Help! Fighting at the foodbank! (2)

In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Hellenistic Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.” This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them. Acts 6:1-7

Last time we looked at the sorry episode of the disagreement over the “foodbank” in the Jerusalem church in those early days after Pentecost. I asked the question: How could such a petty squabble arise among people who had only just come to know Jesus as the risen Lord and who had experienced the power of the Holy Spirit?

The answer is: Because even the best Christian people aren’t yet quite perfect! – as long as we are on this earth the devil is still at work in us, and it shouldn’t surprise us when we fall foul of him.

But I had another question – I hope, a more positive one: How did the first believers in Jesus resolve the problem? There is much that we can learn, both those who are in church leadership and those who aren’t. I’ll pick out four things…

First, the apostles tackled the problem head-on.

Verse 1 describes the difficulty; and then immediately in verse 2 we find the apostles saying to the church, in effect, “Right, let’s get this sorted out!” They acted decisively.

It’s a simple point, but a vital one: problems should not be allowed to fester; they will only get worse. A disagreement in the life of the church is like a virus in the body. There must be no turning of a blind eye; no vaguely willing the problem away; it will only rear its ugly head again.

Second, they recognised the need for delegation.

What action did the apostles call for? Answer: the appointment of a group of seven people (all of them men, given the religious and social background of the day; today they would certainly include women) who would be given the job of putting things right. “Running the foodbank isn’t our job!” they said.

Some church leaders get the idea into their heads that they must be at the heart of every issue in the church’s life: the chair of every committee, a finger in every conceivable pie. And so they wear themselves out rushing from meeting to meeting and, more important, they neglect the central importance of what they are really called to focus on: “prayer and the ministry of the word”.

Practical and administrative tasks are important – of course! Thank God for those in our churches who are gifted in carrying them out. But it is by God’s word that the church thrives and grows, and nothing should be allowed to supplant that vital ministry.

Third, they didn’t compromise on spiritual quality.

The apostles told the church members to ensure that the men they chose were “full of the Spirit and of wisdom”. The one who seems to have been  their leader, Stephen, is described as “full of faith and of the Holy Spirit” and “a man full of God’s grace and power” (6:8), and the next chapter of Acts will leave us in no doubt regarding his spiritual stature.

Stephen and his colleagues demonstrate that everyone who is active in serving the church – even in “only” a practical capacity – should have real spiritual depth, and should command respect. There should be no talk of “Oh, so-and-so can do that; they’re good with the figures or the hands-on jobs”.

Fourth, the apostles showed pastoral sensitivity.

One detail of the story is easy to overlook: the apostles gathered the church members as a whole and gave them the task of choosing “the seven”. No doubt they could have done the choosing themselves; after all, if anyone had their finger on the pulse of what was going on, it was them. But they recognised the wisdom of involving the whole membership in such an important decision.

This raises questions of “church government”. Should the appointed leaders make all the key decisions? Or should the church as a whole be involved, and have a voice?

It’s interesting that each of “the seven” has a Greek rather than a Hebrew name. This suggests that the people grasped where the problem lay, and made their choice accordingly – choosing Greek-speakers was a good way of assuring that part of the community that they were fully equal to the Aramaic speakers. Luke tells us that “they”, the people as a whole, “presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them”. In other words, the leaders rubber-stamped the decision of the people, not vice-versa.

In a nutshell: leaders are called to lead, yes; but it is not their calling to domineer, or to render the members of the church voiceless and passive.

Reading this story makes me think, “My, these apostles have matured a bit since they were with Jesus in his earthly life!” Then they quarrelled and squabbled, they often misunderstood him completely, and in the end they abandoned him in Gethsemane: a pretty sorry bunch.

But here – well, one has to admire and respect them.

So one can only say: Thanks be to God for wise, humble, loving, firm leadership in his church! And thanks be to God for every committed and active member, however humble their service may be. Including me…

Loving Father, thank you for the church, the body of Christ on earth. If I have leadership responsibility, help me to carry it out conscientiously. If I don’t, help me to make my contribution as called by you and led by your Spirit. Amen.