The elevator pitch

"All three matters, that is, the prime importance of Christ's New Commandment, a need for de-escalation of theological disputes and a need for a robust definition of adiaphora seem to me the key points in seeking a united Christendom."


"Elevator pitch" is business slang for a very short verbal presentation that explains a product or service you offer, or an idea you are trying to promote into reality. Your pitch should be to the point, as memorable as you can make it, and it should not attempt to close a sale then and there. Nor should it attempt to answer every possible question. Instead, you want to leave your hearer with something to think about. The scenario around which you frame your presentation, and from which the elevator pitch takes its name, is that you may find yourself riding an elevator with someone who potentially is interested in what you are selling. You want to convey to him a clear and arresting idea of what you have to offer before he reaches his floor and gets off. What I am trying to do here is to frame the imperatives of Christian unity in the same compact way.

Below are some first attempts. I sense that they need further development.  If you have ideas that improve on what I've got so far, please leave them in the comments.


Pitch #1 is slanted toward those Christians who have a love of scripture and are careful about its interpretation.


Christ gave his followers a new commandment, to love one another as he had loved them. In the New Testament, we see that the early church saw this in terms of serving one another in practical ways. "Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the Law of Christ." (Galatians 6:2) That kind of practically expressed love and service can cross over denominational boundaries today.

There are more references from the New Testament that show us the early church understood that giving aid among the brethren was the tangible reflection of Christian love. In one example, the book of Hebrews speaks of the love shown for God's name in serving the saints and links that to full assurance of hope. (Heb 6:10-11)

The letters 1st John and 1st Peter refer directly to the New Commandment and James has good admonitions on living your faith in practical terms.

Let us serve all God's people, so many as we can, with love. They may not line up with our theology, but they are ours because they are His.


Pitch #2 is for Christians who tend to carelessness about scripture, placing more store by the institutional wisdom of their churches.


Theological hostility, or odium theologicum, is a sign of thorough spiritual immaturity. You do not lose your burden to serve, with love, your fellow Christians when they disagree with you on some or other point of debatable theory. That's even true of those in other denominations. It might be argued that, if your understanding is all that much better, you have a burden to lead by example to draw them to your superior understanding. Saint James spoke of demonstrating his faith by his works, a very practical approach that still works. People are more easily persuaded by what they see than what they hear.

It is a place where theory makes a weaker statement than practice. But if your theory ends in your own thoughts turning to hostility, evidently it is not a good theory. Remember that Christ's response to Doubting Thomas was patiently to answer all his concerns.

The New Testament, which records the faith of the early church as delivered by the apostles, gives many endorsements of serving others out of Christ's love.



#3 is for those with senses of humor.

"In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity." Sounds legit but it's just pious muppetry, because we never agree on what is non-essential. You take any point you can think of, somebody makes a big deal of it.  "In essentials unity" will never be more than a pious slogan until we agree on what is not essential. 

What is necessary to salvation? And what is obedience to Christ's gospel? I really think anything beyond that needs to be left arguable. I am no indifferentist but I am a realist: we do not agree on the answers to all deep theological questions because we understand the questions differently, or if you like, misunderstand the questions differently. 

What we can do despite all that is to be useful to each other, love each other, "Bear one another's burdens and so fulfill the Law of Christ." Anything beyond that only leads to the same useless ecumenical panel discussions we've had over and over. 



------------------------

Some later notes: (11/2-3) The second point, above, seems to me to relate to what the churches of the East call a Western tendency to over-intellectualize the faith. I have touched upon the same issue via another tangent as "the Roman mistake."  By that I mean the general Western tendency to create complex theology where it is not really needed, then insist upon it. It started with Rome but spread generally through the Protestant churches. Although Protestants do not like to think of it this way, they are Roman Catholicism's daughter churches and inherited some of her bad habits.

All three matters, that is, the prime importance of Christ's New commandment, a need for de-escalation of theological disputes and a need for a robust definition of adiaphora seem to me the key points in seeking a united Christendom.

Two of the problems are merely extensions or implications of the big problem of not loving each other enough. If you love, you will downplay the odium theologicum and be willing to grant that the other fellow's definition of adiaphora, if it differs from yours, is held reasons that do not actually involve despising God.

As I said above: I am still trying to work out how to put this matter before my fellow Christians, in ways they will grasp in short order. I welcome suggestions!