Baby Jesus In A Cage
I suspect that many folks, myself included, view Christmas in their minds– not the one unfolding at the mall — as a quiet, welcome break from the increasingly shrill and combative world of everyday.
We turn down the news, turn up the Christmas music and attempt to adhere to the holiday’s essential meaning: Hope. Peace. Goodwill.
So, it no doubt startled some and angered others to read the news reports and view the photos of the outdoor Nativity scene on display at the Claremont (California) United Methodist Church.
Not a traditional Christ-child-in-the manger tableau. Instead there appeared Joseph, Mary and the baby Jesus separated and locked up in individual chain link cages, covered with barbed wire fencing material.
Of course, true to social media’s capacity for instant reaction, a torrent of outrage –and praise—immediately followed. Per The New York Times: “The image has sparked a heated national debate about spiritual boundaries and moral commitments. Its caustic tenor online reflects the state of dialogue in this country today: warped by political divisions, riddled with gratuitous insults and sabotaged by self-righteousness.”
The Claremont Nativity scene was intended to reflect the plight of immigrants and asylum seekers whose families were separated on our southern border — a process many in the church consider a moral abomination.
“We don’t see it as political; we see it as theological,” Rev. Ristine told Times reporter James Queally. But tens of thousands of people around the U.S. didn’t see it that way. “May the Heavens send fire to take down your church when it’s empty,” one self-identified Christian wrote, adding a praying hands emoji. (I reckon that writer’s definition of ‘Christian moderation’ is hoping the Heavens strike an empty church.)
I’m grateful to the Claremont Methodists for so vividly demonstrating their faith in a poignant, creative way during this important holiday when Christmas cookies, presents, and office parties too often occlude the real meaning of Christ’s birth.
I also wonder how many of us– those charged with advancing peace, goodwill, and joy in the world through our secular organizations– could do so as effectively?
As we pause for the holidays and plan for the year ahead, I hope we’ll take extra time, make an extra effort and take some serious risks to communicate what’s at stake as we strive to build a better world.
Roger
11 responses to “Baby Jesus In A Cage”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer
Poignant, powerful and profoundly philanthropic. It makes sense for a church, and for all who work in the social benefit sector, to shine a light on what “love of humankind” (literally the definition, from the Greek, of the word ‘philanthropy) looks like. And what it doesn’t. Thank you for always restoring my faith.
I interesting point. One small detail: the folks in the cage are ILLEGAL aliens. Jesus’ family were supposed to be there.
Thanks, Claire for your lovely words. Thanks, Roger, as always…for eloquently stating what many of us see as obvious.
What can possibly be “moral” when separating children from parents? Keeping children in such bad places. The probable forever separation and loss of ever reconnecting them.
Such great anger and sadness. And yet we proclaim this country as the best?
I saw a cartoon which makes Claremont’s point even better. It is a Nativity scene, but only the baby Jesus is there in a manger, no one else – the scene is empty.
The cartoon’s caption: “The Nativity without Arabs, Foreigners, or refugees.”
I’ve tried twice now to leave a comment and I’m wondering if there’s some kind of editorial intercept going on. I hope not.
The family in the three cages are illegal aliens who violated the rule of law. Jesus‘s family were supposed to be there. If people don’t want to be separated from their children, don’t break the law. If any of us break the law, the courts will separate us from our children. Why should legal aliens be treated any differently?
Probably the best analogy both in days of yore and in present day is that of refugee status. King Herod ordered the slaughter of all male children under the age of two; as a result, Joseph, Mary, and Jesus fled to Egypt. While refugee status wasn’t a legal structure then, they fit rather perfectly the definition of refugee established by the UN:
“A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war, or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.”
Fast forward to modern-day and let’s take as our example the “migrant caravan” that was much discussed by Fox News and the current administration. They also fit the definition – forced to flee their countries due to violence and because of their membership in a particular social group. So they also fit the definition.
As to the legality of their entry, thankfully, the US defines a refugee similarly in 8 US Code 1101 (42), so we can establish that these caravan participants are refugees. The only way to request asylum is to be in the United States, so if you are seeking asylum you are de facto legally in the United States.
Now let’s look at the policy to try to stop the caravan. The administration’s policy is to deny asylum to anyone going through a third country on their way to the United States. This is violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which says that people can be denied the ability to claim asylum if and only if they can be removed to a safe third country where the US has a formal agreement. The US has no such agreement with Mexico and, even if we did, there’s a nice mountain of evidence (see, for example, the IRC’s work on this) that conditions for transiting refugees is not safe.
So to summarize so far, it is legal for these refugees to come into the United States and it is illegal to make policies to stop this.
Now to child separation policies, these have been found to be a violation of international law (specifically the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 9 which specifically bans family separation). The US is a signatory to this.
If you don’t put stock in international law, however, you can also look at the violations of due process (no interpreters, no probable cause, no lawyers, no speedy trial, no explanation of charges, no right to have parents present, no ability for the government to produce those being defended — basically, the entire 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments to the Constitution).
So even if applying for asylum was illegal (and it isn’t) and even if the policies to prevent asylum seekers coming in were legal (and they aren’t), the separation policies are illegal and should not be followed.
But that’s all the legal argument. This is a church. So what would religion say to do? Matthew 25:34-40 says:
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’”
thank you, Nick.
Amen.
Beautifully, intelligently and articulately put Nick. A blessing on your head.
Thank you Nick! Very well said.
Claremont United Methodist Church has been making statements with their nativity scenes for several years. This is the first one that has received nation-wide notice.
Go Claremont!