Previously (here) I’ve set-up the problem of Christian unity and suggested that there are 3 ways potentially to solve it. I use examples of female speaking, power evangelism (healing alongside verbal proclamation) and holding events in pubs. The first model can be found here. Here I will examine a second approach:
Work out what you’ll concede to each other for the sake of the gospel and realising that you’ve already got the main thing in common. Perhaps there’s one event all year that would work amazingly better in a pub than it would elsewhere? Perhaps female evangelists and female testimonies can be prioritised over and above female Bible teaching? Perhaps offering to pray for healing after you’ve been chatting to someone may be good, but not as the first emphasis of why you speak to them? It’s about finding a middle ground.
What are the advantages of finding a middle ground?
- It probably makes everyone feel slightly uncomfortable and doesn’t seem to favour one “side” over another (apart from perhaps those in the middle ground!).
- It seems to be where some lowest common denominator stuff drifts to anyway, by natural.
And the disadvantages?
- it’s quite hard to define what the middle ground is. What is the spectrum of true evangelicalism? How can you have a half-way house on some issues? Does going half-way on healing completely defeat the purpose of it to start with?
- Are people bound by this half-way mark to all start teaching and agreeing with it, or does everyone teach what they think, but then resign themselves to a middle ground for the mission?
- What is the middle ground if 15 people want one thing and 3 want another? Do you go 1/5 of the way towards the other side?!
Can I further add again, that this is NOT discussing what issue is right, simply how we can unite people on a mission team who are already determined that Scripture says their position is right, on a given secondary issue.