Finishing the Fussin'

So, after all the fussin’ that went on in Acts 15, how did the first General Assembly finally make its decision? Peter’s comments are recorded first. He recounted his own experience of God’s grace, probably referring to that amazing outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius, recorded in Acts chapter 10.

Next, Paul and Barnabas also spoke of the things they had witnessed God doing during their ministry among the Gentiles, the miracles and wonders they had seen. In other words, however much Peter may have disagreed with Paul at the time the letter to the Galatians was written, by the time the Assembly itself rolled around, the two apostles were in complete agreement. Both of them pointed to the same sort of evidence – the proof of the mighty acts God had done in the lives of the Gentile believers.

From these two reports, we might thus be tempted to think that the Assembly made its decision based simply on reason and experience. But that is not the case. The Assembly did not come to a conclusion until James quoted from the book of Amos, demonstrating how the Old Testament Scriptures agreed with the testimony of the apostles.

And so, at the end of the day, the Assembly based its decision not on who Peter and Paul were, and not simply on what Peter and Paul said had happened. The crucial factor for the Assembly was what the prophet Amos had said.

This, then, is what we Presbyterians must do at the General Assembly this summer in Minneapolis. If we try to base our decisions on who is speaking or on what makes sense to our reason or to our feelings, we will keep on fussin’. But if we are willing to submit our reason and our experience to the Word of God, which we used to call the only infallible rule of faith and practice, we might move just a little closer to that peace which we all desire so much.

Fussin' Presbyterians

Why do we Presbyterians have so much fussin’ to do? Wouldn’t it be so much easier just to have bishops or popes make all the hard decisions for us? Perhaps it would be. And it is probably in such an attempt to avoid conflict that some presbyteries have delegated much of their decision-making power to committees or commissions, or even to paid staff members.

But when we look at the way the Church dealt with disagreement in Acts 15, we don’t see any of those early Christians appealing to powerful personalities to impose peace on the Church. No, whatever our Roman Catholic friends might believe about Peter being the first Pope, no papal power is on display during that first General Assembly. Yes, Peter is the first person whose comments are recorded, but he doesn’t insist on everyone listening to him because Jesus gave him the keys of the Kingdom. In fact, he doesn’t mention those keys at all. (And if you look at I Peter 5, you’ll notice that Peter speaks to his fellow elders – not exactly the language you’d expect from the vicar of Christ.)

Paul and James were also at the first Assembly, and both of them either had written or would write numerous portions of Scripture. But neither one of them appealed to their apostolic authority. Neither of them said the Assembly should listen to them because of who they were.

No, when we look at Acts 15, we can’t help but come to the conclusion that the early Christians made decisions the way that we Presbyterians still do: by coming together in councils of elders to make decisions as a group. And the only way a group of elders can make decisions, especially when matters can’t be compromised, is to have what verse 6 says they had: much dispute. There’s just no way around it. Governing ourselves as Presbyterians, governing ourselves in the way that the early Church did, means we’re going to do some fussin’.

Fussin' in the Family

Are Christians really called to be involved in feudin’ and fussin’ over doctrine? Surely, that can’t be right. Surely the reason that we have such fundamental disputes is because some of the people in the Church aren’t really believers, right?

Well, that’s what a lot of Presbyterians believe. And while it is of course possible that many Presbyterians could in fact be deceiving themselves about whether they are in fact saved, it remains the case that genuine, Spirit-filled, Jesus-following Christians always have disagreed, even over critically important issues.

Think again about the question of whether or not Gentiles needed to be circumcised in order to join the church. This question was, as Paul rightly points out in his letter to the Galatians, central to the gospel. But with whom did Paul say he disagreed about this? In Galatians 2:11-13 Paul tells us that, at least for a time, the apostle Peter disagreed with him. One Scripture-writing apostle was disagreeing with another one. Surely the problem wasn’t that one or the other of them wasn’t saved.

And at the first General Assembly itself, described in Acts 15, verse 5 makes it plain that those who argued for the necessity of circumcision were not Pharisees who rejected the authority of Christ – they were Pharisees who believed. In short, this was an intramural disagreement. This dispute took place among believers.

So, how did these Christians who disagreed manage to come to a conclusion? Verse 6 reminds us that it was only after much dispute. And so if Spirit-filled folks like the apostles had to do some fussin’ before making a decision, why should we modern Presbyterians think we are any different?