Good Disagreement: Grace and Truth in a Divided Church. Book Review.
By Andrew Symes, Anglican Mainstream.
This book consists of a series of essays by different contributors, all of whom explore the concept of “good disagreement” from various perspectives. The Archbishop of Canterbury writes a short but telling foreword to the book commending it. He stresses that while there will always be differences of opinion between Christians, the way in which we disagree can either model the Kingdom and help to build it, or be a poor witness and so hamper it. We are to be reconcilers where there is conflict, because God took initiative in reconciliation with us. And where there is division, concern for truth must be tempered with grace as each side engages the ‘other’ with love and openness to Christ.
Andrew Atherstone and Andrew Goddard, joint editors of the book, present a theological overview in the first chapter. Church debate throughout history has often featured strong and even insulting language against opponents. Atherstone/Goddard affirm that “gospel truth matters…error is dangerous and needs to be strenuously resisted”. But this must be done with grace, and also by carefully distinguishing between primary and secondary issues. However, in practice this often means that either Christians disagree and effectively break fellowship (even if remaining in the same ecclesial body) or they relegate all theological controversy to second-order “agree to disagree” status, tolerating or even celebrating “diversity”. An attempt to pursue ‘unity in essentials, freedom in secondary issues, love in all things’ is not easy – getting it wrong can lead either to schism, or sacrificing the Gospel.
The suggested way out of the impasse, “good disagreement”, comes, it is suggested, from following the lead of Archbishop Welby. For him, the unity of the Church is a given; as a family, members cannot be thrown out. How we disagree is a witness to Christ. The church is called to be an agent of reconciliation in a world riven with conflicts. According to the authors, this may mean finding negotiated settlements which enable all parties to continue in fellowship while agreeing to disagree on certain issues, or it may entail “continuing witness to God’s grace and truth in how we walk apart: in humility and sorrow, with blessing and not cursing, with gentleness not venom”.
This latter scenario and its practical implications for Anglicanism or the C of E are not explored in the book. Rather the trajectory is on bringing together people with differing views. The final four chapters of the book are the most applied. Chapter 8 is a series of interactive comments by Clare Hendry and Lis Goddard on their intensive theological disagreement about the role of women in relation to men and ministry, moving “from castles to conversations”, and from antagonists to (still disagreeing) friends. This example of “good disagreement” led to a book published in 2010. In Chapter 9 Tory Baucum combines a profound reflection on Jesus and the woman at the well (John 4) with a testimony about his role as the Rector of Truro Church, Fairfax, which had seceded from the Episcopal Church and was subject to aggressive litigation by the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia. Using the template of Jesus reaching out to Samaritans, other historical examples, and his personal testimony, Baucum speaks of the necessity of Spirit-led personal friendship-building before and even in spite of strong theological disagreement.
Chapters 7 and 10 consist of essays by two men who consider mediation outside the church to be a large part of their Christian calling. Toby Howarth has many years experience of working among people of other faiths, and was appointed Bishop of Bradford last year. His view is that there are real differences between religions, but Christians should be at the forefront of initiatives that allow personal encounter between members of different faiths and conflicting cultures, so that understanding of one another is “filled out”. These initiatives of course have a contemporary socio-political urgency as well as a theological and missiological imperative – Howarth insists on the need to maintain freedom to share one’s faith with the aim of persuading another to change theirs. In the final chapter, senior barrister turned professional mediator Stephen Ruttle reflects on his role as a Christian, reaching out to both sides of a conflict, and enabling the aggrieved parties to negotiate and move from ceasefire to reconciliation and transformation. The movement of the book towards the conclusion with Ruttle’s work mirrors the idea set out by Archbishop Welby at the start, that a major part of the church’s mission is as a peacemaker in the world.
The first half of the book contains essays on theology, history and contemporary ecumenism. Andrew Atherstone and Martin Davie carefully survey and comment on attempts in recent decades to bring churches together on a global scale, notably through the World Council of Churches and Anglican/Roman Catholic dialogues. The reader is left with an important question: Is it still “good disagreement” when honest and personally warm conversations confirm that different positions are incompatible and contradictory? Ashley Null’s chapter on “good disagreement and the Reformation” is magisterial in its command of the historical detail yet placed in a clear and succinct narrative. As today, Christians of the 16th and 17th centuries were concerned about church division and also theological truth. Discerning and ranking contentious issues is difficult. Personal relationships across divides are important. How people understand the authority of Scripture is usually at the basis of serious disagreements.
It is three chapters on Paul, from different perspectives, at the beginning of the book which set the tone for understanding “good disagreement” in a biblically anchored way, and helps to avoid the conclusion of the primacy of institutional unity, a wishy-washy Anglican “via media”, or celebrating “pluriform truth”. The book is not attempting to deal with the specific disagreement over sexuality. However Bishop Tom Wright’s exploration of how Paul distinguished essentials from ‘adiaphora’, focusing mainly on 1 Corinthians, shows that the apostle was concerned about unity, peacemaking and reconciliation in the body of Christ, but equally concerned about correct doctrine and, in particular, holiness in ethics. This is not inconsistency, but derives from the radical belief in one creator God, salvation in Christ, and the presence of the Holy Spirit. While unity in the church can be compromised by lack of grace, “unity with the Messiah…will be radically compromised by porneia” (p73).
Similarly, in his chapter on “Division and discipline in the NT” Michael B Thompson looks at the passages on refuting false teachers, and notes “some texts that advocate separation from those who persist in teaching serious error”. He corrects the common misinterpretation of Jesus’ warning against judging others, and concludes that loving discipline based on truth leads individuals to liberation and the church into unity. Likewise, Ian Paul’s study of the theme of reconciliation in the NT, shows that Christian love within the fellowship and grace displayed is disagreements is dependent on a primary understanding of God reconciling the world to himself in Christ, through the message of the cross. “Reconciliation among people never stands…as a goal in itself” separate from the primacy of the Gospel, and “paradoxically…God’s offer of peace can actually be a cause of division” between those who accept it and those who reject it.”
As a collection of informative and thought provoking essays the book is outstanding: each piece is worthy of reading and re-reading. The questions following each chapter encourage the reader to reflect on the issues and some possible consequences. The arrangement of the contents, beginning with the Archbishop’s strong plea for unity, and ending with practical examples of reconciliation across divides, emphasizes the eirenic and conciliatory; whereas the strong biblical theology in the first few chapters shows that truth matters: the “goodness” of disagreement is measured not just in the civility and mutual respect and love of the debate, but also in the outcome’s alignment with correct Christian teaching.
However some questions arise which are not answered in this book. For example, the issue of what is adiaphora and what is non-negotiable is discussed, but no answer is provided on what are the key doctrines, and who decides them. If those who come to a different conclusion and still claim the name “Anglican” can’t be “chucked out” (Archbishop Welby’s phrase), does that essentially mean there are no boundaries, there are many ‘truths’ or ‘integrities’, and is that ecclesiologically credible? If there is very serious error promoted by some in the church, which may have elements of the demonic in origin (for example, support for apartheid in South Africa), might a focus on “good disagreement” suggest a misunderstanding of the situation? As has been said, an outcome of respectful “walking apart” is mentioned but not explored at all.
Then, in every example where the book gives principles on how disagreements can be mediated to ensure grace, justice and minimum of conflict, the assumption is of a level playing field, where strong views are held equally on either side of a divide. But with the sexuality debate there is not a level playing field. This is not just a debate within the C of E, or even Anglicanism. It is between historic Christianity and the entire weight of Western culture with its massive recent changes, on sexual ethics but also on profound matters of God, Scripture and the nature of humanity. Only Tom Wright’s essay hints at dealing with this.
When simply to express a conservative view on marriage, for example, is now seen in some circles as potentially “extremist”, there needs to be a re-think on the wider perspectives of “good disagreement” around issues of sexuality. All believers would surely want to exercise civility in debate, and there are many excellent examples in the book of how the Spirit can transform hostile situations and bring genuine reconciliation. But given our hostile cultural context, we need to be on our guard to maintain freedom of speech, and not give in to the temptation, for the sake of avoiding bad press and keeping the peace, of using language of “grace” and “good disagreement” to effectively shut down debate, excluding any principled view (however bible-based and lovingly expressed) that deviates from a pre-determined centrist position. While the book’s authors do not advocate trying to ‘balance’ grace and truth, they perhaps do not adequately warn of the danger of a commonly held attitude which sees ‘truth’ as inherently harsh and non-relational, and ‘grace’ a synonym for negotiating away principles for the sake of a quiet life. Perhaps a better way is to see truth as about the content, and grace as the method?
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
