Episcopal Church bishops are always susceptible tocaricature, and their recent "pastoralletter" on immigration is no exception. The 2million member denomination's House of Bishops recently met inArizona, the troubled front line for immigration controversies.About 60 bishops symbolically met near the Mexican border carryingwhite crosses representing illegals who had died locally ofexposure while trekking through the desert. Later joined by another60 fellow bishops in Phoenix, they seemingly urged a U.S. policy ofvirtual open borders.
"Ours is a migratory world in which many people moveacross borders to escape poverty, hunger, injustice and violence,"the bishops observed. "We categorically reject efforts tocriminalize undocumented migrants and immigrants, and deplore theseparation of families and the unnecessary incarceration ofundocumented workers. Since, as we are convinced, it is natural toseek gainful employment to sustain oneself and one's family, wecannot agree that the efforts of undocumented workers to feed andshelter their households through honest labor arecriminal."
Later in the bishops' letter they approvingly cite borderenforcement against migrating "drug traffickers," "terrorists," andundefined "other criminals." But presumably everybody else in theworld has an intrinsic right to move to the U.S. with full accessto the social services offered to U.S. citizens. The bishopsprofessed that "inhumane policies directed against undocumentedpersons (raids, separation of families, denial of health services)are intolerable on religious and humanitarian grounds." Indeed,"our gracious welcome of immigrants, documented or undocumented, isa reflection of God's grace poured out on us and onall."
Like many Mainline Protestant elites who blithely have notyet realized their own cultural marginalization, the Episcopalbishops often conflate themselves and their own churches withAmerica as a nation, including its government and culture. TheGospel commands the Church to offer its message ministry to allpersons, from sanctified saints to incarcerated murderers. But theGospel does not command the U.S. government, or any earthly civilregime, to offer universal hospitality.Â
Speaking of their experience in the desert, EpiscopalPresiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori chimed that "it willhelp us to reduce both our own caricatures and prejudices and maybedo the same for others." It's not clear to which "caricatures" shewas referring, but likely it did not apply to negative caricaturesabout the defenders of Arizona's attempted immigration lawenforcement, which Arizona's' bishop naturally has denounced. Thepastoral letter from the full House of Bishops darkly noted that"racism and bigotry impact debates over migration and immigration"and condemned any purported "racial profiling in the arrest ofpersons suspected of being undocumented." But, of course, thebishops seem to oppose any immigration related law enforcementexcept when involving drug trafficking, terrorism or "othercriminals."
The bishops' overall tone towards immigration was one ofguilt and repentance for alleged national sins, not only forpersecution of today's illegal immigrants, but even for morelongstanding historical injustices. After the march in the desert,Bishop Assistant Carol Gallagher of North Dakota told EpiscopalNews Service: "I'm aware that this was Mexican territory. Thepeople haven't changed, the border changed. The politics changed."The House of Bishops' accompanying "resource" document confesses tothe Episcopal Church's "past complicity in imperialist policies" bythe U.S. Although not yet advocating that the Southwest U.S. bereturned to Mexico, in a return to the pre-Mexican American Warstatus quo, the Episcopal Bishops no doubt aspire to some endlesslyongoing reparation by the U.S. towards Mexico.
Although the bishops claimed they do not "discount theconcerns of our fellow citizens regarding the danger uncontrolledimmigration poses to our safety and economic well-being," in factthey do. Essentially such concerns should surrender to a "broadercontext of a national commitment and covenant to inclusion andfellowship across all lines for the sake of the common good." Wemust "remember that the good of a nation lies beyond its ownself-interest, toward a vision of a humanity restored in JesusChrist," the bishops admonished, though typically it is only theU.S. that is called to self-denial, while other nations areportrayed mostly as aggrieved victims.
In their accompanying immigration "resource," the bishopsacknowledge a "national covenant" obliging the U.S. bishopshypothetically to respect their fellow citizens worried about lawenforcement, social service costs, and job loss. But they seem tobelieve such national loyalties are subordinate to an undefined"common good that reaches beyond private interests, transcendssectarian commitments, and offers human solidarity," according to aquote they employ from liberal United Church of Christ theologianWalter Brueggemann. Of course, the bishops do not consider thecosts of unregulated immigration that are immeasurable materially.Nor do they ponder the potential negative impact on immigrantsthemselves and their originating nations.
Like most on the Religious Left, the Episcopal Bishopsseem uncomfortable with national sovereignty in the politicalsphere, just as the Religious Left is often theologicallyuncomfortable with Christianity's exclusivist truth claims, or theexpectation of monogamy in traditional marriage, and the loyaltiesinherent to traditional families. Their vague political andtheological universalism ultimately derides nearly all skeptics asbigots, while envisioning an unlikely and unappealing world withoutmeaningful loyalties. A more traditional Christian understanding ofthe common good recognizes that universal love is only reached, ifat all, incrementally through the particular attachments of familyand nation. These Episcopal bishops, busy with desert photo ops andpolemical news releases, are anxious to make sweeping utopianclaims, without a clear constituency or audience.
Letter to the Editor
Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Taking Back the United Methodist Church.
Support Principled Campaign Coverage
Donate by Sept. 30 to double your money!
Sign up to receive our hard-hitting and timely features every month!
Read Full Article »