The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, the leader of the Church of England (also known as the Anglican Church), represents everything wrong with the institutional church. I am of course referring to the institution which society says is the church and not the body of believers which is the true Church, these people are true Christians. For a long time, both were the same but now for the first time in a while, we have that distinction.
So, what exactly is that distinction? Well, the simple answer is whilst the true Church has stuck to God’s word, obviously, as they are the true Christians, the structure that people call the church has forsaken God in exchange for society’s values as Dr Gavin Ashenden points out below in the clip but I recommend that you watch all of the interview as it echoes my entire post and and you can watch all of the interview here.
Borders Are Ungodly?
The latest example of such difference between real Christians and fake Christians is what the above video refers to, Justin Welby’s pronunciation that the UK’s plan to process illegal migrants in Rwanda can’t “stand the judgement of God” and “it is the opposite of the nature of God” or in other words, ‘ungodly’. And of all days he said it on Resurrection Sunday (or Easter Sunday as many people know it), when his focus should be on delivering a sermon on Jesus Christ’s resurrection and more importantly the Gospel, since this is one of his few chances a year when he has the general public’s attention.
Now I’m not even going to mention how countries have rights from God which allow them reign over their borders and other secular matters such as taxation, this is wrong. Why? Because Justin’s (and I will call him that because he does not deserve the respect of a title) words are completely un-Biblical and un-Christian.
As a Christian, our job is to go to the Bible and not the woke playbook which includes open borders, hippie style love for everyone who is deemed as part of a special group and scorn for the rest of society (typically white straight men and now women too). However, Justin proves himself to not be a Christian by going to those well of woke ideas, which quite frankly can be simplified to lies. And that’s what he does, straight up lie about the nature of God. What does that do, destroy the church, as Nigel Farage points out.
Did God Take Our Punishment Or Our Responsibility?
The most egregious claim, not even connected to the Rwanda issue, though based around it is that, “God… took responsibility for our failures”. No, He didn’t; that is just heresy. I could give lots of verses on this issue but I’ll give just three.
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.Romans 5:8 NIVUK
‘He himself bore our sins’ in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; ‘by his wounds you have been healed.’1 Peter 2:24 NIVUK
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.John 3:16 NIVUK
All three display how Jesus Christ died for our sins. He didn’t take responsibility for our sins and say they were His fault. Jesus is sinless and we are responsible for our sins, as per what the Bible clearly says.
Now Jesus did take responsibility for the result of our sins, which is death, which is very different from the sins themselves. It’s may appear that is a slight difference but it is a crucial one. Christ didn’t say that our sins were His fault but what He did do was take the place of us and take our punishment for us. So, clearly, Justin lied.
Who Does The UK Have Responsibility To?
Now, it may not be evidently clear what the above has to do with Rwanda but here is why. Justin said, “sub-contracting out our responsibilities, even to a country that seeks to do well like Rwanda, is the opposite of the nature of God who himself took responsibility for our failures”. Now this mess of a phrase makes little sense. Why? Because the whole point of the God part is that He apparently took responsibility for others’ mistakes but then Justin says that is applicable to a country not taking responsibility for apparently their own issues. So, in other words, that ‘God part’ is entirely irrelevant.
Now, you may say well ‘no, no, Justin was actually saying that these illegal migrants aren’t our people and that is why we must take responsibility like God did’. See the hypocrisy? Justin is trying to have his cake and eat it too. He says it’s the UK’s responsibility that they’re forfeiting when they ship off these illegal migrants but then it’s not the UK’s responsibility because we have to like God who took others’ responsibilities.
A response is that Justin isn’t saying the two situations are akin but more saying that God has got it so together that He fulfils own responsibilities and also the responsibilities of others. Now that is a much more reasonable way to interpret things; it doesn’t mean he’s right though. That then means that someone has to actually justify that the UK has a responsibility towards illegal migrants who are not of course British citizens and have most likely come from France which is not where these people are fleeing from.
The answer is no, of course, the UK does not have a responsibility taken on the responsibility of these illegal migrants. They came from France where they are not fleeing and thus, if they’re genuine refugees, they will take residence in the first safest place, which, if not 5 or 6 countries ago, is France. My point is that it’s being lenient to consider France the first safest place considering their first steps in their trek through Europe involved setting foot in a safe country because all of Europe is safe for refugees (including where they started; like Greece or Italy), bar some places of Eastern Europe at the moment.
Now, none of this is actually admitting that is responsible to take in all illegal migrants and provide them with what the UK Government currently does, which is quite extensive if you know your stuff. It’s just saying that generally speaking the UK has owes no duty to take on the responsibility of these illegal migrants.
Now even if we say that the UK does have some sort of responsibility to take on these people, none of that is saying that responsibility is what Justin demands. How is it not responsible to process these people overseas? Why must they be processed in the UK? They don’t need to be, as Australia demonstrated to great effect, which is in fact the model for the UK.
So, really, Justin’s comments again don’t come up to scratch, let alone ignoring the fact that he ignored the people drowning in the English Channel that may otherwise not because they know that they won’t be getting to the UK and so they don’t risk their lives in unsafe vessels.
Why Justin Is Wrong
To sum up this part, let’s take a look at the broader point of Justin and how he is wrong. What did he say exactly?
there are such serious ethical questions about sending asylum seekers overseas. The details are for politics and politicians. The principle must stand the judgement of God and it cannot. It cannot carry the weight of resurrection justice, of life conquering death. It cannot carry the weight of the resurrection that was first to the least valued, for it privileges the rich and strong. And it cannot carry the weight of our national responsibility as a country formed by Christian valuesJustin Welby
In a sentence, Justin is saying that every decision must be made in light of “resurrection justice”. Now I’ve been in Christian circles for a long time (not a Christian for that long because being a Christian is about trusting in Jesus’ sacrifice and not how you’re brought up) and never have I heard such a phrase.
Google returns little results for such a phrase. All I could find in a blog post titled, “Resurrection is Justice” from 2018. From my brief skim, the fact that Bruce Byrant-Scott, the writer, an Anglican minister, falsely claims that Sheol is a “concept”, that the “idea of Heaven and Hell developed”, there was the “development of Satan as a fallen angel in rebellion to God, a source of evil” and “The resurrection of Jesus is not an historically verifiable fact” yet also saying “I believe in the resurrection” means that I will completely disregard his work as that of a heretic. Therefore, it was not a surprise to see him condemned collectively by a former lay preacher (who quit because of what I’m about to say), in a previous role in the Anglican Church of Canada for being part of that organisation which does not preaching the Gospel, back in 2009.
Now all of this was one wild tangent to say that the phrase “resurrection justice” means nothing. It’s not something Biblical or something used by Christians. In fact, the above-mentioned blog post doesn’t define it either. All I can say is that it’s a nothing phrase designed to illicit Christian feelings to Justin’s woke words. It’s a bit like the phrase “liberal democracy”, not because how can a democracy be anything but liberal but because it’s just words stuck together in an unnatural way. To make up another Biblically sourced nothing phrase, I could say ‘flood justice’.
The point is this talk is all meaningless. God’s justice, that is the justice carried out by Him or the justice taken from God’s words, are not to be qualified by other words. Terms like “social justice” have become qualifications of the word “justice” rather than just a particular application of justice as it was at the beginning of the use of the term “social justice”. So, yes, you can have “local justice” and “criminal justice” but the change is the application and not the justice itself.
To say “resurrection justice” is to imply there is a justice separate and different to that. Justice didn’t change because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, whilst plenty of other things did. To be clear it was Jesus’ death which changed justice because He took the punishment for our sins.
Now Justin didn’t say the phrase alone but added “of life conquering death”. This doesn’t help at all because it doesn’t clarify the phrase “resurrection justice” but just explains what Jesus (the Way, the Truth and the Life) did, Life conquering death. So, I’m back at square one. All I can say it repeat what I said before about the “Christian feelings” and make clear that Jesus rising from the dead has zero to do with processing illegal migrants. And this is revealed by two members on the Dan Wootton Tonight show where the stand-in host Patrick Chrisyts and panelist Emma Webb both say that as Christians they completely disagree with Justin.
In conclusion to this part, I haven’t gone over the rest of his sermon to look for heresies but this small and much publicised section of Justin’s words was key to go over again and see how truly sinister and evil it is. Let’s not ignore false Christians.
The Vaccine Is Poison But Justin Pushes It
Now, I had to write about his comments about the COVID-19 “vaccine” from last year which I failed to comment on at the time. At the top of the year, he declared “Coronavirus does exist, the vaccine is safe, and everybody should have it.” Boy, oh boy, is this babytalk. He’s effectively saying, ‘Now you listen here you bad boys and girls, there’s a naughty man-made virus and so we have to inject you all with more of that. No, scratch that, it’s a worse than that. But it will definitely protect you and we can do all this just because we call it a vaccine’. It’s patently just ridiculous. I wrote a whole series of posts on this issue and I won’t waste my time repeating it. You can read all the posts here.
So, what did he say late last year? Well, he sat down for about half an hour with British broadcaster ITV’s Julie Etchingham and he says the vaccine is a moral issue but qualifies that it as if it’s a controversial statement. What’s controversial isn’t the fact that the vaccine is a moral issue but why.
I’m going to step out on thin ice here and say yes, I think it is… A lot of people won’t like that … but it’s not about me and my rights to choose, it’s about how I love my neighbour.Justin Welby
He’s actually correct about this being despite coming to the wrong conclusion. He correctly identifies there are moral issues but these issues are actually how vaccines are produced the attack on bodily integrity by mandating these vaccines. Yet that is a moral issue, despite him dismissing it. It’s displaying a pattern of him only choosing to absolutely moralise things that he wants to (that is to say he suggest there is only one correct moral view) and demoralise actual moral issues
The thing is that Justin absolutely moralises issues where there is genuine debate about what you should do but then demoralises actual moral issues where is it clear what to do. For example, he says that you definitely must have a COVID-19 to protect others despite the vaccine not doing that and even if it did, it wouldn’t be right to force it on someone. Which therefore raises the moral issue about if someone can force you do something that helps someone else even if it is against what you want or could hurt you. Now that’s another issue for another time but if it’s a helpful thing to discuss. The other example is how Justin casts aside the moral issue of bodily integrity as if people are not who are allowed to decide what they put into their own bodies.
So, he completely ignores the concern of Christians to the use of aborted babies producing these vaccines which is proving beyond irony the joke that has become one of the largest leaders of the Christian Church because of how anti-Christian he is; he’s even getting close to the Pope’s level of heresy. Justin cannot see or he’s unwilling to comprehend the actual moral issues and rather than address that, he instead creates a false dilemma that you must take “vaccine” to save a life and you cause someone to die if you don’t do so.
A Single Quote Tells A Thousand Words
I’m not going to get lured into this because I can see this I can see this coming back at me for for years to come but I would say go and get boosted get vaccinated it’s how we love our neighbour. Loving our neighbour is what Jesus told us to do.Justin Welby
He does realise that he is lying and pushing something bad as he admits when pressed about his strong religious words pro this poison by the interviewer if in fact it is a sin to not have a COVID-19, that is the quote above. It’s such an irony to hear the question asked as if it’s normal when in fact the opposite is true. Maybe in 20 years the reporters will be asking if it’s a sin not to be a homosexual or a liar or a thief since in this upside world right is wrong and wrong is right. Further on admitting things, he admits something else, this time about the poison.
I’m really puzzled by [objection to the COVID-19 vaccine]… I don’t understand it. I do know some of the scientists are doing this, they’re not evil people. You know this is not a conspiracy. Goodness knows, I mean [we] have enough trouble organising a conspiracy in the Church of England. We don’t even succeed then let alone a national conspiracy on vaccination. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s not a plot. They are not bad people they are in really difficult circumstances giving us their best advice. What I think about them is trust them they know what they’re doing better than we do. They may be wrong but they know what they’re doing better than we do.Justin Welby
As I said before, he is clearly refusing to understanding why Christians, let alone non-Christians, reject the vaccine. He then reveals the plot to remove actual Christians from the Church of England, like Calvin Robinson, in a manner similar to former US President George W Bush who slipped up and said, “Our enemies are innovative and resourceful – and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people and neither do we.” I mean seriously, he didn’t have to say that because if he said there was no conspiracy then that’s all you have to say but it’s only when you have something weighing on your conscience relating to that issue which seems to placate the issue (but actually makes it worse; that’s kind of saying that you alibi for not murdering your wife is because you’re getting an abortion, which is another murder, for your mistress) then you slip up and say something. He is admitting that something is happening and we all know what it is and what he said that it’s failing because we can all see it.
Yes, he’s right, it’s not a conspiracy and it’s not national. This is an international push for the poison and it’s not conspiratorial because it’s so open. It’s all in the propaganda fed everyday through the mainstream media.
No, these scientists are evil people, as is everyone but fake Christian Justin Welby won’t admit that. And These scientists are more evil because they know the poison that they’re producing. So all Justin can say is to trust them since they apparently know more (which they do about the poison they give out), which is the elite fallacy pushed on all of us as I mocked before. They treat us all like babies as if we can’t make decisions for ourselves, which we can. Now there is a more obvious reason behind all his actions; if you read until the end, you’ll find out.
Well, Justin Just Doesn’t Care
It’s clear that he doesn’t care that these vaccines do not prevent transmission and in fact the only life would be allegedly harming is your own since we know from evidence that these vaccines actually harm you and do not save your life or anyone else is for that matter. He doesn’t care about the moral issues either.
So, his comments are not only out of touch with Christianity but also the “science” that he blindly follows; which of course is not really science at all. I could waste my time listen to more of his words I’m already disappointed enough this man that he claims to speaks for Christianity but in fact he speaks for the opposite.
So, this all has proven that from the top, the institution church is rotten. We, as Christians, must continue to meet as the Church and ensure that we create a proper institution which stands up on God’s word. Oh and did I mention too that he’s a member of the World Economic Forum which is a cabal of globalists hellbent of destroying society (including Christianity) in favour of a dystopian one world government; remember these were the people saying, “You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy”? Wait is that all I have time for? Oops. Bye bye.
Sources (In order of use)