By Rev. David Lancaster
A century or so after the Protestant Reformation exploded in western Europe, a dynamic maxim arose as differences within the various bodies of faith began to escalate. This brief statement represented an intense effort to maintain some semblance of harmony despite heart-felt disagreements over theology: In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. In particular, subscribers to this maxim understood the powerful role which unity based on principle plays in enabling movements and ministries to succeed.
This characteristic finds frequent expression in the writings of Paul. As a missionary/church planter, he recognized the fragile make-up of the young, delicate communities of faith established under his leadership. Nowhere is this concern more evident than in his correspondence with the deeply-fractured Corinthian congregation recorded in the first letter.
In chapter one, he described how he was informed of divisions that had developed among the people. In a typical rhetorical flourish, Paul shrieked, “Is Christ divided?” (13a, NIV) After a short interlude in which he addressed other issues, he returned to this concern in chapter 3, ultimately concluding, “…you yourselves are God’s temple…If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is sacred, and you are that temple.” (3:16, 17, NIV)
While this comparison can be applied to us as well (see chapter 6:15ff., for example), within the immediate context of the letter, Paul emphasized the actual outcome of divisive people and actions at Corinth. In other words, the issue reached far beyond ruffled feathers and hurt feelings. Division destroys the temple of the Lord, and with pinpoint precision, Paul exposed the results of influential but thoroughly unspiritual leadership.
Faithful, effective leaders acknowledge their responsibility to promote and maintain unity within the congregations entrusted to them. Various threats surround the work of ministry, but none is more dangerous, or requires more immediate, sustained attention than disunity. When, as in the case with Corinth, the divisiveness arises within the leadership team itself, even greater risk to the ministry and mission of congregations results. What a challenge to our leadership skills!
Drawing distinctions between possible outcomes can assist us in accurately assessing our options in resolving division. For instance, we can remind ourselves of the distinction between unity and uniformity. While uniformity may serve a useful, necessary role in certain situations (the military, athletic teams, utility workers—even choirs—come to mind), in other settings it can easily become stifling. Uniformity reflects preferences; unity requires principle. Dogmatic, hard-hearted individuals may find it incredibly difficult to overcome a natural bent toward uniformity, especially when working on teams with others. Harnessing this temperament can create a more hospitable atmosphere in which true unity may emerge.
At the same time, an unwillingness to move toward a decision, action or principle can become quite disruptive in congregational life. An unhealthy fear of offending or upsetting others, all the while vacillating between two or more choices, powerfully illustrates nothing more than a leadership failure. Cowardice consistently retreats beneath the banner of self-preservation, and a vacuum of leadership can exist for only a short time before it will be filled. Regardless of personal loss, faithful shepherds refuse to allow disunity to endanger the flock.
Finally, effective leaders deal with division and those contributing to it by maintaining a close check on their own ambitions and desires. If only church members were responsible for causing division within congregations, then very little would be written on this subject. Unfortunately, those of us entrusted with this awesome and overwhelming calling have contributed our share to the history of disunity. Humility before God and those we serve remains a constant necessity if we are to remain capable of leading through the wasteland of conflict and agony. Just as Paul refused to allow himself to be used as a source of disunity, so must we rise above ego and selfishness to lead effectively.
In all of our presbyteries exist congregations that have been plagued by disunity. While their doors may remain open and activities conducted like clockwork, genuine, meaningful ministry has long since ceased, excepting pastoral services aimed at members. If only we took seriously the warning of Paul, “If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him…”
