Balance between integrity and the inclusive

"There is only one Christ, Jesus, one faith. All else is a dispute over trifles." -- Elizabeth I

Obviously, I would disagree with the real Gloriana about that on some particulars - though, had I been the daughter of Henry and sister of Mary and Edward, I believe that I, too, would have had quite enough with religious disputes. I'm not going to explore my irritations with Geneva here - but suffice it to say that Elizabeth was more realistic than I, recognising that there never would be a total agreement on doctrine (in a church which could include an entire nation. And, yes, that includes the RC countries, most of which had a population that paid none too much attention to doctrine in the first place.) About the only unity which could be achieved was one of worship.

"Inclusivity" (is that a word? it appears on the Web enough) naturally encompasses far more than worship in current discussions. :) It is a fine balance, avoiding an appearance of exclusion from the universal church (and some people worry about that more today than they ever did in the past, probably because it is only in the modern era that so much conformity was demanded - in a legalistic fashion, not in relation to essentials of the faith.) Yet integrity should not be compromised in the process.

I would never deny that, for example, a follower of Calvin or Zwingli was a Christian, but there would be points of doctrine on which I would heartily have disagreed with them both. I doubt I'd ever have the energy necessary to engage in debate with an Anabaptist. I may have understood John Wesley himself, but later developments in some forms of Methodism would leave me cold.

My concern today is that two extremes are equally problematic. The definition of ecumenism still does not seem clear, but it hardly means refusing to mention, discuss, explain, or clarify differences in doctrine. On the other hand, the sort of fear which brands those who disagree as if they were demons is far more dangerous.

Is there anything in the history of the Church that is so dangerous that we cannot even talk about it?! Or that requires that we explore what we assume is the hidden motive of those with whom we disagree?

I'm beginning to long for the days when one could have had a rollicking pub discussion about Arius or the Trinity. I'm tired of hearing, for example, about the prospect of gay marriages - because too many, on both sides, are acting as if anyone who disagrees with their own position ought to be sentenced to hell. If someone supports such a move, there will be plenty who'll insist that he is ready to destroy society. Yet those who are very supportive cannot even allow a discussion of, for example, whether re-defining the institution of marriage in any way could have problematic implications - it is taken as exclusive or as a rationalisation for homophobia. I have no answers there - social sciences will never be noted as my strong point, and I really am far more interested in Nicaea and the Trinity. But can we recall for a moment that our having two ears and only one mouth may have been a divine plan?

Argue till doomsday if you wish - I know that I shall. But clarify the position you hold - don't sling mud at those who hold another.

As far as doctrine is concerned - admitting to points of disagreement sadly may bring back old memories of the stake and the block, but how can any true dialogue take place if the differences are ignored or the doctrine compromised?