Jerusalem Council – 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.

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.