Psalm 133 is a sweet little poem celebrating unity. It is very nice when we see a family together with no strife, bitterness or divisions. That “family” may be the traditional family of parents and children and others who are part of the household, but by analogy could be any grouping of people: a church, a nation, the whole “family of humanity.”
Unity is good and pleasant. By inference, disunity—strife, conflict, bitterness— is bad and unpleasant. For ease I will call the couplet unity and strife. In a marked way this little couplet summarizes the deep psychological drives of humanity. Freud called them eros and thanatos; the life and death instincts. We know them pulling away at each other in the fabric of our own psyche. We see human history as the great aspiration for unity and the lived reality of strife.
Instances of strife are too easy to find. Over the last couple of weeks a few have taken more than their share of my thinking: the Anglican Communion threatening to be torn apart because one of its dioceses consecrated a gay bishop. Aspirations for unity seem a long way away there. Here in the USA the upcoming elections are gaining momentum, as are the invectives of the parties one for the other. What would good and pleasant unity look like in American political culture? Then there has been the brief but destructive war between Russia and Georgia, with echoes of cold war rhetoric as the West condemns Russia and Russia answers back in kind. Just this week large parts of the Christian church are raging against each other because of the strange goings on of a Pentecostal revivalist in Florida. He had been gathering a worldwide following of unprecedented size since April with massive exposure on TV and the Internet. Now he has resigned in disgrace and the knives are out. Unity amongst Christians? The impossible dream!
Unity in any area of life seems whimsical. Yet, when we see it, it is truly good and pleasant.
Two thoughts, then, about unity.
First, unity is not conformity. Conformity is often mistaken for unity. Conformity has the feeling of “being forced to” about it. Unity is the harmony of diverse members. Unity is the enjoyment and acceptance of the beauty of differences. Unity is the refusal of violence in actions, speech and thoughts. Unity is love enacted.
Second, unity is modeled in our notion of the Holy Trinity. Here we have trinity in unity; unity in trinity. Let me suggest it this way: unity in community. The historic debates of the church about the Trinity are interesting and complex. At times they seem obtuse in the extreme. Yet, the whole debate was to try to ensure that the Christian orthodox view was that the three persons of the godhead (and how they argued bout the term person!) were three and, therefore, distinct, yet at the same time were one. The conclusion was that the Ultimately Real (to use John Hick’s term) was the reality of unity in community. There is the model for humanity, created in the image of this ultimately real. Different, yet together. Neither conformity nor strife.
So, I am going to take an Aristotelian twist and say that rather than a couplet, “unity and strife,” it might help to think of a golden mean with unity as the virtue. The deficiency of unity is strife; the excess of unity is conformity. Neither strife nor conformity is our aspiration, but unity that love the other as other and rejoices in the difference. How good and pleasant would that be!
+Ab. Andy
Unity is good and pleasant. By inference, disunity—strife, conflict, bitterness— is bad and unpleasant. For ease I will call the couplet unity and strife. In a marked way this little couplet summarizes the deep psychological drives of humanity. Freud called them eros and thanatos; the life and death instincts. We know them pulling away at each other in the fabric of our own psyche. We see human history as the great aspiration for unity and the lived reality of strife.
Instances of strife are too easy to find. Over the last couple of weeks a few have taken more than their share of my thinking: the Anglican Communion threatening to be torn apart because one of its dioceses consecrated a gay bishop. Aspirations for unity seem a long way away there. Here in the USA the upcoming elections are gaining momentum, as are the invectives of the parties one for the other. What would good and pleasant unity look like in American political culture? Then there has been the brief but destructive war between Russia and Georgia, with echoes of cold war rhetoric as the West condemns Russia and Russia answers back in kind. Just this week large parts of the Christian church are raging against each other because of the strange goings on of a Pentecostal revivalist in Florida. He had been gathering a worldwide following of unprecedented size since April with massive exposure on TV and the Internet. Now he has resigned in disgrace and the knives are out. Unity amongst Christians? The impossible dream!
Unity in any area of life seems whimsical. Yet, when we see it, it is truly good and pleasant.
Two thoughts, then, about unity.
First, unity is not conformity. Conformity is often mistaken for unity. Conformity has the feeling of “being forced to” about it. Unity is the harmony of diverse members. Unity is the enjoyment and acceptance of the beauty of differences. Unity is the refusal of violence in actions, speech and thoughts. Unity is love enacted.
Second, unity is modeled in our notion of the Holy Trinity. Here we have trinity in unity; unity in trinity. Let me suggest it this way: unity in community. The historic debates of the church about the Trinity are interesting and complex. At times they seem obtuse in the extreme. Yet, the whole debate was to try to ensure that the Christian orthodox view was that the three persons of the godhead (and how they argued bout the term person!) were three and, therefore, distinct, yet at the same time were one. The conclusion was that the Ultimately Real (to use John Hick’s term) was the reality of unity in community. There is the model for humanity, created in the image of this ultimately real. Different, yet together. Neither conformity nor strife.
So, I am going to take an Aristotelian twist and say that rather than a couplet, “unity and strife,” it might help to think of a golden mean with unity as the virtue. The deficiency of unity is strife; the excess of unity is conformity. Neither strife nor conformity is our aspiration, but unity that love the other as other and rejoices in the difference. How good and pleasant would that be!
+Ab. Andy