Thoughts on Acts 15

Today’s reading: Judges 3; Acts 15

I’m struck this morning in Acts 15 by both the fight for unity in ministry, as well as the willingness to separate in disagreement in ministry, and I think it’s important to recognize that both can be from the Lord.

Fight for Unity

The bulk of Acts 15 deals with the theological issue of whether or not the Gentiles needed to conform to the Jewish ritual of circumcision in order to be saved. Even if this seems obvious to us today, I would venture to say it is only obvious because of the decision the church reached in Acts 15, but it would not at all have been so obvious back then. Keep in mind that being circumcised was the defining mark of being a member of God’s people in Israel. To them, the church was not replacing Israel as God’s chosen people, but, through Christ, the Gentiles were spiritually made part of God’s people, constituting a new Israel by faith, not by blood. But if circumcision was the mark of being part of God’s people, even before Israel was a nation (e.g. Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, and all the men of their households), then it makes complete sense to think that this mark should continue, even as the scope of who can be included in God’s people expands.

It bears it out further too that this wasn’t something that should have been theologically obvious in that the arguments put forth against making the Gentiles get circumcised to be saved are all circumstantial rather than scriptural. The only scripture put forth is one mentioning the inclusion of Gentiles in God’s people, but that says nothing on the matter at hand. Instead, the main arguments against the Gentiles needing to be circumcised are Peter’s experience of seeing the Holy Spirit descend on the Gentiles without them being circumcised, and Paul and Barnabas’ experiences of seeing the Holy Spirit work among the uncircumcised Gentiles. Since they didn’t have clear direction from Scripture on it, and since Jesus Himself hadn’t given them direction on it, they instead looked at the fact that God was clearly working among the Gentiles without them being circumcised, and so decided it must not be a requirement for salvation.

Despite not having clear teaching on it, or maybe specifically because they didn’t have clear teaching on it, the leaders of the church at the time saw this as important to get right for the unity of the church overall. They got all the major leaders together, debated the issue, came to an answer (even if not everyone personally agreed with it), and even sent a letter out to the churches declaring their decision. Clearly unity on this point was important to them, and that makes sense because we are talking about a barrier of entry to salvation. To require circumcision (as well as likely adherence to other Jewish laws and practices) for salvation changes the face of the gospel and adds conditions/works to obtaining salvation, so this was not an issue that should be left up for debate or that should be just left to local churches to decide on their own, but was something worth fighting for and requiring unity on.

Willingness to Separate

Ironically then, as much as Acts 15 has been all about fighting for unity in the church, it ends with Paul and Barnabas in such sharp disagreement that they separate from one another and go different ways. So was this wrong or sinful on their part?

I think it is easy to look at a situation like this one, especially when you are in the situation yourself, and see clearly that one side is right and the other side is wrong. Barnabas wanted to take John with them, but Paul didn’t want to because he had previously abandoned them last time they took him with them. Clearly Paul is being ungodly here in his hard-hearted unwillingness to forgive John and give him another chance. Or is is that clearly Barnabas is being ungodly here prioritizing his friendship with John over the ministry God has given them, and is willing to risk the work among entire cities and churches on an unstable partner for the sake of his friendship?

Now, I’m clearly making up motivations for each of them, and we aren’t told exactly what their thinking was and why they were both so unwilling to move on this issue, but this is very much the kind of thing that comes up in the work of ministry at times that doesn’t necessarily have a right answer, and there are some of these times we need to be willing to lay down our preferences for the sake of unity, but there are also times when maybe separating over the issue is from the Lord.

Do you have a category for God wanting Barnabas and Paul to split up at this point and cover more ground or for some other reason we don’t know this side of heaven? Isn’t it entirely possible that, knowing Paul and Barnabas’ friendship and that they liked working together, God knew they were not going to separate on their own, and so He put the strong urge on Barnabas’ heart to take John with them, and the strong urge on Paul’s heart to not take John? Isn’t it entirely possible that, even in wanting opposite things here, both men are making a good and godly decision?

It’s important for us to recognize that while there are things on which the whole church must be unified (e.g. the deity of Christ, the gospel, etc.), there are many other things on which we can be very divided, and that might be from the Lord. There are churches that play tradition hymns in their services, churches that play contemporary Christian music in their services, and churches that play no music in their services. There are also non-Christians who are going to be more comfortable going to a church to hear the gospel or to consider Christianity if they are playing classic/familiar hymns, others who will be more comfortable if they are playing more modern music, and still others who will be more comfortable if there is no music. Along with the non-Christians, there are Christians who will be drawn closer to God together in community by each of these options. So is it not entirely possible that rather than there being a “right way” for a church service to look, God desires various types of churches and services to be operative to reach the broadest array of non-believers and to draw the greatest array of Christians deeper into community and relationship?

This is just one example, but I do think it is important for us to have a category for God wanting opposing things like this, otherwise desiring different forms will divide us as a community of Christians, instead of allowing us to stay unified in the work of wining the lost and raising up disciples for Christ, and recognizing that that work is often best accomplished by those various forms working in concert to have the greatest impact for the Lord.