The Key to Dialogue

The evangelical church is deeply divided. Although evangelicalism has always been diverse, in recent years this fragmentation has threatened to pull the movement apart. Two groups, the traditional and emerging camps, are at the heart of the impending split. After almost a decade the two sides now are at loggerheads, and it seems the rift will not be healed anytime soon.

No real dialogue or learning can take place between the traditional and emerging churches without them listening to and fairly representing each other. What is missing from the dialogue, what would help us move from accusation to mutual learning, from innuendo to honesty, is trust. Trust is confidence that the other person’s intentions are good and that we have no reason to be protective or careful around them. When one party feels disrespected or feels that their ideas have been summarily dismissed, trust is broken and communication is disrupted. Both sides are locked in a cycle of distrust and self-protection. Isn’t this what has happened between the emerging and traditional sides? And doesn’t this harm the witness of the church (John 13:33-35)?

Of course, many traditional churches aren’t seeking unity with the emerging church, which, after all, is theologically liberal in their eyes. A serious charge, no doubt. If they are theologically liberal, that is, they reject the orthodoxy, then ecclesial unity may be neither possible nor desirable. I hope this is obvious. If someone denies the deity of Christ or the incarnation, for example, unity would not be possible. Nevertheless, on a personal level, love, civility and kindness would still guide us. Dialogue is always a good thing even with those outside the bounds of orthodoxy.

But what if the emerging church is not theologically liberal? What if those within it are nonetheless distrusted and made to feel as if they are the enemy? They would feel insecure, on guard and threatened when talking with traditionalists. They might even return the favor by dismissing the traditional church. This makes real dialogue nearly impossible. When each side distrusts the other, we have a divided evangelical church.

UNITY
Is there a way forward? How do we get to the point where both sides can talk about their differences and learn from each other without being accused of heresy? By first agreeing about what binds Christians together. It is that simple. We have to arrive at what John Stott calls the “unity of the gospel.” All unity has a doctrinal aspect. No unity is possible without boundaries of thought and belief around something. There is always a limit to what any group can tolerate without being torn apart.

In his book Evangelical Truth, Stott argues that the apostle Paul “begs his readers to ‘stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel’ (Phil 1:27). He goes on to urge them” ‘make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose’ (2:2).” Stott argues that Paul is not calling for unity at any price, for example, being willing to compromise fundamental truths in order to maintain relational unity, or splitting from those who are not in total agreement on every theology point and doctrine. “It is rather unity in the gospel, in evangelical essentials, ‘standing . . . side by side in the struggle to advance the gospel faith’ (Phil 1:27 REB).” This is a commitment to both the purity of biblical teaching and the peace of togetherness.

The problem for evangelicals, Stott contends, is that we have a “pathological tendency to fragment.” We place doctrinal purity over unity, or we stress relational unity over sound doctrine. The reality is that Jesus wants us to be equally committed to both—the peace and purity of the church. When this is not the case, our disunity is a major hindrance to our evangelism and witness to the world. We fail at the “final apologetic,” our love for one another. If we can agree on the essential matters, the “unity of the gospel,” then we have a shot at rebuilding trust and moving forward.

Taken from Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional by Jim Belcher. Copyright(c) 2009 by Jim Belcher. Used by permission of InterVarsity Press PO Box 1400 Downers Grove, IL 60515. www.ivpress.com.

1 Comment »

1. This seems…I don’t know, overly simplistic and idealistic to me.

   You say, “what if the emerging church is not theologically liberal?” and to that I say, its a big what if.  You could be right, but how do we gauge such a thing?  Further, if the emerging church actually is theologically liberal, what purpose does this article serve?  Nobody has a problem with partnering with others with whom they can agree at least on the basics, but most everyone has a problem with partnering with those whom they cannot even agree on the basics.

   And I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention or not, but the emerging church seems to want to throw the basics out the window, too.

   So, then, if unity is the step forward with a non-liberal emerging church (if that is true) then what is the step forward with a liberal emerging church?

   Obviously many would say that the emerging church actually is liberal and not just because we don’t like them, but because it is true.

   How does the church preserve her witness then?

   Comment by Jesse Medina - Mar 31, 2010 @ 05:29 PM

Sorry, but commenting is no longer available for this post.