One of the saddest and most embarrassing truths about Christianity is the staggering number of divisions and denominations which litter the religious landscape, with each group believing that it is the most accurate representation of what it means to follow Jesus.  Two thousand years ago Jesus launched a world-wide revolution, praying that his followers might “be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you… so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:21), and two millennia later, thousands of denominations have split over everything from how churches should be governed to how baptism should be administered to whether or not women can be pastors (for a depressing list of denominations, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations).  I strongly believe that it is time for the universal church to take a step back and pray again with conviction the words of Jesus – “May we be one, Father, just as Jesus and His Heavenly Father are one, so that the world might know that Jesus is the Savior.”

Despite the thousands of denominations, it is important to note that just because two denominations differ on theological or social issues does not mean that they can not work together and love each other.  For example, while our church might not agree with everything the Evangelical Free church believes, we were happy to worship with Glastonbury Community Church last Christmas Eve, because we are able to focus on the 99% of things we do agree on instead of the 1% about which we might disagree.  However, knowing when to compromise and when to stand firm on an issue can be incredibly difficult, as any casual observer of the Connecticut religious scene would know.  In the past year, the most prominent divisive issue has of course been the intersection of homosexual behavior and the church – should a church perform civil unions; should a practicing gay man be appointed bishop of the Episcopal Church; and should the church be a champion for gay rights?  These questions have caused a great deal of strife in not only the Episcopal Church but many other mainline denominations as well.

I was reminded again of the importance of the unity of the church this past week as I read the reports that more than 10,000 clergy and parishioners from the United Church of Christ have gathered in Hartford this week for their General Synod.  The UCC is big business here in Connecticut, with beautiful white churches decorating every town green and a seminary, Hartford Seminary, which is very much in line with UCC values.  The Hartford Courant reported that this week’s synod will deal with many social justice issues, such as immigration policy, a worldwide ban on depleted uranium weapons, and support of physician-assisted suicide.  Among the resolutions, of course, is the issue of gay marriage, with proposals coming from conferences in the Midwest and South that call for the church to “vehemently affirm” that marriage is a God-ordained relationship between a man and a woman.  Despite the “vehement affirmation” of those conferences, it is highly unlikely that such a resolution will pass in a denomination which last year voted by more than 80% to endorse gay marriage (causing anywhere from 90-220 churches to leave the denomination in protest).

As any member of an evangelical church can tell you, the term “liberal” is often thrown around to describe the UCC and many other mainline churches like them.  As you may have guessed, “liberal” is not used as a compliment (indeed, to be labeled a liberal in many evangelical circles is sort of like being labeled a terrorist).  Instead, it probably means something like this:  “a church of mostly unsaved people which has forsaken the authority of the Bible and is so caught up in the prevailing issues of its time that has lost sight of the truth of God.”  I am sure that in the same way, many so-called “liberal” churches have their own characterizations of evangelicals (or conservatives, fundamentalists, born-agains) as “narrow-minded, judgmental Pharisees so concerned about heaven and hell and being right that they have no time to work for Christ-like love, compassion and justice and actually make a difference in this world.”  Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s been my perception – two groups who think they are more in line with the spirit of what it means to follow Jesus than the other.

One more time, with feeling - “May we be one, Father, just as Jesus and His Heavenly Father are one, so that the world might know that Jesus is the Savior.”

What if, for once, instead of focusing on the worst qualities of the other and letting it divide us, we chose to not only focus on the similarities but to learn from the ways in which the other may actually be closer to the heart of God than we are?  What if, without naively declaring in relativistic fashion that “we’re both right,” we attempted to communicate and work together for the sake of the gospel and the reputation of our Lord and allowed the Judge of all the earth to sort out who was right and who was wrong in the end?  Is that even possible?  Is it preferable to the way we’ve been doing things?  Is it worth even an effort???

One great place to start is a book by Brian McLaren, a writer, theologian, and former pastor, which is not only one of my favorite book titles of all time but a thought-provoking read:  “A Generous Orthodoxy:  Why I am a missional, evangelical, post/protestant, liberal/conservative, mystical/poetic, biblical, charismatic/contemplative, fundamentalist/calvinist, anabaptist/anglican, methodist, catholic, green, incarnational, depressed-yet-hopeful, emergent, unfinished Christian.”  As you may have guessed from the title, McLaren attempts to embrace what is good about the many disparate approaches to following Jesus, with the goal of a church body which fosters conversation and partnership among denominations instead of trash-talking and hyper-divisiveness.  It’s a worthy goal, and merits at least an effort, in my opinion. 

So as 10,000 clergy and parishioners gather in Hartford, what can the evangelical church learn from the United Church of Christ and the so-called “liberal” church? 

The first thing we learn is that the life of Jesus matters.  In evangelical theology, the death and resurrection of Christ are so central that the life of Christ is often reduced to something like “he lived a sinless life,” with the purpose of that sinless life being that he could provide a perfect sacrifice for our sins (critics of The Passion of the Christ complained that the film skipped over the most amazing life ever lived to focus solely on his death).  But what about Jesus’ acts of compassion, healing, justice, and love?  The gospel of the “liberal” church often centers around the words and deeds of Jesus, offering a way of life that, if practiced, brings blessing to the whole world.  The church’s mission, therefore, is to bring the teaching and example of Jesus to bear on not only personal relationships, but also the political structures and cultural systems of the world (McLaren, 59-60).  The evangelical church sometimes needs reminding that as central as Jesus’ death and resurrection are, there is more to the gospel of Jesus Christ than the last week of his life.

Secondly, we can observe that the “liberal” church has always been on the front lines of social justice issues, believing that justice and freedom from oppression are central to Jesus’ gospel.  These churches were the first to get involved in racial reconciliation, women’s rights, stewardship of the earth, concern for the poor, and treating homosexuals with compassion.  Evangelical churches have by contrast often been cautious (or slow, some might say) in their support of the oppressed and the fight against injustice.  In their hesitation, they forget Jesus’ first “sermon” in Luke 4:18-19, where he announced that he was the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah 61:1-2 – “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”  Certainly in Jesus’ mind his gospel was not only about eternal destiny but about justice and good news in the here and now, and the “liberal” church reminds us of that.

Finally, “liberal” churches recognize that, as James wrote, faith without deeds is useless (James 2:20).  Some “liberal” churches and theologians are known to question the authenticity of miraculous elements of the Bible, reading them instead as instructive fictions or myths intended to convey a deeper meaning.  For example, the feeding of the 4000 is sometimes taught as a fable of how God can use the little we give him to do more effective things than we could ever imagine.  As a result, they are inspired to actually feed the hungry, build and staff hospitals, cross boundaries in love, and confront corrupt systems, knowing that God can multiply their efforts (McLaren, 60).  An evangelical Christian would not be caught dead denying Jesus’ miracles, but that doesn’t mean they always live out the truth that is being communicated in the Biblical stories.  Therefore, it is at least worth asking the question – which is better, to deny the reality of the miracle but live out the truth or to believe it really happened but not live out the meaning?

If you’re anything like me, as you’ve read what I had to say you had to fight the urge to say “yes, but,” “what about this?” or “but they’re so wrong on this!”  We can be so quick to focus on that which divides and to let that dismiss our desire to dialogue and work together towards unity.  I am not so naïve as to think that truth does not matter, but for the sake of the gospel and the reputation of our Lord, is unity not worth the effort? 

“May we be one, Father, just as Jesus and His Heavenly Father are one, so that the world might know that Jesus is the Savior. Amen.”

Write a comment