Sermon Tone Analysis

Acts 15:22

Baptist Foundations — Decision Making in the Church

Congregational Polity (Part 1)

 

It seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.

They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers.[1]

Congregational responsibility is an indelible mark of a church that pleases God.

Every member is responsible not only to bring souls to Christ, but also to participate in the advance of the congregation.

Tragically, contemporary Christians seem to have adopted a philosophy that assures them that if they attend the services of the church occasionally, they have demonstrated responsibility for their Faith.

I certainly have no desire to depreciate attendance at services of worship of the congregation; it is important that Christians share in praise and worship and also receive instruction in the Word.

If that is all there is to one’s Faith, however, it is a deficient Faith.

One could make the same argument that it is important for husbands to come home and see their families with some degree of regularity.

It is important for children to occasionally share an evening with their parents.

It is important for wives to spend some quality time with their husbands.

However, these statements actually serve to acknowledge that failure to spend time with family is harmful.

The home consists of more than merely being together occasionally.

In the same way, the church imposes far greater responsibility than merely being present from time-to-time.

When a decision is made that commits the church to an action, the example found in the New Testament leads us to understand that it is a community decision.

Though ideas are often proposed by the leaders of the congregation, the entire congregation is expected to participate in the decision-making process.

This means, not that some members have a right to block an action they do not like, but rather it means that all are expected to seek the mind of Christ and to share in the decision-making process.

In order to understand more perfectly what is entailed in decision-making in the church, I invite you to consider one verse of Scripture.

The verse I ask you to consider provides essential background for understanding the letter that was drafted by the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem in response to a question of doctrine posed by the First Baptist Church of Antioch.

The account is found in *Acts 15:22*.

The Account of Decision Making in the Early Church — Church polity as practised today is primarily modelled from New Testament examples instead of arising out of a precise statement of divine expectations.

The Book of Acts provides the historical account of the labours of the Apostles, especially those of Paul during his missionary labours.

Consequently, the example of the early churches, while not serving to necessarily impose strict demands for conduct in congregational decision-making, does serve as a model for contemporary churches in their own approach to congregational worship and polity.

We have a model of decision-making in the apostolic church in this verse.

However, in order to fully understand the brief account provided by Doctor Luke, we must familiarise ourselves with the events that led to this summary statement.

Paul and Barnabas had just completed the first planned missionary journey recorded.

The movement of the divine account leads me to believe that they hadn’t even had time to relax from the rigours of the journey upon their return to Antioch when some men from Jerusalem began to infect the congregation with spiritual anthrax.

When Paul later relates to the Galatian churches how he and Barnabas had travelled to Jerusalem fourteen years after his conversion, I believe he is speaking of the events surrounding our text.

Taking the two accounts together, it appears that James had dispatched some men from the Jerusalem church to go down to Antioch.

These men, members of the Jerusalem church and trusted by James, turned out to be Judaizers.

They used the occasion of their visit to attempt to move the Gentile believers in Antioch toward a doctrine that mixed grace and works.

The pitch these religious hucksters made must have sounded something like this: “Yes, it is a good start to believe that Jesus died for you.

But, if you want to be really saved, you will need to be circumcised and you will need to keep Kosher.”

The Word states that Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them [*Acts 15:2*].

I don’t believe that translation does justice to the intensity of Doctor Luke’s words.

Peterson, in his treatment of the Word, The Message, captures something of the forceful response in the statement: Paul and Barnabas were up on their feet at once in fierce protests.[2]

The Judaisers precipitated an uproar with their errant presentation.

The mixing of law and grace created dissention, for two diametrically opposite concepts were pitted against one another.

As advocates of truth, Paul and Barnabas did not merely “debate,” they engaged the false teachers as divisive and dangerous because their teaching that was utterly foreign to what the apostles had taught during their missionary labours.

The language used, together with Paul’s recounting of events [see *Galatians 2:1-6*], leads me to the conclusion that Paul and Barnabas were prepared if necessary to distance themselves even from the Jerusalem church and the Apostles should this error be confirmed.

Paul affirms that he received a revelation from God, though the Antioch church appointed him, together with Barnabas and some others of the brothers, to the task of seeking clarification from the Apostles.

This was likely less an issue of asking what was true than it was seeking information of what the Apostles had been teaching.

The appointed emissaries came to Jerusalem where they met together with the apostles and elders of the Jerusalem congregation.

There followed a period of intense, extended debate.

The circumcision party presented its case; and the grace party presented its case.

After volleying views back and forth, Peter spoke, coming down on the side of salvation by faith without any requirement for believers to become Jews.

Following his persuasive declaration of all that God had done, Barnabas and Paul related the way in which God had worked through them as they penetrated the Gentile world with the message of life.

When they had finished speaking, James, the brother of our Lord and Pastor of the church, spoke.

Iterating Peter’s words, he appealed to Scripture, pointing out the mercies of God and the grace of God demonstrated repeatedly in Scripture.

He concluded by giving his judgement that the issue was settled.

All people are saved by grace, but he did ask that the Gentiles show consideration of Jewish Christians, avoiding deliberate offence.

Note that the debate surrounding this issue was public.

When doctrine is debated and delineated in secret, the results bear no authority over the saints of God.

It is only as a church walks in the light that doctrine becomes authoritative.

The church that deals with issues of doctrine privately dishonours the Lord and also ensures that the saints will be forever weakened.

Leadership must determine whether an issue is doctrinal, whether a point impinges on moral or ethical conduct requiring the application of sound doctrine.

If an issue is not doctrinal in nature, there is little point in investing undue energy.

Appoint a committee of members to care for the matter, permitting them to act on behalf of the congregation.

However, if the issue is doctrinal in nature, if the matter at hand reflects doctrinal values, then let the elders of the congregation prayerfully search the Word of God to guide the congregation in discovering the will of God.

Should it be determined that the issue before the leaders is doctrinal in nature, let the entire church participate through hearing the debate and through witnessing the deliberative process.

At last, the summary statement is issued that focuses attention on the process of decision-making in the church.

Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.

The apostles and elders came to consensus.

James, being a practical leaders, then asked the congregation to ratify the position the leaders had adopted, and likely the position was by acclamation.

The Judaisers appear to have abstained—a common ploy when it becomes obvious that one’s position is untenable and unsupported.

The next step in the decision-making process was to implement the decision.

The Jerusalem congregation was led to choose trusted men to accompany Paul and Barnabas.

This would assure the church in Antioch that the letter they received was authentic.

These men, unlike the Judaisers that had first disturbed the doctrinal peace of the Church at Antioch, */did/* represent James’ view of salvation, just as they represented the collective view of the entire church.

The two men chosen by the congregation, Barsabbas and Silas, are identified as leading men among the brothers.

They do not appear to have been elders, but they were nevertheless recognised as leaders within the congregation.

They are identified as prophets [*Acts 15:32*], which leads me to conclude that they were known for their preaching.

Not every preacher of the Word need be an elder.

I believe it necessary to stress a couple of points that are important for our own congregation conduct.

First, James, the pastor of the congregation, appears active not only in participating in the discussion, but also in directing the leaders and ultimately the congregation in the decision-making process.

This is unlike the actions of many Canadian churches, fearful of offending political masters and having little fear of being disobedient to the Lord who reigns among us.

Recently, during meetings with our church leadership a denominational leader expressed horror at the thought that a pastor would have a voice in congregational decisions.

I had commented that I had one vote in a meeting.

His immediate and fearful rejoinder was, “You can’t vote!”  His words unwittingly express his view that the church is just another political organisation, the pastors of the church being separate from the congregation.

However, the evidence of Scripture is that not only did pastors have a voice in the congregation, but also they were responsible to guide the congregation in decision-making.

The thought that a pastor cannot vote, cannot openly participate in the decision-making process, reduces the church to just another political organisation.

Perhaps that is how some “do” church in Canada today, but the practise is unbiblical and unwise.

As these doctrinal issues were decided by the church in Jerusalem, not every member of the congregation was invited to speak.

Had that occurred, chaos would have reigned.

Rather, those who were leaders spoke and those who represented the referring congregation (Barnabas and Paul) spoke.

The debate appears to have been courteous, although it was undoubtedly heated at times.

The members of the congregation that observed the debate were not actively engaged in the debate, but rather they were present as observers, undoubtedly learning as they watched.

In other words, the deliberation was open for observation, but not open to consider every nuance of doctrine or question that might be raised by every member.

Biblical Guidelines for Decision-Making in the Church — Doctrine leads to duty.

It is not enough that we simply accept biblical truth; we must practise truth.

Church problems are not resolved by passing resolutions, but by practising biblical revelation.

Because the doctrinal decisions of a congregation are so vital to the spiritual health of that congregation, it is important that the elders get the issues right; and the process of arriving at truth must also conform to biblical precedence.

This means that issues must not be decided on the basis of how the leaders of a congregation feel, or by who is most persuasive in argument, or even how some in the church make respond, but rather decisions must be firmly grounded in the revealed will of God.

In order to make certain that such decisions honour God, I offer the following points to guide elders, and ultimately to guide the congregation.

Churches are responsible to teach truth and oppose error.

There is no tolerance for false teaching to be found in this passage.

Christianity is a religion of revelation.

We believe that God has spoken a definite and eternal Word.