There was an interesting conversation on The Religion Report the other day about this very issue and they coined it in terms of relativism versus inclusivism. See the transcript and scroll down to about two thirds where David Rutledge is talking to Kath Engebretson:

David Rutledge:You also talk about relativism, and this is a related malaise for you, is this idea that whatever works for you is OK, you know, this is my truth, that’s your truth; you can’t judge other faiths by your own standards. Now are you saying that this mindset doesn’t promote good interfaith education, where from another perspective it might look as though that mindset is actually very tolerant and open, and inclusive. Why is relativism such a bad thing in interfaith education

Why’s this a problem? Because relativism is about ending the conversation. It’s the same as saying: let’s not talk about it. Or let’s agree not to be friends. It puts a blanket over the differences and tries to pretend they are not there: that can only end in problems down the line. It also means that we can’t critically engage with another faith. An important aspect of any human relationship is that we learn about ourselves and can be challenged to change. A better approach says Engebretson is called inclusivism and was written about by two theologians: Hans Kung and Karl Rahner.

Inclusivism I think means that I can still share in the goodness and truth of your religion, but coming from a committed stance in my own, and knowing what it is that attracts me and keeps me in my own religion, with an openness to learn how I can grow, through engagement with people in other traditions. So it’s a very far cry from relativism.

But this quickly leads to a less appealing discussion, the idea of the “Anonymous Christian” which is the idea that people in other faiths are saved by Christ, they just don’t know it. Engebretson is uncomfortable with that idea and so am I because it is almost going full circle back to the original problem of relativism. I think the problem is that interfaith communication is always going to have tension, it is never at peace but inclusivism means we can acknowledge the tension and still converse peacefully.

The interview introduces the Family as a network of Christian fundamentalists who interpret the Gospel as a message of free market capitalism and salvation through power. Jeff talks about the way they recruit powerful people, their strong aversion to democracy, their links with dictatorship and neo-naziism, their use of the office of the President of the United States and their involvement internationally including their negative influence on the AIDS program in Uganda (by lobbying for Uganda’s AIDS program to stop promoting condoms).

From the show transcript (talking about Doug Coe, the leader of the Family):

Woman: Who is Doug Coe? Here he is on videotapes obtained exclusively by NBC News, with his account of atrocities under Chairman Mao.

Doug Coe: I’ve seen pictures of the young men in the Red Guard, they would bring in this young man’s mother, he would take an axe and cut her head off. They have to put the purposes of the Red Guard ahead of their father, mother, brother, sister, and their own life. That was a covenant, a pledge. That’s what Jesus said.

Woman: In his preaching he repeatedly urges a personal commitment to Jesus Christ, a commitment Coe compares to the blind devotion Hitler demanded.

The interview really must be heard for it’s jaw dropping, blood boiling effect.

To me this story illustrates the folly of religious groups and individuals who place the Bible at the authoritative central place and assume that the Bible can be a reliable guide to faith without any regard for what we now understand about textual criticism. Many Christians reject modern critical theory because they see it undermines the authority of the Bible, but what this theory is also saying is that we can’t read the Bible and assume that there is one definitive meaning that we will all share. The Family illustrates this perfectly because they read the Bible and see a completely different message even from other fundamentalists.

So Lambeth is a conference held by the bishops of the Anglican Communion every ten years since 1867 to discuss doctrine and reaffirm the communion. The communion itself is an association of Anglican churches around the world. Each Anglican Church is actually autonomous so the communion doesn’t have power so much as influence. The conference produces “resolutions” which are not contractual but expressions of agreed values or doctrines for the communion.

This years Lambeth was controversial because after the last one, the Episcopal Church in America (which is part of the communion) ordained a homosexual bishop after the conference had resolved not to ordain homosexuals. This has provoked a reaction in some churches who have since questioned the viability of the communion and whether there still is a communion or whether there is a parting of ways for a largish chunk of the Anglican Church. There are some disenfranchised parishes in America who have sought refuge by becoming part of African Anglican churches who are not shy about condemning homosexuality. This in turn has sparked issues of colonialist tensions in the African churches setting themselves against the western churches but with some of the western churches aligning themselves with the African churches, most notably the Sydney Diocese in Australia.

As I mentioned in a previous post, these mostly African churches have come to a resolution through the Global Anglican Futures Conference (GAFCon) to form a new council of leadership for the global Anglican Church which will be more “top-down” and have real power over the churches that seek to be part of it. Notably, the model that GAFCon has proposed will have the power to excommunicate churches which the Anglican Communion currently lacks.

In other words, the Anglican Communion is currently like a family reunion, no-one in the family has the power to kick someone out even if there are tensions and problems. The GAFCon leadership will be more like a corporation with a board of directors, but it is a bit fuzzy as to the exact set-up at the moment.

Getting back to the 2008 Lambeth, the main criticism has been that it was all talk and no resolutions. According to the Religion Report’s interview with Bruce Kaye (a former secretary general of the Anglican Church in Australia), this was quite deliberate because Rowan William’s (the Archbishop of Canterbury who leads the communion) plan was to set a mood and get general vibes of things rather than lay down resolutions that often get ignored anyway.

The long term plan for the non-GAFCon part of the communion seems to be to form a “covenant” which will be more binding and have the possibility of punitive measures for maverick churches.

It was interesting to hear Dr Kaye’s research into conflict resolution in the Anglican Church (for his book on this topic) and his thoughts on models for dealing with conflict:

...[what is missing is a model] which actually takes the conflicts that arise as conflicts to be dealt with directly. It is interesting that not at all has any institutional effort been directed to bringing the conflicted parties together in any conflict resolution or high level theological debate, about the substantial issues at all in this process. What has been pursued has been an institutional management strategy; do we exclude these people, control these people, tell them to stop doing this and so on and so forth? No-one’s actually, no instrument of the communion has actually addressed the fundamental question that’s in dispute. (Dr Bruce Kaye, “Lambeth Post-Mortem”, Religion Report, link)

What is wrong with the way conflict is handled now?

... it enables other agendas and other layers of conflict to be loaded on to this one, without the thing being clearly identified. And it enables people to conduct the argument without real understanding of the other people’s points of view. (Dr Bruce Kaye, “Lambeth Post-Mortem”, Religion Report, link)

This does seem to be the case from what I can see. From my own experience I know I can learn to respect people with whom I disagree once I’ve been able to talk with them and understand where they’re coming from. Of course I might still think they’re wrong but that’s not the point. A reasonable outcome sometimes is to agree to disagree and then identify what we do have in common in order that we can still co-operate in the places where we have confluence.

References

The Religion Report, “Lambeth Post-mortem”
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2008/2333504.htm

“Lambeth Conferences” in Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambeth_Conferences

My summary of the story is that the Pope felt the need to make a statement on the pill following the Anglican Church’s tentative acceptance of it in the 30s which had originally sparked a knee jerk “no no no” reaction from the Catholic Church. The Pope arranged an uncharacteristically democratic panel which included (gasp) women to advise him. The group had reached a consensus that the rhythm method of contraception may as well just be called parenthood and that matters of contraception should be left to the individuals conscience but in a bizarre back-flip, the Pope under pressure from conservative forces within the church published his encyclical without even letting the reference group know what was in it.

The result was devastating for a church that was already losing touch with society and came as a heartbreaking blow for those who had received so much hope from the outcomes of Vatican II only a few years earlier.

The outcome for the Pope was that the office lost its credibility as a moral guide. You could argue that the church had been losing relevance since the reformation / enlightenment but it wasn’t until the sixties that lack of faith was replaced with open hostility to the church and its presumed moral authority.

It’s interesting to see the forces of conservatism and liberalism at work in this institution. During the reformation, there was a counter reformation which expressed itself in the council of Trent, with Vatican II perhaps we will see a kind of counter Vatican II as well and maybe it started as early as 1968.

Religion Report Transcript