No Sense Wasting a Good Fight
No Sense Wasting a Good Fight by Rev. L. John Gable
August 9, 2020
I am not sure who it was, it was most likely one of you, but someone not all that long ago said to me “There is no sense wasting a good fight.” Now I will confess I am by nature not much of a fighter, so at first I wasn’t quite sure what he meant by that, and I’m quite certain it was a he who said it to me, but his point was there is some benefit, something to be gained by a “good fight”, a healthy debate, a difficult conversation, by “getting in to good trouble” as we have recently heard John Lewis’ famous quote. A “good fight”/argument/debate/discussion/ disagreement helps us to clear the air, clarify issues, unearth divisions, “name the elephant in the room”. As long as positions are being defended and attacked and not the persons holding them so that no one walks away feeling bullied, battered, berated or belittled, in a “good fight”, to call it that, one is forced to think deeply about the ideas and ideals they hold firmly to and why they hold them, even as they, ideally, are listening to the ideas and ideals of the one with whom they are debating. In as much that I always agree with myself when I debate with myself, I find that I have to think more deeply when I enter into a discussion with one with whom I disagree, which often challenges me to rethink my positions.
So, my friend’s comment about “no sense wasting a good fight” makes good sense if it leads in some way to a new way of thinking or acting, some clearer understanding of the issues at hand, to the deepening of the relationship and respect we have for those with whom we stand in disagreement. Recall the Presbyterian Principle, “persons of good character and principle may differ…do differ…will differ.”
Now one might think that churches are, or should be, immune to such deep debates and disagreements given that the One who unites us is greater than anything that could ever divide us, but that is a very naïve understanding of the church, as many can attest. Churches of all ilks and brands have long histories of passionate debate, discussion and division over issues great and small, and it always has, because the issues which lead to these points of disagreement are often deeply held by emotion and tradition and theological conviction, and admittedly others not so much. I heard of one church in the Pittsburgh area that called a new pastor who found the church divided evenly into two warring camps. They sat across the sanctuary from each other. They sang and prayed at each other. Each applied sermons to the other group. For a while the pastor played the game of litmus paper, turning red with the acids and blue with the alkalis, trying to discover the source of such a cleavage. At last he traced the enmity to two influential women, and one at last confessed the origin of the feud. It seems that at a church dinner, years before, these two women were jointly put in charge of dessert and they decided on homemade doughnuts. “But”, recited the aggrieved one, “My doughnuts were sugared and hers were plain, and when the dessert was served my family and I were served her plain ones while she and her family helped themselves to my sugared!” And over this the church was divided. True story.
Ah, “to dwell above with saints we love, that will be grace and glory.
To live below with saints we know, now that’s a different story.”
Our Scripture lesson this morning details one of the first major points of disagreement in the early church, and it wasn’t over plain or sugared doughnuts. At issue were the conditions one must meet to become a Christian and a full member of the fellowship of the Church, an inheritor of the blessings of God. I wanted Oscar to read this entire passage this morning because it lays out the argument plainly. Most simply, the debate was over whether a Gentile had to become a Jew before they could become a Christian, which included circumcision and obedience to Torah Law. This was no small matter. This was the breaking point at which the decision had to be made whether Christianity would become a world-wide religion sharing the Gospel message with all people or remain an exclusive sect of Judaism, and understandably this issue caused, as we read, “no small discussion and debate.”
So in our lesson this morning we find all the big names of the early church in Jerusalem, Peter, Paul, James, Barnabas and others debating this essential question. Again the issue was not whether the Gospel should be preached to the Gentile world, everyone agreed that it should; at issue was whether Gentile converts had to be circumcised and become Jews before they could be called Christians. Those who held the position that they must were resting on 2000 years of history and tradition. While it was agreed that God is the God of the Gentile as well as the Jew, as Oscar preached so well last week, there was also the argument that adherence to the Torah was the way a Jew remains a Jew and circumcision was the sign of that sacred obedience. On the other hand, Paul and Barnabas and others were testifying that the Gentiles were hearing the Gospel message, coming to faith in Jesus as Savior and Lord and receiving the Holy Spirit. So, while those who argued one position had tradition on their side, the others had experience and revelation on theirs. The early church was at an impasse, so a council of church leaders was called in Jerusalem to hash it out.
Presidential historian John Meacham cites a quote by former Secretary of State James Baker as saying, “In my experience, some issues can be so vigorously contested that resolution of them is unreachable…thus the most practical approach usually is to address those matters where progress is possible, postpone decisions on irresolvable issues, and mutually respect the differing opinions of each side.” This was conceivably one of those “irresolvable issues” over which the early church could have decided just to kick the can down the road and avoid altogether, but they couldn’t and they didn’t.
The tipping point in this heated debate and discussion came when Peter, the first among equals of the original twelve disciples, perhaps with the vision of the pronouncement that God makes no distinction between us and them still seared in his memory, this newly won conviction that the gift of salvation is not for the select few but for the whole world, stands up and speaks to the inclusive nature of God’s grace by saying, “We believe that we will all be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” Then James, the leader of the Church in Jerusalem and brother of the Lord, being sensitive to the long-held and deeply felt traditions of the Jewish Christians balanced with a desire to welcome Gentiles said, “Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols (that is foods previously sacrificed to pagan gods), and from fornication (sexual purity was an early and essential more of Christianity), and from whatever has been strangled and from blood (since “life is in the blood”). A compromise? Perhaps, but we see evidence here that both positions on this issue were heard and honored, as were those who held them. Converts should be welcomed, but not without limits. It is reasonable to say that God’s people are called to live by God’s standards, as much a sign of belonging as was circumcision. So, we read, “Then the apostles and elders, with the consent of the whole church” agreed with James’ proposal and commissioned Peter and Paul and Barnabas to carry on their missionary endeavors to both Jews and Gentiles alike.
I commend Luke for including this story, and others like it, in his narrative of the early church. It would have been so easy for him to simply white-wash this early history which would have given us no guidance for when we face similarly difficult decisions in the church today.
In my Chimes article this month I referenced a piece adopted by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA in 1992 titled Seeking To Be Faithful Together: Guidelines for Presbyterians During Times of Disagreement. I don’t know how many of you have read that article but I have been impressed by how many of you have sent me notes of appreciation for my having shared it with you, so I want to do so again here since it applies so neatly to the debate we read about in Acts 15 as well as those we are so actively engaged in still today. It reads:
In a spirit of trust and love, we promise we will…
- Treat each other respectfully so as to build trust, believing that we all desire to be faithful to Jesus Christ;
we will keep our conversations and communications open for candid and forthright exchange, we will not ask questions or make statements in a way which will intimidate or judge others.
- Learn about various positions on the topic of disagreement.
- State what we think we heard and ask for clarification before responding in an effort to be sure we understand each other.
- Share our concerns directly with individuals or groups with whom we have disagreements in a spirit of love and respect in keeping with Jesus’ teaching.
- Focus on ideas and suggestions instead of questioning peoples’ motives, intelligence or integrity;
we will not engage in name-calling or labeling of others prior to, during, or following the discussion.
- Share our personal experiences about the subject of disagreement so that others may more fully understand our concerns.
- Indicate where we agree with those of other viewpoints as well as where we disagree.
- Seek to stay in community with each other though the discussion may be vigorous and full of tension;
We will be ready to forgive and be forgiven.
- Follow these additional guidelines when we meet in decision-making bodies;
Urge persons of various points of view to speak and promise to listen to these position seriously;
Seek conclusions informed by our points of agreement;
Be sensitive to the feelings and concerns of those who do not agree with the majority and respect their rights of conscience; and
Abide by the decision of the majority, and if we disagree with it and wish to change it, work for that change in ways which are consistent with these guidelines.
- Include our disagreements in our prayers, not praying for the triumph of our viewpoints, but seeking God’s grace to listen attentively, to speak clearly, and to remain open to the vision God holds for us all.
I hope you find these guidelines as helpful as I have in our times of disagreement: in the church, in our homes and relationships, in our discussions regarding the issues of our day, be they racism or partisanship.
As difficult as this “good fight” must have been in the early church issues were clarified, convictions were clearly stated and decisions were made which forever impacted the future witness and ministry of the Church. We see here evidence of mutual respect, each position having been heard and honored, and persons on both sides of the issue being affirmed in the ministries to which they felt called. In short I’d say, they “didn’t waste a good fight.”
But before we leave this lesson there is one additional point I’d like to make because Luke is intentional in adding it to his telling. It would have been very easy for him to tell this story and leave us with the feeling that all walked away happy and hugging, humming Kum Ba Ya, but that was not what actually happened. We read the very next verses, which Oscar did not read to us, picking up at verse 36.
“After some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Come, let us return and visit the believers in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.” Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark. But Paul decided not to take with them one who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not accompanied them in the work. The disagreement became so sharp that they parted company; Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus. But Paul chose Silas and set out, the believers commending him to the grace of the Lord. He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.”
Paul and Barnabas, such good friends and traveling companions, come to yet another point of disagreement over whether to again take young John, called Mark, with them on their return trip to visit the churches they had previously founded in Asia Minor. Barnabas said “Of course!”, but Paul said, “No way! Not after he bailed on us during our first trip.” That argument became so heated that these two friends decided to part ways. Another tragic tale? Hadn’t they learned anything about “agreeing to disagree agreeably?” Indeed they had, because even this “good fight was not wasted”, nothing in the economy of God is ever wasted! Barnabas and Mark set off in one direction toward Cyprus where they had a successful ministry and tradition has it that that young man who was once seen as being uncommitted and unreliable became the very one who wrote what we now call the Gospel of Mark after listening primarily to the preaching and teaching of Peter, not a wasted effort at all; and Paul picked up with a fellow named Silas, and then with another young man named Timothy, they set out for regions never before reached with the Gospel message. About their travels we’ll talk more in the weeks to come as we continue our study of Acts.
Using the words attributed to St. Francis, let us pray:
Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace:
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is despair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light;
Where there is sadness, joy.
O Divine Master, grant that I may not seek so much to be consoled as to console;
To be understood as to understand;
To be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive,
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
And it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Amen.