Some thoughts about Acts 15, Schism and the Lord of the Church

Here’s a strange coincidence, the person who gave the devotion for my Presbytery’s special called meeting to vote, for one thing, on an overture to do away with recommendation 5 of the PUP report, used Acts 15 as his text. And, Stated Clerk Edward Koster in his article for the Presbyterian Outlook, “Reformanda by schism?” used the same text along with some off beat thoughts about the Reformation.

Now I am not writing about schism. I believe schism is wrong. And I have no intention of leaving the Presbyterian USA although that is simply because my Lord won’t let me. Although I don’t think Christ considers it schism if one stays in the Church Universal. I do think disobeying Jesus Christ is wrong. Doubtless sin is a clearer word than wrong.

Still, I thought there were some problems with both the devotions I heard on Saturday and Koster’s article. But devotions are after all devotions; they are not supposedly meant to change some one's vote so I won’t complain.

But on the other hand, I do have some thoughts about the article, “Reformanda by schism?”

Here’s one problem. Koster wrote, “Though we cherish it, what we Protestants call the Reformation is more accurately described as a protestant schism.” But he also later writes, “When Martin Luther nailed his theses to the church door, it was not a declaration of schism but an invitation to debate. It became schism when the Church responded to silence him, excommunicating him four years later.”

Those two statements together are a contradiction. If Martin Luther was pushed out of the Church it was not a Protestant schism, but a church schism because there was disagreement on both sides. And the reason it became schism was because neither side would lay aside what they believed. And as Protestants and Presbyterians we should be glad that our spiritual ancestors held to their Biblical faith.

Another thought I have is that Martin Luther was looking for debate but not for compromise.

There is a difference. One generally debates not to change one’s opponent’s mind but so that those listening may be influenced by the debate. Martin Luther was sure he was standing on Scripture and he wished to influence all who would listen. Those who preached, debated and died in the fires of the Reformation spoke with words and actions meant to turn the Church back to its biblical foundation.

Here is another problem. After attempting to show how Luke and Acts were written to explain why the Christian Church divorced from the Jewish faith, Koster writes, “So we see the dominant role the Holy Spirit plays in Acts. One of the functions is to direct and authorize adoption of practices that violated the accepted interpretation of Scripture.”

This is a problem because Koster has set up a basis for reinterpreting how the Church views its standards as well as its essential beliefs. Supposedly the Church’s official governing body meets and examines events where the Holy Spirit has over-ridden the usual interpretation of Scripture. And what one has experienced during the actions of the Spirit becomes the acceptable norm. And seemingly this can only be done while two opposing sides debate or discuss the issues.

But the early Church, not yet possessing the New Testament, turned of course to the Hebrew Bible and did what the Church must do throughout the ages; interpret it in light of the Incarnation.

So the Church council that met in Jerusalem, as recorded in Acts 15 turned to both the Scripture text and the Holy Spirit, and their lens was the redemptive act of Jesus Christ. They used the Hebrew text, spoke of how God through Christ had cleansed the hearts of both Gentiles and Jews and how they were all saved by grace.

One cannot gloss over the grace part as though it is simply God’s unconditional love and a new kind of interpretation. Rather it is the Holy Spirit lifting up Christ Jesus who in his redemptive act has cleansed the hearts of the Gentiles so as Paul will later put it, they have a circumcision of the heart. The point is, we are not to focus on what the Holy Spirit is over-riding but who is Jesus Christ and who are we in union with Him.

Here is the final problem as I see it. Koster writes:

“We Presbyterians operate in the model of the Jerusalem Council: We come together to listen to the issues, and discern what the Holy Spirit directs. For those who argue in favor of schism from Scripture, they must bring their interpretation and arguments to a presbytery, so that the Holy Spirit can do its work. Otherwise, their discernment is without substance.”

They, whoever they are, may be arguing for schism, they may not be. But that isn’t the point at all. There are presbyteries, just this week, which although they came together did not follow the Holy Spirit, at least not the spirit of the Holy Scriptures.

More importantly they did not follow the One the Holy Spirit refers to and points to, that is, Jesus Christ the Lord of the Church. So, sometimes one, like Martin Luther, or sometimes a few, like the minority in those presbyteries must stand alone. And their discernment is based on Scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit as He points to their redemption through the blood of Christ which is above gold and is full of substance.