What is Birthright Citizenship?

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

United States Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1

In the flurry of his first handful of days in office, Trump has handed down a wide assortment of executive orders.  All following the Project 2025 playbook.  All expected following the promises or threats he made in the campaign, touching on his favorite topics:  gender issues, government bureaucracy, isolationism, and immigration enforcement to name a few. 

Under immigration enforcement, Trump released probably his most controversial executive order.   Executive Order Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.  A lot of words to make his end goal sound a lot nicer and more legitimate than it deserves.  Put simply, this is his order to end birthright citizenship.

Which raises the question asked today - what is birthright citizenship?

Put simply, birthright citizenship is the idea that citizenship in a country results from the circumstances surrounding one’s birth.  Not from race, religion, ethnic heritage, or creed, but by nature of birth.  In America, birthright citizenship is obtained either by being born in a United States state or territory or by being born as the child of at least one United States citizen, regardless of location.  The first essentially saying anyone born in America is an American, and the second saying the children of Americans are American wherever they are born.

It’s the simplest form of citizenship, in complete contrast to naturalization or the legal immigration process.  Immigrants become citizens through a naturalization process involving applications and interviews and tests and oaths.  Birthright citizens are born here.

The concept is one entrenched in our constitutional amendments.   The Fourteenth Amendment, a cornerstone piece of our jurisprudence, lays its foundation simply and perfectly in the first section of the Amendment. 

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” [emphasis added]

The Amendment was written as a response to the infamous Dred Scott v Sanford (1857) case, in which African Americans were denied citizenship regardless of the location of their birth or their status as free men (given the times).  The Fourteenth Amendment in response, confirmed the citizenship of those people and their entitlement to representation in our government.

It’s settled law and a foundational piece of our civil rights.

It’s been confirmed, affirmed, and expanded upon in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

And now, Trump is determined to destroy it, all to remove the possibility of ‘anchor babies,’ or women coming to America, legally or illegally, just to have their child born in America and become a citizen by birth.

The United States of America as a country is unique in many ways, but perhaps most striking in that there is really no true native child of the United States of America.  What I mean by that, is that the nation, as a country again, has always been a collection of immigrants and their children united not by race, religion, ethnicity, or any of the traditional markers of a country, but instead united by a set of ideas.  The borders of our country outlining primarily the bounds of the people held together by those ideas.  

In that respect, it makes sense that our citizenship generally was provided by the “right of the soil”, jus soli.  The idea that, indeed, this land was made for you and me, and that those who were born here, regardless of family history and background, could be part of that united idea.

It’s baked into the concepts and precepts that we teach and proclaim regarding what it means to be an American.  To be part of this great melting pot.  “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”  The promise of coming here and that those born here are born in the “land of opportunity.”

In all, there are around 30 countries which maintain this idea of the right of the soil, most in the Americas, including Canada and Mexico.  In some ways a recognition that this “New World” would have new ideas about citizenship and what makes a country.

Trump’s policy would be to revert to a very old idea.  The “right of blood.”  Jus sanguinis.  To be a citizen is to be born of citizens.  To be “full blooded American.”  As is that had any basis in our history.  

I don’t mean to diminish the concept citizenship being passed by parentage.  This is a part of the current basis for our citizenship.  It’s how American’s traveling abroad for pleasure, work, or duty, that happen to birth a child outside the United States, can still bring that child home and have it be a citizen.  

But it’s the exception or the outlier, not the primary rule.

I get it, to many, this is quibbling over semantics.  Over a small change in the workings of the law, but it represents a fundamental shift in how we perceive ourselves and our country.  If citizenship is only passed by blood, or granted to those we deem worthy through naturalization (which is a grueling process), then we are saying America is no longer an idea, but a defined set of people and it’s closed.  The Golden Door is slammed shut.

We’re not different than any other nation.  We’re not better or unique.  America as that great experiment is done.

And that seems to really be the case if we’re okay with sending ICE agents into an elementary school during school hours, as they were today in Chicago.

It is important to note that a federal judge has recently blocked Trump’s executive order from taking effect, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.”  U.S. District Judge Coughenour in Seattle expressed  incredulity at how any member of the Bar could argue this order was Constitutional.  Judge Coughenour will hear further argument on February 6.

Of extreme irony in the matter, is how the United States Justice Department defended this order, by arguing that the children of Native Americans aren’t US Citizens.  That’s right, they argued that the people who have the most right to be considered part of this country are not citizens.  They relied on an old Supreme Court case Elk v Wilkins from 1884, in which the court found because members of Native American tribes owe allegiance to their tribe first and foremost, that they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as provided for in the Amendment and were then not constitutionally entitled to citizenship.  In the first place it’s a stretch argument and one overturned by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.  In the second, it’s an incredible reach to apply it to today.

It just goes to show the extremes Trump will go to in order to make sure his agenda, or Project 2025, be achieved.  Damn the consequences.

Hopefully the rest of us can maintain the memory of what we were.

“‘Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!’ cries she

With silent lips. ‘Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!’”

What is Sanctuary?

On Tuesday, January 21, 2025, the Trump administration reversed a decade old guidance which previously restricted key immigration enforcement agencies from carrying out enforcement in sensitive locations like schools and churches.  “This action empowers the brave men and women in CBP and ICE to enforce our immigration laws and catch criminal aliens — including murderers and rapists — who have illegally come into our country. Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest.”

Time for a new question inserted and this question is mine.  

What is Sanctuary and how important is it?   

It’s one that came to my mind from the news above.  And one I feel needs to be continued to be reviewed again and again. 

What follows is a revision of a discussion that has been posted here before.  And one I imagine that will continue to be added to and revised throughout the tenure of this blog.

See, I love The Hunchback of Notre Dame. I've been listening to the cast album from the Paper Mill Playhouse production and it has quickly become one of my favorite musical compositions. The moment, of course, that always stands out to me is when Quasimodo finally breaks his chains and fights back against Frollo, yelling "Sanctuary" over and over, claiming Notre Dame as a place of refuge for all.

And that got me thinking...

When did the Church stop being a Sanctuary for all?

I know the specific laws of Sanctuary have long been overturned and those had their own unique problems, but there is something truly Christ-like about the image of anyone regardless of their background and sin being able to enter the church and claim sanctuary.

And it just doesn't seem like we live up to that any more. It seems we are more interested in the privileges and perks afforded our members, making sure they are well taken care of, than in providing refuge to the weary. A spa or country club as opposed to a fortress and refuge from the battle outside.

It's time to be honest. How do we act when a stranger comes in to the church? Does it depend on the stranger?

If a Muslim sought protection from a group of persecutors or if a homosexual person sought refuge from the same, would it be extended? Or would the church and its members be more likely to be the ones persecuting them?

Is the church out there speaking up for Black lives, or is it insisting the whole thing has just been stirred up by the media?  Claiming "All Lives Matter" in the face of specific hurts to specific populations?  Generally true, but not helpful?  

Perhaps most pressing today - will the church stand in the gap and declare itself holy ground and refuse to allow ICE to raid the building?

Do we believe in that separation of church and state?  Do we believe in protecting the family that needs protection?  Do we believe in hospitality to the stranger among us?  

Do we believe the words of Jesus, or do we not?

Are we just another arm of the government?

Does it even matter to anyone but me?

We have got to as the body of Christ take a very hard look at ourselves and what we’ve aligned ourselves with.  How we’ve allowed ourselves to be seen and where we are taking Christ’s name.    It’s the broader question in what is a Christian, but this part just needed to be asked today.  

Because this goes more to the distinction between church and Christianity.  Even begging the question what is church or what is a church?  Is there something special about a church, that distinguishes it from any other space.  Prior to this revocation, we recognized it as something set apart.  Something that should not be invaded.  People should be able to be safe in their place of worship and we should not interfere with that.  

Likewise, the church has an important function that makes it separate from the government.  The government’s focus should be on the health, safety, and prosperity of the physical state of their populace.  The church focuses on the health, safety, and prosperity of the populace’s soul.  

Often the two intertwine.  Meeting physical needs and caring for the least of these helps not only lift spirits but take care of the physical body.  To that end, we’ve often relied on the nations churches for their charity work in taking care of the physical needs of the greater population (sometimes improperly at the expense of government intervention).  

Similarly, the our government’s founding documents make preserving the right to free exercise of religion, a protection of the physical act that also leads to the care for the soul.

The differences between the two mean that there comes a point where two also hold each other accountable.  Government is supposed to intervene and protect its citizens from abuse by the church.  Government should absolutely be called to bring those pastors, priests, and lay leadership who have committed sexual abuse under the “protection” of church leadership, for example.  That is not something that could or should be left to the church.

Further, the church must be responsible to hold government of all stripes accountable for its actions and policies.  To demand justice where appropriate.  To seek peace where needed.  And to ask for mercy as is appropriate, as Bishop Budde just plead.

That call for mercy is appropriate here.  A call for mercy and for thoughtfulness in how to resolve this issue.  A call for justice beyond the letter of the law, appealing to its spirit.

And I know, I’m going to hear the constant replies of how the families and individuals at the heart of these raids are breaking the law and how we have to be apart of making sure the laws of our country are followed.  

Perhaps it’s just me, and I’m sorry, but all I keep hearing are repeated questions of “Who is my neighbor?” and repeated attempts to redefine what that parable actually meant.  I’ve seen that whole discourse online before.  

I know many are trying. I just pray that we can do better, because it seems as a whole we keep missing the point.

“God help the outcasts, or nobody will.”

Because, if we needed any other reason beyond empathy - at some point, we’ll be the outcast and there will be no one there for us.

I’m including below a graphic on reminders for how to proceed if ICE does try to raid your church.  It’s really a good reminder for how to interact with law enforcement in order to preserve your rights in any respect, especially if you suspect you will be going through prosecution.  The biggest piece of advice I can give is to have an attorney you are prepared to consult in the event of a raid.  

"Thus says the Lord: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place." Jeremiah 22:3

"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in." Matthew 25:35

What is an Oligarchy?

“That’s why, in my farewell address tonight, I want to warn the country of some things that give me great concern. And this is the dangerous concer- — and that’s the dangerous concentration of power in the hands of very few ultra-wealthy people, and the dangerous consequences if their abuse of power is left unchecked.

Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead.

We see the consequences all across America. And we’ve seen it before, more than a century ago. But the American people stood up to the robber barons back then and busted the trusts.

They didn’t punish the wealthy. They just made the wealthy pay the by — play by the rules everybody else had to. Workers won rights to earn their fair share. You know, they were dealt into the deal, and it helped put us on the path to building the largest middle class and the most prosperous century any nation the world has ever seen, and we’ve got to do that again.”

President Joe Biden, Farewell Address, January 15, 2025

President Biden delivered his farewell address on January 15, 2025.  While Biden himself would admit he is not the greatest orator, the speech is a good speech.  It’s well written and reflective and accomplishes what a farewell address is supposed to do.  He highlighted America’s strengths and reflected on the accomplishments of his administration.  Then he provided a warning for the future.  One in which he warned Americans of the concentration of power in the hands of select few.  

He warned Americans of an oligarchy taking root.

And so, for the rest of the day and into January 16, 2025, the top trending search no Google was “what is an oligarchy?”

I don’t know if this speaks more to interest or to a failure in our Civics education that we are googling the answer, but here we are.  Our first Big Question of 2025.   One whose importance was highlighted at Trump’s second inauguration.

And one I wish I still had my notes from a certain “-Isms” test to answer, but I’ll do my best in the interim.  For at least this question has a definitional answer.  We can talk about what constitutes an oligarchy and discuss examples of it.  Beyond that, we also have to discuss why it matters now.

First, definitions.

An oligarchy is government by the few.  A power structure in which the power rests with a small number of people.  We contrast this with a monarchy, in which power rests with one person, or a democracy, where power rests with a large number of people.  The oligarchy rests somewhere in between.  No set number, but just recognizing all the power rests with a defined subset of people.

The people in the group are usually distinguishable from the general populace in certain specific ways.  Nobility, education, fame, wealth, or some sort of degree of control.  Military control, religious control, economic control, political control.

Generally, today, we focus on economic control.  A group of the wealthy.  As it goes, money makes the world go round.  Money buys influence and political power.  Money can buy fame.  

This puts us in a subset of the oligarchy - the plutocracy.  Rule by the wealthy elite, where wealth rather than merit controls.

Our most recognized current example is Russia.  Since the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the general view is that Russia has been ruled by a class of individuals with significant economic power intertwined with the role of the President. A group of individual leaders in the energy, natural resources, and metals sectors, overseeing and working through President Putin.  A list of around 13 individuals controlling the direction of the Russian Federation.  These are the people our sanctions against Russia have targeted - not the country specifically, but these wealthy individuals that can effectuate change in the country.

In America, we can look at examples in our past of economic oligarchies.  We called these trusts or monopolies.  Collusion by a few companies to control a particular market.  Standard Oil, American Tobacco, US Steel.  Power in the hands of specific conglomerates, allowing for rampant abuse in the market.  Price fixing, income inequality, strong arm elimination of competition, worker abuse.  All so the small group in charge could remain in charge.

Commentators have been more recently rising alarms about an oligarchy in modern America, as we’ve seen continued increases in the power of the financial elites.  The Supreme Court in Citizens United removed campaign donation limits, seemingly okay with the wealthy being able to buy politicians.  Former President Jimmy Carter described America afterwards as “an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery.” 

A 2014 political science study found evidence that the United States’ political system does not primarily reflect the preferences of its average citizens.  Analysis of policy outcomes between 1981 and 2002 suggested that the wealthy and business groups held substantial and disproportionate influence over political decisions, to the detriment of the majority of Americans.

Which brings us to today.  

To the inauguration on Monday in which the seats normally reserved for state governors were filled by the tech industry elites.   Tech industry billionaires all currying favor with the incoming and returning president.  Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Shou Zi Chew, Sunar Pichai, and Sam Altman.  Tesla/SpaceX,Twitter, Facebook/Meta, Amazon, Apple, TikTok, Google, and OpenAI.  Combined they represent around over $1 trillion in wealth.  To put that in perspective, the combined wealth of the bottom fifty percent of Americans or around 170 million people is just less than $4 trillion.   Disparity and income inequality on a factor it’s hard to fathom. All there in seats of prominence at this most recent transfer of power.

The more concerning part is that all of these CEOs represent control over our modern media.  Social media platforms, devices, satellite internet, and servers.  That does not even start on e-commerce.  Put simply, these CEOs can control the information that we receive and how it flows between us.  They can decide what is acceptable information and what is misinformation.  What fits their agenda and what does not.

The power of these companies and their leaders is concerning in and of itself.  Their intertwining with President Trump is downright alarming.  This is why so many people have had concerns regarding Elon’s connectedness to the President.  There have already been questions about his election interference in this recent election via Twitter(X).  We will only see those grow.  

America is structured as a constitutional republic because we recognize that real power should belong to the people and should be acted on by their representatives to prevent mob mentality.  It should be purposefully diffused.  It’s why we have separation of powers, why we wrote in checks and balances, why we have historically busted trusts and fought against monopolies.  

This should be an apolitical issue.  Something all sides could agree upon.  

We should all refuse to allow any group of wealthy elites to exert influence over our government and country.  But I fear, this has just become another political hotbed.  The Republican Party and MAGA sect seem to love and respect Elon Musk and are excited for his influence in the government, thanks to the Department of Government Efficiency push.  Trump has scored major points by reinstating TikTok, and Zuckerberg is showing his alignment by removing fact checking.  

What remains to us is to resist.  

We should hold our representatives accountable to oppose the oligarchic intrusion.  We should push our representatives for strong antitrust measures.  To reinstate common sense campaign finance restrictions.  To demand our elected officials make appropriate divestitures and not profit off their time in office (looking at you TrumpCoin). 

You know, things we used to expect and demand.

In the interim, we just have to keep reminding ourselves this is not normal.  This is not how things are supposed to work.

That will remain a thread in all of these entries coming up.

Big Questions 2025

  “Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers.”

Voltaire

Much of human existence seems to be the pursuit of answers.  Pursuit of the right answers.  We have to find the right spouse, the right house, the right job, the right city, the right denomination, the right church, the right hobby, and so on, and so on, and so on.  Ad nauseum.

We’ve made education the regurgitation of right answers.  In our faith, we have to associate ourselves with the right theology.  We have to be associated with the right political party, and for much of the people I find myself surrounded by, that side is even named the “right.”

We’re convinced there are right answers to most of life, and we just have to find them.  This comes from a desire for certainty, a desire for stability.  We need answers because they set our lives right.  They make us  feel secure because everything is known.      

Think about how we approach our advisors - our doctors, our lawyers, our counselors.  We go to them for answers.  We want a diagnosis.  The correct legal remedy. The solution.  And we get very uncomfortable when the answer is “we don’t know.”

We’re really uncomfortable with the unknown.  With the uncertain.  We blow past the “we don’t know” to finally get to an answer.  We get second and third and fourth opinions.  Or in situations where there is truly no right answer, we seek to make one.  We look for signs and find them in the smallest coincidences.  We make a right answer.  We reduce things to black and white, we simplify so we can understand.  

I don’t know, but of late, I’m getting more comfortable with questions.  I’m getting more comfortable with “I don’t know.”  

To me, the truth is, questions are just more interesting.

Because questions lead to all sorts of interesting experiences.

We know this as kids.  Children live in a state of constant “why?”  It’s intellectual curiosity that continues to propel them into discovery, into experience, and into the unknown.

Perhaps today, of all days, on this monumental change in our society, questions are more important than ever.  There are titanic questions hanging in the ephemera, spoken and unspoken, that are filling our collective unconsciousness.  

Questions that matter.  

That are shaping the direction of our future.  Questions that will be imperative to discuss and evaluate. 

I say evaluate and discuss because it’s important to note we may not get to one right answer.  There may be no one specific answer that is right and everything else is wrong.  We may be able to identify a lot of wrong answers, but there may be a lot of ambiguity we still have to live with.

These questions are being raised through online social media.  Through news broadcasts and media.  Through dining room discussion.

They are popping up whether we recognize them or not.  And some are even trending as questions on our search histories.

Questions like -

• What is an oligarchy?
• What is fascism?
• What is a Christian?
• What is masculinity?
• Why does it matter?
• How do we proceed?

Heady.  Deep.  Though provoking.  Unanswerable?  Charged.  Divisive.  

All descriptions above could apply to these questions.  And all are reasons why the questions must be discussed.

So for the next several posts, that’s what I intend to do.  To raise the question, to explore why it’s being asked, and to address my thoughts on the question.  I ran a series in 2020 called Big Questions.  That focused on questions of faith.  Questions like, do my resolutions benefit only me, does my church look primarily just like me, who is my gospel excluding, and am i willing to yield?

Today starts Big Questions 2025.  And I hope you will be along for the ride.  We have to be able to discuss these things, to disagree on points, and come to resolutions.  To recognize the question behind the question and to help each other along in faith and love.

If we don’t, if we can’t, what are we even doing here?

“Test all things; hold fast to what is good.”

1 Thessalonians 5:21

Big Question #4: Am I willing to yield?

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion."

Carl Sagan

This topic has been on my mind a lot.  I think it shows in the history of this blog.  The nearly two years of this blog are littered with topics on the dangers of our insistence on being right.  Our refusal to compromise.  Our refusal to admit when we are wrong.  And our refusal to admit when we don't know.

More recently, Brother Paul's sermon brought it back to the forefront, with the passage in James showing that true wisdom is willing to yield.  It is open to reason.


"Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom.  But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth.  This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic.  For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.  But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason [willing to yield], full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.  And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace."

James 3:13-18

This makes me pause and reflect.  Am I willing to yield?  Is my wisdom of the type that could be described as pure, peaceable, gentle, open to reason, willing to yield?  

Am I willing to debate?  And not in the sense of screaming at each other, with entrenched positions, designed only to make myself look better, smarter, more informed?  Am I really willing to engage in conversation?  To hear other points of view?  To actually consider them?

Am I open to having my mind changed?  Even on things that I may have considered sacred?  Am I willing to evaluate those sacred cows to see if they are essential, or just preferential?

And this goes in every realm of life.

Am I willing to admit that Republicans have good policies and Democrats make mistakes?  For entrenched conservatives, are you willing to admit that Democrats make good policies and are acting in what they believe is the best interest of this country?  Likewise, are you willing to admit that Republicans overreact, make bad policies, make mistakes, and sometimes look out for personal interests over country?

Am I as a Christian willing to concede points to atheists on theological debates, when the matters concern non-essentials of the faith?  Atheists, are you willing to concede that there are matters far beyond our comprehension, and questions that will remain un-answered regarding spiritual issues?

Am I as a person of faith willing to admit that science may better explain how the universe was created and functions?  And as a person of science, am I willing to admit that faith offers a better explanation as to why?

With issues of faith, am I willing to discuss differing interpretations and positions with fellow believers without drawing a right/wrong line?  Without falling into an us versus them trap?  To recognize that we both may be right and we both may be wrong, and possibly all at the same time?

As a white person, am I willing to yield to people of color when it comes to issues of racial disparity?  To acknowledge that the issues they raise do exist?  Such as those raised by black lives matter?

Am I willing to judge other groups by their best examples and myself by my worst intentions, instead of the other way around?

Am I willing to listen to traditionally oppressed groups and treat their concerns with validity and respect?

I hope I am.  I hope that my willingness to ask questions reflects a willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue and debate.  That I am open to having my mind change.  I believe I am, but I also know and recognize that I have biases and blindspots that I may not recognize (another question coming up).

We as a society need to be able to compromise again.  To be able to have our minds changed.  To be able to grow.  To learn.  

It makes our world bigger and opens new possibilities.  I pray we have not become as hardened and as entrenched as it first may seem.  I still believe in the power of conversation.  Maybe not on a mass scale; that dialogue may be lost thanks to the commercial based news cycle.  But individually, one-on-one, I have to believe we can help each other see the other side.  To understand each other.  To reach each other.

If we are just willing to engage in a meaningful way.

“How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?” Instead they say, “No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.” A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.”

Carl Sagan

Big Question #3: Who is my gospel excluding?

"Of one the Lord has made the race
Thro' one has come the fall
Where sin has gone must go His grace
The gospel is for all

The blessed gospel is for all
The gospel is for all
Where sin has gone must go His grace
The gospel is for all

Say not the heathen are at home
Beyond we have no call
For why should we be blest alone?
The gospel is for all

Received ye freely, freely give
From ev'ry land they call
Unless they hear they cannot live
The gospel is for all"

The Gospel is For All (Of One The Lord Has Made)

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Matthew 28:19-20

This big question is a corollary to the previous question.  Who is my gospel excluding?  Put another way, what people, what race, what group, what section of town, what person have I written off as not worthy of receiving the gospel?  Not worth my time to share?

I should start this exploration with a bit of background in what I mean by gospel.  One of the labels for this blog is evangelism, and while it is perfectly applicable, I think it carries a specific connotation that can put people off.  The idea of the guy on the street corner, holding a sign telling people they are all going to hell.  Or the door to door missionaries, asking every person they meet if they know about Jesus.  And while these are definitely examples of a type of evangelism that can occur, they are by no means the only ways, nor should they be the primary types of evangelism we rely on.  

Evangelism is telling your story of the gospel.  Gospel is good news.  Evangelizing or witnessing, is then simply telling people the good news that you know.  How your faith has changed your life.  What amazing things you have seen happen.  

In this way, everyone is more ready than they realize to evangelize, to paraphrase Brian McLaren.  We just have to be willing to tell our story, and to answer questions when we are asked.  To the latter, we have to be willing to say, "I don't know" when it's true and be willing to look into the answers for our friends.

The problem is, we all at every level, have those places where we refuse to carry the gospel.  Refuse to share the good news, whether because of apathy, antipathy, or outright hostility.

I see this playing out in a couple ways.  First, in regard to who is welcomed into our churches, and secondly, in terms of where we are sending out people to witness.

This is more easily observed in the macro.  For example, with regard to who is welcomed in our churches, the evangelical church has largely written off the entire LGBTQ+ population, determining them to be at best approached from a distance or at worst exiled.  If you quibble with this description, imagine what would happen in your church if a young gay couple came in and sat in a pew holding hands, or even dared to kiss.  What kind of discussions would be had, internally or with them?  How welcoming would the people of your church be to them?  Would they be vocal in their displeasure?  Would the couple be asked not to come back?  Not to come back if they did that again, or just not to come back at all?

And that is just the most obvious example.  In what other ways are our churches unwelcoming, shutting off the gospel from other people?  If a smelly, obviously homeless person comes into church to worship, how are they welcomed?  Are they treated like everyone else or are they given a wide berth, left to their own?

If a man of Sikh heritage comes into your Christian church looking to join in worship wearing a head scarf, are you suspicious of him?  How about a man of apparent Middle-Eastern descent?

The macro is also an easy way to identify our discrepancies in where we are sending out.  How easy is it for us to donate to send to foreign missions, when we are not crossing the tracks in our own towns to witness?  How often do we leave other parts of town to their own churches to evangelize and decide exactly where our borders of reach stop?  This carries dangerous connotations, as often towns are still de jure segregated on racial lines.  

The harder issue is to drill this down to the micro level.  Who do I think does not belong in our church?  Where are my prejudices showing when someone different comes to church?  Am I as welcoming to the homeless as I am to the wealthiest in town?  When people of a different race come to our church, do I help make them feel welcome?  If the Middle-Eastern man came to our church, would I be inviting or suspicious?

Likewise, where am I refusing to take the gospel?  In the micro level, I see this as subtly different than refusing to go into different parts of town, though that problem remains the same.  For individuals, I think the question becomes the places where I choose not to bring the gospel with me.  Where I conveniently leave it behind.  

Am I carrying the gospel to my work?  To school?  To my family?  To those family members?

Where am I refusing to share my story?  Not open to questions about faith?  Not willing to share the good things that God is doing in my life?

Where am I very careful about not saying anything about God, church, or faith?  Do I have friends I purposefully downplay this part of my life, not because of anything they've said or asked, but because I want to fit in?

"But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame."

1 Peter 3:14-16

This is one I am working on.  I think and I hope the answer is remembering that this does not have to be as difficult as I make it.  It's about being willing to give an account, a defense, for the hope I have.  Being more ready than I realize just to share the good that I know.  Being willing to answer questions that are asked.  Not being afraid to discuss what He is doing in my life.

Just being open to share.

Big Question #2: Does my church look primarily like me?

"Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ.  For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.  Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.

Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body.  And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body.  If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be?  But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be.  If they were all one part, where would the body be?  As it is, there are many parts, but one body."

1 Corinthians 12:12-19

The second question that has been bothering me lately and causing me to really dig deeper is how much does my church look exactly like me?  In other words, how homogenized is my church?  Could the standard worshipper at my church be described as a type?

We know the standard; Paul lays it out pretty clearly.  The church should be one the most diverse groups that can be found, existing in utmost harmony.  It should be a body made up of diverse parts, all working together to keep the body in motion, in service, and in praise.

As it is, I fear we have too many single churches that are all eyes, all ears, all feet.  We see the pattern, churches fighting, splitting, and then re-forming around commonalities.  This denomination is for conservatives.  This denomination is for liberals.  This church is a black church.  This church is a white church, in fact, if not in charter.  This is a church for older worshippers, with hymns and the King James bible.  This is a church for the younger worshippers, with lights, sounds, a praise band, and comfortable clothes.

We fragment and fragment and fragment the body until we've reached a point where we wonder why we're ineffective.  Why there is so much division in this country, in the world. 

If the universal church of God cannot get along, how can we expect the rest of the world to do so?

I look at the churches I have connections to, and I notice, there is definitely a type.  While there are exceptions, they are largely white.  Largely conservative, theologically and politically.  Largely middle class.  It can be typified even closer based on the particular areas.  Ladies have a country-crafty design sense.  Men are hunters, fishers, tradesmen.  We're Fixer Upper, HGTV churches.

I realize, some of this comes from the areas that they are located in, and that's fine to a degree.  The church should reflect it's location.  The people in the area.  

The problem is that it doesn't accurately reflect the whole place it is located.  The church should be a microcosm of the community that it is in.  It should ideally reflect the demographics of the community, or at least come close.

We're definitely not there yet.  Right now, we're reflecting specific segments.

Perhaps I notice it more because I sometimes feel like an outsider.  I'm more liberal than the general body.  I'm more city than country, despite where I grew up.  I'm art and tech focused, not a hunter, fisher, or rancher.

Does the homogenization of our churches reflect a reluctance on our part to share the gospel with people that are different from us?  Does it reflect our unwillingness to share the gospel to all the ends of the earth?  We might have a great desire to see the gospel shared around the globe, but is that good negated by our unwillingness to share it in the other side of town?  Or worse, do we view that as a mission, a place for us to serve and feel better about it, but something that isn't really supposed to mix with our church regularly?

How much of our outreach is pointed to people exactly like us?  Based on our members interests and preferences, appealing to like minded individuals, but not casting a broader net?

I'll admit, some of this came from discussions with Jamie regarding a powerful book she just went through and the one that is next on my list entitled Insider Outsider by Bryan Loritts.  Loritts writes about being a person of color in predominantly white evangelical spaces and the implications that it has on our faith.  Part of the struggle he outlines is how we may invite the minority in, but we expect them to adapt to our preferences, our patterns and traditions, instead of being open for us both to change from the encounter.  

I guess, that's our fear.  We don't want to be changed.  We want to continue in our same patterns, continue with our same programs, our same traditions.  We're not open to other voices, to the point of sometimes not even being open to God's voice.

The church desperately needs all voices in its walls.  All colors, all creeds, all genders, all classes, untied in one thing - complete surrender to the Lord Jesus Christ. 

"Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another."  Proverbs 27:17.  For this to work, the iron has to approach the other iron at a different angle.  If both are going the same way, neither is sharpened.  It just doesn't work.  We need people to approach things differently.  To challenge us.  To grow us.  To force us to confront different ideas.  Different interpretations.  Different viewpoints.  

We need black voices in our churches and for there to stop being a de facto split in white and black churches in our communities.  We need for 11:00 am on Sunday morning to stop being the most segregated hour in America.  Martin Luther King, Jr. recognized that and we still have that same problem.  We need black voices to help us see black representation in the Bible, like Jethro, Zipporah, Bathsheba, and Zephaniah.  We need to hear their voices on what liberation means to them.  We need to learn their history, their theology, and their perspective.

We need more input from female voices in our churches.  We need to remember there were female prophets, disciples of Jesus, apostles, and deacons all recorded in the Bible.  We need their voices on scripture, to potentially correct some of our interpretations.  To see the woman at the well as potentially a five-time widow, opposed to a woman of loose morals.  To remember that Bathsheba was a victim who was taken advantage of by the king.

We need liberals in our churches.  We need liberals to push us to social justice, to remind us that we are to be about the business of making this world better here and now.  We need them to be pushing us to action to speak for the oppressed, to care for the hurting, to defend the weak.  We need them to ask questions, to force us to confront difficult passages and truths, to force us to determine what we actually believe, not what has been passed down to us.

We need all social classes in our churches.  To force us to confront inequity.  To move us to compassion and provide us the means to do so.

We need the LGBTQ+ community in our churches.  We need them to show us their examples in the bible and for us to wrestle with those texts.  Eunuchs.  The centurion and his pais, his boy.  We need to recognize that they are already there.  If somewhere between 5-10% of Americans identify as LGBTQ+ in some form or fashion, then there is some small portion of your church that identifies that way as well.  They are staying closeted.  Wrestling in silence.  Or leaving altogether.  If you believe it is sinful to be homosexual, then you must realize that there are already people in your church that are struggling with same-sex attraction, that are wrestling with their faith, their orientation, and what they've been taught.  We have to do a better job having these discussions and in presenting the full text.  Our current strategy has led to family expulsion, bullying, discrimination, and increased suicide rates in the LGBTQ+ community.  We have effectively communicated a writing off of that entire group.  We can definitely do better. 

We only get stronger when we do this together.  If we keep splintering, keep fractioning, to where each church is just a little pocket of the same type of people, each church is just one part of the body trying to function alone, then we've given up all pretense of unity.  We're ignoring God's plan for the body.  

It would do us well to remember these differences, these distinctions we draw down here, make no difference.  We are all one in Christ.  The more our church looks exactly like us, the less it looks like the universal Church of God.   That should trouble us.  That should motivate us.

Let's hope our bodies start to reflect that unity more and more in the coming year and beyond.

"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Galatians 3:28

Big Question #1: Do my New Year's resolutions benefit only me?

Do your New Years resolutions only benefit you?

— Jon Jorgenson (@jonjorgenson) December 31, 2019

This is a question that has been resonating with me since I saw it on Twitter.  Do my New Year's resolutions benefit only me?

If you are the type of person that makes resolutions, they generally fall into the self-improvement category.  New Year, new you and all that.  And I'm as guilty as the next person.  This will be the year I lose that twenty pounds, that I finally get out of debt completely, that I read more, that I devote more time to study of the Bible, and so on, and so on.

I published the list of them last year.  And generally they all benefit me, or my family, again directly affecting me.

How often have I used this practice to benefit myself, and not to be a better part of society?

And when you think of it, isn't that really backwards?  If we focused our resolutions on being more generous, more kind, more helpful, more supportive - wouldn't self-improvement be a natural bi-product?  Wouldn't we all be better people in general?

It's not that self-improvement is bad in and of itself.  Growth, change, development are all good things.  But there must also be a point in which we move beyond self.  I look at my list and everything is focused on self-improvement.  My goals are all about me.  Why is that?  Wouldn't we be better served by not focusing just on the betterment of ourself and turning our attention to the betterment of the world around us?

The question then is, what would such a resolution look like?

I think, like any others, these kind of resolutions should also be SMART.

Specific
Measurable
Achievable
Relevant
Time Bound

Good goals, good resolutions are first specific.  They move beyond generic and become something definable.  "Be generous" is a very generic resolution - one which is easily ignored and easily claimed to have been achieved.  After all, giving a dime to just one person on one day at one time over the course of an entire year would technically achieve this goal, though I doubt it is what the person intended.  A specific way to be kinder would be better.  It's a place to answer all the questions about the end result you want.  Exactly what you want to accomplish.  Why it is important.  "I pledge to work at the local food bank this year" while not perfect, is a step toward this goal.

The goal must also be measurable for the same reason.  That way you can chart progress and can tell when a goal is achieved easily.  This is part of being able to keep yourself motivated.  For that reason, "I pledge to volunteer at the local food bank once a month" is a much better version of the goal above.

For obvious reasons, the goal must be achievable.  This is where it pays to be reasonable.  It's better to have a goal to volunteer once a month than every day, if you are more likely to actually keep the goal of once a month, as opposed to giving up on it.   You can think of this as the reality check on your goals.

A good goal must also be relevant, it must matter to you.  This seems intuitive, but you would be surprised the number of people who keep working towards goals only because they think they are supposed to.  Because they know other people value it.  Answering questions like, is this worthwhile, does it matter, goes a long way to addressing this issue.  If saving the environment is a great passion for you, it may make more sense for your resolutions to involve greater commitment and involvement in cleaning roads, rivers, lakes, etc. or raising awareness about climate change, than volunteering at the food bank.  Both are worthy causes, but you are more likely to stick to the one where your passion lies.

Finally, the goal must have a time component.  There needs to be a sense of urgency.  It's hardwired into us.  We are much more likely to address a pressing need and procrastinate one with a nebulous or lengthy timeline.  If you are wanting to volunteer at a food bank, perhaps start with seeing what their greatest need is.  It might not be helping with the distribution on a monthly basis, but helping with an upcoming drive the next week instead.

There are several goals and resolutions that could help meet these.

To give away an extra $100 a month to a worthy cause
To give away X% of my income this year
To volunteer weekly, monthly at a local food bank, pet shelter, homeless shelter, with X group

It's an election year, so there is an opportunity to help volunteer with a campaign for a candidate that you feel really could help change things.

A resolution to actively study the candidates and vote as an informed voter would be a great one.

It's also a census year.  Perhaps a good resolution for civics is to apply to work with the census.  Or to be helpful and respectful of the census workers when they come.

I'm still working through my list.  Resolutions aren't things that need to be limited to the first of the year only.  They are things we should be continually committed to.  So, I'll continue to fine tune my list, taking a hard look at how many are just for self-improvement and to where I should be resolving to better the world around me.

What about you?  What does your list look like?  And how balanced are your resolutions?

The Big Questions

I'm a fan of questions.  To readers of this blog, I don't think that will come as a surprise.  I'm a fan of raising questions, of thinking through questions, of asking the harder questions.

Questions are interesting, much more so than answers.  They are additive.  They continue conversations instead of ending them.  They further dialogue, debate, and discussion.  

Questions force us to acknowledge what we don't know and what we want to learn.  They force us to grow, to change.

They make us acknowledge what we really believe.

In that regard, questions are scary.  This is why we often do not want to take questions.  To be questioned.  We don't want to face the what we don't know.  To face the possibility that we are mistaken.  That we are wrong.

For the start of this new year, I'm going to start a new series focusing on questions.  On the big questions that are captivating me right now.  The ones that are challenging me and forcing me to struggle with them.  The ones that have surprised me.  The ones that need to be asked.

I won't purport to provide hard answers in any of these entries.  They will be thought explorations of where my head is at with each of them.  How I'm processing them.  And as is typical in my writing, it will probably ask several component questions as well.

I would love to have your input for each.

This post will serve as a hub for each of the subsequent posts.  I'll keep updating it with the new post links each day as well.  There is no set end to the series, but I have several percolating at the moment for the days to come.  I will also likely be returning to this series as new questions arise throughout the continuation of this blog.