The average local church requires answers to a hundred different questions in the course of a
year. Some are of an obvious and urgent spiritual nature. Others appear innocuous
and procedural, though even these may be chock-a-block with hidden spiritual landmines.
Sure, deacons handle many of the day-to-day administrative details in gatherings where New Testament
principles of operation are given priority, but that still leaves an awful lot
of territory to be talked over, prayed through and hashed out between busy men just
trying to do the best possible job of shepherding the people of God, often
while caring for their own families and leading busy lives.
The most careful, prayerful, diligent and confident leader must still occasionally ask himself “Are we
getting this right?” Or if he doesn’t, he should.
The Mechanics of Decision-Making
We don’t have a lot of scripture devoted to the mechanics of decision-making in first century churches,
either in terms of “how to” or by way of example.
There is, of course, the church in Antioch’s decision to send out Paul and Barnabas to preach the gospel, but: (1) it seems to predate the recognition of elders in Antioch (it was a gathering of prophets and teachers); and (2) it sounds a little more
mystical — or perhaps the better term is miraculous — than the average elder’s meeting today.
Let me put it this way: I think I know what “the Holy Spirit said” looks like when he is addressing a moral or doctrinal question: he speaks to us through the text of scripture, and we have merely to apply his words to our
circumstances honestly and faithfully. But I have no idea what it looks like
when he directs a room full of church leaders to send out a specific pair of missionaries
and names them. I presume he spoke through one of the prophets in the room,
something we don’t see a lot of today for reasons I have addressed previously.
That “signs and wonders” component makes using Antioch as a model for arriving at our
understanding of the will of God a little more difficult than it might first appear.
In the Seat of the Magisterium
A more obvious example might
be the elders and apostles in Jerusalem who came together to address
the circumcision question, an issue with implications that would ripple down
through the centuries and the answer to which remains relevant today.
We would be unwise to speculate about the dynamics of decision-making in Jerusalem beyond what we may
observe in the text itself, but given the Lord’s upper room teaching about what
leadership entails (“I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet”) and Peter’s later
exhortation to elders about how to do their jobs (“not domineering ... but
being examples”), I rather suspect leadership in the church at Jerusalem was organic and cooperative
rather than rigidly hierarchical, even with a fair number of apostles in
attendance.
I did, however, come across a dissenting opinion online, full of amusing ecclesiastical buzzwords — things like “seat of the magisterium”, “Peter’s episcopy”, “presbyters”, vox Petros and my absolute favorite, In Persona Christi Capitas. It purports to address the perplexing question, “If Peter had primacy, why did James make the decision on circumcision?” The poor, naive reader unexposed
to years of high-church dogma may be forgiven for asking the obvious: “Um ...
maybe Peter didn’t have primacy?” But
if you’re looking for a fascinating, bizarre and wildly speculative
interpretation of Acts 15, that one’s a classic read.
Back in the Real World
The actual events of the chapter bear no resemblance to the aforementioned fussy, excessively elaborate
reconstruction. What happens when the elders and apostles have gathered is simply this: Peter first appeals to
the authority of God in having sent him to the Gentiles, and to
the miraculous signs that accompanied his visit to the household of Cornelius, then challenges the
circumcision gang to consider Israel’s established inability to keep the law and asserts that
grace, not law, is now the order of the day. James then weighs in with
a quote from Amos to establish that the calling of the
Gentiles by the Lord’s name was an expected part of God’s work in the world, and not inconsistent with the Law of Moses. He then gives
his judgment on the matter — “We should not trouble
those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood” — and,
finally, the gathered apostles and elders find this an agreeable way to proceed.
So we have a simple, non-hierarchical, open discussion that that appeals to: (i) the authority
of an apostolic vision; (ii) a miraculous manifestation of the Holy Spirit’s
power confirmed by multiple independent witnesses; (iii) the evidence of
history; and (iv) the teaching of the prophets. This leads to the gathered
apostles and elders coming “to one accord”. There is no record of dissent, and
no indication what might have happened if some of the elders and apostles
present had disagreed with James’ assessment.
Three Brief Statements
Moreover, the walls do not shake. The whole decision-making exercise may be summed up in three brief statements:
(1) “my judgment is”,
(2) “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit”, and finally
(3) “and to us”. The second statement probably reflects the impression of the gathered elders
and apostles after hearing James quote the words of the Spirit recorded in the book of Amos.
It’s also not impossible that James’ use of
Amos had a little extra clout behind it that day. The spiritual gifts of
prophecy and the discerning of spirits were a standard feature of first century
church life, and one or both may have upped the level of conviction of some in
the room, given that the issue at stake was a major one indeed. But unlike in
Antioch, we are not told that the
Holy Spirit “said” anything at all. Notwithstanding, all present seemed
convinced that they had successfully discerned his will in the matter.
I believe all elders may make at least two of these three statements today — confidently,
honestly and without exaggeration. Further, I have little difficulty declaring
what “seems good to the Holy Spirit”, provided we understand that phrase to
mean nothing more mystical than that we are taking our stand on what scripture
declares, honestly and accurately handled. (Some may prefer formulations like “We
had peace about this or that decision”, and that’s fine.)
A Question of Authority
The advantage of such a process is that a church relies on the unanimous agreement
of mature, recognized leaders about what seems good in their judgment, rather
than crossing its collective fingers and hoping for a consistent display of
spiritual instincts from a single, dominant leading man.
That said, some may find this sort of
leadership insufficiently authoritative for their tastes.
But it seems to me that the only
alternative to acknowledging that we are relying on our spiritual judgment and
seeking to discern what “seems good” via examination of the scriptures, prayer
and a careful consideration of the facts on the ground is to risk investing our
decision-making with some kind of phony gravity; to dare to stamp the
considered opinions of mere men with God’s imprimatur. That’s probably not the
wisest possible course of action.
The Children of Wisdom
And as the Lord himself said, “Wisdom is justified by all her children.” Today’s decisions shape tomorrow’s churches. The condition of those churches — not in your opinion or mine, but in the opinion of the risen Head of the Church, whose eyes are
like a flame of fire — will either testify against or confirm the faithfulness of today’s decision-makers.
Which is to say this: an elder who finds
himself unsure that a particular move is the best possible course of action
is wise to hold off making it.
If the spiritual direction of a local
church is to be determined by a series of “seems good to me” decisions, we had
best make sure we always say those words in the confidence of a good conscience
before God.
No comments :
Post a Comment