The Archbishop of Canterbury resorted to Alastair Campbell’s own communications techniques when trying to explain what is going on in the Church of England over the divisive issue of same-sex marriage.
Appearing on The Rest is Politics podcast this week, Justin Welby told Tony Blair’s old spin doctor that he now has a “better answer” on gay sex and marriage than he did seven years ago, when he told Campbell he was “copping out”.
And certainly it is an answer more in line with what Campbell wants to hear, telling him that “where we’ve come to” is that straight or gay relationships are now fine, as long as they’re “committed”, by which he means a “marriage or civil partnership”.
Welby goes on to claim that he and a “majority” of bishops have “put forward a proposal” whereby people “who have been through a civil partnership or a same-sex marriage” ceremony “should be able to come along to… a church, and have a service of prayer and blessing for them in their lives together”.
There’s just one problem with these statements: not one of them is an accurate reflection of Welby’s latest proposals on same-sex relationships. In fact, the proposal that he and the other bishops have set out does not signal they approve of sex outside heterosexual marriage – contradicting what he told Campbell. Neither does it allow for special services for same-sex couples who have got married – again, the opposite of what he said. For one reason or another, Welby has managed to give Campbell and his listeners the impression that the proposed reforms are far more radical than they are.
Last November the latest version of the bishops’ proposals were placed before General Synod, the church’s governing body, and they included a clear statement that “the Church’s doctrine remains” unchanged. “We have been clear that we have no intention of changing that doctrine,” the bishops wrote. “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.”
This is completely at odds with what Welby said on The Rest is Politics, namely that where he and the bishops have now “come to” is that sex in “committed” relationships, whether “straight or gay” is now fine. Did Welby misspeak under pressure? It seems unlikely. Returning to Campbell to discuss this topic was clearly part of the point of going on the podcast and he would have been prepared for his questions. Plus, he gave a similar answer on another recent occasion.
Welby also claimed that under his proposals, “where people have been through a civil partnership or a same-sex marriage… they should be able to come along to… a church and have a service of prayer and blessing for them in their lives together”.
But this, too, is at odds with what the bishops’ actual proposals contain. The proposal presented to General Synod in November is at pains to state that it “intentionally does not differentiate between couples who have and who have not entered into a civil same-sex marriage”. This is because the new prayers (known as ‘Prayers of Love and Faith’ or PLF) “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”.
In other words, the proposed new services may not refer in any way to the fact that the couple have recently got married – even though that is the reason people want the services in the first place.
What’s more, it’s not even true that the service may be “for” the couple, as Welby tells Campbell. Dancing on the head of a pin to avoid having to go through the full church process of introducing contentious new liturgy, the bishops told the synod that the new prayers (which are definitely not to mark the marriage, honest) may only be included as part of an ordinary extra service and not be a special service for the couple akin to a wedding blessing.
You may marvel at the ingenuity of Church of England bishops, who have managed to try to provide a service to bless same-sex marriages by proposing a service which cannot even mention the fact that the couple are married, may not endorse their relationship and may not even say that it is a service “for” the couple. But, constrained by existing church doctrine and unable to change it (the bishops don’t have the votes), they daren’t go any further.
Why then is Welby giving Alastair Campbell the impression that the changes are much more liberal than they really are? Is he just trying to impress the Rest is Politics audience, or is there something more going on?
Most likely, what he has told Campbell – that the C of E is poised to approve same-sex relationships and hold services of blessing after same-sex marriage, neither of which is true – is much closer to what he and the bishops truly want their proposal to be. It’s what they dearly wish they were about to achieve. But they have been unable to deliver that. So instead they have proposed something much weaker: an ordinary extra service, which may not say it is for the couple or mention they are married and which may not express approval of or formally bless their relationship.
You may wonder what the point of it is then. But in reality the expectation from those on both sides of the issue is that the services will in practice do all the things they are not technically allowed to do: they will be presented as services for the blessing of a same-sex marriage and be treated as such by all involved.
This may be exactly what Welby and the bishops want to happen. They want their modest proposals to be misused in this way in churches, as that is what they really wanted to happen in the first place (at least as long as actual same-sex marriage in church is off the table).
Welby’s mischaracterisation of the new services to Campbell is then most likely a manifestation of this wish for the services to be used well beyond the formal constraints technically imposed on them, constraints which Welby and a majority of the bishops don’t really agree with and wish they had the votes to change.
Neither side of the debate is happy with this state of affairs. Liberals are unhappy that if they use the services in the way they want to – the way that Welby is indicating by his comments to Campbell he is actually expecting them to be used – then they will technically be doing so contrary to what the rules around the services say. They’ve been doing this unauthorised for years anyway; what they were after is for such services to be put on a proper, legitimate footing. But this is not what they’ve got.
Conservatives of course are unhappy that services for same-sex couples are being rammed through in a way that technically may not change the church’s doctrine of marriage but which everyone knows will be used as though the doctrine has changed. Welby’s comments feed straight into this suspicion as they confirm that this is exactly what he and the bishops expect and even intend to happen. They want the public to think these are services of blessing for same-sex marriages, even though in order to comply with church doctrine and get them through Synod (and past the lawyers) technically they have had to characterise them as nothing of the sort.
Rev. Dr. Andrew Goddard, who has served on official working groups reviewing the church’s teaching on same-sex relationships, says that Welby’s characterisation of the reforms to Campbell is “either false or is proof that the argument which was presented to Synod to justify introducing ‘standalone services’ next year… was duplicitous”.
Goddard, a proponent of keeping the church’s teaching on marriage as it is, has demanded an urgent “apology and correction” from Welby. He speaks of “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 the Archbishop and the process he is overseeing.
Welby needs to take care that he doesn’t undermine the trust of all sides in this debate, which is already low. Wherever you stand on the underlying issues, no one wants an Archbishop of Canterbury you can’t trust because he says one thing to Alastair Campbell and another in church councils. No one wants an Archbishop – supposedly a Christian role model – who acts like an underhand politician, twisting truths to get a bill through Parliament and telling the public what they want to hear. Justin Welby might impress Tony Blair’s old spin doctor with his new lines, but he’s impressing nobody else.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The 99 Women list.
So the BBC thinks women need a bit of help from men to achieve greatness.
The Beeb is trolling us. That’s a point, who is in charge at the BBC nowadays? It surely must be a woman or gay man as everybody knows straight men aren’t guilty of being woketards, and besides, said men are never guilty of making a hash of things…are they?
Yes …. they are deliberately gaslighting. Best ignored …. and don’t PAY them the telly tax.
Same with men though when you really think about it.
You, if you are a licence payer, are paying for this.
defund the BBC.
“The broadcaster said: “BBC 100 Women acknowledges the toll this year has taken on women by celebrating those who – through their resilience – are pushing for change, as the world changes around them.” …”
You know full well that they aren’t talking about the men dressing as women as being a toll, but rather the “far right” and Trump crowd as being a toll…
BBC is a pile of crap
And here is why men who parody women should not be allowed to enter womens’ sports. And to think that Canadian lady was banned for two years from competing by her sporting body for protesting about this. Can you imagine many male competitors being threatened by any female to male ( FtM ) trans people stealing their medals in comparison? Male athletes get to keep their medals/trophies/opportunities while women get theirs nicked by male impostors;
https://x.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1863498525616554366
“The BBC says the scientist uses a “queer lens to analyse landscapes and species in a bid to expand the notion of ‘nature’ to better protect ecosystems”.
wtf does that even mean? What shape is a queer lens? This isn’t science its gobbledegook!
Bent. It distorts the image.
One fundamental problem with being woke, in my opinion, is this: you have to live your life in a tangled web of lies.
War is peace. Slavery is freedom. A man is a woman.
There is no way you can escape from this psychologically (and spiritually) unharmed.
The rule for the BBC should be “do no pontificating”, given its unique position of getting 100% of license fee money, everybody else getting nothing. Pontificating is both political and biased.
For me, nothing says ”It’s Christmas!” like hanging a used Tampax on a Christmas tree. I’ve often fought the urge to make wings for my angel out of bloody sanitary pads too. Right at the top of the tree, of course, out the way of the cat. Well here we take the word ”queer” back to it’s original meaning, although the word ”rank” is probably more appropriate, to be honest. Yes, we’re in Germany ( the gift that doesn’t stop giving ) yet again;
”While many in Europe are preparing for Christmas, students from the German University of Göttingen have been setting up an event using festive decorations made from bloody tampons and “butterfly decorations from pads”.
The Allgemeiner Studierendenausschuss (AStA), the political representation of the students, will host a lecture under the title “Oh my bloody mess. Trans and non-binary people bleed too”.
Following that lecture, the AStA will offer to create themed Christmas decorations and ornaments.
In the talk, the group said: “The basics of transitions are explained”, with ‘bloody’ insights into the different lives of menstruating trans and non-binary people.”
“Have you always wanted to hang a bloody tampon on your mom’s Christmas tree or make a beautiful butterfly decoration out of sanitary pads?,” AStA asked on its Instagram account on November 26. “Then it’s your evening. Welcome. The event is open to everyone.”
Speaker at the event on December 5 will be Alexander Hahne, who identifies as a gay trans man, specialising in sexual health, sex education, sexological bodywork, systemic sex therapy, dance and pleasure activism.
Sexological bodywork is described as a client-centred approach to empower, educate and bring attention to felt experience through movement, breath-work, touch, sound, and placement of awareness. Systemic sex therapy addresses the cognitions, emotions and behaviours surrounding sexual behaviour.”
https://brusselssignal.eu/2024/12/german-university-to-host-workshop-on-christmas-decorations-from-used-tampons/
I would have thought this was some sick satire if I had not wasted half an evening of my life listening to a real female BBC comedian also telling jokes about used tampons.
we’re in Germany ( the gift that doesn’t stop giving)
In German, ‘gift’ means poison…
They’ve got a drag artist as a contestant on the Christmas day edition of “Strictly”. I have no problem with drag but it is an adult entertainment and should not be pushed on a family audience at 5.30 on Christmas Day.
Exactly. Look at the state of this, but it’s very common in the U.S and Canada, apparently. Mams and dads cheering and encouraging this drag queen with this little girl. They are complicit in the grooming. Totally inappropriate. But according to some on here, straight men cannot be woketards, it’s all women and gay men, but there’s more evidence floating around and contradicting this biased viewpoint than you can shake a stick at;
”No one should be influencing children to dance for adults for money. This teaches them that their self worth is only equal to outwards attention and monetary value.
It is irresponsible for drag queens to involve children in their lifestyle and it makes the LGBT community as a whole look bad.
This is not representing inclusivity and love. This is inappropriate behavior that will only confuse children and can put them in dangerous situations.”
https://x.com/againstgrmrs/status/1863588446272410073
Pure child abuse. Look at both parents sat there, endorsing this treatment of their daughter;
https://x.com/HazelAppleyard_/status/1863899280852885757
As you say it is pure child abuse and I do not think he understands that he will never have a viable penis or be able to father children.
p
It has changed since the days of Danny La Rue.
Well of course it did!
Quite obviously a bloke with fake boobs and a bad wig. Definitely not a woman – except in the opinion of the imbeciles at the BBC.
Excellent. It’s all grist to the mill of rendering the BBC irrelevant also in the opinion of normies.
We must be reaching a tipping point soon!
They couldn’t resist using the word ‘resilience’ and this is a big tell because it is a word beloved of the Anglo-Americans in their dying days and if you look at how how the word is used you will notice a trend of pure evil.
The argument from nature is irrelevant in this context. There may well be elements of genderfuildity in all species but human beings don’t base the shaping of their culture on a natural model. You could argue that civilisation is measured by how far man is taken away from his animal nature. This appeal to biology has always been weak and pathetic whichever side uses it. We adopt ways of being that promote the long term health of society and this is based on sacrifice. A man might want to have sex with many women but he accepts that marriage is a sacrifice and the whole point of his wife is to put him off sex forever. He realises that more is gained than lost by the denial of cheap gratification.
Or he could consider hiring one of these. I definitely wouldn’t walk down the street in it though. Mind, it’d probably go down a storm at a Pride parade;
https://x.com/BritLad95/status/1863851997708845353
Those that seem most lost right now will be our greatest heroes. I feel that he is chanelling something.
TNT Sport did not bother with any tea or lunch programming for the NZ – England test series and just broadcast some NZ produced player clips and one had a pair of lesbians NZ cricketers and ‘their’ child. So these days if they are not men pretending to be men they are lesbians.
Its no wonder other countrys are laughing at us, the BBC, supposedly a fine upstanding “corporation” now cannot but help dig its own grave even quicker, born male, male, same with female, live how you choose, but despite claiming nature has the “ability” to be “queer”, you will find it doesn’t, and to think these people get paid for this bias!.
Turn off all msm it simply is not fit for purpose.
I am sick to death of the BBC’s agenda. For godsake, turn the bbc off. Stop funding it. It is not fit for purpose.