Noticing the Gaps: The Limitations of Synodality and the Task of Theologians

In this paper, I observe a gap between the theological aspirations of synodality and its structural implementation. Proponents of synodality describe it as a dialogical approach to church governance that emphasizes mutual relationship as a means of discerning the fullness of the sense of the faithful (sensus fidelium) in service of proclaiming the Gospel to the world. However, in practice synodal processes involve acts of selection, curation, and deliberation that do not account for dimensions of Christian community life that are not immediately legible to the norms of formal facilitated discourse. To theorize these “left out” dimensions, I draw on the non-representational theory of Ash Amin and Nigel Thrift and note resonances with Orlando Espín's examination of lived experience and popular devotion as expressive of the sensus fidelium. Finally, I argue that this gap suggests a role for theologians, as teacher-scholars, to create occasions to thematize and articulate dimensions of Christian community life that are not accounted for in formal synodal processes.

The final document of the XVI Second Session of the Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops describes synodality as a return to the mutual dependence and dialogue of the first disciples. In this way, synodality is meant to be expressive of the core of Christian community life; “the synodal process gave us ‘the spiritual taste’ of what it means to be the People of God” (For a Synodal Church: Communion, Participation, Mission, par. 17). Furthermore, synodality recognizes the entire People of God as the recipient of revelation, such that “the anointing by the Holy Spirit received at Baptism enables all believers to possess an instinct for the truth of the Gospel… This participation enables the capacity for the faithful to grasp intuitively that which is in conformity with the truth of Revelation in the communion of the whole Church” (22). This understanding of the sensus fidei builds upon the image of the church as the People of God embraced by the Second Vatican Council in Lumen Gentium. The church receives and understands the Gospel through a unity made possible by common life and charitable dialogue. In Evangellii Gaudium, Pope Francis argues that such dialogue strives not for conformity but for the achievement of unity amidst diversity, with the church imagined as a “polyhedron” (Evangeliii Gaudium par. 236). The premise of synodality is that the discernment and mission of the church need to be grounded in ongoing relationship and dialogue that is fully inclusive of the church’s baptized members.

The organizational reality of the synod, however, limits the realization of this ideal.  At each step, from the local parish meeting or diocesan session to the production of regional and synod documents, the voices and perspectives included were selected, curated, and synthesized. To some extent, this was unavoidable. Although one could identify logistical ways in which the process could have been more inclusive, there is an inherent limitation in any discursive process that is formally administered. A process of formal meetings and surveys, oriented toward the production of a written document, can only include those perspectives that are legible to such an administrative process.

To elaborate on what might be left out of the discursive and administrative processes of synodality, I turn to the non-representational theory of geography theorists Ash Amin and Nigel Thrift. Amin and Thrift seek to recognize the dynamic flow of everyday life by defining consciousness as a narrow sliver of human experience, observing patterns that transcend the subject, and focusing on corporeal practices. Recognizing the importance of pre-cognitional factors in human decision making, Thrift calls for  analysis “which understands the kind of biological-cum-cultural gymnastic that takes place in this realm” (Nigel Thrift, “Intensities of Feeling: Towards a Spatial Politics of Affect,” Human Geography 86, no. 1 (2004), 71). 

The formal processes of synodality exclude consideration of factors that are not readily articulatable or thematized. For example, imagine a layperson who attends a diocesan synodal conversation. Her ability to attend the session depends on various material and situational factors. Even before she attends the session, her desire and decision to attend also depend on conditions that might not be immediately obvious. When she reads about the synodal session in the church bulletin, what factors lead her to think, “This is a process that is important and relevant to me, and this is a thing that I can do,” as opposed to glossing over the announcement (or declining to read the bulletin at all, or not attending church to begin with)? Evaluating the inclusiveness of the synodal process requires us to recognize experiences that fall outside of administrative discursive practices. Theological examinations of the sensus fidelium recognize the broadness of what might be captured in the reception of the faith. For example, Orlando Espín argues that the category needs to recognize revelatory content embedded in daily experience and popular devotions. There is a need for critical and theological analysis to identify background factors that might be relevant for shared discernment and decision making.

My purpose is not to argue that there is some other organizational method that would perfectly capture all perspectives and account for experiences of the faith that are beyond (or precede) cognition.  Rather, I suggest that any structured system of dialogue in pursuit of a deeper understanding of the sensus fidelium will have its limitations and that both our theological understanding of synodality and the success of its implementation depend on recognizing these limitations and mitigating them in provisional ways. I conclude by reflecting on the potential of the theologian to identify the factors and experiences that are yet unvoiced in the process and to offer them as fragments that might better inform decision making. Furthermore, I observe that the role of many theologians as classroom instructors provides a space in which the intuitive, precognitional, and unspoken experiences of faith might be surfaced and analyzed in the context of a learning community.