Former Archbishop Justin Welby says Same Sex Relationships a “Huge Blessing”

COMMENTARY

By David W. Virtue, DD

www.virtueonline.org

July 2, 2025

Speaking to the Cambridge Union recently, the former Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby said he was “thick” not to recognize that faithful and committed same sex relationships are a “huge blessing”.

The archbishop doesn’t get it. His tenure was marked by one disastrous decision after another, forcing him, in the end to resign over his failure to investigate abuse allegations against lay leader John Smyth when Welby became archbishop in 2013.

On same sex relationships he has proven to be equally disastrous and theologically illiterate.

Welby said, “When they fall in love, and when they live out that love faithfully and with stability and caring for others, it is a huge blessing for them and for society; and I have seen that in so many places that, in the end, even I began to realise that I was being thick.”

The archbishop’s capitulation to the culture over same sex relationships can only be described as naive at best and eternally dangerous at worst to the souls of those who engage in such behaviors.

Scripture is abundantly clear that “from the beginning of creation, ‘male and female He made them’ [Gen 1:27] and ‘for this reason a man … will be joined to his wife and the two will become one flesh’ [Gen 2:24]” (Mark 10:2-12; Matt 19:3-9). In other words, the fact that God had designed two (and only two) primary sexes for complementary sexual pairing was Jesus’ basis for a rigorous monogamy position.

To bless something God has never blessed is to go against God. That thought had apparently not crossed Welby’s mind, or if it had, that he, Justin Welby knew better, and that God had changed His mind in light of today’s open-minded progressive culture.

Welby, in a podcast, had come to the conclusion that all sexual activity, whether straight or gay, should be within a committed relationship.

The Church’s process around matters of sexuality, relationships and marriage known as ‘Living in Love and Faith’ is still discerning a way forward. Earlier this month, the Rt. Rev. Martyn Snow, the conservative Bishop of Leicester announced he was stepping down from his role as lead bishop for the process saying he no longer believed agreement could be reached under his leadership.

Now that should tip your hand that all is not well, and that the CofE is deeply conflicted over the issue, with no resolution anywhere near in sight. One wonders if that message has reached the ears of the Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, the de facto leader of the CofE, in the absence of the ABC.

Distinguished theologian Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon whose magisterial work, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics, begs to disagree.

In an article Why “Gay Marriage” Is Wrong, Gagnon, argues that advocates of homosexual practice believe that “gay marriage,” or at least homosexual civil unions, will reduce promiscuity and promote fidelity among homosexual persons. Such an argument overlooks two key points.

“First, legal and ecclesiastical embrace of homosexual unions is more likely to undermine the institution of marriage and produce other negative effects than it is to make fidelity and longevity the norm for homosexual unions.

“Second, and even more importantly, homosexual unions are not wrong primarily because of their disproportionately high incidence of promiscuity (especially among males) and breakups (especially among females). They are wrong because “gay marriage” is a contradiction in terms. As with consensual adult incest and polyamory, considerations of commitment and fidelity factor only after certain structural prerequisites are met.

Scripture, Creation, and a Two-Sexes Prerequisite

The creation story in Genesis 2:18-24 illustrates this point beautifully. An originally binary, or sexually undifferentiated, adam (“earthling”) is split down the “side” (a better translation of Hebrew tsela than “rib”) to form two sexually differentiated persons. Marriage is pictured as the reunion of the two constituent parts or “other halves,” man and woman, says Gagnon.

“By definition homosexual desire is sexual narcissism or sexual self-deception. There is either (1) a conscious recognition that one desires in another what one already is and has as a sexual being (anatomy, physiology, sex-based traits) or (2) a self-delusion of sorts in which the sexual same is perceived as some kind of sexual other. As one ancient text puts it, “seeing themselves in one another they were ashamed neither of what they were doing nor of what they were having done to them” (Pseudo-Lucian, Affairs of the Heart 20). The modern word “homosexual”—from the Greek homoios, “like” or “same”—underscores this self-evident desire for the essential sexual self-shared in common with one’s partner.”

“It is not mere coincidence that when Jesus dealt with an issue of sexual behavior in Mark 10:2-12 he cited the same two texts from Genesis, 1:27 and 2:24, that lie behind Paul’s critique of homosexual practice. Jesus adopted a “back-to-creation” model of sexuality. He treated Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as normative and prescriptive for the church (Mark 10:6-9). In contending for the indissolubility of marriage, Jesus clearly presupposed the one explicit prerequisite in Gen 1:27 and 2:24; namely, that there be a male and female, man and woman, to effect the “one flesh” reunion.”

Addressing the argument that because Jesus said nothing about the matter that it was not an important issue for him, Gagnon said there is no historical basis for arguing that Jesus might have been neutral or even favorable toward same-sex intercourse.

“All the evidence we have points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that Jesus would have strongly opposed same-sex intercourse had such behavior been a serious problem among first-century Jews. It simply was not a problem in Israel.

 “First, Jesus' "silence" has to be set against the backdrop of unequivocal and strong opposition to same-sex intercourse in the Hebrew Bible and throughout early Judaism. It is not historically likely that Jesus overturned any prohibition of the Mosaic law, let alone on a strongly held moral matter such as this. And Jesus was not shy about disagreeing with prevailing viewpoints. Had he wanted his disciples to take a different viewpoint he would have had to say so.

“Second, the notion of Jesus' "silence" has to be qualified. According to Mark, Jesus spoke out against porneia, "sexual immorality" -- see Mark 7:21-23 -- and accepted the Decalogue commandment against adultery -- see Mark 10:19. In Jesus' day, and for many centuries thereafter, porneia was universally understood in Judaism to include same-sex intercourse. Moreover, the Decalogue commandment against adultery was treated as a broad rubric prohibiting all forms of sexual practice that deviated from the creation model in Genesis 1-2, including homoerotic intercourse.

“The vision of marriage found in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures is one of reuniting male and female into an integrated sexual whole. Marriage is not just about more intimacy and sharing one’s life with another in a lifelong partnership. It is about sexual merger—or, in Scripture’s understanding, re-merger—of essential maleness and femaleness.   

“It is a relatively easy matter to demonstrate that in ancient Israel, early Judaism, and early Christianity, the only form of “consensual” sexual behavior regarded as a more severe infraction than homosexual practice was bestiality. The historical evidence indicates that every author of Scripture, as well as Jesus, would have been appalled by homosexual relationships, committed or otherwise.”

The view of Scripture against same-sex intercourse is pervasive, absolute and strong, and was all those things in relation to the broader cultural contexts from which Scripture emerged. It was then, and remains today, a core countercultural vision for human sexuality.

“Ancient Israel, early Judaism and early Christianity never adopted the position that they should alter their ethical standards simply because the broader cultural milieu took a more accepting view of some practices.”

In ignoring the biblical evidence against homosexual behavior and that committed same-sex relationships are a fallacy, Justin Welby demonstrates that he is still thick. The entire weight of Scripture and history is against him.

END