Goddard2Goddard Letter 5 part 2: Giles to Andrew

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

[To return to Part 1, please click here www.inclusivechurch.net/article/details.html

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