Justin Welby Says He Was ‘Thick’ For Denying Same-Sex Relationships

The former head of the Church of England and the entire global Anglican community, Justin Welby, expressed regret over failing to recognize that faithful and committed same-sex relationships are a “huge blessing,” describing himself as “thick” for his error.
Speaking at Cambridge Union, Welby offered:
Question: “Your tenure as archbishop included the church’s approval of blessings for same-sex couples. Despite this, the church still does not allow gay marriage in its churches. Do you see the church’s definition of marriage changing in future years and do you think this view is compatible with the 21st century?”
Welby: “I believed it was proper to have standalone services of blessing in churches for same-sex couples.
The use of the word ‘marriage’ is much more complicated. There is a very clear biblical definition of marriage which is, in the words of, in the mouth of, Jesus, clearly between a man and a woman.
But everything we see and understand in the huge amount of study we’ve done is that there are social goods in faithful lifelong stable relationships of people of the same sex being together and living in covenant relationships.
I didn’t used to think that. My mind’s changed over the last 10 years. I think it may be some time before, if ever, before we get to marriage, because the church worldwide is deeply split on this- not just the Church of England.
But I do believe that we need to recognize the human dignity and the potential for good that lives in every human being regardless of issues of sexuality. And that when they fall in love and when they live out that love faithfully and in stability, and faithfully and with stability, and caring for others, it is a huge blessing for them and for society. And I’ve seen that in so many places, that in the end even I began to realize that I was being thick.”
While same-sex are presently prohibited from marrying in the Church of England and are relegated to receiving services of blessing only, this is a temporary measure. The Anglican Church will be fully LGBTQ-affirming in less than a decade- and anyone who believes they could allow the window to crack a bit without quickly being shattered is too “thick” to recognize it.
hy hellow
Remote work isn’t just a trend, it’s the future of work. qs Work Remotely from your own house. We just want your typing skills, You can make more than 120USD/Hr. No matter where you are. Let’s Grow together and do great things, even if we’re far apart…
.
Take a Look………………… http://Www.Payathome9.Com
hellow hi
My roomate’s mom-in-regulation makes usd eighty one each hour at the laptop . She has been fired for eight months but remaining month her paycheck turned into usd 17367 just operating on the pc for a few hours…..
Reading This Article:———- https://Www.Cash43.Com
Hoo boy. I’m not sure anything says “reprobate” more than conducting exhaustive studies only to determine that “sin is good” …
No, nothing good ever results from sin.
And nothing bad ever results from righteousness.
If you don’t understand and believe this, then you don’t understand and believe at all, that Almighty God is in fact Almighty God. Infinitely perfect in all ways. The truth He set into place holds for the individual, those in proximity, societies, towns, nations, the entire planet … for all of creation.
“2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. ” – 1 John 5:2-3
Because of this, the Anglican church is already full-blown sin-affirming, and has been. Whether or not it conducts abominable “marriages” is of little significance. There’s no middle ground.
“One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much.” – Jesus (Luke 16:10)
If they’ve told God they know better than He does, about anything at all, then they’ve told Him they know better than He does … there is no middle ground. Once that line is crossed, it’s crossed.
Its inaccurate to call the Church of England “the Anglican church” because there’s a bunch of other Anglican churches now, like ACNA.
As far as that goes, it is wrong, and antithetical to the Gospel and to the scripture, for any Christian church to base its name on, or identify by, an ethnicity or nationality (anglo).
If they’re serious about adhering to scripture, then the first thing they need to do is quit calling themselves “anglican”
There’s a “Korean Baptist Church” near me. I guess they should just drop the word “Korean” from the name and have a lot of confused visitors to please T.
Are you CoC? Denominational names are ESSENTIAL. Do you want to accidentally go to a Catholic mass or a rock concert “worship”? If everyone used generic names it would be a mess.
Notice the Bible doesn’t do that. It says the “church at” or “church in”, but never the “church of”. And that’s important, because it limits the identification solely to location, inferring nothing else but location.
Paul says “that you may know how to behave yourself in the church which is the house of God” (1 Tim 3:15)
Why do you want all churches to have the same name?
I knew you’d blow a gasket over that one …
As I said, Biblically, there should not be any divisions based on ethnicity or nationality, because by the Gospel there is no such division. If the attendees of the church you mention are from South Korea, then they grow up learning English. So there is no need to have Korean language services, much less a “Korean Baptist Church”, that separates out Koreans.
Further, I did not say denominations shouldn’t have names. Either you are extremely illiterate, or you are just trying to make trouble. But in the case of denominations, the name of the denomination should not be based on a division among Christians that is contrary to scripture, if they are going to claim to abide by scripture. Some Anglicans call themselves “Episcopalian”, so they could use that name instead.
Since Anglicana Ecclesia (from the magna carta) translates as “the English Church”, Anglican isn’t enough of a distinction in the first place, according to your original response and claim, since the terms mean the same thing. And particularly since using the term Anglican, they are associating themselves with apostates and churches which also use the same name.
So you’re CoC? You think it makes sense for every church to be called “church of Christ”? That would just breed idiotic confusion. You’d just end up with different theologies all calling themselves the same name. It would destroy Christianity.
“Some Anglicans call themselves Episcopalian, so they could use that name instead.”
No, because Episcopalian means liberal Anglicans. That name is ruined already. The ACNA formed out of the liberal Episcopalian mess to be more conservative. Also technically, some of the “Anglicans” do have the name Episcopal, as in the Reformed Episcopal Church or REC, but they are I think at this point a subset within the Anglican Church North America, although they originated first (1873) and the ACNA did not form until 2009.
anon, are you dense?
Do you have comprehension issues?
At no point have I said or implied that all churches and/or denominations should have the same name.
Its time to just call everyone out as a Jew who supports LGBTQP+ and excommunicate them as Jewish subversionists. There is only ONE religion that accepts LGBTQP+: its Judaism. Kick these guys out of your churches and make them go to the Synagogue of Satan that they are truly part of.