By Dr. Greg Cochran, ICC Fellow

Can humans from the Oklahoma panhandle be united with other humans in places like the Tibetan plateau in northwest China — people with other habits, darker and lighter skin tones, and people with dissimilar living arrangements? How different is too different? To put the question in grammatical terms, what is the difference between “us and them”?  

British rock legends Pink Floyd once tried to answer that question in an anti-war song, “Us and Them.” In that ballad, they sing:  

“Us, and them  

And, after all, we’re only ordinary men  

Me, and you  

God only knows it’s not what we would choose to do.”  

Their point is that humans share a common humanity regardless of national loyalty. In this sense, we are all ordinary people. Ordinarily, people don’t decide to kill each other over disagreements. Agree or disagree, one can admit the logic is tight and makes sense. Perhaps more importantly, Pink Floyd is contending for a common human identity that transcends national boundaries and cultures.  

The “us and them” dilemma has a family dynamic about it, too. Humans aren’t just divided by boundaries and nationalities. We are also divided by kinship. Rudyard Kipling captured this aspect of the problem in a poem titled “We and They.” The poem says,  

Father, Mother, and Me, 

Sister and Auntie say,

All the people like us are We,  

And everyone else is They.  

And They live over the sea,  

While We live over the way,  

But — would you believe it?  

— They look upon We  

As only a sort of They!  

In true Kipling style, his pithy wit captured the arrogance of a “we and they” mentality. Through these famous British citizens — Pink Floyd and Rudyard Kipling — the philosophical problem of the “one and the many” is on display in practical terms. How do humans relate in general? More specifically, how do families understand their unique identity without negating their relational identity with humanity itself?  

Christians have wrestled for centuries with these aspects of identification. The tension is represented in Paul’s admonition for the Corinthians to live in the world and somehow not be of the world. How can Christians abide as part of the human family of nations and cultures, while not forsaking the uniqueness that calls them to live as the family of God?  

As it turns out, persecuted Christians provide much-needed perspective for the church to function uniquely as the Body of Christ for the good of every person on earth. Consider how Hebrews 13:3 commands attentiveness to the persecuted church:  

“Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body” (ESV).  

The text commands Christians to be aware of the persecuted and to call them to mind, with the remembrance helping to supply their physical needs (see also 1 Cor. 16: 1-4, Gal. 2:10, and 2 Cor. 8 – 9). Beyond this clear admonition, Christian theologians split into two factions regarding the further interpretation of this text. The different interpretations do not regard the obligations for the church to remember the persecuted: The church clearly must go forward in its mission with suffering saints in view. Rather, the disagreement comes from understanding the fuel that empowers this command to remember the persecuted.  

Why remember saints imprisoned and suffering for their faith in Christ? For some interpreters, the reason is that we all understand the infirmity of human anatomy. We have bodies as the imprisoned saints do and thus should realize their anguish and empathize with their frailty. On the other hand, a different interpretive tradition argues that the reason behind our remembrance of suffering saints is that we all belong to the same spiritual body.  

The different interpretations do not represent different texts. Everyone agrees that the text is the same in each interpretation. The difficulty derives from the fact that the original author (writing in koine Greek) assumed his audience would understand the impetus of the command to remember. The strictly literal words in the original read, “… you yourselves being in a body.” The original does not contain the definite article “the.” 

So, the question turns to how one understands “being in a body.” Does this imply being in a physical body? If so, then interpretation one holds sway. Or does it mean being in a spiritual (church) body? If that is correct, then interpretation two follows.  

To this author, interpretation two makes the most sense. In either interpretation, additional ideas must be supplemented to complete the thought. Is the body a physical one or a spiritual one? Some scholars object to asserting a spiritual body in this context because, even though the New Testament speaks of the church as a body, such language comes from the Apostle Paul, who almost certainly was not the author of Hebrews. Nevertheless, whether Paul or Apollos or someone else, the author of Hebrews spoke of the church as a body just a few verses before this command to remember the persecuted:  

“Therefore, lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather healed. Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:12-14, ESV).  

Body language plays a part in the writer’s mind. While this anatomical imagery might refer to individuals strengthening their weak knees, the context of Hebrews calls for a corporate understanding. Strengthen others; lift others up; don’t trip other believers. In chapter 12, the author admonishes the reader to make sure others in the church aren’t bitter or foolish like Esau or sexually immoral. Corporate identity appears to explain the body imagery.  

This body imagery and corporate identity circles our thoughts back to the beginning, returning to Kipling and Pink Floyd. For Kipling, the question regarded family identity: we and they. For the original psychedelic rock band Pink Floyd, the question regarded humanity: us and them.  

Do we identify with the persecuted church on the basis of humanity — us and them, only ordinary men? Or do we identify with the persecuted church as a matter of a single family (a particular subset of humanity)?  

For the writer of Hebrews, Christians represent a peculiar subset of humanity, forming one body or one family in Christ (through his priestly work spiritually providing for those with faith in him). If this interpretation is correct, then remembering the persecuted church should be more like feeling the pain of your own body — like trying to walk on a sprained ankle. To accomplish any part of your daily mission, you must walk through the anguish of one part of your body pulsing with pain.  

Remembering suffering Christians and being in a spiritual body with them proves an intense impulse of identity. We are one body with them. One part of our body is pulsing with pain. That pain identifies us, part of our very own body. As we care for the injured body part, we demonstrate the love of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who himself is the great high priest of our confession.  

Finally, in response to the first question posed by this article, the New Testament poses an unequivocally positive reply: Yes, it is possible for human beings in one part of the world to be united with different people in different cultures around the globe. Not only is it possible, but it is necessary and commanded in the New Testament. Christians must remember the persecuted wherever they are because we are one body with them.  

Above all, we remember, as Paul says, that Christ is our peace, having broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility (Eph. 2:14). Christ’s followers are as diverse as every nation, tribe, and tongue can possibly be — yet one body with one Lord in one faith. Therefore, we do not speak of the persecuted church as “them” because — in Christ — they are us. We and they are one. 

To read more stories, visit the ICC Newsroom. For interviews, please email [email protected].