As the Guardian noted yesterday:
Reform UK has engaged in a war of words with the Church of England over the party's plans to deport all asylum seekers who arrive in small boats, after the church's most senior bishop called the proposal “isolationist, short-term [and] kneejerk”.
Richard Tice, the party's deputy leader, hit back against the archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, on Sunday, accusing him of interfering in domestic politics.
It is worth noting what Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York and currently the Church of England's senior cleric in England, said to Trevor Phillips on the Sky programme yesterday morning. The Guardian notes it as this:
We should actively resist the kind of isolationist, short-term, kneejerk - in this case, ‘send them home'. Mr Farage is saying the things he's saying but he is not offering any long-term solution to the big issues which are convulsing our world, which lead to this.
The Archbishop has strong theological reasons to make his suggestion. The fact is, the Bible is full of migrants. That's not how it is usually described, but I have read it plenty enough to know that is the reality.
Start with this:
Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.
That comes from Exodus, 22:21.
From the very beginning, the tradition of recognising the rights, needs, and responsibilities for migrants is implicit in Biblical teaching. One of the most consistent themes in both the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament is that the people of God (regardless of whichever path they eventually followed) must not forget their own history of migration (and we are all the offspring of migrants, eventually), and that they are bound by duty to welcome and protect the stranger. This is not marginal to Biblical teaching. It appears to be central to it.
Jesus not only repeated this tradition, but radicalised it.
He said: “I was a stranger and you invited me in.” (Matthew 25:35). Welcoming the migrant is, in that case in Christian faith, identical with welcoming Christ himself.
His most famous parable, the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), makes the hated outsider the true neighbour. The implication is obvious: compassion is the test of faith, not tribal loyalty.
And Jesus' own family were reported to be refugees at one time. It is suggested that they fled to Egypt to escape Herod's violence (Matthew 2:13 15). Christianity begins with the story of a child refugee.
In that case, Jesus made it very clear that migration is not an exception to the rule of love. It is at the very centre of what it means to love your neighbour. Three things follow.
First, every person, whatever their passport, is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27).
Second, societies are judged on how they treat the vulnerable, and the migrant is always vulnerable. The parable of the Good Samaritan makes that clear.
Third, the Christian community transcends borders. As Paul noted:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28).
So, what is the political economy of this? If we take the points noted seriously, then Christianity permits no scapegoating of migrants. Blaming them for housing shortages, underfunded services, or low wages is not just bad economics. It is a betrayal of faith. But let's also be clear: the problems we face in Britain are not caused by people arriving here. They are caused by political choices to underinvest in housing, to privatise and hollow out the NHS, to pursue austerity that shrinks public services. and to sustain low pay as a deliberate economic strategy.
Migrants did not choose any of this. Westminster politicians did, and still do. And yet it is migrants who are vilified. That is not only unjust, it is profoundly un-Christian. Stephen Cottrell had the right to say so.
What to conclude then? Firstly, the Bible's message is consistent and unambiguous: welcome the stranger, because you were once strangers yourselves. Protect the migrant, because in them you meet Christ. Build a society where hospitality, not hostility, is the rule. Stephen Cottrell had every justification from within these teachings to reiterate what those who subscribe to its faith (which Richard Tice of Reform claimed he did).
Secondly, if politicians want to claim Christian values, they must be judged by this standard: how do they treat the most vulnerable, including the migrant? On that test, then almost all of our current politics fails, and the Church not only has the right but also the duty to say so. Richard Tice was entirely wrong, but a lot of other politicians are as well.
My first suggestion, then, is straightforward. You can support Reform, but you cannot do so and claim to be a Christian. That is not possible.
My second point is as direct, and is why can't Labour be as clear as this?
Note: I used ChatGPT to help find quotes for the piece. I am pretty familiar with the Bible and have read a lot of theology, but I am not that good.
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Tice and Reform invoke Christianity when they think it suits them. So violence against women should be forgiven when it’s one of their MPs, but Christian attitudes don’t apply to refugees.
Coming from the man dubbed MP for Dubai is especially rich.
Amen to all that, brother!
Disabusing my fellow Christians of the far right’s hijacking of “Christianity” is a pre-occupation of mine, along with countering Christian Zionism.
Things are improving slowly, but it is much more difficult to counter the appeal to those who have no church association but still tick “Christian” or C/E on the census as a synonym for “British”. Theological arguments don’t work with them.
Kemi Badenoch is a current example, hanging on to “cultural Christianity” while admitting her atheism. But what does her cultural Christianity mean? Anything that supports her nasty brand of dishonest and bullying incompetent right wing politics.
Richard
Sorry to lump you with another job but could you do some sort of collection of quotes from the Bible possibly starting with this piece that relates to what you blog about?
Nb other sources can be included
Sorry….but definitely not the day to ask.
My main computer failed this morning – and Apple have ot for ttem days. Thankfully, it is insured.
But I am now four or five hours late and on a back-up. That’s why we have backups. They’re older machines, buit still functioning if necessary.
You have my sympathy
It’s just a tool that has failed – and may hours lost!
Could I help here?
It wouldnt be instant (and I have a break coming up) but if you tell me what you want I can perhaps help. I’d enjoy it. I’m not using AI tools.
Money?
Riches/Poverty?
Justice?
Strangers & aliens?
Women?
Outcasts?
Hypocrisy?
Misuse of religion?
Attitude to military occupation?
Collaborators?
Terrorists?
Land?
Kingdom?
And who is your intended audience? Jesus’ style and language varied dramatically depending on his audience.
Hebrew or Greek scriptures?
Law and/or prophets?
Just Jesus?
Your ideal timescale?
Much sympathy to Richard on the technology hiccups.
I am slightly lost, and I know what you are responding to.
Sorry, I should have been clearer.
It was @ John Boxall
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2025/09/01/reform-migration-and-christianity/comment-page-1/#comment-1040692
An offer to collate bible references if that was what he was looking for.
I consent to being put in touch with him.
I have done my bit…
Perhaps Nigel Fartrage is hoping to apply to be the next Archbishop of Canterbury and has sent his stooges like Tice out to prepare the ground???
Excellent, sir. Clear and to the point.
Despite Mr Tice’s supposed criticism, it is entirely right for the Archbishop to “interfere in domestic politics”. That is what he is supposed to do – the Bible commands him to do so (as you rightly point out), and indeed is a member of the House of Lords so that he can do so at a high level politically.
Thank you and well said.
I would also commend the article by Rowan Williams in The Guardian a couple of days ago.
Amen! As have you done here, Richard, so did Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde spell out to President Trump after his inauguration, the scriptures, both Hebrew and Christian are clear.
The overseas provinces of the Anglican communion will have a say in the appointment of the next Archbishop. The African churches are growing while in Britain are declining.
The African churches are very conservative in their theology, evangelical and clinging to the Thirty Nine Articles and -in many cases-male priesthood and rejecting the claims of LGBT people. GAFCON Global Anglican Future Conference is their organisation. I foresee the real possibility of a split and the divisions are unlikely to be able to be fudged. People will have to declare where they stand – which could be a good thing. The ‘Tice’ Christians ( Ch I N Os -Christian in Name Only ?) won’t be able, I hope, to just assert a vague identification with the church.
IMHO the way forward for the church is to look at Fowler’s stages of Faith where one becomes
5. Individuative-Reflective Faith (mid-20s to late 30s):
Individuals take personal responsibility for their own beliefs, critically examining them and recognizing diverse perspectives.
6. Conjunctive Faith (mid-life):
Acknowledges paradox, mystery, and the limits of logic, often leading to a deepened appreciation for sacred stories and a greater emphasis on community.
In other words becomes an institution to help people to grow spiritually and being open to other traditions and modern perspectives such as that delivered by the study of near death experiences.
But that’s just my approach.
I think you can make of Christianity whatever you like – there are plenty of verses in the four gospels that can be used to justify Calvinism (for example, the “bread of life” sermon in John 6). Calvinism is, of course, very exclusive. I’m not religious myself, but I always watch with interest.
My aim was to show Cotterell had the right to intervene. He clearly has.
Mark I probably added too much to the post. My main point is that the Anglican church in the developing world is moving in a different direction to the contemporary church in this country. It is something to watch.
Maybe the new Archbishop may have to be for Canterbury and England alone…
Radical thought that we might give up the colonialism gig, I know
Just ten minutes ago the Guardian posted that Archbishop Stephen Cottrell is calling for the end of the two child cap.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/sep/01/child-poverty-uk-two-child-benefit-cap
I can imagine someone in Downing street is muttering ‘will no-one rid me of this turbulent priest?’
🙂
And I have to admit I always thought he was rather compliant. I guess he has heard he has not got Canterbury.
He emphatically didn’t want Canterbury
No none does…
Richard Tice’s commentary is awaited with keen interest…
After all wasn’t it Jesus who said, “Bring the little children to me and make them suffer. Hang millstones round their necks and cast them into the sea.”?
Something like that anyway. I saw it on YouTube or was it GBNews?
(Sorry)
Good for Cottrell.
But he says that the child poverty he saw in a school in NE England 2 years ago, shocked him.
I’m shocked that he was shocked. Back in 2016/17, the foodbank I ran was helping feed hungry children in a primary school in E Dorset. It was bad then and Tory and LINO Gov’t’s have watched it get worse, and actively MADE it worse.
There is no excuse for anyone to be shocked. Foodbanks, and UN Rapporteurs, and academics and national church organisations, and a small number of politicians and of course Ken Loach’s films, have been publicising this for over a decade. You have to be actively avoiding contact with reality to have missed what is going on.
I have long felt Cottrell a bit out of touch, which was why I was surprised by this performance. Like you, I have no idea how he could not have known.
It would have been much better if he had not only called out Reform – but also Badenoch Jenrick and Starmer ..tilling the same ‘island of strangers’ ground .
I am a humanist and recognise that most Christian teaching is actually humanitarian. Tice is, as usual, way out of order and decidedly unchristian in his suggested treatment of strangers. He comes across as both xenophobic and racist, as do a lot of his party’s attitudes to the target of their bile(immigrants).
He couldn’t properly debate these attitudes because they don’t stand up against the evidence, but that’s never the point with his lot. They only care about offering simplistic solutions to enormously complex problems, which attracts lazy thinkers and louts looking for trouble.
He’s trying to gaslight people. I wonder who did it to him?
As a Quakewr I recognise influencdes on faith beyind Christianity – and no faith at all
And I agree with you
Spot on! Your message has universal appeal to Australia where, just over the weekend, there were national anti-immigration rallies being held, although not in great numbers thankfully. There are lots of good reasons to take a Christian view of things; you don’t have to be believer to agree with Christian ethics.
I agree with the last.
And I am not evangelising in any way. That is most definitely not my job.
And there’s always “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God” Matthew 19:24