A tale of two mentalities

There are two ways Christians talk to each other about the Christian faith.

One way is "What Christianity means to me." Archbishop John Sentamu excels at this mode of explanation. Pope Francis's heartfelt if misunderstood forays into new thinking are of the same sort. Indeed, laymen are told and encouraged to "give their testimony," so it is a widely used mode of Christian expression, perhaps the widest.

The other is to ask what Christianity timelessly is and requires. C.S. Lewis, Augustine, J.I. Packer and writers of that slant seek to separate the "me" out of it. Such people make everyone uncomfortable by implying that what it means to me might not be right, or at least, that my understanding might not be the central part of the story.

One way looks inward. One way looks upward. Before arguing with someone, you should be very sure you know which kind of statement you are arguing with. It is seldom fruitful to inform someone that his interpretation of his own experience is mistaken. He can say, with some justice, that you were not there, what do you know about my experience?

When we look at what Christian truths mean in their larger scope, not just as I apply them but as they affect everybody, we may find reasons to edit or amend our own personal and subjective accounts. People don't like to do that. It admits the awkward possibility that we were wrong.

There will need to be rethinkings of personal views if the separated churches are to draw toward unity. The generalized and higher view of church unity does not require much rethinking. It is already evident to anyone who takes the Bible seriously that one flock was the plan all along.