ENS–House of Bishops issues 'theological resource,' pastoral letter on immigration
Posted in
* Anglican - Episcopal,
* Culture-Watch,
* Economics, Politics,
Episcopal Church (TEC),
Ethics / Moral Theology,
Immigration,
Law & Legal Issues,
Religion & Culture,
TEC Bishops,
Theology
The use of Hooker is interesting to say the least; I wonder if the drafting committee has read what Hooker says about Scripture and its role in the church? Will we see a teaching from the House of Bishops on that? The description of the origins and purpose of the Church in the first lines of the document should lead a thoughtful reader to put the document down and walk away.
#1 Is right, when I read,
[blockquote]”The church was born out of the passionate conviction of a growing number of people that, united with the crucified and risen Jesus in baptism, and empowered by the same Spirit that empowered him in his humanity, they could welcome one another, and everyone else, just the way Jesus did. They rightly discerned the social critique embedded in Jesus’ own total availability to others, and, beginning with the admission of the Gentiles and the blurring of distinctions between slave and free, rich and poor, they organized themselves as a community geared to transform Jesus’ personal example into a collective way of life that could challenge prevailing cultural and social norms.” [/blockquote]
I knew that I was not of their world.
I would certainly welcome a pastoral and theological resource from the House of Bishops that would assist in mining the scriptural approach and understanding of immigration, and immigration reform; and then to make use of that scriptural foundation to adequately asses the situation and issue of immigration in outlining a social analysis leading to an authentic strategy, marked by the Church’s tradition and reason.
I really would welcome something like that.
I’m going with the Pewster on this one: the Introduction itself (properly, I suppose) reveals an undermining of the scriptural resource from the get-go.
Why is the church in existence? Because of “the passionate conviction” of “some people” who got together, etc., etc.? And then (they) organized into a social change agency collective?
The scriptural record is quite simple: come to God; the World will change; but not enough to keep the Second Coming from happening.
Despite the rest of the verbiage (united with Jesus, baptism, etc.) this introduction simply smacks of unrelenting humanism, where it is clearly – if John 3:16, and confirming scripture has anything to say about it –
the initiative, the passion, the love, the mercy of God. I appreciate the short biblical reference and discussion by pointing to Leviticus in the body of the work. But 1) the introduction points more to human resourcing than divine, and 2) it is ironic that this resource would refer in this situation to Leviticus when leadership resources on other major issues (such as homosexuality) can hardly say the first syllable of the book without gagging.
I’ll be reading it a couple more times, even if only to appreciate the effort. But the introduction (again, properly) told me more than enough.
I think this analysis of Hooker is extremely problematic. Do we know who did the work?
Whether I agreed with it or not, I was initially hopeful as I read over the first pages that this might actually be something of substance from the House of Bishops. As noted above, the logic abrogating Richard Hooker becomes increasingly bizarre as you go along, until you get to the final concluding (and convoluted) paragraph in the section on Hooker which is as follows:
[blockquote]In any case, It can certainly be argued that the founders of our nation, while they did not seek to establish a Christian nation in the strict sense, did seek to establish just such a laboratory, since, as Hannah Arendt pointed out, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness†included “public happiness,†that is, the enjoyment of vigorous debate and creative collaboration in the civic arena, where mutual respect is the political equivalent of love. If that is the case, the collective political will that established our independence and bore fruit in our union is an historical example of that compact or covenant which for Hooker is the origin of all authentic national life, namely, the collective decision to value whoever happens to be around. If Hooker is right that this emergent national covenant implies a decision to value all human beings without distinction (including those who are not born or naturalized into the nation), then it is no surprise that our nation began instantly to welcome wave after wave of immigrants.[/blockquote]
I won’t even go into the logical [i]non sequiturs[/i] this presents. I would note with interest that sprinkled into the discourse on Hooker’s Polity, you have random quotes from Walter Bruggemann, a congregationalist who is not even from our tradition, which seems to me to detract from a discourse on Anglican tradition on issues of this nature.
But then (wait for the buzz word), you come to the denouement of the final section: Witness and Action, where you get this opening (wait for it) salvo:
[blockquote] So where does that leave U.S. Episcopalians with regard to immigration reform? As a spiritual body politic whose emerging goal is to display [i]Jesus’ radical welcome[/i] to everyone, it is clear that we have an obligation to advocate for every undocumented worker as already being a citizen of God’s reign on earth and one for whom Christ died. This must always be our starting point.[/blockquote]
All this leg work, building toward a pre-exisitng ECUSA buzzword: radical welcome. But radical welcome of what? Notice the terminology shift in this section: [i]undocumented workers[/i]. The term “illegal” is no longer used because, presumably, it’s a self justifying term.
This analysis falls short because of this issue. With all the talk of “resident aliens” in the first section, somehow the song and dance turns to undocumented workers, thus completely ignoring the breaking of laws that such “undocumented workers” are engaged in. I think this resource document needs to go back and consult Hooker’s speaking to the laws of the realm, both spiritual and temporal. What Hooker says elsewhere short circuits the thin logic used here to justify a supposition the House of Bishops has long since already been involved with.
This is a self-justifying line of thought.
Period.
I would also not the bizarre nature of the final paragraph:
[blockquote]Needless to say, before we can use the national covenant as an argument for new policies, we must convince our fellow citizens that such a covenant exists or is at least worth striving to make real. We will do that not so much with words as with our willingness as church people to be involved in civic life at every level, and with our renewed passion to reinvigorate and if necessary reinvent a national life that draws us into lively fellowship across all lines.[/blockquote]
This notion of a national covenant is what is also known in political science circles as “social contract theory,” which is a theory that has some serious detractors in political science theory. Given the ongoing drama of the Anglican Communion in the last 8 years, I don’t think the Episcopal Church needs to be lecturing other people in civic society about this idea, given the fact that the actions of the Episcopal Church of late have ripped the fabric of the Communion.
That is to say, the Episcopal Church hasn’t bothered to live up to its covenant to live within the mind of the Anglican Communion. If the Episcopal Church can’t bring itself to live as a good citizen within its own ecclesial realm, I don’t know how they can ask others with a straight face “to do as I say not as I do.”
#6 Archer, you are right on target.
In addition to the above, there are other curiosities to be found in the resolution. This one was beyond belief,
[blockquote]”The question on which the present debate turns – what to do with illegal immigrants – is one which the ancient world would have been mystified by…”[/blockquote]
The bishops should turn to Genesis 47 and the story of Joseph and the first legal immigration act.
[blockquote] He then presented to Pharaoh five of his brothers whom he had selected from their full number. When Pharaoh asked them what their occupation was, they answered, “We, your servants, like our ancestors, are shepherds. We have come,” they continued, “in order to stay in this country, for there is no pasture for your servants’ flocks in the land of Canaan, so severe has the famine been there. Please, therefore, let your servants settle in the region of Goshen.”
Pharaoh said to Joseph, “They may settle in the region of Goshen; and if you know any of them to be qualified, you may put them in charge of my own livestock.” Thus, when Jacob and his sons came to Joseph in Egypt, and Pharaoh, king of Egypt, heard about it, Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Now that your father and brothers have come to you, the land of Egypt is at your disposal; settle your father and brothers in the pick of the land.” (NAB) [/blockquote]
I suspect Pharoah would have dealt harshly (with the sword) with anyone migrating into his lands without legal permission. What were the Episcopal bishops (although this smells like one bishop’s handiwork) smoking when they wrote this?
As in other cases, they have started with a conclusion they wished to reach and then took whatever steps were necessary to get there. That this essay is thoroughly dishonest is not surprising because TEC and its ilk have no reason to be interested in sound or careful argument. Do you suppose Jesus would have recognized himself in this portrayal? Larry
We as a nation have a national covenant, it’s called the Preamble of the Constitution.” We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The HOB spends a lot of time quoting Hooker, yet they fail to understand that the document that holds sway is not the Declaration of Independence, but the Constitution. The church has the right to challenge the state, but the church, if it is to enter the realm of politics, has to understand the system. Our system was never designed to create ‘lively fellowship across all lines.’ It was designed to create a functional government and a stable society.
I recall a number of years ago an ethicist in my city bemoaning “the lack of a sense of the common good” among many an American church, driven she felt by an excessive cultural individualism. In the first place, I actually agree with her. That agreed, I then responded that “by and large this sense of the common good was more a symptom of common grace than salvific grace”. She agreed with my added diagnosis.
In other words, not only is this document an expression of humanism, as suggested. Its avoidance of the real reason for ‘Church’, as the object and agent of the Divine Plan of Cosmic Salvation, is not just a mistake. It is damnable!