One of the most remarkable things about the first century church was their unity. Despite being a decentralized and often persecuted movement, they somehow managed to stick together.
It’s remarkable because in our own day, sadly, such unity is rare. In any American city you’ll find dozens of denominations. Many church “plants” are really just the result of internal rivalries leading to organizational division. Local churches often have bad blood between them, having traded disgruntled members over the years. In many of these cases, the non-Christian world looks on and sees little difference between the church and the pettiness of its own institutions.
The reasons for the fractured state of American Christianity are complex. I won’t attempt a full diagnosis here. But as with many of our problems, we can gain so much by simply returning to scripture with humility and asking, “how did they deal with these same challenges?”
Acts 15 exposes us to the first major disagreement in the first century church. Sure, there had been the tension between the Jewish and Hellenistic widows in Acts 6:1-7. But that was mostly an organizational problem and was quickly resolved through appointing wise leaders. What Paul and Barnabas faced upon returning to Antioch was on a whole new level.
Disagreeing Over Truth
Antioch itself was a special place – the first multi-cultural hub for Christianity. Unsurprisingly, this was the church that sent out the first cross-cultural missionaries. A team of three men: Paul, Barnabas, and John Mark. They successfully traversed the entire Northeastern coast of the Mediterranean, sharing the Gospel.
Now they were back, and with a great story to tell (Acts 14:26-28). While the team had begun by focusing on the Jewish population in Cyprus, the real open door for the Gospel had been with the Gentile (non-Jewish) population. In fact, they’d seen a massive faith response from Gentiles in every city to which they traveled. Real conversions took place, marked by clear manifestations of faith, love, and supernatural power.
But not everyone in Antioch shared their excitement. A group of men from Judea denied these churches were legitimate. “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” (Acts 15:1). In essence they believed that apart from becoming culturally Jewish, it was impossible for a person to enter the family of God.
On some level you can see where these men were coming from. God did command Abraham to have all males in his household circumcised as a sign of their inclusion in his covenant people (Genesis 17:9-14). Later, God also told Moses to also circumcise any foreigners who wanted to join the community (Exodus 12:48).
However, insisting on circumcision for the mass numbers of Gentiles coming to faith in Jesus was a heavy thing. This was sure to be a barrier for many people in deciding to become Christians in the first place. It also sent a message to the new believers that they were invalid and somehow lesser than those who had been raised Jewish.
Certainly, there is room for different perspectives on a range of spiritual matters. But to Paul, Barnabas, and other leaders in Antioch, this was a big deal and worth a major fight. Rather than letting the argument tear apart the local church, they gathered to hash things out in Jerusalem (Acts 15:2-4).
CONSIDER: What are keys in deciding whether an issue is worth significant argument or debate?
Resolution
The rumble starts off with the men from Judea, who are now identified as being former and current pharisees. “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” (Acts 15:5). It’s significant that as the opposition party they were still allowed a voice. The early church didn’t immediately squash dissent or dismiss people with real concerns. They listened and took them seriously. Being able to deal gently with opponents in this way is a mark of mature spiritual leadership (2 Timothy 2:25-26).
The Apostles and elders then met to discuss (Acts 15:6). This practice of gathering multiple wise people with Godly character to weigh in on the point of disagreement is important. It’s possible to make the right decision the wrong way. A decision carefully made with input from multiple mature perspectives carries more weight. It also may be better received than one that is made quickly and unilaterally.
Peter is the first to stand and speak (Acts 15:7-11). He urges those present to acknowledge the clear work of the Holy Spirit among the Gentiles. To make his case he reminds them of his own recent experience in the household of Cornelius (Acts 10:1-48). God sent a vision and said to not treat as unclean anything he has made clean, and then undeniably poured out his Spirit on those who were present. No circumcision was necessary. Paul and Barnabas then go on to share regarding what they saw God do on their missionary journey (Acts 15:12).
We too need to acknowledge how the Spirit often moves in ways that are different (messier even) than we expect. Just because what is happening is outside our frame of reference doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t of God. We should take the time to ask God directly for open minds and the ability to see what he wants to show us.
DISCUSS: What should we keep an eye out for when determining if something new is from God? How might a verse like 1 Thessalonians 5:19 apply to this situation?
Then James weighs in (Acts 15:13-21). He asserts that Paul and Barnabas’s experiences aren’t just legitimate because they match Peter’s. More importantly, they fit the tenor of scripture. God has always sought to include the Gentiles in his plan of salvation. James quotes Amos 9:11-12 but could have referenced many other verses that carry the same idea (Genesis 12:1-3, Isaiah 19:23-25, 42:6, 49:6).
The truth is circumcision never saved anyone. No ritual can make a person right with God. Salvation has always been about faith in our hearts (Jeremiah 9:25-26). This is what Peter is getting at when he says “Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” (Acts 15:10-11).
Finally, James says they should still encourage these new Christians to avoid immorality and idolatry. Beginning to change their ways mattered for their own spiritual growth. But it would also make it easier for them to integrate with Jewish background believers.
What a great moment for the early church! This disagreement about the core truth of the Gospel message could have wrecked the entire movement. They never would have realized Jesus’ call to make disciples of all nations. But God protected them and guided them to resolution.
Does this mean there weren’t some who still disagreed? Of course not. Paul will later spill a lot of ink battling groups still trying to convince Gentile Christians that God requires them to become Jewish. But the mainstream of the church accepted their decision, remained unified, and went on to permeate the Roman Empire.
Even today, Christians can still (consciously or unconsciously) “make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.” (Acts 15:19). At the 1974 Lausanne Congress, theologian John Stott lamented,
“Conversion is not the renunciation of all our inherited culture. Sometimes we seem to expect the convert to step out of his culture into a Christian subculture. Sometimes we expect him to withdraw from the real world all together.
The new Christian it seems is expected to adopt a new lifestyle that’s not new at all but very old. He has to learn the old hymns and appreciate them…he has to learn the language of the pulpit…he has to share some conservative political opinions…he has to dress a bit old fashion…he has to step back two full generations and undergo what amounts to a painful cultural circumcision.”[1]
Sometimes churches do need to wake up and realize the ways they are falling back into putting cultural barriers between people and becoming followers of Jesus. We must be careful to only draw lines where God has drawn them. Thankfully we have the example of the first century church written and available any time we need to reorient. How they handled this disagreement in Acts 15 can be a guide in our own efforts towards mission shaped by truth.
Disagreeing Over Strategy
Ironically, Acts 15 ends by describing a second disagreement with a much different outcome. Paul and Barnabas were up to this point one of the most effective ministry teams the church has ever known. They’d been friends for over a decade – planting churches, sharing the Gospel, performing miracles, and surviving extreme danger.
But all of that comes to end through an argument over whether to take John Mark with again them on their second missionary journey (Acts 15:36-41). The plan was to go back through the regions where they had planted new churches to encourage and strengthen the believers. But Paul strongly opposes bringing along John Mark, since he abandoned them last time when they got to Perga (Acts 13:13).
Barnabas doesn’t see it the same way. We aren’t given the details as to why John originally left. Maybe he wasn’t up for the physical challenge of the journey. Perhaps he got sick or was mentally overwhelmed. But in any case, Barnabas believed in John Mark and thought he should get another chance.
Rift
No compromise is reached. The two men decide to call it quits and go their separate ways. We aren’t given any commentary in the text to know whether this was right or wrong. But we do know that many years down the line Paul and John Mark appear to have reconciled (2 Timothy 4:11). Barnabas on the other hand, we never hear from again. Although it’s safe to assume he went on to faithfully serve God the rest of his life. Church tradition holds he returned to Cyprus and served the church there until he was martyred.
Did it have to go down this way? Paul was a driven person with hardliner tendencies. Maybe the band could have stayed together if he’d only been more patient. Barnabas though may have been warm-hearted to a fault. John Mark also happened to be his cousin, which could have been an extra incentive to overlook any shortcomings. Maybe they both had a point and the other just refused to see it.
REFLECT: When, if ever, should strategic differences divide legitimate Christians?
Strategic differences are not on the same level as disagreement over the truth. Disagreeing over truth would be like fighting over the basic rules of football. Disagreement over strategy is like not seeing eye to eye on who should start at quarterback. At least in the second case we can be confident we are still playing the same game.
In most cases we should hope to see Christians overcome strategic disagreements and find ways to stick together. Even where there isn’t organizational unity, we can still collaborate and encourage one another. Christian unity doesn’t mean we always think the same way or do all the same things. We must be united on core Biblical truths. But the world is big and there are many pressing needs. The Kingdom is multi-faceted enough that there can be many different legitimate approaches to fulfilling God’s mission.
What is amazing about the rift that occurs here is that God still works despite it. He sends Paul a man named Silas as a new partner. Before long they pick up Timothy, Pricilla and Aquila, Apollos, and a slew of other great folks who help take the movement from Asia Minor through Rome.
God is incredibly gracious. We probably make errors all the time that should derail our ministry. But somehow the Holy Spirit overcomes.
Returning to the divided American church – despite our pride and shortcomings, God is still working in and through us. This doesn’t get us off the hook from learning how to work better together. Some of the major cultural shifts occurring in our world may force new levels of collaboration and provide opportunities to mend our inherited rifts.
But even within our own church communities, unity will continue to be a challenge. Disagreements will occur, and we should meet these with truth and grace. When we find ourselves short on one or the other, if we humbly seek Him, He will provide everything we need.
He is still with us just as He was with them.
[1] John Stott on the Biblical Basis for Evangelism.