Last week’s post examined Jesus’ reaction to Pilate and the murder of the Jews. Today’s post examines the Jerusalem Council, which shows how the apostles reached a win-win solution to a conflict and controversy flowing from the evangelisation model of conversion.
Conflict management means adopting processes and skills to find creative and respectful ways of handling a conflict. A win-win outcome in negotiating a conflict is that both parties have achieved something in resolving the conflict. It is based on mutual points of agreement between the two parties, and both walk away satisfied, even though both parties gave up something (an interest). A win-win outcome differs from a win-lose situation wherein a party wins and the other loses at the end of the negotiations. Here, the winning party is satisfied, while the losing party is dissatisfied.
A compromise is similar to a win-win solution. However, there is a subtle difference between the two. While a win-win situation explores conflicting parties’ interests to find an outcome that gives each party something of value, compromise seeks to resolve the situation without largely considering the value offered to parties. In a win-win outcome, both parties are largely satisfied because they feel acknowledged while also walking away with something valuable. On the other hand, in a compromise resolution, parties may feel ignored and unappreciated and may walk away slightly disappointed.
The Jerusalem Council is an instance where the Church adopted a win-win approach, rather than a win-lose or compromise approach, in managing a situation.
The Issue of Contention
Christ, the founder of the Church, was a Jew. Before he established the Church, he was a dedicated Jew, participating in the activities of Judaism. The first members of the Church were also Jews. Hence, considering the historical privilege of the Jews over other people dating back to the Abrahamic covenant, the Jews assumed that every Christian would first adopt some Jewish tenets, such as circumcision (Gen 17:10), dietary laws, and the observance of the Sabbath, before becoming a Christian. Therefore, the conflicting parties are the Jews and the Gentile converts.
However, the tension escalated when some men from Judea taught the brethren, saying: “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1).
As apostles of the Gentiles, Paul and Barnabas challenged this teaching and “had no small dissension and debate with them” (Acts 15:2). Consequently, Paul and Barnabas and some others were appointed to go to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles and elders about the question.
In summary, the arguments are as follows: The Jewish Christians believed that
(a) Circumcision was a divine law given to Abraham and was obligatory for all Jews (Gen 17:10).
(b) Jesus came to fulfil the law and not to abolish it (Matt 5:17).
(c) Jesus, the founder of our Christian faith, was himself circumcised (Luke 2:21).
Hence, concerning Gentile Christians, they argued, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses” (Acts 15:5).
On the other hand, the Gentile Christians argued that
(a) Christianity is a universal religion and should not be tied down to Jewish culture.
(b) Just as circumcision is a Jewish practice, they, too, have their own traditions, which are non-existent in Jewish religion and culture. They include temple prostitution, eating the remaining part of animals sacrificed, and strangling animals.
Hence, they should not be forced to be circumcised before being Christians.
Win-win outcome
After much debate, Peter affirmed that God has also willed the Gentiles to know the gospel and that God does not distinguish between Jews and Gentiles. Both Jews and Gentiles shall be saved through the grace of Jesus. Paul and Barnabas also spoke in favour of the Gentile converts, relating the signs and wonders God had done among them.
In his judgement, James, who chaired the council, gave a win-win solution as both Jews and Gentiles forfeited something of their culture but also gained something valuable in the discussion. He said:
(a) We should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God
(b) We should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols, unchastity what is strangled, and from blood (Acts 15:19-20).
The win-win outcome is
(a) The Jews let go of circumcision as a yardstick for becoming Christian
(b) The Gentiles let go of some of their culture which did not correspond with Judeo-Christian tenets, such as idol worship and temple prostitution
When this judgement was read to the Gentile converts, “they rejoiced at the exhortation” (Acts 15:31). Were the Jewish Christians also satisfied? Before the Jerusalem Council, the circumcision party (those insisting on Gentiles being circumcised) criticised Peter for eating with uncircumcised Gentiles (Acts 11:2).
On the other hand, in his letter to the Galatians, St. Paul referred to this circumcision party (Gal 2:12) and rebuked Peter for not eating with the Gentile Christians for fear of this party: “But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?’” (Gal 2:14).
In his response to the circumcision party, Peter defended himself by referring to his vision at Joppa and how the Spirit had manifested among the Gentiles. The scripture then reads: “When they heard this they were silenced. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life’” (Acts 11:18).
Hence, it is plausible to argue that the Jewish Christians were satisfied with the judgement, confirming that it was a win-win outcome rather than a compromise or a win-lose solution.
However, this does not mean that all Jewish and Gentile Christians were satisfied with the outcome of James’ judgement. The nature of conflicts and the reality of conflict management and resolution, particularly when they concern a large group, show that there are always those insisting on not conceding anything, preferring a win-lose outcome. These people are also to be managed within a conflict.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
