Blood is thick
by Gavan O'Farrell

The new disunity of Christians

Problems have a way of mutating, and I think that the tensions between Christians have been relocated, not removed. The differences that divide Christians used to be between the denominations, and this is how ecumenical efforts were targeted. Today, I believe the differences are between different Christian factions or types that are often present within each denomination-within the large ones, anyway (some smaller churches might not possess visible factions). Interdenominational collaboration happens, yes, but it is more likely to happen between like-minded factions. It seems to me that we are bickering just as boisterously as ever. There is still a lot of ill-will, with many Christians reserving their most energetic and caustic condemnations for fellow-Christians. As a consequence, we are still undermining our usefulness as followers of Jesus, and still presenting the world with a spectacle that reflects badly on Him: an onlooker is entitled to ask "If that is how Christians behave, why would I consider becoming one?"

Below is a tabular presentation of some of the extremes of what I mean by factions. It is a simple sketch only, and at times rolls different types together: for example, among conservative Christians I have not distinguished between those who are, and those who are not, charismatic. And the view that insists that everything is just relative to each individual has been omitted as not being worthy of inclusion. There will be difficulties of accuracy, but I think the sketch is accurate enough for the reader to know what I'm getting at. I realise that only few of us Christians occupy an extreme position (but, too many do); still, we are often tainted by these positions to some degree, and it is worth being candid about it. For want of a cleverer description, I will refer to the Right Wing and the Left Wing - bearing in mind that such a description is merely illustrative of a situation that is actually quite complex. Finally, in case it is not obvious, much of the table is deliberately exaggerated, and at times even polemical.

The worst of it is the arrogance that exists at each end of the spectrum, often expressed in very serious ill-will for the other. The "fundos" get bagged for being inflexible, mean-spirited and legalistic in an era that is governed by grace. The "leftie" Christians are bagged for jumping in the sack with the World, and for compromising and tainting truth and God in the process. They keep apart from each other, by attending different churches, or different services at the same church, and by studying at different theological colleges. In their extra-curricular life, they read different newspapers and view different television stations.

I cannot pretend to know just how Jesus feels about all this, but can we honestly think that, as a group, we are showing Him a good time? And, in view of who He is, and the trouble He has taken over us, just how pleased with ourselves can we be?

What to do?

It is far beyond my competence even to attempt to resolve the differences between Christians. My purpose is ecumenical in the lower sense-to recommend that, having identified differences, we make sure they do not disrupt the unity that Jesus intended for His body-at grass-roots level, I mean. Of course, it is not a new recommendation.

We could be less entrenched in whatever position we hold. It's scary leaving the trench, but there is nothing to lose: one can always return to it. It might involve no more than getting to know some of the "others" at your own church: they might go to a different service, or sit in a different part of the church during your service. Or, you might visit a different church. The grape-vine is working well: we already know what churches "I wouldn't feel comfortable attending", so we know where to visit if we decide to. Or, if you are studying theology, go "off-line" to a very different college and do a unit or two there. I have found it fascinating and very rewarding to visit different Christian scenes, and see how "the other half" live: I have been irritated, too, but then even one's own church does not guarantee complete satisfaction. We should be interested in each other, inquisitive.

I have found that the differences between Christians only sometimes involve actual contradictions. More often, the issue is a matter of emphasis and priority: "Yes, I agree with you about X, but I think pursuing Y is more important". For example, if we seriously take it that loving God and our neighbour are equally important, this alone would wrench many Christians from their extreme positions. Again, if we were to regard God as being both sovereign and within reach-a King who mingles-this would further depopulate the extremities.

There is every reason to expose ourselves to the other point-of-view-to read the column of the table above that is devoted to the "other" extreme and try to take a positive interest in what one finds there. We can all diversify without forsaking anything we hold dear. For example, I respectfully commend the Book of Amos to the Right and the Praise Psalms to the Left, as additional reading. After all, we are, each of us, stuck with the entirety of God's Word (to cope with as well as we can) and the entirety of God (to cope with as well as we can)-aren't we? It is likely that there is more than one issue that is dear to God's heart; so, I suspect that we should not pursue one issue at the expense of the other(s). I have found the overt, joyous love of the Right for God and the fearless, practical love of the Left for oppressed people to be equally magnificent and inspiring.

We bickering Christians should rejoice at what we believe in common, and at our common acquaintance with Jesus. As to the discussion of differences, we could at least try to be polite. We could keep the disdain down to a dull roar, and pause before saying over-confidently that such-and-such an individual or faction is not on the right track, or is "not a real Christian". At the end, after all, it is only God who knows who is and who is not acquainted with Him.

Similarly, we can "allow" people to be in error, without forsaking what we regard as correct. By that I mean: regard error as error (this is unavoidable), but consider leaving it at that, unless the situation clearly calls for more. Who knows, perhaps error is "merely" a sin: perhaps it is forgivable. I express it this way because a lot of Christians speak of error as though it were not forgivable. They should try explaining this to Our Lord, who forgives all and who is no stranger to being misunderstood.

It is a part of our conventional wisdom concerning Family, that "Blood is thicker than water". If so, then I suggest that the Blood that unites Christians makes us at least as much Family as the average human bloodline. It is also part of our wisdom that "You choose your friends, not your relations", so we needn't expect to be on excellent terms with every other Christian. Like any family, the Church has its factions, feuds, skeletons, black sheep and other assorted baggage. But, we are Blood: it can work.

© Gavan O'Farrell, July 2006