Dear Andrew

I was glad to have the chance to meet yesterday. Your last letter, dated 31st January, gave me pause for thought and I needed to work out the best way to respond. Your very clear restatement of your position led me to question what we're trying to achieve through this correspondence, and I wish to touch on that and a couple of other matters arising from your letter before turning to the central questions.

You finished by asking "What, I wonder, can we do to lighten that load or bear it with you without having to abandon the fundamental theological and biblical convictions and vision of being Anglican I've outlined”. To which I have to say my immediate response was less than positive. But after a couple of hours I began to ask myself whether we're not at risk in this correspondence of digging ourselves into positions from which we can't move. What, I wondered, would "winning” look like? It is unlikely that you will suddenly say "Giles, I agree with every word you say and will happily bless a civil partnership tomorrow”, and it's unlikely that I will say "Andrew, I agree my sexuality is objectively disordered and I repent of all my sexual acts and agree never to do any more.” But at the same time it's unlikely that either of us will leave the church. So are we condemned to an endless restatement without resolution?

I hope not. I am certainly finding this dialogue helpful in encouraging me to think seriously about the implications of my position in relation to the whole spectrum of the faith tradition of which I am a part. But, clearly, the jury's out. We may in the end have to agree to disagree and battle on. In the meantime I think we are proceeding in hope and love.

I took great comfort from the consanguinity I find in our understanding of the gospel and the church. I have no problem in assenting to "the supreme authority of Scripture, the centrality of the cross and Christ's atoning death, the priority of mission including evangelism and the call for conversion.” I may not use those words in quite those ways, and we may find our understanding of them to be different. But the Lent Course for this parish is focusing in depth on Isa 1 - 39 and Isa 40. After Easter we are having an outreach week which will involve knocking on every door in the parish and asking residents what, if anything, they would like us to pray for, and (among other things) offering an introduction to Christianity course. We hope this will continue to bring more people to understand the Gospel and sustain and develop the growth of the church here. And the regular congregation (which is up to around 130 most Sundays) is in no doubt of the need for repentance and life change, constantly and profoundly. Evangelical Catholic Anglican, perhaps?

Labels are dangerous because they define, and one of the things I am increasingly realising is that labels don't work because they're too narrow. A constant discussion within IC is whether we're liberal, catholic, evangelical, orthodox, traditional, revisionist or just plain Christian. Or all of the above. But after a bit we stop worrying and get on with the job of trying to live and preach the Gospel. So yes, my three categories were a bit simplistic - perhaps they've served their purpose and we can move on.

But before I finally respond to the meat of your letter, I think there's a definite need to humanise the discussion. So far it's all been very theoretical. So: two vignettes.

First, a member of a congregation near here, "John” has been with his partner "Mark” for over twenty years. They are both teachers. John has a profound faith. Mark was strongly evangelical in his teens and early twenties but as a result of serious bruising (for all the normal reasons) he no longer has any time for the church or Christianity.

Two years ago, John and Mark adopted two boys aged seven and five. (Or rather, John adopted as a single person but with the support and involvement of Mark.) The boys had been with three families before then; all three placements had broken down; and it was becoming increasingly likely that they would spend the rest of their childhood in care. The boys are now thriving, receiving astonishing care and support, being brought up Christian and developing in every way. John and Mark, together with the boys, are celebrating their civil partnership in the summer. They're not going near a church. I think that's a shame.

I mention this not because it's topical and not to be provocative. On one of the Fulcrum message boards recently the question was asked, whether there are any examples of the redemptive power of God's love in same-sex relationships. The questioner need look no further. This seems to me to be an example of nourishing and nurturing love at its best. Family life.

Second, a West African member of my congregation hasn't been to church for two years. There are a number of reasons for that, but last week he rang me up and asked if we could meet. It turns out that he had been coming under pressure from friends and colleagues not to come here because of this church's policy on inclusion. He and I have discussed these matters before many times, but our conversation last week was very moving. He came back to church on Sunday and the congregation was delighted that he and his wife have returned.

You'll remember that 70% of the congregation here are of West African or Caribbean origin; some of them are lesbian or gay. Many more are deeply traditional. They are part of this church for many reasons, but at heart must be that fact that here they can encounter God and Jesus in a way which helps them to grow in their faith.

No theology can possibly be built on the back of anecdote and I have no doubt you could find powerful stories of the effectiveness of a more conservative approach. But my point is that we are not talking in a vacuum. We are dealing with real people's lives, faith and loves and in that context we have to tread carefully, lest we tread on their dreams.

And in that context I'm afraid I have to say that I don't think your position is sustainable. I don't think it's sustainable biblically, theologically, pastorally or ecclesiologically.

First, biblically. Clearly we could spend a great deal of time discussing malakoi, arsenokotai, Romans 1 and so on. But I hope you'll understand if I say that I'm not sure that's a good use of our time - that discussion is going on elsewhere. One of the most refreshing things about this correspondence is the way in which it seems to be resonating with Fulcrum members and be alongside some of their concerns, and the message boards are very full of conversation about scripture. I'd very much like to hear a conversation between you and Simon Butler, for instance, on these matters. But it is clear to me that we can't really any more say that there is only one possible understanding of the voice of scripture on matters of same-gender relationships.

I think there is a more fundamental problem about your approach. It's tied up with the question of authority. The problem, stated baldly, is that it's inconsistent.

My InclusiveChurch colleague was on to something when he talked about the question of the ordination of women. But I would say that the problem is not that the issue of sexuality may cause you to abandon strongly held beliefs; the problem is that you have already interpreted scripture and changed your views, as you acknowledge in your piece on the Listening Process. The difficulty for me is that nowhere in this discussion, either with you or with other people, have I found a credible explanation as to why this question is methodologically separate from all the other questions of which we are both aware.

Clearly the issues are different, but it's not clear to me that the method is. The question of the position of women is clearest, but divorce, slavery and usury are equally applicable. It is beyond doubt that a far stronger scriptural justification for the subordination of women to men can be made than any justification for the continued rejection of same-gender relationships. But you have moved on this to the extent that you sit opposite an ordained woman every time you have breakfast with your wife (which I assume you do!), and yet you say that the voice of scripture is clear, period, without remainder, on same-gender relationships.

I have to say that in this area I have more respect for the position of Mario Bergner who does not admit the possibility of divorce OR the ordination of women. He is, at least, consistent. Although I suspect he'd draw the line at slavery…..

So I repeat, I am fervent in my upholding of scripture as containing "all things necessary to salvation.” The question is, on this matter as on so many others, what precisely does it contain?

Which leads on to theology.

Since my last letter I have read Oliver O'Donovan's seventh sermon "Good News for Gay Christians.” I think it's a very remarkable piece of work and I greatly appreciate it. Clearly there is much within it I would wish to discuss. But I take one of its central messages to be a call for lesbian and gay people (and their friends) to do some serious theological work in order that levels of engagement can improve. To which I return a loud Amen.

The problem has been until very recently that the only theology we've been able to do has been a theology of resistance. There is no way that I could have entered into this correspondence five years ago: I was far too angry and defensive. For the past forty years we've been working towards a position where we can say we are "forgiven, loved and free”; that our place in the church is acknowledged and respected; and that our place in creation is not akin to that of a murderer but to that of a black person, a woman or, indeed, a straight man. In other words, that our existence is by definition sinful only in the way in which all humanity is sinful; that we are not specifically, existentially, ontologically sinful to the extent that our love dare not speak its name.

If we were to be able to develop a serious theology for lesbian and gay people, I think it would start with Creation rather than the Fall. It would start with our common humanity rather than that which makes us different. The parallel is with black theology and feminist theology, both of which had to move from a position of having to justify the equality of black people or women with straight white men under the eyes of God to a position of asking "what is God teaching us through the gifts and diversity we bring?” That work has not, to my knowledge, been done yet in areas of human sexuality. It's why this is not a human rights issue but a theological issue.

You may reply that sexual expression is a result of the Fall, not creation, and that the creation of male and female by God defines the order of creation; and that therefore lesbian and gay sexual acts are intrinsically disordered. If you did, you wouldn't be the first. That our similarity is therefore greater to thieves and adulterers than to black people. (I'm aware my analogy breaks down when thinking about black gay people!).

I think we could have a discussion about all that. So when I say your position is unsustainable theologically, what I mean is twofold. First, I think you do not allow for the fact that we live in a provisional world. We await the eschaton, when the wheat will be separated from the tares. Now I'm quite happy to acknowledge that I may well be gathered up with the tares and cast into the outer darkness. But I would also like the opportunity to be considered, potentially, as part of the wheat. Until that day comes, we do not know; our faith is seeking understanding. We have been given two great commandments ("the only two commandments not reducible to law” according to Paul Ricoeur), and our task is to work out what those commandments mean in the world in which we find ourselves. It might, for example, be interesting to know in what way you think the sexual expression of same-gender love breaches those commandments.

And second, I'm not sure that the theology of revelation will necessarily uphold your position. The revelation of Jesus Christ as given to us through the scriptures is the revelation of a person, not a rule book. Sometimes it seems that many who think that homosexuality is contrary to Scripture are operating with a quasi-fundamentalist model of revelation. I mean that they seem to think, perhaps unwittingly, that the authority of the Bible is impugned unless it is wholly inerrant in matters of morals, and not merely inerrant in all things which pertain to our salvation. But with us, now, is the Holy Spirit, leading us haltingly and stumblingly into all truth.

This letter is long enough and I've hardly touched on pastoral and ecclesiological issues. Perhaps those can wait. But I do briefly want to say about pastoral matters that your position is unsustainable because it seems to me that the church's current position is a disaster. We have commented on the difference between the postings on Thinking Anglicans and Fulcrum. It's quite clear to me that much of the difference comes from anger expressed on TA which covers the deep hurt caused to faithful committed and loving Christians as a result of rejection by the church. The position, and our present arguments, serve only to distance the church further and further from the people we are called to serve; on this, as on so much else, we have much to learn from the secular world. And I refer back to John and Mark - to whom, apparently, the church has nothing positive to say. Why not?

When I say "an ethic of relationship which is genuinely inclusive” of course I don't mean that "anything goes”. Inclusion is not libertarianism. It is offering welcome. Of course any ethic is by definition exclusive because it rules out certain actions as wrong. But the question remains, what actions are we ruling out? Actions which breach the two great commandments or actions which are derived from a particular view of Pauline morality?

As a church we have the potential now really to start to think what it means to be "in relationship.” How the gifts of the Spirit are expressed in love. How constancy, fidelity, generosity, openness, compassion and trust go to help human flourishing, whether in a civil partnership or in a marriage. It seems to me that that is something to strive for, and something which could offer great benefit to the church. And to the world.

You ask what I mean by "respecting one another's integrity” - given that you think my views are wrong. I'm not quite sure how to answer this, except to say that I have enormous respect for you as a minister and as a person. I'm wrestling with these issues as a result of the fact that I believe we walk better together than apart; and it seems to me that our integrity as Christians sharing a common faith is what binds us together. I am constantly reminded of the Council of Jerusalem and take comfort from the fact that the earliest Christians struggled too. Perhaps that's not quite what you wanted - I'd be grateful for clarification.

And ecclesiastically? I simply want to say that I am aware that there is a sense in which you believe that we, and TEC, are putting the cart before the horse, moving before the church as a whole is ready. The point you make about ours being a "minority” view bears that out. But I question whether that helps your case; many views have in the past been held by a minority but that doesn't necessarily make them wrong. Now whether we are justified in seeking a change, and whether the structures and procedures of the Communion are able to permit that change to happen, is an open question. But I need to refer you to article XXI and remind you that councils may err; and that Lambeth 1.10 in 1998 follows resolutions in 1978 and 1988 (to which Brian Lewis refers in his article in the Church of England News (http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/ 5th February) which have a very much more positive approach to the matters we are discussing.

Overall, there is clearly a question of church order and authority. We have agreed that the authority of Anglicanism is dispersed. We may not reach agreement on the precise status of each of the aspects of Anglican authority. But I want to assure you that none of what we within and around IC are doing is undertaken lightly, carelessly or without serious thought. It is precisely because we acknowledge the authority of the church that we are so keen to engage with it. Like you, we have a high doctrine of church! More later on all of this, I hope.

Next week is Tanzania. I suspect we're all dreading it. My hope for Tanzania is that our Primates can break with recent tradition and offer an example to the rest of the Communion - so that we can say "see how these Christians love one another.” To date we've seen far too little of that and far too much posturing and power play. I hope that in sharing time and worship and - please God - the eucharist - they will be able to move forward. Together.

With respect and affection

Giles