After growing up in an age of North American Christianity in which various groups have been starkly divided along various lines, I am still surprised to find people talking about the aim of gaining the Christian worldview. Doesn't the fact that Christians in the West (let alone the rest of the world) express their Christianity in such different ways demonstrate the very fact that there is no such thing as the Christian worldview?

How do people who see the evidence (where liberal Protestants, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and conservative Protestants express and see their faith through very different lenses) still claim that there could be such a thing as the Christian worldview? Is this just wishful thinking?

I think the answer has less to do with people being able to see these differences as much as it has to do with people's inability to see Christian expressions that differ from their own- as being valid.

What do conservative Christians say of liberal Christian belief and expression? They often dismiss it- saying that it really isn't a biblical expression of Christianity (i.e. valid- according to their systematized and somewhat subjective mapping of the biblical message).

And I don't know that "liberal" Christians are much better. People in this camp often brush off conservative concerns as religious barbarism (i.e. archaic notions that only halt the progress of what they assume is the advancing Kingdom of God).

In both cases broad generalizations and stereotypes are rampant. And the world keeps watching- flabbergasted as we go about claiming so adamantly to have the good news- while being so wholly incapable on agreeing what exactly the good news is.

While this introduction may sound rather bleak- and perhaps even defeatist, I'm actually writing this piece because I sense there's room for optimism.

While what I've just written accurately describes what you might call the religious climate in America up until now, I think things may be in the midst of changing. I think we're beginning to see signs that the various schools of thought are beginning to listen to, and even, learn from each other. And in the long run that's a very, very good thing. Not only is the dialog itself a good thing- for the sake of familial relationship, but its also good because we all have a lot to learn from each other.

Recently I read an interesting piece in the Economist Magazine titled "The Times they are a Changing- Really". This article addressed the way that America's political and cultural division that began in the 1960's, is beginning to evaporate (ever so slightly) as a new middle ground is charted. It reads:

"American society is beginning to make its peace with that divisive decade (the 60's): it is becoming neither a pro-1960s culture nor an anti-1960s culture- but a post-1960's culture. Polls show only 5% of voters objecting to the civil rights revolution. For all the rage of the culture warriors, most Americans- particularly young ones- put a high premium on 'tolerance'. At the same time, they also think that the counter-culture went too far. Very few people decry the nuclear family or urge people to tune in, turn on and drop out".

How interesting. This is exactly the kind of turn of events that many of us have hoped for, and are beginning to see amongst the Western Church; where both "Left" and "Right" see some value in the others' claims and understandings of the gospel. The shift has been a painfully slow one. But thankfully the middle ground is increasingly becoming "the meeting ground". And I think we are a more faithful Church in this place - held between the various tensions.

Let's take the issue of environmentalism as an example of what I'm talking about. Not too long ago, those in more conservative camps saw environmentalism as an altogether bad word. For many it wreaked of liberalism and the pursuits of a secular humanist agenda. Many conservative Christians saw the environmental cause as one that sought to rob humankind of its rightful place as the kings and queens of the natural world- as appointed by God himself.

But then came along this concept of environmental stewardship- and a middle ground was charted. For the sake of those who had too many negative connotations attached to the term "environmentalism" the expression "Creation care" was offered as a substitute. Here a mix of the two original polar paradigms was hammered out. Creation care says that yes, humankind is the rightful leader of planet Earth. But it sees this role more as one of nurturer and sustainer- rather than as conqueror or usurper.

Now to be honest there are some who still fail to see the point in taking care of the planet. These peoples' thinking is tied directly to an assumption that the end of all we know is imminent. Their point is- if it's all going to "hell in a hand basket" anyway, then what's the point in trying to preserve anything?

As an aside, I have always found it perplexing that people seem unable (or perhaps unwilling) to apply the moral of the parable of the stewards to this issue. In other words, even if Jesus does come back sometime very soon- wouldn't he be concerned about how we've taken care of the home he crafted for us at the beginning of time? Wouldn't he have preferred that instead of exhausting our natural resources, that we would have found a way to sustain, and perhaps even grow them?

As I stated at the outset, much of the problem is not that "Liberal" and "Conservative" Christians disagree about spreading the good news of the gospel - it's that they have very different understandings of what that good news actually is.

For conservative Christians, in many circles anyway, the gospel has been all about "getting people into Heaven- one soul at a time". In the modern era of the Church, the conservative wing systematized and shrink-wrapped this process into little absolutisms like "the four spiritual laws".

Liberal Christians on the other hand, saw the good news of the gospel as being about helping to transform the world into a better place- in the here and now; not just on an individual basis but on a society-wide and global basis.

Slowly but surely more and more of us are realizing that there is truth to both forms of gospel understanding. Yes, Jesus came to speak to individuals and to offer them personal relationship with the Father through him. But he also expected that our relationship would lead to discipleship that would bear fruit in practical solutions designed to bless all of mankind.

Recently I came across a website, ChristianAid.org, that had a motto that seemed to capture the true spirit of the cause. It goes like this:

"We believe in life before death".

Now to a non-Westerner this would seem a strange phrase indeed. Isn't this kind of stating the obvious? The truth is, the point is well taken for a Westernized Christian audience. This phrase is all about counter-acting what many Christians have seen as a problem that arises when individual salvation becomes all about the next world- and never about the here and now. And also when it becomes about the establishment of a selfish eternal insurance policy and not about the greater good of all people- and of all of God's creation.

Those involved in ministries such as ChristianAid.org are just reminding us that the good news was and is that the Kingdom had and has come near- in this present life- not just in the life to come. In some ways we would do better not to separate this life from the next. A more helpful frame of reference is to see that, as Christians, we have already entered into an eternal life. In that sense, we have already passed through the door of one life- to another. And thus- just as Jesus said, the time is now.

Certainly we wait on the final return of Christ to fully complete the work that was begun in a Middle Eastern country over 2000 years ago; but the Kingdom has already been announced and inaugurated. And as Christians (little Christs) we can participate in the simultaneously "organic" and "super-organic" spread of the reign of God. We can be part of the solution designed to bring harmony to all that God pronounced good.

I firmly believe that both "Liberal" and "Conservative" Christians have a piece of the gospel puzzle to contribute. And I think that, to some extent, both sides can support their views by Scripture.

Now comes a period of history where we need to work towards harmonizing those views. Postmodern progress, as you might call it, is such that I think we can move beyond the stigmatizations and one-dimensional theologies that defined and separated our "causes" in the past.

If recent events really do show that the Left and the Right are beginning to find a middle ground in which both of their contributions can come into play then I think we have the potential to enter in to a period of real ferment. And in my mind, even if this intermingling is for a time, "messy", ultimately I think only good can come from it; good in terms of Christian harmony, good in terms of a more unified witness, and good in the sense that the good news is good for the entire world.