Abstract
The most important thing to recognize about this book, the author’s ecclesiastical role notwithstanding, is that it is not about reconciliation as normally understood in a church context, sacramental or otherwise. The sort of reconciliation Welby addresses, as he reminds the reader in his concluding chapter, “is the transformation of destructive conflict into disagreeing well . . . It may be a state of well-contained hostility” (p. 265). So the overall thrust is toward finding an uneasy peace rather than coming to a single mind about divisive issues; it is about an armistice, a reconciliation to a dispute rather than between disputants when neither point of view can objectively be deemed wrong, living in the tension of what some call “pluriform truth.” Reconciliation is “a serious solution to destructive conflict when all else has failed and victory is impossible for all involved” (p. 16), That being said, Welby does cite a number of situations where the error (or even crime) of one side against the other is so clear that reconciliation must include distinguishing objective truth from falsehood and good from evil, and justice be established on the side of the greater good, rather than settling for the “good enough” of détente (p. 70).
It goes without saying that Anglicans have a long history of such settlements—finding ways to hold contrary views together within an institutional framework rather than splitting into separate corporate camps. Welby reflects the wisdom of another English leader, Winston Churchill, who observed in a secular context that “to jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.” The secular reference is apt in relation to this book, as Welby cites more political than ecclesiastical crises as examples. These are drawn from his experience as an oil company executive (addressing conflicts in Nigeria) as well as in his later role as a mediator in secular conflicts—echoing the role of another archbishop in addressing truth and reconciliation in the South African context.
This is primarily a practical cookbook, a set of techniques and skills directed toward the goal of unity in diversity. In a relatively brief opening section, Welby expounds his understanding of reconciliation as “disagreeing well” (p. 13) the obstacles to such a balance and the change of heart required for it. He then deploys six tools for the work of reconciliation—the six “Rs”: researching, relating, relieving need, risking defeat, reconciling, and resourcing. He stresses that these tools do not work in isolation, and several times portrays the role of a facilitator as a juggler balancing multiple plates spinning on sticks—and if one had any question about his experience as Archbishop of Canterbury, this and a few other notes of self-deprecating humor offer some lighter insights throughout the text. The self-deprecation is also reflected in the sage advice that facilitation is not about the facilitator and that the goal is not to be celebrated as star peacemaker, but to promote the peace while resisting the temptation “to seek the buzz of being needed” (p. 183).
The final section of the book gets down to concrete examples, focusing on the Difference Course developed by a team at Lambeth Palace, and ending with three examples for further reflection: climate change, racism, and nationalism. It is notable that Welby makes very slight mention of two of the major crises of the Church of England in recent years, which might have served as apposite case studies: the conflict over women in the episcopate (pp. 96, 229) and over sexuality and marriage (p. 237). Both conflicts have been managed precisely toward the goal of “good disagreement”—perhaps they are too much still in process for the author to wish to expound upon them at greater length.
This book will offer practical assistance to pastors of all sorts, from lay leaders to bishops, particularly as they face seemingly intractable antagonisms and in some situations may hope at best to lower the room temperature. Given the many secular examples, and the fact that the method of reaching good disagreement is enriched by—but does not depend upon—theology, people with a variety of management responsibilities will find this volume helpful in addressing conflict as they seek to preserve institutional unity in tandem with tolerable diversity.