In response to his open-air carol service in Trafalgar Square, the Church has been rushing out sermons, statements and other public relations material.
Much of this, overtly or otherwise, expresses a view about Britain’s migration policy. Their adverts at bus stops show a nativity scene with captions such as “outsiders welcome”.
Meanwhile Sarah Mullally, the Archbishop of Canterbury-elect, said in her Christmas sermon: “our national conversations about immigration continue to divide us, when our common humanity should unite us.”
Notably, the Joint Public Issues Team, a partnership of several churches, published a “rapid response resource” to help churches respond to “far-Right politics”. This includes links to material on “How to change minds on migration”.
It is not just this month that the Church has been making such statements.
Its bishops have been consistently critical at all attempts to control migration. Serious problems experienced as a result of migration are often written off as mere “concerns”, whereas the diversity caused by migration is portrayed as an unquestionable benefit.
In the Church’s racial justice work, on which it has spent tens of millions over the last few years, there have been calls to pay reparations for slavery; to ease legal restrictions on the removal of ancient church monuments (regardless of their artistic or historical importance) which might be perceived to have any connection to those in the slave trade; and to include Critical Race Theory and DEI principles in Church policy.
The Church uses scripture to justify these calls. It makes constant reference to the equal dignity of all humanity, made in the image of God. It reminds us of the commands not to oppress or mistreat the stranger, frequent in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
And indeed to show love to strangers, as repeated in the New Testament. It also frequently refers to St Paul’s statement in Galatians that there is neither “Jew nor Greek” in Christ, as well as the parable of the Good Samaritan, and Christ’s command to love one’s neighbour.
Scripture undeniably calls us to be hospitable and love the stranger. However, there is an entire balancing strand in the Bible which the Church has completely neglected in this public discussion: the duty that strangers and guests owe to their hosts.
If a guest or stranger is offered sanctuary, they must respect their hosts. There are ample examples of this in the Old Testament in the conduct of Abraham, Jacob and Moses.
Guests should not exploit their hosts. They should “be not greedy” at a “bountiful table”, as it is put in Ecclesiastes, and similarly in Proverbs.
Christ himself said that when one is invited to a wedding feast, a guest should take the lowest place, so that the host could say “Friend, go up higher”.
Guests should not deceive their hosts in obtaining hospitality or protection, as the Gibeonites did to Joshua, who were therefore condemned to be “hewers of wood and drawers of water”. They should always bring a gift, even if simply good news or a blessing, as Christ did when received by hosts.
The care of strangers is not an overriding imperative. It is something that must take place in the context of looking after all those in need. Care for the stranger, scripture frequently says, but at the same time also the widow and fatherless. The need to look after the latter must not be eclipsed by the need of the former.
Most importantly, it is stressed that guests must obey the laws and respect the customs of the land. The culture of a place must not be changed to suit the stranger, and the idea that strangers with entirely different customs might overthrow a place, its religion and customs, was seen as a terrible curse.
The Church has barely referred to these scriptural ideas in their discussions of migration and politics. If it had done so, its approach would have been markedly different.
It has frequently condemned Tommy Robinson for appropriating Christianity to suit a political objective.
Yet, given their omission of these ideas, they also appear to be acting similarly, but in pursuit of a Left-wing agenda.
If the Church wants to remove the log in its own eye, it must speak with a proper balance on scripture.