"Diversity"
is a word charged with meaning in our world.
It usually provokes strong emotions from both proponents and
antagonists. In the secular world
arguments for diversity rest upon two postulates: 1) Racial discrimination in
the past necessitates positive inclusion of minority groups in decisions in
order to "make up" for past discrimination in organizations 2) "Studies show how diversity improves
academic performance, reduces prejudice, lowers stress and psychological
barriers, and has broad positive effects on workforce development." (1) This latter
statement is the result of research of the social scientists who filed an
amicus brief in the case of Fisher vs. University of Texas.
So how does this
term “diversity” apply in the church setting or perhaps more appropriately in
the kingdom setting? It should be clear the bible does not countenance any discrimination
based upon race. Galatians 3:28 (NIV) “There is neither Jew nor
Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all
one in Christ Jesus.” So, there is no
question that diversity in this sense is a fundamental tenet of any grouping of
Christians. In one respect this corresponds to the moral
argument for diversity in the secular world.
That is, there is no place for discrimination based on the moral grounds
for equality alone.
The second tenet
for secular diversity is based on sociological arguments. In this case both gender and racial diversity
are postulated to give better organizational outcomes. Specifically, “racial diversity is associated with
increased sales revenue, more customers, greater market share, and greater
relative profits. Gender diversity is associated with increased sales revenue,
more customers, and greater relative profits.” (2) Since there is no question that neither
racial nor gender discrimination is permitted in a Christian group, setting
aside the question of different roles for the present, it is the positive
attributes that people from different backgrounds and different gifts bring
that would enhance the service of Christian bodies. This second tenet is certainly in line with
the teaching that Christ gives each Christian “gifts”. (Eph 4:7-8) Each
Christian is to be equipped to use these gifts in “works of service.” (Eph 4:12). This corresponds with Paul’s teaching on the
diversity in the body of Christ. Paul explains this in I Cor. 12:12 and
continues through 12:27: “Just as
a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it
is with Christ. “ …… Certainly here he is talking about the diversity among the
individual members of the
church.
I wish to explore
another meaning for “diversity” in the church.
In what sense can the beliefs and interpretations of scripture be diverse
by either members or congregations and still “unity” be maintained? In particular can the church be unified in diversity? Is this type of unity biblical?
Let us examine
whether individual members can have diverse views and still be “united”. Closely related to “unity” are the concepts of
being “one” and the concept of “fellowship.”
If we are “united” does this make us “one?” What does it mean to be in “fellowship?” And, in our discussion, how much “diversity”
can we have and still be considered to be “one”, in “unity”, and in
“fellowship?”
Perhaps, we should
first explore what “unity” means in the biblical setting. The most
comprehensive statement of unity is found in Eph 4:1-6
“As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of
the calling you have received. 2 Be completely humble and
gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every
effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4 There
is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were
called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one
God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
A striking portion
of this scripture is the call for patience, love, and peace in fostering unity.
This unity is one “of the Spirit.” The
Greek term for “unity” used here, ἑνότης, is only found here and in verse 13.
It “means a state of oneness or of being in harmony and accord.” (3) . Of course this brings the question of what
being in harmony and accord means.
Whatever it is, it is “of the Spirit”.
Also, it is clear since the Ephesians are to “keep” or maintain this
unity. It is something that already
exists, not something they are creating “from scratch”. It is to be maintained “through the bond of
peace.” Within the larger context of Ephesians the letter can be summarized as
one of “reconciliation”. The
reconciliation is of Jew to Gentile and of man to God through Christ (Eph
2:14-18). The context is of maintaining unity through peace of Christians with
very different backgrounds and ideas—that of Jews and Gentiles.
These concepts of
“bonding” and “peace” are also found in Paul’s writing to Colossi. (Colossians
3:14-15)
14 And over
all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. 15 Let
the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were
called to peace. “
Here “love” is the bonding ingredient with
peace the result.
The unity of the Spirit in the church is
next expressed in Ephesians by the seven ones: 1) one body, Spirit, and hope 2)
one Lord, faith, and baptism and 3) one God.
Paul talks extensively about the oneness of the body. In Christ, there is only one body. We have only one Spirit. We have the same hope given by the gospel of
Christ. Before reconciliation we had no
hope. The calling of our hope is the
calling of the gospel. It is the calling
of the reconciliation of man to God and to one another in Christ. The triad of
the one Lord, faith, and baptism are tied together. These three are bond together as the
“baptismal declaration of faith” in Christ as Lord. This concept is central.
Galatians 3:27–29 (NIV) 27” For
all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There
is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and
female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong
to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. “1
Corinthians 12:13–14 (NIV) 13 For we were all baptized by one
Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we
were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is
not made up of one part but of many.
It would seem from
the above that baptism is one of the unifying forces. The ending of course is the Oneness of God in
all of this.
We have discussed
oneness and unity but not yet fellowship, nor have we discussed either in terms
of “diversity”. The word for “fellowship” is κοινωνία which means “close association involving mutual interests and sharing, association, communion,” (3) . There can be many types of “fellowship”. There
can be fellowship in ministry (2 Cor. 8:4), the right hand of fellowship in
spreading the gospel (Gal. 2:9, Eph 5:11, Phil 1:5), fellowship of the Spirit
(Phil 2:1), fellowship in giving and receiving (Phil 4:15), fellowship with
affliction (Phil 4:14), and fellowship with sin (Rev 18:4)
We wish to explore
the theological basis of fellowship and what this basis means for
fellowshipping one another. Here is what
John has to say:
1 John 1:3–7 (NIV) 3 We proclaim to you what we have
seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our
fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4 We
write this to make our joy complete. 5 This is the message we
have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no
darkness at all. 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him and
yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth. 7 But
if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one
another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.
It is the fact of
the existence of Christ as Savior in the flesh that John proclaims and this is
the theological basis of fellowship of John with other Christians and with the
Father. There is another basis given here as well. One cannot continue to live a life of sin and
expect to have fellowship with either Christ or other Christians. But, this does not mean Christians must be
“sinless” in the sense they commit no sin?
The answer is no. Christ’s blood takes care of that. So, we may conclude that fellowship is
extended by John to those that believe in the tenets of the gospel (Christ came
in the flesh, died, buried, and was resurrected). In one sense the remainder of this epistle of John
gives the basis for this fellowship and how we can know we have fellowship with
him (See 1 John 5).
In order to
illuminate how much diversity we can have and still be “unified”, it is
instructive to examine some of the practices in congregations depicted in the
New Testament. Let us began with the
congregation in Jerusalem. The first
church established on the Day of Pentecost was decidedly a “Jewish”
church. By Jewish is meant not only
ethnic origin, but Jewish in its practices.
After its establishment, Peter prompted by the Lord in a vision preached
the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10). Gentiles,
of course did not observe the Jewish laws and rites. He was immediately criticized by Jewish
brethren for this (Acts 11). After the
stoning of Stephen, persecution scattered some of the Jerusalem converts. Some of them from Cyprus and Cyrene went to
the Gentiles in Antioch. The Jerusalem
church sent Barnabus to Antioch. He
recruited Paul for work together at Antioch and also they proceeded on the
first mission trip together. After some
time they returned to Antioch. Here
“Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the
believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by
Moses, you cannot be saved.” They
also wished them to keep the Law of Moses. “This brought Paul and Barnabas into
sharp dispute and debate with them.”
This prompted the “Jerusalem Council” in Acts 15 where ultimately the
elders and apostle at Jerusalem gave the following instruction to their Gentile
brothers: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with
anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to
abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled
animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.”
However, it is
evident the Jerusalem church continued themselves to observe the law. Later when Paul returned to Jerusalem in Acts
21 we find the following:
Acts 21:17–26 (NIV)
17 When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers and sisters received us
warmly. 18 The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see
James, and all the elders were present. 19 Paul greeted them
and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his
ministry. 20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they
said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and
all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed
that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from
Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our
customs. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you
have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with
us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their
purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads
shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you,
but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25 As
for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they
should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of
strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” 26 The next day
Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the
temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and
the offering would be made for each of them.
I have quoted this extensively to illustrate how diverse the actual
practices of the Jewish congregation in Jerusalem and the Gentile congregation
were. The Christians at Jerusalem
continued their Jewish rites and customs.
Paul did so as well. The Gentiles
neither did this nor were required to do so.
For the purposes of our
discussion, it is clear that the Jews in Jerusalem (which continued their
religious rites and traditions as Jews) and the Christians in Antioch were in
“fellowship”. It also seems clear that
the Jews above who were “zealous for the law” and believed one had to be
circumcised were still in fellowship with the elders and church there even though
they still believed Gentiles should do so.
In other words they were baptized believers that had a serious
doctrinal error but not “put out” or dis-fellowshiped from the Jerusalem
church. Of course Paul had to
continually combat Jewish Christians (teachers) who tried to bind the
law on Gentiles for salvation (e. g.
the letters to the Galatians and Romans).
Does this mean that the Jerusalem Christians would have been
“comfortable” worshiping with Gentiles in Antioch who did not observe their
Jewish rituals? I doubt it. Does this mean Gentiles would have been
totally at ease going to the Jerusalem worship service? Probably not. But, lack of comfort is not a reason for not
treating the others as “brothers in Christ.”
Let us see what other diverse practices we find in the scriptures with
Christians still considering the participants “brothers.” How diverse were the practices of Christians
at Corinth? First, Paul calls those in
the church at Corinth “brothers and sisters” (I Cor. 1:26). However, it is clear that there will be
“brothers and sisters” who have different levels of maturity and thus with
different understandings about what is an accepted religious practice (here
eating meats sacrificed to idols).
Clearly there was a diversity of human “status” and no admonition to
change this unless this enhanced one’s ability as a Christian: I Cor. 7:17-24
17 Nevertheless, each person should
live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as
God has called them. ……20 Each person should remain in the
situation they were in when God called them. 21 Were you a
slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain
your freedom, do so. 22 For the one who was a slave when called
to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was
free when called is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought at a
price; do not become slaves of human beings. 24 Brothers and
sisters, each person, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation
they were in when God called them.
Perhaps the greatest statement
of the freedom we have in religious practice is Paul’s in I Cor. 9:19-23
19 Though I am free and belong to
no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To
the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became
like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win
those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became
like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under
Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the
weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so
that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this
for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.
This statement is consistent with what we have observed in
Paul’s behavior in Acts. In addition,
Paul speaks of our freedom (even of religious practices) in his letter to
Colossae: (Col. 216-23)
Colossians 2:16–23 (NIV)
16 Therefore
do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a
religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These
are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in
Christ. 18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and
the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail
about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their
unspiritual mind. 19 They have lost connection with the head,
from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and
sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.
20 Since
you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as
though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: 21 “Do
not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22 These rules, which
have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on
merely human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed
have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false
humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in
restraining sensual indulgence.
Clearly,
there is a great deal of freedom implied by these verses. At same
time, there is great admonition against imposing certain practices upon others.
The problem
is the issues at the center when Paul was writing are not the issues
today. Most discussion is of two central
natures: 1) Jewish practices vs. Freedom in Christ and 2) Gentile cultural
practices vs. Freedom in Christ. So,
what was central to the limits of diversity then? Clearly, unity without diversity would be
conformity. But, clearly first century
congregations were not uniform in composition or religious practices. The limits to diversity are sometimes stated
as determining the limit of what is “truth” vs. what is “error.” Unfortunately
stating the question this way most often leads to disunity, not unity. What is
“truth” to one group may be “error” to another depending on how one interprets
scripture. Perhaps, we should examine
what issues the apostles would not tolerate within the body. That is, what are the core theological
principles that unite Christians?
First, it
should be clear that the form of what we call the “formal” worship service was
not the source of unity. The Corinthian
church and the Jerusalem church members did not have a “liturgy” or set form
when they met. In fact, there is no
evidence of a set form worship services are to follow anywhere found in the New
Testament. One can immediately conclude
that “worship wars” among us have little basis for conflict. A set liturgy or set form to conduct a worship
service may be “comfortable” and serve to say “we are in the right place” but
is not a basis of unity nor should be a basis of disunity. One place may conclude singing three songs
(led by a song leader from the front), having a prayer, serving the Lord’s
Suppers, having preaching and always concluding with an invitation song and a
final prayer is good practice. This “good practice” before long become
“traditional” with deviations frowned upon.
Then it quickly becomes “sinful” if things are done differently. Never mind that the first Christians who met
in homes would not have had anything like this order (cite the church at
Corinth or Jerusalem).
It would
seem that the scriptures condemn those that:
1) Deny the deity of Christ (I John)
2) Practice sin (many lists of vices
and sins) as a way of life and
3) Those that bind practices as a condition of
salvation other than the simple gospel (Paul’s many admonitions against binding
the Jewish law on Gentiles).
The major principles for unity are also three:
1)
We are united through love for one another and
peace
2)
We are united by our acceptance of Christ and
faith as our Savior through his death, burial, and resurrection and through his
Grace the forgiveness of sins
3)
We are united by the unity of the Spirit given
by our having a) one body, Spirit, and hope and
b) one Lord, faith, and baptism and c) one God
This leaves
a lot of room for unity in diversity.
Bibliography
1. How Diversity Trumped Equity—and May Kill Affirmative
Action. Color Lines. [Online] Oct 10, 2012. [Cited: Jan 15, 2013.]
http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/10/how_diversity_trumped_equity--and_may_kill_affirmative_action.html.
2. Herring,
Cedric. Does Diversity Pay?: Race, Gender, and the Business Case for
Diversity. American Sociological Review. [Online] Dec 2012. [Cited:
JaN 15, 2013.] http://asr.sagepub.com/content/74/2/208.short.
3. Arndt, W.,
Danker, F.W, and Bauer, W. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Christian Literature. Chicago : University of
Chicago Press, 2000.
No comments:
Post a Comment