Thinking About Division

Perusing a recent book-sale acquisition, (The Comfortable Pew, by Pierre Berton) I opened to a section where the author was dealing with what he called "Pre-Packaged Morality," arguing that pre-marital promiscuity is not always wrong. (In 1965!) *Ahem.* I guess I feel that certain things are open to discussion and certain things are, well, not. Red smoke. Book, meet wastebasket.

This man, (whoever he was) was claiming to represent and speak for part of the body, and I have just dispatched with him rather unceremoniously. Am I justified? Could this be another question of choosing Paul, Apollos, or Cephas? Division is carnal, isn't it?

We too easily forget that Jesus didn't exactly come to bring peace (at least, as we know it). There is a slashing sword - like the sword at the entrance to the garden - that continually surrounds who He was, who He is, what He said, what He says, and what He stands for. There is truly a "peace of God," but it doesn't necessarily mean just getting along with everybody. (Jesus began the redefinition of peace in John 14:27.) As Rich Mullins said so discreetly, “Peace is not the opposite of conflict—it is the opposite of chaos.”

It is a truism to say that division is carnal, but the statement must be qualified contextually. Working off this key scripture, we conclude that, for the divisive, it is evil; for the devout, it is unavoidable. Which brings us to the classic question: who is divisive and who is devout?

The answer is somewhat obscured in that the devout often appear to be taking divisive action. But, before we gnash our teeth and stone them, we would do well to take a moment and consider. If my hand were to become gangrenous, it is my plain duty, out of concern for the rest of my body, to cut it off. In so doing, I appear guilty of blatant divisiveness in the dramatic flash of the knife, and it is at precisely this juncture where we must take things one step further; for what is worse, the act of division or the occasion which necessitates it? The gangrenous hand, although in no hurry to leave, is nevertheless more guilty of division than the healthy hand that cuts it off. The healthy hand for its part does not specifically enjoy the act, it simply must be done.

But we're not out of the woods yet, because we have still to deal with the issue of minority, as Stephen of Acts 7 was anything but a gangrenous hand. Disagreeing with the establishment makes you a heretic, but, Christianly speaking, it doesn't make you wrong. Indeed, being ostracized, imprisoned, or burned at the stake usually means you're on to something, as seen both historically and scripturally. The point that must be grasped is that it is possible for the devout to find themselves on either side of the equation, as sometimes a body cutting of a gangrenous hand and sometimes a goldfish being bullied in a pool of sharks.

The bad news is there's no formula, and the good news is there's no formula.