Christian unity in the context of diversity and difference –

Krish Kandiah’s post on Facebook, “Why is genuine unity for the sake of mission so difficult both locally & nationally?” prompted me to reply “probably because many Christians mistake unity for uniformity”. This misunderstanding has created relational episodes that are not generative. What people argue about might be different but the sentiment is usually the same… “I will only work (relate) with you if you agree with me” (ie, my version of the truth).

Like a broken record, we are stuck in a conversational ‘hex loop’ that probably explains a puzzle described by an Organisation Consultant I know. She observed, “Christian organisations are often characterised by external pride but internal pain”.

In my view, modernism has a lot to do with this. For example, the term ‘exegesis’ is based on the assumption that you can ‘mine and extract’ absolute truth in biblical texts through scientific scholarship. Once you get to a truth, we turn this into a proposition, and invariably get stuck in a dualistic discourse of ‘agree or disagree’, ‘in or out’.

Kish’s question speaks to me about the desperate need for Christians to learn how to express and celebrate diversity in the context of unity. Our propositional approach has inadvertently created a culture where we will only work others, once know that they agree with us.

The modern world is littered with examples of how adversarial forms of communication have led to violence and atrocities.

Indeed, it is still a tradition at the House of Commons that front bench politicians are required to speak from behind a red line drawn on the floor, calculated to keep them at a distance beyond a sword’s length from their opponents. This strange tradition is an example of the underlying adversarial basis of communication in the West.

In his seminal book, God is Rice, Japanese theologian Masao Takenaka likened the Western concept of debating to ‘ya-ya chambara’ – a form of Japanese sword-fencing where combatants say their name, shout “ya-ya” and then proceed to do battle. He noticed that in theology, this is an approach based on deductive metaphysics rather than inductive learning. It is an approach of confrontation rather than mutual sharing.

From a Christian perspective, my great hero, Andrew Walls reminds us that because of the diversity of contexts, mission is always about learning.

Andrew coined the phrase ‘the Ephesian Moment’ to describe the social coming together of people of two cultures (Jewish and Hellenistic believers) into Christianity in the first century, This led to a distinctive new Christian lifestyle that corresponded with their ethnic and cultural differences. For Walls, the Ephesian moment has come again. He wrote:

“Developments over several centuries, reaching a climax in the twentieth, mean that we no longer have two, but innumerable, major cultures in the church. Like the old Jerusalem Christians, Western Christians had long grown used to the idea that they were guardians of a ‘standard’ Christianity; also like them, they find themselves in the presence of new expressions of Christianity and new Christian lifestyles that have developed or are developing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to display Christ under the conditions of African, Indian, Chinese, Korean, and Latin American life. And most of the world’s Christians are now Africans, Asians or Latin Americans.”

While, Andrew is referring specifically to cultural diversity, I believe that this applies to denominational, gender, age and world-view differences as well.

So back to Krish’s post… a united, genuine mission engagement requires vulnerable learning. In particular, learning how to express, celebrate and embody difference in the context of sharing the good news of the gospel to a fallen world.

Click on this link to check out Andrew’s book, “The cross-cultural process in Christian History

2 thoughts on “Christian unity in the context of diversity and difference –

  1. This is fascinating and so important. Thank you for your thoughts. Indeed, rather than just cultural issues, we really must wrestle with generational differences (age) and world-views that follow. The gospel, of course, deals with all. Something that is timeless needn’t mean that it’s not accommodating….by that I mean accommodating in the sense of being malleable for the sake of being communicated (without being compromised) to the wide array of these different points of reference.

    Pax, Nick

    p.s. I love the look of your blog….how have you achieved such a tailored look?!

    1. Hi there – thank you for taking the time to comment!

      I agree with you… Mission should be about being Jesus to one another rather than intellectual gymnastics! I’ve yet to come across anyone who has been argued into the kingdom.

      You are right, devine wisdom is paramount but this comes from God and not human intellect. I love the concept generous orthodoxy. Perhaps evangelicals should explore how our identity might change if we expressed our faith more through ‘gracious’ or ‘loving’ orthodoxy? Surely this will have a great impact on mission!

      Do you use wordpress too? It’s pretty flexible. Even the free themes (like the one I use) has lots of flexibility under the hood. The great thing is that you can experiment with the settings and look at a preview before going live. I try to use my own photos (one of my hobbies) to make it look less template.

      Thanks again!

      Blessings

      Patrick

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s