Cross-posted at Communion in Conflict

Kenneth Kearon, the Secretary-General of the Anglican Communion, has just published a follow-up to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Pentecost Letter. It has simply added kindling to the fire now blazing in the Anglican Communion and is generating genuine surprise and, in many corners of TEC, outrage — so much so that some progressives are even suggesting that TEC should withhold funds from the Anglican Communion, a tactic that most of these same progressives have, if memory serves, argued against when traditionalists have withheld funds from TEC. I am hopeful that cooler heads will prevail and that someone will remember the Golden Rule — and follow it! — but one never knows nowadays.

Which brings me to the title of my post: Years ago, an Episcopal priest who is also a psychologist and therapist shared with me an aphorism that has become central to my ministry, and indeed, to my ecclesiology. He said, “you can be right, or you can be in relationship.” At first, I rebelled against that notion — too bumper sticker, for one. And isn’t it sometimes better to be right than in relationship? But after mulling over that question, I could only answer: Only if being right were more important than being in relationship. And then I tried to think of instances where that would be true. While there certainly may be such situations, when it came to living out my faith, I found that if the center of my discipleship is communion with God and each other through Christ, then being right was only as good as the relationships of communion that my own or others’ rightness fostered.

Some time ago, I explicated this aphorism in a set of “RR Theses” (for “Right/Relationship”). (That earlier post and the challenging comments it generated may be found here.) Now would be a good time for a refresher, I think:

RR1. Just because I think (some) people are (in some cases dead or even dangerously) wrong doesn’t mean I can’t be in relationship with them.

RR2. The type of relationship I can be in with people who are different from me (and whom I am convinced are wrong) will be influenced by how wrong we view each other to be, but it does not have to be determined by this fact.

RR3. To claim that I cannot be in relationship with you because you are wrong (or vice versa) is an act of will, not a statement of fact. In point of fact, in many cases, the choice of my rightness over being in relationship with you will turn out to be a sinful choice.

RR4. The choice of my own rightness over relationship is sinful because it idolizes my own understanding and sets it up as the measure of all things. It leads too often to self-righteousness.

RR5. The choice to be right rather than in relationship may also reduce the ontological value of whatever it is that I hold to be right. That is, the purpose of “being right” is so that one can witness to the Truth within the context of relationships with those who (like me) are not yet fully dwelling in the Truth as it is in Christ.

RR6. The choice to be in relationship with others — all others — is not the same as being “in communion” with them, though it is a step toward accepting the gift of communion that comes from above.

RR7. If we think of communion as existing only where there is agreement, we will be willfully excluding ourselves from participating more deeply in the gift of communion that God makes possible through our common baptism into Christ.

RR8. Every time we choose to be right instead of being in relationship, we refuse the riskiness of communion.

RR9. Communion — true communion with God and each other in Christ — is an awesome and dreadful thing, precisely because it establishes relationships not of our own choosing, and demands a kenosis that is deeply at odds with our self-centered, fallen tendencies.

RR10. Kenosis often begins with listening.

These are some of the foundational assumptions I return to time and again when faced with conflict. It makes me realize how even my most charitable posts fall short of the mark, in that in my desire to prove myself right (or clever, or good, or holy, or reasonable, or whatever), I all too easily fall into the trap of putting my own rightness over relationship and close myself off to others, or create stumbling blocks that keep others from wanting to pursue authentic relationship, whether with me, others, the Church, and/or God. To the extent that my last post, for instance, unnecessarily stirred up the all-too-real pain that people on all sides of this issue experience daily, please accept my apologies. At the same time, I hope that readers will admit that in an open, honest, dialogue, pain is inevitable, and we must all take personal responsibility for how much pain we individually and collectively can tolerate, and when it is intolerable, remove ourselves from that source unless or until such time as we can re-engage (without, however, creating an emotional cut-off that permanently excludes the possibility of future reconciliation and relationship).

That said, I have a brilliant post in mind about how the two Pentecost letters display dueling metanarratives and how part of our problem is that we don’t recognize the downside of the metanarratives we favor, or the degree to which metanarratives at odds with each other actually overlap in their ability to tell truths about reality (a sort of Venn diagram comes to mind here, with truth existing in the intersections of metanarratives, such as “oppressed versus oppressor” and “rebellion versus accountability”). Surely someone has already figured this all out and written a tome (or at least a doctoral dissertation) on this topic, and if you know who has, please post a comment with bibliographical details! For now I will only summarize one of my conclusions: beware those metanarratives that are most convenient and lead to our feeling the most self-righteous and vindicated.

Finally, an observation about a subtle but essential shift in terminology employed in the archbishop’s and secretary-general’s missives: In previous iterations of possible “consequences,” Rowan Williams and others have speculated about the utility of reducing the participation of troublemaking provinces (such as TEC and the Southern Cone) in the Anglican Communion from full member status to “observer” status. I believe that was the term applied to TEC representatives to the ACC following Bp. Robinson’s consecration. This term has been replaced by “consultant.” Consultant is a much more relationally rich term than “observer.” It also accords a greater respect than “observer,” which is passive and powerless by definition. By contrast, a “consultant” is invited — even sought after, perhaps — to share her views and to advocate for her cause. A “consultant” does not have the power to make decisions except insofar as the consultant’s advice is heeded. A “consultant” thus is given the job of learning how to speak so others can hear. It is a worthy vocation for a servant-leader. If the leadership of TEC is wise, it will embrace its newfound vocation wholeheartedly, in a kenotic Spirit.

View the original post

You make it hard to respond, because I can’t get past the question, “Am I responding just to show I am ‘right or clever, or good, or holy, or reasonable, or whatever!’”

Nevertheless, here goes.

Does not the nature of the relationship determine the place of “being right” in that relationship? Plus there seems to be a fuzziness about what constitutes “being right.” Being right doesn’t have to be about logical propositions. Being right can be a matter of affections and emotions. When my wife is angry at me because I have hurt her, often (!) she is “being right.” My “being right” is then all about stopping my self justification and defensiveness, and apologizing (and buying flowers!). This would be the contrapositive to your RR5: Being wrong makes it impossible to be in relationship.

My relationship with a doctor or a lawyer is often hinged upon the fact that they are “being right.”

The question to be asked is, “What in fact DOES break relationships?”

The current vogue is to point to the “Relational Trinity” to define the very nature of relationship, and the claim is made that relationship is at the heart of reality. I think this has much to commend it. If correct, relationship has a very high cosmic priority!

And it seems to follow that our telos is to somehow join into this reality. It is a great mystery that we will join the Trinity’s dance!

But then reality rears up and reminds us that at our heart there is an ontological “wrongness.” As Tom Wright says, at the Cross, we see “justice and peace kiss.” At the Cross, Jesus made us right and simultaneously restored relationships.

And so I am to my initial reaction: it is a false dichotomy between rightness and relationship. In actual fact, to put in terms of logic: relationship if and only if being right.

Of course, you’re right, Charlie.  Except where you’re wrong!

I think calling the distinction a “false dichotomy” is overstating your case.  The dichotomy is a useful one, insofar as it can be a heuristic for discerning how our strongly-held convictions and emotional responses shape the relationships we are in and determine which relationships we pursue or eschew.  In the example with your wife, I would say that there’s a difference between “being right” and “being in the right.”  That is to say, even when we are “in the right,” we put a priority on relationship because we do not allow our “being right” to be the foundation upon which the relationship rests.  You are married to your wife and are committed to her whether you are right or she is right, or “in the right,” or what have you.  Who is “wrong” or “in the wrong” will change from time to time, situation to situation, but the fact of commitment doesn’t.

But enough of that…As to your final point, I would say that “right relationship” comes from right relationship with God, which as you rightly write, comes through the peace that Jesus has established in his redemptive work on the Cross.  But being in right relationship is a gift of grace, and so evokes from us, I hope, a grace-filled response to those whom we view as wrong.

So I’m not quite getting how we both have to be “right” and to what degree we have to be right in order to be in relationship.  It seems to me that the choice to be in relationship is, if not prior to the condition or state of being right, at least ultimately transcendent of that condition, since being right is something in constant flux.  Sometimes I’m right.  Sometimes I’m wrong.  By grace, we stay in relationship.

I think the strongest arguments against the R/R theses are those that consider what is appropriate and healthy functioning when a relationship is abusive or dysfunctional.  But even there, Christ sets the bar rather high, in that another’s dysfunction or even abuse doesn’t need to be determinative of my loving, kenotic response to that person.  Jesus prays from the Cross, “Father, forgive them.”  That’s an openness to relationship and reconciliation even in the face of the most extreme form of human rejection of relationship possible:  murder.

Isn’t the statement “You can either be right or be in relationship” just another form of being right?  That isn’t what we read in Holy Scripture when it comes to the essence of the Faith.  Paul could be right or he could be in relationship with the Judaisers.  Jesus could be right or be in relationship with the High Priest and with Rome. 

When applying the RR principle to the current situation it seems that TEC has chosen being “right” (in its own eyes) rather than being in relationship.  All the instruments of communion said “Please don’t do this.  If you do this, it will harm the communion.”  TEC chose to be “right” and continue to do what it was asked not to do.

To take Charlie’s marriage analogy a bit further, if a husband continues to be unfaithful to his wife, it is not the wife that has ended the relationship - it is the husband - even if the wife filed for divorce.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

My major point was that “being right” needs to be broadened to include more than just being right in a logical, rational, or doctrinal sense. When you do that, the dichotomy goes away.

Yes, I see your point now—that being formally “right” doesn’t really have any value within the context of Christian community unless it serves to edify the community.  When we are living out of love as described in I Cor. 13:4-8, the balance is inherent:  love “does not insist on its own way” yet “rejoices in the truth,” and this rejoicing (rather than dogged, legalistic, serious, angry insistence that one’s own understanding of the truth is the only way and is mandatory for all others in order to be in relationship) enables the Church in love to bear, believe, hope, and—most importantly—endure even in conflict.

Two comments:

James Alison has written somewhere about the importance of treating with respect those with whom we disagree, especially when they come to discover that we are right! No rubbing their noses in their error. Of course, the point is that we would want to be treated with compassion when we discover how wrong we have been.

I continue to find the point that Phil makes - as well as the analogy - troubling. I did not break off my relationship with the Primate of the Church in Kenya, in whose home I had been trested to roast goat. He chose to end the relationship. “Don’t consecrate Gene Robinson or it will end our relationship” sounds a bit like coercion to me.

Was that in Alison’s book, The Joy of Being Wrong, by any chance?

What is wrong with a wife saying to her husband “If you dont’ stop having sex with other women, I will divorce you?”  If you had a couple that came in for counselling and the husband continued to have extra-marital affairs and refused to stop would you call the wife’s ultimatum to be “coercion” or would you call it “healthful disassociation.”  How about if the Husband claimed that God told him directly over several years that extra-marital affairs would ultimately be good for the marriage and that he constantly checked with his male friends and and the women that he had affairs with and they agreed with him? 

I keep bringing this point up and you never seem to acknowledge that TEC is the one who made changes to the faith and order of the Church.  If it was just the Archbishop of Kenya or of Nigeria or of Uganda or of the Southern Cone that would be one thing.  But all of the Primates in the Anglican Communion said that if the Consecration of V. Gene Robinson went forward, it would “tear the fabric of the communion at its deepest levels.”  TEC’s Presiding Bishop agreed with this statement and then proceeded to “tear the fabric” (schism) of the communion.

It seemed that TEC was more interested in being “right” than it was in keepiing the communion in relationship.  It knew the consequences of consecrating +Robinson and +Glasspool and determined that being right was more important that being in relationship.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Hi Phil,

I thought I’ve been clear all along that it is manifestly obvious that TEC has departed from the traditional faith and order of the Church Catholic, and that I believe TEC has consistently chosen to be right rather than in relationship.  (I’ve also asserted the same charge is true of anyone who has taken a reactionary rather than covenantal approach to this conflict.)

As for marriage counseling, which is never a perfect analogy, of course, I’m fine with a spouse saying, “If you don’t stop having sex with other women, I will move out.”  But I hold to the Catholic theology and ethics respecting divorce, which is sacramental and covenantal, while at the same time never requiring a spouse to remain hostage to another’s abuse or infidelity.

It occurs to me that while dispensations from marriage (based upon the incapacity of one spouse to live into the sacramental and covenantal nature of marriage) is pastorally and dominically allowable in such a case in order to free the offended spouse to enter into a *real* marriage, I do not know of any parallel mechanism within ecclesial relationships that is not inherently schismatic.  But it’s been that way since the first century, and I don’t expect any of us will cut that Gordian knot any time soon.

Nathan,

My most recent post was targeted more at Daniel that you.  Concerning marriage, I don’t see why the offended party (if you don’t stop having sex with other women, I will move out) has to be the one to move out.  The offending party (in this case, TEC) is the part that should be forced to leave the communal domicile.

It is interesting that marriage should be the model that we are using to discuss the Communion (and I believe it is a very apt model).  I believe that the relaxation of marriage discipline in the last 40 years has led us to where “marriage” is no longer seen as a sacrament of a man and a woman who covenant to form a life long relationship that models the union between Christ and His Church and has become a cultural accessory between any two people who love each other (for now).
Divorce and remarriage are far too easy in our church today.  I think that we need to roll back the clock to focus more on preventing divorce and not allowing easy remarriage.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

I, too, am a rigorist on divorce, but I am biased:  I am the son, grandson, and great-grandson of divorce.  In all of those cases, the man was a minister of some stripe.  I didn’t ever plan on getting married until I met a woman who knows in her DNA what commitment is all about.  I just wish there were more people—and churches!—like her.

At the same time, there are so many divorced people that I try to take a pastoral approach that isn’t punitive (or say, working out my own family issues by being uncaring and judgmental towards those who are divorced/divorcing) but redemptive.  I pray for the same sort of redemption for all parts of God’s Church.

Fr. N.J.A. Humphrey - 10 June 2010 04:31 PM

Was that in Alison’s book, The Joy of Being Wrong, by any chance?

Having read nearly everything Alison has written in English, I don’t remember where it was, although I think it wasn’t there.

Thanks for the interesting conversation. I think of this as an issue of relationship versus purity. We can choose to be in relationship or we can choose to be pure. The Pentecost III Gospel (Luke 7:36-50) speaks to the point. Jesus, “a friend of tax-collectors and sinners”, is judged for letting a notoriously sinful woman touch Him.

Jesus points out that the judger, the Pharisee, has not shown Him the kind of love that the woman has. The Pharisee is not aware of the depth of his own sin, nor is the Pharisee aware of the depth of Jesus’ love for him. The sinful woman, on the other hand, is aware of both. She is overwhelmed by Jesus’ love, and she loves Him in return.

The model that Jesus presents us in this pericope is the model of the notorious woman. It is the awareness of our own sinfulness that draws us to the loving, sacrifice of Jesus as our Savior. Our love for Jesus motivates us to be in relationship with Him, following Him as Lord. It is the awareness of our own sinfulness that enables us to be compassionate and loving toward others, even those with whom we disagree.

I find that I am most judgmental and critical of others when I am least aware of what Jesus has accomplished for me. I have no purity—nor am I interested in having any purity—apart from Jesus. His purity is sufficient. Through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit I am increasingly aware of the depth of my own sin, and through the grace of Jesus I am being led to have an increasingly penitent heart.

As a result, my focus is not on sitting in judgment on other members of the Body of Christ. My focus is on living in the Body of Christ and learning to be in love with Him and in love with my neighbor.

Althougth I have - in my last few weeks before retiring - not commented ofter here, I want to make clear why I find the marriage analogy unhelpful. Marriage is a covenant relationship in which we make clear promises, e.g., “forsaking all others.” Membership in the Communion has not, so far, required similar promises. The Lambeth Conferences are not synods with authority to decide matters for the member churches. Even the language of Lambeth resolutions reflects that fact. The Communion has lived with theological and ethical diversity, e.g., John Robinson’s The Human Face of God, which questioned the traditional understanding of the Virgin Birth, or diversity on just war theory and pacifism. Some Anglicans have taken positions that I find deeply troubling, e.g., on the criminalization of homosexuality, but I am willing to live with the tension inherent in being in relationship with them, just as I am willing to live with the tension of being in relationship with Roman Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, etc.

Daniel,

I use the analogy of marriage because that is the analogy that God uses for the relationship between Himself and His People, Israel and it is the langauge that Paul uses to talk about the relationship between Christ and his Church.  Also, in marriage, the man and woman become one flesh, not two people who love each other, but one flesh.  The body of Christ is also supposed to be one body, not a bunch of people with a common heritage, but one one body.
Now, from a practical standpoint, that has never been the case since the very beginning of the Church.  There have always been divisions among leaders in the Chruch and their followers.  From Peter and Paul to the Church in Corinth (Paul, Apollos, and Peter/Cephas).  But those divisions are bad things, not good things.  TEC, knowing that its actions will cause further division in the Chruch, simply went on and didn’t care about the rest of the Church.  They simply ignored what the rest of the Church catholic, let alone the Anglican Communion, said on the topic.  They chose to be right rather than be in relationship.  They may want to be in relationship, but only on their terms where their vision of biblical interpretation and discernment is considered right and good.

If TEC wants to be in relationship, then it needs to stop the behavior that put the relationship in peril to begin with.  Just as an alcoholic needs to stop drinking to restore his family to healthy relationship, so TEC needs to stop its destructive behavior.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder