In a staggering set of statements recorded by The Rest is Politics podcast, the Archbishop of Canterbury has laid his cards on the table with regards to sexual ethics in the Church of England.
In a wide-ranging interview where the Archbishop of Canterbury courageously discusses his own struggles with mental health, his upbringing, and his view on religion and politics, among other things, he also publicly admitted:
“What the Archbishop of York and I, and the bishops, by a majority, by no means unanimous…Where we’ve come to is to say that all sexual activity should be within a committed relationship and whether it’s straight or gay.”
Provoking widespread disbelief, the Archbishop of Canterbury has used this interview to indicate his view that:
- Sexual intimacy is no longer limited to marriage;
- Sexual intimacy in gay relationships is ok;
- The church should bless sexual relations outside of marriage.
It is a devastating statement because it marks a clear departure from the doctrine of the Church of England, the Anglican Communion, and every other major Christian denomination across the world believe.
Andrew Goddard, in a blow-by-blow critique, highlights how the contents of the interview are at best misleading, contradictory, and appear to assert a position contrary to the doctrine of marriage. He argues that the clip suggests “a disturbing level of some combination of ignorance, misrepresentation, dishonesty and inaccuracy on the Archbishop’s part in his account of the church’s recent decisions, its doctrine, and its stated rationale for PLF.”
Goddard concludes his piece by calling for an apology or correction to avoid further damage to an already broken relationship with those upholding the current biblical teaching on sexual ethics within the CofE and the wider Anglican Communion:
“…such significantly erroneous statements as these from no less than the Archbishop of Canterbury, unless swiftly followed by an apology and correction, can only add further to the widespread erosion of trust and growing sense of disbelief, betrayal, deception, anger and despair now felt across much of the Church of England in relation to both the PLF process and our archiepiscopal leadership.”
Read Andrew Goddard’s full blog below…
Is the Archbishop of Canterbury misleading everyone about the Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF)?
Andrew Goddard writes: What follows demonstrates a recent statement about PLF by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, is significantly misleading in relation to what the bishops have decided, what the church teaches on sexual ethics, who PLF is for, and what PLF offers. This development, contradicting and undermining past theological and legal advice as well as statements to General Synod, raises serious questions as to how and why such misrepresentations of the facts have been made and can only further damage trust in the PLF process and the Archbishop’s leadership.
In a short TikTok clip of a forthcoming interview with Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart for The Rest is Politics, the Archbishop of Canterbury has revealed why the Prayers of Love and Faith introduced under his leadership are causing so much damage to the Church of England.
He was faced with a question alluding back to another interview with Campbell seven years ago. Then Archbishop Welby said he could not offer a “straight answer” about “Is gay sex sinful?” as “I know I haven’t got a good answer” and so he said in November 2017, “Yes. I am copping out because I am struggling with the issue”. Asked now if he had a better answer he replied “Yes I do” before joking that this was the sort of question Campbell would have been signalling to Blair to cut out of answering.
He then said
What the Archbishop of York and I, and the bishops, by a majority, by no means unanimous, and the church is deeply split over this. Where we’ve come to is to say that all sexual activity should be within a committed relationship and whether it’s straight or gay. In other words, we’re not giving up on the idea that sex is within marriage or civil partnership. We’ve put forward a proposal that where people have been through a civil partnership or a same-sex marriage, equal marriage under the 2014 Act, they should be able to come along to their local, to a church, and have a service of prayer and blessing for them in their lives together. So we accept that. Now, I think this is a long way from church same-sex marriage… (0:35-1:35)
In that one minute there are four statements which are either misleading or demonstrably false about where the church stands and what has happened in the PLF process.
Have bishops really said what the Archbishop claims?
First, it is true that the Archbishop of York and Archbishop Justin himself have already made statements along these lines about sexual ethics. The Archbishop of York famously did so immediately after the proposed prayers were published in an interview on Radio 4’s Sunday programme on 22nd January 2023.
Interviewer: Can we just clarify one point? Is it still church teaching that gay sex is a sin?
Archbishop of York: Well, what we are saying is that physical and sexual intimacy belongs in committed, stable, faithful relationships and therefore where we see a committed, stable, faithful relationship between two people of the same sex, we are now in a position where those people can be welcomed fully into the life of the Church, on their terms.
Interviewer: And given a blessing: you don’t bless sin, right? So you must be blessing something you believe to be good.
Archbishop of York: As I say, we believe that stable, faithful, committed, loving relationships are good. They are the place for physical intimacy…
In June 2023 Archbishop Welby said something similar to what he does in this new interview (see Martin Davie’s critique at the time):
I think we do need to be more open about the basic rules, the basic understanding of sexual morality within Christian thinking. Without sounding as though we are lecturing, but just to be unapologetic about saying . . . sexual activity should be within permanent, stable, and faithful relationships of marriage, as that is understood in each society.
The problem is that though the Archbishops have said this (and many bishops probably agree with them), the bishops have never formally, even by a majority, decided or said that the church’s teaching is that
all sexual activity should be within a committed relationship and whether it’s straight or gay. In other words we’re not giving up on the idea that sex is within marriage or civil partnership.
Here the Archbishop is (unless this is yet another case of the bishops deciding something but keeping it secret) quite simply wrong and misleading Alastair Campbell and the viewers of the interview about what the bishops he leads have decided and publicly said and done.
What have the bishops actually said?
Secondly, and more seriously, we can be fairly sure there is no formal but secret episcopal agreement because the House of Bishops has in fact said something quite different. At the time of those previous statements by the Archbishops in the first half of 2023 there was a certain amount of unclarity as to what, as part of the PLF process, the bishops were going to say about the proper place for sex. It then however became clear that upholding the church’s teaching on marriage as they were committed to do meant there was a clear answer. This was not the “better answer” given by the Archbishop but the answer the bishops have repeatedly given in multiple statements over recent years through to the Pastoral Statement on Civil Partnerships in December 2019, in line with historic church teaching which is itself understood to be based on Scripture and the teaching of Jesus:
The Church of England teaches that “sexual intercourse, as an expression of faithful intimacy, properly belongs within marriage exclusively” (Marriage:a teaching document of the House of Bishops, 1999). Sexual relationships outside heterosexual marriage are regarded as falling short of God’s purposes for human beings (para 9).
So, in papers to the November 2023 General Synod (GS 2328) it was clearly stated as a result of discussion at the House of Bishops that
The Church’s doctrine remains as set out in Canon B 30 (Of Holy Matrimony); we have been clear that we have no intention of changing that doctrine. We also note that the Church’s teaching on sexual relations has been treated as being part of the Church’s doctrine of marriage. We are not proposing to change that teaching (para 13)
A theological rationale for PLF was set out in Annex H and the bishops noted that the theological basis for the prayers was that they were
a pastoral outworking for a time of uncertainty that respects the Church of England’s unchanged doctrine of marriage, including the aspects of that doctrine that are concerned with sexual intimacy. On that basis, we have concluded that making the PLF available for same-sex couples without there being an assumption as to their sexual relationships would not be contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England (para 15).
The bishops in setting out whether the prayers were legal (presumably based on some of the still unpublished legal advice) were clear that this judgment was based on the theological rationale. This included “that it is not intended to change the Church of England’s doctrine of marriage” and “that the Church’s teaching on sexual activity is regarded as part of that doctrine” (para 22).
And so, when the prayers were commended in December 2023, the Pastoral Guidance clearly stated on the very first page:
The Church of England teaches that Holy Matrimony is a lifelong covenant between one man and one woman, blessed by God in creation and pointing to the love between Christ and the Church; a way of life which Christ makes holy. It is within marriage that sexual intimacy finds its proper place.
This means that not only is it wrong to say that the House of Bishops has said what the Archbishop claimed, they have instead said something quite different. They have, in fact, made that different statement the theological rationale and legal basis for the PLF which frames the guidance that accompanies the prayers and which clergy should follow.
It cannot be the case that the bishops are “not giving up on the idea that sex is within marriage or civil partnership” because that has never been and still is not the church’s teaching. It also seems that, expressing the teaching in those terms, unless “marriage” is now also being stretched by the Archbishop to include same-sex couples, he is rather oddly saying that he and the bishops are only permitting same-sex couples in civil partnerships to be in a sexual relationship. This is despite the fact that, although clergy have for many years been permitted to enter same-sex civil partnerships, the bishops are still required to ensure those civil partnerships are non-sexual.
It is one thing to reject the church’s current teaching and engage in theological debate about an alternative. It is quite another to so directly misrepresent that teaching, which has in fact recently been reaffirmed, particularly if you are an Archbishop.
Who are the Prayers of Love and Faith for?
Thirdly, although not as clear or serious a misrepresentation of the Church of England’s position, it is also misleading to emphasise (particularly in the context of the statement about the church’s sexual ethic supposedly being focussed on marriage or civil partnership status) that the PLF proposal is “that where people have been through a civil partnership or a same-sex marriage, equal marriage under the 2014 Act” they can now come for a service. The bishops were again quite clear and emphatic in putting this proposal to Synod last November that
The material contained in the PLF Resource Section intentionally does not differentiate between couples who have and who have not entered into a civil same-sex marriage. That is because the PLF Resource Section is being offered for the purposes explained in the previous paragraph; they are not being offered to be used as a thanksgiving for marriage or a service of prayer and dedication after civil marriage and do not refer to, or take account of, a couple’s civil marital status (para 9)
It would appear that this point was of significance in the unpublished legal advice concerning whether or not using the prayers for couples in same-sex marriages was contrary to or indicative of departure from the church’s doctrine in an essential matter. We are told that “the legal advice we received set out both sides of the argument” (para 10) though not given the details of the two arguments and then:
In the light of the legal and theological advice we have received, we consider the following points to be significant. The PLF Resource Section does not treat those couples who have entered a same-sex civil marriage any differently from the way they treat a same-sex couple who are in a civil partnership or who have not acquired any formal civil status for their relationship. The use of the PLF Resource Section for a couple who have entered into a civil same-sex marriage does not therefore imply that their civil status is something that the Church considers distinguishes the couple from other same-sex couples who wish to dedicate their life together to God (para 11).
What do the Prayers of Love and Faith offer?
Fourthly, the Archbishop spoke of a couple in a legally recognised same-sex union being able
to come along to their local, to a church, and have a service of prayer and blessing for them in their lives together.
The correction from ‘their local’ to ‘a’ church was important as the decision to use the prayers is one made by the parish priest and nobody has a right to such a service in their local church. However, two ambiguities or worse remain.
First, at present there cannot be a service for the couple, only prayers within a regular service—and this is unlikely to change until mid-way through next year. Secondly, and more seriously, the argument that led to such “standalone services” being accepted at the July Synod was that they were really liturgically no different from what is now currently permitted in terms of the use of the prayers in regular services. In other words, any such service would be a Service of the Word or a service of Holy Communion, a form of service already authorised under Canon B2 for use in the church, and so not needing any further Synodical scrutiny or authorisation. To describe the service as in fact “a service of prayer and blessing for them” is therefore either false or is proof that the argument which was presented to Synod to justify introducing “standalone services” next year by commendation and not (as previously proposed and supported by the Archbishop by Canon B2) was duplicitous.
Conclusion
In summary, almost everything of substance that the Archbishop says about PLF in the quotation above (apart from “the church is deeply split over this”) is demonstrably either false or misleading unless the previous explanations and commitments offered by him and the bishops to General Synod are false or misleading.
The Archbishop’s interview gives the impression that the Church of England, with the agreement of the majority of bishops, now teaches that sexual relationships, including same-sex sexual relationships, are acceptable as long as the couple are in a committed relationship, either a civil partnership or a marriage. Furthermore, he claims that the Church of England will provide a service of prayer and blessing in church for couples in such relationships.
In fact, the theological argument presented by the bishops (and sight of the legal advice to bishops might demonstrate that this is also crucial for PLF’s legality) has been that any sexual relationship other than marriage between a man and a woman is contrary to the Church’s doctrine of marriage. Despite this, it has nevertheless been claimed by the majority of bishops that any committed same-sex couple (with or without a legal status) can be offered PLF as prayers within an existing authorised liturgy. This is even though it is also acknowledged that because their relationship may be sexual, such prayers are indicative of a departure from the church’s doctrine.
The Archbishop’s answer might have been “better” in the sense of probably being more appealing to Alastair Campbell. It is, however, in fact so highly misleading and inaccurate as to suggest a disturbing level of some combination of ignorance, misrepresentation, dishonesty and inaccuracy on the Archbishop’s part in his account of the church’s recent decisions, its doctrine, and its stated rationale for PLF.
Our dire situation as a church is bad enough as a result of having been so divided because of the direction set by the Archbishops and most of the bishops. The fact that there are such deep theological disagreements on these matters that need to be addressed cannot and must not be avoided. However, such significantly erroneous statements as these from no less than the Archbishop of Canterbury, unless swiftly followed by an apology and correction, can only add further to the widespread erosion of trust and growing sense of disbelief, betrayal, deception, anger and despair now felt across much of the Church of England in relation to both the PLF process and our archiepiscopal leadership.
