“We understand that some men from here have troubled you and upset you with their teaching, but we did not send them! So we decided, coming to complete agreement, to send you official representatives, along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul… For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no greater burden on you than these few requirements…” (Acts 15:24-28)

This week we begin a new series – Moving from Argument to Discussion. There have been many significantly polarizing issues throughout history, but I cannot think of many times and places where so many issues have coalesced at once and divided people into hostile camps who so fervently hate each other like in North America today. Let me be clear – there are issues indeed worth arguing over. Our hope as the people of God, however, is that argument would lead to discussion that resolves issues and preserves the unity of the body – and does not simply divide followers of Jesus into two or more factions mutually committed to each others’ destruction. I have modest goals for this short blog: I want to outline when it is time to argue and describe how argument might productively turn to dialogue and lead to resolution of a problem and to unity in the church.

To accomplish that, allow me to highlight a few issues from Acts 15 and the controversy facing the early church. We see in verses 1 and 2 that teachers showed up in the multicultural church in Antioch of Syria (the same church that had sent Paul and Barnabas out on the First Missionary Journey in Acts 13) and insisted that all Gentiles must be circumcised as per Jewish law in order to be saved. Paul and Barnabas disagreed with them, “arguing vehemently.”

My point here is pretty simple: One of the things we must argue about is the gospel – particularly against those who would mix culture with it and make it into religion.

Paul and Barnabas rightly argue about this, and the church rightly decides to move this from argument to discussion by sending them to Jerusalem to dialogue with the apostles and elders. So, notice: they don’t just divide into camps of mutual hatred – they reach out to other leaders for help and resolution!

As you read the story, notice further how they reach resolution. Paul and Barnabas reported “everything God had done through them” (15:4) and what the teachers were adding to the good news. Peter shares his experience with the Holy Spirit, how God makes no distinction between Jew and Gentile. He argues that God saves through faith and concludes that adding Old Testament Jewish laws (even as important a law as circumcision!) is challenging God and adding a yoke the Jews themselves had never been able to bear. James then speaks up and supports Peter’s experience from the prophets, showing that the salvation of Gentiles was foretold in Scripture. He further argues that the church should not make it difficult for Gentiles who are turning to God. Everyone at the counsel listens, discusses the issues, and arrives at a consensus regarding the core of the gospel. They will only present Jesus to the Gentiles – not extra cultural rules. They ask only that Gentiles abstain from practices that are particularly offensive to their Jewish brothers and sisters.

And so, they send messengers out to communicate the decision that “seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” It is a great picture of when an argument is worth having and how that argument needs to be transformed into a dialogue that brings resolution and consensus. Did everyone agree with the final decision? I suspect not! Yet this absolutely critical, core issue – the very definition of the gospel – was settled! Not all arguments lead to discussion and agreement – see Paul’s and Barnabas’ disagreement over John Mark at the end of Acts 15! Yet even that disagreement did not lead to two “camps” hating each other. I suspect they blessed each other, agreed to disagree, and simply took their ministries two different directions (literally). Paul later refers to Mark in very positive ways.

In the end, Acts 15 shows that there are at least two things worth arguing about: the essential core of the gospel, and how we ought to treat people. The Jerusalem Council reminds us that the point of arguing is not to divide and condemn – the point is to find ways to resolve and unite. As people who hold the motto “in essentials unity, in non-essentials charity, in all things Jesus Christ,” may we be so gospel- and people-focussed that it becomes instinctive for us to know when to argue and how to move through discussion to resolution and to restoration of relationship!

Bill Taylor
EFCC Executive Director