Concluding his own polite but critical review of \u201cThat was the Church that was\u201d\u009d, theologian Andrew Goddard makes the following assessment:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe key question the book raises for me is in what sense, if any, those committed to two such contrasting understandings of the church can genuinely walk together in the same institutional structure. Might it not be the case that, if either is to flourish, each needs to grant the other a distinct ecclesial space and identity to pursue two very different, probably irreconcilable, visions of\u201d\u00a6the church\u201d\u00a6\u201d\u009d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This is significant, because Andrew Goddard has for many years been at the forefront of influential leaders within the C of E who hold to an orthodox evangelical understanding of Christian faith (particularly in regard to sexual ethics), but who support solutions to the problems of disagreements over doctrine and ethics based on institutional unity rather than confessional separation. So for example, Goddard was one of the leading advocates for an \u201cAnglican Covenant\u201d\u009d and always opposed GAFCON, saying that it was contributing to the divisions in the Anglican communion.
More recently, Goddard has been a supporter of Archbishop Welby\u2019s \u201cgood disagreement\u201d\u009d policy; he was one of the first to convene a day of discussions on sexuality between revisionists and conservatives before the official \u201cShared Conversations\u201d\u009d began; and co-edited a book of essays exploring how \u201cgrace and truth\u201d\u009d can be maintained together in a divided church.<\/p>\nArchbishop Justin Welby has said many times that the unity of the church is a given, and no-one has the right to \u201cchuck out\u201d\u009d those family members with whom one disagrees. Goddard\u2019s article says clearly, contra Welby,<\/p>\n