It is an honor to join with you in celebrating such a notable career event as this graduation from a long and demanding police academy. It is appropriate that we take a moment to reflect on the hard work and sacrifice that it takes to complete such a course of instruction. It bears mentioning here that the hard work was borne not only by the students but by their families. Through the years, it has become very apparent to me that a key element for most of us in law enforcement, if we wish to have a productive and satisfying career, is a supportive and understanding family. I commend you for the support you have and will continue to provide to these graduates in those difficult times that inevitably will lie ahead. The graduates themselves are justifiably proud of what they have accomplished, as they should be, and all should take this time to bask in the warmth of their success.

Upon reflecting on what success really is, a noted 19th century writer, Elbert Hubbard, once remarked, “All success consists in this: You are doing something for somebody—benefiting humanity—and the feeling of success comes from the consciousness of this.” For those who seek a life in public service, such success is a truly rewarding experience.

Invariably, when I ask young police applicants why they want to become an officer, they almost uniformly relate to me their desire to help others, to give something back to the community, and to stand up for those who cannot do so for themselves. These are, without a doubt, laudable motivations and exactly what a chief wants to hear. However, I suspect the thought of pursuit driving, playing with neat police gadgets, and breaking up bar fights also factors into their quest to become a police officer.

Notwithstanding the less mentioned and more exciting aspects of this particular vocation, I would like to take a moment to speak briefly to the graduates about that one special trait that will serve you well throughout your career and without which you never will be able to lay claim to a career worth mentioning in respectable company. By and large, those who seek to enter the ranks of law enforcement officers are people of good virtue with pure motives and an abiding sense of duty and honor. They tend to be caring and compassionate people, generally of above-average intelligence, and willing to face life’s challenges head-on.

Today, many of you are taking the beginning steps down what may be an exhilarating, often satisfying, yet, at times, frustrating and frequently difficult path of a law enforcement officer. The fact that you will face many difficulties and hardships should in no way dissuade you from pursuing this goal, for, as the poet William Cullen Bryant so eloquently stated, “Difficulty, my brethren, is the nurse of greatness—a harsh nurse who roughly rocks her foster children into strength and athletic proportion.” Could it be, I wonder, that your physical fitness instructors had this thought uppermost in their minds when they prepared for your fitness training? Was this a prominent theme in the minds of your self-defense instructors as they drilled you again and again on the more subtle but painful points ofsubject control?

In the years ahead, you who would now raise your hand and take the oath to serve and protect on behalf of the masses will be faced with challenges of the conscience and the spirit that will test your mettle and will either serve to harden your resolve to stay the path of righteousness or bend you in ways large or small that will collectively diminish us as a professional body and tarnish our proverbial shield. If it can be assumed that we as police administrators have done our jobs properly and have hired the right people—decent and honest, brave and dedicated—and provided them with the necessary training and tools they need to accomplish the tasks that lie before them, then what trait is so crucial that it should take center stage on a day such as this?

I submit to you that this trait is character, defined in the Oxford American Dictionary as “moral strength…the qualities that make a person what he or she is and different from others.” Ladies and gentlemen, for almost 30 years, it has been my honor to work in and amongst law enforcement officers, and I can tell you without equivocation that they are indeed a breed apart. They do a job that is understood by so few and critiqued by so many. And, to do this job well, they all require an abundance of character.

Part of what makes police work so unique, challenging, and satisfying is that to a large extent, it is a solitary endeavor. Officers handle calls and engage the public in any number of varied solo encounters. There is no production schedule to adhere to; there is no manual that can be written to cover every situation and every contingency. It is the officer’s wit, training, and desire to succeed and serve honorably that guide the majority of these day-to-day engagements. The potential for abuse always is present: the chance to gain personally at another’s expense, to wield power over another in an unscrupulous manner, to take advantage of the weak or the wicked, to exact revenge, or to extort goods or services.

It is sound character that thwarts such temptations, character that individuals must bring on board when they join the agency and hone and strengthen as they navigate the treacherous waters of enticement. It is not a trait that can be issued to new officers or a technique they can learn at some advanced school. As former Congresswoman Helen Douglas once said, “Character isn’t inherited. One builds it daily by the way one thinks and acts, thought by thought, action by action. If one lets fear or hate or anger take possession of the mind, they become self-forged chains.” Or, perhaps more succinctly, as the educator and evangelist Dwight L. Moody once put it, “Character is what you are in the dark.”

Listen to me and believe me when I tell you that it is during those crucial and pivotal times that lie ahead, when no one is looking and no one may ever know what transpired, that it will be your irreproachable character that will allow you to stand tall and proud in the bright and penetrating light of public, judicial, and professional scrutiny. Character will see you through hard and difficult times. Character will draw others to you as they seek to follow your example and measure up to your standards. Character will allow you to admit when you have made a mistake and will give you the resolve to stand fast in the face of improper influences that could damage you or your agency. Character is why you will be trusted with difficult and sensitive assignments. Character will set you apart as a leader, irrespective of any rank you may have obtained. And, character, once lost, might never again be regained.

As the great American author Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote so many years ago, “Self-trust is the essence of heroism.” I would submit to you that to be heroic, one must be able to trust themselves to stand unyielding in the face of temptation, no matter the form it takes, and to always do the right thing.

You graduates are about to embark on a career that is filled with so many great and unique possibilities for you to serve your communities with honor and distinction. Cherish this time, make the most of the opportunities that lie ahead of you. Commit yourselves, as I am sure most of you already have, to make a positive difference in your agencies and the communities you will be serving.

I can assure you, the experience will pass all too quickly, and when you get to the end of this road, you are sure to find, as Walt Whitman wrote, “Nothing endures but personal qualities.” Let it then be said of you collectively that you were people of quality with abiding character who walked the path less traveled and served in a manner commanding the respect of the public.

To this class, I would entreat that you take to heart the lessons of survival you were given during your many hours of instruction and add to those my heartfelt desire that for all your tours of duty, you return home safely and whole in body each and every night. And, that your spirit remain pure and dedicated to the noble values that now guide your course.

In 1933, within days of Hitler’s election as chancellor of Germany and years before he would become The Führer, the 26 year old Bonhoeffer lectured on the Führer Principle. Although not specifically about Hitler he prophetically warned how this altered concept of leadership would inevitably lead to an idol and a “mis-leader” unable to be held accountable. His prophetic view of the future of German leadership was only the beginning. Before the full nature of the Nazi regime had been revealed Bonhoeffer wrote of “the three ways in which the church can act towards the state:” 

1. Help the State be the State. Question the State regarding its actions and their legitimacy to help the State be as God ordained.
2. Aid the victims of State action. The Church has an unconditional obligation to the victims of any ordering of society – even if they do not belong to the Christian community.
3. When the existence of the Church is threatened and the State ceases to exist as defined by God, it is not enough to bandage the victims under the wheel, but to put a spoke in the wheel itself.

These controversial principles paved the way for Bonhoeffer to move from confession to political resistance to conspiracy. Between 1933 and 1945 Bonhoeffer’s “three ways” was the blueprint for an increasing political resistance. At a time when patriotism and restoration of national pride after WWI was seducing a nation Bonhoeffer saw the mistreatment of the Jews and the undermining of the Church as the State going astray and spoke out against the Reich Church as it departed from the Gospel. As the situation worsened he spoke out against the Nazis and became directly involved in assisting the oppressed victims of the State. Finally he reached the point where aiding victims was not enough and the moral imperative was to “put a spoke in the wheel” and participate in the conspiracy to assassinate Hitler that led to his own execution in the closing weeks of WWII.   

We have been silent witnesses of evil deeds; we have been drenched by many storms; we have learnt the arts of equivocation and pretence; experience has made us suspicious of others and kept us from being truthful and open; intolerable conflicts have worn us down and even made us cynical. Are we still of any use? What we shall need is not geniuses, or cynics, or misanthropes, or clever tacticians, but plain, honest, and straightforward men. Will our inward power of resistance be strong enough, and our honesty with ourselves remorseless enough, for us to find our way back to simplicity and straightforwardness?
— Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Bonhoeffer’s life is worth examining by any student of Christian discipleship.

In a misguided attempt to make lethal force less lethal New York legislators have proposed a law (A02952) to change “how a police officer responds when he believes he must use his gun to defend himself or another, or to apprehend a suspect who is resisting arrest. It requires the officer to use his weapon with the intent to stop, rather than to kill such a person”

The proposed law will include a definition of felony manslaughter as “a police officer or peace officer who kills a person by use of a loaded weapon, for a purpose otherwise justified by law, with the intent to kill, rather than stop, such person, and beyond the minimal amount of force necessary to stop the person.”

The memo from the State Assembly gives some examples to help determine whether a police officer is intending to kill or stop an offender:

There is no justification for terminating another’s life when a less extreme measure may accomplish the same objective. For example, an officer would have to try to shoot a suspect in the arm or the leg. The bill will not penalize a good faith effort to shoot with this intent, even though the shot may prove fatal. Further, the number of times an officer shoots a person should not exceed the minimal number necessary to stop the person. If one shot accomplishes the purpose, it is neither necessary or appropriate for an officer to empty his barrel.

The idea that a police officer should be trained to respond to an armed confrontation with a single well placed bullet into the arm or leg of an offender is absurd. To suggest that an officer who uses more force than this could be a felon is frightening. Not only is it apparant that the authors of this bill know nothing of armed combat, the last sentence on when it is “appropriate for an officer to empty his barrel” shows they lack a basic understanding of firearms. 

The warriors reading this far do not need any further commentary – you can see the folly and are either furious or in disbelief over this proposed law, but it is not uncommon for civilians to respond to police involved shootings with the question this bill poses, “Why not just shoot the guy in the arm or leg?” An issue addressed early in police or military training, but deserving of an answer for the many without benefit of that kind of training or experience. 

According to Force Science News, here is why shooting to wound doesn’t make sense scientifically, legally or tactically: 

1. Hands and arms can be the fastest-moving body parts. An average suspect can move his hand and forearm across his body to a 90-degree angle in 12/100 of a second, his hand from hip to shoulder height in 18/100 of a second.
2. The average officer pulling the trigger as fast as he can requires 1/4 second to discharge each round.
3. There is no way an officer can react, track, shoot and reliably hit a threatening suspect’s forearm or a weapon in a suspect’s hand in the time spans involved.
4. Even if the suspect held his weapon arm steady, the suspect and his weapon are seldom stationary. Plus, the officer himself may be moving as he shoots, so an accurate hit would be unlikely.
5. The upper arms move more slowly, but there’s a greater chance you’re going to hit the brachial artery or center mass with a high probability of fatality. 
6. Legs tend initially to move slower than arms, however, areas of the lower trunk and upper thigh are rich with vascularity, again a higher probability of fatality. 
7. If an officer manages to take a suspect’s legs out non-fatally, that still leaves the offender’s hands free to shoot. His ability to threaten lives hasn’t necessarily been stopped.

Police officers are trained to deliver as many rounds into the ”center mass” of the target as necessary to neutralize the threat. This is the most effective way to stop the offender and the best way to ensure that the officer will survive. It is true that this target area does bring the greatest likelihood of a fatal wound, but the death of the suspect is not the objective; stopping the threat, protecting others and the survival of the officer are.

An expertly placed round fired into the gun-hand of a villain followed by his hasty surrender may look great on TV, but it is reckless and dangerous to expect it from police officers in the real world.

The next post will consider this question from the Christian perspective. Can the use of deadly force be reconciled with the Biblical Commandment?

Thou shalt not kill
Exodus 20:13 (KJV)

Virtually every discussion on the new immigration law in Arizona leads critics to conclude that civil rights violations, racial profiling and police misconduct are inevitable. Last summer, before Arizona’s SB1070 was even on the national radar President Obamaspoke of generally of ”the fact that blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently, and oftentime for no cause.” 

In light of sentiments like these the results of the annually conducted Gallup Poll on professions American’s consider the most honest and ethicalmay come as a surprise. Police Officers were ranked #4 on the most recent list, closely behind Pharmacists and MDs. In fact, police officers have been consistently in the top 5 in recent years. The 2009 poll was taken in November, after the Professor Gates arrest that prompted the Presidents criticism of the police, resulting in the highest opinion of police officers since the peak at the end of 2001.

Although President Obama’s comments seem to have had little negative impact on public opinion of police ethics, other highly publicized events may. The trend, which is positive overall, reached a low point the year of the O.J. Simpson murder trial. Mark Furhman became a household name by refusing to answer questions on the witness stand just a few months before the 1995 poll was taken, and those results were 22 points lower than today.

 Gallup 2009 Poll: U.S. Clergy, Bankers See New Lows in Honesty/Ethics Ratings: Police officers’ image recovers

Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always, even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for?
William J. Bennett

The following passage is from the book, On Combat, by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, U.S. Army (Ret.). It is a well known and fitting tribute to the sheepdogs who have made the ultimate sacrifice as we observe Peace Officers Memorial Day…

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: “Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident.” This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.

Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin’s egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

“Then there are the wolves,” the old war veteran said, “and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy.” Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

“Then there are sheepdogs,” he went on, “and I’m a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf.” Or, as a sign in one California law enforcement agency put it, “We intimidate those who intimidate others.”

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen: a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath–a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? Then you are a sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero’s path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

Lt. Col. Dave Grossman is an internationally recognized scholar, author, soldier, and speaker who is one of the world’s foremost experts in the field of human aggression and the roots of violence and violent crime. Col. Grossman is a West Point psychology professor, Professor of Military Science, and an Army Ranger who has combined his experiences to become the founder of a new field of scientific endeavor, which has been termed “killology.” In this new field Col. Grossman has made revolutionary new contributions to our understanding of killing in war, the psychological costs of war, the root causes of the current “virus” of violent crime that is raging around the world, and the process of healing the victims of violence, in war and peace.

 For more from Col. Grossman I highly recommend both of his books: 

On Combat, The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace and On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society

The Arizona law appears to be ‘facially unconstitutional. States have no power to pass immigration laws because it’s an attribute of foreign affairs. Just as states can’t have their own foreign policies or enter into treaties, they can’t have their own immigration laws either.
Professor Karl M. Manheim, Loyola Law School of Los Angeles

It may seem a bit curious to argue that a state is interfering with federal policy by rounding up too many violators, unless the policy is non-enforcement.
Law Professor Jonathan Turley, George Washington University

The prevailing opinion being heard is that Arizona’s new immigration law (SB1070) will be found unconstitutional. The two theories presented as most likely to bring the court to that conclusion:

1. Allowing police to demand proof of residency from anyone they reasonably suspect of being here illegally, is racial profiling, which is illegal.
2. Legislating on immigration is a federal responsibility and this law amounts to Arizona establishing foreign policy, which is illegal.

Allowable Error, an editorial in today’s Chicago Tribune challenges both notions, concluding that ‘while Arizona’s purported remedy for its illegal immigration dilemma is clumsy and dangerous, it’s not beyond the reasonable scope of state authority.’

On the racial profiling issue the Tribune Editorial says, “courts are not likely to block implementation of the law on the theory that it’s impossible to enforce without racial profiling. They would need evidence compiled after the law has gone into effect.”  Since the law prohibits racial profiling it makes sense that the unconstitutional case could only be made after seeing it applied in the real world. Then it seems just as likely that any examples of police misapplication of the law will be seen as individual violations of constitutional protection rather than grounds to throw out the entire law. 

On the foreign policy argument the Trib reminds that all Arizona is doing ”is shoring up enforcement of laws enacted by the federal government.” Since the new Arizona law mirrors federal law  ( 8 USC Title 8 ) and makes violating federal immigration law into a state crime, the law is designed to avoid the legal pitfall of “pre-emption,” which means a state can’t adopt laws that conflict with federal laws.  It also makes it harder to argue that Arizona is interfering with U.S. foreign policy, let alone setting its own.

Lawsuits have already been filed and time will tell how the courts will rule, but there is good reason to believe the law could survive the constitutional challenge.

“Police will now be able to make anyone they choose prove they’re here illegally.”
— CBS’s Katie Couric, April 23 Evening News.

“Battle lines over an emotional question. Can police stop you on the street if they think you’re here illegally?” 
— Brian Williams, April 23 NBC Nightly News.

“If a stranger walking down the street or riding the bus does not seem to be a US citizen, is it alright for the police to stop and question him? Well, today the Governor of Arizona signed a law that requires police to do just that.” 
— Diane Sawyer, ABC’s World News, April 23.

I realized there was a mass of misinformation on Arizona’s new law, but I was only recently confronted with those three quotes side-by-side-by-side. All three network news anchors led with statements that don’t reconcile well with what the law actually says. I would encourage you to read SB1070 for yourself, but here is what the law actually contains:

• Following lawful contact, if officers have reasonable suspicion that a subject is an illegal alien, they should question him about status if practicable
• Race, ethnicity or national origin does not provide reasonable suspicion of illegal presence
• Immigration status must be verified with ICE
• Illegal presence is a state misdemeanor
• State offenders must be turned over to DHS

The law gives more authority to the local police, which creates problems discussed in the last post, but that is the only substantial change in existing immigration law. Even with the changes the federal government is still front and center, requiring the local police to confirm immigration status through ICE and turn offenders over to DHS. Finally, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is still in place to protect from unlawful seizure and arrest without cause. There is an awful lot of high emotion over this and the media is fueling the fire.

Why is the law necessary?

The bill I’m about to sign into law – Senate Bill 1070 – represents another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix…The crisis caused by illegal immigration and Arizona’s porous border…We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of drug cartels. We cannot stand idly by as drop houses, kidnappings and violence compromise our quality of life. We cannot delay while the destruction happening south of our international border creeps its way north. We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act. But decades of federal inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation.
Jan Brewer, Arizona Governor

The Governor’s statement shows her frustration over the ‘decades of federal inaction’ that led her to the sign the law. Following Governor Bewer’s logic, if the federal government was effective in enforcing existing law there would be no need for SB1070. Does it really matter if the law is enforced locally or federally? The reasons I believe it does matter begin almost two centuries ago when the definition of contemporary law enforcement was taking shape. In 1829 Robert Peel, the father of modern policing, established nine principles for an ethical police force:    

1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.
3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

These principles established the foundation of modern policing in a democratic society and remain relevant to law enforcement philosophy today. These principles establish some key differences between the local police and the federal government and are the heart of the reason immigration enforcement should remain a federal responsibility.

Separation from the Community
The local police mission is to ‘serve and protect‘ and according to Peel to ‘prevent crime and disorder.’ A relationship with the community where ‘the police are the public and the public are the police’  is critical for encouraging victims and witnesses to come forward with information. An environment where a portion of the community is in fear of reporting crimes or providing information creates a gap between us and them and jeopardizes that mission. Under this law, the larger the immigrant population the larger that gap will be.

Immigration enforcement by local police would likely negatively effect and undermine the level of trust and cooperation between local police and immigrant communities.
Chief Robert Davis, San Jose, CA; President of the Major Cities Chiefs Association

Making the vulnerable even more vulnerable
Through this gap, gangs and other criminals will prey on this group, exploiting their fear of the police. Our first responsibility is to protect the weak and the gap between us will make us less effective at doing that. There may be no better example than a domestic violence victim who fears reporting her abuser because she, in the country unlawfully, knows that a call for help could send her to jail.

What’s going to happen is you’re going to fear the police…[immigrants are] going to shy away from us instead of coming forward with information.
Sergeant Brian Soller, Mesa, AZ; President, Mesa Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police

Burdening the system
Each local police department has limited resources. The ability to respond quickly and provide quality service is determined by the availability of officers and resources. The additional responsibility of investigating immigration status and arresting illegal aliens will stretch already thin resources. This is an unfunded mandate – a requirement without any additional means to pay for it.

What does it do to our already limited resources? Officers are going to have to spend a lot of time determining whether someone is or is not in the country illegally.
Assistant Chief Mike Denney, Mesa, AZ

The Governor of Arizona’s judgement that this law is the answer is not an issue for a police officer to resolve and the Arizona Chiefs of Police have appropriately committed to enforce the statute to the best of their ability. If stricter enforcement is required, so be it, but there are grave consequences in transferring that job from the federal government to local cops.

The law signed today by Arizona Gov. Brewer is a social and racial sin, and should be denounced as such by people of faith and conscience across the nation. It is not just about Arizona, but about all of us, and about what kind of country we want to be. It is not only mean-spirited…This law will make it illegal to love your neighbor in Arizona, and will force us to disobey Jesus and his gospel.
Rev. Jim Wallis

This is some of the strongest language I have seen from a Christian leader denouncing Arizona’s immigration enforcement law known as SB1070,  but denouncing it is virtually the unanimous position of the faith community. So, how is a police officer who is a follower of Christ to navigate this issue? A moral crisis exists if we are called upon to commit “a social and racial sin” in the performance of our duties. Is that the position that police officers in Arizona will find themselves? What are the principles that should help form our view?

First Principle: God Establishes Civil Authorities and We are to Obey Them.

• National sovereignty is authority delegated to civil authorities by God. (Romans 13:1-7)
• Determining immigration policy, who to admit and conditions for applying, belongs to each sovereign nation.
• Outsiders have no legitimate voice in that exercise of national sovereignty.
• Obeying civil laws is imperative for Christians. (1 Peter 2:13-17 , Titus 3:1)

The Bible recognizes the sovereignty of nations, the significance of borders, the value of citizenship and the authority of civil law. Police officers, citizens and immigrants are subject to that law and are expected to obey it. Immigration laws, including the arrest and deportation of illegal immigrants, can be righteously enforced by the government and its agents.

 Second Principle: God’s Expectations are Greater of You than the for Civil Authorities.

The government, its authority and all of its laws exist temporarily as part of our broken world. God’s plan for you is an eternal one and the sacrifice on the cross was for you, not for the United States or the State of Arizona. Your reward is eternal and your responsibility is greater. Justice is a matter of law, mercy and grace you will be held personally accountable for. 

For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
“He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Matthew 25:42-46

When asked what is required to inherit eternal life the answer came, ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live” (Luke 10:27-28). 

In the practice of the complex and demanding craft of policing, good officers — the vast majority –routinely make nuanced judgments about when there is probable cause for acting on reasonable suspicions of illegality. George Will

Mr. Will is right. This is the daily challenge to police officers everywhere. The condition of your heart as you make these “nuanced judgments” will determine whether you are racially profiling, which critics of the law claim is inevitable, or lawfully enforcing the law ethically and in a God honoring way.

Another concern with this law is the shifting of a federal responsibility to local authorities. I will explore the dangers of local police officers enforcing immigration law in the next post.

“Money don’t get everything, it’s true
What it don’t get, I can’t use
Well, now give me money (that’s what I want)
A lot of money (that’s what I want)

The Beatles were singing this one in 1963 and by 1969…

Last night the wife said,
“Oh boy, when you’re dead
You don’t take nothing with you
But your soul – think!”
John Lennon, The Ballad of John and Yoko

In those years John Lennon set the standard for fame and fortune and it caused him to literally change his tune.  What he discovered on a grand scale we would all be wise to consider. What is contentment and, if not from money or achievement, how can we find it?

con·tent (kən-těnt’)   
adj. 
Desiring no more than what one has; satisfied.

The dictionary definition is simple enough, but what does it really mean? Our consumer culture tells us we should not be content. After all, if you were satisfied with your car why would you ever buy a shiny new one? The same is true of the house you live in or the clothes you wear. Everything that can be bought comes with a message that you cannot really be satisfied without it, and once you have it you should start considering a new and better version. We are flooded with so many messages that stir our discontent it is a wonder that anyone can put out the desire for the greener grass on the other side of the hill. Is it really even possible to be completely satisfied with what you have? 

The tenth ancient principle to be content with what you have is formed from the commandment that you shall not covet, or specifically,

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. Exodus 20:17

The word ‘covet’ comes from the latin cupiditas meaning “passionate desire.” The dictionary qualifies it as desire “wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others.” So there are two related problems, our unhappiness with our own circumstances that leads to an unhealthy eye for our neighbor’s stuff. Unlike others principles like truthfulness, theft or fidelity this issue is in your heart. The symptoms may leak out for others to see but the issue is a secret one that eats away from the inside.

The Apostle Paul writes,

But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness. Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses.
1 Timothy 6:6-12

Lennon was on to something and Paul has it right. Pursuing wealth or material things will never satisfy you. Not only can you never get enough, the pursuit will lead to places and people where temptation can destroy you.

I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do everything through him who gives me strength.
Philippians 4:11-13

If your contentment comes from your circumstances the only way to try and find satisfaction is to change the things around you. Will you be happier with a promotion or a new job, a new spouse or more money? Maybe for a time, but the problem, of course, is that there is always something new or better that will improve whatever circumstances you are in. The pursuit is hopeless and only leads to greater discontent. Paul’s secret is to separate the two. By divorcing contentment from circumstances and finding strength in Christ he found lasting purpose and satisfaction. What was true for Paul is true for you, contentment comes from the pursuit of things that matter.

Three Keys Points:

1. Recognize that possessions are gifts. If you can’t take it with you it is only borrowed and everything you have falls into that category. If you consider all your possessions gifts from God it will bring you one step closer to contentment.
2. Avoid making comparisons. This is what leads to the unhealthy eye for another person’s gifts. If you are prone to comparing yourself to others remember that you never have to look far for someone who has worse conditions than yours, no matter how bad your situation is. You can increase your gratitude for the gifts you have by remembering that most of the world has much less.
3. Separate contentment from circumstances. You are created in the image of God for a purpose and pursuing that purpose is the only thing that will bring lasting satisfaction. This is true no matter what your current circumstances are.