Tuesday, May 1, 2007

Great discussion at sarahlaughed.net

There's a fantastic discussion going on over at Sarah Dylan Brewer's blog, sarahlaughed.net.

Frustrated by the tit-for-tat accusations/counter-accusations between liberals and conservatives in the blogosphere, Sarah, a writer and scholar in residence at the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, MA, invited posters from more conservative blogs such as titusonenine and standfirm to have a discussion with her liberal colleagues about what propositions of faith we can agree on, rather than sniping at each other about the disagreements that threaten separate us.

She started with a list of things that she felt most liberals and conservatives could agree on (I won't post the list here--go see for yourself), and asked readers to respond:
So, what would you add that you think we both believe? Is there anything above that you couldn't sign on to? And how would you identify yourself (a reasserter? a conservative? a progressive? a liberal? a moderate? something else?)?
The discussion thread that follows is wonderful--Episcopalians of all stripes respond to the list. Several folks on both sides feel that they can assent to the list. Many, though, are skeptical: several folks who identify themselves as liberals feel that they can't assent to some propositions (such as the virgin birth or a literal resurrection), while others identifying themselves as conservatives doubt that they could agree with liberals on the meaning of certain propositions (what does "Jesus is Lord" actually mean?).

What makes this conversation wonderful for me is not that there is any significant agreement on Sarah's list. It is that in discussing this list, Christians who normally might not have anything to do with each other are talking with one another about the very foundations of their faith. There are some persistent, fundamental disagreements--but as posters clarify their faith in a spirit of gracefulness and humility, writers on both sides find some fellowship and communion, if not much agreement on theology.

I find the ongoing exchange between hadjie and James Crocker particularly wonderful--hadjie is a questioning Christian (who would probably be at home at St. Stephen's) who James can't recognize as an orthodox Christian. They discuss what it means to identify oneself as Christian, and although they don't agree on much, they try very hard to come to terms with their disagreement.

I'd be interested to hear what you all think.

No comments: