If we agree on missiology, what other areas do we agree on?

The matter of reconciling the different wings of the church is not one that has troubled me that much.But I do have first hand experience of tring in vain to be reconciled to those I formely fellowshiped with.

This has been and continues to be a truely painfull part of my journey.The main issue I perceive is a narrow view of who Gods people are.Thats why your thoughts caused my to reply.I have failed in my attempts at reconciliation with my former church because Im seen as someone who has lost his way .Lost because I left a church who could barley accept anyone outside its own tradition and lost because I had the cheek to stand up for those folk who were outside that tradition.So when I read your thougths it reminded me of that narrow view of who Gods people were and what they looked like.And the judgement that comes with it.

Your comments about the 1/10 ratio and about ruling them out sound very harsh to me and it also sounds like you seem to have a devine insight into the hearts of people you dont know.I feel sure God can work this out without any help from us and what Jesus asked of us was to carry on his work which was to speak of his kingdom and to demonstrate his love.Leaving the judging to him.

On the matter of relatonships I agree with you that is not only about covenant but I feel sure that our attitude towards those who are homosexuals has as a church at times been less than gracious.We have at times and I include myself in this given special treatment to those who are homosexual and that treatment has usually involved judgement.This is where i feel we fail each other our task has never been to judge but to love .

Love is the way of the church and the kingdom love for those who are not our friends and neighbours.Love for those who offend us love for Gods creation .And finaly love for those whos doctrine is all wrong.

Thanks "BB" for your kindly worded pushback on my thoughts. I will offer up some further thoughts as a response...

I don't think I was trying to offer a narrow definition of "God's people"; rather I was

(a) suggesting that its obvious that the number of people who trust/have faith in Jesus and follow him as Lord and worship him is much smaller than the number of people who claim to be Christians on the recent census (80%?), or even the number of people that fill the UK churches on a Sunday morning (10%?) - I present as an assured fact that most churches are a mixture of saved and unsaved, without trying to ascertain who's in which group.

(b) moving forward from that point, questioning whether its worth trying to agree on theological matters with people that hold to views which are in apparently clear contradiction with the scriptures.

To underscore point (b), I refered to the Apostle Paul and noted that sometimes he made no attempt to reconcile his position with his opponents, instead reserving very serious words for those that offered a "different gospel" to the one he was preaching.

By saying this, I wasn't talking about breaking fellowship with fellow Christians (although this may sometimes result), nor was I questioning anyones salvation. Rather, I was wondering if we could learn from Paul how to deal with liaising with groups that have different theological viewpoints that appear to go against the entire grain of NT revelation.

As to a "narrow view of God's people and what they look like", I hope my view is as narrow as the scriptures' view and as wide as the scriptures view, including as narrow as Paul sees it and as wide as he sees it. When Paul talks about those who will not inherit the Kingdom of God, I don't think its narrow to reiterate this. When Paul talks of his opinion of those preaching another gospel, I don't think he is narrow to place a curse on them. My view of scripture doesn't let me go there. That was really my point: scripture itself shows that its OK to make boundaries and also tells us what many of these boundaries are.

I fully agree with you regarding the church's history of dealing with the lesbian/gay/transsexual community and that much has still to be learned in this regard. I also would say that its not the church's position to judge the world in this area (following again Paul's reasoning in Corinthians), but rather we are to judge ourselves, the church.

Finally, its clear that Paul saw many other sins just as grevious as homosexual or lesbian sex, and its a crying shame the church has forgotten this.

Hi again Chris,

Just a wee extra quickie question...if you reject forensic understandings of the atonement totally, what do you do with the Isaiah passage "he was wounded for our transgressions?" Do you have a totally non-substitutionary view of the atonement? For me, it doesn't square with Leviticus and the image of the two sacrifices on the Day of Atonement, or the phrase John the B used "behold the lamb of God who is slain" or Revelation which seems to suggest that Christ will return in a manner that is violent in some way towards those who have rejected him. Personally, I am not a conservative evangelical (and dont take the stance that penal sub is the be-all and end-all), rather, I err more towards the stance of SMW, NT Wright and Steve Chalke that penal-sub is one aspect of the atonement, and must be presented very carefully to get its full meaning. I respect your position on the atonement, but I still think that its right to claim that most people who identify themselves as evangelical acknowledge some understanding of a penal view of the cross.

Furthermore, the passage "he was wounded for our transgressions" suggests that biblically there are boundaries that we can transgress, that there is light and darkness. Transgress means to cross boundaries that God has commanded us not to transgress. The idea that the gospel of peace ignores boundaries is actually potentially very damaging. Its suggests that reconciliation can happen by simply ignoring boundaries completely. This is exactly what I see a universalist position advocating, which looks very similar to the way that post-modern philosophy views the eschaton. And its exactly why I can't hold that position: I think Revelation (and indeed most of scripture) is clear that reconciliation will happen on God's terms, not by us fudging a reconciliation apart from the deep cost of Christ's sacrifice to atone for our transgressions.

No I don’t reject substitution - it is there in Paul as well as implicit in some of Isaiah.  It is a good subject to illustrate my approach: no one model is really the whole explanation because we are dealing with a mystery. 

I think it is wrong, by the way, to assume that liberals take the view that reconciliation is for all regardless of transgression or response, because there is far more complex a kaleidoscope of views.  Weaver’s ‘The Non-Violent Atonement’ sets out quite a convincing model but even this is, for me, inadequate because it plays down the importance of the Cross and seeks to present one rational approach. 

For me Thomas Finger puts it better in his section on Atonement in ‘Theology: an Eschatological Approach’ with a suggestion that no one model is a complete and satisfactory explanation.  I think it is clear, though, that the focus needs to be on resurrection not death.  I would argue also that the Cross was necessary to deal with sin not because a just God needs blood (an abhorrent thought!) but because it was the only way to defeat sin and death.  I don’t want to cop out but thinking takes us only so far - it is ultimately a mystery that only multiple models held together in tension can explain, even if such models are inconsistent to our finite minds. 

"a just God needs blood (an abhorrent thought!)"

agreed...that is edging towards the incorrect way of portraying penal sub.

but Paul describes us as being freed from the law of sin and death. Weaver says the object of penal sub as a motif is the law of God, and Paul says Christ's atonement frees us from the law by fulfilling it.

I think it is a kaleidoscope, as you say but penal sub finds its way in there. Some reject penal sub entirely, but this story is still a real part of showing how the cross implicates us in the death of Christ, meaning we must take personal responsibility for our sin (and, when we do, enabling christ to resurrect us). This element of the atonement narrative helps emphasise the individual need to respond to Christ and be accountable for our own personal choices.

The choice to include or not include penal sub in the story is a big divisive issue still in protestant Christianity.

By the way, I think we need to balance the incarnation, the cross and the resurrection equally, one is not more important than the other in my book. They only make sense integrated. Paul integrates "resurrection life" with "suffering" in almost every occasion he writes of it...

also, many Christians (including many liberals) really do effectively view their ministry as mediating reconciliation as if everybody already is in.  Its called pluralism, and its eschatological counterpoint is universalism...and these stances will become increasingly popular in the Christian world in the west over the coming years...because its the stance already accepted by culture...

Hi Chris,

Thanks for you comments. I'm really sorry if what I have written has provoked you in an unhelpful way. My wife Esther and I have been visiting a number of very different churches over the last wee while, and they all have a very different feel about them. I am very curious to understand why that is - why there continues to be such an incredible and rich (and sometimes destructive) variety of Christian experience, and to figure out how recociliation can actually come about. I have to admit that, when I take a step back and see quite how diverse our sense of identity and action can be in the Christian world, I have sometimes felt deeply unsatisfied with the idea that our emphasis must be on "reconciliation and love" without also figuring out the basis on which this can happen. One aspect of that is trying to grapple with the concepts and praxis which still bring about such division.

I'm sorry if in the midst of trying to articulate this, I have done violence to you by my words or innappropriate means of phrasing things.

However, I think it is legitimate to ask the question "HOW can we move towards reconciliation when there are such polarities in existence amongst Christians." Sometimes it seem to me that there are no boundary lines any more whatsoever, and that a stance of "reconciliation and love" can sometimes be a position which in practice turns a blind eye to behaviours and beliefs which are actually symptomatic of the opposite.

An example is the fact that some Christians endorse homosexuality as a covenant relationship, while others do not. Others endorse oppressive activities of State, or at least ignore them, and others oppose these with their lives.

Some are pacifists, others kill in the name of God and country. Some say women leaders are wrong, others say they are right. Some say God doesn't heal today, others don't. Some say God is wrathful, others say he isn't. Some get angry and frustrated at attempts to define these issues, others feel it is an essential part of trying to figure out how to live justly an with integrity in todays world.

I am actually committed to reconciliation with everyone who is a follower of Christ, but I think that the process of actually engaging in this issue will inevitably raise some serious questions about what that reconciliation will look like. Most people I know have either totally given up on trying to find reconciliation and have walked away, or else have decided to pretty much ignore the issues I outline above and love one another (without challenging people on the issues) whatever actions or causes the other supports. For me, neither position has genuine integrity, and neither reflects a genuine attempt to find reconciliation.

Outlining or charting the course that still needs to be charted is a totally legitimate enterprise (in my opinion), and it is designed to inspire debate and the kind of clarification that you have offered. Its like figuring out the pieces of the jigsaw that still need lock together, with the intent that this one day might happen, rather than an attempt to put a wedge between different "camps" in order to foster more division.

To summarise, when I look at the church scene today, I often come across situations where there is either an explicit lack of reconciliation and love, or else a huge elephant in the room where serious issues of division have just been swept under the carpet. This results in uneasiness, mistrust, and people not giving all of themselves to the group and community. Is it more violent to name the issues that divide us (with a view to then testing whether genuine reconciliation can really happen), or is it actually more violent to kill a part of ourselves which we are passionate about for a "fake" reconciliation that is not really reconciliation at all? To me a fake Shalom is just as bad as a commitment to the destruction of Shalom...its just two opposite sides of the same coin (like pride and false humility).

What I have written above is an attempt to try and understand why that might be the case, and some of the issues that might be involved in trying to resolve these issues. There are doubtless many flaws in what I have written, but it is an honest attempt to think through the issues. I don't think we will get to true simplicity and peace without seriously addressing the complexity of the issues before us...and if we don't enter into the complexity of these issues, we will be left where we already are: with a simplicity that uneasily has to admit that there are still deep and painful divides between us.

I'm up for finding total and long-term healing in the Body of Christ, not just pretending that the pain isn't there.

Don't worry - your blog did not provoke me unhelpfully at all! (The dangers of writing rather than having a lengthy face to face chat over a drink or meal, which is how theology is best done I reckon!)  Instead it stimulated some thoughts but I am particularly busy at work this week so have not enough time to unpack things - your original piece and response deserve some careful debate and I hope to return to the blog in a few days time with a bit more thoughtful writing!  But the headlines for me are that I agree with most of what you have written (and agree wholeheartedly that sweeping issues under the carpet destroys shalom ); that the gospel is about love and reconciliation; that  since the Reformation (probably since the church engaged with Greek philosophy to incarnate the gospel in a thoughtful but theoretical context, helpfully described in Bosch ‘Transforming Mission’) many Christians have focused on defining belief and doctrine rather than living in a godly manner, and that the basis of reconciliation is our individual and corporate responses to Jesus rather than doctrine.  I agree we need to grapple with each and every one of those issues and tease out the basis of agreement and disagreement, but ultimately the basis of reconciliation is a Person, the living Word, not a set of propositions or creed however well expressed.  Let’s debate and follow Him – the two go together – back soon-ish!

Hiya Chris,

looking forward to more chat! I promise that I will be drinking coffee when I read your next post. I'm happy with your emphasis that "the basis of reconciliation is our individual and corporate responses to Jesus", but precisely because I do agree with Bosch that Christians need to be committed to holistic mission, I think that involves questions of doctrine as well.

I find it hard when folk emphasise holistic mission in terms of an outward focus on catering for the whole person with and for whom we are doing mission, but still slip into the default position of modernist thinking which suggests that we can do holistic mission without also having an integrity between our inner core spirituality and how we act outwardly. I still see a lot of folk disengaging their personal spirituality (actions, beliefs) from their interaction with others, and I am concerned to continue dialoguing in a way which takes this issue seriously.

I'm not sure that we can ever separate doctrine from our personal and corporate response to Jesus, because the way we think is totally integrated with the way we act, and vice versa. It is true that there is a strong link between those who conceptualise eschatology in universalist terms and those who endorse as biblically moral the lived out ethic of homosexual relationships as covenantal before God.

If we are to be discerning and to be committed to the UE value of "helping people move forward, wherever they are at present," then we must also talk about doctrine as well as what it means to relate to Christ. Christ held very strong doctrinal points of view...most of Matthew and Luke integrate elements of teaching and doctrine into the gospel narratives that expand on Mark's account. Christ seems to have accepted many normative teachings from the Hebrew scriptures...he taught people to make disciples, which ALSO means shaping how people think about Christ and morality, not just how we live and interact with one another. Christ did this because he took very seriously the idea that we are holistic beings...

So, as we try and rediscover holistic mission in Bosch's mould, can we try and avoid inventing a new false dochotomoy between "following christ" and seeking correct doctrine? We must also avoid a kind of naive anti-doctrinalism (I'm sure you don't advocate this)

After all, even the conviction that reconciliation can be found in our "personal and corporate response to Christ rather than doctrine" also encodes a doctrinal position, which is that Christology is central to our walk with Christ, and should be the basis of our approach to understanding other aspects of our worldview.

There is no such thing as a completely relational basis to Christian experience...I can't be in relationship with you without touching you or responding to words you type with your body (substantive basis) or forming thoughts and opinions about you and your actions (cognitive, or "doctrinal") basis.

The Greeks, as you rightly point out, ran the risk of over-contextualising the Christian faith in a way that distorted it in some ways. They overly focussed on the substantive basis of human existence. As we contextualise in a society that now emphasises the relational basis of existence above all else (very baby-Boomer generation, this), lets learn from the Greeks and not also over-contextualise Christianity in purely relational terms. Not all who claim to be in relationship with Christ will be affirmed by him...what we think and do also matters as the means by which we express our claim to relationship with him...some actions (and consequently the thoughts which engender them deep in a mans heart) will not honour that relationship...and could break it.

Relationships are broken by wrong thinking and wrong action and need to be repented of...and we need to be prepared as Christians to create environments of moral safety for those who have been wounded by wrong action, which sometimes means grappling with the thorny issue that reconciliation in a world crying out for justice and mercy is not necessarily always the default position for the establishment of right relationships...sometimes repentance is (very reformed, i know..!)

Hi Paul – back for a bit of debate as promised (wish it could be over a meal though – let me know if you are passing through the West Midlands!). 

I think my first suggestion is that there is not such a clear demarcation between Liberals and Evangelicals.  Meic Pearse and Chris Matthews wrote a fascinating popular book in the 90s called ‘We must stop meeting like this’ with a number of helpful insights into the current Christian scene in this country.  They observed a constant flow of some ardent fundamentalists away from a dogmatic conservatism to what can only be described as liberalism on becoming uncomfortable with some of the implications of their conservatism; but there is a spectrum.  If I remember correctly – I lent my copy a few years ago and it never came back - they were quite disappointed by the phenomenon, though recognised it had long been the case.  They urged a more moderate and inclusive approach making a slide into a liberal lack of faith unnecessary but also commented on the width of the spectrum and the difficulty of defining points along it.  They would, I am sure, agree with Glen Marshall’s point in response to you that “Until there is far more open and honest discussion about these matters in evangelical circles then there will be significant obstacles in the way of constructive dialogue with those who don't identify themselves as evangelical.”  But they also comment that historically the liberals have been a dying breed because in the long term there is no effective mission that reproduces the life of the church.  

You have identified some key issues for debate between people towards the different ends of the spectrum and I do not want to suggest that theology is unimportant or that we should baulk at thinking through the issues.  But I fear the outcome of debate on its own will be ever greater clarity over more and more issues that divide, with each set of ideas prompting others to identify their own ideas in distinction.  There needs to be more than definitions and distinctions.  My experience as a commercial lawyer is that analysis and definitions produce clear positions (divisions) but only engagement in negotiation will produce an agreement giving effect to the true interests of the parties (unity or reconciliation).  It may take compromise and it certainly takes imagination to identify true interests and to develop win/win solutions.  Now, of course, figuring out orthodoxy and orthopraxis are different from negotiating a contract, but there is the same process of building bridges to allow communication and negotiation that focuses on interests not positions.   I agree with most of what you have written. 

At one point you comment that we cannot “do holistic mission without also having an integrity between our inner core spirituality and how we act outwardly.”  I share the concern that holistic mission is interpreted by many as serving the needs of the whole person rather than being a whole expression of the gospel.  If we really embrace Bosch’s holistic definition with all the aspects of the work fo Christ from incarnation to second coming, then we will be keeping close to the King, praying for the kingdom to come and acting as agents of the kingdom, demonstrating and speaking of the King and his kingdom.  The inner core spirituality (a response of faith) should determine the actions (works expressing love) which promote peace, friendship and reconciliation that are the essence of the gospel. Defining belief and doctrine have a part to play but living in a godly manner is far more important – orthopraxis should be the result of orthodoxy but history suggests that this is not the case if orthodoxy is understood as a series of propositions. 

In Ken Leech’s inspirational talk at the UE Associates’ day he referred to the extract from the Athanasian Creed displayed as a manifesto of one-ness in Christ in an East London church he visited.  So I looked up the creed.  I had forgotten just how long and difficult it is!  It struck me that this is one of the key definitions of orthodoxy and I cannot disagree with it – but it is phrased in a way that addresses the philosophical concerns of a century long gone.  Such orthodoxy might have its inspirational uses but in itself it does not help make peace. 

So what does help build bridges and make peace?  This will sound hopelessly trite and idealistic, but bear with me for a minute.  I have found that the basis of reconciliation and unity is our individual and corporate responses to Jesus rather than doctrine.  As I said last time, ultimately the basis of reconciliation is a Person, the living Word, not a set of propositions or creed however well expressed.   We are in an Anglican church because that is where we feel at home and feel called to be – but it is very uncomfortable in many ways.  For example, many of my heroes and heroines of the faith died for daring to suggest that only those able to believe first should be baptised.  Worse still, there are some members too conservative for my taste, and others too liberal.  It amazes me that they stick together in the same fellowship, and it is not just that they have been around many years and cannot face going elsewhere!  The fact is that there is a mutual trust and ability to work together because we worship the same Jesus and have relationships with Him even though we see it and express it in different ways.  There are boundaries of course – we decided when faced with a real life dilemma that practising gay people are welcome to worship (just like heterosexuals living unmarried in a sexual relationship) but not to take a leading role or be involved in counselling or prayer ministry.  There was plenty of theological reflection and the C of E has been tearing itself apart on this issue so the arguments were well rehearsed in the leadership meeting.  But the basis of a consensus view, carefully and lovingly expressed to the gay person who had asked, was “What is the Spirit saying to us?”  Yes, there was reference to scripture and definition of ideas flowing from handling different scriptures, and there was some disagreement at first, but the united view came from friends who trust each other enough to debate, watch over one another’s attitudes and stay close to God as a priority – worship together and then debate. 

Another example – my wife and I disagree sometimes (well we both enjoy using language accurately, a teacher and a lawyer, we both hate being misunderstood and we both feel strongly about many things, so it is surprising it does not happen more often perhaps!), but we know that we have to find a place of peace because the relationship is fundamental.  It might take time or compromise, it might be an agreement to disagree or it might be a peaceful return to the debate periodically to seek a common view.  But one way or another we know that being of one heart is the starting point and staying together is non-negotiable.  In the same way, it is possible to be united with people of different views. 

The problem with propositions is that they are conditional or temporary – new facts or insights make them inadequate in new circumstances and the truth always has to be incarnated in real people in real situations where the propositions need to be adjusted.  It is risky to entrust Truth to people in different circumstances – they might end up in terrible error!  But that is exactly the risk God took in sending Jesus as the incarnate Word rather than dictating a book of rules and insights.  It is also the risk Jesus took in sending the first apostles and other disciples into the world to fulfil the Great Commission – how did He know they would get the right understanding of the incarnation, ethics, atonement, new birth, new creation, the kingdom, the consummation … etc.?  He did not – but He took the risk because they had the Holy Spirit, the developing scriptures and one another to help them think through the consequences of what they had seen and heard in the new circumstances they faced. 

So it is important to live in a godly way that gives expression to the inner life of the spirit.  That provides a platform from which to explain the gospel in words as well as demonstrating it in works.  Theology should inform and encourage the godly works as well as flowing from them but the proclamation of the good news can only follow if it is to have integrity.  I agree there will be clear lines of demarcation and we cannot agree with everyone, but for me the lines are drawn not by me but by the other and they fall not on the fault lines of certain propositions but on the boundaries of relationship with Jesus.  (Dunn’s ‘Unity and Diversity in the New Testament’ is well worth reading – he argues that the various distinctive expressions of Christianity that became heresies in the Second Century were there in the NT, held in creative tension, and that relationship to Jesus is the definition of orthodox). I can work with others I disagree with for the sake of the kingdom, if we share a relationship with the King.  I know this does not really answer your questions but I suggest that the process of dialogue, engagement and reconciliation is more important than arriving at agreement on propositions and indeed is the only way to gain any true agreement.

Hi Chris,

Thanks for taking so much time to put your thoughts down. There is a lot to unpack there, as well! It'll take me a few re-reads to do that.

But here are some reflections:

1. I think we might be coming from different foundational premises...

I wrote:

"There is no such thing as a completely relational basis to Christian experience"

You wrote:

"relationship to Jesus is the definition of orthodox"

I suspect that we would have to do some hard work to reconcile these approaches.

2. the process of dialogue, engagement and reconciliation is more important than arriving at agreement on propositions and indeed is the only way to gain any true agreement.

except that the outcome of any good process of reconciliation is what? a joint declaration of shared positions and/or promises! A new orthodoxy! And reconciliation will only occur when we genuinely respect one another's convictions.

The drive towards reconciliation cannot over-ride the integrity of the people involved in that reconciliation. While I want reconciliaion, I am definitely opposed to the idea that we must at all costs have reconciliation. That would be an oppressive stance which would force compromise despite difference. This would be the practical implication of a universalist outlook...that god will force us to be reconciled to one another in the end.

An example...your PCC arrived at the orthodoxy that folk who were gay could worship but not be in leadership...that statement may have united everyone on your PCC, but it still excludes gay people. You reconciled your church, but you have driven away gays who feel they should be able to lead churches, even if they are orthodox because they have a relationship with Christ. Here is proof that we will never avoid, this side of the new creation, some form of exclusion, no matter how hard we try to be reconciled. And that exclusion is on the basis of doctrine.

Ultimately, we must also shield and protect, as well as embrace and forgive. I think that if you really outworked this statement: relationship to Jesus is the definition of orthodox then your church would totally collapse, because any action would have to be sanctioned, and any teaching would have to be embraced, as long as someone claimed they had a relationship with Christ.

Doctrine isn't inherently evil because it "excludes people". Only a true universalist could say that. In reality doctrine also facilitates grace and creates safe spaces for healing from the destructiveness of sin.

In the case of your PCC...how will you bring reconciliation to someone outside your church who has a gay partner, wants to lead church and claims they are a Christian? You can't reconcile the current stance of your congregation with that. Instead, the aspiring candidate must submit to the doctinal consensus of the congregation and live a celibate lifestyle or get married before being included to that degree that he or she can lead. Also, I presume that the teaching (doctrine) in the church will seek to take gay worshippers on a journey into discovering either heterosexual marriage or celibacy, because you are upholding as the final model (ie the church leadership) a lifestyle which excludes gay relationships as normative for Christians. That is not total reconciliation...it is reconciliation based on conforming to the values of your community based on a consensus opinion about doctrine. How does the phrase "relationship to Jesus is orthodoxy" apply in this concrete example?

Now, what do you do when you seek reconciliation with the Metropolitan Community Church down the road? Do you compromise your church's stance on gay leadership in order to be reconciled with the MCC? No amount of negotiation will be able to genuinely bring a compromise between your two churches. Would not the only stance of integrity include some form of dialogue which tries to persuade MCC that they are in doctrinal error and vice versa? Or what about the Iona Community which holds a similar stance? I cannot be fully reconciled to members of the Iona Community if they teach that homosexual relationships are covenantal before God. Their doctrinal stance and my doctrinal stance precludes full reconciliation.

Some so value "reconciliation" that they expect people to compromise on core values in order to say we all hold hands together. Some say we are all brothers under God, whether we acknowledge Christ or not (either in our prayer life, or in the way we deal with ethical issues). It is thought that if we are all in a room together talking (even if its through gritted teeth, with a recognition that we dont share fundamental core values), then that is actually the most authentic church can become, because at least everyone is in "relationship". I disagree. That's just everyone in a room thinking that Christian unity is a purely ecclesiological or missiological construct, when it is actually also an ethical, pneumatological, christological, experiential construct. I get so discouraged when people pretend to be reconciled and deploy a sham facade (or hide their true beliefs) for the outward show of unity. It can be one of the most hypocritical things we do as Christians.

What compromise could be brokered between South African apartheid leaders who killed black Christians (who by your definition should be understood as orthodox because of their "relationship to Jesus") and the Christians who are being killed? None, no amount of sham pretence at unity could resolve this, until the apartheid leaders repented and recognised correct doctrine.

Yes the process of reconciliation is essential, but it is not the case that orthodoxy is established only by our relationship to Jesus, apart from good doctrine. Its also not the case that people should be expected or sometimes even bullied to compromise their doctrine just for the sake of some outward semblance of reconciliation.

I think your PCC made the right choice, but the process was only sucessful because the process of reconciliation you describe created a doctrinal stance in your church which excludes the "Other without" in order to protect unity within. Every Christian group excludes on the basis of doctrine in this way...and always will until Christ returns. Reconciliation is not the be all and end all of mission...just like church planting is not the be all and end all of mission. Justice and protecting the innocent and weak mean that sometimes we will create division as well. As Christ (also) said..."I came not to bring peace but a sword"...and "not all who call me Lord Lord will enter the Kingdom of heaven."

Finall, I reiterate, I am committed to reconciliation, but reserve the right to reject reconciliation if it means compromising on fundamental values that I hold dear. I cannot agree to be enthusiastic or sustain relationship in a fake way with folk who hold every possible position on the theological spectrum. I'd prefer to be thrown in jail, or killed. I would like to think I would walk from Chris Brain's church and report him to the police without hesitation. I will not remain silent "on the basis that relationship with Jesus is orthodoxy" if there is abuse, or false teaching which harms people, and I hope I will be brave enough to risk division over certain issues, just like Paul, Jesus, Moses. I also pray that God will surround me with people who will know when it is time for peace and when it is time not to compromise. Its not always time for peace...

Christian history is littered with saints who didn't compromise. I think declaring the possibility that in certain situations we cant compromise is the only stance we can hold with integrity, and we can't fudge that.

Happily, I don't envisage having to do this much as a church leader, there are relatively few make-or-break issues that would constrain me to do this. Interestingly, the issue of endorsing leaders who have same-sex partners is probably one of them, for me. And yet I desperately want to be in a church where it is safe for gay people to explore their relationship with God and feel safe and loved at the same time.

... and each meal is a foretaste of the heavenly feast to come!  I have some questions while we both ponder what has already been said:

What does your aim of reconciliation look like?  [It is always a good question in any negotiation or dispute resolution to ask what does success look like to each side]  In your first piece in this string you posed the questions with a view to reconciling conflicting ideas held by liberals and evangelicals/pentecostals and in your last you reiterate the aim - but can you sketch out what success would look like?  I think it would help a lot.

Do you think we are in danger of proving my point about the clarification of boundaries creating obstacles to unity?  I think we are certainly showing how hard it is to express the nuanced views in the black and white medium of online text - I am thinking of some of the things I don't say/believe which you think I do!  Who said I was looking for reconciliation with the Metropolitan CC?  It could only be done on an organisational or doctrinal basis.  But I would look for reconciliation with some of its members - in that context successful reconciliation would have to include their repentance from a gay lifestyle but I would try to approach it with humility and openness to a different log in my own eye (I have tried with one member of a Met - and failed).

What is there other than relationship with God and others in Christian experience?  You mention my proposition that relationship to Jesus is the only valid definition of orthodoxy - I do not mean that anyone who claims to be Christian or in relationship with God has to be accepted as such.  Chris Brain clearly was not.  I had a work colleague at the time who came to faith through that church & Chris Brain's ministry but was later very damaged by it and suffered a mental breakdown.  Nor do I mean that we have to examine the conduct and doctrine of others to establish whether we can have fellowship, like the Exclusive Brethren.  But I do think that it becomes obvious in practice who is close to Jesus, and that any of us is at any time moving towards Jesus or away from Him (stasis is not an option, for a few reasons including the fact that God is leading us on pilgrimage and not least because we live in a world of history/time).  Col 2 expecially v 19 is a crucial text - Paul was not afraid to be clear about those whose belief and practice were 'unorthodox' by my definition, though in 1 Cor 8 and Rom 14 he seems happy to encourage diversity over 'pagan' practices - the difference being connexion with the Head.  Incidentally his definition of 'sound doctrine' makes an interesting study and seems just as earthy and non-theoretical as the Sermon on the Mount.

Do you think there is a place for mystery?  I don't mean a cop-out of "it is all too difficult"!  I mean recognising that scripture is such that it is not possible to be dogmatic about a lot of important questions, and multiple models (though apparently inconsistent) have to be held together as each is inadequate in itself.  I guess this is because the truth has to be incarnated and ultimately the Truth is a Person.

hmmm - more questions .....must keep munching

"What is there other than relationship with God and others in Christian experience?"

Well, there is the "small" detail of how we relate to God and others. And, most fundamentally, which god we should worship. Thats what doctrine is all about and one big reason why the Bible was written...God wants us to relate to him on his own terms and in particular ways (through Christ), and to each other in particular ways (ways that honour Christ). Thats what doctrine is all about...teaching us what we don't know for ourselves and have become blind to. Its also why doctrine must be a part of how and to what extent we can be reconciled to one another...some ways of behaving and relating to one another are wrong.

If we elevate reconciliation to a place where it overrides doctrine, then it doesn't matter anymore if we are Christian or we abuse people...there is no basis for excluding or protecting people from evil. And God defines what is evil and what isn't, not man. We can't create our own morality...if we do we alienate ourselves from God all over again.

Yes I suppose I am using 'relationship' to include study of the God with whom we can now erlate through Jesus and thw 'how' of atonement adn salvation.  I agree that sound doctrine includes the 'how', but not in a disembodied way because the truth is ultimately revealed only in the person of Jesus.  That is why I would maintain that it is only in knowing Jesus that we can know the truth.

I agree that if we elevate reconciliation over doctrine, seeking to be reconciled with all regardless of the cost (in terms of giving up truth we hold dear) then it is not true reconciliation, because only in Jesus can we be reconciled with others.  So I believe that all who are in relationship with Him can be reconciled to one another.  This is not the same as saying all who regard themselves as in relationship with Jesus must be so - though as a practicality I think we have to take people at face value until their actions prove otherwise - nor is it saying that we can decide what is right and wrong (that is the sin of independence, as seen so clearly in the Garden of Eden).  But I am saying that God includes in Christ some people I do not approve of or agree with so I have to wrestle with the possibility that others may have aspects of truth I haev not yet seen and I also have to wrestle with costly, godly reconciliation.  Like you I am distressed by the disunity in the Body.  When we moved to Wolverhampton we received prophetic words from people in our 'sending' church about  our role of digging communication channels to promote friendship and unity between Christians in different churches.  So it is something of a passion with us to break down unnecessary divisions

Thanks for hanging in there with me, Chris. Do you know that I have a prophecy over my life which says that because I am entering into "grey areas" in terms of my ministry, I need to be careful to balance grace with truth. So I'm sorry if I am coming over too black and white in this black and white medium!

I guess I struggle a little here, because I think my whole point in all of this is exactly the following: "the clarification of boundaries mitigates against unity." Sometimes full reconciliation cannot fully happen precisely because of doctrine, and actually, its not a "bad thing" to affirm that, and yet still strive for reconciliation. Its actually inevitable that doctrine and praxis will divide us in this contingent world, and it shouldn't be the case that (because we are trying to protect as well as embrace) we vilify those who with integrity cant enter into full reconciliation with others because of their convictions.

I agree that there are different degrees of "sectarianism" in this. By the way, I hate it when someone who asserts doctrinal boundaries is labelled "sectarian" and written off. There is also a strain of "anti-sectarianism" bias in the church which is actually seeking to destroy all boundaries, no matter what the cost. I all for removing bigotted, angry violent sectarianism, but please don't take it further and say "well, if you try to hold to any difference in your belief or practice, you are just wrong: you must embrace all teaching." I once was told by a person in authority that I must be enthusiastic about everyone on all different points of the spectrum. Now that is oppressive, and it is rooted in some sort of world-view which thinks that reconciliation at all costs is more valuable than anything else, even if the lowest common denominator sinks well out of sight into the mire.

So I fight bigotted cultural sectarianism, but I also resist oppressive universalism that seeks to erase difference. God is unified but diverse. But he has personhood as well, and retains a distinct identity.

I recognise there is a spectrum of positions here: One end of spectrum - Closed Brethren, other end of spectrum Extreme liberal stance. I'm neither.

Most of the time I feel I am taking a stance in contra-distinction to the more extreme liberal wing of the church. I seem to end up calling myself "exclusivist" when it comes to affirming that we must uphold Christ as the only way.

But when I turn in the other direction, and debate with conservative evangelicals, I find I end up calling myself more "inclusivist".

The other important perspective I need to be open about is that I am going to have influence in creating a place that is both safe and inclusive as a church leader. Its one thing to argue these issues from an academic perspective, quite another from the perspective of having a responsibility for the leadership of a body of believers.

Also, I have done the Bridge Builders training. So I understand at least some theory of mediation and reconciliation.

My basic observation at the moment is that I am staggered at how much division there is in the body of Christ. Even the more liberal end which purports to have a more embrasive stance and want to welcome everyone, have doctrines that are extremely exclusive...like the stance that homosexual partnerships are covenantal before God.

My original post tried to actually trace these issues that divide us, and to outline the nature of one of the key fault-lines that still divides us. I want to point out that the discourse which is very current in academic circles at the moment (because of Bosch) becomes much more complicated when seen from other perspectives than that of a missiologist. The things that separate liberals and evangelicals still (and in Glasgow and the CofS we are talking about neighbouring parish ministers in the same denomination who effectively refuse to speak to one another), are not just the issue of whether we redeem structures or redeem individuals. We can't just say "oh look, Bosch is right, we're all one happy family now." Because the Iona Community has a totally different ethical stance on homosexuality than I do. Its closer to MCC. Also, I wouldn't feel at home there because my pneumatology (and personal experience of the charismatic renewal) is so different from almost everyone involved there. Reconciliation between these parts of the church also needs to look at these issues as well.

So I'm resisting the easiness of the assumption that because Bosch said we can all play happily families, we SHOULD somehow now all be building church together, and being accountable to one another.

UE is set up as a mission agency to explore these issues. i have found that there are significant tensions despite the values we all still affirm. I'm outlining where I think these tensions are coming from, and suggesting that reconciliation which includes me be accountable to a member of the Iona Community is problematic. That's the kind of reconciliation which it seems has been expected of me in Glasgow, but it just doesn't work. Its an over-realised eschatology which assumes that there is a divine command that says I must be prepared to be accountable to anyone, whatever their doctrinal stance. Nonsense.

I've tried to explore it, I've agonised over it, Ive prayed over it and got got angry over it, but emphasising reconciliation as some sort of higher aim of mission and expecting people to conform to that actually transgresses my integrity of belief and my own personal journey.

So, its all problematic - its complicated...we cant take Bosch's vision and turn it into an idol...we need to enter into the complexity of the issues over which we must be reconciled and see whether we really can fulfill what he saw happening...we need to test Bosch's assertions against scripture and praxis. And for this reason I have some questions about holding all these things in tension in Urban Expression, and whether being values based is the panacea that its cracked up to be.

So, I guess I'm yearning for the reconciliaton that will happen when God returns, and trying to encourage people to be at that banquet, but mainly this post is about affirming that this is complex, and that reconciliation is not and cannot be a be-all and end-all agenda when in a fallen world Christians have taken such totally diverse views on almost every topic you can think of. We have to have the courage of our convictions, even if sometimes that means we CANT be reconciled as a church.

Thank you for sharing some more of the personal background - NOW I can understand a bit of where you are coming from and some of the previous posts make more sense to me (a bit slow sometimes!).  Hang on in there - this is important stuff.  But we definitely need to have a chat over dinner not just in writing.  I'll see if I can add anything helpful or sensible in the meantime !

Wow, this has been a long conversation, hasn't it! Maybe I should have done some of the personal background first and the conversation needn't have been so long... It would be great to have dinner some time...will you be at the UE teams day? Meanwhile, be very blessed...!

A wee extra comment: I accept your point that "The clear commands of Jesus is to love one another and love one’s enemies regardless of cost" but this command doesn't only "put into context thinking about categories and analysing concepts." In fact, I would suggest that it's also important to assess the cost of what it means to follow Jesus, and that some of that cost involves analysing what we may have to give up to see reconciliation happen. I agree that we must strive for reconciliation and give up our lives in the attempt, but can you see that thie above is actually an attempt to engage with this very process, by assessing the cost itself (as Jesus also commanded)? Jesus also said, "if you love me, you will obey my commandments." I don't think Jesus explicity taught us to teach that a homosexual lifestyle is covenantal in the eyes of God. So, do I "just" love people who teach this, or do I also love people confused by this teaching, and (lovingly)challenge those who teach it? Jesus challenged the Pharisees about their different view (and to Jesus, wrong view) of Yahweh. To challenge beliefs which lead to wrong action can also be a loving thing to do.

The Values of Urban Expression unite everyone in Urban Expression, but the other, hidden, values which we all bring with us in addition to the values of UE will also eventually come out, and must be addressed with integrity. There is extreme tension in affirming a value of diversity (and asserting later, as has happened, that this includes theological diversity) AND asserting the value of mutual accountability. Sometimes, to live one value with integrity will mean questioning the our ability to live other values with integrity as well.

Finally, I would also say that sometimes reconciliation cannot happen. I honestly believe that some people were never reconciled with Christ and his opinions in his lifetime (especially the religious establishment), and that some will also never be reconciled with Christ in eternity.

Maybe that in itself mitigates against true reconciliation with Christians who disagree with that stance.

A quick word on UE values (my own view, not necessarily one the other trustees would share!) - I think the apparent conflict of diversity and accountability is at the heart of ecclesiology.  The lawyer in me would define circumstances where one or other takes priority but the truth is that they are both important.  A better approach is that people of very different backgrounds and beliefs can challenge but only those close enough (i.e. a few people) can really provide accountability, and accountability is primarily in matters of godly character not belief.

Hiya Chris,

"accountability is primarily in matters of godly character not belief."

Thats very interesting. I have never thought about the UE value of mutual accountability as being only in this sense. For me, mutual accountability is also about praxis. You can be a saintly man outwardly but be an adulterer in practice. Mutual accountability (for me) must also be a willingness to submit my actions to the wider community to whom I am accountable, and cease/modify them in the light of consensus and the scrptures. If it isn't then there is a danger I can be left with a church of people who are full of graciousness towards one another but also ruled by sin.

Another way of loking at it (the way you may have been intending) is to realise that godly character is inseperable from godly action. Then the question becomes "what does godly character look like in practice?" I believe that Jesus was not a homosexual and does not endorse homosexuality, but rather endorsed the marriage covenant between men and women, as well as celibacy. I also believe he struggled against the powers for the poor, rather than ignoring them. Holding one another accountable to godly character means (for me) questioning and encouraging people to move towards the character and actions of Christ.

BUT, what if someone I know is a Christian who does not hold these beliefs? I know Christians who do not think solidarity with the poor is crucial, and I know Christians who endorse homosexuality as covenantal. If they say to me, "I consider I am part of this ecclesial body like you, and I subscribe to mutual accountability with you", and then I begin to encourage them towards Christ's godly character, it will be in a direction that is away from either teaching or pracising homosexuality, and towards solidarity with the poor.

Or again, what if one person is committed to male leadership, and another not? To what extent can these people really be mutually accountable? In UE, of course, there is a prevailin theological culture which endorses female leadership. "Male-only" thinkers are not present. They are excluded not by the values but by the culture of the organisation. I would not have joined UE if it endorsed male-only leadership. But there is nothing in the values that defines this.

And here is the big question. If folk disagree with these beliefs and continue intentionally with a lifestyle or practice which does't reflect godly lifestyle, perhaps even encouraging people in the church to do so, what do I do? Nothing. I can't control other people. But I certainly couldn't gove them influence in the church I was trying to build. To what extent could we claim to still be truly "mutually accountable?" In such scenarios within UE, our value of commitment to diversity of theology (and praxis) begins to make a mockery of another UE value - our commitment to mutual accountability.

In what sense, therefore, can we reconcile a commitment to celebrating theological diversity, and the value of mutual accountability?

And what does our commitment in Urban Expression to mutual accountability in practice actual mean? If we all say we value mutual accountability, what (in practice) are we holding one another accountable to? What can I expect others in UE to hold me mutually accountable to, precisely?

The scriptures?
Which view of the scriptures?

The European convention of human rights?
But what of one is an anarchist, and another an establishment man?

If, in reality, I can only expect people to hold me accountable to the values, who will provide me with accountability for the holiness of my lifestyle? The values dont say that adultery is wrong. Accountability for holiness will have to come from some sort of relational/denominational place outside UE, or some deep relationship within it. But not everyone in UE can laim to be able to keep me mutually accountable. I cannot be accountable to someone who promtes sexual sin, or suggests that the environment is not a big issue to worry with. Becase if I begin to sin in these areas, all they could do is encourage me in my sin!

Trustees

Also, in what sense do the trustees consider themselves accountable to one another? If they are not actually living ou this value in their own lives, in their relationships with one another, to what extent can they fulfill their current role as being "guardians of the values" of the organisation? To what extent do the Trustees acually know one another and have a relationship with one another? Or Steering Group members for that matter? I don't know half of the UE Glasgow Steering Group. How can they keep me mutually accountable? Answer: they cant. So I now have my own support group.

Example: One trustee supports gay leadership, another doesn't. Would UE appoint gay leadership? This is a theological question not covered in the values. The only way to be reconciled around the values would be, in this instance, for one or other trustee to transgress his/her conscience. Hence my point that articulating the theolgical culture of UE that actually surrounds the values is also quite crucial.

So, my final question, if we are not a mini-denomination, and there aren't certain theological norms acknowedged beyond the values, can we really claim to have a commitment to mutual accountability? Shouldn't this really just be dropped from the list of UE values, because we recognise in a organisation with a multiplicty of theological positions, we simply cant claim to be mutually accountable?

And how would this change if we move towards being a mission order?

why do the text boxes in this long discussion get skinnier and skinnier and then mysteriously get wider again? it makes the discussion harder to follow.

Hello ReveMr

This is a great observation! I think my writing is hard enough to follow without all the text box shenanigans. The shape of the text box depends on what comment the previous comment has been posted against. New comments are indented against the comment they have been made against so that you can see what thread they are following...