CLGS

Two of the most emotionally charged issues in the church and society today are the issues of abortion and homosexuality. Many articles have been written and debates have been argued in an attempt to convince one another of the rightness of one side or the other. Biblical and theological interpretations have been expounded from church pulpits, public debates, and print or TV media to justify particular positions. The focus of this article is on a way of living in the tension of the conflict and engaging in civil discourse on the subject of sexual orientation. How can we choose to live within the heat and seek the light?

What Does Civil Discourse Mean?

Acknowledging that we are in a social tension is easy to do. The hard part comes when we decide that we must engage in civil discourse. First of all, what does that mean? Many have experienced discourse on these topics but little has been civil. Labeling, vehement protest, and confrontation have characterized much of the debate. Digression into ugliness, personal attacks, and property damage are sad components to uncivil discourse.

Civil can mean two things. First, it can mean that the debate is public among those who live together in community. Second, it can mean that the debate gives respect to all parties. This article is written to encourage both community discourse and respect due to the various parties. We who live within the church community should have understanding of the need for respect and honor to be given to another of God's children, whom Jesus came to liberate by his death and resurrection. But somehow the church has great difficulty with this theological tenet in the name of "right doctrine" and belief. Civil conversation breaks down when rightness of position is paramount and any position varying from that "rightness" is not only wrong but heresy. What occurs is church conflict with only win/lose outcomes.

Discourse has within its meaning a dimension of dialogue between parties which includes logic and reason. If logic and reason are to occur, listening to all positions is required so that understanding might be achieved without agreement being necessary.

A Typical Approach to the Conflict

Sexuality has always been a matter of serious concern charged with emotion in the church. Lately, the church has been embroiled in the topic of sexual orientation, mostly concentrating on whether homosexuality is a biblical abomination or innate to the person. Should one bearing the attribute of "abomination" be ordained as a clergyperson?

As in most emotional debates, the parties tend to treat their opponents as enemies who, in their evil ways, are trying to eradicate morality in general and biblical Christianity in particular or, conversely, who are expressing unnecessary fear over a valid part of God's creation. The debate is win/lose, with rightness as the only criterion. The Bible and doctrinal authority are the only arbiters for the debate within part of the church community. The approach is positional, with little regard to dialogue, the relationship, and shared interests with others. Common ground and resolution are most difficult to achieve in the midst of this kind of atmosphere and entrenchment.

Civil Discourse: A New Approach

An interest–based dialogue, rather than a positional debate, is called for. Civil discourse requires fair fighting ground rules that focus on a dialogue which is substantive and which addresses each party in a civil, respectful way. Understanding is a goal.

Distortion in perception, miscommunication, and the drive for personal or group power over others may well require a third party facilitator to bring the "civil" and the "discourse" into the discussion. Such facilitators are trained to intervene with fair fighting rules and to move the debate from the ferocity of win/lose to the excitement of a win/win attempt toward understanding and possibly resolving the conflict. Even when complete resolution is not attainable, the facilitator can help prevent damaging exchanges that block future dealing amongst the parties. Latent conflict from previous win/lose interactions can easily be triggered into highly emotional escalation of conflict in future exchanges

Third party facilitators engage in preventative roles as well as those that are mediative and negotiative. They assist civil discourse by: 1) preventing damaging exchanges, 2) enabling the change of context of the conflict (reframing), and 3) coaching parties in the principles of fair fighting and ethical interchange. Such behavior is essential to dialogic discussion in order to reach a negotiable perception of the problem. Mediation by a third party can change a deadlocked positional argument into an open search for common ground around common interests.1

An Experiment in Civil Discourse

A positive experience in attempting civil discourse by this method of third party facilitation is taking place in Denver, Colorado. The Colorado Coalition for Choice is a group of religious leaders in the community who are active in community debate on the abortion issue. Experiencing frustration at the way these interchanges were going and feeling more acrimony than any helpful light on the matter, they felt there must be another way. In the early months of 1993, I was approached as a conflict manager to see if I might facilitate a group of approximately equal numbers of pro–life and pro–choice persons from within the Christian–Jewish community. A number of months later such a group of clergy and lay leadership was gathered.

Each person was asked to commit to a civil discourse on the abortion issue without having to convince others to change their position. The end goal of such initiative was to identify some common ground around which there might be some united action.

My role as facilitator was to establish and insure ground rules which respected the worth and self–esteem of the persons involved and to guide the group toward the discovery of possible common ground. Christian–Jewish tradition and theology gave foundation for this style of dialogue. The persons in the group had been in the leadership of religious concern on both sides of the abortion issue to date. They had a genuine interest in why and how each had come to their position on abortion. They desired mutual understanding and to see if there was any ground in common!

Since we met only once a month, it took some time to allow all individuals to share their journey. This process drew the group closer together as the life stories and resulting commitments were shared. At times many in the group would exclaim that, given the life experience they just heard, they too might be so convinced. Trust and friendly relationships were built before any attempt was made to discover common ground. Effort was extended to break positional images, loaded words, labels, and epitaphs. This development of community and trust was enhanced by a week–end retreat with leadership from the Common Ground Network for Life and Choice in Washington, D.C.

After mutual appreciation was developed around life journeys and abortion positions, the focus was directed toward common concern. The problem of unwanted children became the center of dialogue. The experience of adoption agencies in working with the parents of unwanted babies and with unwed mothers was shared. Ways of working with pregnant women considering abortion were discussed toward mutually desirable ends. Any decision for action by the group was dependent upon consensus among all parties.

The persons who experienced this progression from no trust and attack to compassion and understanding over about two years felt excitement about their achievements and wanted to share those insights with others. Since this experiment had been a private, not a public event, a news release was prepared which described what had taken place. An invitation was made for leadership to come from this initial group to help start new groups. About twelve persons formed a workable group, with balanced representation of the parties to the dialogue. Their goal was to spread this style of discourse across the Denver metro community.

Using this Model

The substantive issue for civil discourse in this article is sexual orientation, not abortion. The process is the point in the above description. How can this process help us in the church to live in the tension around sexual orientation?

The following ideals would need to be affirmed by consensus by a new group who wanted to engage in civil discourse on sexual orientation:

• We agree that all human lives have value and inherent dignity.
• We seek to be one in the spirit of caring and compassion.
• We will listen to each other with open hearts and minds.

These then serve as guidelines for civil discourse.

The mission statement of a group seeking to engage in civil discourse on sexual orientation would need to include:

• an affirmation of the right of persons to hold different convictions.
• an agreement to seek not simply to be understood but also to understand.
• a commitment to attempt to look beyond differences to see each other as caring, compassionate people.
• a commitment to strive together toward finding answers which uphold the dignity of all human life.2

The general steps followed by the group would be the same as our group in Denver.

GUIDELINES FOR GROUP FORMATION

1. Communicate to approximately six persons each who are pro and con on the issue of homosexuality in the church; invite them to pursue the topic in civil discourse together.

2. Choose a competent conflict manager to facilitate the group.

3. Affirm basic ground rules, ideals, or guidelines to govern the actions of the group toward civil discourse.

4. Spend the necessary time to allow all persons to share their life journeys relative to the formation of their position on the topic.

5. Seek to find whatever common ground is evident out of the personal sharing.

6. Continue educational efforts individually and as a group on the subject of sexual orientation.

7. Work toward a consensus decision on some common action to take, such as the formation of new groups led or supported by original group members.

The joint pursuit of truth may be long and difficult, but civil discourse in the midst of conflict within the Christian community could be a contribution to the search for peace that is so desired on the part of the larger community. The foundation for this discourse is within us. Let us learn to use it and pass it on.

Notes

1 Hugh F. Halverstadt, Managing Church Conflict (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991).

2 These are the ideals and mission statement of the Pro–Life/Pro–Choice Community in Denver, December, 1994.

Donald E. Bossart, Ph.D., is an associate professor of interpersonal ministries at Iliff School of Theology in Denver, Colorado. He has been active in the Denver PFLAG and the Colorado AIDS Project. He and his wife, Gay, attend St. Andrews UMC in Littleton.