GROWING PAINS
ACTS 6:1-7
NASB
1 Now [a]at this time while the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the [b]Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving of food. 2 So the twelve summoned the [a]congregation of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables. 3 Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the [a]ministry of the word.” 5 The statement found approval with the whole [a]congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and [b]Nicolas, a [c]proselyte from Antioch. 6 And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them.
7 The word of God kept on spreading; and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith.
6:1 [a]Lit in these days [b]Jews who adopted the Gr language and much of Gr culture through acculturation 6:2 [a]Lit multitude 6:4 [a]Or service 6:5 [a]Lit multitude [b]Gr Nikolaos [c]I.e. a Gentile convert to Judaism
NLT
1 But as the believers[*] rapidly multiplied, there were rumblings of discontent. The Greek-speaking believers complained about the Hebrew-speaking believers, saying that their widows were being discriminated against in the daily distribution of food.
2 So the Twelve called a meeting of all the believers. They said, “We apostles should spend our time teaching the word of God, not running a food program. 3 And so, brothers, select seven men who are well respected and are full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will give them this responsibility. 4 Then we apostles can spend our time in prayer and teaching the word.”
5 Everyone liked this idea, and they chose the following: Stephen (a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit), Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas of Antioch (an earlier convert to the Jewish faith). 6 These seven were presented to the apostles, who prayed for them as they laid their hands on them.
7 So God’s message continued to spread. The number of believers greatly increased in Jerusalem, and many of the Jewish priests were converted, too.
[6:1] Greek disciples; also in 6:2, 7.
During the 1970s, I witnessed a rebirth of sorts. The previous two decades had been a dismal time for the church in America as every pundit and radical took potshots at what they termed “God’s frozen people” who remained icily immobile in their “suburban captivity.” Then something curious happened. A period of affirmation, experimentation, and revitalization took hold of some congregations, while most mainline denominations continued to suffer steady decline. As these large, traditional organizations lost attendance and funding, many other sanctuaries were bursting at the seams.
Books and seminars tried to explain why some churches flourished while others wilted: bus ministries, expository preaching, contemporary worship, aggressive evangelism, social action, community consciousness. Many had good things to say. But as I witnessed such rapid growth in the church where I served as senior pastor and in others nearby, I observed a common denominator not mentioned in most books. I saw churches grow rapidly for one reason or another, only to fizzle or fracture just as quickly. The churches that continued to grow were those with wise, adaptable leaders who were guided by tradition but not constrained by tradition.
In the first several months after Pentecost, the church in Jerusalem faced a number of challenges. The people met the challenge of public scorn with sound preaching. They met the challenge of intimidation with prayers for boldness. They met the challenge of hypocrisy with uncompromising integrity. They met the challenge of persecution with rejoicing and continued faithfulness. After three thousand members joined the disciples at Pentecost and five thousand more embraced Jesus as the Messiah in the temple —along with unknown numbers that came into the family of God daily throughout this time —the apostles faced one of the greatest challenges of all: success.
Elton Trueblood calls this early church an “incendiary fellowship.”[38] F.F. Bruce calls it the “spreading flame.”[39] This first-century phenomenon had no constitution, no organizational plan —nothing but the indwelling Holy Spirit to keep it cohesive and heading in the right direction. While the church remained relatively small, this worked just fine. Eventually, however, the Jerusalem church encountered the perils that accompany rapid growth.
— 6:1 —
“The disciples” refers to the entire local assembly in Jerusalem —all of the Christians, regardless of culture, language, background, or when they joined the congregation. While Jesus called twelve men to join an inner circle of students for the sake of leadership training, He had many followers —hundreds, and at times, thousands —during His earthly ministry. Luke calls all of the followers of Christ “disciples.”
At this time the entire body of believers was Jewish, but they represented two groups from two very different backgrounds. You’ll notice that in the NASB the words “Jews” and “native” are in italics. The editors inserted those words for clarity, but they don’t appear in the Greek text. The Greek terms could be rendered “Hellenists” and “Hebrews,” which have colloquial meanings.
The “Hellenists” were no less Hebrew than the “Hebrews,” at least by birth and bloodline. While Jewish by birth, they had adopted many customs from their Gentile neighbors and assimilated into their local communities in many ways. Many Hellenists rejected pagan religions, worshiped God exclusively, came to the temple for sacrifices and festivals, and generally obeyed the Law of Moses. Even so, they dressed like Gentiles, socialized with Gentiles, and embraced the Roman government as their own. They were known as Hellenists because, like much of the Roman world, they had adopted Greek as their primary language.
The “Hebrews,” on the other hand, were more traditionally Jewish in their manner of life, dress, and customs. They obeyed the Law of Moses in the Pentateuch, and they followed the traditions of the rabbis. The latter consisted of the strict, Pharisaic code of conduct that dictated every aspect of life: how they dressed, how they washed, what they ate, how they conducted business, what they touched, and with whom they socialized. Whereas most Hellenists attempted to accommodate Greek culture without completely abandoning their Jewish identity, the Hebrews scrupulously insulated themselves from anything Gentile. They also tended to be very nationalistic. Consequently, they spoke colloquial Hebrew or Aramaic as much as possible and Greek only when necessary.
These two vastly different groups filled the church in Jerusalem and mingled quite well because of their common bond in Jesus Christ and their mutual filling of the Holy Spirit. Still, from a purely human perspective, friction was inevitable.
In those days, many destitute people joined the church. To care for their basic needs, the church, through the generosity of men like Barnabas (4:36-37), purchased food, prepared it, and served it in baskets or on tables to those in need. And no one needed more help than widows. The core idea behind the Greek word for widow (chēra [5503]) is “forsaken.” Unfortunately, for much of history, a woman left without a man could not expect to survive long; indeed, many died from hunger, exposure, or assault. Many ancient cultures valued people to the extent they served the community. Old women could neither bear children nor bear hard labor; consequently, life became a bleak existence for old women with no family. (We might be reminded of the plight of Naomi in the book of Ruth.)
Widows fared much better in Hebrew culture, which valued kindness to widows and orphans as honoring to God; naturally, the church continued this Jewish tradition. Some Hellenists, however, complained that Hellenistic widows had been overlooked in the distribution of food, subtly suggesting cultural bias was to blame.
From My Journal
The Perils of Success
ACTS 6:1
The Jerusalem church encountered the perils that accompany rapid growth. I can identify four.
A first major peril in a rapidly growing church is an uncertain purpose. What was very clear in the early days becomes less clear as rapid growth kicks into high gear. Rapid growth has a way of erasing memories. Before long, the principles and priorities that once gave the church purpose and direction get forgotten.
According to Howard Ball, the founder of Churches Alive, the leaders of most churches in America (including pastors) cannot answer the questions “Where are you going as a church?” and “How will you get there?” That’s quite an indictment. There’s a missing purpose, a lack of definition, when church leaders cannot articulate the direction and purpose of their ministry. That’s part of the fallout of a rapidly growing assembly.
Second, vague priorities. Something highly important yesterday may lose significance tomorrow in a rapidly growing church. The tyranny of the immediate can take over when facilities need expanding, the parking lot overflows, nursery volunteers feel overwhelmed, and multiple services begin to tax resources. In that kind of chaos, the priorities that gave the church early success become casualties of the “squeaky-wheel syndrome.”
Third, professionalism, where we hire people to carry burdens the congregation should voluntarily bear together. I don’t mean things like custodial work and grounds keeping. I mean ministries like missions, evangelism, social work, and caregiving. An attitude of professionalism prefers to send money rather than people to the mission field. It’s easier to hire an evangelism pastor and then expect him to do all the evangelizing. If someone is hired to be on staff, it should be to equip and lead volunteers in the work of ministry.
Fourth, diminished individual significance. In a large church, people can begin to lose significance as individuals. As one among thousands, a person might think, “Who really cares if my son has run away? Who really cares if my spouse left me? Who in that great big church down there even knows me well enough to realize I’m dying on the inside? Who will help me now that I’ve lost my job and have no food to eat? Does anybody care? Maybe they just don’t want me to rock the boat.”
If a rapidly growing church doesn’t watch for these four perils of success and take action, it can become like the machine in a joke I once heard. A man sat in the office of a patent attorney playing with his invention. He pushed a button and it jumped to life. Lights flashed, gears turned, pulleys spun, and belts rolled as a little symphony of fascinating mechanical noises drew everyone’s attention. The person next to him said, “My, that’s impressive! What does it do?” The inventor replied, “Do? It doesn’t do anything. But doesn’t it run beautifully?”
A big church can run beautifully yet accomplish very little.
— 6:2-4 —
The apostles could not be everywhere at once. Moreover, God had called the twelve men to teach, preach, and lead, not to minister to every individual need in person. They quickly recognized the need for an organizational structure. They needed people of godly character to meet the legitimate needs of individuals so that the church did not lose focus. The church had to take care of its members without failing in its primary mission: to “be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (1:8). Its members had not yet extended ministry beyond the walls of Jerusalem; they couldn’t afford to get bogged down by details —even the important detail of caring for widows.
To accommodate their growth and to keep their focus on the Lord’s mandate, the apostles charged the congregation with the task of selecting seven men to oversee the distribution of food to widows (6:3). The word translated “select” here (episkeptomai [1980a]) means “to observe by inspection and examination.” These individuals selected for service were not to be the first seven who expressed an interest or who had the spare time. The church was to look at the responsibilities required and then find gifted men who could fulfill those responsibilities.
The apostles initially named only two criteria in selecting these men. They were to have a good reputation and have evidence of the Holy Spirit’s filling. The apostles wanted men they could trust to do the job with the same integrity that they would.
What an ingenious plan! The apostles didn’t appoint the deacons themselves; they had the congregation make the selections. While a popular vote isn’t generally the best policy in churches, it was the best way for the Twelve to deal with the suspicious implication of favoritism. The complaint of the Hellenists suggested that the “Hebrews” discriminated in their distribution of food to widows. All twelve apostles belonged to the suspected faction. Having the congregation determine who served them precluded any future accusation.
— 6:5-6 —
The congregation chose seven men, all with Greek names, suggesting a Greek orientation (6:5). Nicolas wasn’t even Jewish by birth; he had become a Jew by conversion (prosēlytos [4339]) prior to responding to the gospel. Stephen would soon become a key figure in Luke’s narrative, as would Philip, but Scripture says nothing more about the other five.
Then the congregation brought those they had chosen to the apostles, who “laid their hands on them” (6:6). The practice of “laying on of hands” dates back to the earliest days of the Hebrew people. The gesture symbolizes passing something intangible from one person to another, such as blessing (Gen. 48:14; Matt. 19:14-15), guilt (Exod. 29:10), judgment (Lev. 24:14), authority (Num. 27:18-20), or the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17-20). The New Testament church adopted the practice as a means of commissioning someone to carry out a specific task (9:17; 13:3).
Eventually, these men would come to be known as the first “deacons” (diakonos [1249]), a title based on the verb translated “serve tables” in 6:2. In its most literal sense, the term diakonos means “one who serves at table.” By extension, it carries the idea of serving obediently and willingly, offering service with a submissive attitude. Although the duties of a deacon would be expanded, the people serving in this capacity were never to forget their table-waiting roots.
— 6:7 —
Luke’s summary statement here[40] confirms that the apostles made the right decision. They met the challenge of success wisely. The church continued to address the needs of current members without neglecting its ministry to people outside the congregation.
The additional comment that “a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith” may be significant because this administrative decision appealed to the priests working in the temple. These priests were socially and economically different from the high priest and chief priests, who were Sadducees in their politics and theology. These men were middle class and devout, and they usually carried the responsibility of practical care in the temple. For them, the gospel message became convincing when the church gave it practical relevance.
APPLICATION: ACTS 6:1-7
Principles for Growing
The challenges faced by the rapidly growing church in Jerusalem suggest four principles that still apply today.
First, strong leadership doesn’t guarantee an absence of problems. You may have strong, capable leaders who are filled and led by the Holy Spirit, but in a growing church you’re still going to have some problems. Remember those who led the Jerusalem church in those early days? Twelve apostles trained by Jesus for years, eleven of them under the close, personal supervision of the Messiah! Yet problems still challenged the church.
Don’t blame leaders when difficulties arise. Blaming is easier than participating in the solution, but it does nothing to eliminate the problem.
Second, rapid growth doesn’t excuse unmet needs. Now, that’s a lesson for today’s leadership to remember. These men in leadership listened to a legitimate complaint and then did something about it. They didn’t defend themselves against the accusation of favoritism. They didn’t ignore the problem as something beneath their level of concern. They didn’t dismiss or minimize the need, and they certainly didn’t discredit the people complaining. They listened to the criticism and then saw it as an opportunity to address an unmet need.
Third, concerned involvement doesn’t require losing priorities. The apostles found a way to meet the congregation’s needs and solve the problem without sacrificing their top priorities. That’s a tough balance to maintain! It takes creative thinking, willingness to flex, courage to delegate, and the wisdom to risk failure. Welcome to Leadership 101.
Fourth, a large church can have an effective ministry. In fact, smaller churches cannot manage some ministries. I’m not saying one is better than another. I simply maintain that both small and large churches have their advantages. Smaller churches don’t struggle with many of the dangers affecting larger churches (see “The Perils of Success” on pages 115–116). Nevertheless, if the leaders of a large church can steer around those perils, they can minister to people who would otherwise lack what they need. A large church can minister to special-needs children, brain-injured veterans, and people who are deaf, blind, or disabled using resources unavailable to churches with a small budget.
When God gives increase to a congregation, He doesn’t leave it without direction. If the church’s leadership, through prayer and sensitivity to the Holy Spirit, takes care to avoid the perils of success and diligently applies these principles, its leaders can keep the church strong and maintain a pattern of growth.