Indeed, salt is what we find when it comes to St. Paul's teaching on church unity: alongside the many familiar passages exhorting communities to work for and maintain the unity of the Body we also find his insistence that the united Body needs to care for its health. Sometimes one of the Body's limbs may become so infected with gangrene (2 Tim 2:17) that the only solution is amputation. Thus, there are a number of important passages that exhort communities to avoid, shun or cut off from communion those who create dissensions “in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught” (Rom 16:17; see also for example 1 Cor 5:1-13, 16:21; Gal 1:9; 2 Tim 2:16, 3:5; Titus 1:10-13, 3:9-11). Of course, church discipline, unlike amputation, is aimed at preserving the Body and saving the limb, not throwing it away (e.g., 1 Cor 5: 5; 2 Tim 2: 24-26). It is also a reversible process, unlike amputation (2 Cor 2:6-11). But despite these caveats, this exclusionary aspect of the New Testament is painful and must be mentioned precisely because it is sometimes in danger of being hidden behind pink clouds of ecumenical enthusiasm.

To hide the “hard sayings” of St. Paul is to produce a skewed picture of his theology. But to hide his “soft sayings” behind black clouds of ecumenical hostility is even more misleading because St. Paul's dominant outlook is not exclusion but inclusion. We cannot say that St. Paul's instinctive approach was to look for ways to exclude, and only if those were exhausted would he grudgingly admit someone into the fold. On the contrary, his requirements for membership in the Church of Christ were known to be as minimal for others as they had been for himself (e.g. Luke's account in Acts 16:31). St . Paul consistently resisted attempts to raise the barriers and make it hard to join and harder still to be regarded as fully orthodox. He looked instead for ways to bring and keep people in, to look for the minimal step to which he could say “yes,” even if that meant working initially with a messy mixture of interpretations within the one church.

The term “unity” (enotis) occurs only twice in the New Testament, both times in Ephesians (4:3, 4:13), but there is also a strong insistence, using phrases like “being one” and “be of the same mind”, that Christian unity is a relationship which reveals its mystical, sacramental and eschatological dimensions precisely through the harmony of a united mind shared among people of the most diverse backgrounds, personalities, locations, and cultures, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one
body--Jews, Greeks, slaves, free--and all were made to drink of the one Spirit” (1 Cor 12:13). St. Paul tells the Corinthians,

I appeal to you brethren, by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgement (1:10).

He repeatedly exhorts congregations to agree with one another (to auto phronein, lit. “to mind the same thing,” Rom 15:5, 2 Cor 13:11, Phil 4:2). He tells the Philippians, “Complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind” (2:2). Full unity in the church is thus a unity of love and a unity of faith, a unity of heart and a unity of mind.

Unity in this full sense is understood as both a gift from God and the fruit of sincere human effort. St. Paul prays that God will grant the Roman community to “live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 15:5-6). But he also exhorts them to action, knowing that creating harmony will require a great deal of vigilance and effort, since the natural fleshly temptation is to see every difference and sin as a cause for legitimate schism (as they had in Corinth, where he wrote Romans). So he urges them to cast away their old, fleshly outlook of suspicion, fault-finding and exclusion, and replace it with an outlook shaped by their life in Christ: acceptance, forbearance and inclusion. Conform your ways to God's ways and look first to include rather than exclude, “welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you” (Rom. 15:7; cf Rom 3:25,1 Tim 1:16, 2 Pet 3:9). He exhorts them to avoid magnifying their opinions on ascetic and liturgical piety into causes for argument , recrimination and division(Rom 14; 1 Tim 6:4, 2 Tim 2:14): “then let us no more pass judgement on one another, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block nor hindrance in the way of a brother” (Rom 14:3).

As I noted at the start of this essay, if toleration, patience and inclusion are St. Paul's favourite tools for working on church unity, they are not his only ones. Some differences cannot be embraced through communion because they endanger the community's health and even survival as a Christian community. These differences must be addressed swiftly and in the sharpest terms. The last resort to preserve the church's unity is exclusion.

Unity and Division in Corinth

We see this twofold approach very clearly, for example, in St. Paul's dealings with the Corinthians. In First Corinthians he begins with an appeal for toleration (1:10ff); at the centre of his message is the hymn of love in chapter 13; and he ends the letter to the troubled community with yet another reminder to “let all that you do be done in love” (1 Cor 16: 14). As he signs off we have a picture of effusive affection : “The churches of Asia send greetings. Aquilla and Prisca, together with the church in their house, send you hearty greetings in the Lord. All the brethren send greetings. Greet one another with a holy kiss. I Paul write this greeting with my own hand” (1 Cor 16:19-21). “Maranatha , our Lord come. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you. My love be with you all in Christ Jesus. Amen” (1 Cor 16:22b-23).

Yet the same final chapter includes a sober warning: “Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, be courageous (lit. be manly), be strong” (1 Cor 16:13). And then, tucked into the centre of the warm final greetings comes this lightning bolt: “If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed,” literally “let him be anathema” (1 Cor 16:22a). This was not some vague imprecation, but a technical term (used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew herem, the holy ban) for exclusion from the communion of the church. Nor was this mere hyperbole: exclusion was precisely what St. Paul had prescribed to be carried out by the assembly in 1 Cor 5:1-5 (Cf Ezra 10:8).

Love and anathema are put together in one sentence, without any hint of embarrassment or apology. This is inconceivable in the contemporary ecumenical environment , but here it is in first century Corinth. “Love for the Lord” is the double-edged sword that unites and divides in St. Paul's view of the church. This strips St. Paul's vision of Christian unity of all sentimentality.

After this general introduction I would like to focus more specifically on Corinth to see in greater detail how the issue of unity was handled in practice. The lessons of Corinth are remarkably apropos to current debate on the nature of unity and authority within the church. But Corinth also brings to the fore the positive witness of some Christian division, since the problem there was not just disunity, but too much unhealthy unity.

St. Paul in Corinth

St. Paul arrived in Corinth from Athens, probably in the spring of 51 AD after starting churches--and stirring up beehives-- in Phillipi, Thessaloniki and Veria (Beroea). We know that he was not averse to provoking division for the sake of the Gospel, so he left in his wake not only a string of fledgling Christian churches united in Christ, but also a string of divided, angry synagogues and had to be spirited away by less provocative pastors like Silas and Timothy.

His stay in Corinth began and ended with such divisions (see Acts 18:1-18). He began with three weeks of preaching in the synagogue, testifying “that the Christ was Jesus”. Some responded well, but most rejected his message and opposed him publicly. Paul was exasperated. He had been going first to the Jews every place he went in Europe, but now he would focus his efforts elsewhere:

And when they opposed and reviled him, he shook out his garments and said to them, 'Your blood be upon your heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.' And he left there and we to the house of a man named Titius Justus, a worshipper of God; his house was next door to the synagogue. Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the lord, together with all his household...(Acts 18: 6-8).

St. Paul did not quietly move to the other end of town: he moved right next door, and took the synagogue ruler with him! While this is Luke's description, it fits well with everything we know about St. Paul's willingness to be divisive when necessary. Paul himself readily admits, for example, that “when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face” because he and other Jews with him “were not straightforward about the truth of the Gospel” (Gal 2:11, 14). St. Peter had been equivocating--demonstrated by his cowardly behaviour-- on a central aspect of Christian life, the freedom given by Christ to Gentiles and Jews, their emancipation from bondage to the ritual requirements of the law. St. Paul could not allow this to go unchallenged (note that Peter's actions mean as much to St. Paul as his words: he does not limit his view of Christian doctrine to words alone, but draws conclusions about unhealthy belief on the basis of the actions he sees).

After 18 months, a group of Jews united to attack St. Paul (omothymadon, lit. “with one mind,” another example of negative unity) and brought him to Gallio, the proconsul, for trial. They were probably charging him with advocating a religion that should no longer receive the benefit of Roman laws protecting the Jews, but Gallio impatiently dismissed their accusations as mere internal wrangling and refused to hear them any further. In the wake of the ensuing beating of the synagogue ruler Sosthenes (another sympathizer of St. Paul?), the apostle left a few days later.

He travelled through Asia Minor for the better part of a year going “from place to place...strengthening the disciples” (Acts 18: 23), but eventually settled in Ephesus for two years, from where he wrote 1 Cor (1 Cor 16:8), probably in the spring of 54 AD.

The earlier letter: warnings on unhealthy unity

We know that Paul had already written to the Corinthians once before (1 Cor 5:9) to warn them about unhealthy unity. They had been tolerating a case of blatant public immorality among them, and he told them to stop associating with immoral Christians. They claimed to have misunderstood his instructions (probably to avoid carrying them out), so St. Paul corrects them and makes it clear that he is not requiring them to withdraw from the world. God will take care of judging the world: they are to be concerned about the health of the church (5:10). He insists again in the sternest terms that they are not to associate with immoral Christians, and asserts his complete authority to judge them in this matter:

But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard or robber--not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom we are to judge? God judges those outside.'Drive out the wicked person from among you.' (1 Cor 5:11-13, cf Deut 17:7).

Here the context of St. Paul's reference to Deut 17:7 is instructive, because it relates particularly to the divine authority attached to the decisions of human judges, especially in regard to open defiance:

...coming to the levitical priests, and to the judge who is in office in those days, you shall consult them, and they shall declare to you the decision. Then you shall do according to what they declare to you...you shall not turn aside from the verdict which they declare to you, either to the right hand or to the left. The man who acts presumptuously, by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord your God, or the judge, that man shall die; so shall you purge the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear, and fear, and not act presumptuously again (Deut 17:9-13)

This passage points to St. Paul's particular anxiety about Corinth: they were apparently united in their individualism and in their resistance to living within a hierarchal community. Hierarchy represented oriental despotism in the eyes of most Corinthians. With their republican Roman inheritance this was perhaps to be expected. But for St. Paul, with his Jewish background, hierarchy could not be automatically equated with oppression, since Israel at its best moments in history exhibited a pattern of synergy between God, human leaders and popular assent . For Paul, to be a leader is not to lord it over the people, but to have a ministry from God for their upbuilding, just as Jesus himself was the servant -King. “For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake” (2 Cor 4:5). If anyone is oppressed in Paul's view of hierarchy it is Paul, with his continuous labour and suffering on behalf of the Corinthians for Christ's sake. He does not “lord it over your faith” (2 Cor 1:24), will “gladly spend and be spent for your souls” (2 Cor 13:15) and prefers to use persuasion. He commends himself to the peoples' conscience and hopes for a voluntary change of heart. But finally he also insists on the authority “which the Lord has given me for building up and not tearing down” (2 Cor 13:10).

1 Corinthians: Disunited Factions, United Immorality

Now the Corinthians had sent St. Paul a response. Or rather, it was not a response at all, but an entirely new letter with questions asking for advice on various other points (7:1). They seem to have ignored the thorny issue he had raised earlier. But St. Paul also had his ear to the ground and knew the issues they were avoiding. “Chloe’s' people” had reported to him that they had found factions and continuing public immorality, two serious challenges to the community's healthy unity. How St. Paul deals with these is instructive.

1. The divisions which have been reported to him are for St. Paul the most significant disfiguration of their Christian life and so he deals with these first.

I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgement . For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarrelling among you, my brethren. What I mean is that each one of you says 'I belong to Paul,' or 'I belong to Apollos,' or 'I belong to Cephas,' or ' I belong to Christ.' Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Cor 1:10-13)

St. Paul has given us the names associated with the various factions, but what was their particular content ? He does not say, nor does he seem to care. He dismisses them and immediately moves on to remind the Corinthians of their baptism and earliest commitment to the undivided Christ. As far as he is concerned these factions deal in distracting and inconsequential side-issues. The Corinthians had lost all sense of proportion by magnifying the nuances of their own views and making these the criteria of who is ‘in’ or ‘out’. As far as Paul is concerned, their differences do not touch on the essence of the faith so he does not even waste time grappling with their content. He is much more concerned that factions have developed around these names, with boastful attachment to particular teachers (3:21-23), so that the Corinthians are “puffed up in favour of one against another” (4:6-8). They are divided at the Eucharist (11:18) and in court (6:1), having accepted worldly standards of unity based on personal rights, privilege and social standing. All of this prevents them from focusing on Christ and the Cross, from widening their hearts and being servants of one another.

At the same time, by refusing to address the content of these factions, St. Paul is telling the Corinthians that they have drawn the circle of “ins” and “outs” much too tightly. The much broader standards of “love for the Lord” and being able to say “Jesus is Lord” ('no one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit,” 1 Cor 12: 3) are the ones he uses for drawing the circle in Corinth. But here it is important to remember that St. Paul did not divide the Lord: love for the Lord is intimately bound up with love for His Body, the Church. To love the Lord is to love the whole Lord, head and body (it is precisely this combination of faith in Christ and love for “the saints” for which he commends the Thessalonians and Philemon--1 Thess 1:4, 2 Thess 1: 3, Philm 1:5).

While St. Paul did not focus on the content of the Corinthian factions, it is useful for us to consider this even superficially in order to have a picture of the level of diversity St. Paul is able to accept within the one church.

(1) The teaching and methods of the Alexandrian Apollos (Acts 18:24-19:1) may have suited the philosophically inclined, offering an approach to Christian life through the intellect. His approach may have been especially attractive to those who were familiar with the writings of Philo, St. Paul's Alexandrian contemporary who sought to produce a synthesis of Greek philosophy and Jewish revelation.

(2) It is possible that Cephas visited Corinth, but more likely that his name was attached to a faction which preferred to understand Christianity through a less philosophical reading of scriptures and Jewish law, and continued to shape their Christian life on close observance of at least some aspects of the law.

(3) Although the content of this group is the most debated, followers of “Christ” may have been especially attracted by an emphasis on individual spirituality, prayer, ascetic life, and may have considered themselves to be the only true followers of Christ in Corinth.

(4) The faction that used Paul's name may have been a “freedom” party, preferring to emphasize Christian liberty in matters of thought and behaviour. Or perhaps they were insisting that Paul alone was the true teacher of the faith. In either case, St. Paul refuses to be the guru of an exclusive cult.

Clearly, even if these characterizations are not entirely accurate, we can see that Corinth had spawned a range of Christian interpretations and emphases which St. Paul considered at least permissible--if not ideal-- within the one church. This was not true everywhere. In Galatia rigid insistence that Jewish circumcision, ritual observances and liturgical calendar were required aspects of Christian life was for St. Paul an unacceptable and dangerous rewriting of the Gospel because it denied the heart of the Gospel message (Gal 2:16, 3:24-25, 5:1, 6:12-15); likewise in Colossae the requiring of various ascetic and liturgical practices based on alleged mystical experiences could not be blessed as legitimate diversity (Col 1:16-23). Thus, while accepting the presence of diverse practices and emphases within the churches, St. Paul consistently resisted attempts to (1) absolutize any one of these and (2) to increase the requirements for Christian life beyond what was originally preached.

The Corinthian celebrations of the Eucharist are also symptomatic of their factions. St. Paul tells them that their Eucharistic gathering are

not for the better but for the worse, for in the first place, I hear that there are divisions among you and I partly believe it, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. When you meet together it is not the Lord's supper that you eat...(1 Cor 11:17ff).

Factions are to be expected, confirming again the notion that unity is not an end in itself. What matters is being “genuine.” Indeed, the unity they claim to experience spiritually is not unity at all, but self-deception, since they cannot be united with Christ in the eucharist if they are not behaving in conformity with the Eucharist. Merely partaking of spiritual food and drink is no guarantee of salvation, as Israel's punishment in the wilderness demonstrated (1 Cor 10:1ff).

Likewise, while the Corinthians are united in local pride over the abundance of their spiritual gifts, these gifts have become just one more source of individualism, confusion and arrogance rather than a powerful gathering of diverse strands for the building of their community as a whole (see 1 Cor 12-14).

2. Besides their sinful disunity, the Corinthians have persisted in their sinful unity by continuing to tolerate public immorality in their midst. They were even boasting of their freedom regarding sex and food: “all things are lawful for me” was their motto(6:12, 10:27). St. Paul regards this as much more dangerous to the Christian identity of the community than the minor theological differences that might exist between the factions, so he repeatedly returns to sins of behaviour -- especially sexual behaviour (6:9-20; 2 Cor 12:20-21)-- and throughout the letters places much greater stress on fidelity to orthopraxia than orthodoxia. Perhaps this is because while Corinthian orthodoxy was not being called into question, their ethical behaviour was no less a threat to the unity and health of the church. St. Paul views this rebellious immorality as so severe a threat to the Body of Christ that it demands sharp cutting by the whole church. Nevertheless, as the last line of his instruction shows, St. Paul's ultimate intent with this apparently harsh action is to save both the community and the offender.

It is actually reported to me that there is immorality among you, and such immorality that is not found even among pagans; for a man has his father's wife. And you are arrogant ! Ought you not rather to mourn, in order that the one who has done this might be removed from among you?

For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present I have already pronounced judgement : when you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and my spirit is present , with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor 5: 1-5).

In his concern over factions and immorality among the Corinthians, St. Paul's dominant theme has been the healthy unity of the church in Christ. How that unity is achieved is closely connected with their holding on to (1)apostolic faith and (2)apostolic authority. But neither of these is understood by Paul in an autocratic way: he has taken great care in maintaining the relationship with the Corinthians, in encouraging wide hearts and in fostering communal responsibility. His use of authority is rooted in deep pastoral concern and he writes to them “not to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children” (1 Cor 4:14). But in the end his authority and the authority of the apostolic teaching is not to be dismissed ( 1 Cor 14: 37ff). Indeed, it is steadfast adherence to the teaching which will save them (1 Cor 15:1-2).

2 Corinthians

St. Paul's pastoral concern and apostolic judgements in First Corinthians were not well received. As relations continued to slide, there was less and less recognition of his authority to make judgements about the community's life and he was forced to make a quick personal visit. It was a strained visit for both sides, “a painful visit” (2 Cor 2:1, 12:14, 12:21, 13:1-2) and St. Paul returned to Ephesus deeply saddened by what he experienced. When he wrote to them again it was “with many tears” (2 Cor 2:3-4, 9; 7:8, 12; 10:1,9). He probably sent the letter with Titus in yet another personal attempt to restore good relations on a firmly Christian foundation.

Before he sees Titus again, St. Paul has had to flee Ephesus in the wake of anti-Christian rioting by the silversmiths (Acts 19:23ff) and return to Macedonia. The arrival of Titus is a great comfort because he reports that peace has been restored, Paul's authority has been recognized and the Corinthians had followed through on his disciplinary instructions (2 Cor 7:5-16, probably not the same man of 1 Cor 5). In response, filled with ebullience, he writes the first part of Second Corinthians (chapter 1-9) in the Spring or summer of 55.

He had much preferred that the community would take responsibility for its own soundness by dealing with sources of contention and immorality themselves. So he rejoices that the community has at long last heeded his direction and given an epitimia to the man concerned, probably by excluding him from communion and not associating with him (cf 1 Cor 5:11). Paul is fully aware of the pain of this process and seeks to relieve it immediately, but he places the responsibility for the pain squarely on the shoulders of the man involved, while also making it quite clear that this issue had to do with the health of the whole community, not just satisfying a peevish apostle:

But if any one has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measure--not to put it too severely--to you all. For such a one the punishment (epitimia) by the majority is enough; so you should rather turn and forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything. Anyone whom you forgive I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, to keep Satan from gaining the adva age over us; for we are not ignorant of his designs (2 Cor 2:5-11).

St. Paul's primary concern is not punishment of individual sins, but obedience as such, and not for his sake, but for theirs: he wants them to see that it is possible to live peacefully and happily with healthy hierarchal order, since disorder and confusion do not come from God, but from Satan (cf 1 Cor 14:33). Later in the letter St. Paul emphasizes again that his intent has not been to deal with the sins of individuals, but to manifest the community's unity with him:

So although I wrote to you, it was not on account of the one who did the wrong, nor on account of the one who suffered the wrong, but in order that your zeal for us might be revealed to you in the sight of God. Therefore we are comforted (2 Cor 7:12-13).

Now that their obedience is known, he urges them to take a forgiving approach to the man in question. He and the community both need to learn that hierarchy in Christ does not mean harsh oppression. Indeed, Paul is so thoroughly conscious of the mercy shown to him by God in Christ that there is no question of oppression, “For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am and his grace toward me was not in vain” (1 Cor 15: 9-10a; cf Gal 1:13, 1 Tim 1:15-16). He is thoroughly aware of his weaknesses and anxieties and openly admits them--an exceptional stance in this proud society where strength and honour were most prized (2 Cor 1:8-9, 11:30-33, 12: 7-10).

Paul's comfort was short-lived. Before he sends the letter he hears of a new outbreak of trouble. This time the agitators are a team of “super apostles” (2 Cor 11:5, 12:12) who are challenging his teaching and his authority. His tone now changes so sharply that many commentators have suggested this is an entirely new letter (2 Cor 10-13). He is exasperated to be back on the defence again and has no desire to defend or exercise his authority(2 Cor 10:1-2). But he is frustrated at how easily they are deceived into accepting another gospel (2 Cor 11:1-5). They should take responsibility for the community's health themselves, without forcing the authority issue: “Examine yourselves, to see whether you are holding to your faith. Test yourselves” (2 Cor 13:5a,b). Their individualism, their refusal to adhere to the tradition they had received from him, their rejection of his authority have all returned with stronger force than ever, uniting them under the false guidance of these super apostles, whoever they were. There is continuing scholarly debate over the precise identity and teaching of these interlopers, but again, as with the simpler home-grown factions of 1 Cor 1:10ff, St. Paul's concern is not their doctrines but the fact that they are striking at the root of the church's unity by challenging his apostolic authority.

St. Paul's only defence, ultimately, is to appeal to the Christian conscience and experience of the Corinthian community to judge between him and his opponents on the basis of their labour, suffering, and love as the test of who is genuine (2 Cor 11:1-12:10). He realizes that his admissions of weakness can easily be misunderstood by the Corinthians as seeming to justify their dismissal of his authority. No, he insists, it is precisely his awareness of personal weakness which allows him to be a genuine channel of divine boldness (2 Cor 12:8-10): “For the sake of Christ then, I am content with weakness, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities; for when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Cor 12:10). Just as Christ was crucified in weakness but now lives by the power of God, so Paul is “weak in him, but in dealing with you we shall live by the power of God” (2 Cor 13: 4). Far from being either proudly authoritarian or slavishly servile, St. Paul's demonstration of hierarchy exhibits a striking combination of profound humility and bold authority.

Remarkably, he refuses to break communion with the Corinthians, even while they have rejected him. He refuses to accept their rejection. Regardless of their opinion of him he knows he is their father in the Lord (“we are treated as impostors, and yet are true”, 2 Cor 6:8) and will come to them in person to deal authoritatively with their continuing disorder (2 Cor 12:14ff).

I warned those who sinned before and all the others, and I warn them now while absent , as I did when present on my second visit, that if I come again I will not spare them--since you desire proof that Christ is speaking in me...I write this while I am away from you , in order that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority which the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down (2 Cor 13:2-3, 10).

St. Paul refuses to cut them off over the issue of his authority. Whatever their reaction to him, he still sees them as his community, and ends with his usual irenic blessing (2 Cor 13:12-14).

Conclusion

We hear nothing of the next two years, but we know that when St. Paul made his third and last visit to Corinth around 57 AD he stayed for three months (Acts 20:2-3). By that time the “super apostles” had gone and relations were once again peaceful judging from the letter to the Romans which was written from Corinth during that time (see Rom 16).

St. Paul's quest for unity in Corinth had ultimately been a battle over the ministry of apostolic authority-- is it of God or of men? Does it unite or divide? Is it to be obeyed or only taken under advisement? Paul refused to narrow his response to fit the questions. Apostolic authority unites, but it also divides. Sometimes it decrees, at others it advises. It is human and weak, and also divine and powerful. Yet in the midst of these antinomies St. Paul is certain that his ministry, like all ministries, is given by the Lord for the upbuilding of the one body of Christ. He attended to the community's health through personal visits, representatives, friends, letters, exhortations, rebukes, encouragement ...and anathemas and epitimias. We cannot fail to be impressed by his balance, his persistence and his patience in the pursuit of genuine Christian unity, by his refusal to shrug his shoulders and treat the Corinthians as a necessary loss, or worse, to rejoice in their loss as proof of his own steadfastness.

It may be argued that Paul's example is not directly relevant to the contemporary ecumenical situation. He was dealing primarily (though not exclusively)with the health of local congregations and not relations between churches; the particular causes of division in Paul's congregations are not identical with those which divided the churches much later (though the differences should not be exaggerated: the issue of authority, for example, has been a perennial source of tension from the first century to the present). But I hope that I have shown that Paul's carefully nuanced approach to differences within the Body of Christ--and how they are to be evaluated for inclusion or exclusion--makes his example especially apropos in today's search for a new ecumenical vision.

I repeat the conclusion that was stated at the beginning of this essay: St. Paul 's dominant outlook is not exclusion but inclusion. Yet if Christian communities seek to be faithful to the whole message of the New Testament then they must not dismiss the exclusive aspect of St. Paul's balanced teaching on unity. They must insist on faithfulness to apostolic teaching, even if that brings divisions. But inclusion, not exclusion, must shape their general outlook toward each other as they seek for creative ways to recognize, to include and to reconcile.

Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation...(2 Cor 5:17-18).

This article is a revised version of an article published in Sobornost 20:1, 1998.