The Guardian report that Leftwing activists in Britain are less likely to work with their political opponents than other groups and are more likely to think those who hold different views have been misled. As a finding, it is perhaps one of the least shocking or surprising. Anybody who has spent any time in the world of leftwing activism will immediately recognise the tendency.

One of the problems that has historically dogged the left is the gap between the purists and the pragmatists. There has always been a doctrinaire form of socialism that has tended to eschew working with anybody that might taint the purity of the movement, despite how political expedient it might be to do so. By contrast, the pragmatists tend to be more concerned with the implementation of political aims and live in the world of real politik and would gladly work across political divides if it would help advance their political aims.

Both sides of that internal divide view the other with a sense of suspicion. The purists tend to view the pragmatists as sellouts whilst the pragmatists consider the purists to be unbending and unrealistic. Whilst such things are unquestionably observable on the left, there are evidently other pockets of the same phenomenon. For example, the fragmentation of Unionist and Nationalists communities in Northern Ireland following the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement is an interesting case in point. The DUP and Sinn Fein presenting the deal in terms of sellout of the purist ideals of their respective communities whilst the UUP and SDLP considering it a meaningful and pragmatic step forward on the road to peace and the advancement of wider political aims. Something similar could be observed around UK debates on Brexit on both sides of the divide.

I think these things are instructive for the church. Perhaps particularly for the evangelical movement. There is a similar potential for fragmentation within our movement between the purists and the pragmatists. Both present twin dangers and both, to some degree, offer valid points for their respective positions.

On the one hand, the purists would emphasise faithfulness to Jesus and (whilst perhaps framing matters differently) may consider the pragmatists as engaging in a programme of selling out biblical ideals and/or norms. On the other hand, the pragmatists would emphasise catholicity and strength in interdependence. They would tend to view the purists as unnecessarily narrow, divisive and overly comfortable with separatism and/or schism.

The difficulty is that both present with reasonable concerns. Few evangelicals would argue that our faithfulness to Jesus and biblical ideals is immaterial. At the same time, not many would want to argue that a belligerent separatist tendency and latent Elijah-complex is particularly godly either. All recognise that catholicity ought to be sought but not at the expense of the our faithfulness to Christ. Association must be sought within the gospel, there are times when separation is called for, but there are similarly times we might set aside our ideals to work together for the good of the kingdom with those who (for want of a better term) we might reckon to be slightly less pure.

Something of the need for what has been termed ‘theological triage’ is required when thinking these things through. A recognition that schism is not the only (or even necessarily) sin whilst likewise recognising that pragmatism is not always a dirty word is helpful. Most will recognise the poles and wish to somehow hold them together. Issues tend to arise when we all draw our lines in slightly different places.