Tolerance

In a comment to Jennifer's most recent post, I made a statement about tolerance. I stated that there are many at Sunshine who are (for lack of a better way of expressing it) more tolerant of divergent Christian beliefs and practices than some others.

Tolerance is difficult concept to contextualize. If, by tolerance, we mean the opposite of needless rigidity and a sectarian attitude, then, yes, I'm all about tolerance. However, if tolerance is the opposite of conviction and universal truth, then, I'm against it. If tolerance, opens us up to broader fellowship with other believers and enables us to better connect with the community we seek to reach, then, great. But, if tolerance becomes an objective in and of itself, it becomes a slippery slope enjoining us with the liberal trends that we currently see in the larger Christian world. Tolerance is a tricky value to embrace.

I would like to give a bit of background to my use of tolerance.

Richard Hughes, in The Stone-Campbell Encyclopedia, has written an article profiling 4 common historical models of restoration (aka Christian primitivism). Restoration involves looking to the NT (primitive) church as the model and norm for the present-day church. We in the CofC are examples of this. We believe that we are good representation of 1st Century (original) Christianity. Though, we acknowledge that we do not exactly replicate the NT church, we are confident that we have restored the important aspects. Here is where thinking about the historical models of restoration can provide some insight.

Of the 4 models Hughes outlines, 2 are very relevant to CofC: Ecclesiastical and Ethical.

Ecclesiastical refers to the structure and organization of the church itself. An emphasis on ecclesiastical restoration involves a focus on replicating the form and structure of the NT church in the present day. Alexander Campbell was all about this! Campbell was a very systematic and rationalistic thinker. Naturally, his thinking and focus gravitated to ecclesiastical matters. Today, CofCs, are very much focused on maintaining ecclesiastical restoration. Thing like autonomous congregations, eldership-led, plurality of elders, simplistic worship services, congregational-only singing, weekly communion, etc., are very much the outgrown of Campbell's focus on ecclesiastical restoration.

Ethical restoration, by contrast, focused on the specific behavior of Christians. Barton W. Stone was far more concerned with present-day Christians acting like 1st Century Christians than he was in restoring forms and structures. Stone advocating a radical, counter-cultural lifestyle. He was an abolitionist and passivist long before those things became popular. His followers' worship practices would more so resemble the modern-day Church of God than CofC.

Campbell and Stone's movement merged in 1832. However, today's CofCs have retained far more of the emphases and character of Campbell than Stone.

What does this have to do with tolerance?

Just about all Protestant denominations have within their make-up a drive for restoration of the original practice and power of Christianity. I dare say, no denomination has done Ecclesiastical Restoration as well as us, however, I think some other groups have made greater strides in the areas of ethical restoration and experiential (a third category) restoration. We can learn much from each other.

I believe it is possible to embrace believers from other denominations without sacrificing the fundamental drive of our brotherhood. In fact, embracing (learning) from others can serve to enhance and fortify our identity. It also allows to share our strengths with others.

If we, I am speaking specifically of leaders, can cling to an educated and realistic understanding of who we are; if we can see the hand of God within and without us; we can navigate the waters ahead.

What do you think?