I find it deeply disturbing, both as a person of faith, and an American
Citizen that Church Leaders (from all denominations) are (often
against the will of the faithful) continuing to involve the Church and
Church members in the secular battle over Amnesty, Open Borders,
and our immigration laws. As devout a believer as there is, I fancy
myself likewise devoted to our constitution. The Founders wisely made
provision for the advancement of faith, without the oppression of
faith. The wisdom of the separation of Church and State can be argued
only as to the degree of separation, and not to the concept. The
Founders premised a new nation free of the elitists and oppressions of
a willful minority. Indeed, to paraphrase one of the founders, 'the
oppression and tyranny of the majority is democracy, the oppression and
tyranny of the minority is enslavement'. Somehow, over the decades,
Congress, our Educational community, the Courts, and now, seemingly,
the Church, have sought to carve out exceptions to our basic freedoms
to allow themselves to amass influence and power irrespective of their role
in society.

Doubtless there are many in Church Leadership (think of it as 'religious
corporate management') who feel that the 'corporate interests' of the
Church are best served by keeping the pews filled and the collections
trays brimming (religion is a multi-billion dollar industry). For
various, understandable reasons, Church attendance, across all beliefs,
is down. It's my view that this drop in attendance isn't so much the
result of loss of faith, but rather loss of respect and confidence in
Church leadership and the loss of community as these misguided Church
Leaders attempt to expand their own influence and power. Indeed, Church
Leaders, the clergy in general, are growing more disconnected from
their parishioners and the religious community that they serve.

Not surprisingly, Church Leaders might view the opportunity to supplant
departing attendee's as a necessity to assure Church (and their own
financial) survival. The prospect of attracting large numbers of
devout, deeply grateful, easily manipulated immigrants that pose no
cost penalty (other than to taxpayers and the community) is doubtless
as appealing to Church Leadership as it is to progressives and liberals
in Congress. One can imagine that many in the clergy would prefer to
minister to a flock that accepts their views and agenda as wrote,
rather than deal with Parishioners who ask too many questions.

Call me cynical, but; objectively, and historically the Church (all Churches) have ministered to the flock
wherever the need was greatest. The Church mission took them to
countries around the world to provide enlightenment, education, health
care, and a myriad of other services. Certainly, from a 'corporate
perspective' Church Leaders see value in transferring the costs of
their 'missionary service and outreach' to America's taxpayers. By
bringing the 'flock' into the United States, by legitimizing millions
who've broken our secular immigration laws, and encouraging millions
upon millions more that will arrive as the result of chain migration,
Church Leaders (who for some odd reason are now lavishly compensated,
receive 'golden parachutes', and are allowed to start their own
corporations) can eliminate much of the cost associated with the
Church's historic role of worldwide missionary service and outreach in
the Countries where the need for service and outreach were the greatest.

One cannot argue that from a 'corporate management' perspective, Church
Leaders would jump at the chance to off-load their educational and
health care mission onto America's taxpayers. That members of the
clergy would no longer be required to serve in uncomfortable,
inconvenient third world outposts, exposed to heat, disease, political
and environmental upheaval, is doubtless also very attractive. From the
perspective of the 'rank-and-file clergy', the appeal of keeping
attendance and takings up, while ministering to the faithful in air
conditioned splendor, and still managing to beat traffic home at night,
might be darn well irresistible. The savings in costs to the Church
would be in the millions, perhaps in the hundreds of millions.
Unfortunately, from the perspective of Church members the benefits of
Amnesty and Open borders are non-existent, or perhaps simply of a
nature that one experiences only having attained the after life.

While many of the local Clergy that I've discussed this with acknowledge that
Amnesty and open borders policies might, or have, had a significant
negative effect on their communities, they likewise insist that our
lack of border security and lax enforcement has increased or stabilized
or offset declining Church attendance. They also acknowledge that the
costs of community mission and outreach to the burgeoning immigrant
community has increased dramatically. In my personal situation, a
membership committee spoke at length with our Minister regarding our
concerns that his active advocacy for Amnesty was not representative of
the Parishioners views, nor did we feel such advocacy to be in the best
interests of our little Church or the community. After several such
talks, it was determined that our Minister might find his outspoken
political views and agenda would be better served elsewhere, and we now
await the arrival of his replacement. I support religious leaders in
their efforts to communicate issues of importance on matters of faith, I
do not however, support their willful implication that their own
personal views regarding amnesty are reflective of their Church
membership, or the larger community. I daresay there is no compelling
research that would support the assertion that there is singular Church
Leadership on this issue nor is any Church a monolith. Indeed,
parishioners, much like citizens and voters, are guided by their own
will and conscience on secular issues of political governance. Church
Leaders have a right to express their own views. However, given the
unique gravity we attach to religious leaders in our nation, when
Church Leaders speak, the must exercise responsibility in
differentiating their personal views from those of Church Members, No
Church is a monolith. Perhaps this explains why Church attendance of recent decades has declined precipitously? Church Leaders, much
like our political leaders, have lost touch with the 'little people'.
They've allowed themselves to grow arrogant in the void created by
billion dollar mega Church corporations and the burden of keeping seats
filled and coffers overflowing. In a nutshell, much of the Clergy have
lost sight of the mission of the Church. Certainly no one can argue
that the Church should not be allowed to lend it's awesome power and
prestige to a secular agenda or advocacy, particularly when the agenda
of a particular Leader or Leaders is used to undermine the interests of
the Church faithful.

I've already voiced my disapproval of the Church's efforts to lobby
Congress. I am no great legal or religious scholar, but it seems to me
that when the Church sees fit to intervene in secular governmental
policies and legislation, that's an abuse of influence. When the Church
does so in contravention of the views and interests of it's own
members, that's arrogance. When we allow Church Leaders to represent
their personal views and agenda as representative of the entire Church
body, we diminish respect for our constitution, and for religion.

Here's what I had to say:


Executive Director Randel Everett
Baptist General Convention of Texas, 333 N. Washington
Dallas, TX 75246

Dear Executive Director Everett:

Dr. Richard Land, the president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and
Religious Liberty Commission, has again decided to support an amnesty
for illegal aliens. His views do not represent the vast majority of
Southern Baptists and I hope you will keep this in mind if the SBC
considers a pro-amnesty resolution at its annual meeting.

It is completely irresponsible for the church to back any specific political
solution on a topic as ethically complex as immigration. Instead, the
church should offer principles, such as that a country's immigration
policy should not bring harm to that nation's own poor. Currently, our
church's de facto support for amnesty places the livelihoods and well
being of America's poor at risk.

It is not the church's duty to become involved in this issue, especially
when the church's current position goes against the wishes and beliefs
of most church members. Please remember this when attending the annual
meeting in Orlando.

Doubtless there are many in Church leadership who view this pandering as a responsible means of addressing
declining attendance and donations. We, the people, America's citizens,
accept the separation of Church and State, and we acknowledge the
Church's place in ministering where the need is greatest, in the native
countries of these immigrants. It's arrogant and irresponsible to
suggest that the social, economic and environmental interests of
America' s citizens be compromised, simply so that the Church can fill
it's pews, and minister to the flock in the air conditioned convenience
of the community Churches.

I will of course withdraw from attendance at the Church and likewise will
withhold any further financial support. I am likewise disposed to
recommend that House and Senate members reconsider the tax exempt
status of the Church and it's affiliated organizations. If Church
Leadership insists on bringing the Church's influence to bear in support
of issues that Church members strongly oppose, that for all intents and
purposes is lobbying. If the Church Leaders are intent on lobbying,
often in opposition to the will of the majority of it's members, then
the Church, like similar secular lobbyist organizations, should be
required to pay in order to play politics!

Respectfully,



Mr. Ed Devine


P.S. Doubtless there are many in Church leadership who view this pandering
as a responsible means of addressing declining attendance and
donations. We, the people, America's citizens, accept the separation of
powers, and we acknowledge the Church's place in ministering where the
need is greatest, in the native countries of these immigrants.