Why Can’t We Get Along? —Lectionary Reflection for Epiphany 3A (1 Corinthians 1:10-18)

1 Corinthians 1:10-18 New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition

¹⁰ Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you but that you be knit together in the same mind and the same purpose. ¹¹ For it has been made clear to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters. ¹² What I mean is that each of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” ¹³ Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? ¹⁴ I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, ¹⁵ so that no one can say that you were baptized in my name. ¹⁶ I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else. ¹⁷ For Christ did not send me to baptize but to proclaim the gospel—and not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power.

¹⁸ For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

                *******************

                Why can’t we get along? That is a good question. Quarrels and divisions aren’t a new phenomenon, but it does seem like our divisions today are greater than I can remember. Perhaps it’s due to social media. I can post something on Facebook or some other site that is incendiary, and off we go. Sometimes we don’t even need to post something that is all that controversial to set things on fire. Then there are the agitators who love to throw gas on the fire, starting with the President of the United States. If only we could get along. Wouldn’t that be wonderful? Families and friendships could be restored, but the likelihood seems less each day. But let’s not be too nostalgic. There was no golden age when everyone got along. But we can still hope!

                The reading for the Third Sunday after Epiphany takes us once again to the first chapter of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthian Church. Whereas the first reading (1 Cor. 1:1-9) was rather complimentary, with Paul calling the Corinthians saints of God who lacked no spiritual gift, in this passage, Paul addresses the first of many concerns he has about what was happening in this congregation he established. When we read Paul’s letters to the churches he founded, you see a strong parental sensibility present. These are his spiritual children, and he wants the best for them. As is true of most parents, he wanted his spiritual children to get along with each other. Unfortunately, these children have been quarreling with each other. He wants this quarreling to stop immediately.

                I approach this passage as one who has a strong ecumenical bent. I am part of a denomination that has made ecumenism a central theme. We claim to be a “movement of wholeness in a fragmented world.” It’s one of the reasons why I am part of this denomination and serve the church in its ecumenical outreach as board chair of our ecumenical and interfaith ministry and one of its ecumenical dialogues. More than anything, I look forward to the day when all of Jesus’ followers can sit down at the same table and partake of the meal Jesus established on the night before his execution (on this see my book Eating with Jesus: Reflections on Divine Encounters at the Open Eucharistic Table, Cascade Books, 2025). Unfortunately, we’ve not reached that day, but we do have an eschatological hope present in the book of Revelation, which speaks of the messianic banquet (Rev. 19:6-10). While most Christians are not engaged in killing each other as was once true, though the war between Russia and Ukraine has taken on, at times, the guise of a religious war, the divisions remain with us. In fact, the church remains rather polarized, often along political rather than theological lines. 

                In our reading, Paul appeals to the folks in the Corinthian church in the name of Jesus, asking them to agree and set aside their divisions. Rather, he asks that they be united, having the same mind and purpose. Paul said something similar to the Philippian church, asking that they be “in full accord and of one mind,” and in that passage, he asks that they have the same mind as Jesus when he chose to empty himself of his divine nature and take on the role of the servant (Phil. 2:1-11). When we read requests like this, we need to step back for a moment and consider what being in full accord and having one mind might mean for the church. Does unity require conformity? Are there firm boundaries, or is there a center on which we stand in agreement? Throughout church history, we’ve seen arguments for both firm boundaries and a more focused center with room to disagree. To give an example, what might we mean when we say that the Bible is inspired by God? Does this mean every word has been dictated by God and therefore without any kind of error, or do we presume to say that when it points us to Jesus, it fulfills its divinely inspired purpose?

                In the second reading for the third Sunday after Epiphany, the authority of the Bible is not up for debate. It does appear that baptism might be an issue in Corinth. However, it’s not a question of what baptism does for the believer or the form of baptism. Instead, the church seems divided according to who baptized a person. Paul writes throughout the letter in response to queries from leaders in the church who inform him about what is going on in Corinth. They are hoping he can resolve the tensions and address the problems that have emerged in this church, which exists in a very cosmopolitan context. In this case, the questions sent to Paul come from Chloe’s people. This seems to be a group of people connected to a house church that met at the home of Chloe, and who were likely led by her. The identity and role of Chloe is a bit mysterious, but she appears to be an important figure in the church and has Paul’s ear. It does appear that he trusts her judgment. 

                So, according to Chloe’s people, the folks in Corinth were dividing themselves around various personalities. There were those who said they belonged to Apollos, a well-regarded teacher who had earlier been instructed, according to the Book of Acts, by Priscilla and Aquilla, after he came to Ephesus but before he arrived in Corinth (Acts 18:24-28). Others claimed to belong to a party of Paul, while others followed Cephas (Peter). Then there were those who followed Christ. It sounds like the beginning of denominations, with even “purists” who said they belonged to Christ. I’ve always liked that group since it sounds a lot like my tradition. One of the slogans of the Stone-Campbell Movement has been “We’re not the only Christians, but Christians only.” We said it rather condescendingly of our denominational cousins. But then Paul asks a rather cutting question: “Has Christ been divided?” Later in the letter, he will speak of the unity of the body of Christ. Once we get there, the question asked here becomes even more poignant.  

                Having named the parties, Paul begins to ask questions about the divisions. He asked whether he had been crucified on their behalf. Or, had they been baptized in Paul’s name? The answer to both should be no. While this shouldn’t be taken as an argument against baptism, Paul reminds the congregation that he baptized very few of them. In fact, he thanks God he hadn’t baptized many of them. Why this is true seems odd, but it is his response to the divisions. He does take note of a few people he had baptized, such as Crispus and Gaius, along with the household of Stephanas. That he hadn’t baptized people in a church he founded sounds strange, but that is his position. He tells the people that Jesus sent him to preach, not baptize. This suggests that others in the congregation were authorized to baptize.

                Paul closes his diatribe by reminding the people that he had not been sent to preach with “eloquent wisdom.” In other words, he was called to preach, not entertain. He wasn’t a rhetorician who employed who made use of well-regarded methods of speaking to influence and gain power. Paul’s statement might also be a response to those who may have been wowed by Apollos, a man known for his communicative skills. While not demeaning Apollos, Paul addressed concerns about his speaking ability by suggesting that he was just called to share a message that spoke of a savior who had died on a Roman cross. That in itself might have been seen as problematic, even embarrassing. After all, to die by crucifixion was humiliating, and so to proclaim a message about a person executed in this way would seem foolish, even scandalous. Nevertheless, that is the message Paul chose to proclaim. Why is this? According to Paul, it is so that the cross is not emptied of its power. Our reading ends in verse eighteen, where Paul lets us know that “the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, it is rooted in the power of God for those being saved” (1 Cor. 1:18). The question for us, as followers of Jesus, are we scandalized by the cross?