One of the interesting things about the immigration debates, within Church of England circles, is how one sided they have been. Apart from a few dissenting voices, the majority position has been firmly on the side of immigration being A Good Thing. Stephen Croft, the Bishop of Oxford, has recently produced a piece responding to Nigel Farage’s announcement that a Reform government would deport 600,000 immigrants if they were to win the next General Election.
Bishop Steven’s blog, while light on Biblical interpretation, is heavy on well-meaning but fatally vague nods to ideas of compassion, justice, integration and community cohesion. This is interesting, for the good bishop was previously Bishop of Sheffield when the news of the grooming gangs scandal was breaking and he appears to have had little public to say about Rotherham or indeed Oxford other than to provide further evidence that the Norm Macdonald quip (“What terrifies me is if ISIS were to detonate a dirty bomb, killing 50 million Americans. Imagine the backlash against peaceful Muslims?”) remains right on point.
He’s not alone. The Archbishop of York also weighed in, calling the Reform approach “isolationist and knee jerk”, and saying policies relating to immigration needed “compassion and understanding”. Under the previous government the Bishop of Durham, described its immigration proposals (yes, the Rwanda one) as lacking in “compassion [that word again], justice and moral leadership”.
Why do we have such an emphasis upon immigration, regardless of the reasons, being a good thing? Is it just that Bishops, like anyone else, have simply soaked up the vibe of the last two decades with the constant messaging that diversity is good; multiculturalism is good; change is good? Is it a reaction to perceived discrimination from the Church to early immigrants in the 1950’s and 60’s whereby we now must be seen to bend over backwards in the other direction?
The emphasis amongst Church of England (and indeed the wider church in Britain) circles has been to quote various Bible passages, namely the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), or the injunction to Israel in Leviticus 19:33–34 to love the stranger amongst you, because you were once strangers in the land of Egypt; or perhaps Matthew 25:31–40 where we are reminded that to help the hungry and naked is to help Christ himself.
We really ought to be able to expect more from our Bishops than for them to simply offer soft-Left platitudes
But this is where it gets complicated for while at a surface level these passages tie neatly (some might say too neatly) with the soft Left political leanings of the current crop of Bishops in the Church of England, they are arguably anachronistic for Israel was hardly an open borders sanctuary for all and sundry in the Ancient Near East. No indeed, it is far more nuanced than that. Arguably one of the overriding concerns was that the presence and influence of foreigners would have a negative impact upon the holiness and distinctiveness of the people of Israel. The Israelites were called to be a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:6), set apart for God’s purposes. The presence of foreigners, particularly those who did not share in the covenant faith, posed a threat to this calling. Furthermore, the prophets are quite clear that failing to maintain the standards as set out in the Torah, often evidenced with lurid stories of cavorting with foreign women, will result in invasion, conquest and exile; something to be staved off and feared.
“Rescue me and deliver me
from the hand of foreigners,
whose mouths speak lies
and whose right hand is a right
hand of falsehood.” Psalm 144.11
Read it all in The Critic