Living Under the Big Tent --Christianity that is!

In my last post I entered the synchro-blog conversation about Big Tent Christianity.  In that post I lifted up the premise of Christian unity, one that has been with the church from the earliest days.  Even though Jesus is pictured calling for unity (John 17) and Paul and his successors urge it, unity has never been a reality that has been easy to live out in practice.  It seems as if we humans like to split off and do our own thing.  Christianity has, as is true of most social and religious forces, been driven by centrifugal forces rather than centripetal ones.  It is no wonder that political forces have felt it necessary to tame these forces with coercive laws -- whether it's Constantine, Justinian, or Elizabeth I.

So, how do we live together under the Big Tent?  Philip Clayton has noted the presence of two ever more distant poles that are driving religious life.  Of course these forces aren't just driving the church, they're driving society in general -- see the current political scene.

The image of a big tent is helpful, however.  Consider that a big tent is centered on a main center pole.  If we are to live together under a Big Tent, we'll need that center pole.  John Locke, who proposed a model of toleration for 17th/18th century Britain, suggested a minimalist creed.  My tradition, the Disciples, followed that lead and suggested that our creed by that of Peter --  "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" (Matthew 16:16).  To follow this lead suggests that we embrace a common faith (trust) in the person of Jesus, who reveals to us the way and purpose of God.  Of course that simple creed leaves a lot of room for debate/discussion -- but is it enough?  No Trinity there (although that concept isn't fully developed in the New Testament).  No atonement theories either or even sacramental ones).  So what makes for a sufficient pole?  Is Peter's confession sufficient for us to live under the same big tent?  

How Diverse Can a Church Be and Stay Together?

Paul writes to the Philippian church and encourages them to remain one.  He tells them that he'll have joy in his heart if they are "of the same mind, having the same love, being of full accord and of one mind" (Philippians 2:2).   And then in John's gospel, we find Jesus in the Garden, just prior to his arrest, praying for his disciples, asking that "they may be one, as we are one" (John 17:11).  Ecumenists, like me, find much encouragement in texts such as these.  But what is the nature of this unity?  And where should we expect to find it?   Is it an invisible sort of unity that we don't really experience in life?  Or is it something quite visible?  If the latter does it mean that we will agree on everything, or on just the "essentials"? 

James McGrath has written several posts on the nature of diversity and unity within the early church.   Apparently there is mu, which emerge out of a discussion that apparently is occurring on the biblioblogosphere concerning the unity and diversity within the New Testament.  He has reposted an interesting diagram that he got from someone blogger Daniel Pursiful that is based on the ideas of Catholic Biblical scholar Raymond Brown.

As you can tell from the diagram the early church might not have been quite as "united" as those two texts I quoted at the beginning might like to suggest.  

One of the questions that emerges from research such as this concerns the degree to which we should expect unity in the church today?  And what should that look like.  This is a question that Jim asks and deserves some thought. 

Can we, for instance, expect a church to thrive with a wide variety of theological positions, from left to right?  That is, can a church exist with people who have what we might call a "strict constructionist" view, so that whatever it meant then needs to be imposed on the church today, and people with a looser hermeneutic, one that would allow for women pastors and elders and even full inclusion of gays and lesbians.  Can we live with strong Trinitarians and strong Unitarians in the same congregation?  If we can, then how does this happen?  And if we make peace on doctrinal levels, are we equally able to do so in other realms such as ethnicity or social values? 

I have noticed that many of the most ethnically diverse churches are actually quite conservative theologically, while many theologically progressive churches are rather monochrome.  Why is this?   Is it possible that churches might be more open ethnically or culturally if they anchor their unity in doctrine?