I love to have a good argument!\u00a0<\/p>\n
One of my favorite memories from college was debating with my good friend, Brian Johnson.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 There was something about a debate with Mr. Johnson that made your heart beat faster and sharpened your intellect.\u00a0 You were thinking deeply.\u00a0 You were listening for flaws and places to make counterpoints. You were learning what rhetorical strategies worked and which didn’t.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Most of mine, didn’t work.\u00a0<\/p>\n
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.\u00a0 Even when we got flustered after a good fight, we could turn around and the next moment go eat dinner together.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Debating and politicking can be exciting… to a point.\u00a0 But sometimes a vigorous debate turns into a personal attack.\u00a0 Sometimes fighting just for the sake of fighting reveals hidden anxieties and anger.\u00a0 And sometimes, when parties impose their ideas on others, reality clashes with ideals and people are hurt in the process.\u00a0<\/p>\n
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.\u00a0 But it is also a reality in our churches.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n
In Acts 15, we find one of the first recorded official church council meetings.\u00a0 In the history books and in the headings of our bibles, we know this as the Council of Jerusalem.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n
Conflict is normal and expected in the life of a church.\u00a0 In fact, as Rev. Dr. Jill Sanders reminds me often, conflict is simply two different ideas occupying the same space.\u00a0 How we handle that conflict, and what kind of debate we have, is what can make or break relationships and groups.\u00a0<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
First – when the question or problem arises, you address it directly.<\/p>\n
The issue in this instance was a debate about whether or not Gentiles had to be circumcised before they could be saved.\u00a0 That is, did they have to become Jewish before they could accept Christ as their Lord and Savior.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Paul and Barnabas were out working among the people and gentiles were converting to the Jesus left and right.\u00a0 All along, all they had ever taught was that Jesus was the way and the truth and the life.\u00a0 No prerequisites.\u00a0 No admission exams. Christ and Christ alone was the source of salvation.\u00a0<\/p>\n
But a group of folks comes along teaching something different.\u00a0 Paul and Barnabas could have had a number of options here.\u00a0<\/p>\n
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.\u00a0 But that only delays the debate until a time when people are more entrenched in one position or another.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
But Barnabas and Paul had the wherewith all to directly address the problem. They confronted the teachers and argued against them.\u00a0 They spoke their piece.\u00a0 They defended their position.\u00a0 And most assuredly, the other side made their arguments as well.\u00a0 A healthy conflict allows room for disagreement and conversation.\u00a0 It allows for people to stand in one place or another.\u00a0 They talked and argued until they were finished.<\/p>\n
What our scriptures don’t tell us is how this conflict was resolved.\u00a0 There is no tale of winners and losers in the debate.\u00a0 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.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Which leads me to point two:\u00a0 some arguments and debates are bigger than us as individuals.\u00a0 A sign of maturity and health in any conflict is calling in other voices when the debate has reached a stalemate.\u00a0<\/p>\n
In the world of business, this might be a mediator.\u00a0 In a marriage, this might involve seeing a counselor.\u00a0 In a church, its when you place a call to your district superintendent.\u00a0 Sometimes we need neutral third parties to help us to see the bigger picture and to resolve our differences.\u00a0<\/p>\n
But sometimes, we also need to have a larger conversation because the impact of our decisions involve more than simply us.\u00a0<\/p>\n
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.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 They could either be a church who welcomed Gentiles as they were or a church who demanded circumcision, but they couldn’t be both.\u00a0 They made a mature decision and sent the question to a higher authority.<\/p>\n
That is not to say that all arguments require calling in the big guns.\u00a0 If a church can’t agree about what color of carpet to install, the bishop doesn’t need to be informed.\u00a0 The carpet isn’t a life or death matter of identity.\u00a0<\/p>\n
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.\u00a0<\/p>\n
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.\u00a0<\/p>\n
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.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The third thing that we can learn is what the nature of these discussions should be.\u00a0 As Acts 15 describes this debate, it plays out much like a courtroom scene.\u00a0 Parties stand and argue their case.\u00a0 People listen and wait their turn.\u00a0 The gathering is respectful and honest with one another.<\/p>\n
One of the more powerful realities of this testimony of scripture is that names are not tossed back and forth.\u00a0 No party is painted to be the bad guy.\u00a0 There is no negative campaigning or slander.\u00a0 Each group simply speaks the truth about who they are, what they have experienced, and what they believe.<\/p>\n
Those who believed in circumcision stood and made their case from the perspective of tradition and then others began to speak as well.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Peter stood and talked about his vision of the gospel for the Gentiles and the conversion of Cornelius.\u00a0 He lifted up the revelation of God he had received and his calling to carry that message back to the church.<\/p>\n
Barnabas and Paul stood and spoke about their ministry among the gentiles and the signs and wonders they saw.\u00a0<\/p>\n
And in each case, the people were allowed to tell their whole story.\u00a0 They weren’t questioned or cross-examined.\u00a0 They simply shared their experience and others listened.\u00a0 They listened completely – not with the intent of finding flaws in the argument or ways to defeat them… they simply listened.\u00a0<\/p>\n
When one party was done speaking, they waited in silence until the next voice was ready to speak.\u00a0 It was a respectful, holy debate.\u00a0<\/p>\n
And when all had spoken, James felt moved to respond on behalf of the assembly.\u00a0 He lifted up the scriptures and the precedent for ministry to Gentiles even in the Old Testament.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n
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.\u00a0<\/p>\n
John Wesley was often fond of saying: In essentials, unity; in unessentials, liberty; in all things – charity (that is to say, love).\u00a0<\/p>\n
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.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 There were questions that were not important and were practiced differently depending on what city or village you were in at the time.\u00a0<\/p>\n
But perhaps most important is that these conversations happened with grace and love and respect.\u00a0<\/p>\n
With my friend, Brian Johnson, our friendship was always prioritized above all else.\u00a0 The questions we were asking of one another did not ultimately matter.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 But what was truly important was the fact that we could argue and disagree and still love one another.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The same is not always the case with the church.\u00a0 The same is certainly not the case in our nation.\u00a0 We yell and demonize and refuse to listen to one another. We line up for chicken sandwiches or stay home and choose to boycott.\u00a0 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.\u00a0<\/p>\n
May we let go of our fears and our pride.\u00a0 May we open our hearts and minds to truly listen to one another.\u00a0 And may we have a different sort of argument… an argument filled with the spirit of love.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Amen and Amen.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I love to have a good argument!\u00a0 One of my favorite memories from college was debating with my good friend, Brian Johnson.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 There was something about a debate with Mr.…<\/span><\/p>\n