Dear Andrew

Many thanks for yours dated 13th January. I had a good time abroad - two weeks in India certainly brings a chastening perspective to the struggles within the Communion, particularly as India seems to be able to contain an astonishing level of religious diversity with remarkably little difficulty (apart from the occasional riot!)

I'm glad you focus initially on the Articles. I think they're a neglected resource for the Church of England - I re-read them last year to remind myself of this particular foundational aspect of our Church and was pleased that I could find little to disagree with. Frivolously, I was encouraged by XXXII - "Bishops, priests and deacons are not commanded by God's Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from matrimony” - which has interesting implications if we consider it in terms of the Bishops' response to the Civil Partnership legislation. More seriously, I take continual comfort from XXVI - "Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacrament”. The acknowledgement that the effectiveness of the Sacrament is not hindered by the worthiness or unworthiness of the Minister has significant implications both for the debate over the (now) consecration of women as bishops and for the questions we are considering about lesbian and gay clergy. Although the article is phrased in terms of good and evil, behind that lies the acknowledgement that the sacraments "are effectual because of Christ's institution and promise” - I often think that if we focused a bit more on the sacraments and less on who was administering them the Church would be a better place!

But perhaps I'm simply showing my churchmanship. I take, absolutely, your reference to Articles VI and XX; our understandings of the place, interpretation and authority of Scripture is completely central to this discussion and I very much want to return to that. But before I do, I want to agree with you that the Articles are no longer as key within Anglican authority as they were; as you and I both know very well, the ordination service now asks ordinands to confirm their belief in 'the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness'.

Which doesn't take us very much further in terms of the locus of authority within the Church. I'm glad you provided some context for the origination of the Chicago/Lambeth Quadrilateral, and I very much want to respond to your comments on the recent actions of the Episcopal Church (TEC) and the whole Windsor context. But I'm wary of doing that too soon in our correspondence, since it seems to me that far too much of the situation in the Church of England is the result of fallout from the disagreements within TEC. Clearly we are part of a wider context, but I have serious concerns that some of the more vocal parts of the Religious Right in the States have actively sought to involve the CofE in their relationship with the rest of TEC - and succeeded. I am keen to see if we as the Church of England have anything unique to offer this debate.

I think we have. It is hard, for instance, to imagine a correspondence like this one taking place on any of the more evangelical websites in the US. I think that, however diminished it may be, there is still a powerful recognition within the CofE of the three strands, broadly termed Evangelical, Liberal and Catholic. And there is a recognition among most of us that these strands all have something particular, a special perspective, to offer the life of the Church as a whole. It is, as you say, increasingly clear that much of the heat and light that is being generated at present is a result of fear - fear on the side of conservative evangelicals that Scripture is being subordinated to the Church, and fear on the side of others (broad church? inclusive?) that their understanding of Scripture and the Church is being subordinated to another, particular, interpretation of Scripture and authority. That fear can be expressed from my point of view in the risk of an increased narrowing of the CofE which would have deeply regrettable consequences for the life of the Gospel in this country and abroad.

What are these perspectives and why are they important? I suspect we all caricature each other. Liberals and Catholics think evangelicals have "sola scriptura” as their battle cry. Catholics and evangelicals accuse the liberals of whispering (politely) "sola persona”; and Catholics are seen as flaunting "sola ecclesia” as the way to salvation. In other words, in our mistrustful moments we think that liberals just go on their feelings, Catholics really just want to do what the Pope says (except when they don't) and Evangelicals use Scripture as a means of oppression.

I think it's vital if we are to be able to take forward our common life that we re-acknowledge our varied contributions to the life of the Church and preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And I also think that these caricatures are seriously inaccurate, and we need to have a far deeper understanding of one another's positions before we even begin to talk about issues in human sexuality (as, in the end, I'm sure we will).

Truth exists behind every caricature. Catholics certainly have a high doctrine of the Church, ritual and church order as expressed particularly through the liturgy. While at times this can slip over into fussiness and appear silly, at its best it offers a powerful and wonderful expression of the mystery and drama of faith which, as the leaders of the Oxford Movement soon discovered, is particularly effective in less verbal cultures - especially in the inner cities, where it is still flourishing. I could go on about this for hours, but the drama of the Holy Week observances here at St Peter's is, although very powerful, not untypical of the many thousands of churches up and down the country which enable people to participate in a very direct way in the death and resurrection of Jesus. And the continuity we celebrate in the traditional way we worship is, again, a source of great wisdom and richness; as is our understanding of the authority of the Bishop and the different orders and kinds of ministry. And for the avoidance of doubt, the ordination of women as priests and soon as bishops will continue to re-ignite the flame which exists within the Catholic wing of the church.

Liberals certainly take individual responsibility and the need to work out our own salvation equally seriously, and the liberal approach which involves continual questioning and not taking anything for granted or on trust has brought and will continue to bring a deepening understanding of humanity's place before God. In the Woolwich Episcopal Area we look back to the Honest to God controversy, and although I guess that John Robinson would probably not be considered very liberal now, there can be no doubt that the debate he unleashed with his book, closely followed by "The Myth of God Incarnate” has focused and developed our theological understanding for the 21st century. I think too of the enrichment brought to current thinking by people like Matthew Fox ("Original Blessing”) and the work of the Jesus Seminar. It's also true, I think, that the recognition of the centrality of our own responsibility has led to a strong identification by liberals with the need for Christianity to embrace and acknowledge human rights (humanity created in the image of God) with all that that entails.

And evangelicals? Well, I was converted at a Christian house party organised by HTB. And I will always be grateful for the affirmation of a personal relationship with Jesus which I hadn't previously understood. There can be no doubt that the vibrancy and conviction of the Evangelical wing of the church, together with its focus on Christ and the centrality of scripture, have brought immense gifts into Anglicanism. Indeed a great part of our present discussion is, I think, due to the process of adjustment which the CofE is making in recognition of the growth of evangelical churchmanship in the last fifty years.

As another caricature, one could say that Catholics represent "tradition”, liberals "reason” and evangelicals "scripture.”

But the mistake I think we often make is to identify each group too exclusively with its defining characteristic. I have been very encouraged recently by the response by many senior evangelicals to the "covenant” circulated just before Christmas. Clearly a serious doctrine of the Church is not the preserve only of Catholics; and of course we are all, all the time, using our faculties of reason and discernment to understand our faith more deeply. Faith seeking understanding, indeed.

And scripture? I want to try to set your mind at rest on this. Because I suspect that the perception amongst some evangelicals is that the rest of us simply don't care about scripture and only refer to the Bible when it suits us. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As you know, the Eucharistic form in Common Worship divides the service into the "Liturgy of the Word” and the "Liturgy of the Sacrament.” The Word is as central as the Sacrament; the two go together. Scripture is the wellspring from which our faith arises, and I have no hesitation in agreeing with that scripture contains all things necessary for salvation, and that "it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God's word.”

The question is, therefore, why do - or how can - we disagree? Is there not one interpretation of Scripture which is normative and authoritative? Perhaps that's the key question for us - in a conversation recently with someone considerably more hardline than you we ended up focusing on the meaning of "arsenokoitai” as if once we could agree on that the whole debate would come to an end.

The readings set for Sunday include Nehemiah 8.5 - "So they read from the book, from the law of God, with interpretation. They gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.”

Precisely. Apart from a slightly top-down aspect in this particular situation, isn't that what we're all doing? Trying to give the sense, so that people understand the reading?

I'm presently reading work by the French Protestant theologian Paul Ricoeur. One of his many insights is that the Bible works as a whole precisely BECAUSE of its diversity; the way in which it includes narrative, poetry, prophecy, law, history, story, hymns and more. No one part can be taken in isolation; each informs the other. I would be doing you a serious disservice if I thought you weren't fully aware of the need to take each part of the Bible in context, but for the purposes of this correspondence I'm stating the obvious.

In your recent newsletter for Fulcrum on the Listening Process (http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2006/newsletter10.cfm?doc=149) you say "Almost all of us who have changed our understanding of what Scripture teaches on some issue (and if we have never done that we must seriously ask whether Scripture is in any sense authoritative in our lives) have done so, in part, as a result of particular experiences that have opened up new questions and helped us shed what we believe is new light on God's Word.”

Speaking for myself, I want to say that the Bible is central to my preaching, my faith and my life. But I cannot take particular verses in isolation and use them to justify a position which flies in the face of my understanding of the whole of scripture. If, in the end, the Bible is about the loving relationship between God and God's people, and if, in the end, Jesus came "to bring good news to the poor, to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind” (Sunday's other reading), then that is the context in which we have to understand particular verses. I resist the use of particular verses as "proof texts”; rather, I try to encourage people to be in relationship with the whole Bible as they are in relationship with God.

For that reason I'm wary about going down the road of looking specifically at the references we both know so well. I suppose for me the real question is whether we as a Church can agree that different positions on the expression of human love and sexuality can be held by Christians who respect one another's integrity. If we could, then we could move on to work out an ethic of relationship which is genuninely inclusive; and the application of the Instruments of Unity would become a great deal more straightforward… and chocolate drops would rain from heaven.

I look forward very much to your response -

With every good wish

Giles