Unity not Uniformity
I think we can all agree that we like to be around people with whom we agree. Working with, living with, worshiping with those with whom we have differences can be difficult because -- well -- we're afraid. We're afraid to open ourselves up to being rejected. And so we live and work and play and worship with those who look like and think like us. It's just safer.
But can we live differently? Can we embrace the principle of radical inclusivity? Can we love others unconditionally?
I return to the book Lost in the Middle? (Alban, 2009), a book that espouses a "liberal-evangelicalism," a position that I think might well describe me as a person. Wesley Wilder and Stephen Garner write about the practical challenges of living within such a community, one that can describe itself as "liberal-evangelical." They suggest that there are two particular challenges -- one has to do with relationships.
In a liberal-evangelical church, moderates may find themselves worshiping and praying next to someone whose political views really bother them, whose supernatural world view dismays them, whose naturalistic approach to religion outrages them, or whose sexual orientation disturbs them.
If this is true then "can they commit to Christian fellowship and love despite such awkward disagreements?" (pp. 156-157).
There is another area of difficulty -- the individual level.
Acknowledging core-message pluralism in the way required to participate fully in a liberal-evangelical congregation can be spiritually confusing. For some people it weakens confidence in the foundations of Christian faith.
The solution the authors offer is "a lifelong commitment to radical discipleship, humble learning, and compassionate social engagement." (p. 157). If I understand them correctly, this requires a commitment on our part, as individuals, to continue growing in our understanding and in our faith.
In my own understanding, as a Christian, I affirm the centrality of Jesus. He is the Christ, the son of the living God. With this as my foundation, I'm able to live with and among those whose professions of faith and practice of faith are not the same. Do I argue for another way? Yes. It's not that I sit on the fence, it's that I've come to the conclusion that each of our journeys are at different places. I am not who I was a decade ago. I expect I'll not be the same a decade from now. If I expect that of myself, then surely I can give space to others as they journey in faith. This, is, I believe what it means to find unity without uniformity!
Comments
Without a denominationally endorsed foundation do we not have a disadvantage? First we must seek a consensus, then we must sustain the consensus through the passage of time and the swinging doors of church membership, and lay and ordained leadership. If we can do all that, then we must learn how to promote that core message while fighting a rearguard action to maintain the consensus.
A denominationally endorsed core message might at least get us past the consensus building/maintaining hurdle. But the DOC, by nature, cannot provide such support.
I also do not believe it is sufficient to suggest the core revolves around the notion of Christian unity (in essentials) and the two sacraments of baptism by emersion and weekly Eucharist. The problem here is that unity is supposedly a core value in all denominations - one cannot ignore that one denomination actually calls itself by the name 'universal' - catholic. Moreover, we cannot agree even on what is essential! It seems unity is really nothing more that a shorthand way of saying "why can't we all just be friends?" A good idea but not a core message.
I don't mean to sound so negative, because I am not, but I think that before we can begin to formulate and coalesce around our core message, we need to be clear about the limitations and the obstacles.
John
What I mean is that to really get to love one another, one must get to know the other's story. That takes time for trust building, and intimate settings (i.e., small groups) for opportunities for one to speak and the other to hear.
I think when we can tell our stories and be heard and be encouraged and embraced without suffering judgment and approbation, we come to love each other even when our theological distances are enormous.
I can't speak highly enough about the value of small groups to build community.
John
You're correct that it's easier to build consensus when that "consensus" is imposed from outside the congregation. Disciples believe this, therefore we believe this. A commitment to unity is great, but what it does is invite people to come together bringing all of their baggage (I'm a prime example). While I do believe that the Table is an important symbol of our unity, even it cannot be the sole source of unity.
For me, I think we need to affirm a common commitment to Jesus. We needn't agree on all the details, but if we're to be a Christian community, it would seem necessary to affirm that premise as central -- core.
As for small groups. I indeed believe they are very valuable in allowing us to tell our stories in a safe place. The only thing a congregation must be careful about is the possibility of small groups becoming isolated from the rest of the community.
John
A DOC from a Pentecostal background one could be deeply grounded in the work of the Holy Spirit; and from a Roman Catholic background, one's faith could be focused around the Creator/Father or even the Crucified Christ, where the faith of a DOC from a Baptist or contemporary Evangelical background could be formed around a deep and abiding personal relationship with Jesus.
All of these approaches to Christian faith include acknowledgment of the person of Jesus Christ but he is not necessarily the "center" in every case.
For one person Jesus is the human face and prophetic voice of the Father. For another Jesus is the sender of and partner with the Holy Spirit which is the most active aspect of the Divinity. For yet another Jesus Christ is Lord, Master, Lover and Friend. And the permutations go on. But in each the person, sacrifice and work of Jesus may not be the central focus of faith.
To say we are "Christ centered" raises a question even on what you see and an easily agreeable essential.
John
I was raised Catholic and Jesus was #1 with God, Spirit, Mary, then saints and angels etc. following.
Following the way of Jesus, and acting out the way he taught us to should get us close to the whole gang.
David Mc
It’s not just the places; it's the roads and vehicles too. Hey, déjà vu.
Seriously, the table brings things home. John, you have to admit, this is central to the Catholic services through the years also.
And Bobby loves it. He is very intuitive about these things.
David Mc
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/communion.html
I don't know how it got linked to Auburn University though.
David Mc
For me personally, the table is indeed the central focus of worship. For me the table is not so much an act of remembrance but a genuine re-participation in Jesus original act of self-sacrifice to the Creator, the once and perfect and final sacrifice, which continues to be re-presented each time it is re-celebrated.
But at the same time, much of my faith life is focused on the first person of the Trinity, the Creator and the parental aspect of God, which is where Jesus himself directed us to pray in His prayer.
And I pray too that the Spirit will act through me, and sometimes I feel the Spirit alive and active within me.
So I can't just say my faithlife is "Christ centered" and leave it at that. It is so much more complicated for me.
Of course, it could be that I am just too caught up in words. Could be that I think too much.
John
We can’t seem comprehend God in his entirety, but we can get a sense through Jesus.
Here’s my analogy- I compare God the universe, because it’s the greatest thing I know of (there may be more, so I may have to revise later). The universe is expanding so fast, we can’t see it all because of the speed of light. So, Jesus is the observable universe, God is the whole, the Spirit is a worm-hole that lets us communicate at a distance with what we can’t see directly. It’s good sci-fi anyway.
David Mc