Dear All,

We have heard (by hearsay alone, by the way), that our Special Commission may submit a Report and / or proposed pieces of legislation to GC2006 which may call upon TEC to "repent" of certain things done at -- and since -- GC2003. None of us who even occasionally read this List have to be anything more than merely awake to know that much has been and is being said about all manor of things associated with GC2003. The idea which seems to be only now coming into its own -- and thus just beginning to percolate through this List in a serious way -- is this notion of Repentance. I do not often post here, normally being more than satisfied to sit back and absorb the thoughts of the group from a safe distance. In this instance, however, I decided to speak up.

The Greek root of the word repentance is "metanoia," meaning a change of mind. According to The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics (copyright 1986 by the Westminster Press), repentance "presupposes regret, remorse, sorrow and contrition for one's unrighteousness, and it involves turning to God and changing one's ways." If any of us in the Anglican Communion are going to get through this present unpleasantness together, then we must first agree on the foundations of our discourse. If we are not sitting at the same table, or if we are not on the same page, when we begin talking, what we say -- no matter how fervently or sincerely we say it -- will be pointless since we won't really be saying it to anyone but ourselves.

I submit that the difficulty we now face -- and will continue to face unless something is done (and soon) -- is not that some of us have different understandings than others of us on any particular matter, e.g., women priests/bishops, human sexuality. Nor is it that we base these understandings on different interpretations of the same scriptures. The difficulty is that we either cannot agree on what the real problem is (is it a question of proper sexual Christian morality? is it a political jihad from the Left? is it a matter of scriptural authority? is it a power grab by certain bishops? et cetera) OR that we are not willing to voice it (choosing rather to label our conflict in terms -- or couch it in a context -- which is more palatable but will never be successful because it does not address the real issue).

Members of the Anglican Communion have always traditionally founded their theology on scripture first, but have also always allowed their understanding of scripture to be informed by both tradition and reason. (I realize that I am not telling anyone here anything which they do not already know, and I certainly do not intend to speak presumptuously.) My impression of what it is that we now face is this: there is a new paradigm in the Anglican Communion for scriptural interpretation, and those of us not in that camp do not know how to have a true and honest conversation with those of the new paradigm yet. (In order to have real dialogue, one must enter the conversation with the accepted notion that I might be wrong and you might be right. Without being open to the possibility of being "converted" to the other's way of thinking, there can be no true and honest exchange.)

A direct result of this paradigm shift in parts of the Communion is that a new phenomenon has arisen which seeks to redefine us from being a community which primarily prays together to a Church which has a universal theology -- which we have never had. Our Anglican world seems to have changed from being a house with many rooms, where our common prayer and worship were the foundations, to being a place of exclusion based on the need to follow Law and to be pure before God at the expense of the mutual communion of all of us, no matter how sinful or broken. This is our real problem (de jure).

It now seems that some of us choose to believe that we have a corner on righteousness and that the results of scriptural interpretation by other good, faithful, and sincere Anglicans are little more than heresy when those interpretations were done in a manner different than our personal paradigm. This is the sin of pride, though it is certainly not exclusive to any particular school of thought. We all do this. If we don't voice it, then no amount of talking or listening will ever equal anything other than us just spinning our wheels.

Making matters worse, and making the finding a mutually agreed to beginning point even more difficult, of course, is not that we disagree on matters of human sexuality. Rather, it is that some of us view the questions associated with human sexuality as central to the Christian faith and others of us do not. This takes us inexorably and unfortunately to the question of who gets to decide what is and what is not a central tenant of faith. Quagmire. Enter American democratic-republic polity verses post-colonial European aristocratic polity. Can we in the Communion not be adults, understand this, and find commonality? Can we not agree on a beginning point so that when we're listening we're listening, and when we're talking we're not talking past each other? I don't know.

If one of the ways that we are seeking to do this is via "repentance," then we must do so in a true and honest way. If we do not regret GC2003...if we have no remorse or sorrow...if we feel as though we need not be contrite since GC2003 did nothing unrighteous...or if we don't believe we've turned from God or do not intent to change our ways, then, in good conscience, TEC can repent of nothing, no matter the consequences. If, on the other hand, we actually believe that God is calling us to repent, then we must do so, regardless of how this makes us feel and no matter how difficult it may be for us to do.

Importantly, however, if TEC, in General Convention assembled, is asked to repent and chooses not to, I fervently believe that such a decision would not mean (no matter who says that it does) that this Church is "choosing to walk alone." For me, it will mean that TEC is simply choosing to stand by that which the Anglican Communion does best...that which has bound us together in friendship and fellowship for so long: our Common Prayer and worship. If we could only accept that our history and our liturgy are what make us Anglican and not that we agree on each and every point of theology, we could all take the conservative route and "return to the ways things always have been."

I am not advocating for or against any action or inaction, here. After all, we have yet to even see any proposed resolution. The call to "repentance" simply got my dander up, and, by submitting this missive, I hope to provide what I feel is an accurate (though brief) historical perspective of things -- and a voice to the very particular need we have for understanding before our conversations can be truly meaningful. I submit these thoughts to you.

Faithfully yours,
Daniel S. Dice

I am very grateful for this thoughtful analysis -- and hope that it will be used widely to help us clarify some of the central issues in the church.

I would like to see some unpacking of the term "repentance" by those who are wanting to require it from those of us who voted differently from them. Are you really asking me to express, in the Westminster Dictionary's phrasing,"sorrow and contrition for one's unrighteousness?" That is not part of our life within the Body of Christ, though it is certainly well represented in the language of the Crusades. Should one's statement of repentance include a phrase about capitulation or abdication of one's conscience? If the request or demand for repentance is an honest one, so are these questions. If something other than repentance is being requested or required, those requiring it should be very clear about what it is they are asking.

I believe in honest debate and discussion about matters of faith and practice, but when one demands that the other accept the description of "unrighteous" or express contrition for that state -- something quite different from discernment, honest debate and discussion, or mutuality is going on. There are terms for such relationships and we all know them. If that is not what is intended, someone please tell us what is.

Tom Woodward

These essays were originally posted on the HoB/D list and are reposted here by permission of the authors.