"For my thoughts are
not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares Yahweh
(Adonai/Jehovah) Isaiah 55:8. "Do not consider his appearance or his
height . . . . The Lord does not look at the thing human beings look at.
Human beings look at the outward appearance, but Yahweh
(Jehovah/Adonai looks at the heart." 1 Samuel 16:7.
In this time of annual
conferences for United Methodists and the annual summer and fall
meetings of many other national bodies of our religious communions, I am
awed by the vast amount of time and energy spent deciding who is to do
what ministry, what their title is to be, and what the expectations are
for each person assigned to minister under each rubric. What is even
more exasperating is that increasingly, it seems that even though the
world is moving toward more democratic "participationalism" as a mode of
human interaction, church members expect pastors to do all the praying,
evangelists to do all the witnessing, deacons to do all the serving,
and Apostles to do all the overseeing. The term pastor itself is
grossly misunderstood, and does not mean "The man or woman who has all
the spiritual gifts and can do all that God requires the church to do
single-handedly." Pastor is only one kind of minister that is supposed
to be engaged in equipping all of the disciples of Christ to engage in
ministries of witness and service to the world.
This week's Bible lessons included Chapters 6-8 of the Acts of the Apostles. In Chapter 6 Luke tells us that a dispute broke out in the church (wow-what a surprise there) because the Grecian Jews believed that they were being discriminated against in the daily distribution of supplies in favor of the Hebraic Jews. The twelve apostles as leaders brought everyone together to decide on a solution (this may have been the first all-church conference). They stated that it would not be appropriate to them to cease from "the ministry of the Word of God in order to wait on tables (Acts 6:2)." They therefore directed the entire body to choose seven men "from among themselves who were full of the Spirit and wisdom." The apostles then turned this task over to the seven so that they could give their full attention to prayer and the ministry of the Word.
It is significant that the next three chapters tell the story of the first two of the seven chosen, Stephen and Philip. Ironically, it is Stephen who is the first to give his life for the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In an eloquent sermon that spans three chapters, Stephen proclaimed Jesus Christ as the only Lord and Savior for the church and the hope of Israel, demonstrating from the Books of Moses (whom he was accused of defaming) that this man and the peoples resistance to and rejection of him was consistent with the reception that their ancestors had given all of the prophets and special messengers of God. For that they stoned him, under the approval of a high ranking Pharisee and officer of the Sanhedrian, a.k.a. Saul of Tarsus (who later God would call to be the Apostle to the Gentiles--the reason most of us non-Jews embrace Jesus as the messiah of Yahweh/Jehovah God today.
In the eighth chapter we then read that the first African convert and perhaps first individual convert made by anyone in the church was an Ethiopian official, a eunuch (yes-a man not capable or desirous of having sex with a woman) and an ambassador of the Candace-the "c" in this instance has a "k" sound (translated Queen) of Ethiopia. Philip gives effective witness to Jesus as the Christ and the Ethiopian is baptized into our faith.
The irony here is that the church conference had voted that Stephen and Philip were to "wait tables." They were to serve as deacons of the church, but instead they went out and did the work of evangelists--and in Philips case, perhaps Apostles--since legend suggests this was the beginning of the historic Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Are we to conclude that the church conference was mistaken, that decisions made by church committees are often meaningless in the fact of God's serendipitous, humorous, unpredictable will?
What was wrong with these guys anyway? Didn't they remember that they had been chosen to be deacons, not elders and certainly not evangelists and apostles? Didn't they have any respect for the decision of the majority, for the decisiveness of the judicatory decision? Didn't they know that other church members had decided the way and manner in which God would use them? How dare they go out and witness and prophecy and even "fly away" as Philip did or "have the face of an angel before his death" as Stephen did? How could they be so beatified having been relegated to table service by their contemporaries?
I think it would be fair to say that at least, God is not bound by the decisions of committees, conferences, conventions, presbyteries, synods, diocese, etc. Neither does God seem to put much truck in titles. The truth is that every great church, every great mosque, every great temple, every great synagogue, every effective ashram, every significant pagoda, had and have their origins in people like Stephen and Philip, who let the Spirit have them fully and completely and let God's fingers, rather than the churches tedious imaginings, do the walking. To God be the glory! Great things God has done and will do in and through any of us truly surrendered as vessels, channels of his unconditional love and life.
Peace out,
Don
This week's Bible lessons included Chapters 6-8 of the Acts of the Apostles. In Chapter 6 Luke tells us that a dispute broke out in the church (wow-what a surprise there) because the Grecian Jews believed that they were being discriminated against in the daily distribution of supplies in favor of the Hebraic Jews. The twelve apostles as leaders brought everyone together to decide on a solution (this may have been the first all-church conference). They stated that it would not be appropriate to them to cease from "the ministry of the Word of God in order to wait on tables (Acts 6:2)." They therefore directed the entire body to choose seven men "from among themselves who were full of the Spirit and wisdom." The apostles then turned this task over to the seven so that they could give their full attention to prayer and the ministry of the Word.
It is significant that the next three chapters tell the story of the first two of the seven chosen, Stephen and Philip. Ironically, it is Stephen who is the first to give his life for the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In an eloquent sermon that spans three chapters, Stephen proclaimed Jesus Christ as the only Lord and Savior for the church and the hope of Israel, demonstrating from the Books of Moses (whom he was accused of defaming) that this man and the peoples resistance to and rejection of him was consistent with the reception that their ancestors had given all of the prophets and special messengers of God. For that they stoned him, under the approval of a high ranking Pharisee and officer of the Sanhedrian, a.k.a. Saul of Tarsus (who later God would call to be the Apostle to the Gentiles--the reason most of us non-Jews embrace Jesus as the messiah of Yahweh/Jehovah God today.
In the eighth chapter we then read that the first African convert and perhaps first individual convert made by anyone in the church was an Ethiopian official, a eunuch (yes-a man not capable or desirous of having sex with a woman) and an ambassador of the Candace-the "c" in this instance has a "k" sound (translated Queen) of Ethiopia. Philip gives effective witness to Jesus as the Christ and the Ethiopian is baptized into our faith.
The irony here is that the church conference had voted that Stephen and Philip were to "wait tables." They were to serve as deacons of the church, but instead they went out and did the work of evangelists--and in Philips case, perhaps Apostles--since legend suggests this was the beginning of the historic Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Are we to conclude that the church conference was mistaken, that decisions made by church committees are often meaningless in the fact of God's serendipitous, humorous, unpredictable will?
What was wrong with these guys anyway? Didn't they remember that they had been chosen to be deacons, not elders and certainly not evangelists and apostles? Didn't they have any respect for the decision of the majority, for the decisiveness of the judicatory decision? Didn't they know that other church members had decided the way and manner in which God would use them? How dare they go out and witness and prophecy and even "fly away" as Philip did or "have the face of an angel before his death" as Stephen did? How could they be so beatified having been relegated to table service by their contemporaries?
I think it would be fair to say that at least, God is not bound by the decisions of committees, conferences, conventions, presbyteries, synods, diocese, etc. Neither does God seem to put much truck in titles. The truth is that every great church, every great mosque, every great temple, every great synagogue, every effective ashram, every significant pagoda, had and have their origins in people like Stephen and Philip, who let the Spirit have them fully and completely and let God's fingers, rather than the churches tedious imaginings, do the walking. To God be the glory! Great things God has done and will do in and through any of us truly surrendered as vessels, channels of his unconditional love and life.
Peace out,
Don
