The second reading for the Third Sunday in Ordinary Time comes from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians:

“Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters. What I mean is that each of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? … For Christ did not send me to baptize but to proclaim the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power (1 Corinthians 1:10-13, 17 NRSV)”

I will admit to a certain amount of confusion regarding Paul’s command to the Corinthians “that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose.” The general admonition I of course understand, especially in the context of Corinth: people in the Church should not be dividing themselves on party lines based on a particular apostle or leader in the Church, such as Cephas (Peter), or Paul, or Apollos. As Paul says, “Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” The core of Christian unity is Jesus Christ himself, in whom we are all a part of the body of Christ. Regarding this, there should be no disagreement or division. We are to be “united in the same mind and the same purpose.”

What does it mean, though, to “be in agreement” when there are genuine disputes regarding the nature of a teaching, what it means and how it is to be applied? I take it that the Corinthians thought they were correct in what they were doing, as do most of us. If we attribute good will to those with whom we disagree, and they to us, until either is shown not to have it, how do we proceed regarding disagreements? There should always be a willingness to listen to the other person, to hear them, in the context of being “united in the same mind and the same purpose.” That “same mind” must be the mind of Christ, to which Paul refers a number of times in the letter to the Philippians (2:2, 2:5, 3:15, 4:2), urging the Christians there to share the same purpose, love of one another and Christ.

At its most basic level, then, it seems that to be in agreement and to have no divisions in the Church is, indeed, to see Christ, not a particular teacher or leader, at the core of our identity and our lives. He is our unifying principle. The actual application of this unity can take place only when we acknowledge those with whom we disagree as brothers and sisters in Christ, with whom we share a common goal and destiny, which is the Kingdom of God.  I do not think it means allowing our deeply held convictions to flutter away in the wind whenever challenged – this was certainly not the way of the Apostle Paul – but to be aware that we might be wrong, that we might need to listen more carefully, and to ask that the one with whom we disagree do the same. Disagreements can clarify the truth if we seek the same mind, the mind of Christ. This remains difficult, though, because at the heart of having the same mind as Christ is having the same willingness as he to grasp humility and let it shape us in all of our relationships. One of the key problems that the Corinthians were burdened by according to Paul was being “puffed up” or “arrogant.” No one likes to be wrong, but unity can only, ultimately, occur, when we are willing to consider that we might be.

 John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @johnwmartens

John W. Martens is an associate professor of theology at the University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, Minn,where he teaches early Christianity and Judaism. He also directs the Master of Arts in Theology program at the St. Paul Seminary School of Divinity. He was born in Vancouver, B.C. into a Mennonite family that had decided to confront modernity in an urban setting. His post-secondary education began at Tabor College, Hillsboro, Kansas, came to an abrupt stop, then started again at Vancouver Community College, where his interest in Judaism and Christianity in the earliest centuries emerged. He then studied at St. Michael's College, University of Toronto, and McMaster University, with stops at University of Haifa and University of Tubingen. His writing often explores the intersection of Jewish, Christian and Greco-Roman culture and belief, such as in "let the little children come to me: Children and Childhood in Early Christianity" (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2009), but he is not beyond jumping into the intersection of modernity and ancient religion, as in "The End of the World: The Apocalyptic Imagination in Film and Television" (Winnipeg: J. Gordon Shillingford Press, 2003). He blogs at  www.biblejunkies.com and at www.americamagazine.org for "The Good Word." You can follow him on Twitter @biblejunkies, where he would be excited to welcome you to his random and obscure interests, which range from the Vancouver Canucks and Minnesota Timberwolves, to his dog, and 70s punk, pop and rock. When he can, he brings students to Greece, Turkey and Rome to explore the artifacts and landscape of the ancient world. He lives in St. Paul with his wife and has two sons. He is certain that the world will not end until the Vancouver Canucks have won the Stanley Cup, as evidence has emerged from the Revelation of John, 1 Enoch, 2 Baruch, and 4 Ezra which all point in this direction.