Can We Agree?

Rev. Sarah Dylan has posted a list intended to find common ground between "reasserters" (sometimes called "conservatives") and progressives within the Episcopal Church. It seems she believes real communication is most likely to occur if we begin our discussion with points we can agree on.

• Jesus is Lord.


• Jesus and the God who created the universe are one.


• The Old and New Testaments were inspired by God, and are useful for teaching and Christian formation (a la 2 Timothy 3:16-17).


• Jesus of Nazareth was an actual historical person who was born of Mary, gathered disciples and taught, healed, and confronted evil powers in ministry [to]the first-century Roman province of Palestine, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate's authority.


• Jesus of Nazareth was and is the Christ of God.


• The God of Israel raised Jesus of Nazareth from the dead.


• Jesus' disciples met the risen Jesus — some had visions, some corporeal encounters (though Jesus' body was different in some ways — e.g., he didn't seem to need doors to be opened or unlocked to get into a room), but in all cases reported in the New Testament it was Jesus they met.


• The list of canonical books in the New Testament is a good one. There is no non-canonical gospel that I would have liked to see in the canon, and no book currently in the canon that I'd exclude if I could.


• The kingdom of God was inaugurated in Jesus' ministry, and that Jesus will come again to realize fully his work among us.


• The God of Israel has chosen Jesus, the Christ, as judge of the nations.


• Jesus is really present in the sacrament of the Eucharist.


• Jesus is really present wherever people gather in his name.

I interpret Dylan's question as being, "What do *you* agree with?" rather than, "What do you think *everyone* can agree with?" The only question I can answer meaningfully, at any rate, is the former.

I agree with almost everything on this list. Like many others (on both sides), I see some challenges in defining phrases such as "Jesus is Lord".

Is it necessary to agree on definitions? Many on both sides have said we *do* need to agree on definitions; meaning, of course, that we must agree on their definitions.

I am reminded, however, of the Elizabethan compromise regarding the nature of the Eucharist. When confronted with two seemingly opposing views, the solution was to say "both".

What I mean to suggest is that unity may occur through agreeing on certain points, so long as definitions are kept as broad as possible (or totally ambiguous). We can agree on the phrase "Jesus is Lord" so long as the implications of what that phrase means are left up to each individual.