On what grounds do we have fellowship or unity with others? With regards to desires for unity, we face two very dangerous perils. Either we unify on an extremely superficial or coerced level that we have no depth of fellow feeling with others, and our unity is merely an empty agreement to some threadbare and commonplace truths, or we demand such total unanimity in sentiments and approach that we cannot unify with others at all because we cannot accept any disagreements or divergent approaches to life. These contrary pulls between a bland and superficial but widespread “unity” and a solitary insistence on absolute perfection are faced in every society (especially empires), institution, organization, family, and relationship.

Unity is very difficult to maintain, a lesson I have learned over and over again in the face of the many and varied divisions I have witnessed and participated in my life. Division is so easy–there are a multitude of things we can divide over, far too many to discuss in any short note (though I have mused on some of them before [1]). Fundamental to all of these is a belief, whether true or not, that a given body of people can be divided into ‘us’ and ‘them,’ inside and outside, the “true people” and “the others.” This can happen any time there is two different opinions, two different worldviews, two different approaches or personalities, and where there is no mutual respect between the two sides. In a day and age where division is easy, and where respect is rare, it ought not to surprise us that we are so fiercely divided into so many camps.

To reverse the process of division is difficult. Often attempts at unity are based on the lowest common denominator, that base of what is seen as shared and essential commitments that allow for a large enough group to gain cultural relevance or political victory. Because that base is so shallow, there is often little community even among such larger groupings, but division into different camps that fight for leadership positions and spoils and then periodically unify in the face of a common enemy. But such a unity, to the extent that it exists, often relies upon the existence of even deeper conflicts. Ever more feared and hostile enemies are needed to group ever more diverse and divergent groups of people. And ever more shallow unity is necessary to bring together ever more separate groups and individuals. Unity becomes a tactic in high-stakes conflicts rather than a genuine state of affairs within a genuine community.

So, how does one reverse this process of atomization? Instead of making many from one, how does one make from many one? This is not an easy question, but let us at least attempt to explore some of the ways in which people who should be and remain united can remain so even despite serious and notable differences. After all, we are looking for a genuine unity that allows both for the common benefit as well as for individual freedom and authenticity. A genuine unity ought not to serve merely selfish interests of a given elite, nor ought it to be forced upon the unwilling. It must be freely chosen and of benefit to all. Also, it is more genuine and deep to the extent that it is a real unity, formed at least as much by commonality as by dissimilarity with a common foe. Ideally, one ought not to need a common foe to form together, but the presence of a recognized common enemy is certainly helpful.

Often people try to base a unity on the grounds of platforms. This is a recognized political way of mobilizing people, but often such platforms are very limited, to the point of being worthless, and lead to compromises that no one feels very happy with. To give but one example, let us look at the evangelical movement, a largely English-language Protestant religious and political movement whose unity is rather superficial and is based on four essential core beliefs: biblicist (high regard for scripture), crucicentric (centrality of the cross as God’s saving work in history through Jesus Christ), conversionist (personal conversion experience that shows itself in piety and personal growth), and activist (communicating this message to others for personal and societal change) [2]. This, like the political platform of a party, is a fairly superficial and limited area of agreement. There is vastly more (and more important) ground that is not a part of a given platform, simply because it is contested by those who wish to unify for power and cultural relevance.

Since it is so difficult, especially in highly divisive times, for people to unify based on a common platform of specific beliefs or desires, perhaps we ought to think of a different strategy for building a common unity out of fairly fractious and divided elements. One such possibility is a sufficiently dangerous common enemy. For example, when an enemy is sufficiently threatening to survival and well-being, any kind of divisive or critical language can be judged and condemned by authorities within a given nation or institution as seditious and rebellious. All too often the unity forced by a common enemy merely serves to preserve a corrupt and wicked status quo rather than to serve the benefits of the common people at large who are expected to fight and die for that unity, even if it does not serve them.

Now, if elites are not selfish and corrupt and generally seek the well-being of all (precisely the sort of leadership we are missing in these times), then a common enemy can be useful in reminding us of more important unity. This is mainly useful if the grounds for division are fairly minor while the difference with the common enemy is profound and deep and ugly. The more fierce and deep the conflict with the common foe, the more the minor differences appear not to be worth fighting over. An example of this is within the Intelligent Design movement, where there has been a conscious decision that in light of the massive and ferocious hostility between Intelligent Design theorists and Darwinian materialists, that the rather minor differences between ID theorists are not worth dividing over. And I happen to agree with that strategy in light of the severity of the conflict and the wickedness of the enemy.

If a mighty and sufficiently evil “empire” can be found to unify against, all the better. But sometimes this is not the case. Or at least, it is often the case that no sufficiently obvious or threatening enemy can force a serious reflection on what issues are worth dividing over. In that case, other strategies are required. One of the most powerful of these strategies (but sadly rare) is a common vision for a better future. A common vision for a better future helps put the issues of the present in a better perspective, but in light of the perceived lack of resources, it is hard to envision a better future when the present is so lousy and unfriendly. Nonetheless, a compelling and vivid (and well-thought out) vision can be powerful in that it allows different people to have an honorable place for the long-term benefit of all, and it forces us to recognize that a variety of different gifts and personalities and approaches are necessary for a successful future. Of course, it then remains to achieve that future, which is an admittedly difficult task. But nothing worthwhile is easy.

A shared and vivid future can be grounded as well in a shared past, especially if that past is sufficiently well beloved that all can draw encouragement and strength from it. In addition, an agreement about what elements of the past need to be preserved or recovered or restored can be a common element of unity, especially if disagreements can be kept to what is widely recognized to be peripheral issues while a deep unity can be found in common principles and worldviews. If a shared vision of the future springs from a shared memory and view of the past, then from those two elements it is very easy to build a shared community in the present that comes from that common past and is seeking to reach a common future.

Part of that vision, for it to be shared and enduring and powerful, is not only a vision of power or glory for the self or one’s elite cronies, but a genuine community that serves the interests of all. Unity must come from the building of a community, and that requires us to build deep networks of relationships across multiple parts of our lives–families, businesses, congregations, civic organizations, political or intellectual movements, and the like. It is only if we deeply identify with others, and see their well-being as improving our own, that we will be willing to serve them wholeheartedly, or even die for them if it may come to that. Decisions that serious are not made lightly, and they require that a community serve all of us, from the most to the least fortunate. Those who have power and positions must see that their well-being is improved when the least are able to improve their positions and receive opportunities for growth. We must see success as more than a zero-sum game where winning requires that others lose. And that requires seeing beyond ourselves to seeing a larger picture where the needs and wants of everyone are to be important, and that requires love and respect, two qualities that are sadly missing in most of our institutions and societies. If we had both, we would find unity much easier to maintain and build. But we have to start with what we have.

[1] https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/from-one-many-musings-on-ethnogenesis/

[2] This definition of evangelicalism is found on page 20 of the following book: A High View Of Scripture?, of which a review can be found at: https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/book-review-a-high-view-of-scripture/