Seven forces that contribute to Christian disunity – and seven ways to combat them

On the night of his arrest, Jesus prayed that his people might be united – that we might be perfectly one. Jesus knew that unity in the gospel amongst a broad range of his followers not only reflects God’s own Trinitarian nature (of unity in diversity) but also that this is the ultimate apologetic: ‘… that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me’ (John 17:23).

Of course, the church’s track record ultimately isn’t very proud when it comes to unity. Christian Unions seek to bring together a diverse range of students around our Doctrinal Basis, agreeing to disagree on what falls out of it in the CU context, but it can often be hard reconciling our differences in CU life. Churches can also have bad relationships with one another, as can various Christian groups. Different ethnicities and nationalities continue to experience alienation.

I was really stirred to thought and personally quite pulled up by Disunity in Christ, a sociological work that examines why Christian unity can be hard to come by. Whilst I can’t wholeheartedly recommend everything that the book says, it is a revealing description of how sin, stereotype and misunderstanding can place unnecessary pressure on Christian unity. Whilst there are some differences that it’s important for Christians to maintain, Cleveland suggests that many of the disagreements that we have are avoidable and say more about sociological forces than the theological differences between us, even if that’s the language we use to describe our disagreements.

Here’s my summary of seven forces that Cleveland says contribute to our disunity:

We all tend to gather around those who are similar to us. If people somehow seem familiar to us, we’re more likely to treat them as friends. That means our friendship groups tend to skew towards people who are alike those we already know. We also generally like people who’ve had a similar set of experiences to us and who share our values, whether that’s those from a similar ethnic, socio-economic or denominational background.

We all make generalisations about groups of people. When groups are large and diverse, we tend to make generalisations about the sub-groups within it. The value of this is that it helps us set expectations (which are often at least partially accurate), and prevent us from constantly living in a state of surprise (which is mentally exhausting). However, these pre-existing generalisations can then colour our experiences with new people. It’s also worth noting that we tend to over-estimate the diversity of those within the groups of which we’re a part, and to under- estimate the diversity of groups we’re not part of.

We’re all insecure and want to feel liked and welcomed. That means that we don’t like group contexts where we feel like we might be singled out as different, or made to feel uncomfortable in other ways. We also don’t like being associated with people or activities that we fear might embarrass us. This is part of what keeps us in settings with people who are broadly similar to us.

We all tend to exaggerate differences between ‘us’ and ‘them.’ There are certain groups, with whom we don’t want to be confused. We believe that the groups we are part of are better than others (otherwise we wouldn’t be committed to them) and so tend to talk others down, and make our group the ‘normal’ against whom we measure everyone else.

We all over-estimate the positive contributions and effectiveness of our group. We tend to take credit for the successes but distance ourselves from the failures. This can contribute to both defensiveness and to a critical spirit. We believe that we have little or nothing to learn from other groups.

We will all fight when resources are scarce to get our way. When there are resources, decisions or prizes that only one group can possess, we will intensely vie for them. We soon find ourselves justifying our belief (to ourselves and others) that it’s best if we get these outcomes for ourselves. We will often quote theology as reasoning for an outcome that suits us – but this isn’t always (or even often) the real nub of the issue.

We all find it hard to distinguish between what’s cultural and what’s timeless. It’s easy to see how the culture of others is affecting them (and their interpretations of the Bible) – but we find it much harder to see how our own culture is affecting us. This means that we are much less aware of our own blind spots than the blind spots of others.

Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.

Ephesians 4:3 speaks about making every effort – busting a gut – to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. We are all to do everything we can to live out the unity into which the gospel brings genuine Christians. So what practical steps can we take? And what might they look like in student ministry? Here are some ideas on the basis of Cleveland’s work:

Reflect and repent. We need to take an honest and prayerful look at ourselves, our churches, our church traditions, our CUs and the ministries with which we serve and ask: how are we contributing to unnecessary fractures and divisions? Where do we need to repent?

Grow deep identity in Christ. As our own identity in Christ grows, we are freed to be present in contexts even in which we might feel awkward or embarrassed. We (and the students with whom we work) are then much more likely to rub shoulders with those outside of the small circle with whom we might otherwise identify.

Work towards a common in-group identity. In CU life, for example, we should strive to use inclusive (‘we’, ‘those of us’) language where possible, and to create and emphasise common goals to which diverse Christians can contribute – possibly in different but ultimately complementary ways. Ideally this might happen in church life too.

Champion the voice of under-represented groups. We want to ensure that any groups that are typically over-looked by the cultural majority of the pre-existing group are made to feel welcome and included on an basis of equal footing in our fellowship – this might include under-represented theological backgrounds, ethnicities or nationalities within the CU, for example. This requires careful listening, and not neccessarily assuming we understand what involvement could look like for these groups.

Create contexts in which groups from different backgrounds can build authentic, lasting relationships. When we can relax and enjoy the company of those who are different to is, it’s inevitable that stereotypes are challenged and mutual likeability is increased. I have often thought that the CU weekend away is an important context for this work to occur, among many others. Where groups are missing entirely, new contexts may need to be created in largely ‘neutral’ spaces.

Model it yourself! Those who are friends with people who are friends with those from another group are more likely to have positive attitudes towards the other group. That means that even if the students we work with are mono-cultural for the time being, but they know someone like you who has broader connections (even if you also belong to the culturally dominant group), they may be more open to building wider relationships.

Work with leaders. In CU life, for example, we want student leaders to see that unity around the gospel really is an essential goal – for their discipleship and also for the benefit of their mission (Christian unity being the ultimate apologetic). As CU leaders become convinced to this end, they will probably want to ensure that there is teaching on unity from time to time in CU life. We can also encourage CU leaders to work towards a range of ethnic, cultural and denominational voices being heard in CU life where possible, and to ensure that members of under-represented groups are themselves being developed as leaders.