Gentle reader, please see PART I for the context of what follows. As I noted in my conclusion to PART I, there are at least three ways open to Christians – each has the potential for moving the Christian to holiness or hellishness. Today, we will finish exploring the second, and for me, the most hope-full way: Compassionate-Generous Pluralism.
The Beatitudes make it clear that Christians are to seek and embrace ‘Unity in the Spirit.’ The Beatitudes remind us that this ‘Unity of Spirit’ consists in being humble petitioners for God’s grace, empathic mourners embracing the sufferings of others, collaborators for peace, role-models of mercy and forgiveness, and common ground seekers of God’s vision.
The ‘Unity in the Spirit’, as the Sermon on the Mount teaches us, seeks to cultivate a compassion that conquers condemnation and to nurture a love that trumps hate. As Matthew reminds us, love is doing good for another, even for the ‘other,’ and love, not tribal solidarity is the Christian’s charge.
It is important for Christians to remember (or learn) that Jesus’ scathing prophetic voice is reserved for those who violate love and justice in their hearts and in their actions: arrogant, self-righteous hypocrites who oppress the poor and neglect the starving and who make their own traditions more important than compassionate-loving kindness in action (see Matt. 23).
As role-models, James and Paul, in spite of their differences, are both true to the ‘Unity in the Spirit.’ Both aim, via faith AND practice, for the same spiritual qualities Jesus proclaims. The ultimate goal of ‘doctrine’ is Christ-likeness in attitude and action.
Christian history might have emerged in a quite different way if later generations of Christians had taken the first-generation paradigm to heart as they encountered their own differences. Today, could making the practice of Christ-like humility, compassion, love, forgiveness and healing help Christians embrace one another and affirm, once again, the common ground that Jesus-the-Christ offered them two thousand years ago?
Would it be so difficult, for example, to adopt the ‘Gamaliel Principle’ that saved Peter and John as they stood at trial before the Sanhedrin? The council debated and discussed the ‘threat’ posed by the new Galilean Heresy (think: Jewish-Christianity). Gamaliel, the grandson of the great Torah teacher Hillel, advises them to wait and see whether this thing is from God or not (Acts. 5:26-40).
Since then, the question of ‘passing fancy’ or ‘new word from God’ continues to challenge Christians. In the second century the question was whether to allow one to remarry after the death of a spouse (no kidding – this was a huge deal). In the fourth century the question was whether to re-admit lapsed believers. In the eleventh century the challenge involved the description of the Trinity. Each century provided – and continues to provide – Christians with important challenges/controversies. Gamaliel’s counsel will still to serve Christians well: Wait it out. See what fruit it bears. Don’t damage the garden by pulling up the weeks prematurely.
What if all Christian proponents and Christian opponents prayed the same Gamaliel prayer: ‘O God, if this is from you, let it flourish; if not, reveal its flaws.’? The second challenge would then involve choosing to be open to what is ‘revealed over time’ – even if what is ‘revealed’ is counter to ‘our’ position. This, being open in this way, requires ‘faith’ and ‘trust’ in God. This itself is no little challenge for Christians; especially for Christians rooted in surety.
Searcher-Seeker 
Leave a Reply