Chapter 5
CONFORMITY OR DIVERSITY
Because of the divisions which men have created to separate believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, many of you who read this chapter will be affiliated with religious movements utterly different than the one with which the author is affiliated. For that reason apology should probably be made for the special allusions to the "Church of Christ" which will occur. However, it must not be overlooked that there is a kinship in our state which makes what is said about one fragmented movement relevant to all of the others. We may not all be in the same boat but we are all in the same ocean.
Too, it is important that all of us look with serious concern upon the problems which plague others. Because of our basic trust in Jesus none of us are wholly unrelated. Even though the doctrinal disagreements in one party have little relationship to those in another, at the center of our faith all of us are closer than we sometimes admit. It is as the spokes get farther from the hub they tend to become farther apart. The matters which create such a furor in one camp are looked upon with disdain and designated as sheer trivia in another. Every faction regards its traditions as having tremendous importance, while denigrating those of others. Few in these days place any emphasis upon eating of meats and keeping of days, yet these were questions of grave magnitude to the primitive saints.
Some of those who mistake conformity for unity appear to be startled when they first learn that we suggest there may be unity in diversity. Actually we go much farther than that. We assert that if there is any unity at all it must be unity in diversity, if it is to be enjoyed by free men. There is no other kind of unity except for slaves. Our opponents themselves are proof of this. Not one of them is a member of a congregation where every person understands each scripture alike. Each party agrees upon the factional test which it has singled out and made the supreme issue. Upon every other matter the greatest latitude is permitted. Conformity does not make for better Christians, but for greater hypocrites.
Every group which contends for conformity of every member is inconsistent. Those who quote scriptures urging the saints to live in harmony under the delusion that unity and harmony are identical, misunderstand both human nature and the scriptures. There is a widespread notion that because the primitive saints were together and had all things common, and because they were of one heart and one soul, this means they all had exactly the same opinions and views of everything related to the Christian walk. Nothing could be more remote from the actual facts.
God made men so that as long as they are in the flesh they will be divergent in opinions. We can no more all think alike than we can all look alike. There is as much variety in our mental, as there is in our physical makeup. This is not an evil. It is good. It stimulates study and research. It is the soul of all discussion and investigation. Without it forbearance would be an unnecessary virtue and patience would become a lost art. Of even greater significance is the fact that if unity came by intellectual agreement rather than as a grace-gift from God, it could never produce a peace that passes understanding. No one will deny that our human understanding is frail, fallible and faulty. Peace that originated with it would always be imperfect. A stream cannot rise above its fountain or source.
Our unity is in a person, not in our personal opinions. We are one in Christ. Ours is the unity of the Spirit. Nothing is more clearly taught in the word of God. The Spirit of God dwells in every child of God. There is but one Spirit and every one in whom the Spirit dwells is one with every other such person. Of course every one in whom the Spirit dwells will exert a conscious effort continuously to promote harmony and good will. He will be a peacemaker because only such can be called the children of God. But he will also recognize that harmony is a fruit of unity, and not the reverse.
God no more expects all of His children to be exactly alike than I do my children. Nor does he "tighten the screws" on them to enforce conformity any more than I would twist the arms of the members of my physical family. The truth is that His revelation teaches us we are different from each other, and it is because of this we are able to fulfill His purpose and carry out His will upon the earth. Mere likeness in every detail would make this impossible. A man is able to be one flesh with his wife, not because they are alike, but because they are not. Oneness is not exact likeness. Harmony cannot be produced by harping on one string but by blending the sounds from various instruments.
Areas of Diversity
1. In the primitive community of saints there was a diversity of gifts (1 Cor. 12:4-6). "Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of working, but it is the same God who inspires them all in every one." The variety is in the saints, the sameness is in the Godhood. To eliminate the variety among the members would make the purpose of God of none effect. It is only when they recognize the source of their oneness that they can achieve a common purpose. "To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good" (verse 7). What was said of gifts bestowed supernaturally will also be true of gifts derived naturally.
2. There is a diversity of functions. "For as in one body we have many members, and all members do not have the same function, so we though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another" (Romans 12:4,5). There is one question proposed by the Spirit which we need to face. "If all were a single organ, where would the body be?" (1 Cor. 12:19). The divine arrangement is expressed in the next verse. "As it is there are many parts, yet one body." Our very diversity in function makes it possible to have unity in an entity.
3. There was a diversity in understanding. Some had to be addressed as babes in Christ (1 Cor. 3:1). Their grasp of truth was elemental. "I fed you with milk, not solid food; for you were not ready for it; and even yet you are not ready." Others were mature. "Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom" (1 Cor. 2:6). The impartation of wisdom was always on the ability to grasp what was taught. There was a difference from person to person and from congregation to congregation.
4. There was a diversity in knowledge. The apostle Paul pointed out that all knowledge was relative (1 Cor. 8:2). God's revelation is perfect for the purpose for which it was given. Man's knowledge of it is not perfect. In the community of saints at Corinth there were those who were fully aware that "an idol has no real existence" and "there is no God but one." There were others who were not so positive. "However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through being hitherto accustomed to idols, eat food as really offered unto an idol; and their conscience, being weak is defiled." Thus the saints were divided into "men of knowledge" (verse 10) and "weak men" (verse 11). Yet they were both men for whom Christ died and to sin against one of these brethren was to sin against Christ.
5. There was a diversity of customs. It was true that in Christ Jesus there was neither Jew nor Greek, but it was also true that there were Jews and Greeks in Christ Jesus. These statements are not contradictory. The gospel did not require a Jew to become a Greek, nor a Greek to become a Jew, in order to be in Christ Jesus. It was only in Christ they were one. This required adjustment to local conditions upon the part of one who traveled from one area to another visiting the saints (1 Cor. 9:19-23; 10:31-33).
Ragnar Bring writes,
They were all one in Christ. Their unity was far more profound than a fellowship between those who hold similar views, or who think alike, or who are brought together because of social fellowship and equality. The unity in Christ Jesus was a unity which remained in spite of external inequalities, just as the unity of Christ with God remained and did not in any way become less when Christ emptied himself and became man, "born of woman born under the law" (Commentary on Galatians, page 187).
The nature of the unity in the early Christian communities was what made them so effectual. The world of that day was accustomed to a unity of exclusiveness which existed in fraternities and burial societies. In these people were brought together through mutual regard for each other and because of common secular interests. There was nothing strange about a synagogue composed of Freedmen, even in Jerusalem (Acts 6:9). But to find a congregation made up of men of different habits, customs, racial origins, etc., laboring as a unit because of a common love for Jesus this was impressive indeed. The deepest unity can never be that of conformity. It must always be unity which exists in and transcends diversity.
6. There was a diversity in opinions. The apologists for "the cult of the rubber stamp" can never successfully negotiate the depths of Romans 14. Here is a chapter deliberately designed by divine direction to tell us how to maintain unity in actual diversity. It forbids contempt on the part of one group for another, and forbids censorship on the part of the other. It begins with a fiat statement that we must welcome men who differ with us about matters of opinion, and not for the purpose of involving them in disputes or debates about the differences. "As for the man who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions."
The very next verse shows that those whom God has welcomed need not see everything alike. There is room in Christ for men to believe different things and still be one. One believes he may eat anything, while the weak man eats only vegetables. What reply is made to this by defenders of orthodoxy. One man in Colorado who is the champion of a legalistic code of conformity as God's ideal for His family, declared in print that there was no room for varied beliefs among those in Christ. He asserted that the only believer was the man who could eat anything, while the weak man acted through lack of faith. His predicament only becomes greater for he has God welcoming men who act through lack of faith, or without faith. The record says, "He also who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while he who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God" (verse 6). Will our brother have people honoring God through their lack of faith?
Note the expression "in honor of the Lord." This is the key to many of our problems. When men cease to regard the Lordship of Jesus over their lives, what they do is not acceptable. But those who act "in honor of the Lord" may differ greatly and may be exactly opposite in their views about many things and still be accepted. No legalist can ever grasp this! He will argue that "one of them has to be wrong." Granted! Perhaps they are both wrong. Then how can they be accepted? The answer is that the basis of our acceptance is not that we are right about everything. This would require no grace to save us. Why is this not the basis of our acceptance? For the simple reason that the kingdom of God does not mean being right about such things. It is in a wholly different sphere and upon a different plane. Being correct or mistaken about such things as observing days and eating meats does not affect our standing in it. There can be "diversity of opinions" about all those things in which the kingdom does not consist without affecting the constituency of the kingdom. "For the kingdom of God does not mean food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (verse 17).
When I think of the implications of this revelation from God, I am startled to realize how we destroy the work of God over matters wholly irrelevant to the kingdom of God. What we are doing, of course, is trying to make the kingdom after our own image. By seeking to become lords over the faith of others we end up being our own God. Each conformist uses himself as a criterion. Men must know as much as he knows, see things as he sees them, interpret passages as he explains them, hold the same opinion that he holds. Divergency is a sin, not because of disagreement with the party, for the party is but a projection of the partisan. It is a sin because it does not recognize his infallibility. To question him is to question God.
When another "infallible leader" arises in the party there must be a division. The party is the world, the religious universe of the factionalist, and there cannot be two infallible interpreters in the same world while they differ with each other. In case of difference each must have his own world. Every factional leader thinks of his party as the one holy, apostolic and catholic church of God on earth. This is the position of the Roman pope as respects his party. It is also the position of all the lesser papas in all of the orthodox parties of our day. True, in the changing climate of our day the pope has had to reluctantly refer to others as "our separated brethren" as do lesser popes refer to "brethren in error." Yet there comes to all of us in the controversies over means, methods and measures, the solemn warning, "Do not for the sake of food, destroy the work of God" (Romans 14:20). Does this principle apply to that which sustains a factional body as well as to that which feeds the physical body?
One Voice
We want to refer to one matter in connection with this which is so apparent that only those who are blinded by prejudice can fail to see it. Let us remember that when Paul wrote to the Romans the questions relating to eating of meats and observance of days were of tremendous importance and significance. They seem inconsequential to us now because they are not our problems. They have been displaced by other issues which will some day seem as trivial to others as questions about eating of meats seem to us now. But brethren were destroying each other over these matters when Paul wrote. The church was being shattered. These matters were made tests of fellowship and communion. If one had told the first century saints that the time would ever come when these would no longer trouble the body they would not have believed it. It will help us to remember the conclusions of the apostle.
The entire chapter (Romans 14) is given over to showing that men should respect and treat each other as brethren in spite of differing personal convictions upon these issues. The word "brother" occurs over and over and the expression "your brother" is of special importance. The theme is that brotherhood is a relationship created when God receives us (verse 3) and we need not agree with each other upon everything either to become brothers or to continue as such. After showing that we may maintain our divergent views and emphases, and be answerable only to God for them, the apostle concludes, "May the God of steadfastness and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (15:5,6).
Harmony with one another, and accord with Christ Jesus, are not contingent upon seeing everything alike. We do not have to settle all of our differences to be in harmony with one another. Harmony does not consist of seeing everything alike on the understanding level, but of welcoming one another on the faith level. This is a higher level upon which peace that passes understanding is created by the death of Jesus. He did not die to create a union of philosophers but a family of brothers. To predicate unity upon understanding is to sublimate faith to human knowledge, that is, to destroy the greater with the lesser. This makes the cross of Christ of none effect. Those in Christ do not have to settle all of their differences. All they need to do is to settle their differences in Christ, that is, to make the relationship He created by His blood greater than anything about which they differ.
Notice again the expression "one voice." It would be foolish for the apostle to devote a whole chapter to proving that men did not have to hold the same views or express the same ideas about a great many troublesome things, and then end up by saying they must all speak the same thing about every point of controversy in order to please God. We conclude a community of saints can with "one voice glorify God" even while holding various opinions. The King James Version reads, "That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God." To be of the same mind and to speak the same thing--as Paul uses the terms--cannot possibly mean to think alike or talk alike about every issue arising to trouble the saints, else the apostle made a serious mistake in writing the chapter of which this statement is the actual conclusion.
The harmony of mind is on the faith level, and so is the harmony of speech or testimony. It is "the faith of the gospel" which produces our oneness of thought and speech, not faith in our understanding or interpretation of doctrine or dogma. Men may strive together in the clouds who would strive against each other in the valleys. The battle of faith must be fought on higher ground than that of opinion, speculation, or mere human acquisition of knowledge. The tragedy of our age is that we have been so busy hacking each other to pieces on the lower slopes that we can never gather enough united strength to storm the ramparts. "Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear that you stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel." I have resolved to fight by the side of any child of God who battles for that faith. I shall not stop to kill my brother before I attack the enemy.
Basis of Conformity
Since every faction in the Christian spectrum exists on the basis of a special emphasis, either upon a particular scripture or a specific idea, what is the basis for the cult of conformity and order of orthodoxy in the "Church of Christ" to which I have alluded? I think it can be said without fear of denial that the basis of operation centers around 1 Corinthians 1:10. It is a twisting, warping and wresting of this scripture which leads them astray. It is astonishing that a passage written to offset and overcome division should be given an interpretation which can only produce and promote division, and which will open and aggravate numerous festering wounds without ever closing a single one.
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
What does this mean? To what did the Holy Spirit refer by the expression "all speak the same thing?" What is it to be perfectly joined together? What is it to be "in the same mind and in the same judgment?" The quest for truth demands objective research into this language. We dare not evade it regardless of where it leads us. We must not color or shade it to justify sermon outlines in our portfolio. We can begin, then, by observing that when Paul admonished the Corinthians to "speak the same thing" he was not plotting sermon outlines or planning Sunday school lessons.
The expression occurs within a setting and must be understood in the light of its context if properly interpreted. The family of Chloe had contacted the apostle and informed him that the church of God at Corinth was divided into four segments--a Pauline party, a Cephasite clan, an Apollosite auxiliary and a Christite cult. Each person was affirming aloud his affiliation to one or the other of these factions. The apostle wrote, "Every one of you says," and proceeded to show that they were saying they were not of the same party, or for the same leader. His exhortation to speak the same thing simply meant to desist from these factional identifications. It was given to cure a condition and must be understood in the sense of its application to that condition. The statement has not the slightest reference to conformity of opinion or interpretation. One did not have to speak the same thing about eating of meats, or keeping of days, for instance. There was room for differences in such spheres.
The fact is that Paul was not using an ecclesiastical expression when he urges the brethren "to speak the same thing." William Barclay writes, "The phrase he uses is the regular phrase which is used of two hostile states or parties reaching agreement." He translates it, "You should make up your differences." James Moffatt, aware of the historical account of a philosopher who ran into the marketplace to stand between two warring factions of Greeks, and who uttered these very same words, translates, "I beg of you all to drop these party cries."
Richard Francis Weymouth has it, "Now I entreat you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to cultivate a spirit of harmony." The New English Version renders it "agree among yourselves." Hugh J. Schonfield in The Authentic New Testament, puts it, "all hold together." The apostle is not regulating expressions or voicing of ideas among those who are walking together in love. His design is to heal a breach or bridge an existing gap. "To speak the same thing" stands opposed to controversy or contention. "It is reported that there are contentions among you . . . I beseech you to speak the same thing."
Those who quote the passage to apply to enforced conformity and stereotyped expression are always inconsistent. They must leave broad areas where their partisans can say different things and remain in the factional fold. It is only upon the humanly formulated test of loyalty, the party shibboleth, that all must pass muster and walk the verbal chalk line. In the particular movement in which I was reared there are some twenty-five separate and distinct factions. Every one of these parties allows the greatest latitude in opinion (and often in moral and ethical behavior) except in the test of partisan identity. It is only demanded that, if one is to be regarded as "sound in the faith" he must speak the same thing on the issue around which the party rallies as its standard. "The faith" is the orthodox position, the totem pole of the party.
In every one of these parties the adherents differ on a great many things. They do not agree upon divorce and re-marriage, upon Christians bearing arms in war, or upon the qualifications of elders. All of these are considered as grounds for discussion while the party position is regarded as a basis for division. Who makes the decisions as to which things are vital and which are not? Who draws up the lists of things that are immune and exempt, and formulates the limitations and restrictions? Who surveys the extent of the yard to be enclosed by the fence inside of which the children may argue and fight while composing "the brotherhood?" Who is the supreme court to determine upon what bases we may "set at nought a brother" in absolute contradiction to the word of God which forbids it?
Perhaps the most glaring demonstration of inconsistency is found among those who compose the faculty of Liberal Arts Colleges, regarded as church-related schools and maintained by contributions of members of the Churches of Christ. It is generally known upon every campus that certain teachers do not share the views of others. Conflicting and contradictory explanations may be given of certain passages from one classroom to another. Yet, as a body, these have reached an official interpretation of Revelation 20, and one who holds, the pre-millennial view is excluded and often not regarded as in "the Lord's church." It has been decided that the authorized and infallible interpretation of Revelation 20 shall be deemed, and is hereby decreed to be, opposed to the premillennial coming of the Lord, and this dogma shall be a test of fellowship, and of union and communion among the saints. Greater legalism hath no man than this!
The flagrant inconsistency of these college professors is seen in the fact that they laud as "giants" men who were avowedly premillennial in their interpretations. The books written by these worthies of another generation are required reading, yet if the men who wrote the volumes were alive today they would not even be allowed to lecture to a class composed of those who must pass an examination upon what they wrote. Since their day certain views have become part of the dogma. Fortunately, hundreds of alert young men and women in college are seeing through the incompatible and incongruous attitudes imposed by the factional spirit. A revolution has begun to restore Jesus to His position as Lord in practice as well as in word.
Thinking men and women can never be satisfied that all must understand Revelation 20 alike, while they may differ upon every other chapter in the Bible. Who determines the must and the mays? It is only those who twist such expressions as "all speak the same thing" into tools of conformity who must muzzle men's minds in one area of revelation while allowing them to run at will in other sectors. Of course, this all stems from a legalistic attitude which results from fear, not from faith. Men know they will not see every point of interpretation alike. They never have. The libraries of thousands of volumes on religious themes prove it. If it were not so, no theological school would require more than one set of commentaries. It is interesting to see the variety of commentaries offered for sale by bookstores operated in conjunction with journals whose editors unrealistically declaim that we must all speak the same thing. There seems to be a lot of money made from the fact that we do not!
Fruit of Inconsistency
The factional tendency which asserts itself when men realize that they do not always infer the same thing from what they read, is to fasten upon a particular item of belief, and elevate it out of proportion to other items, and even exalt it above the cross of Christ. On this matter they take a positive and definite stand, and judge every person by whether "he speaks the same thing" on this issue. The tragedy of such a procedure is found in the fact that it destroys integrity, both in the intellectual and behavioral realm. When one becomes convinced that his relationship with Jesus is established and sustained, and that his loyalty is determined, by his position on some item of controversy, every other consideration is relegated to secondary status.
Conformity as a basis of unity is a fantasy, whether in the realm of politics, economics, philosophy or religion. Conformity by coercion is the gruesome weapon of tyranny, whether employed by a single ruthless dictator or wielded by an institution which cannot stand dissent. It is contrary to the nature of man and becomes a yoke of intolerance. Thomas Jefferson writing about the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom in 1786, said,
Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desirable? No more than of face and stature.
It is regrettable that legalistic minds searching for a prooftext to reinforce the weak framework of a sermon outline on unity by conformity, have wrested from its context the statement of the apostle that all should "speak the same thing." Nothing is more incongruous than to see partisan leaders quoting this at each other. It would seem the proper thing for them to do would be to provide an example of what they so loudly affirm. Bombarding one another with the same text in an argument is hardly a demonstration of what the apostle meant by speaking the same thing.
A great many students are perplexed by the statement "that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." Surely if conformity is taught anywhere it is taught in this verse. Again, the problem is one of context. The expression "Be perfectly joined together" is katartizo, which carries with it the idea of restoring to the original state or condition. It was used as a medical term for reducing a fracture, or setting bones in a joint or socket. We still talk about bones "knitting together." A good example is found in Galatians 6:1, "Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness."
It is employed in Matthew 4:21 and Mark 1:19 for mending nets. In these cases it is apparent that the idea is to correct a situation so that proper functioning can resume. This is the reason for setting broken bones, for restoring a member discovered in a trespass, and for repairing a net. The appropriateness of this term will be seen when we remember that the word for "divisions" in 1 Corinthians 1:10 is schisma. This denotes a tear or rent, as in a garment. It is used in Matthew 9:16 for the rent which occurs when unshrunken cloth is used to patch a hole in an old garment. The corresponding verb schizo, occurs in the word schizophrenia, a type of psychosis resulting in a split personality.
With this background we can grasp the significance of what Paul is saying to the Corinthians. The fabric of brotherhood has disintegrated through cleavage and the formation of parties. It was impossible to discern the one body even when they met together in one place, because they maintained their exclusive partisan associations (Cp. 1 Corinthians 11:18,29). It was necessary to repair their grievous state so that the body could properly function again in the midst of a pagan society. Allow me to paraphrase the passage so you may understand what the apostle is saying to correct the situation.
I implore you now, my brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you stop your party cries so that the fabric of brotherhood will not be further rent and torn, and that you mend those rents which already exist by cultivating the same attitude and the same good judgment.
The Repair Tools
We recognize that it is difficult for those who have been reared and trained in a legalistic attitude to surrender sermon texts and outlines which have grown hoary with repetition. They will fight to hold on to such heirlooms in spite of their lack of value, simply because they have been in the family so long. Accordingly, when full explanation is made in an open forum of the meaning of the apostle, someone who must make "a last ditch stand" always arises to demand what is inferred by the expression "the same mind and the same judgment." Those who have long postulated unity based upon conformity and scoffed at "unity in diversity" find it a difficult thing to swallow their partisan pride and say, "I have been wrong about the meaning of that scripture all of my life."
I know from experience what happens to an honest man who has been defending an outpost under the mistaken concept that it is the whole territory when he comes face to face with his captain who demands that he haul down the partisan banner from above his walled fortress which he has so proudly defended. I also know the trauma which occurs when one must surrender his stock of ammunition, the scriptural passages with which he has been bombarding various camps of saints on the other side of the hill. I suspect there is ever the temptation to want to retain your side arms and continue to do a little partisan "bushwhacking" in your leisure time. So it never surprises me when a preacher in my audience digs in his heels, wraps the factional rope around his hands and hangs on for dear life while it slowly slips from his clutch and he looks wildly around for reinforcements, hoping the cavalry will come dashing down the slope at the last minute to save the party flag.
However, in this case, my own integrity will not allow me to compromise my conviction. I must insist that the apostle is not advocating conformity across the whole Christian spectrum as essential to oneness. Instead, he is dealing with a specific situation. The community of saints has disintegrated into four warring tribes, making the community of saints militant against itself. The apostle commands a repair job. He begins with an emergency measure calculated to halt the growing cleavage. "Stop these party cries!" (all speak the same thing). He then proceeds to the method of repairing the damage already done. "Mend the rents in the fabric" (be perfectly joined together)
A repair job requires tools. These instruments must be adapted to the task to be performed if the end is to be accomplished. The tool which Paul handed to the Corinthians for their work of restoration is labeled, "the same mind and the same judgment." No other device could fit a situation such as there existed. They must have the same mind as to what they were to try to do. They must have the same judgment as to how to accomplish it. The first refers to purpose, the second to method.
To assume that what was absolutely necessary in correcting a critical emergency is normative for daily living and survival is indicative of shallow thinking. It is like insisting that one should throw away food and live on penicillin shots because this was prescribed when one had pneumonia. If all members of a household are aroused at 3:00 o'clock a.m. to rush one to a hospital with a ruptured appendix, we do not conclude they must all arise at that time each morning to demonstrate they are still members of the same family. Nor do we assume that because they functioned in such perfect unison under special stress they may not disagree with each other about many things and still love each other dearly.
There is room in Christ for differences. There is no room for division. It was division which Paul sought to eliminate in Corinth, but he only sought to palliate differences in Rome (Romans 14). You eliminate disease by curing it, you palliate a condition by easing it without curing it. The treatment for division is rejection of the condition. The treatment for differences is forbearance of your brethren. To differ with brethren is not a sin, to divide the family of God is a sin. We oppose division because we hate sin, we seek to reduce tensions and lessen areas of difference because we love brethren. We must regard division with intoleration while we treat differences in a spirit of toleration. Toleration is not endorsing something which you think to be wrong, it is simply enduring one who thinks it is right. It is a relationship sustained to honest brethren and not to their ideas or thoughts. A brotherhood is composed of thinkers and not abstract thinking.
So long as division exists in the community of saints we share in its shame even while laboring to overcome it. If we condone or defend it we also share in its scandal. No one in the family of God can be wholly free of disgrace as long as strife in the family is exposed to the open gaze of an unbelieving world. Not one individual can justifiably adopt an attitude of indifference or unconcern when the Lord has laid upon all the burden of being peacemakers. This requires much more than being a passive peace lover. It demands an actively pursued campaign to restore peace--to make peace. It is not enough to boast that you have never caused division. You may not have caused anything else either! If division exists in the community where you are, regardless of who created the situation, you are obligated by the authority of God's word to do something to repair the breach.
This involves much more than a halfhearted invitation to another partisan preacher in the community to "Drop over sometime and we'll talk about our problems over a cup of coffee." It includes being able to drink the cup that He drank, and being baptized with the baptism He experienced. Peace must be waged. It must be relentlessly pursued. "Seek peace and ensue it." There must be a strategy of peace in which temporary defeats are never confused with a lost cause and skirmishes are not confounded with the war. Division must be seen in its true nature, as a damnable, destructive, defiant sin against God and the Majesty of His Fatherhood. The campaign for peace is not a game of tiddley-winks. It is an endurance contest which is not a struggle for men with weak hearts and sickly stomachs. Peacemakers must be "strong in the Lord and in the power of His might."