Barnabas – Salvaged Faith

No Additional Burdens

Posted on August 1, 2021Leave a comment

Text: Acts 15:1-2, 4-6, 12-13, 19-21

This week at VBS, we learned a lot of awesome stories about how Jesus power is with us.

And every single night we had a totally true, awesome story from the Book of Acts.

We talked about how Jesus helps us do hard things with the story of Ananias who went to help Saul.

We talked about how Jesus’ power gives us hope with the story of Paul’s shipwreck.

We talked about Jesus power helps us be bold with the story of Peter and John healing a man.

And we learned about how Jesus’ power helps us live forever as we let our light shine and share God’s story like so many disciples did.

Last but not least, we remembered that Jesus’ power helps us be good friends and learned about how that community in Jerusalem were connected.

But as we have talked about over these last couple of months, it isn’t easy for a church to get along.

There is going to be conflict as we have different ideas about how to lead and what to do and who is welcomed.

So today we have another totally true story from the book of Acts…. About the first official church council meeting.

In the history books and in the headings of our bibles, we know this as the Council of Jerusalem. It was the first time the leaders gathered to make an important decision about what the rules of the church should be.

As the Holy Spirit moved through this early church argument, we can learn about how we, too, in the 21st century can learn to get past our disagreements.

First – when you see a problem… address it!

The issue here is whether or not Gentiles had to be circumcised before they could be part of the church.

Another way to put it – did you have to fully convert to the Jewish faith before you could accept Christ as your Lord and Savior.

We’ve heard about the missionary work of Paul and Barnabas and how Gentiles were accepting Jesus right and left.

All along, they taught that Jesus was the way and the truth and the life. No prerequisites. No admission exams. Christ and Christ alone was the source of salvation.

But then group of folks comes along teaching something different.

Paul and Barnabas could have ignored them and kept doing what they were doing… But that only delays the debate until a time when people are more entrenched in one position or another.

They could have bullied the newcomers and ran them out of town… after all, that is what often happened to them.

Instead, they addressed the conflict directly.

They confronted the teachers in debate. They spoke their piece. They defended their position.

Of course, the other side made their arguments as well. A healthy conflict allows room for disagreement and conversation. It allows for people to stand in one place or another. They talked and argued… but there were no winners or losers.

And they all realized that this wasn’t something that could be settled once and for all in Antioch.

Which leads me to the second point… some arguments and debates are bigger than us as individuals.

Sometimes you reach a stalemate in a fight. And you need someone else to come in and help.

Paul and Barnabas are sent from Antioch to Jerusalem to get an official ruling on the issue.

In the world of business, this might mean calling in a mediator.

When you are fighting with your brother, this might be when your mom steps in.

In a church, this is the point when you call the district superintendent.

Someone who can help us think bigger and solve our problems.

And… sometimes we need to move the conversation up the chain of command because the impact of our decisions involve more than simply us.

The church in Antioch realized this debate was going to repeat time and time again across the world.

It was not just a conflict they needed to solve, this was a question for the whole Body of Christ.

And how the Body of Christ decided to live, one way or the other, would define the church.

They could either be a church who welcomed Gentiles as they were or a church who demanded circumcision, but they couldn’t be both.

So they sent their questions to Jerusalem and the apostles.

That is not to say that all arguments require calling in the head honcho. If a church can’t agree about what color of carpet to install, you don’t need to call the Bishop.

But there are some disagreements that are more fundamental – questions about our identity and our witness in the world – about who we are as a people… and sometimes we discover they are bigger than just one congregation.

In these cases, we have the opportunity to participate and share our experience and voices, but also, we are asked to listen to the experience and voices of others who are impacted by what we do.

This, is a lesson the partisan politicking in our world today desperately needs to remember.

The third thing that we can learn from this passage is how to engage.

As Acts 15 describes this debate, it plays out much like a courtroom scene. Parties stand and argue their case. People listen and wait their turn. The gathering is respectful and honest.

Oh, how I wish this were true in our local, state, national… or even denominational politics.

One of the more powerful realities of this testimony of scripture is that names are not tossed back and forth. No party made out to be the bad guy. There is no negative campaigning or slander.

Each group simply speaks the truth about who they are, what they have experienced, and what they believe.

Those who believed that all must be circumcised stood and made their case from the perspective of tradition and then others began to speak as well.

Peter talked about the conversion of Cornelius and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

Barnabas and Paul shared about their ministry with the gentiles and the signs and wonders they saw.

And in each case, the people were allowed to tell their whole story without questions or cross-examination.

The others listened completely… not with the intent of finding flaws in their argument or how to beat them… but openly.

When one party was done speaking, the body was silent until the next voice was ready to speak.

There is this air of respect and love… it was holy space.

The final lesson comes in the answer to this debate – we should respect and honor each another and God.

When there was no more to say, James stood up to speak.

Having listened to what each party valued, James went back to scripture. He noted the precedent for ministry among Gentiles and the continued value of the teachings of Moses.

And then he made a declaration that was affirmed by everybody.

They didn’t have to vote with winners and losers. They all just agreed.

Gentiles would be welcomed, as they were… no additional burden would be placed upon them.

In many ways, James helped to build a bridge between these opposing groups. He helped them to find their common ground of respect. Each position would be respected and affirmed in its own way… by declaring what was essential and what wasn’t and requiring that all parties treat one another with respect.

John Wesley was often fond of saying: In essentials, unity; in unessentials, liberty; in all things – charity (that is to say, love).

God had moved among the Gentiles and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit showed that a practice like circumcision must not be an essential component of what it meant to be saved in Christ Jesus.

However, this didn’t mean that anything goes. N.T. Wright describes this compromise as “the double principle of no needful circumcision on the one hand and no needless offense on the other.” The Gentile Christians were to honor the scriptures by refusing pagan worship, refraining from sexual immorality, and respecting the dietary laws of their Jewish kin.

The early church would continue to argue about the essentials of who we should be as the people of God and what would be required of us.

New questions would arise as the church continued to expand into new places and new cultures.

But this Council of Jerusalem set a new standard for how we should have these conversations… with grace and love and respect.

Their actions were not focused on creating winners and losers, but on discerning what God was doing.

They returned to scripture and allowed it to speak anew into the present moment.

The questions were important… but even more so was how they chose to answer them.

We have a lot of things we disagree about today.

And the peacemaker in me always hopes that we can find a solution that can bring us all together… a compromise that would unify us, like this moment in Acts 15.

But then I read just a few more verses… and Barnabas and Paul have a disagreement.

They decide that for the sake of the mission they need to part ways.

What is the most important thing that we discover in this chapter is that how we talk to each other… how we listen… and how we show respect to God… and how we protect the most vulnerable is what is really important.

Sometimes that means we can work together.

And sometimes that means we need some time apart.

I don’t know where the church or country or world will be in a few years.

I pray constantly for the healing of our relationships.

And I keep remembering the lessons of the Jerusalem Council.

We need to directly face our conflicts and bring in folks to help us when necessary.

We need to share our stories fully… and listen with hearts wide open…

But above all… rather than our own agenda, we should seek answers that help us to best love and honor and respect one another and our God.

Self-Definition

Posted on July 25, 2021Leave a comment

Acts 13: 1-5, 13-16, 43-52

About two months before the pandemic began, I was on renewal leave.

Honestly, that time was such a gift.

I was able to refill my cup and energize my spirit and I don’t know how I would have made it through the last 18 months if I had been as worn out as I was at the end of 2019.

That time was spent sleeping, traveling with friends, baking bread, and focusing on my spouse… with a little bit of reading thrown in.

In fact, almost every day, I read through a chapter of Cloud and Townsend’s book, “Boundaries” as I tried to re-center my ministry and establish some healthier patterns.

I got to thinking about that book again as I thought about the ministry of Paul and Barnabas.

You see, this section of Acts focuses on some of the differentiation between the Jewish and early Christian communities.

As we talked about last time, this was no longer simply a subset of the Jewish faith.

This new movement in Antioch was a multi-national, diverse, community of Jews and Gentiles.

“Christians” they called themselves.

In order to take on their own identity, you have to set some boundaries.

You have to talk about what you are and what you aren’t.

And that is going to cause some conflict.

In their book, Drs. Cloud and Townsend describe how infants and children develop boundaries and I think it is fascinating to compare how these stages might also describe how this early church community began to think of themselves.

We think of ourselves, after all, as part of the same family tree.

So from the infancy of the Christian movement to the time it established itself as its own unique identity, there are some very interesting dynamics at play that have shaped our scriptures.

Let’s look at them…

An infant’s first task is to bond with their parents and there is “no sense of self apart from Mother.”

Or another way that Cloud and Townsend put it, “Mommy and me are the same.” (p.67)

An infant simply can’t understand their existence without the presence of their parent and often you will notice distress if that person is gone.

As Jesus and the disciples engaged in their ministry, they understood themselves to simply be a part of the Jewish faith. There was no difference and so much of what we find in the gospels describes how this new movement and the Jewish faith are one and the same.

You can’t read through the gospel of Matthew, in particular, without stumbling all over quotes from the Hebrew Scriptures.

Luke’s gospel, however, has a slightly different spin on it.

As the author of Acts, he writes from the perspective of having witnessed the expansion of the good news to a community beyond Israel. So everything he writes comes through that lens.

But he, too, records the preaching of folks like Peter, Stephen, Philip, and Paul and each and every single one of them start their messages with the understanding that they are part of the people of Israel and remind folks of God’s promises to Moses, Abraham, David, and the prophets.

There is no sense of the Christian faith apart from the Jewish faith in these first stages.

Hopefully, an infant will discover that “Mommy and me are not the same,” and claim their own identity. This separation and individuation is a healthy and natural part of development into a unique self.

So as we think about how the Christian faith became its own separate identity, I find it fascinating to think about the three critical phases that Cloud and Townsend discuss in how children create boundaries with their parents.

They note that how the parent and child responds to these phases either creates healthy or unhealthy boundaries and we can see that in the responses of each throughout the book of Acts.

The first of these phases is called hatching.

“During this period,” they write, “babies begin moving out of their passive union with Mother into an active interest in the outside world. They become aware that there’s a big, exciting world out there -and they want a piece of the action!” (p. 69)

So many of the moments that we have touched on in the Book of Acts describe this kind of wide-eyed excitement.

The disciples begin their ministry in Jerusalem, worshipping at the temple every day, but you also see them growing and deepening in the kinds of things they discover about themselves.

New people flock to this movement every day as it tries out new things… like how they fellowship and care for the needy among them.

They start to discover some ways that they are not the same as the Jewish religious establishment and the messages of folks like Peter and John before the council evidence this.

They point to how they embraced the named of Jesus Christ, but those leaders rejected him.

But just as this period of development is incredibly difficult for a parent, who may not be ready to let their little one go off on their own, there is an attempt from the religious leaders of the Jewish community to rein in the leaders of this new movement.

Not only were there warnings, but a wave of persecution beginning with the death of Stephen that were all designed to bring this new movement back into the fold… back into what we would call an enmeshed relationship where there is no difference in belief or identity allowed.

The second phase of this separation, Cloud and Townsend call practicing.

They note, “the difference between hatching and practicing is radical. While the hatching baby is overwhelmed by this new world and still leans a great deal on Mother, the practicing child is trying to leave her behind!” (p. 70).

And you see this as a child takes their first steps and learns to walk… and then run… often away from said parent towards something new. “They want to try everything, including walking down steep stairs, putting forks into electric sockets, and chasing cats’ tails.”

In many ways, this phase is defined by exploring the limits and in a healthy relationship, an infant is able to dive in head first, because the parent is there to provide safety and encouragement when needed.

What I find fascinating in the development of the Christian faith, however, is that this particular phase initially comes not through the excitement of discovery, but as the church is scattered to the four winds because of persecution.

The movement goes to places like Samaria and Damascus and Antioch, initially because they ran out of fear.

And yet, the power of God through the Holy Spirit is what provides the encouragement to explore and expand and discover new things about themselves.

Philip baptizes the Ethiopian eunuch.

The apostles discover that one of their greatest enemies could become one of their greatest allies.

Peter learns that God shows no partiality.

Barnabas encounters a new multi-national diverse community.

But what happens in the midst of this exploration when you bump back into the parent?

Cloud and Townsend writes that in this phase, “children learn that aggressiveness and taking initiative are good.”

And we see the healthy development of these attitudes in the church as Barnabas and Saul… who starts going by his Roman name, Paul… are sent out as missionaries by the church in Antioch.

Their first missionary journey leads them to many different cities and communities and they always head first to the Jewish synagogue to talk directly to their fellow Israelites.

But as we saw in our scripture today, they have their eyes also on the Gentiles in the community.

In some cases, that initiative and message is welcomed and the people embrace what they have to say. But not everyone does.

In city after city, there are Jewish leaders who are upset and jealous of what Paul and Barnabas accomplish.

And these missionaries, in turn, push back with their own harsh words.

Chapters 12, 13, and 14 are filled with a growing tension and violence even spills out onto the streets in some of these places.

The third phase of this healthy separation is called rapprochement.

Cloud and Townsend describe this phase as “a return to connection with Mother, but this time it’s different. This time the child brings a more separate self into the relationship. There are two people now, with differing thoughts and feelings.” (p. 72)

While it might sound like this is a much more harmonious way of relating to each other, this phase of development in children is also known as the “terrible twos.”

A toddler might express anger as they realize they and other people are having different experiences.

Words like “me” and “mine” are incredibly common in their vocabulary because they are claiming their own self.

And, they learn how to say, “no.” They discover the power to make their own choices.

Our journey through the Book of Acts will only begin to touch on this particular phase of separation between the Jewish and Christian communities.

But I think it is important to have these ideas in the back of our minds as we look at how the church develops and its relationship with the Jewish community.

The reality is, we did not always do so in a healthy way.

There were seasons of anger and persecution that went both ways.

There were hard feelings that you can still see on the pages of scripture as these first Christian communities tried to claim what was theirs – by pushing away and blaming their Jewish siblings.

Sometimes when we read the words of Paul or the gospels, we can feel that animosity.

When I think about it as simply being a part of this process of separation and forming their unique identity, we start to understand where that anger or distance or blaming comes from.

Where we go wrong is when we read these passages at face value and continue to be hostile towards one another.

For centuries… millenia even… we carried that spirit with us and it grew into a deep seated anti-Semitism and even supercessionism that took millions of lives.

Just as sometimes these phases of development in infants create long lasting trauma and injury, the development of a unique Christian identity was fraught with problems.

But there can be healing.

We can establish new patterns and boundaries.

Just as the goal of a healthy separation or creation of a unique sense of self in a child is to form the ability for a parent and child to be in relationship as individuals… we can celebrate the many ways we have been able to have a much healthier relationship with our Jewish siblings.

We are not entirely the same.

But we are also not entirely different.

We come from the same family.

And we are blessed if we can find ways to repent and repair and rebuild our relationships.

The Church in Antioch

Posted on July 18, 2021Leave a comment

Text: Acts 11: 19-30

In our lesson for today, Luke notes that this new community in Antioch represents the very first time that people were called, “Christians.”

Before this, we’ve had a lot of different descriptions of these folks.

Jews. Disciples. Followers of the Way. Those who were part of “This Life.”

It was hard to describe this community.

And largely that is because this movement started among and as an extension of the Jewish faith.

Jesus himself was considered a Jewish rabbi, who recruited disciples to follow his teaching… like many other Jewish rabbis of the time.

And yet, there was more to Jesus than this.

He wasn’t simply pointing to God’s Kingdom.

He didn’t just have a particular teaching about what it meant to be Jewish.

He was ushering in a whole new kind of relationship between God and the world that brought the Kingdom of Heaven to earth.

While Jesus walked among those first disciples and the crowds, he described the kind of life we were now called to embody.

Think about the Sermon on the Mount…

In ‘The Message’ translation, as the sermon continues after the Beatitudes, Eugene Peterson writes:

“Let me tell you why you are here…”

The whole sermon is full of instructions for the people of God.

It reminds us of the attitudes we are supposed to carry with us into the world and how we can serve God and God’s Kingdom.

We are supposed to fulfill God’s laws – God’s plans and guide for how we love and live with one another.

And as we do, we become salt and light.

Our very lives, our witness, helps others to experience God.

Think a bit about what it means to be salt and light.

We aren’t called to be salty in a way that is angry and bitter and ill-tempered.

Salt takes what is already there and brings out the flavors. It helps us taste what is hidden.

When you sprinkle salt on watermelon or tomatoes, the flavors are more bright and sweet.

When you add salt to soup, it becomes rich and deep.

Salt is used for curing and preserving and healing.

That is our job!

We bring out the “God-flavors of this earth” (MSG) by pointing to the good news and movement of God and lifting up stories of life and hope.

In the same way, the light of God within us helps others to see God.

Our faith is not meant to be secret or private… but to shine far and wide so that others might have a relationship with God through Jesus Christ as well.

So the testimony and witness of the Book of Acts tells us about how those first Jewish disciples lived in the way Jesus called them to live.

By the power of the Holy Spirit, the very presence of God within them, they were salt and light… not just for themselves, or for their neighbors, but for the entire world.

We see it in that first community in Jerusalem that gathered to break breads and pray and learn at the feet of the apostles.

We see it in how they cared for the vulnerable within the community.

We see it in how people were healed, and faith deepened, and understanding of the Kingdom of God expanded and grew.

Even when persecution and threats could have driven them underground, hiding away the light of God in their hearts, they shone.

And suddenly, this small group of Jewish disciples who believed that Jesus was the Messiah became an international movement of Jews and Gentiles.

Which brings us to Antioch.

If we remember, the experience of Pentecost was itself had a global impact because Jewish faithful from across the world had returned to the city for the festival.

But, after the death of Stephen, some of those disciples fled and returned home… some all the way to the northern end of the Mediterranean Sea.

They began to be salt and light back home, sharing the good news of Jesus Christ with their fellow Jews.

And because Antioch was a huge, cosmopolitan city – a crossroads of the world at this time – some of those folks from Phoenicia and Cyprus and even people as far away as the north African city of Cyrene found themselves together.

As the Holy Spirit led them, they pointed to what God was doing in the world and just like Peter had experienced in Caesarea, Gentiles began to join the movement as well.

That’s the thing about salt and light.

It can’t be hidden away.

It can’t be contained to just one thing.

If you salt your potatoes on the plate, some is bound to land on the chicken and broccoli, too.

If you set a light in one corner of a room, eventually the whole space will be illuminated.

Jesus was telling those first disciples that if they followed his way, the whole world would notice.

So why are we surprised when they do?

The leaders of the church in Jerusalem heard about these happenings and decided to send Barnabas up to check on things.

You know, I have to be honest, before this summer and taking the time to really look closely at the book of Acts, I really didn’t know who Barnabas was… but he is such an instrumental part of this early Jesus movement!

Barnabas is the guy in chapter 4 who sells his land and gives the proceeds to the poor.

Barnabas is also the guy who vouches for Saul when he comes back to Jerusalem after his transformation.

And he’s the guy who gets sent to this community in Antioch.

This is an incredibly strategic decision on the part of the apostles.

Scripture tells us that Barnabas was actually from Cyprus, this island in the northern Mediterranean Sea.

Although he was Jewish, a Levite in fact, he had a cross-cultural identity, growing up outside of Israel in a region that had been ruled by various empires and was a major player in regional trade.

So Barnabas would have largely understood the customs and traditions of this Roman trade city.

And when he arrives, what he finds is a mixed Jewish and Gentile community that is full of salt and light and the power of God.

Barnabas himself is a non-Hebrew Jew.

He has heard about Peter’s experience with the Roman soldier, Cornelius.

So when he arrives and sees the Holy Spirit moving among this diverse group of folks, he is filled with joy and starts to figure out how he can encourage them to grow even more fully into their relationship with God.

His gets himself situated and preaches a few sermons, but then realizes that this needs to be a team effort and he goes to Tarsus to search for Saul.

Yep, that Saul.

The one that Barnabas had vouched for in Jerusalem.

The one who had stirred up some conflict among the other Greek-speaking Jews and got sent back home.

Home for Saul was on the northern Mediterranean.

You see, he, too, had this kind of dual-identity.

Firmly Jewish, and yet also a Roman citizen, fluent in the Greek culture and world.

Together, these two became a dynamic team that helped to shape the church into more than just a Jewish sect.

The Spirit of God truly had moved beyond Jerusalem… beyond Samaria… and from Antioch would move to the ends of the earth.

As such, this group of folks needed a new name.

They were more than a Jewish community.

The Holy Spirit fell upon all who would believe in Jesus Christ so that they might be salt and light for the world.

As Paul would later write to the church in Galatia, “You are all God’s children through faith in Christ Jesus. All of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither slave nor free; nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:26-28)

And if we are all one in Christ, made God’s children through faith in Christ, what better name for this group than Christian.

These Christians in Antioch understood why they were there.

To know God and to know Jesus.

To be salt and light for the world.

And to reach out in love to their neighbors.

In fact, when they heard about a potential disaster, a famine, headed towards the people of Judea, they took up a collection and sent it to Jerusalem to help.

We are here today, because of that diverse and vibrant community in Antioch.

Because of the way they didn’t let labels get in the way of who was welcome.

Because they let their light shine beyond their city to bring healing and hope to the world.

From Jerusalem… to Samaria… to Antioch… to right here in Des Moines, we are called to do the same.

To let our light shine so that others might know God.

To bring out and support the work God is already doing healing and bringing hope to the people of this community.

To love our neighbors.

Whether that is providing milk and juice for the families at Hawthorne Hill…

Or signing up to tutor at schools this fall…

Or volunteering with Vacation Bible School…

Or the ways, big and small, you make a difference in the lives of others through your daily work…

Be light.

Be salt.

Be evidence of God’s grace to a world that is desperate for hope.

A Way Forward? Which Way?

Posted on September 2, 2018Leave a comment

Text: Acts 15

The book of the Acts of the Apostles is the story of how the good news of Jesus spread from Jerusalem, through Judea and Samaria, to the ends of the earth. Along the way, the culture and traditions and scriptures of our spiritual ancestors encountered a variety of peoples and backgrounds.
When should the gospel be adapted? What was essential to maintain? Which traditions and practices should be enforced and which were merely contextual?
These were all questions being asked by the disciples and the communities they encountered along their evangelistic journeys.
Peter, in Acts 10, has a vision of the clean and unclean together and then is brought to the home of a Gentile centurion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, he baptizes the entire household… even though it was forbidden for a Jew to visit with outsiders.
In Antioch (Acts 11), Barnabas goes to minister to the Gentiles who were being converted. He is joined by Paul and together they not only convert many, but there is prediction of a famine and together the people there gather money to take to Jerusalem in response. This is not only a church of new believers, but ones who understand their connection to a larger community.
Gentiles were converted in Iconium and Lystra, but tension grew between Jews who followed Christ and those who did not. Those who rejected this new message stirred up conflict between new Gentile converts and Jewish Christians (Acts 14).
To complicate matters, other missionaries began to visit some of these places and the messages being shared about which practices must be followed as a part of the faith were different.
In particular was a very important question: Did you have to be circumcised in order to be saved by Jesus?
Now, circumcision had been an important identity marker for what it meant to be the people of God since the time of Abraham.
Jews who followed Christ did not see themselves as entering a new religion, but merely living into a new expression of that faith. Circumcision was still an important part of who they were.
Gentiles, however, were making a much larger change. Some, like the Roman centurion, were God-fearers… Gentiles who worshipped the God of the Jews but who had restrictions on what they could participate in because of their status as Gentiles. Others were pagans and were converting to a totally new faith. Circumcision would have been a significant cultural departure.

Last week, I shared with you a spectrum of theological stands that shape our church today ranging from progressive to traditional.
Imagine for a moment that this conversation was instead about circumcision.
Those on the progressive incompatibilist side might make the claim that since God is revealing a new way – no one anywhere has to be circumcised. Those on the traditional imcompatibilist side might claim – this is the same God we have always followed and everyone who wants to be saved must be circumcised. And surely there were people in the middle, who thought that Jews who wanted to be could, but Gentiles didn’t have to and so on.

Someone had to make an official decision about this so that the conflict among communities might cease. Local churches in these far flung places were confused about what was required and what wasn’t and it was hurting their ability to convert new followers to the way of Jesus.
And so the apostles and elders of the faith gathered together in Jerusalem in the year 48 to consider this question.
They heard testimony from people like Paul and Barnabas, and disciples like Peter and James made pleas. And together, the Jerusalem Council made a decision for the whole church.

In many ways, our General Conference functions every four years like the Jerusalem Council. We gather to listen and to share our stories and our witness and to make decisions that will guide the future of our entire denomination.
In February, when a special session of General Conference gathers, the decisions we make will impact not only our larger cultural witness, but also the practices and the people of local congregations like Immanuel.

As we hear this text from Acts 15, it is easy to focus on the Jerusalem Council itself… the leaders of the faith who have gathered together to make this decision.
But I admit, that in these past few weeks I’ve been thinking a whole lot more about all of the communities back in Antioch and Iconium who were waiting for a decision.
They sent off their representatives, but it would be some time before they heard a final answer. They knew that there were a variety of different directions the Council could take and so I imagine they began to prepare their hearts for a range of possibilities. Would they have to be circumcised? Would they be free to practice how they had been? Would there be other ways the Council might ask them to come into compliance with the faith?

Friends, we are those local communities waiting for a decision to be made. That decision will impact us in one way or another and so now is the time for us to begin praying and preparing ourselves for whatever might come.

Last week, I asked all of those who were here to identify where they personally fall along this spectrum of theological responses to scripture regarding LGBT+ persons. Because the impact of decisions upon OUR local community might look different from that of our neighbors.
This is simply a snapshot, but these are the responses from 110 of you who were in worship last Sunday morning. Nearly 60% of you identified yourselves on the progressive end, 27% of you on the traditionalist end, with about 13% of you not responding to that particular question. So I’m going to use your responses to help frame how Immanuel might be impacted by any of the particular plans in front of us. One thing I want to highlight is that in the answers for all of the questions, no matter whether you agreed or disagreed, nearly the vast majority of you continued to say that you would stay at Immanuel.

The first thing I want to explore are a couple of options based on this theological spectrum of perspectives. The first one is our current reality… the status quo. If nothing passes at the special General Conference, this is the default to which we revert.

Our Book of Discipline currently prohibits both the ordination of self-avowed, practicing homosexuals and same-sex marriage, which is a traditionalist perspective. However, there are places and people who are not following those prohibitions. In more progressive areas of our denomination, sometimes this happens with no enforcement of the rules at all. In more traditionalist areas, there are often charges filed and sometimes clergy are suspended or their credentials are removed. But there is vast inconsistency.
Currently, Immanuel’s response to this has been to largely to ignore the question. If we agree or disagree with the larger denominational stance, we don’t bring it up. Within our congregation are individuals and families who are impacted by this question, but they don’t push it within the larger church. Unlike other congregations within the greater Des Moines area that have strongly identified with a progressive or traditionalist perspective and have made outreach efforts around that perspective, we don’t talk about it.
And I think this is largely because identify ourselves as a family church. And families disagree about things, but still want to gather together around the Thanksgiving table. We might have private side conversations over pie, but it isn’t going to be the thing that we focus on. So we follow the rules of the denomination, whether we agree or not.

One of the plans included in the Commission on a Way Forward Report, although not recommended by our Bishops, is the Traditionalist Plan (begins on page 67). This plan would end the confusion and inconsistency by determining once and for all that we will not ordain or marry LGBT persons within the United Methodist Church.
There are two ways that accountability and enforcement are increased.
First, all bishops, annual conferences, and members of the Board or Ordained Ministry must certify that they will uphold, enforce, and maintain The Book of Discipline related to self-avowed practicing homosexuals. Those who disagree with the Book of Discipline and cannot make such a statement have three options.
1) Not certify the statement. This will result in all funds from the UMC being withdrawn and the annual conference will no longer be allowed to use the cross and the flame.
2) Certify the statement and break the rules – automatic penalties.
3) Leave the denomination to form/join a self-governing Methodist church, aka a new denomination that might be affiliated with the UMC.

What would be the impact of this on a local church like Immanuel?
Well, first of all, nearly 85% of you replied that if the current stance in our Book of Disciple remains unchanged [status quo] or strengthened [increased enforcement] you would stay as a part of Immanuel. We’d have a disagreement within our church, but again, I think largely we are focused on our community together and not on the larger denominational dynamics.
One of the complicating factors of this particular plan is that as a local church, we don’t have a lot of say of what happens at the levels just above us.
The Iowa Annual Conference, for example, might decide that it either will not certify the required statement or it might form or join a self-governing Methodist church that is more progressive. If that were the case, then this local church would have the opportunity to decide if we wanted to go with the Iowa Annual Conference, or if we wanted to stay with the United Methodist Church.

Another plan that has been presented along this same theological spectrum is the Simple Plan. This plan was not part of the Commission on a Way Forward report but was submitted by the United Methodist Queer Clergy Caucus. This particular plan seeks to remove all discriminatory language around homosexuality within the Book of Discipline.
It does so by striking statements like “Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches.” However, it does not add any additional affirming language, nor does it add language that would increase enforcement towards those who are traditionalist. No clergy or church would be required to perform a same-gender wedding. If and when a congregation wanted to allow such weddings, they could have that conversation and make that decision.

Based on your responses to our survey, that would be a possibility. Nearly 70% of you said that you would agree if same-sex marriages would be allowed in our sanctuary. However, I also imagine that since this congregation deeply values relationship, we wouldn’t jump into any decisions without first having some family conversations and make sure it was the appropriate choice for our church.
Very similar dynamics are at play in the question about the appointment of queer clergy to Immanuel.

So far, we have been working along this spectrum of theological perspectives. The Commission on a Way Forward wanted to break us out of those dynamics a little bit and so the next two plans I’m going to present fall within a sort of compatibilist realm, but are trying to do something a little different.

The One Church Plan (begins on page 19) is a proposal of the Commission on a Way Forward that was supported by a strong majority of our Council of Bishops. The fundamental theological statement within this plan is that our position on homosexuality, whatever it might be, is not an essential of our faith. It is not something that we should divide our church over.
Like the Simple Plan that I just shared with you, it removes all language that is restrictive towards LGBT persons. However, it adds in every one of those locations statements that ensures freedom of conscience for those who think differently. For example, in the section about the ministry of an elder it states:
“In conferences where civil law permits a pastor to perform same-sex marriage services, no elder shall at any time be required or compelled to perform, or prohibited from performing, any marriage, union, or blessing of same-sex couples, or of any couples. Each elder shall have the right to exercise his or her conscience to refuse or agree when requested…”
What would be the impact of such a plan on Immanuel? This particular plan allows us the freedom of conscious, much like the Simple Plan. This plan does specify, however, that same-sex weddings are not allowed in local congregations unless the congregation chooses to approve them by a simple majority vote.
Any congregation that felt like it could no longer remain a part of the United Methodist Church, potentially non-compatibilist congregations, this plan points to already existing mechanisms within the Book of Discipline for them to leave.

The other primary plan presented by the Commission on a Way Forward is the Connectional Conference Model (begins on page 37). This model also affirms that this question is not an essential of our faith and maintains the unity of the United Methodist Church by creating three branches within the denomination based upon our perspectives on human sexuality.
The difficulty with this plan is that it requires changes to the constitution of our church which would have to be approved by 2/3 vote of all of the annual conferences combined. If this happened, there is a plan of implementation with decisions filtering down.
First, each United States Jurisdiction would vote in 2020 which connectional conference it would want to join. After that decision, any annual conference within that jurisdiction could vote to join a different connectional conference if it so chooses. Then, beginning in 2021, any local church that disagrees with where the annual conference has affiliated can choose to join a different connectional conference.
As a result, different churches within our city might belong to various connectional conferences, but we would all still be a part of the larger United Methodist Church.

As a local church, we could decide to just go with the flow and follow the decisions made by the entities above us, or if we disagreed with their direction, we could vote to join another. Whichever conference we ended up affiliating with would determine our policies on ordination and weddings.

The final plan that has already been published and is available for conversation is not a plan of the Commission on a Way Forward. It is simply named, a Plan of Dissolution, and the purpose of this particular plan is to claim that this actually is an essential of our faith and for that reason, we must divide the church.
Rather than any one perspective claiming victory over the denomination, however, the goal of this plan is to dissolve the UMC in its entirety. Then at the 2020 General Conference, delegates will be elected to help form 2 or more new denominations that likely would fall into the same spectrum we have been discussing. As those new denominations are formed, local churches would have the opportunity to affiliate with and join whichever they felt called to join.

In the year 48, the church was at a crossroads. Would they embrace the Gentiles who were following the way of Christ? Would the Gentiles shape the church, or would the Jewish faith shape the Gentiles? Leaders of the faith gathered together in Jerusalem to allow scripture, the Holy Spirit, tradition, testimony, and reason guide them in making the best decision for the church.
I imagine as those local communities of faith sent their delegates, they joined together in fervent prayer.
And so that is what I hope you might do with and for us.
Pray. Pray hard. Pray every day.
Pray for God to guide us as we make these decisions, hard decisions, that will impact our church at every single level, from our local church here in Des Moines to the hospital we have built in Sierra Leone, to our seminary in Russia, to our publishing house in Nashville. Pray.

The Spirit of Debate

Posted on August 22, 2012Leave a comment

I love to have a good argument!

One of my favorite memories from college was debating with my good friend, Brian Johnson. We argued about anything and everything… politics, religion, who could marry, why you shouldn’t marry, our favorite philosophers, the best movie, you get the picture. There was something about a debate with Mr. Johnson that made your heart beat faster and sharpened your intellect. You were thinking deeply. You were listening for flaws and places to make counterpoints. You were learning what rhetorical strategies worked and which didn’t.

Most of mine, didn’t work.

I lost a lot of debates with my good friend – probably because he was on course to become a professor of philosophy – but through it all, we remained good friends. Even when we got flustered after a good fight, we could turn around and the next moment go eat dinner together.

Debating and politicking can be exciting… to a point. But sometimes a vigorous debate turns into a personal attack. Sometimes fighting just for the sake of fighting reveals hidden anxieties and anger. And sometimes, when parties impose their ideas on others, reality clashes with ideals and people are hurt in the process.

It is a reality we see all the time in Washington, D.C. as political parties refuse to compromise their platforms to deal with the lived reality of the people they are called to serve. But it is also a reality in our churches. A good natured debate, a serious conversation about what we should do sometimes turns ugly and hurts our Body of Christ far more than we could imagine.

In Acts 15, we find one of the first recorded official church council meetings. In the history books and in the headings of our bibles, we know this as the Council of Jerusalem. It was the first time the church leaders gathered together to make an important decision about what should be done… and about who could be included.

Conflict is normal and expected in the life of a church. In fact, as Rev. Dr. Jill Sanders reminds me often, conflict is simply two different ideas occupying the same space. How we handle that conflict, and what kind of debate we have, is what can make or break relationships and groups.

As the Holy Spirit moved through this early church argument, we can learn about how we, too, in the 21st century can handle the conflict that arises.

First – when the question or problem arises, you address it directly.

The issue in this instance was a debate about whether or not Gentiles had to be circumcised before they could be saved. That is, did they have to become Jewish before they could accept Christ as their Lord and Savior.

Paul and Barnabas were out working among the people and gentiles were converting to the Jesus left and right. All along, all they had ever taught was that Jesus was the way and the truth and the life. No prerequisites. No admission exams. Christ and Christ alone was the source of salvation.

But a group of folks comes along teaching something different. Paul and Barnabas could have had a number of options here.

They could have ignored this new teaching and continued to do what they were doing… with both ideas growing up alongside of one another in the community. But that only delays the debate until a time when people are more entrenched in one position or another.

They could have driven the newcomers out of town violently… which was what sometimes happened to them when their teachings were not well received by a community.

But Barnabas and Paul had the wherewith all to directly address the problem. They confronted the teachers and argued against them. They spoke their piece. They defended their position. And most assuredly, the other side made their arguments as well. A healthy conflict allows room for disagreement and conversation. It allows for people to stand in one place or another. They talked and argued until they were finished.

What our scriptures don’t tell us is how this conflict was resolved. There is no tale of winners and losers in the debate. What we next hear is that Paul and Barnabas are being sent from Antioch – the community they were serving – to go up to Jerusalem to get an official ruling on the issue.

Which leads me to point two: some arguments and debates are bigger than us as individuals. A sign of maturity and health in any conflict is calling in other voices when the debate has reached a stalemate.

In the world of business, this might be a mediator. In a marriage, this might involve seeing a counselor. In a church, its when you place a call to your district superintendent. Sometimes we need neutral third parties to help us to see the bigger picture and to resolve our differences.

But sometimes, we also need to have a larger conversation because the impact of our decisions involve more than simply us.

The church in Antioch realized that the debate they were having would merely be repeated time and time again across the world… it was not a question only for them, but for the whole Body of Christ. The power of a group speaking together – of a group deciding to live one way or another – would define that body one way or another. They could either be a church who welcomed Gentiles as they were or a church who demanded circumcision, but they couldn’t be both. They made a mature decision and sent the question to a higher authority.

That is not to say that all arguments require calling in the big guns. If a church can’t agree about what color of carpet to install, the bishop doesn’t need to be informed. The carpet isn’t a life or death matter of identity.

But when we have fundamental disagreements about who to welcome, or how to interact with a particular social issue like immigration, then we might find we are having conversations that are bigger than us.

That doesn’t mean they are conversation we shouldn’t participate in or have a voice in… it simply means that we also need to include others.

So the Council of Jerusalem meets and the apostles and the elders all gather together to hear about what they problem is and to make an official decision.

The third thing that we can learn is what the nature of these discussions should be. As Acts 15 describes this debate, it plays out much like a courtroom scene. Parties stand and argue their case. People listen and wait their turn. The gathering is respectful and honest with one another.

One of the more powerful realities of this testimony of scripture is that names are not tossed back and forth. No party is painted to be the bad guy. There is no negative campaigning or slander. Each group simply speaks the truth about who they are, what they have experienced, and what they believe.

Those who believed in circumcision stood and made their case from the perspective of tradition and then others began to speak as well.

Peter stood and talked about his vision of the gospel for the Gentiles and the conversion of Cornelius. He lifted up the revelation of God he had received and his calling to carry that message back to the church.

Barnabas and Paul stood and spoke about their ministry among the gentiles and the signs and wonders they saw.

And in each case, the people were allowed to tell their whole story. They weren’t questioned or cross-examined. They simply shared their experience and others listened. They listened completely – not with the intent of finding flaws in the argument or ways to defeat them… they simply listened.

When one party was done speaking, they waited in silence until the next voice was ready to speak. It was a respectful, holy debate.

And when all had spoken, James felt moved to respond on behalf of the assembly. He lifted up the scriptures and the precedent for ministry to Gentiles even in the Old Testament. He made a statement, and it was affirmed by the whole body. Gentiles would be welcomed, as they were… no additional burden would be placed upon them.

A letter was written and sent out to all the churches – a letter that would clarify the church teaching, a letter to provide stability and unity among the people of God. This letter assured the people that the Holy Spirit had led them to a decision… no burden would be placed upon them but these essentials: to refuse food offered to idols and refrain from sexual immorality.

John Wesley was often fond of saying: In essentials, unity; in unessentials, liberty; in all things – charity (that is to say, love).

In the course of their debate, the early church argued about the essentials – about how we are saved and who we should be as the people of God. And sometimes their positions on those essentials would change – as would later happen with the prohibition against eating food that had been sacrificed to idols. But there were also many questions they didn’t address and left unanswered. There were questions that were not important and were practiced differently depending on what city or village you were in at the time.

But perhaps most important is that these conversations happened with grace and love and respect.

With my friend, Brian Johnson, our friendship was always prioritized above all else. The questions we were asking of one another did not ultimately matter. Brian might disagree with me of course =) , but I guess I mean that even if there was a right answer, our friendship was more important than the debate we were having. Sure, the questions were important and someday we might be in positions and places where the decisions we made and the answers we arrived at really would matter. But what was truly important was the fact that we could argue and disagree and still love one another.

The same is not always the case with the church. The same is certainly not the case in our nation. We yell and demonize and refuse to listen to one another. We line up for chicken sandwiches or stay home and choose to boycott. We get so caught up in the little things, the unessentials that don’t matter, that we have no energy left to talk about what is really important.

May we let go of our fears and our pride. May we open our hearts and minds to truly listen to one another. And may we have a different sort of argument… an argument filled with the spirit of love.

Amen and Amen.