Sunday: Ethnic Prejudices
Read Acts 6:1. What issue in the early church caused people to complain about the fair and equitable distribution of food to widows?
Some early Christians appeared to be prejudiced against the widows of Greek heritage in their midst and provided them with less food than the widows of Hebrew heritage.
Image © Lars Justinen Goodsalt.com
This perceived favoritism caused a rift in the early community of believers. Whether or not the favoritism was real, the text does not say. It says only that some people believed that it was. This conflict threatened the church’s unity very early on. How fascinating that ethnic division was seen so quickly in the church.
Read Acts 6:2-6. What were the simple steps taken by the early church to solve this misunderstanding?
The early church was growing rapidly, and this growth brought increasingly heavy burdens on the apostles. The appointment of these seven men, traditionally called “deacons” (although the New Testament does not call them as such), relieved the tension in the Jerusalem church and allowed for the involvement of more people in the ministry of the church.
The apostles listened carefully to the complaints of Greek-speaking believers and asked them for a solution. The selection of the seven men to become associates of the apostles was left to this group, and they recommended seven disciples, all of them from Greek-speaking heritage. These men were said to be “of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom” (Acts 6:3, NKJV). The ministry of the apostles, which until then had been both to preach the Word of God and to distribute food to widows, was divided into two groups, each doing an equally valuable ministry for the proclamation of the Gospel. Luke uses the same word, “ministry” or “service” (diakonia), to refer to both the ministry of the apostles in preaching the Word (Acts 6:4) and to the ministry of the deacons in distributing food (Acts 6:1).
| What significance do you see in the fact that the leaders called many of the believers together (Acts 6:2) in order to try to work out a solution? |
(39)
A TV series called "Yes Minister" had an episode where the government of the day had built a 500-bed hospital and staffed it with administrators, nursing staff, medical technicians, catering staff and so on, but had omitted to open it to patients. Administrators argued that it was one of the most efficient, well-run hospitals in the country. It apparently escaped their attention that the primary purpose of a hospital was to deal with real, sick people.
Likewise, our church may have finely tuned doctrines, excellent liturgy, inspired church writings, but ultimately it has to deal with real people. And that is the complication. The church is made up of people from different ethnic, social, educational and economic backgrounds. And it is all too easy to overlook a particular group, or become segregated. Church is ultimately about people and their salvation. And that is much more challenging that formulating doctrine and defining liturgy.
People leave the church because they feel left out, or overlooked. And the rest of us look on with smug complacency and say things like. "They never really made an effort to fit in!", or "If they focused on Jesus and let the Holy Spirit guide them that would not have happened!"
There are two issues here:
1) Sometimes people's perception of being left out is out of perspective. It is easy to feel an injustice has been done and then let that perception fester and become infected.
2) We do need to make an effort to be more inclusive. And that needs to start at a personal level. You cannot mandate inclusiveness by issuing a conference statement of inclusivity.
The Gospel story is a story of Jesus interaction with people; not merely a definition of doctrine.
"The Gospel story is a story of Jesus interaction with people; not merely a definition of doctrine."
Could it be then, that the 'proclamation' of the 3 angels messages is primarily about how we interact with others and secondarily what we have to say to them?
Could it also be that people won't care what we believe until they first experience that we care?
It is not easy to assign blame. Human nature, is a common phrase, or characteristic, to justify a bad decision. Luke 2:24 the Disciples were bickering over who was the greatest. We have recently read about the dissention over whether Paul and Peter had words about circumcision. Acts 15:6,7, are other examples from the Biblical record about disunity. Is this a stand out character fault? Opinion will decide.
"The apostles listened carefully to the complaints of Greek-speaking believers and asked them for a solution."
Here we have a principle: leadership dialoging with those who have a grievance in order to clearly identify what the issues are and then inviting those with the grievance to offer input as to what they see as options that would bring about a resolution.
You are right Phil, may I point out that the leaders were not merely dealing with grievances, they were dealing with principalities. Epheasians 6:12. "Despite former prejudices, all were in harmony with one another. Satan knew that so long as this union continued to exist, he would be powerless to check the progress of gospel truth; and he sought to take advantage of former habits of thought, in the hope that thereby he might be able to introduce into the church elements of disunion. AA 87.3."
They were not merely wrestling againist flesh and blood, this is why it was so vital for the leaders to be led by the Holy Spirit.
Prejudice can be both deliberate or even unconscious. It is evident that segregation amongst groups will definitely arise, as a group increases in number. In fact as a group forms it may be relevant for leadership to anticipate ( what if scenarios) to address conflict issues. Congregations many times develop into clusters of needs, influences or ethnicity. From one stand point this is a horrific direction for a gathering especially a "church gathering" to head to; but this is a likely position that a gathering including a "church gathering" will find itself in. Deliberate prejudice may really be a harder issue to address to because this is premeditated, sinister (mostly), self-exalting (mainly) or development-oriented (rarely); it is intended to control interests of "our own". If this is the case, this can be troubling. However, even when prejudice develops unconsciously, it always rotates back towards the same concerns - "our own", "my people" or "us". In concept, the church should not be exposed to these kinds of formation, in fact, the church should be one people and in one accord. However, there lies a truth about people, that our diversity will spawn feelings of differences, and it is from these differences that segregation or prejudice will arise.
In church, we see so much of "those who just joined us recently" comments, made by the existing members, especially when involvement start attracting "them".
The story of the Hellenistic Jews Vs Judaic Jews, was a result of background and a feelings of "we were here first". The new group was subject to being ignored because the were considered introduction to the fold. Prejudice is a child of ignorance, when I don't understand you or know you, I tend to develop a sense of insecurity which will result to paranoia (at times), perceptions (all times) and suspicions (at the extreme times). Acts 6, shows as example of this kind of development, while Paul (let us not forget), was subjected to suspicion by the Christian family in his major mission because he was not yet understood (judged by his past).
So what does it mean to "anticipate"; as Christians we may insulate ourselves by claiming that we have a protection from The Holy Spirit, but this is a far cry; actually this may deflect a situation into hibernation and that may result to a worsening situation. As Christians then we should be ready to:
1) Accept the diversity of backgrounds (Acts 17:26-27)
2) That people will have flaws (Romans 14:1-4)
3) Address immediately to the issues of conflict or confusion (Hebrews 12:15; Philippians 2:4)
4) Involve all parties in dialogue and resolution (Romans 12:5; Matthew 18:20; Proverbs 27:17; and 1 Thessalonians 5:14)
5) At the end come up with a progressive and all involving action plan, that is in line with mission - allocating responsibility to all concerned groups (Acts 6:3-4)
We are required to "spur" one another into a direction of serving God. The apostles understood this, and took it up very well in Acts 6; as much as possible, we shall always be different in form, but we could in our diversity deliberately forge unity. Unity has to be purposed and should be an involvement of all participants. God resides in Unity:
"I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling, with which you are called, with all lowliness and gentleness, and long suffering, bearing one another in love, endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in bond of peace, there is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling" Ephesians 4: 1-4
Favoritism is a sin. James 2:8-9. Did the apostles commit sin by favouring Jewish widows?
How could the early church take all these steps to solve the problem if it was just perceived and not real?
If the New Testament does not call these men deacons, why do we do so today?
Head deacon and head deaconess, are these titles biblical?
1) It is not clear whether the problem was intentional or not. However, once the problem had been pointed out, steps needed to be taken to resolve the situation whether real or perceived. To leave it unresolved would be wrong.
2) The word "deacon", describing a church office is used in the Bible a number of times, notably Phil 1:1 and 1 Tim 3:8-11. The Greek word is "diakonous" and the description given in 1 Tim 3 matches the intention of setting aside the seven men in Acts 6 so I do not see any problem with setting aside men and women and calling them deacons, to serve in the same capacity today. The word "diakonous" and its derivatives are used many times in the New Testament to mean "one who serves", or "servant". So there are good biblical precedents for using the term.
I do not see the need to have a biblical precedent for naming church offices today. Terms like Church Clerk, Sabbath School Leader, Audio-Visual Officer, and so on, are not used in the Bible, but they are good descriptive terms of those who serve in the modern church.
It may look like partiality, Cyrus, and we could easily conclude to judging the apostles, but I think it was more oversight than deliberate bias.
1) The fact they were willing to listen to the complainants, involving them in solution making and finally, developing a direction, means they were ready to restore relations and that's a great step.
2) It should also not be lost, that Hellenistic (Greek) Jews and Judaic Jews may have had communication barriers based upon backgrounds. This would have contributed to the unfortunate bias.
3) The apostles despite the fact of being chosen were still likely to be exposed to weaknesses here and there; in fact I really feel the basis of the lesson study is likely this. The journey in Christianity will meet some trial somewhere, and how we address it will make the difference.
4) The gathering had suddenly grown by 3,000 and managing such a size was to be a challenge. People would find themselves serving their own.
It is for that reason that it prevailed on the Apostles to expand their service providers and include people from the Hellenistic Jews, chosen from amongst themselves, and people considered integral by they themselves. This is how Stephen and the six come to be selected.
I think it was an inteligent manner to solve the problem. Democracy among God's fearing people! Every group should be well represented. After the meeting of the choosen, their decision (in prayer) should be supreme. And every group would have their designated person, to explain, to communicate freely, without any collective wear out!
I'm not certain how the author interprets the Scripture as suggesting this inequity was "perceived?" Acts 6 states "Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution." The Hellenists widows were being neglected. One of the major problems associated with discrimination is a tendency to discount that it exists. Don't you agree? For instance, what middle easterner who has spent three consecutive years of His adult life from sun up to sun down, walking here and there, out of doors, would look like the man standing in the center of the picture for this lesson? Think about it. Does the church today utilize methods of the early church to effect corrective action and non-biased ministry?
The lesson states that the apostles ask the Greek speaking community for their solution, however I don't see that in the Bible it merely says "summoned the multitude of the disciples" which to me implies everyone not only the Greek speaking.
It is true that from the names it would seem that the 7 chosen were Greek speaking - were they only to serve the Greek widows? what about the Hebrew speaking widows?
If this was a Greek problem and a Greek solution, while the provision for the Hebrew widows carried on as usual - what does this teach us? That different groups can have different ways of dealing with issues in the church?
It is interesting to me how that God's word is clear that part of Gospel Ministry is to FEED THE HUNGRY and Jesus Himself exemplified this very well when he multiplied the loaves of bread and the fish. Yet the Apostles make a statement in Acts 6:2 that indicates that it was not appropriate for them to leave their PREACHING to attend to this part of the GOSPEL MINISTRY. The author of this lesson also indicates that the Apostles had been attending to this part of Gospel Ministry too until this problem of apparent negligence came up. It is also interesting to me how that several of those seven men that were chosen for this work later became evengalists. Did they then also stop their work of being "Servers of tables," too? Or did they become better workers for the Gospel by continuing to do both jobs as it required them to do both jobs?