According to AP-NORC polling, most American adults who give to charity each year do it with money, not time or personal contact. Roughly three in four adults report donating money to a cause in the past year, while only about three in ten say they volunteered any time at all. The gap tells us that most of American generosity flows through channels that never require a face, a name, or a personal conversation.

I myself have leaned disproportionately on the recurring donations that show up on my credit card statement each month and the seasonal donations of canned foods, hygiene products or winter coats collected at work or in the church lobby. Somewhere in the back of my mind a small light goes on that says I’m doing good, and then I move on.

But if I never have to see a face, hear a story, or sit through an uncomfortable silence with somebody, have I actually done what Scripture keeps asking of me? Or have I just found an efficient shortcut to a much smaller version of the command to love my neighbor as myself?

Proximity

Scripture describes caring for the vulnerable using the language of proximity, not transaction. Proximity means nearness that costs you something: your time, your comfort, your carefully managed schedule. It extends the service beyond the event and keeps asking something of you the next week, and the week after that.

That's why Scripture keeps reaching for images of closeness instead of images of exchange. Widows and orphans absent from the table get noticed. The stranger arrives with a name you're expected to learn how to say correctly. And Jesus told his followers to visit the prisoner using the same verb you'd use for checking on a sick relative down the street. Proximity sees the people and recognizes their dignity.

Transactions

The transactional approach is easier: write the check, set up the automated donation, deliver the canned food, or add the name to the prayer list.

None of that is a bad thing to do because donations of money, food and clothing matter and the prayer of the righteous can accomplish much. It becomes a problem when we limit our giving, service, and care for the vulnerable to transactions and never have to actually look them in the eye, know their name, or connect with them. Don’t stop your donations and prayers, but let’s admit that those alone aren’t the same thing as loving your neighbor as yourself.

When Jesus encountered a man with leprosy in Mark 1, he could have healed him with a simple word spoken from several feet away. Instead, the text says he reached out and touched him first, which he had no medical or theological need to do. He did the same thing at Jairus's house in Mark 5, taking a dead girl's hand in his own after the mourners outside had already given up and moved on to grief. And when a funeral procession in Nain stopped him cold on the road in Luke 7, Jesus walked up to the coffin carrying a widow's only son and touched it, an act that would have made him ceremonially unclean, before he ever said a word to the boy inside it. Consider also Luke 19 when a short, despised tax collector climbed a tree just to catch a glimpse of him. Jesus didn't just glance up and offer a blessing, but invited himself to dinner at Zacchaeus's house, turning a passing moment into an afternoon at somebody's table. All too often when the comfort and safety of distance was available to Jesus, he declined it.

This was the whole method. God didn't send a memo down to earth explaining what love looks like. Instead, God moved into the neighborhood via Jesus and let it cost him his life. If proximity was good enough for the incarnation, it's probably good enough for a morning at a shelter or driving someone to the DMV to fill out forms.

A friend from a small group I was part of years ago once described a service opportunity our church was organizing as an afternoon spent at the church building, playing games and just talking with a family that was going through a hard stretch. To get people to sign up, he pitched it to the room as a “very clean and comfortable” way to serve. No mess and no danger, he said. Nothing like the soup kitchen shifts or the shelter nights where things could get awkward fast.

That pitch for clean and comfortable service revealed that we had built a whole hierarchy of service opportunities ranked by how little they’d cost us emotionally, and the ones we called “clean” were the ones where real contact, real story, and real discomfort had been carefully engineered out of the experience. I don’t think anyone meant harm by it, and that friend indeed had a heart to serve. But to me it felt like we had accepted the idea that closeness to someone else’s pain is a risk to be minimized rather than an opportunity to lean into.

Perhaps the real reason we tend to default to the distant version is that it doesn’t cost us as much emotionally. A donation is an investment of money or things that neither disappoints nor involves the complexity, emotional friction, unpredictability, awkwardness, or other stuff of relationships that don’t always resolve neatly. But a relationship is an entanglement that might ask more of you next month than it did this one. It might even unsettle an opinion you were pretty confident about or might not resolve into anything tidy at all.

That cost is real, and pretending it isn’t only guarantees we’ll keep choosing the version that avoids it.

So here's the uncomfortable inventory. Think of the person, the family, or the cause you've been supporting: maybe a recurring donation charge, a can of soup, a name on a list you pray through once a week without ever hearing their voice. None of that is wasted. But is there anyone on that list you've quietly decided to keep at arm's length, not because you don't care, but because getting closer might ask something of you that a donation never will? Hold that person in mind, because the list below is aimed at them.

Twenty Messier Ways to Show Up

If distance is the default, here are some concrete ways to close it.

1. Eat a meal inside the food bank or shelter instead of dropping off food at the food drive and leaving.

2. Learn the names of the regulars at the food pantry table and use them the next time you see them.

3. Sit down next to the person outside the grocery store instead of walking past with a dollar and your eyes forward. Introduce yourself and learn their name.

4. Become a CASA volunteer rather than simply donating to a foster care organization.

5. Visit the nursing home resident whose family stopped coming years ago and ask about her life before that room. Then visit them again and again.

6. Drive a foster kid or senior to their doctor’s appointment instead of dropping supplies at the agency or facility.

7. Write letters to someone who’s incarcerated, rather than giving once a year to a prison ministry.

8. Hire someone recently released from prison, instead of writing a check to the nonprofit that helps people like him find work. And refer them to others to do the same.

9. Sit at a family’s kitchen table while they work through a lease or a form they don’t fully understand, rather than funding the agency that serves them.

10. Learn to pronounce a stranger’s name the way their own family says it.

11. Show up to someone’s immigration, custody, or benefits hearing or check-in so they aren’t the only face in the room without support.

12. Trade the annual toy drive drop-off for an afternoon actually spent with the kids who’ll open those toys.

13. Ask a single parent what her week actually looks like, then offer to take one specific thing off her plate instead of a general “let me know if you need anything.”

14. Invite someone recently released from prison to your table for a regular meal, not a one-time gesture.

15. Volunteer for the overnight shift at a shelter instead of the daytime slot where you never actually see who sleeps there.

16. Ride the bus or walk the route someone without a car has to take, at least once, to understand what their day costs them.

17. Drive an immigrant to the DMV and help them with the paperwork to get their ID or driver license (a first step for getting other benefits).

18. Skip the check to the youth tutoring nonprofit this month and tutor a kid yourself, in person, on a schedule you actually keep.

19. Ask an elderly neighbor to tell you about their life before you knew them and actually remember what they say. Arrange a follow-up conversation over coffee where they live or at your kitchen table.

20. Show up to the same soup kitchen or shelter often enough that people start recognizing your face, not just your donation.

None of these require a platform, a title, or a theology degree. They just require showing up somewhere you’d normally avoid and staying long enough for it to get uncomfortable.

I still make the same recurring donations I mentioned at the start of this article, and I'm not going to stop. The donation matters. The canned food matters. But between the monthly charge and the separation created between myself and the human need, I don’t want to lose the thread of what Jesus did with his own two hands.

Jesus walked toward the leper, the coffin, and the tax collector's tree when every social instinct of his day told him to keep his distance. Getting messy isn't the opposite of generosity; rather, it is what generosity was supposed to look like all along.

Next week is Part 2, “Let’s Get Specific”. Once you've closed the distance and gotten messy, the next question is whether you're willing to say out loud what you actually see.

Share

Leave a comment

In 1807, a printer in London bound a book that looked exactly like a Bible. It had a leather cover, gilt lettering, and even a ribbon marker tucked in the spine, but the page numbers started skipping where whole sections were removed—the entire story of Israel walking out of slavery and the hopeful messages of liberation in the Psalms and Revelation simply gone. It is real and is commonly referred to as the “Slave Bible.”

An Anglican missionary society produced the Slave Bible for the sugar colonies of the Caribbean. The verses telling servants to obey their masters were left in, but the verses that might have told an enslaved person that God takes sides against the one holding the whip did not.

And that’s really part of a pattern that keeps showing up at least three distinct ways, each serving double duty as a warning to us.

The crudest version is the simplest to name: you just cut out uncomfortable parts. The Slave Bible is the bluntest example of the “cut it” strategy, but it wasn’t the only time someone took actual scissors to the text. In 1939, eleven German Protestant regional churches founded something called the Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Church Life with the stated purpose to “dejudaize” German Christianity. It produced a New Testament that removed Jesus’s genealogies that trace his Jewish/Davidic ancestry, stripped out Old Testament quotations, and recast Jesus into an Aryan figure at war with Judaism. Eighty years later in 2019, eight of those same regional Protestant churches (note that’s only eight of the original eleven churches) erected a public memorial of confession in Eisenach confessing their own guilt out loud.

Neither of those events is subtle because both required someone to physically decide which pages stayed and which ones would be cut. Very few of us will ever sit on a committee that literally cuts scripture, but how about when someone decides that a topic is off limits for a sermon, a Bible study, or a Thanksgiving table conversation because it’s “too political,” or “too controversial.” They may not be tearing the page out of the Books of Amos, Micah or Isaiah, but tacitly deciding not to accept or discuss accomplishes the same result.

The second version doesn’t need scissors at all if you just keep preaching the same fraction of the book, until the rest goes quiet from disuse. Rev. Charles Colcock Jones, a Presbyterian minister and plantation owner in Georgia, wrote a catechism (think of it as a doctrinal FAQ) used widely across the antebellum South to instruct enslaved people in the faith. In it he addressed how a newly religious enslaved person ought to behave toward their master: be honest, diligent, and faithful, and even when whipped for doing well, take it patiently and look to God for reward. Rev. Jones cited Ephesians 6 and Titus 2, “slaves, obey your masters,” and simply never got around to Exodus, or the prophets’ repeated indictments of landowners who took advantage of the poor. The scissors were replaced with merely narrowing the text down to the parts convenient for the person doing the teaching.

The same move shows up whenever “submit to governing authorities” from Romans 13 gets preached as a stand-alone command, unaccompanied by the repeated examples of prophets confronting kings to their faces, or by Peter telling the religious authorities in Acts 5 that he must obey God rather than men. Instead of getting cut out from the Bible, it just gets read in isolation from the parts of the same Bible that complicate it.

And consider how some Christian nationalist arguments cite 2 Chronicles 7:14, God’s promise to Solomon that if his people humble themselves, God will heal their land. One theologian called it “the John 3:16 of American civil religion.” Critics point out that the verse was spoken to Israel about Israel’s temple, and that lifting it into a promise about America requires quietly setting aside the fact that the passage never mentions America at all. Notice how that argument uses one convenient verse, repeated often, to stand in for a book that has a great deal more to say.

The third version doesn’t either remove anything or play favorites among verses. Instead, it takes an intact passage and reads it to mean something pretty close to its opposite. I call that interpretive contortionism.

The Dutch Reformed Church (DRC) in apartheid-era South Africa built an entire official theology on the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11. Those DRC theologians argued that God scattering the nations and confusing their languages proved that God intended permanent racial separation as a matter of divine design, and codified that interpretation in church policy in 1974. But if you actually read Genesis 11, the scattering looks like judgment on human pride and not a blueprint for keeping people apart by skin color, race or ethnicity.

We can do a smaller version of all three without noticing when we focus on personal piety, purity, devotion, and tithing, but ignore or minimize the parts on mercy and justice. Not because we cut Micah 6:8 out of our Bibles, but because we’ve quietly decided that justice is someone else’s assignment, contrary to what the Bible as a whole actually says. Or maybe we take entire categories like poverty, immigration, or the treatment of the imprisoned, and set them in a box marked “political” or “worldly” as though a subject the prophets addressed by name for eight straight centuries somehow stopped being God’s business the moment it showed up on a ballot.

We’ve slyly replaced the scissors with one of those same three habits the historical examples demonstrated: cut what’s inconvenient, keep circling the verses that already agree with you, and if a passage still won’t cooperate, reconsider its meaning until it does.

We don’t need an institute or a printing press to get a smaller Bible than the one we own. Just enough Sundays where the convenient parts get read out loud and the costly parts don’t.

Share

Leave a comment

Let’s set those books aside and instead ask “what did Jesus actually ask of us.” He asked us to love God with everything we’ve got, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. The rest of the New Testament fills in what that actually looks like day in and day out, and empathy is an integral part of that.

The second greatest commandment

According to Jesus, love your neighbor as yourself is in the top two of the greatest commandments (Matthew 22:37-39). And it doesn’t come with easy-to-follow, step-by-step instructions. You must imagine your way into somebody else’s skin long enough to ask what you’d want and feel if you were the one standing where they’re standing. That’s empathy. Loving your neighbor as yourself requires first that you feel something like what your neighbor feels. Without the empathy, you’re left with a nice sentiment at best and a mechanical good deed at worst.

The one anothers assume it

You have likely heard of the “one another passages”—the approximately 60 commands in the New Testament to love one another, bear one another’s burdens, weep with those who weep, rejoice with those who rejoice, comfort one another, be kind and compassionate to one another, and so on, and so on.

Read that list slowly and notice that it is filled with relational, felt, embodied language. More than mere transactions like “provide financial assistance to one another” or “issue correct theological statements to one another.” The Apostle Paul says to bear each other’s burdens, suggesting there’s an emotional weight to share compared to just helping to manage those burdens from a safe administrative distance. You can’t weep with someone you refuse to actually see, and can’t rejoice with someone whose joy you’ve decided not to let touch you. Empathy requires close emotional involvement and active tears, hugs, or laughs as the case may be. It is part of the very definition of the one anothers.

Jesus modeled it

Jesus wept at Lazarus’s tomb even though he knew that seconds later he’d call his friend back out of it. He knew exactly how the story ended, and yet still let the grief and tears move through him.

When the crowds followed him, hungry and worn out, Jesus was moved with compassion (Mattew 9:36 & Matthew 14:14). The Greek word there, splagchnizomai, is a gut word that describes something that hits you physically and drives someone to take action.

At a widow’s funeral in the town of Nain, Luke says Jesus’ heart went out to the widow before he raised her son back to life. Jesus’ formula was to feel first, and act after. That required empathy.

It’s the same posture mental health advocate gets at in a piece worth reading, A Lack of Empathy, an Abundance of Apathy. As Pohlmann puts it, empathy works like a muscle: use it and it gets stronger. Neglect it, and apathy moves in to fill the space. Scary, isn’t it!

There are times I refused to feel someone’s pain or struggle in their situation, where I’d quietly stopped letting myself feel anything at all. No empathy, no feeling, no tears, and consequently no action. I had a co-worker I used to lunch with somewhat regularly until they went out on an extended leave. Blocking myself from feeling meant I wouldn’t have to make the follow-up call or send a message checking in.

There’s also a whole category of suffering in the news I’ve learned to scroll right past, because letting it land might require something more of me. And how about the family member whose experience I filed under “their own choices” or “it’s complicated” or “it’s none of my business” instead of trying to understand and share in the challenges of living through it.

None of those were failures of theology. They were failures of empathy. And I’m confident God knows the difference.

Loving mercy, as Micah puts it, was never meant to be information delivered at a safe distance. Hesed (Hebrew word for mercy) is that stubborn, sticks-with-you love that the word describes and requires getting close enough to feel the weight of what somebody’s carrying. Mercy that costs you nothing isn’t real mercy; it’s just paperwork with good intentions attached.

For Further Reflection

Consider the reasons that can tempt someone (or you) to refuse feeling empathy when someone nearby is clearly hurting or afraid or confused or overwhelmed. What would be the remedy for that according to Jesus’ words and example?

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Visit Jason Porterfield’s website to learn more and find purchase options.

Having grown up in church, I have heard the Palm Sunday sermons, the Good Friday reflections, the Easter morning celebrations. I thought I had a pretty solid grip on Holy Week, the eight days from Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem to his resurrection, at least until I read Fight Like Jesus: How Jesus Waged Peace Throughout Holy Week by Porterfield.

The whole book runs on one question: What if Jesus had a coherent strategy for making peace, and we’ve mostly missed it?

The central argument is that Jesus did not drift through Holy Week as a passive victim of circumstances. He walked straight into conflict, showing up for the people everyone else stepped over, and told truths he knew would get him killed. And he did all of it without violence or retaliation.

Porterfield structured Fight Like Jesus to be read during Lent, one chapter per week, tracking each day from Palm Sunday through Easter. In reality, it not a Lent-only book. The questions it raises about peacemaking, resistance, and the nature of power are not seasonal ones. It will hit you whether you read it in July, October or any darn month.

Here is a partial list of things I thought I understood that this book quietly rearranged for me:

• Jesus chose to ride into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday on a donkey as a theological statement (really, the donkey was his choice?).

• When the crowd waved palms and shouted “Hosanna,” they were invoking a symbol loaded with military and nationalist meaning, drawn straight from the Maccabean revolt.

• Jesus clearing the Temple courts was a calculated, nonviolent act of advocacy for a group of people I never would have guessed (who do you think he cleared it for?).

• There is a direct literary connection between the Beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount and the Seven Woes Jesus pronounced against the religious leaders in Matthew 23. These two passages bookend Jesus’ public ministry, and reading them alongside each other changed how I hear both. Do you know the connection?

• I was wrong about Barrabas. After Porterfield provided the historical context, I uncomfortably admit that I am not as certain as I used to be that I would have chosen to free Jesus over Barrabas the muderer.

• The early church, directly shaped by Jesus’ teaching and example throughout Holy Week, has not produced a single recorded instance in the first century of Christians accepting or advocating violence as a legitimate tool for resisting injustice. Really?

• Porterfield’s treatment of Holy Saturday, the day Jesus lay in the tomb while his disciples sat in grief and confusion, is quietly powerful.

• Forgiveness is an actual superpower. Read the book to discover why.

I had the privilege of joining a Q&A session with Porterfield after reading the book. You can tell within about five minutes that he is not performing a position. Porterfield is a theological scholar, yes, and a genuinely gifted writer; but he is also someone who has organized his actual life around the people Scripture keeps pointing to—the poor, the unrepresented and the imprisoned. Those are ones we tend to walk past on our way to something more comfortable. Porterfield advocates for the marginalized by showing up with energy, with presence, and with his actual time.

I will tell you what the book did to me, practically speaking, because that is the most honest review I can offer. I brought it to my home Bible study group and we spent back-to-back meetings working through it together using the discussion questions in the back of the book. I separately gave copies into the hands of a half dozen church leaders I respect, with a strong personal recommendation to read it. I also bought a small stack of extra copies to give away as I have opportunity in the coming months. I am not a person who does that with books, but was compelled to do it after reading Fight Like Jesus.

This book will leave you asking what you are doing with you know and where you are moving toward conflict rather than away from it. And who are the people in your community whose woes I have been too comfortable to hear?

Fight Like Jesus: How Jesus Waged Peace Throughout Holy Week by Jason Porterfield is published by Herald Press (2022). It includes discussion questions for group use and works well as a small group study. Highly recommended.

Subscribe now

Share The Micah Walk

Leave a comment

This week I want to let four voices speak for themselves instead of writing about them. The four voices the Scripture keeps naming together: the widow, the orphan, the stranger, the poor. So here goes.

Read it slow. (And out loud, if you can stand it.)

I am the stranger. Do you see me?

I crossed a border and became a category.

Back home I had a name. I was also a son who was his father’s pride or a woman who made her mother laugh so hard all the time. When I fled, I had to fit my whole life into a backpack, discarding the familiar, the safe, the comfort, and the security I had before.

They call me a line item now. I’m a risk. And others get to write the headline without ever asking me what actually happened.

They ask where I’m from like it’s a crime or a verdict, and my nervous, shaky voice is used against me as evidence. I make myself smaller in rooms to feel safer. It’s something I’ve gotten very good at. You would too if you had to reduce and minimize yourself to be safe.

God, you were a stranger once. Not symbolically, but actually. You too traveled an actual road at night, spent time fleeing and hiding, and experienced the same actual moments when the only safe place on the map happened to be the wrong country.

So when I tell you I am tired of explaining myself to people who have never once had to, I believe you know that tiredness because you once felt it in your own body, not just in your book.

Please don’t let me become mere paperwork to the people who could help me. My accent shouldn’t be the only thing they hear before they decide who I am. It would be enough to be seen as already whole. I carry the image of God, but nobody bothered to acknowledge that at the border.

Let me be a name again. Just once. Let someone say it right, and see me.

Do you see me?

✶

I am the widow who wants to be heard.

I used to be half of a sentence. Now I am the whole thing, and shorter than it used to be. That reduction haunts me.

Nobody warned me that grief comes with paperwork. Bank forms and insurance calls. A voice on hold thanking me for my patience while my patience is the only thing left that I haven’t already given away.

I go to the store and buy one of everything, and it isn’t enough, and it’s also too much.

I sit at church where we used to sit together. The weekly church bulletin email is still addressed to both of us because nobody’s gotten around to changing it. Some days that feels like mercy and some days it feels like a wound that keeps reopening on schedule. Yes, that hurts.

Defender of widows, that’s what they call you in the songs. I need it to be true today. As a phone call that I don’t have to make by myself. As someone in the third pew who still remembers my name after the casseroles stop coming and after the sympathy cards turn into silence. After everyone else’s life goes back to normal, while mine doesn’t, and never will again.

A rescue doesn’t make sense anymore. I already buried the person who would have been that. What I need now is a witness, someone who won’t let me disappear into insignificance.

Do you hear me?

✶

Call me an orphan but still love me.

I have been the extra chair and the extra place setting at three different tables. The awkwardness of a house that is not really mine.

People ask if I’m okay in the same tone they use for the weather. Fine, I say. Fine is a word I learned early, because the true answer takes too long. Nobody has that kind of time for a kid who isn’t theirs anyway.

I have a whole map memorized identifying which chairs are safe to sit in, and which rooms go quiet when I walk into them. Nobody else knows about that map because naming it would make it real. It’s already real enough.

Father is supposed to be the easiest word in the book, easy enough for other kids to say without thinking twice about it. For me it’s the one I’ve had to build from scratch out of vague ideas and other people’s descriptions. Board by board, and room by room. Like building a house without ever once having stood inside one. Without a single memory of what a dad’s steady hands are supposed to feel like or what it’s like to ride on a father’s shoulders.

Pity doesn’t keep anyone warm at night, and I’ve collected enough of it to know. What does help, though, is someone who stays past the point where staying stops being easy. Give me an ordinary weekday where nothing happens except someone chooses to still be there.

Lord, I want you to be the one who doesn’t leave. The one who doesn’t need reminding that I’m still here, still waiting, still hoping someone will ask not just if I’m okay, but who I actually am.

Do you love me?

✶

Will you count me even though I am poor?

I am not lazy, nor a lesson for others to learn from. And don’t point me out when you want to feel grateful for your own good luck.

I have worked jobs that broke my body for money and still ended up with not enough. The math on rent and medicine is done in my sleep over and over, and it still doesn't add up. Standing in long lines that told me my worth without a single word. The particular shame of counting exact change while somebody pretends not to watch.

Jesus said the poor would always be with us. For a long time, I thought that meant the math had already been given up on. I don’t think that anymore. It meant I shouldn’t dare get used to this.

What the poor want is simple. We want a system that wasn’t built to grind us down. And people who notice and say something when it grinds anyway.

Do you count me? Or am I just the math nobody wants to do?

✶

We are the stranger, the widow, the orphan, and the poor.

Will you see us. Will you hear us. Will you love us. Will you count us.

We are not the same story. But we are the same question, asked into the same silence, from four different voices.

Do you hear us. Do you see us. Will you say our situation out loud, by name, the way the prophets used to. Or will you just manage us with softer words and longer meetings.

We are not asking you to feel bad about the light you have. We are asking you to bring some of it in here.

Act justly. Love mercy. Walk into the room and stay long enough to learn our names and use them.

Will you see us, hear us, love us, and count us.

✶

If one of these four voices was yours this week, I hope this prayer found you.

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

I am not writing this as a pastor or a scholar. I'm just a Christian who believes that loving the church means being honest about her, the way you would be honest with a friend headed down a bad road. So here are seven sins, recurring patterns rather than one-time incidents, that the American church has committed again and again across three centuries. Each one shows up more than once in our history, which is exactly what should worry us. I write this hoping each of us decides to do what we can to keep this history from repeating itself.

1. Dehumanization: twisting Scripture into a leash

Before the Civil War, plantation-region ministers did not quietly tolerate slavery. Many preached it. They took a badly twisted reading of Genesis 9, the so-called "curse of Ham," and built a theological engine that ran for two centuries, teaching enslaved people that obedience to their masters was obedience to God. That same instinct, using doctrine to decide who counts as fully human, resurfaced a century later at Bob Jones University, which barred Black students until 1971 and banned interracial dating altogether until the year 2000. They defended it as biblical conviction. It took a presidential campaign controversy, not a change of heart, to end the policy.

This is the sin of taking God’s Word, meant to set people free, and forging it into a leash.

2. Hatred: blessing racial terror with a cross

In 1915, the second incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan restricted membership to white Protestant Christians, used a burning cross to symbolize “the light of Christ,” and was founded by William Simmons, a former Methodist minister. Pro-Klan pastors lectured congregations on the order’s Christian virtues. Meanwhile, public lynchings across the South were often treated as community outings, attended by families in their Sunday best, sometimes photographed and turned into postcards people mailed to relatives like souvenirs. This was not the fringe acting alone. It was churchgoing America, robed in its own symbols.

This is the sin of hatred so complete it borrows the cross to bless the very thing the cross condemns.

3. Idolatry: bowing to flag, heritage, and power

After the Civil War, many white Southern churches did not examine their complicity. Instead, they built monuments to it. Confederate flags hung in sanctuaries, veterans were memorialized as Christian gentlemen, and a mythology called the “Lost Cause” recast slaveholders as noble. That same fusion of nation and faith reappeared on January 6, 2021, when crosses and “Jesus Saves” banners were carried alongside Confederate flags into the U.S. Capitol during a violent attempt to overturn an election. It was the visible tip of a strain of American Christianity that has quietly merged national identity and political power with the gospel itself.

This is the sin of bowing to something other than God and calling it faithfulness.

4. Cowardice: choosing comfort over justice

Dr. King once said eleven o’clock Sunday morning was the most segregated hour in America, and he was not being clever. He was naming a wound. Writing from a Birmingham jail cell in 1963, he aimed his sharpest words not at the Klan but at white clergy who called his methods "unwise and untimely." King concluded that the Black American’s greatest obstacle was not the outright racist but the white moderate, more devoted to order than justice.

That same silence repeated itself in 1942, when the government forced more than 120,000 Japanese Americans into incarceration camps and the overwhelming majority of American churches said essentially nothing, with many congregations instead helping the War Relocation Authority resettle families rather than asking why they had been rounded up. The Quakers notably broke from the pack.

This is the sin of mistaking a quiet conscience for a clear one.

5. Violence: crushing the vulnerable to "save" them

Starting in the 1800s, the federal government paid churches, per child, to run boarding schools built to strip Native children of their identity in the name of saving their souls. Kids lost their names, their languages, their hair, and often their families for years, all under a Christian banner. The U.S. Interior Department's 2022 Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative report documented physical, emotional, and sexual abuse at these schools, and has since identified at least 74 burial sites, marked and unmarked, on the grounds of institutions run by denominations who believed, sincerely, that they were doing good.

This is the sin of mistaking erasure for salvation, and force for love.

6. Self-protection: guarding the institution over the innocent

In 1845, Northern Baptist mission boards told Southern churches that slaveholders could not in good conscience be funded as missionaries. Rather than repent, roughly 293 Southern representatives met in Augusta, Georgia, and founded their own convention, the Southern Baptist Convention, still the largest Protestant body in the country, for the specific purpose of protecting the right to own human beings.

Nearly two centuries later, in 2022, an independent investigation by Guidepost Solutions found SBC Executive Committee leaders had kept a secret internal list of more than seven hundred credibly accused abusers, stonewalling survivors rather than protecting them. It was a pattern that has played out in Catholic dioceses and independent churches nationwide, including my own church fellowship.

This is the sin of loving the institution’s reputation more than the people it exists to serve.

7. Materialism: selling blessing to the broke

A different corner of the American church has spent decades preaching that God’s favor shows up as bigger houses and fatter offering plates, often targeting the very people who can least afford to give. Pastors have flown private jets and traveled extensively to luxury locations, partly funded with tithes from folks skipping meals, all while quoting verses about seed and harvest. It’s a gospel that sounds like good news for the preacher and often bad news for the poor.

This is the sin of dressing up greed as blessing and calling it faith.

None of this is ancient history dressed up as a guilt trip. It is a mirror. Somewhere in my own church tradition, and probably yours, there is a version of "the reasonable pastor" who counseled patience instead of justice, and a version of "the faithful congregation" that just never got around to talking about it. The question isn't whether those churches back then were bad people. Most of them thought they were being faithful. The question is which of these seven sins (dehumanization, hatred, idolatry, cowardice, violence, self-protection, materialism) is quietly at work in my own church, or my own heart, right now.

History has a habit of repeating its sins in new clothes whenever nobody’s watching for them, which means an eighth sin could already be forming in a church that looks a lot like ours, waiting for someone later to write the paragraph. Where is your church silent right now that it should not be? Where are you? And what will you do today to make sure you land on the right side of history, and more importantly, the right side of God, when someone else is doing the remembering?

Leave a comment

Share

The church watched, and split. A century later, both sides still believe they’re following Jesus. They just disagree about what that requires.

That’s the pattern. The American church has quietly swapped theological faithfulness for partisan consensus and started treating the swap as if it were the original. Conformity reads as soundness. Dissent reads as grounds for exclusion. Somewhere in there, we replaced Jesus’ actual test for belonging with a different one, an easier one to grade.

Subscribe now

Why we need to be right

The pull toward certainty isn’t wicked on its face. It comes from a real hunger to honor Scripture and stand on something solid. But when certainty about every contested question becomes the measure of faithfulness, something has shifted underneath us. It starts serving us more than it serves God. It sooths our anxiety and sorts who’s in from who’s out. It ends up turning a Spirit-led walk into a checklist we can manage.

Jesus never ran that test. He was surrounded by Pharisees who had precise answers for everything, and it didn’t impress him in the slightest. His sharpest words weren’t for people who lacked certainty. They were for people whose certainty had become a substitute for love.

The lines we’ve drawn

Here are a few examples from across the political spectrum. Not to settle who is right on any of them, but to show that the sorting has happened, and to ask whether Jesus would recognize the criteria being used to do it.

On the progressive side: women in leadership, where serious scholars land on both sides. Immigration, where 90-plus biblical references to loving the stranger make silence a choice rather than a neutral posture. Economic justice, where the prophet Amos and James the brother of Jesus, and Luke 4 aren’t asking anyone’s permission to be relevant.

On the conservative side: the dignity of earned labor, grounded in Paul’s instruction that those unwilling to work shouldn’t eat (2 Thessalonians 3:10). That’s a serious theological conviction about self-sufficiency and the proper limits of charity. And respect for governing authorities, grounded in Romans 13, raises serious issues about civic order and the rule of law. Christians who hold these positions deserve to be engaged as offering a serious reading of Scripture instead of being dismissed as prejudice with a Bible verse taped to it.

And cutting across both: a consistent ethic of life that opposes or permits abortion, capital punishment, or unjust war does not map neatly onto either political party.

If a position makes both parties uncomfortable, that might be a sign it’s doing something right. It might even mean that theology is driving the conclusion instead of the other way around.

None of this means everyone’s equally correct. Instead, it means that sorting happening in our churches has become partisan sorting, not theological sorting. That is concerning because those are not the same thing.

Three Ways to Respond

Silence. It usually presented as the mature, unifying choice. It isn't neutral because silence always protects someone, and it's almost never the person with the least power. The God of Scripture sees suffering and is moved by it. Silence in the face of injustice doesn't reflect the character of a God who hears, who sees, and who moves, in his own timing and his own way. A church whose teaching never makes anyone uncomfortable has probably stopped saying anything that matters.

Bold, faithful conviction. A Christian wrestles seriously with Scripture and then speaks or acts, even at personal cost. Sometimes clumsily. Sometimes even wrong about the details. The prophets too were sometimes wrong about timing while dead right about the underlying claim. A church that makes room for this—from the pulpit, on difficult questions, and from more than one political direction—is doing something rare. A sermon that unsettles someone’s political assumptions isn’t a pastoral failure. That’s what preaching has always been for.

Partisan conformity dressed as theology. One party’s platform gets baptized in scriptural language and treated as the only faithful position available. Of the three, this is the most dangerous because instead of looking look like an evasion, it looks like conviction. And when neutrality, or consensus becomes the actual standard we’re living by, we’ve traded the real thing for something easier to manage and merely just given it a respectable name.

What Matthew and Simon must have talked about

By any reasonable political map of first-century Judea, apostles Matthew and Simon the Zealot had no business sharing a room, let alone a calling. Matthew worked for Rome, collecting taxes from his own people and presumably taking his cut. Simon advocated resistance to Rome, sometimes even violent resistance. Simon probably regarded Matthew with something between contempt and fury.

Jesus put them in the same inner circle anyway. Sent them out together. Fed them from the same table. There's no record in any of the four Gospels of the two of them quarreling, and no rebuke from Jesus toward either one for how he treated the other. Somehow the tax collector and the revolutionary managed to pray together, preach together, and follow Jesus together.

When Jesus sent the seventy-two out in pairs, we don't know who was paired with whom, but imagine Matthew and Simon assigned to the same road, dependent on each other to get the mission done. At the Last Supper there's no seating chart, but we do know they were at the same table.

There’s no record of Jesus telling Matthew that his collaboration with Rome disqualified him or telling Simon that his politics were too extreme. Neither one gets corrected for his convictions. Instead, Jesus calls both to love God and love their neighbor and expects their politics to serve that call instead of competing with it.

The test Jesus actually used

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness." (Matthew 23:23) The people most certain they had the right theology got the fiercest rebuke he had.

"By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35) Disciples weren’t defined by holding the correct positions. They were defined by a love that cost something, stayed relational, and reached toward people they hadn’t chosen.

Silence, neutrality, and consensus are versions of the same evasion. Each one substitutes something manageable for what Jesus actually asked of us. He did not measure his disciples by the precision of their positions. He measured them by the texture of their love.

What this looks like for me

I’ll name injustice clearly. Sixteen Old Testament prophets named it loudly because God hears the suffering of the oppressed and calls his people to do the same. I won’t soften what I see clearly just to keep the peace.

I’ll extend grace across disagreement. I won’t call you faithless because you don’t yet see what I see. People are at different places on the road. I’ll try to hear where you are, and trust that the same Spirit working in me is working in you.

I reject the litmus test. Your politics are not my measure of your faith. Matthew and Simon shared the same table. So can we.

I will stay at the table. Real fellowship isn’t always comfortable. When a sermon challenges my political assumptions, the answer is to engage, not to find a church where that never happens.

And I’ll keep asking the harder question. Not "am I certain enough?" but "am I following Jesus?" Those have never been the same question.

For Further Reflection:

Matthew the tax collector and Simon the Zealot sat at the same table. Opposite politics, opposite relationships with power, probably no agreement on a single policy question of their day. Jesus chose them both, corrected neither, and called them to the same thing: love God and love your neighbor. Is the church willing to stay at the table when the conversation turns uncomfortable? Or will it keep quietly engineering a room where everyone already agrees so the hard conversation never has to happen at all?

Share

Leave a comment

I picked up How to Be a Dissident by Gal Beckerman expecting something clever like a winking handbook for troublemakers. What I found instead was something closer to a history lesson on dissidents. Beckerman, a staff writer at The Atlantic, excavates two and a half millennia of dissidents, from Socrates and Spinoza to Václav Havel and Edward Snowden, and from the Warsaw Ghetto to Tiananmen Square. He asks what holds them together, and his answer is both simple and demanding. Dissidents, he concludes, are people who, when the question Can I live with myself? pressed in close, discovered they could not look away.

Subscribe now

Beckerman calls them people who “sit apart” because the word dissident comes from the Latin dissidere—to sit apart. Not to storm the gates or lead armies, but simply to refuse the comfortable middle position, to honor a principle their society is violating, and accept the cost of being pushed to the margins for it.

If that sounds familiar, it should. The prophetic tradition in Scripture is built on exactly this posture. Consider, for example, Amos interrupting the feast at Bethel. Or Jeremiah accused of treason for telling the truth. Or even Micah, our patron who gives this publication its name, confronting the powerful on behalf of those they were crushing.

These prophets didn’t have institutional backing or strategic communications plans. They had simply reached the point where silence felt like a betrayal of their convictions and identity.

Beckerman’s dissidents occupy the same space in secular history that the prophets occupy in sacred history. They are the uncomfortable ones who couldn’t pretend anymore.

Most useful in the book and most directly applicable to the kind of faith this publication is about is Beckerman’s distinction between pessimism and fatalism. The pessimist believes things will probably get worse unless someone acts, while the fatalist believes things will definitely get worse. In that single word, “probably” lives both urgency and possibility becasuefatalism produces paralysis while pessimism, rightly understood, produces motion. It is the posture of people who act not because they are confident of success, but because they cannot justify standing still.

That is a useful frame for this moment becasue while we are not short on reasons for despair, we are sometimes short on the courage to act without guarantees.

Beckerman also has a sharp chapter on humor as dissidence.; that is, on how parody, ridicule, and exaggerated imagery have long been tools of resistance because they force a moment of recognition that straight argument can’t produce. That’s worth remembering for those of us trying to bear witness in creative and unexpected ways.

This book doesn’t come from a faith framework although it does map cleanly to one. The dissident who keeps the record at great personal cost (like Emanuel Ringelblum, who organized a secret archive buried in milk canisters beneath the Warsaw Ghetto) is doing something the biblical tradition calls bearing witness.

Similarly, the movement that acts as if a freer future were already real (like the Solidarity movement in Poland) is doing something the New Testament calls living by faith.

And Havel’s insistence on “living in truth” as the foundation of all real resistance echoes what the Gospel means when it says the truth will make you free.

The dissident tradition and the prophetic tradition are drawing from the same deep well.

If you’re serious about faith beyond performance and about what it actually costs to live with integrity in a moment that rewards complicity, this book will give you both company and courage.

Share

Leave a comment

There is a legal concept I work with regularly called the duty of care. The core idea is straightforward: the more knowledge or responsibility you have in a situation, the higher the standard you are held to. A bystander who witnesses an accident is treated differently than a trained paramedic who witnesses the same one. Someone who could not have known is treated differently than someone who knew and chose not to act.

The legal world did not invent this principle. It borrowed it, whether it knows it or not, from a much older source. The prophets understood it. God, apparently, has always understood it. And it is why the sharpest words in all of Scripture were aimed not at the nations who had never heard of the God of Israel, but at the people who carried his name, gathered in his temple, and sang his songs while the poor went unseen and the widow went unheard.

The walk, it turns out, does not grade on a curve.

— ✦ —

The Direction of the Sharpest Words

If you read the prophets expecting the harshest indictments to fall on Israel’s pagan neighbors—on Babylon, Assyria, the empires of the ancient world—you will be surprised.

Amos delivered his message to Israel. Isaiah’s devastating critique in chapter 1—the one where God says he hides his eyes during their prayers, that he has had enough of their offerings, that their assemblies are a burden—was addressed to Judah. Micah’s indictment of leaders who ‘hate good and love evil,’ who ‘tear the skin from my people and the flesh from their bones,’ was aimed squarely at the religious and political leadership of God’s own covenant community. (Micah 3:1-3)

Jesus reserved his sharpest confrontations not for Rome, but for the Pharisees and teachers of the law: ‘Woe to you... because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God.’ (Luke 11:42)

Woe is not mild disappointment. In the Hebrew prophetic tradition, it is lament fused with judgment. And Jesus aimed it at religious leaders who had reduced faithfulness to meticulous rule-keeping while the poor, the widow, and the foreigner went unseen and unnamed.

Why the Higher Standard Makes Theological Sense

It follows directly from the logic of covenant and calling.

To be called is to be entrusted. To know the character of God—his hearing, his sight, his refusal to name injustice vaguely, his movement toward the oppressed—and to represent him in the world is to carry a weight of responsibility that comes with the knowledge. Jeremiah makes this explicit when he contrasts the unjust King Jehoiakim with his father Josiah, who ‘defended the cause of the poor and needy.’ God’s commentary: ‘Is that not what it means to know me?’ (Jeremiah 22:16)

Knowing God, in the Hebrew sense, is not primarily an intellectual or even experiential category. It is a relational and ethical one. You demonstrate that you know God by doing what God does.

Which means that the church’s silence on injustice is not, in the end, a political failure or a cultural accommodation. It is a failure of faithfulness. A failure to know, in the deep biblical sense, the God whose name is being carried.

The Open Door of Micah 6:8

This is where the series began, really. Micah 6:8 is the axis on which The Micah Walk turns.

‘He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.’

Notice what Micah does not say. He does not say: to perform the correct rituals, to hold the correct positions, to remain neutral on contested social questions, to prioritize institutional unity over prophetic witness. He says: act justly. Love mercy—hesed, the covenant faithfulness that refuses to abandon the vulnerable. Walk humbly with your God.

The walking image matters. It is not a sprint and it is not a monument. It is a steady, daily, forward movement alongside a God who is himself always moving toward the cries he hears, the suffering he sees, the injustice he will not stop naming.

Over this series we have traced that God across seven weeks of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation. We heard the groan underneath the groan in Exodus (Article 1). We watched him see the people the world had rendered invisible (Article 2), the way he saw Hagar at a spring where no one else looked. We watched him name exploitation by its exact price point (Article 3)—a pair of sandals, unpaid labor, wages crying out from the ground. We watched him move (Article 4), three times in two verses, through prophets and servants and his own incarnate presence in the world. We sat with the cost of the silence his people sometimes practice in his name (Article 5). We looked at the compass the imago Dei actually is (Article 6).

And now we arrive at the final question. Not whether this is who God is. That has been answered.

What Will You Do With What You Know?

The duty of care, in law, is triggered the moment you have enough knowledge to act. You do not need certainty or a complete picture. You need enough to know that something is required of you.

By that measure, everyone who has read this series to Article 7 has a duty of care problem.

You know that God hears the groan underneath the groan — the accumulated cry of people crushed by systems designed to keep them there. You know that he sees the people power has rendered invisible, and that his sight is a form of advocacy. You know that he names exploitation by its actual name rather than dressing it in careful institutional language. You know that he moves, without exception, from attentiveness into action. You know that the silence his people practice in his name is a theological crisis — not primarily for the people who have left, but for the church that drove them out. You know that the image you bear is not a trophy but a compass, and that it only points in one direction.

That is not a small amount of knowledge. And knowledge, as Jeremiah’s God made unmistakably clear, creates obligation.

Maya Angelou put it simply enough to cross-stitch on a pillow and profound enough to actually mean something: "Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better." Seven articles ago, you may not have known what you know now. That was then. This is now.

What that obligation looks like will differ for every person reading this. It might look like the conversation you have been avoiding with your church’s leadership about why justice rarely, if ever, makes it to the sermons, congregational prayers, or activities agenda. It might look like immigrant family you help settle into their new community because that’s a hard difficult for anyone to make. It might look like finally going inside the food bank to volunteer with distributing food to patrons instead of dropping bags at the door. It might look like learning the name of the person outside the grocery store you have been walking past for months.

None of those require a platform, a theology degree, or a complete theory of social change. They require the willingness to be held to the standard that knowledge creates. To stop grading your own walk on a curve.

— ✦ —

Micah 6:8 is not a slogan. It is a life direction. Not a sermon—just a walk. A walk that hears, sees, names, and moves. That holds those who carry God’s name to the same standard he holds them to, without flinching and without cruelty.

The question is not whether this is who God is. That has been answered. The question is whether we will walk the same way he walks.

The door is open. The road is long. And the God who does not turn away from the suffering of the oppressed is already walking it.

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

There is a Latin phrase that has been debated by theologians for centuries: imago Dei. The image of God. Genesis 1:27 is where it lives: ‘So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.’

Christian tradition treats that phrase as the most dignifying thing that could be said about a human being. You bear the image of God. Your life has worth that cannot be taken away by circumstance, by power, by what anyone else decides about you. That reading is true, and it matters enormously, and entire bodies of law and ethics have been built on it.

But there is a second reading that the church has been considerably less enthusiastic about. Because if you bear the image of a God who hears the groaning of the oppressed and moves toward it, who sees the invisible and refuses to look away, who names injustice by its exact price point, who acts through human witnesses when institutional silence has failed—then the imago Dei is not only a statement about your worth. It is a statement about your obligation.

A compass doesn’t tell you who you are. It tells you which way to go. Imago Dei, then, should show how to move toward the image of God.

Subscribe now

A Status and a Commission

Genesis 1:27 has been read primarily as a statement of status, and that reading is not wrong. The dignity it confers is real and non-negotiable. But the God whose image we bear is not static. He is, as we’ve spent five articles documenting, a God in motion: toward the cry, toward the visible suffering, toward the named injustice, toward the act that restores what exploitation has broken.

To bear his image is not simply to possess a dignity. It is to be oriented in a direction. Pointed toward the same things he is pointed toward. True north for the Christian life.

Romans 8:29 adds the layer that makes this uncomfortable: we are being conformed to the image of Christ. Not that we arrived in his image fully formed and are just maintaining it. We are being shaped toward it, pulled toward it, formed into it through the ongoing work of the Spirit. This is a process. And it has content. It means becoming more like the one who heard, saw, named, and moved. The series we’ve been walking through is not just a portrait of God. It is a portrait of what we are being formed into.

The Imitation Paul Actually Meant

When Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11:1, ‘Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ,’ he is not primarily talking about spiritual disciplines or personal morality, though those aren’t excluded. He’s talking about orientation. The direction of a life, the things it turns toward, the suffering it refuses to ignore.

The Christ Paul is imitating is the one who crossed social boundaries to eat with the excluded (Luke 15:1-2). Who stopped on roads for people others walked past (Luke 18:35-43). Who stood between a woman caught in sin and the crowd that had already picked up their stones (John 8:1-11). Who made the Samaritan the hero (Luke 10:25-37). Who turned over tables in the one space where the economically and ethnically marginalized were supposed to be able to worship (Mark 11:15-17).

To imitate this Christ is not to adopt a political ideology. It’s to develop the same attentiveness: to hear what he hears, to see what he refuses to unsee, to name what he named, to move when he moved. The imago Dei is the theological foundation for all of it. You were made to look like someone. And that someone has a very clear and consistent pattern of behavior.

What Transformation Actually Produces

The language of spiritual transformation in the New Testament is consistently oriented outward. We are not being conformed into the image of Christ so that we can have better quiet times, livelier services, or more engaging fellowship, though all those matter. We are being conformed into the image of a God whose character is inseparable from his response to injustice.

This means that a community being genuinely formed in Christ’s image will look, over time, more like a community that hears the cries of the oppressed and is moved by them. More like a community that sees what power makes invisible. More like a community that names exploitation by its actual name. More like a community that acts: not because it has a social justice program, but because it is increasingly inhabited by the Spirit of a God who has never once heard the groaning of the oppressed and turned away.

The imago Dei is not a status that exempts us from this. It is a direction that calls us into it. And a compass, it turns out, doesn’t care how long you’ve been standing still. The moment you look at it, it shows you north. The image of God works the same way. It doesn’t record our failures to move. It just keeps pointing in the direction we’re called to go.

What Does Your Image Look Like?

This is the question Article 5 left us with, rephrased: not what kind of God are you representing, but what does the image you’re bearing actually look like in practice?

Because we can hold an orthodox doctrine of the imago Dei and believe sincerely that every human being carries the image of God and has inherent dignity. While simultaneously crossing the street to avoid the person sleeping in the doorway.

We can affirm that we are being formed into Christ’s likeness while sitting in churches that do not consistently name specific injustices from the pulpit.

We can believe in the compass while never actually looking at it or following its lead.

What would it look like to take the imago Dei seriously as a commission rather than a status? It might look like the attorney who takes on a case no one else will because the person deserves representation regardless of their ability to pay. It might look like the congregation that decides the rezoning fight in a neighboring community is their business because the people affected bear the same image they do. It might look like the individual or family that decides to actually get to know the immigrant or refugee family that moved in nearby—not to welcome them from a comfortable distance, but to walk alongside them through the paperwork, the language barrier, the disorientation of starting over in a place that isn’t always glad they came.

None of those are programs. None require a platform or a megaphone or a theology degree. They require looking at the compass. Recognizing which way it’s pointing. And taking one step in that direction, because you were made in the image of a God who has never once stood still in the face of suffering.

The compass doesn’t grade your previous stillness. It just shows you north.

And the final article in this series asks the hardest question of all: what does God expect from the people who know exactly which way north is?

Next is Part 7, “Know Better. Do Better.”

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Every institution I have ever worked in or around has a version of the same meeting. Something has gone wrong. The people in the room know it. And then, one careful statement at a time, a consensus forms around not quite saying so. Concerns are noted. Complexity is acknowledged. The importance of not getting ahead of the facts is invoked. Someone mentions that there are perspectives on all sides that deserve to be heard.

By the end of the meeting, nothing has been named and nothing has been decided, and the people most affected by what went wrong are still waiting.

I have sat in those meetings as a lawyer, as a volunteer, as a congregant. And I’ve noticed something consistent across all of them: the people doing the careful not-saying always frame it as responsibility. As wisdom. As the mature, measured response to a complicated situation.

The people on the receiving end of it experience something else entirely. They experience abandonment.

This week I want to run a thought experiment, a “what-if” scenario. What if God operated the same way?

Subscribe now

A Thought Experiment with Real Stakes

Imagine, for a moment, that in Exodus God had adopted a posture of careful neutrality. That he had decided the Israelites’ situation in Egypt was complex, with legitimate concerns on multiple sides. That he had chosen not to get involved in what was, after all, a political situation. That naming oppressors and confronting systems was not his place. That his role was spiritual, not social.

Israel stays in Egypt (Exodus). For another generation, and another. The groaning continues. The cry goes up. And nothing comes back down.

Hagar (Genesis 16) collapses at the spring and no one finds her. Naboth (1 Kings 21) is murdered and the king keeps the vineyard. The wages are stolen and the workers (James 5:1-6) have nowhere to turn. The widow (Luke 18:1-8) comes to the unjust judge again and again and is turned away, and there is no parable about a God who hears—because this God does not hear, or if he hears, decides it is not his place to act.

The hungry stay hungry. The stranger stays unwelcome. The prisoner stays forgotten. And the religious assemblies continue, carefully, without disruption.

That is not a description of the God of Scripture. But it is, if we are honest, a description of something. And the resemblance to certain institutional postures we have all witnessed is not coincidental.

The Radical Nature of What We Actually Have

This what-if experiment isn’t frivolous. It’s designed to force a recognition we are in danger of losing: how radical God’s actual responsiveness to injustice really is.

We’ve spent four articles tracing a God who hears the groan underneath the groan, who sees the people the world has rendered invisible, who names exploitation by its exact price point, and who moves—in his own mysterious timing, but without exception—from attentiveness into action. That is not the portrait of a God who is neutral on suffering. That is the portrait of a God for whom the cry of the oppressed is among the most urgent things in the universe.

The contrast with contemporary Christian quietism on racial, social, and economic injustice is stark. When the church issues careful non-statements, when leaders avoid naming what is plainly visible, when congregations treat justice as political controversy rather than theological imperative, they are modeling something. But it is not the God of Scripture. It is the God of the what-if experiment. And the Bible does not recognize that posture as faithfulness.

The Silence Is Not Hypothetical

Here is where the thought experiment stops being a thought experiment.

For millions of people alive right now, the silence this article imagines is not hypothetical. It is their lived experience of the church.

They have cried out—about racial violence, about wage theft, about the treatment of immigrants, about housing, about the criminal justice system—and the response from many quarters of Christianity has been the studied silence of an institution trying not to offend anyone with power, or those who insist on maintaining congregational comfort and order and not become partisan or political.

They have watched churches fill on Sunday mornings and empty out on the question of justice. They have watched religious leaders parse and equivocate while the people Amos described (Amos 2:6)—those sold for a pair of sandals, those whose wages cry out to heaven—wait for someone to stand in the gap.

And many of them have concluded, not unreasonably, that the God those churches represent is the silent one. The neutral one. The one who hears the groaning and decides it is not his place to get involved.

The silent church is a theological crisis. Not primarily for the people who have left. For the church that drove them out with its silence.

What Kind of God Are You Representing?

This is where the what-if experiment becomes personal. Because institutions are made of people. And the studied silence of any church, denomination, or religious body is not an abstraction. It is the accumulated weight of individual decisions made by individual people—including people like us—to say nothing or do nothing, but call it wisdom.

Every time someone in a congregation decides that a sermon on justice would be ‘too political,’ the silent God gets a little more real to the people outside those walls. Every time a church board tables a discussion about racial equity because ‘this isn’t the right moment,’ the waiting gets longer for the people Amos described. Every time a person of faith shares a carefully worded social media post that acknowledges complexity without naming the injustice, the what-if experiment inches closer to actual policy.

I am not exempting myself from this. I have been in those meetings. I have chosen the careful word when a clearer one was available. I have framed my inaction as prudence and my silence as respect for different perspectives. I know what it feels like from the inside, and I know how reasonable it seems at the time.

Sometimes the silence is dressed in more sophisticated clothing. We tell ourselves we can’t respond to every injustice, so we have to choose our battles—which is true, and also sometimes a way of never choosing any. We invoke Jesus’s words that ‘the poor you will always have with you’ as if he were counseling resignation, when the full passage he was quoting from Deuteronomy was a command to open our hands precisely because the need would always be there. We have, as a church, become quite skilled at using Scripture to make peace with the very things Scripture was written to disturb.

But the God this series has been tracing doesn’t reason that way. He hears and moves. He sees and names. He is not careful in the way institutions are careful. He is not neutral in the way leaders who fear controversy are neutral. He is constitutionally, irreversibly, thoroughly on the side of the person crying out.

The question for those of us who carry his name is not whether we agree with that description of God. Most of us do, at least in the abstract. The question is whether the God we represent in our actual decisions—in our silences, our meetings, our carefully worded non-statements—is the same one.

What kind of God are you or your church representing? Not in your theology. In your choices.

The answer to that question sets up everything we’ll look at in the final two articles — what it means to bear his image, and the standard he holds those who know him to.

Nect is Part 6, “A Compass Doesn’t Care How Long You’ve Been Standing Still.”

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Researchers first documented it after a 1964 murder in New York City where dozens of neighbors reportedly heard a woman’s cries and did not call for help. The case became one of the most studied examples of how proximity to suffering does not automatically produce response. Seeing something and doing something, it turns out, are two entirely different decisions.

The God of Scripture, it appears, is immune to the bystander effect—even though his movement is sometimes slower and more mysterious than we’d like.

Subscribe now

He doesn’t look around to see who else might handle it. He doesn’t wait for a more qualified volunteer. He hears, he sees, he names……and then he moves. Not always on our timeline. Not always in the way we’d choose. But always, and without exception, toward the person crying out.

Which, after three articles tracing that pattern, brings us to the question this whole series has been building toward: When God’s people hear, see, and understand the injustice God does, what do they do—do they also move?

Hearing Is Never the End of the Story

There’s a moment in Exodus, Chapter 6 that could easily read as repetition. God has already appeared to Moses. He has already heard the groaning of Israel. He has already sent Moses to Pharaoh. The first trip to Pharaoh went badly. Pharaoh increased the workload, the Israelites blamed Moses for making things worse, and now Moses returns to God, discouraged and empty-handed.

God responds: ‘I have heard the groaning of the Israelites... and I have remembered my covenant. Therefore, say to the Israelites: I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. I will free you from being slaves to them. I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment.’ (Exodus 6:5-6)

Three times in two verses: I will. I will. I will.

Notice the context. Things had gotten worse, not better. The first attempt had backfired. The people were demoralized. And God’s response to all of that was not a revised strategy document or an expression of renewed concern. It was three unqualified declarations of intent. He had heard. He had seen. He had named it. Now he was moving.

The movement from attentiveness to intervention is the full arc of divine response to injustice throughout Scripture. The Exodus is its defining expression, but it is far from the only one.

Action Across the Full Sweep of Scripture

Elijah was sent directly to King Ahab after Naboth was falsely accused and murdered so the king could seize his vineyard. God didn’t comment on the tragedy from a distance or release a statement of concern. He sent his prophet with a pointed, specific message: ‘Have you not murdered a man and seized his property?’ (1 Kings 21:19) The confrontation was public. The accountability was personal. God moved through a human witness.

Jesus, entering the Temple and finding the outer courts—the only space reserved for Gentile worshipers—converted into a commercial marketplace, did not compose a thoughtful letter to the Temple authorities. He turned over tables. He drove out merchants. He quoted Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11 in the same breath, naming both the exclusion of Gentiles and the exploitation of the poor: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations, but you have made it a den of robbers.’ (Mark 11:17)

The ethnic and economic dimensions of the injustice were inseparable in Jesus’s response. He didn’t choose one thread to pull. He named both, publicly, at personal cost, in the place where the religious establishment had the most to lose from the disruption.

God Moves Through Human Witnesses

There’s a thread running through nearly all of these stories that deserves to be named plainly: God doesn’t usually act in a vacuum. He acts through people. Moses. Amos. Jeremiah. Elijah. Jesus calling his disciples over to watch the widow and making it an assignment, not a private observation. The act of divine justice almost always has a human instrument—someone who heard, someone who saw, someone who named it, and then moved.

This is not peripheral to what it means to follow God. It is theologically central to it. The biblical picture is not of a God who acts while his people watch from a comfortable distance. It is of a God whose action flows through communities of people who have let his hearing, his sight, and his willingness to name injustice become their own.

So…..if God typically moves through human witnesses, what happens when those witnesses go still?

That silence has a cost. And it is not paid by the people in the pews.

Do You Move When God Moves?

We’ve spent four articles now tracing a God who hears the groan underneath the groan, who sees the people the world has rendered invisible, who names what he sees with the exactness of a prophet who knows a price point matters, and who moves—every time, without exception—from attentiveness into action. The pattern is as consistent as anything in Scripture.

And we’ve spent four articles quietly sitting with the same question underneath all of it: what does this mean for those of us who carry his name?

Because the bystander effect is not just a social psychology phenomenon. It is a spiritual one. And the church has not been immune to it.

We read about unhoused veterans sleeping in doorways in cities that have plenty of empty office buildings and no shortage of political speeches about supporting the troops, and we feel the irony without feeling the obligation.

We follow the story of a wrongly convicted person finally exonerated after twenty years in prison, share the article, and move on without asking what it says about the system that put them there or offering to assist them in find housing, get a job or otherwise re-integrate into a community.

We learn that suicide rates among rural farmers have quietly reached crisis levels for years—driven by debt, drought, and isolation—and we file it somewhere in the back of our minds labeled ‘complicated’ and leave it there.

None of that is moving in the sense that Exodus 6 describes. Three declarations of intent. An outstretched arm. Mighty acts. Actual change in the situation of actual people who were actually suffering.

I’m not suggesting that every follower of God is called to the same action in the same arena. Moses and Amos and Elijah were each sent somewhere specific, to do something specific, at a particular cost. The question isn’t whether your move looks like theirs. The question is whether you’re making a move at all.

Somewhere between hearing and acting, it’s easy to find a comfortable place to stop. We call it being informed. We call it caring. We call it praying about it. All of those things can be genuine. None of them are the move.

Acting is where it lands. And as we’ll see next, the cost of not acting is higher than we usually let ourselves think.

Next is Part 5, “What if Pharoah’s Best Friend Was A Quiet God?”

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

There is an old story, told in various forms across many cultures, about a village that had a word for everything except the one thing everyone could see. When the river flooded because the upstream landowner had diverted it, they called it ‘difficult weather.’ When children went hungry because the landowner took the harvest before the families could keep their share, they called it ‘a lean season.’ When the elders gathered to discuss the problem, they chose their words so carefully that by the end of the meeting, nothing had been named and nothing had been decided, and everyone went home feeling that something important had happened.

The landowner, of course, slept very well.

Reminds me of the minutes from some church board meetings, or listen to carefully worded statements from religious leaders about situations everyone in the room can plainly see. We have developed, as institutions and as individuals, a remarkable fluency in the language of not-quite-saying-it, or more bluntly, hiding-the-ball.

The prophets did not share this fluency. And neither, it turns out, did God.

Subscribe now

The Precision of the Prophets

A striking characteristic of the prophets is their specificity. God doesn’t speak about injustice in generalities. He doesn’t offer carefully balanced statements acknowledging complexity on all sides. He names things.

Amos, an eighth-century BC shepherd turned prophet, delivered God’s message to the prosperous elites of Israel with the kind of precision that leaves no room for plausible deniability: ‘They sell the innocent for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals. They trample on the heads of the poor as on the dust of the ground.’ (Amos 2:6-7)

A pair of sandals. Not a metaphor. A price point. God named the transaction.

Jeremiah was equally concrete with King Jehoiakim, who had commissioned a palace built on the labor of workers he never paid: ‘Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness, his upper rooms by injustice, making his own people work for nothing, not paying them for their labor.’ (Jeremiah 22:13) God didn’t speak about the king’s general moral direction. He named the specific practice: unpaid labor, personal enrichment at workers’ expense.

James, writing after the resurrection, has not moderated the language at all: ‘The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty.’ (James 5:4) Wage theft. God named it in the New Testament, in the same direct terms the prophets used centuries before. Apparently the intervening years did nothing to soften God’s position.

When Religious Language Becomes a Shield

Against this backdrop, Amos delivers one of the most striking passages in all of prophetic literature. God, speaking directly, tells Israel that their religious gatherings have become intolerable: ‘I hate, I despise your religious festivals; your assemblies are a stench to me... Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps.’ (Amos 5:21, 23)

Then, in the same breath: ‘But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream.’ (Amos 5:24)

That’s not God saying he prefers justice to worship. That’s God saying that worship offered by people who refuse to name and oppose injustice is not worship at all. It’s noise. The religious activity had become a way of maintaining the appearance of faithfulness while insulating the powerful from accountability.

Sound familiar? I’m not throwing stones here. I’m looking in the same window I’m asking you to look in. But the window is worth looking through.

The Theological Act of Naming

What emerges from all of this is a claim the church has largely avoided making out loud: naming injustice is a theological act. Not a political act dressed in religious clothing. Not an overreach by activists who have confused their agenda with the gospel. A form of faithfulness to a God who has been naming injustice since Genesis 4, when he told Cain plainly: ‘Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.’

The God of Scripture doesn’t use euphemisms. He doesn’t describe wage theft as ‘compensation challenges.’ He doesn’t describe the exploitation of the poor as ‘systemic complexity.’ He doesn’t balance his concern for the oppressed with equal concern for the reputation of the oppressor. He names what is happening, names who is responsible, and names what he requires.

There is a form of silence that wears the costume of wisdom. It goes by names like balance, nuance, and staying in your lane. It produces statements that carefully acknowledge suffering on all sides while naming nothing, committing to nothing, and leaving the status quo completely undisturbed. The village elders would have approved.

The God of Scripture does not model this. His prophets did not model this. Jesus did not model this.

Do You Name What God Names?

We’ve now spent three articles tracing a God who hears the groan underneath the groan, who sees the people the world has rendered invisible, and who names what he sees with an exactness that leaves no one wondering what he meant. The pattern is clear. The question, as always, is what it means for those of us who carry his name.

We have our own version of the village’s careful language, and it shows up in places we don’t always notice.

It shows up when a political leader uses language that dehumanizes an entire ethnic group and we describe it as ‘divisive rhetoric’ rather than what Amos would have called it. It shows up when a church quietly reassigns a minister credibly accused of abuse and we call it ‘ministry transition.’ It shows up when a policy strips nutrition assistance from hundreds of thousands of children and the most our institutions can manage is a statement expressing ‘deep concern’ or a request for a simple canned food donation to the food pantry.

It shows up, closer to home, when someone at work is being treated unfairly and we tell ourselves we don’t have enough information to say anything. When a neighbor is being pushed out of their housing and we frame it to ourselves as ‘complicated.’ When we watch something happen in our own congregation that we know isn’t right, and we dismiss it since ‘nobody’s perfect or we choose the word ‘unfortunate’ because it lets us acknowledge the thing without obligating us to do anything about it.

Naming things costs something. It risks relationships, comfort, and the social goodwill we’ve built up by being the kind of person who doesn’t rock the boat. The prophets knew this. Amos wasn’t from the professional class. He was a shepherd. He had nothing to lose by keeping his mouth shut, and everything to lose by opening it. He opened it anyway, because the God he served had already named the thing and expected his people to do the same.

The question isn’t whether we have the right words. We do. The question is whether we’re willing to use them.

Naming is where it gets specific. But as we’ll see next, it is never where God stops.

Next is Part 4, “God Didn’t Issue a Statement. He Moved.”

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

A young woman two rows ahead of me was struggling to keep her composure. I could see it in her shoulders, the way she kept straightening in her seat, smoothing her papers, checking the door. At one point a clerk walked briskly past the gallery and the woman half-rose, hand lifted slightly, about to say something. The clerk didn’t slow down. Didn’t glance over. The woman sat back down and looked at her hands.

Nobody in that room saw that moment except me. And I have to be honest: I almost didn’t either. I was reviewing my own notes. I caught it in my peripheral vision and then almost let it go, the way you let go of most things that don’t require anything of you.

The God of Scripture would have seen it. He always does.

Subscribe now

The Name She Gave Him

Hagar didn’t arrive at her theology in a classroom. She came to a spring in the wilderness, alone, pregnant, a foreign slave woman who had been used and then cast out. She was not someone the ancient world considered worth seeing.

And yet the text records something remarkable. She gave God a name no one had used before: El Roi, the God who sees me. (Genesis 16:13)

She didn’t say the God who redeemed me, or delivered me, or sent armies on my behalf. She said: the God who sees me. As if being seen, fully, without flinching, without the instinct to look away, was itself a form of grace. As if invisibility had been the wound, and being witnessed was the beginning of healing.

The Pattern of Divine Sight

Hagar’s story isn’t the exception. It’s the introduction to a pattern that runs through the entire Bible.

Isaiah 59 describes a society where courts are corrupted, the innocent can’t find justice, and truth has been suppressed. Then God’s response: ‘The Lord looked and was displeased that there was no justice. He saw that there was no one... and he was appalled that there was no one to intervene.’ (Isaiah 59:15-16)

Appalled is not mild disappointment. It’s the word of a witness shaken by what he cannot stop looking at. And what appalled him was not only the injustice itself, but that no one was doing anything about it. God scanned the room, and found no one paying attention.

Then there’s Jesus in the Temple courts, watching. A poor widow drops two small coins into the treasury. Jesus saw her, called his disciples over, and made them look. ‘Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others.’ (Mark 12:43) He made them see what the religious system had trained them to overlook. Seeing, for Jesus, was never a private act. It was an assignment he handed to others.

Seeing as an Act of Justice

There’s a theological claim embedded in these stories that doesn’t get said often enough: to be seen by God is to be dignified by God. The widow matters not because the institution acknowledged her, but because God turned his full attention on her. Hagar is not a footnote because God witnessed her. The young woman in that courtroom gallery is not invisible because she exists in the sight of a God who notices half-risen hands.

Divine sight is not neutral observation. It is a form of advocacy. To be truly seen, without minimization and without the instinct to change the subject, is to have your humanity affirmed. It is no accident that the most isolated and discarded people in these stories are the ones God sees most clearly. That’s not a coincidence. That’s a character trait of God’s.

Do You See What God Sees?

Last week’s article was about hearing. This one is about seeing. And the uncomfortable truth is that they fail the same way.

If we can engineer ways to help without truly hearing anyone, we can also learn to look without really seeing. We can become skilled at the courtroom-clerk version of presence: physically in the room, functionally somewhere else.

We drive through struggling neighborhoods on the way to somewhere else and call it awareness. We scroll past photographs of suffering in distant places like Israel, Gaza, Iran and the Ukraine, and call our reactive pause empathy. We call ourselves a loving church but decline to mobilize to advocate for the parts of our local community afflicted by racial tension, police brutality, or food insecurity. We sit in the same congregation as someone whose life is quietly falling apart and call the weekly social hug community.

And then there are the larger things. The ones that are harder to look at because looking might require something of us.

We watch political leaders describe entire groups of immigrants with language that strips them of individuality and dignity—calling them “garbage” or “leeches” or “stupid” or “animals”—language that sounds uncomfortably close to what the prophets described as the dehumanization that always precedes oppression.

We see the statistics on how differently the justice system treats Black and brown youth compared to their white peers, in stops, in charges, in sentencing. We read about children losing access to food assistance or health coverage because of policy changes debated in legislative chambers where none of those children have a seat or a voice.

The God of Scripture sees every one of those faces. Every one of those children. Every person whose humanity is being argued about in a room they were never invited into.

Why We Look Away

It’s worth being honest about why seeing is so hard. It usually isn’t cruelty. It’s something more ordinary, which is also what makes it more persistent.

Some of it is comfort. If we really see the family separated at the border, or the teenager stopped by police for the third time this year for doing nothing wrong, or the elderly woman choosing between medication and groceries, we become obligated in some way. Seeing creates responsibility. Not seeing is a remarkably effective way to stay unburdened.

Some of it is distance. The suffering is real but it’s over there, in that neighborhood, in that country, in that community. It doesn’t touch our daily life directly, which makes it easy to register as background rather than foreground.

Some of it is delegation. That’s what churches are for. That’s what charities handle. That’s what government programs exist to address. We’ve built institutions precisely so that individuals don’t have to carry the weight of every visible need. Although true, it is also sometimes a very sophisticated way of not seeing.

And some of it, if we’re being fully honest, is that the seeing is overwhelming. The need is so large, and we are so small, and looking directly at all of it feels like standing at the edge of something with no bottom. So we don’t look. We manage our exposure. We curate what we allow in.

The Isaiah 59 image is of God scanning the earth for someone willing to look, really look, at what was happening. And finding no one. The text says God was appalled. Not because the injustice surprised him, but because his people, the ones carrying his name, had learned to look the other way.

Seeing is where it deepens. But as we’ll see next, it is never where God stops.

Next is Part 3, “What Amos Would Say If He Had a Substack”

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

I do pro bono work at a legal aid clinic a few times a year. It’s crowded, understaffed, and the people who come through the door are usually carrying something heavy: an eviction notice, a custody dispute, a wage claim against an employer who knows they can’t afford a lawyer. They wait a long time for their turn, and when it finally comes, they have maybe twenty minutes.

I watched a woman there once, probably mid-forties, holding a folder of papers she’d clearly organized carefully, try to explain her situation to an intake worker who was already typing before she finished her second sentence. The woman slowed down, as if she thought maybe she was going too fast. She wasn’t. The worker just needed the facts that fit the form. Everything else, the part that explained why this was happening, what she’d already tried, how long she’d been living with this, was not going into any box.

At some point the woman stopped talking mid-sentence. Just stopped. She looked down at her folder, then back up, and said, ‘I just need someone to understand what’s actually going on.’

The intake worker smiled, not unkindly, and said, ‘Let’s get your information down first and go from there.’

I’ve thought about that moment more than she probably knows. Because if that’s what it feels like to go unheard by another person, to have your actual situation reduced to what fits in a form, what must it feel like to go unheard by God? The good news, and I mean this in the most literal sense, is that the Bible has a pretty clear answer. And it starts in Exodus 2.

Subscribe now

Before the Act, the Listening

There’s a moment in Exodus 2 that’s easy to read past. The Israelites have been in bondage for generations. The text tells us they groaned. They cried out. And then, in four short verses, the camera pulls back to show us what was happening on the other side of that cry.

“God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. God saw the Israelites and was concerned about them.” (Exodus 2:24-25)

It doesn’t say God decided to check on them. It says he heard. The cry was already in the air. And what God heard wasn’t just the pain of individuals. It was the accumulated groan of an entire people crushed under a system designed to keep them there. Hearing that, in the Bible, was never passive. It was the opening move of the most defining act of liberation in all of Scripture. Before the burning bush, before Moses, before the plagues, there was hearing. Everything else followed from that.

A God Whose Ears Are Open

This is not a one-off moment. It’s a pattern that runs from Genesis to Revelation, and once you see it, it’s hard to miss.

When Hagar, a foreign slave woman, pregnant and driven into the wilderness, collapsed near a spring, it wasn’t a priest who found her. The angel of the Lord found her and said: ‘I have heard your affliction.’ (Genesis 16:11) She responded by giving God a name no one had used before: El Roi, the God who sees. But notice what came first. He heard.

The Psalmist puts it without softening: ‘Because of the devastation of the afflicted, because of the groaning of the needy, now I will arise, says the Lord.’ (Psalm 12:5) The groaning produces movement. The cry triggers a response.

And centuries later, in the book of James, the language hasn’t cooled at all: ‘The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty.’ (James 5:4) The full military title, Lord of Hosts, attached to the image of God leaning in to hear exploited day laborers. That’s not a small detail. That’s a portrait of a God who is constitutionally incapable of tuning it out.

What the Hearing Means

There’s a theological weight here worth naming plainly. God doesn’t hear the cries of the oppressed as background noise. He doesn’t file them as complaints to be assessed for legitimacy before deciding whether to respond. He hears them the way a parent hears a child cry out in the dark: with immediate orientation, full attention, and movement toward.

Unhearing is simply not a posture available to him. The intake worker at the legal aid clinic could close her laptop and go home. The form could be filed and the case moved along without anyone ever understanding what was actually going on. God doesn’t work that way. He doesn’t want to.

Do You Hear What God Hears?

So here’s the part that’s harder to sit with.

If this is who God is, if his defining characteristic toward the suffering and the marginalized is that he hears them, really hears them, before he does anything else, then what does that mean for those of us who claim to follow him?

Because most of us have quietly mastered the intake-window version of responding to need. We’ve figured out how to help in ways that don’t require us to actually hear anyone. And we’ve gotten very good at calling that faithfulness.

We toss a few dollars to the man sitting outside the grocery store and keep walking. Generous enough to ease the conscience, quick enough to avoid a conversation. We don’t know his name. We don’t know how long he’s been out there or what put him there. The transaction is complete. We heard enough to know he needed something. We didn’t hear him.

We drop bags of canned goods at the food pantry, which is genuinely good and genuinely needed, but we leave them at the door because actually going inside means sitting across from people and hearing things that will cost us more than soup cans. The food is real help. But it’s also insulation. It lets us care at a distance close enough to feel virtuous and far enough to stay comfortable.

Or consider the family in the congregation going through a crisis: job loss, a sick child, a marriage falling apart. We bring a meal. We send a text. We tell them we’re praying. All of it is kind. None of it requires us to sit with them in the hard part long enough to actually understand what they’re carrying. Hearing that would change us, and changing is inconvenient.

This is not a condemnation. It’s a description, and I include myself in it without hesitation. We are all, to some degree, walking around with our own intake forms: the version of someone else’s need that we’re willing to process, and the line beyond which we’d rather not go.

But the God of Scripture doesn’t carry an intake form. He hears the whole thing. The backstory. The part the woman in that clinic folder had organized carefully and nobody asked about. The groan underneath the groan. And his hearing always has a next move.

The question isn’t whether we can match that perfectly. We can’t. The question is whether we’re willing to put down the form long enough to actually hear someone and let what we hear do something to us.

Hearing is where it starts. But as we’ll see, it is never where God stops.

Next is Part 2, “Invisible. Except to God.”

Share

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

The Bible is not subtle about who God pays attention to.

It names them. Over and over. In the Law, in the Psalms, in the Prophets, in the words of Jesus. The prisoner. The widow. The orphan. The stranger in a foreign land. The person the surrounding system was most likely to exploit and least likely to protect.

That pattern is not accidental, and it is not a minor theme. It is close to the center of what Scripture says about who God is and what faithful living looks like. The three articles in this series took that pattern seriously, one overlooked group at a time.

Subscribe now

The Series

Part 1: Prison Ministry Wasn’t the Point

Jesus said, “I was in prison and you visited me.” We turned that into a ministry category. He meant it as a gut-check. The prison population of his day was full of debtors, dissidents, and the politically inconvenient. People ground up by a system that called itself legal. The question he was asking wasn’t whether you support prison reform. It was simpler and harder: are you willing to show up for the people the system has already written off? Read Part 1 →

Part 2: Unrepresented

“Widows and orphans” wasn’t a demographic category. It was a diagnostic. It named everyone who lacked a human advocate in a world where your advocate was everything. The legal standing, the voice in court, the person who showed up. The Bible returns to this pairing more than almost any other because the need for someone to simply be in your corner hasn’t changed. It’s just wearing different clothes. Read Part 2 →

Part 3: Not a Policy. A Person.

The Hebrew word ger appears over 90 times in the Old Testament. It refers to someone living outside their homeland, without the family ties, the land, or the legal standing that protected everyone else. God built the care of that person into the architecture of society. Not as a virtue for generous people. As a binding communal obligation. And when Jesus said “I was a stranger and you invited me in,” he wasn’t speaking metaphorically. Read Part 3 →

—— ✶ ——

The same people keep appearing: the prisoner, the widow, the orphan, the stranger. Not because the biblical writers ran out of ideas. Because God keeps returning to the same diagnostic; that is, who has no voice, and what are we doing about it?

The Thread Running Through All Three

Each article in this series started with a different group of people. Each arrived at the same place.

The people God consistently names are not random. They are, in every case, the people the surrounding system was most likely to exploit and least likely to protect. People without advocates. Without leverage. Without anyone required to show up.

And God’s response to that, across the full sweep of Scripture, is not a suggestion to be generous. It is a structural insistence. A recurring command. A pattern so consistent that at some point the repetition itself becomes the argument.

Micah asked what God requires. This series was three extended answers to that question. Not the only answers, but three that Scripture keeps returning to. Three kinds of people who are waiting to see whether faith has enough legs to actually show up.

—— ✶ ——

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

It’s the oldest question in the book , literally. Job asked it. The psalmists asked it. Jeremiah asked it from inside the ruins of Jerusalem. And if you’re paying attention to your own life, or to the news, or to a community suffering around you, chances are you’ve asked it too. Maybe more urgently in this moment than in a long time.

Most of us don’t ask it out loud. We manage it. We scroll past the thing that breaks our heart, or we pray a prayer that feels like it bounces off the ceiling, or we go quiet in a way that looks like peace but is actually something closer to resignation. And underneath all of it is the question we’re not quite asking: is anyone up there paying attention?

Subscribe now

The Israelites knew that feeling across four hundred years of slavery in Egypt. Where, exactly, was the great and mighty God of Abraham in those four centuries of brick-making and brutality?

The prophet Jeremiah knew it, writing his laments from the ruins of Jerusalem.

The early disciples knew it on the night Jesus was arrested, scattering in every direction. And then they knew it again, with terrifying finality, on the day they watched him die.

End of story. Obviously.

Except that it wasn’t. And that’s not just a punchline about Easter Sunday. It’s something more specific and more useful, something embedded in one of the oldest confessions in the Christian tradition. But we’ll get to that. First, three things worth understanding about what divine silence actually is, and isn’t.

Silence Is Not the Same as Absence

When the Israelites finally left Egypt after four centuries of bondage, they did not enter a comfortable journey. They entered a wilderness. And God led them through it not with advance explanations but with a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. Visible, present, immediate. They were not abandoned. They were being led somewhere, but to them it looked like nowhere. And no explanation.

Much later, the prophet Elijah collapsed in the desert after his greatest victory and begged God to let him die. God’s response was not a sermon or a strategy session. An angel appeared with bread and water. “Get up and eat,” the angel said, “for the journey is too much for you.” (1 Kings 19:7) Not an explanation. A meal. God showed up in the most ordinary, human, quietly attentive way imaginable, and met Elijah exactly where he was. And still no explanation.

Psalm 22, the psalm Jesus would quote from the cross, opens with one of the most anguished cries in all of Scripture: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me?” (Psalm 22:1) That is not a polite prayer. It is a person in genuine anguish, crying out into what feels like an empty sky. And yet the same psalm lands, two dozen verses later, here: “For he has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.” (Psalm 22:24) The feeling of abandonment was real. But the abandonment itself was not.

Silence, in the biblical imagination, is not absence. God is not always loud. God does not always show up the way we’d prefer, on the schedule we’d prefer, with the explanation we feel we’re owed. But God does not leave.

Silence is not the same as absence. God is not always loud. But God does not leave.

Absence Is Not the Same as Inactivity

The book of Esther is one of the strangest books in the Bible for a very specific reason: God is never mentioned. Not once. No prayer, no miracle, no divine voice. And yet the entire story turns on a sequence of events so improbably timed that the rabbis concluded one thing. God’s fingerprints are all over the story. His name is simply nowhere in it.

Joseph’s story in Genesis makes the same argument across a longer arc. Sold into slavery by his own brothers, falsely accused, imprisoned for years, forgotten. If Joseph prayed during those years, we don’t see the prayers answered in any visible or felt way. No miracle arrives. The silence stretches. And then, when the story finally bends, Joseph’s own theological summary is quietly stunning: “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good.” (Genesis 50:20) Looking backward, he could see the thread running through what had felt, in each moment, like chaos and catastrophe. God’s activity had been invisible. But God had not been absent.

The same pattern runs through the divided kingdom (1 Kings 12), through the Babylonian exile (2 Kings 25; Lamentations 1–5), through every season when Israel found itself scattered, diminished, or defeated. The prophets kept insisting, into what must have seemed like obvious evidence to the contrary, that God had not stopped working. That the worst moments in the nation’s story were not proof of divine abandonment but of divine patience, and often of divine discipline that was itself a form of faithfulness.

Here is what I keep taking from all of this: invisible does not mean inactive. The seasons that feel most abandoned are not, historically, the seasons where God has stopped working. Sometimes, uncomfortably, they are the seasons where God is working most deeply. Most patiently. Most invisibly. And most often, if we’re honest, that work is being done in us rather than for us. It is in the seasons when we cannot rely on our own performance, our own comfort, our own sense that things are going well, that we are most likely to learn what actual reliance on God looks like. The dark times have a way of producing what the good times never quite manage.

Lament Is Not the Same as Abandonment

The Psalms contain 42 lament psalms. More than any other type. The most repeated genre in Israel’s prayer book is not praise or thanksgiving. It is honest, anguished, sometimes furious complaint directed straight at God. Lament, it turns out, is what honest faith does in the dark. And the biblical tradition doesn’t flinch from that. These prayers were not edited out of Scripture. They were preserved, canonized, and handed to every generation as the legitimate language of faith in hard times.

The lament in Psalm 88 ends without resolution. No turn toward hope. No “but I will trust.” The final line is actually: “darkness is my closest friend.” And someone decided that prayer belonged in Scripture. Which means the tradition is telling us something important: this is what honest faith can sound like, and it is not a failure or evidence of God having abandoned.

Job spends thirty-seven chapters arguing with God, accusing God, demanding an answer from God. When God finally speaks, the rebuke is not for Job. It is for Job’s friends, who had been defending God with tidy theological explanations. “You have not spoken the truth about me,” God tells them, “as my servant Job has.” (Job 42:7) The man who yelled at God was vindicated. The men who had managed their theology politely were not.

Lament is not the sound of faith breaking. It is often the sound of faith insisting. It says: I still believe you’re there. I am not walking away. I am bringing this to you precisely because I believe the relationship can hold the weight of my honesty. That is not abandonment. That is intimacy. And it is, perhaps, exactly what Jesus had in mind when he said: “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28) The invitation was never to tidy yourself up first. It was to come as you are, darkness and all.

Lament is not the sound of faith breaking. It is often the sound of faith insisting.

The Day It Was Obviously Over

Which brings us to the one moment in history that puts all three of these claims to their ultimate test.

The disciples scattered when Jesus was arrested. That much is clear from all four Gospels. The movement they had given up everything to join was over. Then came the trial, the verdict, the cross. And then the burial. Stone rolled into place. Guards posted. End of story.

Holy Saturday—the day between the cross and the resurrection—is the day no one preaches on. Good Friday is dramatic. Easter Sunday is triumphant. But Saturday is just… nothing. The disciples sat in grief and confusion, certain the story was finished, trying to figure out what to do with the ruins of everything they’d believed.

There is an ancient clause tucked into the Apostles’ Creed that most of us rush past without thinking about it: “He descended into hell”—or in some translations, “He descended to the dead.” Jason Porterfield, in his book Fight Like Jesus, draws on this line to make a point worth sitting with. Holy Saturday, he argues, was not simply a pause between the tragedy and the triumph. Even in death, even in the place that seemed most completely beyond God’s reach, Jesus was not idle.

Think about what that means. The stone was in place. The guards were posted. And according to one of Christianity’s oldest confessions, Jesus was still at work—present even there, extending the same mission into the one place that seemed most completely beyond its reach. The tomb wasn’t the end of the story. It was the furthest point of it.

That is either the most audacious claim in all of theology, or it is the key that unlocks everything else. If God was actively at work on the day the story was most obviously over, then the pattern holds in every direction. Four hundred years of Egyptian slavery. The divided kingdom. The exile. The arrest. The burial. Every moment that looked, from the inside, like God had finally given up.

None of those moments were the end of the story. They were the part of the story that hadn’t turned yet.

I don’t know what your Saturday looks like. Maybe it’s a diagnosis that arrived without warning. Maybe it’s a marriage coming apart at the seams. Maybe it’s watching your community targeted, your neighbors treated as less than human, the vulnerable stripped of protections they were promised—and wondering how a just God could be silent through any of it. These are not small questions. They are not faithless ones. They are the sound of people who still believe enough to be furious.

Here is what the whole sweep of Scripture keeps insisting, from Egypt to Esther to Easter: the silence is not the verdict. The invisible is not the inactive. The ache you feel when you call out and hear nothing back is not evidence that no one is listening. It may simply mean you are in the part of the story that hasn’t turned yet. That you just don’t see what God is doing.

And the dark seasons, as uncomfortable as it is to say this, are often the ones that do the deepest work. Not the work we asked for. The work that teaches us to stop relying on our own performance and start actually relying on God. That distinction matters more than most of us want to admit.

Keep showing up. Keep being honest. Keep lamenting, if that’s where you are. The door you’re knocking on is the right one, even when it seems to stay shut.

Saturday might indeed be a very long day, but it is not the last word.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Not metaphorically. Not as rhetorical flourish. The first three verses describe God sweeping away humans, animals, birds, and fish. It sounds like creation being unwound—Genesis in reverse. What God made in six days, he threatens to unmake entirely. It is, by any measure, a terrifying opening.

The book only gets harder from there. Corrupt judges. Bribed priests. Leaders described as roaring lions and evening wolves. An entire society that had mastered the art of religious performance while grinding the poor into dust underneath it. Zephaniah was writing into seventh-century BC Jerusalem, a city flush with wealth built on exploitation, temples full on Sabbath; courts rigged the other six days of the week. A city that had learned to say all the right things while doing all the wrong ones.

Sound familiar? Sure it does. That’s why the prophets keep getting read.

And then, at the very end of this ferocious, unsparing book, Zephaniah says:

“The Lord your God is with you, the Mighty Warrior who saves. He will take great delight in you; in his love he will no longer rebuke you, but will rejoice over you with singing.” (Zephaniah 3:17, NIV)

God. Singing.

Imagine that.

Subscribe now

—— ✶ ——

The Song Has Been Going Longer Than You Think

Before we get to what God is singing, and who he’s singing over, it’s worth stepping back to ask a prior question: where did the singing start?

The answer is the beginning.

In Job 38, God speaks from the whirlwind and asks Job a series of questions designed to reorient his understanding of reality. One of them stands out:

“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation… while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4, 7, NIV)

Creation was accompanied by song. Not silence. Not a divine memo. Song. The cosmos was inaugurated in music, and the music has apparently never fully stopped. There was singing before there were humans to hear it. There was praise before there was anyone to organize a worship service.

So, if singing is woven into the fabric of creation itself, what does it mean that God joins in?

—— ✶ ——

Before the Song, the Silence It Breaks

Back to Zephaniah. To feel the full weight of verse 17, you have to understand who it’s for and who it isn’t for.

This was not a general announcement broadcast to everyone in Jerusalem equally. Just before the singing verse, God identifies precisely who receives the song. He describes in verse 12 leaving behind “a meek and humble” people, described with the Hebrew word “ani.” The afflicted. The poor. The ones bent under the weight of circumstances they didn’t create and couldn’t escape. The meek, as Jesus would later call them in the Beatitudes. The ones who kept faith while the powerful kept score.

The proud? Gone. The corrupt officials and their religious cover? Swept away. The people who built fortunes on someone else’s suffering? This song is not for them.

God sings over the remnant. Over the left-behind. Over the people the system had already decided didn’t matter much.

That is not incidental. That is the entire theological point.

Every major prophet carries some version of this same stubborn conviction: God’s deepest orientation runs toward the people the powerful overlook. Micah says it. Amos says it. Isaiah says it. And here, at the end of one of the darkest books in the Bible, Zephaniah says it with a song. God’s justice and God’s joy are not two separate things. They land in the same place, over the same people, at the same time.

What Kind of Song Is This?

The Hebrew word behind “singing” in verse 17 is rinah. It appears throughout the Old Testament in contexts of harvest celebration, military victory, and worship that can no longer stay contained. This is not a lullaby. It is not ambient background music piped into a waiting room. Rinah is the kind of singing that happens when something so good has occurred that quiet is simply no longer an option.

God isn’t offering polite applause for the people who survived. He is erupting in harvest-joy over them. The same joy a farmer feels watching a field come in after a long drought. The same sound a crowd makes when the underdog wins.

And consider what that means in context. These are the ani—the poor, the afflicted, the ones the powerful spent generations ignoring. They are the occasion of God’s overflowing, can’t-keep-it-in celebration. Not despite what they’ve been through. But because of whose they are.

If that doesn’t reorient your theology a little, read it again.

—— ✶ ——

The Song That Wouldn’t Stop

The creation song in Job. God’s rinah over the broken remnant in Zephaniah. And then, centuries later, one more moment of divine singing. Quieter than the others, almost easy to miss, and perhaps the most tender of the three.

The Last Supper is ending. Jesus has just told his disciples that one of them will betray him, that Peter will deny him, that all of them will fall away before morning. He has broken bread and called it his body. He has poured wine and called it his blood. Everything he is about to walk through is already in full view. And then:

“When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.” (Matthew 26:30, NIV)

They sang. Jesus sang. Hours before Gethsemane. Hours before the arrest. Hours before the cross.

The hymn was likely from the Hallel (Psalms 113 through 118), sung by Jewish families at Passover for centuries. Psalms of trust and deliverance and steadfast love. As the head of the table, Jesus would have led the singing, the disciples responding in the ancient call-and-response pattern. He sang the promises of God over his disciples while walking directly into the most devastating night of his life.

There is also a verse in Hebrews 2:12 where the writer applies Psalm 22 to Jesus: “I will declare your name to my brothers and sisters; in the assembly I will sing your praises.” The Messiah is not just the subject of worship. He is a worshiper. He sings alongside us, not only over us. He is in the congregation, voice raised with everyone else’s.

Singing at the edge of the worst night imaginable. Singing alongside broken, frightened people who are about to scatter. If Zephaniah shows us a God who sings over the left-behind, Matthew shows us a God who sings with the left-behind, even when, and especially when, everything is about to fall apart.

—— ✶ ——

So What Does Any of This Mean for You?

Here is the personal question: if God’s song is specifically, stubbornly, consistently directed toward the broken, the humble, the overlooked, what does that do to you?

Two things, at least. It reorients you in one of two directions: comfort if you’ve been left-behind, and confrontation if you’ve been comfortable.

First, if you have ever felt like a left-behind, passed over, pushed to the margins by systems or people or just the relentless arithmetic of a world that rewards the loud and the powerful, then this verse is for you in a way that is not metaphorical. You are not the background of someone else’s story. You are the one God is singing over. With rinah. With harvest-joy. With the kind of delight that simply cannot stay quiet.

Second, if you are honest about the times you have been on the other side of that equation, when you had the power or the platform or simply the comfort of not being the one bearing the cost, then this verse is a mirror. God’s face is turned toward the ani. The question is whether yours is as well.

Justice, in the light of Zephaniah 3:17, is not merely a moral obligation to do right by people. It is an act of orientation. God is already leaning toward the meek. The question is whether we are leaning with him, or leaning the other direction and hoping he doesn’t notice.

Also, there is something in the image of Jesus singing at the Last Supper that speaks directly to the moments when faithful presence feels impossible. When the situation is bleak, the people around you are frightened, and there is no good outcome clearly in view. He sang anyway. Not as denial. Not as performance. As an act of trust so deep it came out as music.

That’s worth something on the hard days.

—— ✶ ——

The Song Hasn’t Ended

The stars sang at the beginning. God erupted in harvest-joy over the broken remnant in the middle of history. Jesus lifted his voice in the upper room hours before the cross.

The same thread runs through all of it. God has never been silent when it mattered most. And the people he sings over, sings alongside, sings into—they are never the ones with the most power in the room. They are the ones the room forgot.

That is not a peripheral theme in Scripture. It is close to the center of it.

Zephaniah leaves us with one question that hasn’t expired in twenty-seven centuries. The song is still going. The invitation is still open.

Are you listening? And are you singing back?

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

In 1939, a ship called the MS St. Louis left Hamburg carrying 937 Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution. They had applied for visas. They had paperwork. Many had waited years. The United States turned them away. Cuba turned them away. Canada turned them away. The ship was forced to return to Europe. Of the 937 passengers, roughly 254 were eventually killed in the Holocaust.

Now jump to January 20, 2025. On his first day back in office, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Securing Our Borders,” which effectively halted legal asylum pathways that had been available for decades. Hundreds of thousands of migrants who had been waiting at the southern border for scheduled asylum appointments found those appointments cancelled overnight. They weren’t trying to sneak in. They had applied through official channels. They were waiting their turn. Then the rules were abruptly changed, leaving them with no practical recourse.

Two moments. Eighty-six years apart. The details differ. The outcome is the same: people who did what they were supposed to do, presenting themselves through legal or official channels, were turned away anyway. In one case, hundreds died as a result. In the other, we don’t yet know what happens to those hundreds of thousands of migrants.

This is the third piece in a series about people the Bible groups together as the particular objects of God’s concern. We started with prisoners, those ground up by a system that called itself legal. Then widows and orphans, those with no advocate, no voice, no one required to show up. Each group has surprised some readers. This one, I suspect, will be the most contested.

Because this one is about the immigrant. The foreigner. The person the Bible calls “the stranger.”

And if you’ve read the first two articles, you already know the pattern. The people God keeps naming are not random. They are, in every case, the people the surrounding system was most likely to exploit and least likely to protect. The immigrant and the foreigner fit that description so precisely that the Hebrew Bible addresses them more than almost any other group.

― ✶ ―

The Hebrew Word That Changes Everything

The last article introduced the ger, the resident foreigner, as one of the groups the Book of Deuteronomy pairs with the widow and orphan. It deserves more than a passing mention because the biblical treatment of the ger is one of the most extensive, most repeated, and most demanding sections of the entire Law of Moses.

The word ger (גֵּר) appears over 90 times in the Old Testament. It refers to a person living outside their homeland, without the family networks, land ownership, or legal standing that native Israelites enjoyed. They had no inherited property. No clan to advocate for them in a dispute. They were, by the structural logic of the ancient world, the people you could most easily take advantage of, and the people least likely to have any recourse if you did.

Which is why the Law built an entire safety net around them. It gave the ger the right to glean from the edges of harvested fields (Leviticus 19:9-10). Every three years, a communal tithe was collected and distributed to “the Levite, the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow” (Deuteronomy 14:28-29). Employers were prohibited from withholding their wages (Deuteronomy 24:14-15). The ger rested on the Sabbath. They had standing in court. Under the law, the same legal standard applied to the ger as to native Israelites.

This wasn’t charity. It was architecture. God built the care of the stranger into the structure of society, not as a virtue for generous people, but as a binding communal obligation.

When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born.

Leviticus 19:33-34

The reason God gives for that command is important. Not because it’s the generous thing to do. Not because they deserve it. The reason is “for you were foreigners in Egypt” (Leviticus 19:34). You know this feeling. You lived it. Don’t forget what it’s like to be at the mercy of people who could treat you any way they chose and were never required to explain themselves.

― ✶ ―

A Theological Debate Worth Knowing

At this point I want to do what I’ve tried to do throughout this series; that is, be honest about where thoughtful people disagree.

Some serious biblical scholars, most prominently Professor James Hoffmeier of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, argue that the Old Testament’s protective commands applied specifically to foreigners who had obtained legal permission to reside in Israel. Those who came through proper channels, so to speak. In his reading, the distinction between the ger (resident alien, protected) and the nekhar or zar (foreigner, fewer protections) maps roughly onto the modern distinction between legal and undocumented immigrants. The protective laws, he argues, apply to the former, not necessarily the latter.

It’s a serious argument. Here’s why I don’t find it finally persuasive.

First, the ancient world had nothing resembling a modern visa or passport system. Applying those categories backward onto the ancient Near East imports a bureaucratic framework that simply didn’t exist. The ger wasn’t someone who filed paperwork. They were someone who showed up, put down roots, became known, and came to be recognized as a resident. Their status was relational and communal, not documentary.

Second, scholars at Bible Odyssey, the academic biblical studies resource, note that the biblical category of stranger “includes those we would call immigrants, refugees, exiles, displaced persons, undocumented aliens, and temporary residents.” Not a subset of those. The whole range. Their reasoning: the text itself never restricts its concern to people who arrived by a particular process. What unites everyone that the word ger describes is not how they got there, but what their situation is once they are there. They are outside their homeland. They lack the family ties, land, and legal standing that protect everyone else. The laws responding to that situation are responding to a condition, not a credential. When the text says “do not mistreat the foreigner,” it identifies who qualifies by where they stand, not by what paperwork preceded their arrival.

Third, and most importantly: when Scripture explains why the ger deserves protection, it never appeals to their documentation. It appeals to their vulnerability. Their landlessness. Their kinlessness. Their exposure to exploitation with no recourse. Those are the defining characteristics. And those characteristics describe undocumented immigrants today more accurately than they describe someone who has successfully navigated a multi-year legal process.

The people who most closely match the biblical profile of the ger are not the ones who made it through the system. They’re the ones still waiting, still exposed, still without recourse.

None of this settles every policy question. The specific mechanics of immigration law, border management, and refugee processing involve genuinely complex tradeoffs on which faithful Christians disagree. I’m not equipped to resolve those debates, and this article isn’t trying to.

But those debates are about policy. What the Bible addresses is posture and people. And on that question, Scripture is neither quiet nor ambiguous.

― ✶ ―

How Many Times Does God Have to Say It?

The first article in this series observed that the prison population of Jesus’ day was full of debtors, dissidents, and the politically disposable. The second noted that “widows and orphans” wasn’t a demographic category so much as a diagnostic that named everyone without a human advocate in a world where your advocate was everything.

The stranger belongs to that same diagnostic. And the Bible makes this explicit, repeatedly grouping them together:

He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing.

Deuteronomy 10:18

Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow.

Deuteronomy 27:19

Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor.

Zechariah 7:10

The same cluster. Every time. The foreigner alongside the widow and orphan and the poor. Because the logic is the same. These are the people the system wasn’t built to protect, and the measure of a community’s faithfulness to God is how they treat them.

An old rabbinic tradition holds that the command to love the stranger appears in Torah 36 times, more than almost any other command. I can’t verify the precise count. But the frequency is real. This is not a theme the biblical writers stumbled across once. God kept returning to it. The prophets Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Amos, Malachi all press on it. Psalm 146 describes God himself as the one who “watches over the foreigner.”

At some point, the repetition is the argument.

― ✶ ―

The People Who Were Actually Moving

People moved in the ancient world for exactly the reasons they move today. Famine drove Jacob’s family into Egypt. Violence drove Abraham out of Ur. Persecution drove Moses into Midian. A murderous king’s decree drove Mary and Joseph out of Bethlehem and into Egypt with a newborn. War, drought, debt, the collapse of everything that had kept them alive where they were.

Migration was not comfortable or voluntary in most cases. The ger arrived with nothing. No property, no connections, no language advantage, no legal standing until the community granted it. They survived by working the edges of other people’s fields, by day labor, by the charity of strangers who themselves were not wealthy. They were among the most precarious people in the ancient world. Even before the flight to Egypt, Mary and Joseph showed up in Bethlehem as out-of-towners with no family connections and no resources to speak of—“no room at the inn.” They made do with a manger. The Son of God entered the world in the circumstances of the displaced.

And they were all, without exception, people with a story. A reason. A place they’d left and something they’d lost to get there.

The Bible’s own founding narrative is a migration story. The entire people of Israel defined themselves as former migrants, former slaves, former strangers. The Exodus wasn’t just their origin story. It was their theological framework for how to treat people who now stood where they had once stood.

― ✶ ―

The Uncomfortable Part About Jesus

The first article in this series referred to Matthew 25 (sheep and goats), where Jesus identifies himself with the prisoner, the sick, the hungry. What that article touched on briefly is worth expanding here: the stranger is on that list too. “I was a stranger and you invited me in.” (Matthew 25:35b)

Jesus doesn’t just teach about the stranger. He identifies with the stranger. Whatever framework we bring to immigration policy, that sentence sits in the middle of it and doesn’t move.

When the lawyer in Luke 10 asks Jesus to define “neighbor,” Jesus answers with the Parable of the Good Samaritan. The hero of that story is a foreigner, a racial and religious outsider, the kind of person a first-century Jewish audience would have found an uncomfortable choice. Jesus makes him the model of what love looks like. Not proximity. Not shared background. Not documentation. Love that crosses the road when it’s easier not to.

There is also the question of the Joseph, Mary and baby Jesus. Scholars debate the precise technical status of Jesus’ flight to Egypt as an infant. Since both Judea and Egypt were Roman territory, some argue the family never technically crossed an international border as we would define it. Others note that they fled at night from a murderous government, lived as foreigners in a land not their own, and returned only when the threat had passed. The technical debate may be real. But the experiential parallel is hard to dismiss.

Whatever framework we bring to immigration policy, “I was a stranger and you invited me in” sits in the middle of it and doesn’t move.

― ✶ ―

The Cost of Getting This Wrong

Back to the two examples that opened this article.

The passengers on the MS St. Louis were not abstractions. They were people with names, children, photographs in their pockets. They had done everything they were supposed to do. Nations that regarded themselves as civilized and, in many cases, Christian looked at them and turned away. Most of us know how that story ended, and we are not proud of it.

The hundreds of thousands of migrants whose asylum appointments were cancelled on January 20, 2025 are not abstractions either. They are people with names, children, reasons they left, things they are afraid to return to. Some fled gang violence. Some fled domestic abuse with no government protection available to them. Some fled political persecution. They weren’t trying to circumvent the system. They were using it. And it was shut down while they were in line.

I am not saying every immigration question has an obvious answer. I am not saying borders are illegitimate or that no policy distinctions can be made. But there are things happening right now that don’t require a policy degree to evaluate. Children being separated from their parents at the border and held in detention facilities. Brown-skinned American citizens being stopped, questioned, and in some cases deported because of how they look. People who applied for asylum in good faith being returned to the countries they fled, to face whatever they fled from. These are not edge cases or unintended consequences. And the Bible, which has quite a lot to say about the treatment of the foreigner, the vulnerable, and the person with no recourse, has something to say about them.

When we refuse to ask whose humanity is at stake, when we let the complexity of policy questions become an excuse to stop seeing the person, we have already made a choice. And it is not a choice the Bible would recognize as faithful.

The series has returned to this theme three times now. While the system tends to process people, faith tends to see them. The prisoner in article one. The widow and orphan in article two. The stranger here. The thread is not accidental. These are the people most likely to be ground down, and the people God most insistently names.

Micah asked what God requires. Jesus answered it in Matthew 25 (sheep and goats). The criteria weren’t theological precision. It was: did you show up? Did you see the person the system had already decided didn’t matter, and treat them like they did?

For the prisoner, that meant visiting.

For the widow and orphan, that meant being the advocate no one else was being.

For the stranger, it means something the Bible says more than almost anything else it says: Welcome them. Don’t mistreat them. Love them as you love yourself. Because you were a stranger once, whether you remember it or not. And God does not forget.

This is Part 3 of a three part series on the people God notices, names, and calls us to care for. Part 1 is on visiting the prisoner, the discarded in “Prison Ministry Wasn’t the Point.” And Part 2 is on stepping forward for widows and orphans in “Unrepresented.”

Leave a comment

Share

In 2023, the Annie E. Casey Foundation tracked what happens to young people who age out of America’s foster care system with no family connections—no adoptive parents, no relatives who stepped in. By age 26, roughly one in five had experienced homelessness. One in four had been incarcerated. Fewer than half were employed. Most had no one they could call if something went wrong.

And the factor most consistently tied to better outcomes wasn’t a program. It was whether they had at least one stable adult who genuinely showed up.

One person can change the odds. The biblical writers knew this.

It’s why “widows and orphans” shows up in Scripture more than almost any other category of person. Not as a metaphor, but as a diagnostic.

What ‘Widow’ and ‘Orphan’ Actually Meant

In the ancient world, your legal standing depended largely on your relationship to a male head of household—father, husband, son. These weren’t just family roles; they were legal ones. They determined whether you could own property, press a claim in court, negotiate a contract, or have anyone represent you when a powerful person decided to take what was yours.

A widow whose husband died and who had no adult son was effectively unrepresented in every institutional system that mattered. She was visible enough to be exploited and invisible enough that no one was required to stop it.

An orphan, in biblical terms, usually meant a fatherless child, not necessarily one with no living parent. The father’s death was catastrophic because it removed the household’s primary legal voice. Without that voice, a child could be cheated out of an inheritance, pressed into debt servitude, or simply fall through every crack the community had.

That’s why Exodus, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah, the Psalms, and Job return to the same pairing, over and over: widows and orphans. The system that was supposed to protect them was being weaponized against them.

A Category, Not Just a Demographic

Here’s what we can miss: “widows and orphans” was never only about widows and orphans.

It was shorthand for anyone who lacks a human advocate and is therefore exposed to exploitation by people with more power. Deuteronomy adds the resident alien—the foreigner with no clan, no connections, no one to fight for them. The prophets widen the lens to the poor, the debtor trapped by unjust lending, exploited workers, and the small farmer losing land through legal loopholes that only the connected can navigate.

What unites them isn’t their circumstances; it’s their position: people the system wasn’t designed to protect, and in many cases was designed to extract from (through rigged courts, predatory lending, fines-and-fees traps, wage theft, and paperwork mazes that punish anyone without time, money, or an advocate).

That diagnostic still works. You just have to know where to look.

Who Fills That Category Today

Foster youth may be the closest contemporary analog to the biblical orphan: not always children with no living parents, but children with no consistent adult who has chosen them and keeps choosing them. The research is grim and consistent: outcomes improve dramatically when even one adult shows up reliably. The deficit isn’t usually information. It’s relational. It’s that too often no one is consistently in their corner.

The elderly who have outlived their families or whose families have quietly stepped away can land in the same position. An older person with no one to accompany them to appointments, review their finances, or simply notice when something is wrong is vulnerable in precisely the ways the biblical writers described: financially exploited, medically undertreated, or simply warehoused and forgotten, with no one whose job it is to object.

People estranged from their families, for whatever reason, land in the same exposed place. Whether it’s LGBTQ+ young people rejected by family (and overrepresented among homeless youth), adults who’ve fled abusive homes and severed contact, or people pushed out by addiction, incarceration, or the slow erosion of relationships that had nothing dramatic to mark their ending.

The circumstances differ. The structural result is the same: no one to speak for them, no one to call when things fall apart.

Single mothers navigating childcare waitlists, inflexible work schedules, and benefit cliffs. Adults with disabilities whose family caregivers have died, now trying to piece together services across agencies that don’t talk to each other. Immigrants and refugees without legal status or community roots, afraid to report abuse or theft because exposure costs too much. Returning citizens rebuilding after incarceration, carrying a record that follows them into every room—housing applications, job interviews, licensing boards.

What the Church Sometimes Gets Wrong

There is a version of “caring for widows and orphans” that stays almost entirely transactional. Write a check. Drop off canned goods. Sponsor a child. None of those things are bad. But they can all be done at arm’s length—without relationship, without ever becoming the person who shows up.

The prophetic call isn’t primarily charitable. It’s relational and structural. It presses us not only on whether we give, but on whether we’re present and whether we use whatever social capital, institutional access, or simple proximity we have to advocate for people who can’t advocate for themselves.

It also forces harder questions. Who gets the benefit of the doubt in our institutions? Whose suffering do we rush to explain away? Which systems do we participate in or benefit from that are quietly extracting from the same people the prophets were describing?

In practice, that can look like cash bail that keeps a poor person in jail for being poor, court costs that snowball into warrants, an eviction record that locks someone out of housing, a background check that closes the door on work, or a medical bill that can’t be deciphered without someone to fight the system on your behalf.

Those questions don’t have clean answers. But refusing to ask them is its own kind of answer.

What Showing Up Looks Like

My sister volunteered as a CASA advocate—a court-appointed special advocate for children in the foster care system. Her job was to be a consistent adult voice in a process built for people with lawyers and parents. She went to hearings. She checked in. She noticed things. She showed up.

My niece takes a different angle on the same problem. She advocates for foster youth to secure state funding for proper luggage, so kids moving between placements can carry their belongings in a real bag (not a garbage bag). That might sound small. It isn’t. In New York, thousands of children experience tens of thousands of placement transitions each year, often with little notice and less dignity. A trash bag carries a message a child doesn’t deserve: that their belongings are refuse, and maybe they are too. The fight for a proper bag is a basic insistence that these children matter.

Showing up might mean becoming a foster family, a mentor, a CASA volunteer, or an advocate for the dignity of every child moving between placements. It might mean being the person in your congregation who notices which elderly members haven’t been heard from and picks up the phone or organizes a visit. Or it might mean driving someone to court, to an appointment, to an interview, because the presence of another person can change what happens.

It might also mean examining your assumptions about who deserves the benefit of the doubt and whose suffering you find easiest to explain away.

Or it might be smaller than all of that: simply noticing the person in front of you who has no one.

One More Thing

Jesus’ sharpest condemnation of the religious leaders in Mark 12 is that they “devour widows’ houses.” Not that they missed a theological point, but that they used institutional position to exploit the most vulnerable people around them while performing respectability.

That’s a different kind of warning than many of us expect from a Sunday morning. It’s not mainly about private vice; it’s about what happens when religious communities become so focused on their own life and reputation that they stop being a voice for the people who have no voice, and stop showing up.

Micah asked what God requires. The answer wasn’t more offerings. It was: do right by people. Especially the ones no one else is doing right by.

That’s still the answer.

— ✶ —

This is Part 2 of a three part series on the people God notices, names, and calls us to care for. Part 1 was on visiting the prisoner or the “discarded” in “Prison Ministry Wasn’t the Point.” And Part 3 is on caring for the foreigner or stranger in “Not a Policy. A Person.”

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment