Religion and the Bible on TV

Every year around Easter, we find old Jesus films on TV, from The Greatest Story Ever Told to  Jesus of Nazareth to The Gospel According to St. Matthew.

Increasingly, shows with religious themes are showing up on TV. In March, CNN is in the midst of a six-part series called “Finding Jesus: Faith, Fact, Forgery,” in which biblical stories are described by scholars and re-enacted.

The Weather Channel showed “Top 10: Bible Weather,” in which 10 calamities from the Bible are paired with equivalent phenomena from our time, with re-enactments standing alongside news footage.

The UP network broadcast “Noah’s Ark,” and PBS’s series Nova rebroadcast the 2008 documentary “The Bible’s Buried Secrets.”

Later, the Smithsonian Channel showed “Siege of Masada,” a one-hour special about the Masada legend, followed by “Killing Jesus” on the National Geographic Channel.

Beginning April 5, NBC will show “A.D. The Bible Continues,” produced by Roma Downey and Mark Burnett, whose miniseries “The Bible” was so popular on the History Channel last year.

Why so many shows with religious themes? The main reason is that they’re popular.

But are they helpful? And do they offer a reliable portrait of biblical stories and themes?

That will depend on the show and on viewers’ needs and desires.

 

One new series on USA that’s received a lot of attention is “Dig,” which premiered March 5. It promotes itself as being “based on reality and true.” We’ve heard that before.

Kimberly Winston writes for Religion News Service that the show “moves quickly between multiple story lines and locations, bouncing off prophesies and spinning conspiracies around the Second Coming of Christ, the Book of Revelation and the restoration of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, where much of the series is filmed.”

It includes a high priest’s magical breastplate, a spotless red heifer and a doomsday Christian group living in a bunker, with plenty of action and suspense. The many plot lines can leave viewers feeling confused, and some of the characters are far from complex.

Its references to the Essenes, the 12 gemstones on the high priest’s breastplate and the red heifer may lead some viewers to look up such information from the Bible, but I doubt it.

Instead, viewers who stick with it may enjoy the suspense, the settings—Jerusalem, Norway, New Mexico—or the esoteric nature of the story.

With the plethora of offerings on TV these days, including many fine ones, why not have some using religious themes and retelling biblical stories?

I also notice that other dramas—realistic ones, not just fantastical ones like “Supernatural” or “Grimm”—often include characters who are religious. And they aren’t always stereotyped as naive or fanatical.

What TV shows have you found particularly good in how they portray religion or Christians?

A related point is that if religion relates to all of life, then shows that portray life authentically and with a certain moral compassion (without being moralizing) should qualify as well.

The possibility of the impossible

For now we see in a mirror, dimly, … Now I know only in part.—1 Corinthians 13:12

We all see the world through lenses that are stained, cracked or askew. And sometimes, as Jesus shows us, we need to learn from those who are blind.

In John 9, one of my favorite passages in the Bible, we see how people’s assumptions affect what or how they see. The disciples assume the blind man or his parents have sinned.

Jesus sees the man in a different light. Here, he says, is an opportunity to see God at work.

The neighbors can’t believe it. It doesn’t fit their worldview. And when the Pharisees hear who healed the man, they decide, This guy’s a sinner who doesn’t keep the Sabbath. According to their worldview, they’re right, a person who doesn’t keep the Sabbath can’t be from God.

The blind man in this story is like the ideal disciple. He’s truthful, focuses on his own experience, not on what it means, and he’s courageous.

The Pharisees call the blind man back in and hint at what he needs to say. Remember, according to us, this man is a sinner.

This reminds me of when the police or other authorities question someone and say, Admit it, we know you’re guilty. Just say it.

All the blind man has to do is say, Yes, he’s a sinner, so he couldn’t have healed me. But he won’t go for it. He simply tells the truth. All I know, he says, is that I was blind, and now I see.

They want an explanation. How did Jesus do it?

And here is the funniest line in the story, maybe one of the funniest in the entire Bible: I already told you. Aren’t you listening? Do you also want to become his disciples?

The Pharisees resort to categorization, a strategy many of us employ often. We know more than you. We come from better stock.

The blind man, with the clear eyes of innocence and logic, points out the contradiction here. If Jesus is a sinner and not from God, how did he heal me?

Later, Jesus confronts the Pharisees. Because you say you see, you remain blind.

It should be obvious that this story is not really about physical sight but spiritual sight. In fact, many blind people are more aware of what’s around them than those of us who have sight.

It’s easy to read this story and laugh at the Pharisees, but when I read it, I’m struck by how much like them I am. I, too, think I’m right most of the time. And when I’m contradicted, I look for a way out, a way to categorize the one who disagrees with me, or I simply ignore what they say.

In his article “Seeing Our Blindness” (page 22 of the October issue of The Mennonite), John C. Murray writes, “The biggest hindrance to new insight, new understanding and a deeper awareness of God’s presence and activity in the world is what we think we already know.”

One of the things my spiritual director asks me is, Where have you seen God active in your life? This is what Jesus does in this story. While others saw a man stuck in his blindness, someone they could go on ignoring, he saw a possibility. Derrida calls God “the possibility of the impossible.” I need to look for that possibility. I’ve learned that when I look, I tend to see God’s activity in ways I don’t when I don’t look.

Jesus saw possibility. He even saw that spitting in the dirt and making mud can serve as a way to anoint a man and bring healing.

Mennonite Church USA is facing important decisions as we examine our differences. We must look for the possibility of the impossible as we seek unity in the Spirit.

But seeing requires humility, realizing we often don’t know what we think we know. As Christian philosopher John D. Caputo says, “Faith is idolatrous if it is rigidly self-certain but not if it is softened in the waters of doubt.”

The cult of the individual--part 3

For decades the mainstream media generally ignored religion. Now we see articles on religion, which is a major factor in American society, with some regularity. For example, the April 9 issue of Newsweek proclaimed on its cover, “Forget the Church: Follow Jesus,” while the April 16 cover of Time ran the headline “Rethinking Heaven.” Even more notable than the prevalence of articles on religion is that many are written with some understanding of religion.

 

Even though I don’t agree with everything in the two articles I’ve mentioned, they are worth reading and discussing.

Andrew Sullivan, a Catholic, writes in Newsweek about “The Forgotten Jesus.” He laments how in America faith has become too politicized. Early in the article he asks two questions: “What does it matter how strictly you proclaim your belief in various doctrines if you do not live as these doctrines demand? What is politics if not a dangerous temptation toward controlling others rather than reforming oneself?”

He refers to Thomas Jefferson’s Bible, from which he removed all but those passages he thought reflected the actual teachings of Jesus. Jefferson (and Sullivan, apparently) considered this “a simpler, purer, apolitical Christianity.” That’s naïve, to say the least.

Sullivan assumes a certain framework for "politics." In Chapter 4 of my book Present Tense I use the word in a different sense, that of a community making decisions together. Jesus had plenty to say about politics (see John Howard Yoder's The Politics of Jesus, for example), but he wasn't talking about American politics. 

Sullivan goes on to point out that organized religion is in decline, largely because churches have pursued power rather than faithfulness to Jesus’ teachings. He notes the Catholic hierarchy being exposed as “enabling, and then covering up, an international conspiracy to abuse and rape countless youths and children.” Mainline Protestant churches have declined rapidly, he writes, while Evangelical Protestants, to give one example, is the group that American pollsters have found to be most supportive of torturing terror suspects. He writes: “This version of Christianity could not contrast more strongly with Jesus’ constant refrain: ‘Be not afraid.’ ”

Sullivan claims that Christianity (and he means in America; he ignores Christianity in other parts of the globe) is in crisis. He notes that “many Christians now embrace materialist self-help rather than ascetic self-denial,” that “the fastest-growing segment of belief among the young is atheism” and that “many have turned away from organized Christianity and toward ‘spirituality.’ ”

His solution? Christianity needs to go back to Jesus by emulating Francis of Assisi, who did not seek power but lived nonviolently.

Sullivan makes an important point when he says this does not imply a privatization of faith, which has been a typical American response to religion. He writes that great injustices, such as slavery, imperialism, totalitarianism and segregation, “require spiritual mobilization and public witness.” But the greatest examples of such movements renounce power and embrace nonviolence.

The cult of the individual enters when we pit "Jesus" against the "the church" without designating what those words mean. The church becomes a monolithic bogey man that is the locus of all evil, while Jesus generally represents a nice person who embraces all my beliefs. We end up with an unspecific, simplistic "church" and thousands of Jesuses, all made in our image. 

Thomas Jefferson, a deist, exemplified this individualistic approach when he made a Bible that included only Jesus' teachings. Where did he think those teachings came from? Did he—do we—not recognize that Jesus was a Jew, a member of his religious community who loved Israel (the people, not the country) and criticized it from within?

There's no doubt churches and other religious groups have done horrible things, but they have also done wonderful things. And who made each of us arbiter or judge of those entities?

Generally I like Sullivan's article. But I don't like the cover title. It sets up a false dichotomy.

In the Time article, “Heaven Can’t Wait,” Jon Meacham, also a Christian, notes that while 85 percent of Americans believe in heaven, “we don’t necessarily agree on what heaven is.” 

Meacham explores the history of the afterlife and shows how understandings of heaven have evolved. He points out the difference between the New Testament's view of heaven and the way many Christians view it today. He quotes New Testament scholar N.T. Wright: "When first-century Jews spoke about eternal life, they weren't thinking of going to heaven in the way we normally imagine it." Instead, "eternal life meant the age to come, the time when God would bring heaven and earth together, the time when God's kingdom would come and his will would be done on earth as in heaven."

Today, Americans have different understandings of heaven. "Many Christians," writes Meacham, "often focus more on accepting Jesus as their personal savior and the subsequent enforcement of biblical laws in preparation for the world to come."

Others, Meacham writes, argue that “the alleviation of the evident pain and injustice of the world is the ongoing work that Jesus began and the means of bringing into being what the New Testament authors meant when they spoke of heaven.”

But Erik Thoennes, chair of biblical and theological studies at Biola University and a pastor, thinks this focus “tends to come from white dudes wearing skinny jeans who live in the suburbs and not poor, suffering people.”

Meacham seems to agree more with Wright, who is white but as far as I know doesn't wear skinny jeans, that this as the work of religion: “bringing reality closer to conformity with theocentric aspirations in a world in which loving one another as we would be loved is a sacred act and a way of expanding the dominion of God—or heaven—in the world.”

I also fall more on Wright's side, though I understand the need for comfort and encouragement in the midst of suffering, and I do believe God embraces us in life or death. One thing I like about this view Meacham describes is that it focuses on God's bringing justice to the entire creation. It's not just about my soul.

Both these articles are worth reading and pondering. They are also worth talking about with others as we do politics, discern together how we should act in our faith community.

The cult of the individual--part 1

That phrase, though not original with him, comes from sociologist Eric Klinenberg in his new book, Going Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone, which is getting lots of attention now. 
I haven't read the book but want to comment on some of its implications. My comments will be based partly on reviews I've read of the book, particularly one by Nathan Heller in the April 16 New Yorker. 
You'll note that this is Part 1. In future blogs I plan to comment on an article in The Atlantic about the psychological effects of Facebook (Part 2) and on some recent articles on Jesus vs. Christianity (Part 3).

Klinenberg and his research team interviewed more than 300 people over seven years and learned that living alone has become much more common. He points out that in 1950, 4 million people in the United States lived alone. Today, that number is 31 million. He notes many possible reasons for this shift: Americans are getting married later than ever, and half of marriages end in divorce. The sexual revolution and feminist movement have helped make it possible for more women to live independently, he notes.
In his review, Heller writes that the solo life, which used to be "a mark of social abandonment," now "tends to be a path for moving ahead." This has implications. Heller writes: "The single life is inherently self-interested; it calls for vigilance on matters of self-preservation both large (financial autonomy) and small (dish detergent), and, in many cases, it frees the solitary from the sorts of daily interaction that help craft a sense of shared responsibility."
He refers to Robert D. Putnam's landmark book from 2000, Bowling Alone, which noted a three-decade decline in what he called "social capital." 
The basic point of these books is that people are not only living alone but not getting together much for social interaction, particularly civic participation.
One example is meeting people to possibly date. My parents, who weren't regular churchgoers as I grew up, nevertheless met at a church because that was the setting in their community for social engagement. (Actually, Jeanne and I also met at church, but that was at a worship service, not a dance or a game night.)
Today, many feel the need to go online to meet others.
Please understand, I'm not seeking to judge people's choices--and neither are these books. Instead, they're descriptive. They show us where we've come. And as people seeking to live healthy lives, it's important to pay attention to the environment in which we live and ask, How is that environment affecting us and our neighbors?
Klinenberg's first book was about the Chicago heat wave of 1995, Heller writes, "in which hundreds of people living alone died, not just because of the heat but because their solitary lives left them without a support network."
That's one implication of where we've come.
Part of the American identity is what's been called "rugged individualism." I grew up with a strong sense of the value of self-reliance. Most of us are affected by this ethos. It's not just the libertarians. We place a high value on meeting our own responsibilities and not being dependent on others.
The Bible, on the other hand, does not talk about self-reliance but about community. I write about this in my book Present Tense, particularly in Chapter 4, "Politics." In our faith we learn that we need each other, that we cannot make it on our own. And the Bible is clear that those in our community who are especially vulnerable--the widows and orphans--are to be cared for by the community.
I've seen the power of community not only in my church but through my involvement in Circles of Hope, which I've written about in an earlier blog, a group works with people who are seeking to get out of poverty. Poverty is particularly isolating, and one of the most effective strategies in fighting it is community. When people are part of a larger group, they not only have access to more resources, their sense of self changes, expands, grows stronger. 
The cult of the individual is strong (and if cult sounds too negative, think culture). It affects us in ways we often don't notice. We need each other to grow as individuals and as a society. 

The Bible vs. capital punishment

On Good Friday, let's consider capital punishment, which the Romans practiced in putting Jesus to death those many years ago.
Herald Press has released a book that collects the writings of John Howard Yoder on capital punishment. Who is John Howard Yoder? Some have called him one of the most important theologians of the past century. Certainly he's the most renowned Mennonite theologian, though Yoder saw himself as more of an historian than a theologian.
Yoder, who died in 1997, wrote many books and articles, and new collections of his writings keep coming out, along with books by others responding to his thought. This recent book, The End of Sacrifice: The Capital Punishment Writings of John Howard Yoder, is edited by John C. Nugent. Nugent points out in his introduction that this book is not exhaustive, that "several essays have been omitted because they primarily repackage old material for new contexts." The book consists five chapters, and the longest is Chapter 4, which contains all of Chapter 2 and more.

In reading this book, I kept underlining passages, and I thought, These are too important to let pass by, so I've decided to share some of those quotes here. Capital punishment is an important topic too often ignored and too easily accepted by Christians who claim to follow the Bible's teachings. For related material, see my earlier blog, "The Shame of U.S. Prisons."
In his introduction, Nugent writes: "Central to [Yoder's] position is his conviction that both biblically and culturally, from ancient society until today, capital punishment is an inherently cultic and ritual practice."
He describes Yoder's core thesis thus: "Since the death of Jesus brought a decisive end to sacrifices for sin, Christians should proclaim its abolition, and death penalty advocates should no longer claim biblical validation."
In a footnote, Nugents writes that "this collection should put to rest the notion that Yoder had no theology of atonement."
Now to Chapter 4: "Against the Death Penalty: A Debate with Wayne House," which includes Yoder's position. A footnote explains that "none of House's material is presented, nor is Yoder's critique of House's specific position."
In response to the use of Genesis 9:6 ("Whoever sheds the blood of Man / In Man shall his blood be shed / For in the image of God / He made Man.") to support capital punishment, Yoder writes: "It is then a mistake to read the word to Noah as if it were a command ordering its hearers to do something that they would otherwise not have done. It is not that; it is a simple description of the way things already are, an accurate prediction of what does happen, what will happen, as surely as summer is followed by winter, seedtime by harvest. That killers are killed is the way fallen society works; it is not a new measure that God introduced after the deluge to solve a problem that had not been there before, or for which God had not yet found a solution."
More from Chapter 4: "The killing of a killer is not a civil, nonreligious matter. It is a sacrificial act. … If there is killing, the offense is a cosmic, ritual, religious evil, demanding ceremonial compensation. It is not a moral matter; in morality a second wrong does not make a right. It is not a civil, legislative matter; it is originally stated in a setting where there is not government."
In reference to the book of Hebrews' mention of the high-priestly sacrifice of Christ, Nugent quotes the famous Swiss theologian Karl Barth in a footnote: "Which category of particularly great sinners is exempted from the pardon effected on the basis of the death penalty carried out at Calvary? Now that Jesus Christ has been nailed to the cross for the sins of the world, how can we still use the thought of expiation to establish the death penalty?"
In reference to "an eye for an eye," Yoder writes: "The appetite for imposing symmetrical suffering is thus a natural reflex in primitive cultures, poetically apt but not always applicable. … It is a standard cultural reflex rather than a prescriptive guide. Jesus explicitly sets it aside."
In reference to Jesus and the civil order, Yoder writes: "The Christian challenge to the death penalty properly begins where Jesus does, by challenging the self-ascribed righteousness of those who claim the authority to kill others." See John 8:1-11.
He adds: "The saviorhood of Jesus applies to law and to social punishment for sin, no less than to prayer."
"The civil order is a fact. That it might be done away with by pushing the critique of love 'too far' is inconceivable. … Thus the Christian (and any believer in democracy) will be concerned to restrain the violent vengeful potential of the state."
"Justice is a direction, not an achievement. It is a relative, not absolute concept."
"Christians begin to deny their Lord when they admit that there are certain realms of life in which it would be inappropriate to bring Christ's rule to bear."
"It is thus formally wrong to look in the New Testament for specific guidelines for a good civil society."
In reference to Christ transforming culture, Yoder writes: "To say that every human being is endowed at birth with an inalienable right to life is our analogy to the Bible's speaking of the sacredness of blood."
"The primary threat to human dignity is not the impunity of individual offenders not proven guilty, but the absolute power of the state itself to punish."
In reference to the clash of rationales for capital punishment, Yoder writes: "The Bible's witness on these matters is a long story, not a timeless, unchanging corpus of laws or of truths. What matters for us is not the cultural substance of where the story started (with is racism, its superstition, its slavery, its holy warfare, its polygamy, and its abuse of women), but where it was being led. That direction is toward Jesus; toward validating the dignity of every underdog and outsider, of the slave and foreigner, the woman and the child, the poor and the offender. This is done not on the grounds that this or that outsider is an especially virtuous person, but on the grounds of God's grace."
"By unjustly condemning the Righteous One in the name of the Pax Romana and the welfare of the people (John 11:50; 18:14), the claimants to human righteousness refuted their claim for the rightness of the death penalty in the very act of imposing it."
Yoder goes on to make other arguments tied less directly to the Bible, including how the death penalty is often murder, as people are put to death who are later proved innocent. And there are many more fine quotes I could have used from this excellent book, but I've gone on long enough.
Bottom line: Don't accept the frequent claim that the Bible supports capital punishment. The death penalty is a ritual of sacrifice, and Jesus put an end to sacrifice. Today is Good Friday, the celebration of Jesus freely giving himself up to death at the hands of the Romans, who certainly believed in capital punishment.
 
 

The shame of U.S. prisons

Most of us, I imagine, have not spent time in prison. Thus, we cannot know quite what it is like to be incarcerated. Yet many of our fellow citizens are incarcerated. In fact, writes Adam Gopnik in “The Caging of America” (The New Yorker, Jan. 30), “Six million people are under correctional supervision in the U.S.—more than were in Stalin’s gulags.”

Gopnik writes that “a prison is a trap for catching time.” The relentless ennui is suffocating. “The basic reality of American prisons is not that of the lock and key but that of the lock and clock,” he writes. Time stops.

Given the inhumane horror of being in prison, the greater horror is how ubiquitous it is in our country. “For a great many poor people,” writes Gopnik, “particularly poor black men, prison is a destination that braids through an ordinary life, much as high school and college do for rich white ones.”

He adds that “more than half of all black men without a high school diploma go to prison at some time in their lives” and calls such mass incarceration “the fundamental fact of our country today, … as slavery was the fundamental fact of 1850.” In truth, he writes, “there are more black men in the grip of the criminal-justice system—in prison, on probation or on parole—than were in slavery then.”

Just as startling as the number of people jailed today is how much the prison population has grown in the past 30 years. “In 1980,” Gopnik writes, “there were about 220 people incarcerated for every 100,000 Americans; by 2010, the number had more than tripled, to 731.” This growth has huge consequences on our society. In the past 20 years, “the money states spend on prisons has risen at six times the rate of spending on higher education.” The irony here is that the single greatest factor in reducing recidivism (relapsing into criminal behavior) is education.

And, as is pointed out often, the cost of keeping a prisoner is much greater than the cost of educating a person. For example, says Karin VanZant, CEO of Think Tank and the National Circles Campaign, studies show that by looking at third grade reading scores you can figure how many kids will drop out of high school before they graduate, and many of these will end up in prison. In Ohio, instead of investing $7,000 per year to raise reading scores, they are spending $37,000 per year for a prisoner.

Gopnik also points to the brutality of U.S. prisons. “Every day,” he writes, “at least 50,000 men … wake in solitary confinement, … locked in small cells where they see no one, cannot freely read and write, and are allowed out just once a day for an hour’s solo ‘exercise.’ ” Add to this the existence and threat of prison rape (see Gopnik’s quote on page 11), and you have a horrible situation.

Gopnik looks at some recent literature on prisons and crime and encounters some interesting insights. For example, “Crime is not the consequence of a set number of criminals; criminals are the consequence of a set number of opportunities to commit crime,” he writes. If you close down an open drug market in one neighborhood, it does not necessarily move to another neighborhood.

Another insight: “Curbing crime does not depend on reversing social pathologies or alleviating social grievances; it depends on erecting small, annoying barriers to entry.”

Gopnik concludes: “Since prison plays at best a small role in stopping even violent crime, very few people, rich or poor, should be in prison for a nonviolent crime.”

Take time to read the entire article. This huge problem in our country needs radical reform.

Two letters in the Feb. 27 issue respond to Gopnik's article. One, which I quoted from in my blog on immigration, is from Katherine Fennelly, who points out that "over 20,000 immigrants now languish in federal prison for no crime other than entering the United States without a valid visa."

The other letter is from Laura A. Tyson, who calls "our national obsession with imprisoning people for relatively petty and nonviolent offenses … a modern-day form of debtors' prison." She notes that many inmates she encounters "are arrested for outstanding warrants, some that date back as far as the 1980s. Nearly all of these warrants are for unpaid fines" for such things as loitering, "shoplifting, traffic violations, parking tickets and possession of small amounts of controlled substances." Since these women cannot pay the fines, they serve time in lieu of paying. They are "credited" about $30 a day toward their outstanding fines, but their stay in prison costs the public $100 a day. Talk about waste.

The U.S. prison system is not only immoral, it is wasteful, inefficient--in a word, stupid.

In the same chapter of the Bible (Matthew 25) where Jesus talks about welcoming him when we welcome the stranger, he also says, "I was in prison and you visited me" (v. 36).

Visiting is certainly important, but reforming prisons and removing prisoners is equally important. It's a shame.

Welcoming Jesus

You shall love the alien as yourself.--Leviticus 19:34
I was a stranger and you welcomed me.--Matthew 25:35

The other night I watched the 2011 film A Better Life, which had come up on my Netflix queue. The previous night, watching the Academy Awards telecast, I saw a clip from this film showing Demián Bichir, who was nominated for Best Actor. After seeing the film, I decided he deserved his nomination.

 
He plays Carlos Galindo, a gardener in East L.A. who struggles to keep his son away from gangs and immigration agents while trying to give his son the opportunities he never had. Early on, the film feels topical, but soon it gets more specific and tells the story of this man who tries to live a moral life in the midst of hardship and trying circumstances that feel like rotten luck.
He borrows money from his sister to buy a truck so that he can have his own gardening business and make some money in order to get him and his son into a better situation. But another immigrant that he hires steals his truck and sells it in order to send money to relatives back in Mexico. Carlos enlists the help of his son to find this man, and when they do, the son can't understand why his father isn't angrier or more vengeful toward the man who stole his truck.
The film helps viewers get into the skin of an immigrant who lives in constant fear of being caught and removed from his son, who is legal because he was born in the United States. This describes the situation of thousands of people in our country. We also see that immigrants are not a homogeneous group. Neither are Hispanics. Although Carlos shares a language and culture with many other Hispanics in L.A., he feels out of place with many of them as well. 
What makes the film better than most is that while it gives us a glimpse of this "issue," it mainly tells the moving story of a father and son caught in the grip of larger forces and doing their best to get buy. That helps make this specific story a universal one as well.
At church the previous day, last Sunday, I spoke with Jesus, who was visiting with his wife and two children. They'd been there a few weeks earlier as well. He and his son, Alejandro, helped us set up tables and chairs for our twice-monthly potluck after worship. Jesus told me a bit of his story, his going to Michigan from Mexico five years ago, then moving to Wichita, Kan., to find work, then bringing his family here. When I said, "I'm glad you're here," he smiled. It's not the message he hears much in our culture. There seems to be a lot of vitriol expressed toward immigrants, and too much of it comes from people who call themselves Christians.
I'm not claiming it's a simple issue. There are many complexities. But the Bible verses quoted above represent a thread in Scripture that ties strongly to the Golden Rule: "Do to others as you would have them do to you" (Matthew 7:12). 
The argument in Leviticus is that you love aliens (that word sounds strange, as if they're from Mars) because you were once aliens. In Matthew 25, Jesus identifies with the stranger, saying we welcome him when we welcome a stranger.
Yesterday I had lunch with Caleb Lazaro, a young pastor from Colorado Springs who is scholar-in-residence at Bethel College in North Newton, Kan., for six months. I'd heard him at our church back in January, where he talked about his own church. Most of the 45 or so in his church are undocumented, and he says the main issue he and others address with them is their anxiety. They often feel shame, he said. And their kids are often raised without a sense of home, which leads some to join gangs. Caleb said there has been no reform in citizenship laws since 1965. There needs to be a redefinition of citizenship, he said, so that people who've been living like citizens (paying taxes, contributing to the economy) for, say, five years, should be recognized as citizens.
In a letter in a recent New Yorker (Feb. 27), Katherine Fennelly notes that "immigration prosecutions now make up nearly half of federal felony prosecutions." NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) brought a freer flow of goods and capital, she writes, but not an increase in visas for blue-collar workers. "Over 20,000 immigrants now languish in federal prison for no crime other than entering the United States without a valid visa."
A Better Life tells a story that helps us see in a clearer way the experience of many undocumented workers. It doesn't explore why people are leaving other countries and coming to the United States at such risk. A documentary that does that is Dying to Live: A Migrant's Journey,which is available from Mennonite Central Committee (www.mcc.org). It's a 35-minute film and shows the desperate straits that drive people to leave their families to try to find work here. I recommend it.
Immigration is a huge issue, but it involves real people. As people seeking to follow Jesus, we need to summon the courage and the decency to welcome people some call aliens. In doing so, we may be welcoming the Lord we claim to follow.