Conflict and Covenant in the Communion

It seems that most of my speaking engagements in recent years have focussed on three topics. Each of these is a subset of that traditionally unmentionable trio - politics, sex and religion. A standard conversation at home is "What are you speaking about this time? War? Homosexuality? The Anglican Communion?". Of course I've often found myself speaking about two of the three on the same occasion - I'm sure you can guess which two! Today I think is a first in that I'm going to speak about all three in the same presentation!

My decision to include war is obviously triggered by the title's use of 'conflict' but also by two memorable quotations. One comes from Herbert Butterfield, the distinguished 20th century Christian historian. He apparently once suggested that one could adequately explain all the wars fought in human history simply by taking the animosity present within the average church choir at any moment and giving it a history extended overtime. The roots of war, in other words, are found within the conflictual life of the church at every level. The other comes from the memorable response in 2000 of the then Primate of Canada to the consecration by the Primate of Rwanda and the then Primate of South East Asia of two American priests to serve as bishops in the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA). "Bishops", Michael Peers, said, "are not intercontinental ballistic missiles, manufactured on one continent and fired into another as an act of aggression". The means of war, in other words, have their parallels within the life of the church at every level.

Of course, we are, thankfully, no longer likely to kill each other and that is not an insignificant development and difference from literal 'war'. However, having said that, the events of recent weeks announced by Changing Attitude are a sad and shocking reminder that physical assault and threats to kill are still real dangers for some who openly identify as gay or lesbian and something all of us need to oppose and make sure we don't in any way encourage. We must also confess that at a spiritual level Stephen Bates was sadly not too far wrong in calling his book "A Church at War". We risk as an international body the sort of self-destruction brought by war. We need to recall Paul writing to one of the many New Testament churches wracked by conflict - "You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbour as yourself." If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other" (Gal 5.13-15).

So, how are we to think about conflict and making good moral decisions? What I am going to say falls into two parts - broadly a longer one on conflict and one on covenant. And in beginning with conflict I want to suggest that we can perhaps learn from the Christian tradition of just war thinking. Just war thinking developed because of the reality of conflict and sin in a fallen world and the lack of accepted legal and political authorities and institutions to mediate and resolve conflict by alternative means. That is where we are now as a Communion. Indeed, there are a number of interesting parallels between the Anglican Communion and the contemporary international community. Autonomous provinces with overarching Instruments that lack legal or coercive force are not totally dissimilar to independent nation-states with varying degrees of commitment to institutions of international community such as the United Nations which lack real power. Globalisation is making the church - like the wider world - much smaller as we are aware of what is going on in distant places. There has also in recent years been a growing willingness to intervene within a province at the request of a minority just as in international politics we have seen more 'wars of intervention'. Of course there are differences but one reason this analogy is helpful is that just war thinking is itself really the extension into the sphere of international relations of more fundamental moral principles of good judgment, the nature of a just response to wrongdoing and how to resolve conflict. The questions it asks and the criteria it brings to bear are drawn from the sphere of normal judicial and political practice. They are therefore adaptable to a range of different conflict situations. The parallel I am suggesting therefore amounts to no more than this - actions are being taken and commended within the Communion which are effectively punitive. These actions appear to damage the peace, unity and good order of the body as a whole. These actions therefore require some form of justification. The question is whether and how these can be justified.

This Anglican conflict, like war and all conflicts, can be generated by totally unjustifiable causes - the quest for power and control, rejection and hatred of others, revenge or bitterness for past hurts, financial gain. It is then fundamentally a nasty cocktail of pride, ambition, greed, power-grabbing and other sins and so must be condemned. Some of these are doubtless in play here as all of us involved are sinners. The question is whether or not the conflict is reducible to these or whether there is a just cause for the actions being taken and proposed. Is there, in other words, a good and godly basis for entering this conflict? What might be justification for such actions as declaring broken communion, consecrating bishops to minister in other provinces, and refusing to attend the Lambeth Conference? Clearly the answer being given is that these are justifiable responses to the actions of certain provinces in relation to violations of Lambeth I.10 - the blessing of same-sex unions and the ordination and/or consecration of those in such unions. For this to be convincing, three questions need to be addressed. First, whether this is a wrong. Second, if so what sort of wrong it is. Third, how serious a wrong it is.

For some, of course, there is no wrong and so no just cause. The conflict is simply a matter of human sin. That is obviously the position of groups like Inclusive Church. It won't surprise you that I don't share that view but I won't seek to argue that case now. We may come back to that in the question time and discussion groups.

So, second, what sort of wrong is it? For some it is only an ecclesiological and procedural wrong. The problem is not what has been done but when and how it has been done. The offence of the American and Canadian churches is simply that they have broken the unwritten rules of the Communion by acting unilaterally in defiance of the views of the Communion as a whole. That, at a minimum, is the view of the Instruments and the Windsor Report. Such an interpretation would justify some sort of response, for example not inviting Gene Robinson to Lambeth. However, it is hard to see how some of the more radical measures can be justified if that is all that has been done wrong.

But there is of course another view - the wrong that has led to conflict is not simply ecclesiological and one of process. Rather it is theological and one of substance. That is the view I would hold. It is also I think a view to be found in The Windsor Report in at least two key places (emphasis added). One is a matter of report about how the actions are viewed by the wider Communion. Para 28 reads "The overwhelming response from other Christians both inside and outside the Anglican family has been to regard these developments as departures from genuine, apostolic Christian faith." The other is a matter of evaluation. Para 143 reads

We believe that to proceed unilaterally with the authorisation of public Rites of Blessing for same sex unions at this time goes against the formally expressed opinions of the Instruments of Unity and therefore constitutes action in breach of the legitimate application of the Christian faith as the churches of the Anglican Communion have received it...

Clearly the matter here is more serious. But the third question is - how serious? The common response is to distinguish 'first order' or 'communion-breaking' issues from 'second order' issues and determine which of these 'homosexuality' falls into. That is, I think, too simplistic and ultimately unhelpful. It is, for example, rarely if ever made clear what about 'homosexuality' we are being asked to judge as a first or a second order issue. Nor is it clear why 'homosexuality' might be classed with such key, creedal beliefs as the divinity of Christ and the Trinity. It also tends to be asked in the abstract about an "issue", often to test the faith and orthodoxy of an individual, rather than looking at the concrete faith and practice lived out in a Christian community.

Rather than seeking to pigeon-hole "homosexuality" into one of these two categories and think that this will help us know how to deal with conflict, I think the question is better framed in terms of the boundaries of the faithful church and recognition of a church faithful to the gospel. The Archbishop of Canterbury's Advent Letter put it in these terms -

The Communion is a voluntary association of provinces and dioceses; and so its unity depends not on a canon law that can be enforced but on the ability of each part of the family to recognise that other local churches have received the same faith from the apostles and are faithfully holding to it in loyalty to the One Lord incarnate who speaks in Scripture and bestows his grace in the sacraments. To put it in slightly different terms, local churches acknowledge the same 'constitutive elements' in one another.

What, in relation to the current conflict over homosexuality, might be said that could amount to a just cause for some of the actions by more conservative bishops, provinces and networks? Relatively little has been said to answer this but one important contribution is found in the words of the words of the great German theologian, Pannenberg:

Here lies the boundary of a Christian church that allows itself to be bound by the authority of Scripture. Those who urge the church to change the norm of its teaching on this matter must know that they are promoting schism. If a church were to let itself be pushed to the point where it ceased to treat homosexual activity as a departure from the biblical norm, and recognized homosexual unions as a personal partnership of love equivalent to marriage, such a church would stand no longer on biblical ground but against the unequivocal witness of Scripture. A church that took this step would cease to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

That is a statement with which I basically agree. But I think we need to be very clear about what it says and what it does not say as it is often misunderstood or misused. He is talking about 'the boundary of a Christian church' and steps that mean a church 'would cease to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church'. It means that in responding to a body which takes such actions we are no longer judging them as corporate bodies to be manifestations of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. That is not - it must be stressed - the same as saying there are no Christians in them. Nor is it the same as saying that those who hold their views are not real Christians. That is I think one of the benefits of this approach over against the approach that asks - What do you think about X, and by the way I think X is a first order issue so you'd better give the right answer? It is saying, in other words, that when these conditions are met then we are in a position where we can no longer recognise that these local churches have, to recall those words of the Archbishop of Canterbury, "received the same faith from the apostles and are faithfully holding to it in loyalty to the One Lord incarnate who speaks in Scripture and bestows his grace in the sacraments".

The ground for judging this is clearly Scripture. Pannenberg's boundary is 'the authority of Scripture'. The steps described are judged to be 'a departure from the biblical norm'. Following those steps means one 'would stand no longer on biblical ground but against the unequivocal witness of Scripture'. The initial question is therefore whether or not we accept these principles: Are there sometimes conflicts because real boundaries in a Christian church have been crossed? Do we accept that a church can cease to be recognisable as the true church we confess in the creed? Is Scripture the test for discerning when this happens?

The next question is what sort of action could lead to making these judgments in any particular case. Here the recent work of Bernd Wannenwetsch ("Ecclesiology and Ethics" in Oxford Handbook of Theological Ethics) is helpful. He stresses the need to clarify "where there may be legitimate moral disagreement and where not, and to distinguish conduct that hampers or suspends the community from conduct that actually puts an end to it" (71). He then outlines three general types of situation and how we should judge them:

1. Moral flaws within a church's life. The proper response here is moral exhortation or excommunication of those involved.

2. A church practically tolerating immoral behaviour. It is, he claims, 'deplorable' if a church turns a blind eye to behaviour contradicting its moral esse. However, 'it is still 'only', as it were, compromising itself, not yet corrupting moral doctrine'.

   In relation to both these types he cites Calvin's warning (Institutes IV/1, 12ff) about the sin of pride being evident when one separates from a church for reason of moral flaws alone.

3. A church licensing of immoral behaviour through explicit or implicit approval. It is this which Wannenwetsch says marks the boundary. Just as with doctrinal heresy, ethical heresy must be a matter of public proclamation, not simply individual behaviour or lax church policies.

This, he argues, need not be confined to explicit public declarations which contradict the church's moral consensus. It may also happen through a symbolic act whose significance has been made unequivocal through the preceding course of action or debate. Wannenwetsch then notes that "the recent installation of the first openly homosexual bishop in the Anglican diocese of New Hampshire has been widely recognised an act of this quality" (72). He provides other examples - the South African Dutch Reformed Church's proclamation of apartheid as biblical and the German Protestant response to Nazi Aryan and anti-Semitic teaching.

Although Wannenwetsch does not cite Pannenberg's statement, his approach is I think compatible with it. In particular it warns against too rapidly reaching such a strong negative judgment of any church. It recognises that every church at every level remains a mixed body - combining wheat and tares - just as every Christian remains simul justus et peccator - both justified and a sinner. That may be a warning that needs to be emphasised in certain quarters at present.

But still we have not reached the most pressing question in our current Communion conflicts - what then might this look like in relation to homosexuality?

Pannenberg is quite clear that the church that is condemned in such strong terms is one which changes "the norm of its teaching on this matter". He is also quite clear what he means by that in relation to sexuality. The church he believes crosses the boundary is one which has "ceased to treat homosexual activity as a departure from the biblical norm, and recognized homosexual unions as a personal partnership of love equivalent to marriage". It is, in other words, a church whose normative teaching is to treat homosexual activity as compatible with the biblical norm and which denies the uniqueness of marriage by treating homosexual unions as equivalent to marriage. The language here interestingly echoes in part the 1998 Lambeth resolution I.10 ("homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture") but more closely the earlier statement of 1978 - "we reaffirm heterosexuality as the scriptural norm". Not only the Lambeth Conference but also the Church of England's House of Bishops is therefore quite clearly within this boundary. They state not only that "homosexual people are in every way as valuable to and as valued by God as heterosexual people" (Issues in Human Sexuality, 5.4) but also as a "fundamental principle of equal validity and significance" that "homophile orientation and its expression in sexual activity do not constitute a parallel and alternative form of human sexuality as complete within the terms of the created order as the heterosexual. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not equally congruous with the observed order of creation or with the insights of revelation" (Issues in Human Sexuality, 5.2).

Whether or not one agrees with Pannenberg it is vital to be clear again what it is saying. It is important to realise for example that it does not lay down the extent of pastoral accommodation possible. Positions many evangelicals might consider too 'liberal' or 'pro-gay' therefore do not cross this boundary. The bishops who focussed on sexuality at Lambeth wrote in their report that "we must confess that we are not of one mind about homosexuality". They then outlined four views. The third was "those who believe that committed homosexual relationships fall short of the biblical norm, but are to be preferred to relationships that are anonymous and transient". A church that held such a view would not I think fall foul of Pannenberg's test. The only view of the four which could is the one which says that "the Church should accept and support or bless monogamous covenant relationships between homosexual people and that they may be ordained".

Panneberg's statement is, therefore, not a justification for breaking communion simply due to strong disagreement about homosexuality. Nor does it justify this because homosexual relationships are tolerated within a church. It is a nuanced delineation of the boundary which is much more limited than it is often understood to be both by those who think they approve of it and those who are horrified by it.

So what if we apply Pannenberg's statement to the current conflict in the Anglican Communion? What is the outcome? Has anyone in the Communion crossed that boundary? There is no official teaching of any province that explicitly says what Pannenberg condemns. It is, however, I think clear that there are dioceses and at least one province that have breached Pannenberg's rule. That explains why their actions have, as the Primates said in 2003, torn "the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level". It is they, in other words, who have been schismatic - the Greek word behind that term is surely alluded to in the reference to "tearing". We need to acknowledge that and to understand that this is the level of conflict we are now facing in the Communion.

But although a 'just cause' is a necessary justification for war it is never sufficient. Likewise, even if you accept Pannenberg's test and believe parts of the Communion have failed it there are still more hurdles to overcome before it is clear what response is justifiable. As well as looking back to a cause one has to look forward to the intended outcome. In just war thinking this is the test of right intention. As Augustine paradoxically put it - "war is waged in order to attain peace. Be a peacemaker, then, even by fighting, so that through your victory you might bring those whom you defeat to the advantages of peace" (Letter 189, to Boniface). The application to the Communion is, I think, clear. If one believes a serious wrong has been done. If one accepts that the fabric of the Communion has been torn. Then one's actions in response must not intend to tear the fabric further. They must be ones which - to coin a phrase - seek to "repair the tear". That, I think, raises serious questions about some of the actions in response to developments in American and Canada.

A further challenge is raised by asking about "legitimate authority". Here the question is not "Why is this action justified?" but "Who has authority to take this action?" Here we enter the minefield of authority in Anglicanism. I want to make three brief points. First, Anglican provinces are autonomous. In line with their own constitutions and canons, they order their own relationships of communion with other ecclesial bodies. I believe that each province is therefore free to declare broken or impaired communion with others. They can, if you like, use Pannenberg's test or something similar, reach their own conclusion, and act upon it. If they can no longer recognise a diocese or province as part of the church catholic they are also free to act to establish new bonds of communion and even provide episcopal leadership which they can recognise.

BUT, second, Anglican provinces are also interdependent and within the Communion there are instruments which have moral authority. Actions by autonomous provinces should respect that authority. Where they disregard it they cannot claim to be speaking or acting for the wider Communion. Nor can they expect the wider Communion to accept, recognise or authorise their actions. They also need to recognise that such actions are likely to increase rather than decrease or resolve conflict in the Communion. That applies not only to the election and consecration of Gene Robinson. It applies also to American priests being consecrated by other provinces to serve as bishops in America. It is not that such actions can never be justified. Rather they should - if we are serious about being a Communion - be taken together in common counsel not individually or in small sub-groups. The Advent Letter again explains this in these terms:

The view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in recent years is that interventions are not to be sanctioned. It would seem reasonable to say that this principle should only be overridden when the Communion together had in some way concluded, not only that a province was behaving anomalously, but that this was so serious as to compromise the entire ministry and mission the province was undertaking. Without such a condition, the risk is magnified of smaller and smaller groups taking to themselves the authority to decide on the adequacy of a neighbour's ministerial life or spiritual authenticity. The gospels and the epistles of Paul alike warn us against a hasty final judgement on the spiritual state of our neighbours.

Third, as presently constituted, the Instruments appear unable and/or unwilling to take greater authority to themselves in these matters. The Primates said that a failure to implement Windsor would mean "the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion". There was then, however, no consensus as to whether the American bishops in September last year had done enough. There is also no clarity as to what the consequences would be if the Communion as a whole believes they have not. The result, sadly, is that some provinces have - like certain nations when the UN is unable or unwilling to agree to what they want in relation to international conflicts - used their legitimate provincial authority to act apart from the wider Communion. The only way round this, I believe, is for Lambeth to address the sort of questions raised by the Advent Letter and the Pannenberg test and for work to proceed apace with the Anglican covenant to which we will turn in a moment.

But before turning from conflict to covenant there are further questions which relate to timing. These are the just war conditions of last resort and reasonable prospect of success. These are, in many ways, the most difficult judgments to reach consensus on. So much is a matter of judgment as to urgency, whether there are realistic alternatives etc. We must also not forget that many provinces have, by their own standards, been very patient. The Global South, after General Convention 2003 and before the emergency Primates' Meeting were saying they had effectively judged ECUSA to have walked apart from the Communion and sought repentance by Easter 2004. That is four years ago now. The wheels of the Instruments grind terribly slowly particularly compared to the speed not only of individual provinces but the increasing power of networks, pressure groups and the blogosphere.

Christian theology has not only shaped just war thinking. It has also, at its best, sought to find alternative ways of resolving conflict. Indeed, Lambeth I.4 stated that the Conference "commits its members to prayer, mediation, and any active, non-violent means we can employ to end current conflicts and wars and to prevent others". Back in 1930 the Conference even declared - and has subsequently reaffirmed - that "war as a method of settling international disputes is incompatible with the teaching and example of our Lord Jesus Christ". By analogy, an alternative to the disorder and disruption of the conflict of recent years is, surely, a prize well worth working towards. It is surely a goal for which it is worth making even significant sacrifices. But what might such an alternative to our current form of conflict look like?

The covenant was of course proposed in The Windsor Report and accepted by the Instruments. Its first Nassau draft of January 2007 was based largely on the Global South's draft covenant and responded to across the Communion during 2007. The latest 2008 draft - known as the St Andrew's Draft - is to be discussed at Lambeth. It will then be further reviewed and revised later this year. Like the Nassau draft it has both affirmations and commitments on three central themes - our inheritance of faith, our mission and our unity and common life. The major development in the latest draft addresses the subject we've been looking at today - conflict. It offers a draft appendix on "framework procedures for the resolution of covenant disagreements". This outlines how covenant partners will address conflict and it is that I want to sketch here, as we conclude, drawing connections back to our earlier discussion.

First, what sort of cause justifies appeal to these procedures? The basic rationale for is simple and stated in 2.1. The situation that might trigger appeal to these procedures is

If a Church (X) proposes to act or acts in a way that another Church (Y) or an Instrument of Communion (Z) claims to threaten the unity of the Communion and the effectiveness or credibility of its mission, then X Church, Y Church and Z Instrument shall...

The "just cause" for appeal to these processes is therefore the belief that a church within the covenant has acted or is proposing to act in a manner detrimental to the unity and mission of the Communion. That appeal cannot be made by individuals or parishes or even a diocese but rather by another church or one of the Instruments (other than the ACC).

What is the "right intention"? That is also clearly stated - "to resolve the matter" and it is clear how that should be done -

All processes for the resolution of covenant disagreements which threaten the unity of the Communion and the effectiveness or credibility of its mission shall be characterised by the Christian virtues of charity, humility, patience and gentleness and the canonical principles of fairness, transparency, and reasoned decision-making (1.1).

The initial means for doing this - the first resort if you like - is "informal conversation". But that may not reach a satisfactory solution. Section 3 of the appendix therefore sets out the way the principle of consultation will work and effectively answers the key question about legitimate authority.

Here the first port of call would be the Archbishop of Canterbury. He has a month either to seek to resolve it personally through pastoral guidance or to pass it to another authority - what will doubtless become known as "the three Wise Men" though hopefully at least one will be a woman. If the pastoral guidance track is chosen but fails to resolve it within a month, then the three Assessors, as they are officially called, would have to consider the problem. They have a month to choose between four different ways of dealing with the problem. In effect these four ways are the application of two other key principles in just war thinking and all judgment that we haven't explicitly mentioned - proportion and discrimination. The Assessors in effect have to answer the following questions:

1. Does the matter really involve a threat to the unity or mission of the Communion?
   If it is clear that it does not then route 4 is followed - mediation.
   If it is unclear whether it involves such a threat or clear that it does then the next question is

2. Is time of the essence?
   If time is not of the essence and rigorous theological study would help then the issue can be referred to a Commission for evaluation. This is Route 3
   If it is unclear if time is of the essence then it is referred to another Instrument of Communion, probably the Primates' Meeting in most cases. This is Route 2.
   If it is clear that time may be of the essence and that the issue involves a threat to the unity or mission of the Communion then the Archbishop of Canterbury will make a request. This is Route 1.

Their determination is then passed on to the Archbishop who within a month decides which of the four routes to follow. Unless it is sent for mediation, each of the other 3 routes ultimately leads to a request being made to the Church whose actions have been challenged. Route 1 - the fast track - means a request from the Archbishop within a month. Route 2 means a request from another Instrument within a year. Route 3 means a request from a Commission within eighteen months.

The Church then has six months either to accept or reject the request. No response is to be considered a rejection. Acceptance of the request closes the matter. Rejection, however, presents a problem. The conflict remains unresolved and has perhaps deepened. The proposal here is that the ACC then decides "whether the rejection of the request is compatible with the Covenant". If it decides it is compatible then the matter is closed. If, however, it decides the rejection is incompatible with the Covenant then the Church will relinquish "the force and meaning of the purposes of the Covenant". This will be either by voluntary relinquishment or by determination of the Council. Here we reach the "last resort" - some form of exclusion. Except, because we have a gospel of reconciliation, this is not really the last resort because in such a situation, "a process of restoration with the Church involved in consultation with all the Churches of the Communion and the other Instruments of Communion" will be initiated as soon as possible.

There are, of course, all sorts of questions about the value and likely effectiveness of this current and very recent proposal. But what it is seeking is I think, unquestionably, what we need. Conflict is a reality at every level of the church. As we have seen it is not always wrong - it can be justified when matters of truth and integrity are at stake. If our conflicts are set in the context of an explicit covenant then we may be able to avoid at least some of the horrors we now know can arise. If we can agree the boundaries of faithful Anglicanism. If we can establish procedures by which we will address future conflicts about actions that transgress them and threaten our unity and mission. Then we will have gained a pearl of great price as a result of the conflicts of recent years. That indeed is a goal worth making great sacrifices for.

If, however, we let the conflict continue to escalate and serious and long-term fractures result we face a scandalous nightmare scenario of serious division probably at every level of Communion life. I began with a quote from Butterfield about conflict in church choirs. Another famous quote from him described the post-World War Two, Cold War situation. It is a scenario we perhaps need to beware of finding ourselves in as Anglicans just as divided Christians have found themselves in it in the past:

The greatest menace to our civilization today is the conflict between giant organized systems of self-righteousness - each system only too delighted to find that the other is wicked - each only too glad that the sins give it the pretext for still deeper hatred and animosity.

I don't believe we are there yet, thankfully. However, you don't have to read many blogs to realise some people are pretty close and it may be where we are headed. The only antidote to that threat and to our current conflict is ultimately of course the gospel. The gospel of reconciliation. The gospel which leads to a pattern of life that does not deny or avoid conflict but sets it in the context of covenantal commitment to Christ whose conflict with sin led him to the cross and the new covenant in his blood. The gospel which is lived out in obedience to Paul's exhortation to the Ephesians:

As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit - just as you were called to one hope when you were called - one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum