Dear Pastor, Do Not Give in To “Christian” Bullying and “Lack of Faith” Claims

Easter is just a couple days away, and most of us pastors and leaders will be doing something we have never done on Easter Sunday: We will be staying home, or we will be preaching to an empty sanctuary. Easter is the greatest day of the year. In years past, I would have said, “I wouldn’t miss it for the world,” but that is exactly why many of us are choosing to miss. We are doing this, not for ourselves, but for the sake of a suffering world. We are, as good Christians, trying to deny pain and evil its place before those we serve, not only locally, but, by not risking spreading disease to our own, we likewise show the world we respect and love them as well. But, as in any time of great tension, when we have to make high stakes decisions, undue criticism is finding its way into our midst, whether it be by email, phone, or passive aggressive Facebook posts. I say unto you, 

“Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.” (Galatians 6:9)

When this pandemic was drawing nearer and nearer, I did what I am geared to do. I studied. I went to those persons who have proven over and again in my life to be level-headed and informed to see what they were saying, and I did not like what I was seeing and hearing. My first concern was for the most vulnerable in my life. Of course, as the experts were suggesting then and now, in this case, the most vulnerable are those who are elderly, have compromised immunized systems, or both. We have a lot of elderly in our local church, but, I knew in this case, I had leaders to help me with this decision. As for my work on the Navajo Reservation, I am one of the top decision makers. I had to make a call. We were about to take a small group to the reservation, and in June I was supposed to take a group of around forty. After calling my brother, a medical doctor, and my partner in ministry, who lives on the reservation and works for the health system there, I made the call. The trips were off. I tossed and turned that whole night. I was heartbroken.

Then, our local churches had to make a decision. The facts were not as clear as they are at the moment, and I do not hold it against anyone at that time for being conflicted about the possibility of closing in-person worship. I knew what I thought was right and what my Senior Pastor thought was right, but I also knew other well-thought-out Christians were not on the same page. What if College Place closed its doors and other churches remained open, and it turned out we were wrong? Would that make us look unfaithful. But, as a pastor, I knew what I was going to fight for: I was not then, and am not all that much now, concerned about my own well-being, or those of my wife and children. We are not “at-risk,” but a great majority of the congregation we serve is. Fortunately, we did not have to plead our case, because our Bishop made the tough call for us. He was brave enough to take the blame when he could have left it up to us. 

Even so, I knew people were disappointed, and it breaks a pastor’s heart to know his or her flock is hurt and that some are disappointed in us. I was even accused of just not wanting to work, and that brought out a fleshly anger in me. I knew I was prayerfully thinking this out. I knew this would make more work on me in a lot of ways. And, what I knew (that this person who made the accusation could never know) was just how long I pleaded and wrestled with God before He gave me a local church to serve. Not wanting to come and preach on Sunday is not a part of me, not at least in this part of my life. In the two plus years I have served locally, I have only missed one Sunday of church. Even when I was not at the local church, I was on the reservation working. I only recently took a vacation with my family in which I did not leave early to be back for Sunday, not because the church I serve would not have let me off, but, because I wanted to be present as a pastor. 

Tensions were high, and a lot of my fellow Christians disagreed with me in the early phases. None should feel badly at all. I am not claiming to be smarter or wiser or more anything. I have connections that helped me be better informed early on. I think a lot of people would have felt the same if they had the same access. I was blessed, but it did feel lonely.

Now, however, the facts are much clearer. We were being told early on by some, even by very reputable sources, that this was no different than the common flu. We were reminded that H1N1 came and went as a pandemic, and we did not shut down the country. The CDC estimates that from April 2009 to April 2010, that around 12,469 deaths occurred (with a possible range of 8,868 (low)-18,306 (high)). This number is an estimate, which obviously includes all confirmed cases, but also factors in possible undiagnosed deaths from H1N1.

Today, as of typing this, 18,034 people have died a confirmed death from COVID-19. Even with self-quarantine measures in place, this disease has surpassed the estimated deaths of a year of H1N1 with no mass quarantines. With the death toll being well over 1,000 a day in the U.S., this means that by tomorrow, we will almost certainly surpass the most liberal CDC estimates of 52 weeks worth of non-quarantine H1N1 deaths (again, the high range being 18,469 EDIT: Indeed, we have now surpassed that number, just a few hours later in the same day as me writing this: 18,699). In just 16 weeks since the first of the outbreak has reached the US, COVID-19 has proven to be way worse than H1N1. Even if the numbers drop drastically in the next few days, this is still true, considering the measures of prevention we have taken that we did not with H1N1 and that we are talking confirmed vs estimated at this point. This is simply not another flu.

Yet, I am still seeing social media posts from fellow Christians calling this pandemic a “Democratic political hoax” or a “conspiracy." They stand on the graves of the dead, mass graves in New York mind you, and mock this situation. “But, the vast majority who get sick only have the most mild and sometimes no symptoms at all.” Fine. But, Christians have never been called to simply care about the majority. We are called to look out and protect the least of these. 

I think we can learn something from the “conspiracy" and “political hoax” rhetoric. We have, for far too long, practiced hyper-politicizing. When we have to make every issue fit into an ideological category, we forsake critical thinking and even ethical thinking. Because some early on in high leadership and on certain media outlets promoted this as a hoax, those who are ideologues that touted these claims can not back down, even when the leaders and media have done so. Our President, after getting better information, has changed his tone. But, the rock-ribbed ideologues, many Christian, cannot admit that they were misinformed, which was not their fault early on, but, now, is willful blindness.

As I told a fellow Christian I respect deeply early on when we did not have all the data: There was an infinite set of data out there in the beginning, and I was looking at different points of data early on that made me lean this way. If I did not have that data, I would have taken his same position. As a matter of fact, when I first heard of the Corona Virus, I assumed it would be something like Ebola, a horrible tragedy I would be privileged to watch from afar. I do not think many of us from day one said, “Oh, batten down the hatches,” and I do not blame anyone who may have been a few weeks behind me in changing his or her mind, just as I did. But, those who are trying to make pastors and Christian leaders feel guilty even now for calling off assembly are becoming more and more culpable. I find the continued promotion of conspiracy and hoax rhetoric, as well as the continued claims that we “lack faith,” to be coming close to evil, if not already there. This is becoming willful obstinance and an ethical breach of the command to love neighbor. 

I have thought about how or even if I should respond, and this blog post is my answer. I asked early on, “What am I trying to accomplish?” At first, I passed by the “hoax,” “conspiracy,” and “lack of faith” claims, because I did not want to stir a pot. I would have only been assuaging my need to respond for a sense of catharsis. However, now, I am seeing more and more people admitting they are having a hard time with all the noise and backlash. I also know that many pastors do not have the support structure that United Methodist connection provides. We have a whole network of pastors in our same boat having to weather the storm, and our episcopal leadership is having to take the flack for making the call. Sure, we feel it locally as well, but at least we have each other. 

Some leaders feel more alone. I want to say to you that if you in good faith decided to protect your flock, you have countless pastors who stand with you. Do not grow weary. As leaders, we have an added obligation to stand firm. When we start giving in to those who would bully us into risking the lives of our members for claims of lack-of-faith, we run the risk of being a part of the damaging of our collective resolve. If we do not stand firm and show that we are at peace, if we give into fear and coercion, we may make others give way too, and this will not only divide our churches, but our nation as well. We are in this together, and, as the church, we should lead the way in being a sacrificial people. 

So, what of the theological claims? I will not address them all, but I will try to address the ones I have seen that seem to be the most stinging. (Let me say I will not be addressing the “alternative” medical advice that is out there. I am not an expert; so, I am listening to the CDC’s and the Governor’s orders, and the case I am making is that this is a justifiable position for Christians. Will the government get this right. I do not know. I pray they do. So, to be clear, this is not a case for how effective the measures are. That is a different issue that can be addressed another time. Flattening the curve does make sense to me, however. This is merely a discussion against the idea that attempting to avoid the congregation being exposed to illness is an act from fear and a sign of "lack of faith.") So, back to theology:

“…not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching” (Hebrews 10:25).

The writer of Hebrews was addressing theological concerns in this letter, and the writer’s concern was that persons were not gathering together because of discrimination and tension. Some felt that others were inferior and not worth gathering with in worship. Perhaps Jewish faithful were having a hard time accepting Gentiles and vice versa. This was not a matter of the church not gathering over safety concerns. This is much more particular. It is about division in the church. Those who claim pastors are inferior for lack of faith are the ones forsaking the assembly, not because they do not wish to attend, but because they wish to meddle and divide.  

In fact, we see often in the early church, even when persecution was heading their way, they dispersed their gatherings and fled to safer places. We shall discuss this more in a moment, because I think that persecution is, perhaps, the only legitimate reason a pastor may justifiably risk the overall protection of the church (if the members are in agreement), and even then, we see, in places around the world today, Christians under persecution are still trying their best to stay safe by being hidden. Do we call their hiding a lack of faith? We who have not even bled yet should think twice before we judge the persecuted (Hebrews 12:4). 

“We must obey God rather than human beings!” (Acts 5:29)

Peter said this in the the Book of Acts after being told he could not proclaim the name of Jesus or preach His gospel. In this instance, Peter is suggesting God’s command to preach the Gospel overrides the command not to do so, because the two are mutually exclusive. 

We can choose to think of following the government mandates in a few ways. We can say that not gathering at the church is a lack of faith, or, we can say, because the church is not defined by the building, the church can serve in many ways. Not going to the building in large numbers can be seen as a way to protect the most vulnerable that God cares for. 

That is how I understand my role as a pastor. I am to protect the flock, and never to encourage them to place themselves in harms way, unless it is unavoidable and would compromise their faith. I have faith in God that He has asked me to lead for a reason. If we were being asked to renounce our faith or be harmed, that would be a test of faith that would need us to consider choosing a willingness to be hurt for the faith (if there were no other options). Be mindful, the church has not just understood the option to stand firm in the face of violence as the only alternative to not renouncing faith under threat. They also fled and proclaimed elsewhere. Again, I will return to Christian action in light of persecution in a moment. 

But, this is not a persecution issue. Since we are not being persecuted, I think we need to think of what Paul teaches in Romans 13:1-7. God asks us to obey the authorities and tells us it is a sin not to do so. We do see in the Book of Acts that Peter decides to disobey the authorities when they tell him he cannot preach the Gospel, but, again, here Peter is being asked not to do any ministry. We as the church can do a lot of ministry outside the building and still follow the rules that our authorities give. So, I think Romans 13 applies to us. Romans says if we disobey, then the authorities have the right to punish us. What if we listen to our authorities and have to not do church gathering for a couple of months, but do other ministry and in so doing, we preserve for future ministry? What if God is trying to get us out of our building to be faithful out in the world?

We know that people throughout the Bible showed faith by not denying God and being harmed for it. They died as martyrs, and we have the utmost respect for them as the church. But, when we know harm is coming and it is not a matter of man trying to stop us from preaching, but our standing firm is simply a matter of trying to prove faith, Jesus says we are not to test the Lord our God (Luke 4:12).  What if the test of faith is asking the question, “Can we still be faithful to be in ministry without our church building and big gatherings?” Can we do ministry in new ways for the sake of the least of these? Will we be able to say in this time, "God’s grace is sufficient when we are made weak” (2 Corinthians 12:9)?

“Running away is a sign of a lack of faith.” (Not in the Bible)

Instead the Bible says:

“On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison.

Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went.” (Acts 8:1-4)

Now, what about the persecuted? Do not the martyrs standing up for faith shame us for our fear? If we are fearful, then yes. But, if our concern is that we could protect each other and still remain faithful, then, by all means, we should. So, here in Acts, up unto this point, the church had been assembling at the synagogue, but, at this point, due to concern for their lives, they chose to disassemble and scatter. Even though they would have been justified to die for their faith, the church did not see this as the only option for “proving” faithful. Instead, they chose to preserve, even forsaking their assembly for a time, at least as long as it took them to flee to the places they would then go and preach. The martyrs did not die so that we might hang our heads low, but they sacrificed so that we might continue in ministry. 

This pandemic is sending us out. We are still preaching. We have forsaken the assembly, not out of discrimination or fear, but out of love of neighbor. Stand firm in this truth. Do not let the bullies bring you down with their overbearing yoke of religion. That is what the Pharisees did to the people of their day. Let us choose life. Let us choose love. Let us stand and have a peace in the midst of the storm. Remember that Christians set up the first hospitals, not because they lacked faith that God could heal, but they knew He could heal and heal through proper care that medical practice provides. Let us serve the medical healers by giving them the space and time they need to do their healing work. 

You are not only called to feed your sheep, but to protect them.

As for those of you who are not mandated to stay home, but stay in the work force to provide for the rest of us, you are doing your part too, and I thank you! 

Blessings,

Rev Tab Miller

I will add further resources as I collect them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1mAM2GlXqA

Thoughts On Current Outrage Surrounding The NFL

I am on vacation in the beautiful, North Carolina mountains, and, because I have no guilt wasting time on vacation, I dedicated an exorbitant amount of time tilting at windmills on Facebook yesterday, and I rode away into the night feeling as valiant as Don Quixote himself. Dang it feels good to be a gangster. Am I right, Quixote?

Now I sit writing an article for my blog that I don’t have much intention in ensuring a lot of people read. Again, this is just some catharsis with no guilt for wasting time. I must admit, most of my blog posts are like this. Anyway…

I say most of this in jest, of course, because I have had several occasions in which someone has told me that my thoughts helped him or her and brought his or her thinking around on whatever happened to be the topic at hand, and I too have had moments like this myself. I’m just trying to be honest with myself. I know for the most part, my Facebook posts and blogs will do little to change the world.

I’m ok with that. Yet, I will add this: When I do have something burdening my heart enough that I write about it on my blog, you can be assured that it is something that I pray about and work at solving in ways I find more meaningful than simply jotting down some thoughts online. When I say I do not think my words will change the world, I do not suggest I do not want the world to change, and I do work on doing my part in being a problem solver.

Now, onto the matter at hand:

The hot topic yesterday was, of course, the NFL allowing its players to take a knee during the National Anthem. What are we to make of all of this?

I can say this: We won’t properly make heads or tails of this event if current emotional outrage drowns out reasoned discussion, and I see it on both sides. One side is saying, “You disrespect men and women who have died for you, you ungrateful piece of trash,” while the other side screams, “You are a racist pig wanting to silence minorities and you can’t even think your way out of a wet, brown paper sack.”

That is our first problem. People do not know how to disagree.

You must understand this, my beloved: let everyone be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger…  James 1:19

It takes time to understand an argument, but, in our culture, we take the shortcut of asking ourselves, “On what end of the political spectrum would this fall?” If the issue falls on the other side from where we stand (as we perceive it) it is automatically bad, and if it falls on our side (as we perceive it) it must be defended at all cost. No time to think in a fast paced world. We must make quick assumptions. We must prejudge.

So, whatever side one falls on, if one’s initial response is to quickly pick a side and call those on the opposing side “fools,” “idiots,” “trash,” “ingrates,” “morons,” or a bunch of other words I saw but won’t repeat here (let’s not forget Son of a bitch, coming from our most hallowed of public offices, however), then we have a problem.

They may be acting foolish, but have we even tried to first be listeners of their grievances? Have we been slow to anger? Again, people on both sides have been guilty of this. I cannot say that within my heart, I haven't had a few names for people, and for that, I am sorry.

But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire. Matthew 5:22

The key to being able to learn is to avoid anger. I have to admit, this is hard. When issues of justice are at stake, sometimes it is not possible to go all Spock, full of reason with a great measure of detachment, but it is worth trying.

Let’s begin with the major claims being made:

On the one hand, and this narrative has changed very little, except for a little twist after POTUS called those NFL players who continue to kneel “Son of a bitch,” those NFL players taking a knee have consistently said that they are trying to bring attention to the fact that the nation, which is supposed to be about “liberty and justice for all,” is failing certain peoples. Admittedly, it did shift a bit in recent days to include a protest against Trump for his calling certain NFL players a derogatory phrase. But, the central message remains intact.

There are two groups of people: Those who have heard and believe this is, at least for the most part, the intended message. Then, there are those who refuse to believe the express explanation and suggest this is all about disrespect for the country.

(Now, give me time to be fair to all sides, as far as I think I can be without betraying my own beliefs, before giving up on me in the paragraphs ahead.)

It is a matter of proper dialogue and debate to give the benefit of the doubt to the person when he or she says, “This is what I mean.” Until it can be shown otherwise, not with small anecdotal evidences, but clear proof that an ulterior motive exists, it is proper for debate to let someone’s words be his or her words. Understand those words and attack them, not some made up conjecture.

On a number of occasions, the players have expressed that they mean no disrespect to the service men and women, nor are they trying to be unpatriotic. They are trying to do something for the nation (call out injustice within) not do something against it (support anarchy). The whole idea of kneeling was an attempt to show deference for the service men. When Colin Kaepernick first began this protest, he sat during the anthem. He then consulted a peer who had served in the armed forces and this peer told him that taking a knee would be more respectful for service men, while still getting his point across. He did just that.

That is the narrative.

On the one hand, to say this has absolutely nothing to do with the anthem and flag is misguided. The protest time was carefully picked to make a very pointed point about our nation.

What these players, however, wish to say is that they believe in their hearts that the flag represents more than the military, as it should. They are not protesting these men and women who fight for the flag, hence, the knee instead of just sitting. They are protesting a certain part of our nation’s current state.

Along with partly being a symbol of the military, the flag represents the entirety of the country and her people (“And for the Republic for which it stands”), and these men do not think our nation is living up to the ideal of “liberty and justice for all.” In other words, they are not, in their hearts, trying to pull the nation down, but to call her up to what she is supposed to be about.

So, yes, the flag and anthem are a part of this, but they are saying that those who are calling them out for being unpatriotic are missing the point. I think this is a fair argument on their part, especially in light of recent events in which many who now cast blame on the kneeling players were making a similar claim just a month prior:

Consider the phrase I used a few times: “in their hearts…”

One month ago, people were saying: “In our hearts, the confederate statues represents something deeper than the hate you are making it out to mean,” and they wanted this argument to be heard.

Presently, many of these same people are saying: “I don’t care what you say is in your heart when you protest, I say it is hateful towards the military.”

We cannot have it both ways.

If all the flag can represent for a person is our military, then that person is dangerously conflating the two. The military does not own the flag. The military serves the nation for which it stands and protects her in service. Do I stand in honor of these men and women? Yes, I do. But, if it is demanded of me to do so in a compulsory manner, then there is a problem.

When we begin to demand people act and behave as we wish, we begin a slippery slope to all sorts of chaos. Remember, Richard Dawkins is leading a massive movement of secularists who believe religion in all forms is dangerous and therefore should be prohibited. When we tell people how they should express their deepest beliefs through certain prohibitions (I prohibit you from kneeling), then we join the ranks of people like Dawkins.

Now, for a moment, let’s switch gears.

On the other hand, to be completely shocked and angry that some people would take offense to the mode of protest is a bit misplaced as well. Many persons were raised to believe that patriotism is one of the greatest positions one can take in this life, short of their allegiance to God. (I happen to think these come too close to each other sometimes, but that, again, is the topic of another post). Furthermore, they were told that any deviation from standing with hand over heart during the pledge and the anthem is disrespectful.

The very intent of picking the time of the anthem as the time to protest was meant to cause a stir. So, that people are stirred up is understandable. What then needs to happen for those who would want to say, “Wait a minute, just hear clearly the reason for protest out before you get too insulted,” is for these persons to be very patient in giving this message. It may take a bit of time before the others can calm down. They were provoked.

If people are purposefully provoked, then the ones provoking might have to take a few lashes if they want to be heard.

It is not a terrible move to provoke people. Jesus was provocative, and he explained himself to those who truly wanted to learn. So, if you are going to poke the bear, be ready to explain yourself when he comes out mad as a hornet, and don’t be surprised that you may have to spend a little time calming the bear down (and not in a patronizing way either).

It isn’t fair to be provocative and then say, “What are you mad about?” On the other hand, it is not unreasonable to do something bold to awake the giant, either. Again, you just have to take the time to receive a little lashing, before you can be heard saying, “Let me tell you why I woke you up. I need you to hear something, and I could not get your attention nicely. I mean no disrespect, but I could not get your full attention any other way.

Could there be a better way? Maybe, but the point now is that it has happened, and if they stop now, the naysayers are going to do their “I told you so" dance… It’s a pickle for sure.

Now to my final two thoughts:

If you are the sort of person who will say, “I hear what they are saying, but I do not believe them.” In other words, you say that you have listened, but there is really nothing of substance to their grievances (i.e. minorities are not oppressed in any way), I would ask, have you done any research, or are you just not willing to believe our nation could overlook people? Having that sort of faith in our government then means you should never complain about anything going on in congress. If they have our best interest in mind at all times, then do not complain about healthcare, taxes, or abortions. Just read a little bit of history, and remember that the ripples of history don’t disappear the day, week, year, decade, or even century after they were made.

If I can say that my success is in part due to what my ancestors did way back in the 1700s, then others can say that oppression that only ended decades ago has some bearing on their life now. Furthermore, it is not just about what happened then. There are still injustices today (link below).

 And, if you are the sort of person who would say, but they are rich and therefore have no right to complain. They should be grateful. I would warn that this comes very close to racism. “You can’t complain about minority injustice, because we gave you the ability to play football….” Really?

Did you hear that Saudi Arabia finally passed a law allowing women to drive? I guess those women have nothing more to complain about. They should be grateful to their benevolent nation, right?

For more on minorities and injustice read this:

https://chartwellwest.com/2017/09/27/__trashed-2/

Finally, if your love of tradition outweighs your willingness to listen to the other that is a huge conflict, especially for the Christian. If your love of country, flag, and anthem, means you cannot stop for a moment and listen when someone is saying they are in pain, you need to take time to reevaluate your priorities.

Pain often expresses itself in nasty ways. Think of a loved one who has gone through a mental breakdown. If their pain is expressed in shouts and screams that you do not like and may think are unwarranted, would you then say, “I will not listen or try to help.”

I am not saying that the pain of the minority community is equal to the above illustration. I am saying that, even if some do not like how it is expressed (by what mode and through which representatives), that should not mean we allow our anger at what might be perceived as an insult to control our response, which should always be first motivated by loving patience and a willingness to listen, despite what the other is doing.

Otherwise, tradition undermines love:

Then he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition! Mark 7:9

Now That Something Has Happened

I will not be sharing this to social media. The arguments have become too deafeningly shrill to add to the noise. This is more for my own mental therapy. I will add to this blog as I continue to think about this issue:

Just a few days ago, the "Muslim Ban" was just a rumor, but now there has been an executive order signed. Now, America is in another fierce debate on what this all means.

The issues get muddy quickly when dealing with complex politics like this. What exactly does the language of the order mean? What is the full future intentions of the executive branch? How does this compare to past administrations?

I do not have the expertise or the emotional energy to say much more, but I will say two things:

1.  No amount of comparison to Obama should matter. To so many, nothing Obama did was good enough. So, it cannot now be a litmus test for this administration. Saying, "Well, Obama did something similar" is more than too late.

2. In a recent National Review article, it was argued: "He backed down dramatically from his campaign promises and instead signed an executive order dominated mainly by moderate refugee restrictions and temporary provisions aimed directly at limiting immigration from jihadist conflict zones." This was said in an argument stating that people are overreacting.

First of all, this is his very first action as President towards refugees. Thus, this cannot be called a step-back from his promise, but a step towards. He has only drawn closer to his (and this is a funny, but telling word choice) promise.

Second, from where I'm sitting, it seems that the only people satisfied with this argument as excusing these actions as "not that bad" are those who already supported Trump's position towards refugees before they knew the details of the order. Retrospectively arguing for the now "moderate" step that has been made seems short-sighted, and here's why:

This man DID say he wanted a COMPLETE BAN ON MUSLIMS (in reference to refugees in particular). So that people are frustrated that he has made this new order on top of the already extensive vetting process already in play and see this as a slap in the face of refugees isn't something being pulled from thin air. People are only assuming he is trying to do what he said he would.

I'd rather be quick to defend the refugee over the most powerful man in the free world, or his ego, or my own

We can sugar coat as much as we want, but there will come judgement one day. I sure hope I am not found as reasoning away the greatest commandment to love God through loving the other. If this makes me foolish and places my family and me in harms way, I will leave our life and fate to God, our Father.

Thoughts On Possible Refugee Ban

Today, Trump is set to visit The Department of Homeland Security. At the moment, most people are focused on what it is he was so adamant about during his campaign, the building of the wall. However, this will not be his only agenda, as he signs several more executive orders during his visit today. One additional promise from his campaign may come to be today: the complete shut down of accepting Muslim refugees into the United States.

If it is happening today, there is not much we can do to either promote or hinder this agenda. So, we might as well spend some time in reflection. What might it mean to follow through with this ban? What follows now is a series of considerations. I will not be solving the issue, nor do I claim to be doing so. In this regard, may this be a meditation, not an argument.

First, let’s consider the major factor that causes most advocates to support this agenda. We may call it xenophobia, Islamiphobia, racism, or the like, but the truth is that, while these might be, for some, the means to fear, it is not simple bigotry that motivates people. Indeed, it is fear, and we cannot pretend that there are not some legitimate reasons for fearing the presence of more Islamic peoples in our nation. Terrorism is a real threat, as we well know from our own recent history and from current European events, but is it such a threat that we are warranted in our shutting out countless innocents, because of the threat that some individuals with ill intent might sneak in with these innocents.

This might seem to move off point a bit, but, since it is inevitably where the discussion leads, we must face how radical Islam came to be, because some will say, “Well, it is not our fault radicals exist, and while I feel sorry for the people in areas they already infect, we cannot allow them to infect the U.S. This has nothing to do with the U.S., we are a Christian nation, and, since these people are Muslims, they are part of the problem, since it is Islam that creates radical Islam.”

Is this a fair and accurate consideration?

It is true: We make a mistake when we assume radical Islam is not related to religion, as if it is only a political movement using Islam as an excuse to commit its atrocities. Islam’s eschatology is intrinsically tied to political power. There is no doubt that many of Islam believe that the Islamic world must take over the entire globe, politically, for their desired end to take place. Whether this should happen through terrorism, war, or diplomacy is up for debate within the Islamic world:

The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.

Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, “the Prophetic methodology,” which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail. Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do. But pretending that it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it.[1]

Likewise, we make a mistake when we assume radical Islam is not related to political unrest, much caused by the United States (as well as other Western powers) imperial presence in the Middle East. Our interventions have caused upheaval in the region over and again, one example being our covert actions in Iran, which eventually helped spark the rise of the Shia Islamic Republic and thorn in our side Iran has recently come to be:

The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency coined a term for it: Blowback. The explosive boomerang that governments throw when, either by propaganda or through covert military operations, they deliberately stoke the flames of ethnic, religious or nationalist rivalries for political gain. Faustian monsters are created who then threaten to overwhelm the very governments that gave them birth. Blowback was first used by the CIA to describe unintended consequences of their covert activities in Iran in 1954. The agency warned of the possible repercussions of the coup d’état it had engineered to overthrow the elected government of Mohammed Mossadeq.[2]

Moreover, when we began to support unrest in Afghanistan to frustrate the Russians, we caused much fear in the region, and refugees began to flee the region. Just like today, they were gathered in large camps away from their homeland, where they were left to their own devices. Just like the current situation in Greece, the refugees grew increasingly disgruntled, as no one came to their rescue. It was this unrest that radicals used to recruit once normal Muslims to their cause. At the same time, the U.S. was funding and arming these radicals, creating movements that still exist today.

Yes, radical Islam is an Islamic problem, created, in part, by Islamic people, but it is also a U.S. problem. If we are really worried about the rise of radical Islam, perhaps we should consider how not accepting refugees create hotbeds, like the ones in Greece at the moment. These hotbeds of unrest and desperation are perfect harvesting fields for the radical movements like Isis. By bringing in the innocent, we protect them from desperation, which leads to radicalization, and, in turn, protect the global community, as well as the U.S., from avoidable, rapid growth of radicalization.

Now that we get the practical out of the way (practical from human, political perspective), let’s talk about the sacred, sanctified approach (what is practical from a divine perspective). Without considering the overwhelming biblical data, which calls us to care for the refugee, consider this:

As Christians, we must think very carefully about how we treat the refugees for the sake of our witness and mission. Yes, we must be prudent, but we cannot let fear control our treatment of those in need. A lesson from Christianity’s past here in the U.S. might help us to think more clearly about our situation today. It is not a perfect analogy, since our approaches are different in each case (the first case being direct contact, the second being complete avoidance), but they come together in their motivation and (possible) consequence:

For many years now, I have been traveling to and from the Navajo Nation to share the love of Jesus Christ, and, to be quite honest, there is a part of me that feels like a fool every time I go, because I know the sad history of the tradition I carry on of "sharing the Gospel" with the Native Americans. Our nation, wanting to control the situation with the Native peoples we feared, justified its actions by proclaiming the Native as "dangerous." So, the white man slaughtered thousands. Who were the dangerous ones again? After we had broken the backs of these tribes, we placed them on reservations and Christian boarding schools were then established.

"In the name of Jesus", it was these schools' job to kill the culture of the people. The tribal children would be punished if they did not comply. They were not allowed to speak their language. They were not allowed to see their parents for many months at a time. If they tried to escape they would be hobbled. And all of this was done by Christians "sharing the Gospel."

Generations later, I have been called in the name of Jesus to share His love with the Navajo, and each time I am out there I have to face the consequences of what my brothers and sisters in Christ did many years ago in the name of fear. I have to see the hurt still in many of these precious peoples' eyes. I have to remind myself each time that what sets me apart is that I'm not out there to take anything but to give my all. I am out there simply to love.

The Christian community was too willing to be motivated by fear of “the other” to treat them like human beings. We cannot do the same today to the innocent among the Islamic nations fleeing danger. Christians cannot allow fear to motivate how we treat “the other” now, lest we damage our relationship with these peoples for generations to come. If we refuse them rescue in their time of need now, (what else are Christians here in times such as these than offering such hope) how will we ever hope they will trust us in the future, when we finally realize they deserve love and the good news of the Kingdom as well? What if, wanting to share the good news with Muslims, today and in the future, our missionaries find that it is they who are really feared, because the Muslim knows we have considered them as we do wild animals, less than human? What we are willing to do to humans we devalue is clear, and, knowing this, those we mistreat may now and forever refuse us access to their hearts.

I hope I never do anything in this life to make the work of the church harder for the generations to come. We cannot allow history to repeat itself over and over again. We must lay down our lives as Christ. This is the ultimate principle as we see in Acts 5:17-42. When there is a choice between proclaiming the love of Christ with great danger of losing our lives or avoiding the situation altogether, we must proclaim the good news. Allowing fear to motivate us has no place. National protection is an added layer to the issue for sure, but supporting the total ban of Muslims, which inevitably leads to the ignoring of the innocent refugee God cares so much about, is, in my mind, equally dangerous.

Again, we have to be smart about this, but we cannot simply use our fear to dismiss the oppressed for whom we are called to care.

We must love, because he first loved us.

"But the lawyer wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" Luke 10:29

---

[1] Wood, Graeme, March 2015: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

[2] Ramachandra, Vinoth. (2008). Subverting Global Myths: Theology and the Public Issues Shaping Our World. Downers Grove: IVP Academic. pp. 17