Confessional Christianity
The struggle was real. Not only was there physical pain and
economic struggle to consider but the gospel itself was at stake. Should Gentile
Christians be required to be circumcised to be saved? The church settled the
matter by living out confessional faith. Acts 15 tells us “the apostles and
elders came together to consider this matter.” (v. 6) They received the
question from Paul and Barnabas who had been dealing with this among the
churches beyond Jerusalem. Peter takes a stand and appeals to the sovereign
grace of God (v. 7), the work of the Holy Spirit in salvation (v. 8), the
removal of Jew/Gentile distinction in Christ (v. 9-11), and the authority of
Scripture (Amos 9:11-12) as the basis for any decision to be made. The decision
is made and an official letter (writing, statement, confession) is sent out
with men chosen which “pleased the
apostles and elders, with the whole church.” (v. 22) The letter served authoritatively
for the order of doctrine and practice. While this letter is distinct (it is
Scripture) from subsequent doctrinal confessions the church has offered through
the ages, it nonetheless established the pattern for ecclesiological determination
of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. The church,
with the leadership of the apostles and elders is:
1.
Authoritative
to resolve matters of ecclesiological conflict.
The church’s authority to solve conflict
was already recognized by the other believers. That is the very reason that “Paul
and Barnabas and certain others” determined to approach the leadership at
Jerusalem. The confession issued by the church definitively stated the position
of the true church and it was accepted as such by Paul. He continued to battle
the false teachings of “Judaizers” throughout his ministry but his statement of
faith was always clear and so was orthodoxy. The conflict was definitively
answered by the Jerusalem Council and continued in Paul’s ministry. “As we have said before, so now I say again,
if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him
be accursed.” (Gal. 1:9)
2.
Required
to address contemporary challenges.
The church in every age is forced to answer
the challenges before her. In the first century, one such problem was the issue
of circumcision as it related especially to salvation. In 325 A.D. the Arian
controversy was answered with the Nicene Creed and the deity of Christ was
elucidated. The Council at Chalcedon clarified the dual nature of Christ in 451
A.D. to those who offered various other views. Modernistic challenges have been
answered in recent times by the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy in 1978 and the
Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Obviously, there are many other statements of
faith and each church (as well as cooperating relationships) must decide which
they will affirm or deny. However, the point here is that the church bears the
responsibility of stating her faith and message as she “holds fast the pattern of sound words” (2 Tim. 1:14) and “contends earnestly for the faith which was
once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 3)
3.
Defines
parameters at which we must not
divide.
By refusing to require circumcision the
Jerusalem Council allowed it. Just a few verses later Paul circumcised his new
young protégé Timothy “because of the Jews who were in that region.” (Acts
16:3) This was evidently part of a missional strategy that removed a potential hindrance
for effective gospel preaching. It was not to placate false teachers who wished
to add human works to God’s saving grace but rather an exercise of missionary
wisdom. The practice of circumcision was not a point of division. By allowing
circumcision to those who preferred it for reasons that did not negatively
affect the purity of the gospel, the early Christians exemplify acceptable
parameters within which we do not divide. There is still full affirmation of
the Jerusalem decree and yet personal liberty in the application of preferred
practices which are secondary or tertiary issues. Sometimes what is not stated
is just as important as what is stated. There is no good reason to divide over
things which are allowed in the Jerusalem confession. “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no
greater burden than these necessary
things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from
things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from
these, you will do well. Farewell.” (Acts 15:28-29)
4.
Defines
parameters at which we must divide.
By refusing to require circumcision, the
Jerusalem Council infers those who do require it are not allowed. This
delineates what is true and what is not true. It sufficiently articulates what
is genuine Christianity and what is counterfeit. This declaration of belief
defines what is acceptable among the community of faith and sets historical
precedent for future generations of Christians to do the same. We are to be a
confessional people just as we always have been. As our own Baptist Faith and
Message states these confessions are a “witness to our beliefs and a pledge of
our faithfulness to the doctrines revealed in Holy Scripture.” Our commitment
to one another is a commitment to shared beliefs and these beliefs should
rightly be stated. If one claims to be something without definition, then that
claim is meaningless and it serves to deceive. A confession-less shadow of
Christianity is no more than a “cloud without water.” In the end, claims
without truth are nothing more than a lie. Substance is required for words to
build convictions. This sin-sick world needs Christians with convictions.
Convictions expressed, agreed, and acted upon in clear articulations of what
they mean. If one, or a group steps beyond those parameters we must call them
to repent and come back. The call must be filled with conviction and compassion
but we can do no less. To go outside of our agreed upon parameters is to divide
oneself apart from the body. There will be those “who cause divisions, not having the Spirit…But you, beloved, building
yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves
in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal
life. And on some have compassion, making a distinction; but others save with
fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the
flesh.” (Jude 19-23)
5.
Constitutes
orthodoxy and orthopraxy.
The letter from Jerusalem stated right
doctrine and right practice. If anyone wanted to know what the followers of
Jesus believed about the possibility of adding circumcision as a requirement
for salvation, then they needed to look no further than this confessional
statement. Paul not only became the messenger of this council to Antioch,
Syria, and Cilicia but it was in many ways the focal point of his teaching
ministry. He presents his theological argument on the issue in Romans 4 and
concludes, “Abraham believed God, and it
was accounted to him for righteousness…Not while circumcised, but while
uncircumcised.” (Rom. 4:3, 10) He continues in Galatians 3:6-8 and
Philippians 3:9 and throughout his letters. Every place he goes he delivers the
message that salvation is justification from the Just One and comes only
through faith in Christ. His entire practice proceeded from this doctrine that
was settled in Jerusalem. Right doctrine articulated in a letter builds the
expectation of doing right and encourages the accountability we need to keep it
right. A church, or any other cooperative ministry relationship, without clear
expressions and expectations of orthodoxy and orthopraxy is a farce. Christians
are to stand together, appealing to the sovereign grace of God, the work of the
Holy Spirit in salvation, and the authority of Scripture as we express our
faith and deliver our message.
