Loving the Strangers Among Us - Part 3: The Economic Argument

Two Somali immigrants I used to tutor

--------------------------------------------------
This is part 3 of a 5 part series that theologically critiques the perceptions that underlie the U.S. immigration issue. This third part analyzes the economic argument prevalent in the United States and critiques it Biblically/theologically.
Read part one here
Read part two here
--------------------------------------------------

Argument Two – Undocumented Immigrants are Harming the Economy

“Take 12 million illegal immigrants out of the [U.S. poverty] statistics and it changes the percentage in poverty significantly! As in if they were not in the U.S. they would not be counted as in poverty!” [1]

In a recent episode of the popular sitcom The Office, the main characters fantasized about how they would spend the money if they ever won the lottery. While the majority of the office workers responded in typical fashion, one of the characters made a profound statement. “I already won the lottery. I was born in the U.S. of A.”[2] This characterizes what a lot of people, both within the U.S. and outside the U.S., think about US citizenship. Those who were natural born citizens somehow managed to “win the lottery,” while those who were born in other countries “lucked out.” As such, natural born citizens seem to have an entitlement to the prosperity that their country offers. Outsiders, however, do not have this entitlement.

Talk about undocumented immigrants “stealing” our jobs and lowering our wages has heightened all over the country. There is an unprecedented fear and resentment against those who “do not belong” here. They are taking what we U.S. citizens are entitled to. In an ad aired in March 2011, Republican Representatives Lamar Smith of Texas, Sue Myrick of North Carolina, and Gary Miller of California riled American interest in immigration’s impact on the economy. Myrick made the economic issue sound easy. She stated, “Right now, with unemployment hovering around 10 percent, we thought it was time to talk about the direct link between unemployment and illegal immigration.”[3]

It logically seems like the 15 million people unemployed in the U.S. are the result of the 8 million undocumented immigrants working in the U.S. "The numbers are simple," Miller said.[4] It is really not as simple as it seems, though. The majority of economists, even those who are otherwise critical of the issue, agree that undocumented immigrants provide a small net growth to the U.S.’ economy.[5] The idea that undocumented immigrants are taking U.S. citizens’ jobs has also been proven to be a myth. The majority of undocumented immigrants are what has been termed “low-skilled.” Since most Americans fall into jobs that are moderately-skilled, their jobs remained untouched by undocumented immigrants. Economist Ben Powell of Suffolk University concludes that “immigrants largely complement our talents, they don’t substitute them.”[6] This could not be illustrated more effectively than the vacancy of "low-skilled" jobs that have emerged following Alabama's strict immigration laws. Natural born citizens are not assuming the positions that immigrants left behind.

Another common complaint against undocumented immigrants is that they are taking advantage of our public services, thereby costing taxpayers more money. This, too, has not been proven to be true. Undocumented immigrants are not capable of receiving government aid, such as food stamps and welfare, without proof of citizenship. The only two kinds of assistance that undocumented immigrants can receive are emergency care (hospital, natural disaster aid, etc) and education up through high school. Both of these services are also available to all American citizens. Further, undocumented immigrants in the very least pay taxes on sale transactions and social security. In order for an immigrant to be hired, he needs a (false) social security number. Payroll taxes are deducted from their paycheck and the Social Security Administration acknowledges that there are approximately $6 to $7 billion that do not match a valid Social Security number. It has been theorized that this is a main reason why Social Security cards are easy to forge. Unlike a driver's license or passport, a Social Security card's make has very little technology involved and resembles a blue piece of construction paper.[7]

This does not prevent politicians from using these economic myths to their advantage. On his website, New York Senator James L. Seward has an article detailing just what kinds of governmental assistance undocumented immigrants can receive. The senator places these two types of aid just mentioned (emergency and education) under the heading “Welfare.” This is very misleading. He concludes at the end of his article that “a fair interpretation of the federal statute and state regulation must result in the conclusion that illegal aliens should not receive any form of state public assistance. However, illegal aliens do, in fact, receive state public benefits.”[8] This statement is very manipulative of the term “welfare” and seems to deceive the reader into believing that undocumented immigrants receive more aid than they are legally capable of receiving. Ironically, if there is one government service that undocumented immigrants are receiving “illegally” it is foster care for the children left behind when immigrants are deported.[9]

We could sift through countless statistics on undocumented immigration and consult the plethora of studies that are available. Economics, however, is not the real issue at hand. The real issue is that we as Americans are feeling threatened by the presence of foreigners in the work force. Interestingly, Hispanics lived and worked in the U.S. without documentation for decades without too much attention. It was only when people felt threatened by the economic downfall in 1929 that Americans became hostile toward undocumented immigrants.[10] We feel that we are being threatened, but the threat has not proven to be real. When crises occur, we need answers to help us cope. Hispanics have in many ways become this economic scapegoat.

Even if statistics showed that immigrants really were causing negative effects on our economy, the root of our anger is that we feel that people should not have access to good wages, health care, and other economic benefits because of status. We think that as citizens we should have access to these benefits, even though we did not choose to be born here. Those who do not have citizenship should not have access to our economy, even though they had no control over which country’s economy they were born into.

Our reaction toward immigration may be to only accept them into our country as long as they are financially benefitting us (or at least not taking from us). This attitude, however, cannot be reconciled with Scripture. There should be no other commitments, including economics, that hinder us from fulfilling the command deeply rooted in Scripture that we are to love and care for the stranger.[11] The Greek word from which we derive our word for “economy” connotes the idea of full flourishing for everyone who is in God’s household. God’s household is open to everyone and he invites everyone to sit at his table. Because of this, “the human person should not serve the economy, but the economy should serve the human person.”[12]

We must remember that we are first and foremost citizens of God’s kingdom and everything that we own is currently “on loan.” We as Christians are called to be good stewards of what God has given us, and sometimes that means sacrificing our monetary possessions for the betterment of others. Christians who live in the U.S. talk on a regular basis about how “good” God is to us or how much God has “blessed” us. We know that everything that we have is a gift from God and is not something that we have obtained for ourselves. Our God is a gracious God.

If we say that all these good things in our lives are a product of God's goodness, what does that mean in other people's contexts? What about people, including undocumented immigrants, who do not have access to clean water and food? Would we say that God is not as good to them as he is to us? That God has not blessed them nearly as much as he has blessed us living in this country? We have this idea in the U.S. that "God will always provide.” This is a very interesting theological worldview that is very inconsistent with how the rest of the world operates. Why should God provide the jobs we need here in the U.S., or the new washing machine to replace the one that just broke down, or the money to "live comfortably" when he does not always provide for people who are desperately just trying to survive in other countries? We Americans have often assumed an attitude of entitlement and intermingled it with religion. What results in nothing more than a widely accepted "prosperity gospel."

Why were we born in the U.S., where God has given us so many graces? For reason that we do not know, we have so much in our lives that have come to us by no merit of our own. Has God blessed us? Tremendously. Does that mean that God has chosen not to bless others? Perhaps it better means that God has chosen to bless others through our well being. Those he blesses are the instruments by which he uses to bless others.

God does not desire us to be tight-fisted people who hold on to all of our good things (Deut. 15:11). May we extend our hands to others so that God can be known as a good God not just to those who are citizens of the United States, but to those who are living here on the fringes of society as undocumented immigrants. 


Continue to Part 4 - The Identity Argument

---

[1] A reader’s response to “Poverty Rate Hits 18-Year High as Median Income Falls.” http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/13/7742437-poverty-rate-hits-18-year-high-as-median-income-falls?GT1=43001 

[2] “Lotto.” The Office.
[3] “Does Immigration Cost Jobs?” http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/does-immigration-cost-jobs
[4] Ibid.
[5] Soerens, Matthew and Jenny Hwang, Welcoming the Stranger, pg. 136.
[6] “Top Three Myths About Immigration.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtRmS7q9DlM. This video is part of Learn Liberty’s video series on economics. I highly recommend the videos in this series, as they enlist leading economists to dispel many myths about American economics, including myths about the immigration issue. 
[7] Porter, Eduardo. “Illegal Immigrants are Bolstering Social Security with Billions.” The New York Times. April 5, 2006. Business/Financial section, pg. 1.
[8] http://www.nysenate.gov/report/what-benefits-can-illegal-aliens-receive
[9]  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/race-multicultural/lost-in-detention/study-5100-kids-in-foster-care-after-parents-deported
[10] Carroll R., Daniel M., Christians at the Border, pg. 33.
[11] Lev. 19:33-34; Deut. 10:18, 14:19-21, 24:14-15, 19-21; Mal. 3:5; Mt. 22:35-40, to name a few. Because of the scope set forth in this paper, I am unable to exegete these particular Scripture passages thoroughly. For extensive looks at the meanings of these Scripture passages, I highly recommend Daniel Carroll R.’s Christians on the Border and Jean-Pierre Ruiz’s Readings from the Edges: The Bible and People on the Move.
[12] Soerens, Matthew and Jenny Hwang, Welcoming the Stranger, pg. 137.

Loving the Strangers Among Us - Part 2: The Legality Argument

Nicaraguan women at their village well 

--------------------------------------------------
This is part 2 of a 5 part series that theologically critiques the perceptions that underlie the U.S. immigration issue. This second part analyzes the "legality" argument and critiques it Biblically/theologically.
Read part one here

-------------------------------------------------- 

Argument One – Undocumented Immigrants are Breaking the Law

“We deport. We decide. Get in line like my grandparents. Period.” [1]

One main argument against undocumented immigrants is based on the status of their legality. Since undocumented immigrants have trespassed on U.S. soil, they are in violation of breaking U.S. law. They should therefore be viewed and tried as criminals. In response to a Yahoo news article on the subject of immigration, one reader replied that “[…] anyone that breaks the law should be punished […] I believe that people that steal, rob, murder, drink and drive and break other laws should be punished. I also believe that people that hire illegal immigrants should be punished, as well as people harboring other law-breakers (of all laws and types). I believe in the rule of law.”[2]

Many people who hold this perspective wonder why it is that Hispanics do not simply come to the U.S. the legal way. Other immigrants are capable of receiving proper documentation and obtaining citizenship. Those who come here illegally should just “get in line” and come the legal way. At a debate about immigration policies in 2006, U.S. Representative James Sensenbrenner commented that “American citizenship is priceless and it ought to be done the legal way just like my ancestors did.”[3] Americans across the country have echoed similar responses.

The problem with this reasoning is that immigration policies have radically changed since many of our ancestors immigrated to the U.S. over 100 years ago. For our American ancestors, however, there was no illegal way. There were no visas, no green cards, no U.S. consulates. You literally boarded a ship and traveled to the United States in order to build a new life. It would probably have been more difficult to come illegally than it would have been to come legally!

This all changed when the Chinese Exclusion Act was instated in 1882. Immigrants from Asia were excluded from entering the U.S. because they were seen as inferior. Females were especially seen as “suspicious” because they could bear children that would gain citizenship under the 14^th Amendment. Ironically, the Chinese Exclusion Act paved the way for Hispanic immigration. Since there was a higher labor demand, employers hired undocumented Hispanics who were seeking safety from the Mexican Revolution in 1910-1917. In the 1920s, the Quota Act and the Johnson-Reed Act were instated to bar certain European ethnicities from entering the United States. The Irish and Italians were seen as educationally and culturally inferior, as well as a drain on the economy. Plus, a majority of them were Catholic, which was thought to be a threat to the American ethos.Over the next four decades, immigration laws gradually excluded more people groups, such as the poor, the sick, the uneducated, and those suspected of holding controversial ideologies (particularly Communism). This exclusion continued until 1965, when President Johnson signed a new law that enabled people to immigrate based on their employability and family ties, not based on race or ethnicity.

However, the employment-based immigration system does not offer as many visas as there are “low-skilled” jobs available. We can tell people to wait their turn to immigrate legally, but if someone does not already have a relative living here legally they will never get a turn, not if they wait 10 years, 30 years, or even 50 years. This, in short, is why people who are living in poverty have chosen to immigrate illegally. Telling them that they should simply immigrate the “legal way” is an oversimplification of the issue.Another problem with the legality perspective is that it tends to idolize the law. In this perception, the United States’ law is viewed as flawless and absolute. Those who hold this perspective do not question the legitimacy or truthfulness of the law. To them, the issue is simple and “black and white”: the law says coming here without documentation is wrong, so it is wrong.

[A comic I created summarizing the history of immigration]

This argument for the supremacy of the law is particularly one of the most frequent arguments that Christians raise against the issue. Drawing from Romans 13:1-7, they argue that God put the government in place and it is the responsibility for Christians to obey it. We are not to question the laws that our country creates, because the governing officials are given authority from God. This logic is very dangerous for many reasons, not just for the immigration debate.

Unfortunately, this is a poor interpretation of this Scripture passage. As with all Scripture, passages are meant to be read within its larger context. Verses are not isolated segments, meant to be read independently of the passages that precede and follow it. In chapter 12, Paul discusses just how it is that the Roman Christians he is addressing can discern God’s will. “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world,” he writes, “but be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (12:2). After our minds are transformed, we can understand God’s will. Unfortunately, many English translations do not accurately encompass the meaning of the latter half of 12:2. The NIV, for instance, translates the adjectives “good, pleasing, and perfect” as modifiers of “God’s will.” A better translation from the Greek reads as follows: “[…] so that you may be able to prove what God’s will is – that which is good, pleasing, and perfect.”

Text	Translation
English translations (NIV, KJV, ASV, etc)	“God’s will is good, pleasing, and perfect.”
Greek	“God’s will is that which is good, pleasing, and perfect.”

Although these translation differences may be subtle, they make a significant difference in how we should understand the nature of God’s will. Are things “good” because God declares that they are “good?” Or can things be “good” in themselves, and God affirms and delights in their “goodness?”[4] In light of Romans 12:2, the latter is the best understanding of God’s will. We can know that things are within God’s will for humankind and creation because they are in accordance with his goodness and perfection.It should not be assumed, then, that the various laws governing immigration are in accordance with God’s will. Although they may be given authority by God, governments are fallible and often make laws that stand in opposition to God’s character. Theologian John Yoder writes the following concerning Romans 13:

The Christian who accepts his subjection to government retains his moral independence and judgment. The authority of government is not self-justifying. Whatever government exists is ordered by God; but the text does not say that whatever the government does or asks of its citizens is good.[5]

Relying on the law as an absolute entity can be an excuse not to strive to discern God’s will. It is much easier to accept all laws as “good” than it is to do the hard work of probing deeper into the nature of God and his plan for the world. It we want to understand and do God’s will, though, we have to open to the idea that the current laws concerning immigration are not “good, pleasing, and perfect.” Human laws are not the source of our allegiance; God’s will is. Ultimately, we are to “obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).


Continue to Part 3: The Economic Argument

---

[1] A response to a news article articulating why undocumented immigrants are not welcome in the U.S. http://news.yahoo.com/why-gop-demonizes-illegals-055000771.html

[2] http://news.yahoo.com/why-gop-demonizes-illegals-055000771.html

[3] qtd. in Soerens, Hwang, Welcoming the Stranger , pg. 64

[4] This follows suit with Aquinas’ philosophical conundrum about how we should understand the “goodness” of natural law.

[5] The Politics of Jesus, p. 207.

Loving The Strangers Among Us - Part 1

A young girl outside her home in La Carbonara, Nicaragua

--------------------------------------------------
This is part 1 of a 5 part series that theologically critiques the perceptions that underlie the U.S. immigration issue. Immigrants have long been a people group that I am very passionate about. This first part explains why immigration is important to me and why Christians should be thinking Biblically about this issue. The subsequent parts delve into the American perceptions that govern the issue and discuss 1) if they are accurate, 2) if they are Biblical.

-------------------------------------------------- 

"I'm going to cut it open."

The first person who had the audacity to say such a thing changed the course of medical history forever. It was one thing to observe the external symptoms of the body, but to actually cut an incision and take a look at the internal composition of a human? What a brave idea! For thousands of years people had wondered what it was that lay beneath the skin. Many speculated about the inner workings of the body, but it was not until the Renaissance period that physicians began to cut open human bodies for examination on a regular basis. This revolution in medical practice dispelled misconceptions about the human anatomy and created the foundation for future medicinal discovery.

The current issues about undocumented immigration within the United States are topics that are frequently discussed, but few have had the courage to really “cut them open.” It is a very complex issue, and it is much easier to parrot what the politicians and the media are saying about it than to carefully analyze the various perceptions surrounding the issue. ‎John Dewey correctly noted that the “ability to repeat catch-phrases, cant terms, familiar propositions, gives the conceit of learning and coats the mind with varnish, waterproof to new ideas."[1] In order to understand the immigration issue, then, we must refrain from reductionistic tendencies and be open to reasoning that transcends the external, basic presuppositions. This calls for an analysis that is both deeply theological and deeply consistent with higher critical skills.

Let’s cut it open.

Why the Issue Matters

I did not know too much about immigration until I was exposed to it in a context outside my own country. At the age of 16, I traveled to Costa Rica, where my home church sought to experience, understand, and address the increased immigration of Nicaraguans to San Jose. We visited a slum in the capital where impoverished Nicaraguans had flocked. I was surprised at the very negative attitudes that the majority of the Costa Ricans had toward the Nicaraguan immigrants. They blamed them for taking their resources and lowering their standard of living. This was my first exposure to such an intense form of poverty and my heart was broken. These living conditions were better than the home they had left behind? How could the dominant culture have no compassion for them?

In response, my home church began sponsoring a small community in Nicaragua through child sponsorships, micro loans and building projects. I had the honor of traveling to the little village to meet the people so we could learn how we could assist them better. I witnessed with my own eyes the reasons why they were traveling to Costa Rica for a “better” life. I also learned why it was so attractive for them to come to the United States undocumented. The U.S. government does not grant visas to people who come from impoverished countries because there is a strong chance that they will overstay their visa. This is the most common way that people come to the U.S. illegally. The desperate Nicaraguans could try to come to the U.S. the legal way, but they knew they would be rejected and would still have to pay the expensive fee of about $100 for applying. For families that only make $1 a day, risking their lives to cross a border illegally is a much better option than trying the legal way, which leads to inevitable rejection and penalization.

I write all this not as an anecdote to my argument, but as an effort to place a human face on the issue. The immigration debate is not an impersonal issue; neither is it an issue that affects only U.S. citizens. This issue affects countless families living inside and outside the U.S. As we participate in the debate, we must seek to love both God and our neighbors as ourselves.

Perceptions are powerful. Perceptions are behind our every single conviction, action, and word. They are what make us say the things we say, do the things we do, consciously and subconsciously. Most of the time we do not even realize it. The perceptions that underlie the immigration issue in the U.S. are pervasive. It may seem like the reasons people have for being opposed to undocumented immigrants are just as they appear. For the most part, there are powerful ideas behind these reasons that dictate these responses. Instead of taking the rationales at face value, the various perceptions that underlie them must be analyzed and addressed. Although there are many complaints against undocumented immigration, the majority of complaints fall into one of three categories: legality, economy, or American identity. Each of these areas will be discussed, focusing on the specific perceptions that govern them. The legitimacy of each argument will be scrutinized. Finally, and most importantly, theological implications will be probed. It will be demonstrated that all of the categories in some way idolize a certain value, whether it be the law, money, or nationalism.

For the sake of this series, I will be focusing primarily on Hispanic undocumented immigrants. Not only do they make up the largest percentage of undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S., but they are the demographic with the most negative perceptions attached to them. It is estimated that the Hispanic population within the U.S. has increased to over 40 million, accounting for about half of the growth since 2000.[2] Although Hispanics make up over 14% of the population, it is unknown how many of these Hispanics are undocumented. Estimates range between 12-20 million.[3]

For semantic reasons, I will be referring to those who are here in the U.S. without proper legal documentation as “undocumented immigrants.” Different words, such as “illegal” and “aliens,” connote different meanings. The most common designation for immigrants without paperwork is “illegal immigrants.” The problem with this label is that it groups immigrants into a category with other crimes, such as stealing and murder. By avoiding this name, I am not implying that undocumented immigrants are here “legally,” as they have obviously broken U.S. law. This does, however, provide a safeguard from associating Hispanic immigrants with other crimes which further adds stigma and fear. Similarly, the term “alien” conjectures up thoughts of immigrants as being strange or otherworldly. Like the term “illegal,” the name “alien” creates a perception that is neither constructive nor accurate. Thus, “undocumented immigrants” will be the name of choice, as it is reflective of what the people in discussion are – immigrants who do not have proper documentation of U.S. citizenship.


Continue to Part 2: The Legality Argument

---

[1] Dewey, John, How We Think, pg. 177.

[2] Carroll M., Christians at the Border, 40.

[3] Ibid., 40.

A Theological Critique of The Hunger Games

Once, when I served as a youth pastor, I taught a lesson to the middle school students about peace. We discussed what God's peace looked like and how we could implement it into the world. We imagined what the world would look like when there would be perfect peace. I was just about to finish the lesson, confident that it had been a success, when one of the middle-school boys interrupted me.

"I don't think that a world with peace would be very much fun," he contended.

Puzzled, I asked him why he thought this way.

"If there wasn't any violence or killing," he replied, "there wouldn't be any good movies or video games."

A chill rose up inside of me and I tried to wipe my face of shock. Several of the students nodded their heads in agreement. This lesson had not gone in a way I had anticipated!

When a friend recently recommended The Hunger Games to me, I had no idea that it was one of the most popular young adult novels, closely trailing Harry Potter and the Twilight saga. Neither did I know that it was saturated with violence masqueraded under the pretense of entertainment. Since its release in 2008, this novel has rapidly sold copies to youth all over the world, making its way onto USA Today’s bestselling book list for 110 weeks and counting (USA). Two more sequels in the trilogy and a movie scheduled to make its debut next year have fans abuzz. But despite its popularity and rave reviews from critics and fans alike, there are some significantly sinister theological claims that the readers are subconsciously absorbing and accepting.

Story Synopsis

The story takes place sometime in the future in a country called Panem, situated in what previously was North America. Ravaged by war, famine, and natural disasters, the nation was fragmented into an affluent city called the Capitol and twelve impoverished districts. While the inhabitants of the Capitol lived in luxury, the oppressed majority lived from meal to meal. In order to keep the districts fearful of the regime’s power, the Panem government subjected the districts to the annual Hunger Games, a competition to the death on live television. During harvest, every child between the ages of 12 and 18 was entered into a lottery. A boy and a girl are drawn to participate in the Hunger Games. Since additional entries were rewarded with food, many parents were enticed to enter their children’s names into the drawing more than once.

In District 12, among the poorest of the poor, 16-year-old Katniss volunteered to take the place of her sister when her name was drawn. In the blink of an eye her life had been issued a death sentence. Unless she could somehow win the gauntlet, her life would be over and her family left to fend for themselves in her absence. The stakes were high as she and the other contender from District 12, Peeta, fought for their lives against the other children.

I was intrigued by how the author described the disparity between the rich and the poor in the book. By presenting Katniss as the heroine in the story, the author rallied the reader to the side of the poor. She satirized the inhabitants of the Capitol and pointed out their sadistic fascination with watching children murder each other for pure entertainment. I was anticipating a redemptive solution to the Games whereby Katniss and Peeta creatively resist the forces of the regime. I was shocked, however, when they complied with the Game and proceeded to murder other children in order to survive, with little reflection of their violent actions. One by one, the 22 tributes in the Hunger Games were viciously murdered until the only teenagers remaining were Katniss and Peeta. The author announced them as the triumphant victors of the game, but were they?

Theological Claims

Nevertheless, the good points stopped there. The main truth claims about violence cast a dark shadow over the remainder of the book. Collins fashioned death into a façade that made death palatable. The heroes of the story were actually antagonists. Even though they disagreed with the game, they still submitted to the game. Collins cleverly separated the reader emotionally from the other tributes so that the heroes’ actions seemed acceptable. She did not disclose the other contestants’ names but simply referred to them as their district number. This made the other contenders just that to the readers’ minds: numbers.

The author also cleverly avoided other ethical dilemmas by conveniently killing off certain characters before the two heroes had the opportunity. The only two characters that were named and attributed with character qualities were murdered by other tributes so that Katniss and Peeta would not have to do the ugly deed. This cunningly prevented the heroes from looking like the antagonists. Further, in the midst of all the violence in the arena, the author did little to demonstrate that the Katniss and Peeta were distraught over the others’ deaths. There is no reflection over the integrity of their actions, no musings about whether another way was possible.

It quickly became apparent that Collins is the faceless Gamemaker in the story, sadistically murdering innocent children and rendering it as entertainment for the masses. She may have parodied the Capitol inhabitants, but the youth who enjoy this book are nothing less than the Capitol TV watchers. This novel completely undergirds the one point the author appeared to be making. If Suzanne Collins wished to provoke youth to think about how desensitized we have become to ungodly entertainment, is she not almost fostering more desensitization through her novel?

Theological Reflection

When it comes to media that portrays violence positively, it seems like we play what I like to call the “but” game. We say, “That movie is violent, but…” or “That song condones violence against women, but…” As followers of Christ, there is simply no excuse for such displays of brutality. We are called to seek peace and reconciliation with one another. Enjoying or even condoning violent acts is in direct violation of the Imago Dei (Gen. 9:6).

Repeatedly, the Bible makes it clear that we are to overcome evil with goodness, not with more evil (Rom. 8:21). It is easy to conclude that the murders in the book can be justified because the heroes of the book came out alright in the end. This is based on utilitarian and teleology ideologies. It is utilitarian in that what works is the best solution, and it is teleological in that the end justifies the means. Just because the telos is “good” in the end (i.e. Katniss and Peeta survive and can later overthrow the government in subsequent books), it does not gratify the measures that were taken to achieve it. Rather than achieving results, it is more important that we as followers of Christ are being shaped into the image and likeness of Jesus Christ.

When the first century Christians faced persecution by the Roman regime, the book of Revelation encouraged them to persevere through nonviolent resistance. The author characterized the people of God as those who “did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death” (Rev. 12:11). On numerous occasions the people of God are advised in Revelation to conquer not with weapons but through sacrifice. Even the Lamb was bathed is his own blood and not the blood of his enemies (Rev. 5:6). I believe that the Cross tells us a lot about our response to violence. We are commanded to lay down our lives and take up our crosses, not to seek to save our lives (Lk. 9:23-25).

Right before the heroes were thrown into the gauntlet, Katniss and Peeta shared the following anxiety over their foreseen deaths:

“I don’t want them to change me in [the arena],” Peeta said. “Turn me into some monster I’m not.”

“Do you mean you won’t kill anyone?” [Katniss asked.]

“No, when the time comes, I’m sure I’ll kill just like everybody else. I can’t go down without a fight. Only I keep wishing I could think of a way to… to show the Capitol they don’t own me. That I’m more than just a piece in their Games.” (141)

Peeta was so close to nailing it. He just missed it. Participating in the Games did not prove to the Capitol their lack of ownership of him; it further instated their hold on him. Peeta and Katniss could have sacrificed themselves and perhaps started a whole revolution, but they instead sought to hang onto their lives.

Let me propose a better ending to the book. Instead of complying with the Hunger Games, Katniss creatively subverts the Capitol and leads the other tributes in resisting violence. They resist to the point of death and die without innocent blood on their hands. Unfortunately, although this ending is biblically and ethically sound, it does not produce bestsellers. It does not produce money, and it does not produce sequels with which to make more money.

But we need to prophetically imagine another way. We need to dare to think that not only is another way possible, but it is commanded of us. If we are to be living embodiments of God's grace and love individually as disciples and collectively as the Church, how does our participation and/or approval of acts of violence make the love of God known?

Collins, Suzanne. The Hunger Games. NY: Scholastic Press, 2008.

“Michael A. Behr’s Review of The Hunger Games.” Amazon.com. 2008. 9 October 2011. http://www.amazon.com/review/R3M62HO4M6LXE6

“Solana2Mira’s Review of The Hunger Games.” Amazon.com. 2010. 9 October 2011. http://www.amazon.com/review/R2NORC5TO9QE6

“USA Today’s Best-selling Book List.” USAToday.com. 8 October 2011.

http://books.usatoday.com/list/index