Be that as it may, TEC pleads for a right of dissent on a communion level but, by constitutional irregularity and canonical misuse, seeks to close out that possibility within its own ranks. With this point, I rest my case. A failure to pay attention to that wretched cat \u201cPolity\u201d\u009d has landed TEC and the Anglican Communion in a proper mess. Anglicans now have before them two accounts of the nature of communion, two accounts of hierarchy, and two accounts of the way in which the common life of the Communion ought to be ordered. For the thick account, hierarchy is of different sorts, each of which has a particular sphere of operation and each of which stands in the service of a thick view of communion. For the thin account, hierarchy is addressed only in its political guise and as such is limited in its sphere of operation to diocese and\/or province. Within these spheres, it serves to order local and autonomous churches each of which is called to carry out the mission of the church in a particular locality.<\/p>\n
I personally am delighted that both TEC and the Communion are at last paying attention to the wretched cat \u201cPolity.\u201d\u009d In doing so, however, the issue of dissent has presented itself with considerable urgency. At the moment, TEC finds itself in a dissenting position in respect to the covenant proposal now before the Communion; while those within TEC who support the covenant find themselves dissenters in relation to their own church. It would seem that everyone within TEC is in one way or another confronted with the issue of dissent.<\/p>\n
When the normal processes of governance no longer provide effective means for objection, just what is the right way to express this dissent? For those within TEC, is the right way departure? For TEC itself, is the right way to seek, as now it does, to escape the consequences of its actions by means of a covenant that lacks both theological substance and any meaningful form of accountability? My own view is that the answer to this question is to be found in the well-tested tradition of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience seeks neither to bring down duly constituted authority nor to establish another altogether. Rather it seeks to express loyalty to governing authority by dissenting from actions that do not accord with the reasons for its existence. Further, in dissenting those who are civilly disobedient insist upon suffering the appointed penalties for disobedience. They insist upon consequences so as to express loyalty to duly constituted authority even as they oppose actions that do not accord with the common good that government exists to uphold and further.<\/p>\n