[Disclaimer: This post may make me seem divisive, but I don't intend it to.]
Why is the progressive Christian movement – led in part by Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones, and others – so obsessed with finding common ground? I’m hearing it everywhere. Common ground between Christianity and Islam, between evangelicals and “post-evangelicals”, orthodox and neo-orthodox, traditional and emergent…. It seems to be the answer to everything.
But is common ground really that important? In a lot of situations people say, “the things that unite us are greater than those that divide us.” But is that really true? Are the things that unite Christianity and Islam greater than the things that divide us? Are the things that unite the theologies of Mark Driscoll and Rob Bell greater than those that divide them? I guess it depends on your perspective.
If you feel, as some do, that the heart of Jesus’ message was changing this world in the here-and-now, the answer is yes. If you think of salvation as liberations from physical constraints like poverty, oppression, and emotional scars, the answer is yes. But if you think that the message of Christ is bigger than here, and more lasting than now, the answer gets more complicated. Read more
If you’re a reader at GetReligion you’re aware of the tendency for journalists to see churches only in political terms. Last Monday’s opinion piece on the emerging church is no different. Tom Krattenmaker writes about the “growing movement of believers [for whom] an activist faith means more than proselytizing about Jesus and stoking the fires of our culture wars.”
