Growing Pains in the Church
Introduction: There’s something nice about a small church. When the fellowship involves only 50-150 people, it is possible to know nearly everyone in the group, everyone is, almost of necessity, involved in ministry in one way or another, facilities and equipment needs are minimal, and there’s a closeness that’s hard to beat.
But when a church begins to experience rapid growth, some inevitable changes take place. For one thing it is easy in a growing church for people to melt into the background and become anonymous. Having pastored a fairly large church I am aware that the very size enables some people who don’t want to be involved and don’t want to be accountable to slip in and slip out without anyone ever learning their names. We had people who attended worship services five years or longer without ever establishing a single meaningful relationship in the church, not because the church was unfriendly but because they didn’t desire it.
Another related, but different problem, is that people who don’t want to be anonymous can fall through the cracks because of the sheer size of the operation. To counter this tendency, some churches establish ministries specifically targeted to the youth, the young marrieds, the elderly, the shut-ins, the singles, the divorced, the hearing impaired, the reading impaired, the mothers of preschoolers, substance abusers, and even those going through mid-life crisis.
But it’s impossible to have an accountability group for everyone. What about the 31-year-old married guy with two children who’s simply having trouble with his boss at work? That can be a very significant problem to him, but if he’s bashful he may not say anything and the problem goes unaddressed, whereas in a small church he might be inclined to ask for prayer in a sharing time.
Another problem of the growing church is that priorities can become fuzzy. When the church is young, its focus is almost always upon fellowship, evangelism, and edification. As the church grows, other matters tend to demand more and more attention—building new facilities, fund raising, recruiting staff, programming, etc.
Still another problem of the growing church is a tendency toward professionalism and specialization. A small church usually has only one pastor, so much of the ministry, of necessity, is carried on by the laity. But in a larger church, since every part aspect of the ministry is bigger, professionals are often hired to do what lay people used to do. The rule of thumb followed by many churches is to hire a second staff member when the church reaches 200, and another one at every increase of 200 thereafter. A church of 2,000, then may have 10 or more people on the full-time paid staff, plus secretaries, janitors, and musicians.
Furthermore, in a small church the pastor is usually a generalist. That is, he wears many hats and performs many different ministries. But in a larger church, individuals who are highly skilled and trained in a particular area are hired to do specialized ministries. In some larger churches this specialization has gone to extreme lengths, to the point that this spring at the N.A.E. Convention in K.C. a local church choir was introduced by the church’s Pastor of Media and Fine Arts, who in turn introduced the church’s full-time Choir Director, full-time accompanist, and full-time Orchestra Conductor. I wouldn’t be surprised if they also had a Minister of Lawn and Trees.
This professionalism and specialization are not intrinsically wrong, but they very easily lead a church into the “hired gun” syndrome, where whenever a need arises the first thought is, “let’s hire someone to meet that need,” instead of asking, “Is there someone in the Body whom the Lord has gifted for this kind of ministry?”
The conclusion one might be tempted draw from this discussion is that it is better to stay small. And some churches have done just that. The Plymouth Brethren Assemblies, for example, have avoided most of these problems I have been discussing. They are not plagued by professionalism because they generally don’t even have a pastor. But while they have avoided these problems, they have failed to make much of an impact on our society. Their total membership is declining, their members tend to be middle-aged or older, and they are doing very little in the area of evangelism and outreach. That is not to belittle them, for they include many godly, dedicated people, but I think their choice for smallness exhibits some serious drawbacks.
The question I’d like to ask is, “Do we have the right to decide, ‘We’re going to stay small to avoid problems?'” The early church surely didn’t do that. When their group was 120 strong it was an ideal size, and their fellowship was probably the best ever. Things were under control, everyone was accountable to the Body, the spirit of unity was sweet. But there was a world out there to reach, and at the risk of significant disruption of their peaceful coexistence, they reached out and allowed their membership to grow, even explosively. “Allowed” is the key word. I don’t ever get the impression that the early church was involved in attendance contests. Numbers were not desired for numbers’ sake, but rather for the souls’ sake. They knew everyone needed Jesus, and they were willing to sacrifice their comfortable fellowship to enable more people to know Jesus.
That, I believe, is the attitude we must take. If purchasing land and erecting a building is just going to make us more comfortable and give us a more positive identity, then it’s probably not worth it. But if it’s going to enable us to do a better job of reaching people for Christ, then it is worth it. Pastoring a small church is easier and more fun than pastoring a large one, and I personally am more comfortable as the pastor of a small church, but I need to be willing to adjust as God Himself brings about growth.
There are, of course, various ways to deal with growth. One can try to concentrate all the growth God produces in one huge facility (sometimes called the edifice complex) or one can plant neighborhood churches; I personally think that church-planting is the intelligent route to go, but even that will not generally slow the stop of a vibrant healthy church; it only slows it down temporarily. We planted two new churches in Wichita, running together about 500 in attendance today. Some 140 people left the mother church to begin the last one, and yet the mother church’s attendance was higher a year later than it was before they left! But it was the right thing to do, for there are people in those baby churches that would never have driven across town to the mother church.
Now this lengthy introduction is offered to get us to thinking about our text this morning not as an isolated incident, but rather as an example of the growing pains of an exploding church and what can be done about them.
Let’s read Acts 6:1-7:
Now at this time, as the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint developed on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving of food. 2 So the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables. 3 Instead, brothers and sisters, 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 ministry of the word.” 5 The announcement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch. 6 And they brought these men before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them.
I want to analyze this passage by means of four words: complaint, solution, implementation, and result.
The complaint: a part of the Body felt neglected.
The complaint mentioned in verse 1 is clearly related to the growth of the church. “Now at this time while the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose ….” This problem would never have arisen had not the church begun to grow to the point that the Apostles could no longer manage it in the same way to which they were accustomed.
The nature of the complaint was that the widows of the Hellenistic Jews were being overlooked in favor of the widows of native Hebrews. These two groups were both Jewish, but they differed in language and customs due to the fact that the Hellenistic Jews were immigrants from the Greek-speaking world.
You will recall that on the Day of Pentecost God gave a supernatural gift to the Apostles to enable them to speak to the foreign Jews who were on pilgrimage from around the world. Some of these stayed in Palestine after Pentecost, and by far the largest number of them were Greek speaking. The tension between the Palestinian and Hellenistic Jews was strong, and it spilled over somewhat even to the Christian Community.
The tension came to a head, as it often does, in what might appear to be a trifling matter. As daily allocations were made to the poorer members of the church from the common fund to which the wealthier members had contributed, complaints began to arise that one group was being favored at the expense of the other. There is nothing to suggest that this neglect was intentional, nor even whether it was actual; it is quite possible that the disparity was merely a matter of perception.
By the way, godly leadership in a local church has to be constantly on the look-out for the realreasons for tension in the Body. More often than not the issue which surfaces is not the real problem. Either the complainer doesn’t understand the real problem, or he is embarrassed to mention it because it sounds too petty, so he throws up a smokescreen. If the resources of leadership are always involved in dealing with smokescreens rather than discerning the real issues, then peace in the Body will be hard to attain and maintain.
The solution: lay ministers were needed to get the job done and to maintain priorities.
The problem was tackled immediately by the Apostles in an open and public forum. No behind-the-scenes politicking here. If the problem was affecting the unity of the congregation, they would go to the congregation and deal with it.
The solution was necessarily preceded by the recognition that they, as Apostles, were finite and limited. The reason this complaint arose was apparently because the Apostles did not have either the time or the gifts to administrate the program properly. But they could not devote any more time to the benevolence ministry without neglecting more important issues; in fact, they needed to devote less. As the church grew there were more and more needs in the area of evangelism, edification, and prayer to which they needed to give attention.
The Apostles set a good example here. Many pastors immediately get defensive when their work is criticized and rebuke any complainers for rebelling against authority. But the Twelve used the complaint as a motivation to examine their ministry, admit a weakness, and rethink their procedures.
The solution they chose was to ask the congregation to select some of their own number, that is, lay people, to take care of the administrative task, so that the Apostles could devote themselves to their God-given priorities, namely prayer and the ministry of the Word, which would include study, preaching, and teaching.
There is no hint here that the Apostles were too good to serve tables or take care of benevolences. Rather, the Apostles were called and gifted for a particular ministry, and they could not be faithful to that calling if they tried to do everything else. Furthermore, for the Apostles to try to do a ministry that wasn’t intended for them was, in effect, to deny that ministry to others in the Body who were called and equipped specifically for that ministry.
The seven men whom the Apostles urge to be selected are not specifically called “deacons,” nor is there any indication that they formed a permanent order in the church, but I believe the solution given here does form a sufficient basis for a local church to divide the duties of its leadership between those responsible for the ministry of the Word and those responsible for administration.
In most of our churches that distinction is made by having a Board of Elders and a Board of Deacons. Just as there was no hint that the Twelve were better or more spiritual than the Seven, so there should be no hint of comparing Elders and Deacons in our churches in that way. I know a man who had served for several terms as an Elder and then later was nominated to the Deacon Board. The reason is he had good administrative and financial gifts but had virtually no teaching gift, but he was offended at being “demoted,” and refused the nomination.
To prove there was no slight involved in being selected as one of the Seven, just examine the qualifications of these men. First, they had to have a good reputation. The proverbial Baptist deacon has gotten a lot of bad press for being one thing on Sunday and quite another out in the business world during the week. The reputation is perhaps undeserved, for I have known some very fine Baptist deacons. But the Apostles wanted to prevent even a proverbial deacon with such a reputation from being appointed by making sure that the Seven had reputations for being consistent and godly.
Secondly, these men were to be full of the Holy Spirit. That is, they must give evidence that their lives were controlled by the Spirit of God, rather than by the spirit of the world. That is especially important since they would be handling money and people, two tasks which can be very difficult and demand the Spirit’s help.
Thirdly, the Seven were to be men of wisdom. That is, they had to be mature, able to apply Scriptural knowledge to practical situations. By the way, it would be well if all church appointments observed such requirements.
I see an interesting parallel between this whole story and an incident in the life of Moses. In fact, let’s read Exodus 18:13-23:
13 And it came about the next day, that Moses sat to judge the people, and the people stood before Moses from the morning until the evening. 14 Now when Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he was doing for the people, he said, “What is this thing that you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge and all the people stand before you from morning until evening?”
15 Moses said to his father-in-law, “Because the people come to me to inquire of God. 16 When they have a dispute, it comes to me, and I judge between someone and his neighbor and make known the statutes of God and His laws.”
17 Moses’ father-in-law then said to him, “The thing that you are doing is not good. 18 You will surely wear out, both yourself and these people who are with you, because the task is too heavy for you; you cannot do it alone. 19 Now listen to me: I will give you counsel, and God be with you. You be the people’s representative before God, and you bring the disputes to God, 20 then admonish them about the statutes and the laws, and make known to them the way in which they are to walk and the work they are to do. 21 Furthermore, you shall select out of all the people able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain; and you shall place these over them as leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. 22 Let them judge the people at all times; and let it be that they will bring to you every major matter, but they will judge every minor matter themselves. So it will be easier for you, and they will carry the burden with you. 23 If you do this thing and God so commands you, then you will be able to endure, and all these people also will go to their places in peace.”
I don’t know if Moses’ wife had complained to her father that she never saw her husband, or if Jethro was simply an astute man, but the advice he offered was great and forms a remarkable parallel to the solution of the Apostles here in Acts 6.
The implementation: a balance was achieved between the authority of the leaders and the will of the people.
The complaint was lodged and a solution was offered. We see in verse 5 how the solution was implemented. First, the solution found approval with the whole congregation. The term for “approval” indicates that they deliberated and came to the conclusion that the solution would work. This was not a rubber stamp session, where the Apostles simply informed the congregation about what they had decided to do and the congregation OK’d it. This was vibrant congregationalism, where the Body is given direction by their spiritual leaders, but they are also involved in the decision-making process.
Proof of this is found in the fact that the congregation chose the Seven. They were not appointed by the Apostles, but rather selected by the people once the qualifications had been listed. I’m not suggesting that elections in the church have to take place in this fashion, for there is no command to do so given here. But I do believe it is for the church’s benefit when a proper balance is struck between the leaders giving direction and the congregation making decisions.
The seven men chosen by the church make for an interesting study. Only two of them are mentioned elsewhere in the Scriptures, but those two are sufficient evidence that the Seven were not viewed simply as administrators, but rather as ministers. One of their jobs was to administrate the benevolence program. Stephen is said in verse 5 to be full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, a fact that is easily established in the remainder of this chapter and the next. We will see the touching story next Sunday about his faithful witness before the authorities and his calling to become the first Christian martyr. Philip becomes known later as Philip the Evangelist, as he carries on a very effective ministry which we will study in chapter 8.
But perhaps even more instructive is the fact that every one of the Seven has a Greek name. We cannot be dogmatic on this point, but it seems that the Apostles have given the task of administering the benevolence funds to representatives of the very group that was complaining about being neglected. That’s not bad psychology. Sometimes the best way to deal with complainers is to get them busy as part of the solution. It certainly shows again that the Apostles were not power hungry.
The last step in the selection process is a kind of ordination for the Seven. The congregation brought the men they chose before the Apostles and, after prayer, hands were laid on them to indicate approval and God’s blessing.
The result: the health of the Body was maintained, and growth continued. (7)
It seems to me that the subject of the first six verses here must be related to the seventh verse. In other words, it was because the complaint was dealt with effectively that “the word of God kept on spreading.”
Three results are listed for us. The first has already been mentioned. What does it mean that the Word of God was spreading? It means that it was being proclaimed to wider and wider circles and was effective in winning converts. Our major task is to preach the Word; it will do its own work.
The second result was that “the number of disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem.” It was probable that 15-20% or more of the population of the city had by this time been converted to Christianity, and while the complaint of the Hellenistic widows could have become a major roadblock to that growth, the solution offered resulted in even greater growth instead.
And finally, “a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith.” Ancient sources indicate that there were over 18,000 priests and Levites, each of whom worked two weeks a year at the Temple in Jerusalem. Many of these were godly, devout believers in God, such as the father of John the Baptist. Doubtless they had heard Peter and others bearing witness in the Temple courts and were greatly impressed. They knew of the efforts of the Sanhedrin to stop the testimony of these believers, and they also knew about their fearless commitment to obey God rather than men. And they were won to Christ through the Apostolic witness.
Conclusion: We are in a rapid growth situation. I do not know whether it will continue, but I have as yet seen no signs that it is over. Growing pains are inevitable. We should not fear them or consider them a sign of deep spiritual problems. But at the same time, we cannot ignore them. Rather we must strive to solve them in the same wise and godly way the Apostles exhibited—handling them openly, honestly and with sensitivity, and above all, putting into practice the doctrine of the priesthood of every believer.
Tags:
Complaint
Laity