limit of title
The Corinthian Church
We generally think that the early church is something very different from us, but even they did not go beyond the fundamental limit. One such limitation is division. As can be seen from the beginning of the book of Acts, the church in Jerusalem was also divided into Jewish and Greek sects. It seems that not only religious groups, but all communities in which people live, are destined to split apart.
I don't know if the story of the Tower of Babel recorded in Genesis 11 explains the fate of mankind that is bound to be divided. After Noah's flood, people built the Tower of Babel with the thought that they would no longer be destroyed by the flood, but God looked down on such an attempt. God sees that the power that people have to deal with these things lies in the fact that they use the same language, so He tore down the language relationship between people. Since then, people have no longer been able to do this. In the end, it means that true communication between people has become impossible.
The believers in the Corinthian church mentioned in today's text were also forming factions with each other as Paulites, Apollos, Peters, and even Christians. I don't know how big the Corinthian church was, but how big would it have been in the Greek culture at that time? Even though it is not very large, it is a shame as a church that is made up of one body with Christ, no matter how divided humans are, that they were divided into various factions and quarreled over whether you are right or whether I am right.
Today, we cannot understand exactly why the church in Corinth was divided into these four sects. According to New Testament scholars, there were several reasons as follows. One is the theological conflict between the legal gospel and the proportional gospel, as can be seen in the Antioch controversy between Peter and Paul (Galatians 2:11-14). While Peter still took the law seriously, Paul set the Gentile Christians out of the law. Second, the rhetoric of Apollo, an outstanding orator, seems to have been supported by a certain number of people (Acts 18:24-28). The third is related to the Eucharist, the conflict between the rich and the poor (1 Corinthians 11:17-34). Finally, regional conflicts between house churches in Corinth can also be another reason (Romans 16:23, 1 Corinthians 16:19).
However, the part that is difficult for us to understand here is that there were people who said, “I am a Christian” (verse 12). I can understand the Pauline, Peter, and Apollos, but it's a bit strange that the Christian group also appeared. Even though Paul, Peter, and Apollo must have all preached Christ, that's why the Christian group was created. The characteristics of the three waves have been explained to some extent earlier. Whereas Paul weakened the law, Peter still emphasized the law, and Apollo valued the apologetics based on the Old Testament. So, what are the characteristics of a Christian group? Perhaps it can be said that the Christians were the ones who denied all the authority of any human leader and emphasized mainly mystical forms of faith. It is interesting to note that these characteristics, which have been frequently repeated in Christian history, have already appeared in the church in Corinth, but this phenomenon must be taken seriously in view of the possibility that it may undermine the essence of Christianity.
Why did Paul not baptize?
Whatever the reason, Paul must have been deeply hurt personally when he heard the news that the church in Corinth, which he had planted during his second missionary journey (51, 52), had fallen into this sect. On a purely emotional level, I would have wanted to rebuke him, but this was not the way to deal with it. If it was a dispute with heresy, that is, a struggle between truth and lies, we would have had to point out the other side's problem. But that wasn't the case here. It cannot be said that Peter and Apollo were heretics or that their teachings were false. The only difference is that their teachings have slightly different emphasis.
What was more important was the attitude of the believers toward those differences rather than the differences of the leaders. They missed the fact that their leaders, although slightly different, in the end preached Jesus Christ, and focused on the ancillary things. Their attitude can eventually become a decisive factor in the sect.
Paul says: “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (verse 17). While we consider baptism to be very important in the Christian faith, Paul relativizes it. Is preaching the gospel so different from baptism? Are you saying that baptism is meaningless? We cannot fully comprehend Paul's thinking when he says this. In what sense does he not only be happy that he did not baptize much, but also makes a reference to baptism as secondary or relative to the preaching of the gospel?
Form and nature of faith
He sees precisely that the gospel can move away from its essence and rather fall into a logic of form. Since that formal logic can be manifested in baptism, Paul is now fortunate that he did not baptize. His insight is accurate. Baptism can be received in any form. We can be baptized without knowing the gospel. For those who have lived in the so-called maternal faith, this risk is much greater.
It is a problem to overlook baptism, which is a form of faith, but it is a bigger problem to neglect the essence of faith by focusing on the person who gave it. Because form is an element that can be ascertained very simply to us, but essence is an element that we cannot perceive or capture without constant effort.
Even in family relationships, form often dominates rather than essence. Of course, there is nothing more precious in our lives than a harmonious and happy family. But that in itself is not the essence. The essence of each person's life deepening and entering a world of joy and peace. Of course, if this form and essence match, we can't ask for more, but in general, that's a bit difficult. This is because family members have different demands on each other, and when they respond to each other's demands, they eventually neglect their essence.
Paul warns that even the church today can become this type of captivity. If you become a prisoner of form, the gospel will be reduced to just 'speech skills'. He puts all his energies into plausible explanations of the gospel, or tying believers to his church with various verbal techniques. It's like being baptized without knowing any meaning. Of course, you can impress people with your speaking skills, but that is not the gospel in itself. Because people don't see this distinction clearly, they continue to be stuck in the art of delivering sermons. In general, if there is a ‘talk’, people receive grace no matter what the content of the sermon is. It means that they are trying to convince people of the kingdom of God just by wit.
limit of words
After all, no matter how good you are at speaking, there are limits. Moreover, the better you speak, the more likely you are to cause problems. Of course, words are needed to describe something. And, as we can see in the poets' poems, and also in the words of the Bible, the words themselves have some ontological power. But before speaking, before learning the art of speech, what the speaker needs is experience and awareness of the underlying events that make such speech possible. If we focus only on words without such depth of experience and awareness, the more biased we become, the more the words will block the original event. This is the limit of words.
In today's text, Paul accurately points out the limits of words. It is said that the cross of Christ loses its meaning if it leans toward the words rather than the limit of words. If we say that the cross of Christ loses its meaning because of words, it can be seen that speaking well is destroying the gospel.
These days, while participating in sermon criticism, I read the sermons of several preachers, and while famous preachers are good at speaking, their ability to do well seems to obscure or ruin the gospel in many cases. They said that while they settled in the form of a small gospel, they were inclined to rhetorical skills to enlarge and reproduce it, to spit it out, and to stimulate people's hearts. Those who hear such sermons tend to lean toward preachers who think they have received grace, but their relationship with the cross of Christ does not deepen. Of course, on the surface they speak of faith and grace, but in reality, they are drunk on the words of a well-spoken preacher. Some preachers, mainly in Seoul, attract thousands of believers within a year or two of planting a church. I don't know if they have any special charisma of their own, and it's not terribly wrong to follow a preacher that suits your taste, but it should be to some extent. Just like winning the lottery and suddenly becoming rich, attracting thousands or tens of thousands of believers within a few years can be said to be the result of people's enamored with their wit.
How can a church that preaches the gospel expose only the cross of Jesus Christ, not the person or the church itself? If the cross of Christ is not revealed in the true sense, no matter how large a crowd gathers, it cannot be called a gospel movement. In this regard, we must not neglect to reflect on whether we have fallen short in speech dexterity and skill to put people or groups ahead.
These issues apply equally to our personal lives. We must reflect on whether we are enveloped in our own compassion, and whether the love and peace of God that Christ's cross speaks of are losing their meaning.