Date: 24 Apr 2000
Time: 23:20:46
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
Date: 25 Apr 2000
Time: 09:34:14
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
Date: 25 Apr 2000
Time: 12:42:57
4, 25, 2000
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
Date: 25 Apr 2000
Time: 14:13:28
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
Date: 25 Apr 2000
Time: 20:30:56
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
Date: 26 Apr 2000
Time: 17:28:52
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
Date: 27 Apr 2000
Time: 02:16:33
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
Date: 27 Apr 2000
Time: 12:48:00
"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.
Date: 27 Apr 2000
Time: 23:46:20
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.
Date: 28 Apr 2000
Time: 23:59:23
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
Date: 29 Apr 2000
Time: 18:19:38
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
Date: 29 Apr 2000
Time: 18:20:16
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
Date: 29 Apr 2000
Time: 18:43:32
I apologize for putting my contribution in twice.
- Norm
Date: 29 Apr 2000
Time: 22:16:21
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.
Date: 17 Aug 2000
Time: 19:02:31
I live in the former communist country, so I probably know more about communism and how it works.
In the manifesto of the communist party written by Marx and Engels, what is the basis of any communism, it is written that "In bourgeois society, capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality", i.e. they deny any individuality except perhaps bourgeois. But there is also written that "The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at", so even that would be abolished and nowhere they offer any other individuality for compensation.
When there is no individuality then the only alternative is collectivism, i.e. the individual have to put his interests below the collective interests (in the communist literature it is also said that individual knowingly have to unite his interests with collective interests, what is even worse because no intersets would be left what may be in conflict with collective interests) and this requirement is unconditional. This principle is frequently written in the communist literature aimed to "educate" people but interestingly there is nowhere a reference to the source. So this is probably their "big secret" and because of that I did show how it can be derived from their basic documents. In fact no society who don't respect individuality cannot manage without a principle of collectivism.
Unfortunately a lot of people who want to join the army etc. accept the principle of collectivism. But as the collective interests always have to be preferred to individual ones (if they can exist at all), there is no way how they can be formed from individual interests. And because of that the principle of collectivism justifies killing - if it is collective interest, then it have to be done and any humane or religious considerations have only secondary importance. There are a lot of other ideologies similar and not on anyway better than communism. They can be called any "isms" and can be even against communism. For example the propaganda minister of Nazi Germany Gobbels said: "To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.", so as you see this is almost the same.
But in fact it is not important whether the supportes of such ideology kill or not. The most important is that the principle of collectivism is extremely immoral and *can* justify killing, so as far there are supporters of such principle the wars, killing, communism, fascism, totalitarism, etc. cannot be excluded. So we have to do everything to explain the inhumanity of the principle of collectivism, otherwise there is always a threat of communism and other similar systems what are based on that principles. Also sometimes supporting some of such systems can be justified even by humane reasons, as far as there are such systems there are these who support them and there is no reason why *you* have to have a deal with these systems.
They can also say that collectivism is necessary in order to be organized but this, keeping the agreements etc. has nothing to do with surpressing all your interests.
Man is not happy alone, man is happy as a part of society, this is why collectivism is more proper than individualism in order to be happy, what a satanic (=atheistic system's) statement, isn't it?
Let's start the change!!!