Missional Discernment (Part 1)

In another post, I mentioned an ongoing study of spiritual disciplines using Ruth Haley Barton’s book Sacred Rhythms. I’ve recently been leading the discussion of her chapter on discernment, which has some strengths and some glaring weaknesses. Here, I briefly highlight one of the deficiencies in the privatized and internalized process of discernment that Barton portrays. In the next post on missional discernment, I will highlight a second deficiency.

Disclaimer: I’m confident that Barton is a more spiritual person than I. That isn’t a high bar, so it’s bound to be true, likely to a great degree. And her years of experience as a spiritual director should be given considerable weight in the reader’s assessment of my critique. In any case, the chapter is helpful, and the book more so. Don’t hesitate to read it, and take my critical reflections here as expansion rather than condemnation.

Discernment is Communal

The first deficiency of Barton’s chapter regards the communal dimensions of discernment evident in the New Testament. Her discussion reveals a deep individualism in her understanding of discernment. It is not absolute, since she makes room for “community” as one of the data points one should gather in the discernment process. Oddly, though, the majority of her discussion under this subheading deals with seeking solitude! Her summary of the practice includes this listless concession: “When you feel you’ve gathered enough information, you may want to synthesize it, talk about what you are noticing with a spiritual friend and invite their feedback” (129). That’s the extent of attention to community in the chapter.

This leads me to highlight what I consider two prominent examples of discernment in the New Testament. Neither are marked by the biblical vocabulary of discernment (another needful addition to Barton’s discussion that I leave for a later post), but they seem to be moments in which the church practiced what that vocabulary signifies: a communal exercise of perceptual faculties in the pursuit of God’s will in order to make a concrete decision.

Discernment through Worship, Fasting, and Prayer

Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a member of the court of Herod the ruler, and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off.

Acts 13:1–3 (NRSV)

It’s not obvious that this moment represents discernment as such. Perhaps it is simply the church doing what it does, and suddenly God speaks—no discernment necessary. But I think attention to the preceding narrative indicates that, in fact, this is the Antioch church seeking answers. Barnabas had retrieved Saul from Tarsus (Acts 11:25–26), and after a year of teaching in Antioch, they carried relief funds to the impoverished churches of Judea (Acts 11:27–30) and returned to Antioch (Acts 12:25). But it is still unclear how God’s word to Ananias concerning Saul would be fulfilled: “he is an instrument whom I have chosen to bring my name before Gentiles and kings and before the people of Israel” (Acts 9:15). The subsequent story of Peter’s interaction with Cornelius heightens the question. Peter’s testimony produces a striking conclusion: “And they praised God, saying, ‘Then God has given even to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life'” (Acts 11:18). Yet, how will Saul participate in God’s mission among the Gentiles? It is reasonable to conclude that this question was on his congregation’s mind.

Sometimes (typically?), this is the nature of missional discernment. We know that God is up to something, perhaps in the life of a particular church member, but it’s unclear what or how to respond. Here is what the practice of listening in such moments looks like: worshiping the Lord and fasting. Saul is not left to discern his vocation on his own. The life of the worshiping community is the context of discernment. Through communal discernment, the church prepares to hear the Spirit speak.

Plural leadership is another important feature of the communal practice: “Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers” (Acts 13:1). To a superficial reading of the text, this comment might look like an unrelated piece of information. Not so. The spiritual gifting of these members of the body is a vital aspect of the community’s discernment. Paul later identifies “the discernment of spirits” (1 Cor 12:10) as a spiritual gift, which informs our understanding of John’s exhortation, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.” (1 John 4:1–3). If it seems that “the Holy Spirit said” (Acts 13:2) refers to an indisputable, audible voice from heaven, consider carefully who hears the Spirit speak and what the confirmation of such messages looks like in the New Testament. The word comes through the prophets and is subject to the discernment of the community (1 Cor 14:29) according to the apostolic teaching concerning Jesus. Hence, the presence of recognized prophets and teachers is essential to the community’s perception of the Spirit’s word in Acts 13. In no sense is discernment left to the individual!

Immediate obedience to the Spirit’s command does not follow. Instead, the church continues “fasting and praying” (Acts 13:3). It may look like the church was merely fasting and praying for the missionaries and their success, but given their responsibility to discern the spirits and confirm the prophetic word, I’m convinced these practices are another aspect of their discernment. In other words, they do not lay their hands on Saul and Barnabas and send them off until they have finished discerning that their commission is from God.

This example of discernment guards us against two errors. The first is to imagine that discernment happens in isolation from the life of the community. Saul does not take Ananias’s initial prophetic word and set out on his own. Years pass before it becomes clear what he should do, and God’s purposes become evident in the context of communal worship, fasting, and prayer. The second is to think that all the church needs is (1) a sense that an endeavor (say, witness to the Gentiles) is good and (2) a willing participant. The community might easily have made plans based on these data. Peter’s testimony concerning Cornelius would certainly have been known to them after Saul and Barnabas’s trip south. It is hard to imagine that Saul had not shared his experience, including Ananias’s words. Isn’t this enough information? Is discernment necessary? Evidently so. We do well to heed the example of the Antioch church.

Discernment through Testimony and Dialogue

Then certain individuals came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to discuss this question with the apostles and the elders. So they were sent on their way by the church, and as they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, they reported the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the believers. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees stood up and said, “It is necessary for them to be circumcised and ordered to keep the law of Moses.” . . . The apostles and the elders met together to consider this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them. . . . The whole assembly kept silence, and listened to Barnabas and Paul as they told of all the signs and wonders that God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied. . . . “Therefore I have reached the decision.” . . . Then the apostles and the elders, with the consent of the whole church, decided to choose men from among their members and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. . . . For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us. . . .

Acts 15:1–28 (NRSV)

Acts 15 offers an example (the New Testament example?) of theological discernment—a communal process of determining what the church should affirm regarding a disputed matter. Protestants are prone to imagine that Paul’s seemingly independent theological work is paradigmatic, and many have concluded that the presence of Apostles at the gathering portrayed in Acts 15 makes it inimitable for the church in later centuries. Yet, these conclusions are hardly necessary, and there is much to learn about discernment from this passage.

I identify eleven elements of the discernment process in this story:

1. Dissension and debate (Acts 15:2). Participants in God’s mission dispute a traditional understanding of God’s will in light of their experiences. Dissension and debate are not a problem. Indeed, in this story, they are necessary and, in retrospect, vindicated dimensions of the church’s theological growth.
2. Appointment of representatives (Acts 15:2). The church designates spokespersons who can represent the dissenting position well in the broader dialogue about this issue. This is a model of neither open debate nor interpretive autonomy. Instead, representation and theological leadership are paradigmatic.
3. Open testimony about God’s work (Acts 15:3). The delegates speak openly about their understanding on the way to the meeting. Again, there is no evidence that doing so is problematic. Neither those teaching the traditional perspective in v. 1 nor those sharing their perspective on the way to the meeting are deemed divisive. Silence is not a virtue.
4. Hospitality (Acts 15:4). The church and its leaders welcome the dissenters and allow their testimony. The practice of “welcome” is profoundly important. Notably, it is not necessary to welcome those who hold the conventional understanding since they already have representation among the leadership (Acts 15:1, 5).
5. Open debate (Acts 15:5). Just as the delegates of the dissenting position are free to state their position ahead of the formal meeting of leaders, the traditionalists are free to assert their understanding publicly. Hospitality does not mean acquiescence. This says nothing about their manner of speech, which was presumably Christlike.
6. Leaders meeting together (Acts 15:6). The leadership gathers purposefully to give the matter careful consideration. Already, we see elders in addition to apostles involved in this process, suggesting the role of elders subsequently. Regardless of one’s understanding of apostleship, then, Acts 15 offers a model for discernment among church leaders.
7. Focused testimony about “all the signs and wonders that God had done through them” (Acts 15:7–12). Peter, Barnabas, and Paul offer their testimony to God’s work. The crux of the matter is what God has done—the perceptions of participants in God’s mission. Notably, the traditional perspective needs no further defense; it is a given.
8. Silence and listening (Acts 15:12). Those gathered to discern God’s will “kept silence and listened.” The practices of silence and listening are vital to the process. Listening here does not mean simply allowing speech but giving heed. There is no possibility that Peter was the only Jerusalem leader who initially held a traditional perspective, otherwise the discernment process would have been unnecessary for the gathered leaders. Again, the conventional understanding was a given. Regardless of these leaders’ prior beliefs, they made space for testimony and genuinely listened.
9. Leadership in conclusion-drawing (Acts 15:13–21). The apostle James draws a conclusion. Since Luke is not narrating a mimeographic account of the episode, it is possible that other leaders weighed in before James spoke. But the story as we have it highlights his role as he interprets the dissenters’ testimony according to his understanding of Scripture. Presumably, he plays this role in virtue of his recognized gifts, but the evident qualification is a deep familiarity with Scripture that allows him to perceive the evidence of God’s work without prejudice regarding the conventional understanding of God’s will. Here is someone evidently formed by Jesus’s subversive teaching of Scripture.
10. Consent in conclusion-drawing (Acts 15:22). The whole church consents to the promulgation of the leaders’ conclusion. It might seem that the church’s consent refers only to the selection of messengers. To the contrary, it refers to the church’s role in confirming the decision, without which it would not be disseminated. There is no description of what this level of participation looked liked (further debate, mere conformity, reluctant submission, consensus?), but it is part of the process. In addition to the role of theological leaders, there is a place for the wider church’s involvement. Indeed, it is possible that “the whole assembly” (Acts 15:12) included a public audience; there is certainly nothing to suggest the discussion was a closed-door meeting of leaders whose decisions were delivered to the church.
11. Clear communication of essentials (Acts 15:23–29). The leadership composes a statement that represents their conclusion. There is a great deal going on in this step of the process. First, the selection of representatives in addition to Paul and Barnabas safeguards them from suspicion of misrepresenting the conclusion. Second, the letter recognizes the conflict forthrightly, including the role of those who had made the initial Judaizing claims. Third, the phrase “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit” (Acts 15:28) identifies the decision-making process as a matter of spiritual discernment. More clearly than in Acts 13:1–3, the opinion attributed to the Spirit is a function of discernment. Fourth, the specific recommendations are stated as minimally as possible: “to impose on you no further burden than these essentials” (Acts 15:28). Fifth, the specific recommendations represent a creative interpretation of Leviticus 17–18, which provides guidance for Gentiles living among God’s people. There is much to say about this interpretative ingenuity, not least its relevance to this discernment process, but the point here is that the conclusion communicated is based on a biblical idea of “essentials.”

No doubt, more can be added to this sketch of discernment processes in the New Testament. And I most definitely do not wish to suggest that the examples in these passages serve as some sort of authorized template for church practice. But they do highlight the key claim I am forwarding: discernment is communal. Barton offers a compelling account of the personal, internal dimensions of discernment. I fear, however, that this account misses the gist of discernment from a New Testament perspective.

Finally, it is important to note that the passages surveyed here are inseparable from the story of the church’s participation in God’s mission to redeem all nations. Taking a missional approach to the Bible, it is impossible to sideline these texts in the portrayal of Christian discernment. Undoubtedly, Christians seek to discern God’s will in personal matters that seem distant from Paul’s vocation or the church’s theological understanding of Gentiles’ relationship to the law. But this is an illusion. If, as missional theology affirms, the church is definitionally the people called to participate in God’s mission, what might a church member discern personally that is not necessarily related to this calling? This perspective leads to the second deficiency of Barton’s chapter on discernment: a robustly missional account of the process. My next post in this series will propose a model of missional discernment that addresses this shortcoming.