Autovocal audition. There’s a lot of that going on in the Church these days. Literally, it means “self-voice listening,” or in simple terms, listening to yourself. Sometimes it occurs in groups where the phenomenon is only listening to those in your group with whom you agree. The problem with doing that is it is not a good way to develop critical thinking. Instead, it is easy to make decisions that have a vast array of unintended consequences.

A couple of years ago the Anglican Mission (AM), which had many robust ministries in operation, watched as their actions evoked responses that the AM leaders didn’t expect. That’s because they only discussed what they were doing “in house.” Oh, there were some other discussions outside the leadership circle, but those conversations were not taken seriously. The only things that mattered to the leaders were the convictions they reached in camera. Those who had not been party to the conversations and intentions “behind the wall,” were mystified—some even shocked—by the decisions that were made that altered the fundamental principles, identity, and direction of the Anglican Mission and its ministry.

Yesterday, something similar was done in the Church of England. There was a fundamental difference from the Anglican Mission decisions in that there were lots of people involved in the decision to proceed with women bishops, but it is who these people weren’t talking with that is analogous. The Church of England has been the “mother ship” of the Anglican Communion for centuries. Of course it’s true that in previous centuries there was not much real international Communion to the Communion, but there have been loads of people involved in Anglican ministry for loads and loads of years in many nations. The ministry, however, was monolithic. It was the use of the English Prayer Book in lots of places.

Those who study contemporary missiology are currently talking a lot about contextualization. Contextualization is the process by which the glory, power, and substance of the Gospel is brought to other cultures. Missiologists speak of different types of contextualization. These different approaches are described as C-1, C-2, C-3, etc. In Anglican terms these look something like this:

C-1      The use of the English Prayer Book so that church services look pretty much the same as they do in England.

C-2      The translation of the Prayer Book into indigenous languages, but the character of the ministry remains the same.

C-3      Incorporation of aspects of the indigenous culture into the worship. For example, clapping, dancing, and choruses are woven into the services, including aspects of the local culture, but theology is still defined by the sending culture.

C-4      The incorporation of cultural understandings into the theological fabric of the worship. Instead of just relating the values of the sending culture using similarities among the people and in the culture receiving ministry, the values of the indigenous culture are woven back into the theological underpinning of the church. For example, the role of ancestors is not prominent in English culture, but if it is in the indigenous one, a theology of the role of ancestors is developed—added in to the fabric of the church.

C-5      Though there are believers in Jesus Christ as Messiah, they live their lives completely within the norms of the indigenous culture. For example, in the case of a culture which has a Muslim expression, Christian converts would stay in the mosque and would fully participate in all of the fasts, feasts, prayers, and events of Islam. The only difference might be that they may be intending their prayers to be toward “Isa” (Jesus) as Messiah, but someone observing them would never know it. Their prayers would be the same as other Muslims. Of course this is not just limited to Islam. The same process could take place with other cultures and religions.

With all the conversation that has taken place in England about whether or not to have women bishops, there has been a seemingly endless stream of debate. Many who hold the historic position that episcopal ministry should only be held by men had a great deal to say, but in the end, they were not able to stop the adoption of a proposal with which they ardently disagreed. At least there was debate about it among those in England who disagreed. The discussion, however, was entirely a C-1 discussion. The English Church debated and discussed the measure of adopting women bishops, but there was never, to my knowledge, any outreach to other members of the Anglican Communion to find out what impact the decision to have women bishops in England would have in other nations.

I’m sure that some will say it is none of the other Provinces’ business what England chooses to do, but that overlooks the fact that Christ has but one Body.

Contrast what has just happened in the Church of England with a conversation I witnessed among a small group of Archbishops from other Provinces. Some were from Provinces that ordain women, some were from Provinces that do not. The discussion was about the impact that a decision to have women in the episcopate in one Province would have on other Provinces.

One of the Archbishops who does ordain women and is theologically supportive of women bishops said, “It seems from our discussion that if one of our Provinces were to proceed with women bishops it would be disruptive to some of our sister Provinces. Could I suggest that we hold off on taking this step until we come to be of one mind, or at least have settled what the consequences would be?”

People who live and minister in the C-1 world would not be likely to take that position. They would interpret the decision from their home ground perspective. It would never even occur to them to take other views into account.

Sadly, I’m not aware of any efforts to ask other Provinces what the impact would be in other Provinces if the Church of England adopted women bishops. Understand, it is not the decision itself to which I refer, but the context in which a decision is made. In this case, I’m not aware of any energy that was put into discerning what the impact would be on other Provinces. I could be wrong, of course, and I hope I am, but I have not even come across the solicitation of input from other Provinces.

The result of this will be…unintended consequences. Things will now happen that were not considered. Please understand that is not to say that the decision couldn’t or shouldn’t have been made from an institutional standpoint. What I’m referring to is a paradigm of decision making that is dominated by Autovocal audition. Unintended consequences will undoubtedly follow.

Bishop Bill Atwood is Bishop of the ACNA’s International Diocese and an American Anglican Council Contributor.