Of course when I say ‘speaking about sexuality’ I don’t mean that at all. What I actually mean is ‘speaking about sex.’ For the last few decades sexuality has been the church’s preferred term when ever it feels the need to talk about sex. Maybe this is out of a sense of politeness, or maybe plain and straightforward embarrassment. In former, 1662 times, the church was less restrained.

Marriage, according to the preface to the Book of Common Prayer’s Solemnization of Holy Matrimony is ‘secondly….ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body.’  Marriage, according to the B.C.P. preface can never be regarded as a celebration and affirmation for that which is already deemed to be good. Marriage exists first and foremost for procreation, secondly for the avoidance of sin (fornication) and thirdly for ‘mutual solemnity, help, and comfort.’ 

How our view of marriage has changed! But let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water because the B.C.P. preface contains a real nugget of wisdom: the majority of us are not able to live a life of ‘continency.’ The Church of England accepted this basic fact way back in 1662! (Okay its preoccupation was with the male of the species, but…….)

So why do large swathes of the Church of England pretend that some people, okay gay people, are able, uniquely, to live a life of continency if, ever since 1662, it has been accepted that the vast majority of heterosexuals are unable to live without sex? Just a thought. And, yet the thought remains the Church of England’s ‘official’ position.

In 1662 the Church of England acknowledged, through her liturgy, that continency is a special gifting, a grace from God and not simply an obtainable ethical standard. The current and ‘official’ position of the Church of England would seem to support a view that suggests that LGBTIQ+ people are either uniquely graced or capable of a higher ethical standard than us straight folk, and that’s just plain bizarre! As Marcus Green in his wonderful new book ‘The Possibility of Difference’ puts it: ‘Celibacy, the single life, requires an ability to live alone that some people have and some others do not. It’s a gift – a divine charism – given to some and not to others,’ he adds, ‘that’s St. Paul’s understanding.’ 

The Book of Common Prayer stresses that continency isn’t the norm. If this is true to seek to impose celibacy, or to offer it as some kind of therapy, must be just plain cruel; surely? And, if all LGBTIQ+ Christians are called to celibacy, or to fast forward and borrow a word used by Archbishop Carey in the preface to Issues in Human Sexuality, a life of pretense, what does this say about the very nature of God? It begins to look as though God has created a sub species – what Marcus calls a ‘moral underclass’– to who God then, through the church (or at least a branch or two of the church) says ‘go on prove your worth.’ It begins to start looking awfully like a theology of salvation by works and not by faith through grace.

In the Preface (prefaces are important texts!) to Issues in Human Sexuality – a discussion paper which seems to have mysteriously morphed into doctrine – Archbishop George Carey wrote that: “It is our hope that this statement – which we do not pretend to be the last word on the subject – will do something to help forward a general process, marked by greater trust and openness, of Christian reflection on the subject of human sexuality.”

The key phrase in this sentence must surely be which we do not pretend to be the last word. The tragedy of the last twenty-seven years is that many have regarded ‘Issues’ as the last word. I was able to assent to Issues in Human Sexuality prior to ordination based on this one simple phrase: ‘which we do not pretend to be the last word.’ Without this key phrase I couldn’t in all conscience have made my assent.

Ongoing pretense is an awful, inauthentic, state of being. If the church pretends that continency is within everyone’s grasp it risks ridicule from all critical observers, be they insiders, or outsiders. Ultimately what the church will risk is irrelevance. However, if the church insists that LGBTIQ+ Christians pretend they are something other than who they truly, gloriously are, it runs an even greater risk. It runs the risk of causing harm and pain to those who the church should be loving and embracing. The church should, must, be a place where all may flourish and none need fear. The church should be a place where there should be no pressure to pretend. As Marcus puts it:

‘It’s not good enough to produce an ethic and call it biblical when basically is says – it’s OK to be gay if you bear the pain alone and no one can tell. It’s OK to be gay if you face life by yourself. It’s OK to be gay if you look like a straight person, speak like a straight person, act like a straight person. It’s okay to be gay if you pretend.’

So what should be the last word, or guiding thought, as discussions progress, and as yet another document is written. I would simply suggest this:

‘That we do not pretend that there are groups of people who are uniquely graced to live a life of continence.’ 

If we accept this basic principle then maybe, just maybe, we can make real headway when we speak about sex. If we can’t accept this basic, foundational, and yes liturgical principle, then we will be talking about sexuality (sorry sex) for years to come.

Archbishop Justin had a hard time in some sections of the press last weekend.

In the Sunday Times Rod Liddle and Dominic Lawson could barely contain themselves. Liddle, who seems to believe solely in the privatization of salvation and that Christianity is above all a faith that seeks to promote individual, rather that corporate or communal, responsibility commented that ‘there is touch of the Frank Spencer about Welby, the Archbishop of Cant.’  

Both Liddle and Lawson expressed the opinion that given that the Church of England is an imperfect institution Archbishop Justin should put a sock in it. They could hardly disguise their glee that the Church of England, through its investment bodies, holds shares in Amazon whilst also offering workers zero hours contracts. Liddle commented that ‘Justin looks really, really stupid, as well as hypocritical. He is his own satire.’ Lawson was slightly more restrained accusing Justin of the ‘banal hypocrisy we expect from politicians.’

Are these comments fair? Well, to an extent, but, in my view to only an extent. Of course the church must always look to clean up its act, and I suspect that this is very high on Justin’s agenda. Justin seems to be committed to shining light into the dark areas of the church. I suspect that by the end of his tenure the church will be healthier in many respects. O that all institutions would commit to becoming healthier. The Church of England, despite Liddle and Lawson’s critique, is making strides towards becoming healthier.

I welcome the Church of England’s commitment to model what it might mean to be a socially responsible investor in relation to fossil fuels (something neither Liddle or Lawson mentioned) and the moral leadership the bishops have given on fixed odds betting (again something neither commentator mentioned). I hope the Church of England might play a compassionate and creative part in the provision of financial services to the poor. And, yes, as an orthodox-progressive I hope, and pray, that under Archbishop Justin’s tenure a far greater proportion of women will occupy ‘senior’ positions than in the average board-room. I also hope that significant progress is made in all matters sexual. I hope that the Church of England will truly become a place and a body where all may flourish and none need fear.

Criticism and critique is never, of course, purely objective. I don’t know what’s behind Dominic Lawson’s attempts to smear Justin’s very character, but in Rod Liddle’s case its pretty clear: he wants a church whose theology is directly aligned with his own essentially conservative social and political views. He wants, like many of us, to be appeased by the church and told that he is right.

The trouble is that it doesn’t work like that. The Church, through its bishops, should speak truth to power; The Church should unsettle, challenge and disturb; The Church should, whilst always proclaiming Jesus Christ, seek to ‘let light shine out of darkness’ (1 Corinthians 4, 6); The Church, through the office of her bishops, should always exercise  ‘special care for the poor,’ (Ordinal of Bishops).

Whatever else Justin is he isn’t stupid. He knows that in many areas the Church needs to get her act together, but he also knows that he is called, mandated, obligated to exercise a very public theology. He knows he has two audiences to challenge: the church herself and the ‘principalities and powers,’  (Ephesians 6, 12).

Renewing and reforming the Church whilst continuing to speak truth to power is the ‘ministry of the Spirit,’ Justin is called to. All who worship in the Church of England should pray that he ‘does not lose heart,’ (2 Corinthians 4,1). If Justin carries on with his dual agenda he is sure to face ongoing criticism from those who would prefer him to proclaim a softer, less disturbing, more domesticated gospel. These critics will carry on accusing him of hypocrisy, always pointing to the state of the church militant, however, the Church, whilst always seeking to become a better, healthier, and more righteous communion of the faithful, should continue seeking to help ‘transform the unjust structures of society’ (Five Marks of Mission).

This week I came across these words of wisdom from Yves Congar: ‘I have long thought that the most favorable moments for sowing and planting are times of storm and trouble.’  Maybe these can be real words of encouragement for all who desire both a healthier church and a more just society?

I often wonder what Archbishop Justin’s legacy will be, what will be the ‘mark’ of his archepiscopacy? I suspect he stands on the edge of becoming a truly reforming Archbishop.  Whether the Church of England is truly renewed and reformed under ++Justin’s governorship depends on his ability, and the willingness of the Church, to make significant progress in (at least) three, as I see it, priority areas.

Let’s start with the big institutional challenges: sex, gender and our ability to respond with integrity to the findings of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse. A lot has been said, and written, about these mega-meta issues, and I don’t propose to say anything here other than a failure to confront these issues and to shine light into our areas of supreme darkness will, in my view, damage the church irreparably.

The second priority area is mission and evangelism which the Church of England is seeking to address through its Renewal and Reform initiative. I was recently talking to a friend of mine (an Archdeacon) who said he was 80% behind R&R, I remember commenting that I was 65% in favour. I hope these figures render us both critical friends. It is surely massively important that the Church of England seeks to make a positive impact in every community in the country and that we seek to become a ‘growing church for all peoples and all places?’ 

If research showing (Voas, for instance) that the norm is for people have come to an essentially fixed view on matters of faith by their early twenties is accurate then it is surely also correct that evangelism to the young should be a priority? However mission and evangelism on the periphery and fringes should also be a priority. My own view is that the Church of England should be investing to a far greater extent in various forms of chaplaincy. Mission and Evangelism also needs to take place at the fringes or the ‘end of the earth’ the sort of places where mission priests and chaplains have tended to operate.

The third priority is public theology. Public theology can be thought of as the way the church engages with the civic society, and its institutions, and in so doing presents a Christian position that can be publicly understood. Through its public engagement the church (and her spokespersons) opens herself to and even invites public critique.

Public theology is necessarily underpinned by an understanding of what it means to be human and a commitment to the embodiment of various Christian ethics in public policy. Public theology is serious stuff because, as already suggested, through its exercise it invites an external critique of the very character of the church and her agents.

Public theology, as a missional exercise, can only ever achieve credibility if the church is seen to be an exemplar of what we might think of as ‘standards in public life.’ I hope this doesn’t sound pompous but it (public theology)  needs to be exercised from the moral high ground. I would argue that ++Justin’s ability to make a real and lasting impact in the field of public theology is largely contingent on his willingness and ability to get to grips with the big institutional challenges highlighted at the start of this article. The church can only speak with credibility if it operates from a place of credibility.

++Justin has taken a lot of flak this week from those who don’t, or won’t, understand that seeking to ‘transform unjust structures of society’ and the ‘pursuit of peace and reconciliation,’ are marks of Anglican Mission. His critics are those who seem to view the church solely as an agent for the privatization of salvation. In my view his critics offer a poor and reductive theology. They ignore, for instance, St. Paul’s insistence that ‘through the church the wisdom of God in its rich variety might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places,’ (Ephesians 3, 10).

Making known, proclaiming, the wisdom of God, and the values of the kingdom, beyond the walls of the church is central to the church’s calling. Archbishop Justin understands this. Those who would prefer him to stop speaking about what they regard as solely worldly matters (there is no such thing) don’t.

My suspicion is that Archbishop Justin’s high-profile interventions in world of public theology are deeply missional and evangelistic. They speak to a younger audience for who notions of social and economic justice, fairness, and the dignity of each and every person are highly cherished values. ++ Justin’s biggest leadership challenge maybe in ensuring a high degree of alignment between the issues he speaks about with passion and integrity in the public square and the internal characteristics of the institution he exercises governance over. If those we are seeking to reach, and to invite through our doors, experience a discrepancy between our public theology and their direct and personal experience of church their judgment is likely to be harsh indeed. A public commitment to justice, fairness and the dignity of each and every person must be verifiable through an ecclesiology which also, demonstrably and unequivocally, prizes and (ritually) reinforces these self-same virtues. The proof really is in the pudding.

If ++Justin can sort out the Church of England’s mega-meta challenges and continue to make a significant contribution in the public square my suspicion is that he will stand firmly alongside those great reforming Archbishops Temple and Ramsey and, he might just assist the church in reaching out to the younger generation by speaking about the issues that concern them.

His legacy could be to become the Archbishop who gave back to the church her very credibility, but in the meantime there’s an awful lot of work to do.