Pages: 1 2
The GCRR anti-“I-Word” tool kit includes Bible studies as polemical tools for liberalized immigration polemics. Sophomorically, these studies make no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants and liken them all to biblical “sojourners” and “strangers,” to whom the ancient Hebrews were admonished to offer justice and hospitality. Of course, there’s no biblical evidence that God commanded the Hebrews to maintain an open borders policy, or that all “sojourners” were the equivalent of today’s illegal immigrants. One Bible study insists: “We are no longer divided by our race or sex, our education or immigration status. We are united by faith in Christ.” Yes, that is true for the voluntary community of faith known as The Church. The Religious Left often likes to conflate The Church with the civil state, since for the Religious Left, which exchanges theology for politics, there really is no special distinction. But more traditional believers understand that The Church, as a spiritual body, offers its ministry to all persons who seek it, while the civil state is divinely ordained to protect its people and borders, and to punish lawbreakers. The Church is universal. Nation states decidedly are not. But the Religious Left wishes otherwise, of course.
On board with the GCRR anti-“I-Word” campaign is the United Methodist Board of Church and Society, the denomination’s official lobby office on Capitol Hill. In a recent commentary, a spokesman likens opposition to illegal immigration to the Pharisees who wanted to stone the adulteress in the Gospel story. The hard-hearted are committed to defining people based on “one act they committed,” he bemoans. Aren’t we all sinners, he implores. Reluctantly he grants that perhaps illegals should be called “undocumented.” But he prefers the term “beloved.”
Yes, all persons are loved by God, according to Christianity. But Christianity has never taught that governments stop enforcing the law based on this principle. Civil law, when just, is understood to be an extension of divine love and grace. Anarchy does not exemplify love. And a United States with no immigration restrictions, offering all benefits and rights of citizenship automatically to all who desire them, would eventually cease to be a place where immigrants would want to come. The United States already accepts 1 million legal immigrants annually; surely the world’s, and history’s, most generous immigration policy. But the Religious Left, with its own usual absence of grace, and conviction that America is chronically a Scrooge, insists that all skeptics of illegal immigration are bigots.
Unsurprisingly, the seeming mastermind behind the “Drop the I-Word” campaign, as GCRR cites, is the far-left, New York-based Applied Research Center, which is an ally of the now-discredited and largely defunct far-left ACORN. This Applied Research Center, which backs open borders and environmental extremism among other causes, recently hosted a conference featuring Van Jones, former green jobs advisor to President Obama, who was fired after exposure of his links to 9-11 “truthers,” along with his once having boasted of being a “communist.” Jones now works for the liberal Center for American Progress. So the “Drop the I-Word” drive did not originate with a church, but with a secular, hard-left ACORN style pressure group interested not in the Gospel but in political power. As GCRR helpfully explained, “ARC’s national outreach offers an opportunity to connect the United Methodist Church to new audiences.” New indeed.
The “Drop the I-Word” campaign is the perfect initiative for the hard-left. In totalitarian fashion, it shuns clarity and instead seeks to manipulate language to silence dissent and exclusively to privilege one controlling political perspective. Church members who are funding lobby groups like the United Methodist Commission on Religion and Race, rather than dropping the “I-Word,” might instead drop their support for morally empty church agencies.
Pages: 1 2