Moving From "Me" to "We"

Introduction

Which statement more aptly describes American thought? “No man is an island entire of itself. Every man is a piece of the Continent.” Or “I am a rock; I am an island.” The first was written by John Donne in the 17th century; the other by Paul Simon in the 20th century. Last summer I took a course on group counseling and what I found to be interesting is that much of group counseling work still has an individual flavor. We in America do not think much in group ways. Even our attempts to think in group ways are tainted by personal opinion. “I think we ought to do….” Our preference is stated for the benefit of the group. Interesting, but hardly group thinking.

But it is difficult to get away from thinking individually. In our culture the individual is prominent. The individual is exalted. We admire the superstar athletes, the political figures, the prominent business people. Even in sports when a team wins, a player is highlighted as the one who carried the team to victory. Our culture does not promote group thinking. As a mobile society we find it difficult to form lasting relationships. We become close friends with people in college or high school and we know that we will not remain that way for long. Even our families have become more individualized as the extended family gets left behind through our mobility.

Even in congregations is individualism exalted. I have known certain ideas and programs stopped or never started because one individual didn’t like it or was critical of it. I have seen a small group of disgruntled members band together and have a preacher discharged. We think in terms of personal preferences and values. It is difficult to think in group terms. But the challenge is to think in group ways. In fact the challenge for any of us is to learn what it means to die to self and to behave in ways which build up the body. But this isn’t new and adjusting this type of thinking will not come without a real fight and a real commitment to change the way we think. Tonight, we’ll continue the process.

Community Thinking

Disharmony has existed before in God’s family—the church. It isn’t new, but it isn’t what God intended either. In the church at Philippi there was much to commend them. Paul was proud of them for a variety of reasons not least of which was their unfailing commitment financially to his ministry. But the church was not without difficulties. One of the reasons Paul writes a letter to the church is to deal with disharmony. Two women, Euodia and Syntyche, are in some kind of disagreement. This disagreement is spilling over into the congregation and as a result unity is in jeopardy.

Paul writes to correct this problem. Interestingly, he doesn’t decide the argument. Instead he insists that each person is to decide to agree and the congregation is to help them restore group thinking. Leading up to this very pointed directive is the first part of chapter 2. The summation of these first five verses is found in the word “humility.” This is the basis for group thinking. Individuals think of me; groups think of we. We thinking is only possible when the individual humbles himself for the sake of the group. And to this end Paul does instruct the congregation in what group thinking looks like.

First, group thinking is being like-minded (v. 2). We are different people with different ways of looking at things. Group thinking means that we share a common purpose; a common goal; the same love and the same spirit. This purpose and goal is found not in similarity of personality, but in a new family with the same Father. Paul is not saying here that we are to hold to identical opinions or looking alike. Group thinking means that we work to move in the same direction; that we share a common purpose and love; that we are more interested in our unity rather than in individual interests or preferences.

Second, group thinking reflects humility (v. 3). If the church is going to be serious about unity, we must take Paul’s words to heart. As long as there is selfish ambition and conceit among members then unity will be in danger. When we care more about our opinions, preferences, and egos then unity is in jeopardy. What Paul is saying is that we scramble for the foot of the table rather than the head of the table. Even if a person is scrambling for the head of the table, we are still to be humble. That kind of humility is difficult. Jesus portrayed that kind of humility and Paul encourages us to have that same kind of humility in our dealing with each other.

Third, group thinking is concerned about the other person (v. 4). We have no problem knowing what we like and what our opinions are. But surely my opinions are not the only opinions that exist. And then the real question is which opinion is legitimate. What would happen if instead of thinking about my preferences we began to think about what was best for the body? What would happen if we began to work harder for what was best for the body rather than what was in my best interest? What would happen if we began to look like Jesus in the way we approached our group? With one heart, mind, and purpose we pursue what is best for all instead of what is best for one.

This is what Paul does as he concludes his instruction. He points to Jesus as the example to follow. There is no greater argument against individualism than the life of Jesus. While others look out for number one, Jesus looked out for everyone. He was the epitome of “we” thinking. Having already made his points in the first part of chapter two, Paul demonstrates through the life and mind of Jesus what this “we” thinking looks like. He became one with us. He humbled himself taking on the nature of a servant. He was so concerned about our needs that he became obedient to the cross. If Jesus had thought only about himself, he never would have left heaven or gone to the cross.

So what does this look like? It is in many ways like getting married. It is changing our language to reflect a more biblical way of thinking. Instead of “I” statements, we make “we” statements. Opinions to be shared should be in terms of the group rather than you as an individual. Pray for the group. Become a proponent of a view that you do not share. Several years ago, I heard a speaker put it this way. “We are group with a number of different views. Some of us like one type of music and others like another. Some of us like to be silent during the Lord’s Supper; others like to assist their thanksgiving by singing. Some of us like sermons which reach our intellect; others like sermons that pull at our emotions. So today we may not sing the songs you like or have a sermon that you find appealing, but we are still going to love each other. And in the future we will sing songs or have the Lord’s Supper which you prefer and we are going love each other. Because that is the one thing that doesn’t change—that we love each other.”

I have seen evidence of “we” thinking here. A good friend once told me after his preacher friend was released that he was upset and disturbed. When I asked why he remained he said something profound, “No one told me that I was supposed to leave.” That’s group thinking. His preference gave way to what was best for the group. May God raise up more like him and may we strive to be group thinkers.

Follow Jesus

If you’d like to respond to this message or learn more about following Jesus, please reach out.