There is something that, in the evangelical world, I was completely unaware of, but in the Anglican (and presumably the greater Catholic church) seems to have known for quite some time.

When talking to my good friend Mark, who works in the Anglican church I’ve begun to explore, he half-jokingly commented that his church is “seeker-hostile,” poking a little fun at the “seeker-friendly” philosophy that the evangelical church often touts. But what he means is that, yes, the traditional church is a difficult thing to jump right into with no background in the Christian faith.

Mark then goes on to point out that many people come to the traditional church when they feel as though the evangelical church has nothing left for them, as though it got them so far but once they’ve reached a certain maturity in their faith, they often feel as though there’s “something more” that the evangelical tradition can’t provide so that their spiritual growth can continue. This is, indeed, the main reason why I personally felt the need to abandon evangelicalism.

I just realized that this has something in common with my idea about a spectrum of belief. Maybe it’s time to revise that idea to say this:

It appears as though the evangelical church is good at getting people in the door, at population growth, but in a lot of cases it isn’t so hot at the continual spiritual growth at a certain point. It also appears that, though “seeker-hostile,” the Anglican church is not so hot at the population growth, but really good at the continual spiritual growth.

Here we see where a spectrum of belief — as there are disagreements between these two sections of the Church — is keeping many people, myself included, from falling off the map. I can’t discount the fact that the evangelical church built a certain foundation of faith in me for many years, but when it came time to continue to explore my faith, Anglicanism and the liturgical tradition has become the logical next step.

Mark says he thinks there needs to be a reconciliation of the two churches, and that these two points in the spectrum need to have a line drawn in between them so that the greater Church can do everything it was originally intended to do. If there were no Anglican or Catholic or evangelical, this spectrum might still exist, but as a means of growth in faith rather than a split in the church as is the present case.

Input is going to crucial on this post, so if you’re reading this, please don’t stop until you get to the end. If you must, please come back and finish reading it when you can. This is one of those huge ideas that’s been floating around in my brain for a few years now. I’ve gotten very little input on the idea, but I’ve already seen an entire spectrum of agreement and disagreement.

That last sentence is ironic, because what I’m suggesting here is the idea of a spectrum of belief. I made that phrase up myself so if this concept already exists, someone please give me its proper name.

By this I don’t mean pantheism or universalism or anything like that, but rather the idea that perhaps, within the realm of Christian truth, it is possible for contradiction of beliefs to exist. I also do not mean this in the sense that God or the Bible say one thing, then go back on those words later with another statement.

Here is what I mean: In the the case of theological issues that have gone unresolved for generations, perhaps those things are meant to be left unresolved.

There are debates that have gone on for as long as the Church has existed. I won’t get into particular examples, for the sake of time (and maybe so I can later as filler for days when I have writer’s block). I wonder if those debates are meant to exist, as though God put them there for a reason.

One possible reason is that He knew we would run into these dead ends where we are forced to wonder at His ability to exist in a realm beyond our understanding. A quote from G.K. Chesterton comes to mind (forgive his wordiness):

Mysticism keeps men sane. As long as you have mystery you have health; when you destroy mystery you create morbidity. The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic. He has permitted the twilight. He has always had one foot on earth and the other in fairyland. He has always left himself free to doubt his gods, but (unlike the agnostic of today) free also to believe in them. He has always cared more for truth than consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them… The whole secret of mysticism is this: that man can understand everything by the help of what he does not understand. The morbid logician seeks to make everything lucid, and succeeds in making everything mysterious. The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious, and everything else becomes lucid.

Another possible reason is that, perhaps, debate is a healthy thing. Division is never good, but respectful disagreement can be. If there were no possibility for disagreement and God’s truth were so perfectly clear as to prevent it, it might also prevent people from growing who might use debate as the means.

A final reason I have suggested to people before is that maybe the disagreement is there so that each part of the Body of Christ can do its job well. Don’t get wrapped up in this particular example, as it heats up both sides to the point of fever (get it? the Body?), but maybe Calvinists need to cling to the sovereignty of God as a reminder to themselves and others that they are powerless before Him, while Arminians need to know their free will so that they can live the Gospel out however possible, for their own growth and as a way for others to see the freedom we do have.

So, if nothing else, imagine what a spectrum of belief might be like, rather than all black and white that can be known. And take it all with a grain of salt. I’m just a normal guy that knows no more about the Bible than the average Christian. I’m no expert in theology; I’ve just had this “what if” idea bouncing around in my head for a long time and felt the need to output so that I might get some input. In fact, I’d rather avoid suggesting something I don’t necessarily believe myself, for fear that I come to believe it, but this is something I haven’t been able to shake for years, so forgive my pursuit to the edge of the world.