Acts, Chapter 16 (NRSV)In the opening of the 16th chapter, we read how the early church now, at least in principle, in agreement about how to handle the question of gentile believers, begins to organize itself formally to reach out in that direction. Paul begins to put his missionary team together for what is his second major missionary journey.
I say "in principle" just above because as I hope you noticed, Paul decides to have Timothy circumcised before they begin their work together. Paul apparently does this because of his desire to not upset the jewish believers that they will come into contact with during their journey. Remember how I mentioned in yesterday's meditation that the decision of the Jerusalem Council took a while to be received by the whole Church? Here's part of the reason I wrote that. There are other instances in other Epistles, both in the New Testament and in ones that were not included in the New Testament, that talk about the conflict as lasting for a number of decades.
In this case Paul is doing something that is expedient because he thinks the most important thing is to declare the Gospel and anything that gets in the way of doing that is an indifferent thing. (The technical term for an indifferent thing is "adiaphora". It means something that is not of first importance with respect to the Gospel: like whether we stand, kneel or sit to pray.)
It's interesting that at this point in the account we turn our attention to following the work of Paul exclusively. Paul choses Silas to join him in his ministry. He then chooses Timothy. In both cases the decision is Paul's. There's no mention of conflict or controversy around these particular decisions (and there is about others) so apparently it was a typical sort of thing. There is an explicit mention that Timothy was well spoken of by the believers in the region. We know from other places in Paul's writing that Timothy was a young man. But other than that we don't know what it was that caused Paul to choose him; or Silas for that matter. The reason given for the choice of Silas was that Paul and Barnabas had a fight over whether or not to bring along Mark. (Traditionally this is the Mark who wrote the second Gospel in the New Testament; who is said to have eventually become Peter's secretary by the time Peter came to Rome.)
How extraordinary though that this important missionary journey begins in conflict, a conflict so sharp that it breaks apart the team that managed the first journey; the team who's report occasioned the Jerusalem Council. That's three bits of conflict listed in these two chapters. The controversy over Gentile believers, the fight between Paul and Barnabas and attempt to head off any problems that the choice of Timothy as a missionary might occasion. Paul pushes hard on two and gives way on the last. It would be wonderful to say that Paul had a consistent and strong vision, but he doesn't show that here. He does what he needs to do to focus on what he argues is most important.
There is a common sort of belief that the greatest days of the Church were in the earliest days of the Church. But if that's the case, what we read here was, that from the very beginning, there was conflict and fighting in the Church. There were personality conflicts, issues over who's mission takes priority, and questions about the limits of inclusion. That sounds like our church in our day doesn't it? Did you catch the message in the 5th verse? It's a repeat of a common formula in Acts. "The churches were strengthened in the faith and increased in numbers daily." This in spite of the sharp conflicts. Luke, rather than writing as if he is scandalized by the conflicts, includes them and then points out that the Church was expanding rapidly.
How do you feel about conflict in the Church today? I have to tell you honestly that I'm not a fan of it. I'd much rather we could all get along and work together in harmony. So would most of the people in the Church. But that doesn't seem to be the way things work. They didn't work that way in the early Church, they didn't work that way at the height of the Christendom, and they don't work that way now. We have conflict. We have conflict in our parish, in our diocese, in our denomination and in our Communion. We have conflict between the major streams of Christian thought. At one level I'm scandalized by all of that. But reading these opening verses of Chapter 16, I'm also comforted. Back then God used the conflict to create multiple teams to do mission. Perhaps God is going to use the conflict of our own day to do something for the kingdom as well.
How comfortable are you with conflict in the churches you know? Why are you uncomfortable? Looking back, have you seen God doing something with that conflict, turning it to God's purpose?
(NB: In this chapter we come across the first of the "we" sections of the narrative, where the action is apparently being reported by an eye-witness observer. I'll say something about this in a bit.)
No comments:
Post a Comment