Verse 10 above is frequently used as justification for denominational group think. Somehow many people have decided that Paul's admonition to be of one mind united in thought and purpose means we should only 'go to church' with people who think just like us.
Think about that a minute. God created each of us to be different. We are all individuals. Paul knew that. He was not a stupid or naive man. Do you really think he expected these people to always think the same? We know that simply isn't going to happen with individuals. So did Paul. As a matter of fact an honest reading of three verses after that should be ample proof of this fact.
11 For some members of Chloe’s household have told me about your quarrels, my dear brothers and sisters.
12 Some of you are saying, “I am a follower of Paul.” Others are saying, “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Peter,” or “I follow only Christ.”
13 Has Christ been divided into factions? Was I, Paul, crucified for you? Were any of you baptized in the name of Paul? Of course not! - 1st Corinthians 1:11 - 13 (NLT)
So, that begs a question. If Paul wasn't actually imploring these people to become mindless robots all committed to thinking exactly alike on all matters what was he saying?
For the sake of argument assume verse 10 were directed to married couples instead of brothers and sisters in Christ. It might read something like this.
"I appeal to you, husbands and wives, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, to live in harmony with each other. Let there be no divisions between you. Rather, be of one mind, united in thought and purpose."
My wife and I live in harmony with each other. There aren't really any divisions between us. We both want the same things as far as our marriage and family are concerned. However, we don't always agree on what the best way to reach those things are.
Let's apply the same logic to my revised verse 10 that the modern religious establishment applies to the original.
Even though my wife and I have the same goals we don't always see eye to eye on how to reach them. That means we should both go out and find a different spouse. One that will agree with us 100% of the time not only on goals, but on methodology(good luck). We would each in effect start our own new 'denominations' so we can say we are of one mind united in thought and purpose.
I bet in that scenario we would all say it was crazy to interpret those words that way. We would all claim that the fact we wanted the same things meant that we were of one mind, united in thought and purpose. The fact that we didn't always agree on the way to accomplish our goals would be seen for what it is. A simple difference of opinion, not a reason to keep ourselves separate from each other or to find someone just like us.
I have some opinions on why today's churches choose to view it this way, but I'm more curious to get responses from others.
What do you think the real underlying reasons are that Christians today so eagerly and willingly divide themselves into factions?
Page Summary
- (Anonymous) : (no subject) [+1]
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
kansasbob : (no subject) [+3] ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/openid-profile.gif)
theworldofdoorman-priest.blogspot.com : (no subject) [+1] - (Anonymous) : (no subject) [+1]
- revolutionaryintent.wordpress.com : (no subject) [+3]
Comments
I think it's really just a matter of our basic human (fallen) nature, I mean, walk around a High School campus and there's plenty of examples of how people naturally flock to those who are more like themselves...
This natural tendency is only exacerbated by people's passions towards certain doctrines, or liturgies, or what have you. I don't think that it will ever be something that isn't a struggle, but I DO think that we can do a great deal to reduce the degree to which it happens by deciding to not attach any sort of particular moniker or descriptive label to ourselves. Doing so only creates an "us and them" mentality, and I've struggled with that a lot myself. Seems like the best thing is to just keep ourselves associated with Christ, and resist the inclination to adopt more specific things to identify ourselves by, and I don't just mean denominational distinctions... These days, there are all these debates about whether words like "emergent", or "missional", or "organic" are useful or not to apply to ourselves, as many people seek to seperate themselves from what "Christianity" has become. Ultimately, these debates seem like a waste of time to me, as if the labels really accomplish anything by themselves anyway...
It's about what we actually do, how we actually live, not what we call ourselves...
Daniel
My missionary friends seem to be content to base their fellowship with other followers in the field on Christ.. not sure why we have such a hard time with unity.. maybe if we just didn't have so many options? If we could just live out one of my favorite sayings..
In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.
That is great language Mark.. like opting for the letter rather than the spirit of the law.
The wisest person I have known, who was also the best observer of human nature that I have known said that most people would rather be a "big fish in a little pond, instead of a little fish in a big pond". Hence the tendency to divide into smaller groups or factions.
Personally I know of two secular organizations that are involved in the same activity. Over the years, both have lost members and money. If the two were to combine, they could have one decent sized, viable organization. They met to discuss this, but voted down the idea, because the new group would have one president, one treasurer and so on. None of the people who held positions in the separate organizations were willing to give up their "position".
I was also part of a church several years ago that merged with another church. Our group had plenty of people, but rented a building. The other group had a huge property and building that were almost debt free, but the group had dwindled to less than a dozen people, many of whom were on the "board". They were willing to merge, but only if the two boards could merge. That was a disaster. Their board still wanted to run everything. They did manage to "run" off almost the entire congregation, and soon were back to a handful of people. Apparently, our group would rather leave than have this other group tell them what to do.
Sam
Your story is not surprising at all. I have seen it more than once.
Herein defines the age old agrument of whose hermeneutic is right.Many have divided over doctrinal differences or leadership differences. the end results really stems from pride as you know. The one thing that is very amazing is that both groups always think they are right but will never publicly say the other is wrong a lot of the time.