Can different faith expressions live together under one roof?

Lately I have been thinking a great deal about how different people, sometimes from different generations, approach Christianity and how it is to be lived out. When new approaches enter into the fray there usually is some sort of backlash against those who are attempting to look at the same story and how it speaks to us today from a different perspective. Sometimes this happens within a church context that is attempting to invite newer voices to the table of discussion. It is often hard for these new expressions to gain validation as they attempt to figure our how these new communities experience faith, life and how faith and life connect in their context. Doug Pagitt, author of “A Christianity Worth Believing”, writes of a perspective from a church that is creating a new way in the midst of the old one. I think what he writes about can be of benefit to those of us who are journeying together at St. John’s and asking God what sort of new thing we are attempting to create.

Pagitt writes the following after giving a sermon to a church like the one described using Saul as an example. He writes, “Saul was a man of deep faith and conviction who was persecuting the new movement because it seemed to abandon what he believed to be the true, faithful way. Saul was not trying to kill the things of God; he was trying to keep them alive. But we know that he was literally killing what God was doing-and the people who were doing it.” (page 215)

Pagitt continues: “I hoped the people would recognize that in the earliest days of Christianity-just as it is now-people who were motivated by the certainty of their belief assumed that they were perfecting life with God when in actuality they were blocking fresh expression of what God was doing. I hoped they would see that even when we question the conclusions of others, we can do so without questioning their faithfulness. I hoped by telling the story of the faithful but misguided attempts of Saul, I could encourage the people to be more patient, more grace-filled, and more open to those who held to a different version of the Christian story.” (page 216)

The question becomes, how do we live in the tension of new approaches while acknowledging both the old and the new faith expressions are attempting to be faithful to how God in working in and through the process? Is it possible to keep the process expression driven and not personality driven? I believe it can happen, but the further question that haunts me is simply can people parse their faith into process driven discussions without the personality of the person coming through? Does this need to happen? When two “rival sides” journey together with how God can be expressed in a faithful way through those who follow, how can we effectively mediate a productive, worthwhile discussion that enables both expressions to be recognized and honored in a meaningful way?

Let me know what you think.

Be blessed.