William Loader
UCA Anniversary: 22 June 1 Corinthians 3:10-17
Call in the Pastoral relations Committee! All is not well in Corinth. Paul founded the community, but since his founding visit others have made their way there offering ministry. Perhaps Peter; certainly Apollos. Paul nowhere attacks Apollos, but this passage and its surrounding context certainly focuses on behaviour which results from his ministry. Sensitivity in following others' ministries was an issue already then.
The tendency for people to follow cult leaders was alive and well in Corinth. "My" ministry develops "my" fans and "my" following. So Paul has to remind them earlier that they were baptised not in his name, or that of Peter or Apollos, but Christ's name (1:10-17). Apparently Apollos was impressive. This appears to relate both to style and content. In his painful chapters on 2 Corinthians 10 - 13 Paul is still having to deal with the criticism that he did not have an impressive presence. His writings show a high level of rhetorical skills, even when he plays it down, but apparently this did not transfer to personal charisma. Many at Corinth also found more "wisdom" in the preaching of Apollos - whatever "wisdom" meant.
It was a sensitive situation. Had Paul attacked Apollos outright (if he had ever wanted to), he might have lost all support at Corinth. So he attacks the side effects. It comes very close to being personal comment about Apollos's ministry in our passage, where Paul uses the image of building and declares that God will test the quality of the building that has been going on. Paul is at least willing to describe what he sees. People have become obsessed with the personalities of the preachers instead of with Christ. Finesse has come to matter more than faith. And, it seems, some think they have arrived (4:8). This is producing disunity at Corinth - something other than good news.
Apollos's followers could probably mount a argument along the lines of "success". A more impressive presence has a greater impact. The result is probably church growth. Part of the impact also seems to have been to give people a greater sense of their own wisdom (God given) and to have enhanced their spiritual experiences. Later on in the letter Paul notes these outcomes and critiques them. His famous love chapter notes that the abundant spiritual experiences - whether speaking in tongues or miracles or "wisdom" - mean nothing if the fruit of the Spirit is absent, namely, love (13:1-13). There were plenty of signs that this was so, not least the division among the followers of key personalities, but also in the abuses in worship where Holy Communion had become a symbol of injustice instead of one of inclusivity (11:17-33).
Did it really matter? Why not gracefully withdraw and let Apollos's people get one with it? Success counts and has benefits all round. Not least, for budgets. Or why not try a takeover, to make it his own church again, the church of St Paul at Corinth? Or, even surrender to Peter and his network? There could be good "ecumenical" reasons for uniting under such banners. Paul refuses. Paul does not want to build his church. He wants to build Christ's church. And just so we don't then consign Jesus to the role model for self-promoters, Christ did not come to build his church; he came to build God's church, God's temple, as the concluding verses of the passage remind us.
Paul addresses the ministry issues theologically. So in 1:18-25 he takes us to the heart of the faith. Not miracles, not wisdom, but the vulnerability of the cross. And then, not the cross as proof of a transaction to balance God's ledger of humanity's guilt, but as a manifestation of God's being: God's weakness and foolishness in compassion, far more significant and powerful than the spirituality games of miracle and wisdom. Paul's own vulnerability mirrors the vulnerability of God. Paul is on a very different career path. His ambition is to build the temple of this God, namely, a community where love and compassion are the meaning of spirituality because they are the being of God.
Only this oneness of God can be the true foundation of unity. It does not mean that Paul is obliged to engage in disparagement of his colleagues despite their fallibility, nor of himself. He does not dishonour them or himself, but sees them in the context of the bigger construction of reality, which constitutes the church as a microcosm of God's being in the world. He calls them and their followers - and his own - back to the centre. Paul picks up the common warning against people who create sacrilege - whether against Israel's temple or any other shrine. Beware: destroy the temple and its God will destroy you! It serves to enhance the serious of his warning.
Some ministries are destructive for the true meaning of the church - despite their "successes". At Corinth charisma, the media strategies (rhetoric), sensation (chasing experiences and the extraordinary) and obsession with personalities had sidelined the poor, marginalised the fruit of the Spirit, and set the cross aside for the sake of success. The architecture makes a statement - about what? Some can envisage building church only the way it has always been - like building high roofed houses fit for snow in the tropics. Some seek impressive contemporary design with too little thought for what the building seeks to serve. Paul lived on the vulnerable frontiers of innovation and seems intent on not losing the right perspective and purpose of what was to be built. It mattered to be a place where the Spirit of God dwelled. It mattered to reflect theologically on what it really means to be church