Who’s in charge here?
Leadership and ministry in the church
Acts 6:1-7

When Jason was born Marilyn and I had just moved into a house on Glendale, one block south of Barton. The previous owners had had two Siberian huskies and the back yard was a mess. So, in order to clean up the yard before planting a little lawn and stuff, we had the bright idea of planting the whole back yard in squash – butternut squash to be exact.

Well, apparently the dogs must have done the ground some good. We lived on a corner lot and by the end of the summer we were finding it hard to get through the gate and into the back door of the house. The squash had grown up over the fence and was making its way across the boulevard to within a few inches of the sidewalk. People would come round the corner and do a double-take. Our back yard looked like the set for a remake of “Day of the Triffids” – that’s a 1960’s horror movie about killer plants that take over the world.

We had lots and lots of squash that year. At one point Jason’s skin turned yellow because we fed him so much! Growth is a good thing. But it does also come with its own challenges.

We heard about some of those challenges in the reading this morning as we read about Moses struggling to lead a large and growing community, and getting snowed under in the process. He had to get some good advice from his father-in-law about how to spread the load.

Now, you may wonder why God didn’t just directly show Moses some basic management principles, or for that matter, what Moses was doing in Pharaoh’s house all those years that he didn’t learn the basics of leading a large group of people. Either way, it fell to Moses’ father-in-law, Jethro, to teach him how to spread the load over a larger group of people, to give more people an opportunity to serve, to minister.

Fast forward about 1400 years to Acts chapter 6 and we see the whole process being repeated. The book of Acts is about the growth of the church in the first generation after the death and resurrection of Jesus. As you might expect, the first Christians had to deal with a number of issues related to the growth of their community, and Acts let’s us see them struggling with those issues.

Once again you might expect some lightning bolt from heaven with Charlton Heston’s voice saying, “Organise the church this way.” But that’s not what happens. Even in Acts 15 when the leaders of the church decide to include gentiles in the faith without requiring circumcision, etc. there’s no voice from heaven In Acts 15:28 James dictates a letter to the new Gentile believers and says, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements…” Not, “thus saith the Lord” but “it seemed good.” This is probably the most momentous decision ever made by any group of Christians anywhere or at any time, but it’s framed as “it seemed good…”

That’s the voice of godly wisdom speaking. It’s same voice we heard in Exodus 18, and it’s the same voice that we hear in Acts chapter 6. It’s the voice that we need to hear on an ongoing basis in our own congregation as we seek to organise ourselves in ways that serve the kingdom. That’s why we’re looking at this passage today. It’s not just a nice passage to study. It gives us a Biblical model for choosing leaders in the church. (There are other models, but I believe that this one applies best to us.)

The problem

In Acts 6 the leaders of the church have a problem. The church is growing on a huge scale. How is that a problem? Well they started off Pentecost morning with 120 people. By nightfall the church had grown to 3000 (Acts 2.41). And it wasn’t just a flash in the pan. Acts 2.47 says that people were being added to that number daily, so that a few weeks later in Acts 4.4 there were 5000 men in the church.

Not only were the numbers growing, there were different kinds of people coming to faith. In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. (6.1)

Why was this such an issue? When it talks about Grecian Jews and Hebraic Jews it could simply be drawing a distinction between those from outside Palestine, who spoke Greek as their mother tongue, and those who were Palestinian born and spoke a form of Hebrew called Aramaic. That’s possible, but most people in Palestine in Jesus’ day were probably bilingual in Greek and Aramaic. Certainly the men would have been. In bilingual societies everywhere in the world, men are more likely to speak both languages than their wives. That was certainly true in Pakistan where Pushtun men would watch the Jesus film in Persian but ask for the Pushtu version for their wives.

It’s true for my backdoor neighbour on Barton Street. She’s an Italian widow who speaks only 2 or 3 words of English. Mind you, as long as she stays in the neighbourhood she doesn’t have to. Everybody speaks Italian; the bank, the travel agent, even the Portuguese hardware store owner has learned some Italian. (Some of my Italian neighbours have made it clear just how much they resent “the English” moving in on their street. I haven’t tried to explain how much of an insult it is to call a Scotsman “English.” I don’t have the language skills.) But still, my neighbour’s language ability restricts her to a particular neighbourhood and a particular circle of people whom she can communicate with.

So there was probably a fair bit of cultural and social distance between those who were Palestinian born and those who had come in later. But there was also something else at work to make it worse. Jews all over the Eastern Mediterranean believed that it was especially blessed to die in Jerusalem, so all kinds of men would go there – just to die. And they’d take their wives with them, wives who were probably, on average, 15 years younger than them. The result? Lots of widows in Jerusalem who had come there with their husbands and were now stranded, with no support, and perhaps with only minimal language ability.

There may have been discrimination. Possibly the distribution was being done in Aramaic. Whatever was happening, the Greek speaking widows felt they were being sidelined.

The proposal (by the apostles)

But there isn’t a thunderbolt from heaven to tell the apostles to get their act together. Instead ² …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. ³ Brothers, 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 ⁴ and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”

The leaders of the community, the Twelve apostles, did three things. They clarified their own calling. They established qualifications. And they trusted the community.

They clarified their own calling

It would have been really easy for the Twelve to wade into the problem and start telling people what to do. But they didn’t. Any one of us only has so many hours in a week and so much energy. There is only so much each one of us can do. The Twelve realized that if they took over responsibility for this problem other things – important things, things that Jesus had explicitly told them to do – would suffer.

People still ask me when or if I’m going back to Afghanistan. When they do I have a stock answer. I say that I know myself. I live so much in the future anyway, that for me to think about any future other than the future of where God has called me at Wentworth Baptist Church would be unfair and disloyal to the church.

It’s the same reason that I’m not on the board of Providence Network Canada. I would really like to be on that board. I believe that it’s going to do really important work. A chunk of my heart is there. But as I discussed it with the board of this church a few months ago one of the board members asked the question, “What would you have to stop doing that you are doing now, in order to work with Providence Network?” And that clinched it.

The twelve asked themselves a similar question and came to the conclusion, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables.” They clarified their own calling.

By the way, they aren’t putting down waiting on tables. It was the role of the head of the household to serve the meal. It’s what Jesus did at the last supper. It was an honoured role; just not what God had called them to.

They established the qualifications

They weren’t called to deal with the relief distribution, but that didn’t mean that they just let anyone take the responsibility.

“³Brothers and sisters, choose seven from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them.”

The apostle’s role as leaders was to establish the qualifications for those who would do the work, people who are, “known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom.”

Reputable

They are to be people who are “known.” Some translations say, “Of good reputation.” They certainly have to be well enough known that people know their reputation, whether they do as they say they will; whether they’re reliable; whether they’re honest.

It doesn’t mean that you have to be squeaky clean. We’re not talking about the US presidency here, where one wrong act 20 years ago can destroy you. Matthew was a reformed extortionist. Simon the Zealot used to be a terrorist. Paul was an accessory to murder. Chuck Colson was Richard Nixon’s hatchet man and spent time in jail for it. My friend John Goodfellow continues to have problems crossing into the States because he has a record for armed robbery and fraud – even though he’s been in ministry for decades.

The question is, are you a person of good repute now, not what you used to be. If we believe the gospel, we have to believe that people change.

Spiritual

They’re also to be “full of the Spirit.” That means that they have to be Christians, people who have given their lives to God and are open channels for him to use. Remember that we’re talking about choosing people to distribute food and clothing here. There’s nothing that we do as Christians that isn’t in some way “spiritual.”

Practical

And Acts says they have to be, “full of wisdom.” That doesn’t mean that they have to have a degree or something. Wisdom isn’t so much about what you know as it is about how you use it. It’s a very practical ability of asking the right questions and applying what you know to a problem. And it doesn’t mean you have to be old to be wise. All it means is that you should have a level of wisdom appropriate to your age and how long you’ve been a Christian.

It also means that ability is part of the mix for selecting leaders. I’m sorry, but it doesn’t matter how long someone has been in the church, leadership roles are not given simply as rewards for long or faithful service. People have to be able to do the task they’re being entrusted with.

They trusted the community

Once they had set out the qualifications, the apostles trusted the community to make the right choices. They said, “choose seven from among you …We will turn this responsibility over to them.”

That takes faith. They promised beforehand – sight unseen – that they would turn over this responsibility to whomever the community selected. They did their bit by setting the qualifications. Now they had to trust the community to do its bit by selecting appropriate people. Either way the apostles were bound by their word.

In a system like this the community has no-one to blame but themselves if someone doesn’t perform up to scratch. You can’t put the blame on the leadership. They set the appropriate parameters, and left the choice up to you.

You can’t pick people to reward them for being good friends or faithful members. (We’re not appointing people to the Senate here.) There is a risk involved. If the wrong people end up in positions of leadership or ministry (if we put square pegs in round holes) then things will not get done that need to be done. Or worse people could abuse their position and do things that weren’t appropriate.

The process

⁵ 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.

…chose people with knowledge of the issue

It’s amazing how much easier it is to get the right result when you have the right process. Look at the names of the people who were chosen. Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas. Every one of those men has a Greek name. Remember what the problem was? Greek widows were not being treated fairly in the distribution of relief goods. So the process chose people who had real knowledge of the issue. Most of them were Greek speaking Jews, but one of them was actually a Greek convert to Judaism.

In 1 Timothy there are 13 qualifications for a church leader. 12 of them are character qualifications. One has to do with competency. The apostles set character standards and, within those standards, the community picked people who understood the issue.

…authorised them to address the issue

And these were the people that were then authorised to address the issue. ⁶ They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.

Once the people had been chosen by the community and presented to the leaders, the leaders endorsed them and publicly authorised them to do what they had been chosen to do. That’s what the laying on of their hands means. It’s a statement of identification and affirmation that these people are part of us and they act in our name. [Danielle to Pakistan…]

[Every year about this time we begin the nomination process for next year’s leaders. We’re in the process of changing how we do things, and one thing that we’re trying to do is give everybody’s voice an opportunity to be heard… explain bulletin inserts.]

Resulting in the progress of the gospel

Before we close I just want to draw your attention to how this passage ends. ⁷ So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

Luke (who wrote this) seems to intend us to see a link between the way the church organised themselves here in Acts 6 and the expansion of the gospel. If our leadership and ministry practises don’t result in the progress of the gospel then we need to reassess them – no matter how long they have been in place or who put them there. Nothing is sacrosanct except what is given to us in scripture.

For example, one thing that has made me glad has been a move away from Robert’s Rules of Order in our meetings. Apart from the fact that they are only 100 years old; they were established to manage conflict and so they tend to generate conflict, even where there was none, when we should be seeking to hear the voice of the Spirit.

If the way we’re organising ourselves doesn’t assist the spread of the gospel, then we need to modify it so that it does. We’re here for the sake of the kingdom of God, not for our own sake or the sake of having a nice church. If we respond creatively and Biblically to the challenges facing us as a church, God will bless the progress of the gospel and his kingdom will be expanded here in Hamilton.