Unfortunately, this Christian diversity sometimes separates itself into homogeneous groups over differences difficult for the general culture to perceive. These subgroups then behave toward each other in ways ranging from benign neglect to open, violent, hostility. Tolerance is highly valued in contemporary culture, and the Christian history of intolerance is a fatal affront. Even the most tolerant and broadminded members of our culture withhold their acceptance from such narrow-minded sectarianism. The only thing the tolerant cannot stand is intolerance.
Accepting this cultural perception of Christianity on its face, I assert that for most individuals personal interactions with Christians are not close encounters with the narrow kind. Face to face, Christians—from as many of the groups claiming the name as I have personal experience—seem more interested in understanding God’s word and in following it’s tenets, than they are in playing a self-righteous version of king on the mountain. Christians actually seek to practice ideals of behavior such as, “Love those who hate you,” a choice contrasting sharply those broadminded people who cannot tolerate the intolerant. While understanding and following God’s word may not be the highest value for these diverse Christian groups, it seems to be an important value.
In fact, in my forty years as a believer I personally have never come face to face with one of the most damning of the general cultural views of Christians: that they celebrate and bolster their self-righteousness by being joyful about the impending or actual destruction of those they deem unrighteous. I simply have not had experiences validating this view. Christians in my personal experience are too acutely aware of their own failings to be anything but uncomfortable with the idea of anyone else "getting what they have got coming to them." These Christians typically rely on grace and strive for perfection rather than claim perfection and withhold grace from others.
This is not to say there are no self-righteous Christians, joyful at the destruction of those they deem sinful. Christians are not perfect; hence the felt need for grace.
Nor is this to say my personal experience is normative. It is not. My faith fellowship is what many would label fundamentalist and sectarian. My heritage is the “anti” congregations of the “non instrument” Churches of Christ, though I have been a member of more mainstream (if these labels can mean anything) Churches of Christ as an adult. Additionally, for the last three decades of my life I have made a personal study of what now seems to me to be the peculiar differences that divide Christians. While I have not been a world explorer of all things Christian, neither have I been cloistered in a sect.
I believe my experience with Christians has not been sheltered from their bad behavior. Certainly, my experience as a Christian has not been sheltered from my own bad behavior. Self-righteousness, judgementalism, and intolerance exist among the Christians—and also in my own heart--but they are not typical attitudes. These attitudes are not characteristic. As a lifelong insider among the fundamentalist sectarians, I believe my non-normative experience would more likely place me in contact with those our culture would expect to be self-righteous, judgmental, and intolerant than the norm. I believe my view of the group’s characteristic behavior is more accurate than the views of outsiders making conclusions based on brief encounters or secondhand information.
Finally, this is not to negate my earlier observation that the rich diversity of Christian groups treat each other with the full range of negative behaviors. It is not unusual to find group behavior falling short of high standards of individual behavior practiced by members of the group. I further assert these negative behaviors are not typical even though the general culture perceives them to be. I believe Christianity is far more diverse and tolerant than the general culture judges it to be.
I submit that diversity is a basic tenet of Christianity. It remains a basic tenet of Christianity in spite of the appearance that Christians divide themselves into homogeneous sub-sects and gaze on one another with suspicion. One of the most compelling arguments for diversity presented in our culture--for like it or not Christianity is part of our culture--comes from an extended metaphor in Christian writings, the one-body metaphor, in First Corinthians, 12:14-20. It is normative for Christians to look to passages like this for standards of behavior to follow in their daily lives. It reads:
Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body. (Net Bible)
The larger context of this passage reveals the metaphor to be part of guidelines about using spiritual gifts, leading some Christians at first glance to limit the passages’ application to “spiritual gifts.” However, a look at the lists in the chapter (12: 8-10 and 28) to define “spiritual gifts” from context broadens the metaphor’s application.
To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues.
* * *
. . . in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. (Net Bible)
Some of these talents, skills and abilities, these “spiritual gifts,” are miraculous and others are non-miraculous. Mislabeling all spiritual gifts in this passage as miraculous, wrongly limits it. The inclusion of non-miraculous gifts, “faith,” “teaching,” “administration,” and “helping others,” rightly broadens the passages’ application. In another “one body” passage, Romans12:6-21, the list of gifts includes even more non-miraculous, non-religious activity. From these examples, I argue that every aspect of Christian life utilizes spiritual gifts. It follows that the tolerance, acceptance, and diversity presented in the metaphor also extends to every aspect of life.
The one-body metaphor gives an ideal behavior for both the group member who feels alienated from his group and for the group seeking to alienate one of their group. The ideal tells me I cannot deny my place in the group because I am not like them nor because I do not have the position I honor. The ideal also tells a group they cannot deny a place to others merely because they are different. More importantly, the one-body metaphor emphasizes the crucial need for diversity, the homogeneous body can accomplish little, and the diversified body can accomplish much. The body is strong because of diversity not in spite of diversity.
The example is clear. The eye cannot hear. The ear cannot see. All the diverse parts of the body are important. To extend the metaphor further, we note that physiologists and anthropologists say the "opposable thumb" is key to the hand’s remarkable utility and strength. The "opposable thumb" is a characterization that seems inappropriate for something creating utility and strength. The whole concept of something in opposition being positive seems counterintuitive. Thumbs look different from fingers, are placed on the hand differently, and approach hand tasks from a different angle, yet if all these things were not so, the hand’s utility and strength would be diminished.
The application of the example is also clear. The person whose appearance is different, who sees things differently, and who approaches things differently, from a very different perspective, can greatly increase group utility and strength. In fact, that “thumb” may be the person essential to group success. There is no stronger argument for diversity.
However, more needs to be said about opposable thumb. Thumbs actually work in opposition to the fingers? Surely it is foolish to extend the “one body” metaphor this far. It is stretched to the breaking point. It is counterintuitive for a group to embrace a member who is so different they appear to work in opposition to the group. It is counterintuitive for an individual to think he can be an effective member of a group so obviously different from himself. Yet, that is precisely what the one-body passages assert.
During my student days, the college library hung a sign just inside the entrance: “People who work together can have anything they want, including a quiet library.” It's a truism that working together for a common goal in the same spirit, enables success. The one-body passages of Romans and Corinthians also talk about working together for a common goal in the same spirit. Diverse people who accept the shallow conclusion they are too different from one another, and begin treating each other as strangers, all pursuing varied goals, at cross-purposes with one another will not have anything they want. A diverse group of people all pursuing one goal, yielding to one another, respecting the diversity of viewpoints, skills, and approaches, while working together for a common goal, in one spirit, can, as the sign in the library said, have anything.
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. (NIV, John 13:35)
