That They May All Be One

Sunday, May 16, 2010

Easter 7C

Jerusalem Baptist Church (Emmerton), Warsaw VA

John 17:20-26

²⁰"I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, ²¹that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. ²²The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, ²³I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

²⁴Father, I desire that those also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory, which you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. ²⁵“Righteous Father, the world does not know you, but I know you; and these know that you have sent me. ²⁶I made your name known to them, and I will make it known, so that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.”

How do you define unity? 

Looking up some definitions, I came up with the following:

1. The state of being one; oneness.

2. A whole or totality as combining all its parts into one.

3. The state or fact of being united or combined into one, as of the parts of a whole; unification.

4. Absence of diversity; unvaried or uniform character.

5. Oneness of mind, feeling, etc., as among a number of persons; concord, harmony, or agreement.

6. (In literature and art) A relation of all the parts or elements of a work constituting a harmonious whole and producing a single general effect.

Did any of those definitions resonate more or less with your idea of what unity means? 

There are, obviously, differing definitions of the term.  Would we apply different expectations of what we would expect unity to mean depending on what we were talking about? 

If we were talking about food, for example, say, milk.  I would expect the definition that would apply to milk to be something like number 4.  I want my milk to be ALL milk.  I don’t want any more water in it than is found naturally in milk, I certainly don’t want any fuel oil or chemical substance mixed in with it.  I would welcome the “absence of diversity” as a part of the definition of the unity of what I would pour into my glass or my cereal in the morning. 

If I were talking about my clothing, I could live with quite a bit of diversity in the components of my clothing.  Though I prefer 100% cotton, Polyester-cotton blends for dress shirts, or pants, or other items of clothing are economical, still feel natural, and can save a ton of time in terms of ironing.

But we’re not going to be talking about unity of food or clothing this morning, are we?  We’re talking about the unity in the sense of faith, of belief, of purpose as it relates to our understanding of being part of the body of Christ on the earth.  Which is, to put it mildly, a horse of a different color.

There’s some clarification that needs to happen before we even begin to approach an attempt to answer the question now as it relates to faith.  We need to decide if we are talking about unity at the beginning of the process or unity at the end – as a conclusion to or as a result of the process.  If you want to phrase it this way, do we want many to become indistinguishable in their faith or are we looking for a unity in spite of the ‘many-ness’ at the point of origin?

There are some who understand this as a black and white issue.  Unity means … unity.  Means uniformity, means compliance and agreement in all matters, with no dissent, no variation, no wandering from the normative definition of the subject matter.  That is a valid understanding of the issue.  It has to be because it is part of the definition of the word, and thus must be allowed to be part of the understanding of what it means to be one within the body of Christ.  It is simple without being simplistic.  It is understanding that there is a greater good to be found in the ‘no diversity’ view of the body of Christ because you know what to expect, you know what is understood when you are using all the terms and phrases that a common language provides – the language of faith – and therefore there is value in subsuming – in making yourself subject – even though you may in the beginning be in DISagreement with a given position you willingly surrender that initial disagreement in favor of maintaining that ‘no diversity’ understanding of ‘unity’ of the greater body. 

But, as you can imagine, there is another view, a different understanding of the issue.  And it has to do with where we place the ‘unity’.  If we place the unity at the end, as a result of the process, then the expectation – and the only allowed outcome – would be a unity of understanding, a ‘diversity-free’ understanding of faith. 

But if we were to place the unity at the beginning, then we have to modify our understanding of what the word was intended to mean.          

It might be helpful to explore a little bit about the language of Jesus’ prayer.         

Brian Stoffregen in his Bible Study resources website puts it this way:

I want to look more closely at the phrase in v. 23, which the NRSV translates "that they may be completely one."

The verb teleioo is usually used in reference to Jesus "completing" or "finishing" the work God has given him to do (4:34; 5:36; 17:40). A related word teleo is the last word Jesus utters from the cross in John, "It has been finished!" (19:30).

Literally, teleioo means "to make teleios' -- that is, "to make perfect, to make complete, to make whole (i.e., unblemished)."

Teleioo in our verse is a perfect passive subjunctive: "so that they might have been made perfect, might have been made complete, might have reached perfection." (see 1 John 2:5; 4:12, 17, 18 where the perfect passive is used -- which may be translated as a present).

The passive in our verse indicates that it is God who is perfecting us ("into" our one-ness). The perfect indicates that it is something that has been accomplished in the past and its effects are still with us, but the subjunctive indicates that it is a wish that it "might" or "may" happen -- often pointing to a future event.

Questions related to this are: "Are we to wait for God to perfect our unity?" or "Has our unity already been perfected by God and God is waiting for us to realize it?" What are the roles God plays in creating our unity? What are the roles we need to play in creating (or actualizing) that unity?

Those questions are what I’d like to explore with you briefly this morning. 

Are we to wait for God to perfect our unity?  Insofar as we understand that unity in a limited sense, and express it in a limited sense, the answer is yes, we have no choice but to wait for God to perfect it.  Paul expressed it well in his letter to the church at Corinth when he said ‘now we see through a glass, darkly, but then we shall see face to face’.  That applies here as well. 

Has our unity already been perfected by God through Jesus Christ, and God is waiting for us to realize it?  The answer to that is also yes.  The whole movement of the Kingdom of God on earth is a ‘now and not yet’ movement.  We live in a place where we experience both the imperfect here and now, but we also experience the hope of the ‘not yet-ness’ of the Gospel, and on blessed occasion are able to catch a glimpse of that coming Kingdom. 

What role has God played in creating our unity? God as the creator and being a part of the Trinity has already engaged in the most necessary part of that creation – in and through the person of the Holy Spirit. 

Does God continue to PLAY a role in creating our unity?  We would need to pose the question to ourselves.  If we take the presence of God to be a fact, and the work of the Holy Spirit to be a fact as well, then I think we have to admit that God’s role through the Holy Spirit is a continuing and very active role in creating our unity. 

So here’s the rub.  We’ve had all this talk about unity in the body of Christ – the Church.  But we can look around us – even within our own association – at very recent events that scream DISunity, that highlight the discord that can be apparent even in the smallest groups of believers.  We can search back into our own individual histories and remember events in the life of our churches – those we’ve been a part of in the past or even this very church, and with very little if any effort recall an instance where the spirit was anything BUT one of unity.  We can go back in history and recall events on a State, Regional, National or even international level that resulted in what was generally regarded as a prime example of DISunity, that may have even resulted in wars or decades of struggle and bloodshed.  Events that resonate even across the centuries as glaring examples of an almost complete ABSENCE of unity.

My question is this:  in thinking of those instances, what was the starting point, the presumption of understanding, when it came to the unity aspect?  Was it a rallying cry that the unity be achieved in the aftermath?  That the purpose of the conflict was the gaining of conformity and non-deviation in understanding or in purpose?

We have to ask that question because the first will strive to eliminate differing understandings, the second will allow and even welcome them. 

What does this mean for Jerusalem Baptist Church at Emmerton?

As Baptists, we have historically been a people who understand and accept that there will be differences of opinion and interpretation in matters of faith and practice.  It doesn’t mean that we always celebrate them, and it certainly doesn’t mean that those differences don’t lead to conflict and even pain and sorrow, and deep division within the body.  Our present national condition as a denomination reflects just such a conflict’s aftermath.  We have two state bodies that relate to the national body, we have two national bodies that to a large degree were born of the different definitions of the word “unity”, and we have an international body of Baptists that has also had to struggle with what definition will apply to all the member bodies from nations around the world as they relate to each other. 

I would urge us all to heed the Apostle Paul’s words to the Roman church, (12:18) “if possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all” and focus on the unity from which we are all born, whatever denomination, or stripe WITHIN a denomination we belong to – that of the Lordship of Christ.  

Hear these words of Paul to the Colossian church (3:12-15) (ESV): 

Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, ¹³ bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. ¹⁴ And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. ¹⁵ And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful.  

The church is no stranger to conflict and discord and differences of understandings.  That goes without saying.  I would venture to say that the majority of us have at some point in our lives been on either the sending or the receiving end of some of that disagreement and discord and conflict. 

I truly believe that if we were to accept the fact that there will, in fact BE disagreements and differing understandings TO BEGIN WITH, and if we are prepared to deal with them in a respectful, honest manner, never losing sight of the fact that even despite those differences the main purpose for ALL of those involved is the extension of the Kingdom of God, there might actually be a noticeable change in the perception that the world has about us.  And our effectiveness as witnesses to the presence and the action of God in the world would increase immeasurably.

May we be found so faithful.

Let’s pray.