When the former Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Revd Rt Hon Justin Welby GCVO, addressed the Cambridge Union last month he chose to speak about ‘truth’. An appropriate subject some might think for the home of the oldest debating society in the world – a place where the truth or falsehood of statements and policies are deliberated and decided.

During his address, and in the questions afterwards, he kept returning to the concept of truth; the challenges of speaking the truth; the need for“.. truth that leads us to care for human dignity, which is protected only by truth”; and the benefit of being part of communities that “love truthfully and seek your good truthfully and which care for each other.” He even spoke of Jesus as “the way, the truth and the life” and the role of bishops in the House of Lords to march, “to the tune that comes from God who calls for an eternal viewpoint of truth and service to the poor not of power relations.”

Truth matters to Justin Welby – but like may others, not least Pontius Pilate – he does not have a good answer to the question, “What is truth?”

Justin Welby told those gathered in Cambridge that, “…the test of truth for all of us is whether we are prepared to pay the price of defending it. I wanted to start there because a truth that buckles under pressure is simply not made for the job of life.”  

‘Truth’ in Justin Welby’s mind, therefore, is what any individual is prepared to pay the price to defend.

He shared that his own truth is found in the person of Jesus Christ (not dogma or concepts) and gave an example of defending truth when he challenged the then government’s ‘Rwanda-scheme’. He explained that his father-in-law’s ‘truth’ led to him fighting Hitler. Presumably those who fought for Hitler held a different but equally unbuckling ‘truth’ all together.

This blog has noted before the problems of Justin Welby’s attachment to ‘plural truth’ but in this latest statement, the concept of truth is detached from any need to be in accord with fact or reality. ‘Truth’ becomes any construct, dogma or concept that an individual is prepared to defend.

It is no wonder the Church of England became bogged down in interminable debate while under Welby’s leadership. If the only test of the ‘truthfulness’ of any ‘truth’ is how hard and how long any one individual, or group, is prepared to defend their position, becoming entrenched is inevitable Nothing illustrates this better than the trench warfare that has surrounded discussions around human sexuality.

In January, Andrew Goddard set out ten reasons why the Prayers of Love and Faith process had been prolonged and painful:

1. There was an episcopal rush to publication of a proposal without recognition of its legal and theological weaknesses and the fragility of the apparent episcopal consensus.
2. The novel initial legal and theological basis for the proposal was a flawed sharp distinction between civil marriage and holy matrimony
3. There was for too long a refusal to acknowledge and work on the complex doctrinal questions related to PLF and revision of the pastoral guidance.
4. The addition of pastoral provision/reassurance and the promise not to proceed with PLF or Pastoral Guidance without it.
5. The under-estimation of the breadth and depth of opposition to the proposals.
6. Repeated process failures, lack of transparency, and widespread lack of confidence that due processes are being followed.
7. The rejection of use of Canon B2.
8. A belief that past legal advice could somehow be ignored, by-passed or over-turned.
9. Initial confusion over the content of the church’s doctrine of marriage.
10. The repeated insistence that doctrine remains unchanged and the proposals are compatible with that doctrine.

It is not hard to see how each of these problems can be traced back to a ‘truth’ that the majority of the House of Bishops have sought to defend against every reality check that has been thrown at them. While, Goddard deals with a time frame that begins in February 2023, it is possible to look back to the publication of GS2055 – “Marriage and Same Sex Relationships after the Shared Conversations – A Report from the House of Bishops”, in January 2017, to find the ‘truth’ that has been defended at all costs.

GS2055 set out the view of the majority of the House of Bishops that there was little appetite to change the doctrine of marriage, but that some form of service, or blessing, for same-sex couples would be beneficial and that ideally they would relax the rules about ordinands and clergy being able to enter into civil marriages. To the surprise of the bishops, GS2055 was rejected by General Synod, predominantly because revisionists did not want to close the door to a change of doctrine. Not to be deterred, Justin Welby announced the need for “a radical new Christian inclusion in the Church” leading to the whole Living in Love and Faith process. Yet, the ‘truth’ that had been adopted in 2017 did not change. The ecclesial travelator just ground on in an attempt to implement what became known as the Prayers of Love and Faith and the accompanying ‘pastoral guidance,’ including advice on clergy entering same-sex marriage.

Whether the resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the growing dissatisfaction in the particular ‘truth’ that he sought to defend, will mean that the whole Living in Love and Faith process, “buckles under pressure,” remains to be seen. If it does collapse, then a new ‘truth’ will have to be found – and as this blog has already set out there is a real danger it will be not be one that has any grounding in God’s timeless and unchanging revelation.