The Prime Minister told Tory MPs that church leaders had been ‘less vociferous in their condemnation on Easter Sunday of Putin than they were on our policy on illegal immigrants’. Lambeth Palace called this ‘a disgraceful slur’. So who is right?
If the PM’s comment is confined to the archbishop of Canterbury, he appears to be technically correct. Welby’s high-profile sermon did attack the asylum policy in strong terms, and it had no such harsh words for Putin himself (even if he did say Easter should be a ‘time for Russian ceasefire, withdrawal and a commitment to talks’). Not only did Welby say that the deal raised ‘serious ethical questions’; he went into full prophet mode and declared that it would not ‘stand the judgment of God’.
Anglicanism has an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to enlightened politics
Lambeth Palace has responded that Welby has criticised Putin elsewhere, calling his invasion a ‘great act of evil’. This is correct, but I’m not sure it is entirely relevant. I was only vaguely aware of this previous anti-Putin comment. And I was highly aware of his criticism of the government. It was on the Easter Day news, after all, and there wasn’t much other news to get in its way. My point is that what the Archbishop chooses to dwell on in his Easter sermon, knowing it will make the headlines, is hugely significant.
I think Welby should have risen above domestic party politics and prioritised Putin on Easter Day. The Archbishop should have explained why Putin’s power-hungry version of Christianity is wrong, and clearly condemned his holy henchman Patriarch Kirill, the Russian Orthodox bishop. Welby’s criticism of Russian Orthodoxy’s support for tyranny has been too mild for my liking, too carefully diplomatic. When he met with the Pope and Kirill in March, reports suggest that the discussion did not rise much above bland platitudes about peace being preferable to war. It was Welby’s role to throw niceties aside and accuse the Russian prelate of complicity in tyranny.
Yes, he has issued a few strong phrases: as well as calling the invasion a ‘great act of evil’, he said on Question Time that Putin will be judged by God. But such comments must be backed up by sustained analysis of the wrongness of a reactionary theocratic version of Christianity, and perhaps a fresh declaration of the value of liberal democracy from a religious perspective.
Anglicanism has an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to enlightened politics, and to show that such political commitments are intrinsic to faith. But Welby has fudged that opportunity and Boris was right to draw attention to the fact.
Comments