02 Finding Unity in a Divided Church (1 Corinthians 1:10-13)

Krisan Marotta: Thank you for downloading the Wednesday in the Word podcast. I'm Krisan Marotta, and this is the podcast where we explain not only what scripture means, but how we figure it out. Today we'll be looking at 1 Corinthians chapter 1 verses 10 through 13. This is the second talk in our series on the book of 1 Corinthians. The lecture notes for today's talk are on the link below the podcast, or you can find them at wednesdayintheword.com slash 1 Corinthians 2. Thanks so much for listening. Not too long ago I was talking with another Bible teacher. At the time we were both team teaching through different books of the Bible. And he was amazed that I studied the entire book, not just the passages I was assigned to teach. I was amazed that he didn't study the entire book. He only studied the passages that he would actually be teaching, and we had this moment of looking at each other with this what planet are you on reaction. Well the first four chapters of First Corinthians are one of the best examples of why it's important and necessary to study an entire letter and not just sets of verses here and there. The early chapters of 1 Corinthians have several popular passages which are often used to prove a variety of points. My experience with hearing this book taught is that too often teachers miss the point of the verses because they fail to consider them in the larger context of the letter and the situation in Corinth at the time. One of the biggest mistakes people make is taking three to five verses without really attempting to put them into the larger context of the letter and the cultural setting. And this is a problem with all books of the Bible, but it is particularly a problem with 1 Corinthians. We just won't accurately understand what Paul is talking about unless we understand the situation into which he was writing. Remember, Paul is responding to specific questions that have been raised by the Corinthian church and specific information that he has been given verbally by people from Corinth. We need to ask, what does Paul have on his mind? What issue is he responding to? When we inspect just a few verses here and there without taking the context and the situation into account, we end up missing the point Paul's trying to make. Now that's true for all books of the Bible, but for 1 Corinthians, the background and what's going on at the time Paul wrote this letter is very important in figuring this letter out. The setting informs the text, and when we remove the setting, we can easily go astray. Well, let's review a little bit from last week. Just to remind you, the apostle Paul wrote this letter to the church at Corinth. He wrote this letter from Ephesus probably around 55 AD during what we call his third missionary journey. And he wrote this letter in response to a written letter from the church at Corinth and a verbal report about the situation in the church, and that Q ⁇ A structure gives us the structure of the letter. Paul typically starts his letters by reminding his readers who he is, and in this letter he says two important things about himself. He says he is an apostle of Jesus Krisant and that he is an apostle by the will of God. So Paul starts the letter stating right up front that he is writing to Corinth as a representative of Jesus and that God chose him for this role. And as we'll see, Paul's authority is going to become an issue in the letter. Before he gets into the body of his letters, he often expresses his gratitude for what God has done in the group he's writing to, and we saw that he did that in the letter. Paul thanked God for making them rich in speech and in knowledge in one five, and we will see that speech and knowledge is a big issue in the church, and in fact that's the first issue he's going to address. Chapter 1, verse 10 begins the body of the letter, and it begins the first issue that Paul tackles. He starts this topic in one ten and he continues this discussion through the first four chapters. If we only look at a few verses and not all four chapters, we're gonna go wrong. So let me read for us first Corinthians chapter one verses ten through thirteen, and I am reading from the New American Standard Version. Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Krisant, that you all agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each of you is saying, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Krisant. Has Krisant been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? Now if we were just to read that paragraph, we could come up with a fairly obvious understanding of this passage. Many people today have favorite teachers, and we could presume that was the situation in Corinth. We can easily translate our experience to what we think was going on in Corinth. And we could assume, well, if Paul was scheduled to preach, certain people would show up and others would stay home. If Peter were to show up, some would show up, others wouldn't, and if Apollos was on the schedule, then the place would be packed, something like that. And at first glance, if we read this passage in isolation, we would recognize a situation we find in most churches today. Everyone has a favorite teacher, and that's okay, but in Corinth it was escalated to the point where they were bickering about it and not getting along. So the situation has turned into cliques and groups that disapprove of each other and they are arguing over whose teacher is best. And Paul's point then is to stop the bickering about which teacher you like best and start getting along with each other. And if we were to only read these four to seven verses, it would be easy to stop at that surface understanding, and we could come up with a very nice practical sermon about unity and getting along. But what I want to argue is that there are clues in the text that something deeper is going on, and there are clues that this problem is a lot deeper than which teacher is best and who likes who best. Paul has that deeper issue in mind, and that deeper issue informs the first four chapters. Since I always like to include a little bit about Bible study in my teaching, what I want to do is look at the clues that something deeper is going on, and then we're going to talk about what Paul is saying. We have three kinds of clues which reveal that there's a bigger issue here. We have first the immediate context, and by immediate context I mean the first four chapters of 1 Corinthians. The second type of clues are clues elsewhere in Scripture, specifically in Paul's other letter to Corinth and in Acts, and then third, there are clues from secular history. So we'll take those in turn. First let's look at the clues from the immediate context. If we read through the first four chapters, we would discover that they stick to a theme. It may seem like he changes subjects through these chapters, but watch how the same issue keeps coming up. He keeps coming at the same topic in different ways, and he never abandons that topic. For example, in chapter three we have a specific reference to this same issue. This is chapter three verses four and five. For when one says I am of Paul and another I am of Apollos, are you not mere men? What then is Apollos and what then is Paul? Servants through whom you believed even as the Lord gave opportunity to each. Well that sounds a lot like first Corinthians one twelve, where he said, Now I mean this that each of you is saying, I am of Paul, and I am of Apollos, and I am of Cephas, and I am of Krisant. And we see this again later in chapter four. This is chapter four verse six. Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. So this issue of the divisions is running through the first four chapters, and we need to understand that it is a theme that ties everything together in chapters one through four, and so we want to understand these opening verses in light of that theme. The second clue is the term Paul uses in one seventeen, for Krisant did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Krisant would not be made void. That cleverness of speech, or your translation might have eloquence or wisdom of word. That is not just an offhand comment because over the next three chapters, the big theme that Paul is going to talk about is wisdom and speech. The word wisdom appears sixteen times in these first four chapters. He's going to talk about the wisdom of the world. He's going to contrast the wisdom of the gospel with the wisdom of the world. He's going to talk about how he spoke when he was with them, that he didn't use persuasive words of wisdom. He will defend the idea that the gospel is true wisdom from God, even though the world considers it foolish. And he's going to discuss how he spoke to them when he was there, that he couldn't speak to them as wise people, but he had to speak to them as children. So repeatedly in these first four chapters, he comes back to the issue of wisdom and speech, and he comes back to that issue of wisdom and speech much more often than he talks about the divisions. So we should note that in a section where he starts talking about the divisions in the church, he spends most of his time talking about the wisdom of the gospel and how he speaks it. And that brings us to our third clue. Although Paul mentions several groups in these early verses, most of the discussion focuses on himself and Apollos. He does mention Cephas or Peter, and he mentions Krisant in these early verses, but as the discussion continues, it is Apollos' name that keeps coming up. And he keeps contrasting those who would say they were with Paul with those who would say they are with Apollos. Now we met Apollos in Acts 18, but we want to make sure we understand who he was in relationship to the church at Corinth and to Paul. And in a minute we're going to go back to Acts to learn more about Apollos. Our last clue from the immediate context is that much of what Paul says in these first four chapters is about himself. He spends a lot of time talking about how he speaks, about how they should think about him, about what his job was and what his role is. And much of the discussion in these chapters is Paul defending himself. He defends his message, he defends how he delivers it against a certain perspective of the church, and he defends his authority to deliver it. And once you recognize that Paul is defending himself, you just see that more and more. For example, in one seventeen for Krisant did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Krisant would not be made void. Well that implies that there are some in Corinth who are insisting that Paul ought to preach with cleverness of speech, and the fact that he doesn't speak in that way is a problem. Here's another example from chapter two. This is chapter two verses one through five. And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom from claiming to you the testimony of God, for I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Krisant and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. So here we see all those themes, this idea of superiority of speech and of wisdom, the wisdom of men, and Paul is defending the way he taught them when he was with them. Later in chapter three he says this, this is three one and two. And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Krisant. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food, for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able. Notice again here the issue is how Paul spoke to them when he was with them, and later in chapter four, this is four verses three through five. But to me it is a very small thing that I may be examined by you or by any human court. In fact I do not even examine myself, for I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted, but the one who examines me is the Lord. Therefore, do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's heart, and then each man's praise will come to him from God. Again, he's defending his authority and the way he preached the gospel, and much of the flavor of the discussion in these chapters is Paul defending himself. The argument, as it develops over these chapters, suggests that the Corinthians thought Paul should preach in a certain way, that he should speak with a particular kind of wisdom and that he was not doing something right. And Paul defends how he chose to speak. He defends what he said, and he tells them how they ought to think about Apollos and to think about him. And he concludes by saying stop passing judgment. And that conclusion of stop passing judgment indicates this is not just a question of different people gravitating toward different teachers and not getting along. All of that suggests that the issue is more than who prefers which teacher or which teacher is best. This is not an issue of preferred learning styles. The problem is that some in the Corinthian church are judging Paul and finding him wanting. The Corinthians are passing judgment on Paul and they're dismissing him. Paul tells us he wrote these things in chapters one through three, so that they might not become arrogant one against another. The strife has escalated. And this problem is more than fashionable clicks. This is closer to I like Apollos and I reject Paul. I don't want anything to do with Paul. Paul ends this section in four fourteen with I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. So all these verses suggest that there is a problem in the way the Corinthians are judging Paul. Some are comparing Paul unfavorably to Apollos and finding Paul deficient, and the charge has to do with a lack of wisdom in the way Paul speaks. We see Paul defending himself and the way he speaks, and he dismisses the value of worldly wisdom. Now we're going to talk in more detail about what all that means as we go through each of those passages. But let's look at the clues we find outside the letter. Remember our background from Acts eighteen. Around fifty AD, Paul was on his second missionary journey, and he went to Corinth, where he met Priscilla and Aquila, who were tent makers. He supports himself in the same trade, so he works with them during the week and on the Sabbath he preached the gospel in the synagogues. For the most part the Jews rejected him, and then Paul goes to the Gentiles to a house next door to the synagogue where the Gentile godfarers are meeting and he teaches them, and that group becomes the basis of the church in Corinth. He stayed in Corinth about a year and a half and then he returned to Ephesus, and when he left, Priscilla and Aquila went with him. He leaves Priscilla and Aquila in Ephesus and he travels on, and that is where we meet Apollos. And as we read this, notice how many times Luke tells us how well Apollos speaks. This is Acts eighteen. I'm going to start in verse twenty four and go through nineteen one. Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man came to Ephesus, and he was mighty in the scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and being fervent in spirit he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John. And he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. And when he wanted to go across to Achaia, the brethren encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him, and when he arrived he greatly helped those who had believed through grace, for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the scriptures that Jesus was the Krisant. It happened that while Apollos was in Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus and found some disciples. So we learn here that Apollos is an eloquent, learned, and powerful debater. That word eloquent is learned it or educated, and it tends to be used of someone who is really good with words. The nature of his eloquence is that he knows the scriptures well and can speak accurately about the fact that Jesus was the Messiah. So Apollos was this bold speaker who knew the scriptures well, and he publicly argued with the Jews and proved them wrong from the scriptures. He boldly went into the synagogues and he made a good case from Scripture. While he was a skilled speaker and debater, his understanding of the gospel was deficient in some way. It appears that most of his understanding came from John the Baptist and not directly from Krisant. Perhaps he knew who Jesus was and what he came to do but was lacking some of his teachings. Or maybe he only knew the information about Jesus that John the Baptist had. We don't really know what the problem was, but in any case, Priscilla and Aquila take him aside and fill in the gaps in his understandings, and then they say, You should go over to Corinth, they could use you over there, and he goes. And we learn from 1827 that unlike Paul, when Apollos goes to Corinth, he finds great success among the Jews, and he wins them over. Well that gives the Corinthian church this great opportunity to compare Paul and Apollos. Paul spent a lot of time in the Corinthian synagogue and he didn't get very far and he switched to the Gentile God fearers. Apollos, by contrast, seems to have a good measure of success there. Okay, so what's the church in Corinth to do with that fact? And how does Paul respond to that? Well, notice this is from 1 Corinthians 16 12. Paul writes But concerning Apollos, our brother, I encouraged him greatly to come to you with the brethren, and it was not at all his desire to come now, but he will come when he has opportunity. At the end of this letter, Paul says, I encouraged Apollos to come to you, but he doesn't want to come right now, he'll come later. He calls Apollos our brother. And this verse suggests that Paul and Apollos are together at the time Paul is writing this letter. Paul wants Apollos to return to Corinth, and Apollos doesn't want to go. Well, that implies there's no rift between Paul and Apollos. Whatever their differences in style and calling, they're just fine with it and they get along fine. So the problem is not between Paul and Apollos, it's what's happened in the Corinthian church. Then we have another clue in Paul's second letter to the Corinthians. Corinthians At the end of that letter, Paul becomes direct and he speaks very bluntly to the Corinthians. It seems at this point the gloves come off and he speaks directly and plainly, and when he does, he tells us what the Corinthians are saying about him. This is Second Corinthians chapter ten verses nine through eleven. For I do not wish to seem as if I would terrify you by my letters, for they say, and then he quotes what the Corinthians are saying about him, his letters are weighty and strong, but his personal presence is unimpressive and his speech contemptible. And that's the end of the quote, then Paul goes on, let such a person consider this that what we are in word by letters when absence, such persons we are also indeed when present. So Paul tells us plainly that some in the Corinthian church are saying his personal presence is unimpressive and his speech is contemptible. Later in chapter eleven of Second Corinthians, Paul says this, for I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles, but even if I am unskilled in speech, yet I am not so in knowledge. In fact, in every way we have made this evident to you in all things. So notice that not in the least inferior, and even if I am unskilled in speech, he is not unskilled in knowledge. That tells us what the Corinthians are saying about him. Clearly the Corinthians find Paul inadequate as an apostle. They think he's inferior to the others, they think he is unskilled in speech, and that is the very issue he's defending in chapters one through four of 1 Corinthians. He is saying, I am an apostle, and my authority as an apostle was confirmed among you by signs and wonders and miracles. Yes, it's true I'm a nobody, I'm a nothing, but the fact of the matter is God chose me, a nobody to preach this message, and he confirmed my apostolic authority with signs when I was there with you. So Acts and Second Corinthians then give us this picture of Apollos as a man of really eloquent speech and words, that he is a powerful debater. He's probably also a charismatic and dynamic personality, and many in the church in Corinth are impressed with him. By contrast, Paul is physically unimpressive. History tells us he was a short man, he probably didn't have the charisma or the style of Apollos, at least he wasn't as skilled a debater. And the Corinthians are judging him and finding him deficient, they find his speech contemptible and they're rejecting his authority as an apostle. And that brings us to one more clue we have from our knowledge of history. In Greek history there was a very influential group called the Sophists. Their name comes from the Greek word for wisdom, which is Sophia. And Sophia is the word that Paul uses throughout these first four chapters when he talks about wisdom. It's the same word from which this group gets its name. The Sophists were around a long time in Greece. They were philosophers and teachers of the day who were skilled in rhetoric and debate. In fact, they prided themselves on their ability to take any side of an argument and win the debate. In some ways you could think of them as kind of like our modern lawyers. They were hired by others to win their case. They were a kind of debater, a lawyer, and they boasted that they could make the worst appear to be better. Didn't matter which side of the argument they were on, they could win it because they were so skilled in speech and rhetoric. Part of the reason Socrates was killed was that he was charged with being a sophist. He was one of those who made the worst appear better, but of course he denied that charge. Many people looked on the sophist with contempt because they had this kind of have mouth will argumentality. Like lawyers today, at various times in history they were regarded with favor, and at other times in history they were regarded with contempt. At this point, when Paul's writing this letter, the sophists were in favor, and their skilled rhetoric and debate was the fashion of the day. What people liked about them was their skill in speaking and their ability to persuade others. And that seems to be the kind of thing that the Corinthians want Paul to do. They want him to have this eloquent, verbal way of speaking the way the sophist had. So if we put all these clues together, a deeper picture emerges than who likes which teacher best. What we've seen is first, some are unimpressed with Paul and they find him unskilled and contemptible in speech. Second, Apollos is a man of great eloquence and a powerful debater. He came to Corinth after Paul left and he impressed the Corinthians with his ability to debate and win arguments. And then third, a split develops with some in the church judging Paul and finding him deficient and rejecting his authority as an apostle. For them, Apollos is their guy. And then four, Paul responds to this by defending the way he speaks without sophistry, without wisdom of words, and he's going to go on to compare the wisdom of the world with the wisdom of the gospel and claim the gospel seems foolish to the world, but it is in fact wisdom, and he concludes they should stop judging him. So putting all that together, I would argue that the issue is not clicks, but the rejection of Paul's authority, that the divisions had developed because of this deeper issue that some in the church are looking at Paul and saying, you know, he's just not worth listening to, and we're not really sure he's an apostle anyway. Now, Apollos, man, he's got wisdom. But Paul, not so much. Look how clever Apollos is at speaking, and Paul, well, Paul's just contemptible in speech. So I'm gonna argue the theme that's going to develop is not, will you all just get along? The theme that's going to develop is how can you find the gospel unimpressive? How can you think that the message of life and where to find eternal life and how to find forgiveness that I, Paul, preached among you is not worth listening to. So the issue is you need to come back to the gospel, you need to come back to the truth. Okay, with all that in mind, let's go back then to verses ten through thirteen and look at how he opens this discussion. I'll read first Corinthians one ten again. Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Krisant, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. So what is he urging them? This verse is often used to urge Krisantians to be united and it sometimes gets taught like this. Let's get over all that theology stuff. Let's just set all that aside and get along. We don't need to debate the Trinity or we don't need to debate the finer points of the gospel. We just paper over all of that and let's just get along. Drop the debates, don't let theological differences come between you. We're all one in Krisant, so let's get along. And I would say Paul is not arguing, let's all get along. Paul is arguing let's all have the same understanding of the gospel. He's saying, I urge you to agree, I urge you to be united in the same mind and in the same perspective on things. So get your theology right, not ignore it. So play a thought game with me. If the Corinthians wrote back to Paul and they said, Okay, Paul, we heard you. We are all of one mind now. We are all united in our belief that Apollos is skilled and wise, and you, Paul, are boring and contemptible, and we reject your authority as an apostle. And we agree, we are a hundred percent together on this. No quarrels going on here. Would Paul be pleased with that? Would he say, Oh great, I'm so glad you're getting along? I don't think so. I don't think Paul would be pleased at all, not because of his reputation or his lack of it, but because he wants them to unite around the gospel. He wants them to agree about what is true and important. The real problem, the deeper issue going on behind the divisions is that their way of thinking is wrong. And their wrong understanding is leading to the problems. He's saying your split in the church is based on bad theology. You have divisions among you because some of you have bad theology about the gospel and he's urging them to adopt the right theology. Some of them think that rhetoric and eloquence is more important than content. They think that style and delivery are more important than the content of the message, and Paul's going to argue it is the content of the message that is critical, not the charisma of the messenger, and you are fools if you think otherwise. How could you listen to someone explain to you how to find eternal life and dismiss him as boring? So what if he's boring? He has the words of eternal life. Now, I have to admit, us boring teachers love this. Because Paul is saying, Why would you care if the teacher, like me, Paul, is boring and lacks eloquent flair like Apollos has? Why are you focused on something so superficial? I, Paul, am preaching the words of life. I have the message straight from Jesus Krisant. How can you dismiss that? How can you seek fluffin' stuff and reject meaty theology? Look what's wrong with your thinking. So far from abandoning theology, I think Paul wants them to get their theology straight. What he wants for them is to stop being fools and to start seeking the truth, to stop valuing what he's going to go on to call worldly wisdom and start valuing the truth of the gospel. And he's saying if you do that, then you'll be united, then you'll reach agreement, and your unity will be based on an accurate grasp and a thorough understanding of the truth. Okay, let's read ten through thirteen again. Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Krisant, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, I am of Paul, and I am of Apollos, and I am of Cephas, and I of Krisant. Has Krisant been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? Now we don't know much about Chloe. This is a woman's name. Perhaps she was a wealthy woman and her servants or family members traveled back and forth between Ephesus and Corinth. They appear to be the ones who brought Paul the letter from the Corinthian church that he's responding to in this letter. Maybe she lives in Ephesus and her servants went over to Corinth and then returned home, or it could be the other way around. We don't really know. But he is getting this report from them. And he mentions four teachers here, himself, Apollos, Cephas, which is another name for the Apostle Peter and Krisant. But as the discussion goes on, the issue is going to boil down to Paul and Apollos. He's going to come back to those two again. So I would summarize the situation like this. Some in the Corinthian church have grown dismissive of Paul and his authority as an apostle. The main group of them are attracted to Apollos and his teaching style and they find him more impressive. Perhaps a smaller group is rejecting Paul in favor of Peter because of course we all know he's an apostle. He walked alongside Jesus almost from day one. How more authentic can you get than Peter? A few seem to have rallied to Paul's defense and aligned themselves with him, but we'll see as we go through the letter that Paul's not happy with that response either. And finally, some folks have said, forget all these other teachers, we just listened to Krisant. Maybe they rightly recognize that we are all followers of Krisant no matter which teacher we listen to, or maybe they've fallen prey to some of the early church heresies and are claiming they have the secret words of Krisant and all the apostles got it wrong. We don't know. We don't know too much about these last two groups because as Paul goes on with his argument, he focuses on the issue of Apollos versus Paul. Now again, just to be clear, I don't think Apollos tried to cause this split. The evidence we have, again, it's not much, but the evidence we have suggests that there was no rift between Paul and Apollos. They work together side by side without issue. This is an issue that has developed in the Corinthian church, and Apollos is the focus of the problem, but I don't think he intended to cause it. Paul's argument here is what is the bond that unites us? It is Krisant crucified. We are those who have been saved from our sins because of Jesus Krisant. So listen to Peter as an apostle, listen to Paul as an apostle, listen up to Apollos as a good teacher or anyone who proclaims the truth of the gospel. That's what we want to be united around. The gospel of Krisant crucified is what will save you. Krisant is not divided. There are not multiple gospels. Paul, Apollos, Peter, Krisant, we all teach the same words of truth and the same message about how to find eternal life. So what I want you to unite around is that message. Not the style of the debate, not the way we speak. Don't make any of us your gurus or your heroes. Instead, unite around the gospel. Listen to the gospel, whoever proclaims it, no matter how eloquent that person is or how boring they are. That's what you want to unite around. Now we are going to talk a lot more about this issue as we go through the chapter because Paul's not going to leave this until chapter four. So what can we learn at this point? The first thing I think is the strategy for unity is not to overlook deep theological issues. The strategy is to pursue truth. Now it is true that there are some issues about which we can disagree, and it is also true that there are some kinds of disagreements that we just ought to overlook. Some issues are not worth fighting about because they are so tangential to the gospel. And Paul is going to give us advice on those kinds of issues later in the letter. But the gospel is not one of those tangential things. We are to have unity around the right thing, and the right thing is the gospel. Who is Jesus Krisant and what did he do for us? Other types of unity which are based on things like race or gender or economics or social class or stage of life. Well, those are nice, but they're not the goal. The goal is believing the truth of the gospel, and that's the real path to unity. If we're all seeking the same truth and following the same truth, that will unite us. Paul is not concerned that the Corinthians are dismissing him as a person or a teacher. He's concerned that they're dismissing his message, which he knows is the authoritative word of God. It is the message about how to find eternal life. That's the issue. Don't dismiss the message, seek the gospel, unite around it. And truth will unify people because there is only one truth. There is truth and there is error. If everyone is pursuing the same truth, then everyone's going to agree. They will have unity because they follow the same truth and the same Lord. If they are not in unity, they're missing the truth somewhere, somehow. And I think underlying his real concern is the gospel, the truth of the gospel. He's not trying to create unity for the sake of harmony, but he wants everyone to believe the truth. Unity for the sake of unity is conformity. It's not true unity. Trying to enforce conformity is only going to lead to disagreements. I've been in many churches and groups that have made this mistake. Let me give you an analogy. Suppose your small group goes out to dinner and the leader announces everyone needs to order the same meal for the sake of unity. What's going to happen? Well the vegetarians are going to lobby for a very different meal than the carnivores, and those with kids are going to want something very different than say the paleo keto folks. And everyone's going to start fighting about which meal to order because the leadership has decided that unity means we all have to have the same meal. If you've ever tried to order a pizza with a group, you'll recognize this. Now before you dismiss my example as silly, think about how many times you've heard that in churches, but they don't say it quite like that. These are all examples from churches and groups I've been in. For example, there's one clear path to leadership. Everyone has to take the introductory course no matter how long you've been a Krisantian. Well, why does everybody need to take the introductory course? Maybe some people don't need it. Or we all need to be on the same page. Therefore, everyone is going to focus on evangelism this year. Well, God might be calling different people to different things. Or something like we can't have a contemporary service that would compete with the traditional service. Well, if we're teaching the same gospel, why is that a competition? Why isn't that just like offense and defense of the same team? Or you've probably heard this one, we have to have communion every week, no, we have to have it every month, no, we only need it once a quarter. Everybody has to do it the same way. That's conformity, that's not unity. Or, well, you can't start an evening Bible study because that would compete with our community groups, and everyone has to be in a community group. I would argue that's not unity, that's conformity, and conformity rarely works for everyone. In fact, conformity tends to have the opposite effect because everybody fights over what the thing is we're all going to conform to, and you get more disagreements, not less. Many years ago I heard Pastor Stuart Briscoe say that his philosophy of ministry was to have something that offended everybody, as long as they all believed the same gospel. That's a pretty good philosophy of ministry. Have something to offend everybody, every kind of music, every kind of worship service, every kind of style, have communion at different times in different services, have evening groups, morning groups, have something that everybody prefers as long as you're pursuing the same gospel. That is certainly not conformity, but it could produce a lot of unity. Now, we are all going to disagree on things. There are many times when we're going to have to humbly say, well, you think X, I think Y, one of us is right, one of us is wrong. We still believe the same truth of the gospel, and we will keep pursuing the truth together and agree to disagree at that moment. So there are tangential things about which we can disagree, and we're going to talk about those as they come up in the letter. But let me give one other disclaimer here. Paul had the right and the authority to claim as an apostle that he had the words of life. Teachers and churches today do not have the right to claim that kind of authority, in my opinion. And we should be careful of a church that says, We're the only ones who have it right, and you must unify with us. Teachers, pastors, churches today just don't have that kind of authority to demand that others follow them and them alone. Now we all need to strive for unity based on truth with a humility that none of us can claim to be an accurate, authoritative spokesman for the truth the way Paul was. None of us today can authoritatively claim I have the right way, I have the words of life the way the apostles did. In principle, Paul is making some claims that some gurus and churches say today. They're saying, We have the words of life. We're the only ones who have it. If you disagree with us, you're a heretic and you're wrong. And we need to be careful there. Paul had the right and the authority to make that kind of claim because he was an apostle chosen by God and Jesus. No one today has that authority. As he said in the opening letter, he's an apostle of Jesus Krisant and he is an apostle by the will of God. And that kind of authority ended with the apostles. The authority we have today is only insofar as we have accurately understood the truth, but all of us need to teach and preach with the humility that we could be wrong. Finally, this issue of style over substance is one I think the modern church in America today needs to reflect deeply on. Paul is going to go on to argue that he and Apollos are teaching the same gospel. So for the Corinthians to choose sides is just silly. They are choosing based on something other than truth and content. And as we'll see, they are choosing based on style and delivery. And that's a warning we ought to take seriously. This is the age of Facebook, Pinterest, and Instagram. The media today is all about style over substance. And we ought to take Paul's warning seriously because our culture tells us style is supreme. In our culture, the person who wins the debate is usually the person who looks the best, who speaks the most glibly, or who delivers the best zinger or most memorable sound bite. It's not necessarily the person who is right or has the best, most persuasive argument. Our culture has Twitter wars where we debate issues in a hundred character messages. That kind of thinking bleeds over into the church. We begin to be people who want preachers who tell us stories, who make us laugh, who tickle our ears with poetry and platitudes and keep the sermons under twenty minutes. We want our preachers to be more like Jon Stewart than Jonathan Edwards. And I think we ought to take Paul's warnings very seriously here and ask ourselves, are we rejecting the words of life because we don't think the teacher has enough flair? Are we missing the deeper truth of the gospel because we want stories and entertainment and one-line zingers? Well, it's not wrong to want to be entertained, but we can cross a line at some point, and we ought to think critically about how far down that path we've gone in preferring style over substance. I think Paul would say it is the content of the message that is crucial. What really matters is the content, and are you teaching the gospel, not how articulate the delivery is. You've been listening to the Wednesday in the Word podcast. I'm Krisan Marotta, and this is the podcast that explains not only what a passage means, but seeks to teach you how to figure that out. If you've been blessed by this podcast, please do me a favor and take a minute and leave a rating or review on iTunes or your favorite podcast platform. It really does help people find the podcast. And even better, share this podcast with a friend. Our theme music is graciously provided by my friend and favorite musician Reggie Coates. You can find more of his great music on heartfeltmusic.org. Thank you for listening today. I'm Krisan Marotta, and I hope to see you next week at Wednesday in the Word.