But not every view held by a Christian is necessarily a legitimate Christian view. Some of our opinions may be plainly wrong and in need of correction. The Shared Conversations, in which the General Synod will soon take part, need to face up to this reality.
If “good disagreement” means embracing every opinion within the Church, then it leads only to doctrinal and moral pluralism, which is a recipe for disaster. Where would we be if Athanasius had not challenged Arianism at the Council of Nicaea? Or if Thomas Cranmer had simply gone with the flow? Or if Anglicans in South Africa had not fought against apartheid in the face of its defence by some Reformed denominations?
When a fundamental aspect of the gospel is at stake ”” such as the deity of Christ, salvation by grace alone, or the dignity and equality of every human being ”” it is wrong for Christians to “agree to disagree”. Good disagreement can too easily become an excuse for failing to do the hard theological work of wrestling together over the interpretation of scripture until we reach a common mind.
We need a different approach to “good disagreement”: a middle way between those who reject it outright and those who embrace it unthinkingly.
I will take comments on this submitted by email only to KSHarmon[at]mindspring[dot]com.