According to a report in the Church Times, during the Religion Media Festival on Monday this week the Archbishop of Canterbury responded to a question about whether the Church of England was ‘ too apologetic about its positions on sexual morality.’ His answer was to say that he entirely agreed with the questioner’s concern and that:
‘We were talking about it in the College of Bishops last week and 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.’[1]
At first sight the archbishop’s answer could appear completely anodyne, since he might seem to be saying what the Church of England and the Christian Church has always said, namely that sex should be confined to marriage.
However, on closer inspection his final words, ‘as that is understood in each society,’ make his answer anything but anodyne. This is because they would seem to say that the Church is willing to endorse any and every understanding of marriage that society may accept at any given time and to say that it is fine for sexual activity to take place within them.
This would mean for example that the Church would be willing to endorse:
- Forced marriages
- Polyamorous marriages
- Marriages between adults and children
- Marriages between humans and sex robots
All these are forms of marriage that have been, or could be, accepted within human societies. Presumably, one hopes, the archbishop and the rest of the College of Bishops would be unwilling to accept any of these potential forms of marriage. However, if this is the case it would mean having to revise the archbishop’s answer to say that sexual activity should only take place within marriage understood in a particular way, rather than in any way accepted by society.
In current British society, of course, marriage has been understood since 2014 as a relationship that can exist between both opposite-sex and same-sex couples. This raises the question of whether the archbishop’s answer means that he (and the College of Bishops) think that a same-sex relationship can be a marriage and that it is therefore fine for sexual activity to take place within this context.
If this is indeed what they think then this would seem to be in conflict with the repeated statements by the bishops that they are not proposing any change in the Church of England’s existing doctrine of marriage. Either they think that the Church’s existing doctrine of marriage already encompasses same-sex as well as opposite-sex marriages (which it clearly doesn’t), or they think it should (in which case why are they not proposing a change in doctrine via amendments to the Book of Common Prayer and Canon B.30?).
One way they might try to get round this point would be to say that the Church’s existing doctrine applies only to Holy Matrimony (understood as marriages solemnised in church), but that the Church can also recognise other forms of marriage that are not ‘Holy Matrimony.’ This would mean, for example, that when the notes to the press release from the recent meeting of the House of Bishops say that the Prayers of Love and Faith proposals ‘would not change the Church’s doctrine of Holy Matrimony’[2] this still leaves space for the recognition and liturgical celebration of same-sex marriages without any formal change of doctrine having taken place.
The problem with this approach is very simple. It is that neither the Book of Common Prayer nor Canon B.30 distinguish between ‘Holy Matrimony’ and other forms of marriage. In these two doctrinally authoritative sources ‘Holy Matrimony’ is simply a synonym for marriage. For the Church of England there has always only been one kind of legitimate marriage, that instituted by God at creation involving two people of the opposite sex, and the terms Holy Matrimony, matrimony,, marriage, and wedlock have all been used to refer to this kind of relationship.
The question of where marriage is entered into has been seen as irrelevant to the question of whether a marriage has taken place. The Church of England has recognised, and continues to recognise, marriages that are in line with the form of marriage instituted by God at creation as genuine marriages (i.e. forms of ‘Holy Matrimony’) regardless of where a marriage has taken place (which is why those already married in a registry office could not then have a second marriage ceremony in a parish church). The reason why the Church of England has not hitherto recognised same-sex relationships as constituting genuine marriages (i.e not forms of ‘Holy Matrimony’) is not because they have not been entered into via a service in church, but because they are between two people of the same sex. As such they are not true marriages (regardless of what the state may call them) and therefore they are not a legitimate setting for sexual activity.
What all this means is that the Archbishop of Canterbury urgently needs to clarify what he meant by his answer on Monday. Did he really mean to say that he thinks any form of relationship accepted as such by society is, or can be, a legitimate form of marriage? If the answer is ‘yes’ then he need s to be clear about the point and explain why he holds this opinion. If the answer is ‘no’ then he needs to retract what he said and explain that what he should have said that is that ‘sexual activity should be within permanent, stable and faithful relationships of marriage as instituted by God, which means marriage between two people of the opposite sex.’
[1] Madeleine Davies, ‘Church of England decline is ‘a personal failure’ — Archbishop of Canterbury bares his soul,’’ Church Times, 13 June 2023 at https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2023/16-june/news/uk/church-of-england-decline-is-a-personal-failure-archbishop-of-canterbury-bares-his-soul
[2] ‘College of Bishops June 2023’ at https://www.churchofengland.org/media-and-news/press-releases/college-bishops-june-2023
Reflections of an Anglican Theologian 
Largely in agreement with what you have to say about Justin Welby’s weasel words. Just one comment – until the mid 19th century, the Church of England did in fact endorse marriages between adults and persons who would be considered children by our society (the age of consent was set at 12 by the Statute of Westminster, 1275).
âWe were talking about it in the College of Bishops last week….â. Which Bishops? Is Jill Duff and Philip North among them? Why donât you email your reflection to them and ask them what the Archbishop meant? Regards Phil Almond
Sent from Mail for Windows