This error-laden Biblical teaching is brought to you by Capitol Ministries, an Evangelical Christian ministry that hosts weekly Bible studies for members of the House, the Senate, state governors and White House Cabinet members. The names of dozens of elected leaders are featured prominently on the weekly bible study’s front page as sponsors of the red, white, and blue spangled study, just as names are listed as sponsors on legislation passed in their chambers.

The Bible study makes several mistakes and reveals itself to be an ideological commitment in search of Biblical support rather than a study of Scripture seeking to inform public policy.¹ This study neglects the Bible’s central claims of justice, mercy, and generosity, while making a priority of marginal Biblical concerns about abuses of generosity. In this way it majors in the minors, inverting Biblical priorities to arrive at an entirely unholy conclusion regarding a nation’s responsibility to care for its own people.

Be wary when Christians dismiss the very Scripture that Jesus and of his disciples lived by.

The study begins with the false premise that the Old Testament is not relevant to any Christian discussion of our shared responsibility, through civil governance, to provide relief and care for the poor. [Side note: be wary when Christians dismiss the very Scripture that Jesus and of his disciples lived by!] By misreading Matthew 22:21 – “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s” – this study incorrectly concludes that Jesus clearly delineates between church from state: “God has clearly separated the institution of civil government from any and all sacerdotal responsibilities.” This is wrong (as I’ll show below). But sticking with the study’s logic, with church and state now separate the responsibility for care for the poor now falls under the church and not the state. As such, the injunctions of the Hebrew Bible – which assumes a kind of theocracy – cannot inform theories of civil governance. They only apply to the church’s mission. Again, this is wrong.

This study hinges, in large part, on a misreading of Matthew 22:15-22. Let’s start there.

“Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s,” Jesus says, perhaps with a shrug of his shoulders. Give the supposed man-god his trifling coin.

Jesus responds to a question about paying taxes to a foreign emperor who claimed to be a god. This question is meant to trap Jesus in a dicey damned-if-he-does, damned-if-he-doesn’t conundrum about idolatry, loyalty, and mere survival under the boot of Roman occupation and oppression. His response deftly takes the air out of the balloon by asking, as a matter of fact, whose image is found on the coin. If it bears the emperor’s image it must be his coin. “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s,” Jesus says, perhaps with a shrug of his shoulders. Give the supposed man-god his trifling coin.

But Jesus’ real concern is not about the coin, or even the illegitimate, oppressive imperial government that will receive it. Instead, the heart of Jesus’ response to the gotcha question is in the corollary. “Give to God what is God’s,” Jesus continues. If the coin is marked with Caesar, give the coin to Caesar. But you, dear child of God, are marked with God’s own image. So give yourself – your whole self – to God.

Jesus calls his hearers to place their ultimate trust in God’s promised Kingdom and not in Caesar’s false promises.

Jesus’ teaching about Caesar and God is not a preview of any “Two Kingdoms” theory divvying up the ecclesiastical and civil realms, nor of Jeffersonian principles of democratic governance. Jesus instead calls his hearers to place their ultimate trust in God’s promised Kingdom of mercy and truth, and not in Caesar’s false promises of an everlasting Pax Romana built on oppression and idolatry. This passage is no cornerstone of a Christian approach to civil governance that absolves the nation, through government, of its responsibility to care for the poor. And, certainly, Matthew 22:21 is no warrant to jettison the Hebrew Bible as we consider civil government’s responsibilities in society. Jesus’ concern is that we reject idolatry and place our faith in God’s promises.

By claiming that the Hebrew Bible is irrelevant to this conversation, the study dismisses whole swathes of Scripture that make clear God’s intent for humanity to care for our neighbors in need. From Genesis to Malachi the Hebrew Bible cries out for justice and mercy. The plight of oppressed migrants, widows, orphans, and poor people who cry out to God in their suffering is literally a repeated refrain in Scripture (“widows, orphans, aliens” appear together 13 times, and “widows, orphans, strangers” 5 times, over a combined 6 books of the Bible, in the NRSVue translation). God’s desire for justice is abundantly clear, and God’s call that we the people of God care for one another is equally clear. Yet since the Hebrew Bible is dismissed from this discussion by a single misinterpreted verse in Matthew, our elected leaders are not invited to consider the wisdom of the Law and Prophets for our nation this week.

Absent also from this Bible study are the very Scripture that tell us about the life and ministry of Jesus – the Gospels. Among the “seven New Testament passages regarding the construct of a societal safety net,” Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John are missing in action. Thus neither the Hebrew Bible (Jesus’ own Scripture) nor the Scripture that most clearly tell us about Jesus (the Gospels) are among the seven passages that outline the study’s vision for a societal safety net. Yikes.

The bulk of this study focuses on three passages (2 Thessalonians 3:6-12; 1 Timothy 5:3-16; Acts 6:1-6) addressing concerns that some members of the Christian community might seek to take advantage of the community’s characteristic generosity. The 2 Thessalonians and 1 Timothy passages extol people who can work to do so in order to provide for their needs, and for Christian families to care for their widows.² Acts 6 is likewise a question of care for widows, with an accusation that Gentile and Hebrew widows were being treated differently.

This study distorts Scripture to give priority attention to minor concerns in order to undercut Scripture’s primary commitments to compassion, generosity, and justice.

At issue in these isolated passages are possible abuses of generosity and unequal distribution of resources. These concerns constitute a legitimate but relatively minor theme in the New Testament, and certainly should not be top billing on any Christian’s list of Biblical guidance for public policy. Even with these concerns about abuses of Christian generosity, the baseline of Christian commitment to compassion and generosity itself is itself never questioned in Scripture. This study distorts Scripture to give priority attention to minor concerns in order to undercut Scripture’s primary commitments to compassion, generosity, and justice.

Unable to make its claims by citing Scripture, the study then shifts to Scripture’s silence as rationale for its belief that government should neglect basic human needs. “Nowhere in Acts 6, nor elsewhere in the NT, is the State deemed responsible by God to meet the needs of the genuinely bereft.” This is an extremely odd argument to make for two reasons.

The absence of a clearly articulated theory of civil governance is not the slam dunk they think it is.

First, should we even expect that early Christians were in any position to wax philosophically on the role of the State in a diverse democracy? They were first generation members of an extremely small and powerless religious community working out the life and faith of their new religious movement under the boot of imperial oppression. These were not legal theorists sketching the interplay of church and state for some future time when Christians would influence and even control the levers of power for the most powerful nations of the world. The absence of a clearly articulated theory of civil governance is not the slam dunk they think it is. ³

Secondly, this argument by silence – “the Bible never says that government should do this” – is simply bizarre. By that logic, we can argue against all kinds of government functions, including the management of municipal water systems, residential trash collection, and the postal service, since the early Christians failed to itemize them among a list of civil government’s God-ordained responsibilities. And more broadly, if the Bible is silent on automobiles, the designated hitter, and Chia Pets, what are we to think about them?

One more item in this study is worthy of our attention. In the discussion of Romans 15:25-26 – on the collection for the Jerusalem saints – the study takes a cheap swipe at the early church’s commitment to holding their funds and possessions in common. At the end of Acts 2 we read that, upon receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, early Christians sold their possessions and held everything they had in common. No one among them was hungry or lacked for anything. These verses reveal the Spirit-driven selflessness of the early church, sacrificing personal possessions for the common good.

This study literally blames the early church – and the Holy Spirit – for the early church’s own poverty.

Yet this study cynically disregards the early church’s common ministry as reckless error, suggesting that “the overzealousness of congregants led to some wrong decisions that would later lead to the poverty in the church.” It blames the early church – and the Holy Spirit – for the early church’s own poverty. This study claims the church’s attempts to share everything in common was an overzealous mistake rather than a fruit of the Holy Spirit that had just endowed the church with power – as such, the study borders on blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Makes me wonder how this study would cynically dismiss Jesus’ own commands to give of one’s possessions, and even life, for the sake of the Gospel.

Friends, beware of those who call good evil and evil good.

The Bible is not an easy guide for public policy in a diverse, democratic state. Christians can and do have legitimate and diverse political commitments. But any decent study that seeks answers on matters of public policy cannot, as this study does, callously disregard central parts of Scripture as irrelevant. It’s too easy. And faithfulness isn’t easy.

Even if we do not seek to enact Deuteronomic law on care for the widows, orphans, and aliens in our nation today, do we not derive from such laws God’s holy concern for the vulnerable, and apply such concern to our governance? Even if we do not place ourselves in the shoes of the rich young man whom Jesus commands to divest of all worldly goods, do we not have to contend with the thrust of Jesus’ call – that wealth can be an obstacle to faithfulness and represents a withholding of what our neighbor needs? And where in this study is the characteristic Christian humility to be found, the selflessness that calls believers to “look not to your own interest but to the interests of others” (Philippians 2:3-4)?

I do not believe that we can lift whole passages from Scripture and write them into law. But neither do I think that Christians can claim to use Scripture as a guide when considering public policy while disregarding Scripture’s principal themes of justice, generosity, and compassion. This Bible study leads elected leaders away from Scripture’s heart and toward a thoroughly unBiblical conclusion.

1. On dismissing the Hebrew Bible, the study’s author comments that “many liberal theologians, who are pro-government entitlement programs, use the [Old Testament] as their proof text”. It’s not one’s approach to Biblical theology or hermaneutics that is disqualifying to this study’s author. Simply being a “liberal theologian” and in support of a social safety net are disqualifying.
   ︎
2. The study makes much of a contrived hierarchy of responsibilities: “One cannot expect the State to effectively and efficiently meet the needs of society’s bereft any more than one can expect the institution of the family to manufacture well-running automobiles.
   God has ordained and provided other more efficient and effective means, catch basins if you will, to meet the genuine needs of others in a fallen world so that, again, ideally no one ends up going downstream in society. In summary, those catch basins in their order of the priority of first response are as follows:
   1) The meeting of one’s own needs;
   2) the institution of the family;
   3) the institution of marriage;
   4) the institution of the church.”
   
   This “hierarchical order of God’s societal safety net” makes a straw man out of those who believe in government’s rightful responsibility to provide relief and support for the vulnerable, and reflects more the commitments of small government purists than of any fair reading of Scripture. Furthermore, “efficiency” and “effectiveness” may have a place in discussions of public policy, but they aren’t high-ranking Biblical values (this is a Bible study, no?). Jesus doesn’t teach us to be efficient toward our neighbor, but to love them.
   ︎
3. In a footnote the study quotes Phoenix Seminary professor Wayne Grudem as saying, “I am surprised to discover that few people seem to realize that these verses say nothing about civil government overcoming individual citizens’ poverty!” The odd expectation that Scripture would clearly outline such a thing is baffling.  ︎

• Hebrew Bible (the “Old Testament”)
• Psalms (the Bible’s song/poetry book)
• Epistle (New Testament letter)
• Gospel (the books that tell about the life of Jesus – Matthew, Mark, Luke, John)

Our tradition favors, and I often preach on, the Gospel text. Still, sometimes I’ll preach on one of the other texts, or draw multiple texts together in my sermon.

Occasionally there’s an assigned reading that I don’t like – a story that makes me feel icky, that addresses themes which aren’t my favorite, or that is just difficult. It’s easy to simply select another reading – an “easier” reading – for preaching. However, over the past several months I’ve often chosen to preach on Scripture passages that, for whatever reason, I would normally have avoided.

This Sunday it’s the second part of the Hebrew Bible reading from Isaiah that I’d avoid. Do you see the [little brackets] in the Scripture citation? Those brackets point us to optional additional verses. We can read Isaiah 6:1-8 – the first part of the assigned reading – and be done with it. That’s the fantastic and dramatic story of God calling the prophet Isaiah (six-winged seraphs flying in the temple, singing, “Holy, Holy, Holy!” It’s pretty amazing.)

But, what’s the fun in stopping there when we can go for extra credit, read a few additional verses, and hear God’s instruction to the prophet? Woo hoo! Let’s read what God tells Isaiah to do!

The Lord says to Isaiah:

Make the mind of this people dull,
and stop their ears,
and shut their eyes,
so that they may not look with their eyes
and listen with their ears
and comprehend with their minds
and turn and be healed. (Isaiah 6:10)

Lovely.

God calls Isaiah to proclaim judgment against Judah because the powerful neglect the widows and orphans; the wealthy take bribes; the people replaced justice with murder; they worship idols instead of God; they neglect God’s call to justice. (see Isaiah chapters 1-5 for context).

Then [the prophet] said, “How long, O Lord?” And he said,
“Until cities lie waste
without inhabitant,
and houses without people,
and the land is utterly desolate;
until the Lord sends everyone far away,
and vast is the emptiness in the midst of the land.” (Isaiah 6:11-12).

We Lutherans don’t often speak of God’s judgment against our nation (as the prophet Isaiah declares God’s judgment to Judah), in part because it’s a risky thing for a preacher today to announce that certain current events are God’s punishment. Are wildfires sent by God? Storms? Earthquakes? Floods? Who do you think you are, preacher, to claim divine purpose and punishment for such events?

Likewise, there’s little benefit to the preacher who rants and raves about coming judgment based on the political or social issue du jour. Books of sermons from past generations are filled with dire warnings about God’s judgment against our nation’s embrace of new technologies that are now essential; of societal changes that are now cherished norms; of church controversies that are now nothing-burgers.

So, is judgment now passé, a bold word for ancient prophets to announce but not for our day and age?

No. There is a place for proclaiming God’s judgment today. Not for shouting the outrage of the moment, or oddly interpreting an obscure Bible verse for broad application in ways that tells other people they’re horrible. No. Neither do I endorse the revelry some preachers seem to exhibit when pronouncing future suffering and punishment on others. Such idolators of pain are not God’s messengers.

God calls and equips pastors and prophets to speak judgment against the world in its sin and it’s failure to live God’s justice. Yet such judgment must strive to do two things:

• identify evil and injustice, calling for its reversal; and,
• speak holy hope that the current suffering and sinful state of affairs is not all that there is. God’s promised presence and justice are reasons for hope.

Beloved, we are people of hope. Judgment without hope is just anger dressed up in religiosity. We don’t need performative religion. We need Jesus, whose call changes our lives, whose promise gives us hope, and whose reign is justice.

I’ll see you in church.

It’s no fun.

Many students of Luther know about his wretched treatise On the Jews and their Lies in which Luther, most notably, calls for the burning of Jewish homes, synagogues, and holy books. His anti-Jewish anger has its source both in the broad anti-Judaism that marred Christian culture of his day, but also in his frustration that the church reforms he initiated didn’t result in masses of Jews seeking baptism and becoming Christians. Having, in his view, freed Gospel truth from its captivity by Roman Catholic error, he had anticipated a great influx of converts to the Christian faith. When that didn’t happen, he called for violence against those who didn’t receive the Gospel.

Blessedly, even many of Luther’s contemporaries – who swam in the same waters of anti-Jewish animus – found this treatise particularly harsh, and we have little evidence that any local government officials directly acted on Luther’s calls for violence against the Jews at the time. It wouldn’t be until the 20th century when his words would be put into action with grave consequences for millions of Jews and other targeted groups in the Holocaust.

If you’re unfamiliar with Luther’s violent anti-Jewish rhetoric, here’s a brief excerpt:

What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? …

I shall give you my sincere advice: First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom.

On the Jews and their Lies, Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 47: The Christian in Society IV, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 47 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 268–269.

Certainly, anti-Judaism neither started nor ended with Luther. He does stand out, however, for his extremely vile and hatefully violent rhetoric, particularly near the end of his life. Luther’s calls for violence are patently evil and reflect the abject failure of the church to remain true to its center of neighborly love.

I’m not writing more on this at the moment (perhaps a future post?), but there’s plenty out there on the topic if you want to look into it. Yet there is something else in this treatise that really caught my attention, and is the reason for today’s post.

In On the Jews and their Lies Luther levies another attack against the Jews that sounds exactly like the racist attacks on those who receive welfare benefits and other forms of public support here in the United States. Luther claims that Jews in the German society of his day are unproductive freeloaders who contribute nothing to the greater good. Here’s an excerpt:

A person who is unacquainted with the devil might wonder why [Jews] are so particularly hostile toward Christians. They have no reason to act this way, since we show them every kindness. They live among us, enjoy our shield and protection, they use our country and our highways, our markets and streets. Meanwhile our princes and rulers sit there and snore with mouths hanging open and permit the Jews to take, steal, and rob from their open money-bags and treasures whatever they want. That is, they let the Jews, by means of their usury, skin and fleece them and their subjects and make them beggars with their own money. For the Jews, who are exiles, should really have nothing, and whatever they have must surely be our property. They do not work, and they do not earn anything from us, nor do we give or present it to them, and yet they are in possession of our money and goods and are our masters in our own country and in their exile. A thief is condemned to hang for the theft of ten florins, and if he robs anyone on the highway, he forfeits his head. But when a Jew steals and robs ten tons of gold through his usury, he is more highly esteemed than God himself.

On the Jews and their Lies, Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 47: The Christian in Society IV, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 47 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 217–218.

Where do we begin? First, this sounds like so much of the racist “welfare queen” garbage that some of our nation’s political leaders spewed in the 1970s and 1980s and which lingers to this day, especially in the current misinformation campaign designed to foment anti-immigrant hate in our country.

Go and read that excerpt above again, slowly. Take note of the us/them dynamic. We – Christians, who rightly dominate society and governance – are being fleeced by them, those damn outsider Jews. Our princes don’t even realize that they’re being robbed by those Jews. We treat them so well. They use our resources and benefit from our protection without an ounce of gratitude. They are exiles and as such should own nothing; indeed, whatever they have is actually ours! They don’t work. They steal from us. They are ungrateful to us. Yet, in Luther’s twisted imagination, he accuses German society of being duped, claiming that Jews – a people who are routinely persecuted, expelled from territories, forced to live in segregated communities, and limited in professions they can pursue – are “more highly esteemed than God himself.” He’s making the welfare queen argument, 450 years before Ronald Reagan.

It’s classic oppressor rhetoric. Blame the people you oppress for oppressing you. Claim they’re taking advantage of the good people. Accuse them of crimes and of threatening the very fabric of society. Call for their expulsion and destruction. It’s gross.

And sadly, it’s not just in the past. These lies of Luther’s have lingered to this day and are hurting real people right here, right now in our own time and country. Lord, have mercy upon us, sinners.

Sign up to receive new posts in your inbox.

The readings appointed for the Fourth Sunday after Epiphany are:

Hebrew Bible: Jeremiah 1:4-10
Psalm 71:1-6
Epistle: 1 Corinthians 13:1-13
Gospel: Luke 4:21-30

In last week’s Gospel Jesus made his preaching debut in his hometown of Nazareth. This week we read that after an initially warm reception, the congregation soon tried to push Jesus off a cliff. That turned quickly!

First, let me apologize to you. I am sorry that I have never preached in such a way that caused you to try to push me off a cliff. Clearly, if I preached more like Jesus you would have tried already to push me off a cliff (if we had cliffs around here). Please call the bishop and report on my lackluster preaching. You deserve a preacher who is faithful in challenging you and provoking you to faithfulness, not one who lets your mind wander or who peddles in vapid feel-good messages.

Secondly, there’s a big honkin’ pothole we must avoid when interpreting this story. In Luke chapter 4 Jesus preaches in a synagogue, and within a few minutes of his sermon the crowd wants to throw him off a cliff. We see these kinds of conflicts throughout the Gospels, whether with his hometown synagogue crowd, religious leaders (Pharisees, scribes, chief priests, and more), or with the crowds in Jerusalem at his sham trial.

All these groups have one thing in common – they’re all Jewish. Of course, so is Jesus, and so are his disciples. But facts notwithstanding, there’s a nasty tradition in Christianity of interpreting these kinds of stories in particularly terrible and antisemitic ways. Thus, a story about people rejecting Jesus’ difficult teaching becomes an accusation that the Jews rejected Jesus and that the Jews are uniquely responsible, as a class, for Jesus’ death.

Whoa! Hold on, Pastor Chris. That’s terrible. Isn’t that a bit of a leap?

Sure is! But it is precisely the leap that Christianity made for centuries. It’s the claim that we’ve all heard: “the Jews killed Jesus!” But it’s not just a past event. This claim morphs so that Jews throughout history and also Jews up to today continue to kill Jesus by not embracing Jesus as Messiah. The claim is that as “Christ-killers” Jews deserve neither mercy nor dignity from us, the Christians who rightfully dominate society and government.

This is the twisted and evil basis on which Christian preachers and teachers taught – for centuries! – that Jews are “little devils” who cannot be trusted; spread lies about Jews having horns, kidnapping Christian children, poisoning food of Christian households, and thanklessly living off the goodwill of Christians while contributing nothing of value to society. This is the twisted and evil theological rationale for antisemitic policies that for centuries has led Christian rulers to expel Jews from their territories; force Jews to convert to Christianity; impose boycotts against Jewish businesses; place limits on Jewish property ownership, marriage, and work; and, commit mass murder and genocide against Jews.

This is horrible. The Church really said and did these terrible things?

Yup. Well into the 20th century – well into our times – the church (and Western society, writ large) persisted in these dangerous errors. But rest assured. There’s major progress afoot. And our Christian-Jewish dialogue event next week is part of this ongoing progress.

After the horrors of World War II Christianity took a big look inward and re-evaluated its teaching about and relationship with Jews and Judaism. Official Roman Catholic doctrine about Jews was updated in the 1960s (during the Second Vatican Council). The Lutheran World Federation came out with a statement in the early 1980s condemning Martin Luther’s antisemitic writings. It is only within living memory that major Christian denominations have made significant strides to re-examine their theology and teaching about Jews and Judaism. That’s great progress, but it is going to take more than a few decades of goodwill to overcome several centuries of hate. There’s plenty of work yet still ahead of us.

Ok. But back to the Bible. How do we interpret stories like the one we’ll read on Sunday – where people oppose Jesus and seek to do violence against him?

Come on Sunday and you’ll hear. But just in case you don’t make it on Sunday, here’s one quick bit of advice:

If we read a Bible story and react with anger or blame, an impulse to control and shame other people, we’re reading it wrong. Turn instead to 1 Corinthians 13, Sunday’s epistle reading. This is St Paul’s famous reflection that love is the greatest of all spiritual gifts. You’ve likely heard it read at weddings.

In all things, love. If love is not the lens through which we read Scripture, we’re doing it wrong. If love is not part of our reflections or response to what we see in the world, we’re doing it wrong. If love is not at the center of what we’re trying to do as Christians, then we’re doing it wrong.

LOVE is the center and source of all we do – not blame, not shame, not anger, not rigid laws, not our self-designed pursuits of righteousness, not insisting on our own way, not anything else. Love is the center and source of all we do, for God is love and we are called to live in love. Love is the answer.

I’ll see you at church!

Another feature in my weekly Friday email is Faithful Reading – four articles that I read during the week that prompted my reflection and prayer. The topics each week are: From around the Lutheran Church; Ministry & Christian Living; Migration; Notable (ie, an article on any topic that I find thoughtful and worth sharing). Here it is:

Faithful Reading: Each week I read a bunch of articles that provoke my reflection and inspire my faith. I add many of them to my Faithful Reading dashboard. Here’s a few highlights:

From around the Lutheran Church: Presiding Bishop issues statement on immigration executive orders
Bishop Eaton urges us to turn to Scripture and to the church’s longstanding teachings and ministries as we discern how to respond to our neighbors’ fear. Living Lutheran

Ministry & Christian Living: Elie Wiesel’s defiant faith
Only honest reckoning with former things can deliver us from new failure. Faith, whatever of it we have, is a gift that bears witness to hope and truth. The Christian Century

Migration: Yes, Jesus was a refugee
A thorough look at what the Bible says about Jesus, and other refugees, in our stories of faith. Christianity Today

Notable: Tulsi Gabbard’s religious background is not complicated, say American Hindus
There may be legitimate reasons to oppose her nomination for Director of National Intelligence, but attacks on Gabbard’s Hindu faith are unwarranted. Religion News Service

The United States is the most prosperous nation in the world. We have the capacity to welcome new arrivals and provide a basic degree of support for them to settle in this country and begin successful lives here – school, work, integration into a community, and more. We can do this. And we ought. It’s the fulfillment of our greatest ideals and a principal way we demonstrate our commitment to liberty. But we aren’t doing this. We’ve given up. Politics, fear, lies, bigotry – it’s all gotten in the way. We have closed the gate and ignored the plight of those who sit on the outside.

In Luke chapter 16, Jesus tells this story about a rich man who had a gate, keeping it closed and ignoring the needs of those who sat on the other side. And let me tell you, the dude with the gate and the grumpy attitude doesn’t fare well in the story.

¹⁹ “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. ²⁰ And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, ²¹ who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man’s table; even the dogs would come and lick his sores. ²² The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried. ²³ In Hades, where he was being tormented, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side.

The rich man dressed extravagantly and ate excessively. He consumed much, built a grand house, and erected a fence around his grand house. Now, there was also a poor man, named Lazarus, who laid at the rich man’s gate, hungry and ill. Lazarus longed to receive even just the scraps and crumbs discarded from the rich man’s table. The rich man gave him none.

There are, of course, details missing. We don’t know how the rich man acquired his wealth. We don’t know if Lazarus appealed to anyone else for mercy. But, running after elusive details feels like a distraction. Jesus gives us all we need to know.

Just a few moments into the story the fates of both men take a sharp turn – they die! We meet them in the afterlife, where their fortunes are reversed. Lazarus is at the bosom of the patriarch Abraham, whereas the rich man is suffering the torment of hell. As if that weren’t clear enough, Abraham explains the situation to the rich man:

²⁵ Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things and Lazarus in like manner evil things, but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony.’

The one who “received good things” in life – and who failed to do good with those good things – is now robbed of his comforts. Lazarus, who received evil things in life – including at the hands of the rich man – is now comforted, relieved of his suffering.

In other words, justice was done.

Take note that it’s not just that the rich man received good things and the poor man Lazarus received bad things. This is not a mere opposition between a good life and a bad life. No. Jesus tells us that Lazarus received “evil” things. Evil. Evil is inflicted. Evil is done, intentionally, to others. Evil isn’t happenstance, bad luck, or the way the cookie crumbles. No. Evil is an intentional choice. Lazarus suffered evil – in part, by the intentional neglect and disregard of the rich man.

The United States is the rich man in this parable. Through both action and omission, we are choosing to inflict evil on our neighbors. It doesn’t need to be this way. We can yet change our rich man fate. We can choose to live with generosity and mercy toward those huddled at our southern gate. We can turn the dimmer up on Lady Liberty’s lamp and extend a radical welcome to our neighbors in need. “Come on in. There’s room, food, safety, work, and opportunity for all!”

Or, we can stay our current course, consuming grotesquely to feed the idols of our own satisfaction while ignoring the plight of our neighbors in need. Such idolatry will lead to our own ruin, as the consequence of our callous actions and the righteous judgment of God come our way. For a nation so turned in on itself will not prosper, but instead will collapse under the weight of its own greed.

May God give our leaders – and, indeed, all of us – new hearts that burn with a desire to love and serve our neighbor … or at least simmer on low heat with some degree of empathy and compassion for those in need. May God give us the will to shine a bright light before the world, and to welcome everyone to our table of plenty.

Lord, have mercy upon us. Bring your justice upon us. Set our hearts – and this world – to rights. Amen.

If you’re looking to learn more about migration in the Americas, and how US policy impacts those who are fleeing harm and persecution in their homes, check out pretty much anything that Adam Isacson writes. He analyzes defense, security, migration, and border issues for the Washington Office on Latin America. His weekly border updates are pure gold.

Other good sources include:

• National Immigration Forum

• Border Report
• Americas Migration Brief