“ those who criticise the Rwandan plan – though that may be too grand a word – have a responsibility to propose other solutions to the refugee crisis”

What other solutions are Welby and the author proposing?

The problem with Welby’s denunciation of “outsourcing” the Channel migrant problem to Rwanda is that he ignores the original sin – that a preceding succession of Christian European countries “outsourced” their problem to us first.
None of these “moralists” denouncing Britain ever seem to remark on this or offer any condemnation of France et al whos guilt must be at least as great as ours in this matter. If they do, I have yet to hear it.
Furthermore, Welby ignores the well-established law – that migrants must claim asylum in the first safe country. France et al not being “unsafe”.
By not standing up for the law and real morality, Welby and his ilk are actually complicit in human trafficking.
It may well be time to disestablish the Church of England – and perhaps even rename it. It opposes the law (render unto Caesar …) and does not speak for the majority of people in England. I do not understand why it should now have any role in government or any preferential tax treatment. If Welby wishes to participate in politics, he should stand for election just like anyone else.
I do enjoy Giles’ articles. You – Giles – have not “lost your flock” (previous article). Welby has though. The man’s a disgrace.

Nonsensical takes like this are why I stopped being an Anglican. “Slave morality”, indeed.

Sure, bishops can make political comments, but they have no right to be offended or outraged when they receive a political rejoinder. It smacks of “Do you know who I am?” – ism.

I’m not sure whether bishops should be political, but I’m pretty sure we would be better served if politicians were more religious. Not phony, Pharisaic actions, I mean real religion.
When was the last time an MP discussed his daily prayer vigil, or his sense of individual and collective, national sin, or the responsibility he feels as God has granted them the right to serve as a representative of the people.

I’m a fairly orthodox Christian, but I would vote for a devout Muslim or Jew who was willing to talk about things like that over a the lackluster Moral Therapeutic Deists we commonly get.

CoE Archbishops can of course be political but Giles fails to recognise the CoE speaks for an already tiny sect in extremely steep decline facing an existential crisis. The views of the CoE management are no more relevant or pious than the legion of other organised groups and should not attract much reportage. That the Archbishop’s views do attract so much reportage is only because of the CoE’s establishment by the force of the state, not any special claim on morality. On that basis, it is morally repugnant in a representative democracy to have an established part of the state try and undermine the elected part of the state. The Archbishop’s politicking is making the case, one that demographics will insist on, for the disestablishment of the CoE and the transfer of many of its assets to the state for redistribution.

Should Bishops be political? No reason why not, but despite the trappings of political polarisation, politics is mostly about compromise either directly or over the lifetime of several parliaments.
Political compromise is therefore a poison pill to those who hold faith to be absolute. Is it unChristian to turn away economic migrants? If so the Arch Bishop should be arguing that we lay on transport for safe travel across the Channel for all those who care to come. No?

Jesus a good Jew? Heretic surely
Anyway , whether promised by God or not , wasn’t Moses leading the Jews into the land inhabited by Canaanites and others disastrous for the indigenous folk .
look at Sweden and other parts of Europe (UK too) and see the terrible problems caused by no -borders idealists , secular or religious , for those born there .
Surely there is enough hideous violence recorded in the Bible between rival peoples fighting over the promised land to give Christians pause for thought before encouraging mass migration .

The identification of politics and religion is a disaster that is being played out in our times: when politics fails us, as inevitably it will, a society that has nowhere else to turn, because the religious vision is dissolved in the political event, turns on itself and steadily wrecks itself.

It becomes no longer possible to tell the difference between what is Caesar’s and what is God’s. The upshot is that most forget the latter, and the manipulative are free to elide the two (witness the case of Putin).

Surely reading the bible properly is precisely not to treat Moses’ death before entering the Promised Land as an unlucky contingency, but as the very culmination and meaning of entering it. The text underlines that the kingdom sought is not of this world, to switch to Jesus’ phrase, by saying Moses’ burial place isn’t known “to this day”: he belongs elsewhere.

To put it another way again: we are all refugees, which is why the refugee has a special status. Indeed, the whole of creation is not fundamentally the here and now, but rather the here and now is the temporal expression of awakening/returning to life in God – the one and only domain necessary for life.

We die to eternal life, as Easter recalls. Our end is our beginning. Only with that recognition can politics be genuinely free.

The Israelites were refugees, that is seeking refuge from slaughter and slavery. Those sent to Rwanda for processing are almost all migrants trying to enter Britain illegally. There’s a big difference.

Mind you, at least most illegal immigrants want work alongside the existing population. The Israelites were less benign in Canaan! Fortunately, with exceptions such as Putin, few people today are likely to use violence to get what they want than was the case in the Bronze Age.

The Easter story shows that religion and politics ( the Law ) are not always compatible. Religion is about an ideal world; politics is about pragmatic here-and-now solutions. Pope Francis wants to combine the spiritual and the temporal but is he successful?
Her Majesty, Queen Elisabeth, (God bless her) is a far better role-model : leading her people from the terrible years of the 20th century into the hi-tech wonders of the 21st century where wars may still be fought over religion or territory, but are more usually done via words and virtual keyboards.

Another enjoyable article here. Without commenting on the particular matter at hand, I appreciate and agree with the general principle of the fundamental inseparability of church and state.

Certainly, Christians should, if they wish, be actively involved in politics. I think all the main political parties in the UK benefit from having Christians among their membership.
Many different viewpoints will be represented within the Church of England. Bishops, therefore, speak for themselves, not for the the Church of England (unless something has been debated and voted in General Synod).
I didn’t find that Archbishop Welby’s sermon, including the few sentences about the Rwanda scheme, particularly resonated with me – but that’s often the way with sermons.
I have yet to read anything that commends the proposed Rwanda scheme to me, though I am willing to be convinced. On the other hand, there are several very positive ideas around that would help to deal with the situation.