(These comments on Christian unity were excerpted from a post by Alario on the ‘Don’t forget to grieve’ thread as they pursue a rather different issue.)
I’m with you to a certain agree with respect to standing shoulder to shoulder with other Christians and working to break down factional barriers so as to present to the watching culture a Church which would be known as Jesus’s disciples because its members have love one for the other.
With all candor, it’s the “other Christians” part which is at issue. This also applies to “other theological camps”. Let me give examples to explain.
The Episcopal Church in America has a retired bishop who is the darling of the media. Less so now maybe than in the past, but often a favorite on the talk-shows and good for an interview to stir things up. He is the most published member of the House of Bishops. I’ve read all of his stuff. Some would say he is a heretic, if such a term can still exist in these times.
In his eyes, I am not a “real” Christian because of what I believe. To become one and fellowship with him in his camp, I have to see things his way, believe as he does, or better said, disbelieve what he disbelieves. There are many like him at the levels of bishop and priest. Many are in positions to influence who goes to seminary and who does not and what will be taught in those seminaries. I can assure that when the process of discerning whether or not God’s call is on a man to become a postulant and attend seminary, orthodox, theologically conservative and all adherents to Sola Scriptura/Sola Fides need not apply. All of this has been justified by terms like inclusivity, abandoning outmoded dogma and such like. These same people, when it comes to someone with a more traditional or orthodox view of Scripture, the Prayer Book and, most recently, sexual matters, are neither inclusive nor accomodating. They are often hostile and will abuse canon law to discipline a dissenting priest or parish and have resorted to our Federal Courts to do the same.
Ironically, if an orthodox anglican parish needs orthodox episcopal oversight, they will often be best served by going to a third-world bishop who, with his fellow bishops, views America as a mission field ripe unto harvest. God has a wry sense of humor, does He not?
There is no shared worldview, theological or philosophical, seemingly, no shared set of beliefs regarding Christianity in common between these two parties I have been discussing.
I, as you, wish to accomodate those whose are in different camps. It seems to me that many theological camps have appended Christian to them, or in some instances, retained the name Christian long after abandoning anything distinctively Christian. Putting a mouse in a cookie jar does not make it a cookie. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find common grounds for discussion and fellowship.
I sense from much of what I read on this website there is common ground and tolerance for differences where common ground is shakey. I am dogmatic about a lot of what I believe which (I believe) is supported by Scripture. But, I am not a fool and have sense enough to listen and learn and can and will change when proven wrong. Having said that, I can’t abandon my faith to accomodate something that believes anything and nothing at the same time.
[PS I thought long and hard about Jesus the Inclusive and must agree with you. No male, no female, no slave, no free, no rich/poor/etc in Him. Broke down the barrier between Hebrew and Gentile, friend of sinners and so forth. Anyone who can have you, me, Tony Blair and George W. Bush calling ourselves and believing ourselves to be His disciples must be God]
So when one speaks of Christian, what does one mean?
the schizophrenic dichotomic confused multilectic...
Alario, I’d say that the Christian is the one who celebrates.
Celebrates life given abundantly Celebrates the united (for Christ) and diverse nature of the worldwide church Celebrates the justice and love combined at the cross Celebrates the death that brings life Celebrates the sovereign God and his free creation Celebrates the confusion that a human mind focusing on God inevitably meets Celebrates the possible hope of creation, relationships, life itself, restored Celebrates love wherever it’s found Celebrates grace, grace, grace and more grace when he or she doesn’t deserve it
I think that there’s got to be a gracious response by all: to those whose faith makes them more strict than us that we don’t offend their sensibilities, and to those who seem to compromise more than we’re happy, that we’re willing to join their play, knowing that we’re more safe in Jesus’ arms whether or not we end up “off the rails”.
I must admit that I’m no expert at this balance of grace to those who are not like me in my theological stance. But I’m trying to include, to accept and to care.
Take care. love Ken.
Justice. Love. Unmerited Grace.
Ken,
Your reply is as encouraging as anything I have heard in a fairly long time.
I am personally strengthened with the notion that Jesus is capable to watch over His sheep whether they are on or “off the rails”. I suppose you could make a great case that He had a particular eye out for the lost and straying member of the flock and was particularly adept at finding and rescuing same.
Some experiences such as I referred to in my previous post have not so much to do with “going off the rails” as they do with being “slammed into the boards” or “clothes lined” (pick your metaphor-hockey or American football) by Christians perhaps less gracious than they ought to be. I rather like the idea that the Master’s capable arms are sufficient in these areas also. Something that can be easily forgotten if grace is absent in dialogue and relationships. I hasten to add that I have landed a good many uncharitable verbal (and written) punches and like the apostle am the chief of sinners.
However inexpert at achieving the gracious balance you seek in dealing with differing souls-this one appreciates your efforts toward him.
Let me restate an implied question in my earlier post. Are there limits beyond which a person, an organization, a denomination or a small independent congregation and so forth can go which will put them outside of the pale of Christianity?
Church history is often the fight to define and protect Christianity from adopting or neglecting certain, what?, dogmatic understandings of the nature of God. By nature of God I mean an all encompassing idea of which Christology and so forth are a part.
On a smaller scale we see some discipline within the early church where members were cut off from fellowship and sacraments in an effort to ultimately restore the individual to full communion with God and their brothers and sisters in Christ. I mention this point not to illustrate that the person was “not Christian”, but to underscore that even at the level of the local churches, there was some point beyond which a person could not go respecting behavior and remain publically associated with the Church. If this is so at this local level, does it not imply that some behavorial purity was expected at higher levels and that doctrinal purity was expected as well?
I sense I have written, once again, too much and will now sign off and bid one and all, adieu.
Your brother and friend in Christ,
Alario