Dear Giles,

A belated Happy New Year and welcome back from your travels. I am sorry that I'm only just getting round to replying to your message from before Christmas.

I am really excited at where this conversation could go and how others may join in or start their own conversations across the different divides we are so aware of in the Church of England and the Communion. As you say we mustn't let those disagreements mask what we have in common and I share your conviction that it is by building personal relationships and talking that we can realise the importance of that and also discern the nature and depth of our disagreements and what they might mean for our life together. It's been great to begin to do that with you at the Windsor Consultation and since and I look forward to it continuing.

Part of our agreement is obviously - thankfully - found in features of Anglican identity such as being both catholic and reformed, the wisdom found in the BCP (and of such value during boring sermons!), and the importance of Scripture, tradition and reason. As someone brought up a Presbyterian in Scotland those are all aspects I have discovered in Anglicanism which I treasure. But increasingly I sense that - under the surface issue of homosexuality - we also share worries and anxieties that what we particularly treasure in Anglicanism is under threat at present.

I sense that many of those I know linked to Inclusive Church see in the recent growth of evangelical Anglicanism, and particularly some of its expressions elsewhere in the Communion, a real threat to the valuable tradition of diversity and development which you highlight and they fear the Communion covenant project may try to define more closely what Anglicanism is and make us a more rigidly confessional church. For myself and other evangelicals a major concern is that we will abandon the supreme authority of Scripture as 'the revealed Word of God' (Quadrilateral) and the subordination of the church to Scripture. That understanding is for me clearly summed up in the Article stating that 'it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation' (Article 20). Perhaps if we can somehow better understand and be sensitive to each other's concerns here we could lower the temperature in some of the discussions.

It was interesting to read Wright's paper which I'd not come across so thanks for that link. Although highlighting the reality of dispersed authority it also confirmed my memory of just how clear a boundary the Articles have provided through most of English Anglicanism. Lis and I read them on our pre-ordination retreat and were reminded how important they were to us, although I think we were both glad we don't have to 'willingly and ex animo subscribe to…all things that are contained in them' (as required until 1865)! Still, that requirement and the fact that even after 1865 all clergy needed to 'assent to the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, and to the Book of Common Prayer and of the ordering of bishops, priests, and deacons' and state 'I believe the doctrine of the Church of England as therein set forth' is a reminder that diversity and inclusivity have often had quite strongly defined limits within Anglicanism. Given that, by agreement of Synod and Lambeth Conferences, the Articles and Prayer Book no longer define those limits in that way in either the CofE or the Communion, the issue you highlight of the 'locus of authority' is particularly pressing and one I suspect we will keep coming back to in different ways.

For myself I believe our current difficulties arise because both the authority of Scripture and the authority of the church are being rejected or undermined. While I suspect I have a more critical view of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral than you do, it is interesting to go back to its original context in the motion of 1886 adopted by the American House of Bishops. It was of course not offering a definition of Anglican identity but clearly stating simply what was 'essential' ('the inherent parts of this sacred deposit' of 'Christian Faith and Order committed by Christ and his Apostles to the Church unto the end of the world, and therefore incapable of compromise or surrender') in order to 'restore' Christian unity 'among the divided branches of Christendom'. And - given that our unity now is under pressure within our own branch in part because of the American church - it is significant that it was prefaced by the statement

We, Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, in Council assembled as Bishops in the Church of God, do hereby solemnly declare to all whom it may concern, and especially to our fellow-Christians of the different Communions in this land….that in all things of human ordering or human choice, relating to the modes of worship and discipline, or to traditional customs, this Church is ready in the spirit of love and humility to forego all preferences of her own

More recently, of course, the General Convention was also clear that on human sexuality issues there was a need for 'a broad consultation to be initiated on an official pan-Anglican and ecumenical level as a bold step forward in the consideration of these potentially divisive issues which should not be resolved by the Episcopal Church on its own' (B020, 1991, italics added).

I think we're agreed that such consultation and listening needs to be taking place and that refusing to engage in this with one another in love as brothers and sisters in Christ is sometimes part of the problem. My concern is that unless this is set in an agreed context of limits to action, mutual accountability, and restraint on innovations, the conversation will prove impossible especially if provincial actions lead to the Communion, and perhaps the CofE, experiencing radical realignment. If the framers of the Quadrilateral were - in order to gain unity - willing to 'forego all preferences' of their own when those were well established and 'traditional customs', I struggle to see why - out of Christian love and concern for unity - it is too much for a similar patience and reserve when what is proposed is a significant new development.

I hope we may explore both what that might look like and whether it is possible and that you will also challenge me and those who share my views and concerns concerning how we need to change our approach in order to assist such genuine dialogue and - to pick up your challenging quote from Vanier - become more welcoming. Personally I think the Windsor Report and ongoing Windsor Process focussed on the covenant offer the best framework for a way forward. Although what that means in practice remains rather blurred it may all be a bit clearer just over a month from now when the Primates have met.

Hopefully we can each find time in our schedules to write a bit more frequently than I've managed over Christmas and New Year so that we've covered a bit more ground before that meeting and General Synod (with its two proposed debates relating to sexuality and civil partnerships) take place next month.

Look forward to hearing from you

Yours in Christ,

Andrew Goddard