What's In A Name?

A few days ago a Facebook friend posted the following :

While he and I disagree on almost every element of political ideology, we still are able to maintain a healthy respect and love for one another—I suspect because neither of us takes ourself with ultimate seriousness. 

We’re also cousins, and we realize that our relationship is more important than any issue that may arise between us.

I understand his post. I don’t agree with it, and think it presents half-truths and inaccuracies; but I understand the feelings behind it because I have very similar feelings myself; therefore, I have undertaken to respond in kind:

      WHAT DID YOU CALL ME?

I’m UNAMERICAN for not being an “Obama Basher”.

I’m a TRAITOR because I favor accountability for gun ownership.

I’m a LEFTIST for supporting the whole Constitution, and not just that part that undergirds my political ideology.

I’m a NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT (plus, I’m unfriended by 14 Facebook “friends”, and blocked by 6 others) because I speak my mind.

I’m a TROUBLEMAKER for asking unanswered questions.

I’m NAÏVE AND GULLIBLE because I dare accept the documentation of the President.

I’m a COMMUNIST for exposing the corruption in the American corporate world.

I’m A CONSPIRATOR for presenting documented facts (which nobody will accept unless he or she already agrees with them).

I’m ANTI-AMERICAN for not toeing the party line. [Sorry. I’m also a Grammar Nazi, and “towing” means to pull.]

I’m UNAMERICAN because I support the troops but not necessarily the political corruption that puts them in harm’s way.

I’m a SOCIALIST because…

1.      …while I believe I’m entitled to what I earn (which, incidentally, includes Social Security, Medicare and Veterans’ Benefits), I don’t’ believe I have a right to intrude on others’ rights or wellbeing in the process of earning it.

2.     …I believe there are people who legitimately need the safety net of Food Stamps, unemployment and other public assistance programs.

3.     …I believe it’s unjust to remove a public assistance program because some people abuse it. Humans can always find a loophole, and nothing is so pure that it does not have its pornographers.

4.     …I believe in protecting the innocent at all costs, even if in the process some of the guilty “get away with something,” and I don’t believe in punishing all the guilty at all costs IF IN THE PROCESS some of the innocent are harmed.

5.     …I believe the abuse of public assistance programs should be eliminated as much as possible; but without depriving those with legitimate needs from their benefits.

6.     …I believe, related to public assistance programs, that fraud and abuse are relatively small, and that fraud is much heavier at the administrative level than at the receiving level.

7.    … I support labor (but not necessarily unions).

8.    …because I believe human need always trumps political or economic ideology.

Now, the original post ends with an antagonistic, “So what?” I’d like to pursue that “so what?”

1.     So, there are two sides to every issue, and every person deserves to have his or her side heard, understood and respected.  

2.    So, name-calling is a useless exercise that accomplishes nothing good, and accomplishes much harm.

3.    So, until we decide as a society that our ideological log-jam is the greatest immediate threat to our unity and security, we will continue to be a house divided.

4.    So, as long as a substantial population of Americans believes, “I’m totally right about everything and anyone who disagrees with me is totally wrong and is an idiot (or whatever name comes to mind),” we will continue to be a house divided.

And you know what is said by so many, including the Lord of Christianity, about a house divided: “It will not stand.” At this point in history I am much more afraid of our own obstinacy than I am afraid of any outside threat.

There are proven ways of negotiating and collaborating and finding common ground upon which to build. But all of them require that we let go of our absolutism and that we give valid effort to find something good in those with whom we disagree. 

The first step to unity is a question: “What if I’m wrong?”

That’s how I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

Seven Biblical Principles of Unity #7

The Blessedness of Unity

Psalm 133:1 How good and pleasant it is when brothers and sisters live together in unity!

Unfortunately, churches all around the world experience brokenness. Christians are divided over things as petty as the style and time of worship services. We have said that unity is crucial, because it is the Secret of God’s Will. Nothing is more important to God than the unity of Christ’s Body. Unity also is crucial to any organization for the achieving its purpose. So how is it possible to live in unity when disagreements arise?

Most of my readers know that I am an ordained minister in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). Our founders, Thomas and Alexander Campbell, were fond of quoting St. Augustine: “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things love.”

So, what is essential, and what is non-essential? That’s the question about which Christians have been unable to agree since the day the Church was born.

Some say evangelism is the most essential element in the Christian community. Others suggest that following Jesus in meeting human needs must take priority. Some insist that one’s ultimate relationship with God comes only by way of a specifically worded affirmation of faith, while others contend that we are known by our fruits.

Some put forward issues such as abortion and gay rights as “deal breakers” and still others counter with their focus on grace and forgiveness and being non-judgmental. And all of the above use and abuse scripture to rationalize their positions.

In a perfect world, we would sit down together and prayerfully and lovingly collaborate to discern God’s will in a given situation. Sometimes we just have to reach a consensus and walk by faith—test out the consensus to see if it edifies or tears down.

But, it isn’t a perfect world; nor are we perfect creatures. As long as there is freedom of thought, there will be differences of opinion; and as long as we humans are incomplete (a fundamental definition of sin), we will not always be able to discern the difference between “opinion” and the “truth.” We can’t even agree on the understandings of specific verses of scripture.

The fundamental beliefs of the faith, those tenets generally shared by virtually every Christian, are not negotiable. But if the dispute has to do with a nonessential issue—even certain interpretations of doctrine, (i.e., free will versus predestination)—some prayerful discussion in love is acceptable, but believers should not let it cause division. In such cases, a consensus is likely to leave some people disappointed with the results. Yet both sides should be willing to accept differences without strife. Sometimes the old adage is valid: we just have to agree to disagree—and continue in love.

In a democratic organization in which votes are taken, there usually will be winners and losers. Sadly, win/lose resolutions virtually always divide, rather than unite. But when Christians are united on the basis of our common need of God’s grace; that is, when we can understand that none of us is capable of understanding God’s absolute truth absolutely, then there is the possibility of unity, even when “the other side wins” on a particular issue.

We all love democracy until “our side” loses. But if we are to remain a democratic body, and if we are to choose unity over division, then we all are required to be prepared occasionally to accept defeat graciously, and move on. A broken, divided church is Christ’s worst enemy, and the devil’s greatest friend. Two generations of North Americans are leaving the church (or never getting involved), and the number one reason given is the divisiveness and judgmentalism they see in the church.

It also is good strategy in many cases, once an issue is resolved, to agree to revisit it from time-to-time, preferably on a planned schedule (e.g., once a year). Issues can be re-evaluated, and sometimes new information can influence the outcome. Although in many cases what really divides us is personal pride and unresolved control needs, rather than the truth, it is possible under some circumstances that humans actually can change a position when convincing new data is provided.

But in some cases there simply will be nothing we can do in our human strength to mend our differences. If we selfishly (and often irrationally) cling to the belief that we cannot be wrong and that our preferences are better than others’ opinions, division will be unavoidable.

I've done conflict resolution consultations between departments of corporations, in school settings and even in city government; but, whether the conflict is between marriage partners, parent and child or in some larger corporate setting, I always begin with two questions: (1) Do you want to resolve the issue between you, or do you just want to win the fight? (2) Which is more important, this issue or the effective continuation of the relationship? I truly believe that any conflict can be resolved to the benefit of all parties. Obstinate pride is the only impenetrable barrier to unity. 

At the infamous “bottom line,” after prayerfully giving our best effort toward agreement, sometimes we just have to settle instead for understanding, and graciously accept the will of the majority, even when we disagree. While no single issue should ever take precedence over the unity of the Body of Christ, when the disagreements begin to outnumber the agreements, it may be time to lovingly part company. But in the Body of Christ, it is never--EVER--acceptable to fight.

I'm not suggesting that we surrender our convictions; indeed, I already have suggested that resolved issues should be reexamined from time-to-time. Such reevaluation should always include new data and new perspectives, and should never be simply the resumption of beating the proverbial dead horse.

Limited as we are by the clay of which we are made, I may be wrong! In deference to that possibility, once we have presented our case and born witness to our deepest convictions, if we then acknowledge our own fallibility, and if we voluntarily and humbly subordinate our own need to "win the fight" for the greater good of a unified church, we please God. 

And pleasing God gives greater joy than getting our way.

That’s the way I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

Seven Biblical Principles of Unity #6

The Purpose of Unity: God Can Finish What God Has Begun

Philippians 1:6 (NRSV) I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

If you are active in a church or synagogue or other faith community, think  of times, situations and events in which you see God at work in that group. Is that work completed, or is it still in progress? The verse from Philippians promises that God completes what God begins! But God’s work is not yet finished! God isn’t through with us yet!

If your faith community has discerned a vision or mission or other guiding expression of God’s call, where and how do you see that being lived out in the life of the community? Again, God completes what God begins! But God’s work is not yet finished! God isn’t through with us yet!

[And when I look in a mirror I rejoice that God isn’t finished with me yet!]

There once was a young minister whose first parish was a small church in a farming community in the Midwest. There was some resistance in that community to a woman minister, and she found a cool reception on her first Sunday.

“They’ll warm up to me as they get to know me,” she assured herself, and she set out Monday morning to begin calling and getting acquainted. She approached the first farm house, and was greeted with restrained courtesy.

In her most enthusiastic, bubbly voice, she began, “God has so richly blessed you on this farm. Every direction I look I see healthy cattle and green fields. It’s such a beautiful place God has given you.”

The farmer cleared his throat and said, “Well, preacher, you shoulda’ seen this place when God had it by himself.”

It’s true: God completes what God begins; and God’s work sets us up for accomplishment. God gives us all we need; but God doesn’t do the work for us.

In Paul’s joyful letter to the church in Philippi he writes of two days: “^1:5(I am) thankful for your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now.  ⁶And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. There’s a “first day” and a “day of completion,” which he calls “the day of Jesus Christ.”

The uncertainties and upheavals surrounding our own lives us remind us that the day of completion has not yet come. We live in a “promise-not-yet-fulfilled” world, to which there are two usual responses:

The first is a kind of utopian expectation that things will get better and better until they reach an omega-point (“the day of Jesus Christ”) and it is the task of Christians to work for that day. We are commissioned to build the kingdom of God, and its growth is a foregone conclusion.

There are two problems with that understanding: (1) in the verses quoted above God is the subject of the sentence, not us; it is God’s work, not ours, that will bring about the day of completion. (2) Life contradicts it—things are not getting better and better.

The second response in the “promise-not-yet-fulfilled” world is fatalism: why bother? No matter how hard we work, the outcome is not up to us.

The truth is that some things are important and deserve our faithful efforts; other things are to be left to God, and part of our work is to discern the difference. And while we wait for that day of completion, our calling is to live in unity in order to live out our servant vocation.

There’s a story that’s been around for awhile. It’s about another minister going to a new parish. On the first Sunday he disguising himself as a homeless man and showed up at the front doorstep of the church holding a cardboard sign asking for money. The people either ignored him as they entered the church, or told him to go away.

There was concerned when their new pastor hadn’t shown up, and the time for worship drew near. Imagine their dismay when the homeless man walked down the center aisle, peeled off his shabby wig and beard, donned his pulpit robe and introduced himself. Then he announced his text, “Inasmuch as you did it not to the least of these…”

That church had no unified sense of calling regarding the work to which the minister’s text referred; therefore the work was not completed. 

Compare that story with the stories of countless churches and faith groups that engage in times of prayerful discernment and, having discerned God’s calling move together toward the fulfillment of their calling.

Or contrast the story with the inestimable number of faith groups involved in some hands-on form of mission, whether its purpose be evangelism, feeding the hungry, visiting prisons, organizing a mission trip to Honduras, hosting a blood drive, participating in “Habitat for Humanity,” or any of innumerable expressions of God’s work. In virtually every case the work produces a sense of unity among those who participate, and those involved will likely participate in more mission-oriented activity in the future.

God completes what God begins; but God is not finished with us yet.

It works both ways, and it matters little whether the church discerns a common sense of calling and on that basis unifies their life and work, or whether it is through doing the work of the Gospel that the church becomes unified and discerns its calling. Whether the heart follows the hand or the hand follows the heart, the Lord’s work moves toward accomplishment, and “he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.”

That’s how I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

Seven Biblical Principles of Unity #5

Principle 5: The Strategy of Unity: A Ministry Partnership

My previous blog addressed the fourth biblical principle of unity, The Model of Unity: The Mind of Christ, based on Philippians 2:4, “…in humility regard others as better than yourselves…” In retrospect it occurred to me that, while there are loving, edifying ways to debate and resolve conflict, in the humility that typifies the Mind of Christ, a first consideration always will be, “What if I’m wrong?”

I understand that some people just can’t comprehend that concept. In an overwhelming majority of times when I confront someone with the question, “What if you’re wrong?” the response is, “But I’m not.” Without the humility to consider—honestly—the possibility that he or she may be wrong, no person can participate effectively in the satisfactory resolution of any conflict.

But, on to the fifth principle:

I Corinthians 1:8-9 (NLT) (God) will keep you strong to the end, …for he is faithful to do what he says, and he has invited you into partnership with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

I’m flirting with the edge of meaning when I choose the New Living Translation, which says, along with four other English translations, “…he has invited you into partnership with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.” In the original language the word is koinonia, which usually is translated, “fellowship.” Forty-two of the English versions available to me say, “…he has invited you into fellowship with his Son…”

The word literally means, “common”—as in common property. It is the basis of English words, like “community” and “communion.” The Amplified New Testament uses two words: “companionship and participation;” while the Easy to Read Version says, “(God) has chosen you to share life with His Son…”

I think the word, “partnership”, is totally appropriate.

Another word captures my attention: “…he has invited you into partnership.” It is the same word used in…

* Galatians 5:13: “…you were called into liberty…”

* Ephesians 4:1: “I … urge you to live a life worthy of your calling.”

* Colossians 3:15: “And may the peace of Christ reign in your hearts, be-cause it is for this that you were called together as parts of one body.”

The noun form means “those who are called,” and is most often translated, “church.” It is within Scriptural integrity to say we are called into partnership with Christ, and that constitutes a valid definition of “church.”

Again, like humility in the previous blog, this is a “hard sell” in a consumer cul-ture whose mantra is “the customer is always right.” The world defines “membership” as “paying your dues and getting your benefits.” The New Testament defines membership in the Body as “being called into partnership with Christ.”

From the greatest figures in the history of Israel and the church, to the most anonymous person on the back pew of some tiny congregation in the remotest part of Appalachia, all of God’s servants are called to personal roles and functions in the Body of Christ.

The calling of God is unique for each person. Some are dramatic: Peter Mar-shall, Saul of Tarsus, Convicted Watergate felon, Chuck Coalson. We can get so distracted by wide-screen, Technicolor celebrity calls that we completely miss the “still small voice” God may use to call us.

Jeremiah, Isaiah and St. Paul (among others) say God called them “from their mothers’ wombs.” In a sense God’s call is embedded in our DNA—not so much “event” as part of our identity as persons created in the image of God. It’s a kind of “Calling by Self-Discovery”; and some of us just kind of “grow into it” as we pay attention to the things we love to do and the things that bring us a sense of fulfillment and the things that other people affirm in us.

Some of us are less self-aware, so it takes something a bit more theatrical to get our attention. For some of us it takes a 2 x 4 upside the head; and some of us actually go through life blissfully oblivious to our calling. But all of us are called—every life has divine meaning and purpose, and those who discover it rarely demonstrate symptoms of depression or aimlessness or emptiness.

So, the callings of God’s servants vary greatly, but the calling is never to a merely private faith or piety. Isaiah’s call was not simply to restore Israel, but to extend God’s salvation to the “end of the earth.” In the opening lines of the Corinthian letter, when Paul says “you are called,” the “you” is plural—it’s “y’all are called!” It is not enough for us believers to cherish only a private faith; our fellowship with one another and our witness to the world, if faithful, will reflect the partnership with Christ into which God has called us.

Partnership. Here’s the IRS definition: “the relationship existing between two or more persons who join to carry on a trade or business. Each person contributes money, property, labor or skill, and expects to share in the profits and losses of the business.” And Wikipedia defines it as “an arrangement in which parties agree to cooperate to advance their mutual interests.”

Let’s consider one more New Testament image of partnership: the church as the bride of Christ. The traditional marriage vow is a promise to love and to cherish… “in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, for better or for worse.” Remaining faithful only as long as we agree with each other does not fit any definition of partnership—or unity. 

The good news is that our partnership is not dependent upon any of us being right, nor upon any of us being in agreement on any specific issue. It is God alone who "will keep us strong to the end, for he is faithful to do what he says, and he has called us into partnership with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.”

And that’s how I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

Seven Biblical Principles of Unity #4

The Model of Unity: The Mind of Christ

Philippians 2:8-11 (RSV) Do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves. ⁴Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. ⁵Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, ⁶who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, ⁷but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. ⁸And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. 

 “Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus…” Some versions say, “…have the attitude of Christ.”

Here is an early litmus test for being Christian: it’s not doctrine or creed or sacrament or ritual or moral living. It’s aligning one’s mind with the mind of Christ.

So, how does one “have the mind of Christ?” Is it a matter of having a Positive Mental Attitude? Can’t hurt. A poster making the rounds on Facebook says: “Whatever you Feed Will Grow: Faith or Fear; Worry or Confidence; doubt or belief. It’s your choice”

Proverbs (23:7) says, “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.” The late Zig Ziglar said, “Your attitude, not your aptitude, will determine your altitude.” [And, by the way, my favorite Zig Ziglar quote is, “There’s no traffic on the extra mile.”]

So, is having the mind of Christ a matter of filling our heads with nice thoughts? In winding down this beautiful, joyful letter to the Philippians Paul writes (4:8),  

“…whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”

Will that give us the mind of Christ? In I Corinthians (2:7-16), Paul again mentions the mind of Christ:

No one can know a person’s thoughts except that person’s own spirit, and no one can know God’s thoughts except God’s own Spirit. ¹²And we have received God’s Spirit, so we can know the wonderful things God has freely given us.

Then he quotes Isaiah 40:13:

“Who can know the Lord’s thoughts?
    Who knows enough to teach him?”

And he concludes: “But we understand these things, for we have the mind of Christ.”

So, we don’t develop or achieve or work for the mind of Christ. Like virtually everything else in our relationship with God, it is a part of God’s grace: we simply receive it.

But in context, it’s relatively clear that “the mind of Christ” is more than pretty thoughts. The church at Philippi is conflicted, and the aim of this passage is to persuade the Philippians to lead lives in which disunity, discord and personal ambition are dead. Thus, “the mind of Christ” is set before them with five distinct qualities:

1.       He did not exploit his divinity. He was in the form of God. There two Greeks words we translate form. One indicates a shape—an appearance, like when we say a cloud looks like a Teddy Bear—it has that form. The word used here signifies essence—basic nature, like when we see a Teddy Bear: “it doesn’t just “look like” one; it IS a Teddy Bear!” That’s how Christ Jesus was in the form of God. But, he didn’t exploit that status. Instead, he…

2.      …emptied (literally, “poured out”) himself; and he…

3.      …took the form (same word) of a slave. This is not like the Prince and the Pauper; the Prince could take back his status any time; but Jesus “emptied himself”. He didn’t put on a disguise (as The Living Bible puts it). In the same way he was in the form of God, he took on the form of a slave; and he...

4.      …humbled himself. Humility thus becomes the key quality in what Jesus did; and he did it voluntarily. He “emptied hmself.” And he…

5.      …became obedient. There are two possible understandings of this obedience.

a)     Many commentaries understand that he was obedient to God; and, all the Gospels affirm that. His obedience to God was the primary quality that defines Jesus as the Christ—the chosen one.

b)     But from another valid perspective, being found in human form he was obedient to that form. And what one experience is universally human? Death. Once found in human form he maintained that form all the way to the end of the line. He didn’t bail out when the going got tough. He was obedient to his chosen form and identity as a human.

And why is that important? Paul called his readers to “have the mind of Christ.” But, how is that humanly possible if Christ remains only divine?

I guess every kid loves a circus. I always admired those daring young men on the flying trapeze. Wow! But, I couldn’t identify. What were they thinking?

Then there’s the clown: down on the sawdust tripping over his own feet, stumbling around… Yeah. I can identify. I know what that’s like.

I can’t have the mind of the circus aerialist; but, I can have the mind of the clown. I can’t have the mind of a divinity; but, when another human faces death in a special way, that means it is humanly possible to do so; and I have hope. I can identify with and trust that way of thinking. It's almost the definition of faith.

This whole passage is summarized in verse 4 above: “…in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others.”

Humility: Greek philosophers discounted humility because it implied weakness, inadequacy and worthlessness. But Jesus redefined humility by accepting that by ourselves we are incomplete (1 Corinthians 4:7). It is God alone, through Christ, who completes us in order that we may live as God created us to live.

And so, to the divided church in Philippi, here is Paul’s model for unity: “Have the mind of Christ: in humility, put others ahead of yourself.”

Think of persons you have deeply admired. I suspect your admiration emerged form their humility; the way they were always putting others (including you) first. To live in Unity, model your life after theirs, but even more importantly, model your life after Christ: “Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus…”

And that’s the way I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

Seven Biblical Principles of Unity--#1

The Priority of Unity: It Is the Mystery of God’s Will

Ephesians 1:9-10 (RSV) (God) has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

When your kids were growing up, my guess is that the most frequent question they asked was, “Why?” Well, I never outgrew that. I’m the kid that took his parents’ alarm clock apart to see how it worked. (But I was going to put it back together…)

I was a curious kid. I remember a Sunday School teacher responding in exasperation to a barrage of my questions, “Jimmy, there are just some things we’re not supposed to know.” And when I responded, “Then why did God give us a brain?” she slapped me—right across the chops. She told my father I’d been disrespectful and, back home he got right to the seat of the problem! Well, the questions didn’t go away, but I stopped asking them to her.

I still don’t believe her comment: “There are some things we’re just not supposed to know.” Really? Then why DID God give us a brain?

The text above lets us in on ‘the mystery (a better translation is “secret”) of God’s will!” Privileged with that information, what else do we need to know? The only information withheld—which also was withheld from Jesus, himself—is the day and hour of his return.

So, what is this secret? The RSV says it is “to unite”; the KJV says, “…to gather together in one…” And the text modifies the idea with the words, “…all things in heaven and on earth under Christ”. All the vital forces of the universe are brought into focus in Christ. And when “all things in heaven and on earth” are brought into their true relationship with Christ, they also are brought into their true relationship with each other—into an all-embracing, universal harmony. One way to know if we are in true relationship with Christ is to examine our relationship with each other!

Nothing is more important to God than the unity of all God’s creation. It is the mystery—the secret—of God’s will. Consider:

·         1 Corinthians 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.

·         Ephesians 4:11-13 It was (Christ) who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

·         Colossians 3:13-14 Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.  And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

·         Psalm 133:1 How good and pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity!

·         Romans 12:16 Live in harmony with one another.

·         Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

And in the garden Jesus prayed this for his disciples:

·         John 17:20 ^“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, ²¹ that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.” 

I could go on and on with verse after verse of Scripture. Nothing is more important to God. Unity is the mystery—the secret—of God’s will.

But a clarification is necessary. Unity is not uniformity—it’s not “same-ness.” It was never intended to be. We’re not called to be alike. Each of us unique with our own unique set of spiritual gifts.

Nor is unity found in agreement of opinion, philosophy or ideology. It’s not demonstrably possible to experience agreement at those levels. Democrats and Republicans will never agree totally—on anything. Nor will Baptists and Presbyterians and Episcopalians and Disciples and Methodists and Catholics and entrepreneurial independents…

God created free choice! I can’t believe God expected or even desired that humans agree on everything (although God intended humans to disagree with integrity, respect and love, and in the process to discover new truth in each other’s’ perspectives).

God created us differently so we could mutually enrich each other. A choir singing in unison produces beautiful sounds; but a choir doesn’t reach its greatest potential until it produces wonderful, rich harmony—beautiful precisely because the sopranos, altos, tenors and basses all are singing different notes at the same time!

In Paul’s body metaphors of Ephesians and Romans it becomes clear that the church lives up to its full potential precisely because each of us is different!

So, having establishing the theme of the epistle, the writer of Ephesians moves through the metaphor of the Body to this literary masterpiece, summarizing the unity that is the mystery—the secret—of God’s will: “…speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.” Ephesians 4:15-16 (NIV)

And so, the cat’s out of the bag! It’s no longer a secret!

And that’s how I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

Seven Biblical Principles of Unity--Introduction

[Today I begin a series of eight blogs on “unity”. At its core is the closing series of sermons I delivered at First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Introduction and Epilogue have been added for the blogs.

Disciples were founded out of a desire to see Christ’s Church united. “Unity is our polar star”, has long been our still elusive aim; although, disunity remains too much our reality.

I offer these “Seven Biblical Principles of Unity” in the hope that individuals, families, groups and congregations may find in them a path to unity. I offer them in absolute confidence that to the extent that these seven principles are applied faithfully by any congregation or group, the result will be an experience of the unity we humans long to have.]

“Seven Biblical Principles of Unity”: Introduction

If I had to choose one word to describe today’s North American culture, it would be a real challenge: but high on the list of possibilities would be the word, “disunity.”

From the halls of congress, to Wall Street and Madison Avenue, to our systems of economy, education, jurisprudence and health care, to the board rooms of the corporate world—and yes, even in the church—disunity too often is a primary trait.

We humans long for unity; but too often by unity we mean uniformity—conformity to specific ideologies and traditions and moral standards. And when we confuse unity with uniformity we virtually always set ourselves up for failure.

Nor is unity the same as agreement, although those who are in agreement also will experience, within the limits of that agreement a level of unity.

Humanity is broken. The Bible calls it “sin”—a condition in which people generally have placed their own needs, desires, preferences, ideologies, etc. as the ultimate reality, and then essentially have made God in their own image (so to speak) and placed God in position to provide and sustain those personal needs, desires, preferences, etc. That particular expression of brokenness/sin is called idolatry, and it can be manifest at an individual level, but it also has shared manifestations in families, groups and nations. And, yes, it has infected the church, as well.

Given that human brokenness, in which individuals and groups place their own ideologies as ultimate reality, agreement is virtually impossible. But, where agreement is not possible, understanding still remains a valid pathway to unity. 

When we confuse unity with agreement, we broken humans don't want to understand or to be understood. Too often we don't want to resolve differences. We want to win the fight. In our brokenness, about the best we can hope for is overlapping needs and preferences, with emphasis on the “preferences.” Then people divide up into groups with similar preferences and exert massive quantities of energy attempting to convert other individuals and groups to affirm and support their own preferences.

We set ourselves up for failure because when we broken humans don’t find the level of conformity or agreement we desire, we too frequently resort to familiar patterns of manipulation and confrontation (some to the point of violence) in order to enforce our own perspectives—to inflict them on everyone who disagrees.

Those familiar patterns of coercion are rooted in what theologian Walter Wink calls “the myth of redemptive violence.” To sustain that myth we first must locate all evil outside ourselves and assume that our ideology is “right”. By extension, then, anything else is “wrong”. It’s only a short journey from identifying other ideologies as “wrong” to calling them “evil”. By ignoring or even denying our own evil, we can easily scapegoat others: the commies, the gays, the straights, the blacks, the whites, the liberals, the conservatives, the President (whoever happens to be in office at the time), etc.

The next level in “the myth of redemptive violence” is the conviction that, since other ideologies are wrong, and thus evil, they must be eliminated at all costs, and since our perspective is right and good, it must prevail, no matter what. The result is an “ends-justify-the-means” ethic. And when the good guys finally win (no matter by what means—whatever it takes, regardless of ethical or moral considerations) we humans are then able to re-establish a sense of goodness (however the good guys—that’s us—define goodness) without coming to any insight about our own inner evil.

That’s not unity. Nor is it peace. It’s domination and intimidation and forced conformity.

Of course it’s an extreme scenario!

Or is it?

It’s extreme only by degree, and to some degree since the emergence of the conquest empires of the late fourth millennium BCE, it has been a dominant pattern of human interaction—and especially a dominant pattern of resolving conflict and resolving the eternal question of who will control a given relationship, be it one-on-one or global in scope.

Control: possibly the sine qua non of all human disunity. It at least is the opposite of unity. Yet, lacking an effective model for unity, we humans too easily settle for conformity and then spend our energies enforcing that conformity.

While I have not yet found a comprehensive biblical model for unity, I have found seven biblical principles which can be organized in such a way that their cumulative effect is at least a foundation for such a biblical model.

And that's how I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim