I. From Statements to Bodies
When a New Hampshire bishop urged his clergy to "get their affairs in order" and prepare their bodies—not just their voices—for public witness, the language landed with unusual force. Martyrdom■adjacent rhetoric is rare in contemporary American clergy discourse, and its emergence signals a tonal shift with civic implications. The question is not only why this language surfaced now, but why it stands out so sharply against the responses of other religious traditions facing the same events.
In Minneapolis, where clergy were arrested during immigration■enforcement protests earlier this year, the images of faith leaders in collars being detained quickly circulated through civic and religious networks. Their arrests raised immediate questions about what clergy owe their communities when enforcement, authority, and vulnerable populations converge. The responses that followed—across denominations—reveal how unusual the Episcopal rhetoric truly was.
Across traditions, religious leaders confronted the same moment of civic strain. But only one invoked the possibility of bodily risk for clergy themselves. The contrast reveals not just denominational differences, but a deeper shift in how responsibility, witness, and danger are being framed within American religious leadership. The Episcopal language stands out precisely because other traditions responded with restraint, institutional protection, or pastoral pragmatism—making the martyrdom■adjacent tone an outlier worth examining.
II. The Episcopal Signal: Explicit, Clergy-Facing Preparation
The Episcopal response is the clearest expression of the tonal shift—directly invoking bodily risk in a way no other tradition matched.
The clearest example came from A. Robert Hirschfeld, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire. Speaking at a vigil after the Minneapolis arrests, Hirschfeld addressed his clergy with unusually direct language about preparation and risk.
"I have told the clergy of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire that we may be entering into that same witness. And I've asked them to get their affairs in order—to make sure they have their wills written, because it may be that now is no longer the time for statements, but for us with our bodies to stand between the powers of this world and the most vulnerable," Bishop A. Robert Hirschfeld said at the Renee Good Vigil in Concord, New Hampshire, on Jan. 9, 2026.
The remarks were notable for both tone and audience. Hirschfeld spoke inward, to clergy themselves, rather than outward to congregants or the public. NPR's coverage amplified the comments, which circulated widely for their invocation of bodily witness and personal readiness.
Such explicit, clergy-facing guidance is rare in contemporary American religious discourse. Hirschfeld framed the moment as one that could demand physical presence and personal risk from ordained leaders—a posture that diverged sharply from other traditions responding to the same events.
III. Catholic Leadership: Moral Framing and Restraint
The Catholic response highlights the contrast: where the Episcopal bishop invoked personal preparation, Catholic leaders emphasized moral clarity and de■escalation rather than bodily risk.
Catholic leadership responded with a different emphasis. Rather than issuing clergy-specific preparation directives, U.S. bishops and Vatican officials focused on restraint, peace, and the protection of human life.
After fatal shootings involving federal immigration agents, U.S. bishops released public appeals urging calm and de-escalation. Vatican News highlighted calls for prayer, dialogue, and respect for human dignity—framing the moment as one requiring moral clarity, not internal mobilization. These themes echoed recent Angelus messages from Pope Leo XIV.
Senior Vatican officials reinforced that posture. Secretary of State Pietro Parolin called the violence "unacceptable," underscoring the Holy See's emphasis on de-escalation rather than confrontation. International reporting has described Pope Leo's broader approach to U.S. tensions as cautious and deliberately nonpartisan.
Absent from Catholic statements was any directive urging clergy to prepare for bodily risk. The Church's response remained outward-facing and pastoral, addressing the public rather than clergy alone.
IV. Seventh-day Adventist Leadership: Practical, Pastoral Action Plans
The Adventist guidance underscores how unusual the Episcopal rhetoric was, replacing any notion of personal danger with operational, congregational care.
A different model emerged from the Central States Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, which issued a formal statement and action plan addressing concerns about immigration enforcement affecting congregations.
The guidance acknowledged fear within immigrant communities and outlined concrete steps for pastors: how to engage with ICE agents on church property, how to coordinate with local authorities, and how to support affected families. The emphasis was on de-escalation, legal compliance, and congregational care.
The tone was directive but measured—providing tools and responsibilities rather than invoking personal danger. In contrast to the Episcopal call for embodied witness, the Adventist response framed preparation in operational terms: safeguarding congregants and maintaining order.
V. Southern Baptist Responses: Protection of Worship and Authority
The Southern Baptist framing further distinguishes the Episcopal tone, centering institutional protection rather than clergy vulnerability or embodied witness.
Southern Baptist responses reflected yet another posture when civic unrest entered the sanctuary itself. In January, protesters disrupted a Sunday service at a Southern Baptist–affiliated church in Minnesota after learning that a pastor associated with the congregation also worked for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Denominational leaders condemned the disruption, emphasizing the sanctity of worship, the protection of congregants, and the right of churches to gather without interference. While some acknowledged concern for migrant families, the dominant framing centered on defending worship spaces and institutional authority.
Leaders did not urge clergy to prepare for bodily risk or physical intervention. The emphasis remained on order, protection, and the boundaries between protest and religious practice.
VI. Jewish Communal Leadership: Security, Solidarity, and Ethical Framing
Jewish leadership's focus on security and continuity illustrates another contrast: preparedness without martyrdom language or clergy■specific risk.
Jewish leadership approached the moment through longstanding concerns about security, continuity of worship, and communal safety. Without a centralized clerical hierarchy, guidance flows through national organizations, rabbinical associations, and local federations.
In response to intensified enforcement and associated violence, national Jewish organizations issued statements condemning violent tactics and calling for nonviolence, due process, and human dignity. These statements drew on Jewish ethical teachings about protecting the stranger—without offering clergy-specific instructions about preparation or risk.
Institutionally, Jewish leadership emphasized synagogue security, coordination with local authorities, and continuity of communal life. This posture reflects historical experience and organizational memory rather than moment-specific escalation.
VII. Muslim Communities: Decentralized Leadership and Interfaith Solidarity
Muslim leaders emphasized solidarity and pastoral presence, offering yet another model that diverges sharply from the Episcopal invocation of bodily witness.
Muslim communities—particularly in Minnesota, home to a large Somali-American population—operate within a decentralized leadership structure. Mosques and Islamic centers are autonomous; no national authority issues uniform guidance to clergy.
In the wake of enforcement actions and unrest, Muslim leaders participated in interfaith vigils, protests, and public statements emphasizing solidarity, nonviolence, and pastoral support. Their responses focused on community protection, mutual aid, and collaboration with other faith traditions rather than internal clergy-facing directives.
The absence of centralized guidance reflects structure, not disengagement. Leadership is exercised locally, shaped by congregational needs and historical exposure to surveillance and discrimination.
VIII. Why the Differences Exist: Context, Not Motive
These contrasts help explain why the Episcopal rhetoric stands out: it emerges from a structure capable of issuing inward■facing directives, unlike many other traditions.
The divergent tones across traditions are best understood as products of institutional context. Leadership structure, congregational composition, historical exposure to risk, and proximity to enforcement all shape how clergy are addressed when civic pressure intensifies.
Hierarchical traditions can issue inward-facing guidance quickly, as in the Episcopal example. The Catholic Church's extensive institutional footprint creates different constraints. Jewish communities prioritize security and continuity; Muslim communities emphasize local pastoral care and interfaith solidarity.
In each case, leadership posture reflects lived experience and organizational reality as much as theology.
IX. What the Tone Shift Reveals
Taken together, the responses show that the Episcopal language is not just different—it marks a rare moment when clergy are addressed as potential actors in physical confrontation, not merely as moral voices.
Across traditions, the divergence is less about belief than about how responsibility is understood when faith intersects with enforcement, protest, and public risk. Some leaders prepare clergy for confrontation. Others work to shield congregations, preserve worship, or de-escalate tension. Still others engage publicly through moral framing while keeping internal guidance diffuse.
The shift is clear: clergy are being addressed not only as voices, but as actors situated within increasingly contested public spaces.
X. Transparency and Reporting Notes
Requests for comment were sent to leadership representatives of the Episcopal Church and the Catholic Church. No responses were received by the publication.
This article is not an exhaustive survey of religious responses to immigration enforcement or civic unrest. Examples were selected based on national visibility and documented public statements. The analysis focuses on tone, structure, and leadership posture rather than theological judgment or institutional intent.
Linda Hansen is a writer and the founder of Bridging the Aisle, a nonpartisan platform fostering honest, respectful dialogue across divides and renewed trust in democracy.
