The Mainline Meltdown in light of Unity vs Inclusivity

When basing arguments on semantics, we must be very careful to try and avoid two common errors. The first error is in trying to forge a position based on very fine points of distinction. Scholastic theology was often guilty of seeking out every conceivable distinction no matter how minor, and then elevating these minor distinctions into platforms of unnecessary division. Put simply, we are susceptible to making very serious separations based on what I like to call 'distinctions without a difference'. The second error is the opposite error from the first. This is the error that tries to gloss over very real distinctions by deemphasizing differences. Semantically, this often means adopting a very lazy employment of language, where distinct terms with distinct meanings are used interchangeably, thus, obscuring the very real differences that exist. This often results in what I like to call 'blob theology' that is shapeless, non-descript, and devoid of particularity and stability. I would argue that in the case of both errors, the philosophical imperatives of the people involved are brought to bear on their use of language, so that linguistics are made to fit the presuppositions of the speaker/writer. I would further argue that in my experience, evangelicals tend to be more susceptible to the first error (evangelicals have an unfortunate history of dividing over almost everything), while mainline liberals tend to indulge the second error (promoting a false unity contrary to all evidence, that is an insult to reality). It is this second dynamic that I'd like to focus on in this particular post. If you're wondering why a discussion on semantics has any real meaning or implications upon real life, I'd ask you to bear with me for a minute. It's coming.

Mainline theology has gotten very comfortable using terms like 'unity' and 'inclusivity' interchangeably. But these two terms mean materially different things. Part of the problem in analyzing the mainline drift into heterodoxy is in dissecting its blending of terms like these and figuring out what exactly is meant by the mainline when it uses 'unity' and 'inclusivity' to describe some common definition. As best I can tell, when these words get tossed around in mainline discourse, what is being communicated is the desire to be accepting of everyone as they are, and to exhibit a great oneness as a result of the universal acceptance that is being strived for. The idea is that through total acceptance, inclusivity and unity are one and the same result, because differences that lead to division are being eliminated.

But there's a problem here. Inclusivity and unity do not mean the same thing, either according to Webster, or the Apostle Paul. Stanley Hauerwas at Duke is particularly helpful in flushing this out:

The unity of which Paul speaks, that between Jews and Greeks, is made possible through the common confession that Jesus is Lord, who has saved us by being raised from the dead. That unity is not based on the acceptance of everyone as they are because we want to be inclusive, but rather comes from the fire of Christ's cross, through which we are transformed by being given distinctive service in God's kingdom. In Good Company: The Church as Polis, 40.

Hauerwas notes a number of things about Paul's theology of unity that are crucial. First, Christian unity is based on a common salvific confession that Jesus is Lord. This is not a vision of universal acceptance devoid of any basic criteria of commonness. To the contrary, there is a normative confession that gives shape and meaning to the Christian community of faith. Differing opinions on this issue are not equally valid. This confession is based upon the early Christian creedal understanding of Christ that Paul recites in 1 Cor. 15, which includes the supernatural bodily resurrection of Christ. To deny this or to declare it non-essential is to undo the substance of the common confession that forms the most important basis for unity. Welcome to the mainline's 'unity' dilemma.

Second, notice also that Paul's theology of unity is not based on universal acceptance of people as they are. In Paul's theology, unity is derived from the Holy Spirit's ministry of tranformation in the lives of the individuals of the faith community. Again, this is not a vision of accepting people as they are, and embracing their unchanged status and celebrating it. To the contrary, the same Paul who declared that 'there is no one who is good, not one', and that 'all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God' (Rom. 3) is the one who later emphasized unity in the community through the ministry of 'transformation through renewal' (Rom 12). Paul is not proposing a glorious unity through common and unaddressed sin, but a glorious unity through common transformation that attacks sin head-on.

This then leads to the third and final point - unity is achieved as the supernaturally transformed members of the community follow God's call to unique service for the Kingdom. Unity does not mean a bunch of clones who are gifted the same way and do exactly the same things. To the contrary, Paul's theology of gifting is diverse (Rom. 12.6ff, 1 Cor 12)), yet he envisioned a common Body where each part of the Body was uniquely essential to the health of the whole (1 Cor. 12). There is one Kingdom, but there are many different works of the Kingdom, and unity is achieved when the different works are working together for the common cause of Christ and his Kingdom. In order for these different parts to work together, there must be supernatural tutelage of the gifts and the callings. This is why supernatural change in the lives of believers is absolutly essential to transform otherwise disparate efforts into a global mission that is focused and based on divine direction.

These critical distinctives have gotten lost in the mainline's sloppy linguistics. Linguistics matter to real life because they portray (or betray) one's perspective on the world, complete with that person's blindspots. The mainline is in meltdown in part because they have melted distinctive and robust concepts into a blob-like hybrid that lacks direction, purpose, or divine enabling. In seeking their version of unity, they have mostly lost the Bible's vision of authentic unity. The result has been tremendous division within the mainline that threatens its long-term viability. There is little I find more sad than reading story after story of churches desiring to leave the mainline for a more faithful fellowship, enduring harassment and litigation by the 'inclusive' governing bodies of the denomination as a result, and then still hearing pronouncements of unity from the denominational leadership. With such a blatant chasm between rhetoric and reality, one really has to wonder if the inmates have taken over the asylum. This is what a meltdown looks like, and it's not pretty. What's needed is linguistic clarity that is informed by Scriptural wisdom, rather than the wisdom of men. It's time for the mainline to stop filling up Biblical terms with extrabiblical meanings designed to eliminate all distinctives and rough edges. The result of this practice has been an increasing number of divisions and rough edges that shows no sign of waning. Somebody needs to put 2 and 2 together.