http://www.relig-museum.ru/ecclesia/pdf/heresy.pdf

However, I would even go a bit further than Joseph–I think the “dividing line” is crucially important, even if a bit blurry around the edges at times. Unity doesn’t come at the expense of truth (nor vice versa, however!) in the New Testament, and the definition of a Christian in the New Testament is not calling yourself a Christian. It is faithful confession of and adherent to the gospel. Passages like Galatians 1 must be held ever in view along with John 17; I Corinthians 5 is as much a part of our canon as Ephesians 4. Of course, there is endless debate over the specific parameters of what this means (as C. S. Lewis helpfully puts it, one of the things Christians are perpetually disagreeing over is the importance of their disagreements!), and Joseph is right that we should always, always, always err on the side of charity (love believes all things). But John Shelby Spong (to give an obvious example) is, flat out, not a Christian, in spite of his insistence that he is. Does this mean I have licence to treat him, or others similar to him, in a mean and cruel fashion? Of course, not, but I do have to relate to him as an outsider who is called to repentance, not an insider already on the path of repentance and faith. If this offends the modern spirit–alas. But faithfulness to Jesus as Lord overrides any such concerns for his followers here.

However, with THAT kept in mind, what truly troubles me is the “third” category so many modern Western Christians have invented (for it is pure fiction): the Christian who, we grudingly admit, is probably “in”, but who is so theologically distant from us on secondary issues that we resolve to treat them as “out”. The way Protestants and Catholics have often related to one another here is a classic example; Calvinists and Arminians often come close to this level as well. To give a more recent and local example–namely, our intramural, in-house discussions about universalism–I am committed to two things: first, that this issue is really, really important and not to be swept under the rug of superficial ecumenical agendas, AND that it is not a dividing line between being in Christ or out of Christ. Thus, I am committed to interacting with Joseph (and, I hope, he with me!) on this issue as brothers in the Lord who desire to know Him and love Him as He really relates to world and church. However, if one were to deny that God raised Jesus physically from the dead or that Jesus died (in the body) for the sins of the world, then dialogue would still continue respectfully and intentionally and in love, but without the guise of pretending that it was an intramural conversation within the household of God.

That being said, I don’t even think that drawing the line in the right place is the most important thing. What is most important is a spirit of *charity*, pervading everything we do and say. I think the old maxim is instructive: “In necessary things unity, in doubtful things liberty, in all things charity.” I can have serious reservations about a congregation’s theology – to the point of questioning the standing of members of that congregation before God – without being disdainful or prideful.

Right now, we don’t agree on the theology; we never will if we don’t agree on the heart behind the theology.

Speaking closer to home, I definitely think the different Harvard fellowships should interact with each other a lot, *lot* more than they do (though, as someone who is not a member of any of the larger fellowships, I have little direct perspective on how much the different fellowships interact). There could be a lot of great dialogue among the fellowships with only a little bit of effort, and I think that would go a long, long way.

Of course, in my opinion, nothing has done more to catalyze such inter-fellowship discussion than The Ichthus!