Introduction
Clicks, they are the bane of high schools! It seems to be the fate of teenagers to get caught up in them, either eager to get into some or eager to avoid others. But clicks are not unique to teenagers and high schools. As we are about to learn, adults are also prone to them even in (or especially in) churches. They have been around since the first generation of churches 2,000 years ago.
Text
We move now into the body of Paul’s epistle. The apostle follows the basic form of letter writing in his day, baptizing the style with Christian features. As in that day, he begins by identifying himself and then his readers. Next, he gives a greeting that includes wishing the readers well and making positive remarks about them. Then, he starts to address whatever issues he may have, which are many in this letter. Let’s read.
10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
Unity is the first topic. My, my, in a church of all places some kind of division exists. Paul goes on to explain.
11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers.
Why, there are actual quarrels! And somebody is telling on them! Who are these tattletales? We can’t be certain. The word “people” is “household” in the Greek. This could mean a family; it could also include the servants of the house or business. Chloe is a feminine name, so it seems that she is of woman of some means; probably has her own business, and it is reasonable to conclude that these people are her servants who travel on business. They have visited Corinth and returned to Ephesus where Paul is writing his letter. Beware of travelers in our midst!
Paul then gets specific.
12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.”
How about that? The early Christians were groupies! This reminds me of the days of the Beatles, and we each chose our favorite Beatle – Paul, John, George or Ringo. What’s going on?
It appears that as the Corinth saints discussed issues in their church, there was developing general groupings identified by these names. It is a common phenomenon. An example happened this past weekend. I met a theology professor from Westminster. He asked quite naturally what seminary I had attended, which is Gordon-Conwell. I then mentioned my old professors, one of whom is Meredith Kline, an Old Testament scholar. Well, it has just so happened he was writing a paper on the debate between Kline and John Murray’s positions on some matter of kingdom theology. He was on the side of Murray. In our conversation he made reference to the “followers of Kline.” In this issue he was a follower of Murray and I suppose I a follower of Kline, except I didn’t understand the issue well enough to know.
It is easy enough to imagine the Corinthians debating some practice in church. Someone notes, “Paul says…” and is replied with “But Apollos addresses the matter so much better….” Another says, “I think we need to give greater consideration to Peter’s teachings. He, after all, is the chief apostle.” That is when the more noble minded chime in, “Well, I follow Christ.”
It is evident the church did not have organized parties under leaders. Paul was unaware of a “Paul Party,” and surely neither Apollos nor Peter would have condone any under their names. It doesn’t even seem like these were strong factions. Paul doesn’t describe what the actual differences were about, and he makes no more reference to them in the rest of the letter.
Why these names? Paul’s name is obvious, being the founder of the church. He certainly had his detractors. In chapter three he will present the complementary roles that Apollos and he played in the church. Obviously a number of the church members had become devotees of Apollos and were pitting him against Paul. Why Peter’s name? We have no record of him visiting Corinth, though he could have. As I indicated above, his name could have come up as the head of the apostles. This would have entered a conversation in which Paul’s authority is being questioned.
What about the “I follow Christ” crowd? What, after all, is wrong with following Christ? Though such a comment may seem the noble approach to take, in this case it is more likely comes from an arrogant attitude. Let’s go back to my conversation with the theology professor. What if in response to the Kline-Murray debate he was discussing, I retorted, “I don’t fall into either camp. I just follow the Bible.” That would have irked the professor, rightfully so, because following the Bible is exactly what these Bible scholars were trying to do. For me to claim to be a follower of the Bible, as opposed to following these men, would be to set myself above men far abler than I in examining the holy text.
Who needs any apostle? I’ve got Jesus. That sounds like a noble sentiment, but in reality is an arrogant one, seeing that Jesus commissioned the apostles to be his witnesses. It is quite possible that this was the attitude of some of the Corinth Christians who prided themselves in possessing gifts of knowledge.
So, the Corinth church has a problem of forming into improper groups. Let’s see how Paul attacks this “groupie” mindset.
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? Think what you are doing, he says to them. You are treating Christ as though he is nothing more than a competing name for favorite church leader. This would have been blasphemy to Paul, which he is trying to make them see.
Is Christ divided? This could mean dividing Jesus among the groups. A divided church means a divided Christ. One group gets a bit of him, another group gets another piece and so on. Or the term could mean to apportion out in the sense of as one group gets Paul, another Apollos, yet another Peter, so another gets Christ, as though he were but another choice.
What are you thinking? Paul wants to know. How could you ever consider putting Jesus Christ on the same plane as he and the others? Was Paul crucified for you? Did Paul perform the work of redemption on the cross atoning for the sins of his people? When you put Christ in the same breath as anyone else, you are bringing him down and raising up in a blasphemous manner the other person.
Again he makes his point: Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? To be baptized in the name of a person is to give one’s allegiance to that person. We will discuss that concept more next Sunday. It is to be covered by the person, placed under his protection. It is to be identified as belonging to that person.
Did Paul baptize anyone in his name? Of course not. He baptized them in the name of Christ. He then expresses relief that he personally baptized few of the Corinthians so that this confusion would not be widespread. 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
Now, we’ve looked at the problem and Paul’s penetrating analysis and rebuke. But Paul did not simply give an analysis. He began the subject by exhorting the saints to exhibit true unity. Let’s go back to verse 10.
I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
Note first how the appeal is made – by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is easy enough to see how he sets forth the one true authority under which anything is to be done. The “brothers” by the way includes both men and women.
The appeal is for unity. It is stated in three ways. First, that all of you agree. More literally, the Greek is “that all of you say the same thing.” “Agree” is the correct intent. That is a positive way of putting the appeal. He then expresses the idea negatively, and also gets at the problem going on: that there be no divisions among you. At the heart of the word is separation. The word for “divisions” is translated “tear” in Mark 2:21, as in tearing a fabric. Don’t let separations happen, Paul is telling them. Don’t let the fabric of the community be torn.
He then reinforces the appeal: that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. The word “united” is used in Mark 1:19 describing how James and John as fishermen were “mending” their torn nets. The image is clear. Don’t let there be tears in the fabric; rather, let it be woven tightly together. How is it to be woven? By having the same mind and the same judgment. I’m still not sure, after reading commentaries and reference works, of the distinction between these two words – mind and judgment. “Mind” seems to indicate disposition. “Judgment” in the Greek is from the same word group translated “knowledge” in verse 5. It seems to indicate an opinion about a specific subject. Paul is saying to be like-minded, both in the attitude they have about what is important and what not (unity ranks high), and to work together to derive a common belief or solution.
Application
Let’s now turn to application. I have a couple of disclaimers to make before we turn to Faith Church. One is that I feel as much discomfort as you when I make application to the church. I do not rub my hands while preparing the sermon, reveling over how I am going to let you have it now. I don’t like doing that, and, besides, this letter reflects back to me my failures in the church. The other disclaimer is that every application applies to everybody at any one time. When I say “you,” you may not fit the application. That, thankfully, I lead to the Holy Spirit.
Our subject is division, so we have to consider if there are divisions in our church. I think we, who have been members for a few years, can agree that there are groupings in the church that disagree. I want to temper what I am about to say with the honest observation that overall there is a gracious spirit in this church, and I certainly would not characterize us as a fragmented church. Even so, we have some divisions. The obvious division is marked by the worship services, which group us into the “contemporary” party and the “traditional” party. Again, I think the two parties get along pretty well, but the division is a strong one. Some people have made it clear that if their service were either stopped or blended with the other, they would leave. Worshipping together is not worth the price of losing or modifying their service. That is a division.
But there are other divisions as well. I see three based on philosophy of what a church is to be like. There is the “church growth” party which values outreach and thinks of doing church in terms of what is effective in reaching outsiders. There is the “traditional church” party which values the established customs of church life and thinks of doing church in terms of keeping up its social traditions. Then there is the “theology” party which values faithfulness to the Reformed teachings and thinks of doing church in terms of living out of a cohesive Reformed philosophy.
There are other divisions I am sure, and a good observer could identify other forms of division. We might be aware of them; some of them we might scratch our heads unaware that they exist. But divisions do exist in our church just as they do in all churches. Forming groups – formally or informally – is the most natural thing for any sizable body to do.
Why is that? Because it is natural to be attracted to already like-minded people. Let ten people get together for a week over a common cause or interest. Although they share the same interests, in the majority of cases two to three groups will have emerged based on other criteria. They may share the same disposition, for example. Give the ten a few weeks together, and they will have started to form loose parties that approach in different set ways the various issues that come up. We gravitate to those most like us and then together we reinforce our particular opinions and dispositions.
This natural attachment to the already like-minded people is why it is necessary to make concerted effort in getting to know people from the “other” groups. Some might say that relationships should come naturally; we should not try to force people together. Relationships do come naturally; that is what makes unity in a church so difficult. I naturally want to spend time with some people and not with others. We, of course, cannot spend the same amount of time with everyone, and that is not even desirable, but we must make effort to spend some time with the other parties of the church and individuals in those groups. That is how we will keep natural groupings from becoming divisions in the church.
Divisions rise out of two common mistakes. One is to stereotype others; the second is to prevent ourselves from learning from one another. It is easy, for example, to stereotype the “contemporary worship” party as people who want to be entertained in worship. That is a real problem in much contemporary worship, but such stereotyping fails to recognize the desire in many of our worshipers to offer up to God worship that comes from the heart as well as the head. It is easy to stereotype the “traditional worship” party as people who value form over heart. That also is a problem, but to see such worshipers as people who love tradition merely for tradition sake is to miss the deep feeling that they draw from these forms. Of course, our theology oriented brethren will raise the question of what is biblical worship. That is an essential discussion to have, but instead of individuals spending time with and exploring the issues together with people in the “other” party, our approach is to discuss the matter thoroughly within our parties and toss out comments to the other parties.
Together…together is how we build up one another. That togetherness takes place in church activities and on church grounds, and it also takes place in our homes and other places where we take time to get to know one another. It is impossible for us to be united in the same mind and the same judgment without spending time with one another. Make that time your priority. After all, that is what Jesus did. He left his home and lived among us. That is why we can be confident that he is sympathetic towards us, as Hebrews 4:15 tells us.
