Goddard2Goddard Letter 5 part 1: Giles to Andrew

8th February 2007

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.

[To continue to Part 2, please click here www.inclusivechurch.net/article/details.html

For an explanation of this project go to www.inclusivechurch.net/article/details.html ]