Acts 15 and the BGS

Why I Believe the Board of General Superintendents Would Benefit from Reading Acts 15 Again

The current Board of General Superintendents

One of the strengths of the Church of the Nazarene has always been its commitment to connection. We are not simply a collection of independent congregations, nor are we centered around the personality of a single leader. We are a people who discern together. We gather in assemblies, elect representatives, and entrust leadership to the Board of General Superintendents (BGS), believing that the Holy Spirit works through the whole body of Christ.

This commitment to shared discernment is indeed a gift. It is not the only gift available to us, though.

In recent years, when the Board of General Superintendents has spoken it has been with a single, unified voice. Joint statements have become the expected norm. In many ways, this is a good thing as such unity can communicate solidarity and provide clarity in moments of uncertainty. There are times when the Church genuinely needs one clear pastoral voice.

Yet it is worth asking whether unity always requires uniformity (My answer to that has always been a strong no).

Interestingly, while speaking as one has become the Board’s customary practice, it is not actually required by our polity nor is it their official policy. Neither the Church of the Nazarene nor the BGS have established a policy requiring every statement to represent unanimous agreement or to be issued only collectively.

This leaves open the possibility of another faithful practice: one in which the General Superintendents continue to gather, pray, and discern together while also occasionally speaking from their own experiences, convictions, and pastoral perspectives.

I believe that such a model would not weaken the Church. It would strengthen it.

The fifteenth chapter of Acts offers a compelling picture of how the earliest Church navigated disagreement. The Jerusalem Council was convened because faithful believers had reached different conclusions regarding Gentile converts. The issue was not trivial. It concerned the identity of God’s people and the nature of salvation itself.

Luke does not present the gathering as though everyone arrived already thinking alike. Rather, “after there had been much debate,” Peter spoke. Paul and Barnabas shared what God had done among the Gentiles. James offered his discernment, drawing upon the Scriptures. Together they arrived at a decision that seemed “good to the Holy Spirit and to us.”

Notice what is remarkable about this account.

The Church preserved multiple voices. Luke records each perspective because each contributes to the Church’s discernment. Unity emerges not from suppressing differences but from faithfully engaging them.

The Church has treasured these distinct voices ever since. I believe when the BGS gathers, it is likely similar to that Jerusalem Council.

The story does not end there, though.

Only a short time later, Luke records a sharp disagreement between Paul and Barnabas regarding John Mark. The disagreement became so intense that they chose different paths. It is one of the more surprising moments in Scripture because Luke does not attempt to soften it. He does not declare one person victorious and the other defeated.

Instead, Paul departs with Silas while Barnabas sails with Mark.

The mission continues and expands.

Rather than ending their work of God, their separation results in two missionary teams instead of one. Both men continue serving Christ. Both remain faithful. The Church never suggests that one ceased being an apostle because they disagreed.

This should invite us to reconsider how we think about leadership. Faithful leaders can reach different prudential judgments while remaining deeply committed to the same Lord, the same Scriptures, and the same mission. Perhaps one of the greatest gifts the Board of General Superintendents could offer the Church today would be the gift of visible, charitable disagreement.

Imagine a denomination where General Superintendents occasionally wrote personal pastoral letters alongside collective statements. One might emphasize theological continuity while another explored pastoral application. One might reflect on holiness through the lens of global mission while another considered its implications for local discipleship. None would undermine the others. Rather, each would enrich the Church’s understanding.

Such diversity would acknowledge an important reality: our General Superintendents are unique individuals with unique gifting and callings. Their pastoral and theological experiences shape how they hear the concerns of the Church. Allowing those distinct voices to be heard would remind us that the Church of the Nazarene is global and multifaceted.

More importantly, it would teach us something we desperately need to learn. Many Christians have come to assume that disagreement necessarily signals division. We often imagine only two possibilities: either everyone agrees completely, or the fellowship is fractured. The New Testament presents a richer vision.

The apostles debated. They listened and persuaded. They submitted to each other. They occasionally disagreed strongly while still maintaining love and what John Wesley would call a catholic spirit. They remained brothers and sisters in Christ.

If our highest leaders modeled this kind of holy conversation in public and not just behind closed doors, it could profoundly shape the culture of our denomination. Pastors might become less anxious about asking difficult questions. District leaders might discover healthier ways of navigating conflict. Congregations might learn that theological maturity includes both conviction and humility.

This is not an argument for endless public disputes or competing political factions. Nor is it an invitation to diminish the authority of the Board. There will always be moments when speaking together is both wise and necessary. Crises often require a unified pastoral response, and there is real beauty in leaders standing together when the Church most needs reassurance.

Rather, this is an invitation to expand our imagination of what unity can look like. The Body of Christ has never depended upon every member sounding exactly alike. Paul himself reminds us that the body has many members, each contributing something unique to the whole. Diversity of gifts has always been one of God’s chosen means for building up the Church.

Why should we expect our highest elected leaders to function differently?

The Board of General Superintendents could continue to discern together, pray together, and issue collective statements when appropriate. At the same time, they could occasionally write, teach, and pastor from their own voices, trusting that faithful differences need not threaten ecclesial unity. An example I think of is when violence or tragedy strikes within the individual GS’s jurisdiction. While the whole board may not speak into ICE killings, might the GS stand alongside the DSs of the district in which they occur and speak out.

A practice such as this might deepen all of our abilities to speak as Christ as we see our leaders do it. Too often, the Christ they model is one who is silent in the face of injustice. This witness seeps down to the District Superintendents and then into local pastors. Our GSs need to lead by example.

The Church of the Nazarene does not most need leaders who always appear to agree. Perhaps we need leaders who demonstrate how mature Christians discern together, speak honestly, disagree graciously when necessary, and remain bound together by their common allegiance to Jesus Christ.

The Jerusalem Council and actions of Acts 15 did not eliminate every difference among the apostles. It showed the Church how differences could become places of discernment rather than division.

That lesson remains as timely now as it was in the first century.

If the Board of General Superintendents embraced both corporate discernment and individual pastoral witness, they would not merely be changing a communication strategy. They would be teaching the Church an essential Christian virtue: that unity in Christ is deeper than uniformity of expression, and that faithful leadership is measured not by speaking with only one voice, but by helping the whole Church learn to hear the harmony of many voices following one Shepherd.