The Archbishop of Canterbury has "been on a journey." In an interview with Alistair Campbell he was asked about where he and the Church of England had got to in relation to moving beyond the traditional teaching on sex and marriage embedded in the Church's history and canons. His reply was:

"Where we've come to is to say that all sexual activity should be within a committed relationship and whether it's straight or gay."

This statement, contradicting his Church's official teaching as it does, has caused a great deal of concern since, as everyone knows the C of E is in the middle of a civil war over the role of sex, erotic love and changing the definition of marriage.

We can call the two sides 'progressive' and 'old-faithfuls' or O-Fs for the moment. But as everyone knows, the progressives have been gaining traction and momentum each year, while the O-Fs are losing. The tide of cultural change is flowing at such a rate that the O-Fs are losing very badly, so that they can't even get a job in the secular market if they own up to saying they believe marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of having children, as the two prayer books and the canons of the Church insist.

So the progressives have the zeitgeist, but they are hamstrung by the fact they don't have the power to change Church law. Quite rightly, the rules have been framed in such a way as to make them very difficult indeed to overturn.

This has troubled the progressives a great deal. So they have conducted a campaign which was intended to get round the Church laws by ignoring them. They would incorporate blessings on homosexuality informally, pastorally, on the edge of things. And in time, because almost everyone would be doing it, there would be a moment when even the law could be changed without any fuss.

The problem they faced involved not telling the whole truth about what they were doing. But here is the rub. The Archbishop of Canterbury is held up in the eyes of the state and culture as a figure who is meant to be morally beyond reproach. He is not allowed to fib, or at least be caught fibbing. And he is not allowed to rubbish the rules of his own Church.

There are several difficulties his statement to Alastair Campbell throws up. Firstly, although he says this is a personal statement, it is also presented as representing a large number of his fellow bishops. What he meant by personal was that this was part of his attempt to pass the change off as sort of informal. This is to disguise the fact that they would change the rules, if they could. But they can't.

The second is that no one knows how to define what a 'committed relationship' is. Even if the rules, traditions, and the Bible itself allowed this (which they don't) (hence his wriggling) no one knows what it means.

Perhaps the most chilling bit of the interview was when he made a promise that everyone knows he will break - that those who "hold a traditional view have a full and undoubted place in the Church of England" (in whose teaching they, in contrast to him, continue to believe).

The reason why this sends shivers down the spine is that this replicates exactly the promises used to pacify those who believed that the priesthood was not open to women because of what Jesus taught and all the generations of the Church up to this one, practised. It was within a very short period indeed that the C of E moved from reluctant tolerance of traditional beliefs, to outright hostility and then to exclusion. It closed its doors to faithful Anglicans who didn't believe in having the Church confirm to the passing whims of a shallow confused secularism.

But the progressives don't ever take prisoners for long. They execute them - metaphorically. Or as we have learnt to say, they cancel them. Because they attribute 'hate' to any views that don't surrender to the dictates of either the prevailing dogmatism of feminism, or the 'diversity, equality and inclusion' cultural dictatorship.

The whole thing might be clearer if we turned to use the old-fashioned language of the competing gods. For the moment, leave unanswered whether their gods are metaphors or reality, but what we are witnessing is an Archbishop, and indeed much of his Church, who have changed sides.

The god who promotes sex in the way the Archbishop is describing has long been worshipped and honoured as Aphrodite (she has many names in many cultures but the same persona and values.)

She is very much in favour of sex. She is not as worried about commitment as the Archbishop is, but this is probably a hang over from his former attachment to Jesus. But since commitment doesn't need to mean more than a weekend's intense intimacy before an unforeseen and unhappy break-up, it doesn't matter. Aphrodite supports sex wherever it can take place. Inside or outside marriage. Same sex, different sex, intersex, couples, throuples, you name it.

But Yahweh ("I am that I am" and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ) is very keen on sex being contained and directed not primarily for recreation, but for procreation and within marriage. Jesus is very clear about this. So were the apostles. So are all the holy practitioners of Christianity.

But today's superficially secular society has decided that, liking sex as much as it does, it will choose to implement, worship, follow, celebrate, Aphrodite's values and practices, and junk Yahweh. So it has. And it is free to do so, of course.

The surprise is that Justin Welby, as the Archbishop of Canterbury, having "been on a journey", has changed sides and prefers the teaching, example and culture of Aphrodite too - along with much of his state Church.

It may well be religion, and fervent religion at that. But you can't claim it is Christianity.