Dear Giles,

Thanks for your letter of 25 February and your reflections on where we are in our conversation and where we are as a Communion after Tanzania. Your 'nothing's changed and everything's changed' was particularly striking and while I agree with it I would fill it out quite differently from you.

In the areas where you say 'nothing's changed' I think quite a bit happened. To have Phil Groves (Facilitator for the Listening Process) there talking to the Primates is to my mind quite a significant bit of progress. I hope and trust that more provinces will now take that process forward a lot more seriously and it is clearly going to be important at Lambeth 08. I'm more intrigued by your 'we still have no resolution on the question of human sexuality' as I guess I'm not clear what 'resolution' here means. If 'resolution' means an agreement by everyone that solves all our differences then clearly we are not there(!). However, I think the Primates have not only again reaffirmed I.10 as you say but also made clear that any diocese or province that acts against it leaves its relations with the Communion 'damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion'. That principle was clearly behind the request at Dromantine for withdrawal from ACC but I don't think it has ever been stated quite so starkly and that means I think that quite a lot has changed in terms of understanding the current limits of diversity.

You won't be surprised to know that I don't think that we have here a 'glaring inconsistency' in relation to I.10. I've not done the careful research but I think it is unprecedented for a province to disregard a clear, overwhelmingly supported Lambeth resolution that claims the teaching of Scripture as its basis for appealing to provinces not to take certain actions. Going back to women's ordination, although a woman priest had been ordained during the Second World War, when the Lambeth Conference made clear its unhappiness (as it clearly did in 1948) no more such ordinations occurred 'until a new consensus had emerged'. If a province had disregarded those (weaker) resolutions we might have discovered they had quite a 'normative' status and authority.

I shared some of your 'worst fears' and think we indeed owe many congratulations to Archbishop Rowan and others for avoiding a major split. I'm also glad nobody was excluded and, in retrospect, have to admit I can see wisdom in allowing the Presiding Bishop to remain as a full member who signed off on the communique rather than - my preferred option beforehand - reducing her to a diminished, perhaps observer, status due to her own actions as Bishop of Nevada and the actions of her province at General Convention.

I'm pleased the Alternative Primatial Oversight request was not simply granted as I think it needed much more careful work and thought. However, I do think 'everything has changed' in terms of what the Primates did instead to help out those in the US who oppose the actions of the last two General Conventions and stay committed to Communion teaching. There is now to be a Primatial Pastoral Council chaired by a Primate chosen by the Archbishop of Canterbury which will implement a Pastoral Scheme for a province. In this Scheme there will be appointed a Primatial Vicar who will be delegated some of the powers of the Presiding Bishop and be accountable not to the province's internal structures but to the internationally formed Pastoral Council. This represents a very serious and unprecedented implementation of the requests of the last two Lambeth Conferences that the Primates take up enhanced responsibilities to act in times of crisis including "intervention in cases of exceptional emergency which are incapable of internal resolution within provinces, and giving of guidelines on the limits of Anglican diversity in submission to the sovereign authority of Holy Scripture and in loyalty to our Anglican tradition and formularies" (Lambeth 1998, III.6).

The question of refusing to receive communion together is clearly a contentious and painful one. I really do not think it was a political point not to attend and that, as you acknowledge, it will have caused the Primates who were absent much pain. Perhaps I can say something of my own personal experience here. You may know I came to the 10th anniversary service of Changing Attitude last year which Gene Robinson attended and after which he spoke. I have to confess I went unclear and wrestling in my own mind as to whether or not I would be able to receive communion, well aware that many of my friends certainly would not. I honestly did not know as I entered whether or not I would be able to do so in good conscience but through the service became strongly convinced that - despite the fact that most of those gathered there were working for and celebrating something in the church I opposed and that situations would arise in which I might talk about at least 'impaired' communion with them - I should receive. For all our differences we were brothers and sisters in Christ and it was the Lord's table to which we were all called as saved sinners. In the service I found particularly powerful and moving - given he was my personal tutor at Cranmer and I always loved it when we sang it in chapel - the congregational singing of Michael Vasey's version of A Song of Anselm with those beautiful words, 'Lord Jesus, in your mercy heal us, in your love and tenderness remake us'. Words that must have spoken in different ways to all those there and I felt powerfully spoke to us as a divided church in these painful times. My own view is therefore more in line with those Global South Primates who, despite their differences, shared in communion but I fully understand why some - especially those who head and represent provinces that have officially broken communion - felt they could not do this.

So, overall, I think Tanzania actually represents something very significant indeed for the life of the Communion and that 'everything has changed' not primarily because of what did not happen but because of what did.

There's so much I'd love to respond to in your letter but I want to try and address what I sensed was its most heart-felt plea about the listening process becoming a 'banging my head against a wall process'. It's a feeling I sometimes have (eg I've yet to see any sustained response to the attempt to engage in dialogue that I and others offered back in 2003 with True Union in the Body?) and I know many others who share my view also feel this. It does raise major questions of what this 'listening' is all about and whether it has a particular agenda or requires certain agreed presuppositions or outcomes. The problem is that it seems to me that to participate together in 'working out a theology of relationships which is widely applicable' - if it means acceptance of sexual relationships outside marriage - is simply to ask me to abandon my premises. It is, if you like, to call on me to jump across the street to stand on your tall building! It would be like me insisting that if you were serious about listening then we would only talk about patterns of non-sexual friendship that may be able to offer a vision of redemption for gay and lesbian Christians. Not sure how we get round that but hope we can try to find a way.

The blockage that you see in the process is that I've not been able to acknowledge that there may be potential that your view might have validity. I may come back to that in a later letter as I often do follow through the thought-experiment, 'what would I need to be persuaded of in order to accept either the validity or the truth of others' views in this area?'. You say that I need to recognise 'that alternative views may be held with integrity' such that those who think like you 'need not automatically be expelled from the Communion'. So the crunch question to me - 'are you prepared to allow the potential for a diversity of views on this subject within full members of the Communion?'

Well, with a deep breath and quite a lot of trepidation, I want to try and wrestle with my own reactions and response to this, aware that it is something where my own thinking - and even more, my feelings - are in flux and I sometimes am more 'hard-line' and sometimes 'softer'.

On the softer line I don't think people should be 'expelled from the Communion' for holding certain views. We have a listening process and ongoing discussion quite simply because this is to some degree a contested issue and I have to acknowledge that I may be wrong rather than expelling those who think that I am wrong. Similarly, in one sense there will rightly and inevitably be 'a diversity of views on this subject' - I often don't fully agree with the Archbishop of Nigeria for example! - and the question is the extent of this diversity.

I also think that there are strengths and insights coming from the different perspectives that exist on this subject. That is partly why I don't want us to close the debate down or simply go our separate ways. Although not agreeing with it all, I found Sam Wells' piece on this that I discovered recently online (though on looking again it has sadly been taken down) helpful and challenging.

However, I do find it very hard - almost impossible if I am honest - to accept as a valid and genuinely Christian viewpoint the belief that a sexually active relationship outside marriage (and hence such a relationship between two people of the same sex) is a way of holiness and faithful Christian discipleship that the Church should commend and bless.

In many ways I wish that wasn't the case - life in the church and the church's engagement with British society would in many ways be made much easier if that was not my conviction and that of so many others. And I know many genuine Christians hold that view and others don't hold it but still see it as a genuinely Christian view. But it does seem to me that this is something which - as Archbishop Rowan put it the other day - is 'not mine to give away'. I believe that this is the case in the light not just of Scripture but also tradition and reason.

In the current situation a problem that is at least as serious for me is the way in which some have sought to give away what I think we cannot give away. On women's ordination the Communion first determined - twenty years after saying it would be wrong to proceed - that "the theological arguments as at present presented for and against the ordination of women to the priesthood are inconclusive" (1968 Resolution 34) and that "before any national or regional Church or province makes a final decision to ordain women to the priesthood, the advice of the Anglican Consultative Council (or Lambeth Consultative Body) be sought and carefully considered" (1968 Resolution 37). That is what then happened in terms of process and at ACC1 in 1971 by the narrowest of margins (24-22) it was agreed that "In reply to the request of the Council of the Church of South-East Asia, this Council advises the Bishop of Hong Kong, acting with the approval of his Synod, and any other bishop of the Anglican Communion acting with the approval of his Province, that, if he decides to ordain women to the priesthood, his action will be acceptable to this Council; and that this Council will use its good offices to encourage all Provinces of the Anglican Communion to continue in communion with these dioceses."

Difficult though it has been, the Communion has not torn itself apart over this in the way it has over same-sex unions and of course most provinces now ordain women as priests. We may, I have to admit, eventually find the same happens over same-sex unions but I think that much less likely. If it is to happen, the first step must again be that the Communion as a whole has to judge the theological arguments on either side as 'inconclusive' and then work out what it might ask of provinces that wish to proceed down a new path. It cannot simply say 'there is a minority, perhaps amounting to a majority in one or two provinces, who are not convinced by the current position and so we as a Communion need to abandon our theological convictions and avoid taking a position on this.'

Even more seriously, we don't even know what the other 'side' is here. There is no consensus among those unhappy with the current situation as to what the alternative is - hence your desire for me to participate in finding a consensus on 'a theology of relationship'. It was relatively simple to decide on the weight of theological arguments when it was agreed the question was 'can we move to include women in the ordained presbyterate?' but the question here is not - as far as I can see - simply 'can we move to include same-sex couples within Christian marriage?'. There is no simple consensus on an alternative to the current teaching and practice and even TEC has no pattern of holy life for same-sex couples that it has agreed to be fitting for Christians and for which it has presented a clear theological rationale.

In this context, while I personally can live and want to live in the same church and Communion as you while we disagree and you hold and express the views that you do and seek to convince me and others that you are right and I am wrong, I do not believe it right for the church to abandon its agreed teaching and practice by allowing clergy who disagree to act contrary to these. Similarly - to take another contentious example - I object when I hear of some evangelicals who not only believe in lay presidency at the Eucharist and seek to change the church's mind on this but then practice it in defiance of church teaching (even though the biblical basis for such a restrictive practice is non-existent!). The point could be made in relation to 're-baptism' of those baptised as infants or a whole host of other issues. Here - as on the same-sex relationships issue - Anglicans have a well-established position in terms of teaching and practice which is shared with the wider church. Those who serve as ministers know that this is the case when they make their ordination vows (even if they don't personally agree) and they do not have authority to overturn it unilaterally in their own ministries. They can argue for change but if they go further and act against the church's teaching - perhaps claiming to have theological integrity and to be a minority that must be embraced within the breadth of Anglican diversity which has never had uniformity of belief - then they cannot object when the church as a whole calls them to account and warns of consequences if they persist. That is, I believe, part of what it means to be bound together in the body of Christ. And what applies for individual clergy I think applies also to individual provinces within the Communion and wider catholic church. Hence I was encouraged when the Sub-Group Report unveiled at Tanzania acknowledged "We do not see how bishops who continue to act in a way which diverges from the common life of the Communion can be fully incorporated into its ongoing life."

You ask the key question carefully in terms of 'are you prepared to allow the potential for a diversity...' and here is where I feel the pressure most acutely. What if the Communion decided this was indeed a matter of indifference, adiaphora? Or what if it went further and held that indeed here is where God is doing a new thing and the church should embrace the progressive 'full inclusion' theology as its official teaching and practice? What would I do then?

I would, I think, have to take even more seriously than I do now the possibility that I am simply wrong because I do believe in the work of the Spirit in the church and that the church has in the past misunderstood God's will and misread Scripture. If the church as a whole really did say this was a matter where different and incompatible Christian visions were acceptable I would need to think very carefully about how sure I was that Scripture says what I think it says. However, I also know that the church can be led astray by the spirit of the age and as an heir of the Reformation am quite clear that, as we've said in earlier letters, councils do err and ultimately the Word of God is the church's ruling norm. While one can never tell what one would think and do in such hypothetical situations - hence my drawing back from saying 'absolutely impossible' - I think then a split would probably become inevitable.

Of course all that is based on a situation far from the current reality and, even though it may ultimately lead me to face that difficult situation of being in a minority, I don't want to close down all debate and discussion and treat I.10 as written in stone and without error. My hope and prayer is that in our current situation we can indeed 'find a way forward together'. I think the path taken consistently from Lambeth 98 through Lambeth 03 Primates and Windsor and Dromantine and ACC in 05 and now Tanzania in 07 all make clear what that means in practice - that's why 'nothing has changed'. And I hope and pray that TEC will accept that path, hard though it will be, and not walk apart and that in the Church of England we will also more consistently live within those boundaries as we continue to discuss and debate these issues, led by the Spirit, as we seek the mind of Christ and share the love of Christ together.

With thanks for our ongoing conversation and deepening friendship and fellowship in Christ,

Andrew