Open Hearts, Closed Doors: Immigration Reform and the Waning of American Protestantism by Nicholas T. Pruitt

Abstract

Reviewed by: Open Hearts, Closed Doors: Immigration Reform and the Waning of American Protestantism by Nicholas T. Pruitt Mark Granquist Open Hearts, Closed Doors: Immigration Reform and the Waning of American Protestantism. By Nicholas T. Pruitt. New York: New York University Press, 2021. ix + 279 pages. The politics and religious controversies over immigration in the United States are older than the country itself, and, though the specifics keep changing, the controversies seem to have much the same tone across the centuries. Nicholas Pruitt (Eastern Nazarene College) examines the role that mainline American Protestant denominations played in discussions over immigration legislation and policy during the twentieth century, especially between the major immigration laws of 1924 and 1965. Seeing themselves as leading entities of American society, these mainline groups sought to use their power and influence to oppose some of the harsher elements of the 1924 legislation, and to advocate for a more open immigration system. Initially these Protestants came at this issue through the mindset of their overseas missionary activities, and were especially worried about the exclusion of Asian immigrants. But as they advocated in the realm of immigration, they also sought transformations in American society, as well as within their own denominational cultures. The irony is that as they successfully lobbied for the immigration reform of 1965, which allowed in many immigrants from Latin America, Asia, and Africa, they were diluting their own control over American religious life, through the increased religious diversity brought by these same immigrants. Pruitt spells out other ironies in the relationship between the old-stock mainline Protestants (Congregationalist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Northern Baptist, and Episcopalian) and the new immigrants. During the nineteenth century these Protestants fought against immigrant Roman Catholics and Jews, sponsoring laws that hindered them in education and language maintenance. Even Protestant immigrants, mainly German and Scandinavian Lutherans, were valued only for their labor, and for the possibility that their Protestant roots might lead them to bolster sagging mainline memberships. This delusional hope was as much a chimera then as it is now. Mainline Protestants wanted the immigrants to become assimilated in American culture, as they, the mainline, defined it. [End Page 233] In the twentieth century mainline denominations developed programs of home missions work and settlement assistance, but again, with the same overtones of assimilation, cultural conversion, and an increasingly desperate recognition that they were losing their hold on the American religious majority (something they had already numerically lost). These mainline groups criticized the restrictive immigration laws of 1924, and advocated for their relaxation during the 1920s and 1930s, but still with the idea that they could convert the immigrants, socially as well as religiously. During the Second World War, they pushed for the admission of refugees, and afterwards led the way with the resettlement of displaced persons from Europe. They held that this could be accomplished while still maintaining a common American religious culture, which, of course, they would lead. The whole ideal of a "Judeo-Christian America," of a common religious morality, was their mantra, even though it was as much a fiction then as it is now. Finally, though the 1960s proved that religious pluralism was here to stay, mainline Protestants were the leading political and cultural voices in the efforts to relax immigration restrictions. Pruitt recognizes and highlights the ironies inherent in the attitudes of the mainline, who believed that they could and should continue to determine the religious and cultural worlds of the United States. Mainline Protestant leaders argued for immigration policies that kept pushing them further into a numerical minority, while assuming that they could manage this religious tide. In his conclusion, Pruitt writes: Many mainline Protestant leaders turned to a more liberal immigration policy that welcomed cultural differences, with the understanding that America's religious identity would remain largely intact. What they did not realize was that they unwittingly helped pave the way for a broader religious pluralism in the future (184). Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services (LIRS) is not mentioned; the book's focus is on efforts to influence policy rather than on refugee resettlement. In fact, Pruitt rarely mentions American [End Page 234] Lutherans. During this time Lutherans were rapidly moving out from their...