In a recent The Rest is Politics podcast, hosted by Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, informed us that he has been on a journey. From being a transparent advocate of conservative Evangelical belief, affirming sex only inside traditional marriage, he tells us that, consequently of much prayer and theological reflection, he now embraces a position that sees sex as permissible in any stable relationship, and whether heterosexual or gay makes no difference.
He said, to cite: “all sexual intercourse needs to be inside a committed relationship, whether it’s straight or gay. In other words, we’re not giving up on the concept that sex is inside marriage or civil partnership. We’ve recommend a proposal that where people have been through a civil partnership or a same-sex marriage, equal marriage, under the 2014 Act, they need to give you the option to return along to their local, to a church, and have a service of blessing for them of their lives together” (emphasis added).
In other words, and lest there be any doubt, what the leader of the Anglican Communion is saying is that the normal Christian view of marriage as between one man and one woman for all times is just about redundant and that every one sex is nice – provided only that it takes place inside what he defines as a stable (albeit perhaps temporary) relationship. And, as added insult to injury, he then goes on to assert that this doesn’t and is not going to affect the Church’s stance on same-sex marriage, which currently permits a service of blessing for same sex couples but draws the road at marriage.
Such a position just isn’t just theologically indefensible, but logically irreconcilable. For the worldwide head of the Anglican Church to say that every one sex is nice – whether inside or outside marriage, and whether gay or straight – is inevitably, by extension, to endorse same-sex marriage. But he would do well to keep in mind that in Scripture, sex outside marriage and homosexuality are each branded anathema.
So what does the Archbishop’s reasonably rambling announcement say about his commitment to Christian belief? Is there any doctrine he now holds to be sacrosanct – or is the reality actually that, deep down, he now not believes? Has his ‘God’ in actual fact change into not more than a form of squidgy comfort blanket and legitimisation for social motion? And was Christ’s sacrifice to redeem mankind from sin, objectively commendable though it would appear, ultimately pointless?
Such a position just isn’t, and never might be, right. Christianity just isn’t founded on feelings or being ‘nice’ to people, but on the revelation of God and of His Son, Jesus Christ, as set down within the Bible. No one who holds otherwise is fit to carry office within the Church.
So what does the Bible say exactly? From Genesis onwards, Scripture is evident that marriage is between one man and one woman for all times, a position taken over and affirmed by Jesus himself. See, for instance, Matt 15:5, “For this reason, a person shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the 2 shall change into one flesh.”
Similarly, though interpreted by liberal activists as a cultural and time-bound anachronism, the Bible is unequivocal in its condemnation of homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 clearly states, “Do not have sexual relations with a person as one does with a lady; that’s detestable.” While chapter 20, equally trenchant in its condemnation, says that every one people caught in such behaviour, each female and male, shall be put to death.
Strong stuff, and nobody would want to see such a sentence carried out today, nevertheless it shows clearly how such behaviour was regarded and the burden of condemnation it attracted. Similarly within the New Testament, the apostle Paul was unequivocal in his denunciation of homosexuality and lesbianism, labelling such practices sinful and degrading, and resulting in damnation: e.g. Romans 1:26-27.
It would appear, nonetheless, that after ‘mature spiritual reflection’, Archbishop Welby has decided that the Bible is improper … or not less than never meant what it said. Perhaps he imagines that God too is on a learning curve, and has now recognised that mankind has come of age, in order that it is not any longer God who teaches mankind how one can behave, but vice versa, and we’d like now not be certain by the moral strictures of yesteryear. But where, one wonders, will all this stop? If it’s possible so easily to jettison one commandment, why hang on to the remaining?
It would appear that the Archbishop, by his own admission, is a convert – it’s only a pity that his conversion has been to a faith apart from the one he has been entrusted to steer.
