Acts 6:1-7
Several years ago,
when I served another church, we had a series of special meetings. One of the speakers had been recommended to
me because of his reputation as a communicator to blue-collar workers, farmers,
and others who made a living primarily with their hands. Well you can imagine my surprise when he
filled his message the latest church-growth theories. I think I’ll always remember when he told my
congregation of 40 that no church could ever hope to grow unless it built a family
life center.
Well, the deacons,
the trustees, and I had some laughs about that and even began to refer to the
vacant lot behind the church where some of our young adults occasionally played
softball as “the family life center.”
Still, I think his thoughtless remarks caused some people to give up
trying to help the church grow.
It’s not unusual
for a small church to yearn for growth.
Such yearnings often are motivated by a desire to continue Christ’s
work, to be able to do greater ministry, to reach more people with the gospel,
to enhance the nurturing ministry of the church; and, certainly, to bring glory
to God. All of these are right and
proper motives. At the same time, those
who have these proper motives may have a naïve view of a growing church: They may believe such a church has no
problems. They would be wrong.
A growing church
is not necessarily a church without problems.
In fact, some problems might even be more likely to occur in a growing
church.
In the five years
since that memorable Day of Pentecost the church had grown and continued to
grow. Despite the rising tide of
persecution men and women from across Jerusalem’s cultural spectrum were being
drawn to Christ and to the community of believers. As yet, no Gentiles were part of the church
but a sizable number of Greek-speaking Jews had become Christians.
Well before the
birth of the church, there was some tension between the Grecian Jews and those
less influenced by the Greek culture.
One group seems to have regularly worshipped in Aramaic and the other in
Greek. Native-born Jews seem to have
been especially suspicious of these outsiders.
But both Hebraic Jews and Grecian Jews were attracted to the gospel and
became part of the church. The two groups
had different attitudes toward some things but they were not hopelessly
estranged.
Still, even though
they worshipped together, in other social settings they may have exhibited the
very human characteristic of fostering friendships with those who thought as
they did and spoke as they did. There is
nothing inherently wrong with this unless it leads to conflict and disunity.
That is exactly
what threatened to happen in the early church.
The Grecian Jews began to complain that their widows were being
overlooked in the distribution of food.
The word
translated as “murmured” in the RSV or “complained” in the NIV is
interesting. It comes from gonggoosmos, “grumbling.” The idea seems to suggest muttering or saying
anything in a low tone. It implies
displeasure at a situation.
We might ask, was
the problem really that serious? Any
problem is serious when it threatens to divide God’s people, when it interrupts
the ministry of the Word, when it sullies the reputation of God’s people.
How did the
problem arise in the first place? John
Pohill suggests there may have been an unusually large number of Grecian widows
without family roots or support in Jerusalem; this, because Diaspora Jews often
retired to Judea. Some Palestinian
rabbis apparently taught that only Jews buried in Israel would participate in
the general resurrection. Righteous Jews
buried in other lands would have to roll underground to get to the holy
land. (I am not making this up.)
Jewish society did
have a means of helping such needy widows but these widows may have forfeited
that help when they embraced Christianity.
Frankly, the
Apostles may not have known about some of these widows. It’s understandable if believers who had long
lived in Jerusalem should keep the Apostles informed the needs of their
longtime neighbors; at the same time, it’s understandable if the Apostles heard
less about the needs of relative
newcomers. Ultimately, the demands of
the Apostles’ special ministry of preaching and teaching may have left them
with little time to properly administer the distribution of funds or food. It’s a reminder that even good, well-meaning
Christians are limited in how much they can do.
Delegation of tasks is a sensible, as well as a biblically sound way to
meet needs. Many of us can do more than
we imagine we can but unwise, excessive multitasking can lead to inefficiency.
The Apostles seem
to have understood this when they explained they could either preach and teach
or administer the church’s ministry of charity, but not both. I don’t know if this means that they had
actually tried to do the distribution of the food themselves or that they
simply had not paid enough attention to make sure it was done properly. I suspect it’s the latter case.
What
makes this episode interesting is the fact that there appears to have been neither
an attempt to deny the charge nor an attempt to assign blame. There was simply a determination to find a
solution.
When
a church discovers a problem and then begins to play the “blame game,” the
situation is only aggravated. Some
people become aggressive in their pursuit of the guilty parties, others become
aggressively defensive of themselves or their friends. The early church had a better idea. It focused on the resolving the problem.
Simply
put, the church would choose seven men to administer the distribution of
charity to the needy. But not just any
men would be chosen. These seven men
would have certain important characteristics:
they would live under the influence of the Spirit, they would be
well-respected men of integrity and character, and they would possess
wisdom. One translation defines that
last characteristic as “common sense.”
The
church approved of the solution and nominated seven men. Luke will tells us more about two of them
later on but their names may tell us something.
They all had Greek names and that may mean they were all from the Greek
side of the church.
Although
the use of Greek names does not necessarily require that all the men chosen
were Hellenists several may have been.
Choosing those who had felt neglected to help deal with the problem was
important because it signaled a determination to reflect the fundamental unity
of the church and suggested that there were no second-class Christians in the
church. If the Seven were Grecian Jews,
they would have made a special effort to make sure they demonstrated fairness
in dealing with the Jewish widows. More
important, the fact that they were Sprit-filled men of integrity would have
prompted them to be fair.
Luke
lets us know that the solution apparently worked by following this episode with
one of his summary/transitional statements.
He says, “God’s message was preached in ever-widening circles. The number of believers greatly increased in
Jerusalem….” Luke is also preparing us
to see how this attitude toward those considered by many to be outsiders would be
manifest in the next giant steps the church was preparing to take.
Lessons from a Food Fight
This
story is filled with some important lessons for a church that wants to carry on
with the work of Christ. Here are some
of them:
1. Churches that want to continue Christ’s work
will not allow conflict to go unaddressed because they recognize the link
between unity and effectiveness in ministry.
In
any organization made up of free people, there will be conflict. The church is no exception. Healthy growth will involve change and change
will involve conflict. Conflict is
morally neutral. Healthy Christians
learn how to disagree without becoming disagreeable. This is especially true regarding substantive
conflict, conflict focused on a particular issue.
But
if substantive conflict goes unaddressed, it can quickly become interpersonal
conflict, conflict marked by hostile feelings toward particular groups or
individuals. The situation in the early
church had the potential to become just such a conflict. It began as a substantive conflict—the
Grecian widows were being overlooked in the distribution of charity. If left unresolved, it could have become an
interpersonal conflict—pitting one group of Christians against another.
Had
that happened, the church, which had such a wonderful reputation following its
birth, would have that reputation besmirched.
Its witness would have been compromised.
The Apostles wisely refused to play the blame game and sought a solution
to the root problem.
2.
Churches
that want to continue Christ’s work will remain flexible enough to add new
structures to deal with new problems.
The
choice of the Seven has long been seen as the beginning of the deaconate. I’m not entirely convinced that’s what we see
here. What we definitely see is a
precedent-setting illustration of a principle that allowed the early church to
adapt itself to changing needs.
It’s
amazing how difficult some churches find change to be, even change which
threatens no doctrine or moral position.
Back in the 1980’s Dr. Kenneth Chafin, then pastor of Houston’s South
Main Baptist Church, introduced a Friday evening “Sunday” school and worship
service. That service allowed the church
to minister to hundreds of police officers, fire fighters, and medical
personnel who couldn’t attend church on Sundays. Dr. Chafin spoke to a group of pastors in
Amarillo shortly after introducing the service.
When he mentioned the new service I heard all kinds of muttering in the
crowd. Some people complained that the
Friday service was only an excuse for people to miss church on Sunday.
Now,
I know that people seldom need excuses to miss church on Sunday. And, if they don’t mind missing church on
Sunday, they probably won’t mind missing church on Friday. The point is, Dr. Chafin’s church was
ministering to people who weren’t being reached through the typical structures.
Ajith
Fernando, an evangelist and Bible teacher from Sri Lanka, has taught Western
Christians a lot about the importance of having a multicultural vision in
building our churches. He tells us that
in building such churches we may have to adapt some of our familiar structures,
including worship forms, music, and times of meetings. After warning that such changes should never
obliterate the original vision of the church, Fernando comments, “Many
Christians say they are committed to evangelism, but they do not want to pay
the price of bringing in an evangelistic harvest. In actuality, they want to be comfortable.”[1]
That
kind of comfort will assure the church won’t make much of an impact on a
changing world.
3.
Churches
that want to continue Christ’s work will understand that even those who deal
with practical matters in the church should possess spiritual qualifications.
Philip
used to work for a popular restaurant in downtown Worthington. I won’t name it but all the servers were
required to affect a French accent whenever they talked to customers. That’s one fairly innocent way to try to make
an impression while serving tables.
Several
years ago, our family ate at a well-known restaurant up in Amish country. The servers there, mostly women, dress like
Amish girls. Well, while we were eating
one server apparently had something happen which made her angry. She began throwing dishes and cutlery into
her bus box and muttering under her breath.
Watching an “Amish” person have a temper fit is quite an experience but
I’m sure the real Amish would just as soon she wore a sign which said, “I’m not
an Amish girl but I play one at work.”
In this instance, serving tables was a venue that could affect how some
people see the Amish.
When
the Apostles distinguish between “the ministry of the word” and “waiting on
tables” it might be easy to think that one is a spiritual activity while the
other is non-spiritual. If that were the
case, the best qualification for those helping with the distribution of food to
the needy would be strong backs and knowledge of the city map.
Yet,
the Apostles believed those who deal with these practical matters must possess
spiritual qualifications. You see, for
the Apostles the spiritual and the material are not to be separated or
divided. They insisted that the work
required those who were “known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom.”
Ministries
that seek to relieve physical needs require such spiritual qualifications
because (1) they provide a means to visibly display Christ’s love, (2) they
allow others to be more directly involved in outreach, (3) they may provide
preparation of further activity; and, of
course, (4) handling money is best done by those who have a strong moral code. Some churches looking for men and women to
assume roles on trustee boards, financial committees, or building committees
look first for people who have experience in these areas. We shouldn’t neglect using the talents of
these people but having an MBA is not the first requirement we should look for
in a church treasurer. We need to look
for those who have spiritual qualities that will distinguish them from the best
business minds who have a purely secular outlook.
4. Churches that want to continue Christ’s work
will keep their priorities in order.
When
the Apostles contrast the two types of ministry, they aren’t trying to suggest
there is a hierarchy in ministry. Both
are reflections of Christian love. Both
ministries are pleasing to God. Yet, I
do believe we need to keep something in mind about the relationship of each
ministry to the overall health of the church.
If
a church were to stop caring for the needy, it would be disobedient and
ignoring ways to demonstrate Christ’s love before a watching world. If a church were to stop preaching and
teaching the gospel, not only would it be disobedient, it would be suicidal.
If
that church which stopped caring for the needy were to continue to preach and
teach the Word, it would eventually discover its error, repent, and begin, once
more, to display the compassion of Christ.
Certainly
this is borne out in the history of the evangelical churches in America. Near the turn of the century many
Bible-believing Christian leaders, responding to the excesses of the social
gospel movement, told Christians that ministry directed to material needs was
fruitless and even contrary to God’s will. We should be concerned with helping
people get a mansion in heaven, not cleaning up slums. Besides, Christ was coming soon, so our
earthly situation didn’t matter anyway. It took almost half a century for other Bible
believing Christians to rediscover the Biblical mandates to care for the social
needs of the community.
I
can think of no comparable instance in which those who abandoned the preaching
and teaching of the Bible in favor of social ministry were led, by that
ministry, to rediscover the relevance of the gospel to the culture.
While
it may be argued that the Apostles were not setting one type of ministry
(ministry of the Word) against another (waiting tables), it does seem that
churches are susceptible to the temptation to surrender the former in favor of
the latter. There may be a couple of
reasons for this:
One-The
ministry of charity is generally viewed with favor, even in a society in which
pluralism is a prevalent world-view.
Providing food and shelter to the poor is viewed as an act of
compassion, preaching a message that calls for repentance and commitment to
Jesus is viewed as act of arrogance.
Two-The
ministry of charity, especially in a world filled with so much evident material
need, provides a sense of accomplishment that does not always attend the
ministry of the word.
Last summer I had the privilege of going with our
youth to Delbarton, WV, where I worked with a team assigned the task of helping
to “rehab” a small house in that economically distressed community. Four days of scraping, nailing, and painting
transformed the house. The impact of our
work was immediately apparent. Frankly,
it was a gratifying experience.
Preaching the Word does not always produce such measurable results. Consequently, it’s tempting for a church to
focus its energy on those activities that give it the satisfaction of seeing
something accomplished.
The
temptation to confuse our priorities is great.
But if we want to continue the work of Christ in the world, we will do
our best to resist that temptation.
Conclusion
I’m
not sure what makes a church grow. But
I’m pretty sure a church is in trouble if it experiences a failure of
focus.
At
the same time, I believe a church that seeks to continue the ministry of Jesus
opens itself to the possibility of growth.
And the church that seeks to continue the ministry of Jesus will focus
on fundamentals.
These
will include the fundamentals of its message—preaching Jesus as God’s Son and
Savior. These will include the
fundamentals of it’s ministry—a ministry which includes preaching and teaching the
Word and caring for those for whom Christ died, a ministry which may be carried
out by any believer who is available to be used by God. These will include the fundamentals of its
make-up—seeking to be a church that is truly multicultural and multigenerational.
In
some ways this seems like a story you wouldn’t pay much attention to, just
another report on a church business meeting.
But, in reality, it points out how the church that wants to continue
Christ’s work can stay on target.
