Radically Moderate Conflict

Acts 15

 

            There is no fighting like church fighting.  I remember my first boss at my first church after being ordained: Duncan Stewart, Colonel Duncan Stewart, retired U.S. Army. Duncan had been an army chaplain for 28 years, retiring as a full-bird colonel before becoming the pastor in San Antonio.  Most of the time, Duncan was a great boss, but every once in a while “the colonel” would show up; when this happened Duncan would just blast me, shouting, belligerent, controlling.  Finally I had enough and I stormed into his office: “I am not going to tolerate you speaking to me that way!  You are a senior pastor, not a colonel.  This is a civilian church, not a military chapel.”  Forty-five minutes of arguing later, arguing about what I can no longer remember, he asked me, “Do you want to take this to Session (the church council)?”  “Yes I want to take this to Session!” I replied.  Fortunately for both of us, cooler heads prevailed (i.e. we went home and talked to our wives) and a suitable compromise was negotiated before the Session got to witness us bickering like siblings.  There is no fighting like church fighting.

 

            You might find this difficult to believe, but I have witnessed churches actually fight over what color the new carpet is going to be.  I have heard arguments about how the youth are too rambunctious.  I have heard arguments about which hymnal to use, the “blue” (1980’s) or the “red” (1950’s) hymnal; in my internship church we argued over the “red” versus the “green” (1930’s) hymnal.  The green hymnal was just awful, but Henry H. and Nellie M. both liked it so what was a mere seminarian to do?  I have witnessed a worship committee refuse even to debate what translation of the Bible to get for the new pew Bibles – “Pastor, you choose whatever you think is best” – so long as the color of the cover matches the cover of the hymnals; in that particular church, that would be the “red” hymnal. There is no fighting like church fighting.

 

            Sometimes church fights are more than merely trivial matters, though.  It was less than fifty years ago, not even a lifetime, that churches argued bitterly over civil rights.  Do you know there were so-called “white” churches that refused to allow an African-American brother or sister in Christ to worship with them?  It is tempting to say that they may have been white, but I’m not so sure they were church.  I cannot say this, however, for the folks in these churches were also in Christ.  Think about this: it was less than 150 years ago that brothers in Christ, who shared the same Lord, the same faith, the same baptism, the same God and Father of all who is over all and in all and through all (c.f. Ephesians 4:6), these brothers were willing to take a rifle and shoot another brother through the heart to let their voice be heard regarding slavery.  Within the last 500 years brothers in Christ were willing to slaughter one another with the sword because “the other” held a different view about how our one Lord and Christ, Jesus, was present in the sacrament of holy communion.  There is no fighting like church fighting.

 

 

*****

 

            The majority of New Testament letters were born in the midst of conflict.  1 Corinthians reads like a litany of modern ecclesiastical conflict; Paul’s letter consists of five essays on, respectively, leadership, sexuality (of course, the church is always arguing about sex!), a Christian’s relationship to the secular world, best practices for worship (of course, again!), and whether or not Jesus was truly raised, physically and bodily, from the dead.  Other New Testament letters deal with a host of topics that involve internal church conflict: misunderstandings about the Lord’s return (2 Thessalonians), older folks looking down on younger folks (1 Timothy), rich folks looking down on poor folks (James), and what to do about a) false teachers (2 Peter, 1 and 2 John), b) those who refuse to show hospitality (3 John), c) moral laxity (Jude), and d) a mission worker, Epaphroditus, who had utterly failed in his mission assignment (Philippians).  The most divisive conflict by far, however, was the issue of what to do with the Gentiles (Romans, Galatians, Hebrews and, arguably, Ephesians and Colossians).

 

             The “Gentile Issue” is no longer an issue for the Christian Church.  None of us woke up this morning and said to ourselves, “I sure hope Brad addresses the question of whether or not I, as a Gentile, really belong in the Church.”  But even though the question of whether or not or how Gentiles should be or can be a part of the Church is a settled issue for us, we can learn from watching how the early Church dealt with this question which was a divisive issue     for them.

 

            The question of how God’s people, Israel, are to relate with Gentiles is one of the central ethical questions of the Old Testament, finding expression as far back as Genesis, being a central theme in books such as Joshua and Judges, but becoming a critical theological debate in the post-exilic community.  Beginning in the early 500’s B.C., God’s people, returning to Jerusalem from exile in Babylon, widely accepted that their exile had been a God led punishment to get their attention.  But what was the lesson they were to hear?  For some, the lesson learned regarded the dangers of relating to non-Jews, who would surely lead the people astray.  For others, the lesson learned regarded the importance of relating to non-Jews as a “light to the Gentiles” in fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham that “all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (Genesis 12:3). A theological debate was created, a spiritual divide begun.

 

            Among the “exclusivists” none was more harsh than Ezra who upon his return to Jerusalem forced every Jewish man who had married a foreign woman to divorce his wife and cast out both wife and any children born of their union (Ezra 9:11).  Countering Ezra is the “inclusivist” book of Ruth who reminded Israel that the great-grandmother of David was a Moabitess (Ruth 1:4), making David himself of “mixed blood” (Ruth 4:17).  The prophet Nahum excoriates the people of Nineveh, a historical foe, with divine curses: “The Lord is a…avenging God,” “you will have no descendants,”  “you are vile,” “woe to the city of blood” (Nahum 1:2, 14, 3:1).  Countering Nahum is the book of Jonah where it is said of the Lord regarding these same Ninevites “you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity” (Jonah 4:2). Indeed, while Deuteronomy 23:1-2 directly forbids eunuchs and foreigners from the community of the Lord, Isaiah 56:3-5 expressly promises their welcome!

 

            It is in the context of this 500 year theological debate that Jesus came proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God.  The question, of course, is this: was Jesus an “exclusivist” or an “inclusivist” when it came to the Gentiles?  The answer is best seen by observing Jesus’ followers in the Book of Acts.  Do you remember to whom the apostle Phillip was sent in Acts 8:26-27?  If you said the Ethiopian eunuch you are correct.  In other words, the foreigner who was a eunuch; clearly the early church sided with Isaiah, the inclusivist, over Deuteronomy.

 

            In Acts 15 we see the continuation of the early Church’s move toward Gentile inclusion.  Some “Judaizers” had stirred up the Christian community in Antioch, where Paul and Barnabas had been preaching, by saying that Gentiles were welcome into the community of the Lord only if they became circumcised.  The Judaizers had roughly 100 explicit verses of Scripture and nearly 1500 years of religious tradition to support their argument.  Paul and Barnabas had neither Scripture nor tradition behind them, only the clear work of the Holy Spirit who, it would seem, had authenticated the Gentiles through “signs and wonders.”  What should the Church do?  Should Scripture and tradition be set aside for the sake of these “others”?  In order to clarify the authentic, Christian position on this matter – or, in other words, to settle over 500 years of theological debate – Paul and Barnabas travelled to Jerusalem to consult the apostles and elders, what is known as “the Council of Jerusalem” (Acts 15).

 

*****

 

            We have here the dilemma of deciding. On what grounds does one decide for all?  Roman Catholics, with an authoritative, hierarchical structure proceed far more smoothly here than most Protestants, or so it would appear. The U.S. Council of Bishops has been granted the ecclesiastical authority to speak for U.S. Catholics on moral issues. Even given these clear lines of authority, however, many individual Catholics will disagree with their bishops. In Protestant denominations, even in allegedly representative governing bodies, the dilemma of a few deciding for the many is exacerbated.  Almost no church member I know wants a higher governing body deciding public policy and defining moral opinion for him or her.

 

            It is far easier to make ethical decisions as an individual.  In August of 2001, Laura and I were on a flight back across the Atlantic; Laura sat next to a Saudi national who was coming to Houston to visit family and friends.  We exchanged email addresses and invited him out to the country to see some “real Texas” and stay in our home for a few days. Then 9-11 happened.  What should we do?  Should we allow this Saudi national into our home?  Would it be safe?  These and other questions flittered through our minds, but for Laura and I the decision was easy: of course the invitation to visit our home was still open!  Indeed, in an email to our new Saudi acquaintance I encouraged him to keep his plans and accept our offer of hospitality.

 

            For Laura and I, the decision to continue with the offer of hospitality was an easy one.  But what if we had been deciding for another family?  What if we had been deciding for an entire congregation?  It is difficult to make decisions that affect others, yet sometimes such decisions must be made.

 

*****

 

            In Acts 15 the early Church found themselves in the position of having to decide, as a smaller group, the ethical policy of a much larger spiritual community.  The manner in which the apostles and elders made that decision is instructive to us.  Rather than enter into belligerent deliberations, the apostles listened to the testimony of Paul and Barnabas as well as the Judaizers (Acts 15:4-5). Rather than vitriolic, Peter and James offered reasoned analysis of Holy Scriptures (Acts 15:7-21). Rather than promote their personal agendas, the apostles listened to what “seemed good to the Holy Spirit” (Acts 15:28).  Presumably there was some praying going on as well.

 

            What did not happen, however, was a “scorched earth” policy toward the Jewish-Christians in Antioch. By “scorched earth” policy I mean the kind of decisions we often see made today in our politicized and polarized culture, whether in Congress, community or church.  Too often those in the majority in a governing body not only make policy in accord with their own values but also go out of their way to humiliate their opposition and denigrate their values.  We see this phenomenon in Congress all the time but churches also fall into this pattern of sin when they seek not only to write polity according to their own convictions but also limit the freedom of conscience of their opposition.  This is precisely what did not happen at the Council of Jerusalem.

 

            Instead of a scorched earth policy, the apostles and elders intentionally and with compassion reached out to the Jewish-Christian believers in Antioch.  In the letter James drafted to the Church in Antioch, inclusion of the “Noachic laws” (i.e. laws that pre-date Abraham and Moses, that come from the days of Noah) were made (Acts 15:29).  For you and I, some of these laws make little sense.  I really don’t care if my cow is strangled or knifed so long as it is dead when I get it from McDonalds.  I never worry about whether my butcher is Christian or pagan so long as his (or her) hands are clean.  To you and I these “Noachic laws” may seem silly but these laws were important to first century Jews; all Jews of the first century would have understood the importance of these laws.  In deliberately including these laws in their letter to the Church of Antioch the apostles and elders were emphasizing points of agreement; they were seeking to affirm that place where there is common ground among all believers.

 

*****

 

            In 1992, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) adopted a policy paper called Seeking to be Faithful Together: Guidelines for Presbyterians During Times of Disagreement.  Seeking to be Faithful Together is divided into three sections and makes the following points[1] about how to live into the grace and truth expressed first at the Council of Jerusalem:

 

 

Give them a hearing…listen before we answer (John 7:51, Proverbs 18:13)

 

·        Treat each other respectfully so as to build trust, believing that we all desire to be faithful to Jesus the Christ.

·        Learn about various positions on the topic of disagreement.

·        State what we think we heard and ask for clarification before responding, in an effort to be sure we understand each other.

 

Speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15)

 

·        Share our concerns directly with individuals or groups with whom we have disagreements in a spirit of love and respect in keeping with Jesus’ teaching.

·        Focus on ideas and suggestions instead of questioning people’s motives, intelligence or integrity.

·        Share our personal experiences about the subject of disagreement so that others may more fully understand our concerns.

 

Maintain the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:3)

 

·        Indicate where we agree with those of other viewpoints as well as where we disagree.

·        Seek to stay in community with each other though discussion may be vigorous and full of tension.

·        Include our disagreements in our prayers, not praying for the triumph of our viewpoints, but seeking God’s grace to listen attentively, to speak clearly, and to remain open to the vision God holds for us all.

 

I can tell you from personal experience that it is difficult to be the church.  The most painful conflicts always involve family.  But I can assure you that these guidelines, if faithfully followed, are a path to peace.

 

*****

 

            The best experience of church I have ever known comes from my college water polo team.  We had our differences, but they never were allowed to lead to disunity.  We cherished and fought for our unity even while we lacked uniformity.  And sometimes we just fought.

 

            Our practices against one another were always far more brutal than games. I have been kicked, kneed and elbowed in the neck, in the kidney and sometimes “down low” more often than I can count.  And if truth be told, I have done the kicking, kneeing and elbowing more than a time or two!  What happened in practice, however, stayed in practice.  We refused to allow our internal fights to lead us to the false belief that we, each other, were the opposition.  We understood that the team we played in our next game was the opposition.  What would happen after a particularly brutal practice is that we would all go to the dining hall together.  There we would be standing in line with our plastic trays, and the following conversation would take place.

 

“Dude, you were so out of control out there.”

“No way, dude, you started it.”

“Hey, pass me some tapioca.”

“Sure, here you go.”

 

At its best, the Church is like that team: yes, we fight, but then we move on and share food with one another.  The bread of Christ.  The cup of salvation.  The communion, the holy communion, of the saints. 

 

            Duncan Stewart and I fought like cats and dogs at times, but a couple of years after I left Covenant Presbyterian Church in San Antonio to become pastor of the Brenham Presbyterian Church, it was my joy that Duncan accepted our request to come to Brenham to baptize our son, Matthew.  And it was a high honor three years later to stand in the pulpit in San Antonio as I gave Duncan’s eulogy.

 

            Five years after the carpet is put down, no one cares about the color.  The rambunctious youth eventually become responsible adults. No matter what color the hymnal, somehow God seems to be praised.  And history has taught us that killing to keep slavery or because of one’s understanding of the sacrament is not the will of Messiah Jesus. No, Messiah Jesus made his will clear in his final teaching to his disciples before his death:

 

A new command I give to you: Love one another.  As I have loved you, so you must love one another.  By this will all people know that you are my disciples, if you love one another (John 13:34-35).

 

 

Return to Sermons Menu