Holy Maintenance

Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." (Acts 10:15 NASB)

 Acts 10 fascinates me for a variety of reasons.  There is the barrier between Jew and Gentile breached, which seems so ironic to me since they didn't have a problem with the Samaritan barrier being breached.  There is the character of Cornelius who is both devout to God in that he prays and gives to the poor, but then when Peter arrives, bows and kisses the feet of a person as if he is a god of some sort; a throwback to his paganism.  The character of Peter that, even after such a dramatic vision of being told to eat unclean animals, still doesn't realize what's going on until he hears Cornelius' story; and even then is still a proud Jew benignly meeting with Gentiles.  There are lots of ironies in this chapter, and clearly the Holy Spirit is the true main character.

Something that is not so easy to spot because of how it is normally translated is the charge to Peter in the vision.  At first he is told to kill and eat from the unclean animals in the linen "vessel" and he refuses.  The next charge is always translated as, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."  In some way or another it is translated this way, and that is the most logical way to do so, as it fits the literary context.  An alternative that does not fit so well in the literary context, but I feel brings out a new depth of meaning is, "What God has sanctified (made holy), do not defile (make unholy)."  The imperative verb at the end of the statement has that option as well, in fact it would normally be used that way.  But in this case that doesn't fit as well, and is most likely not what Luke meant.  I want to explore it because of how that option affects my daily walk before my Master.

In the case of Cornelius, clearly God had sanctified him (or was in the process of it).  In my case, I am one caused to be holy.  People around me may have been made holy.  I have to admit that the process begins with the declaration that I'm holy, and then begins a struggle to keep me that way.  I can only suppose that it works in a similar way with others.  Here's the point of application:  It is an affront to my Master to consider myself unholy, or profane myself.  It is also an affront to my Master to consider someone else He has sanctified to be unholy or profane them.  In other words, I sin when I defile myself (duh, pretty obvious), but I also sin when I treat others as profane, or when I defile them (or cause them to become defiled).

Has anyone reading these entries ever noticed that I have this tendency to unpack a box I'm never going to be able to inventory and re-pack in one entry?  Well, here we go again.  There are way too many ramifications to this than I can address in this entry.  Let me just address these two: 1) I must consider myself holy to my Master, it's not an option.  2) I must seek to preserve the holiness of those around me. 

Sound obvious?  Well the most common ways they play out in my life is in compromise.  I compromise with myself, and permit myself to indulge in (whatever, food, play, TV, etc.) and leave off something my Master has for me to do.  When do this, I have taken myself out of His purpose, and chosen my own.  Not that every time I eat, play, watch TV or whatever I have abandoned the purpose of my Master, but in those times I have chosen that over what He calls me to do, then I defile myself. 

But I also compromise with other people.  In this culture that doesn't sound so bad, but in the context of the culture of my fellow believers, it's desecration of the individual.  One of the things that can often irritate my fellow church attendees is how our pastor is so dogmatic about sin being sin, and how God should be first, even in small things.  That really bothers people, and some have left because of it.  But if he did not do that, he would be desecrating the people to whom he preaches.  It's not a small matter, it's huge.  But I can be found in compromise as well.  His venue is out in front and obvious, mine is not always. 

Whenever I influence someone in my circle of believers to do something I know is contrary to the will of my Master for them, I desecrate them.  When I don't say what I know He wants me to say to another, to encourage them away from something outside His will, I desecrate them.  Whether it is refusal to confront a sin, the encouragement to sin, or even when I do not address something in Bible study that I should, or pull out something I should not; even then I desecrate or run that risk.

So what do I do?  For one thing, I must seek to perceive holiness in myself and others.  I must discipline myself to become aware of it.  There are obvious examples, and not so obvious ones, and I need to become aware of both.  But I also must discipline myself to set apart Jesus as my Master, and Him as the defining example of holiness.  And then I must submit to this holiness.  That will be the hard part.  It requires that I leave sanctification to my Master rather mine to control, and seek only to preserve what He does in me and in others.  Submission to holiness means that I subordinate my own view of others to His.  I cannot make another person holy, but I can help preserve the holiness my Master is creating in them.  This much my Master would have me do.  Submission, never has been one of my favorite things, but here I go again.

The Death of Disappointments

But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name's sake." (Acts 9:15-16 NASB)

The conversion of Saul is very dramatic; arguably the most dramatic in all of Acts.  For some this implies that the book is really about Saul.  For others it seems that it's just like Saul, who comes off as a bit of a drama king in this book.  But the intent and plan of God from the beginning of Saul's conversion seems to include a very rough life for Saul.

Just in chapter 9, his own people try to keep him in Damascus to kill him.  Just past that, in Jerusalem, his own people again plot to kill him.  And to get away from the "drama" he is shipped to Tarsus, where's he's from.  And there he remains, at least for a chapter and a half.  No time frame is given, but it seems unlikely this was his "fourteen years in Arabia" he describes in Galatians 1.  Luke seems to leave that part out of the story entirely.

Saul seems to be surrounded by turmoil, dissent, anger, and violence.  Where he goes, cities are in uproar, riots break out, violence against followers of Jesus ensues, and peace is difficult to find; at least until he leaves.  His "resume" offered to those who would question his apostolic office and authority is filled with his own suffering (2 Corinthians 11).

Does Saul ever wonder why him?  Ironically, in Acts 9, Jesus asks him, "Why Me?"  Does Saul ever ask the question back?  Perhaps when Saul asks for the "thorn" to be removed?  I'm not sure where the question can be seen in Acts or in Saul's letters.  But I'm fairly confident he asked it at some point.  Although to offset the pain of this suffering was his knowledge of the damage he did to the church in Jerusalem and Judea.  In his own mind, there had to be a lot for which to "atone".  This also makes him very aware of grace.

If he is disappointed in God, it nevers reaches paper.  Disappointment for Saul is reserved for his fellow believers.  And yet even that seems to disapate in later letters.  I think for Saul, the lesson he learns through his "dramatic" ministry is to hold lightly the expectation of others.  At some point, as he deals more with his "crew" of fellow ministers rather than churches, his tone toward churches is less about admonishing the church, and more about encouraging the leaders.  Even in his letter to the Philippian church, where he does seek to correct a dispute, he is more encouraging than in other earlier letters.

So what happened in him to affect such a change?  I believe his disappointments finally died.  He reached a point where he could see people in church in much the same way Jesus did.  Jesus was never surprised by people, even those who said they were followers.  Paul reaches a point where he isn't either.  He no longer expects people to "get it".  I'm not there yet.

I still want people to get it, and still struggle when they don't.  On the other hand, I keep discovering so much I don't get.  I'm decent at knowing and finding out, but putting what I learn into practice is not my strong suit.  The discovery is fun, the practice is hard.  I love to find stuff in Scripture, but acting out on the truth I discover means dying to myself, and I don't love that.  Yet until I do, I won't be happy.

When my Master rules in my heart and mind, I won't hold such a primary place.  The expectations I have of others, whether "Scripturally-Based" or not are truly about me more than my Master.  The ensuing disappointments cause pain that is not mine to bear; it belongs to my Master.  It is in the experience of failure to control what I cannot that I feel pain within the family of fellow believers. 

Sure I lament sin I see in me and in others, but it's not mine to "expunge".  Why should I expect them to be free from it when I'm not free of mine?  Why should I expect them to understand and apply what I do not?  I'm forgiven, and forgiven of a whole lot.  Yet that knowledge hasn't yet inspired me to renounce myself and wholy embrace my Master as Master.  When I, in this condition, am disappointed by others around me, I have refocused on me.  And I can't be focused on myself, and my Master at the same time.

When I am focused completely on my Master, I am no longer expecting anything of others except that they wander in confusion, just like I do.  I can't see the ridiculous difference between myself and my Master and yet have a higher expectation of others; not when I'm focused on my Master.  Saul suffered, and Jesus said that Saul would be shown how much Saul must suffer for Jesus' name.  What, am I better than Saul?  More worthy of ease and comfort?  Less likely to need such lessons?  Um...no.

So, it's time for me to quit whining, and start praying.  It's time for me to praise my Master, extoll His virtues and power, glorify Him viewing His awesome works in the heavens, and express His value to me.  What needs to change is the focus of my heart and mind.  What does that as well and as thoroughly as worship?  Nothing I can think of.

Hammering Water

But Saul began ravaging the church, entering house after house, and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison.  Therefore, those who had been scattered went about preaching the word. (Acts 8:3-4 NASB)
 

Stephen's death marked the turn of the city of Jerusalem against the believers there.  The speech of Stephen was immensely powerful  in that it set the religious power-elite actively against the congregation they had barely tolerated until this time.  Their threats became reality, and they "brought the hammer down."  It didn't work exactly like they wanted though.

Saul drags off men and women from their homes, families are devastated (or should be), and the prisons are filling with these followers of Jesus.  Understandably, many in the Jerusalem congregation scatter to the outlying areas.  It's just as they go, they preach the good news.  The message Saul tried to stamp out is now spread all through the region around Jerusalem, into Samaria and is pressing out beyond.  Having brought the hammer down, the religious elite found they had hammered water.  They only made a bigger mess.

I don't know if they expected this reaction, but if they did expect something like this they controlled it poorly.  I don't think they really understood what they were fighting.  Like the old teacher from chapter 5 warned them, they found themselves fighting against God, and it wasn't going well.

Have I fought against my Master thinking I'm doing the "right thing" but completely missing His goals, purposes, and actions?  Maybe, and more probably as He works in my own life.  I don't know that I would characterize my mistakes as "bringing the hammer down", but that's not the only wrong response.  It is probably more accurate to say that I have actively tried to pursue the wrong thing thinking I was doing my Master's will.

There are things that I think should be a top priority with my Master, and, given the opportunity, I pursue those.  My evaluation of those sorts of things typically follows things I like to attack or work on, toward, or whatever.  They are my preferences because they come naturally or easy to me.  I am learning slowly that such criteria are more often wrong than right.

So, I may not be Saul persecuting those following Jesus, but I can be my own silly self pursuing my own agenda.  I'm still wrong, just perhaps not as dramatically.  The solution is submission.

By submitting to my Master daily, hourly, minutely, I can be much better attuned to what He is leading me into.  I can be more like Stephen, heedless of the coming torturous death, instead of Saul, heedless of the God at work around him.  And so, once again, I start with prayer (and a yard sale - I don't recommend the yard sale).

The Real Trial of Stephen

But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; and he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." (Acts 7:55-56 NASB)

Stephen stood before a council of the elders of his people, a crowd made up of those jealous of him, and sprinkled with those paid to lie about him. He is on trial. It looks grim, even from the beginning. The charges are false, yet not far enough from the truth that he going to be acquitted. And the council of elders has hated and been jealous of his fellow believers for months now. This will not end well for Stephen. Except that this is not the real court scene.

The council of leaders imagines themselves to be the judges. The throng of haters imagine themselves to be the jury. The lying witnesses imagine themselves to be the only proof either way. And they are all wrong.

It isn't until after the discourse of Stephen stripping the people and leaders of any pretext of being "godly" sons of Israel or true worshippers of God. Once the leaders and people are whipped to a burning hot fury that the true courtroom scene is revealed to Stephen, and therefore to us. Sealing his fate, he shares it with all the others in the room. Rather than hear reality, they rush him and take his life, ironically in the form of a judicial capital punishment.

Stephen is fully in tune with the Spirit of his Master, and sees the real courtroom. God is the Judge, and Jesus stands at the right hand of the Judge as Defense Attorney. God is Stephen's judge, and the Son of God is his Defense Attorney? This trial hasn't been lost, but won in a complete reversal. Stephen is shown his victory, heaven. He has acted in faith in what he hadn't seen so far, but knew in his heart. At the end, after his obedience, he sees the object of his faith revealed.

The wicked unjustly execute the righteous, and inadvertently, send him to reap his reward. Oops. Wait, no, but Stephen died, horribly crushed and battered by large stones. That's bad, isn't it? No, it just hurt for a little while.

Stephen saw the heaven opened. He saw his destination. These evil deluded ones around him were the pawns of Stephen's Master to bring him home. Stephen was bound to the feet of the One before all will bow and confess as Lord to the glory of God the Father. It was the kangaroo court, the mock trial, the flim-flam crooked job that provided his vehicle. Those who imagined themselves to be in control were in turned controlled by the One truly in control.

Now, the question for me is, can I stand, and, in faith, face the angry crowd unjustly accusing me? Will I speak the words of my Master rather than the words of my own defense? Will I seek His glory above where He stands to defend me beside His Father? Will I speak with the confidence that heaven is real, and waits for me to arrive? Do I truly believe that my destination makes all things I endure and face here mere trivia? Can I stand as Stephen stood, face the crowd he faced, and speak as he spoke?

Yes...and no. Yes, in a way, knowing the end, I can face intense adversity when challenged. But honestly, Stephen demonstrates daily faith in power before he is ever on trial. That's where I struggle and fail the most. In the daily battle to maintain my focus and determination. Where my heart is the determining factor in continuing to do what I find tiresome and pointless, that is where my faith tends to wear thin. The problem is that I have lost the "point" to a lot of what I do during the day.

I work at a job where mental flexibility and gymnastics is critical. That is also my strong point. But it is in between those times where I need that mental acuity where I struggle. In order to get to those times, I have a boatload of small repetitive tasks that have to be accomplished in a flurry of activity. Because I fail so often to connect those in importance with the things I love to do, I flag in my determination to do them. They become tiresome, and boring, and "pointless". They are not, but I begin to perceive them that way. Not at first, but rapidly, about the fifth or so task.

Stephen daily lived out the power of his faith, performed signs and wonders, not of himself, but of his Master. His life was headed for this mock trial, but he lived daily only in the light of his Master's face. What I need is that daily focus. The "tasks" are the things I do in the light of my Master's face. They may not seem like "signs and wonders", but when I am able to touch the life of someone and bring the light of my Master's face into their world, that is a sign and wonder in itself. These tasks I struggle with so much are not for my manager or company, or even for my clients. They are for my Master, the real Master I serve. They are not empty tasks, but opportunities; opportunities I have been missing way too often.

Don't Skip The Mistakes!

The patriarchs became jealous of Joseph and sold him into Egypt. Yet God was with him (Acts 7:9 NASB)

Stephen is faced with the powerful elite of his day.  He is accused of things that he would have trouble defending because they are false, but true enough to still get him in trouble.  So in this situation, what should he do?  Well, obviously, tell his audiences favorite story.  It's a long story, so he can't possibly include everything.  What does he make sure he includes?  He doesn't miss the mistakes of the people.

Like pot holes on your favorite road, these "mistakes" mar an otherwise uplifting story.  So why include them?  Because he is headed somewhere.  This road that looks so good and feels so right, isn't headed where his audience thinks it is.  These mistakes are what good storytellers call "foreshadowing".  They are the clues about what is coming in the story; ripples on an otherwise cool calm pool.

So why take this road faced with such power?  Because his point is the same point Jesus made.  His direction for his audience is the same direction Jesus took.  Things among the Jewish people cannot remain the same.  Their world is about to change, whether they like it or not.  Jerusalem is going to fall to utter destruction...again.  But their God wants them to choose between the way things have been going, and the new world He has for them.  He's been giving them lots of foreshadowing (prophets and events), but now has come the time for choice.

I believe Stephens words are so strong, so hot, and so deep because the choice is that important.  These "ripples" are just the little quakes before the earth quake comes.  These foreshadowing elements connect the dots all the way back to their origins.  They have always made mistakes, and God has always brought them through, weaving those mistakes into His own design. But the time for mistakes is over; they've reached the end of the thread woven through their history.  It ends with Jesus, the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of God.

Can I look back and let my Master show me how He has woven my mistakes into His design, and begun my redemption from before I was born?  Actually, will I look back?  Will I let my Master show me these things?  Or will I cover my ears and gnash my teeth?  I never really liked gnashing, I much prefer a good story.

The Angelic Face of My Doom

And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people. But some men from what was called the Synagogue of the Freedmen, including both Cyrenians and Alexandrians, and some from Cilicia and Asia, rose up and argued with Stephen. But they were unable to cope with the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking. Then they secretly induced men to say, "We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God." And they stirred up the people, the elders and the scribes, and they came up to him and dragged him away and brought him before the Council. They put forward false witnesses who said, "This man incessantly speaks against this holy place and the Law; for we have heard him say that this Nazarene, Jesus, will destroy this place and alter the customs which Moses handed down to us." And fixing their gaze on him, all who were sitting in the Council saw his face like the face of an angel. (Acts 6:8-15 NASB)

 In working through this passage, Stephen's opponents confuse me.  Who are they exactly?  The way the text is grammatically constructed, they are either a group called Freedmen made up of people from Northern Africa and Asia Minor, or they are a group of Freedmen and others from these two regions.  The other thing is the four areas mentioned aren't really close to each other.  Two are from North Africa, and two are from Asia Minor.  It seems an oddly selective group, unless they all have previous slavery in common.  It's possible that Luke just figures his readers will just figure it out.

The other interesting thing about this group is their decision to argue with Stephen.  Why would they take it on themselves if other groups in the city seemed to think so highly of the new group?  The answer may lie in the regions they are from.  Alexandria in particular was regarded as one of the great centers for learning in the whole known world.  This was especially true for Jews for whom there had been for hundreds of years a very respected school there.  It later became a center for Christian learning, and an entire school of early theological thought development is ascribed to the city/region.  Those of that region could have been a source of conflict with this emerging group with Judaism.

That they were slaves actually makes little difference since slaves were often very well educated and used as tutors for the rich.  And in those days it was more an economically defined group rather than racial.  So, this group of former slaves from dispersed regions outside of Judea confront Stephen.  Stephen could very well have been from regions outside Judea as well, adding additional fuel to any such discussion.  But the confrontation failed to overcome Stephen in wisdom of their argument or their spirit with which it was presented.  They were well and good trounced in this public forum.  So they resort to plan B.

Another odd thing about this group is their ability to get the people going on false pretenses.  The two points they bring up that gets the mob rolling are blasphemy against Moses and God.  Once in the court setting, they are more specific about the temple and the law of Moses (or traditions of Moses once it gets right down to it).  While the text implication that they are deceptive (bribing and false witnesses), the argument actually sounds somewhat similar to things of which Jesus was accused, and things He actually taught.

Jesus did prophecy that Jerusalem would be destroyed and how.  He warned His disciples to immediately flee the city when they saw certain things happen signalling its immanent destruction.  He also spoke against the traditions of the elders while on the other hand saying He came to fulfill the law.  So, the confusing false accusation is one that would be difficult to disentangle from what he may have been truly saying, which also may have earned him the punishment coming in the next chapter.  It's one of those situations where, sure he's being lied about, but here the truth wouldn't really help him be acquitted. In that situation, under that stress, and faced with this mob and political power, Stephen looks like an angel; a messenger straight from heaven.  Not what one might expect in someone in that situation.

So, at this point in the story (not venturing into his speech in the next chapter), what is my take-away?  Stephen represents for me an example of someone willing and ready to go to whatever social extreme for his Master.  What I mean by "social extreme" is that he is willing to sacrifice the popularity enjoyed by the Jerusalem church in obedience to his Master.  It's not just his popularity with the people, but after this the whole church is persecuted.  There is no question in his demeanor or attitude, he doesn't back down or soften the message given to him by the Spirit of his Master.  This is the same quality in the apostles in the previous chapter.  They are ready to be completely shut down and killed rather than back off of the message to which they testify.  And they don't consider sacrifice of the whole congregation for this truth a problem. 

What would that mean for the pool of those who claim to believe in Jesus as Savior in the United States of America?  That would be truly shocking to this modern country.  No one does that. I worry about what my decisions might mean for my family, what my obedience might cost others around me.  Stephen and the apostles don't balk at such a cost.  I am worried about what others might think of me if I take a stand on a the uncomfortable truths of Scripture, the uncomfortable character of my Master, and these don't.  I am sad to say, that I am fairly namby pamby when it comes to these things, when compared to Stephen and his church leaders.  I may seem different from a lot of believers in this country, but I don't compare well to believers in other countries.  This church I am a part of (nation-wide group of believers) is sadly weak when it comes to standing for the things of our Master in the public arena.  Some even opt out of that arena altogether.

I see now that I can't.  I have a responsibility to unashamedly obey and stand for the truth of Who Jesus is, and what He is about.  He is about saving a world, including my community.  I should be about that too.  And I should be about these things regardless of the cost.  That's the hard part, or rather hardest part.  It's not like I would do it anyway, I haven't so far and the cost would be negligible.  I hate that!  I can't just write about being sold out to my Master, I have to sell everything within me and have nothing left but Him. 

As I work through my job today, I must sell off what is within me, leaving nothing but my Master dealing with the issues in my job.  As I deal with my daughter, I must sell off what is within me, leaving nothing but my Master dealing with a volatile teenager.  As I interact with my wife, I must sell off all that is within me, any resentments and judgments, and leave nothing but my Master dealing with the woman who has exceeded my dreams.  I need to sell off all that is within me, the fears and selfishness, and leave nothing but my Master to function in my church.  I admit that I must free myself of myself and freely allow my Master to use me to reach into the lives of those around me; on my street, and within my neighborhood.

This is not an easy thing to imagine, let alone accomplish.  This isn't something I can sell on eBay or in a yard sale (what do you think I could get for an addiction?  What's the going rate on selfishness?).  I know that my Master is my only customer for these wares.  He is the only One interested in purchasing such garbage.  But I also know that He uses startling payment, impressive value.  Will I take His immensely precious pearls in exchange for the refuse I hold so dear?  By the way, this is essentially the definition of "Sanctification", in case you were wondering.  And this is a lot less "friendly" than the sterile definition I find in theological dictionaries.  Deep breath.  Well, let's see how far I can go in my spiritual "yard sale" today.

Obedient Priests, Who Would Have Thought?

The word of God kept on spreading; and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith. (Acts 6:7 NASB)

Not to make a theological mountain out of a Scriptural mole hill, but priests joining the church is at least interesting.  There are a few cultural things about this that make it more interesting than it might appear.  First, while these were of the tribe of Levi, these had special responsibilities in worship beyond the duties of Levites.   So their position was not guaranteed necessarily simply because they were "Levitical", and joining a group the elders and high priest and his groupies despised was probably not a good career move.

This bad career move was made by a great many priests.  Which indicates to me that this group, hated by the leaders of the people, was popular enough with the people to make joining them safe.  That is about to change with the next few chapters, but it remains the fact that at this point, it's safe enough.  What happens to the priests after the tide and popular opinion turn against the believers?  I'm not sure we're told (at least I'm not at that point in Acts yet).  I believe though that many of the many stayed with the church.  But that's just my opinion at this point.

So what do I take away from this?  Priests weren't the "movers and shakers" in the religious or political world, but they were on the fringe of all that.  They led worship with duties in varying degrees, responsibilities, and duties.  There was something in what they did and who they did it for that was not enough to keep them from Jesus.  In today's terms, these would be associate or assistant ministers in churches, priests without seniority, and so on; not the big cheese, but sample bite-size cheese wedges.  And these guys weren't satisfied.

I suspect that it might have been an existential sort of problem where what they did was no longer "authentic".  The motions they went through in their duties and responsibilities may have become empty and hollow by this time; out of step with the world events around them.  It was a beautiful temple, but it was built (or refurbished) by a non-Jewish leader (long story, and kind of sad).  They sacrificed as God had instructed Moses, but it was obviously a "business" rather than an act of worship.  How could they turn what they did back into the expression of the worthiness of their God it was intended to be?

The irony is that, once they accepted Jesus as the Messiah, these sacrifices could become even less meaningful.  They had been superseded by the immense self-sacrifice of Jesus, the Son of God.  But there were more than just sacrifices taking place; the festivals took on new more full meaning. Yet it is possible that even the sacrifices could become commemoration of what Jesus did once for all.  Depending on how they viewed what they did, their activities could once again be filled with a deeper sense of meaning than they had ever experienced. 

This is the point of contact for me.  It is possible for me to participate in my local body of believers, with my fellow followers of Jesus, and the practices we participate in be filled freshly with meaning.  I'm not an associate minister of anything, and I'm good with that.  But when I go and attend worship, bring my family to join with other believers, can the songs we sing, the prayers prayed, and the words preached become new and alive to me?  Of course!  But only to the degree that I let Jesus, my Master, fill them with this meaning.  It's not so much about how or what we do in practice (although that's important), what church worship should be about for me is declaring loudly and proudly the immense value of my Master to me; declaring that to those around me and to Him.  It's impossible, but the attempt, regardless of the method used, is what transforms me, filling what I do with new, fresh, and powerful meaning.

Worship should completely reset my life for the coming week.  But worship should also be what I spend my time doing throughout the week.  Worship on Sunday should kick off the week, but also culminate the one I just finished.  What I have been doing all week should find final expression as I stand and sit with my fellow worshipers; getting filled again for the days to follow.  As I give my praise and expression of value to my Master, I receive power not my own.  That's true every day, but should be especially true on Sunday.  How refreshing.  I feel better already.  But I suppose a better question might be, how can I help the pastors and ministers serving my fellow believers and me sense and enjoy this refreshment too.  I want them to be those refreshed priests, faithful to Jesus as they work in the temple.  Well, I suppose the first thing I can do is not be a pain in the butt.  The second thing I can do is encourage them at every opportunity.  Hmm, it sounds like I have my marching orders for the day.

Giving the Advantage

Now at this time while the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving of food. So the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, "It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables. Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word." The statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch. And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them. (Acts 6:1-6 NASB)

Strife among believers is truly nothing new.  Here it is in the early days of the church in Jerusalem.  And here it happening during the times things are going fairly well.  The church is growing in spite of the threats of the elders of Israel.  The congregation is held in respect by the people.  Signs and wonders accompany declaration that Jesus is both Messiah and Savior.  But life is about to change.

First, they now have this internal strife, which is the part I'm looking at today.   I have said before that I believe that of those visiting Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, many of the believing ones stayed right there in Jerusalem.  This passage sort of supports that view.  Where did these "Hellenistic Jews" come from in such numbers as to have such influence in the congregation?  I believe they are made up of the 3000 added to the church on the day of Pentecost.  One of the things I said about that was that the economy of Jerusalem would probably not easily support such a surge in population very easily.  That is what made the response and attitude of the church to such a huge amount of need so necessary.  But having or acquiring the resources to help doesn't mean that the help will be managed well.

The second way life is about to change for the church has to do with those selected for this ministry.  We only track two, Stephen and Philip, but the implication is that the gospel is about to explode out of Jerusalem.  This is accomplished on the circumstances surrounding these two men.  So, in a very real and obvious way, this chapter sets up Stephen for the major turn in the life of the church.  I'll address that in later entries.

One section of the body of believers (and I suspect a very LARGE section) is being neglected in the distribution of the money laid at the apostle's feet by those selling property.  Their complaint isn't ignored by the apostles.  I believe that part of what is happening to the group dynamic is that, as other believers are added the ratio of Hellenistic Jews to Hebrew (Palestinian Jews) has slipped toward more of a balance.  I doubt they are equal or that the Hebrews out number the Hellenistic Jews, not yet anyway.  But enough of a change has happened that the service to those in need has slipped along "regional" lines.

The apostles decide on a solution where the people choose people to administer the food distribution.  This sounds like a wonderful solution to the people, and the people find seven men.  Here's the odd thing.  These names have meanings in Greek, but not in Hebrew.  What I mean by that is they are not Aramaic or Hebrew transliterations, but actually Greek names.  Philip is the only one with occurrences in other texts besides the Christian Scriptures, but they are still references to either non-Palestinian Jews or Greek/Roman people.  So what?  The seven were Hellenistic Jews, not Palestinian Jews.  Again, so what?  The solution gives away the advantage of administering the ministry to the ones complaining.

Why is giving into the complainers, giving them control over the problem a good idea?  What can I learn from this?  Well, there are lots of lessons probably, but the one I come away with addresses one of my specific issues, control.  When I rely on my Master for a solution, I have to let go my control of it.  I really want to "guide" the solution to one that makes sense to me, but that would act against my faith.  By letting go of solutions, I grow my faith by allowing my Master to stretch it.  I suppose I consider solutions to my problems partly my responsibility or "right", but submission to my Master must include solutions to problems I bring to Him.  I have to leave them with Him to truly act in faith.  And when He presents a solution then I need to accept it without modification.  I'm not entirely comfortable with that.  I suppose that's sort of the point.