Modes of Enquiry and the Gender, Sexuality, and Marriage Debate: From Teacher to Lecturer to Dialogue Partner to Tribal Warrior
Martin Davie’s response
to the manifesto ‘Christians United in Support of LGBT+ Inclusion in the Church’
(issued on 30 August, 2017) is excellent.[1] Davie takes each point and shows its
inconsistencies, particularly with Scripture and the Christian tradition. In light of the ongoing pressure through
dialogue to come to an affirming view of multiple instead of binary sexualities
and of sexual desires, acts, and relationships contrary to Scripture and Church
teaching, Davie’s patient explanation of the manifesto’s errors is most
welcome.
My point in this blog
post is much more specific. It is that
the nature of the dissemination of knowledge and the approach to enquiry have
shifted radically in the past few decades, and this has led to changing
convictions. With this manifesto (and
the likes of it), we appear to be moving on from the era of dialogue befitting
postmodernity to a new era of liberal fundamentalism characteristic of Western
tribalism. In the past, the Christian teacher was
replaced by the university lecturer as the Church battled a shift to Modernity
in the Enlightenment and afterwards, and then the university lecturer gave way to
the dialogue partners of postmodernity. The latest development is that dialogue
is giving way to the warriors of Western tribalism, in which a particular
(politically ‘correct’) tribe dominates others. Now, teaching is tribal mentoring that conforms to the tribe's closely held beliefs and practices.
In making this point, I
would refer the reader to Alisdair MacIntyre’s Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry.[2] MacIntyre argues that there are three,
incommensurable versions of moral enquiry.
The first is to be associated with Modernity. He calls it ‘encyclopaedia’ because the
encyclopaedia well describes the manner in which this enquiry proceeds. It assumes a Cartesian method of doubt,
followed by establishing foundational absolutes, followed by study that finds a
unity in all truth. The sciences offer
good examples of how this process of enquiry unfolds.
MacIntyre terms his
second version of enquiry ‘genealogy.’
It challenges the encyclopaedic version in that it rejects
foundationalism and absolute truth, and therefore the notion that truth is
unified. Friedrich Nietzsche argued in
his On Genealogy of Morals that
morality is the expression of power: persons in power use their situation to
create a morality to keep others in check.
Morality is not absolute but is conditional, contextual, constructed,
and local for the postmodern ‘genealogist’ and, for Nietzsche, is also a matter
of power and suppression. Indeed, in the
dialogues and conversations set up in Western mainline denominations around the
issues of gender, sexuality, and marriage, the dynamics of power and
suppression have always been lurking in the shadows.
MacIntyre’s third
version of enquiry is termed ‘tradition.’
Unlike encyclopedia, it does not begin with doubt that removes all
beliefs before embarking on a programme to establish foundational truths. Instead, it begins with faith and seeks
understanding. The convictions of faith
are studied in terms of their fidelity to authorities—such as Scripture and the
Church’s teaching. A community’s faith
becomes a starting point for enquiry, not to be erased in order to find
universal, scientific, foundational truths apart from faith.
In his Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry, MacIntyre
observes that different approaches to study are involved. He notes that the lecture fits very well with
the encyclopaedic version of enquiry. A
lecturer assumes that the audience lacks knowledge, and the audience does well
to remain in a passive posture to receive the knowledge of the expert
lecturer. This has been, and in many
departments still is, the model of instruction in the universities. In the genealogy version of enquiry, the
lecture is most inappropriate. What is
needed is a process of dialogue that values diversity and inclusiveness. (Think literature department instead of
physics department in the university.) For
this to ‘work,’ everyone needs to buy into the idea that there is no discovery
of truth, only an endless process of engagement.
The reductio ad absurdum of such a view of
enquiry is that, despite all the talk about diversity and inclusion, those who
believe that there is a truth, a moral standard, a created order, a revealed
word of God are, necessarily, rejected. Diversity
and inclusion cannot be extended to everyone and are, in the end, actually a
sham. Unity around a politically correct
conviction, not diversity, and exclusion of those who hold anything otherwise,
are in fact the values of this post-postmodern, tribal community. That is, the genealogy position is, as
Nietzsche observed and embraced, not a position of diversity and inclusiveness
but a position of power. Thus, the
genealogy—or postmodern—view of enquiry inevitably evolves quickly into a form
of tribalism in which one tribe excludes another on the basis of shared
particulars of one sort or another.
In the case of the ‘Christians
United’ manifesto, we no longer have the view that diversity and inclusiveness
are valued in themselves but the view that the articles of conviction affirming
LGBT+ identities and practices offer particulars that define a particular,
politically correct tribe and exclude all dissenters. In the ‘Christians United’ manifesto, the
tribe is declared to be ‘Christian,’ yet it roundly attacks the Scriptures and historic,
Christian tradition on the issues of gender, marriage, and sexuality. While championing ‘diversity and inclusion’
in dialogue in a culture that still accepts a postmodern approach to enquiry, the
tribal chiefs (or archbishops) pressing the LGBT+ agenda are set on defining a
politically correct community that rejects traditional Christianity and natural
law.
MacIntyre’s third
version of enquiry, tradition, is easily recognisable to all familiar with
Christian tradition, yet it shares features in common with other traditions as
well. The tradition approach to enquiry
disseminates information through a trusted teacher, one who is faithful to the
authorities of the tradition. He or she
might offer lectures, as the encyclopaedist does, yet the monastic robe
replaces the laboratory coat, as it were.
Unlike the postmodern dialogue, people gather to learn the traditional
teachings and to investigate them according to the canons of faith.
One reason, surely,
that the LGBT+ agenda has advanced in Western, mainline denominations is that,
at the same time, Western culture has transitioned from an encyclopaedic
Modernity to a genealogical Postmodernity.
Not only the convictions but the mode of engagement and enquiry have changed. The method of enquiry has led
the change in convictions themselves. Audiences
no longer submitted themselves to lectures about such basic absolutes as
sexuality and gender, and the denominational leaders submitted their
constituents to years of dialogue that did not seek truth but simply mutual
understanding, inclusion, and acceptance.
Lost in all this was the proper role of the teacher in communities of
faith. Instead, these leaders mandated
that laity, clergy, and scholars had an equal role to play in listening to one
another, without anyone teaching anyone else.
In a word, the tradition of faith was silenced in the circle of
emotional ‘sharing’ of experiences.
Indeed, the tradition of faith became the outsider of the new tribe
that, among its various tricks, insisted on calling itself ‘Christian’ when, in
fact, it rejected Christian authorities and history.
Yet the Christian tradition lives on, despite these onslaughts in the West. In fact, in many areas it thrives and is not self-destructing and crumbling in numbers, as are the mainline denominations outside the majority world.
[1]
See Martin Davie, ‘Christians United, An Analysis and Response’; online at https://mbarrattdavie.wordpress.com/2017/09/12/christians-united-an-analysis-and-response/
(accessed 12 September, 2017).
[2]
Alisdair MacIntyre, Three Rival Versions
of Moral Enquiry, 7th ed. (Univ. of Notre Dame, 1991).
Comments