The First Fight

       Do you know the difference between a businessman and a businesswoman?   Some of you do.  You’ve heard this.  But for the uninitiated, or the unannoyed, let me tell you the difference.

A businessman is dynamic; a businesswoman is aggressive.

A businessman is good on details; she is picky.

He loses his temper; she is crabby.

He’s a go getter; she is pushy.

He follows through; she doesn’t know when to quit.

He stands firm; she’s hard as nails.

He has the courage of his convictions; she is stubborn.

He’s human; she’s emotional.

He exercises authority diligently; she’s power mad.

Sound familiar?  Anyone?

        Those are statements of prejudice.  But prejudice isn’t only found in the office.  It is found in churches.  Ephesians 2:14 says that Jesus breaks down the dividing walls between people.  But sometimes we insist in building them back up.  In fact, prejudice was the root of the very first church fight in history.

        Acts 2 tells us that three thousand people were baptized into the church on the day of Pentecost.  All of these new believers were Jews.  No room for conflict there, right?  Wrong?  They are all Jews but they are different kinds of Jews.

       On the one hand, we have the Palestinian Jews.  These folks are descendants of people who returned from exile in Babylon to rebuild the shattered city.  They tend to be very nationalistic and very vigilant in observing the laws and traditions of their people.  They mostly speak Hebrew or a related language called Aramaic.

       But not all of the Jews came home from the exile.  And not all who came home stayed home.  A good number left poor Israel to seek their fortune in the larger world -- all around the Mediterranean .  As we will see as we continue in the book of Acts, there are large communities of them in many cities in the Roman Empire . There were thousands in Rome itself.  These “Jews of the dispersion” adopt Greek culture and Greek language.  So they are called “Hellenists” or “Greekized Jews.”

       These Hellenists see themselves as citizens of the world.  But they are still Jews.  They have a longing for the Holy City that is expressed in the old Passover cry: “Next year in Jerusalem .
       Finally, one year, they make the trip.  They arrive in Jerusalem for the Passover and plan to stay on through the feast of Pentecost.  Sometimes they will stay as permanent residents.  Other times they will move to Jerusalem at the end of life to be buried in the Holy City -- leaving their wives to live on in Jerusalem as widows.  This explains why there are so many Hellenist widows to be cared for in our text. 

       One year, a group of Passover pilgrims is about to return home from Jerusalem .  But something happens.  They hear a group of rough Galilean fishermen talking about a man being raised from the dead.  They hear that this man, Jesus, is the Christ -- the Messiah.  The power of the message is backed by the miracle of its presentation.

       Some of these new believers will eventually leave Jerusalem to carry the good news to their own cities.  Churches like the church in Rome will be founded in this way.  But at first they stay to be part of the growing church in Jerusalem .  And this means that Palestinian Jews and Hellenized Jews are now brought together in a way that would not otherwise be possible.

       You see, a tension has grown up between these two groups over the years.  Many  Palestinian Jews consider the Hellenists to be sorta “fake” Jews -- not as concerned about the land, the culture and the law as they ought to be.  The Hellenists insists on holding onto what they considered their more “liberated” world view.  They tend to look down on their country cousins.

       Unfortunately, these prejudices persist even after they become followers of the Lord.

       In the synagogue there was a routine custom.  Two collectors went round the market and the private houses every Friday morning and made a collection for the needy.  Later in the day this was distributed.  Those who were temporarily in need received enough to enable them to carry on; and those who were permanently unable to support themselves received enough for fourteen meals, that is, enough for two meals a day for the ensuing week.  The fund for this distribution was called the basket.  In addition to this a house-to-house collection was made daily for those with pressing need.  This was called the tray.

       Well the Hellenists in the young church begin to complain that their widows aren’t getting their proper share of th tray and the basket.  That’s the presenting issue.  But the presenting issue is often not the real issue. The food problem is only the expression of a bigger problem -- the problem being that even after conversion, the Palestinians and the Hellenists don’t yet trust each other.

       There is a tendency in human nature, even after conversion, to split our fellowship into factions with different emphases.  What the Lord has brought together we put asunder. 

       Think of examples of that today -- local programs versus world missions; caring for our own needs within the congregation versus caring for those in the community; the local congregation versus the denomination.  Or consider the rifts between pietists and social activists, evangelicals and traditionalists; hymn book singers and praise book singers; arm lockers and arm raisers, Protestants and Catholics; Charismatics and people who believe that the gifts were for apostolic times; intellectuals and relationists.

       It happened in the first century and it happens today.  Fill in your own blank.

       But there is much more to learn from Acts 6 than just the fact that the first century church had troubles too. In this passage we can also see and learn a powerful, vulnerable strategy for dealing with conflict in the church.  I think it’s amazing.

       Here’s what our first century brothers and sisters do.  They put the complainers in charge.  They choose people to handle the distribution, and every last one of the people they choose is one of the Hellenists -- Stephen, Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas…Greek names every one.  One of them, Nicolas, it isn’t even a Jew by Blood.  He is a Proselyte…a gentile convert to Judaism from Antioch in Syria .

       The Apostles tell the people: “Select from among you seven men whom we put in charge of this task.”  And the people of the church, in an amazing act of reconciliation, chose all Hellenists for the job.

       I love that.  It goes so opposite to our worldly “keep-em-in-their-place” and “show-em-who’s boss” attitude.  It demonstrates a willingness to trust and forgive that is vital to the life of any healthy church.  And I believe that just as the early church shared our problems; it can also be a model of how to deal with those problems in the spirit of God.

        The Palestine Jews are in the majority.  They could have won a floor fight and elected their own people.  Or they might have said, “There should be a few Greeks on this board to represent the Greek point of view.  But we are the majority.  At least four of the seven, maybe five of the seven, should speak Aramaic.”

       Or they could have at said  “half and half.”  But they don’t.”   They show trust.

       It would be good to compare what the apostles did with what might have been done – and what has been done in the church since. 

       Some branches of today’s church would throw the complainers out.  If there had been anything like a division before due to the two languages being used in the church, a division that had not yet become serious, it would certainly have become serious at this point.  The church would have been divided formally, and there would have been a First Apostolic Church of Jerusalem on one corner of the city and across the street on the other corner there would have been a Second Apostolic Church of Jerusalem.

        Another solution that is sometimes followed in churches is to shun the difficult people.  They are not thrown out.  That is “un-Christian.”  They are just not talked to; they are ignored.  “Let them sit by themselves for a while and see how they like it.  That will teach them not to make trouble,” is a common attitude.

        One of the things we Presbyterians especially do is to outvote the dissenters.  We call a meeting.  We ask people to speak.  We make a motion, being careful to follow Robert’s Rules of Order.  Then when we have our motion and our second, we vote to cut off debate, vote, and the majority prevails.  Everything has been accomplished democratically.  Who can complain?  Unfortunately ruptures still occur.  I have heard people say, “The Holy Spirit speaks through the fifty-one percent vote.”  But that is usually not the case, to judge by the outcomes.

         Sometimes people separate themselves from the problem. “Those people are always causing trouble,” the purists say.  “We’ll just leave them to themselves.  We’ll start our own church.”  That works well until somebody dissents in the “pure” church.  Then you have to start another church, and then another one.  The pure church always gets smaller and smaller until eventually it is gone.  That can hardly impress us as the ideal solution.

       The apostles might have formed a committee.  That would be a fifth approach.  Committees do not have to do anything positive.  All they have to do is discuss the problem, knowing that if you can delay long enough, the problem may go away or be superseded by a still larger problem that will get all the attention.  The committee may not have to do anything.

       The point is that these early believers don’t do any of those things.  They choose and they choose well.

        But not just any Hellenists are chosen.  The Apostles stress that the ones chosen should have certain qualifications.

       First of all, they should be “of good reputation”.

       The apostles specify that the one’s chosen should be people of integrity -- people who can be trusted to tell the truth whether it’s in a court of law or in a division of food in the church.

       This is important for us today.  The people chosen as leaders in the church should be people who can be trusted -- not only by the people of the church but by the rest of the community.   A persons’ reputation as a business person, a parent, a husband or a wife is properly our concern as we chose our leaders.  People inside the church should be able to look at their leaders with an attitude of trust.  And those outside the church will properly access the health and life of our fellowship by the people we chose to lead us.  The church is not the place for the person who is a failure in relationships at home and at work to find a place in the sun.  Before they are chosen to lead, they should already have a good reputation.

      People certainly shouldn’t be chosen in the basis of appearance.   So let me assure you that it only a coincidence that all of our elders and deacons are so good looking.  It wasn’t planned.

      The second important qualification the apostles set down is that those chosen must be “full of the Spirit.”

       Now being full of the Spirit may be expressed in a variety of ways.  I’ll expand on this in two weeks when we’ll talk a bit about spiritual gifts.  But what it means for now is that the leaders we choose must be more than smart people or good managers.  They must live and demonstrate a spiritual awareness.

      Dr. David Allen Hubbard, the past and late president of Fuller Seminary, said in a class, “Never turn your back on a leader whose power isn’t laid at the foot of the cross.”

       That is good advice because what he was saying, I think, was “Make sure that they are empowered by the Holy Spirit, not by their own power needs.” 

       None of us are smart enough, wise enough, and strong enough to lead the church without the guidance and power of the Holy Spirit.

       Good reputation, filled with the Spirit.  These qualities should be the basis of leadership in the church today for clergy and laity, elders and deacons.  So often our temptation is to bypass these criteria and select people with natural abilities or training in an area.  Important as these are, without the maximizing power of the Spirit, they can stand in the way of spiritual leadership of the church.  It is perilous to lead a church on human training and conditioning alone.

       Lloyd Ogilvie, former pastor of Hollywood Presbyterian Church writes: “I think of a trustee of a church I served some years ago.  He was a financial wizard who had a distinguished career in the business world.  However, he had drifted into church membership without committing his will to Christ.  He seldom prayed and he depended on his own strength to get on top and stay there in the competitive commercial world.

       “It had been thought by the membership that he would bring dignity, acumen, and a big pledge, if he were elected a trustee.  He was elected and he was named head of an important finance committee.  I inherited him when I arrived as the new pastor.  He was ill-equipped spiritually to make the crucial decisions about the distribution of funds.  His cultural background, political prejudices, attitude towards the poor, and lack of vision for the future of the church’s mission were an immoveable roadblock to progress in the church.

       “I am thankful that this is not the end of the story.  The Bible study and prayer time before the monthly meeting, objected to at first, became the spirit’s tool in reaching the man.  Before long, he came to me.  He confessed that he did not know the same Christ I was talking about in our meetings.  But his interest was piqued.  That conversation led to many others and one day, he committed his immense intellectual and personal abilities to Christ.  He invited the Lord to live in him and began a consistent program of daily Bible reading and prayer.  The difference was apparent to him and to everyone else.

       “It was exciting to observe that as he began to share his faith with others, his concern for the evangelism and mission program of the church was transformed.  He became the advocate of tithing and mission giving.  One comment he made lingered in my mind through the years.  “What unsettles me are those years when I decided things on my own before I knew the Lord.”  But his natural talents and training were not set aside.  Instead they were maximized by the indwelling Lord for His plans and purposes for the church.”

       Ogilvie concludes: “The qualifications for leadership in the church of Jesus Christ have not changed since the first century.  We can do church work without them --but not the real work of the church.”

       The third and final qualification for leadership set down by the Apostles is wisdom.

       This is an interesting word.  It is the place where theory and practice become one.

       It is one thing to have the reputation of being trustworthy.  It is a second thing to be in tune with God’s purpose so that you desire to be fair.  It is the third thing to be able to do the job; to actually make the rubber hit the road – in this case to divide food accurately.

       Wisdom, as it is used here, is the ability to blend the guiding of the Holy Spirit with skill and experience to be effective in practical situations.  Church leaders must be spiritual.  But this does not mean that they should be so “heavenly minded that they’re no earthly good.”  The ones chosen to lead should not only desire to do the job.  They must be able to do the job -- whether it be dividing food, building programs or building buildings.

        “Good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit, wisdom.”  The Apostles laid down the requirements.  But the church, the community of God’s Spirit, made the decision.

        My prayer is that we, in our decision making, will show as much wisdom, as much trust and as much love.