Live it and they will come
Commentary
Remember the movie, Field of Dreams, from a few years back? Kevin Kostner plays the lead role of an Iowa farmer named Ray Kinsella who is haunted by a voice that says to him, "Build it and they will come." After several sleepless nights Ray (Kevin) finally figures out what "it" is --"it" is a baseball diamond. Ray, much to the consternation of his wife, begins plowing down his cornfield and spends what little money the family has to build a lighted ball field -- in the middle of Iowa!
Once built, players from the infamous 1919 Chicago Black Sox baseball team begin to show up. This team had thrown a World Series game of that year and were banished for life from baseball. Ray's field was their chance at redemption and Ray's chance to confront the demons of a bad relationship with his father. The quirky idea of a ball field in the middle of the corn belt strikes a chord with folks and soon people are driving from all over to watch the games in Ray's field of dreams.
For several months following the movie's release, the mantra, "Build it and they will come," seemed to crop up everywhere. Discussion groups formed to debate the relative merits of the philosophy encapsulated in "build it...." Church growth consultants used the mantra to encourage facility construction. Church growth consultants used the mantra to discourage facility construction. Anyone with a dream was using the premise of the movie to pursue his or her dream, abandoning all sense of rationality. "Build it and they will come" became the magic talisman for the early 1990s.
Today's texts seem to offer a divergent view to the "build it and they will come" mentality. The alternative suggestion presented by these texts is "live it and they will come."
Acts 2:42-47
Statistics fairly consistently confirm that those persons with more limited resources are proportionally more generous with what they have than are folks whose resources are greater. That factor may seem to explain part of the reason why some members of the early church pooled their resources and lived a communal lifestyle. Historians remind us that the vast majority of those who were attracted to the Jesus movement in its formative years came from the day laborers and underclass of Roman society. Not having much to begin with, these early believers found joint ownership and mutual care to be not only practical, but also in keeping with the ethic of their newly discovered faith.
It is also important to note that at this stage in its development, the Jesus movement was still a sub-group within Judaism. The leaders were practicing Jews, the congregation was made up of practicing Jews (v. 46) and the One whom they called Lord lived his life as a practicing Jew. The Jesus movement would not become Christianity as we know it until late first century-mid second century.
In the First Lesson Focus, Dr. Achtemeier has pointed out the pattern of the believers' life together. What I want to call attention to is how such a life was attractive to their fellow citizens and co-religionists. This community of Jesus people enjoyed the goodwill of all (v. 47) and day-by-day folks were flocking to become a part of this generous, caring, joy-filled community. They had no money to build; they had no "it" to build. All they had was a confident and loving faith in Jesus Christ and as they lived out of that faith people came.
1 Peter 2:19-25
Being a follower of Jesus when 1 Peter was written could not have been an all-round pleasant experience. Whatever inner joy and satisfaction came as a result of one's faith relationship with Christ and communal relationship with other believers was offset by the difficult physical life many believers experienced. Once again, Peter feels compelled to offer a word of encouragement to those whose lives are harsh, ugly, brutish and short.
Today's Epistle lesson begins in the middle of Peter's instructions to slaves who are also believers. If the believing community of Acts 2 was indicative of the larger Jesus movement, then it should come as no surprise that slaves would be attracted to these faith communities. Here they experienced an equality of personhood, reciprocal sharing and an opportunity to discover and employ spiritual gifts that was not available to them in their secular responsibilities. We can well imagine a slave leaving the caring community of faith after a time of worship and prayer and returning to the near impossible conditions of his master. Having experienced a taste of equality it was difficult to return to the status of a slave. Not a few slaves, no doubt, rebelled against their masters, desiring fairer and more humane treatment.
Like Paul before him, Peter did not attempt to take on the master-slave arrangement within society, rather he confined himself to encouraging the slave to endure the pain inflicted upon him/her as a way of identifying with Christ and to live in such a way that all pain inflicted was unjustly administered. By so doing the slave was enjoying the approval of God.
There is something about Peter's admonition that makes us moderns uncomfortable. Why should one accept an inferior status when something can be done to challenge that status? Doesn't this sound a lot like something those in power would say to the powerless? What kind of world would this be if everyone simply accepted their place in society as an unalterable reality? Does Peter's admonition really make sense in the 21st century?
A careful look at this passage helps us to see that these questions are really missing the point. Peter is not arguing social science; he is trying to preserve the integrity of the Jesus movement. His argument would run something like this: You have embraced the forgiveness and grace offered to you through Jesus Christ. You have accepted membership into the community that identifies itself with belief in Jesus. You have made a public confession that Jesus is your Lord. Therefore, you have taken upon yourself the commitment to a certain lifestyle -- one that honors the movement and that holds the reputation of Jesus in high regard. Whatever you do, however you live, remember what others think of Jesus is what they see in you. So live a life that meets with God's approval and allow the example of Jesus to be your guide.
Peter concludes this passage by reminding his readers just what that model of Jesus is all about. Like a slave who acts with justice, Jesus committed no wrong. When Jesus was mistreated unjustly, he did not speak ill of his adversary. When he was attacked, he did not retaliate in word or deed. Rather he sought God's approval by carrying that abuse upon his body while simultaneously forgiving the abuser. That is the example we should follow. That is the life we should live. That is the witness we should bear.
John 10:1-10
For all of its popularity and familiar imagery, today's Gospel lesson is not an easy one to fully understand. We should not be embarrassed to admit this; even the original hearers who understood the context and could pick up non-verbal clues as to meaning did not understand what Jesus was trying to say (v. 6). This is not the only teaching that Jesus' followers had difficulty understanding; they needed an explanation of the parable of the sower; they needed Jesus to be clearer about what was meant by the near impossibility of the rich getting into the kingdom of heaven; and they never did catch on until after the fact about what Jesus was trying to say in regards to laying down his life. So if we come to this text with a bit of uncertainty, we are in good company.
What makes this passage difficult to understand is that we are not sure who John would have us believe the antagonists are. This teaching follows hard on the heels of Jesus' confrontation with the Pharisees over Jesus' healing of a blind man on the Sabbath. Are we to understand that the Pharisees are the thieves and bandits of this text? If so, what is the other way by which they enter? In what way are they "strangers"? Also complicating the interpretation is Jesus' comment in verse 8 that all who came before him are thieves and bandits. Does that include Moses and the prophets? How are we to understand this reference to "all"?
One should use caution in making this text say more than it is actually saying. For instance, it would be more of a case of isogesis than exegesis to read Christian exclusivity in this text. One may believe that the Christian faith is the only God-approved faith, but this text cannot legitimately be used in one's arsenal of defense for this belief. Jesus seems to be speaking of true and false shepherds, not true and false belief systems.
A helpful background to this passage is Ezekiel 34 in which good and bad shepherds are also discussed. In John, the focus is on the care of the sheep (the people of God) -- it is their protection that is foremost in Jesus' concern. The shepherds are discussed in relation to how they tend to the sheep and to their ulterior motives in regarding the sheep.
The people of God (sheep) are in some sense vulnerable, that is, they depend upon an "authority" to help them understand the will and purpose of God. True, they have the Torah, but the Torah (like the Bible) often depends on a learned other to help lead the way to an appropriate understanding. Those learned others (authorities) can carry out their functions either with an eye on the needs of the people or with an eye to their own agendas. Those shepherds who receive the criticism of Jesus do not act with integrity (climb in by another way); speak not to lead, but to mislead (do not know the voice); and look to their own self-interest rather than the interest of the flock (come to steal, kill and destroy).
Jesus, by contrast, and those guides who follow his example, deals straightforwardly with the people (enters by the gate); enjoys a relationship with the people in which each is known to the other (calls by name and leads them out); does not push the flock, but leads it (goes ahead of them); and is the source of their security (v. 9). The consequence of the false shepherds' leadership is emptiness and death. The consequence of Jesus' leadership is fullness and life.
Application
Nearly every pastor and most members wish to see their congregations grow. Some measure growth numerically, by the number of new members they add to the congregation. Others measure growth by the deepening commitment and spiritual life of those already members of the congregation. Both types of growth are legitimate and both are needed. The question is, how does such growth come about?
There are any number of church growth gurus with no shortage of advice and sure-fire methods to produce church growth. Most of these methods are a one-size-fits-all approach -- do this and this and this and this and growth will be automatic. Those of us who have tried these approaches know their shortcomings better than we know their success. And then there are the super church models. We have witnessed the phenomenal growth of places like Willow Creek and Saddleback and many congregations have rushed to emulate the worship style or the leadership structure in the hopes of following in their footsteps. What these wannabes soon discover, however, is that there is more at work in the Willow Creeks of this world than organization or technique.
So, if the church growth formulas are not dependable and if the Saddleback model works more on intangibles than replicatables, where does that leave the rest of us who are interested in church growth of one sort or another? Well, it leaves us with biblical models.
Look again at what worked for the early Jesus movement in Jerusalem. In addition to what most of us do already -- Bible studies, church-wide fellowships, potluck dinners and prayers (v. 42) -- they took community responsibility seriously. These believers were generous with their possessions. They were aware of and attentive to the individual needs around them. They gladly welcomed to their fellowship not only each other, but the stranger as well. They did not wear their piety on their sleeve for all to notice, rather they wore their piety in their heart for all to benefit. Because they focused outwardly as well as inwardly, on each other as much as on themselves, and were just as glad-hearted meeting the needs of another as they were worshiping in the temple, folks with yearning hearts joined their number everyday. Instead of talking about their faith, they lived their faith and in the living of it, people came.
Consider again what worked for the churches to which Peter wrote his letter. In spite of graver circumstances than most of us will ever face, the community of Peter practiced the example of Jesus Christ. When treated unjustly, they did not try to clothe their retaliation in religious language, rather they endured the injustice as a testimony to the example of Jesus. When life was not going the way that they had hoped, they did not take matters into their own hands and attempt to control their own destinies; rather they entrusted themselves to the grace and mercy of God. When they recognized the disparity between God's expectations and their own behavior, they did not rationalize their sinfulness; rather they returned to the shepherd and guardian of their souls. Consequently, in spite of all of the obstacles facing them, they prospered and grew. They lived their faith and in the living of it, people came.
Hear again what worked for the followers of Jesus in John's day. The most vulnerable, those most needing guidance and care, those who longed for safety and salvation, all of these came to understand the compassion of Jesus because those who went forth in Jesus' name put the needs of these ones ahead of their own. They did this not out of any sense of self-aggrandizement or self-interest, but merely because the Good Shepherd had done the same for them. And through this selfless care, their flock increased. They lived their faith and in the living of it, people came.
The secret to church growth, no matter how it is measured, is the living out of one's faith. If we live it, they will come.
Alternative Applications
1) Acts: Dr. Achtemeier mentions that modern day Christians are uncomfortable with the communal image of this early gathering of believers. If that is true, and I think it is, an interesting sermon might be built around why that is so. What does that type of lifestyle threaten within us? Why are we so quick to pass off that way of being together as unreasonable and unworkable? What does our discomfort say to us about the relative value of people and possessions in our lives?
2) 1 Peter: In the comments above, little was made of what this passage had to say about Jesus directly. This passage is too rich to let this oversight go for long, so the preacher may want to focus more specifically on the example of Jesus in the midst of suffering and the implications of that for our faith and our understanding of the saving work of Christ.
3) John: Because most of us do not live in agrarian communities and those who do are probably not too acquainted with sheep, a worthwhile sermon could be developed that would help a congregation appreciate more fully the sheep-shepherd image.
FIRST LESSON FOCUS
Acts 2:42-47
This Sunday we continue with our exploration of Acts 2. You recall that two Sundays ago, we heard Peter proclaim the Resurrection, using prophecies that he found in the Psalms of the Old Testament. Last Sunday we discussed the reaction of the Jewish crowd in Jerusalem to Peter's sermon. He called upon his hearers to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. When a large number of the devout Jews, indeed 3,000 of them, repented of their sins and were baptized by the apostles, they received the Holy Spirit of God in Christ. Our text for today now sets out the results of that Spirit.
Certainly what we find in our passage in verses 42-47 is an account of the life of the first Jerusalem church that has been idealized to a certain extent. The author of the account, Luke, makes it sound as if everything was sweetness and light in that community, and in doing that, he is no different than we, is he? Many of us hold the thought that the early New Testament church was a perfect community, with no disputes or tensions among its members, no acts of selfishness or ignorance, no deeds that would indicate that it continued to be as sinfully human as is our own church today. Luke himself, however, later tells the story of greedy Ananias and his wife, in Acts 5:1-7. And certainly the Apostle Paul, in Galatians 1-2, preserves the memory of a serious falling out with some of the disciples in Jerusalem. Until the kingdom comes, human beings and their communities are going to be marked by the remnants of sin.
Nevertheless, what Luke does give us in our text is a picture of what the Christian church, living in the Spirit of Christ, is supposed to be and in fact sometimes is. Further, Luke lists the practices that can help us grow to be such a church.
First of all, verse 42 states that the members of the Jerusalem church devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching; that is, they repeatedly studied and talked about the Old Testament's promises and expectations of the Messiah and about the ministry and resurrection of Christ. We now have all of that history preserved for us in our Bibles, and so our text is telling us that in order to be a true Christian church, we need to read and study the scriptures and their meaning.
Second, the Jerusalem church's members engaged in fellowship with one another. They were wise enough, you see, to know that they couldn't be Christians all by themselves, that the Christian life is concerned not just with individuals but with a community -- a people of God. It is always true in the Christian faith that as soon as we enter into fellowship with our God, we are commanded by God to love and serve our neighbor. We are commanded to be a people.
Third, the members of that early church devoted themselves to the breaking of bread, and that is a reference to their communal celebration of the Lord's Supper. Very often the sacraments play a minor role in our church life. Some congregations celebrate the Supper only four times a year. But in the Eucharist, Christ's very life and strength, symbolized by the bread and wine, are given anew to us to enable us to live by his will and not by our own. We commune with our Lord at the table. Think of it! We come in to his actual presence. And we commune with all of the faithful who have gone before us, as well as those with whom we eat and drink, and we sup with all of the saints who will come after us. In the Supper, we make up the communion of saints, of the redeemed and justified, in the very real presence of our Lord.
Fourth, our text tells us that those early Jewish Christians devoted themselves to prayers. And no one can live a Christian life without praying regularly to God. We pray to respond in praise and thanksgiving to all that God has done for us. We pray to lay our griefs and worries and sufferings before him. We voice fervent intercessions to our Father on behalf of all in need. We lay bare our souls before God. And we trust that God in his love will answer our prayers as it seems good to him, for God wants only our good.
So Bible study, fellowship, sacraments and worship, prayer -- those are, says our text, absolutely necessary in order for us to be the Christian church. When the Jerusalem church practiced such disciplines, many wonders and signs of conversion, healing and the transformation of lives were worked through it. And who among us does not know when wonders have been worked by a church that truly lives like a church of Christ?
According to our text, further wonders characterized the life of those who lived in the power of Christ's Spirit, however. No one among them was left needy. They provided for those who were hungry or poor, who suffered some calamity or misfortune. It makes us very uncomfortable when we read in verse 44 that those early Christians all lived together in a commune, selling their possessions and providing for any who had want. Some groups of Christians, such as the Hutterites, in fact have adopted such communal living. But the point is not that we should adopt such a commune lifestyle. Rather, the important emphasis is on the generosity of those who live by the power of the Holy Spirit. If we live in Christ and Christ lives in us, we care for one another. We share one another's burdens. We provide for one another's necessities. We do not think only of ourselves, or look out for number one, or think our welfare is our only concern. No. The concern of Christians is for one another, whether that takes physical or mental or spiritual forms. Our neighbor, our fellow Christian, the stranger among us -- all are souls whom Christ loves and for whom Christ died. And if we live in Christ, we comfort the grief-stricken, we give support to the anxious, we feed and house the needy, we welcome the lonely and outcast. No one is outside of Christ's concern. And no one should be outside of ours either.
Our text further tells us that in such a church community, we worship together and eat together as one people, and, the text continues, we also have joy. Not surprisingly, such a community attracts more people to its membership (v. 47).
So Luke gives us a picture of what it means to be the church, good Christians. Surely it is a portrayal to hold constantly before our eyes as we continue on our journey toward the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ.
THE POLITICAL PULPIT
Acts 2:42-47
According to U.S. government statistics (an August 3, 2001 "Health Insurance Coverage 2000 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey"), 44 million Americans (16.1 percent of the civilian population) have no health insurance. Of those aged 19-24, one-third of Americans have no coverage. This is unconscionably too high!
Although there has been a slight decline in the number of Americans in poverty, a still much too high nearly 29 million (10.6 percent of the American population) were in poverty, according to the Census Bureau. And it is not just the unemployed. According to federal statistics based on 1999, 6.8 million Americans qualified as working poor. It seems disgraceful that people working more than 26 hours a week (the minimum to qualify as working poor, and many work 40 hours or more) remained impoverished.
The problem of these numbers is even more tragic, when we consider that of those with more than a high school education, 14.3 percent are in poverty.
Considering poverty inevitably leads to the great debate over welfare, a topic we examined in a recent issue (July-August, 2001: 37). You might find some of the data cited in that column relevant. But another alternative to the present quandary America has about poverty, noted by political commentator Ellen Willis (Don't Think, Smile! Notes on a Decade of Denial, 24), is relevant. Citing a number of earlier books, she suggests that "it might be time to stop thinking in terms of relief for a discrete class of 'the poor' and discuss what a universal guaranteed income might look like." It seems to be the American way.
In the past I have noted that some of America's most prominent Founders advocated something like welfare, a safety net, a sharing of resources. One quote by Thomas Jefferson is especially relevant. In a 1785 letter to James Madison, he wrote:
I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of humankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind.... Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.... If for the encouragement of industry we allow [property] to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from appropriation. (Thomas Jefferson: Writings, pp. 841-842)
We need to ask why modern America has not considered this option or socialized medicine, when the Socialist democracies of Western Europe have cradle-to-grave social welfare programs, universal medical coverage, and almost no poverty. For those inclined to lament the high taxes that come with these systems, it is worth noting that a number of these nations, notably Norway which ranks #1, have higher standards of living than the United States. The church, with its biblical socialist-oriented vision, could make a contribution to making such programs viable political options in American turf.
It will take a lot of sermons and some local programming. But the early church's sharing of all goods as described in this text certainly affords opportunities to apply this vision of sharing resources to today's quandaries about universal health insurance coverage and becoming a society that affords a decent standard of living for all.
Once built, players from the infamous 1919 Chicago Black Sox baseball team begin to show up. This team had thrown a World Series game of that year and were banished for life from baseball. Ray's field was their chance at redemption and Ray's chance to confront the demons of a bad relationship with his father. The quirky idea of a ball field in the middle of the corn belt strikes a chord with folks and soon people are driving from all over to watch the games in Ray's field of dreams.
For several months following the movie's release, the mantra, "Build it and they will come," seemed to crop up everywhere. Discussion groups formed to debate the relative merits of the philosophy encapsulated in "build it...." Church growth consultants used the mantra to encourage facility construction. Church growth consultants used the mantra to discourage facility construction. Anyone with a dream was using the premise of the movie to pursue his or her dream, abandoning all sense of rationality. "Build it and they will come" became the magic talisman for the early 1990s.
Today's texts seem to offer a divergent view to the "build it and they will come" mentality. The alternative suggestion presented by these texts is "live it and they will come."
Acts 2:42-47
Statistics fairly consistently confirm that those persons with more limited resources are proportionally more generous with what they have than are folks whose resources are greater. That factor may seem to explain part of the reason why some members of the early church pooled their resources and lived a communal lifestyle. Historians remind us that the vast majority of those who were attracted to the Jesus movement in its formative years came from the day laborers and underclass of Roman society. Not having much to begin with, these early believers found joint ownership and mutual care to be not only practical, but also in keeping with the ethic of their newly discovered faith.
It is also important to note that at this stage in its development, the Jesus movement was still a sub-group within Judaism. The leaders were practicing Jews, the congregation was made up of practicing Jews (v. 46) and the One whom they called Lord lived his life as a practicing Jew. The Jesus movement would not become Christianity as we know it until late first century-mid second century.
In the First Lesson Focus, Dr. Achtemeier has pointed out the pattern of the believers' life together. What I want to call attention to is how such a life was attractive to their fellow citizens and co-religionists. This community of Jesus people enjoyed the goodwill of all (v. 47) and day-by-day folks were flocking to become a part of this generous, caring, joy-filled community. They had no money to build; they had no "it" to build. All they had was a confident and loving faith in Jesus Christ and as they lived out of that faith people came.
1 Peter 2:19-25
Being a follower of Jesus when 1 Peter was written could not have been an all-round pleasant experience. Whatever inner joy and satisfaction came as a result of one's faith relationship with Christ and communal relationship with other believers was offset by the difficult physical life many believers experienced. Once again, Peter feels compelled to offer a word of encouragement to those whose lives are harsh, ugly, brutish and short.
Today's Epistle lesson begins in the middle of Peter's instructions to slaves who are also believers. If the believing community of Acts 2 was indicative of the larger Jesus movement, then it should come as no surprise that slaves would be attracted to these faith communities. Here they experienced an equality of personhood, reciprocal sharing and an opportunity to discover and employ spiritual gifts that was not available to them in their secular responsibilities. We can well imagine a slave leaving the caring community of faith after a time of worship and prayer and returning to the near impossible conditions of his master. Having experienced a taste of equality it was difficult to return to the status of a slave. Not a few slaves, no doubt, rebelled against their masters, desiring fairer and more humane treatment.
Like Paul before him, Peter did not attempt to take on the master-slave arrangement within society, rather he confined himself to encouraging the slave to endure the pain inflicted upon him/her as a way of identifying with Christ and to live in such a way that all pain inflicted was unjustly administered. By so doing the slave was enjoying the approval of God.
There is something about Peter's admonition that makes us moderns uncomfortable. Why should one accept an inferior status when something can be done to challenge that status? Doesn't this sound a lot like something those in power would say to the powerless? What kind of world would this be if everyone simply accepted their place in society as an unalterable reality? Does Peter's admonition really make sense in the 21st century?
A careful look at this passage helps us to see that these questions are really missing the point. Peter is not arguing social science; he is trying to preserve the integrity of the Jesus movement. His argument would run something like this: You have embraced the forgiveness and grace offered to you through Jesus Christ. You have accepted membership into the community that identifies itself with belief in Jesus. You have made a public confession that Jesus is your Lord. Therefore, you have taken upon yourself the commitment to a certain lifestyle -- one that honors the movement and that holds the reputation of Jesus in high regard. Whatever you do, however you live, remember what others think of Jesus is what they see in you. So live a life that meets with God's approval and allow the example of Jesus to be your guide.
Peter concludes this passage by reminding his readers just what that model of Jesus is all about. Like a slave who acts with justice, Jesus committed no wrong. When Jesus was mistreated unjustly, he did not speak ill of his adversary. When he was attacked, he did not retaliate in word or deed. Rather he sought God's approval by carrying that abuse upon his body while simultaneously forgiving the abuser. That is the example we should follow. That is the life we should live. That is the witness we should bear.
John 10:1-10
For all of its popularity and familiar imagery, today's Gospel lesson is not an easy one to fully understand. We should not be embarrassed to admit this; even the original hearers who understood the context and could pick up non-verbal clues as to meaning did not understand what Jesus was trying to say (v. 6). This is not the only teaching that Jesus' followers had difficulty understanding; they needed an explanation of the parable of the sower; they needed Jesus to be clearer about what was meant by the near impossibility of the rich getting into the kingdom of heaven; and they never did catch on until after the fact about what Jesus was trying to say in regards to laying down his life. So if we come to this text with a bit of uncertainty, we are in good company.
What makes this passage difficult to understand is that we are not sure who John would have us believe the antagonists are. This teaching follows hard on the heels of Jesus' confrontation with the Pharisees over Jesus' healing of a blind man on the Sabbath. Are we to understand that the Pharisees are the thieves and bandits of this text? If so, what is the other way by which they enter? In what way are they "strangers"? Also complicating the interpretation is Jesus' comment in verse 8 that all who came before him are thieves and bandits. Does that include Moses and the prophets? How are we to understand this reference to "all"?
One should use caution in making this text say more than it is actually saying. For instance, it would be more of a case of isogesis than exegesis to read Christian exclusivity in this text. One may believe that the Christian faith is the only God-approved faith, but this text cannot legitimately be used in one's arsenal of defense for this belief. Jesus seems to be speaking of true and false shepherds, not true and false belief systems.
A helpful background to this passage is Ezekiel 34 in which good and bad shepherds are also discussed. In John, the focus is on the care of the sheep (the people of God) -- it is their protection that is foremost in Jesus' concern. The shepherds are discussed in relation to how they tend to the sheep and to their ulterior motives in regarding the sheep.
The people of God (sheep) are in some sense vulnerable, that is, they depend upon an "authority" to help them understand the will and purpose of God. True, they have the Torah, but the Torah (like the Bible) often depends on a learned other to help lead the way to an appropriate understanding. Those learned others (authorities) can carry out their functions either with an eye on the needs of the people or with an eye to their own agendas. Those shepherds who receive the criticism of Jesus do not act with integrity (climb in by another way); speak not to lead, but to mislead (do not know the voice); and look to their own self-interest rather than the interest of the flock (come to steal, kill and destroy).
Jesus, by contrast, and those guides who follow his example, deals straightforwardly with the people (enters by the gate); enjoys a relationship with the people in which each is known to the other (calls by name and leads them out); does not push the flock, but leads it (goes ahead of them); and is the source of their security (v. 9). The consequence of the false shepherds' leadership is emptiness and death. The consequence of Jesus' leadership is fullness and life.
Application
Nearly every pastor and most members wish to see their congregations grow. Some measure growth numerically, by the number of new members they add to the congregation. Others measure growth by the deepening commitment and spiritual life of those already members of the congregation. Both types of growth are legitimate and both are needed. The question is, how does such growth come about?
There are any number of church growth gurus with no shortage of advice and sure-fire methods to produce church growth. Most of these methods are a one-size-fits-all approach -- do this and this and this and this and growth will be automatic. Those of us who have tried these approaches know their shortcomings better than we know their success. And then there are the super church models. We have witnessed the phenomenal growth of places like Willow Creek and Saddleback and many congregations have rushed to emulate the worship style or the leadership structure in the hopes of following in their footsteps. What these wannabes soon discover, however, is that there is more at work in the Willow Creeks of this world than organization or technique.
So, if the church growth formulas are not dependable and if the Saddleback model works more on intangibles than replicatables, where does that leave the rest of us who are interested in church growth of one sort or another? Well, it leaves us with biblical models.
Look again at what worked for the early Jesus movement in Jerusalem. In addition to what most of us do already -- Bible studies, church-wide fellowships, potluck dinners and prayers (v. 42) -- they took community responsibility seriously. These believers were generous with their possessions. They were aware of and attentive to the individual needs around them. They gladly welcomed to their fellowship not only each other, but the stranger as well. They did not wear their piety on their sleeve for all to notice, rather they wore their piety in their heart for all to benefit. Because they focused outwardly as well as inwardly, on each other as much as on themselves, and were just as glad-hearted meeting the needs of another as they were worshiping in the temple, folks with yearning hearts joined their number everyday. Instead of talking about their faith, they lived their faith and in the living of it, people came.
Consider again what worked for the churches to which Peter wrote his letter. In spite of graver circumstances than most of us will ever face, the community of Peter practiced the example of Jesus Christ. When treated unjustly, they did not try to clothe their retaliation in religious language, rather they endured the injustice as a testimony to the example of Jesus. When life was not going the way that they had hoped, they did not take matters into their own hands and attempt to control their own destinies; rather they entrusted themselves to the grace and mercy of God. When they recognized the disparity between God's expectations and their own behavior, they did not rationalize their sinfulness; rather they returned to the shepherd and guardian of their souls. Consequently, in spite of all of the obstacles facing them, they prospered and grew. They lived their faith and in the living of it, people came.
Hear again what worked for the followers of Jesus in John's day. The most vulnerable, those most needing guidance and care, those who longed for safety and salvation, all of these came to understand the compassion of Jesus because those who went forth in Jesus' name put the needs of these ones ahead of their own. They did this not out of any sense of self-aggrandizement or self-interest, but merely because the Good Shepherd had done the same for them. And through this selfless care, their flock increased. They lived their faith and in the living of it, people came.
The secret to church growth, no matter how it is measured, is the living out of one's faith. If we live it, they will come.
Alternative Applications
1) Acts: Dr. Achtemeier mentions that modern day Christians are uncomfortable with the communal image of this early gathering of believers. If that is true, and I think it is, an interesting sermon might be built around why that is so. What does that type of lifestyle threaten within us? Why are we so quick to pass off that way of being together as unreasonable and unworkable? What does our discomfort say to us about the relative value of people and possessions in our lives?
2) 1 Peter: In the comments above, little was made of what this passage had to say about Jesus directly. This passage is too rich to let this oversight go for long, so the preacher may want to focus more specifically on the example of Jesus in the midst of suffering and the implications of that for our faith and our understanding of the saving work of Christ.
3) John: Because most of us do not live in agrarian communities and those who do are probably not too acquainted with sheep, a worthwhile sermon could be developed that would help a congregation appreciate more fully the sheep-shepherd image.
FIRST LESSON FOCUS
Acts 2:42-47
This Sunday we continue with our exploration of Acts 2. You recall that two Sundays ago, we heard Peter proclaim the Resurrection, using prophecies that he found in the Psalms of the Old Testament. Last Sunday we discussed the reaction of the Jewish crowd in Jerusalem to Peter's sermon. He called upon his hearers to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. When a large number of the devout Jews, indeed 3,000 of them, repented of their sins and were baptized by the apostles, they received the Holy Spirit of God in Christ. Our text for today now sets out the results of that Spirit.
Certainly what we find in our passage in verses 42-47 is an account of the life of the first Jerusalem church that has been idealized to a certain extent. The author of the account, Luke, makes it sound as if everything was sweetness and light in that community, and in doing that, he is no different than we, is he? Many of us hold the thought that the early New Testament church was a perfect community, with no disputes or tensions among its members, no acts of selfishness or ignorance, no deeds that would indicate that it continued to be as sinfully human as is our own church today. Luke himself, however, later tells the story of greedy Ananias and his wife, in Acts 5:1-7. And certainly the Apostle Paul, in Galatians 1-2, preserves the memory of a serious falling out with some of the disciples in Jerusalem. Until the kingdom comes, human beings and their communities are going to be marked by the remnants of sin.
Nevertheless, what Luke does give us in our text is a picture of what the Christian church, living in the Spirit of Christ, is supposed to be and in fact sometimes is. Further, Luke lists the practices that can help us grow to be such a church.
First of all, verse 42 states that the members of the Jerusalem church devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching; that is, they repeatedly studied and talked about the Old Testament's promises and expectations of the Messiah and about the ministry and resurrection of Christ. We now have all of that history preserved for us in our Bibles, and so our text is telling us that in order to be a true Christian church, we need to read and study the scriptures and their meaning.
Second, the Jerusalem church's members engaged in fellowship with one another. They were wise enough, you see, to know that they couldn't be Christians all by themselves, that the Christian life is concerned not just with individuals but with a community -- a people of God. It is always true in the Christian faith that as soon as we enter into fellowship with our God, we are commanded by God to love and serve our neighbor. We are commanded to be a people.
Third, the members of that early church devoted themselves to the breaking of bread, and that is a reference to their communal celebration of the Lord's Supper. Very often the sacraments play a minor role in our church life. Some congregations celebrate the Supper only four times a year. But in the Eucharist, Christ's very life and strength, symbolized by the bread and wine, are given anew to us to enable us to live by his will and not by our own. We commune with our Lord at the table. Think of it! We come in to his actual presence. And we commune with all of the faithful who have gone before us, as well as those with whom we eat and drink, and we sup with all of the saints who will come after us. In the Supper, we make up the communion of saints, of the redeemed and justified, in the very real presence of our Lord.
Fourth, our text tells us that those early Jewish Christians devoted themselves to prayers. And no one can live a Christian life without praying regularly to God. We pray to respond in praise and thanksgiving to all that God has done for us. We pray to lay our griefs and worries and sufferings before him. We voice fervent intercessions to our Father on behalf of all in need. We lay bare our souls before God. And we trust that God in his love will answer our prayers as it seems good to him, for God wants only our good.
So Bible study, fellowship, sacraments and worship, prayer -- those are, says our text, absolutely necessary in order for us to be the Christian church. When the Jerusalem church practiced such disciplines, many wonders and signs of conversion, healing and the transformation of lives were worked through it. And who among us does not know when wonders have been worked by a church that truly lives like a church of Christ?
According to our text, further wonders characterized the life of those who lived in the power of Christ's Spirit, however. No one among them was left needy. They provided for those who were hungry or poor, who suffered some calamity or misfortune. It makes us very uncomfortable when we read in verse 44 that those early Christians all lived together in a commune, selling their possessions and providing for any who had want. Some groups of Christians, such as the Hutterites, in fact have adopted such communal living. But the point is not that we should adopt such a commune lifestyle. Rather, the important emphasis is on the generosity of those who live by the power of the Holy Spirit. If we live in Christ and Christ lives in us, we care for one another. We share one another's burdens. We provide for one another's necessities. We do not think only of ourselves, or look out for number one, or think our welfare is our only concern. No. The concern of Christians is for one another, whether that takes physical or mental or spiritual forms. Our neighbor, our fellow Christian, the stranger among us -- all are souls whom Christ loves and for whom Christ died. And if we live in Christ, we comfort the grief-stricken, we give support to the anxious, we feed and house the needy, we welcome the lonely and outcast. No one is outside of Christ's concern. And no one should be outside of ours either.
Our text further tells us that in such a church community, we worship together and eat together as one people, and, the text continues, we also have joy. Not surprisingly, such a community attracts more people to its membership (v. 47).
So Luke gives us a picture of what it means to be the church, good Christians. Surely it is a portrayal to hold constantly before our eyes as we continue on our journey toward the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ.
THE POLITICAL PULPIT
Acts 2:42-47
According to U.S. government statistics (an August 3, 2001 "Health Insurance Coverage 2000 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey"), 44 million Americans (16.1 percent of the civilian population) have no health insurance. Of those aged 19-24, one-third of Americans have no coverage. This is unconscionably too high!
Although there has been a slight decline in the number of Americans in poverty, a still much too high nearly 29 million (10.6 percent of the American population) were in poverty, according to the Census Bureau. And it is not just the unemployed. According to federal statistics based on 1999, 6.8 million Americans qualified as working poor. It seems disgraceful that people working more than 26 hours a week (the minimum to qualify as working poor, and many work 40 hours or more) remained impoverished.
The problem of these numbers is even more tragic, when we consider that of those with more than a high school education, 14.3 percent are in poverty.
Considering poverty inevitably leads to the great debate over welfare, a topic we examined in a recent issue (July-August, 2001: 37). You might find some of the data cited in that column relevant. But another alternative to the present quandary America has about poverty, noted by political commentator Ellen Willis (Don't Think, Smile! Notes on a Decade of Denial, 24), is relevant. Citing a number of earlier books, she suggests that "it might be time to stop thinking in terms of relief for a discrete class of 'the poor' and discuss what a universal guaranteed income might look like." It seems to be the American way.
In the past I have noted that some of America's most prominent Founders advocated something like welfare, a safety net, a sharing of resources. One quote by Thomas Jefferson is especially relevant. In a 1785 letter to James Madison, he wrote:
I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of humankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind.... Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.... If for the encouragement of industry we allow [property] to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from appropriation. (Thomas Jefferson: Writings, pp. 841-842)
We need to ask why modern America has not considered this option or socialized medicine, when the Socialist democracies of Western Europe have cradle-to-grave social welfare programs, universal medical coverage, and almost no poverty. For those inclined to lament the high taxes that come with these systems, it is worth noting that a number of these nations, notably Norway which ranks #1, have higher standards of living than the United States. The church, with its biblical socialist-oriented vision, could make a contribution to making such programs viable political options in American turf.
It will take a lot of sermons and some local programming. But the early church's sharing of all goods as described in this text certainly affords opportunities to apply this vision of sharing resources to today's quandaries about universal health insurance coverage and becoming a society that affords a decent standard of living for all.
