In February of my final year of university, the faculty went on strike. The dispute had been brewing for the entire academic year and provoked plenty of fodder for debate. I have always remembered how discussions seemed to continually circle back to one question: when do you decided that dialogue has failed and opt for other strategies? In other words, when do you walk away from the negotiating table?
I can remember rehearsing the various answers. On the one hand, how can anyone be opposed to something as reasonable as dialogue and negotiation? On the other hand, it is clear that there are ways in which dialogue can be used to perpetuate an unjust status quo and in which at some point one party is justified in declaring that it no longer makes sense to continue in the conversation.
In one way or another, I have had these debates in my head ever since that strike. These issues about the importance of dialogue, conversation, and negotiation have deeply influenced me. Indeed, my reflection on them is a critical part of my new book, Backpacking through the Anglican Communion.
I thought of all these issues again recently when I read two competing essays on the topic. On the one hand, there is Phil Groves, of the Anglican Communion Office, who reflects on the case of Euodia and Syntyche to conclude that
We also need to remember that when disunity appears facilitated conversations are the Biblical way forwards.
For someone who leads the Continuing Indaba project, this is perhaps, not a surprising conclusion.
In response, comes a much lengthier article from Phil Ashey of the American Anglican Council who—never one to shy away from hyperbole—says Ashey “misses the mark by a longshot.” He then proceeds to call reconciliation—a central Biblical concept—some kind of “new religion.” You can read these articles and make up your own mind.
But what neither of these articles addresses is the question of time. “Time all heals all wounds,” it is often (wrongly) said. How does the question of time influence our understanding of conflict transformation?
We might first note that Jesus was not afraid of taking time—it took him thirty years on earth before he began his ministry. So when people start making claims about how much time has elapsed as a reason for determining that dialogue no longer is an option, we can all stop, take a deep breath, and remember that God’s time is not our time.
The other thing is that Jesus invested a lot of his time in people that others thought were hopeless or lost causes. My favourite example of this is Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4. Jesus takes a break at a well in the middle of the day, meets a woman who has been pretty comprehensively cast out of her society (that’s why she was getting her water in the heat of the day when no one else would be there), and engages her in conversation, even though, as John tells us, “Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans.” (4:9)
I’m not sure if this qualifies as a “facilitated conversation”—there doesn’t seem to be a facilitator at the well—but it does seem to me to be a pretty dramatic example of the fruits of patient engagement with difference. The woman’s life in transformed and she becomes one of the first evangelists, running into town to tell everyone about what she has learned.
When I think about conflicts in the world, whether in the Anglican Communion or beyond, I often think about this story about Jesus and the Samaritan woman. I find myself asking a question. What would happen if we did what Jesus did? Show up where no one expects us to be and taking the time to talk to people who are different than us?
UPDATE: Corrected mistaken reference to Phil Ashey which came out as Phil Groves. A case of too many Phils!
2 thoughts on “A time for talking and a time for not talking—or do we all just need more time?”
Phil Groves has written on this issue: His Phd is online and is called: A Model for Partnership: A model of partnership distilled from the relationship between Paul and the Philippian church as a tool to examine the partnership programmes of the Anglican Communion and to propose new directions. In the new directions part, he talks about conversation, from what I can remember. I was involved in the continuing Indaba conversation. I found Ephraim Radner’s response very interesting: http://covenant-communion.net/index.php/site/articles/talking_about_things_you_will_never_agree_on/
I am enjoying your book about backpacking around the communion – thanks.
Rachel: thanks for your comment. I have read Phil’s dissertation, in part because he draws extensively on Stephen Bayne who pops up in my book (thanks, by the way for reading—will be happy to hear more when you are done). In this post, I was more interested in using the contrasting articles to highlight a reflection on the John 4 passage and to think about time more generally.