Goddard2Goddard Letter 7 part 1: Giles to Andrew

25th February 2007

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.

[ For part 2 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 ]