Divisions Among Us

Don: People of all faith communities are united in seeking God, so why do our notions of God divide us? Why are we so polarized? We are divided in big and small ways, by age, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, economically, politically, and in our perspectives on  such issues as abortion, gun control and education.

According to polls, 83 percent of Americans identify themselves as Christian, 13 percent as having no religion, and the rest as being Jews, Buddhists, Moslems, Hindus, and others. But even within denominations—even within our own SDA church—there are more or less deep divisions over leadership, liturgy, which Bible version to use, and even over the meaning of the scriptures themselves.

The murder of over 80 innocent men, women, and children in Nice, France, last week is just one recent horrendous outcome of our division concerning God. The common theme of these tragedies has been in reference to God, to things spiritual. The sniper who killed several policemen in Dallas last week proclaimed he was helping to bring about the End of the Age.

Is such division personal or communal? One of us in this class has blamed community, while another has suggested that community is inseparable from individual faith development. And why is the outcome of the division so violent—physically, emotionally, and spiritually? Why is it not confined to words? If, as some claim, the reason is fear, then what are we so afraid of that it prompts such violence?

After the ascension of Jesus, the very earliest Christian church was composed entirely of Jews. And such a cohesive and harmonious community it was:

Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles. And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved. (Acts 2:43-47)

It sounds idyllic. Many of us would be glad to belong to a commune like it, and indeed it is the model—the goal—for all churches. Unfortunately, the idyll was shattered as soon as Gentiles were admitted:

Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. Therefore, being sent on their way by the church, they were passing through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and were bringing great joy to all the brethren. When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.”

The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”

All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. (Acts 15:1-12)

In the original Greek, this debate was not nearly so cool and sedate as it appears in the English translation; rather, it was hot, powerful, passionate, strident, and practically riotous. Paul later revealed more of the passion and polarization behind the debate:

Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain. But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me. But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

“We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be! For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” (Galatians 2:1-21)

This was clearly a seriously divided community, rife with accusations of lies and hypocrisy. How did it become so polarized? It was the difference in behaviors. “My behavior is correct and true and righteous. Yours is none of these. I am right and you are wrong.” The more ardently we believe we speak for God, the more stridently we proclaim our righteousness and the more violently we are prepared to defend it.

In his book Community Making and Peace, M. Scott Peck wrote of four levels or stages of community:

1. Pseudo community, whose central preoccupation is avoiding conflict. Individual differences are unacknowledged or minimized or ignored. Individuality, intimacy, and honesty are crushed. Generalization and platitudes are the norm. The early Christian church was undoubtedly a pseudo community and indeed most still want to be. If individual differences surface, the group moves to level 2…

2. Chaos, which centers on well-intentioned but misguided attempts to heal and convert. The group attempts to obliterate the individual differences that have surfaced. It involves struggle and fighting, and is no fun. The members often attack their leaders as well as one another, and may propose reorganization under new leadership as (unworkable) solutions to the chaos.

3. Emptiness, the hardest stage, requires people to rid themselves of barriers to communication, of which the most common are expectations, preconceptions, prejudices, ideology, theology, and solutions. The need to heal, to fix, to convert, to solve, and above all to control occurs when members admit their individual brokenness, defeats, failures, and fears; rather than acting as though nothing is the matter. The next level…

4. True community, emerges as the group chooses to embrace not only the light of life but life’s darkness as well. It is realistic yet joyful. Transformation from a group of empty individuals to a group of true community requires that each member dies a little and that the old group dies completely. True community requires this sacrifice, but as it emerges, the group is bathed in peace and individuals feel free to express their deepest feelings without fear of censure or interruption by the other members of the group. There may be tears of sorrow and of joy, and there will be a great deal of healing.

The emptiness of the early Christian church is seen in the story of Peter and the un-kosher food:

A voice came to him, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!” But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.” Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky.

Now while Peter was greatly perplexed in mind as to what the vision which he had seen might be, behold, the men who had been sent by Cornelius, having asked directions for Simon’s house, appeared at the gate; and calling out, they were asking whether Simon, who was also called Peter, was staying there. While Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you. But get up, go downstairs and accompany them without misgivings, for I have sent them Myself.” Peter went down to the men and said, “Behold, I am the one you are looking for; what is the reason for which you have come?” … “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean. (Acts 10:13-28)

Not calling any man unholy or unclean is a sure sign of emptiness. Recognizing that one is a sinner in need of God’s grace, and doing so in silence, is another:

But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”
All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. (Acts 15:11-12)

This level of emptiness is difficult and requires a spirit-led conversion. It is the only way that the true spiritual journey can begin. And yet, some people described in the scripture as being filled with the spirit seemed unable to make the transition, at least not at that moment, not until they recognize that the spirit will lead them to the realization that they—we—are sinners in need of God’s grace. John got to the heart of the matter:

This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us. (1 John 1:5)

The passage exposes the hypocrisy noted here by John:

If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also. (1 John 4:20-21)

Is hypocrisy prevalent in today’s church? It seems odd that the following directive from Paul concerning it is seldom read out from the pulpit:

Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.
Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called. (1 Corinthians 7:17-24)

The desire to convert, to correct, to make everyone alike is a compelling need to those of us who value our relationship with God and who take the great commission seriously. But where does that leave us?—polarized, violent, and in distress. Why is there fear even among those who claim sole possession of the Truth? What are they (and we) afraid of? Is it uncertainty? Would we rather be wrong than uncertain? What should we do individually and what should faith communities do to attenuate the rhetoric, to heal the divisions among us, to make peace not war?

David: The problem is that faith communities, like all organized human communities, are pseudo communities. As I understand it, true community emerges only when all individuals love one another, period. When I have visited Saudi Arabia I have enjoyed the company and discourse of devout Moslems and I believe they enjoyed mine. There was no religious or cultural tension, no division, between us. But when I share an evening with my community of neighbors at our condominium pool, and the week’s tragic litany of atrocities is inevitably reviewed, then Moslems are demonized, albeit subtly and even apologetically. The discussion is essentially an exercise in pseudo community groupthink.

To me, pseudo community is any community created for a human purpose, and that includes faith communities and churches. When Jesus said:

“For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.” (Matthew 18:20)

he was not, so far as I can tell, calling for meetings to be organized and pastors to be appointed. He was not calling for the establishment of a church. As in most of the passages Don has quoted today, Jesus treats us as un-organized individuals, not as members of communities. When I meet with an individual Moslem in Saudi Arabia and share (as I believe I do) a bond of humanity and love with him, then I feel Jesus is there in our midst in the name of love; which is to say, we are gathered in his name—a name that both my Moslem friend and I readily accept.

Here in this class are people of different faiths and non-faiths. We are not an organized body in any real sense; we are just a group of people who love one another and share a common curiosity concerning things of the spirit. We are just a community, a gathering, a get-together. Were we to attach a descriptor such as “inter-faith” or “spiritual” to the word “community” to describe ourselves then, in my opinion, we would regress from true community to pseudo community.

Donald: Are we a community? Are we like-minded? Or do we just get together on Sabbath mornings and talk about things that are interesting to us? We assume we are like-minded and frame our conversation in the context of a pseudo community. As we get to know each other more we go to different levels but are apprehensive of offending someone. It’s at that point that things become difficult but it’s a joy to get together, scattered as we are around the globe. But are we really like-minded or do we just assume so? Do we frame our conversation in such a way as not to offend one another?

David: We are like-minded in the sense that we are all seeking God. We all see to be getting some personal, individual, benefit through sharing our thoughts. But if we ever stoop to giving ourselves a group name, we will destroy this community.

Don: In 1980, a church leader asked me to lead a Bible class as an outlet for people who wanted freely to voice divergent views. She did so because a young Seventh Day Adventist originally from Palestine held views about the church and the world in general that were quite different from those of traditional Adventists. In the traditional Bible classes at church, his views caused great dissension, angry disputation, and even accusations of heresy.

By defining himself as different from the norm, the young man provoked a response typical of a pseudo community—they were ready to exclude him. But that thoughtful church leader came to his assistance and her concern is what started our group.

Jay: Jesus was trying to establish the kingdom of God—a true community not bound by the barriers erected by pseudo communities. Is that kingdom attainable on earth? Can we be part of it as mortals?

David: I think we can. I can envision a Moslem, a Christian, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Hindu, and an atheist gathered together to share their grief and compassion for the victims of Nice—along with mercy and forgiveness for the perpetrator. In that moment they would be acting in the name of love (recognized as Jesus by the Christian, but that really doesn’t matter) and in that moment (perhaps at all moments) they would be members of the kingdom of God. God forbid that they call themselves an “Interfaith Healing Council” or some such!

Jay: Is the kingdom of God then indefinable and we should not even attempt to define it?

David: I think so. When we get together we should be talking about love and grace because in so doing we make manifest, if only for the moment, the kingdom of God that exists on earth. But (in my view) we should not be talking about love and grace for the sake of invoking the kingdom. The kingdom already exists for the sake of invoking love and grace in us!

If there is a kingdom of God, then there is a God. But that’s not important. What is important is love and grace and mercy and forgiveness.

Robin: I saw a statement on Facebook that said “If there is no God, there could be no atheists.”

Donald: Visiting other countries and cultures is enriching because it leads to the discovery of our common humanity; it shows that we are more alike than we are different. Why can’t we just see this anyway?

Don: To me, you are describing a moment of emptiness—successor to chaos and precursor to true community. The recognition that we are broken, that we are sinners, that we need God’s grace is critical. We all have various levels of worldly knowledge, information, and insight about various issues and about other cultures, but as Paul said, we would be better off to sit in silence and listen rather than expound on our knowledge and try to use it to correct and convert others to our point of view. It is a difficult thing to do. Even the presence of the Holy Spirit seems (from Acts 2) to be not sufficient to get us to do it. It’s also easy to relapse. Even after establishing true community following divisions over the admission of Gentiles, the early Christians were quick to lose it:

After some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us return and visit the brethren in every city in which we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are.” Barnabas wanted to take John, called Mark, along with them also. But Paul kept insisting that they should not take him along who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work. And there occurred such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another, and Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus. But Paul chose Silas and left, being committed by the brethren to the grace of the Lord. And he was traveling through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches. (Acts 15:36-41)

Anonymous: I was struck by the sincere hearts of the early Christians, in the passages quoted. I wonder if that individual characteristic, given by the Holy Spirit, is the base ingredient for true community. Then again, dissension arose among the early Christians, probably as a result of ego, which works against sincerity by promoting selfishness and sinfulness. With sincerity or purity of heart, we can relate to one another openly, honestly, and without conflict. Without it, as Jesus said in the Beatitudes, we will not see the face of God. Is it enough?

David: It had better be, or God is in trouble! An anthropomorphized God looking down on his creation must see the Moslems, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus all misappropriating his name to justify the divisions between (and within) them. How he must weep, if his glory depends on them! Thankfully, it does not. It depends on the pure-hearted individual.

Egoists feel good about themselves. The pure of heart feel bad about themselves. In either case, though, it is a selfish feeling in the sense of being inward-directed by the individual—it is not the business of any community. Perhaps community can help point one in the “right” direction; but I am more inclined to think that only true community—like the community established when we travel and meet up with “the other” and find we are brothers—can really do that.

Anonymous: It’s easy to be nice to strangers, since we don’t have to put up with them for long. It’s different with a neighbor or a family member or co-worker.

David: That’s because neighborhoods and families and companies are pseudo communities! 🙂

Donald: I am skyping in from a hotel lobby. A stranger sitting near me, seeing what I was doing, went up to his room and returned with a bowl of cherries for me to eat as I listened and talked. His kind act had a powerful effect on me. But I do wonder how I would feel if this were my neighbor and he behaved like this all the time.

Proselytizing to build our community is premised on the belief that we are right. Why do we need to be right, even to the extent of killing one another to establish that we are right? Why can’t we just settle for being different and enjoy a conversation about our differences?

Robin: Throughout scripture, and throughout today’s world, people find reasons to divide themselves. It must be a part of the human condition.

David: Indeed, it is the condition of Wo/Man after the Fall. It is just the way we are. Before the Fall, if I recall correctly, Adam and Eve were not organized into a family. As two individual children of God they were a simple, true, community.

* * *