The Council of Jerusalem was the first in the history of the Church (Acts 15). It was the council par excellence, the model for all others, and the only one to bring together the apostles. Like subsequent councils, the Council of Jerusalem was convened to respond to a situation of conflict within the Church.
This year, we commemorate the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea, which was convened in 325 to resolve another important conflict concerning the understanding of the person of Jesus Christ, when the priest Arius of Alexandria rejected his divinity. That council affirmed that Jesus is ‘true God and true man,’ according to the Scriptures.[1] On this occasion, it is good to reflect on what is a council or synod, an important dimension of the life of the Church. This is what I propose to do in this message.
In the Protestant Churches, we have a long tradition of synodal practice, of which we are proud. The Catholic Church has also reflected intensively on this during two synods on the meaning of the synod in the life of the Church over the past two years. But the synod is not a Protestant or Catholic invention. It was practised 1,700 years ago by the Council of Nicaea and before that by the apostles in Jerusalem.
The origin of the conflicts
The origin of the conflict in Jerusalem lies in the actions of people close to James (Gal. 2:12). While believing in Jesus, the Messiah of Israel announced by the prophets, they believed that the Mosaic institutions should also apply to non-Jews who had become believers. They therefore wanted to ‘indoctrinate’ their brothers and sisters and force them to submit to the law of Moses, circumcision, dietary laws, etc., without which, they said, no one could be saved (v. 1).
At the root of conflict in the Church there is often a distorted understanding of the Gospel. The sufficiency of Christ as the way to salvation is denied. Believing in Jesus crucified and risen and following him step by step is what is essential, necessary and sufficient for salvation.
When a person or a group tries to propose (impose) a point of view that adds something to what is necessary and sufficient, Christian freedom is at stake. No one has the right to add anything to this Gospel. Doing so leads to serious conflicts. The apostles stand against this proposal and refuse any compromise: salvation is granted to us through faith alone in Jesus Christ. As Jesus himself said, ‘Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved.’ (Mark 16,16).
We must always return to this vibrant heart of the Gospel: ‘For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value, but only faith working through love,’ Paul affirms (Gal. 5:6).
Very quickly, the positions of the Judaizers sow discord in the community. Endless discussions ensued. Oppositions arose between Paul, Barnabas and these people. The believers were troubled and hurt. Who was right? Some began to distance themselves from the community. There was a risk of division.
Where are the potential areas of conflict today – within our Church or between sister Churches? We know them only too well. Ethical issues, particularly those related to the meaning of marriage and the beginning or end of life, the gifts of the Spirit, welcoming strangers, the ministry of healing, ecumenical and interfaith dialogue, to name but a few.
Some churches have experienced tensions and even divisions when conflicts over these issues could not be resolved. Members have left their churches to join another or have withdrawn.
Seven steps for resolving conflict in the Church
Conflict resolution takes place in several steps according to Acts 15. I discern seven of them. First of all, it must be said that in the Church, we cannot be content with the perpetuation of conflicts or the polite coexistence of contradictory positions when we are committed to living out Jesus’ commandment: ‘May they all be one, just as, Father, you are in me and I am in you, so that they may be in us, so that the world may believe that you sent me’ (John 17:21). (John 17:21).
This prayer of Jesus calls us to live the Church according to the model of the relationship between the Father and the Son. It leads us to deepen our community life ever more, and therefore to pray and work to protect, expand or restore ecclesial communion in its diversity. Here are the seven steps:
– Discuss the problem in a wider circle.
– Send delegates chosen by the community.
– Allow all parties to express themselves.
– Listen to the different voices in the Church.
– The decision
– Pastoral concern.
– Reception of the decision in the Church.
A. Discuss the problem in a wider circle.
Since the Church of Antioch was unable to resolve the dispute, it was decided to discuss it in Jerusalem with the apostles (v. 2), who are the pillars of the Church. The principle of widening the circle in the event of conflict is found in Matthew 18:15ff: ‘If your brother refuses to listen to you, take one or two others with you.’
We start with two, then three, then we bring the problem before a wider circle. In all areas of life – marriage and family life, business, associations, etc. – we need, at some point, advice from a person or group outside ourselves. In the Church, it is to those who represent authority that the controversial question must be presented.
B. Send delegates chosen by the community.
While the Judaizers acted without any mandate, without communion with the apostles, the delegates are chosen by the community. They do not act on their own behalf. ‘Heresy’ is both “choosing” what we like in the Scriptures, ‘cutting ourselves off’ from communion in the truth guaranteed by the apostles, and ‘following’ our own ideas or those of a leader. Hence the care taken to choose delegates unanimously when, following the Council of Jerusalem, it was time to bring the results to the Church in Antioch (v. 25).
C. Allow all parties to express themselves.
In Jerusalem, the Judaizers are also present. Nothing will be decided without them having given their point of view (v. 5). Everyone must be able to express themselves, and I claim this right for you first, who think differently from me. How could the proclamation of freedom in Christ have turned into monopoly, inquisition, and denial of the freedom of others?
Jacques Ellul wrote: « The use of creeds and dogmas to justify religious oppression is precisely a form of idolatry. When the Church and Christians reject religious freedom, they deny themselves. »[2] However, Protestant churches also need to question themselves when they legitimise a pluralism that leads them to include in their synods statements about Christ that deny or remain silent about his divinity.
The commemoration of the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea and its creed should challenge us. (Read here my article)
D. Listening to the different voices in the Church.
In the Church of Jerusalem, the different sensibilities represented by the apostles were gathered together. Each apostle brings a particular voice to the subtle and varied chorus of the mother Church. Peter (with the importance of ministry), James (with the importance of tradition), and Paul (with the importance of freedom and newness) each emphasised an aspect of the truth, which is plural. It is brotherly love (represented by John) that allows all these faces to look at each other and the plurality of viewpoints to harmonise.
In the concert of today’s Churches, we find these different faces of the apostles. None can claim to have a monopoly on apostolic richness, hence the need for ecumenical dialogue in love, which allows us to welcome the face of the other.
In this regard, Marc Boegner, that great reformed ecumenist, wrote: « To go out into the world and affirm a presence that is truly an apostolate, a witness and a Christian service, we must be Christians radiating holiness and love in the image of the One whom we claim to be disciples. To move towards this goal, will our Churches understand that today no doctrinal or ecclesial problem, no problem of diakonia or mission, can be posed or find its solution except in the ecumenical dimension desired and gradually accepted by all Christian Churches, and that this will be even more true in the decades to come? »[3]
Excursus: the Church of James
A major question facing the body of Christ today is that of welcoming the ‘Church of James’, namely the growing number of Jews who recognise Jesus (or ‘Yeshua’ in Hebrew) as the Messiah of Israel. How can we welcome them when they want to keep fundamental elements of their Jewishness: the Sabbath, the calendar, circumcision, Bar Mitzvah and dietary rules, to name but a few? How can we welcome them when, for centuries, the Church has excluded them? Especially after the Council of Nicaea, which was not inspired on this point!
The approach of the ‘Towards a Council of Jerusalem II’ (TJCII) movement calls for mutual recognition. I discovered this initiative recently during a meeting in Switzerland and decided to get involved, having been a member of the Jewish Christian Fellowship in French-speaking Switzerland for over 40 years.
Just as in Jerusalem nearly two thousand years ago, a council decided, because of Christ, to welcome Christians from other nations into the renewed and expanded Abrahamic covenant, a second Council of Jerusalem should decide how to welcome those Jews who believe in Yeshua. In October of this year, I will participate in an international meeting of the TJCII movement in Jerusalem, which will be a step towards this council. Thank you for praying for this journey.
- The decision
The apostles announce their decision by saying, ‘The Holy Spirit and we have decided…’ (v. 28). Because the apostles were united in the name of Christ, in brotherly love, the Risen One was in their midst. His Spirit enlightened them on the decision to be made. No burden will be imposed on non-Jewish Christians: ‘It is by the grace of the Lord Jesus that we have been saved, just as they have’ (v. 11).
Why do so many meetings leave us dissatisfied? Why is it so difficult to reach a decision that everyone can agree on? Perhaps it is because we do not take Jesus’ promise seriously enough: ‘I am with you always, even to the end.’ We must give him his place in our midst. That is the secret.
How can we achieve this? By ensuring that mutual love reigns above all else: ‘Above all, love one another’ (1 Peter 4:8). This is what allows the Spirit of the Risen One to give his light and clarity. This is surely the best way to be truly faithful to Jesus Christ, who said, ‘By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another’ (John 13:35).
We must also remember that a synod is not a political parliament where decisions are made by majority vote. The primary protagonist of a synod is the Holy Spirit. The very nature of the Church is to be the Body of Christ, animated by the Holy Spirit.
Today, under the impetus of the World Council of Churches, more and more Protestant churches are adopting decision-making procedures other than majority voting, such as discernment by consensus.
Regarding a similar method used in the recent synod of the Catholic Church, that of ‘conversation in the Spirit,’ Dirk Lange, delegate of the Lutheran World Federation, says that it is not a democratic and parliamentary process. It has made it possible to find another way, even on issues where there was disagreement. The Holy Spirit is allowed to break down barriers and bring about a Church that is more committed to communion. ‘If conversation in the Spirit had taken place in the 16th century, there would have been no division,’ he exclaimed at a meeting I recently attended. (Read here my article: https://europeantimes.news/2025/04/synodality-and-ecumenism/#google_vignette )
- Pastoral concern.
While the apostles’ decision is uncompromising in principle, it nevertheless proposes a modus vivendi that leads to respect for believers of Jewish origin. The apostles invite believers from paganism to ‘abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from strangled animals and from immorality’ (v. 29).
It is therefore a matter of respecting the conscience of others, who might be shocked by such attitudes in matters of daily life. Christian freedom leads me to voluntarily restrict my freedom to use all things – which I am free to do, being ‘free from all’ (1 Cor. 9:19ff) – in order to avoid offending those who have a different conscience.
What comes first is not a principle, but always the concrete person, to be loved and won over to the freedom of the Spirit; what is important is not the victory of orthodoxy over heresy, but the brother and sister with whom we establish a relationship of communion in Christ, the way of life and truth.
- The reception of the decision in the Church.
The decree of the apostles was brought by letter, by delegates duly authorised by the apostles. It was read to the whole Church of Antioch. Its reading was a joy because of the encouragement it brought (v. 31). Judas and Silas, two prophets, encouraged the community with their words.
We sit for long days in synods or assemblies. But how many decisions taken at the top reach the grassroots? In fact, nothing changes in the Church unless a reality is first lived at the grassroots. But if it does, this reality of life quickly rises to the top, which can then take the measure of the heartbeat of the ecclesial body (the ‘sentire cum ecclesia’), and then it descends back to the grassroots and can be received widely and joyfully. This is how the Church renews itself: everything begins with initiatives lived at the grassroots level, in the communities. I have experienced this so many times.
Conclusion: good news!
In conclusion, I have good news to share with you. Conflict in the Church can be resolved. But it often takes time, sometimes a lot of time. Think of the centuries of division between the Churches… These steps – and others could be added – can inspire us and give us – or restore – hope.
Let us not be afraid of conflict and let us not stifle it! Conflict is an opportunity to deepen our relationships, to live out Jesus’ invitation to ‘love your enemy’, to dialogue and to refine our discernment.
And if, in the immediate present, a conflict seems insurmountable, if we experience painful abandonment, let us never forget that Good Friday was not the last word in history.
Let us place our ‘whys’ in the ‘why’ cried out by Christ in his abandonment! Let us continue to love God as he loved us to the end!
The Spirit who raised him from the dead will act and open doors that we could never have imagined!
[1] On this council, see the ecumenical seminar to which I contributed, ‘From Nicaea, walking together towards unity. The beginning of a new departure.’ https://www.hoegger.org/article/commemorer-le-concile-de-nicee-le-debut-dun-nouveau-depart/
[2] Jacques Ellul, Les combats de la liberté, Labor et Fides, Geneva,1984, p.214
[3] Marc Boegner, L’Exigence oecuménique, Albin Michel, Paris, 1968, p.315.