On What Do We Agree?

 

In Paul's situation at Corinth it was not so much that there were disagreements but that there was the possibility that there would be divisions among them because of the disagreements. There is not much agreement among the scholars either about the details of the disagreements except in a few cases but what we know fro0m our reading for today is that they were picking sides and they were picking sides according to personalities, leaders among them in a n attempt to invent authority in order to control how the disagreements would turn out.

 

Does anybody remember that Winnie the Pooh lived under the name of Sanders? It was kind of like that. Under the name of Apollos we say this. Under the name of Peter we say that. Under the name of Paul we say what? The interesting thing about the Paul party is that Paul did not even know about it and he was not pleased. There was even a group who claimed that they were under the name of Christ (implying that only they were under the name of Christ). Ever hear that before? 

 

What does under the name mean? asked Christopher Robin.  Good question. In Poohs' case: It means he had the name over the door in gold letters and lived under it.  As silly as that sounds the good people of Corinth were on similarly shaky ground.

 

On what do we agree? Well, there is the human condition to take into account here. I read an old Russian folk tale this week about two dogs named Brownie and Big Red. (This would be an interesting study: how people name their dogs in different cultures.) In amt case the story is that Big Red and Brownie were the best of pals. They had just finished eating and were laying in the shade to take a nap as dogs will do when Brownie said to his companion, "I have no finer friend than you. How fortunate I am to be able to run and play with someone like you."

 

Big Red agreed. Scratching himself (as dogs will do) he said: Others will argue and fight but you and I are content to just have each other." The two continues to speak of the joys of friendship until the cook opened the back door and threw out one bone onto the grass nearby. Each claimed the fragment for himself and nearly tore each other a part to get it.

Ah, the human condition as told by dogs.

 

Kathleen Norris shares another story that may be one that anyone who has lived in close proximity to a sibling will be able to identify with: She was driving in the car with her niece and nephew who were 10 and 12 years old as I recall and they were arguing constantly to the point at which she finally interrupted them and asked them: Is there anything that you do not argue about? After a brief pause they both said No. (which was an agreement of sort) and resumed their bickering. As Norris put it these two are forever joined as siblings. They may never agree but they will always be brother and sister. (Hold on to that thought.)

 

There is much evidence that the human condition is such that nobody wants to give in and everybody wants to have their own way.

 

There is an irony in this for those in Corinth and more to the point for those of us still throwing on robes and gathering for worship in this thing called the church and that is that if the human condition is such that nobody wants to give in and everybody wants there own way and the Christian movement is about giving ones' self up (risking everything) and not having your own way then there is bound to be some sort of collision here when we and our culture meet Christ and his way and if there is not well that is another problem.

 

For Paul it is this collision of the human condition with the way of Christ in the community of Christ that is the scandal. What's it going to be? On what do we agree?

 

Paul is indignant: Has Christ been divided? (Some translators have said that it could be translated a bit more accurately to say: Has Christ been divided up and parceled out?)

 

Has Christ been divided? The question is like asking of Kathleen Norris' two young relatives, are you no longer brother and sister? Brothers and sisters are siblings for life like it or not. Christ can no more be divided than the light can be divided. The light is the light and it shines on everyone. You get it all or none.  

 

Has Christ been divided? Paul asked the congregation in Corinth who were in fact beginning the process of dividing up the congregation into bits and pieces. Sometimes I think we forget that the Church is the body of Christ, the church is Christ in the world. How can we not be one? And then he asked an even more pointed question:

 

Was Paul crucified for you? (And he might have said: Was Apollos crucified for you? Was Peter crucified for you? and so on.) The best thing about this question is that they all knew what the answer was. They had to agree on that one and it tended to put their other disagreements into perspective.

 

Paul had one more question: Were you baptized into Paul? (Or Apollos, or Peter or Sanders or whoever)

 

On what do we agree? Do we agree that we will not be divided? Do we agree that it is the cross that holds us together because it is the cross that calls us to live for others. He suffered and died so that we might know what love really is and what will save us from ourselves. Only love that gives itself away will save us:

 

not beautiful speeches like apollo.

not fame and glory like Peter (Or the Patriots)

not claims of exclusivity and superiority

certainly not having our own way

we cannot save ourselves by saving ourselves

 

only the cross, only sacrificial love will save us. And whether you agree with that or not, we do know that Jesus, the beloved, suffered and was crucified. That much we know.

 

On what so we agree?

 

on how to worship? no

on who should be the next president? no

do we agree about who is acceptable in the community of Christ and who is not? no

do we agree about what to do with Imler House or more to the point do we agree about where we are going as a church in mission? do we agree on a mission? do we agree on a future? no and no and no.

 

No, we don't agree on a lot. What would surprise you more? That we all agree about everything or we all agree on nothing? Think about it. What would most surprise you of those two scenarios?

 

The question is not whether or not we will agree on everything or nothing but rather the question is: will we be divided because we don't agree?

 

 

There is a fine line between being righteous and being merciful and loving. Sometimes

we can be so right we are wrong. This works both ways. Richard Foster described the Christian life as a walk down a narrow path on a high ridge with deep ravines on each side. On one side is legalism where the only thing that matters is what is right according to the laws and doctrines of the Church and on the other side is anti-nomianism which basically says that nothing matters at all. On one side are the rules in black and white and on the other are no rules at all. Either way, he says, is a fall from the path which is the way of the law of love - doing the right thing with mercy, always with mercy, justice with love. There is the law and there is the spirit of the law. St. Augustine once said that we could love God and do whatever we want. This is the challenge - to walk together between the extremes and find our way despite real disagreements and live in unity - unity of purpose - to love and to serve- to do no harm - to do all the good we can, to love God with all of our heart and soul and mind and strength.

 

On what do we agree?

 

Do we agree to stay together even if we disagree? Do we agree to be foolish enough to lift up the cross together and make it our own, giving up our own way for others? Do we agree, in short, to stay together for his sake, the sake of the crucified, of the beloved, the one who showed us how to love, the one who will save us? For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.