So then, did he, or didn’t he? Or, more to the point, will he or won’t he in the future?
The Daily Telegraph seemed to be in no doubt: ‘Archbishop urges Christians to “repent” over “wicked” attitude to homosexuality’, it proclaimed in a headline, boldly. Over on the conservative Virtue Online website — the self-proclaimed ‘voice for global orthodox Anglicanism’ — commentator Father Dale Matson said he believed the Archbishop was developing ‘an “evolved” response to contemporary sexual issues... based on polling data rather than Scripture’.
Colin Coward, of the gay and lesbian group Changing Attitudes, was reported elsewhere as saying that Justin Welby was calling for ‘a complete reversal of traditional Christian teaching and attitudes to lesbian and gay people’.
Press conference
The controversy stemmed from a press conference at the end of a visit by Justin Welby to the Evangelical Alliance’s new headquarters in London in August. You can watch a video of his address — and listen to an audio of the subsequent press conference — in full at the EA website, www.eauk.org. A full transcript of his comments about gay issues is also available on the website of conservative post-gay commentator Peter Ould (www.peter-ould.net).
Peter Ould, an evangelical blogger, thought the Archbishop had been grossly mis-reported. He commented: ‘When you read what the Archbishop actually said, it strikes me that he is trying to tread a careful balance between two positions. First, he nowhere capitulates on a biblical sexual morality. He’s very clear he believes marriage is between a man and a woman and that’s why he voted against the same-sex marriage bill (and, indeed, would vote so again). At the same time, he wants to recognise that the way that some Christians have treated gay people is nothing short of homophobic’.
Derek Tidball, former principal of London Bible College, in a letter to The Times, pointed out that Justin Welby spoke mostly about the Christian message changing lives and only mentioned the gay issue in response to a press question. He concluded: ‘This, and your report of the event, is further evidence to me that it is not the church which is obsessed with sex, but the press’.
Columnist Andrew Brown in the Church Times — not someone whose opinion I usually share — happened on this occasion to have it right, I think: ‘Both sides heard what they wanted to hear, and disregarded all the rest as persiflage’. (Yes, I had to look it up too — apparently it means ‘light, bantering talk’.)
Simple, stark fact
As I see it, Welby was quite right to point out as a matter of simple, stark fact that ‘the vast majority of people under 35 think not only that what we’re saying [about sexuality] is incomprehensible, but also think that we’re plain wrong and wicked and equate it to racism and other forms of gross and atrocious injustice’.
What’s less clear is what he was referring to when he said: ‘I’m not going to jump one way or the other until my mind is clear on this’. But, given that he had earlier reiterated his opposition to gay marriage, and then uttered these words in the context of talking about young people’s perceptions, it seems to me that the most straightforward interpretation is that he was saying he was undecided about how to respond to what under-35s think, rather than undecided about issues of human sexuality itself. However, I could be wrong.
We live in a world that has changed beyond recognition. What it means in practice to remain faithful to Christ in that context is something, I think, with which Justin Welby is honestly wrestling.
