Giles Goddard

---

"Goddard 2 Goddard" contents page

Comment on and discuss this letter on the Fulcrum Forum

---

19 December 2006

Dear Andrew,

I write with some trepidation - I have to say it feels a bit like going into the lion's den! Thank you for agreeing to a correspondence.

On the occasions we've met recently I've been struck by how much there is which unites us - not just a common surname but also a deep passion and a deep commitment to the Gospel of Jesus Christ as it's been handed down within the Anglican tradition. It seems to me too that we share a sense of grief that the situation could have reached the point which it has now reached.

I'm writing to you, therefore, in the hope that a calm and reasoned discussion in the context of shared faith and mutual respect might enable some light to be thrown on the underlying causes of the current situation, as well as finding and affirming the common ground we have as Christians first and Anglicans second. Clearly there is also much upon which we do not agree. But my hope is that we can reaffirm the commonality of our faith as a basis from which we can identify ways to live together within the diversity that is the Anglican Communion.

I am writing to you in a personal capacity, but there may be points at which it is helpful to try to set out some of the thinking of InclusiveChurch and why we have responded as we have to the present situation.

We are both very aware of the history of the C of E and of the way in which it has grown and become part of the Anglican Communion. But it bears remembering as the foundational context from which we come. I understand the C of E to have reached maturity under Elizabeth I, who, horrified by the religious violence which had preceded her reign, sought very definitely, as it says in the preface to the 1662 Book of Common Prayer "to keep the mean between the two extremes, of too much stiffness in refusing and too much easiness in admitting any variation from it." That refers to our liturgical practice, clearly. But I still remember the shock of recognition when, at school, I happened across it during a more than usually uninspiring sermon.

Elizabeth did not wish to make "windows into men's souls"; she did want to create a religious "vehicle" which had a commonality of practice and a commonality of core doctrine without excluding those who held differing interpretations of that practice and doctrine.

In short, our church is both catholic and reformed. We are by no means the only denomination which holds varieties of belief within a common context - I was privileged to train for ordination alongside Methodists and members of the URC and was struck and re-struck by, once again, our similarities with them. That may be something to do with the fact that we are all trying to work out the implications of the love of Jesus in our lives, and it may also have something to do with the fact that English Christianity became very early on a fusion - of Catholic and Celtic, to begin with! But right at the core of our practice and faith is a commitment to the historicity and catholicity of the faith held in tension with the insights and lessons of the reformation. And we owe a debt deeper than measurable to the (admittedly complicated!) work of Richard Hooker and his fellow divines who forged that understanding in the white heat of controversy, bringing us towards what is defined in shorthand as the theological approach based on "scripture, reason and tradition."

The tension that that involves is being lived out as I write. It was also perceived by the Bishops of the American church in Chicago as reaffirmed by the Lambeth Conference in 1888:

The following Articles supply [a basis for Christian unity]:
1. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as "containing all things necessary to salvation," and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.
2. The Apostles' Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.
3. The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself - Baptism and the Supper of the Lord - ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him.
4. The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.
As adopted by the Lambeth Conference of 1888, Resolution 11

I wish also to pay tribute to the Thirty Nine Articles and the history of the Church of England with its constant dialectic of reformation and catholicism - the nineteenth century in particular, with the Oxford Movement and the great protestant revivals, and the twentieth century with the changes and development in liturgical practice which have both freed us up and brought us to the point where we now find ourselves.

Enough history, already! But out of all this I take one overriding point - that it's very hard to say, precisely, what Anglicanism is. I have attended St Andrew's North Oxford on a number of occasions with my sister and have appreciated the worship there; in some ways it's a far cry from St Peter's Walworth and in others it's very close. I think the closeness is found in the fact that neither in North Oxford nor in Walworth do we expect to impose an understanding of the faith; rather, the expectation is that each of us will do our best to understand our faith within the context we find ourselves, and it is the role of clergy and teachers to provide the theological and liturgical resources to enable people to discover a relationship with Jesus for themselves.

I can see that there is a danger we may end up writing a book to each other. But before finishing this letter I want to touch on the locus of authority in Anglicanism because that, it seems to me, is the core of our problem. J Robert Wright has written a paper which sets out well the way in which authority in Anglicanism is perceived as "dispersed" - distributed across a number of institutions without any one of those institutions holding sway. In today's incredibly complex world, that breadth of authority can be seen as at least unsettling and possibly threatening, and I'm sure it is partly because of that that some parts of the church are keen to identify clearer, more delineated understandings of Christian life and faith.

The Bishop of Southern Malawi, in a recent lecture, quotes from Jean Vanier:

'Welcome is one of the signs that a community is alive. To invite others to live with us is a sign that we aren't afraid, that we have a treasure of truth and of peace to share' He also offers an important warning: 'A community which refuses to welcome - whether through fear, weariness, insecurity, a desire to cling to comfort, or just because it is fed up with visitors - is dying spiritually.'

I welcome this dialogue with you.

Yours in Christ,

Giles Goddard