Church Structure: Unity, Diversity and Equality

This is an overview of the entire 3-dimensional concept of the structure of relationships prescribed by Scripture for the Church. The structure is analogous to the Trinity and uses the same three terms:

1) Unity: consanguinity, relateness, sharing in the same substance or essence, oneness: "that they may be one even as we are one." (John 17:20-23). "make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose." (Phil. 2:2).

2) Diversity: difference, variety, contrast, distinction, dissimilarity, individuality: "stewards of God's varied grace" (I Pet. 4:10), "Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us" (Rom. 12:3); "But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ's gift." (Eph. 4:7-12).

3) Equality: parity, impartiality, co-importance, equivalence, commonality, mutuality, interdependence, fairness, essential to the whole: "as a matter of equality your abundance at the present time should supply their want, so that their abundance may supply your want, that there may be equality." (2 Cor. 8:14); "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28). "For God shows no partiality." (Rom. 2:11).

In the Church all three of these relational terms are operating simultaneously and eternally as one relationship. The Scripture passages all urge Christians to strive to maintain this relationship through love. In a word, the Biblical Church structure is to be a community.

The Unity-Diversity-Equality relationship is a paradigm that has many applications in other areas of Christian theology.

Sub-Christian Views

If one or more of the three terms in the relationship is denied or diminished, a simpler, more impoverished structure results. Sub-Christian views or heresies arise from these reduced relationships. There are seven possible forms of these views, depending on which of the terms are diminished, as follows:

1. Unity + Diversity affirmed, Equality rejected: Hierarchy, a unit organized under one Supreme agent, with one purpose, but with a rank of levels of importance and authority among the members of the unit. Very common in church structure as well as in secular institutions. The lack of equality often leads to oppression or at least a failure to utilize the gifts of the lower-level people.

2. Unity + Equality affirmed, Diversity rejected: Conformity, a collection of equal individuals without distinctions as to order or roles. In the Church this sometimes manifests itself as a "personality cult."

3. Diversity + Equality affirmed, Equality rejected: Plurality, a loose-knit group of diverse but equal individuals with unresolved differences as to purpose and actions. The collection of denominations in the Church tends in this way; there is no system for collective action because of the diversity of goals.

4. Unity affirmed, Diversity and Equality rejected: Monism. Loss of individual identities in the overriding power of the One. In some cases, state power combined with the established church to enforce a tyrranical regimentation of belief or totalitarianism: "Everything that is not forbidden is required."

5. Diversity affirmed, Unity and Equality rejected: Relativism. No cooperation or mutuality; independence of individuals. In church structure, this view is prevalent in "syncretism", a naive and uncritical attempt to merge systems that are utterly and logically incompatible.

6. Equality affirmed, Unity and Diversity rejected: Dualism. This occurs when two nearly equal but opposed factions vie for control. This has resulted in major schisms in the Church, e.g. between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic, and later between Catholic and Protestant.

7. Unity, Diversity, and Equality all rejected: Anarchy. No relations or rules; equivalent to atheism and loss of all structure. Another prevalent modern view that is tantamount to nihilism, the rejection of all rational answers to life and an attraction to nothingness.

For further discussion see "A Relational Analysis of Social Groups" by P. Arveson in Perspectives in Science and Christian Faith, v.39, 4 (Dec. 1987).

Return to trilogic diagram.