Goddard2Goddard Letter 6 part 2: Andrew to Giles

Part of the current teaching is against 'the sexual expression of same-gender love' and you ask how these breach the two great commandments. A full answer would be rather long(!) but in outline - knowing how unsatisfactory this will sound - I guess I would say something like this. Love of God is shown in obeying his Word (both law and gospel), fulfilling his good purposes for us, heeding his warnings about conduct incompatible with life in his kingdom, respecting his ordering of creation and the gift of marriage, resisting ungodly desires. Love of neighbour is shown in, seeing others as ultimately belonging not to themselves but to Christ, honouring others' bodies as temples of the Holy Spirit, respecting someone as male or female (I think part of the thinking in Rom 1 is that in sexual relations with the same sex we are exchanging the truth about ourselves as sexually differentiated beings for a lie), protecting and nurturing the gift of friendship love between people as something free from sexual expression. I suspect you will again agree with most of these but then apply them differently but I hope the claim is not totally implausible that in the light of Scripture as a whole the Church has been right to conclude that these broader ethical principles lead to a negative stance on same-gender sexual relationships. I guess my question in return might be to ask you to explain in what way you think the sexual expression of love between two people within the bonds of affinity breaches the great commandments.

On revelation again I can agree that God's revelation is supremely in Christ and that the Spirit leads us into all truth and I am cautious about the language of 'inerrant'. However, I do accept - in the words of the Evangelical Alliance basis of faith - "The divine inspiration and supreme authority of the Old and New Testament Scriptures, which are the written Word of God—fully trustworthy for faith and conduct”. I am therefore rather wary about too sharp a distinction between 'matters of morals' and 'our salvation' but that may be for another time….

Pastorally, thank you for sharing the vivid real-life stories you did. Among the most powerful lessons I've learned in recent years through involvement in this discussion is the importance of acknowledging goods that exist within same-sex partnerships and the losses that result from refusing any form of fellowship with those Christians who take a different view from me. Your two examples illustrate and reinforce both those lessons but - as I think you accept - they cannot be the foundation of a whole theology of sexuality. And, yes, there are of course other stories of God at work through a more conservative approach in various ways. I am, I hope, aware that 'we are dealing with real people's lives, faith and loves' and that - as you powerfully remind me - 'we have to tread carefully, lest we tread on their dreams'. But again that must shape the tone and ethos and spirit of what we say but it cannot give us the substantive content and just because something said is unwelcome does not mean it contains 'nothing positive'. I would hope I could recognise and be positive about, for example, the constancy, generosity and compassion that John and Mark show to each other and to their boys which may well outshine that shown in some marriages and traditional family structures. But I don't think it follows that I should bless their civil partnership or commend all aspects of their relationships. I wish that was not felt as 'rejection by the church' and don't think it need be given that there are evangelical churches which have openly gay and lesbian members, some in relationships, while maintaining the position I do.

I'm not surprised you were unsure how to answer my 'integrity' question as to be honest I'm not sure exactly what it is but feel it is important. When we chatted it became a bit clearer as we spoke about 'two integrities' over women's ordination and I said my problem is that although I support that stance there I cannot do so here on this issue. It strikes me that - in describing my view as 'unsustainable' - you may have a similar problem.

Part of my difficulty relates to the final, ecclesiastical point. A minority view needs first to convince the wider church that its position has integrity as a genuinely Christian position rather than just a position genuinely held by some Christians. Lambeth 1998 and numerous other councils have made clear that this has not yet been achieved. While of course councils may err (General Conventions of one province at least as much as Lambeth Conferences) and historic minorities have become majorities that does not mean we are free to assume councils have erred whenever they disagree with us and that a minority position we hold will be proved right in the future and win the day. I am surprised you think 1978 and 1988 were 'very much more positive'. I think the 1988 one resulted from the rejection of a much more 'positive' one (from your perspective) moved by Bishop Moore of New York and the 1978 one clearly reaffirms heterosexuality as 'the scriptural norm'. So 1998 was clearer and firmer but also fully in line with earlier Lambeth resolutions. It resisted pressures from a small number of bishops concentrated in a few provinces to change Anglican teaching and reaffirmed traditional sexual ethics as biblical while encouraging further study and listening and pastoral sensitivity.

Whether the 'council' of Primates meeting next week will listen and show pastoral sensitivity to one another we wait to see. The signs are not good. It probably won't surprise you to know that my own outlook and hopes are roughly in line with those expressed by what Jim Naughton on his blog calls "the odious trio of N. T. Wright, Graham Kings and Michael Scott-Joynt”. In responding to TEC and supporting Windsor bishops within TEC the Primates have to give a clear signal that we are sadly in the final paragraph of the Windsor Report where it says "We would much rather not speculate on actions that might need to be taken if, after acceptance by the primates, our recommendations are not implemented. However, we note that there are, in any human dispute, courses that may be followed: processes of mediation and arbitration; non-invitation to relevant representative bodies and meetings; invitation, but to observer status only; and, as an absolute last resort, withdrawal from membership”. Anything less than that would be to abandon all the slow but significant work of the last three and a half years.

General Convention not only failed to implement the recommendations (and the wording of 'implementation' in that paragraph makes clear that these were never simply suggestions to be modified or selectively heeded). They also elected as their new Presiding Bishop someone the Windsor Report addressed in para 144 when it invited bishops who authorised same-sex blessings "to express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached by such authorisation” and stated that "pending such expression of regret, we recommend that such bishops be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion”. The Presiding Bishop's status within the Primates' Meeting must, therefore, be seriously in question and not simply because of the 'posturing and power play' that is undoubtedly also present nor of course because she is a woman.

I hope that whatever difficulties lies ahead for us as churches as a result of decisions next week we can nevertheless move forward as a communion in relation to the covenant. My prayer is that we find ourselves able to walk back together again through reaffirming what we have in common and committing ourselves to patterns of life and decision-making that indeed do show how - despite our disagreements - we Christians love one another. And of course that at the personal level we and others may be able to build (in the name of an internet community where I first learned the importance of dialogue over this) 'bridges across the divide' rather than find ourselves burning bridges.

All the best,

Andrew.

[ For part 1 of this letter, please click on www.inclusivechurch.net/article/details.html

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