Readings and Thoughts for Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Acts 9:19-22 Saul Preaches in Damascus
A few thoughts about the changes Saul must undergo in this conversion process. He begins, before his conversion, in a mood of power, control, and total self-assurance. He is a leader. He is on top of the world. Suddenly he is on the ground. He cannot see. He has to be lead by the hand. He is too weak to eat for three days. Ananias, a stranger, an enemy, has to come and help him to see again. Saul has gone from a man of complete independence to complete dependence. After the scales fall from his eyes, Saul is with the disciples in Damascus – the very people he had planned to imprison. He preaches and shares his story, but they are also teaching him, encouraging him, providing shelter for him.
In our time, we think of conversion as something very personal, very private. “It’s between me and God.” But this view is not Biblical. Biblically, you are not just converted to a belief, you are converted to a community. There is no baptism separate from membership in the church; one act implies and assumes the other. William Willimon notes that Saul could become a Christian with God’s help alone, but to remain a Christian he had to be part of a Community.
What do you need to sustain your faith? Who helps you? For whom do you have a role in sustaining their faith?
Acts 9:23-25 Saul Escapes from the Jews
Conversion does not just change Saul’s opinions or beliefs, it changes his entire station in life. The one who was persecuting is now being persecuted himself. We tend to think of Christian faith as a benefit, as something that will help us and ease us. It’s not always so. Sometimes faith makes life much more difficult.
A catholic missionary, Bob McCahill, describes his ministry among Muslims in Bangladesh in his autobiographical Dialogue of Life: A Christian Among Allah’s Poor. His purpose was to live as a Christian in impoverished city slums, providing whatever ease, comfort, or assistance he could provide and sharing his faith only through his actions. He wanted to develop true relationships with people and for them to know Christ through him. He had no intention of converting anyone, but only to be a witness to them. McCahill sought to be an alternative to the many evangelical organizations that would send in staff with a wide array of gifts and assistance, virtually buying conversions with their promises of clothing, food, medicine, and education.
Once a man came to him and asked “What will you give me if I become a Christian?” McCahill answered truthfully: “Suffering.” This is what Paul got for his conversion: his social status was greatly reduced, no one (Jew or Christian) wanted to believe him or trust his word; he became an object of persecution; he had to escape Damascus by going over the city wall in a basket.
What do you expect from life as a Christian disciple?
Acts 9:26-31 Saul in Jerusalem
Saul not only needed a community, he needed a mentor and an advocate. He found both in Barnabas. Later Paul and Barnabas will be in ministry together, and Paul will seem to be the main player, but that is not how the relationship began. Without Barnabas, Paul never could have developed his potential as a minister and evangelist.
Barnabas argued to the Jerusalem community that Paul was legitimate in his beliefs. The apostles, for their part, listened to Barnabas and then listened to Paul. They provide their seal, their blessing upon him and set the stage for his later ministry. It may seem strange that Paul needed to have his legitimacy tested or approved in this way, but the church still follows this pattern. An individual is called by God to ministry, but an individual is also called and confirmed by the church. Both internal and external calls have to exist together for a ministry to be considered authentic. This is why we commission our mission teams, our new staff members, our BeFrienders, and others in ministry roles: as a church we are providing an external and community affirmation to an internal and individual call.
Where/when have you been a leader for Christ’s church? Who mentored you? Who blessed you on your journey? How did they do it? Have you been a Barnabas to someone else?
Friday, February 22, 2008
Day 16
Readings and Thoughts for Monday, February 18, 2008
Acts 9:1-19 The Conversion of Saul
So Saul (who will soon be called Paul) is on the road to Damascus. Classical pictures of the scene always show him falling off a horse (very dramatic) though Luke tells us nothing of that. He is breathing “threats and murder” (nice guy, huh?) and plans to arrest both men and women who follow Jesus. It isn’t good enough to persecute “the Way” in Jerusalem, he’s going to spread the torment to Damascus as well. Notice that Saul is the one taking the initiative, seeking the letters of introduction and warrants for arrest. The Jerusalem temple leadership (“the Jews”) are not the instigators of the pogrom. Saul is on a very personal vendetta. His people are being corrupted and he is going to “purify” them.
Anytime you hear any person, any politician or religious leader, describing the need to cleanse, clean out, or purify a community you can be virtually assured that evil is at work. These are the thoughts of Saul, the persecutor. These were the thoughts of Hitler against Jews, Gays, Gypsies, the mentally and physically disabled. These were the thoughts of community leaders in Yugoslavia and Rwanda as the genocide began amidst civil war. This was Saddam Hussein’s plan for the Kurds. The scary thing is, we hear this kind of language all the time – usually more pretty, more subtle than this, but just as dangerous. “First we have to get all the illegal aliens out of this country, and then….”
And we hear this kind of “purifying” talk in the church. Once it was African Americans who were unwelcome at the altar and in our pulpits. Historically Black Methodist Episcopal churches were segregated into a separate “Central Jurisdiction” in the United Methodist Church until 1968. “United” Methodists have merged with many related groups, but have never seriously considered merging with the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, the African Methodist Episcopal Church, or the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church – the three historically African American denominations of the Methodist movement. Now Fred Phelps and his “God hates fags” campaign is played out more prettily in “friendly” churches every day.
Purity is never the watchword of the church. Inclusivity is. Find me a time when Jesus shut someone out because they were the wrong “type” – he tried just once with a Syrophoenician woman (a bad day?); she argued, he agreed with her and healed her daughter (Mark 7:24-30). In Acts we are seeing a series of conversions in which the church becomes progressively broader and more inclusive. The first converts are Jerusalem Jews, then on to neighboring Samaria, then we meet an African man who represents “the ends of the earth,” and now Saul, the church’s greatest enemy is converted, and soon Cornelius, a gentile and a Roman soldier (representing the persecuting empire).
At a lecture I saw last year, Edward Albee described his play The Goat, or, Who is Sylvia? as an exploration of tolerance (read at your own risk). By portraying a man in love with a goat, Albee pushes way past what most of us could accept or tolerate and he uses that framework to get us to consider other aspects of who or what we can or cannot accept, and why. In contrast, Ryan Dobson (son of Jim Dobson) has published a book titled Be Intolerant on the premise that the very nature of faithfulness to Christ is intolerance to sin. (I do not recommend this book.) Inclusivity and tolerance can be difficult issues for Christians. We are called to stand apart from the rest of the world in our identity and values (in terms of devotion to Christ and avoidance of sin), and at the same time we are called to include and show grace to everyone.
One of the places I have to decide whom to include and whom to exclude is on those occasions when people come to the chruch looking for financial assistance. It is part of my ministry to make an evaluation of the individual’s situation, need, and resources. I am the one who decides whether this person leaves with a gas voucher, a check for utilities, or whatever else has been asked for. I’ve been doing this for many years and I’ve gotten more comfortable with the task as I’ve gained experience. Still, sometimes you just don’t know. Sometimes a story seems to check out, but it just doesn’t feel right. Other times the details don’t make sense, but for some unclear reason you still want to provide the help. I made up my mind quite a while ago that whenever I am in an unclear situation, I am going to err on the side of providing help, knowing that I might be getting taken. Sometimes I just ask myself "How much am I willing to get taken for today?" Once in a while you find out later that you were taken advantage of, and then you learn from that experience for next time. The deal is that I imagine myself after I die, at the gates of heaven, getting my once-over from St. Peter (or whoever it is). And I don’t think I’m going to be judged too badly for times that I was too giving. I doubt very much I'll get kicked out of heaven for excessive generosity, or even foolishness. But I hate to think of the faces I might see there of people I could have and should have helped, but chose not to. I hate the thought of trying to explain my actions when I did nothing to help or comfort. (Okay, it’s an image; I do actually believe we are saved by grace – but you get my point.)
I feel the same way about welcoming people into Christian fellowship and accepting them as they are. If ever I am faced with a lack of clarity between whom I should include and what I can tolerate, I err on the side of inclusivity. I realize that I do have my own limits on tolerance; there are things I can never accept, but I don't come up against that limit very often in the church. Maybe some day the things that I know I cannot tolerate will be in the forefront of social discussion, and it will be more difficult for me. Still, my position is: when in doubt, welcome. Jesus sat at the table with all kinds of people who offended the religious leaders of his day. How upset can he get if I do the same thing?
When have you met someone in church that made you uncomfortable? Why? What did you do or say about it?
Acts 9:1-19 The Conversion of Saul
So Saul (who will soon be called Paul) is on the road to Damascus. Classical pictures of the scene always show him falling off a horse (very dramatic) though Luke tells us nothing of that. He is breathing “threats and murder” (nice guy, huh?) and plans to arrest both men and women who follow Jesus. It isn’t good enough to persecute “the Way” in Jerusalem, he’s going to spread the torment to Damascus as well. Notice that Saul is the one taking the initiative, seeking the letters of introduction and warrants for arrest. The Jerusalem temple leadership (“the Jews”) are not the instigators of the pogrom. Saul is on a very personal vendetta. His people are being corrupted and he is going to “purify” them.
Anytime you hear any person, any politician or religious leader, describing the need to cleanse, clean out, or purify a community you can be virtually assured that evil is at work. These are the thoughts of Saul, the persecutor. These were the thoughts of Hitler against Jews, Gays, Gypsies, the mentally and physically disabled. These were the thoughts of community leaders in Yugoslavia and Rwanda as the genocide began amidst civil war. This was Saddam Hussein’s plan for the Kurds. The scary thing is, we hear this kind of language all the time – usually more pretty, more subtle than this, but just as dangerous. “First we have to get all the illegal aliens out of this country, and then….”
And we hear this kind of “purifying” talk in the church. Once it was African Americans who were unwelcome at the altar and in our pulpits. Historically Black Methodist Episcopal churches were segregated into a separate “Central Jurisdiction” in the United Methodist Church until 1968. “United” Methodists have merged with many related groups, but have never seriously considered merging with the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, the African Methodist Episcopal Church, or the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church – the three historically African American denominations of the Methodist movement. Now Fred Phelps and his “God hates fags” campaign is played out more prettily in “friendly” churches every day.
Purity is never the watchword of the church. Inclusivity is. Find me a time when Jesus shut someone out because they were the wrong “type” – he tried just once with a Syrophoenician woman (a bad day?); she argued, he agreed with her and healed her daughter (Mark 7:24-30). In Acts we are seeing a series of conversions in which the church becomes progressively broader and more inclusive. The first converts are Jerusalem Jews, then on to neighboring Samaria, then we meet an African man who represents “the ends of the earth,” and now Saul, the church’s greatest enemy is converted, and soon Cornelius, a gentile and a Roman soldier (representing the persecuting empire).
At a lecture I saw last year, Edward Albee described his play The Goat, or, Who is Sylvia? as an exploration of tolerance (read at your own risk). By portraying a man in love with a goat, Albee pushes way past what most of us could accept or tolerate and he uses that framework to get us to consider other aspects of who or what we can or cannot accept, and why. In contrast, Ryan Dobson (son of Jim Dobson) has published a book titled Be Intolerant on the premise that the very nature of faithfulness to Christ is intolerance to sin. (I do not recommend this book.) Inclusivity and tolerance can be difficult issues for Christians. We are called to stand apart from the rest of the world in our identity and values (in terms of devotion to Christ and avoidance of sin), and at the same time we are called to include and show grace to everyone.
One of the places I have to decide whom to include and whom to exclude is on those occasions when people come to the chruch looking for financial assistance. It is part of my ministry to make an evaluation of the individual’s situation, need, and resources. I am the one who decides whether this person leaves with a gas voucher, a check for utilities, or whatever else has been asked for. I’ve been doing this for many years and I’ve gotten more comfortable with the task as I’ve gained experience. Still, sometimes you just don’t know. Sometimes a story seems to check out, but it just doesn’t feel right. Other times the details don’t make sense, but for some unclear reason you still want to provide the help. I made up my mind quite a while ago that whenever I am in an unclear situation, I am going to err on the side of providing help, knowing that I might be getting taken. Sometimes I just ask myself "How much am I willing to get taken for today?" Once in a while you find out later that you were taken advantage of, and then you learn from that experience for next time. The deal is that I imagine myself after I die, at the gates of heaven, getting my once-over from St. Peter (or whoever it is). And I don’t think I’m going to be judged too badly for times that I was too giving. I doubt very much I'll get kicked out of heaven for excessive generosity, or even foolishness. But I hate to think of the faces I might see there of people I could have and should have helped, but chose not to. I hate the thought of trying to explain my actions when I did nothing to help or comfort. (Okay, it’s an image; I do actually believe we are saved by grace – but you get my point.)
I feel the same way about welcoming people into Christian fellowship and accepting them as they are. If ever I am faced with a lack of clarity between whom I should include and what I can tolerate, I err on the side of inclusivity. I realize that I do have my own limits on tolerance; there are things I can never accept, but I don't come up against that limit very often in the church. Maybe some day the things that I know I cannot tolerate will be in the forefront of social discussion, and it will be more difficult for me. Still, my position is: when in doubt, welcome. Jesus sat at the table with all kinds of people who offended the religious leaders of his day. How upset can he get if I do the same thing?
When have you met someone in church that made you uncomfortable? Why? What did you do or say about it?
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Day 15
Readings and Thoughts for Sunday, February 17, 2008
Acts 8:26-40 Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch
When the angel of the Lord appears or speaks in Acts, people listen, even when the angel demands that you go out to a deserted road in the middle of the day, when nobody should be around. Philip obeys. When the angel says “Go over to that chariot” (Acts 8:29), Philip obeys again.
Philip encounters a eunuch from Ethiopia, a court official of their queen. In several popular Bible studies in recent years, much has been made of the man’s inferior status as a castrated male. It has been argued that he could not have entered the temple in Jerusalem (Deuteronomy 23:1) and could never have been fully part of the Jewish community, despite his obvious interest in their religion (as proved by his study of the Hebrew scriptures). Notice, however, that the man is a court official, that he is reading (he can read!) in his chariot (he’s not walking!). He is, perhaps, not so much a person of lowly status deserving of pity as someone of power and rank representing “the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). First the gospel has spread to the Samaritans, now it is reaching even further out into the world. Ancient historian Eusebius tells us that the Ethiopian returned home and further spread the gospel into Africa. Soon (in chapter 9), the gospel will reach the heart of the greatest enemy of the church, Saul.
Inspired by the Holy Spirit, Philip has no trouble interpreting the Hebrew scriptures to the man from Ethiopia and explaining the good news of Jesus Christ to him. Coming to belief, the man asks to be baptized (water is miraculously found in the desert wilderness for this) and Philip is then teleported to Azotus (beam me up!), where he continues his preaching uninterrupted. Amazingly, neither the Ethiopian nor Philip seem alarmed, confused, or upset by this sudden departure.
Have you ever been asked a spiritual or Biblical question by a non-believer? Were you able to give a good answer, or did you feel stumped? What would you have to do to feel prepared for the next time someone asks you about what you believe?
Day 14
Readings and Thoughts for Saturday, February 16, 2008
Acts 8:1b-3 Saul Persecutes the Church
“And the witnesses [to the stoning of Stephen] laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul (Luke 7:58).” “And Saul approved of their killing him (Luke 8:1a).”
We know nothing yet about this young man, Saul. We do not know the source of his hatred for the church. We do not know what kind of righteousness compels him to “drag off both men and women, committing them to prison (Luke 8:3).” And while Saul is first mentioned here, we won’t learn any more about who he is or why he is important until chapter 9.
Did you notice the language of this passage and the language I used in the previous paragraph? “That day a severe persecution began against the church.” This is the first time Luke has ever used this word to describe the followers of Jesus. Until now they have mostly referred to themselves as “the way.” Right at the moment persecution begins in earnest; just as the first follower of Jesus has died in much the same manner as Jesus himself (forgiving his enemies), the community earns its own name.
Saul began as the church’s most feared enemy, but within a few chapters we will learn that he has been specially chosen by God to bring the good news of Jesus Christ to the gentiles (non-Jews).
Have you ever had your opinion of someone completely reversed, for good or bad? Was the adjustment hard to make?
Acts 8:4-25 Philip Preaches in Samaria
The disciples have been scattered “throughout the countryside of Judea and Samaria (Luke 8:1)” after the stoning of Stephen. We should not really be surprised, for Jesus himself said “You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth (Luke 1:8).” The disciples are going just exactly where Jesus had said they would go, but who would have expected that it would be fear and persecution that would further their ministry? This is another occasion in which God’s apparent non-intervention to help or protect the disciples actually works to spread his word further into the world.
As you know from the parable of “the good Samaritan” (Luke 10:25-37) and from the story of Jesus’ encounter with a Samaritan woman at the well (John 4), Jews and Samaritans are not generally on good terms. Actually they are closely related, and this is the source of much of their conflict. Like Jews, Samaritans worship the God of Israel, understand themselves to be descended from Abraham, follow the laws of Moses, and are waiting for a Messiah. But they are not fully part of the covenant community of Israel; they were considered by many Jews to be racially impure and religiously inferior. They are neither fish nor fowl - not quite Jews, not quite gentile, either. For Philip to be spreading the Gospel in Samaria is not only a geographical change, then, but a theological one. For the first time, the message of Jesus is being spread intentionally beyond the community of Jews.
Philip demonstrates the power of the apostles as he preaches, heals, and works wonders. He is so successful that he attracts the attention of Simon, a magician. To us, a magician is an entertainer who practices the art of illusion, but to ancients, a magician was more akin to a physician - someone to whom people might appeal for help or healing. Magicians were thought to have the ability to manipulate spiritual power at will. Simon was both powerful and respected, and he liked it that way. Seeing the miracles that Philip has accomplished and witnessing his great public support, Simon himself becomes convinced that Philip does indeed have amazing power (as well as the charisma to draw people to himself and to his message). Perhaps wanting part of the action for himself, Simon agrees to be baptized. When Peter and John follow Philip to Samaria and lay hands on the newly baptized (to give them the gift of the Holy Spirit), Simon offers them money to have this same power. Peter sharply chastises him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain God’s gift with money! (Acts 8:20)”
Wherever there is power, people seek ways to own and control that power. Simon is not unusual in this respect. But the passage reminds us that God’s activities in the world to save and heal are free gifts, not to be controlled or owned by anyone.
Have you ever bargained with God? What was your side of the bargain? Have you ever been tempted to make a charitable gift in order to win God’s favor or help?
Day 13
Readings and Thoughts for Friday, February 15, 2008
Acts 7:1-51 Stephen’s Speech to the Council
Stephen defends himself against the council. Or does he? It seems to me his speech could be used as a model of “How to get yourself killed by an angry mob.”
Stephen’s speech is the longest one in Acts (among several that are of significant length). The main thing to notice is the way Stephen (together with the church) claims to be the true descendent of Moses and follower of God. He points out that just as the followers of Jesus are rejected by most Jews, in the past other prophets, even Moses, were not understood or respected in their own time even though they spoke God’s truth. He also makes an argument that the Jerusalem temple, built by Solomon (and destroyed in 70 a.d. – before Luke got around to writing the gospel or Acts) was never God’s true home. “The Most High does not dwell in houses made with human hands (Luke 7:48).” In other words, loyalty to the temple and to the temple’s officials does not, and never did, constitute loyalty to the living God.
It’s tempting to say that Stephen urges the Jews in his audience to accept Jesus as Messiah and savior, but he really doesn’t. He chastises them severely and accuses them: “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears” (Luke 7:51); “You have become his betrayers and murderers” (Luke 7:52). This is another place in Acts where we see the very painful rift between Jews who become followers of Jesus and those who do not. (And where we must not adopt the anti-Jewish language as our own.) As the church today we need to remember that now we are the religious authorities; we are the establishment; we are the ones whose traditions might be threatened by a new movement of the Spirit.
What changes have you seen in the church during your lifetime? Which ones have you welcomed? Which ones have you struggled with?
Acts 7:54 – 8:1a The Stoning of Stephen
Stephen’s death is no organized matter settled legally in court. In fact, the council did not actually have the power of execution under Roman rule (as we recall from the story of Jesus’ arrest and subsequent Roman trial). There is no calm, rational Rabbi Gamaliel here, either. There is no voice of restraint or reason. This is pure mob violence – an angry crowd lashing out at a charismatic young man who has enraged them with his confident and confrontational proclamation.
I have always had this story in my mind in a certain way, that Stephen looked up while he was being stoned, and it was then, just as he was dying that he saw the heavens opened and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. I thought the vision was a sort of reassurance to him that he was not dying in vain. But this isn’t quite accurate. It is as he finishes his “defense” and before the crowd has turned violent that Stephen has his vision of Jesus reigning with God. The vision does not so much comfort him (he does not seem to require any comfort) as compel him to make the ultimate claim that with his own eyes he can see Jesus is resurrected and reigning in heaven with God. To the Jews who do not follow Jesus, this is the ultimate blasphemy. To Luke, this is the ultimate choice. When Stephen speaks of this vision to the crowd, these words completely enflame them; they drag him from the city (you cannot execute someone in God’s holy city) and stone him to death.
Like Stephen, have you ever defended your faith or made other comments that weren’t strictly in your best interest? Have you ever had a vision or other reassurance from God at a critical moment?
Acts 7:1-51 Stephen’s Speech to the Council
Stephen defends himself against the council. Or does he? It seems to me his speech could be used as a model of “How to get yourself killed by an angry mob.”
Stephen’s speech is the longest one in Acts (among several that are of significant length). The main thing to notice is the way Stephen (together with the church) claims to be the true descendent of Moses and follower of God. He points out that just as the followers of Jesus are rejected by most Jews, in the past other prophets, even Moses, were not understood or respected in their own time even though they spoke God’s truth. He also makes an argument that the Jerusalem temple, built by Solomon (and destroyed in 70 a.d. – before Luke got around to writing the gospel or Acts) was never God’s true home. “The Most High does not dwell in houses made with human hands (Luke 7:48).” In other words, loyalty to the temple and to the temple’s officials does not, and never did, constitute loyalty to the living God.
It’s tempting to say that Stephen urges the Jews in his audience to accept Jesus as Messiah and savior, but he really doesn’t. He chastises them severely and accuses them: “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears” (Luke 7:51); “You have become his betrayers and murderers” (Luke 7:52). This is another place in Acts where we see the very painful rift between Jews who become followers of Jesus and those who do not. (And where we must not adopt the anti-Jewish language as our own.) As the church today we need to remember that now we are the religious authorities; we are the establishment; we are the ones whose traditions might be threatened by a new movement of the Spirit.
What changes have you seen in the church during your lifetime? Which ones have you welcomed? Which ones have you struggled with?
Acts 7:54 – 8:1a The Stoning of Stephen
Stephen’s death is no organized matter settled legally in court. In fact, the council did not actually have the power of execution under Roman rule (as we recall from the story of Jesus’ arrest and subsequent Roman trial). There is no calm, rational Rabbi Gamaliel here, either. There is no voice of restraint or reason. This is pure mob violence – an angry crowd lashing out at a charismatic young man who has enraged them with his confident and confrontational proclamation.
I have always had this story in my mind in a certain way, that Stephen looked up while he was being stoned, and it was then, just as he was dying that he saw the heavens opened and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. I thought the vision was a sort of reassurance to him that he was not dying in vain. But this isn’t quite accurate. It is as he finishes his “defense” and before the crowd has turned violent that Stephen has his vision of Jesus reigning with God. The vision does not so much comfort him (he does not seem to require any comfort) as compel him to make the ultimate claim that with his own eyes he can see Jesus is resurrected and reigning in heaven with God. To the Jews who do not follow Jesus, this is the ultimate blasphemy. To Luke, this is the ultimate choice. When Stephen speaks of this vision to the crowd, these words completely enflame them; they drag him from the city (you cannot execute someone in God’s holy city) and stone him to death.
Like Stephen, have you ever defended your faith or made other comments that weren’t strictly in your best interest? Have you ever had a vision or other reassurance from God at a critical moment?
Day 12
Readings and Thoughts for Thursday, February 14, 2008
Acts 6:1-7 Seven Chosen to Serve
Those annoying Hellenists!
A Hellenist is a Greek speaker. Because of persecution and economic pressures, Jews have settled all across the known world in a process known as “the diaspora.” Just as new immigrants to the United States tend to accept local language and culture in time, the same happened to these diaspora Jews as they spread into the world of the Greek (later Roman) empire. They remained committed to their Jewish faith, but they became Greek speakers and were accustomed to worship and pray in Greek. The Jerusalem church has both "Hellenist" (Greek speaking) and "Hebrew" (Hebrew or Aramaic speaking) members.
While there has been great unity and sharing in the early church, we find a first conflict here: food is given out daily to widows and others who have no means of support. The Hellenists feel that their widows are treated less generously than the Hebrew widows. Out of this conflict and need in the church, a new order of ministry is developed. Later called “deacons,” seven were set aside to care for the mission work of the community and the daily distribution of support to all in need. Five of the seven are themselves Hellenist (they have Greek names), which ensures that those who felt marginalized will now be assured of care.
Over the centuries, many different orders of clergy have developed differently in many different denominations. In The United Methodist Church, an ordained elder typically has a Master of Divinity degree and serves as a local church pastor. For a Baptist or a Presbyterian, however, elders are lay people who form the core leadership of the church. In decades past, United Methodist elders were first ordained deacons as a probationary step along the way toward “full” ordination as an elder. Since 1996, however, deacons have been a separate order of ordained ministry in The United Methodist church, ordained to a ministry of teaching and mission, usually with an area specialization such as music or Christian education.
Contrast all of this to a century or more ago when most Methodist preaching and week-to-week church administration was entirely lay lead – if you were lucky the ordained elder showed up once a quarter to offer you Communion.
My point is that leadership roles and expectations in the church change over time. Even in the earliest church, roles changed as new needs emerged. Jesus did not sit down with the disciples one day by the lakeshore and give detailed definitions of elders, deacons, presbyters, bishops and the like. During his earthly ministry, Jesus never provided for the administration or organization of the church except to select 12 that he especially mentored for future leadership. In other words, there is nothing sacred or holy about the orders of ministry that currently support the ministries of the church – they are roles suited to particular needs, and that is all they are. When the needs of the community change, the ministry roles should also change.
One change we know we can expect over the next few decades is a decrease in clergy in ratio to church members. Like a century ago, laity will again become more active in caring for daily and weekly ministries in the church. As you think of what your pastor does each week (preaching, teaching, counseling, visiting, administrating, planning) – what parts of that role do you think you might be gifted or qualified to handle as times change?
Acts 6:8-15 The Arrest of Stephen
Having asked you to consider yourself in lay-ministry, I now have to follow up with the story of how one of those first laity called to serve in the church came to be arrested for his ministry (how encouraging for all of you!)
Right off, we see that those who are called to ministry in the church are empowered by God to accomplish that ministry. No mere server of tables, Stephen teaches and works miracles in the name of Jesus. He is enough in the forefront to become the center of a controversy in which he is (falsely) accused of blasphemy and of speaking against the teachings of Moses. Like Peter and the other apostles, he is arrested. Unlike their first couple of persecuting encounters, however, God does not intervene to save Stephen. Yet clearly God empowered him and approved of him, for “they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke” (Luke 6:10) and “his face was like the face of an angel (Luke 6:15).”
When have you found yourself in a role (religious or otherwise) that was new to you, or a role that you thought you perhaps could not handle? What happened? Have you ever experienced God empowering you to say or do something you otherwise wouldn’t have been able or willing to say or do?
Acts 6:1-7 Seven Chosen to Serve
Those annoying Hellenists!
A Hellenist is a Greek speaker. Because of persecution and economic pressures, Jews have settled all across the known world in a process known as “the diaspora.” Just as new immigrants to the United States tend to accept local language and culture in time, the same happened to these diaspora Jews as they spread into the world of the Greek (later Roman) empire. They remained committed to their Jewish faith, but they became Greek speakers and were accustomed to worship and pray in Greek. The Jerusalem church has both "Hellenist" (Greek speaking) and "Hebrew" (Hebrew or Aramaic speaking) members.
While there has been great unity and sharing in the early church, we find a first conflict here: food is given out daily to widows and others who have no means of support. The Hellenists feel that their widows are treated less generously than the Hebrew widows. Out of this conflict and need in the church, a new order of ministry is developed. Later called “deacons,” seven were set aside to care for the mission work of the community and the daily distribution of support to all in need. Five of the seven are themselves Hellenist (they have Greek names), which ensures that those who felt marginalized will now be assured of care.
Over the centuries, many different orders of clergy have developed differently in many different denominations. In The United Methodist Church, an ordained elder typically has a Master of Divinity degree and serves as a local church pastor. For a Baptist or a Presbyterian, however, elders are lay people who form the core leadership of the church. In decades past, United Methodist elders were first ordained deacons as a probationary step along the way toward “full” ordination as an elder. Since 1996, however, deacons have been a separate order of ordained ministry in The United Methodist church, ordained to a ministry of teaching and mission, usually with an area specialization such as music or Christian education.
Contrast all of this to a century or more ago when most Methodist preaching and week-to-week church administration was entirely lay lead – if you were lucky the ordained elder showed up once a quarter to offer you Communion.
My point is that leadership roles and expectations in the church change over time. Even in the earliest church, roles changed as new needs emerged. Jesus did not sit down with the disciples one day by the lakeshore and give detailed definitions of elders, deacons, presbyters, bishops and the like. During his earthly ministry, Jesus never provided for the administration or organization of the church except to select 12 that he especially mentored for future leadership. In other words, there is nothing sacred or holy about the orders of ministry that currently support the ministries of the church – they are roles suited to particular needs, and that is all they are. When the needs of the community change, the ministry roles should also change.
One change we know we can expect over the next few decades is a decrease in clergy in ratio to church members. Like a century ago, laity will again become more active in caring for daily and weekly ministries in the church. As you think of what your pastor does each week (preaching, teaching, counseling, visiting, administrating, planning) – what parts of that role do you think you might be gifted or qualified to handle as times change?
Acts 6:8-15 The Arrest of Stephen
Having asked you to consider yourself in lay-ministry, I now have to follow up with the story of how one of those first laity called to serve in the church came to be arrested for his ministry (how encouraging for all of you!)
Right off, we see that those who are called to ministry in the church are empowered by God to accomplish that ministry. No mere server of tables, Stephen teaches and works miracles in the name of Jesus. He is enough in the forefront to become the center of a controversy in which he is (falsely) accused of blasphemy and of speaking against the teachings of Moses. Like Peter and the other apostles, he is arrested. Unlike their first couple of persecuting encounters, however, God does not intervene to save Stephen. Yet clearly God empowered him and approved of him, for “they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke” (Luke 6:10) and “his face was like the face of an angel (Luke 6:15).”
When have you found yourself in a role (religious or otherwise) that was new to you, or a role that you thought you perhaps could not handle? What happened? Have you ever experienced God empowering you to say or do something you otherwise wouldn’t have been able or willing to say or do?
Day 11
Readings and Thoughts for Wednesday, February 13, 2008 (or so...)
Acts 5:12-16 The Apostles Heal Many
From time to time, Luke makes a summary statement that brings the story together. These verses comprise such a statement. (He has also done this in 2:42-47 and again in 4:32-35.) In each summary Luke tells us of the strength and unity of the community of believers. In his commentary on Acts, William Willimon notes that the early church community itself is the biggest argument for the truth of the resurrection story. We know that the story of Jesus is real because we see such obvious evidence of power and of people’s radically different lives as a result of this story. People are praying with power! They are sharing all of their property and money! They are building relationships across great social divides! There is a great deal of positive evidence that the Christian life is truly empowered by God, for how else could these remarkable things be happening? If we find, in our day, that people are not believing in Christian faith, we need to look carefully at how we live as Christians and examine whether our individual and shared lives paint a picture that conveys the power of God at work in us. Willimon challenges, “Why don’t you people look more resurrected?”
How is your household a witness for the gospel? Is there anything about you that stands out among neighbors, co-workers or friends that suggests the power of God is alive in your life?
Remember the woman that wanted to touch the hem of Jesus’ cloak so that she could be healed of her flow of blood? Now folks want to be placed where Peter’s shadow will fall on them when he walks by. “And they were all cured (Luke 5:16).” Luke’s account in Acts and Paul’s letters will give us quite different pictures of what it means to be an apostle. Paul speaks out against “super-apostles” who seem to have magical gifts (2 Corinthians 12:11) and he claims “power is made perfect in weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9) and “for whenever I am weak, then I am strong (2 Corinthians 12:10).” Luke paints a more heroic picture of Peter and other leaders of the church, including Paul himself. In our days of corrupt televangelists, I tend to be a little more skeptical, more with Paul in his view of the situation. I am suspicious of anyone who appears too good, too slick, or too powerful. Luke does not have these kinds of worries. Luke wants to be clear that the good news of Jesus Christ is just that – truly good news that changes the wretched conditions in which people live.
Who represents a “powerful” follower of Jesus in your own experience? Is it someone you know personally, or someone you’ve read about or seen in the media?
Acts 5:17-42 The Apostles Are Persecuted
Surely you’ve seen one of those silly cartoons where a character goes in one doorway and then pops out again in some completely unexpected location, foiling the person giving chase. This passage gives us a picture much like that. The apostles are put in prison, but before the lock has finished turning tightly against them, an angel shows up and teleports them back to the temple (well, we don’t know that – but they do get out of prison without any doors or windows being broken and without the guards having any idea how any of it happened or even that they had escaped.) The temple police go to collect the apostles for questioning before the council, and they are nowhere to be found. Wait! Someone else shows up announcing that the apostles are preaching again at the temple. How could this be? The religious authorities must feel foolish and certainly embarrassed by these events. Have they no control over anything anymore? Are prisons and police useless now?
Ordered not to preach the name of Jesus anymore, Peter and the apostles argue that they must obey God and not any human authority. In saying this, they have the audacity to suggest that the religious leaders who represent the temple are not in league with God, but instead are working against God’s purposes in Jesus Christ. The crowed is enraged at this, but the scene has not yet become completely out of control (we’ll wait until chapter 7 for that). The voice of reason is Rabbi Gamaliel, one of the most famous, respected and important teachers of his time. He tells of other uprisings in the past and how they came to nothing. He suggests that the Jesus movement, too, will come to nothing if it is only running on human power. “But if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them – in that case you may even be found fighting against God! (Luke 5:39)”
Like Jesus before his crucifixion, the apostles are flogged. It was not unusual for 39 lashes with a whip to kill a man, but even after such severe treatment they return rejoicing. They feel honored to share in the same sufferings as Jesus experienced, and of course they do not stop their teaching, both publicly and privately.
Are there causes for justice, political movements or other events in history that you think were empowered by God and not just by human will? Which events were they? What evidence would you give to support your thinking?
Acts 5:12-16 The Apostles Heal Many
From time to time, Luke makes a summary statement that brings the story together. These verses comprise such a statement. (He has also done this in 2:42-47 and again in 4:32-35.) In each summary Luke tells us of the strength and unity of the community of believers. In his commentary on Acts, William Willimon notes that the early church community itself is the biggest argument for the truth of the resurrection story. We know that the story of Jesus is real because we see such obvious evidence of power and of people’s radically different lives as a result of this story. People are praying with power! They are sharing all of their property and money! They are building relationships across great social divides! There is a great deal of positive evidence that the Christian life is truly empowered by God, for how else could these remarkable things be happening? If we find, in our day, that people are not believing in Christian faith, we need to look carefully at how we live as Christians and examine whether our individual and shared lives paint a picture that conveys the power of God at work in us. Willimon challenges, “Why don’t you people look more resurrected?”
How is your household a witness for the gospel? Is there anything about you that stands out among neighbors, co-workers or friends that suggests the power of God is alive in your life?
Remember the woman that wanted to touch the hem of Jesus’ cloak so that she could be healed of her flow of blood? Now folks want to be placed where Peter’s shadow will fall on them when he walks by. “And they were all cured (Luke 5:16).” Luke’s account in Acts and Paul’s letters will give us quite different pictures of what it means to be an apostle. Paul speaks out against “super-apostles” who seem to have magical gifts (2 Corinthians 12:11) and he claims “power is made perfect in weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9) and “for whenever I am weak, then I am strong (2 Corinthians 12:10).” Luke paints a more heroic picture of Peter and other leaders of the church, including Paul himself. In our days of corrupt televangelists, I tend to be a little more skeptical, more with Paul in his view of the situation. I am suspicious of anyone who appears too good, too slick, or too powerful. Luke does not have these kinds of worries. Luke wants to be clear that the good news of Jesus Christ is just that – truly good news that changes the wretched conditions in which people live.
Who represents a “powerful” follower of Jesus in your own experience? Is it someone you know personally, or someone you’ve read about or seen in the media?
Acts 5:17-42 The Apostles Are Persecuted
Surely you’ve seen one of those silly cartoons where a character goes in one doorway and then pops out again in some completely unexpected location, foiling the person giving chase. This passage gives us a picture much like that. The apostles are put in prison, but before the lock has finished turning tightly against them, an angel shows up and teleports them back to the temple (well, we don’t know that – but they do get out of prison without any doors or windows being broken and without the guards having any idea how any of it happened or even that they had escaped.) The temple police go to collect the apostles for questioning before the council, and they are nowhere to be found. Wait! Someone else shows up announcing that the apostles are preaching again at the temple. How could this be? The religious authorities must feel foolish and certainly embarrassed by these events. Have they no control over anything anymore? Are prisons and police useless now?
Ordered not to preach the name of Jesus anymore, Peter and the apostles argue that they must obey God and not any human authority. In saying this, they have the audacity to suggest that the religious leaders who represent the temple are not in league with God, but instead are working against God’s purposes in Jesus Christ. The crowed is enraged at this, but the scene has not yet become completely out of control (we’ll wait until chapter 7 for that). The voice of reason is Rabbi Gamaliel, one of the most famous, respected and important teachers of his time. He tells of other uprisings in the past and how they came to nothing. He suggests that the Jesus movement, too, will come to nothing if it is only running on human power. “But if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them – in that case you may even be found fighting against God! (Luke 5:39)”
Like Jesus before his crucifixion, the apostles are flogged. It was not unusual for 39 lashes with a whip to kill a man, but even after such severe treatment they return rejoicing. They feel honored to share in the same sufferings as Jesus experienced, and of course they do not stop their teaching, both publicly and privately.
Are there causes for justice, political movements or other events in history that you think were empowered by God and not just by human will? Which events were they? What evidence would you give to support your thinking?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
