Oct 10th | Reconciliation

A continuation of last week and a summary of sorts of the series thus far, we’re talking about reconciliation this week. Not necessarily the sort of reconciliation that immediately pops to mind. We typically think of reconciliation in the context of a broken relationship – some sort of unresolved interpersonal conflict. And reconciliation certainly comes into play there, but this is a bit different.

Remember from your reading of Acts 21:17-26, Paul asked to do something that presumably cuts hard against his grain. He’s been preaching and teaching for years (to the non-Jew cultures in southern Asia/northern Mediterranean coastal regions that to join the family of the True God – the God of the Jews – you need only trust in the person and work of Christ…that by God’s grace and faith alone do we find eternal life, abundant life, adoption. It was commonly understood that to be part of the Jewish/God family meant to not only embrace Christ, but to embrace the culture and practices of the Jews. A major tenant of Paul’s ministry platform was to preach the non-necessity of anything in addition to Christ. To the Gentiles (non-Jews) this was a relief; to the Jew it was a stumbling block.

James, the leader of the Jerusalem church, understood this truth (nothing more required), and so many of the now Christian-Jews. But it took constant vigilance not to slip back into a “works” Christianity. We can all understand that. The non-Christian Jews made this issue their central argument. Jesus could not be the Messiah, if following him meant abandoning Moses (law and custom). They simply couldn’t comprehend the gospel: That in Christ the law had not been abolished, but fulfilled! When you follow Jesus, you will live right.

Ok, so, on to this week! Why did James ask Paul to participate in some customary practices and furthermore why did Paul agree to participate??  The answer is really quite simple. Paul wrote about it to the Corinthians earlier: He said, (para) food doesn’t bring us closer to God. We’re no worse if we don’t eat,and no better if we do. Without explaining the whole food thing here, suffice it to say, Paul was clearly teaching that our codes and laws and customs don’t “save” us. What’s implied here and stated clearly elsewhere is that only grace through faith in Christ matters. BUT, Paul also says that once we are reconciled to God we become ambassadors of Jesus’ and as such are now all ministers of reconciliation. That is, that our key role is to participate in the restoration mission of God. To be about the work of reconciliation…of others to God and of that which is closely related…reconciliation of others to one another.

Since it makes no difference if we “eat or don’t eat,” Paul was not only free from the customs, but equally free to participate! More importantly, Paul understood the monumental importance of unity (reconciliation) at this point. He knew that not only his unity with James, but the Gentile/Jew elder unity and, in fact, the unity of the entire church (Gentile and Jew) was at risk. Out of love; for the purposes of reconciliation; to preserve the purity of faith alone Paul gladly and freely honored the request. It was, n fact, an inspired request on James’ part. He essentially gave everyone the opportunity to see Paul’s true heart for Jesus, and Jesus alone.

Interesting. We’ve talked about this before. Jesus didn’t show up and bring with him a new moral code. And Paul understood this. Jesus said, essentially, if you follow me, you will fulfill the law…if you love like me, you will live a moral life. No code necessary – except the code of sacrificial love. So, the challenge is, how do we stay true to the simple gospel and a life of sacrificial love in a society wherein moral codes are necessary to restrain the unloving (not mention our own unfortunate unlovingness)?

Are moral codes necessary? And how do we stay unified/reconciled when our codes differ or are interpreted differently?

What conviction/standard in your life would seem  impossible to relinquish?

Where might God be calling you to set aside a conviction for the greater purpose of reconciliation?

How might setting aside a conviction backfire, and if it should does that make the effort wrong?