Goddard to Goddard: Giles to Andrew, 29 May

Thanks for yours dated 8^th March. I’m going to answer briefly because it may be that we should soon find other ways of seeking mutual understanding.

It seems to me that the main content of your letter is a response to two points in mine of Jan 24th. First, you identify the phrase I use “I think at the moment the place that I part company with the Church is that whereas I see their sexual expression as integral to the relationship's godliness the Church sees it as inimical” and seek to unpack that, and second, you ask for clarification of my use of the word “integral” in the context of “I see their sexual expression as integral to the relationship's godliness.” I’m going to respond to the questions you raise around that, and to reach some sort of conclusion.

To take the second point first. By “integral” I didn’t mean “necessary” - I meant “giving profound expression to” in the sense that the relationship would be less a reflection of God’s love if it did not involve sexual expression. Of course I’m not making the sexual expression of love essential to a relationship; but it’s quite clear that, both within scripture and in tradition, sexuality properly expressed is seen as a profound reflection of love between two people and a manifestation of the love of God in the world. There is abundant evidence of same-gender relationships and heterosexual marriages which are clearly deepened and brought closer to God through the “delight and tenderness of sexual union” (I quote from Common Worship).

Second, you ask how I can reconcile my belief that the sexual expression of love with the current position of the church. To which my response is two-fold. First, it’s quite clear to me that the church is wrong on this. It’s not the first time the church has been wrong – I’m sure I don’t need to remind of you the times it’s changed its mind. The witness of those who have disagreed with the position of the church on other matters has led to change; those of us who believe that it is neither unorthodox nor against the witness of scripture to affirm LGBTI relationships are in some small way witnessing to the need for change.

Secondly, and fortunately, the church is not as monolithic on this matter as some would wish it to be and I perhaps implied in my last letter. The House of Bishops has acknowledged the existence of civil partnerships in a statement notable mainly for its ambiguity. Canon B5, the canon which governs the church’s liturgy, permits a minister to use his or her discretion in providing forms of worship on occasions for which no authorised form is provided. It’s worth noting that the form of service in Common Worship following a civil marriage is called a “service of prayer and dedication”. It cannot be considered pastorally inappropriate for two friends who have entered into a legal contract to be offered a service of prayer and affirmation and indeed the Statement of the House of Bishops, while not authorising a liturgy, encourages pastoral responses to requests for prayer in such circumstances.

So although there is a difference between my position and the current position of the church, it's one I live with. For the sake of absolute clarity, I do not see any conflict between my position and the witness of scripture. I referred in my last letter to the two great commandments identified by Jesus, to love God and love our neighbour. These, and the saving act of Jesus in through the crucifixion and resurrection, are the lens through which we read the scriptures. The New Covenant fulfils and completes the Old; as you know, we do not slavishly hold to all the prohibitions and legal provisions of the Levitical code because we recognise that a Christian understanding of the Levitical code was transformed by the life and death of Jesus. The Epistles too are to be read in the context of the Gospels; the writings of Paul and the teaching of Jesus are inseparable. I repeat, I find no specific references within scripture to sexual expression between two people of the same gender in a committed and loving relationship. And although you quote Pannenberg (for whom I have much respect), I have to say that there is such a substantial body of reputable academic work which challenges the conservative reading of the seven texts that I can only say that there is, now, no theological consensus on how to read them.

You appeal too to tradition. But again I respond that the tradition is by no means as monolithic as some suppose. The work, among others, of John Boswell and Alan Bray indicates the existence of close and passionate friendships between people of the same gender throughout the last two millennia, and the existence of liturgies of celebration of such friendship. And, as I’ve said before, the existence of a dominant tradition doesn’t necessarily make it right.

You say that we have to make the case for a biblical and theological justification of the possibility of same-gender relationships as equivalent to marriage (and, by the way, I’m astonished that you make reference to procreative capacity - surely you’ve accepted that contraception is permissible and therefore that sex can be simply making love?) I think that case has, over the last thirty years, been amply made. The fact that it hasn’t convinced the conservative camp perhaps has more to do with entrenched attitudes than with the strength of the case – after many years of engaging with conservatives I find myself wondering what would seriously make a difference to our discussions? I found the time we all spent together recently fascinating for a number of reasons, but mainly because I began to understand how deeply the teachings of Calvin appear to be opposed to the recognition of experience as implicit both in our reasoning and our interpretation of scripture and tradition. I have certainly found an intransigence in some of my discussions which is, to say the least, perplexing; a particular interpretation of scripture on one issue is elevated to something which appears to be more important to the conservative camp than all the much more important commonalities which hold the church together.

You will by now have gathered that I am beginning to lose patience with all these discussions. The church is being profoundly and perhaps irreparably damaged by the common perception of it as misogynistic, homophobic and with nothing to say to society. Those of us who are trying to move it on, celebrating the consecration of women as bishops and engaging all sectors of the community, are routinely marginalised and excluded. As we approach Lambeth, I begin to see the sense in the GAFCON conference carrying out its threat to separate from the body of the Anglican Communion so that the rest of the Communion can get on with the work of mission and evangelism to which we are called.

And my hopes for the Lambeth Conference? Deeper mutual understanding and faith, as the Archbishop hopes. By all means, let’s have a Covenant if it helps; but it’s quite clear that any Covenant which will be agreeable to the Bishops will not have the punitive and exclusionary provisions some seek and will, therefore, not take us much further down the line of resolving this issue. But overall, I hope that all the Bishops will be humble enough genuinely to be able to hear one another. A triumph, perhaps, of hope over experience.

My perplexity remains this. There is a church down the road which refuses to re-marry divorced people. There is another which refuses to recognise the priesthood of women. Both are Anglican. I do not like, or agree with, either of these positions but I respect their membership of the same church as St Peter’s Walworth. You may not like, or agree with, my recognition under God of same-gender relationships. But I remain at a loss to understand why you and your colleagues have elevated this question to the status it now has. It may, as Gene Robinson says, have something to do with the end of patriarchy. It may, as others have suggested, have something to do with the way in which conservative evangelicals have moved on the question of divorce and now seek to draw a line in the sand which, they hope, will not be quite so close to home. I don’t know. What I do know is that that the Anglican church of St Peter, Walworth, and many other churches across the country are thriving and vibrant, celebrating as they do the full inclusion of all people in the City of God and offering the unequivocal welcome of Jesus Christ to anyone who chances across their thresholds. And for that I give much thanks.

Yours as ever

Giles