Oct. 12, 2008
Background Scripture: Acts 6:1-15; 8:1-8 ...
Devotional Reading: Acts 1:3-11

As a seminary student assigned to serve a little congregation way off the beaten track in the Blue Mountains of eastern Pennsylvania, I was quite unprepared for my first experience of life as a pastor.
Acquainted with the seemingly exemplary depiction of the early church in Acts, I found it difficult to accommodate to the reality of disagreement and dissention. Later, I realized that there actually had not been so much conflict – it just seemed to be so at the time.

I also have come to realize that the church life depicted in Acts was not as idyllic as I had first thought. Even before Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, there had been some tension and dispute within the band of his close disciples. And in the post-resurrection churches there was almost immediately some dissention and division.

So, what should be different in Christian congregations is not the absence of conflict, but in the way that we handle it.

According to Acts 6, the first recorded controversy in the early church occurred between two distinctive groups. First there were the Jews who spoke Aramaic, the language of Jesus and the Jerusalem church. It is believed to have been the language of the Patriarchs before their entry into Palestine and before the evolution of the Hebrew language.

For the most part, it was the language of the Old Testament and the Jewish people for 1,000 years. But in the century prior to the birth of Jesus, Aramaic, which is related to Hebrew, became the common language of the Jews. So in Jesus’ day, to be a Jew meant to speak Aramaic.

Spiritually snobbish

In order to carry on trade, however, many Jews – particularly those in Jerusalem – also spoke Greek and, in time, it became the normal language of these Jews. So in the earliest days of the Church there are both Aramaic-speaking and Greek-speaking Jews and there is evidence indicating that the former group considered itself as superior to the latter group.

This difference was something of an irritant in the early church. It seems that the Jews speaking Aramaic were spiritually snobbish and looked down on their Greek-speaking brethren.

In the synagogues at that time, there was a common concern for those less fortunate. It was customary on Friday mornings to take up a collection of cash and goods in the market places and private homes.

Food, sufficient for one week, was distributed weekly to the poor. The distribution was called the Kuppah, or “basket.” There was also a daily collection called the Tamhui or “tray” for those in even greater need. Early Christians followed this practice, too.

It was in these distributions that we are told, “… the Hellenists (Greek-speaking Jews) murmured against the Hebrews (Aramaic-speaking Jews) because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution” (6:1). Were their widows really “neglected” or was that just their perception? And if they were “neglected,” was it on purpose?

Were the Aramaic-speaking Jews resentful of those “new guys” in the church or were the Greek-speaking Jewish Christians hypersensitive as the “new guys”? Probably it was some of all of these.

Division of labor

The problem was turned over to the 12, Jesus’ inner circle, and their first response was a bit on the defensive side: “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables” (6:1b).

Essentially, I think their reasoning was correct – that there needed to be a division of labor in the church – but I wouldn’t want to indicate that distributing help to the poor and needy is a lesser calling than preaching and teaching. St. Francis of Assisi is remembered not so much for what he preached, but what he did for people in need.

The solution that came from the 12 was a good one: “… pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom …” (6:3). “Good repute” is probably the easiest of these to find, but “full of the Spirit and of wisdom” may seem much more difficult.

“Full of the Spirit” probably means someone who is open and responsive to the Spirit, who relies on wisdom rather than force or coercion. Was everyone satisfied with this solution? Probably not.
But did it help to bridge the gulf between the “Old Guard” and the “New Guys” in the church? For a time it did – but there are always “New Guys” coming into “our church.”

The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of Farm World. Readers with questions or comments for Rev. Althouse may write to him in care of this publication.