The Political Litany of ¡Caminemos Juntos!

I post this with sadness.  My church supports ministry to Hispanics, and our beloved bilingual Rector is remarkably active in that.  As part of his ministry, working with ¡Caminemos Juntos!  (CJuntos) has been a possibility and may still be; it’s up to him (although because of the following I have advised him to work with other groups instead).  I had thought that perhaps CJuntos had backed away from its previous political activism for the sake of ministry and unity.  So I find their Litany Of Lament And Repentance For Our Treatment Of Immigrants And Refugees disappointing to say the least.

First, there is this introduction on the CJuntos site:

The last weeks have seen a dramatic increase in tension even in what has already been an incredibly tense climate for immigrants in the United States. Threats of raids and deportation, rapidly changing and confusing immigration law making it harder to legally enter the country to request asylum, rumors of the ending of all refugee resettlement and the increase of negative rhetoric in the news media has terrorized the immigrant community including those within out Caminemos Juntos family. We are in many ways a persecuted people. . . .

Oh please.  First, immigrants who have entered legally have nothing to worry about as long as they continue to obey the law. That’s the way it is for citizens, too, by the way.  Second, even illegal immigrants who have not skipped their court dates, have otherwise not committed crimes, and don’t have deportation orders on them have not much to worry about either.  There are 11 million or more illegals in this country.  Only a small fraction of those have deportation orders or are being deported.  The authorities are prioritizing who to deport because they have no choice with that many illegals here.

Besides that, being removed from a country you entered illegally is hardly terror.  If I entered the UK illegally or stayed longer than permitted and were then removed, I would look rather silly if I cried out, “Help! Help! I’m being terrorized!” If you really want to be “terrorized,” live in an area where the MS-13 gang of mostly illegals operates.

I will concede that we should watch our rhetoric especially in the current climate.  I hope CJuntos is also concerned about some of the rhetoric against those who oppose open borders. 

Note the conflation of both legal and illegal immigrants as simply “immigrants.”  There are a lot of legal immigrants who find that offensive. And this conflation is throughout this litany.

Finally, to equate enforcing immigration law and restricting who may enter and stay in this country with persecution is slanderous.  

Skipping a bit into the litany itself:

Officiant: You said: “Don’t oppress an immigrant.

You know what it’s like to be an immigrant,

because you were immigrants in Egypt.”

I don’t know Hebrew, but “immigrant” seems a sloppy translation for political purposes to me.  

But we have forgotten the hardships faced

by our ancestors who came to this country…

Speak for yourself!  My Granddad was a legal immigrant.  He worked himself to early grave, a few years before I was born, to provide well for his family.  My family still benefits, and I am here because of him.  I sure have not forgotten him or his hardships.

Officiant: You said “When a stranger sojourns 

with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong.         

You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you          

as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself.”                                                                                                                                      

But we done wrong to the sojourners to this land:            

separating children from parents and husbands               

from wives, limiting opportunities for work                   

and education opportunities and not loving these              

new neighbors as ourselves. 

So much to dissect there.  First, when one breaks the law, the lawbreaker is often separated from his family.  That goes for citizens, too.  Second, as I have noted, there is rampant child trafficking along the border.  There have been several surges of migrants.  Dealing with the numbers and figuring out who are real families and who are fake families (of which there are many) and dealing with them accordingly is not an easy task at all.  There is not much question that the surges and caravans with accompanying child smuggling were designed to overwhelm the border.  So then to whinge when we struggle imperfectly to deal with that situation humanely is . . . well, I will allow readers to choose the adjectives of their choice.

Now, of course, the simplest way to keep illegals and their families together is quickly to deport them together or, better, to not allow them in at all.  But I doubt ¡Caminemos Juntos! would like that.  Instead, they likely want to let most to all of these families right on in together.  And then, after an eventual amnesty of some sort (which I would guess - just guess - CJuntos also likely wants), by chain migration, here come the extended families!  So really their whinging about “families” is advocating for open borders and mass immigration, or close to it.

Further, making too much of a priority to keep families together is encouraging and enabling the child trafficking at the border.  By the way, notice how the serious problem of child trafficking is not mentioned in this litany?

“Limiting opportunities for work…” So we should displace citizen labor with illegal immigrant labor?  Ask construction workers who have seen their wages depressed by cheap illegal labor what they think of that!  Where is the concern for those whose opportunities and wages are suppressed by cheap immigrant labor?  This lack of concern for citizens sounds more like the Democrat Party than the church.

That is another problem with this litany. It is not only out of balance; it pretends valid competing claims have no legitimacy worth mentioning.  

“Limiting . . . education opportunities…” How?  Thanks to an old Supreme Court ruling, public schools have to educate the children of illegals (which is overwhelming some school districts and harming the education of citizens).  Most universities welcome illegals and many even provide financial aid.  Many illegals get a far better education here than they would hope to get in their home countries.    

Skipping a bit…

But rather than recognizing your sovereign

disciple-making purposes in the dispersion of 

peoples across borders, we have seen 

immigrants as a threat. We have failed to 

practice Godly hospitality and instead embraced 

protectionist nationalism, not submit our ways of 

thinking to the authority of your word.

Well, MS-13 and other criminals streaming across the border are a threat to say the least.

“We have . . . embraced protectionist nationalism.”

That is a straw man.  To want controls on immigration and a secure border is hardly “protectionist nationalism.”  And what is that anyway?  If I love my country and want to protect it and its culture, does that make me a “protectionist nationalist”?  Instead of engaging with different views of what is appropriate immigration policy, CJuntos engages in buzzwords in a prayer no less. Maybe they should submit that “to the authority of your word.”

By the way, whatever “protectionist nationalists” are, I don’t think there are many of them at ¡Caminemos Juntos! meetings.  I thought confessing other people’s sins was an Episcopalian thing.

We have opposed change resisting any giving up of our ways of worship and life.   

That’s backward, isn’t it?  It’s immigrants (and now I include legal immigrants) who should change and become American if they are going to move to America. (Yes, different cultures enrich America.) If I were to move to England, even I would not insist it become Texan.  (Well, I have introduced Tabasco Sauce on eggs to Pusey House, but anyway….)  I would instead become at least English enough to participate well in that culture.  And if someone is going to become Anglican, Anglican churches shouldn’t change their “ways of worship” for him/her.  We should not starting dunking people and stop baptizing babies if a Baptist joins us.  We shouldn’t cavort during our processions if a Pentecostal joins us.  “Our ways of worship” are an integral part of being Anglican.

But maybe I am misunderstanding here. How should we change, even give up “our ways of worship” for immigrants other than providing language assistance? This seems to me more of what we hear from the social justice crowd, that the church should change to be more to their liking.  But that is a whole ‘nother post, and maybe I am hearing this wrong anyway. Am I?  It is a perplexing clause at best.     

At least the litany ends well:

Lord, have mercy upon us.                                            

Christ, have mercy upon us.                                    

Lord, have mercy upon us.                                                               

Let us pray. Oremos.

A Collect for Refugees and Immigrants          

Heavenly Father, from whom every family on earth derives its name, have mercy on all those who sojourn in this world. As you sheltered your Son Jesus who fled from the tyranny of Herod, so now provide new homes for all those who flee the violence of this age that they may know the peace of Christ. Grace your people with hearts of welcome and lives of courage through Jesus Christ who lives and   reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, forever and ever. Amen.

That collect was written by Archbishop Foley Beach and serves as a godly example of making public prayer something in which all faithful Anglicans can participate.  Unlike most of the litany, I can pray that collect along with ¡Caminemos Juntos!.  Public prayer certainly should not smear and divide the faithful church along political lines.

Child Trafficking Used by Criminals to Enter U. S.

Earlier this week in discussing the rampant child trafficking at the border, child smuggling used to game entry, I noted that rather suddenly men trying to enter are showing up with children.  I was skeptical about the motives, and I was right, of course: 

The Department of Homeland Security treats the expanded “Flores” decree like God’s word, releasing any illegal alien who crosses the border with a child, even if border personnel can’t confirm identities, criminal records, or whether they are threats to Americans or to the children they’re using as golden tickets.

Senator James Lankford, R-Okla., announced at yesterday’s Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing that border agents told him, on his recent trip to the border, that they found in two separate incidents that an alleged murderer and a convicted pedophile had each been released with a kid as part of the expanded Flores catch-and-release deadline of 20 days.

In one case, “they released an adult with a child and then found out two weeks later that that adult had a murder warrant in their home country, and they just released him into the country, and they could do nothing about it.” In another case, “they had released an adult traveling with a child and then found out after they were released when they got their criminal records in from home country that, that was a convicted pedophile from that country now traveling with a child somewhere in our country, and because we couldn’t detain them for longer than 20 days and we couldn’t get those criminal records, they’re released in the country, and they’re traveling with a child.”

When Lankford asked acting Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner Mark Morgan whether border personnel were able to verify criminal status within the arbitrary 20-day deadline by the courts, he answered, “Not efficiently.”

So criminals are using child smuggling, combined with the 20 day deadline mandated by a California judge in the Flores decision, to be released into our country to prey on the rest of us.  And in case one thinks I am being alarmist about exceptional situations…

“In every single group, almost without fail, there is someone with a criminal record, typically males with single kids,” [an anonymous] agent said. “There is a wide misconception about the majority of these people being females. They are overwhelmingly male. While we try to prioritize referrals for prosecution based on criminal history, we only have so many computers we can utilize and so many staff members.”

When I asked him if that means there are those with confirmed criminal records, even with convictions in the U.S., who have been released, he said, “Absolutely. … They are given a notice to appear in court like anyone else.”

And we know that most do not show up for their court hearings.

Again, sentimental thinking about children and families at the border is enabling child trafficking and other criminality.  Yes, families (not the fake ones) showing up at the border should be kept together . . . by sending them back across the border immediately if they don’t have proper documentation.  If they want and merit a hearing, they can wait for it across the border.  We must stop policies which make children a golden ticket to get in and thereby make them targets of child trafficking.

Rampant Child Trafficking: Children Used to Game Border Entry

Disclaimer: I wish I didn’t find it necessary to post this and similar stories on this blog.  I know some may find it off-topic. But Anglicans are among those being taken in by and often furthering sentimental weaponized compassion about illegal entry and are being used to undermine our borders and our country. Reality checks are necessary.

----

There is a lot of sentimental talk in the Southern Baptist Convention, the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) and other churches and Christian organizations about keeping families at the border together.  (Strange that deporting them together is rarely suggested as a solution.)  This and other weaponized compassion about “refugees” and “immigrants” is enabling rampant child trafficking.  A lot of those families are fake: 

Homeland Security Investigations, a division of ICE, sent 400 agents to El Paso and Rio Grande Valley, Texas, in mid-April to interview families that Border Patrol suspected were fake. In the last eight weeks, HSI special agents have identified 5,500 fraudulent families—about 15 percent of all cases referred.

McAleenan said agents have uncovered 921 fake documents and 615 individuals have been prosecuted for trafficking or smuggling a child.

“That tells me that we might be scratching the surface of this problem and the number of children being put at risk might be even higher,” he said.

“Everybody knows that if they bring a child, they’ll be allowed to stay in the United States—they call it a ‘passport for migration.’ I heard that directly from a gentleman from Huehuetenango, the western-most province of Guatemala.”

Yes.  Smuggling children in order to gain entry into the U. S.

Do we want people who would do this in our country at all?

But you get more of what you reward. And we are rewarding child trafficking at the border.  If you have a child with you and get across the border, you are probably in. For that we can thank . . .

The legal loophole that is fueling the sharp increase in family units was opened in 2015 by a California judge, [of course] who amended the Flores Settlement Agreement to prohibit the detention of families for more than 20 days. Previously, the 20-day rule was applied to unaccompanied minors only.

An immigration case cannot be adjudicated within 20 days, so families who cross the border illegally are now released by Border Patrol within days, with a future court date that most fail to honor.  [87% fail to show up by one study. – ed.]

One of the most telling statistics is that of men crossing the border with a child. In 2014, fewer than 1 percent of all men apprehended by Border Patrol in the Rio Grande Valley Sector had a child with them. That number now sits at 50 percent, according to Rodolfo Karisch, chief Border Patrol agent for that sector.

Wow! It’s so nice to see male illegals suddenly become so family-oriented!

Now at least some of those men are smuggling their own children, taking them through a dangerous journey, which is bad enough. Who knows how many of those men are smuggling other people’s children.

As for unaccompanied minors, most of them are smuggled as well in part to, yes, game the system.

McAleenan said it’s often a parent, who is already in the United States illegally, who pays a smuggler to deliver their child up to the border.

“I don’t think most people realize that most of these unaccompanied children are being released to parents or relatives in the United States who are also here unlawfully, who may not have permission to work in the United States,” McAleenan said.

New restrictions, placed by Congress in the latest round of appropriations, include a provision that illegal aliens in a household with an unaccompanied minor are now exempt from deportation.

Again, rewarding child trafficking and the violation of our borders.

As I’ve said before, I do not pretend to know the balance between compassion on the one hand and self-defense and not enabling criminal behavior on the other.  But we as churches and as a nation need to be realistic about who is entering the U. S. and how they are gaining entry, even if being realistic is smeared as racist or whatever.

And, for the sake of children and the God who loves them, we must stop enabling and rewarding child trafficking.

Texas TEC Bishops Parrot Lies About “Refugees” and the Border

Bishops from all six Texas dioceses of The Episcopal Church (TEC) have written an open letter of the usual lies about the border “to state and national leaders.”  Yes, even the TEC Bishop of Dallas signed this bovine excrement. Some excerpts:

We write to decry the conditions in detention centers at our border because we are Christians, and Jesus is unequivocal. We are to pray without ceasing for everyone involved-refugees, elected officials, and law enforcement-while also advocating for the humane treatment of the human beings crowding our border [They are being treated as humanely as possible given that your Democrat Party has made their jobs as difficult as possible and given that LibChurchers like you, the Democrat Party, and other Leftists have joined the drug cartels in enabling and encouraging the storming of our borders.] as they flee the terror and violence [LIE: Most are country-shopping economic migrants.  Some are predatory criminals. And Guatemala, for example, islessviolent than years ago.]of their home countries.

We call on our state and national leaders to reject fear-based policy-making that targets people who are simply seeking safety, [Telling that LIE again.] and a chance to live and work in peace. The situation at the border is, by all accounts, a crisis. [Oh. Where were you bishops when Trump was calling it a crisis, and Democrats were calling it a made-up crisis and refusing to provide needed funding and beds?]…

We are to care for the children, cherish them, protect them and keep them safe. [So why are you advocating for the continued enabling of rampant child smuggling?  And where is the concern about keeping American children safe from MS13 and other criminals coming across the border?]…

This is not a call for open borders. [Yeah.  Riiight.] This is not saying that immigration isn’t complicated. This is a call for a humane and fair system for moving asylum seekers and refugees through the system as required by law. Seeking asylum is not illegal.[Immigration fraud, including false asylum claims, not showing up for one’s hearing, and fake families, is illegal.] Indeed, the people at our border are following the law when they present themselves to border authorities. [Half truth: Presenting themselves to border authorities when caught crossing illegally does not make the illegal crossing legal.] 

Asylum is “a protection granted to foreign nationals already in the United States or at the border who meet the international law definition of a ‘refugee,’ which is ‘a person who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country, and cannot obtain protection in that country, due to past persecution or a well-founded fear of being persecuted in the future ‘on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.’” 

And economic country-shopping is not on the list.  Nor is the very common practice of ditching one’s asylum hearing allowed either.

By the way, if The Episcopal Church cares oh-so much about “refugees,” why don’t they stop suing real Christians of the Anglican Church in North America and use the funds to assist refugees instead of paying their predatory lawyers?

Is a Democrat Congresswoman and the Roman Catholic Church Engaged in Immigration Fraud?

It is one thing for the Democrat Party and the Roman Catholic Church to oppose and undermine almost every reasonable attempt to secure our borders, although that is bad enough.  But it quite another to solicit immigration fraud. Yet it appears the staff of Democrat Congresswoman Veronica Escobar of El Paso and the local Roman Catholic Diocese are doing just that.

Under the bilateral Migration Protection Protocols, or “Remain in Mexico” policy, anyone returned must be fluent in Spanish because they may have to reside in Mexico up to five years until a U.S. federal judge decides their asylum claim. A Democratic politician's aides reescorting people back to the port are telling officers the Central American individual with them cannot speak Spanish despite their having communicated in it days earlier, CBP officials said.

“What we’re hearing from management is that they’re attempting to return people, and the story was changed in Mexico, where a person who understood Spanish before now doesn’t understand — where a person who didn’t have any health issues before now has health issues," the union representative said.

I’m not a (spit) immigration lawyer, but that sounds like fraud to me.

Most of the attention so far – which is not much yet – is on the actions of Rep. Escobar and her staff.  But the Roman Catholic Church may be involved in border immigration fraud as well.  One case is interesting:

In one incident, an Escobar aide and diocese official walked a male migrant over the bridge in June and asked for him to be admitted into the U.S. because they had found he had "cognitive disabilities." Officers took the boy and turned the case over to the Border Patrol, where an agent found a Constituent Information and Privacy Release Form with the U.S. House of Representatives seal on it inside the 17-year-old's file. Two officials said the paper would have to have been put in his file while he was interviewed in Mexico and was not supposed to have been left there because it would reveal to the Border Patrol that a member of Congress or their staff was meeting with migrants in Mexico.

The boy has since returned to Mexico because the medical condition was not diagnosed by a medical professional but by an aide of the congresswoman, one official said Friday. 

“Management saw that form and was like, ‘What is this?’ and reached out to our International Liaison Unit. And ILU said, ‘Yes, Veronica Escobar and several other politicians are in Mexico trying to defeat the MPP program,'" the union said.

I suspect this is not the last we’ve heard of this matter.

About That Russell Moore Immigration Video

I’ll be honest – when I began watching Russell Moore’s latest on immigration, I braced myself for a rise in blood pressure.  And my temper may have blipped up for a moment when he engaged in his usual practice of turning opponents into straw men and visa versa.

But he only did that briefly and not as obnoxiously as he has in the past.  And he actually made some good points and was somewhat balanced.  He even proclaimed, “Borders are Biblical.” Further, he put that front and center in the accompanying tweet.

NEW EPISODE

Borders are biblical. Our immigration system is broken. Immigrants bear the image of God. These are just a few of the things Christians need to keep in mind in the #immigration debate.

And we’ll talk about all of it in this @YouTube episode: https://t.co/AoPNnzaKz5

— Russell Moore (@drmoore) May 28, 2019

 

Now I do not find his video particularly profound.  But it certainly is an improvement on his past videos and podcasts on topics dear to the “social justice” crowd.  And (I can hardly believe I am saying this.), his video finds more common ground with those wanting to crack down on illegal immigration than it does inflame them.

But see what you think.  I think the best way to watch the video is with Jon Harris’ balanced analysis of it.

Reflecting further on this video, I wonder if Moore has decided to seek to find more common ground with politically conservative and/or Trumpist faithful instead of smearing and alienating them.  Yes, wishing thinking perhaps.  But one can hope.

Since he is a keynote speaker at the ACNA Provincial Assembly, we may find out in about two weeks.

87% of Recent “Refugees” Not Showing Up to Asylum Hearings

I know.  This subject may seem very off-topic.  But it is not; so bear with me.

We hear a lot of propaganda about the poor, poor “refugees” now surging into the U. S.  Here is a basic fact that speaks volumes:

In testimony before Congress this month, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials said that the agency had recently conducted a pilot program with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to test how many recent illegal aliens would show up to their asylum hearings after being released into the U.S.

The results, an ICE official told Congress, were that about 87 percent of illegal aliens, or almost 9-in-10, recently released by DHS into the U.S. did not show up to their asylum hearings. 

So 87% of these recent “refugees” don’t even show up for their hearings.  Most are not legitimate refugees in the first place; they are country shoppers. Otherwise they would seek refuge closer to their home countries, which would be in Mexico for most of them. Then they perpetuate their fraud by not even showing up for their asylum hearings.  That is the respect they show for our laws.

That’s not to mention the child smuggling, including fake families.  Or that Illegals commit a disproportionate amount of crime once in the U. S.

Why am I posting this?  There is a lot of sentimental weaponized compassion that opposes taking the measures necessary to secure our border and to deport at least the worst of the illegals.  We hear sob story after sob story about these poor, poor “refugees” and “undocumented immigrants” and how we should welcome them.

And a lot of this weaponized compassion comes from the organized church, including some in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).

We need to call it out for the bull manure it is.  I do not pretend to know the balance between compassion on one hand and self-defense and not enabling criminal behavior on the other.  But we as churches and as a nation need to be realistic about who is entering the U. S. And we need to cut the crap that would have us think measures to defend our home are racist, bigoted, un-Christian, etc.

It is documented: most surging across our border are hardly good people and do not respect our laws.  The church should not enable them to defraud us. The government should defend us and deport them.

A church-aided Syrian “refugee,” murder, and an object lesson for ACNA

Out of Vancouver comes a heart-rending and perhaps enraging story.  The oh-so progressive and inclusive St. Andrew's-Wesley United Church to their credit (or discredit) contributed not a little money to import a lovely refugee family.  But that did not have a happy ending:

The 30K/ 30Day project on Bowen Island through St. Andrews- Wesley set out to raise $30,000 to bring Syrian refugee families to Vancouver. They succeeded beyond their wildest expectations. The money they raised paid for Ali’s brother and his family to come to Canada. 

And an extra $15,000 was raised to bring Ibrahim Ali and another brother.

“It would mean they could have a family reunion along with family that is in Burnaby,” was the pitch.

At 1 in the morning, last summer, the body of 13-year-old Marrisa Shen was found in Burnaby’s Central Park. The last sight of her was on the security camera of a Tim Horton’s. After over a year of searching, as her photo in a sailor suit looked out from the TV news, posters and flyers, after hundreds of interviews and tips, the case broke wide open.

St. Andrews- Wesley’s gift to Canada was arrested for her murder. That extra $15,000 had paid for a little girl’s life.

Read more here.  My point in bringing this up is not to address the politics of refugees and immigration, but to present an object lesson the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) must consider.  I do not think ACNA has any churches as sold out to the social justice gospel as St. Andrew’s-Wesley United Church.  But there are a few parishes, organizations, and at least a diocese or two in ACNA that are very committed to refugee and immigrant ministry.

Now certainly we should minister to refugees who are refugees indeed and to other immigrants.  But we should not enable wrong behavior such as illegal immigration, deceptive refugee claims, or otherwise taking wrongful advantage of host countries or even preying on them.  If that seems harsh, remember that St. Paul wrote that assistance for widows should go to those who “are widows indeed” and that assistance to the poor should not go to those who are able-bodied but unwilling to work.  Part of his reasoning was to avoid enabling sinful behaviors.

Likewise, we should not enable the sinful conduct of illegals and of faux refugees.  But I fear some ACNA parishes and organizations are not being as careful as they should be.  Someday the result could be as awful as in Vancouver.  And then ACNA would be found to have enabled awful crime.  ACNA could even be found with blood on its hands.

I do not have easy answers to prevent this.  But perhaps the College of Bishops could give firmly worded guidelines and instructions in line with St. Paul’s above instructions about church charity. Some in ACNA may still chose to disregard wise guidelines, but that would then be on them, not on ACNA as a whole.  And any wise steps to avoid enabling can only do good.

But for now, the attitude of much of ACNA towards immigrants and refugees seems not that much different that that of St. Andrew's-Wesley United Church.  If that continues, it will only be a matter of time before a similar awful result.

UPDATED: ACNA Archbishop Foley Beach Signed the World Relief Immigration Letter

I’ve mentioned the latest open letter from World Relief on immigration politics and ACNA Bishop Stewart Ruch’s signing of it with “Anglican Church in North America” attached to his signature.

I have just now discovered that among those who have added their signatures is apparently Archbishop Foley Beach.  If the signature is genuine, he signed as “Archbishop Foley Beach” with “Anglican Church in North America” attached.  It is now on page 17 of the additional signatures, although that will change as people continue to sign.

His Canon “The Venerable Canon Dr. Jack Lumanog” has also signed, also with “Anglican Church in North America” attached.

As for me, I stand by my previous commentary.

---

UPDATE: I have received confirmation that Archbishop Beach did indeed sign.

UPDATE 2: George Conger has dug a bit more into this matter and received a statement from the Archbishop’s office:

In a statement given to Anglican Ink, the Most Rev. Foley Beach said he had signed the letter in “his capacity as the Archbishop.”

Asked by AI by what authority he could sign the statement as primate of the ACNA, when the ACNA’s college of bishops or councils had not taken a stance on the issue, his spokesman responded:

“At his discretion, the Archbishop may choose to speak into issues facing the culture.”

The note went on to say:

“Statements from the Archbishop may have persuasive authority, but in these instances they do not commit the Church as a whole to a particular position.  The Church's definitive stance on issues facing the culture is found in the Constitution and Canons as passed by the Provincial Council and Provincial Assembly.  To date, the full weight of the Anglican Church in North America's authority has only been articulated on two controversial moral issues facing our nations: the sanctity of marriage and the sanctity of life.  On other controversial issues facing our nations it is recognized that faithful Christians may arrive at differing conclusions, and we urge our members to search the scriptures, follow their conscience, and pray for wisdom for our elected leaders.”

ACNA Must Get Out of Immigration Politics

Once again ACNA Bishop Stewart Ruch has signed a World Relief statement on the politics of immigration.  Once again “Anglican Church in North America” is under his signature.  I’ll be charitable and say the statement leans towards amnesty instead of enforcement.  Trust me, I could say worse.  “In the literal and grammatical sense,” it is not terribly objectionable (although yes, I do object).

But look at the fight it has provoked on ACNA’s Facebook page.

This illustrates that bishops and other clergy must show great restraint in commenting on political issues, especially when they drag the name of their church into it.  And that goes double for controversial issues such as immigration.

It goes double again for the Anglican Church in North America.  Many/most of us fled denominations in which the laity were abused by church authorities presuming to take Leftist political stands in the name of the church.  Many continue to flee such denominations and look for new church homes.  It harms the mission, unity, and growth of the Anglican Church in North America if such people look at us and say, “That sort of Lib/Left political pontification again?  No thanks.  Been there.  Done that.”

ACNA leaders have rightly placed a great emphasis on unity and on church growth.  If they do not put a stop to clergy presuming to use ACNA to push controversial political (usually left-of-center) agendas, they will undermine that good emphasis.

---

NOTE: This does not apply to abortion or to marriage, issues on which there is a right consensus among catholic Christians.  There is no such consensus on immigration policy.

DACA and Illegal Immigration – Democrats are Using Labour’s Playbook

With DACA, the so-called Dreamers, and illegal immigration again a matter of dispute between President Trump and the Democrats and Establishment Republicans in Congress, I wish to point out the big picture.

To go deeply into the history of said big picture would take a book, a big roach-killing book, not a blog.  But my humble, very condensed effort anyway….

Tony Blair’s Labour was not happy with the cultural make up of the British electorate.  So Labour imported an electorate more to their liking through massive immigration.  The U. K. is suffering the fruit of that, including frequent Islamic terror attacks.

Democrats are trying to do the same thing to America.  They’ve already done it to California and to a lesser extent Colorado among other states.  They are trying to do it to all of us.  One of them just let their intent slip out.  They want to overwhelm American voters retaining traditional American Constitutional values by importing Democrats.  To a large extent, they have already succeeded, thanks in part to establishment Republican enablers.  Massive crime from illegals is only part of the fruit of that.  The overwhelming of social services in many communities is another.  Oh yes.  I didn’t mention Democrats make a point to buy illegals’ future votes with welfare and other social services us citizens pay for.

The future of America depends on stopping the Democrats and their RINO enablers before it’s too late.

AMEN Drags ACNA Further into Immigration Politics UPDATED

I’ve noted that some in ACNA are dragging us into divisive immigration politics.  The Anglican Multiethnic Network (AMEN) and Caminemos Juntos, self-described as “entities of the Anglican Church in North America dedicated to helping the province better reflect the diversity of North America in our local churches” are among the culprits.  The latest from them explicitly asks for citizenship for “dreamers”:

We therefore ask those entrusted with the role of governing and legislating to provide a comprehensive solution to the wider immigration issue that includes a path to citizenship for those children raised here who only know this place as their home.

Leaving aside the question of whether the federal government should do this (Except for those who serve in the military, I am adamantly opposed to citizenship for illegals.), this is not appropriate for a church organization to do.  If individuals in ACNA want to push for - or against -amnesty on their own time and without ACNA’s name being attached to it, fine.  But AMEN’s act is as inappropriate and divisive as, say, me and the likeminded in ACNA forming the REAL Anglican Massive Edifice Network (REAL AMEN), associating ourselves with ACNA as AMEN and Caminemos Juntos does, and agitating to Build the Wall.

I very much want to “build the wall” and secure our borders.  But I have enough discernment and concern for unity not to push for that under ACNA’s auspices.  I do that on my own time and without attaching ACNA’s name to it.

Should the church ever intervene in politics?  Yes, when there are biblical principles that clearly apply and when there is a church-wide consensus on how to apply them.  Such areas are freedom of religion, abortion, and the persecution of Christians. 

Whether illegals should have a path to citizenship is not such an area.  There is not a consensus in ACNA about that.  Therefore what AMEN and Caminemos Juntos just did puts secular political preferences above the unity of ACNA.  Sadly, this is not the exception but a pattern from some of ACNA’s leadership.

UPDATE: I may have been overly charitable in saying ACNA was dragged into this.  They have posted this statement on the church website itself. (You may have to scroll down.)

MORE: And on ACNA’s twitter feed, too:

"We join together at this time to express our love and concern for those who are affected by the recent revocation of DACA." https://t.co/wu2tEL8S2b

— ACNA (@The_ACNA) September 13, 2017

ACNA at Risk Over Immigration

Those who have long followed this blog know how well disposed I am towards the Anglican Church in North America.  With rejoicing, I attended the Assembly at which ACNA was born back in June 2009.  I also supported the Reformed Episcopal Church joining ACNA.

So this post should be taken as an alarm call rather than an attack.  And I am alarmed that ACNA is at risk of getting out of balanced and divided over issues of immigration and refugees.  Veering beyond compassion and the Gospel into divisive politics is a particular danger at the moment.

Granted, Archbishop Foley Beach’s statement over the weekend is timely, helpful and balanced, particularly where he states:

In our province we also have lawmakers who face a different, but related set of challenging moral issues.  As public servants, they are called to carefully discern how best to respond to the global humanitarian need while also maintaining the appropriate role of government in protecting its citizens. There are no easy answers to how our nations should balance these priorities, and our leaders need your prayers.

I find needful his acknowledgement that government has an important role in protecting its citizens.  And saying “there are no easy answers” is certainly a succinct way of saying there are no easy political answers.

But, earlier, he understandably leaves something out in the statement in praising the Anglican Immigrant Initiative:

They have taken the lead in caring for those in our communities who are refugees and immigrants, showing the love of Christ to the most vulnerable.

This week, I encourage you to follow their example, and make a special effort to reach out to refugees and immigrants in your local community. 

Does that reaching out include their emphasis on legal aid to immigrants? The Anglican Immigrant Initiative site places much emphasis on legal aid.  Does that legal aid serve to make it more difficult to deport illegals who should not be here in the first place?  Is that an appropriate role for the church? Again, if Abp. Foley wishes to keep his counsel on this sensitive area private, that is understandable.

Back to the bigger picture, ACNA needs to tread carefully.  Many of us in ACNA fled denominations that had become the Democrat Party at prayer, that had habitually presumed to push Liberal/Left political policies in the name of Jesus and of his church, thereby abusing the Holy Name as well as those many in the pews who disagreed. I know I was long ago fed up with that sort of thing and am not at all of a mind ever to put up with it again.  If ACNA appears likewise to follow the primrose path of espousing liberal political policies, especially on such a volatile issue as immigration, there may be an explosion from the rank and file and division within the church.

And ACNA is perilously close to doing so.  Already, its relief arm, the Anglican Relief and Development Fund (ARDF), has partnered with World Relief on immigration and refugees.  And World Relief is not shy about opposing President Trump’s policies in this area.  We already have ACNA clergy (Thankfully not any bishops that I’ve noticed.) crusading on immigration and refugees with little regard to church unity.  This post over at The Old Jamestown Church and a current perusal of the public ACNA Facebook page give a flavor of that and resulting unhappiness.

I may revisit this topic.  But I will cut this post short in part because I hesitate to speculate what could ignite this situation into more widespread and open division.  But it is safe to say ACNA and its bishops must tread carefully.

Note: I am having trouble with blogger formatting again.  My apologies for any annoyance.