The Beauty of Diversity

Recently, I've had a number of conversations with people as to what church should look like in a worship service, how theology should be expressed, how do we explain our faith, etc.  Everyone seems to have an opinion of which way to worship is the right way.  Do we use high liturgy?  Or is it a little more relaxed?  Or a lot more relaxed?  Do we meet formally at a church building or in our homes?  How do we explain our theology?  Should it be western Greek based logical progression or something more mystical and transcendant?  Hymns or pop-culture-inspired songs?  Tie and coat or jeans and T-shirt?

You know what's sad?  It is questions like this that split the church time and time again.

Recently, I've started a plan from BibleGateway.com to read through the Bible in a year, Old and New Testament.  Most recently, I've been through part of Isaiah, all of Jeremiah, Lamentations, and a bit of Ezekial from the Old Testament, and from the New I've been through all of Hebrews, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus.  As I was reading through Hebrews, I couldn't help contrast the context of that book with the way Paul presents the faith in his other writings.  More specifically, being that it's my favorite New Testament book, I did just some mental comparison of the book of Romans.

You know, it was kind of funny, but both Hebrews and Romans seem to have the same purpose, that being to give a basic primer and description of what the Christian faith is all about to a set of readers who need that basic level of instruction.  If such is the case, you would think that the two books should look and feel and read almost exactly the same...but they don't.

Romans is most definitely written to a group of people more familiar with logical reasoning, a progression of thought from one point to another to prove a point and come to an ultimate conclusion.  Paul, literally, starts at the beginning, with Creation, and progresses through sin, law, lawlessness, rebellion, grace, and through to the transformation that is salvation and beyond to what that transformed life looks like.  It is very scholarly, intellectual, logical, and it makes sense from that perspective.

Meanwhile, Hebrews presents an entirely different description of what Christianity is all about.  Instead of the logical progression of Greek and Roman reasoning, Hebrews spends a lot of time talking about heaven and earth and the representations on earth of the true kingdom, temple, and throne in heaven.  It is a very mystical book, full of imagery from a ritualized, temple culture, describing priests, sacrifices, thrones, etc.  And yet, it also talks about what is salvation, what a changed life is about, and then what that changed life looks like afterwards.

Can you really explain the same faith, that of Jesus Christ as Lord, in such two radically different ways?

Apparently so.

And yet here, 2000 years later, we argue about musical style.  We argue about atonement theory.  We argue about the specific relationships within the Trinity (did you know that the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic church pretty much split up over a single word?).  We argue about what heaven is like.  What hell is like.  Is there heaven or hell?  Have we ever considered, perhaps, that different people need different images and different metaphors and different phrases, and even different ways of explaining the same thing?

Here's a practical example.  See, I'm, originally, a scientifically minded mathematician.  My wife is a musician.  And you thought the church had it bad.  Really, my wife and I look at the world in such radically different ways that, quite truthfully, our discussions get, erm, energetic.  But when we take a step back a bit and consider these fundamental differences in how we look at the world, all we can do, the two of us, is laugh and say, "Did we really just fight over that?"

So, we have Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox.  And even those are split up.  Protestants have Lutherans, Reformed, Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, and a whole host of others.  Catholics have Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 and all sorts of different little sub sets.  Orthodox have some divisions internal (although I confess, probably not NEARLY so badly as in the Protestant groups).  And we even have folks who have said, "We don't like ANY of the groups out there so we reject them all and go our own way."  You have to admit, this is all just so sad.

Does it really have to be either/or?  This or that?  Here or there?  Something that I've found interesting in some recent discussions is that, when you really dive into the Scriptures, suddenly it's not "either/or" but "both/and".  It is both faith AND works that characterize the follower of Christ.  It is both solemn reverence AND celebration that are found in Christian worship.  And don't get me started on all the "ands" that describe what Christ's death and resurrection can be described as (substitutionary, penal, Christus victor, re-capitulation, etc.).  

Even the gospels have this subtlety to them.  Compare Matthew to John and we have the same Jesus, many of the same stories, many of the same teachings, and yet described so differently.  Why?  Because different people need different ways of looking at things to come to the same understanding.

My point?  Let's just stop with all the sniping, snarking, finger pointing, blame fixing, condemnation, and prejudiced stereotypes that we use.  We are supposed to be all one body, right?

Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. - Ephesians 4:2-6 NIV 2011

Let's try and remember this.