Very interesting information! Thanks!

Bye

I think though, it is not so much that individuals have the mind of Christ (even together), because they might not (as you say)! But there is something that i am learning to trust, that in community we together will discern the mind of christ. That means some will think we are not going in the right direction, but is a moving of the spirit among us to bring consensus or clarity … not sure those are the best words.

So, as long as the balance is right, i am not too fussed about some in or midst who are non-christians, or soulish … as i think the holy spirit is very good at bringing the mind and heart of christ to us corporately if enough people are wanting that.

- the “soulish” — non Christians

- the “fleshly” — Christians (with the Spirit of God), but are immature and acting/thinking like the non Christians

- the “spiritual” — those in the journey of walking with the Spirit

That being the case, I was echoing your question:

“I think we maybe are discussing here how wide is that part of the body that we are submitting to? “

In a church full of mostly mature Christians, it seems appropriate to submit to each other and for the community to play a greater role in leadership, along with the elders/leadership team.

But in what I would call a missional church, where the congregation has a lot of unsaved, almost saved, just saved folks (the first two categories above), I am not sure if such a congregation en masse would play such a role.

Going back to your original proposal, do the “soulish (unsaved)” and “fleshly Christians” have the mind of Christ, that we should recognise it and in some ways submit to it?

Perhaps the answer is a pragmatic one: some have the mind of Christ more than others

Also, I am thinking that most people can’t be described as simply “fleshly” or “spiritual”, I am thinking in reality it will depend on specifics: I am sure we all have moments of “spirituality” and moments of carnality…

I am not sure i understand your question at the end: who are we submitting to? Do you mean to spirit of God, or our carnal desires? COuld you elaborate a bit further?

It also appears to me that the “soulish man” of 1 Cor 2 is, as you point out, a non Christian. I have received teaching to the contrary in the past and it was colouring my exegesis.

It is also clear that 1 Cor 3 is addressed to the immature Christians of Corinth, who indeed have the spirit of God. The key seems to be this: They are acting as if they DID NOT have the spirit of God, causing Paul to even question whether or not they have the spirit in the first place.

In other words, Paul was saying that they were behaving like the “soulish man”, the person without the Spirit of God. They were, in other words, “fleshly” — acting from their fallen desires, rather from the indwelling spirit of God.

Cool!

“I love it when a verse comes together”

Confident that I have (finally) got the gist of this passage, the question does rather become, as you rightly point out: so who are we submitting to?

thanks for sharing your experience. That is such a great picture of community.

I wonder if it so much that a leader steps out for a season (although that i am sure can happen), but if she / he is secure, then he can allow others to take the lead in certain areas or season? Their role may change at that point to encourager or enabler, rather than “decision maker” which has so often been the descriptor for leaders, which I think is really unhelpful.

Perhaps there the image is Father / Mother? You don’t cease being father / mother, but as children grow up, your role changes enormously. This is a difficult metaphor for many of us, but at its best i think there is a lot to commend it - as long as we don’t put authority on the father / mother image, i think it can work.

You are right of course, that leaders only see part too. I guess that is why it is so important to be involved in this kind of process. I have certainly found that it has broadened my perspective.

And i love the idea of the mirror. I think that is one of things i try to do: to endorse the perspective someone has, but also help them see that others in the community don’t see it the same way! I would love to see more of this going on.

Alastair … you are raising good points of hermeutics here, and one that i don’t have answer to!

I think Paul is speaking to Christians … the unspiritual (often soulish, but that is misleading) are not christians. I think the point i am making still remains though.

Paul is saying that the things of God are a mystery, but if you have the Holy spirit, he can reveal them to you. All Christians have the Spirit, therefore the Holy SPirit can reveal them to you if you are a Christian. We have often taken that as singular. But it isn’t. It is plural. So we all need to bring our perspective on God, who He is, what He is leading in to etc. and submit to the wider body.

I think we maybe are discussing here how wide is that part of the body that we are submitting to? I have another post on this brewing that might take this discussion further. I am sure there are some contexts where it is more or less appropriate to bring to wider church. But i do agree with Anon, that healthy community doesn’t shut these kinds of decisions to the leaders.

Hi Rupert,

To respond briefly … my experience was based on working within a Christian community where it was very much a heirarchical model of leadership … and in my opinion it didn’t really allow for alot of growth as some of the members of the community could have supported leaders in their role if they had been ‘allowed’ to do so. There was very much a closed attitude to the community contributing in that way.

I am in favour of a much more circular model of community … everyone, leaders included, experience times when they can step in to lead, guide etc. and also times when they need to step out of that role … perhaps for restoration, refreshing, space, family etc.

I have found that in situations where there is a more traditional concept of leadership congregations are less prepared to step-up and leaders less willing or unsure about stepping down. In a circular, fluid model of leadership and community people continually move in and out of roles according to need, talent, direction, vision, calling, guidance from the Spirit. This is, in my opinion, a healthier community.

Not related to the comment but to community: I would highly recommend a book by Jean Vanier, founder of L’Arche communities in France and throughout the world (even Edinburgh, down in Leith) called ‘Community & Growth’.

Here are some thoughts on a few of those points

1. Safe context for expression. Good for the individual’s sake and for the wider church’s sake and hopefully onto the wider community. Hints of spritual direction here as well as Richard Foster’s Celeb of Discipline/Guidance chapter

2. Recognition: Part vs. whole True for leaders too ie vice versa. Such recongnition can also free us all up just to contribute and leave it there )eg see 4)

3. Learning through differences. Yes!

4. Summarise. Yes. let leaders be leaders.

5. Communicate/reflect back. Maybe there is more and more a role for leaders reflecting back to the congregation what the congregation is saying. We hear in part within each of our own restricted circles. It would be like a mirror being lifted up to us, revealing and saying this is what you look like and this is what Jesus is looking like. It’s also for, for good and ill, how the wider community is seeing Jesus through you/us. This feedback loop can be I suspect, very useful, in creating a greater awareness of our own congregation of those we are joined to.

“you are right about the Living Bible being a paraphrase. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have value.”

I didn’t mean to imply that the LB
is worthless, far from it, only that when it comes to an exegetical argument based on a few words (i.e. your interesting proposal about “we have the mind of Christ”), its safer to go to a good moderately literal translation, rather than what a non-scholarly paraphrase. For example I find The Message on occasion to be brilliant way to read familiar texts with fresh insight, but other times I note that the entire verse I wish to study has been removed by Peterson!

I know that we is plural. However my point was to ask what the scope of sphere of his “we” was. I have quickly looked up every occurrence of “we” in 1 Cor. It shows a diversity of scope: sometimes Paul is only talking about himself and his apostolic co-workers: “Do we not have the right to financial support?” Other times, he is talking about all Christians: “Do you not know that we will judge angels?”. I was just wondering if, in the heated context of the verse in question, he was using the more restricted kind? It seems a polemical statement, as in “you folks don’t know what you are talking about, so be quiet, as we have the mind of Christ!” Having reread 1 Cor 2 I am now not so sure, he uses switches between both uses of “we” continually.

I am still not convinced that “we” means “we together”, rather than “we all”. But your proposal is interesting, and has forced me to reread 1 Cor, which can only be good!

I always thought Paul was talking to Christians in his letter. He says in 1 Cor 3: “you are still influenced by the flesh” and “behaving like unregenerate people”. Surely such an accusation only makes sense if they are Christians (otherwise you would expect them to be “unregenerate”). Reading on, he talks of them being baptised and that they are “God’s field, God’s building” and even “Do you not know that you are God’s temple” all of which taken together seems to point to Christians. Is there another way to read this?

In 1 Cor 2:14 Paul describes the people he is addressing as “ψυχικός”, which according to BDAG 1100 s.v. means , “an unspiritual pers., one who merely functions bodily, without being touched by the Spirit of God.”. It is of course the word often translated as “soulish”, or as some bible’s put it “natural”. Actually I think N T Wright gives a better defn than the BDAG Greek lexicon, but I can’t remember it! Anyway, all in all, it seems Paul is talking to immature Christians. I return to my original question: was he saying that they had the mind of Christ? Just from the text 1 Cor 2-3 alone, I am not sure!

Have you had some experience where this has or hasn’t worked?

eg. do you follow if it is an area of strategy, but lead in an area of mission? or is it much more fluid than that? What do you then do if different people want to lead at the same time?

However, my understanding is the Greek used there is plural, not singular. That is really the point i was making. I don’t have the mind of Christ, but we do. That is a majour shift from some of the understanding in charismatic world, where we claim to have God’s word. Perhaps we only have part of God’s word, and need others to really know the mind of Christ?

I think the distiction that Paul is making is between believers and unbelievers (those with the spirit and those without), so we do need to recognise that. In the COrinthian church they were not living as the believers they were, so you are right, we need to be careful. Probably in different situations different types of leadership and guidance is required? What do you think?

Nevertheless, to me the beauty and authority of scripture stems from its meaning. Paraphrases are double-edged swords: often they can bring the message of scripture alive in a wonderfully refreshing way (the Message for example succeeds in many places). The flip side is, often they can remove original ambiguity and replace it with a translator’s opinion.

Personally, I am not happy to meditate on the opinion of man. I’d rather medidate on the beautiful words of scripture. Whilst the difference between the two is often blurred, I believe its worth the effort to discover what scripture really says to us. Of course the Holy Spirit is involved in this process, so its not merely down to written words on the page.

You rightly point out the beauty of poetry in scripture, which actually affirms my point — I believe the Living Bible actually “translated” a lot of the poetry into prose, removing us further from the original beauty and meaning of the text.

Also, on the matter of translation or paraphrase … does it really matter? The beauty of this phrase (translated or paraphrased) is that it means something to the author of the blog - personally - and if someone loves it for what it is then surely that is sufficient without undermining how the inspired word of God inspires individual readers?

It is a shame that language is such a hang-up for some people and that people use language or translation to prove a point. Language and meaning (not wanting to delve too deeply into semiotics) is a highly personalised process.

[most "verses" we use as Christians are horribly wrenched out of their original context and don't really have the force that they are assumed to have]

Can’t a verse be beautiful for its own sake without having to be torn to religious shreads? so much of the Bible is pure poetry and literary genius (Matthew’s Gospel is a monument to Maths) … let it speak to your heart as much as your head, paraphrase or translation aside.

Having the mind of Christ is one thing … knowing his heart as well is quite another.

A delicate balance of openness and willingness to follow and be lead is required by both community and community leaders, in my opinion.