Dear Andrew

So, after Tanzania, nothing's changed and everything's changed. Nothing's changed because we still have no resolution on the question of human sexuality and the listening process has progressed no further. But everything's changed because the worst fears about the meeting were not realised; there was no split, no formal disciplining of the Episcopal Church, the Presiding Bishop and the Archbishop of York were not excluded, and the Alternative Primatial Oversight requested has not been granted. The only prediction which did come true - sadly - was the absence from the sacrament of communion by some of the Primates.

Clearly Lambeth 1.10 has been reaffirmed. Clearly there is work to do by the Episcopal Church on same-sex blessings - slightly unfairly, it seems to me, as the issue of same-sex blessings was originally addressed to the Anglican Church of Canada rather than TEC. There remains the glaring inconsistency, that Lambeth 1.10 apparently has a "normative” status and authority which no other Lambeth Conference motion has ever had. But it seems that the half of one point of "Windsor non-compliance” offered an opportunity for conservative Primates to extract a promise, and I have little doubt that Bishop Katherine along with the people of TEC, despite their strong misgivings, will for the sake of the Communion seek to respond.

It seems to me that congratulations are due to Archbishop Rowan and to most of the Primates for the way in which they have sought a way forward out of the impasse in which we appear to be becoming mired. It gives us a responsibility to respond, in which I hope this correspondence will continue to play a part.

In that context I am replying to your last letter dated 11th February. I think at this stage, and following the dialogue in Dar es Salaam (however painful and ill-tempered some of that dialogue was) I need to return to the question of the "listening process.”

We've now met four times and exchanged three letters. In that time I have developed a warm understanding of your generosity of spirit and breadth of knowledge. But I am beginning to feel that what began as a "listening process” is in danger of becoming a "banging my head against a wall process”. In each of your letters you have, effectively, restated a particular position which may be considered conservative evangelical and challenged me to live with that, although I have tried to suggest a number of ways forward which may enable us to work together - most especially around the question of working out a theology of relationship which is widely applicable.

There is a story of Sidney Smith seeing two women arguing from two tall buildings across a street in Edinburgh. "They'll never agree” he said. "They're arguing from different premises.” I wonder if that doesn't begin to apply to us?

It seems to me increasingly clear that we are working under different definitions of what it means to be Anglican. To you, Anglicanism involves a particular attitude to and particular interpretation of scripture, most clearly expressed in your understanding of the meaning and significance of the five texts so often cited in discussions about homosexuality. Apparently, there can be no diversity of interpretation on these texts, and any other interpretation is a deviation from the Anglican position.

To me, Anglicanism places the Bible at the heart of our faith as the book in which the revelation of God's action in the world through Jesus Christ is contained. There is room - there always has been room - for a vast diversity of understandings as to how, precisely, that revelation is understood by our limited human intellects. For that reason we have developed the notion of the three pillars of Anglicanism - scripture, reason and tradition, and we try to work out the commonality of our faith using this Anglican method.

I am repeating this because I think it's at the heart of the difficulties which conservatives are experiencing at the moment. Those of us who might most helpfully be termed "progressive” are very happy to accept that there is a range of views on homosexuality as there is on the ordination of women, divorce, the nature and number of the sacraments, and many other things. We believe that there are core doctrines which are non-negotiable - as expressed in the Nicene Creed - but beyond that we try to live with diversity.

The problem, I am beginning to think, for conservatives is that a recognition of possible diversity on this issue appears to be impossible. The clear statement in your letters to date is that the views I hold are "wrong.”

The difficulty that you have is that it follows, logically, that I have no place in your church. Certainly not as a presbyter. Whereas I am very happy to have you in my church, although I acknowledge that you and I do not share the same the views on this and possibly on much else.

The result, for me, is that I can hear what you are saying about scripture. But I can then challenge it - I can say, for example, that the distinction you draw between homosexuality and divorce does not seem to me to add up (how do you get past a prohibition by Jesus but insist that a particular interpretation of five marginal references wrenched out of context is unchallengeable?). Or I can say that your assertion that the revised position on women is orthodox and properly Anglican is clearly challenged by the Church Society, and that your position on homosexuality is equally clearly challenged by other evangelical theologians such as Michael Vasey and David Atkinson. You have not given me good reason to think that your interpretation should be privileged above the Church Society or Michael Vasey or David Atkinson. But, recognising that Anglicanism is diverse, I can simply say "case not proven” and come to the altar to share communion with you.

I have been reflecting a great deal on what happened in Dar es Salaam at the Primates' meeting. As you know, we were glad to be able to send Colin Coward of Changing Attitude and Davis Mac-Iyalla of Changing Attitude Nigeria who were joined by Scott Gunn and Caro Hall from the Episcopal Church. We had therefore enough people to be able to witness at first hand what was happening. And what is quite clear is that there was a great deal of anger among the conservative faction at the result - especially, it seems, from Martyn Minns, but also from several others. For example, I'm told that at least two Primates shouted at Katherine Jefferts Schori in a way which was both hostile and aggressive. And course, the seven Primates absenting themselves from Communion looks very like an attempt to make a political point even if it was not intended as such. Our hearts go out to them, recognising the pain which that must have caused them.

I have read your responses to the Episcopal Church's General Convention in Columbia and to the deliberations of the Subcommittee set up to consider TEC's response to the Windsor Report. A friend of mine described them as "resolutely uncharitable” but they come across to me more as affronted; it's almost as though you are asking how an institution which claims to be Anglican can dare act in such a way, and how a Subcommittee of the Anglican Communion cannot see the outrageousness of TEC's behaviour!

I say these things because I am beginning to wonder whether the conflict in which we are all involved is not a result of these different understandings of Anglicanism. And it seems to me that this conflict is in danger of becoming a sickness which will affect the health and life of the Communion and undermine our mission.

The problem is that my position - our position - is solidly, classically orthodox Anglican. I have said to you before that I was deeply impressed by the Anglican conviction which underlay the deliberations of General Convention 2006. We (progressives) recognise that the Communion did not stop developing with the passage of resolution 1.10 at Lambeth 1998; we recognise that we are being led into truth by the Spirit; we derive our position from a proper, detailed consideration of the scriptures in the light of reason and tradition. You implied in your last letter that I read the scriptures expecting to find a certain result; in fact, I reached the views I have on scripture - which required a significant change - after many years of agonised study, reflection, prayer and learning.

It seems to me that homosexuality is, for many conservatives a "presenting cause”. Under it lies a desire which, if realised, would bend the Anglican Communion out of shape. Moving it away from the breadth and diversity which has been the Anglican watchword (mainly) since the Elizabethan Settlement and making it into a confessional church more along the lines of some of the reformation churches of the Continent. Thus conservatives are setting up a conflict within themselves - dividing their own house, so to speak - and in dividing their house they are finding it cannot stand. Hence, anger and frustration. Which in its turn finds its way into the progressive part of the church… leading towards a descending spiral out of love and into darkness.

We have to move on. We are bringing the church and the Gospel into disrepute by our undignified and anguished arguments.

We have to rediscover that hermeneutic of love through which we are led to understand the scriptures, so that we can reaffirm the gift we have been given which is the Gospel as lived out through the Anglican Communion.

The listening process needs to form part of this process of moving on. But I am starting to wonder whether conservative evangelicals aren't beginning to fear that a genuine listening process is a Trojan horse, which will require them to give up dearly held views on human sexuality. And that, as such, it must not be undertaken seriously - more as a sop to lesbian and gay people in exchange for the massive sacrifices we, and TEC, are being asked to undergo.

I think that need not be the case. The problem with our correspondence so far, it seems to me, is that you have not been able to acknowledge that there may be potential that my view might have validity. If you were able to do that, we could then move on to working out what an Anglican Communion which contained different views on human sexuality as expressed in loving relationships might look like. The listening process, to be meaningful, needs, explicitly, to contain a recognition that alternative views may be held with integrity; that those who think like me need not automatically be expelled from the Communion.

The value of theological diversity is not about 'you have your opinion and I have mine'. There are opportunities to learn from one another if there is exchange and sharing. And if people with different experiences and views can worship together, talk and listen to one another and cooperate to try to bring in the Kingdom of God, maybe the Holy Spirit will get a chance to shine through and help us all towards a deeper understanding of the truth.

I acknowledge that there are those who believe that the views I hold and way I love will lead God to reject me, and who believe that they are doing me and everyone else a favour by emphasising how serious it is to accept same-sex relationships as potentially valid. Their understanding of the promises in the Gospels and what Jesus says about the character of God is clearly very different from mine. But in any case, why single this issue out above all others (Anglican churches for instance include peace activists and soldiers whom they may believe have engaged in murder, but somehow they co-exist) and why is it suddenly necessary to achieve uniformity of belief when this has not been the Anglican way through the centuries?

So my question to you and to your fellow conservatives, before we return to the vexed questions around homosexuality, is - are you prepared to allow the potential for a diversity of views on this subject within full members of the Communion? If you are, we can begin to find a way forward together. If not, then, clearly, in the end, a split must come.

I have the prophet Isaiah in my head as we move towards Holy Week and Easter. In particular, second Isaiah. In particular, Isa 43.19 -

Behold, I am doing a new thing!

Now it springs up; do you not perceive it?

In love and fellowship

Giles