A Statement on Dialogue, Disagreement, and Communal Consultation
In days of old, Rector and Constable were able to rule as benevolent autocrats and were only accountable to an assembly of parishioners and that in a fairly limited sphere. In many ways this is much easier, and when all goes well it is fine, and it is also less time-consuming. But in today's world we can no longer, I believe, regard it as the right way for a Parish to run its affairs whether civil or ecclesiastical. An increasingly well educated and vocal community must have a part in the ordering of its communal life and this should now, in my view, be built into the official fabric of the working of both civil and ecclesiastical communities in our Island” (Canon Michael Halliwell, Rector of St Brelade 1971-1996)
In our life together as a parish, people often turn to Scripture for guidance on how to handle differences. One passage frequently cited is Matthew 18:15–17, where Jesus instructs us to address sin privately at first, then with witnesses, and finally with the wider church if reconciliation fails. This teaching is vital for dealing with moral fault and personal wrongdoing. Yet it is important to recognize that Matthew 18 is not about silencing debate or discouraging discussion. It is about healing relationships when sin has caused harm.
Disagreement, however, is not the same as sin. Throughout the New Testament, we see examples of faithful people debating openly about matters of practice and interpretation. In Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas entered into “sharp dispute and debate” with others over whether Gentile converts must follow the Law of Moses. The apostles and elders gathered in Jerusalem, listened to testimony, and reached a communal decision. This was not handled privately, nor was it treated as moral failure—it was discernment through dialogue.
Similarly, in Galatians 2, Paul recounts how he opposed Peter (Cephas) publicly when Peter withdrew from eating with Gentiles. Paul believed this action compromised the truth of the gospel, and so he challenged Peter openly. This was not a matter of personal sin to be hidden away, but a question of practice that affected the whole community. Scripture shows us that open debate, even confrontation, can be necessary when the integrity of our shared life is at stake.
In our own time, we face similar challenges. Practices and traditions, whether liturgical observances, symbolic acts, or communal customs, can evoke strong feelings and differing interpretations. To treat every disagreement as “sin” is to misapply Scripture and risk stifling the Spirit’s work among us. Instead, we are called to distinguish between moral fault, which requires reconciliation, and honest difference, which requires dialogue.
The quote from Michael Halliwell remindeds that in days past, Rector and Constable could rule as "benevolent autocrats", accountable only in limited ways to parishioners. That may have been simpler, but it is no longer fitting for today’s world. We live in an increasingly well‑educated and vocal community, and it is right that parishioners have a part in ordering our communal life. This principle applies not only to civil governance but also to ecclesiastical practice. Consultation, transparency, and shared discernment are not burdens—they are blessings that strengthen trust and unity.
Therefore, when disagreements arise in a parish, I suggest the following:
The church should be one that listens, debates, and decides together, not as autocrats and subjects, but as brothers and sisters in Christ, seeking truth in love.
In days of old, Rector and Constable were able to rule as benevolent autocrats and were only accountable to an assembly of parishioners and that in a fairly limited sphere. In many ways this is much easier, and when all goes well it is fine, and it is also less time-consuming. But in today's world we can no longer, I believe, regard it as the right way for a Parish to run its affairs whether civil or ecclesiastical. An increasingly well educated and vocal community must have a part in the ordering of its communal life and this should now, in my view, be built into the official fabric of the working of both civil and ecclesiastical communities in our Island” (Canon Michael Halliwell, Rector of St Brelade 1971-1996)
In our life together as a parish, people often turn to Scripture for guidance on how to handle differences. One passage frequently cited is Matthew 18:15–17, where Jesus instructs us to address sin privately at first, then with witnesses, and finally with the wider church if reconciliation fails. This teaching is vital for dealing with moral fault and personal wrongdoing. Yet it is important to recognize that Matthew 18 is not about silencing debate or discouraging discussion. It is about healing relationships when sin has caused harm.
Disagreement, however, is not the same as sin. Throughout the New Testament, we see examples of faithful people debating openly about matters of practice and interpretation. In Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas entered into “sharp dispute and debate” with others over whether Gentile converts must follow the Law of Moses. The apostles and elders gathered in Jerusalem, listened to testimony, and reached a communal decision. This was not handled privately, nor was it treated as moral failure—it was discernment through dialogue.
Similarly, in Galatians 2, Paul recounts how he opposed Peter (Cephas) publicly when Peter withdrew from eating with Gentiles. Paul believed this action compromised the truth of the gospel, and so he challenged Peter openly. This was not a matter of personal sin to be hidden away, but a question of practice that affected the whole community. Scripture shows us that open debate, even confrontation, can be necessary when the integrity of our shared life is at stake.
In our own time, we face similar challenges. Practices and traditions, whether liturgical observances, symbolic acts, or communal customs, can evoke strong feelings and differing interpretations. To treat every disagreement as “sin” is to misapply Scripture and risk stifling the Spirit’s work among us. Instead, we are called to distinguish between moral fault, which requires reconciliation, and honest difference, which requires dialogue.
The quote from Michael Halliwell remindeds that in days past, Rector and Constable could rule as "benevolent autocrats", accountable only in limited ways to parishioners. That may have been simpler, but it is no longer fitting for today’s world. We live in an increasingly well‑educated and vocal community, and it is right that parishioners have a part in ordering our communal life. This principle applies not only to civil governance but also to ecclesiastical practice. Consultation, transparency, and shared discernment are not burdens—they are blessings that strengthen trust and unity.
Therefore, when disagreements arise in a parish, I suggest the following:
- Disagreement is not sin. It is part of the Spirit’s work in shaping us together.
- Open dialogue is biblical. Acts 15 and Galatians 2 show that debate belongs within the life of the church.
- Consultation is essential. As Halliwell notes, our communities flourish when decisions are not imposed but discerned together.
The church should be one that listens, debates, and decides together, not as autocrats and subjects, but as brothers and sisters in Christ, seeking truth in love.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment