Stephen
Terry, Director
Unity
and Broken Relationships
Commentary
for the December 8, 2018 Sabbath School Lesson
“I say this to shame you.
Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute
between believers?” 1 Corinthians 6:5, NIV
Sometimes it seems that even though we strive for unity,
whenever there are any two people together, we find disagreement over one or
more issues. It doesn’t matter if in reality the issues are major or trivial,
for even the most trivial issues have a way of appearing major to those they
affect. These issues, when allowed to fester, not only cause division within
the body of Christ, but can even drive otherwise honest souls from a
relationship with Christ, because he has been hidden away behind a wall of
judgmental opposition where he is not allowed to intervene in something as
important as a relationship between two believers. Were he allowed to do so,
one or the other of the parties in the dispute or even both may find that their
entrenched perspective fails of rising to the level of Christ-like behavior.
Pride and arrogance may cause us to feel that the issue is so clear that we do
not need to bother the Savior about it. Using words like “obviously” and
“clearly,” we portray our own position with such rhetoric as to belittle the
opposition as being blinded to the glorious light that we are sharing with the
world. Were they not so obstinate, they would “obviously” see that our position
is “clearly” the only correct one. If they cannot, we will marshal as many
followers as we can to our faction in an effort to convince them by numbers of
what argument alone seems to be unable to do. If they persist in denying the
superiority of our theology, then they “clearly” should not be allowed to walk
with us and should be excluded from leadership if not from fellowship with
“true” believers.
This week, I was reading in the fall, 2018 issue of "Westwind,"
the alumni magazine from Walla Walla University, the story of Orah Fry, the
faithful former caretaker of the Rosario Beach, Washington, Marine Biology
Station on Fidalgo Island. As a teenager, he was involved in his high school’s
music program and played several instruments. He was also part of a popular
string quartet, and his group played for every church in town, except his own,
the Seventh-day Adventist Church. At the urging of his music teacher, he
offered for the group to provide music for the Adventist service. The head
elder of the church refused to allow them to perform for the service because
the other members of the group were not Adventist. In order to overcome that
hurdle, he decided to form an all Adventist group and invited other musicians he
knew from the church to participate. Scheduling a practice session to prepare
for the Sabbath service, he was the only musician who showed up. Discouraged,
he stopped attending church. In spite of his membership in the church, he had
come to believe that no one really cared what happened to him. In that state of
mind, he was drafted into the Army several months after the bombing of Pearl
Harbor. As a result of what he felt were instances of God’s intercession to
preserve him while serving as part of a B-24 bomber crew member during World
War II, he eventually returned to church several years later. He came to feel
that at least God cared for him. When he told his story to the interviewer,
Gene Stone, he was 99 years old. That he related the experience that drove him
from the church is revelatory of how deep the wounds of that experience were.
How often do we allow our concrete-hardened theology to drive those we disagree
with from the arms of the Savior? We are so very fortunate that Jesus does not
so easily forsake those that we so callously toss aside as we strive to achieve
for ourselves a contrived righteous perfection of practice.
Factionalism based on individual perspective has plagued
the church since the beginning. Paul wrote about how the church in Corinth was
split over personalities, based on who led them to Christ. Some were loyal to
Paul, while others were loyal to Apollos.[i] Apparently each group saw
fault with the other. Paul pointed out that while all may have different
aspects to their ministries, they are all part of the whole work of God and
should not be divided, but embraced for the part they each have played in
advancing the Kingdom of God. Jesus expressed a similar sentiment when his
disciples wanted to forbid someone, who was not part of their group, from doing
exorcisms in Jesus’ name.[ii] Jesus rebuked them for
wanting to prevent the man. He recognized the unity of the work, even when the
work was being done outside of his circle of followers. Sadly, we have a
similar state of affairs today. We have those who follow the teachings of
individuals such as Doug Batchelor, Walter Veith, Morris Venden, M. L.
Andreasen, A. T. Jones, and a whole host of others both dead and alive who either
formerly or presently advocated for a peculiar theological perspective that set
them apart from their fellows. A century ago, their views would be disseminated
by word of mouth or in books and periodicals utilizing the power of the press.
Half a century ago they were disseminated by cassette tape. The little
cartridges were easily passed around at church and could be more rapidly
reproduced than publications. Today we have social media on the internet where
recorded audio and visual media can be disseminated in seconds all over the
globe. This commentary, for instance, is read in English in over 150 countries
each week. I can hardly begin to imagine the impact of these few words in
places I will never personally visit and in the lives of people I may never
meet this side of heaven.
As powerful a tool as the internet is for sharing the
gospel, it is equally powerful for enhancing the divisive nature of theological
disputes. On the one hand we have Spectrum and Adventist Today magazines, both
presenting a liberal, progressive “Big Tent” theological viewpoint, and on the
other hand, we have Amazing Facts, Whitehorse Media, and Fulcrum 7 presenting a
conservative, exclusionary theological view. Admittedly, these are gross
oversimplifications of their positions as all labeling conventions tend to be,
but exactness is not the point. What we may be able to recognize, no matter
where we fall on the “spectrum” of belief is the rapidity with which factions
can now develop and the effect that quickly building up thousands of followers
has on the ability of the church to achieve unity. We may face a very real
danger of following a modern Paul or Apollos instead of Christ. The arguments
advanced by the various factions make it clear that the Bible cannot save us
from this factionalism, for every faction seems to be able to “proof text” a
foundation for their position that may obfuscates the possibility of solution
rather than clearing things up. Perhaps the Bible itself may be somewhat at
fault, for the New Testament consists of distinct Johannine, Petrine, Jacobine,
and Pauline vies that at times are not in complete harmony with one another. If
we proof text from those different perspectives, we can easily come up with
different conclusions based on which of them we are drawing on at the moment.
When we dispute with one another like this, what we may
be missing is the tremendous value God places on diversity. One who would
trouble himself to the point of making sure that no two snowflakes are alike,
though there are billions of snowflakes created all over the globe every year,
is not someone who would be troubled by the diverse nature of human experience
and thought. As Orah Fry experienced when he was judged as a teenager, we may
feel that it is God’s will to exclude others in order to somehow achieve that
unity that continues to elude us, but when we do, God seeks out the very one we
could not abide. He is not intimidated by the difference he might encounter in
doing so. After all, he created each of us as unique as each of those
snowflakes. But even more, he creates with purpose, and each of us has purpose.
That purpose does not manifest itself in our trying to be identical to one
another. God could easily have created clones if he wanted that. No, the
purpose can only be found in our uniqueness and is expressed in creation and in
humanity as those differences play off of one another. Intellectually and
theologically, point meets counterpoint and rather than eliminate one or the
other, the Holy Spirit can bring about harmony, and in that harmony, produce a
new song of loftier purpose, harmonious not because the notes are all the same,
but precisely because they are different. It is the Spirit that enables those
differences to become harmonious rather than dissonant. Perhaps this is the
truth God sent the Spirit to reveal. If so, it is a beautiful thing.
