Muslim migrant influx strains Christian world’s tension between being "wise as serpents, innocent as doves." Bulgaria offers a way forward.
![]() |
| Migrant masses in Budapest. |
The Bulgarian Orthodox Church has announced it will help migrants who have arrived in Bulgaria, but has urged authorities not to let any more migrants in, clarifying sharp differences between Eastern European Christian nations and Western secular/post-Christian responses to the mass Muslim refugee crisis.
It is very interesting that most Orthodox and Eastern Christian bishops have shown great restraint in responding to the Muslim migrant crisis overwhelming Europe. One exception was Coptic Bishop Angaelos of the UK, who promptly rejected Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban's position of allowing only Christian migrants, saying, “As a Christian I could never justify a policy which only supported ‘our own’... The distinction should be based on people’s need, not their religion.”
To the credit of Christians everywhere, it is primarily the post-Christian West which is stepping up to the humanitarian tragedy of millions of refugees fleeing the Islamic State and the unrest of the Middle East and Africa.
Britain and France have made commitments to take in 20,000 and 24,000 Syrian migrants respectively, whereas Germany has accepted over 100,000 in August alone, and if current numbers continue, will have absorbed 800,000 by year’s end. (In contrast to the European welcome wagon, most Muslim nations are accepting no refugees: zero, citing concerns over the terrorist threat.)
Other observers of Europe's mass migrant crisis are starting to consider what such "serpent wisdom" might involve, even if they don't reference Jesus' specific words.
Rod Dreher (who has seemed lately to have become somewhat muddled on the jihad threat) even considered how wide open Christian Europe should throw its borders to an alien people, asking the question, "Is Christianity A Suicide Cult?" Dreher has been reading, as have other commentators, Raspail's novel, The Camp of the Saints, and offers an excerpt and some thoughts:
[Raspail writes in Chapter 20:] "Two opposing camps. One still believes. One doesn’t. The one that still has faith will move mountains. That’s the side that will win. Deadly doubt has destroyed all incentive in the other. That’s the side that will lose."
Raspail, it seems to me, is deadly accurate in his diagnosis of the sentimental humanitarianism of the Europeans, and how their loss of faith in their own civilization compels them to behave in ways that guarantee its destruction by an invading force. The novel also implicitly raises a disturbing question: What cruelties, if any, are justified for the sake of a nation’s defense?
These are extremely complex, morally harrowing questions, and we are seeing them on display now as Europe faces its refugee crisis.
Dreher also refers to an important article by British Christian Alistair Roberts, whose message essentially distills to this: "...As Christians, we certainly have an obligation to show charity to refugees, but that does not mean that we are morally obligated to allow them to settle among us."
This seems like the prudent course, serpent wisdom combined with Christian innocence. It doesn't take an especially wise person — just an honest one — to see the existential threat in all the videos and reports of huge mobs of Muslim migrants screaming "Allahu Akbar" and attacking trains and police in Hungary (and Slovenia), prompting a State of Emergency complete with deployment of tear gas and water cannons.









