This all sounds very nice, but it ignores the reality of the current extent of the differences actually present in the academy, the church, and within western culture. I have been within the academy, and it is simply not possible to participate without a commitment to philosophical naturalism. That has been the dominant metaphysical/philosophical position for the last 200 years and I have seen even good, faithful people, and I myself, falling prey to that overarching pressure. It is also nearly impossible to stay within a progressive environment when one is orthodox. You are simply not allowed to question that ideology. There may be a very few people who can with grace stand up to those influences, but what I have seen for the most part is those who are faithful and orthodox, when in those environments, increasingly compromise. I have taught part-time at Fuller theological seminary, and I have watched with great grief as it has abandoned its former faithfulness. It was trying to be that mediating,non-sectarian influence that you talk about, but has been unable to keep from giving way to an increasingly progressive stance. I do agree with you to some extent. For example, I am in the ACNA, and I have been greatly heartened by a number of people across denominations who are seeking to retrieve Nicene orthodoxy. I have been reading with great appreciation Lutheran, reform, Baptist, Catholic, and Eastern orthodox writers. So I get what you say about sectarianism. Those writers that I have been listening to and reading all have in common a love for the Lord and a desire to learn with the ancient church. When one is worshiping the same Lord, fellowship is possible. It is difficult, if not impossible, when everyone is making up their own God. My former church was like that. You could believe anything you wanted, but you could never say anything was true.
This all sounds very nice, but it ignores the reality of the current extent of the differences actually present in the academy, the church, and within western culture. I have been within the academy, and it is simply not possible to participate without a commitment to philosophical naturalism. That has been the dominant metaphysical/philosophical position for the last 200 years and I have seen even good, faithful people, and I myself, falling prey to that overarching pressure. It is also nearly impossible to stay within a progressive environment when one is orthodox. You are simply not allowed to question that ideology. There may be a very few people who can with grace stand up to those influences, but what I have seen for the most part is those who are faithful and orthodox, when in those environments, increasingly compromise. I have taught part-time at Fuller theological seminary, and I have watched with great grief as it has abandoned its former faithfulness. It was trying to be that mediating,non-sectarian influence that you talk about, but has been unable to keep from giving way to an increasingly progressive stance.
I do agree with you to some extent. For example, I am in the ACNA, and I have been greatly heartened by a number of people across denominations who are seeking to retrieve Nicene orthodoxy. I have been reading with great appreciation Lutheran, reform, Baptist, Catholic, and Eastern orthodox writers. So I get what you say about sectarianism. Those writers that I have been listening to and reading all have in common a love for the Lord and a desire to learn with the ancient church. When one is worshiping the same Lord, fellowship is possible. It is difficult, if not impossible, when everyone is making up their own God. My former church was like that. You could believe anything you wanted, but you could never say anything was true.