REFLECTION FOUR: A CHOICE OF IMAGES"The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" (1Tim.1:15). Thus the writer of 1 Timothy succinctly sums up the Pauline claim for
Christ Jesus as saviour. In Jesus' time, "sinners" was a term used to refer
to the social outcasts, the non-conformists to the "politics of holiness"
that was part of the religious revival movements of the day. (See Dutney,
A., Food, Sex & Death. pp.64-66.) Andrew Dutney argues that
Jesus openly associated and ministered to "sinners", the "outcast, (the) disenfranchised,
the despised and rejected" ones. (Ibid. p.67) The outcasts comprised "sinners",
tax collectors and prostitutes, who, like blacks, women and homosexuals
in our time, are marginalised by contemporary politics of holiness. In
a time of active religious revival movements, it would be to the shame
of Christians to neglect those that human constructs of society and religion
ostracise.
The Gospel is mediated to us through culture -- in fact, it is mediated
in the ancient, syncretic culture of its inception and comes to us within
our own cultural complexities. As John Mbiti says, "the Gospel enters and
traverses culture, ... being understood, being believed by people in their
different cultures throughout the world. ... no single culture should imprison
the Gospel." (Mbiti, J., "The Gospel in the African Cultural Context" in
Victor C. Hayes, ed. Towards Theology in an Australian Context.
p.19.) What is true of the whole culture is true for its sub-cultures,
as well.
From our appropriations of various, Gospel images, we construct our
own visions of God. In a sense, we make God in our own image. What saves
us from idolatry or egocentrics, is the testing of our images against the
Gospel itself, and against other theologies and within community with the
faithful. Gay visions of God in Christ are best tested along side of other
liberation or revolution theologies, for they witness against bigotry,
hard-heartedness and entrenched understandings. Making our images known
to like souls and then to the wider community of faith, refines them through
evolving dialogue, as we search for meaning.
In truth, we must seek to liberate ourselves and Christ within us, as the Liberator, the Justice-Doer, the Lover. Where God and Levitical Law has been used as an oppressive, heterosexist and homophobic weapon against women, gay men and lesbian women and other minorities, we must retrieve Christ Liberator and call the church to repentance. (Goss, R., Jesus Acted Up. p.163) An hermeneutic of change The Bible gives us several models for inclusivity and a concern for
universal justice as against restrictive, nomistic concerns. The writer
of Isaiah 56:1-8 shows us a God who gathers in the outcasts. The prophet
stresses relational values of love and faithfulness as over-riding nomistic
prescriptions such as those of Deuteronomy 23 regarding eunuchs. Eunuchs
thus stand as an example of God's love and faithfulness extending to those
whom the arkhonic culture precludes. Thus the prophetic proclamation, that
there is one God, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, is upheld.
The requirement of the prophets was to do justice and to maintain what
is right (Isa.56:1a). In the New Testament, it is Paul's concern for unity
that takes up the inclusive, prophetic vision, and proclaims Jesus Christ
as the one Lord through whom are all things and through whom we exist. Educating for Change In a recent discussion
between Friends of Unity (FoU) and Rev Dr Graham Humphris, Moderator
South Australian Synod of the Uniting Church in Australia (UCA), the
question was asked of us whether we expected educational processes to
alter the opinion of those who opposed homosexual persons being in
positions of leadership. It was one of the most impassioned
questions to come from the Moderator during the discussion. His
tone and emphasis matched what I had heard previously from Evangelical
Members of the Uniting Church (EMU) who rejected earlier educative
processes aimed at changing their mind concerning questions of church
membership and homosexuality. They claimed that they did not need
to be educated out of their opinion, for when you believe that you have
the answer, what is the use of further educational pursuit? In
reply to Graham, I answered, with equal passion, that I thought that
the purpose of education was to equip people with the knowledge and
skill necessary to make appropriate decisions concerning contentious
issues. I purposively left unanswered the question of changing
the minds of those who held different opinion on issues of faith,
membership, sexuality and church leadership. I also left
unstated my understanding of EMU actions as strategic actions that are
diametrically opposed to the communicative action of FoU.
Unpacking the Silence Part of the reason for doing
so was because of my understanding of what is at issue here. Of course
Graham’s opinion may be different to mine. I suspect that he
would not express his concerns in the same way that I do and has a
different view of what is at stake in questions of faith, sexuality and
membership. We do not agree about the task that God has placed before
the church. Those of conservative, evangelical orientation think that
God wants us uphold traditional values (the ones they see as central,
biblical directives) based on Old Testament barriers of distinction
based and holiness codes and an interpretation of New Testament
reprobate lists. I comprehend a God who is awakening the church
to new possibilities that emphasise relational values based on
unconditional love. Love is also a central, biblical directive.
Love overcomes barriers of distinction and our love in Christ
inaugurates a new humanity in which things of the body are made right
through love- even the self-giving love of Christ given on the
Cross. Loving another person wholeheartedly is not a sin but a
divine command. Such self-giving love brings body and embodied
relationships (including sexual relationships) into the new humanity
such that we are fully there for the other. No loving act is
sinful or proscribed by God in Christ. Love makes God present in
us and for the other, in ways greater than those perceived in the old
holiness codes. It is experience and education that has made me aware
of that fact. I guess that many members of EMU would say the same
thing of their view, but are their views anything other than
indoctrinated ones?
Within the church
conflicting questions of ethics, biblical interpretation and
decision-making have arisen concerning issues relating to faith,
membership and sexuality. Differences in theology and ethical
understanding have failed to find consensus. In the Uniting
Church, with its diversity of origins, cultural backgrounds and
Christian expression, I do not expect to find homogeneity. We are
a culturally, heterogeneous church. In fact, the Basis of Union,
the Church’s formative document, recognised this from the outset and
rigid, theological conformity and agreement on all issues is an
unrealistic expectation. However, there are key values for
which unanimous acceptance is desirable, so that unity is not
made impossible. The recent decision of the 10th Assembly (minute
03.12.04) attests to the fact that such diversity can confirm disparate
opinion and mutually exclusive views while still holding to beliefs and
practices that hold the Church together.
The theological references
in Assembly minute 03.12.04 express common, basic belief in terms of
the Basis of Union and prior decisions of the Assembly. They also
show that the Church is capable of undertaking a degree of self
criticism and growth. In fact, while the decision contains
nothing new, it attempts to hold to a high degree of commonality so
that all members may live with the diversity within the Church.
It also puts in place certain procedures and values concerning
discrimination, harassment, contention and legal questions that guide
behaviour in a diverse church moving towards greater unity. In
dissenting against this action, EMU and the Reforming Alliance clearly
are contesting the notion of living with diversity and challenge the
very structures that hold the Church together. Having
stated that they do not accept the decision to live with diversity,
they seek to promote their beliefs and their policies alone, as the
proper course for the Church. Such a strategy is anti-social,
closed and emotionally charged and denies the appeal to common values
made by the Assembly. What they are saying, of course, is that
their values and strategies are right for the Church and are not open
to criticism, review or change. In this they employ indoctrinated
beliefs contrary to the non-indoctrinative processes engaged by the
rest of the Church.
The Church has undertaken
dialogue and critical self-reflection, over a long period , giving
thought and discussion to questions of sexuality. The process has
involved reviews, theological and ethical study programs, periods of
"listening", task groups making deliberations, Assembly debates,
retreats, consultations and decisions of the Assembly and its Standing
Committee. The Church has invited its members to engage
theologically and educationally, to allow members and groups to
undertake critical self-reflection. The approach has been
non-indoctrinative, with the Church contributing to members’
reflections by providing meaningful perspectives with respect to
decisions already adopted and wider thinking within the community and
the universal church. The educational content has not provided
easy answers but rather aimed to improve members’ own power of
judgement and capacity for mature deliberation and
decision-making.
Such non-indoctrinative
processes give participants both the freedom and faculty to determine
their own view and conduct and represents a process of empowerment,
with an openness to change while maintaining unity and solidarity as a
community. Theologically, it is open to the flow of the Spirit
among its people- the Spirit being the source of unitive action and of
change in the church. During this process, EMU has systematically
projected a closed identity, typical of traditionalist approaches that
are not open to development and change. Their approach has always
been reactionary and not open to freedom to develop new approaches with
new understandings, new aspects of socialisation and inclusive,
Christian, community values. For these reasons, I regard EMU
beliefs to be indoctrinated belief, presenting improper theologising of
invalid claims and distorted reasoning through that indoctrinated
belief. As such, they are not educated opinions. Hence
educational or learning objectives for change are appropriate with
respect to "wrestling with the issues". Before discussing those
objectives, I want to look at notions of the church and change and then
look at Jürgen Habermas on indoctrination and change.
Metanoia And New Life Life in the Church is about
change and making approriate choices. Granted, gay and lesbian
liberation Christians are asking for big changes of heart and their
friends and supporters are responding with new insights with respect to
faith, love and relationships. As Rev. Dr Dorothy McRae McMahon
expressed it,
"the
truth is that we are simply part of a whole movement for change around
the world, both inside the churches and outside them - responding to
insights from a different age to the ancient tribes of Israel who
formed much of the Bible."
Radical change of heart or of mind is the underlying thought in what traditionally we call repentance (Gk. metavnoia, metanoia)
and is the beginning of new life as a new relationship in God.
Historically, the church has sought radical changes of heart with
respect to sin. However, metanoia also has a social action with
respect to overcoming poverty, ethnicity, slavery, class and economic
exploitation, so that race, ethnicity and socio-economic status are not
barriers of distinction to new relationships in God. In more
recent years, women have fought for removal of barriers of distinction
based on gender and gender based stereotypes. There is still much
to be done in that regard and, by extension, the concern for social
justice now includes questions of gender identity and sexuality.
Issues concerning barriers of distinction are not new to the church, as
anyone familiar with Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians knows.
There is no longer Jew
or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and
female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong
to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the
promise. [Galatians 3:28-29]
To express this in a different way: the incarnation was a movement of saving inclusion not exclusion and is open all men and women without prejudice. In our time, issues of
homosexuality have sharpened the issue of inclusivity for many people,
in ways similar to the focus given to issues of Gentile participation
in the early church or of ethnicity, race and colour in later
times. Some people work to make the Church inclusive, following
Paul’s injunction to live by the Spirit, gently emphasising love, joy,
peace, patience, kindness and generosity in their opinions.
Others restrict the freedom in Christ and erect barriers of
distinction, bringing us all into conflict with the Spirit, even
voicing jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions and factions,
convinced that things of the flesh such as fornication, impurity,
licentiousness and even idolatry apply categorically to
same-gender sex acts. That may well be true in some cases,
where values of respect, mutuality and freedom from exploitation are
denied effective expression. However, where homosexual persons
enter into relationships that are loving, caring and open to joy,
peace, kindness and generosity, any derogatory, categorical
descriptions of those relationship are invalid and prejudicial. Life in the Spirit changes
human relationships- all relationships- as part of the very meaning of
being "on the way", as disciples of Christ through faith. The
process of journeying is one of change, one of moving towards the
fullness of life with God. This is a matter of developing a
relationship with God, through a process of patient learning, trial and
choice. Change is involved continually in our lives, and in our
journeying. The exemplary, Christian word is expressed in the
choice of a self-presence given for the stranger, for those in need,
for the oppressed, for the outcasts and sinners and for the other, the
next one whom we encounter as neighbour. It is in this way that
Christian metanoia aims at change.
Education also aims at
change: it has an end product or its own telos and is, therefore, a
change process. This may be to inform or to develop attitudes,
skills and knowledge, in which each case brings change. Such
change may be in cognitive, attitudinal or affective domains, so
that the concept of change also includes raising awareness, gaining
information and experience, "seeing the other viewpoint" as relational,
interpersonal, communicative action. However, one thing that
education (or faith for that matter) cannot change, is sexuality.
Neither courses of study nor religious exercises will change one’s
sexual orientation, no matter how motivated a person may be.
Attempts at such change by "ex-gay ministries" and the like do not
succeed in the long term. Any perceived changes are cosmetic
ones, a gloss over the inner depth of personhood. Sexuality is a
human given condition, like eye-colour and handedness. In light
of this understanding, Friends of Unity (FoU) has been arguing for the
importance of dialogue and discussion (as reciprocal, communicative
action) and does so fully aware of its action taking place within a
truly diverse, multicultural church, within a multicultural society.
This action also engages a
critical view of education. This is seen in the presentation of
biblical studies, theological, historical and sociological
discourses. The educational objective concerns presenting a
viewpoint, providing critique of other viewpoints and enabling contrary
views to be presented in places where such views are novel,
challenging, suppressed or denied. However, as FoU seeks to
engage in advocacy and critique in mutually reciprocal ways, the
process has the potential to become dialectical and hence is conducive
of change. In the context of faith, the process aims at metanoia,
a radical change of heart. This becomes confrontational to some
persons, especially those who have autocratic, indoctrinated belief and
perceive educational objectives in instrumental or strategic
action. In such cases, dialectical development is inhibited or
denied and metanoia is impossible. Through a critical theory of
education that takes into consideration aspects of freedom, diversity
and power in the process of socialisation, questions of impossibility
are compensated, allowing diversity within the Body of Christ.
Individuals of differing viewpoint can then seek to co-exist, in
solidarity with a common faith in Christ.
A theology without a
dialectical pattern does not give us a theology of grace. It is
grace-less. In such a theology grace becomes a commodity, a
spiritual consumer item, and church becomes a supernatural vending
machine. In such a situation religion itself becomes a repository
for dualism and a legitimization for its subsequent violence. (Matthew
Fox.)
Towards Communicative Education
According to Jürgen Habermas, social action can be either success-oriented strategic action or understanding-oriented communicative action. Strategic action may be defined as purposive-rational action oriented toward other persons from a utilitarian point of view, in which the other persons as treated as objects and not as genuine persons. Strategic action involves planned exploitation, or manipulation of others, in order to seek one’s own ends, either openly or tacitly. People targeted by such action may feel harassed, persecuted or victimised by persistent attempts at manipulation. In fact, this is how the gay and lesbian members of the Church experience the constant pressures for change from groups such as EMU, whose strategic action continually seeks ways to win the day for their cause against contrary decisions of the Church. Hence EMU constantly repositions its objectives, shifting the goal posts on the playing field as stratagems for success. Communicative action is
different to that of strategic action. Communicative action is
interpersonal communication that is oriented toward mutual
understanding. It treats other participants as genuine persons
and not as objects of manipulation. It talks with people and not
about them. The primarily aim in communicative action is not to attain
success for one’s own actions but seeks to harmonise personal or group
plans of action with those of other participants. In this
way the other is not denigrated, denied or inhibited from holding
different viewpoints or place within the Church and communicative
action aims at reaching understanding in a community. Such is the
case with FoU where it is committed to "living with diversity".
Education forms an integral part of this process, involving the telling
of our stories, explaining historical, biblical, and theological
perspectives as communicative action.
FoU also engages strategic
action but in a modified way, where our approach has been to urge
dialogue based on creative listening, uncovering and overcoming
homophobia (in ourselves and others), power sharing, justice-making and
bringing the Gospel into our lives as liberation from oppressive
practices of discrimination and prejudice. Success is sought in
terms of practising inclusivity and recognition of human and social
diversity within the Church. The strategic action is one of
revealing alternatives of inclusive approaches as against restrictive,
practices based on barriers of distinction. In this way, FoU
engages a modified application of both strategic and communicative
action and presents an educative process that involves adult learning
and is not pedagogical or authoritarian. The value orientation is
towards communicative education, treating all persons in genuine ways,
with the presupposition that argumentation opens the possibility
of change. When we understand communicative education in this
way, as an exceptional form of communicative action, in which the
concept of communicative education is looser than the concept of
communicative action itself. In this way, FoU’s application of
communicative education presents the value orientation of communicative
action and the value orientation of education in similar ways.
Our communication is directed on behalf of the oppressed and
disadvantaged ones and metanoia becomes a justice-making process of
liberation and defines our strategic actions accordingly.
Conflicts over Normative Minima
Where a set of values is applied in a delimiting, normative sense, they represent a normative minimum. In the Uniting Church we have an example of normative minima expressed in Assembly minute 03.12.04 as varied by ASC minute 03.69 (and formerly known as Resolution 84). The Uniting Church recognises no distinctions of action or person other than to have faith such that members work together in love and service as one Body. The resolution is not a compromise position, it is the "bottom line" for the Church, in accord with principles of justification through faith, through which the Church upholds the Gospel and testifies to inclusive teaching and to an inclusive Christ. Some conservative and
evangelical members of the Church challenge this view and apply
disparate normative minima derived from selective understandings of
human nature, biblical interpretation and ethics. They employ
strategic action that is authoritarian and instrumental, with the
objective being to gain success in maintaining indoctrinated values (or
beliefs) within their particular viewpoint and to convert others to
that viewpoint. Such strategic action tends to produce further
indoctrinative learning that does not permit dialogue or open
discourse. The authoritarian approach is used essentially in "total
institutions" such as the military, private educational institutions,
some work places, and among the bullies of the world
represented by closed political and ideological systems, organised
crime, military industrialists and enemies of "peace, love and
community" everywhere. It does not fit well with
organisations or systems that are open to diversity within their
ranks. Hence the position adopted by EMU is like a total
institution challenging the Church’s decision to live with diversity
because such action is outside its framework.
Within the Church this action is disparate, even schismatic, when considered alongside that of other groups who are prepared to embrace diversity with respect to faith, sexuality and membership. It presents a conflict of normative minima, in which the "bottom line" acceptable to EMU is different to that upheld by the Assembly and those who support its decisions. As such, they are not in keeping with the Basis of Union and the policy and polity of the UCA as expressed in Assembly minute 03.12.04 as varied by ASC minute 03.69 (and formerly known as Resolution 84). EMU beliefs perpetuate indoctrinated opinion presented in order to uphold prior indoctrinated beliefs. They are not a form of doctrine or a doctrinal system but a quasi-theological projection of prejudice, presenting inappropriate theologising of invalid claims and distorted reasoning through indoctrinated belief. In the present climate, this conflict is dysfunctional in terms of building a unified body. Communicative education aims to overcome dysfunction and to build an authentic community, called to be justice-makers, peace-makers and servants of love.
Dutney, A., Food, Sex & Death: A Personal Account of Christianity. Uniting Church press, Melbourne, 1993. Gos, Robert, Jesus Acted Up: A Gay and Lesbian Manifesto. Harper, San Francisco, 1994. Victor C. Hayes, ed. Towards Theology in an Australian Context. ASSR Publication,
Heyward, Carter, Touching Our Strength: The Erotic as Power and the
Love of God. Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1989. The other articles in this series are: Further Reading
  |
