Why Welby should resign

Christian Concern's Head of Public Policy Tim Dieppe comments on Justin Welby's recent dismissal of Christian teaching by approving of sexual immorality.

A formal statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury this week reveals that he is now openly expressing his disagreement with the clear teaching of the Church of England. The statement makes clear that Justin Welby now believes that sexual intimacy is morally acceptable providing there is a 'stable, committed and faithful relationship.'

This means that Welby fundamentally disagrees with CofE doctrine on marriage and sexual ethics. Welby now believes that sexual intimacy is not reserved for marriage, and that sexual intimacy in same-sex relationships is not sinful. In his view, the recent plans to allow blessings for same-sex couples enable CofE priests to bless homosexual relationships.

This is a clear departure from CofE doctrine on marriage and sexual ethics, and from the Global Anglican Communion, and from the historic position of every other Christian denomination across the world, and the clear teaching of the Bible.

What Welby said on the podcast

Justin Welby, was forced to make a public statement this week following an interview with the popular podcast The Rest is Politics, in which he was asked his view on homosexuality. Back in 2017, Alistair Campbell, who co-hosts the podcast, asked Welby whether gay sex is sinful. Then, Welby famously said he couldn't give a straight answer to the question. Welby was already unwilling to state CofE doctrine at that point. That's appalling for any ordained minister, let alone a bishop or an archbishop.

On the podcast this month, Campbell asked Welby whether he had a better answer yet. This time Welby said that he did, and then he explained:

"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."

This is the clearest statement that Welby has yet made on his views on homosexuality and it is plain that he and other Bishops are now unashamed of departing from CofE doctrine.

What is CofE doctrine?

CofE doctrine is that "sexual intercourse, as an expression of faithful intimacy, properly belongs within marriage exclusively." The doctrine of marriage, as set out in Canon B30 states that marriage is a lifelong union of "one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side".

The pastoral guidance set out in 2023 for the Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF) reiterates CofE doctrine on marriage and sexual ethics by saying:

"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."

CofE teaching has never been that "sex is within marriage or civil partnership" as Welby put it. Sex is only to be expressed within marriage between a man and a woman.

The statement

Welby's comments sparked a backlash from evangelicals who were shocked by Welby's blatant disregard for CofE doctrine. This forced Welby to make a public statement. The statement elaborates:

"Archbishop Justin was giving a personal view that reflects the position now held by himself, the Archbishop of York and many other bishops regarding sexual intimacy. He has been honest that his thinking has evolved over the years through much prayer and theological reflection – particularly through the Living in Love and Faith process – and he now holds this view sincerely. It reflects his commitment to continuing to welcome, love and include LGBTQ+ people more fully in the life of the Church."

He claims here that his thinking "has evolved" and now holds the same view as the Archbishop of York, who believes that sexual immorality is not sinful if it takes place in a 'committed relationship'.

He says that his view has changed through prayer and theological reflection – but there are no clues given as to what theological arguments have changed his mind. The arguments laid out in Living in Love and Faith in favour of same-sex relationships have been around for decades, and clearly rebutted countless times.

But Welby uses the classic postmodern defence of sincerity. We should all respect his views because he is sincere. But many apostates are sincere.

His statement continues:

"However, there is no consensus among the bishops on this question, and the Church remains deeply divided. Archbishop Justin stressed his absolute commitment to those who hold a traditional view having "a full and undoubted place in the Church of England". His answer does not indicate a changing of teaching from the House of Bishops. This is an ongoing conversation across the Church – and Archbishop Justin hopes that the bishops, together with clergy and laity, will keep praying and reflecting on these questions."

Here there is a clear admission that Welby's views, and those of the Archbishop of York and other bishops, stand in clear contradiction to the "traditional view." There is then a rather condescending commitment to allowing those who hold to the traditional view to have a "full and undoubted place in the Church of England." While his answer may not "indicate a changing of teaching from the House of Bishops", it clearly indicates his disagreement with that teaching – even as expressed in the Living in Love and Faith Pastoral Guidance last year. Welby is therefore now happy to clarify that he personally disagrees with CofE official teaching. He is presumably emboldened by support in this disagreement from the Archbishop of York, and other bishops.

Welby should resign

Welby's logic is actually completely backwards. It is those with "a traditional view" who belong most firmly within the CofE. They are upholding the doctrine as it has been received and understood. Those bishops who depart from the clear unambiguous teaching of the CofE should resign. It is they who do not have a place in the Church of England, however sincerely held their beliefs may be. A sincere atheist can hardly be a bishop. The sincerity of the disbelief in CofE doctrine does nothing to justify remaining as a bishop.

Sexual immorality is catastrophic to those who pursue it. In 1 Corinthians 6:18, the Apostle Paul explains that sexual immorality is unique in the way that it corrupts a person's body. A chapter earlier, he explains how deeply it corrupts not just those who partake in it but the whole church. He is absolutely clear that this kind of immorality requires severe discipline: "Purge the evil person from among you" (1 Cor 5:13).

This is no small matter; the nature of good and evil is being twisted. When you preach that no repentance is needed from such serious immorality, you are preaching another gospel. You are leading people who think they are faithful Christians down a road to God's judgement. Lord, have mercy.

Sincerely held belief in sexual immorality is sincere heresy. Welby, Cotrell and other bishops who endorse sexual immorality are nothing less than heretics. If they had any integrity they would resign. But wolves in sheep's clothing do not resign, they need to be expelled.

The Alliance writes to the bishops

Meanwhile, The Alliance, a collaboration of CofE groups that hold to the Bible's teachings about sexual ethics, wrote to the archbishops and bishops this week. The letter complains that the correct constitutional process has not been followed for departing from current agreed doctrine or for a change of liturgy. It also complains that there has been no provision for allowing faithful clergy to be overseen by faithful bishops. Consequently, they have begun "setting up a de facto parallel province within the Church of England in response to the de facto change in doctrine."

This makes the point exactly. There has been a de facto change of doctrine. Allowing prayers of love and faith (PLF) is a de facto change of doctrine and liturgy. But the Bishops have avoided an actual change of doctrine as that would be too difficult to achieve and too divisive.

All of this is very postmodern. The heretical bishops don't actually care about doctrine. They only really care about what they can practice. As long as they can bless same-sex relationships in a way that could look like marriage they are mostly happy. They don't think they need to worry about doctrine at all. They may believe it or not – who cares. And now Welby is bold enough to say so in public. He doesn't think it matters that he disbelieves church doctrine. So, he has no thoughts of resigning. Doctrine is not important to him.

A gospel issue

The area where the gospel is most under attack in our contemporary culture is sexual morality.

Welby has never been clear on this issue. He and most of the other bishops have failed to speak the gospel prophetically to our culture. He as capitulated on the one gospel issue that the culture attacks.

Countless faithful Christians have been the victims of this. Faithful ministers like John Parker, Peter Sanlon and Bernard Randall have left the Church of England or been forced out because leaders couldn't stand by what the Bible teaches and what the Church still claims to believe.

Justin Welby's reverence towards Stonewall led to the dreadful Valuing All God's Children reports that undermined the church's teaching through Church of England schools and was used against several faithful Christians, including 'Hannah'.

He has failed the Church, he has failed the CofE, he has failed the worldwide Anglican Communion, and he has failed Christ. His legacy is a largely apostate church which formally allows clergy to bless sexual immorality.

Where next for Welby and the CofE?

Welby could still repent. Even at this stage. But I don't expect it. His lack of integrity shows in his willingness to openly depart from CofE doctrine. He is 68 years old. He will retire before long. Whilst he may be lauded by the liberal elites and other heretical bishops, it is Christ who will finally judge his actions. As the Bible says: "we who teach will be judged more strictly". (James 3:1). That doesn't bode well for Welby.

I do not hold out much hope for the next Archbishop of Canterbury to be any better. Although there are some faithful bishops, the House of Bishops is predominantly stacked with heretics now. The chances of anyone who firmly holds to the Bible's teaching on sexuality and gender being made archbishop are minute. This is why The Alliance has resorted to setting up a de facto parallel province.

In days gone by you would have said that the doctrines of the CofE will safeguard the church from becoming heretical. And it has fared better than some other denominations. Yet in today's postmodern world, bishops and archbishops are unashamed of disagreeing with church doctrine. I doubt whether the CofE can recover to faithfulness when doctrine can be openly disregarded by both archbishops like this. Words no longer have their meaning.

Faithful ministers who are seeking to hold on until the doctrine changes may find they are holding on to a mirage. The doctrine may never change, but the de facto practice will be completely different. Can you really call it a church when doctrine is disregarded like this?

I hope I am wrong. I have many faithful friends in the CofE who are doing great work. I pray for them. These are difficult and unprecedented times. But we serve a God who can do immeasurably more than we can ask or imagine. Only he can bring about the radical repentance and reformation that faithful Christians long for.

This article was first published on the website of Christian Concern and is printed here with permission.