‘Why can’t a woman be more like a man?’ sings Professor Henry Higgins in the musical comedy My Fair Lady. Higgins is a misogynistic snob. His diatribe against the fairer sex cascades out of control. ‘Women are irrational, that’s all there is to that! Their heads are full of cotton, hay, and rags! They’re nothing but exasperating, irritating, vacillating, calculating, agitating, maddening and infuriating hags! Pickering, why can’t a woman be more like a man?’

Feminists would dismiss the professor’s rant as sexist, but transgender lunatics now have an answer to his question. A woman can be more like a man; she can actually transition into being a man and vice-versa! However, I’m not going to talk about transgenderism or sexism but about the outlandish space alien from the planet of Yabbadabbadoo known as a Welby.

Science fictionologists are not even sure whether to categorise this being as ‘a’ Welby (there could be more of the kind on Planet Zog) or ‘the’ Welby (a sui generis organism) because of its amorphous nature which is constantly evolving and transmogrifying into different shapes.

In the last few weeks, the Welby phantasmagoria has been thrashing around in the media. This remarkable creature has been putting its foot in its mouth so frequently that its ability to do this with one leg and hobble around on the other is becoming the staple of fable and legend, especially on Twitter and Facebook.

Mainstream media, alternative media and social media have been competing for observation rights on the Welby – studying it under a microscope and taking readings from electrodes attached to its uncontrollably throbbing tongue, currently detached from the prefrontal cortex of the Welby brain.

The public verdict is unanimously Higginsonian: ‘Why can’t a Welby be more like a man?’ Observers have it that the Welby is irrational. Its head is full of cotton, hay and rags. It is exasperating, irritating, vacillating, calculating, agitating, maddening and infuriating.

Does the reader seek empirical evidence for this claim?

Exhibit A: ‘A boy wearing a dress to school is not a problem,’ says the Welby on LBC radio. A Church of England school on the Isle of Wight allows boys to come to school wearing dresses (lipstick is optional). A Christian family remove their son from the school after a male classmate dons girlie apparel and decide to sue the school, arguing that it has not respected their rights to raise their children in line with biblical values. The Welby is asked to comment. It says it has been ‘struggling’ with the question.

The Welby could have talked about gender dysphoria. It could have quoted the binary category of gender in Genesis 1, where God creates Homo sapiens male and female. No. The Welby’s reply is a discharge of yucky, viscous postmodern psychobabble. ‘The other family are making up their own minds. The other child is making up their own mind. Talk to your child. Help them to understand. Help them to see what’s going on and to be faithful to their own convictions.’ Make up your mind about what, Welby? Understand what, Welby?

Exhibit B: The Welby solemnises the marriage of his divorced aide and manages to lose the bride’s ring. Ailsa Anderson, the Welby’s head of media relations, is believed to be the first divorcee to be married by an Archbishop of Canterbury in recent times. Henry VIII would have loved having the Welby as his favourite pet (alongside his poisonous tarantula).

Meanwhile conservative clerics are popping the question on social media: did the Welby examine the couple and call for repentance in the light of biblical teaching before pronouncing them man and wife?

Exhibit C: The Welby is interviewed by the BBC Today programme. It imitates another one-of-its-kind creatures called ‘the Donald’ and blames the Beeb for its response to the Jimmy Savile sex abuse scandal. The Welby claims that Auntie has not shown the same integrity over child abuse accusations when compared with its own C of E.

Survivors of sexual abuse in the C of E hit back, accusing the Welby of ‘breathtaking hypocrisy’. They issue a statement: ‘Far from the ‘rigorous response and self-examination’ he (the Welby) claims, our experience of the church, and specifically the archbishop, is of long years of silence, denial and evasion. The Church of England needs to confront its own darkness in relation to abuse before confronting the darkness of others.’

Auntie Beeb is no saintly nun. She is more akin to the Whore of Babylon. She has dumped her founding principles in the deepest sea and put up a notice saying ‘No Fishing Here’. So why is the Welby drawing a moral equivalence between a secular broadcaster committed to ‘fake news’ and the sacred body and bride of Christ – the Church – committed to preaching the gospel, i.e. good news?

The Welby should know that the church is sui generis. It cannot be compared to a human organisation. It is undoubtedly flawed. It has repeatedly failed. But its DNA is supernatural. When it is complicit in abuse, it cannot dodge the bullet by comparing itself to other organisations. It holds itself to a divine moral standard and by that standard it must stand or fall.

But one of the chief characteristics of the Welby is that it is allergic to theology. It excels at media spin, manipulation and monkey tricks, but it quickly disintegrates if it attempts even the most basic theology.

In the interview, the Welby suddenly jumps on a unicycle, tooting his horn and grinning at his audience like Bozo the Clown. ‘I think we are a kinder society,’ he hollers. Melanie Phillips swiftly slams this circus act. ‘Welby is deluded to think we’re a kind society,’ she writes. ‘The church confuses virtue-signalling with true virtue, while cruelty and indifference abound.’

Are we a kinder society, Welby? In 1940, teachers were asked to list the seven most serious problems they faced in school. Their answers were: talking out of turn, chewing gum, making a noise, running in corridors, cutting in line, not wearing school uniform, and dropping litter. In 1990, a group of teachers were asked the same question. This time their answers were: drug abuse, alcohol abuse, teenage pregnancy, suicide, rape, robbery, and assault.

Exhibit D: Alastair Campbell, who was once spin-doctor to an abominable ectoplasmic creature called ‘the Blair’, interviews the Welby for GQ magazine. ‘Is gay sex sinful?’ he asks. The reader will recall Campbell’s famous statement from the Blair years: ‘We don’t do God.’ Yet Campbell’s question is phrased with theological accuracy. He doesn’t ask about same-sex relationships, but about homogenital acts.

A number of biblical scholars who are gay, lesbian, and atheist have shouted out the answer from the rooftops. The Bible is unambiguous! Gay sex is sinful! There is no wriggle room. We reject the biblical teaching on sexuality but at least we are honest that the Bible condemns gay sex.

But the Welby, who doesn’t do biblical scholarship, squirms like a constipated worm. ‘You know very well that is a question I can’t give a straight answer to. Sorry, badly phrased there. I should have thought that one through. I know I haven’t got a good answer to the question.’ Campbell squashes the Welby. ‘Is that not morally a cop-out?’ The Welby decomposes with a splat. ‘Yes. I am copping out because I am struggling with the issue.’

Selwyn College, Cambridge, my alma mater, has a one-word motto. It is a Greek word from St Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (16:13). The King James Version translates it as ‘quit ye like men’ while the New American Standard Version renders it as ‘act like men’. The whole verse reads: ‘Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.’

These virtues are not the characteristics of a Welby. They are rarely found among other Welby-like species that are also known as bishops.

‘Why can’t a Welby be more like a man?’ Simply because it is a Welby. Please have pity on a Welby. The next time you meet a Welby, forgive it, for it knows not what it does or what it says.


  1. I have to admit, I burst out laughing when I read the Welby’s response to a basic question on homosexual intercourse. What a cop out.

    • Better that than the comments of the vile clown “Mohammed Ali”on the
      Parkinson show.
      “Jews invented homosexuality to spread disease”
      Even Parky told the over rated idiot he was talking rubbish.

      • I remember watching that in the 70s, I don’t recall that being said. Care to point me to your source?

  2. Ha! Ha! Ha! This piece on the Welby creature really made my day. Welby and his fellow-bishops would certainly be classified under the genus of creatures from outer space that are invertebrates.

  3. Well said Reverend Jules.
    As a committed conservative Christian, I thought that Welby’s answer to the basic question regarding homesexual intercourse was a betrayal of the clarity of The Bible and the Christian faith. What a weak man !

    • Why are Christians so obsessed with homosexuality?
      Jesus, the reforming Jew at the heart of the great religion is not reported as
      having any opinions on the matter.
      I don’t think the homosexual lifestyle as practiced today is very attractive,
      but then I don’t think it need be seen as important, since there are not that many 100%
      gay men. Despite what the BBC/Guardian would have us believe.
      Much more concerning is pedophilia, usually homosexual, & rife in the Church.
      One branch in particular —

      • Jesus was a Jew – he did not need to speak about homosexual activity – the teachings are clear. In all aspects of sexuality he was stringent. (Matt 19) He tightened divorce law to only on the grounds of adultery and specified marriage was to be between one man and one woman for life. He quoted Genesis “God created them male and female” and went on to say “for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and take a wife and the 2 will become one flesh” which is the basis of the Christian marriage service today.

      • I don’t believe Christians, like most people, are ‘obsessed’ with homosexuality – homosexuals and their proponents are. It is they who have brought it to the fore, they who seek to change centuries-old Bible teachings and the structure of the Church. What we – I am a atheist – are concerned with is the portrayal of something we do not deem normal or desirable is being forced into people’s lives via the media, politics, and much else, on pain of being brought before the Law.

        The Church, like the acting profession, became a refuge for homosexuals
        in days gone by, including the Catholic church where singlehood could be
        explained away. As for pAEdophilia (my capitals, that is how it is
        spelt) many are homosexuals, but this not widely disseminated, for
        obvious reasons.

        On the subject of paedophilia, consider this: homosexuals are determined by chromosomes, it is not their fault’, so to speak. What if that were the case with paedophiles, that somehow, it is hard-wired into their brain (which it seemingly is) would we then be expected to become tolerant of them, would a whole movement arise demanding they be treated as ‘normal’, be allowed to work in schools, day care centres, and anywhere pre-pubescent children frequent? Well, the Labour Party came close to it when they aligned themselves with the Paedophile Exchange, years ago, so it would not surprise me, but I’d rail against it with my last breath.

        I am tolerant of homosexuals, but I do not condone nor do I wish to have anything to do with them other than in the normal course of business life on a professional basis, if only to avoid awkward moments – the new boyfriend, the invite to a civil partnership – no thanks, it goes against everything I believe. I have no homosexual friends or acquaintances and I don’t want any. What others choose to do is their business.

        Finally, I suspect many, for want of a better term, ‘quiet’ homosexuals despise the raging ‘queens’ and the agenda-driven ‘pride’ movement as much as I do, and wish only to lead their lives respecting others’ wishes and sensibilities and for that to be returned, but without compunction or societal pressure; I take no issue with that, but when I am told I MUST accept, that’s when I lash out.

        • I’m sure you’re right about most of that. I’m not sure about the chromosomes angle: haven’t people been looking for “the gay gene” for years without success? And, as a Catholic, I believe in free will. Also, as a Catholic, although not old enough to remember the days of greater rigour before the Second Vatican Council, I am aware that “deep-seated” homosexual tendencies were then as they are now, at least for now, a disqualifying barrier to ordination. In the intervening few decades there has certainly been a problem, and many of our clergy have been poorly selected and poorly formed in seminary during that time. Sadly for Christ’s church, many of these poor men are often in positions of great responsibility and influence, if only as a matter of demographics.

          • I can’t be bothered to look it up, but they have a marker on a ‘x’ chromosome that is exclusively associated with homosexuals.

          • I did look it up. There was some research reported to that effect in 1993 and some later research that couldn’t replicate the original results.

      • We aren’t obsessed with homosexuality. The world is so obsessed, to the extent that provincial towns hold “gay” “pride” marches these days, and that schools teach our children that it is normal, even meritorious.

        • Exactly. More generally, our libertine western culture is obsessed with sex of all kinds, as well as crossing all the traditional gender boundaries.
          I call it sexolatry– for it is indeed a form of idolatry. Sex has become more important than God and church; just watch a bit of TV and go to a few movies. Same-sex sexual behavior is just part of the current outer reaches of that obsession. Next will be the acceptance of polygamy and pedophilia (sex with children). The entire pansexual movement is evil.

        • I find Gay Pride as distasteful as Black Pride.
          Both are being used politically to stir up trouble and both will
          inevitably result in increased homophobia & racism.
          One’s skin colour is nothing to be proud of, neither is one’s sexuality.

      • Why are Christians so obsessed with homosexuality?

        In this particular instance, the obsession with homosexuality was Alistair Campbell’s …

        Much more concerning is pedophilia, usually homosexual, & rife in the Church

        Oh deary me, swallowing all the propaganda, bait, hook, line, and sinker …

        Paedophilia is far FAR more common in the general population than among Christian priests and ministers.

        But it seems that the same general population is still looking for scapegoats, so as to avoid having to take a good hard look at its own failures.

  4. I am reminded of Ronald Searle’s brilliant illustrations for Molesworth.
    ‘The Welby’ would fit right in there.

  5. I think Welby could echo Alastair Campbell – “we don’t do religion anymore”. He is a postmodernist par excellence. He is working out the answers as he goes along. Who needs divine revelation in that circumstance! Never mind 2000 years of church teaching. I thought Rowan Williams was a disaster, but Welby is no improvement. I suppose we should have known when they appointed an inexperienced under qualified minor Bishop – they just wanted someone as a front man.

      • I don’t like box ticking and quotas, which is why I would never want to see Sentamu as Arch-Bishop. I don’t approach this from the position of a racist, but as someone who finds it difficult to believe there is not a white Anglican ‘Sentamu’ in this country equally worthy of promotion, as with so many other positions of influence or public sector institutions in this country where appointments of non-whites are suspiciously top heavy.

        • Personally, I would have had Chartres, who has presence and authority. But the erstwhile Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali. would be a strong contender.

          Unlike Welby, Nazir-Ali has Theological and Divinity qualifications from here to the horizon and has a talent for expressing complicated matters very clearly and simply in forthright, recognisably Christian terms which he did when Bishop of Rochester.

          Rather than rendering knee-jerk obeisance to the current degenerate ”Postmodern’ zeitgeist, ‘ Nazir-Ali views are, as he puts it, Christianity as clarified by the Enlightenment.

          • It bothers me when it is used as a political tool, a means to promote others over others, a means to try and induce colonial or other guilt, a means to deny a qualified person a job because of their white skin colour, a method of parading ‘look how inclusive and culturally diverse we are’.

            You say that he ‘would not have been seen as a box-ticking exercise’, but he would – at least that is the reaction most people I know – white, middle class, successful – would give, perhaps you move in more intellectual and forgiving circles than I. Try and look at it another way; Of all the talented people – there must be some – in the Church of England, it just so happens that a black man outshone them all. Really? Here’s another: why was the head of the Commission for Racial Equality a black man? Is the inference to be drawn a white man could be neither objective nor understanding enough? It just so happened, did it, that Phillips was the only man who could lead, so towering were his achievements that all other (white people) paled (no pun intended) before him? I think not.

            I am a jazz fan. I’d say 80% of what I listen to is from black musicians, men who have had private lives of which I disapprove, but they all have one thing in common; talent, and they achieved what they did because of it, not because of box-ticking or quotas, quite the opposite, actually, and I respect and admire them because of it.

            I am also a meritocrat; had race not been made such a issue over the last 30 years I might not have minded any colour as archbishop, or prime minister, but it has and I treat all appointees of that nature with suspicion, much as I did in my former job when it was decided the number of black people needed ‘boosting’, all to fulfil the needs of the social engineers, so they can say, ‘Look, our wonderful multy-culty love-in is working’ – they should add, to be truthful, ‘…because we will ensure it does, by any means necessary.’. That then leaves one wondering: is the person next to me here on merit, ability – or box-ticking, quota filling? That is unfair to competent black people, too.

          • Plenty of black jazz musicians have led conventionally respectable lives,
            despite the problems of an intrinsically unhealthy lifestyle.
            Wynton Marsalis , Art Farmer & Duke Ellington come to mind.
            The danger is that even the greatest talent is tempted by drugs, due
            to the constant travelling.
            White musicians killed by drugs include the immaculately trained
            Bill Evans.
            It’s the lifestyle, including constant creativity, travel, & under appreciation.

          • Consider my knuckles rapped; I did not intend to imply all had private lives of which I disapprove, I should have written ‘some of whom’ – ah, the perils of typing with one’s head down. Indeed, one of my favourites, Oscar Peterson, led a exemplary life (depends what your stance is on being married four times) and his success was all the more remarkable because his hands were in pain from arthritis most of his adult life.

            I’d like to share the tale of another of my favourites, the saxophonist Zoot Sims, who was a boozer of some note. After a club gig, Sims made his way out and encountered a ‘bum’ asking for a hand-out. Sims bunged him a few dollars and begn to walk away. Suddenly, he wheeled round and sped after the ‘bum’, seeking assurance from him that he was not going to waste the money on food.

      • Michael Nazir Ali is a brave, unpretentious Christian who has spent his recent life
        trying to protect Pakistani Christians from muslim persecution.
        Frankly, he’s too good & too sincere to be AB of C lounging around in the
        House of Lords with ex primates who want sharia law incorporated into UK Law.

      • Sentamu may be a stronger character than Welby but, alas, he is just another Leftie. As Chair of the Living Wage Commission, he swallowed whole the propaganda of the poverty lobby on what a ‘Living Wage’ (not to be confused with the government’s ‘National Living Wage’) meant and what the effects of its introduction might be. Nor did he bother with seeking alternative views on the robustness of the concept (see e.g. https://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8b7068895c6476ac73a3 ).

  6. Welby holds Office of Cameron who clearly saw no role for an Archbishop with Faith, knowledge and the intention to preserve the Church (of England) in the face of the insidious but ferocious attack by “progressive liberalism” and the openly-stated intent of Mohammedans to suppress and finally eradicate all other religions.
    As I recall, we had a vastly superior alternative to Welby, Richard Chartres Bishop of London, who was passed over. Has the CoE previously had such an ineffective, incompetent wimp in charge like Welby?

    • What about the previous AoC? Though, I do think the current holder of this office does win, by a whisker. 🙂

      • Nah. Not only does the current ABC not have whiskers but he also advertised himself as an evangelical. Which was a lie; true evangelicals know and adhere to the authority of the scriptures, and are always looking to spread the gospel (evangelize). Welby is a nominal EINO (evangelical in name only) at best; at worst he may not even be a born-again Christian.

      • Did you know that Justin Portal Welby is a grand nephew of Air Chief Marshall “Peter” Portal, Churchill’s placeman at the head of the RAF?
        But, yes, Welby is an old Etonian who, in the finest tradition of old school ties got the job. This is the real reason why Britain is practically third world….the appointment by political office-holders of placemen based not on merit but cronyism and control. Just look at the rest of Cameron’s appointees in the Cabinet. Dismal second-rate nonentities, of whom May is the unfortunate holder of the baton in Cameron’s race to the bottom.

        • No I didn’t know Welby’s Grand RAF connection. I did know he is a dismal second rate nonentity though!

    • Chartres was a personal friend of Lady Thatcher, you can’t have a conservative of any stripe, political, thoelogical or “small c”, heading the church these days, it seems.

      • Chartres always struck me as a real Bishop. An honest man and decent gravitas at public occasions.
        As for Welby, unfit to be the spiritual leader of the National Church. In Japan, the appointment of a failure (and Welby has every appearance of being such….has he left anything to mark his tenure but female Bishops?) reflects fatally upon that person’s appointor. But we knew that already.

  7. ‘A boy wearing a dress to school is not a problem,’ says the Welby on LBC radio
    Has anybody noticed what Welby & his like wear on duty ?
    My late mother, who supported the Salvation Army, frequently commented on these
    men in their ridiculous frocks.
    Even more ridiculous when they have beards.

  8. It may be viewed as irrational and thuggish, but my friend – a middle class businessman – upon seeing a photograph of Welby for the first time, remarked: “There’s a face you could smack”. I am at a loss as to explain why I feel it perfectly sums up Welby and his kind.

    • The explanation may be that Welby is the type of bloke who looks as if he’s new on the shop floor.

      The gaffer has told him not to depress any buttons on the machinery.

      After a tea break the gaffer returns to a silent shop floor – the mile long conveyor-belt’s screeching has ceased. All tractor production workers have downed tools – and the gaffer’s lower lip is quivering with rage.

    • So funny! A friend of a friend of ours who lives abroad on the Isle of Man says this about the Archdeacon of Sodor and Man.

  9. What puzzles me is, and even my practicing Christian friend tells me this, is if someone walks into a crowd of strangers and begins to speak aloud of the love of God, etc., people will look askance at them and move away. Yet, because a man is be-decked in fine, though somewhat odd-looking, clothes, rounded off with a fairly silly looking hat and appears in the media, we are expected to be in thrall to his every utternace, religious or otherwise.

    Aside from that, we really need to ask, believers and non-believers alike: what is the point of Welby and the bishops if they can no longer hold to the tenets of Christianity and the Bible with their ‘pick ‘n’ mix’ Church?

  10. Thank you for a lovely piece of satire, it made me giggle. ‘The/a Welby’ deserves to be the ‘Word of the Year’ and included next year’s Oxford Dictionary.

  11. Alistair Campbell asked, is homosexual sex sinful?

    The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, replied:

    ‘You know very well that is a question I can’t give a straight answer to. Sorry, badly phrased there. I should have thought that one through. I know I haven’t got a good answer to the question.’

    1. He once had a straight answer; he voted against the legal fiction of same sex ‘marriage’. He had clearly thought it through.
    2. Is Welby now bent?
    3. Welby has said he wants a radically inclusive church; then why is the doctrine of Radical Inclusion driving out black and ethnic minorities and white conservatives?
    4. Does he accept that transgender is a threat to female priests and bishopettes? If so, what becomes of the doctrine of Radical Inclusion?

  12. I had to share this piece out loud to my wife so we could laugh together. Great satire and so close to the naked truth. For example: “A number of biblical scholars who are gay, lesbian, and atheist have shouted out the answer from the rooftops. The Bible is unambiguous! Gay sex is sinful! There is no wriggle room. We reject the biblical teaching on sexuality but at least we are honest that the Bible condemns gay sex.
    But the Welby, who doesn’t do biblical scholarship, squirms like a constipated worm. ‘You know very well that is a question I can’t give a straight answer to.”

    The Welby does not have a theologically straight bone in his body. “Straight” — here meaning Apostolic and scriptural, although the other meanings might apply as well.

  13. ‘A boy wearing a dress to school is not a problem,’ says the Welby on LBC radio

    This is the man man who blamed the Beeb for its attitudes towards child s. ex abuse …

    It’s more than just a little bit creepy that this man wants to see boys in dresses in English schools !

    Never mind the dangers, let’s sexualise all our kids from the earliest possible age and in the weirdest manner available !!

  14. Welby even looks like a disaster walking. He and his like will finally destroy the C of E. He and his like have forgotten that the Gospels are for all men and women and for all time and are not in any way social work discussion topics. . We do not need his like to understand them and it is the task of the priest to help us through the rituals of life in the light of Christ’s words.
    It is the disease of our time to think that we can create the world anew and remake man in some more acceptable image to our selves rather that accept the unchanging nature and reality of our lives.

  15. ”In 1940, teachers were asked to list the seven most serious problems they faced in school. Their answers were: talking out of turn, chewing gum, making a noise, running in corridors, cutting in line, not wearing school uniform, and dropping litter. In 1990, a group of teachers were asked the same question. This time their answers were: drug abuse, alcohol abuse, teenage pregnancy, suicide, rape, robbery, and assault.”

    Good god… and they wonder why the elderly are so aghast at the modern world.

Comments are closed.