of discipleship. It seemed that for Eric and a lot of XA folks, Christianity had to be caught as well as taught. This led to a lot of important questions, such as, from whom did the first Pentecostals catch it? Who discipled Eric? And who discipled the person who discipled Eric? And so on? Doesn’t that chain eventually lead back to Methodists, Anglicans, and Roman Catholics? If Christianity is something that is passed on by people, then who were the people who passed it on between the Apostles and Martin Luther (the first Protestant)? While in XA, I began to develop a more embodied view of the faith, one in which the Spirit works through people and practices (i.e. spiritual disciplines) to form people over time. I began to realize that the people between the Apostles (Early Church) and Martin Luther (Reformation) were critical to my relationship with Christ. Those Roman Catholic people were the ones who preserved the ‘Jesus way’ of living and who perpetuated the knowledge of Holy Scripture. I could no longer hate—I had to appreciate (the Church)!
2. Recognizing the Centrality of the Church There was another XA pastor at ULL named Charles who had a profound impact on my life. He taught me about discipleship by discipling me. He recommended that I read a David Watson’s book Called and Committed: World-Changing Discipleship. Watson indicated that evangelism was not just about making converts, nor was it only about making disciples. The ultimate goal of evangelism is to make people into family members of God’s family (i.e. the church). This confirmed what I had already been observing as non-believers were being incorporated into our XA group. Christian infants (i.e. new believers) needed the family to teach them what it means to be a family member. As Christians matured, they become more responsible family members. Over time, I began to recognize that what God wanted was a family, a people that he could call his own. This is the message of the Old Testament. And the good news of the New Testament is that even gentiles can be welcomed into God’s holy, set-apart family. Thus, I began to have a much higher view of the church. The church was not a means to end, but rather it was the end to which Jesus came. He wanted a people. Ecclesiology (the theology of the church) and Soteriology (the theology of salvation) are inseparable. To be saved, is to be saved into the church (the people that God is saving). Thus salvation is ‘personal’ in the sense that it involves my person, my desires, my will, my emotions, etc.—but it is not personal in any individualistic sense. That is, it is not just about “me and God,” but about how God is reconciling all of creation to Himself through the Head and Body of Christ.
3. Recognizing that Conversion is a Process, not just an Event When I was a missionary in Berlin, Germany (basically doing XA in Europe), an AG missionary named Johnny told me to read Beginning Well: Christian Conversion & Authentic by Gordon Smith. Smith helped me to recognize that conversion is a process—which includes several important steps and/or events—but should not be reduced to an event. Smith demonstrates how these important conversion steps do not happen in the same order for all Christians. One of the necessary steps that Smith names is baptism. Although Smith does not argue in favor of infant baptism, his book helped me to see it in a more favorable light and to recognize that rebaptizing someone is unnecessary.
4. Recognizing that Pentecostalism had been strongly influenced by anti-Pentecostal thinkers like Zwingli and John Nelson Darby
A) Zwingli I am a semi-Reformed thinker. I have always recognized that the medieval Roman Catholic Church had developed several unhelpful theologies and practices which were foreign to the ancient Catholic Church, and thus in need of reforming. That is why I have a good bit of sympathy and a lot of respect for reformers like Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, etc. However, in reading about the Reformers, I also recognized that on several points, Pentecostals have more in common with the Medieval Catholic Church than they do the Reformers. The Reformers were skeptical about the continuation of miracles and the gifts of the Spirit in the church after the apostolic age. Whereas, like Pentecostals, The Roman Church (as well as the Eastern Orthodox Churches) continued to believe in miracles, healing, and spiritual gifts (even if they had fallen out of practice in many areas). Even though the Reformers were skeptical about miracles, most them did recognize at least one miracle: Christ makes himself present to us at the eucharist. Most Reformers maintained the ancient tradition that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, whether bodily present (Luther) or merely spiritually present (Calvin). However, there was one skeptical Reformer named Zwingli who denied the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and considered it simply a memorial. Zwingli’s memorialist view of the Eucharist was perpetuated by many Protestants over time and was eventually adopted early Pentecostals. In reflecting on the Reformation, I began to see Zwingli’s rejection of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist as an extension of the cessationist Reformation program: God does not show up and do miracles. As a Pentecostal, I have always believed in miracles. I began to recognize that the early church believed in miracles, in the gifts of the Spirit, and in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. God is a miracle working God who continues “to show up” in the church through the power of the Spirit working in people and in the sacraments. Thus, I began to recognize the centrality of the Eucharist for Christian worship, the necessity of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, and the rejection of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist as a part of the Reformation cessationist project (which I have never bought into). I developed not only a high view of the church, but also a high view of the sacraments (seeing them as something that God is working through) and not merely powerless symbols.
B) John Nelson Darby Growing up AG, I thought all Christians believed in a secret rapture (where Christ suddenly steals all true, living Christians away to heaven). It turns out that idea of a secret rapture is a new doctrine that was invented as late as the 19th century and is only believed by a minority of Christians. The idea of a secret rapture seems to have its origins in the teachings of an English, Plymouth Brethren preacher named John Nelson Darby (1800-1882). Darby was the father of Dispensationalism—the “doctrine” which divides time into separate “dispensations” in which God deals differently with people in each dispensation. According to classical dispensationalism, miracles ceased with the apostles. Dispensationalism was made popular in America among fundamentalist through the Scofield Reference Bible. Because early Pentecostals were not educated theologically, they often turned to the Scofield Reference Bible as theological textbook of sorts (despite the fact that Scofield denied the contemporary use of spiritual gifts like tongues). Dispensational eschatology (secret rapture included) is inherently anti-Pentecostal and our best AG theologians have demonstrated this (see Frank Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit). God’s preferred future is not to destroy all of creation, but rather to renew it by baptizing all of creation in His Spirit. I embrace the gifts of the Spirit because church history demonstrates that they were not only at work in the Apostolic age, but that they were still in use during the Patristic Age (the age of the ancient church). The reason I embrace the Spiritual gifts is the same reason I reject dispensationalism and the secret rapture. I am only interested in practicing the faith that was passed down from Jesus by the Apostles. And that faith knew nothing of dispensations and a secret rapture. Sadly, the AG is committed to dispensationalist theology, as it has enshrined dispensationalism in its “Fundamental Truth #14 –The Millennial Reign of Christ ” Thus over time, I have grown at odds with certain AG theological commitments (Zwinglian sacramental theology and Darby’s dispensational eschatology) not because I have become less Pentecostal, but because I have recognized these doctrines as inconsistent with the Pentecostal experience.
5. Recognizing the Pattern of the Early Church While in seminary I studied Early Church History and read primary sources from this time period. It became clear to me that the apostles (sent out by Christ) had appointed bishops in the cities where they ministered. We still have the writings of Bishop Ignatius of Antioch (discipled by John the Apostle) and Bishop Clement of Rome (discipled by Peter and Paul). If the Apostles left us bishops, why were we in the AG following a District Superintendent? If the early Church Fathers were baptizing infants, why were we denying them admission into the church? If the Fathers recognized the power of God working through the sacraments, why was I a part of church that trivialized the sacraments? Like many Pentecostals, I had always thought of myself as a theological primitivist. That is, I was under the impression that the early church had theology right and if we could just get back to the early church we would be okay. In time I discovered that my AG beliefs were far from ancient, primitive faith. AG “Fundamental Truths” numbers 7 (subsequence) and 14 (rapture/millennium) were invented in the 19th century and number 8 (initial physical evidence) was invented in the 20th century. “Fundamental Truth” number 6 (“the ordinances,” i.e. sacraments), as understood by the AG, has older origins, but still no older than the 15th century. These newer teachings are at odds with the ancient church mothers and fathers who were martyred as they spread the gospel throughout the world. Today, I continue to see myself as a primitivist, and therefore I find certain AG theological particulars unhelpful because they fail to conform to the universal teachings of the ancient church.
6. Recognizing the Holy Spirit and the Gifts of the Spirit at work in other Churches I began to realize that there were churches where the spiritual gifts seemed more active than in AG churches. A closer look at the Vineyard churches should cause us in the AG to question the importance of Classical Pentecostal “distinctives.” Margaret Poloma demonstrates in her book, The Assemblies of God: Godly Love and the Revitalization of American Pentecostalism, that when compared with AG churches, Vineyard churches typically practice speaking in tongues and prophecies in greater frequency—despite the Vineyard’s rejection of classical Pentecostal formulations (i.e. “Fundamental Truths” 7 and 8). Many in the AG would argue that “Pentecostal theological distinctives” produce the “Pentecostal experience,” but Poloma’s studies use quantitative data to prove the opposite is true. Over time, I learned more about the charismatic renewal, and how millions of people from Mainline Protestant churches and the Roman Catholic Church experienced what Pentecostals call “Spirit-Baptism” and practiced speaking in tongues. I came to realize that I didn’t have to choose between Spirit-filled experience and historic orthodoxy. I could choose Spirit-filled, living orthodoxy: Anglicanism.
You can learn more about my church plant in Los Angeles at resurrectionla.org
Books for Beginning Theology
A few weeks back I put together a reading list for a friend of mine who is interested in theology and is considering attending seminary. I decided to blog this list in case it might be helpful for others.
It begins with “popular books with the ‘seeds’ of theology”—most of these books are not academic books (they are written for a more general audience). However, they might be a good place to start for anyone with little to no academic theological learning.
This list is not intended to be in any way definitive or exhaustive. It is simply a starting place. If anyone has suggestions for this list, please write it in on the comment section. Please, keep in mind this list is intended for beginners.
Books for Beginning Theology
Popular books with the “seeds” of Theology:
- Many C.S. Lewis books are good beginning places for thinking theologically
- The Cost of Discipleship, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, (recovering discipleship, Sermon on the Mount)
- Any popular book from N.T Wright such as “Simply Christian”
Light to Medium Level Theology
- Beginning Well, Gordon T. Smith – theology of conversion
- The Gospel of the Kingdom, George Eldon Ladd – theology of the kingdom of God
- Surprised by Hope, N.T. Wright – theology of resurrection, Jewish origins of Christianity (anything from Wright is great reading. some of it is heavy, so I would avoid his larger, heavier works for now)
- When the Kings Come Marching In: Isaiah and the New Jerusalem, Richard Mouw – intro to Neo-Calvinism and Christ transforming culture
Biblical Studies
- How to Read the Bible for All its Worth. Gordon Fee
- Seized by Truth, Joel B. Green
- The Cambridge Companion to The Gospels. edited by Stephen C. Barton
- The Shadow of the Galilean. Gerd Theissen. (this is a historical fiction that is designed to explain to help understand the cultural and socio-political setting of the gospels)
- NT Wright’s “For Everyone” commentary series
- The IVP New Testament Commentary Series. One great way to go deeper on the bible is go deeper on a single book. You could do this by reading a commentary on any book that you want to go deeper on. The writings of Paul would be a good place to start. The IVP commentary series is easy to read, so I would recommend starting there.
Systematic Theology (Textbooks)
- Christian Theology: An Introduction, Alister McGrath (the 3rd and 4th editions can be bought used for under $10 on Amazon). This is a widely used text and very helpful. It does a good job of providing a historical perspective. Only weakness is that it has a slight Calvinist bias at the expense of the traditional (Catholic/Arminian) view.
- Theology for the Community of God, Stanley J. Grenz (Grenz provides historical/ecumenical views as well as constructive theology.)
- The “multiview series” from IVP is really good. Each book has 4 or 5 different views on various theological topics. This is a great way to learn what distinguishes various Christian traditions and also which ones you agree most with.
Here is link to various titles.
- Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit, Clark Pinnock (this is great book about systematic theology from the perspective of the Spirit)
- Essentials of Christian Theology, edited by William Placher (collection of essays on systematic topics. See table of contents on Amazon)
Christian History
- The Story of Christianity, Justo Gonzalez, (I haven’t read it. But it’s probably great).
- Textbook of the History of Doctrines, Reinhold Seeberg. This is an old textbook, but still pretty good. It can be viewed or downloaded free of cost at http://books.google.com/books?id=6n4rAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Church Fathers
The Church Fathers
(most of these can be read online at http://www.ccel.org/ or found in any library)
- Ignatius of Antioch – I think everyone should read Ignatius of Antioch’s Epistles (not because they are so profound, but they are Christian writing from the first generation after the Apostles
- Clement of Rome – We should read his epistles for the same reasons as Ignatius above
- Adversus Haereses or Against Heresies – Irenaeus of Lyon
- On the Incarnation – Athansius
- Justin Martyr – writes a lot of good stuff. Good insight into early Christianity
Law, Grace, Email, and Sex
Under the Law and/or Grace?
What do Christians do with “the law?” This was a big a question in the early church. It seemed as confusing to them as does to many Christians today. Sometimes Paul talks as if faith cancels the law, but other times he advocates for keeping the law.
In the same letter to the Romans, Paul writes both, “you are not under the law, but under grace,” and also, “Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.”[1] In his letter to the Galatians, he seems to argue against keeping the law, but later in his life, he joins in a Jewish purification rite to prove to the Jews living in Jerusalem that he was “living in obedience to the law.”[2] He was actually arrested just before he could make his planned sacrifice in the Temple.
And we see why this can be so confusing. The same Paul says ‘no’ to the Galatians, and then tries to make sacrifices at the Temple? What’s going on?
We can begin to make sense of the law, when we remember that the law (Gen-Deut) is the Word of God. The law was God revealed to Israel. We call this “special revelation” because it is what God reveals about himself that we could not have known from nature (natural revelation). The law is revelation, and revelation from God is always precious.
The law is God’s Word–are in Greek: logos. One gospel writer described Jesus as the logos. He wrote, “The logos became flesh, and made His dwelling among us.”[3]
Email or Making out?
I guess you could say I always loved Janna Mahoney, even since the first day I met her. But the more I got to know her, the more my love for her grew.
In 2005, we starting dating, but then she broke up with me just before I moved to Berlin in July of 2005.
In July of 2007, after a 2-year break up, Janna and I decided to give our relationship another shot. And then I flew away 2 weeks later to spend the year in Berlin. But Janna stayed in Lafayette.
So the year before Janna and I got married, our primary mode of communication was email. Everyday I jumped out of bed and checked my inbox.
Those emails from Janna were the most precious part of my day. I read and re-read them.
Email was the only Janna I had.
We learned so much about each other through email. We expressed our love for each other through email. I remember wanting to just be with her and hold her, but all I had was my laptop and Yahoo!Mail.
Now let’s fast-forward to 2011. We’ve been married for over 3 years now.
Let’s imagine that I’m lying in bed next to my wife and I am so filled with love for her that I must express it. So I get out of bed and go compose an email to her. I tell her how much I want to hold her, how I want to know everything about her, and that I wish she were just here in person so we could just be together.
Wouldn’t this be absurd? I hardly ever write my wife emails anymore. Why? Because when I’m filled with for love her, I can just tell her in person or I just start making out with her.
There was a time when email was all we had, but now we have so much more.
I learned a lot about Janna through email. But I’ve learned much more living with her. I’ve got a much better idea of who she is, how she loves me, and why I am committed to her for my entire life.
Today, it would be sick for me to choose emailing her over being with her in person.
Sinai, Pentecost, and a Bride from Galatia
Pentecost is the Jewish celebration of God giving the law. And it is no mistake that God poured out His Holy Spirit on the disciples on the Day of Pentecost.
Because He prophesied through Jeremiah that He would “make a new covenant
with the people of Israel.” God said, “I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts.” [4]
At Sinai God put his law on clay tablets. The old covenant. This was the law–outside of man–signified by circumcised penises and kosher meals.
At Jerusalem God put his law on the hearts of His people. The new covenant. This was the law–inside of man–signified by circumcised hearts and the infilling of the Holy Spirit.
So Paul writes a letter to the gentile Bride of Christ in Galatia. She has been sleeping in bed with Christ for several years now, but someone has come along and told her that if she really wants intimacy with Christ, she needs to send him an email. The crazy thing was, she was actually about to send the email.
So Paul writes and says, “Are you crazy? You’ve got the Holy Spirit inside of you! Jesus, the living logos, lives inside of you! Cutting off those foreskins is not going to do anything for you.
Why would you settle for an email? You’ve got the real thing right there in bed next to you!”
Paul describes the old covenant as Mount Sinai – God is way up on the mountain, we are down here —we need email to communicate from such a great distance.
The new covenant is described as the New Jerusalem – the city where God lives – God is in close proximity—his Spirit is in us—we don’t have to settle for email–we can be in His presence.
So now, is Email Bad?
Email (the first covenant) was great, when it was the only revelation of God we had, but since the logos became flesh, dwelt among us and sent his Spirit to live in us, we have a much better revelation.
Although I have much better ‘revelation’ of Janna—Janna in the flesh—-I still have every email and letter she ever sent me.[5] I didn’t start erasing those emails once we got married. I don’t speak badly against those emails. No. In fact, they still tell something about who she is and our story together. I cherish those emails.
So it makes sense that Jesus says, “I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill the law,” and “until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law”?[6]
Those emails about Him were true. No need to delete them. No need speak against them. They actually confirm that Jesus was the Christ.
So hopefully this helps to make sense of Paul obeying the law and trying to make sacrifice in Acts 21. He had no problem sending an email, because he was doing it out of love for his fellow Israelites, who had high regard for email. He was fine with email, as long as it doesn’t cause division and as long as it doesn’t replace making-out.
You’ve gotta make out.
[1] Romans 6:14; Romans 3:31.
For verses where Paul seems to speak against keeping the law, see: 2 Cor. 3:6-17, Rom 6:14-15, Gal 3-4.
For verses where Paul seems to advocate keeping the law, see: Rom 2:12-23, 3:31, 8:7-8, Acts 21:20-26, Acts 25:8.
[2] Acts 21:24
[3] John 1:14
[4] Hebrews 8:7-13; Jer. 31:31-34
[5] Thus Jesus says, Matthew 5 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
And Paul says that all “scripture (referring to the Law and the Prophets) is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,”
[6] Matthew 5:18
Part 3 of 4
Unauthorized Immigrants and the Church
Before proceeding with more discourse on the Christian mandate to serve immigrants based on their status as poor, marginalized, and oppressed, we must first address an important question: Do we as Christians aid immigrants who we know to have immigrated illegally? Perhaps the best argument from scripture against illegal immigration would be Romans 13, where Paul encourages the church in Rome to “submit to the authorities.” A common application of this passage is that Christians should obey “the law of the land.” If the law prohibits illegal immigration, then Christians should not aid those who are in the country illegally. This verse has been a source for controversy throughout the ages. In the last century, German Christians used it as an excuse for not standing up against the Nazi regime and speaking out against the deportation of the Jews. They lived out Romans 13 by submitting to Adolf Hitler.
Fortunately, the church also has a rich tradition of disobeying laws that it deems incompatible with Christian living. 
The Freedom Riders of the civil rights movement ignored the “laws of the land” by riding in the front of the bus even though they were black. There were also Christians in Europe who hid Jews in their homes and lied to the Nazi authorities in order to protect their lives. During the 19th Century, the Underground Railroad was a network of people and safe houses that aided runaway slaves as they escaped from slavery in South to safety in the North. The Reformers of the 16th Century also famously cast off the restraint of Roman authority on the grounds of moral conscious. This tradition goes back further to the earliest Christians, who continued to follow Christ and met secretly in catacombs, even though Christianity had be outlawed by the Roman authorities. The first three hundred years of Christianity are full of stories of martyrs who were executed by the “governing authorities” for disobeying the law by witnessing to love of Christ. All of these are examples of Christians who made the moral decision to disobey the laws of the land in favor of following Christ and loving their neighbor.
Christ mandates that we serve the poor, care for the sick, visit those in prison (law breakers), and that we invite in the stranger. As American Christians who are trying to obey the laws of the land, we may be forced to choose between the commands of Christ and the national interests of the United States. If we refuse hospitality to a stranger or ignore the needs of the poor based on their legal status, we prove that our loyalties lie with the United States (earthly kingdom/Rome) and not with Christ (kingdom of Heaven). Paul makes it clear that in Christ “there is neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal 3). He is, of course, not implying that we lose our ethnic or national identity when we decide to follow Christ. Rather, in Christ, we hold our identities lightly; they become second place to our identity as Christ followers. Our identity, loyalty, and mission lie primarily with Jesus. When we witness to the love of Christ by serving the poor and marginalized, we may simultaneously be violating laws designed to sustain the American way of life. When Christ commands us to “love of your neighbor as yourself,” his command is not dependent on the legal status of our neighbor or whether we deem our neighbor worthy of compassion. He simply says “love” and interprets neighbor in the broadest sense possible (Luke 10).
Aliens, Orphans, and Widows: the Marginalized in the Judeo-Christian Tradition
A large portion of the Latino immigrants in Los Angeles comes from El Salvador and Guatemala. During the 1980’s, the Salvadoran and Guatemalan populations in Los Angeles increased almost fivefold (to 301,600 and 159,200 respectively).[1] Lopez points out, “Emigration was stimulated by the horrors of civil war and government terror and repression. These migrants are refugees, by any meaningful definition of the term, despite the U.S. government’s resistance recognizing this status.”[2] Many of the Salvadorans and Guatemalans immigrated to the United Sates without authorization; as of 1990, it was estimated that 49 percent of Salvadoran and 40 percent of Guatemalan immigrants (205,000 and 88,000 respectively) living in California were undocumented.[3] These immigrants who were oppressed in their own countries, are now living in the United States without official recognition or protection. They have no voice in our democratic system because they do not have citizenship. Salvadoran and Guatemalan rates of high school graduation are half the rate of other Central Americans, due largely in part to wars, which disrupted the education of an entire generation in some areas.[4] So they are not only politically handicapped, but they also face greater economic hardships because the lack the education, skill, and sometimes the legal status needed to thrive in the U.S. economy.
When God gave the Law to Moses, he made special provisions for three people groups: orphans, widows, and aliens. Consider the following verses:
Deuteronomy 10:18-19 “He [God] defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.”
Exodus 22:21-24 Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt. Do not take advantage of the widow or the fatherless. If you do and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry. My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless.
Leviticus 19:34 “The foreigners 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.”
Far from being an anomaly, the treatment of widow, orphans, and aliens is common theme throughout the Law and the Prophets and is picked up by the New Testament writers. The Hebrew word ger, translated in English as foreigners or aliens, referred to non-Israelite (gentile) immigrants living among the Israelites.[5] (See Appendix A. for selected list of scriptures that reference the ger). Orphans, widows, and aliens are given special consideration because their marginalized status within Israelite society, which favored Israelite males in regard to property rights, inheritances, etc. Without special provisions for orphans, widows and aliens, they could be easily taken advantage of. Unfortunately, many Israelites did take advantage of 
these marginalized groups; the prophets named this sin as they explained why the Israelites were facing exile at the hand of the Babylonians.[6] The New Testament also affirms God’s love for the marginalized. For example, we have already mentioned Jesus’ parable of the “Sheep and Goats” (Mat 25). Paul was engaged in helping the poor and gave special attention to widows (Act 24:17; I Timothy 5). James makes a direct reference to the Torah tradition when he equates “pure religion” with “looking after orphans and widows” (James 1:27).
The immigration issues facing the United States today cannot be equated with immigration in Bronze Age Israel. In searching for an application, we could engage in a long debate over how these ancient Israelite laws would apply to our modern situation and if we, as Christians, would have any place for observing “the Law.” Rather than asking what these passages command us to do, we can ask what these passages reveal about the character of God. They reveal that God loves, cares for, and sides with the marginalized. As children of God, we should reflect God’s love for marginalized people groups. For those of us living in Los Angeles, the Latino immigrants (especially the unrecognized refugees) are among the most marginalized, dis-empowered people living in our cities. Their powerlessness makes them close to heart of God, and we must also have a proper place in our hearts for them.
Remembering Where We Came From
Notice that God couples the command to love “the foreigners residing among you … as yourself” with a reason, “for you were foreigners in Egypt” (Lev 19:34). In fact, God commanded the Israelites to perpetually remember their experience in Egypt.[7] As U.S. citizens, we often forget that our ancestors were immigrants in search of better life in the not too distant past. The majority of our ancestors immigrated to the United States only since 1850. Figure 1. (below) demonstrates that as of 1820, there were only 9.6 million people living in the United States. Today’s population is descended from that 9.6 million, plus the 75.8 million that arrived since 1820.[8] For the majority of us, our ancestors were poor and sometimes persecuted people
|
FIGURE 1. |
|
|
Year |
Legally Documented Immigrants to the U.S. |
| 1820-1850 |
1,689,737 |
| 1851-1900 |
16,659,406 |
| 1901-1950 |
20,407,593 |
| 1951-2010 |
37,073,865 |
|
Total |
75,830,601 |
|
*US Population in 1820 was 9,638,453. |
|
|
Statistics taken from U.S.D.H.S.[9] |
|
who came to the United States in the hope of making a better future. It should not be difficult for us to hear our story reflected in the words of Leviticus 19, to imagine God saying, “Love immigrants as yourself, for you were once immigrants yourselves.” Is it possible that our failure to remember and pass down the immigration hardships of our ancestors has resulted in our lack of compassion for immigrants? Perhaps we should follow the Old Testament tradition of declaring “my father was a wandering Aramean,” perpetually remembering and identifying with our earlier nomadic status, even after generations of being settled in the land (Deut 26:5).[10]
[1] David Lopez, Eric Poplin and Edward Telles, 281.
[2] Ibid, 282.
[3] Ibid, 287.
[4] Ibid, 282.
[5] James K. Bruckner, Exodus (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Pub, 2008), 213.
[6] The Prophets accused the Israelites of depriving orphans, widows, and aliens of justice. See Jeremiah 7:5-7 and Ezekiel 22:29.
[7] Allen, Leslie C., “Images of Israel: The People of God in the Prophets”, in Studies in Old Testament Theology, eds R.L. Hubbard, R.K. Johnston and R.P. Meye (Dallas: Word, 1992), 154.
[8] U.S. Department of Homeland Security, http://www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/publications/LPR10.shtm (accessed August 30, 2001)
[9] Ibid.
[10] For a fascinating treatment of this topic, see Justo Gonzales’ chapter “Exiles and Aliens” in Santa Biblia, Justo L. González, Santa Biblia: the Bible through Hispanic Eyes (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), 92-102.
Appendix A: Selected Biblical References to Ger (Non-Jewish Resident Alien)
Exodus 22:21
“Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.”
Exodus 23:9
“Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt.”
Leviticus 19:10
“Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the LORD your God.”
Leviticus 19:34
“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.”
Deuteronomy 10:18-19
“He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.”
Deuteronomy 23:7
“Do not despise an Edomite, for the Edomites are related to you. Do not despise an Egyptian, because you resided as foreigners in their country.”
Deuteronomy 24:14
“Do not take advantage of a hired worker who is poor and needy, whether that worker is a fellow Israelite or a foreigner residing in one of your towns.”
Deuteronomy 24:17
“Do not deprive the foreigner or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge.”
Deuteronomy 27:19
“Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow.” Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”
Psalm 94
1 The LORD is a God who avenges.
O God who avenges, shine forth.
2 Rise up, Judge of the earth;
pay back to the proud what they deserve.
3 How long, LORD, will the wicked,
how long will the wicked be jubilant?
4 They pour out arrogant words;
all the evildoers are full of boasting.
5 They crush your people, LORD;
they oppress your inheritance.
6 They slay the widow and the foreigner;
they murder the fatherless.
Jeremiah 7:5-7
“If you really change your ways and your actions and deal with each other justly, if you do not oppress the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow and do not shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not follow other gods to your own harm, then I will let you live in this place, in the land I gave your ancestors for ever and ever.”
Jeremiah 22:3
“Do no wrong or violence to the foreigner.”
Ezekiel 22:29
“The people of the land practice extortion and commit robbery; they oppress the poor and needy and mistreat the foreigner, denying them justice.”
Zechariah 7:10
“Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other.”
Malachi 3:5
“So I will come to put you on trial. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive the foreigners among you of justice, but do not fear me,” says the LORD Almighty.”
Immigration, Jesus, and Farm Animals (Part 2 of 3)
Taken from my paper, Towards a Theology of Immigration
Moving from Objectivity to Subjectivity
Those in favor of limiting immigration and deporting unauthorized immigrants, often use statistical analysis to make their case. They show statistics of how illegal immigrants are more likely to commit violent crimes, how they are a drain on the healthcare and educational system, how much they cost the American taxpayer, etc. This tends to objectify immigrants by providing us with numbers that help weigh the benefits and costs of immigration. While statistics are important for developing policies, we must remember that Jesus had a tendency to subjectify people who were often objectified by mainstream society. His interaction with the Samaritan “woman at the well” demonstrates his ability to relate someone as person who other Jews objectively labeled Samaritan, sinner, and woman (John 4). When Jesus is asked to objectively define the specific meaning of the word “neighbor” as used in the Torah, he tells a subjective story about a good Samaritan who performs an act of service and love (Luke 10). Throughout the gospel narratives, Jesus rails against Pharisees who objectify the meaning of the law, and he preaches a subjective interpretation of the law that focuses on the motivation of the heart. As followers of Jesus, we must also move past our prejudices and statistical data, and attempt to see the world through the eyes of the immigrant. That is, we must shift our focus is from immigration (objective) to the immigrants themselves (subjective).
The Latino Immigrant Experience in Los Angeles (no more smiling Statue of Liberty)
The “American dream” has been historically and remains today the dream of finding a better life and future in the United States. However, the immigration experience has changed dramatically for the majority of immigrants. Instead of being welcomed by the Statue of Liberty as they arrive in New York City, they are greeted by signs “warning motorists to observe
caution, for fear of injuring the mothers, fathers, and children illegally crossing the border in search of a better life in the United States.”[1] Waldinger points out that Los Angeles has become the major destination for the “least skilled of America’s newcomers” because it offers a disproportionate level of entry level positions not requiring high-skilled labor and/or higher education (compared with other post-industrial cities like San Francisco and Chicago).[2] He compares Los Angeles to something like a trap, which lures Mexican and Central American immigrants in with job possibilities, but also insures their continued poverty. These unskilled jobs will leave them working harder and earning less than their immigrant counterparts in other cities.[3] Far from stealing jobs, the Latino immigrants of Los Angeles work jobs that are mostly unwanted by natives and earn that one-half of what native-born Mexican Americans earn and one-third of what native-born whites earn.[4]
Immigration, Poverty, and Jesus (and farm animals)
Studies show that Hispanic children in the United States are the most likely of all groups “to be living in families where income was at or below 150 percent of the poverty level.”[5] Research shows that there is a strong correlation between growing up in poverty and poor school achievement. So it is not surprising that a 1990 study found that 75 percent of Mexican immigrants had not completed high school, compared to 35 percent of Mexican Americans and 8 percent of native-born whites.[6] This suggests a dangerous cycle where uneducated and unskilled laborers have children who, because of poverty, are unable to finish school and grow up to be uneducated, unskilled laborers. Because poverty is prevalent among Latino immigrants, and poverty is a consistent theme in the teachings and life of Jesus, the church can look to the teachings of Jesus to inform its theology of immigration. One Sabbath day, Jesus went into the synagogue in Nazareth and read from the scroll of Isaiah, “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, ” (Luke 4).[7]Then he claimed that he was the fulfillment of this prophecy. Jesus was good news for four categories of people: poor, law breaking, visually impaired, and the oppressed. In the story of the “Sheep and Goats,” Jesus says to the sheep, “I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me,” (Matt 25). He accuses the goats of neglecting to do the same. Both the sheep and goats are perplexed, but Jesus explains that what they did (or did not do) for “the least of these” they did (or failed to do) for him. Jesus identified with the poor and even promised judgment based on our treatment of the poor. As we listen to story of the Latino immigrants in Los Angeles (the poorest of the poor), and return to this passage, we learn that we only have two options. We can be compassionate sheep, who feed and clothe the poor (and in doing so, feed and clothe Christ) or we can be indifferent goats, too concerned with sustaining and improving our way of life, to feed and clothe the least of these (the representatives of Christ).
Racist Graffiti, U.S. Immigration, and the Church? (part 1 of 3)
Part 1 of 3.
Taken from my paper, Towards a Theology of Immigration
Note: I wrote this paper for seminary course I took back in 2011 when I first moved to Los Angeles. It makes a primitive case for a Christian response to immigrants and immigration. Today I would recognize that these arguments deserve more nuance–but even in their early form they hit at the heart of God for the immigrants living among us.
The Incidents
Recent spurts of racist vandalism in Los Angeles County have lead to public outrage culminating into a public forum held last Saturday (August 20, 2011), where community leaders united to address the problem. The first incident of vandalism took place on August 8, when the vandal(s) spray-painted homophobic, racist (anti-African American), and anti-Semitic words and symbols on buildings and cars in Northwest Pasadena. The second incident took place on August 14, also in Northwest Pasadena, but this time the racist graffiti was directed towards Latinos. The police believe the incidents to be unrelated.[1]
Interpreting the Signs
While both were possibly perpetrated with similar motives, we can use these stories to understand two current strands of racism in the United States. The first strand (what we might call the old strand) devalues people based on the
Public forum held in Pasadena on August 20.
color of their skin or religious affiliation. This strand is no longer a viable option in the mainstream political arena. (For instance, it would be unthinkable for either the Democratic or Republican parties to nominate a presidential candidate who openly expresses hatred towards people based on their race or religion).[2] The first incident of vandalism in Pasadena used Swastikas, a symbol which invokes disgust in the majority of Americans. The Swastika is a fitting symbol of “old strand” racism because we associate it with ideas that are no longer tolerated within our emerging pluralistic and multi-ethnic society. The second strand of racism (the new strand) is a mutated cousin to the first: it also despises people based on their ethnicity. However, the new strand disguises itself in the form of national interest and patriotism and is therefore a politically acceptable option for mainstream politicians. This new strand comes in the form of anti-immigration sentiment, and is symbolized by the second act of vandalism listed above. We should not equate anti-immigration sentiment with racism, as one can be against immigration and not be a racist. However, we can affirm a current trend of dressing racism up and disguising it as a stance on immigration. This form of racism has become a socially and politically accepted option.
As the Hispanic population in the United States grows, racists have a new target group to focus on. Heidi Beirich, deputy director of The Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project describes the trend, “In the past decade, white supremacists have gone from bashing black people to bashing Hispanic people.”[3] From 2005 to 2007, the number of 
anti-immigration groups in the United States increased by 600%, from fewer than 40 groups to more than 250. Many of these anti-immigration groups are connected to and/or supported by hate groups.[4] The anti-immigration message can be heard in the news media from politicians and talk show hosts alike. In 1994, California passed Proposition 187, which attempted to deny “public education and health benefits to the undocumented.”[5] More recently, in 2010, Arizona passed a law designed to “crack down” on unauthorized immigrants by allowing police to verify the immigration status of “suspects.” Several reports indicated that over half of the U.S. population was in favor of the law.[6] The trend against immigration is present in our society and it does not seem to be going away for the foreseeable future.
Our Response?
This raises several questions for the church in the United States, and especially for those of us living in areas with large immigrant populations, such as Los Angeles. Is it possible to love foreigners (potential immigrants) and at the same time be against immigration? How should the church view immigration? Should our attitudes differ towards legal and illegal immigrants? Should churches, as some are doing, aid unauthorized immigrants and protect them from deportation?[7] It is important that we develop a theology of immigration and understand our mission regarding immigrants.
[1] Brian Charles, “Pasadena to Push Back Against Racist Graffiti,” Pasadena Star News, http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/ci_18704945 (accessed August 24, 2011).
[2] I realize there may be cases of local elections where an openly racist candidate (i.e. affiliated with the Klu Klux Klan) is able to obtain office. I am speaking about the broader U.S. understanding about “political correctness.”
[3] Solana Larsen, “The Anti-Immigration Movement: From Shovels to Suits,” NACLA Report on the Americas 40, no. 3 (May 2007): 14-18, Academic Search Alumni Edition, EBSCOhost (accessed August 22, 2011).
[4] Ibid, 14-18.
[5] David Lopez, Eric Poplin and Edward Telles, “Central Americans: At the Bottom, Struggling to Get Ahead,” in Ethnic Los Angeles, ed. Roger Waldinger and Mehdi Bozorgmehr (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1997), 287.
[6] For instance, one Gallup Poll indicated that 51% were in favor. Other polls indicated numbers as high as 60%. See http://www.gallup.com/poll/127598/americans-favor-oppose-arizona-immigration-law.aspx (accessed August 24, 2011).
[7] To read further on churches aiding unauthorized immigrants, see the following: Clara Irazábal and Grace Dyrness, “Promised Land? Immigration, Religiosity, and Space in Southern California,” Space and Culture 13, no. 4 (August 26, 2010): 356-71, http://sac.sagepub.com/content/13/4/356 (accessed August 22, 2011), and Gregory Boyle, Tattoos On the Heart: the Power of Boundless Compassion, 1st Free Press hardcover ed. (New York, NY.: Free Press, 2010), 71-75.
Getting ticked about the “little things”: How Daily Injustice in Israel/Palestine Should Piss Us Off
Israeli citizen Aziz Abu Sarah, arrested without cause.
Think back to the pre-civil rights movement in America. Did black people in the South really have it that bad?
For the most part, white people just let them be, right? In other countries, racial/ethnic tensions often lead to wars and genocide. But in the South, black people did not have the fear the white population mounting a militarized attack against them.
Black people just lived their lives like everyone else…. except, they had to drink from “colored water fountains” and use the “colored restrooms.” They had a special place at the back of the bus on their ride home to the neighbor where black were “allowed” to live. No matter how old or educated they were, they could anticipate being called “boy” by some (possible uneducated, red-neck) white stranger in the street. Police had the freedom to illegally mistreat black people without any fear of reprisal from the “justice system.”
It’s the little, everyday things (like using the restroom, riding the bus, being detained by police for no reason and then let go—-5 hours later; some bigot calling you “boy” in the grocery store) that can be so unjust and dehumanizing.
Some people critiqued my paper “Towards a New Pro-Israel,” claiming that it fails to decisively demonstrate the oppressive nature of the Israelis. I couldn’t agree more. It doesn’t even begin to describe the oppression.
1) PLEASE take some time to read this brief post by Aziz Abu Sarah, who was recently illegally arrested by Israeli soldiers while giving a tour. Aziz is the co-founder of MEJDI, the tour company that lead us around Israel back in June.
2) Then contemplate:
The little things in life. Like being…
arrested for no reason.
prevented from doing your job.
humiliated in front of a tour group that you were leading.
detained by people who hate you and are carrying M-16s
Imagine losing your I.D./work permit, which will cost you several hours to reapply and possibly days/months to receive.
Imagine the powerlessness, of being arrested illegally, and having no recourse…no authority that you can report the incident to.
Where is the oppression? Do we really need to hear the stories about tanks and guns and the loss of houses and human life…
or can we just talk about human dignity. The everyday, small things.
Would that be enough to piss you off?
If not, I would encourage developing your Moral Imagination, as well as the art of placing yourself inside the story of someone else. There was Jew who some also regard as Divine. He placed himself inside our story, becoming the “powerless”….arrested without cause…having no recourse. But there is an authority higher that than that of the Israeli Government, or the U.S. Government or even the U.N. There is an authority who created all authorities. Who always sides with the oppressed and the powerless. In the book He left us, he gives us hope, that one day, everything will be made right and every man will be judged for his actions. On that day, American imported M-16s will be of little value.
The Parable of the good Sam Aritan
Sam Aritan
The Good Sam Aritan
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
In reply Jesus said: “A young black man was going down from one Los Angeles neighborhood to the next, when he was attacked by a neighboring gang. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead.
A Sociology professor happened to be going down the same street. (He always voted Democrat, favored all government programs that helped the poor, volunteered twice a month a food bank, listened to NPR, recycled, and was a vegetarian.) But when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side.
So too, an old head (a respected member of the community, a deacon at the Missionary Baptist Church, who worked two jobs to get all three of his kids through college) came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.[1]
But a white man named Sam Aritan (a bank executive, from Beverly Hills, who voted for Tea Party candidates), drove up to the man in his BMW; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on peroxide and Neosporin. Then he put the man in his own car, brought him to a hospital and took care of him. The next day he took out his credit card and gave it to the nurse. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of gangs members?”
The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
Discussion
I enjoy re-imagining the parables to fit modern-day situations.
Who would you substitute for the victim, the priest, the Levite, and the Samaritan? There are a number of ways to rethink this parable for every possible context.
The first two categories of people that walk by are supposed to be people who everyone in society recognizes as “good.” Chances are, many of us identify with one of the first two.
For the first category, I chose the “professor type” because that is who I often identify with most. I do a lot of talking about helping the poor and social justice, but what am I doing practically to serve others? Could it be that our podcasts (about how we can fix the world) are playing so loud in our ears that we don’t hear the man on side of the street who was just beaten by gang members and needs medical attention?
For the second category, I chose someone who many in the first category would see as good: the old head. He is a hard-working man, providing for his family and probably surviving many injustices. He has overcome prejudice, racism, and stereotypes. He helps his children circumnavigate teen-pregnancy, drug dealing, and violence (all the things that keep their peers from making to the “next level”). If only more people in his neighborhood would listen to his wisdom.
But compassion comes from surprising places. It’s the rich bank executive (who never even pretends to be a friend of the marginalized) that stops to help the victim and even goes the “extra mile” to see that he gets proper attention. The victim’s neighbor should have been the “old head” who perhaps lives in close proximity, or the professor, who constantly rails against the government for not doing enough to provide social programs and healthcare. However, the “individualist” from Beverly Hills turned out to be the real neighbor to the victim.
Questions
Why does Jesus tell the “expert in the law” that he can inherit eternal life by loving God and loving his neighbor? Is this consistent with Reformation theology? How might Calvin respond to this story?
It seems that certain “law experts” were trying to limit the term “neighbor” to apply only law-practicing Jews. This would justify their lack of compassion towards non-Jews. What then would be the implication of Jesus using a Samaritan (who isn’t fully Jewish and doesn’t keep fully keep the law) to explain what the Torah means by “neighbor”?
theoblogicus californicus 