Unity, Order and Dissent: Addressing Dissent Within A Communion of Churches

This is the third in a series of essays on the proposed Anglican Covenant." The first, entitled "Communion, Order and Dissent," attempted to present what might be called the inner logic of the covenant--a logic that rests upon a commitment by all the provinces to "mutual subjection within the body of Christ." The second had the subtitle "On How To Dissent within a Communion of Churches." Its purpose was to show that communion, as understood by Anglicans, must have as a part of its ideation an understanding of how to dissent from common belief and practice. Apart from such an understanding communion cannot survive the inevitable disagreements that arise within and between its member churches. This third essay explores ways to address dissent that serve to sustain communion even in the face of actions that plainly are at odds with Christian belief and practice as "recognized" within the Anglican Communion. If an agreed upon understanding of the nature of dissent is necessary to sustain and strengthen communion, so also is an agreed upon understanding of appropriate ways to address dissent. No matter how deep their divisions may be these are questions the Primates dare not ignore if the communion of Anglicans is to be sustained. In the near term, however, it is a virtual certainty that they will address neither the question of dissent nor that of response to dissent. The Archbishop of Canterbury has invited the Primates to meet in Dublin, but he has done so in a way that guarantees that no significant business will be done. By inviting the Primate of a Church that has acted against the request of all the Instruments of Communion he has called for a meeting a significant number of Primates feel they in good conscience cannot attend. In view of these circumstances, there seems no good reason to call such a meeting. What of any possible value can be achieved? A primary Instrument of Communion appears to have reached an impasse. The Communion's mechanisms for sustaining communion have become dysfunctional. A part of the reason for this sad state of affairs is what the Bible calls "hardness of heart." A part, however, stems from a lack of understanding of how to dissent and how to respond to dissent within a communion of churches. This essay addresses the question of response to dissent. At the outset, I wish to state that the answer to this question will not be found in the political maneuvering that to date has characterized the Communion's response to The Episcopal Church (TEC) and the response of that church to the Communion. The way through our present morass does not follow the political ways of "this age." Rather it follows a way marked out by Christ"”the way in which judgment is contained within the wider circle of mercy. This is none other than the narrow way of the cross, and it is the only way the questions of dissent and response to dissent can be addressed in a manner that brings peace to the church. That said it is not only the crisis caused by the innovations in sexual ethics made by TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC) that have occasioned these essays. They have been written for a deeper reason, namely to initiate a discussion of how Anglican polity works (or as the case may be does not work). It is within a polity that dissent takes place and so dissent must be understood in relation to the particulars of that polity. This issue is serious. Though it lies at the very foundation of the proposed covenant, failure to understand the nature of Anglican polity is widespread--particularly in North America. As the Covenant assumes, Anglican polity rests neither upon a centralized jurisdictional order like that of Rome nor upon the unlikely eventuality of a General Council, as is the case with the Eastern Orthodox churches. Neither does it rest upon a confession or a standard reading of the Bible as in more evangelical churches. Rather, the polity of the autonomous churches of the Anglican Communion, which is conciliar in nature, rests upon the primacy of charity. It works only if there is a shared belief among the provinces that mutual subjection within the body of Christ creates the possibility for Anglicans both within and between provinces to maintain communion even in the face of widespread differences in theological and ethical conviction. Anglican polity works like the British (unwritten) constitution. Though free debate of contested ideas are both permitted and encouraged, changes in practice are generally not undertaken until there is a consensus that a significant change accords with Holy Scripture as interpreted within the Church. I cite as an example the church's practice in respect to polygamy first raised by the various missions in Africa during the 19th Century but not altered until the late 20th Century. It was in the 19th Century that the issue of putting away all but one wife within polygamous unions first came before the Lambeth Conference. Lambeth did not OK a change in this practice until over 100 years later. It is noteworthy that the African churches did not change practice until Lambeth indicated how a change in practice might be appropriate. I think it fair to say that, for Americans, a rate of change that moves at a pace as slow as this is unacceptable. Americans are an aggressive people who are extraordinarily litigious. The way Anglican polity works is frankly annoying to the American mind. We do things differently than do most Anglican churches, and this difference in recent years has come to pose an extreme threat to the entire communion. A sports analogy well illustrates the point. When I was a student at Oxford I was taken to a cricket match. Despite the game's vague resemblance to baseball, I understood little of what was going on. At one point I asked my companion why a player did A rather than B. His answer was, "B" is not cricket!" Now note what this response tells us about the difference between the British game of cricket and the American game of basketball. In basketball, fouling has become a part of the strategy of the game. There are smart fouls that give an advantage to one's team and stupid fouls that put one's side at a disadvantage. In basketball there is no "cricket." TEC has made the significant changes it has in its practice by committing "smart fouls." As the consecrations of Gene Robinson and Mary Glasspool clearly illustrate, TEC is now doing the same thing in its communion relations. The problem is that a communion of the sort Anglicans enjoy cannot long remain a communion if "It's not cricket" is traded in for "smart fouls." If the American way of making changes becomes the way of the Communion, the Communion will fragment in a more extreme manner than TEC already has. Communion among Anglicans depends upon mutual subjection--upon waiting on one another. We want free debate and theological exploration. We want diversity of opinion. In this way Anglicans have much to teach both the Western and Eastern churches. However, if the American model wins out, the lesson will become one about what not to do rather than one about how to sustain communion within the give and take of theological diversity. What then is to be done if (as TEC has) a province, for the sake of conscience, decides it must dissent and so act in a way that is not "recognized" by the rest of the Communion? It is not surprising that the Communion has no agreed upon way to answer this question. Its modus operandi, focused as it had been on waiting for a consensus to appear, did not anticipate such a novelty and so had no agreed upon way to address it when it presented itself. True, the ordination of women gave warning that such a crisis is possible. Nevertheless, the Communion determined through its Lambeth Conference that the ordination of women was not obviously contrary to scripture and so should be considered a matter for "reception" rather than an unrecognizable novelty. A majority of the provinces, however, do not believe gay ordinations and blessings fit in the same category. In 1998 the Lambeth Conference voted by an overwhelming majority when it resolved that sexual relations apart from marriage (including homosexual relations) are contrary to Holy Scripture. Since that time this position has been affirmed at various times by the other three Instruments of Communion, and the Archbishop of Canterbury has termed it "established Anglican teaching." Given the moral authority of the Lambeth Conference and the other three Instruments of Communion, I argued in my previous article "On How to Dissent" that TEC's actions are best understood as a form of ecclesiastical disobedience, and that had they been understood in this way the Communion would not be facing the crisis that now confronts it. TEC simply does not understand what dissent, expressed as ecclesiastical disobedience, requires. However, in a similar manner, the Communion does not understand how to address TEC's dissent. The fact is TEC's actions exposed a serious lacuna in the understanding Anglicans have of how to go about being a communion of churches within the sort of polycentric polity that has evolved over the years. Given this gap in self-understanding, as might be expected, reactions have been piecemeal and incoherent. Many expected the Archbishop of Canterbury to use his authority to "gather" to withhold invitations to Lambeth and the Meeting of the Primates. Though Gene Robinson was not invited to Lambeth in 2008, the bishops who consecrated him were. A significant number thought this response inadequate. Something had to be done, but what? How was the integrity of each province and that of the Communion to be preserved? No agreement was to be found on what ought to be done. Faced with this vacuum some announced that communion between their province and TEC was either broken or impaired. Others did not! Confusion reigned! Though all maintained communion with Canterbury, some Anglicans found themselves out of communion with a province that, like themselves, also claimed communion with the See that, ironically, symbolized their unity. The Anglican Communion had been seriously compromised. It did not have a common mind about how to address dissent. When a tradition like that discarded by TEC is disregarded, one must expect confusion. What we have now is a cacophony of voices each speaking into the vacuum with high pitched and jarring voice. Some call for the expulsion of TEC and ACoC from the Communion. Others argue that what TEC has done is, according the Anglican commitment to the autonomy of its provinces, within its right. Traditionalists call for confessional loyalty among the provinces. Progressives stand for pluralism and freedom as the distinctive marks of Anglicanism. The proposed covenant I believe provides a more excellent way than confessionalism or unfettered autonomy--a way rooted and grounded in love expressed as mutual subjection. Within a communion so founded, mutually recognizable belief and practice occupy a defining place. They give communion what might be called its face. The question is when novelty appears can the face one sees be recognized as belonging to a member of the communion Anglicans enjoy? The question is what is to be done when a province takes actions that other members of the Communion do not recognize as faithful to the witness of scripture? The proposed covenant in its Section Four sets out a process for assessing a perceived novelty and determining whether it is "recognizable." A Standing Committee is charged under the covenant to make recommendations when a contested matter threatens the unity of the Communion. Since the time the proposed covenant was circulated to the provinces for adoption changes in the composition and institutional location of the Standing Committee have compromised its ability to do the job with which the covenant charges it. There are ways to rectify this unfortunate situation and I pray fervently that the necessary steps will be taken. Assuming for the moment that they will at some point be taken, the question of how to respond to dissent will present itself in stark relief. The Standing Committee, the Instruments of Communion and the provinces of the Communion will have no established wisdom about what does or does not constitute an adequate response when an innovation is "unrecognizable." A number of alternatives already circulate. The proposed covenant itself recommends (3.2.6) that when matters of conflict arise, the churches of the Communion are to participate in mediated conversations that involve "face to face meetings, agreed parameters and willingness to see such a process through." In short, when faced with conflict the provinces are first to seek by an honest exchange of views what the Covenant terms "a shared mind" (3.2.4). If this process is unsuccessful, the matter is to be referred to the Standing Committee that can request the church in question to defer a "controversial action." If this request is refused, the Standing Committee "may recommend to any Instrument of Communion relational consequences which may specify a provisional limitation of participation in or suspension from, that Instrument" until the ACC and the Meeting of Primates have had an opportunity to asses whether the action or decision in question is "incompatible with the Covenant." (4.2.5) When this assessment has been made, the Standing Committee "may make a declaration that an action or decision is or would be 'incompatible with the covenant'." (4.2.6) At this point in the process, the Standing Committee is obliged to make recommendations about the "relational consequences" that flow from an action "incompatible with the Covenant." (4.2.7) These recommendations (which include an assessment of the extent to which communion has been limited or impaired and the practical consequences of such impairment or limitation) may be sent either to all the churches of the Communion or to one or all of the Instruments of Communion. The churches and the instruments are then free to accept or reject these recommendations. Contrary to the claims of many, the Covenant sets up no central jurisdiction within the Communion. What it does is to set out a process that allows the Communion to explore the meaning of "mutual subjection in the body of Christ." Specifically, it provides both a way to come to a common mind and a way to explore appropriate consequences if a common mind is not reached and the terms of the Covenant are not honored. The collective wisdom that issues from the process is no more than that--collective wisdom. The Instruments and/or the various churches of the Communion must then judge its adequacy. The terms of the proposed covenant make ample room for the truth to be spoken in love. However, it contains few directions about how to assess what consequences are most suited to sustain and strengthen communion. The Covenant sets out a foundation for covenant relations (mutual subjection) and a process for preserving and strengthening covenant relations, but it says little about assessing exactly what consequences are appropriate. In short, it provides a process for addressing dissent, but minimal guidance about the contents of such an address. There is no agreement about these matters within the Communion. More progressive voices claim that no response is appropriate beyond dialogue. The appropriate consequence for the actions of TEC and ACoC is general commitment to an extended "indaba." At this point the Archbishop of Canterbury, TEC and ACoC seem to be in basic agreement. On the other hand, a significant number of the Primates (along with Communion Partners within TEC itself) are convinced that the appropriate consequence for TEC and ACoC lies in the power of the Archbishop of Canterbury to "gather" the Primates and the Lambeth Conference. In accord with a possibility contained in the Covenant itself, they are convinced "limitation of participation in, or suspension from" one or more of the Instruments is the appropriate consequence. Others apparently believe that TEC and ACoC should be excluded from the Communion altogether. Finally, there are many who stand paralyzed like deer in headlights. They have no idea what to do. To quote both Luke and Tolstoy, the question becomes, "What then shall we do?" How indeed shall the Communion address dissent? Though its guidance is minimal, the proposed covenant sets off in a promising direction when it suggests that the Standing Committee may recommend limited participation in or suspension from one or another of the Instruments of Communion. Here is a suggestion that lies between no relational consequences as favored by many progressive voices and broken or impaired communion as favored by many traditional ones. It also accords with the steps taken by the Archbishop of Canterbury when he removed from the Inter Anglican Standing Committee on Faith and Order representatives from provinces that were assumed to have broken the various moratoria set out by the Primates. In short, one way to address dissent is to limit or suspend participation in the Communion's Instruments or ecumenical bodies. This means of addressing dissent seems to me a form of initial response far superior to the alternatives. I do not mean to say that it is never wise for a time simply to ignore a disputed issue in hopes that the furor it may cause quickly dies down. I do not mean to suggest either that it is never right and proper to announce broken or impaired communion. I mean to say only that minimal and maximal responses are rarely wise as a first response to novelties that seriously threaten the peace of the church. Furthermore, initial responses that are either minimal or maximal generally fail to enclose judgment within the circle of mercy in the way Christ has taught us. In short, the only way through the Communion's present impasse is the narrow way of Christ. First, a word about this way! It is one that does not effectively ignore the serious nature of an issue that might divide the Communion. It is also a way that does not immediately expel a dissenting province. Rather it keeps that province close, but at the same time makes it clear that it has not acted according to the customs and agreements that define and sustain Anglican identity. It says you are one of us, but for the moment you cannot participate in the councils of our communion because you have decided not to play by the rules that allow us to live together. It is in this way that judgment and mercy meet. There are two reasons this "narrow way" recommends itself--one practical and the other theological. The practical reason is effectiveness. If the Communion ignores actions like those taken by TEC and ACoC it compromises its identity as a communion. The major portion of the Global South believes that the refusal of the Archbishop of Canterbury to take action against the North American provinces does precisely that. It is for this reason that many plan to boycott the impending meeting of the Primates. On the other hand, uncoordinated announcements of impaired or broken communion by individual provinces of the Global South cause two problems. First, declarations of impaired or broken communion yield divisions that rarely are mended. Second, uncoordinated actions by individual provinces divide the Communion internally. If broken or impaired communion is indeed called for (as they well might be), a communion, if it is to remain a communion, must take such actions as a communion rather than individual provinces. The narrow way suffers from neither of these problems. It provides the Communion a means to say "No!" to an unrecognizable action in a manner that neither gives a dissenting province a way to thumb its nose at the Communion nor creates a break in relationship that is very difficult, and sometimes impossible, to mend. In short, it provides a space in time that sustains communion by guarding integrity, and it allows the parties to a dispute to remain in communion and use the time provided to reach a common mind. In the case of TEC, the narrow way would also force an internal debate about its future in the Communion and its novel sexual ethic. There is also a theological reason to prefer the narrow way. It manifests that balance between judgment and mercy expressed so well in the 18th chapter of St Matthew's gospel. Mind, the analogy between the situation depicted in Matthew 18 and the present crisis in the Anglican Communion is only partial. St. Matthew's Gospel addresses the problem of an erring brother or sister within the community of which the evangelist was a part. In this chapter he does not address the issue now faced by the Communion--an erring church. The big difference between an erring individual and an erring church is this. An erring individual has only his or her own conscience to wrestle with. An erring church has the collective conscience of an entire group to address. Clearly the second requires a longer process than the first. So Matthew's Gospel outlines a process designed both to confront an individual with their error and to make clear the moral boundaries that distinguish the community of Jesus' disciples from their social environment. If at the end of that process the individual remains unrepentant, they are to be excluded from the community. Further, Matthew connects this process of personal confrontation with authority to bind and loose, with making decisions about doctrine and forgiving or condemning a sinner. At first glance, what Matthew says appears clear cut, but it isn't. The clear directions about addressing an erring brother or sister and making judgments about belief and behavior are enclosed by the parable of the lost sheep, Jesus' statement to Peter that forgiveness must be extended to an erring "brother" seventy times seven times and the parable of the unforgiving servant. Matthew, who insists that we will be judged by our deeds (7: 21-23), also stresses the centrality of forgiveness in Christ's life and the life of the church. In the midst of its present struggles, it is this wisdom the Lord provides the Anglican Communion. As we struggle to find a way to address the dissent of TEC and ACoC, our Lord tells us to keep in play the tension between judgment and mercy, recognizing that it takes longer for a community than an individual both to repent of error or accept novelties within its common life. By providing a process for addressing dissent, the proposed covenant provides also a space in time for judgment and mercy to render a godly resolution to the division TEC and ACoC have brought about within the Communion. The narrow way provides the necessary wisdom by means of which, through this process, the Communion can keep unity and truth together in a way appropriate for these twins. Limiting or suspending participation in the councils of the Communion places faithful belief and practice front and center on the agenda of the Communion. Refusing to treat a province that dissents from what the Communion recognizes as faithful belief and practice as beyond the pale of Christian fellowship expresses the sort of mercy that lies at the heart of the Christian Gospel. Other divisive issues will without question follow the present struggle over innovations in Christian sexual ethics. If its flaws can be remedied, the proposed covenant makes room for spaces in time for the Communion to resolve disputes that might otherwise divide it. The counsel of the narrow way to which the proposed Covenant points provides the wisdom by means of which the Communion can take advantage of the grace of time. If it is to survive, a communion rooted and grounded in love expressed as mutual subjection requires that those who dissent willingly accept the consequences of their dissent, and that the communion exercise godly wisdom in the way in which it addresses dissent within its ranks. I have argued that an understanding of what is entailed in ecclesiastical disobedience establishes the reason for dissenters suffering consequences and that the narrow way of addressing dissent sets out an effective, charitable and wise way for the Communion to address the sort of dissent that threatens its integrity and unity. The chief issue of ecclesiology is how, amidst the changes and chances of history, the church can both speak to the times and remain faithful to the apostolic witness. Unfettered autonomy in a pluralistic social world can result only in an ecclesiastical Tower of Babel. The Roman solution of a centralized authority both faces severe theological problems and tends to stifle necessary theological exploration. Confessionalism has not worked so well for Lutherans and Presbyterians and has never been within the main stream of Anglican tradition. If one takes the Orthodox route of waiting for a General Council to address change, history passes by and the church finds itself in an historical backwater. If accompanied by the wisdom of the narrow way, and if the issue of the Standing Committee can be sorted out, the process set out in the proposed covenant and in the narrow way it suggests have much to recommend them. Change is addressed from within a shared tradition but face to face with the very changes that challenge that tradition. Both the process set out in the proposed covenant and the suggested wisdom of the narrow way, however, ask a great deal of the churches that make up the Anglican Communion. This way of dissenting and addressing dissent will not work apart from the presence within the church of those smaller graces listed in the third and fourth chapters of Ephesians. These are the graces that give content to the idea of love--truthfulness, lowliness, meekness, patience, forbearance, eagerness to maintain unity, kindness, tenderheartedness and, most of all forgiveness. These are the graces that undergird mutual subjection. If they are driven out by bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, slander and malice, then the communion Anglicans enjoy will shatter into fragments. What Anglicans have to offer to the churches will be lost. The next Meeting of the Primates is close upon us. Only a miracle can bring from it a godly result. One good thing is that the likely failure of this meeting serves to make visible the most extreme test the Anglican Communion has faced in its long history. Does it have a way to address dissent that preserves its unity and its fidelity to Christian belief and practice yet manifests both truth and mercy in doing so? Through the proposed covenant it is mapping out a way to meet this test, and so also the challenge of changing times. It will fail, however, if it takes the wide road of political maneuvering to address its divisions. It will fail if it takes a way other than the narrow one of judgment and mercy. It will also fail if it lacks the resources provided by the Spirit to meet such tests. It will fail if it lacks the graces that make mutual subjection a light burden and an easy yoke. Apart from the presence of these graces in the common life of the people, even the most extraordinary leaders stumble and fall.