This article is an analysis and critique by A. Theodore Mollegen, Jr. of an article called "The Episcopal Church Reconciliation Initiative," by the Rev. Brian Cox. This article is intended to help readers see today's divisive issues concerning the Episcopal Church and homosexuality from the Liberal as well as Cox's Conservative standpoint, and thus better to support reconciliation. My work consists of modifications and comments inserted into the text of the original article, which is from the Anglican Voice website of Episcopalians United (EU). EU is a Conservative group in the Episcopal Church.
To facilitate discussion, I have numbered the paragraphs. Additions
to the text are in red, strikeouts are indicated
by strikeout text, like this, and comments are in
blue. I have also added greater use of
bullets and italicization to help clarify some of the steps in what Rev.
Cox proposes. The original text may be found at
http://www.anglicanvoice.org/voice/coxtext0599.htm
-- it is recommended that the reader read the original before reading
this mark-up.
It is also recommended that the reader carefully review Resolution A-53 of the 1979 General Convention. This resolution intentionally did not legislate any change in the then-existing and still-existing local option (by diocese) of whom a Bishop may ordain. Many persons are not aware that local option is the current "legal" situation in the Episcopal Church today. The resolution and additional information are given in note 1.
In general, I found about the first three-quarters of Rev. Cox's article to have many good ideas and insights, although there were some things that I felt should be changed or added to, to give a more balanced picture. However, in the final portion of the article, Cox recommends what I consider to be a completely unwieldy internationally-supervised negotiation process, with no clear method for adopting the result. Apparently some Conservatives are trying to obtain (via the Anglican Communion) results which they cannot obtain via our Constitutionally-elected Episcopal Church legislature, the General Convention. Adoption of Cox's proposed process would amount to developing an authoritative centralized international church government for the Anglican Communion, with the Episcopal Church in the United States being governmentally and doctrinally subordinate to the international Anglican government (a portion of which is subordinate to the British government.) Such an idea not only would be dead on arrival at either House of the General Convention, and probably all diocesan conventions, but fails to appreciate the particular role that the American Episcopal Church has played in the Anglican Communion and in world Christianity. The US Episcopal Church combines traditional episcopal/clerical governance with church democracy set up along the lines of the American government. During the Protestant Reformation, the Church of England was the result of taking a portion of the Roman Catholic Church and aligning it with the English government, As that nation became more democratic over the years, so did the church, at least in principle, but today it still has not become fully governed (only) by church members. The American Episcopal Church took the US portion of the Church of England, and set it up as an independent church organization, designed so that it would be governed by church members of the lay order, the deaconal and presbyteral orders, and the bishops. The inclusion of lay voting in church government helps keep the institution from such excesses as a small group of insiders keeping worship in Latin for many centuries after its death as a common language, or from a small self-perpetuating group of insiders declaring irrevocably that their designated leader is infallible. Inclusion of member-elected legislators of all four orders of ministry in country-wide church self-governance, blended with key elements of historical catholicism in a constitutional system, is the defining heritage of the Episcopal Church. Rev. Cox basically proposes that the Episcopal Church discard the democratic portion of that heritage because of his group's feelings about what happens in homosexual couple's beds.
In spite of this assessment, I am thankful for Rev. Cox's efforts toward reconciliation and I think that Rev. Cox offers many valuable insights into both the negotiating process and the views of the Conservatives. One of these insights is that this is an identity-based conflict. The underlying cause of the problem of potential schism today is that extreme conservatives today want to give up the traditional conservative evangelical tradition, which has existed within Anglicanism since the English Reformation, of staying in communion with those Anglicans with whom they disagree. In doing so, present-day schismatics have been trying to fashion a new identity for themselves as the only "orthodox Anglicans." However this concept has no historical validity, and is rationalized by a legalistic argument which is decidedly non-Anglican in character.
In short, the schism-talking conservatives today are proposing a break with their own tradition of being in dialogue with different-minded groups within the Church, as well as proposing breaking our Lord's commandments to stay together, to let the one without sin throw the first stone, and to judge not that we be not judged.
There have been numerous quite small schisms from the Episcopal Church over the last 125 years. A list of websites of some of these groups may be found at http://www.anglicanprovince.org/docs/oac.html The largest such group has 101 congregations; the smallest has about 15. Each group justifies itself as being the only one true to the original core of Anglicanism.
I hope that my mark-up of Rev. Cox's article will both help balance the picture, and help Conservatives understand how Liberals see things. Only by understanding each other's viewpoints are we likely to draw together and move ahead with doing the Lord's work of reconciling the world to Him.
Ted Mollegen
October 20, 1999
_______________________
The Cox Report
The Episcopal Church Reconciliation
Initiative
by
The Rev. Brian Cox
P.O. Box 6188
Santa Barbara, California 93160
Phone: (805) 965-9966
Fax: (805) 964-1406
Email: briancox@rain.org
I. Introduction
101. The purpose of this study is to provide an analysis of the conflict in the Episcopal Church of the United States over the issue of homosexuality and to propose a path toward reconciliation and healing that focuses on resolution of the issues, restoration of the relationships and the impartation of a fresh vision that enables two diverse communities to live together in a pluralistic community centered on the person of Jesus Christ. This study will contain five principle sections. The first section will provide an analysis of the principle dynamics of this identity-based conflict. The balance of the study will focus on various elements of a proposed Episcopal Church Reconciliation Initiative. Section Two will propose a process for restoration of relationships through a program of dialogue called Partners in Reconciliation. Section Three will propose a tool for imparting a vision of reconciliation focused on the person of Jesus Christ known as the Reconciliation Institute Basic Seminar. Section Four will propose the concept of a Negotiated Settlement as a resolution to the conflict in the Episcopal Church over homosexuality. Section Five will propose the concept of a facilitated settlement of the conflict utilizing a Camp David Model of Mediation.
201. In this first section of the study I will begin with a description of the nature of the conflict followed by a discussion of eight key elements of conflict analysis:
so that an alternative to the present conflict spiral can emerge from the morass.
202. A conflict exists when two parties have perceived divergence of
interests which are translated into rigid, incompatible aspirations and where
there are no available alternatives to fulfil those aspirations and there
exists a climate of intense distrust. On a superficial level such would describe
the present situation in the Episcopal Church.This conflict focuses on the
Episcopal Church's doctrinal teaching on human sexuality. The specific key
issue of the conflict centers on the blessing of life-committed, exclusive
same sex unions and /or ordaining practicing qualified
homosexuals who are in church-blessed, life-committed,
exclusive relationships as priests and bishops,
and/or issues such as what to do if a previously celibate homosexual bishop
or priest openly takes a partner and they receive a same-sex union blessing
in a diocese where such blessings are practiced. There are other
corollary issues that play a role in this conflict including:
Comment: For brevity, I will hereafter use the term qualified same sex unions to mean life-committed, exclusive same sex unions, and qualified homosexuals in Unions to mean homosexuals who have been approved for ordination in all canonically-required procedural steps and who are in church blessed, life-committed exclusive unions.
203. There are two key parties to this conflict. The first party is
theological/social conservatives who maintain that blessing
qualified same sex unions and ordaining
practicing qualified homosexuals
in Unions is
are unacceptable because they are inconsistent
with both their interpretation of the teaching
of the bible and with the tradition of the church.
The second party is theological/social liberals who maintain that
life-committed church-blessed monogamous homosexual
relationships are a God-favored healthy, viable
alternative lifestyle and that to take
approve these actions
these unions is not only
a matter of simple justice for gay and lesbian
people, but also is consistent with the Episcopal
Church's understanding of the authority of the bible as exemplified
in its past decisions regarding slavery, segregation, divorce, and the role
of women. They suspect that many Conservatives are choosing their anti-gay
positions because of unconscious prejudice, and then constructing biblical
and tradition-based rationales to justify their positions to themselves as
well as others. Their reason for suspecting this is that the rationales
given for anti-homosexual policies use a different methodology of Biblical
interpretation than Conservatives use for these other issues.
Both parties consist of subgroups; bridgeburners who are not prepared
to brook any compromise and bridgebuilders who are prepared to reach
out to the other party and to live in an institutional framework that is
less than ideal tradition-bound and
legalistic and more based on the Commandment to love. Bridgeburners
place a higher value on their perception of the
truth over unity, whereas, bridgebuilders see a more nuanced interrelationship
between them, or have a different perception of the truth.
204. Earlier I described the present situation in the Episcopal Church
as an interest-based conflict. Outwardly, to the casual and uninformed observer
that would appear to be the case. However, if one probes beneath the surface
of the conflict one discovers not an interest-based conflict, but, in fact,
an identity-based conflict. The works of Jay Rothman
(i) and Louise Diamond
(ii) have defined identity-based conflicts as
those which are rooted in people's collective need for identity, security,
community and vitality. These are more intangible and existential concerns
as opposed to interest-based conflicts which are focused on claiming tangible
assets or resources. Identity is the racial, ethnic, tribal, national, cultural
or religious distinctiveness of a group. Identity includes recognition; the
need to be known and affirmed by another, to be understood, seen, respected
and valued. In the Episcopal Church there are two distinct communities that
coexist in the same institutional structure. They tend
to have profoundly different core theology and values. They
tend to speak completely different
languages of faith. They tend to move in
completely different networks of relationships. However,
some people ("linch pins" -- see below) connect the two groups,
who have a common allegiance to our Lord and to the
Episcopal Church. One distinct community is the Conservatives
whose core identity would pivot around personal conversion/moral values/tradition
and a belief that the Bible has a single unified
viewpoint. The second distinct community is the Liberals whose core
identity revolves around peace/justice/affirming and inclusive community.
They typically view the Bible as a carefully
selected collection of works composed by many humans who were reporting their
diverse experiences of God, and they see the Bible as not always being internally
consistent. Historically these two communities have managed to coexist
within the framework of the institutional Episcopal Church because they also
valued the concept of unity in diversity. However,
for a vocal minority, representing probably 5
to 10% of ECUSA, the issue of homosexuality has become one of those
lines drawn in the Anglican sand. Comment: There is
considerable hyperbole in Cox's description -- the vast majority of ECUSA
members aren't highly motivated around issues of homosexuality on either
the Conservative or the Liberal side. Nonetheless, many Church members would
doubtless become upset if incited enough by a Conservative rector, or if
a same-sex blessing were held on Sunday morning without adequate preparation
of the congregation. In secular American society, there is a clear
trend toward liberalization of attitudes, especially in the non-church-going
under-40 generation (who will in twenty years, be the under-60 generation
which makes up the majority of church members). Conservatives' virulent
denunciations of equal treatment for homosexuals thus represent an
evangelistically-suicidal strategy over a twenty-or thirty year time frame,
comparable to the pro-circumcision strategy of the Jerusalem church before
the Council of Jerusalem..
205. I will now turn to a consideration of the strategic choices for resolving the conflict that the parties have made utilizing both the Dual Concern Model and the Perceived Feasibility Perspective.
The Dual Concern Model
206. The Dual Concern Model is a method for analyzing the strategic
choices that parties to a conflict make to resolve the conflict and there
are five possible choices: avoidance, yielding, contending, compromising
and problem solving. The
parties Either party will make a particular
choice based on the strength of it's
its concern for its own
desired outcome compared to the strength of
it's its concern for the other
party's desired outcome. In the context of the
Episcopal Church both Conservative and Liberal bridgeburners have chosen
contending as their strategy because both have a high concern for
their own outcome and a low concern for the outcome of the other party. Both
have high rigid aspirations attached to the substantive issues and a relatively
low concern for the continuation of the relationships with each other. Liberals
want to change the Episcopal Church's doctrine on
traditional teachings and practice re
homosexuality. Extreme Conservatives
want to prevent that change at all cost. On the other hand, both Conservative
and Liberal bridgebuilders have expressed a concern for the outcome of both
parties and a healthy balance between the importance of issues and relationships.
Amongst bridgebuilders on both sides of the conflict there is the greatest
potential for a win-win problem solving strategy.
The Perceived Feasibility Perspective
207. The Perceived Feasibility Perspective is a method for analyzing the perceptions of the parties that influence them to choose problem solving, contending or yielding as a strategy for resolving the conflict. Amongst both Conservative and Liberal bridgeburners there is little, if any perceived common ground, in spite of their common belief in Jesus Christ and common Anglican heritage. Neither can conceive of yielding their goals to the other. Neither of them can conceive of a win-win problem solving approach as they view it as negotiating with the devil. There is also a high level of distrust in these two parties. Conservatives, in particular say they distrust Liberals because of a track record of using coercive measures to impose their positions on the whole church. Such measures have included: prohibitions in most dioceses against continued use of the 1928 Prayer Book, and the 1997 General Convention resolution which universalized the eligibility of women to be priests and requires the recognition and equal treatment throughout ECUSA of women who are priests. However, Conservatives also have attempted to use coercive methods, but in recent years, theirs (the Righter presentments, coercive sexuality resolutions proposed at several General Conventions) have consistently failed to be adopted by the Church. Thus, when one considers the two factors of perceived common ground and trust one understands why both Conservative and Liberal bridgeburners have chosen a contending strategy. The possibility of a problem solving approach is greatest between Conservative and Liberal bridgebuilders. There is a moderate level of perceived common ground in such factors as the unity vs. truth balance, valuing the comprehensiveness of the Anglican Community, and a distaste for the adversarial nature of prolonged warfare. There is a high degree of commonality in their belief in the message of John 3:16. There is the potential for fostering trust through bridgebuilding initiatives that could lead to problem solving.
208. I will now turn to a consideration of the psychological barriers
to the resolution of the conflict. The first such factor is cognitive
dissonance. This is a significant barrier to the resolution of the conflict
because it would involve the parties' having
to change their positions in such a manner that would be inconsistent with
past actions, values and beliefs. It would
might require Conservatives
and Liberals to continue to live with
the messiness of local option, which
was adopted by General Convention in 1979
(note
1), and confirmed by the Righter court.
Local option allows each diocesan bishop to determine the policy for her/his
diocese. It would might require
Liberals to give up their cherished goal of an official change of position
and/or forswearing a
their history of coercive tactics.
(Comment: the original language assumes certain
characteristics to be contained in an agreement.) In other words,
it would require a policy of tolerance on both sides. It would require
Conservatives to stop regarding Liberals as apostates. It would require Liberals
to cease regarding all Conservatives as homophobic.
(Comment: The last two
sentences don't make sense to me. How does one legislate or agree to
stop regarding someone as something? What is
required for these changes is a change of paradigm - such cannot be
accomplished solely by the will. A change of paradigm is usually accomplished
only by the combination of new data and/or new experience.)
209. The second social psychological process that is a barrier to the resolution
of this conflict is optimistic overconfidence. The
most aggressive Liberals have little incentive to resolve the conflict
because they believe that they will ultimately prevail and are prepared to
accept the loss of a few Conservatives
as the price. Conservatives have been buoyed by the recent action of the
bishops in the Lambeth Conference. They have little incentive to resolve
the conflict because of the hope that some other provinces of the Anglican
Communion will come to the rescue by making the price of doctrinal change
too high in terms of isolation and ostracism in the international community.
Liberals note that Lambeth has followed the lead of
the American Church for the last 130 years on issues such as the Chicago-Lambeth
quadrilateral, divorce, and the ordination of women, and see no reason why
this will not also be the case on the latest issue. It can be argued of course
that the real leadership on divorce and women came from Western secular society
(i.e. from outside the church), with changes in the societal paradigm being
the real driving force, not American church leadership. Liberals thus see
the Conservatives' reliance on the resolutions of the recent Lambeth
Conference as the Conservatives' attempting to take shelter in
a refuge that will be removed from them in another decade or two, and thus
taking an approach which will in the long run be unproductive for both
sides. They look at changes going on in the Anglican Churches of
Canada, England, Scotland, Australia and New Zealand and feel that the picture
painted by Conservatives of an isolated American Church is unrealistic wishful
thinking at the extreme. If the primate of the Anglicans in any of the
above-mentioned countries were to publicly support schismatics in the US,
he would in effect be giving moral support to schismatics in his own
country, and no primate wants to have a schism in his own organization become
part of the history of his term of office -- whether the schismatics are
Liberal or Conservative! The third social psychological
process that is a barrier to resolution of the conflict is loss
aversion. The gain of keeping the Episcopal Church intact is less likely
to foster risky behavior than the perceived losses. For Liberals the loss
of their primary goal to change the doctrine
teaching of the church is a powerful motivation
for risky behavior such as that which would lead to losing the financial
contributions of departing Conservatives or ostracism in the
international community Anglican
community of the lesser-developed world.
The financial and church-growth effects might be the
greatest actual danger, since Liberals have generally been slow to teach
tithing and/or evangelism. In general,
Liberals have placed more emphasis on on Christian intellectual activity
as suitable work of Christians (note
4), and Evangelicals have been more inclined to
action -- including evangelism -- based on personal conversion. For
Conservatives the loss of traditional doctrinal
truth is a powerful motivation for risky behavior such as that which would
lead to setting up their own structure. Comment: Liberals
are particularly suspicious of those desiring to set up an alternative structure,
when there are already plenty of splinter denominations of
Anglican/Episcopal origin which believe in precisely those things which
Conservatives say are the reasons for breaking away. Liberals wonder if the
need for control (or a turn in the spotlight) isn't also an important
motivator for those who are frustrated with their inability to win support
in the democratic institutions of the Episcopal Church.
210. The fourth social psychological process that is a barrier to
resolution of the conflict is divergent construal. This is a significant
barrier to resolution of the conflict because, basically, Conservatives and
Liberals have two completely different frameworks for evaluating
the same information. The paradigm for Conservatives is the Human Brokenness
Model (traditionally known as the Doctrine of Original
Sin) which assumes that all human beings are fallible, sinful and
broken as part of our nature. Our brokenness extends into the realm of sexuality
and, thus, Conservatives see
homosexuality is as one form
of that brokenness -- which requires healing.
They reject the preponderance of psychological and
psychiatric opinion which hold that in most cases so-called reparative therapy
is seriously harmful, relying instead on the testimony of the small percentage
of people who have tried to change who then say that they have been successful
in changing their orientation, not just their lifestyle. Conservatives use
legalistic arguments based on sixteenth and seventeenth-century church positions,
neglecting the eighteenth through twentieth century tradition
of Anglicanism as being the catholic church most accepting of biblical critical
scholarship and new scientific discoveries.
Conservatives see the blessing of same-sex unions as
an attack on traditional marriages, but have not been able to to point to
any heterosexual marriages that have been damaged by the thousands of blessings
of same-sex unions that have already occurred.
Liberals also believe that Conservatives do not
use intellectually honest methods of interpreting biblical standards re
homosexuality because they do not use the same methods of biblical interpretation
on other issues as they use on homosexuality
issues. Since they do not believe that Conservative Church
members would intentionally be intellectually dishonest, they see extreme
Conservatives as homophobic. Certain Liberal leaders have regrettably
even engaged in public name-calling of some of their colleagues as "homophobes"
or "turkeys." The paradigm for Liberals as seen by
Conservatives is the Social Justice Model which
assumes notes that justice
is a core biblical value and involves the right ordering of human relationships
and structures to be open, respectful and inclusive of all persons. From
their perspective the church has historically been unwelcoming of gay and
lesbian people (burning them at the stake in several
centuries is described as "unwelcoming"?!) and have
has contributed to their self hatred. The church's
historic treatment of gay and lesbian people constitutes
oppression, much as the church used biblical arguments
to support slavery up until the nineteenth century, and much as the Roman
Catholic Church uses biblical arguments and tradition even today to oppose
the ordination of women. Therefore, hearts, attitudes and
(perhaps) structures need to be changed. Dialogues
on issues between Conservatives and Liberals have largely resulted in "talking
past" each other because they are operating from two
completely different paradigms.
211. The fifth social psychological process that is a barrier to resolution
of the conflict is ego defensiveness. Conservatives tend to view
themselves as faithful servants of God standing up for truth in a sea of
secular post modern revisionism. Conservatives tend to view Liberals as
misguided, unbiblical and even as non-Christian. Liberals tend to view themselves
as champions of social justice our
Lord's commandment to love who hold the high moral ground in this
debate. Liberals tend to view Conservatives as fearful, prejudiced, homophobic,
resistant to change, and uncaring
about opposed to justice
for the oppressed when it activates deeply held prejudice,
and wedded to a closed-minded concept of what is biblical, instead of
being open to new ethical insights, based on applying biblical principles
to newly-recognized realities.
212. The sixth social psychological process that is a barrier to the resolution of the conflict is naive realism. Both Conservatives and Liberals truly believe that their perception of the situation is objective reality. During the years of "Dialogue", which were in many cases debates, there was the naive hope on both sides that if you simply shared your information with the other side that they would see the wisdom and embrace the truth. Many people in the neutral position and some in the Conservative position did change their minds and embrace a new position, as evidenced by the increasing support for homosexuals in the General Convention and many diocesan conventions. However, with hardcore Conservatives and Liberals there has been a tendency to see the other side as biased and not people of good will.
213. The seventh social psychological process that is a barrier to
resolution of the conflict is equity. Episcopalian
Gays gays and lesbians
are not simply seeking to be tolerated. They are seeking respect, validation
and legitimacy of their lifestyles
church-blessed, life-covenanted same-sex
unions by the their
church. Conservatives are not satisfied with the permissiveness of local
option, but insist on a uniform orthodox
traditional practice throughout the church
of what their diminishing minority considers
orthodox. ("Orthodox" is an emotionally loaded
word, since it etymologically means "right teaching." Conservatives
have had some success in appropriating use of the word to themselves, but
that doesn't make their use of it accurate.) Neither is willing
to settle for an improvement on the status quo, but seeks goals that
are they see as appropriate
to the strength and legitimacy of their claims.
214. An eighth psychological process causing difficulty is collective resistance to change. Some Conservatives take the position that all religious truths are eternal and unchanging, and that the important ones are all expounded in the Bible. Based on this, they conclude that the Church should not change (except perhaps in cosmetic ways, such as updating its worship language as the language of the people changes.) The traditional Anglican view is that while the basic principles of the faith are unchanging, new insights are gained as time goes on, and particulars about the Church's practice must change. Examples include moving the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday, use of graven images, ordination of women, etc. See Note 3, a short article entitled "The Church Has Always Been Changing." Recent converts t the Episcopal Church can be particularly unsettled when they discover that although they may have thought that they had found refuge in a stationary, legally-defined cave, they have instead gotten on a flexible-sided bus, and that it moves from time to time.
215. I will now turn to a consideration of the contentious tactics
employed by the parties in the conflict to induce the other party to
yield. Liberals have utilized ingratiation
sympathy-inducing tactics by having gays
and lesbians tell their stories in group settings so as to evoke compassion
and influence the other parties. They seek to preclude Conservative arguments
by suggesting that they attempted the "healing approach" which was unfruitful
and that true healing came with self-acceptance of their orientation and
lifestyle. Conservatives have utilized
ingratiation sympathy-inducing
tactics by expressing their great care and compassion for people of homosexual
orientation while not approving homosexual behavior.
[Comment: I didn't like the word
ingratiation regarding either side because ingratiation has
a connotation of conniving to curry favor, with a covert quid-pro-quo intention.
I also don't see why the tactic of telling one's story is
contentious (the subject of this paragraph)]. The common saying
is "love the sinner, but not
hate the sin."
216. Conservatives have utilized gamesmanship tactics in two ways (The word gamesmanship traditionally means attempting to gain advantage by tactics which are morally dubious but technically within the rules. However, Rev. Cox seems to be using the word in a way that means "gaining advantage through tactical maneuvers.") The first method was that of ecclesiastical presentment in the form of the Bishop Walter Righter Trial. Conservatives hoped that Bishop Righter, who ordained a practicing homosexual to the priesthood in the Diocese of Newark, would be convicted for violating the doctrine and discipline of the Episcopal Church. (It would not be gamesmanship in the traditional meaning of the word if the Conservatives really expected victory. If they really expected defeat and wanted to use that defeat to their advantage, then their tactic would (arguably) be gamesmanship. Most observers who were knowledgeable of those who sat on the court predicted some form of vindication of Righter). The second method was that of political organization in the Anglican Communion. Conservative U. S. bishops managed to orchestrate a strong legislative response from their colleagues from Africa, Asia and Latin America during the Lambeth Conference of Bishops in July 1998. A resolution was passed (526-70) which upheld the traditional teaching on marriage and sexuality. This was a very successful tactic and, in Conservatives' view, represented a major defeat for Liberals by creating the perception that the worldwide Anglican Communion supports the Conservatives. As noted above, the Liberals see the Lambeth resolution as an inconsequential setback, and not likely to be of lasting duration, especially if the listening called for in the resolution is adhered to. Liberals have utilized gamesmanship tactics in two ways. The first method has been political and legislative maneuvering at the General Convention. The impression they seek to create is that this is simply a canonical or rule change rather than a profound change in the doctrine of the Episcopal Church. (Whether the change is profound or not, like whether it is right or not, is in the eyes of the beholder. I've been an Alternate Deputy or Deputy at the last six General Conventions, and I don't recall anyone arguing that this not an important change from the practice of the past. In short, I don't think that the author's assertion is accurate. On the other hand, from the beginning of Christianity to the 1970s, no published survey of important Christian doctrines ever held that treatment of homosexuals was a critical part of the faith. (Also consider the absence of any sexuality topics of any kind in the creeds and/or the Reformation confessions of various Protestant denominations). These facts argue against the assertion that the past sexuality teaching has traditionally been seen as essential for Christianity). Traditionally, the Christian Church/Roman Catholic Church from the time of St. Paul to the twentieth century has had the attitude that celibacy was best, and marriage was for those who couldn't rise to the standard of celibacy. The second method has been the creation of the concept of "core doctrine" by the Righter court's finding that a change in the church's position on human sexuality did not represent a change in core doctrine. In my view, whether this should be viewed as gamesmanship or not depends on one's views of the ethics of blessings and/or ordinations.
217. Liberals have tried to
utilized guilt trips as a contentious tactic in two significant
ways. First of all, the former Presiding Bishop in his address at the General
Convention in 1997 essentially equated the Conservative
position with hate, and publicly
humiliated many of criticised his
opponents' attitudes in a manner that
did not provide them with the same opportunity for response.
(I don't see why the author uses the word humiliated
here. They would be humiliated only if their self-esteem was lowered,
which would only occur if they recognized that they had been hating.
"Angered" might be a better word.) Secondly, Liberals
used the unfortunate death of Episcopalian Matthew Shepherd in Wyoming
("unfortunate death"? What would it take to make this
author call brutally murdering a homosexual because he was a homosexual "a
hate killing?") as a propaganda ploy
to equate non-acceptance of homosexuality as tantamount to a hate crime.
One (non-homosexual) Integrity member did e-mail the
members of the House of Bishops, the House of Deputies and several other
Episcopal e-mail lists that those critical of homosexuals had "blood
on your hands." Conservatives have utilized guilt trips in two ways.
The first method has been to publicly portray Liberals as departing from
the true faith and leading the church into apostasy in journal articles and
public debates. The second method has been by approaching
the other certain
archbishops and bishops of certain third-world provinces of the Anglican
Communion with the message, "the fate of the Episcopal Church is in your
hands. Keep it from falling into apostasy." This message managed to mobilize
not only the concern, but the action of the Anglican bishops
and archbishops contacted, who wrote a letter to Presiding
Bishop Griswold. Bishop Griswold wrote them back, inviting them to visit
here, and to do some of the listening mandated by the Lambeth resolution
that these archbishops and bishops had voted for.
So far, there have been few visits, and the
visits that have been made have not been marked by the visitors' acting with
a listening agenda. In the future, however, when some third-world
archbishop does come and listen, and then announce that he has changed his
mind -- in my view, such an event will happen at some point, although I can't
foresee precisely when -- a lot of steam will go out of the Conservatives'
efforts to use the Anglican Communion to achieve their ends. Maybe
they will then recognize that what they have really accomplished is to hasten
a Communion-wide focus on homosexuality, accelerating communion-wide
change!
218. Conservatives have utilized persuasive argumentation as a contentious tactic by writing journal articles and books marshalling the biblical and historical arguments against blessing same sex unions or ordaining practicing homosexuals. Liberals have utilized persuasive argumentation in two ways. The first method has been through the dialogue process within study programs which were prepared and used in congregations with the intention of enabling clergy and laity to discuss human sexuality. The second method has been through testimony at General Convention hearings and during the debate on the floor of the two legislative bodies. Both groups have used e-mail discussion groups (listservs) extensively.
219 Conservatives have utilized threats as a contentious tactic in
numerous ways. There have been individual, and
congregational, and diocesan threats
and actions to withdraw financial support from
the dioceses and national church. There have been threats
and ordination-oath-breaking actions taken to
pull congregations out of the church and in some cases this is already in
process. There have been threats to set up an alternative ecclesiastical
structure which has already begun to take shape in the form of the American
Anglican Council and Bishop Wantland's PECUSA,
Inc. There have been threats to initiate
additional ecclesiastical presentments against
liberal bishops and clergy. There have been threats to
try to isolate the American Episcopal Church
from the rest of the Anglican Communion, a goal which
seems extraordinarily unrealistic, for reasons given above. Some African
and Asian Bishops have threatened to break communion with the American Church
and refuse to allow American clergy to function in their dioceses. There
have been threats to bring outside bishops into the jurisdictions of Liberal
bishops so as to directly challenge their authority and oversight. Liberals
have also used threats as a contentious tactic in various ways. Conservative
clergy have been threatened with ecclesiastical discipline or removal when
reducing or withdrawing financial support. There have been numerous exhortations
by Liberal leaders for Conservatives to leave the church and go elsewhere.
(I am not aware of a single one!) There has
been the use of canonical legislation to coerce Conservatives into conformity
with Liberal positions (there is plenty of Anglican
precedent for coercive legislation -- consider the various Acts of
Uniformity and the Elizabethan settlement, thus proving that Anglican
sixteenth-century precedent is not always a good thing!)
on the Prayer Book and the ordination of women. Since
these actions required votes by orders in the House of Deputies, which imply
significant majorities in actual votes cast, the positions might today more
accurately be described as Centrist, although all innovations are seen as
liberal when they first appear on the horizon..
220. Liberals have utilized irrevocable commitments as a contentious
tactic in one significant way. Many Liberal clergy have simply gone
ahead and (with the permission of their bishops)
blessed same sex unions and challenged Conservatives to try
to stop them. (I am not aware of a single
liberal who has said "Try and stop me.")
Some Increasing numbers
of Liberal bishops have ordained known and practicing
homosexuals as priests in defiance of the present practice of the
Episcopal Church. in spite of (non-obligatory)
guidelines adopted by the 1979 General Convention (note 1).
(Present practice is changing.) As such
they have attempted to establish "facts on the ground" which will force the
Conservatives to adapt, to try to find new ways to
or stop them, or give up.
Conservatives have utilized irrevocable commitments by completely withdrawing
financial support from the diocese or physically
preventing diocesan bishops from making an episcopal visitation to the
congregation.
221. I will now turn to a consideration of the particular model of
escalation that best applies to this conflict which would be the Conflict
Spiral Model which holds that escalation results from a
various an accelerating cycle
of action and reaction. This model assumes that causation flows in both
directions, that contentious tactics move from light to heavy and that the
conflict will evolve from small to large in terms of issues and intensity.
(Whether a particular conflict spiral escalates or
settles down depends on whether at least one party escalates that party's
own responses. If neither party escalates their own responses the conflict
will stabilize or drop off). A typical
possible scenario of this conflict spiral would
be the following: A Liberal priest performs the blessing of a same sex union.
Episcopalians from a conservative congregation attend the function specifically
to make a public protest. Their protests are ignored. The Conservatives write
to the bishop requesting discipline of the Liberal priest. No action is taken
by the bishop (who had most likely previously announced
a policy permitting such blessings) and the protests are ignored.
Feeling frustrated and angry, and following the
provocations of their separatist-minded rector, the vestry of the
Conservative congregation votes to withdraw its financial support to the
diocese. This evokes feelings of fear,
and anger and betrayal by the
bishop who makes threats of ecclesiastical discipline against the Conservative
priest and congregation. These threats evoke fear and anger in the Conservative
priest and congregation which causes them to seek affiliation with a bishop
and diocese outside of the United States. This action causes the Liberal
bishop to depose the Conservative priest and to appoint
a more liberal interim rector. Escalation continues and ultimately
the bishop and Standing Committee seek to claim the assets of the
congregation. Assuming that the bishop has had competent
advice from the diocesan chancellor, the bishop wins, but with an expenditure
of significant legal fees by both sides. Some of the members of the congregation
return to services conducted by the new priest appointed by the bishop,
many move to other denominations to avoid the controversy (and cost), and
a few follow the deposed priest into a splinter denomination. Splinter
denominations have broken away from the Episcopal Church a number of
times in the last 150 years; none have grown significantly, and some have
further subdivided, since negativism (even cast as something positive) doesn't
hold people together well.
222. I will now turn to a consideration of the social psychological
processes that have contributed to an escalation of the conflict. The first
such factor is blame. Conservatives have blamed Liberals for
performing blessings and ordinations and have retaliated with judicial
presentments, setting up a national alternative networking structure,
first Bishop Wantland's PECUSA, Inc. and then the American
Anglican Council (AAC), legally
appropriating illegally attempting to appropriate the
traditional official title of the Episcopal
Church and lobbying bishops of other Anglican provinces to exert pressure
on Liberal U. S. bishops. Liberals have retaliated by blaming Conservatives
for causing division in the church, for being mean spirited and homophobic
and for using funds that could be directed towards
mission and evangelism for lobbying
the other bishops of the Anglican
Communion to violate the traditional Anglican Communion
and eastern and western catholic principles of territorial non-interference
and territorial non-competition.
223. The second social psychological process that is a factor in the
escalation of this conflict is anger. The Conservatives are angry
at Liberals for attempting to change the doctrinal teaching of the church
in a way that emotionally threatens them.
Conservatives are angry at the former Presiding Bishop for his strident
partisanship (Liberals would say "compassionate
leadership") which was a significant factor in polarizing the church.
Conservatives are angry at Liberals for their perceived heavy-handed lobbying
tactics. Liberals are angry at Conservatives for the judicial presentment
against Bishop Righter, for organizing the Anglican bishops at the Lambeth
Conference and for setting up the alternative
structure structures called
the American Anglican Council and PECUSA, Inc.
224. The third social psychological process that is a factor in the
escalation of this conflict is fear. Conservatives fear that they
will be forced have no choice in good
conscience but to leave the Episcopal Church if the doctrinal teaching
position is changed by General Convention
resolution. Liberals fear that they will become isolated by
much of the Anglican Communion or that Conservatives will orchestrate
expensive litigious, lose-lose structural chaos
with bishops functioning without permission outside of their jurisdictions,
in a kind of "poison-pill" approach. Liberals also
fear that the controversy over homosexuality is damaging the Episcopal
Church's reputation as "the church where you don't have to check your brains
at the door" and is especially damaging to the Church's attractiveness to
the increasing number of diversity-sensitive seekers in the under-forty
generation. The possibility of being the first mainline denomination to pass
an official action approving of blessings and ordinations of monogamous,
life-covenanted gay and lesbian couples could be an important evangelistic
advantage for the Episcopal Church because many unchurched or unaffiliated
people are drawn to churches that help people. It also seems likely
that frustrated Liberals from other denominations would transfer into the
Episcopal Church, although it is also likely that they might be additionally
motivated toward achieving similar reforms in their own denominations.
225. There is one social psychological process that has contributed
significantly to a structural change in the conflict and helps us to understand
the persistence of the conflict. That process is negative attitude and
perception. Conservatives have come to view Liberals as misguided apostates
who are leading the laity astray. They are viewed as nasty, intolerant, morally
arrogant and not people of good will. Liberals view Conservatives as closed
minded homophobes who are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
They are viewed as mean spirited, unjust, oppressive of gays and lesbians
and needing to be given a kick in the seat of the
pants.
(I don't know of anyone on the
Liberal side who has expressed physical hostility or recommended
punitive action of any type. Indeed, members of Integrity have been noteworthy
for their irenic demeanor. Physical aggressiveness (beatings, murder)
as related to this topic seems to be characteristic only of extreme homophobes.)
These negative attitudes and perceptions have caused blaming,
distrust, retaliation, loss of empathy, zero sum thinking and demonization
on both sides. Within both groups these attitudes and perceptions have led
to extreme hostility, polarization, contentious group goals and militant
subgroups. (I don't see these on the Liberal side (within
the Episcopal Church), and I wonder where the writer does?)
226. I will now turn to a consideration of the positive factors that contribute to stability in the Episcopal Church in the midst of a highly contentious and potentially destabilizing conflict. The first stabilization factor is social bonds which includes positive attitudes, respect, friendship, kinship, perceived similarity, common group membership and dependence. Although we live in an age of diminished loyalty to denominational labels within the general population, that is not true amongst the leaders of the parties of this conflict. Both Conservatives and Liberals place high value on the social bonds experienced through common group membership. Both parties of this conflict often belong to the same congregation or to the same diocese and have years of having worshipped and toiled together for the spread of the Kingdom of God. They have cooperated on congregational or diocesan projects, served on commissions and battled wits at diocesan conventions. There are also many networks within the institutional church that bring people from different dioceses together around common interests other than the issues of this conflict. Both parties to this conflict perceive themselves to be part of the Anglican Communion and the church of God and place great value on that common group identity and membership. There is a great sense of belonging to a world wide family that encompasses many ethnic groups, races, languages and cultures, but are united in common forms of worship, governance and mission. (Actually, ECUSA is unlike in governance most of our Anglican Communion partners, in that our Primate has direct authority only over employees of the Episcopal Church Center and a few others whose positions are funded from the national church budget. Our Primate does not have a voice or influence in selecting bishops, priests or deacons. Unlike the US Government, which is a federal government, the Episcopal Church's government is a very decentralized confederacy. Not many years ago, there even was discussion in the Anglican Communion as to whether our Presiding Bishop deserved to be called a Primate, because he had so little ecclesiastical authority. Attempts by Conservatives at the 1997 General Convention to further weaken the Presiding Bishop's office were not successful -- it is quite interesting to see how enamored of archbishops they have recently become!)
227. Like it or not, Conservatives and Liberals are dependent on each
other which both increases the potential for conflict as well as the
possibilities for stabilization. First, both parties are dependent on each
other from a relational perspective in terms of friendships and pastoral
relationships. This brings clergy who have worked collegially into conflict
with each other. It brings a priest into conflict with Ii is/her bishop where
there is a relationship of authority and pastoral care. Second, both parties
are dependent on each other from a financial perspective. One colleague of
mine likes to joke that the Episcopal Church is held together by the Church
Pension Fund. In other words, when all is said and done there is a great
financial incentive to stay together. Individuals financially contribute
to congregations in the form of tithes and offerings. Congregations support
the diocese in the form of assessments or mission share funds. Dioceses support
the national church in the form of assessments. (Comment:
I would call them apportioned askings, since the system is entirely
voluntary. Some dioceses withhold significant proportions of their national
asking, on the stated basis that they ideologically disagree with national
policy, and/or feel that national funds are used inefficiently. The moral
force of their rationales would be much more impressive if they reallocated
the withheld funds only to projects outside the borders of their
dioceses.) The Episcopal Church on both sides of the conflict has
a great deal to lose financially from a schism. As in any divorce between
two people, both sides come away impoverished by the experience. Third, both
parties are dependent on each other from a spiritual perspective. A schism
would damage both the individual and the corporate spiritual core of both
parties to the conflict. Both would suffer spiritual and emotional wounds
that would take years or even decades to heal. Finally, both sides are dependent
on each other from a missions perspective. Both need the insights and passion
of the other with regard to mission. Both bring pieces to the table that
are part of a wholistic holistic
approach to mission.
228. A second stabilization factor in this conflict is the
phenomena phenomenon of
linking pins. This involves the development of social bonds by individuals
on both sides of a conflict in such a manner that friendship and trust develops
between two seeming antagonists. This is also known as building bridges.
Bridgebuilding means developing the tangible and intangible strands of
connectedness among diverse people groups in a community or nation so that
they can live together in peace and seek the common good of the whole community.
Linking pins are one form of building bridges between two diverse communities
that have a strong sense of identity. In the field of international diplomacy
they are called go-betweens and often their efforts serve as a prelude to
peace negotiations. It is important to have individuals on both sides of
a conflict who are trusted by the other side. There
are is a myriad of such
relationships in the Episcopal Church
229. A third stabilization factor in this conflict is conflict limiting norms. Both Conservatives and Liberals presumably base their values, words and actions on biblical norms which encourage a respectful, open and constructive approach to conflict and anger. The heart of the gospel is about reconciliation, forgiveness and unity. This places certain internal and social pressures on the parties and also restricts the range of contentious tactics. In addition, the whole idea of schism is contrary to the teaching of Jesus in the New Testament in terms of his prayer for unity.
230. I will now turn to a consideration of the requirements for
stalemate in this conflict. Stalemate occurs
can be resolved when both parties to a conflict
come to the realization that they will not prevail over the other and that
they are, in fact, interdependent on one another to resolve the conflict
in a manner that meets both their needs. This particular identity-based conflict
has, in fact, been escalating for three
five decades since the conflicts
over racial equality, prayer book revision
and women's ordination. However, at a certain point this escalation will
end and it will result in schism or a stalemate. I believe that this point
will occur at General Convention 2000 in Denver. If Liberals prevail in changing
the official doctrine of the Episcopal Church on homosexuality by legislation
there will be schism. (This is an opinion,
of course.) Conservatives will begin the process of turning the American
Anglican Council into the Province of the Church in the United States and
will seek recognition from other Anglican provinces and Canterbury as the
continuing Episcopal Church. Agreement by a few third-world
provinces may encourage them, but rejection by the Anglican churches of the
developed countries (as well as by their actually gathering much smaller
numbers of following members than they had visualized) may them take a closer
look at the course they have chosen, especially as an increased societal
understanding of homosexuality accelerates in the third world. Probably,
many in the pews who are sympathetic with conservative values will either
stay or just go to a nearby established congregation of another denomination,
rather than trying to start something up from scratch. On the other
hand, if Liberals suffer a major defeat at General Convention this might
convince them that victory is not inevitable and that it is in their best
interests to seek a negotiated settlement with Conservatives. Up until July
1998 Liberals had a sense of inevitability about their
victory, and most still do. This sense was even
shared, in a negative manner, by many pessimistic Conservatives. The vote
at the Lambeth Conference of Bishops on homosexuality was a major defeat
for Liberals, in the view of some Conservatives, but
Liberals see Conservatives' attempted reliance on Lambeth as being
somewhat like the desperate efforts of a drowning man grasping at
straws. It will take one more major defeat of the Liberals
for stalemate to occur. (I don't think
that the preceding opinion re "one more major defeat" has any basis in reality,
even if there is another defeat in July 2000, which I do not foresee, at
least in the House of Deputies. I do not believe that the same group that
has worked for twenty years for "equal rites" in the Episcopal Church
is going to give up easily, especially since more and more gay-accepting
bishops are getting elected throughout the Episcopal church), and the utilization
of diocesan option is spreading. A major defeat would entail losing
a legislative vote in General Convention by a larger margin than
in 1997 more than ten or fifteen percent
of the votes.
III. Restoration of Relationships
301. In the final four sections of this study I will focus on the resolution of this conflict. I will call this The Episcopal Church Reconciliation Initiative. Earlier I spoke of the fact that this is an identity-based conflict. Jay Rothman (iii) writes that such conflicts are not resolved by the normal means of negotiation, but must be preceded by a four step process of surfacing antagonism, creating resonance, inventing creative options and developing action by the setting of joint agendas. This whole process,,called ARIA, is simply a means of building bridges and demolishing walls of hostility that leads to resolution of the issues and restoration of the relationships.
302. First of all, with regard to restoring relationships I would like to propose a strategy of dialogue which would be a proactive process for building bridges, and demolishing walls of hostility. Specifically, I would propose that Conservative and Liberal Congregations or dioceses team up to sponsor true dialogues in order to build friendship, trust and understanding between both parties of this conflict. These strategic partnerships could be called Partners in Reconciliation. Initially the dialogues would involve only their own constituency. Eventually they would become centers to invite participants from other congregations or dioceses.
303. Dr. Louise Diamond in a tract entitled Peacebuilding offers the following insights: How do we deal with differences? As human beings we are in relationship with one another as individuals and groups. In those relationships we experience vast differences in beliefs, values, attitudes, meaning, lifestyle and tradition. Experiencing those differences is a natural part of life. What we do with that experience determines the quality of our lives.
304. Dialogue means that we sit and talk with each other, especially those with whom we may think we have the greatest differences. The purpose is not to advocate, but to inquire; not to argue, but to explore; not to convince but to discover. Dialogue involves certain principles such as:
305. The dialogue process would consist of a series of five dialogues on the following subjects:
306. The dialogue format is a simple three-step process that includes:
307. (The preceding section seems to me to contain many excellent ideas for negotiation in a church context. I would add The Mission of the Church as an early topic in the discussions, and strike the last topic listed, since I believe that finding ways to live together is a better objective than asking whether we should live together. Unity is a Gospel imperative.)
IV. Impartation of Vision Via Rev. Cox's Seminar Process
401. With regard to impartation of the vision of reconciliation through the person of Jesus Christ, I would like to offer the Reconciliation Institute Basic Seminar.
Basic Concept
402. The Reconciliation Institute Basic Seminar is a three-day experience that seeks to impart a vision of reconciliation through the person of Jesus Christ to the leaders and people of a community or nation.
Basic Purpose
403. The Reconciliation Institute Basic Seminar has a five-fold purpose:
The Background
404. The Reconciliation Institute Basic Seminar was designed and developed between 1992 and 1996 by The Reverend Brian Cox, Rector of Christ the King Episcopal Church in Santa Barbara, California. The principles taught during the course of this seminar grew out of his experience fostering reconciliation in his own local community of Santa Barbara and in East Central Europe amongst political and religious leaders.
405. The seminar contains several unique features:
The Program
406. The seminar consists of a series of fourteen presentations given by members of the presenting team on different aspects of reconciliation. Each participant receives a teaching manual that includes outlines of the presentations together with supplementary materials.
407. The seminar includes small group participation that provides the opportunity for discussion, personal interaction or other activities after each presentation. During the seminar close relationships are formed through the community building process.
408. The seminar teaches the participants certain principles and skills related to the various facets of reconciliation. It provides the opportunity to apply these principles and skills in the small groups.
409. The seminar provides concrete spiritual opportunities to respond and appropriate God's great offer of reconciliation with God, self and others and to become an instrument of reconciliation.
Topics
(The preceding process outline for equipping people to be reconcilers seems logical to me.)
V. A Negotiated Settlement
501. With regard to resolution of the issues of the conflict I would
propose the concept of a negotiated settlement utilizing the problem solving
approach of Principled Negotiation or Integrative Bargaining,
commonly known as win-win negotiating. It seeks
to define a third way to resolving conflict in terms of the dilemma of managing
mixed motives between cooperation and competition. Negotiation is a
wholistic holistic communication
process that enables two parties to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement
or resolve a conflict between them. Negotiation is part of our everyday
interaction within families and communities. It exists in one form or another
in every culture. First of all, I will address the concept of negotiation
in this context on the level of principle by asking the question, "Is a
negotiated settlement appropriate?" Secondly, I will focus on the pragmatic
application of negotiation in this context by asking the question, "Is a
negotiated settlement possible?" I will then consider both the distributive
(zero-sum-game) and integrative
(win-win) bargaining approaches.
502. I will now address the concept of negotiation in the religious/church context on the level of principle by asking the question, "Is a negotiated settlement appropriate?" In other words, is a negotiated settlement a morally appropriate and principled solution to the conflict in the Episcopal Church over homosexuality? Many thoughtful people on both sides of the issue would preclude such a possibility because in their own minds it presumes a compromise on doctrine or principle. Dr. Stephen Noll writes, "It is my conviction that there is no way the two religions within one church can be reconciled logically or theologically. Therefore, the only reasonable way out is a political/canonical solution." (iv) The Reverend John Donnelly offered this comment, "I do not favor the idea of a negotiated settlement with those who would change the biblical standards on sexual behavior in our church." (v) If we assume that the heart of a negotiated settlement involves compromise over deeply held religious beliefs and values then it would seem that such an approach would at best be considered a moral compromise or a handshake with the devil. However, in negotiation it is sometimes helpful to reframe the question. In this context the question becomes, "Can we find a problem solving approach that would enable two distinct identity-based communities with irreconcilable core values to live with each other in a respectful and creative context without compromising their identity or their convictions?" To answer this question in a typically Anglican fashion I should approach it from a blended context of scripture, tradition and reason.
503. First of all, a negotiated settlement is appropriate because there
is a biblical basis for it. In the New Testament book of Acts of the Apostles
Chapter 15 there is a serious dispute between Paul, Barnabas and a group
of Judaizers. The issue focused on whether Gentiles should take on Jewish
lifestyle to become followers of Jesus. Paul's position was that Gentiles
should be free of adopting Jewish regulations and lifestyle. The Judaizer's
position was that Gentiles should embrace the whole law of Moses. The apostles
in Jerusalem exercised great wisdom in discerning the underlying interests,
needs and fears of both parties and proposed a principled settlement that
honored Jewish concerns and sensitivities while also enabling Paul to carry
out his mission with the least amount of hurdles for Gentiles to become part
of this new movement. This should encourage us to consider a problem solving
approach. If it was needed and utilized by the first followers of Jesus why
is it not an appropriate solution for interchurch
intrachurch conflict today?
(In my view, the description in Acts does not give
enough details for us to conclude that the win-win or problem
solving approach was used. In fact, what is recorded (Acts 10:10
ff) was that Peter changed his mind re kosher food due to a dream, and
that not long after, certain gentiles were observed as manifesting signs
(speaking in tongues) of having received the Holy Spirit. Perhaps the rationale
that the law had not been given to the gentiles so that they did not need
to obey it could be seen as the type of "outside-the-box" thinking implicit
in win-win negotiating.)
504. Secondly, a negotiated settlement is appropriate because it is consistent with the Anglican tradition of "via media" which means finding a principled middle course. Anglicans pride themselves on the concept of unity in diversity and see themselves as a comprehensive church that enables them to be a bridge within the total Christian community. Anglicans are prepared to live in an ecclesiastical structure that provides room for groups with profoundly different approaches to spirituality, who speak different languages of faith and who have different priorities of mission. However, what vehicle does one use to honor this tradition when the diversity of the groups extends to what some see as irreconcilable core values? (As noted previously, there is no evidence that treatment of homosexuals has traditionally been an Anglican, or even Christian, core value.) I propose that a negotiated settlement of the conflict in the context of a principled problem solving approach is Anglican by its very nature and consistent with our tradition for dealing with differences and conflict. (Talking, often acrimoniously, about our differences, but not taking legislative action based on them, is also a centuries-old Anglican tradition.)
505. Thirdly, a negotiated settlement is appropriate because it is consistent with the values that we espouse as a religious community. At the core of our common values as Anglicans are such concepts as reconciliation, unity, forgiveness, and love for your brother or sister. In light of such values how can we justify the present contentious conflict spiral? Are we not bound to consider alternatives such as the problem solving approach inherent in a negotiated settlement? As long as the process is consistent with our values and the result is principled, fair and consensual we should be willing to explore such an alternative.
506. Finally, a negotiated settlement is appropriate because it is
a reasonable and reasoned approach to resolving conflict. It assumes that
both parties have legitimate needs, interests, values, hopes and fears. It
assumes that both parties are discerning aspects of the truth, but fail to
see the whole picture. It assumes that both parties would prefer to
create have a less adversarial environment within the Episcopal
Church. It assumes that religious leaders would blend a zealousness for the
truth with a humility to hear and understand the perception of the truth
by one who begins from a different basic premise or who weighs the same evidence
and emerges in a different place. It assumes that we share some sense of
collective shame for the negative witness that our conflict has upon those
who are not followers of Jesus.
507. I will now address the concept of negotiation in the religious/church context on the level of pragmatic application by asking the question, "Is a negotiated settlement possible?" Even if such a resolution of the conflict is appropriate, is it indeed possible given the highly contentious conflict spiral that exists at the present time? We must begin with a recognition that negotiation involves a strategic choice between competition and cooperation. This is true for both Conservatives and Liberals. It is part of our human nature. As such, I will explore two possible approaches for a negotiated settlement: distributive and integrative bargaining. I will begin by analyzing the application of distributive bargaining principles to this particular conflict in the Episcopal Church.
508. The first principle of distributive bargaining is the fixed pie
principle which makes the assumption that there is a
fixed amount of assets involved in the negotiation and that the primary goal
of both parties is to claim as much value as possible.
(This form of bargaining is called "distributive" because
the issue is the distribution of the valuables.) This means
that it is a zero sum exchange, --
whatever one party wins is a loss for the other party. At the present
time the conflict is being approached by both parties as a zero sum exchange.
A gain for the Liberals is perceived as a loss for the Conservatives,
and vice versa. For Liberals claiming
as much value as they can means not only changing the official doctrine of
the Episcopal Church on human sexuality, but also influencing other
provinces of the Anglican Communion to move in the same direction.
the Conservatives to broaden their views. For
Conservatives claiming as much value as they can means preventing this change
in doctrine, promoting a return of the church to its primary mission of
evangelism and justice, and minimizing the impact of coercive Liberal tactics.
Ultimately, the fixed pie, zero sum approach is doomed and
will could lead to
a significant schism in the
Episcopal Church. Therefore, it is absolutely critical to change the mindset
of the parties to an expanded pie approach that seeks to create value so
as to result in mutual benefit. (What the author calls
a zero-sum game may in fact be a lose-lose situation (negative-sum game),
because of excessive legal costs, and because of the degradation in society's
view of the Episcopal Church as intellectually respectable, putting a damper
on our evangelism efforts. However, some of the potential schismatics
may be playing a game of bluffing about choosing a "poison-pill-for-both-of-us"
approach. Only those whose hearts overrule their heads would actually choose
such an approach, and my estimate is that they will number well less than
five percent of our membership. Any such estimate is, of course, arguable.
After extreme negativists leave, there may be a net gain for the vast
majority, because they will able to focus on mission and evangelism.)
509. (As a professional CEO, I have on various occasions encountered a situation where a valued employee bargains for something by threatening to resign. If what the employee wants is reasonable by normal business criteria, then one can usually reach a satisfactory settlement. However if what the employee wants is not reasonable from the perspective of the business, then the employee's resignation must be accepted. Giving in to blackmail only leads to more blackmail, and is thus very poor policy for any organization.)
510. The second principle of distributive bargaining is that the
negotiation proceeds from a range of
positions. Each party has a bottom line beyond which they will
not negotiate any further. Each party also has an aspiration which reflects
its best hopes in the negotiation. For each of the parties the range between
their bottom line and their aspiration is known as their bargaining range.
Where the bargaining ranges of the two parties overlap, this is known as
the zone of agreement and forms the basis for successful resolution of the
negotiation. First of all, what is the present bottom line for each party?
For Conservatives I believe that the present bottom line would be no official
change in the doctrinal historical
teaching of the Episcopal Church on human sexuality,
and that blessings of qualified same sex unions and
the present diocesan local option on ordinations be prohibited. For
Liberals I believe that the present bottom line would be enactment of legislation
by General Convention that would provide liturgical forms of blessing for
qualified same sex unions and stated policies
that would open the ordination process officially to
practicing qualified homosexuals
whose unions had been blessed by the church. Historically, the bottom line
of the Conservatives has shifted over the past years in light of contentious
tactics on the part of Liberals, losses in General
Convention votes , the Righter Court decision and the perceived growing tide
of sexual liberalism in American society. However, for Liberals their
bottom line has not wavered from official welcoming and inclusiveness of
gays and lesbians into the full sacramental life of the church
on an equal basis with straights. Given these
two bottom lines it raises an obvious question. Is there, in fact, a zone
of agreement between Conservatives and Liberals that would form the basis
of agreement? At the present time if the negotiation were approached in a
single issue format it appears that the two positions are mutually exclusive
and that there is no basis for successful resolution of the conflict. I believe
that Conservatives (at least the bridgebuilders) are prepared to live with
the present messiness experienced in de facto local option where each diocesan
bishop decides the blessing policy for his/her diocese,
but ordinations to deacon, priest, or bishop of those in avowed same-sex
relationships would not be permitted. (Perhaps
some Conservatives are prepared to live with these things, but some Conservatives
at least seemingly are not.) However, at the present time this
situation would be unacceptable to at least some
Liberals.
511. This discussion about bottom lines and zones of agreement raises
an additional issue. What are the alternatives to a negotiated agreement
for both parties should there be no negotiated settlement? Specifically,
for each party, what is their best alternative to a
negotiated agreement (BATNA). For Conservatives the BATNA would
be converting the present American Anglican Council network into an official
ecclesiastical structure known as the Province of the Church in the United
States and seeking formal recognition from other provinces of the Anglican
Communion and from Canterbury as the continuing expression of the Episcopal
Church in America. (The unlikelihood of their achieving
such recognition by developed-world Provinces and lasting recognition by
third-world Provinces has already been pointed out. Also, I am not
convinced that setting up the alternative structure is actually the best
thing for the Conservatives. It all depends on what their real motivations
are. If their main motive is to retain an Anglican/catholic connection,
they could join one of the many existing "Anglican" splinter groups. Or,
they could become Roman Catholics. But if their real issue is control
rather than doctrine, then the only thing they can do is set up their own
denomination. But in any event, I don't think that many from the pews
will join a start-up denomination, even if they leave ECUSA. Not many
did in 1976, so why would more do so now? Also, the recent example
of the August 1999 decision of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
(ELCA) in approving full communion (acceptance of the Historic Episcopate
and interchangability of clergy (within specified guidelines)) may provide
an instructive example. A vocal ELCA minority had threatened schism
if full communion were passed, and it was indeed passed.) For
Liberals the BATNA would be either a full court press for a legislative victory
at General Convention or, barring that, continued unofficial
same sex blessings and ordinations until it becomes an established
reality by the "facts on the ground." in
accordance with the 1979 resolution and the existing Constitution and Canons
of the Episcopal Church.
512. The third principle of distributive bargaining is the Negotiation
Dance. The Negotiation Dance is a wholistic
holistic communication process involving a series
of mutual concessions that enables two parties to begin at initial positions
and ultimately arrive at agreement near a commonly understood midpoint. This
process includes both verbal and nonverbal elements, bluffing, puffery and
mutual concessions. It can also include a host of contentious tactics such
as extreme opening positions, rigidity, threats, silence, ultimatums, stalling,
withholding information or concessions or misrepresentation of opinions or
bottom lines. There is one important point for all sides of this conflict
to understand. If the distributive bargaining approach is to be utilized
as a means of resolving this conflict there can be no avoidance of the
Negotiation Dance if both parties want to avoid exploitation and achieve
their goals. Thus, at this point I believe we reach a moral dilemma. If the
Negotiation Dance is at the heart of the distributive bargaining approach
then is it a proper and principled approach for followers of Jesus to utilize
as a means of resolving this conflict? This raises a host of ethical questions
about conduct in a negotiation. Is there a principled way to be competitive?
The first dilemma focuses on the adversarial nature of competitive negotiation.
As biblical persons we are exhorted to love not only our brother/sister,
but also our neighbor and enemy. The adversarial nature seems inconsistent
with that professed value. The second dilemma focuses on the issue of respect.
It would seem that distributive bargaining by its very nature causes us to
treat the negotiating partner in a disrespectful manner which is inconsistent
with our professed value of guarding the dignity of all persons. The third
dilemma focuses on the issue of honesty which includes concealment, lying,
misrepresentations and omissions. By its very nature competitive negotiation
entails the concealment of information so that one can simply avoid exploitation.
These issues need to be considered in the choice of an operating theory of
negotiation.
513. The fourth principle of distributive bargaining is the opening offer or position. Each negotiator faces three basic questions. Who should make the opening offer, them or us? Where to open in terms of the opening position, reasonable or in the insult zone? How to make the presentation, soft or firm? For Conservatives an opening offer would probably include the following elements: no change in the official doctrine of the church, no liturgical forms for same sex blessings, a moratorium on all blessings and ordinations for practicing gays and lesbians for at least three General Conventions and renunciation of coercive tactics by the Liberals. For Liberals an opening offer would probably include the following elements: General Convention approval of a liturgical format for same sex blessings that would be included in an official book of alternative services, canonical changes opening the ordination process to all persons regardless of sexual orientation and practice (I hope the author recognizes that he is hyperbolizing here -- his wording would include child abusers, polygamists, rapists, etc.!), standardization of practice in all dioceses and abandonment by Conservatives of their efforts to recruit African Asian and Latin American bishops to pressure and isolate the U.S. church. Given these two likely opening positions based on a one issue paradigm the next principle becomes vital in the negotiation process.
514. The final principle of distributive bargaining is linkage. This means that in the bargaining process when there are multiple issues on the table they can be linked together in such a manner as to form a more compelling package for both sides. (In the business and political worlds, linkage is an extremely valuable tool in negotiating. It amounts to "I'll give you more of this, if you'll give me more of that." However, in a value-driven or identity-driven conflict, it may have less value.) As was discussed earlier this is not a simple interest-based conflict revolving around one issue. It is, in fact, an identity-based conflict which, in reality, involves multiple issues touching on both doctrine and discipline. These other issues, which were listed in the earlier description of the conflict, if linked together could be helpful to enable more possibilities for mutual benefit and to address the underlying interests of both parties. I suspect that without some type of linkage that there will be no zone of agreement and the parties will be forced to retreat to their BATNAs.
515. Earlier I spoke of the fact that this is an identity-based conflict. Jay Rothman writes that such conflicts are not resolved by the normal means of competitive negotiation, but require a problem solving approach that is interwoven with a four step process of surfacing antagonism (done to improve self-awareness and not done in the presence of the negotiating opponent), creating resonance, inventing cooperative options and developing action by the setting of joint agendas (ARIA). As such, I will now analyze the application of integrative bargaining principles to this conflict in the Episcopal Church. This theory of negotiation is also known as the Problem Solving Approach or Principled Negotiation or "win-win" negotiation and was developed by Roger Fisher and William Ury (vi) of the Harvard Negotiation Project.
516. The first principle of integrative bargaining is
to invoke the expanded pie
principle concept. This involves
a focus in the negotiation process on creating value so that there is the
opportunity for joint gains by both parties. It assumes that this is a conflict
situation in which joint gains are possible that will only happen if the
Conservatives and Liberals can be encouraged to look beyond the zero sum
exchange in the single issue of homosexuality and approach this as an
identity-based conflict for which there are multiple issues that relate to
collective identity, security and vitality. This may be where the principle
of linkage will be helpful in even framing the context for a negotiation
process that seeks to create value. In Jay Rothman's work on identity-based
conflicts one of the four steps of the ARIA process is creating resonance
through reflexive reframing. As a result, the value creating question
becomes, "Can we find a solution that would enable two distinct identity-based
communities with seemingly irreconcilable core
values to live with each other in a respectful and creative context without
compromising their identity or convictions?"
517. The second principle of integrative bargaining is the soft on people/firm on issues principle. Negotiation is a process of communication involving people which requires a basic trust to develop between the two parties. It assumes that the parties have an interest both in substance (issues) and in relationships. It assumes a more strategic view of relationships which requires separating people from the problem. In problem solving theory a conflict is viewed as a mutual problem to be studied and resolved jointly by the parties. Fisher and Ury speak about three basic techniques for separating people from the problem. These include perception, communication and emotion. Rothman's first step of surfacing antagonism would be helpful in this process to enable the parties to ventilate strong negative emotions about each other (but not to each other). There have been years of demonizing each other that has created strong negative attitudes and perceptions on both sides. The boil needs to be constructively lanced if healing and transformation are to take place. Conservatives need to try to discern why it is that what happens in certain other people's bedrooms is so viscerally important to them. Liberals need to see Conservatives as having needs, and to to recognize that Conservatives are not just trying to be persecutors; Conservatives see themselves as acting out of principle, even if they don't use the same biblical hermeneutic on other topics. Rothman's second step of creating resonance would be helpful in enabling the parties to walk in each other's shoes so as to view each other as people of good will who have arrived at their convictions in an honest and principled search for truth. Story-telling is a major tool for creating resonance.
518. The third principle of integrative bargaining is the reconciling
interests principle. This brings us to the heart or essence of the problem
solving approach to negotiation which says: focus on interests not
positions. It assumes that behind incompatible positions lie possible
compatible interests. Service to our Lord is clearly
one common interest. Interests are more intangible needs, values,
goals, aspirations or fears that must be satisfied to complete a negotiation.
The reconciling interests principle involves one technique known as "going
below the line" which means seeking the reason behind the position. What
might be the underlying interests of Conservatives? I shall offer four
possibilities. First of all, there is the issue of moral principle.
How can they continue to live with integrity and support with their tithes
and offerings a diocesan or national institutional structure that espouses
beliefs that are viewed as doctrinal heresy and ethical sin? Secondly, there
is the issue of living in a hostile environment. As the psalmist writes,
"How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?"
(However, many missionaries know the importance of
of singing the Lord's song in a foreign land.) Many Conservatives
live in dioceses with Liberal bishops and perceive the culture and ideology
of the diocese to be hostile and uncaring about their concerns. They feel
tolerated and unwelcome. This is also largely true about Conservative perceptions
of the national church structure. The entrenched
elected leadership
-- and their appointees
-- are is largely Liberal and is
are perceived as having an agenda that is almost
wholly inconsistent with Conservative goals of evangelism and church growth.
(This may be how Conservatives see things, but if so
they have a significant unreality factor. While it is true that Conservatives
are typically much more active than Liberals in evangelism, they also tend
to overlook the strong social service motivation and action of many Liberals.
Possibly a joint ECUSA goal which would appeal to both groups would
be a major increase in support of combined outreach ministry and evangelism
along the lines of the 1973-83 Venture in Mission program.)
Finally Thirdly,
there is the issue of fear about Liberal coercive tactics. For three
decades Conservatives have watched Liberals begin by presenting their agenda
in permissive, "big tent" language and after securing approval, engaged in
coercive measures to impose their position on Conservatives.
Conservatives need to identify what conditions they
are afraid of. Is it that they will have a gay bishop in a (blessed)
relationship? Is it that they will go to the altar rail with gay couples?
(They do already, but they may not know it.) Is it that a person
of the same gender will make a pass at them? Naming one's fears is an
important step in getting them in perspective. Finally, there
is the uniqueness of Jesus issue, which is the core issue for
Conservatives. The universalism of the
some Liberals is deeply offensive to Conservatives
and more than even homosexuality forms the basis for a line in the Anglican
sand. (Wow! Here the author opens a whole new
topic for discussion. Are we going to solve all Conservative-Liberal issues
in one series of meetings?)
519. What might be the underlying interests of Liberals? First of all,
there is the issue of faithfulness to God's
moral principles. How can they continue to live
with integrity in an institution that does not practice such basic biblical
values as justice and inclusion, particularly for gay and lesbian persons.
Specifically, they homosexual
Episcopalians feel excluded from full,
equal participation in the sacramental life
of the church such as marriage and ordination. Secondly, there is the issue
of dignity and respect. Should gays and lesbians be expected to live in a
community that practices "don't ask, don't tell" which creates a sense of
shame and an intrinsic message of "I'm okay, you're not okay?"
Should they support a church whose lack of moral
leadership fails to challenge a national moral climate of permissiveness
for gay-bashing and even hate murders? They are seeking respect
and affirmation and a just society. Thirdly,
there is the self-acceptance issue. Many
Some gay and lesbian people will say that
their journey began by seeking after they recognized their
homosexuality, they tried healing
changing themselves through
counseling, prayer, discipline and/or even exorcism. For
the vast majority of them, None
none of these approaches worked in spite of
Conservatives' claim that God can heal the homosexual. For many gays and
lesbians healing came through self-acceptance and/or
a growing recognition that God wants them to be the way that they are.
Finally, there is the issue of hostile environments. Many gay and
lesbian persons experience Conservative congregations as being hostile to
them in their basic identity. Pious statements such as "love the sinner and
hate the sin" are perceived as code words which mean
"Hate of Gays and Lesbians Are
Unwelcome is Encouraged here!"
520. The fourth principle of integrative bargaining is the creative options
for mutual gain principle. The basic concept is to be creative by going
"outside the box" to consider all possible and even crazy options through
a three step process of brainstorming: identifying, developing and evaluating
ideas and options. This is the point where I believe that issues of local
option, relationships with the Anglican Communion and new patterns of episcopal
oversight could be creatively explored as part of a total settlement package.
Allow me to offer three creative possibilities for living together in the
same structure. First of all, could we decide to accept
continue the principle of local option and allow
the practice of same sex blessings and ordinations to be decided on the diocesan
level and have no have this be
our national policy? Local option is what we
had for nearly two centuries on issues of race. Secondly, could
every diocese develop partner or companion relationships with an overseas
diocese whose present bishop has opposing
sexuality views and expand the role of the overseas bishop to
provide pastoral care and episcopal oversight such as confirmation to
congregations who cannot in good conscience accept the ministry of the diocesan
bishop? (If we're going to accept the concept of "flying
bishops" - as this notion is called where it is being tried in the UK - why
should they be from another country (and thus not subject to ECUSA rules)?
The international (presumably inter-Provincial) aspect invokes many
issues of order, not to mention expense. Personal compatibility of
the paired bishops would be very important; discovering such would be much
harder with strangers from another country. Also, unequal financial assets
of the two dioceses could introduce potential power/colonialism issues.)
Thirdly, could there be agreement on financial assessments at the diocesan
or national level to provide for a minimum tax that needs to be paid by a
congregation to the diocese or by a diocese to the national church in lieu
of the full assessment without fear of coercive measures and punishment.
(Again, the author presents the notion of a stonger,
more authoritative, centralized Church government, compared to the present
voluntary system. He seems to want an authoritative system -- as long
as it agrees with him. Since his views are not those of the people
who win elections in ECUSA, he is arguing for a non-democratic, authoritative
system. Curious.)
521. The final principle of integrative bargaining is the objective criteria principle. How shall the parties evaluate the merits of each proposal? Shall it be a test of wills in terms of who can bully the other side in a more effective manner. No, this principle insists that the resolution of the issue be based on objective standards. For Anglicans these standards already exist and are threefold. Is the proposal biblical in that it is consistent with biblical teaching, practice and values? (As judged by whom?! Both Conservatives and Liberals feel that their positions are consistent with Biblical principles. See Note 2.) Is the proposal consistent with our tradition as an episcopally governed, sacramental and liturgical church? (Same question!! Conservatives cite 16th- and 17th-century Anglican church positions, whereas Liberals cite 19th- and 20th-century ones. Are we to be constitutional and democratic, or not?) Is the proposal reasonable in the sense that it is consensual by mutual agreement of the parties, durable in terms of holding up over a long period and palatable in terms of the ability of the negotiators on both sides of the conflict to sell the accord to their constituencies? (Note that while the author seems to be invoking the Anglican three-legged stool of scripture, reason, and tradition, he is using the word reasonable in a different sense from that in the tripod.)
601. Comment: It is in this section of the paper that my thoughts begin most seriously to diverge from those of Rev. Cox. While he is quite aware of the kinds of issues involved, and has done a nice analysis of them as found in the Episcopal Church, his proposed process for resolving them (see below) is in my view, simply preposterous. It has two overwhelming flaws:
602. The above having been said, many of the steps described below are not unreasonable steps. It is principally the international and independent infrastructure that is proposed for taking the steps that I found preposterous. And with or without the international aspect, the sequence of steps can be compressed by using modern team-design methods.
603. Mediation is a facilitated negotiation between two parties involving the intervention of a mutually acceptable third party who has limited or no decision-making authority. Mediation is both an ancient and widespread practice across many cultures for resolving conflicts. In this section I will address the concept of a facilitated settlement as a resolution to the conflict in the Episcopal Church over homosexuality. First of all, I will address the question, "Is a facilitated settlement appropriate?" Secondly, I will focus on the pragmatic application of mediation in this context and explore the five stages of convening, opening, communicating, negotiating and closing.
604. I will begin by addressing the concept of mediation in the Episcopal
Church context by asking the question, "Is a facilitated settlement appropriate?'
In other words, if one is to bring about a resolution to the conflict in
the Episcopal Church over homosexuality, is mediation the most appropriate
choice if one considers the whole spectrum of the dispute resolution processes?
In considering the range of choices one option for Conservatives and Liberals
would be avoidance of the conflict, to deliberately walk away from it and
continue to co-exist in an uneasy truce within the same institutional structure
like an estranged married couple living at different ends of the household
and simply ignoring each other except when absolutely necessary. To a meaningful
extent, we have been doing this already. However, this option will
become completely untenable for schismatically-minded
rigid Conservatives if General Convention 2000 in Denver makes the
decision to change the position of the Episcopal Church on human sexuality.
A second option would be direct negotiation between Conservatives and Liberals
without facilitation by a third party intermediary. Because of the diffuse
nature of the leadership and the lack of trust on both sides this is
arguably not a viable option. Some outside force
is apparently needed to initiate and manage
the process. A third option would be mediation utilizing a neutral third
party with no decision making authority. In a moment I will explain why this
is not only the best option but in reality, the only option. A fourth option
would be arbitration, an extreme version of which would
consist of submitting the conflict to an international tribunal assembled
under the auspices of the Anglican Consultative Council in England that would
have binding decision making authority. Because of the autonomous nature
of the provincial structure of the Anglican Communion, such an approach would
be inconsistent with historical patterns of governance,
and would be dead on arrival if presented to General
Convention. In addition, there are no such established tribunals within
the Anglican Communion for adjudicating disputes.
(Preceding sentence moved here from below.)
Historically, international resolutions and directives are
considered advisory and non binding on individual provinces of the Anglican
Communion of which the American Episcopal Church is but one province. A second
factor mitigating against this approach for
organizing arbitration is the intense distrust and hostility
that some Liberals feel toward the Lambeth
Conference of Anglican Bishops that convened in Canterbury, England in July
1998 and which, among other actions, spoke decisively for the traditional
biblical view of marriage and sexuality. (Not so. The
traditional biblical view of marriage in the Bible is that a man may have
more than one wife, and that he has authority over his wives, (including
divorce at will in the Old Testament), and -- also for most of the Old Testament
period -- that he can have all the sex he wants with unmarried women as long
as he supports them economically (because they are no longer marriageable).
The Jews didn't begin to adopt monogamy until after they had been conquered
by Alexander's forces, and were ruled by his generals and then the generals'
descendants. Jewish polygamy still existed in New Testament times.
And it wasn't until the twelfth century that consent by the bride became
a part of the western church's view.) A third factor rendering
arbitration untenable is cultural in nature. Americans are, by nature, highly
individualistic and an agreement imposed upon the parties would be of dubious
durability. A fifth option would be litigation through the American legal
system. However, this is not a feasible option as it is already a well
established precedent that the courts in the U.S. do not intervene in internal
religious conflicts, even if asked. Such an option would also be considered
inconsistent with biblical values that mitigate against taking internal disputes
into the secular law courts of a society. (I'm not
sure what the author is thinking of, here. In parts of both the Old Testament
and the New, government is seen as having moral responsibility and authority.)
In addition, there are no such established tribunals within
the Anglican Communion for adjudicating disputes.
(Preceding sentence moved earlier in paragraph.)
A sixth option would be nonviolent direct action on the part
of one or both parties. More Conservatives could
reduce or terminate financial support for dioceses
and the national church. They could form alternative ecclesiastical structures
(supposedly) within the present Episcopal Church
(but contrary to its Constitution and Canons) or
even try to develop an entirely new province
of the Anglican Communion. Conservative bishops could
continue to be brought into Liberal dioceses
to perform sacramental and pastoral functions. Liberals, on the other hand,
could intensify their efforts toward establishing gay unions and ordinations
that would render an official decision simply as a de facto recognition or
could continue to shut down the legitimacy and the channels for articulating
dissent by Conservatives (Comment: I don't understand
what the author is thinking here. What does shut down legitimacy mean? How
would channels for articulating dissent be shut down in a country with
freedom of speech, and increasing use of e-mail, the Internet, and desk-top
publishing? Or are all these words just a bemoaning the Conservatives'
inability to win General Convention votes?) and, thereby, driving
them out of the church with the hope of retaining the lion's share of the
assets and maintaining recognition as the only valid American province of
the Anglican communion. However, nonviolent direct action would
arguably not resolve the conflict in a positive
or redeeming manner, but would simply hasten an
historic another schism.
605. Earlier I stated that mediation is not only the best option for resolution of the conflict, but is in reality, the only option. There are seven reasons for my conclusion. First of all, mediation is the process that provides the maximum amount of necessary facilitation with the minimal amount of outside coercion. Mediation would empower Conservatives and Liberals to come to their own agreement which would guarantee a much higher degree of durability. Secondly, mediation is consistent with the values and some of the historical practice of religious communities in resolving conflict, not counting the Reformation, Inquisition, and the break between East and West. Thirdly, mediation creates the least adversarial environment which fosters not only resolution of the issues, but also rebuilding and strengthening of the relationships. Fourthly, mediation is private and could be conducted out of the glare of the media. Fifthly, mediation would give Conservatives and Liberals a significant amount of control over both the substance and the process of the conflict resolution, and participation is a key ingredient for building commitment to an outcome. Sixthly, mediation would foster the most creative environment in terms of "going below the line" from positions to interests so as to develop options that would satisfy the needs of both parties. Finally, mediation would be the most healing of the dispute resolution processes that would enable a comprehensive reconciliation within the Episcopal Church and the larger Anglican Communion.
606. A major weakness of mediated negotiation as applied to this situation is that it is normally conducted by representatives who either have direct authority, or who report directly to persons with direct authority. Neither for Liberals or Conservatives is there anyone other than the General Convention who has Church-wide authority in the Episcopal Church.
607. I will now address the pragmatic application of mediation to the Episcopal Church context and discuss the objectives, goals and strategies for each of the five stages of the process: convening, opening, communicating, negotiating and closing.
608. The first stage of the mediation process is convening and the specific objective in the Episcopal Church context would be:
To bring recognized Conservative and Liberal leaders to the negotiating table who will participate in good faith, who will have charismatic authority to arrive at a settlement and who will he able to sell an agreement to their respective constituencies.
609. To fulfil this basic and broad objective there will need to be six goals or tasks with attendant strategies. Christopher W. Moore (vii) points out that this is the most difficult phase of the conflict resolution process and the sobering reality is that the parties may simply be unwilling to participate in any kind of mediation.
610. The first goal of the convening stage would be to create a legitimate context for mediation to occur and be accepted by both the positional and charismatic leadership of the Episcopal Church. I believe that such a context would be under the aegis of Resolution 111.6 of the Lambeth Conference of Bishops in July 1998 which states that if a province is in crisis and if the province does not have sufficient resources within itself to resolve the crisis that an appeal is made to the Provincial Primates (Archbishops) under the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury to come in a consultation role. Specifically, I am positing that such a crisis does exist in the American Episcopal Church and suggesting the intervention of third party intermediaries in the form of an international mediation team under the auspices of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Primates. (As mentioned, this idea will be dead on arrival at General Convention. Beyond this point, I will not repeat my comments about the unacceptability and unworkability of the international scheme, but merely comment on issues of fact and opinion. In the following, many steps are described, but it is often not clear who will take them, or by what authority. I will not keep repeating that comment at each step either.)
611. The second goal of the convening stage would be to assemble an international mediation team. Such a team would need to consist of two parts; three archbishops that would be acceptable to both Conservatives and Liberals and two or three experts in mediating religious conflicts. It would be significant that these experts might be Anglicans who have experience in mediating large scale complex identity-based conflicts. The presence of the Archbishops on the team lends authority and suggest that the entire Anglican communion has a stake in the successful resolution of this conflict. Such a team might be assembled by the office of the Anglican Consultative Council with the direct supervision of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
612. The third goal of the convening stage would be to identify the key players on both sides of the conflict. Once the international mediation team is assembled one of their first tasks would be to identify the positional and charismatic leadership of both the Conservative and Liberal sides. These are the bishops, priests or laypersons who speak with authority on both sides and have significant influence with their respective constituencies. On the Conservative side the mediation team would want to be consulting such groups as the American Anglican Council, Episcopalians United, The 1928 Prayer Book Society, the Irenaeus Fellowship of Bishops, Episcopal Renewal Ministries, and Trinity Episcopal School For Ministry. On the Liberal side the mediation team would want to be consulting such groups as Integrity, the Episcopal Women's Caucus, the Episcopal Urban Caucus, Episcopal Divinity School and the former Presiding Bishop. Through this process the names of the key players would begin to emerge and they would be invited to form two negotiating teams. There would need to be ten to twelve persons on each negotiating team (why this number?) and they would need to be bridgebuilders who have deep convictions about the truth of their positions balanced by a deep concern for unity, healing and reconciliation in the Episcopal Church.
613. The fourth goal of the convening stage would be contacting the key players on both sides, building credibility and establishing rapport with them. Once the key players who would form potential Conservative and Liberal negotiating teams were identified, they would be contacted by one of the mediators via telephone and arrangements would be made for an initial interview to determine their suitability to the process. Once all the potential negotiators were determined by the mediating team they would be sent an official letter of invitation from the Archbishop of Canterbury to serve on the negotiating team. Building credibility and establishing rapport between t