Minds....Same/un-same? (v2)

Mis-informed minds may become informed; they remain individual; harmony is possible; compromise?

 

Consider this Bible pericope - noting Jesus had the group in his view to hear his rebuke:

And Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. And on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” And they told him, “John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets.” And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.” And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him. And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he said this plainly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.” (Mark 8:27-33, ESV).”

 

The disciples' minds were set on generally accepted views of the Christ in their community. The passage makes clear that at this stage Peter (and the other disciples) needed a change of thinking, a different mindset. In time, that was what happened. Minds were reset. And so it is - minds are renewed and lives transformed by the power of God's Holy Spirit. In a comparable exhortation from Paul: Don’t copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Then you will learn to know God’s will for you, which is good and pleasing and perfect (Romans 12:2, NLT). There is a difference, which will be seen.

In the last phase of John's Gospel we read that Jesus prayed for those who believed in him, then, and now. "And now I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one.
“I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that 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. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I 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 (John 17:11, 20-23, NRSV). The repeated "oneness" is critical. (Can Jesus' prayer be thwarted by us?)

How could such a disparate collection of people be "one", really? Already diverse, the group, by design, would steadily expand to include even more diversity. Being "one" is not words merely; it involves minds in accord. Being one is not "natural". God's power is needed and God is revealed in the changed ways of people who become God's family (see above). The key lies in the "hearing" of Jesus. That was the plan: I have other sheep that are not in this sheep pen. I must bring them together too, when they hear my voice. Then there will be one flock of sheep and one shepherd (John 10:16, CEV). Paul's writings frequently expound the practical oneness God wants amongst those who heed Jesus' voice.

Sometimes there is conflict of ideas needing to be resolved. Believers may have quite different views (minds) on many things and hold to either/or positions. Sometimes there is a best and a less good, or a right and a wrong. We read of one interaction described in (Apostle) Paul's mission which represents a critical example: But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question (Acts 15:1-2, ESV). The pericope shows that this was a challenging contemporary question with opposing views on what God required. Only one could be right in the light of God's final word. No compromise was possible. The argument was settled in favour of the freedom Jesus brings. I hope that the men determined to see the "old law" honoured were able to adapt to the perspective which applied then, as now. (No law, no religion, no achievement, can gain me salvation; the gift is offered.)

Just a little further on we have a record of another disagreement of a different kind, though still serious: After some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Come, let us return and visit the believers[a] in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.” Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark. But Paul decided not to take with them one who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not accompanied them in the work. The disagreement became so sharp that they parted company; Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus. But Paul chose Silas and set out, the believers[b] commending him to the grace of the Lord (Acts 15:36-40, NRSV). Paul appears to be the agreed leader but Barnabas was not ready to accept Paul's decision about Mark.  Both could not prevail without giving way. The argument ended by the team dividing into two, setting out to strengthen believers and share the good news of salvation in Jesus. (Does the last remark indicate others agreed with Paul?) I presume Paul and Barnabas agreed that Barnabas (and Mark) would look after the Cyprus leg of the visits.

Was this a regrettable failure on behalf of either or both of the protagonists? Perhaps. Some commentators clearly say just that - "failed". Was Paul just being inconsistent by retaining his own mind?  Does he contradict the position he adopted  elsewhere? Does the context and timing make a difference? Do we know everything about the sharp disagreement? We are not in the situation and I suggest we are not in a position to sit in judgement. What I do clearly see in the account is another example of the "warts and all" approach in the Bible. (Galatians, chapter 2, verse 1, indicates there was no permanent rift, if indeed there was a rift.)

More than once Paul urged believers to be of one mind; here is an example from him: May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you the same attitude of mind toward each other that Christ Jesus had (Romans 15:5, NIV).  This was about how people thought of other people. Surely we know how Jesus treated people?

Paul wrote comparable words to the Philippians, and even more strongly to two women. The people who made up the followers of Jesus in Philippi, and in Rome, and everywhere, were from a very mixed community. (It may be similar for us.) The Philippian numbers included slave and free, women and men, Jews and Gentiles, Greeks and Romans, old and young, veterans and civilians, majority race and minority race, citizens and non-citizens, and so on, though perhaps not many of the Empire's privileged class. Diverse they surely were but they were called to be a "lighthouse" community. This required effort, and even new thinking.

Is there any encouragement from belonging to Christ? Any comfort from his love? Any fellowship together in the Spirit? Are your hearts tender and compassionate? Then make me truly happy by agreeing wholeheartedly with each other, loving one another, and working together with one mind and purpose. Don’t be selfish; don’t try to impress others. Be humble, thinking of others as better than yourselves. Don’t look out only for your own interests, but take an interest in others, too (Philippians 2:1-4, NLT). They are now a very mixed team heading for a different but shared goal.  Their individual and ungrudging attitudes to each other was to be like that of the Lord's Servant.

(Curiosity: What happened if a family with a new baby boy asked the group on the eighth day: "Does our new covenant relationship include our baby? Does he receive a new sign of his inclusion?" Some new thinking has yet to be resolved. There is no record of any such discussion on covenant signs. The abrupt end to disciples' participation in the Temple sacrificial system has no discussion either, though the book we call "Hebrews" deals with that thoroughly.)

We read of the one particular (unexplained) emphatic difference at Philippi. Now I appeal to Euodia and Syntyche. Please, because you belong to the Lord, settle your disagreement (Philippians 4:2, NLT).

The appeal is addressed by Paul to two women living in Philippi in the first century. He speaks directly and specifically to each woman. Euodia and Syntyche are not otherwise known, but were part of the group of believers there and they had a history of sterling service in making Jesus known.

Most English versions are more literal and the women are urged to think the same. So, evidently, they were of un-same minds! What had Paul heard about them? I wish I knew. Evidently their disagreement had gone beyond the two individuals. A specific report must have reached him in his prison and he felt it appropriate to add this note. He urges his loyal companion in Philippi to work with these women. Was it too late, anyway? No problem remained to solve? May have been, or not.

Did the two women have conflicting ideas? Not about how to be saved, but something else, something to which there was no clear right and wrong to Paul, even if each of them thought there was one right idea, but a different one. It was clearly known that in some way they did not agree. Perhaps it was a strong disagreement. They happened (see above)!

 

Unlikely, but perhaps the women had central roles in delivering relief to Philippian widows but could not agree on details? Pure speculation on my part, but that very thing had happened in Jerusalem in the early days: In those days, as the disciples were increasing in number, there arose a complaint by the Hellenistic Jews against the Hebraic Jews that their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution (Acts 6:1, CSB). That problem was resolved at the time. Honest discussion can lead to happy solutions.

The fact of divergence between the two named Philippian women I think I heard preacher Barry Cooper ("Discipleship Explored") connect to the "arguments" in our day in "churches" and to burgeoning litigation. Is that valid? Just how safe is it to assume one party had offended the other? To assume that un-forgiveness was the underlying issue? As described above, a similar call for harmony Paul addressed to the whole Philippian group: make my joy complete by thinking the same way, having the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose (2:2, CSB). The task and the goal is common to Jesus' followers. Followers are frequently adjured to unity. Individuals we are, but we belong in one body. No room for the "looking after number one" mindset, nor stubborn individualism. Jesus was prepared to be the servant; the Servant. Jesus prayed that those who came after him would be one.

What of us today? How good are we at same minds? Many thinkers; same mind!

I think the protracted grave disputes, and resultant "unhappy divisions", of even today, show the relevance of the injunctions, difficult and unheeded though they may be. 

(The issue of offence and forgiveness is the subject of another post.)

The verb "to have in mind, be mindful of, think of" is frequent in Paul's words; for example:
Romans 8:5, 12:3,16, 14:6, 15:5; 2 Corinthians 13:11; Philippians 1:7, 2:2, 5, 3:15, 19, 4:2; 4:10  

Scripture quotations marked (CEV) are from the Contemporary English Version Copyright © 1991, 1992, 1995 by American Bible Society. Used by Permission.


Scripture quotations marked (CSB) are from the Christian Standard Bible. Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible®, and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers, all rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the Holy Bible, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission.
All rights reserved worldwide.
Scripture quotations marked (NLT) are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright ©1996, 2004, 2007, 2013 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (NRSV) are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Note: I retain in the publishers' text where they occur the references to footnotes, but usually not the notes. You can check footnotes out by viewing the text on-line. Often they are replicated in different translations.
Bible passages accessed via BibleGateway.com
Images: Pixabay