Context
In a recent discussion between Friends of Unity (FoU) and 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. In reply, 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 hold different opinion on issues of faith, membership, sexuality and church leadership.   I also left unstated my understanding that strategic actions from some evangelical and conservative membeers of the Church are diametrically opposed to the communicative action¹ of Friends of Unity.  It is painfully obvious that differnces in hermeneutics exist, also, and that some measure of education is required to ensure that new learning and reflection is not left in the realm of academia or the seminary.  Education opens up dialogue and gives light to more recent developments on hermeneutics, exegesis and biblical and theological scholarship, without which we risk becoming blind captives of indoctrinated opinion, fear and ignorance.

Education also allows for the development of attitudes that recognise that more than one interpretation of Scripture is possible and indicative of a healthy climate of faith and enquiry. 

Unpacking the Silence
Part of the reason for holding silence was because of my understanding of what is at issue here. Of course Graham’s opinion may be different to mine, again.  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, biblical interpretation, sexuality and membership. We probably 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 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 conservative, evangelical  members would say the same thing of their view, but are their views anything other than indoctrinated ones?

Appropriate Educational Objectives
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, conservative, evangelical  members and their allies 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.²  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, conservative, evangelical  members have 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 those 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.  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."³ 

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.⁴   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 idolatry⁵  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,_⁶  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 Fox⁷.)

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 conservative, evangelical  members, whose strategic action continually seeks ways to win the day for their cause against contrary decisions of the Church.  Hence the constant repositioning of conservative 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.⁸   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 ⁹
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,¹⁰   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.¹¹   It does not fit well with organisations or systems that are open to diversity within their ranks.  Hence the position adopted by conservative, evangelical  groups 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 conservative, evangelical  members 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).  Dominant, conservative, evangelical  groups perpetuate beliefs based on indoctrinated opinion that is 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 in accord with the Gospel of love.

TOP