The Archbishop went on to speak of the supreme witnesses -- those who have been martyred for their faith, such as the Christian students at Garissa University in the horrific attack by Al-Shabbab thugs on Maundy Thursday. They have drawn attention to the suffering of Christians round the world; they have ensured the name of Christ is mentioned in news reports, but also as Justin Welby reminds us, their faith is a challenge to the comfort-loving and often faithless Western Christians: "in your comfort...are you still witnesses?"

All Christians need to speak of the risen Christ: "Witnesses are people who know Christ; lay or ordained, old or young, gender, politics, sexuality or whatever irrelevant". Before we come to analyse the use of the word 'sexuality', let's look at the context of the sentence. What is meant here is that evangelism should not be confined to a special class of people, or that Christians can only earn the right to speak about their faith by first sitting quietly for many years. Both men and women can do it (in fact as the sermon points out, in the immediate aftermath of the resurrection women saw Jesus and told of what they had seen first). There will be people on all sides of the political debate as we approach the election who nevertheless can unite in proclaiming that Christ is risen. There are lots of different types of Christians; all are united in faith and in Gospel witness. So far, so good.

But what about 'sexuality'? The Archbishop could have said "it doesn't matter if you're single or married", which would have been an important thing to remind us of, and less controversial. But he didn't mean this, and that's why he used a more specific word. The word 'sexuality' used to mean our sexual nature in general, but now has a connotation which implies same sex as well as heterosexual desire and relationships. Is this really 'irrelevant' to our experience of Christ and our Gospel message about him?

What did the Archbishop mean when he said that "sexuality is irrelevant" to proclaiming the resurrection? It could mean that having sexual desire, whether God-honouring or sinful, whether acted upon or not, does not in itself disqualify us from God's love or from testifying to his grace. In fact it is because our God given humanity is tainted by sin yet forgiven through the power of the cross, and transformed and re-shaped by the resurrection that we can truly bear witness to the living Christ and the new life he offers. Orthodox Christian believers would have no problem in affirming this definition.
Or it could mean something else, such as "Lay or ordained, old or young, gay or straight, all Christians can speak of Christ". Sexuality, in other words, is a category which defines our identity. Like age, social class or employment it has no moral judgement attached to it -- to be gay or straight, whether sexually active, 'in a relationship' or not, is simply who we are, a God-given attribute. Anyone listening to Archbishop Welby's sermon who is not a Christian with orthodox moral values would assume that when he uses the term "sexuality" it is this latter definition.

But there is a third interpretation. In his closing remarks, the Archbishop says that "every disagreement in which love is maintained" witnesses to the living Christ. In other words, it is not just our proclamation of the resurrection, but the way in which we stay together, maintaining "good disagreement" even though we disagree over issues such as gender and politics and homosexuality, which testifies to Christ.

So here is the problem. By saying that "sexuality or whatever" is irrelevant to the witness of Christians to the resurrection, the Archbishop probably intends to say that the debates preoccupying the church are petty compared with the task of winning disciples to Christ through word and deed. Whatever he meant to say, he has run the risk of being misunderstood in two ways: suggesting that sexual morality is not important to Christian witness, and more specifically, that to be "gay" (by which most hearers would assume, sexually active) is completely compatible with authentic resurrection-based Christian Faith. Julian Mann in his recent piece reminds us that the opposite is true according to Romans 6:2-4: the resurrection of Christ was physical, and so not only speaks of his victory and his Lordship in a spiritual sense, but demands physical and moral change in obedience and faith from his disciples in response.

The Archbishop's sermon is superb in its reminder that the empty tomb needs daily interpretation to the world by Christians in all their rich variety. But by using the word "sexuality" in its context, (which he did not need to do), he has at best run the risk of being misunderstood. At worst he has prejudged the outcome of his own 'Conversation' process, and opposed the teaching of his own church, by suggesting the moral neutrality of homosexual practice.

Andrew Symes is General Secretary of Anglican Mainstream