A fruitful gathering of people requires some common purpose and an ordering of the gathering towards the accomplishment of that purpose.  Chaos or anarchy, despite the modern and post-modern insistence to the contrary, cannot produce purposeful fruit, as even the smallest of gatherings requires some mutual agreements, understandings, and cooperation.  As the size of the gathering grows, the necessary systems of governing develop into more and more formal means until they arrive at the laws and constitutions of nations.  This paradigm necessitates viewing the gathering not just as a physical and static collection of individual people, but as the dynamic ongoing relational life of a group of people functioning as a whole in some way.  For proper functioning of such a gathered society, right ordering is needed and this requires some externally imposed order rather than just internal standards.  For any group of created humans regardless of number, the order which governs their contributions and participation towards a fulfilling and satisfying purpose arises from the design of their Creator.

               Throughout human history, gatherings of people come in all shapes and sizes but share common features.  Whether 2 or 3 gather for coffee, 10 gather for a work project, 300 gather for a church service, 1 million gather into a city, or 300 million gather for a nation, some force of submitted order is needed to adequately govern their actions and interactions.  Each of these countless varieties of gatherings necessitate some purpose even if only aimed at the simple pleasures of life. A gathering without a purpose becomes a coincidental accumulation of disconnected individuals who happen to be physically co-present.  A gathering with a purpose, whatever that purpose may be, has the opportunity to effect that which the un-gathered or purposeless groups cannot do.  In acting upon such an opportunity of purpose fulfillment, something more must be added.

               Mutually agreed upon constraints must direct the collective effort towards the purpose.  Each individual submits to these constraints as those governed by a drive to fulfill a purpose.  In a family, governing constraints prevent certain behaviors that harm other family members as that would diminish the unity of the gathered family which is an accepted goal of a family.  In a work setting, governing restraints prevent different employees from hindering the well-being or productive functioning of others.  In a city, governing restraints prevent theft, libel, fraud, and many other destructive practices.  Without the individuals in any given group submitting mutually to such constraints, little stands in the way of chaos and its fruitless efforts.

               These constraints upon a gathering can be limited or extensive depending on the size of the group and its purposes.  Small gatherings and simple purposes require fewer constraints.  Larger gatherings and more complex or more extensive purposes require greater constraints in terms of their number and force.  The breadth and depth of necessary constraints inevitably grows as one moves from the former to the latter.  Informality often reigns in the smaller and simpler gatherings.  Culturally shared expectations and morally derived guidance require little to no formality.  As size grows and purposes develop in complexity, eventually some explicit and formal constraints are added.  Working groups in a business combine efforts, having agreed upon a vision and the necessary government for achieving such a vision.  Agreements on work hours, salaries, inter-employee communication, responsibilities, accountabilities, and more must be verbally established or explicitly written down.  These constraints remain as long as mutually agreed upon and as long as the individual chooses to remain in the group. 

               With the larger sizes of cities, states, and nations, even further constraints work their way into the daily life including the daily life of the smaller gatherings found within the larger gatherings.  Each individual’s choice to leave the group requires a greater effort.  Leaving a city, a state, or a nation requires greater effort than leaving a job.  Each member of these larger gatherings are faced with greater consequences for transgressing the mutually agree upon constraints.  Laws go beyond exclusion from a group but include loss of privileges, loss of freedom, or loss of possessions.  Some of the constraints on the smaller groups arise from what is constrained in these societies on a larger scale.  Cities, states, and nations impose their constraints upon the smaller groups such as who may gather with whom, where they may gather, and how they may gather.  Gatherings which opposed or undermined the order and peace of the larger gatherings will be dissuaded or outright prohibited.

               This manner of considering gatherings requires viewing them not just as a physical or static collection of people, but as a dynamic relationally interactive gathering functioning as a unit towards a purpose. The need for the previously described constraints arises from aspects beyond the need for simple physical proximity.  People are more than a bunch of apples or oranges arranged in one box but interact in complex and dynamic ways with our thoughts, emotions, and desires influencing us continuously.  This dynamic and perpetual interplay make any given future moment into a multitude of possibilities which grow in number as the number of participants in the groups increases. Even understanding the dynamics of small groups can challenge comprehension both at the level of data volume and depth of perception.  Recording the circumstances of inter-participant interactions is hard enough.  Understanding the multi-layered out-workings of these interactions over time is practically impossible.  Understanding larger groups requires settling for less and less granularity in data comprehension.  Even the use of supercomputers cannot fully plumb the depth and breadth in predicting results. 

               Once this complexity is appreciated, we must then recognize that religions and philosophies compete for the position of operational worldview in directing the gathered members and their respective gatherings.  Each paradigm offers potential paradigms and explanations through which to understand reality.  With these paradigms come moralities and constraints with their values and beliefs.  Some attempt to raise out of the individual or the groups some innate and autonomous drive for group purpose. These fall short in that they usually hold little force for the participants to comply with their autonomous authority or end up with a multitude of individuals with conflicting paradigms.  Others seek to impose an external constraint from a higher power of some sort.  Such higher purposes can motivate and constrain far better than the post-modern individualism and autonomy previously addressed. 

               However, if the worldviews are just derived and contrived constructs rather than reflections of true reality, then such man-constructed worldviews will stumble at a variety of points in producing fruits for gathered.  Many will see through their artificiality and only submit superficially.  Without a mooring in reality, the constructs will continue to morph and not provide a lasting foundation on which to rest, i.e. serve only as shifting sands.  Without a shared confidence in their reality, the gathered will not be driven towards as much fruitful production.  Only with a worldview based in reality, one based in the Christian view of man as a created being under God’s authority, living out that being through doing in a dynamic perpetual society of life can real gathering produce real fruit for a real purpose. Proper governing of the gathered can only develop within such a shared Christian worldview.

               With God and His directions for gathering, the actual gathering can lead to fruit which feeds the gathered.  God’s guidance serves as the best constraints for the small and the large gatherings.  In small gatherings, the purposes must be chosen which seek out what God’s Word sets up as right purposes.  With such right purposes, not only are the individuals directed towards a Godly target, but both the individual in themselves and in relation to others can know their rights and responsibilities.  With such insight, a right ordering of the dynamics of ongoing life leads to not only potential for fulfilling the purpose of the gathering, but also the higher purpose of relating rightly to God and our neighbors.  In larger gatherings of daily life, the gathered should still look to the principles and orderings provided by their Creator.  Choosing to violate these principles of God as Sovereign will frustrate, hinder and disable the proper productivity of the cities, states and nations.

               In the end, we see a need for right purposes combined with right ordering of the gathered.  If the gathered hopes for pleasurable fruit from their ongoing dynamic efforts, the paradigm for reality must come from outside their gathering, from something or someone larger than the largest group.  It cannot just come from individuals within the group like a social contract.  The higher purpose and the right ordering must come from a higher source than the gathering itself.  Therefore, we as Christians must look for how to govern truly towards the Words of the One who eternally govern all things.  If we are to govern ourselves and our gatherings, we must gather according to the constraints of our Sovereign Creator.  The clay must submit to the hands of the Potter rather than attempt to fashion itself.

Next in the Series: True Governing in Specific Settings

(continuing from part 1 where we considered the Biblical case for unity in diversity)

               Having established the critical foundation of pursuing unity in diversity according to Biblical principles, we develop the practice of gathering by looking at several general settings where these principles should be applied.  Head knowledge of general principles does not guarantee Godly fruit any more than peering into a mirror to see truth about oneself, yet walking away without changing one’s behavior (James 1:23-24). Instead, wisdom arises from repeated correct application of the principles to real life with respect to the specific situations encountered.  The out-workings of gathering in unity and diversity with a common purpose as described in the prior essay will obviously look different in different settings.  Comparing how different groups carry out such gatherings should help to better understand the common principles they share.  We will start by considering the gathering of otherwise familialy unrelated individuals around common interests or goals. The reasons for these gatherings will be surveyed before looking at the principles which encourage unity in diversity among these groups.  The special type of gathering of the Christian church will be considered before expanding out into somewhat more figurative gathering of communities, states, and nations.  After these general examples of gatherings which we can in some measure choose, we return to the most basic of gatherings which we don’t fully choose, that of family.  At the conclusion, we can hope to possess greater wisdom in how to practice gathering for good purposes.

               Besides the natural bonds of family ties, interests or shared goals of an endless variety may bring people together with their commonalities overcoming other differences of geography, race, religions, and more.  The strength of what is shared overcomes what is not shared, creating unity out of the diversity.  With the wide ranges of purposes which may bring diverse people together, varying approximations towards a Godly practice of gathering are reached. Before considering the gathered church as a special case, we look at other common purpose driven gatherings.  These demonstrate varying degrees of goodness in their gathering depending primarily on the purposes.  Along the spectrum, gatherings around common purposes may focus on a simple interest like a book club or a common service goal like serving the homeless or even a common policy stance in the broader community like pro-life or a common activity like some sport.  Each form of organized and ongoing gathering into clubs, teams, organizations, serves some shared purpose.  In each group. They share a set of goals that may be good or bad or somewhere in between.  Given the extremely wide variety of how these groups gather, only generalizations can be made here.   

               With these generalizations regarding purpose in mind, truly good gatherings will also aim to carry out these goals without intentionally harming individuals within the group for the sake of the broader group. Unity in diversity requires this practice of mutual benefit.  While the gathering does not have to offer equal benefits for all involved, all who strive for the shared purpose should agree that they share some degree of benefit in terms of the purpose and practice of the gathering.  Therefore, the gathering for a shared purpose should attend not only to striving for a good purpose, but also carrying out in ways which minimize detriment to the individuals within the group.  We do not want to be a part of a gathering which has a good purpose yet generally harms its members, thus favoring diversity over unity.  Neither is God pleased with such a practice of gathering. 

               We first look at how practices aimed at unity in diversity and mutual benefit work out in a church family.  Similar dynamics play out as within a physical family described at the end, but the church family ties are more malleable and more dissolvable similar to the gatherings of unrelated individuals to be described next.  People leave churches for good and for bad reasons with less impact on permanent ties.  They may still connect with individuals from the church, but not the church as a whole.  At times a departure may produce a full break with the individuals of the church.  Today’s mobility for work means many departures from the church, which typically hinder long term ties from forming.  Yet, short of geographical changes, there is an intention of God for the gathering of a church body to maintain integrity over time.  The members are known as brothers and sisters in Christ (Matthew 12:48-50).  The Bible provides instructions on how one is to behave towards the other (I Corinthians 11, love your neighbor, forgive trespasses, the Ten Commandments, and more).  Over time, bonds should form which the participants should not want to break, and affection builds which may surpass familial affections.  If one’s literal family is not Christian, there will be more eternal or spiritual commonality with the Christian brother or sister than with the family member. Unity of common faith will grow out of the diversity. 

               Moving to a wider scope of those gathered into a formal or informal local community, such gatherings will look and operate quite different than within a church body.  In the community setting, much more diversity will exist in terms of worldviews and lifestyles.  In such communities, one will find it easier to leave the gathering by simply moving and have less direct interaction with others as there are more participants who do not regularly, if ever, meet together.  One’s actual physical interaction is limited to a few within the community.  Still there are inherent Biblical expectations and accountabilities as for the church gatherings.  Love your neighbor still applies.  Love your enemy still applies.  Forgiveness of the repentant still applies.  The Ten Commandments still apply.  In addition to these basic relational expectations, some further mutual agreements arise from the community’s gathering.  Informally, cultural expectations of etiquette and communication develop.  Formally, communities agree upon local laws for their bordered area of residence.  While the unity of a community may be less intense and deep than a church family, unity must prevail over diversity if the community is to endure and to prosper. 

               In these settings, the purposes of the wider community will be broader than within a family or church and thus may be in less agreement with the values of individuals within that community.  Therefore, more potential for conflict arises as individual values are pitted against group values or individual values are pitted against one another.  To deal with these conflicts, the community will have more formal means of reconciling differences through courts and the like, yet the basics of conflict resolution from less formal groups will still apply.  In all of this, there will still exist a goal of a limited unity in a broader diversity working in some measure of cooperation together. For this to work the gathered must follow the designer’s design.

               As we consider even larger groups such as states or nations, much more diversity and inevitable lack of physical interaction arise in which some dependence on cultural norms continue but more formal laws and regulations are needed.  Such formal laws are needed even more where cultural norms are shared less strongly or where greater diversity leads to greater conflict.  Some sufficient force must maintain unity in spite of the greater diversity.  Under these circumstances, the state or nation must share a purpose and share at least some values.  A nation of all differences will likely not stand solely on sheer commonality of geography (Matthew 12:25).  Some enduring common cultural values must be shared.   For perpetuation of such a gathered state, an enculturation is required in which sufficient values are shared by the majority such that the unity of the gathered does not depend solely on the formal laws of the ruling government.  While the formal laws of a nation may make temporarily or permanently leaving its boundaries more difficult, formal laws will only bind outward compliance of behavior but not the inward consent of one’s conscience.  A unity working within diversity is still needed such that the diversity does not drive apart the unity of the gathered even at this scope of gathering. 

               Returning now to a smaller setting of family gathering, it will look different than with non-family gatherings.  We must acknowledge a connection with family that cannot fully be broken away from, a unity we are born into only choosing such unity in the case of marriage.  We see explicit accountabilities commanded within family relationships as we read the Bible including children to parents (Exodus 20:12, Ephesians 6:2-3), parents to children (I Timothy 5:8, Deuteronomy 11:19), and between relatives (I Timothy 5:8).  While these responsibilities to family do not overtake the calling of submission to our Creator, there exists a connection between family members gathered in which time has tied life and memories tightly together.  Interactions between family members have deep echoes as one cannot influence one family member without indirectly impacting on others in the family.  The participants in a family gathering must recognize their accountability to God’s design for family interactions as they have duties which they cannot simply ignore, neglect or deny. These bonds of family should be strengthened intentionally rather than ignored or misused.

               In each of these settings, there are not only good purposes, but also good or bad practices of gathering.  Unity must overcome the diversity of a gathering’s individuals through applying the simple principles found in the Bible.  As mentioned, loving one’s neighbor, following the 10 commandments prohibitions, and pursuing unity are needed.  Other essays over time will press further into these areas, sometime focusing on one setting or another and different aspects of specific gatherings.  Some essays will challenge current ways of gathering and some will try to point towards higher ideals of gathering. All are intended to point towards God’s intent and our accountability to Him.  Therefore, allis meant to bring us closer to what is not only a “should” but a goal of what is truly best for us as individuals and as groups.  We are currently headed in the wrong direction in today’s society and need some redirection.  We need to stop and look at the map given to us and reorient ourselves so we can move in a far better direction. 

Next in the series, True Governing of the Gathered

               We walk through life, daily choosing with whom to gather based primarily on the purpose of the gathering.  Beyond the need to choose a good purpose, the method or practice of how we gather deserves our attention as well.  While gathering to coordinate evil deserves to be judged as inherently wrong regardless of how well organized it may be, on the other hand a gathering with a good purpose deserves praise only when successful in the method or practice of carrying out the gathering.  Although we might hope that gathering to harm would be carried out poorly, we would clearly hope that gathering for a good purpose is implemented as well as possible. However, examples of good gathering done poorly abound. Gathering that is not considerate of another’s needs may be hurtful.  Gathering that is more focused on one individual within the gathering may be hurtful.  Gathering of immature individuals acting immaturely can produce significant strife. In order to practice good gathering, we should strive for a Biblically based unity in diversity that is grounded in Biblical principles of how to treat one another within that practice of gathering.

               In part one of this two part essay we consider the goal of living out unity in diversity  and how that practice undergirds gathering for a good purpose.  After establishing this practice as foundational to gathering according to God’s design, in part two we work through what this looks like in some of the most common gatherings in which we will participate.  This includes family, community, church, and other gatherings.  We therefore start with the broadest principles and work down into how they are applied in various settings.

               Society needs a new vision for how to practice gathering as the resistance against productive gathering has grown stronger in relation to the forces of attraction holding groups together.  Today, groups from the size of 2 or 3 to thousands come together regularly for some common purpose.  Even a nation of millions stands as a gathering of sorts for a common purpose of upholding shared values though they will not ever all gather physically in one location.  Given mankind’s fallen nature, these gatherings can be done well or can be done poorly.  Growing out of that fallen nature, the degradation of good interpersonal communication, as it contributes to the splintering of society into smaller and smaller groups, means that our society and its groups are less likely to produce good without the fruit of good gathering.  Beyond the simple fallen nature, the ongoing polarization of conflicting views further drives people into smaller and smaller groups emphasizing disunity.  In such a milieu, groups gather and soon dissolve or splinter as some conflict drives some away regularly. The diversity of opinion, preference, and personality overcomes the drive for unity in purpose unless a greater force counters the prevailing cultural momentum.  God’s instructions for pursuing unity in diversity can provide such a counter force.

               I thus begin a proposal for an ideal gathering, a gathering aimed at a good purpose carried out by practicing unity in diversity according to God’s instructions for treating one another.  Such a pattern of unity in diversity does not require a perfectly homogenous coalition where no conflict and no differences exist.  There are no expectations of a utopia where all place the other’s well-being above their own 100% of the time nor where all agree 100%.  Neither would the majority want to force compliance to a given group’s external standard, but instead hope to permit a voluntary gathering for a good purpose to form, bringing together the beauty of diversity within a mutually edifying unity.  Any potentially disruptive disagreements would be worked out by a conscious commitment of both sides to overcome such conflict.  If such an ideal is to be met, the actualization of this ideal must be carried out in light of the design given to society by our Designer which depends on unity in diversity.

BIBLICAL CASE
               Such a proposal for unity in diversity does not arise solely from human reasoning nor naturally from the evolution of society, but from a Biblical case that our Creator determined that we should live in such a manner.  Living in accordance with God’s design comes when Christians live as one body made of diverse members within the bounds of God’s truth.  We know this to be the case by examining God’s Word to see that he has given us multiple instructions in both the Old and New Testaments.  These instructions can be divided into different groups:  first, clear commands in how we are to behave towards one another; second, descriptions of the rewards of living in unity; third, commands against different forms of disunity; and fourth, the limits of seeking unity with others.  The ultimate goal for unity in diversity can be seen in the final eschatological vision of “every tribe, nation, and tongue” united before God’s throne which illustrates the type of kingdom that God is building here and now (Isa 49:6; Phil 2; Rev 5:9; 7:9, 14:6).

               First, God provides clear commands which point us towards a responsibility to live in unity despite the diversity we find in society.  We can read that God ends distinctions even Jews and Gentiles in Galatians 3:23 and Colossians 3:11.  The difference between being God’s people, the Jews, and not God’s people, the Gentiles prior to Christ, was abolished in that both groups were united in Christ without further distinctions as one people belonging to God.  The fourth chapter of Ephesians again repeats the theme of unity in the Spirit as Christians live under “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (ESV v.5).  In verse 16, our maturing into Christ likeness includes the image of living as part of a whole body made of different parts functioning seamlessly together.  The image of one body made of many members is combined with idea of “Jews and Greeks, slaves or free” being unified in one Spirit as we read I Corinthians 12:12-13. 

               Both the Old and the New Testaments further drive home how unity will look for a body made of different people, some stronger and some weaker.  The Old Testament instructed the Hebrew nation how to treat minorities among them, those who would not have had power to protect themselves (Exodus 12:48-49, Exodus 23:1-9, Leviticus 19:33-34, and Leviticus 24:22).  In these verses, there was to be one law for Hebrew citizen and sojourners among them and justice was to be maintained regardless of status.  Such a command to bear with the weaker broth is repeated in Romans 14 and 15 in the New Testament.  Together these commands to pursue unity would be enough to hold us accountable to seek unity in diversity but God’s Word gives us more.

               Second, we are also given promises of the rewards to those who seek unity in diversity.  Psalm 133 provides a vivid picture of the bounty of oil being poured over our head in the blessings of God as occurred when oil anointed Aaron as high priest.  The immensity of the blessing was described as dew settling on Mount Zion in that God would bestow His blessing, life everlasting.  In Romans 12:3-9, we read of the variety of gifts divided between different individuals within the church body.  Clearly, when we join those gifts together by the possessors living in unity, we receive greater blessings than we live ununified and absent one or more of those gifts in the church body.  This image of God bestowing a multiple of spiritual gifts upon His church is repeated in Ephesians 4:7-12 and the benefits of such unity in diversity are emphasized in verses 13-16.  On one hand, by utilizing the given diversity of gifts in one body, we will no longer be tossed too and fro by doctrinal winds or human cunning.  On the other hand, this unity enables the body of believers to grow and build itself up.  Clearly, the rewards described for unity in the body of Christ should encourage us to seek such unity in diversity yet God’s Words provides even further reasons.

               Third, God commands us against disunity in a number of scriptures.  James 2:1-3 clearly instructs Christians to avoid showing partiality based on one’s status in society.  Treating the wealthy visitor different from the poor visitor clearly violates God’s will.  In I Corinthians 6:1-11, God, through Paul, warns against Christians bringing lawsuits against other Christians.  Not only does this cast a bad image upon the Church, but it shows that they are not obeying commands to reconcile rather than remain in disunity.   Divisions within the church are also to be avoided as we read in I Corinthians 1:10-17.  There Paul urges that those who are choosing different church leaders to follow are bringing disunity into the church which should not be there.

               Fourth, with such commands to pursue unity and avoid disunity, God also sets limits to unity.  In Luke 12:49-53, Jesus Himself clearly states that he will be division to the Earth.  We know that this is based on how different people respond to Him in faith or not.  I John 2:19 tells us that some left the fellowship of the Apostles due to the very fact that they were not really unified in the first place.  Even among the Apostles, Paul had to confront Peter for the error of erroneously separating from the Gentiles (Galatians 2:11-14).  To preserve the unity of the early church Paul had to separate himself clearly from Peter’s error.  Similarly, the Corinthians were instructed to separate from the Christian brother who was acting in willful sexual sin (I Corinthians 5:15).  While the ultimate goal was to restore unity in truth, it requires a disunity for a time.  For this reason in 2 Corinthians 16:14-18, the Corinthians and thus us as well are told to not be equally yoked to unbelievers.  The disunity highlighted by Christ’s words in Luke 12:49-53 meant that we cannot be bound to unbelievers as we can be with believers.

               With these five points regarding God’s instructions for His children’s unity in mind, we return to the ultimate goal: the final eschatological vision of “every tribe, nation, and tongue” united before God’s throne being worked out in the here and now.  We pursue this ultimate goal by seeking unity in diversity within the limits He has set.

               Within this unity in diversity, we see wholeness despite heterogeneity in the practice of gathering.  Consider the parts of a car which are vastly different one from another, yet unified in the functioning form of a car or consider the parts of our bodies in their variety, yet unified in the functioning form of a being made in the image of God.  In these cases, the designed diversity actually contributes to the excellence of the unity.  In either case, the individual parts could not function properly without the diversity unified into the whole.  In gathering properly, we must bring together diversity for the sake of a greater whole than what a collection of homogenous individuals might do.

               If we are to gather to do something greater than we can do alone or than what we can do with others exactly like us we must approach the practice of unity in diversity with awareness and intent aiming at Godly principles.  We must be aware that we will at times disagree on the lesser issues even if we agree on the higher purpose.  We must be okay with this reality.  We must be aware that sometimes that other person is right and we are wrong but this does not change our worth or our role in the unity of the gathering.  We must remember that even if we are the one in the right, how we work to unify requires a respect for the other as a person for they are made in God’s image (James 3:9-10).  We are beholden to treat them according to the love of neighbor (Leviticus 19:18, Mark 12:31 and others) as we both stand under a Creator to whom we are accountable (Romans 14:12).  We must remember that the primary purpose is not our own success in a disagreement, but instead we should strive towards the higher purpose for which we have gathered.

               Before considering several setting of life in which this unity in diversity must be applied, we can see that not only does striving for unity in diversity make logical sense, but cannot be denied as the Biblical standard commanded by God.  As a good, loving, and wise Designer he designed the gathering of man to function most successfully when it functions according to the commandments He gave for society.  The principle of unity in diversity enables the diversity of individuals to join efforts and resources for the fruit of greater good than the individual can accomplish alone.  We will see how this should be applied in various settings in the next essay.

Next in the series, Part 2 of True Gathering: Gathering Well in Specific Settings