Ecclesiology has been running a short series on synodality as a contribution to the current process of study and reflection on this theme in the major Christian churches – obviously the Roman Catholic Church, but also the Orthodox Churches.1 The Churches of the Anglican Communion are also overdue for some heart-searching in this area as I sense that conciliar or synodical structures are usually viewed pragmatically and functionally, even sometimes cynically, rather than ecclesiologically, by those who manage them and even those who participate in them. Previous Editorials on this theme include: Paul McPartan, ‘Serving Communion: Re-thinking the Relationship between Primacy and Synodality’ (16.1); Paul Avis, ‘The Roles of the Ecclesial Orders in the Governance of the Church’ (18.1); and David Grumett, ‘Synods and Conferences’ (18.2). The next issue of this journal will have an Editorial by Paul Fiddes giving a Baptist perspective on synodality. All Editorials are free to read on http://www.brill.com/ecso.
The present Editorial explores the concept of synodality from an Anglican perspective and describes the principles underlying the practice of synodality both within the churches of the Anglican Communion and between them.2 Anglicanism is presented as a credible example of conciliar catholicism. Its structures of discernment, consultation, deliberation and reception include globally the Instruments of Communion, and nationally or regionally the general synods or conventions of the member churches and their diocesan synods. But undoubtedly Anglican conciliarity has further to go in realizing the ideals of inclusion, participation, discipleship and shared responsibility.
Theological Introduction
Synodality stands for the theological imperative of facilitating the full participation of all Christian disciples in the life, worship and mission of the church, including its governance. The theological premise of synodality is that all the faithful are called to a full share in the privileges and responsibilities of Christ’s church. No Christian should be excluded (or feel excluded) from the exercise of the privileges to which they are entitled by their baptism, or from the exercise of the responsibilities that are inseparable from those privileges.
Running through this account are four theologically-loaded and interrelated themes: inclusion, participation, discipleship and shared responsibility. Through the church’s proclamation in word and deed, the Holy Spirit calls and gathers new disciples into Christ’s kingdom. The Holy Spirit draw new Christians into full participation in the graced life of the church. Taking a full part, as Christian disciples, in the life of the body of Christ includes learning to live out in practical terms what it means to be incorporated by baptism into the threefold messianic (anointed) identity of Jesus Christ as Prophet, Priest and King. Sharing in Christ’s regal office, all the faithful are called to bear their part in the governance of his church through the corporate processes of discernment (sensus fidei), deliberation, decision-making and the subsequent reception (positive or negative) of those decisions. The umbrella term for the participation of the universal church in its own governance is synodality.3
I understand synodality to be the practical expression from time to time of the intrinsic nature of the Christian church as a Spirit-filled, cohesive community. Another way of referring to synodality is the historic, well-winnowed language of conciliarity. Conciliarity refers to the practice of the church in gathering together around the open Bible and prayerfully seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Synodality is the concrete way of putting the latent conciliarity of the church into practice. Whether we use the language of conciliarity or of synodality, the reality to which they refer belongs to the very nature of the church at all times and makes the church the church. Conciliarity, which is always present in the church, emerges into action in synodical events and processes in order to resolve or ameliorate vexed issues or conflicts in the church and to reframe its mission in a more effective way.
So synodality and conciliarity are very close in meaning, but there is a nuanced distinction between them, conciliarity being a matter of ecclesiological principle and therefore constant through time, while synodality is a more a matter of practice and takes various pragmatic and political forms. It may seem pedantic to try to differentiate between two concepts that are often treated as synonymous. But it seems important to uphold the ontological, ecclesiological nature of conciliarity which belongs to all Christian churches, in some degree of contrast to the more organisational and pragmatic character of synods.
The concept of conciliarity relates to the organic life of the church considered as a coherent whole – the Spirit-endued body of Christ. It aims at ensuring that every part of the church takes its share of responsibility for the discernment of truth and acts upon it. The desire that drives the conciliar dimension of the church is a longing for wholeness, coherence and unity. It involves a continuous process of spiritual discernment. I do not see conciliarity as being primarily about the church taking decisions or about organisational processes at all, but instead about a meeting of minds in the Holy Spirit, perhaps close to the Eastern concept of Sobornost‘. A synod, on the other hand, cannot function without the constant quest for consensus; it needs to progress its business, its agenda, to get things done.
Conciliarity is a function of the pilgrim church, making its exploratory journey into the divine mystery. Conciliarity is tinged with the mystical. Conciliarity, to my mind, is more concerned with facilitating convergence – the meeting of minds and hearts, previously separated – than with gathering the weight of support that is needed to take a binding decision. It is the task of synodality to activate the innate authority that belongs to the baptised people of God and which is distributed throughout the whole body. Synodality gathers and focuses that authority when the church comes together, in a representative way, to take counsel for its well-being and for the advancement of the mission entrusted to it. Synodality provides the concrete means by which all baptised Christians, gathered by word and sacrament under the oversight of their pastors as a community, discharge their share of responsibility for the life of the church according to their various callings.
Five Characteristics of Conciliar Theory
Conciliar theory was by no means monochrome and there were constant internal debates among the conciliar thinkers. But it is possible to identify five general or typical characteristics of their legacy.
First, conciliar thought held (and still holds) that the term ‘the church’ means the whole body of the faithful, not just the clergy, the hierarchy or the papal court (those usages were not unknown). The Conciliar Movement, which was triggered by the fragmentation of the papacy into two, then three, popes (the Great Schism of the West) in 1378, built on the ancient principle, incorporated into medieval Canon Law, that what affects all should be approved by all (Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus approbari debet) and to apply it to the resolution of the schism. The whole body, the congregatio fidelium, was the source of authority in the church. The inherent authority of the body came to expression in a representative way through councils and synods, above all through a General Council.
Second, conciliar thought recognised national identities and aspirations, not in any fully modern sense, as in nineteenth- and twentieth-century nationalist movements, but to an extent that was subversive of an undifferentiated idea of a Christendom held together by a central authority. The Council of Constance was largely composed of national delegations. This approach showed political realism.
Third, conciliar thought lifted up the authority of General Councils (of the Western Church) and wanted to see them held more frequently. It was the General Council of Constance that healed the internal schism of the Catholic Church in 1417 by reunifying the papacy. But conciliar thought also endorsed a kind of subsidiarity in affirming the role of lesser regional and national councils and synods which had existed in earlier times and which it wanted to see revived. It held that conciliarity should be practised at every level of the church’s life.
Fourth, conciliar thought employed expert contributions from the universities, rather like the periti at the Second Vatican Council, except that scholars were sometimes given not only an advisory role but also a public voice in the deliberations of councils at this time. Conciliar theory also gave a limited role to lay civil rulers, who were of course within the church and were the main representatives of the laity. Civil rulers, especially the Emperor, played a key role in enabling councils to happen, just as the Emperor Constantine compelled the bishops to meet at Nicaea in ad 325.
Fifth, conciliar thought invoked the common good of the church (status ecclesiae) as the criterion of decisions and laws. Like St Thomas Aquinas, it held that sound law could not be arbitrary, but found its rationality in being suited to the nature of persons and communities. Law was given to serve the common good, which took priority over the good of individuals, however eminent. Natural law, inscribed in the created order, and divine law, revealed in Scripture, were in complete harmony and together worked for the common good. Furthermore, natural law principles could be invoked when necessary to critique and reform any harmful positive laws of the church, for example exposing them as unjust or inequitable.
Ecclesiological Principles of the Conciliar Tradition
Having just noted five phenomenological aspects of the conciliar thought of the early fifteenth century, we may now try to identify some ecclesiological principles relating to the exercise of authority, which can be drawn out inductively from the conciliar tradition and which structure its political theology. They are: constitutionality, representation, consent and sacramental communion.
The principle of constitutionality means that the scope and limits of authority are laid down, agreed and acknowledged by all concerned.4 Constitutionality sets parameters and constraints that curb the arbitrary exercise of power. The constitutional principle is incompatible with any form of sovereignty that amounts to autocracy. Structures of authority need to embody checks and balances against the abuse of power. Limits on authority safeguard the interests, the integrity and the well-being of those who are subject to that authority, against the possibility of various kinds of abuse. This principle connects strongly with the principle of consent to which we will come.
The principle of representation means that the authority that resides in the whole body is exercised through its elected or appointed representatives, since all the members of the body cannot physically come together for that purpose. Representatives play their part according to their calling, as lay person, deacon, priest or bishop. Clearly the episcopate has a special, though not exclusive, responsibility for doctrine, liturgy, ministry and unity (these special responsibilities are recognised in the canons and ordination liturgies of the Church of England that pertain to bishops).
The principle of consent means that those who are the governed must be able to agree as to how they are governed and have a say in it. Effective authority is always constrained by the need to obtain, at least in general terms, the consent of those subject to that authority. Laws and decisions that lack general acceptance among those to whom they apply soon lose credibility and ultimately lack legitimacy. History shows that people cannot be governed, for an indefinite period, against their will. Authority has to carry conviction and to be persuasive if it is to be effective, all the more so in the modern age where individuals expect to determine their own lives to a large extent and are, at the same time, very conscious of their human rights. The lay people of the church are no exception.
The fifth ecclesiological principle of conciliarity is sacramental communion. A formal council or synod is an expression of the sacramental life and the sacramental unity of the church: unity in the bishop and unity in the sacraments go hand in hand. Those who are out of eucharistic communion with each other cannot expect the Holy Spirit to guide and direct their deliberations (cf. Acts 2.1). The basic motive and purpose of the practice of synodality in the church is to heal divisions, to preserve the unity of the church and to make its mission more effective. We can say with assurance that to hold a council or synod that included bishops who were not in communion with each other or with the president-bishop of the assembly would go against the basic ecclesiological principles of unity in the sacraments and unity in the bishop. It would be a contradiction in terms and a case of a broken church.
Conciliarity in Anglicanism
How is the conciliar life, that is intrinsic to the Christian church, expressed in the Anglican Communion? Here I am focusing on the Anglican Communion as a whole, rather than on the Church of England or other member churches of the Communion.5 So I will also focus on the broad synodical principles that apply to the Communion as a whole, not on the minor differences of polity that exist between various member churches of the Communion.
First, Anglicanism shares with all other historic Christian traditions the conciliar character that belongs to the very nature of the church and is shared in various practical forms by all major Christian traditions. This fact belongs to the ecclesial integrity of the Anglican churches and is an essential aspect of their shared ecclesiology. Without their conciliar character, they could not function as churches because they could not act synodically. A key denominator of all Anglican polity is ‘the bishop in synod’.
Second, Anglicanism inherits the history and principles of the fifteenth-century Conciliar Movement, as these were further shaped by the Reformation and by modern developments in representative government and democratic institutions. We should note that, although the sixteenth-century Reformers, who helped to shape Anglicanism, were expert in the history and theology of councils, they were not fully-fledged conciliarists. The Reformers modified the received conciliar theory in three basic ways. (i) They placed the authority of Scripture, which they believed was self-authenticating in essentials, over the authority of either pope or council in theological debate and polemic. (ii) They denied that General Councils were infallible. Martin Luther was shocked, in undertaking his study of the Council of Constance, to learn that Jan Huss had been burned as a heretic in spite of being promised a safe-conduct. At that point Luther lost his belief in the infallibility of General Councils. Article xxi of the Church of England’s Thirty-nine Articles (1571) states that General Councils may err and have in fact erred. (iii) The Reformers acknowledged the Christian civil ruler, a lay person and the alternative power-source to the pope, as the proper authority to convene a council, just as Constantine had convened the Council of Nicaea. The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England include the statement: ‘General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes…’ (Article xxi).
Third, like the conciliar movement itself, the Anglican Communion acknowledges national identities and aspirations in its notion of ‘provincial autonomy’ (i.e., each member church of the Anglican Communion is self-governing). Anglicanism also recognises the importance of cultural identity in its acceptance of the principle of inculturation, in for example the right of each member church to produce its own liturgy and canon law (though in fact there is much common ground across the Communion between the liturgies and the canons respectively).
Fourth, because the Anglican Communion does not have a binding common framework of law (though, as mentioned, the Anglican churches hold many key juridical principles in common) the way that global Anglican synodality operates is not coercive and not juridical, but works by example, teaching, argument and persuasion, that is to say by moral and pastoral authority, expressed in the consensus of bishops, clergy and laity, as the case may be. Of course, authority operates differently within the member churches, where church law is enforceable with regard to the clergy.6
In the light of these four factors, I am able to see the Anglican Communion as a credible example of conciliar catholicism. Its structures of discernment, consultation, deliberation and reception include globally the Lambeth Conference of bishops, the Primates Meeting of metropolitans (or the equivalent) and the elected Anglican Consultative Council (which includes lay people); and nationally or regionally the general synods or conventions of the member churches and their diocesan synods. Synodality permeates Anglican church life at every level, from the parish to the Lambeth Conference. Anglican synodality functions in an atmosphere of prayer and is structured by worship and Bible study. It evinces a constant quest for integrity in debate, consensus and unity.7 Furthermore, it seems that Anglican conciliarity is well adapted to the challenging conditions of modernity that all churches face today, especially the ideological imperatives of plurality, toleration, liberty and self-determination. Nevertheless, the churches of the Anglican Communion have further to travel to realize the ideals of inclusiveness, participation, discipleship and shared responsibility.
Witness the forthcoming Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Conciliarity in Modern Orthodox Christianity (to which I have contributed).
This Editorial reflects material that I presented to the second of two consultations on synodality held at the Pontifical University of St Thomas Aquinas (the Angelicum), Rome, in January 2023: ‘Listening to the West’ (which followed ‘Listening to the East’). The conference papers are due to be published in a revised form. Here I have – unusually for an Editorial – provided footnoted suggestions for further reading.
Cf. lg ii, iv.
See Nicholas Aroney and Ian Leigh (eds), Christianity and Constitutionalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022).
For the practicalities of synodality in the Church of England see C. J. Podmore, ‘The History and Principles of Synodical Government in the Church of England’, in A. Melloni and S. Scatena (eds), Synod and Synodality: Theology, History, Canon Law and Ecumenism in new contact; International Colloquium Bruges 2003, John XXIII Foundation for Religious Studies, Bologna (Münster: lit Verlag, 2005), pp. 213-236; Martin Davie, A Guide to the Church of England (London: Mowbray, 2008; repub. Bloomsbury, 2019).
For an authoritative comparative study see Norman Doe, Canon Law in the Anglican Communion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998). The codes of canon law of the member churches of the Anglican Communion have been collated in The Principles of Canon Law Common to the Churches of the Anglican Communion (London: Anglican Communion Office, 2008; 2nd edition 2022).
On the ‘Instruments of Communion’ (the above with the Archbishop of Canterbury), see Towards a Symphony of Instruments: A Historical and Theological Consideration of the Instruments of Communion of the Anglican Communion. A Working Paper prepared by the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (London: Anglican Consultative Council, 2015). See also Paul Avis, ‘The Fragility of Christian Unity and the Lambeth Conference 1920 and 2020’ (Editorial, Ecclesiology 16.2 (2020); id., ‘Anglican Conciliarism: The Lambeth Conference as an Instrument of Communion’, in Mark Chapman, Sathianathan Clarke and Martyn Percy (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Anglican Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), Chapter 3; id., ‘The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lambeth Conference’, in Paul Avis and Benjamin M. Guyer (eds), The Lambeth Conference: Theology, History, Polity and Purpose (London and New York: T&T Clark, 2017), Chapter 2. Ian S. Markham, J. Barney Hawkins IV, Justyn Terry and Leslie Nunez Steffensen (eds), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to the Anglican Communion (Malden, MA, and Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013), Chapters 4 (Norman Doe, ‘The Instruments of Unity and Communion in Global Anglicanism’), 7 (Robert Prichard, ‘The Lambeth Conferences’) and 8 (Samuel Van Culin and Andrew Bennett Terry, ‘Anglican Consultative Councils’).
