Our congregation spent Lent reflecting on spiritual gifts. It is our
intention to bring this focus to a culmination this Sunday and I
plan to use this passage with regard to freely sharing our spiritual
gifts with the community. I want the congregation to become more
comfortable that God has gifted us with all that we need. When we
share them freely and generously, no one goes without and the
congregaiton is able to live out God's vision for our ministry. I do
not usually stretch this far from the original meaning...ie
spiritual rather than material gifts. I welcome any observations or
cautions on keeping it faithful.
Blessings,
Cindy
My sermon series begins this week. I am planning on preaching the
lectionary texts from Acts. My working title for the series is The
Church's Blueprints. I would like to reflect on the early's church's
characteristics and applications for the modern/postmodern church.
In this week's reading, I am pondering the grace for the church to
be of one mind, one soul, one focus.
Peace, Joseph
The early church sold private property and held everything in
common. Is this the blueprint for the church today or was this a
freak happening because they thought that Jesus' return was
imminent? What is the Holy Spirit saying today? Communism and
socialism are blatant failures everywhere, and the welfare system we
have when abused destroys the self-esteem of those involved. So what
then is this passage saying about our money if anything? Should the
church be in one accord about it's spending? Should budget meetings
be in total agreement about everything? What will the Holy Spirit
lead us to today? What about the "church" in persecution? Do they
have the same problems as the church of affluence? Are they more
prone to listen to the Spirit then the churches that are overflowing
with money? Or are the churches overflowing with money especially
blessed? Where is the truth of God concerning the "church" and its
money? Is it really ok for the affluent churches to spend $$$$$ on
new buildings, sound systems, etc. when the suffering churches
around the world are short of Bibles, short of medicine, short of
educational materials, short of buildings, short of support for
pastors and missionaries? Are these questions worth pondering or do
we already know the answers?
Dale in KS
I have always found this short passage fascinating. As a Canadian
social democrat, I have no problem accepting it at face value, that
the early Christian community was, in some sense, a "commune," folks
who voluntarily gave up all that they owned for the good of the
whole. In some ways, it was the blueprint for the later monastic
communities, where everything was held in common.
But what does that mean for us? I don't believe that just because
the earliest Christians did it that it is necessarily how we ought
to be living. (After all, the earliest Christians were still Jewish,
too, and we don't do that.) But neither do I think that we can
dismiss the very down-to-earth, material nature of what was being
asked. This wasn't about spiritual gifts being shared (although I'm
sure that happened, too).
This passage, to me, is about a radical admission that every we have
is ours only on loan, a gift of God. We, ourselves, "own" nothing,
"earn" nothing, "deserve" nothing. And if we truly believe that, we
cannot hoard as private treasure all that God so freely bestows on
us. We must be about using everything we have to God's purposes and
glory. This is so much beyond the idea of tithing, it's about a
radical discipleship that calls us to acknowledgement that
everything we have is _already_ held in common; we just need to
learn to live this.
Heather Newmarket, Ontario
During Epiphany and Lent, I preached a sermon series on "Mark's
Story of Jesus" (often departing from the lectionary). During
Eastertide, I will be preaching a sermon series, "Luke's Story of
the Church," based on the lectionary readings from Acts. It's my
hope that this series will culminate in a festive reception of new
members and recognition of church school teachers on Pentecost, June
11.
From context to content: Sermon title for this Sunday (which is also
the day of our annual congregational meeting) is, "There was not a
needy person among them." I plan to reflect on the different needs
people have that bring them into the worshipping community, and how
those needs shape their expectations of church (and sometimes their
disappointments as well). Then I want to lift up the vision of a
faith community that can meet a wide spectrum of people's needs,
without at all times meeting everybody's needs. My focus will be
more on emotional, intellectual and spiritual needs than on material
needs. I agree with other posters that caution is appropriate when
making indirect applications of a text like this.
I like Heather's point that everything we have (material and
spiritual) is in a sense "on loan" from God, already "held in
common," so that the challenge of radical discipleship is to live
according to these truths.
I suppose that the "love communism" of the early church was a gift
from God ("great grace was upon them all"), so that a
third-millennium application of this model or blueprint would be a
gift of grace as well.
Doug in Riverside
I am glad to see that folks are using this lection. I am planning on
using it but extend the reading through 5:11. These additional
verses tell the story of Barnabas who sold a field and "laid [the
money] at the apostles' feet." In Acts 5 we read the story about
Ananias and Sapphira who also sold a field and "laid it at the
aposltes' feet."But they held back a portion of the proceeds. The
result: they both fell down dead. 5:11 reads: "And great fearsiezed
the whole church and all who heard these things." Great fear still
siezes me. And I am a little fearful about using the whole thing.
But I think it adds a dimension that moves beyond talking about
contemporary political and economic theory. This was how they lived.
If you tried to decieve those to whom you lived, you died.
Certainly, I think that can be overdone today, but in a metaphorical
sense it speaks to what happens when we deceive those with whom we
are in relationship. WillWillimon in his commentary on Acts writes
that the first time the word "church" is used in Luke-Acts is in
5:11. Seeing folks drop dead certainly will put fear in you. They
aren't easy words to read and hear in my context, but there they are
in the scripture.
I am considering trying to link the Acts and John readings. Thomas
doubted but he was up front about his issues. You can make the case
that Annanias and Sapphira doubted also, but they sought approval
regardless of the cost. Any reactions?
Joel in Georgia
The UCC is developing a new curriculum on the Bible and the economy
to be used for 7 weeks after Easter. Of course this Acts passage is
one of the focal points. My Bible study began using the draft series
tonight. I am anxious to see how they relate to it. Some of them
didn't want to use it because they say they are coming to Bible
study "to be uplifted spiritually." I think this could be one of the
most spiritually uplifting things we do! Sharon in Bethlehem
"fellowship of the suffering"; "agape" gift-giving;
"covenant-making" in light of heritage/inheritance and futuristic
journey; stages of faith development and community-making stages;
the "cost of discipleship" betond "cheap grace"; for UMC Order of
Elders to discover the blessing of a special heritage often taken
for granted-thankfulness for the sacrafices in the faith stories of
the past and present uniting a "fellowship/community" with a common
good; "We give but little when we give of our possessions. It is
when we give of our self that we trully give. For what are
possessions but things we keep for fear we may need them tomorrow.
And tomorrow, what shall tomorrow bring to the unprudent dog who
buries his bones in the trackless sands of time as he follows the
pilgrims to the Holy City." (K. Gibran in the Prophet) The
individuals relationship to the community is a value loaded
question. Should our modern worldview in an emerging post-modern
culture dominate the interpretation of scripture or how should we go
about authentic futuristic development in the
"covenant-people-of-God", the Church? What about the Church
Triumphant which in my view transcends the militant, visible,
bureaucracy we have so often given our material possessions to
without the gift of our hearts in costly discipleship? Too often in
my view we have unconsciously "used/abused" sacred language and/or
sacramental liturgy as a "marketing" technique in fund-raising for
the "factory" bureaucracy rather than realize the radical
eschatological community we are called to be/become in the
name/life-giving spirit of Jesus the Christ! struggling PaideiaSCO
in north Ga mts.
What is wonderful to me about this passage (and about the Good News
as a whole) is that it is not about one economic system, political
system or other human created system of distributing what we have;
it is about the Way that GOD IS and the Way that GOD WORKS! And then
it calls us to live into this new understanding, the understanding
of that this is not merely the way it should be, or that we need see
what of our human actions and creations it it justifies, but to live
this way because that is the way God is, and that is the true telos
of all of us.No matter what political/economic system we live under,
if we remember and live out that our first allegience (only?) is to
God and God's ways, then we can live as God intends us to, as
evident through Jesus Christ.
But of course, that is eaiser said then done. So thank God for
grace, forgiveness and mercy as shown in Jesus Christ also.
Pastor Debbie in Maine.
I like how this reading connects with the gospel. It describes how
people are, when they have accepted the Holy Spirit and Believe in
Jesus, crucified and glorified. "The whole group of believers were
of one heart and soul, ... everything they owned was held in common
... There was not a needy person among them ..." Before we panic
lest the Spirit get loose among us, and we have to sell everything,
there are many ways of sharing possessions, with the poor, -
almsgiving among them, and tithing. The important thing is, that,
sharing with the poor, somehow happens spontaneously, when a
community accepts the Holy Spirit and believes in Jesus. As we
accept the Holy Spirit, our possessions become an expression and a
symbol of our faith, because we're sharing them. If we can't share
them, they become an idol which dominates us?
There's a story of a soapbox preacher in Hyde Park. He declared: "If
you had two houses, you would give one to the poor wouldn't you?'
'Yes' said a man in the audience, 'indeed I would.' 'And if you had
two cars, you would keep one and give the other away?' "Yes, of
course,' said the man. 'And if you had two shirts, you would give
one away?' Hey, wait a minute,' said the man, 'I've got two shirts."
[C3]
Ilike Rev. Gina's inspiration on the gospel. This is an amazing site
with so much inter-action and inspiration. Phil in Toronto
I have this thought that maybe everyone was not okay with how things
were going. Obviously the Jewish officials were not pleased with the
disciples.
What would it be like if Jesus had just been put to death a few
weeks ago? I see this scene happening -
Scene: Jerusalem. The followers of Jesus Jewish sect have met for a
meal and praise. The phone rings. One of the group picks it up.
Follower: Jews for Jesus, it’s a good day to convert. Cephas
speaking. How may we help you?
Woman: May I speak to Joseph? Is he there?
Follower: (holds the phone away from his mouth) Barnabas, It’s for
you!
Barnabas: Hello
Woman: Joseph, it’s your mother.
Barnabas: Hi mom, what’s up?
Woman: Don’t give me that. You know what’s up. You’ve gone and
joined that cult. The one with the dead messiah. There are dozens of
sects with live messiahs. Couldn’t you pick one of them?
Barnabas: Mom he is alive. A bunch of the disciples saw him! Even
Thomas….and you know what a skeptic he is.
Woman: And you’re going by Barnabas? What was the matter with your
real name? What was the matter with Joseph?
Barnabas: It’s just a nickname mom. We use names that describe our
different gifts. It symbolizes our change from our previous life to
a new life in the spirit.
Woman: New life? What was the matter with your old life? You are a
Levite. One of the chosen. Joseph, are you getting enough to eat?
I’ve heard stories. These disciples of yours. They convince you to
sell your possessions then they go live as the gentiles say “high on
the hog” and you get nothing.
Barnabas: I get enough to eat. We eat together. We share the same
spirit. I don’t want for anything. I receive according to my need.
We are all of like mind, spirit, and heart.
Woman: So they’ve brainwashed you!! I’ll go the rabbi. We’ll
deprogram you.
Barnabas: Mom, I’m okay. I believe the messiah has come. He is
Jesus. He was crucified by the romans but he rose from the dead.
He’s coming back soon to judge the living and dead. His kingdom will
not end. Mom, I know God has great things planned for me. Look, I
gotta go. I love you. I’ll write, okay? Come join us. Even Jesus’
mom is here. Bye
Norm just a humble Lay Speaker
I am a great and sublime fool. But then I am God's fool, and all His
works must be contemplated with respect. - Mark Twain
Grace and peace All, Haven't finished reading through all the
comments so my apologies if this repeats... but then that was one
way the Hebrew people, our 1 John reading (and the Holy Spirit?)
emphasized something. Just thinking out loud with some quick
thoughts on this passage: 1. In 67-70 AD Jerusalem and environs was
under Roman seige and mainly razed to the ground. Anyone holding
property at that time would have lost it. Was the H.S. preparing the
church for this event through this leading to sell?
2. Shortly after this chapter, the persecutions began in ernest.
Having liquidated their capital would mean that those people would
be able to pick up and go at a moments notice. This is interesting
for the modern church. Could we pack up and leave in the face of
persecution if we had to? And would we get fair market value? So
perhaps, being liquid with cash and not in debt is a good idea for
the church under persecution.
3. Although not mentioned in these verses Barnabas was noted for the
sale of a field. Without fields and property how was Barnabas going
to make a living? Perhaps, this generosity freed him up to be able
to accept God's call to missionary travel when it came! Now what
does this say to the modern trend for ministers to sink their
capital into homes which they must sell to follow God's next call?
4. Perhaps the Lord is leading His people in an age of uncertainty
to be less materialistic. Perhaps those in Christian service today
ought to be prepared to be mobile. Could God mean then we ought to
have occupations that would enable us to pursue the "tent making"
models of ministry? And then what about all these "albatross"
churches which stand nearly empty and falling into disrepair? What
is God saying about this through this passage? As long as it was
safe, didn't the early church meet in homes and public areas --
beaches, river banks, plazas? As I understand it, it wasn't until
Constantine the first "Christian" Emperor of Rome that the church
was given possession of the pagan temples to convert into churches.
Hmmm....
Food for thought this...
Sandy in N.ON.
