And the World Will Be as One (John Lennon)

 Remember that Coca Cola commercial from a few years ago: “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing in Perfect Harmony”? Remember the Beatles’ song, “Imagine all the people Livin' life in peace…”?

Do you find it a bit strange that the voices most frequently heard proclaiming that message of peace and unity come from the secular world: a TV commercial; a rock song?

Meanwhile, back at the church… Rather than uniting around our faith in Jesus, the entire history of the church is a referendum on division. There are more than 200 Christian denominations in the United States, not to mention all the independent and entrepreneurial Christian bodies—each pointing out the errors in all the others. And more and more of the spiritually hungry public is disillusioned and wants no part of it.

About 200 years ago, a father and son, Thomas and Alexander Campbell, both ordained ministers, also had had enough. It was never their intention to begin yet another Christian denomination. They dreamed of a society in which all Christians could unite around a common, simple faith in Jesus. Their dream never materialized; indeed, their movement now comprises three separate denominations manifesting the same dissensions and hostility as the whole of Christendom. We continue to crucify Christ.

And yet, the dream lives on. Sunday is World Communion Sunday. The tradition was begun in 1933 by Hugh Thomson Kerr who ministered in the Shadyside Presbyterian Church in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. Its purpose was to reconcile dissenting congregations in that area.

Christian unity has been avoided, especially by the more conservative denominations, because it is perceived that unity means all churches will be coerced into affirming a single doctrine. But that’s not unity. That’s uniformity, and it doesn’t work any better than division, because a demand for uniformity disallows diversity. And religious faith—and especially Christianity—thrives on diversity.

When we understand that our differences enrich our relationships and our ministry—and our faith; and when we blend our diverse gifts[1] into a harmony of ministries, that’s when those spiritual fruits blossom: “Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.”[2] And when that’s what we produce—when the world sees those things emerging out of the harmony of our ministries—then the mystery of God’s will[3] is revealed, and God is glorified.

As we come to the Lord’s Table on this World Communion Sunday, may we come in the awareness that Christians express faith in diverse ways. Some disagree. Some are polar opposites of others. We don’t even agree on what happens at the Lord’s Table. But we are united there by our common need for God’s grace. We gather in the awareness that Christians all over this planet will gather at a table and confess, “Jesus is Lord.”

That’s the way I see it through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

 

---

[1] A broad variety of spiritual gifts is mentioned in several New Testament passages, including Romans 12:6-8; I Corinthians 12:8-10; ICorinthians 12:28-30; Ephesians 4:11; I Peter 4:11, et. al. In I Corinthians 12:4-7 Paul refers specifically to the variety of gifts, services, activities, and other manifestations of the Spirit that are given by the “same Spirit”, the “same Lord,” and the “same God” (note the early trinitarian formula.)

[2] Galatians 5:22-23

[3] Ephesians 1:9-10

Come, Holy Spirit!

This may not be the best time for me to write. My heart is heavy—grieving. I’m not angry; although, anger surrounds us and increasingly becomes the norm among some parts of our American population. I’m sure I’ll be angry at some point. Anger is a normal part of grief.

I find myself on the verge—and sometimes into the abyss—of tears more and more frequently. I recall that dreadful news clip of the fiery crash of the Hindenburg, and the sobbing voice of the reporter, “Oh! The humanity! The humanity!”

How calloused have we become when we so rarely are moved to tears at the sight of human suffering? What hideous kind of demon possesses one human to kneel on the neck of another human—a human who is face-down on the ground, handcuffed, with two other humans kneeling on his back—a human who is crying, “I can’t breathe! Please!”? And what kind of inhuman creature looks on, apparently more concerned about the camera that is recording it all than about the human who is gasping for his dying breath?

“Kneeling on a man’s neck is an extreme and dangerous step, well out of bounds for ordinary police procedures. The kneeling officer appears to have a long track record of complaints.”[1] I’ve seen three videos, each from a different perspective. In none of them did it appear that Floyd was resisting or uncooperative.

I know: there is a report that George Floyd had preconditions “including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease”; and the preliminary autopsy showed, “no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation.” The report said death likely was caused by the "combined effect of Floyd being restrained by the police, his underlying health conditions, and any potential intoxicants in his system.”[2]

Does such an analysis diminish the inhumanity of three humans sworn “to serve and protect?” As a medical layman I have to ask, “Would such unnecessary use of force exacerbate the preexisting factors, thereby possibly—even probably—contributing to Floyd’s death?”

But, I linger too long on one specific instance, when my grief is over the increasing commonness of justifying inhuman behavior on the basis of ideological absolutism. The controversy over where to stand in relation to George Floyd’s death appears to line up consistently with every other controversy in America: conservatives line up against liberals.

There seems little possibility that there ever will be an issue in which both liberals and conservatives agree. And there seems little possibility ever again that those disagreements will be pursued with respect and integrity. I see very little indication that anyone on either side wants to resolve any of the issues that divide them. Most just want to win the fight.

And so, I grieve. And the tears come more frequently.

We are watching something cancerous grow faster and faster each cay. It is, in my estimation, the satanic spawn of absolutized individualism run amok. Don’t misunderstand. I serve a master whose sacrificial love for individuals is unsurpassed in human history. But, Ayn Rand notwithstanding, the master I serve also called his followers to love one another sacrificially, to serve one another in humility, even to the point of washing one another’s feet, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself. And he defined one’s neighbor in his Parable of the Good Samaritan—a parable, incidentally, about reaching across lines of ethnicity to serve anyone who is in need.

The individual is important, and the individual’s importance is embellished in service to other individuals. Our individual importance reaches its highest potential when we “lose ourselves”. All four gospels report Jesus saying, “Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it. (Matthew 10:39 NRSV). I like the way the Message Paraphrase puts it: “If your first concern is to look after yourself, you’ll never find yourself. But if you forget about yourself and look to me, you’ll find both yourself and me.”

I write as a Christian Pastor to Christians; however, Christians are as divided and as hostile as the rest of the culture (which is a primary reason the church has been in decline for a half-century), and I struggle to find hope that peace and reconciliation can come from Christianity so divided. Therefore, my appeal is to all who are of a similar mindset, regardless of your spiritual base. I believe respect, integrity and compassion have no ideological or credal boundaries, and that people of all spiritualities can unite in the effort to be agents of healing and reconciliation.

Today is Pentecost. Christians celebrate it as the birthday of the church and recite the biblical story of the Holy Spirit of God descending upon a broken, frightened little band of Jesus’ disciples. The Spirit filled them, and they turned the world upside down. I suspect that our nation will not be healed by human effort apart from that same Spirit.

So, come Holy Spirit. Come as wind and breathe into us a passion for the humility of Jesus, who washed his disciples’ feet.

Come Holy Spirit. Come as fire and burn away all the divisive arrogance that solidifies our human understandings of your purpose.

Come Holy Spirit. Come as a dove and bring us peace.

That’s the way it looks through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/george-floyd-death-minneapolis-riots-justice-requires-order/. I point out that the “National Review” is a conservative source. The inherent danger of such restraint was reported in several additional sources.

[2] https://www.insider.com/george-floyd-non-responsive-before-officer-took-knee-off-neck-2020-5

To Consider Unity

Are you sick of the belligerence that increasingly characterizes our culture and our way of living and relating? I am. Sadly, there are some who seem to relish the antagonism, and actually to delight in provoking it (“Let’s you and him fight!”).

Sometimes I lose hope of seeing humanity united and cooperating; of seeing people of different persuasions coming together to glean the best from each of their different outlooks, and creating a new reality better than their previously held dogmas.

In recent efforts to understand the roots of the current animosity, I looked to my own discipline: Christian theology and church history. Beginning with Augustine in the 4^th century, mainstream Christianity took a discernable turn toward law over grace.

That happens in virtually every movement, religious or otherwise. As entrepreneurial founders begin to age, they tend to become caretakers and defenders of their accomplishments. Thus, begins the paradigm shift from movement to institution.

Each succeeding generation adds to the growing set of rules and procedural codes (as in the Constitution of the United States with its amendments and expanding volumes of interpretive laws and codices).

In the Judaism described in the Bible, the trend reached its zenith in the pharisaism Jesus confronted. In Christian history the penchant for rules over grace maxed out under John Calvin and, later in England, the Puritans.

Oppressed in Europe, the Puritans came to America, and were the dominant socio/religious force in colonial America. Most Christian sects in America reflected the harshness of Puritanism, well into the middle of the twentieth century. During the infamously rebellious 1960s, a secularized[1][1] form of Christianity emerged. It rejected the harsh, judgmental, punitive images of God, in favor of a more Christ-like image.

That “more secularized” movement culminated in the last couple of decades into what some have called the “Emerging Church.” In response, the Calvinist/Puritan-oriented bodies doubled down own their insistence that their image of God, and only their image, was the truth, declaring open season on any who disagreed.

The trouble was, each denomination and sect claimed its own set of rules that defined truth; so, everybody was fighting with everybody, and the “spiritually yearning, institutionally disillusioned public”[2] was leaving the church. In the panic over the loss of members (and offerings), the institutional church ramped up its condemnatory rhetoric, which, in turn, drove still more members and offerings into the streets.

Essentially, the Calvinist/Puritan inflexibility was less about seeking truth, and more about proving that I/We already have the truth. The church generally was seen as issuing an ultimatum; and people (particularly those in the millennial generations) stereotyped all churches as judgmental and unforgiving, and they fled en masse from the model in which they were unable to sense the presence of Jesus.

I developed an hypothesis: Given that through the middle of the twentieth century, American culture generally was molded by some expression of Christianity, and given the generally judgmental and hostile stereotype into which all churches were lumped, it seemed reasonable that the current cultural and political fractiousness were in that mix, somewhere. I still believe there is a level in which that hypothesis is valid.

But the pre-Augustinian church already was divided. Paul’s epistles often address congregational division. Some creeds (the Apostles’ Creed and the Creed of Nicaea) emerged prior to the time of Augustine.

In colonial America the political divisiveness already was so bitter that duels to the death were fought.

So, the search for the origins of our current socio/political enmity is like peeling an onion. For the present, I lean toward considering it to be the nature of broken humanity. Maybe it’s not only what we have become. Maybe humans always have been like this; and we are living out our brokenness, rather than living out Jesus' prayer that his followers would become one, as he and his heavenly father were one (John 17:20-21).

Hard sins linked to sexual immorality or religious heresy notwithstanding, could it be that our primary need for repentance is from the primordial state of human brokenness out of which all other brokenness arises? Are we tinkering with symptoms and ignoring the cause?

Repentance does not require regret or remorse; nor does it necessarily involve penitence or penance. The word means, simply, to turn; essentially, to turn from one way of doing and being to another.

I try to not obsess over things I cannot control. Occasionally I even succeed! I don’t know how to influence the general turn of ideologies toward “us all becoming one.” But I can control how I respond; and I perhaps can influence one or a few persons to consider unity over division. That outlook forms the basis of my own repentance in regard to the focus of this writing.

How about this: evil always needs to be confronted; but, before we mount our white horse and charge into the fray, could we take a bit of time, first, to set aside the temptation to blame everyone but ourselves for the way things are, and to engage, instead, in some tangible act intended to make the world better, if only for a moment; if only for one other person?

If we could start each day planning to act or participate proactively in some constructive activity, before turning to the headlines or (worse) Facebook tirades or Twitter harangues, would a constructive outlook lead to a more effective way of responding to those who disagree with us? It’s at least an attempt to be a part of the solution, rather than the problem.

What is there to lose? Is our current culture of denunciation and vilification leading toward a better world?

That’s the way it looks through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.

Together in the walk,

Jim

---

[1] Secular, not in rejection of God, Scripture or Christianity, but rather, in rejection of what was deemed a distortion of God, Scripture and Christianity. In other words, a rejection of the institutionalization of Christianity.

[2] A description coined by Thomas G. Bandy in Christian Chaos and other of his writings.

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