The passing of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI on New Year’s Eve led to an outburst of articles, reports and mini-documentaries in the mass media. Most of them seemed to focus on differences between the late pope and Pope Francis, often presenting them as the figureheads of the polar opposite factions in the church, fiercely fighting for their respective corners. I’m not a Vatican insider but I know from more reliable and less sensational sources that the late pope Benedict always gently poured cold water when his visitors got too hot on criticising his successor, Pope Francis. The latter often sought advice from the late Pope Benedict and often publicly expressed his gratitude for his guidance and opinions. There’s no doubt that Pope Benedict and Pope Francis were different. But differences don’t have to be a source of unresolvable conflict; actually, they are usually the driving force behind advancement, development and progress. Diversity of opinions offers chances for betterment if used creatively and with an open mind. Uniformity is always a recipe for disaster.
We heard in today’s second reading St Paul addressing such a problem in the community in Corinth: “I appeal to you, brothers, for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ, to make up the differences between you, and instead of disagreeing among yourselves, to be united again in your belief and practice.” The community started splitting into hostile factions: “all these slogans that you have […]: ‘I am for Paul’, ‘I am for Apollos’, ‘I am for Cephas’, ‘I am for Christ.’” Interestingly enough, those names were taken as emblems or figureheads of the factions, despite the fact that their bearers were not involved in or condoned such divisions. How could that have happened?
The New Testament provides plenty of examples of tensions, differences and even conflicts between various major proponents of the new, Christian faith. That’s the reality of each and every community, religious or not. Thankfully, the New Testament also shows us how those challenges were resolved and most often led to positive changes. Perhaps the most notable was the so-called Council of Jerusalem, extensively described in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 15. Another one, presented in today’s second reading, was happening in the Greek port city of Corinth. The Christian community there had been established as a result of St Paul’s missionary work. However, he never claimed to create it single-handedly. He partnered and worked with a number of fellow Christians and gave them due credit for that. Of course, all those involved were not identical in their respective approaches; obviously, there were differences of opinion. But St Paul presented them movingly as complementing one another: “What […] is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you came to believe, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. The one who plants and the one who waters have a common purpose, and each will receive wages according to the labour of each. For we are God’s servants, working together; you are God’s field, God’s building.” (1 Cor 3:5-9)
This attitude wasn’t St Paul’s invention. In today’s gospel, we heard how Jesus started to establish a community of his close followers or disciples. They were four different people, each with his own story, circumstances, attitudes, habits, talents, skills… I could really go on trying to list all the things that had influenced them and kept having an impact. Peter and Andrew seemed to leave behind their well-established business while two other brothers, James and John, worked with their father. They were called while mending the nets; that might suggest they had played supportive roles in their father’s business. We are not new to the gospel, so we know that another eight Apostles called by Jesus were people of different backgrounds and life experiences, different positions within society and so on. We can safely assume that Jesus did this on purpose, counter-balancing the four-men-strong representation of the fishing industry in their ranks. As I said earlier, diversity of opinions offers chances for betterment if used creatively and with an open mind; uniformity is always a recipe for disaster.
One could argue that I contradict St Paul, who called out in today’s second reading: “I appeal to you, brothers, for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ, to make up the differences between you, and instead of disagreeing among yourselves, to be united again in your belief and practice.” However, he calls for unity, not uniformity. Let me illustrate the difference between the two with a simple example. Most bigger choirs consist of four voices: soprano, alto, tenor, and bass. In performance, each voice sings its own tune, different from the other ones. On the face of it, it should lead to an unbearable cacophony. But when those four different voices are harmonised and well performed, the result is an awe-inspiring, jaw-dropping musical beauty. Those four voices, though different, are united in the same purpose. In a wider sense, the main challenge for any community isn’t fighting differences in order to achieve uniformity. The main challenge is finding ways of including, employing and engaging the widest possible spectrum of voices, talents and skills and harmonising them to continue Jesus’ mission: “He went […] teaching […], proclaiming the Good News of the kingdom and curing all kinds of diseases and sickness among the people.”
