I would put it this way: corruption involves, not restriction of voice in general, but its illegitimate restriction, defined in terms of the rules of a given game<\/i>. When those rules are established and accepted, then the issue of \u201cvoice\u201d\u009d becomes less problematic: bowling clubs are not acting illegitimately when they restrict their membership to bowlers, rather than opening it up to ping-pong players. Similarly, churches are not acting illegitimately, and therefore are not restricting voice, when they limit ordination to baptized and believing Christians. Thus, the inevitable question of whether \u201corthodoxy\u201d\u009d should restrict the voices of the \u201cunorthodox\u201d\u009d must be answered as both \u201cyes\u201d\u009d and \u201cno.\u201d\u009d \u201cYes,\u201d\u009d if this restriction is built into the canonical structures of the church in question; \u201cno\u201d\u009d, if these restrictions derive from structures that are extra-canonically constrained by manipulations of influence. For when there is canonical space for diverse embodiments of, e.g. theological positions in a church, as in both \u201cevangelical\u201d\u009d and \u201ccatholic\u201d\u009d views within the older Anglican ecclesial structures, engaging the Influence Market in a way that restricts those voices becomes a matter of corruption.<\/p>\n
This can arguably be shown with the Episcopal Church (TEC): what was once a relatively theologically diverse church, within the limits of its formularies, has become one of the most theologically monochromatic churches in America. This has happened through the ever more deeply engaged Influence Market. On the one hand, there has been nothing \u201cillegal\u201d\u009d about the outworking of that market: bishops can ordain whom they wish and appointments can be made according to personal preferences of those in power. But the end result of caving into, let alone deliberately manipulating, these dynamics is corruption, and on two scores.<\/p>\n
First, through the suppression of legitimate voices in the Church, it is inevitable that the truth \u201d\u201d in this case, the truth of the Gospel \u201d\u201d suffers, simply for lack of adequately trained hearts and minds to engage that truth. More corruption follows, through the perversion of critical Christian inquiry. Second, when Influence Markets such as TEC\u2019s are moving ahead at full steam, it is inevitable that more concrete and classical acts of corruption take place: misuse of funds and misuse of canons (the church\u2019s legal process). In an institution where everybody is \u201con the same side\u201d\u009d (because there are few left on any other side), no one wishes to hurt their \u201cfriends\u201d\u009d by raising questions. This has happened on a number of fronts in TEC in matters involving the national budget (e.g. misusing trust funds to balance the bottom line), discipline (manipulating canons to silence dissenting voices), and the legislative process (not following canonical procedures at General Convention). It represents a matter of corruption, at least in Johnston\u2019s paradigm, where the \u201clegal\u201d\u009d Influence Market has finally given way to quite \u201cillegal\u201d\u009d activities.<\/p>\n