Selwyn continues to consider the role of laymen in the Early Church. “Today we think about another great Christian layman – Philip. He too was one of the seven – the group chosen to ‘wait in tables’ (Acts 6; 3-4). But the reach of Philip’s soul went beyond the reach of his hand: he wanted to have a share in the distribution of the gospel as well as the distribution of food. … Philip went down to a city in Samaria and preached Christ to crowds of people there – and as a result many were converted. … Right in the midst of this wondeful mission, Philip is called to go and win a soul in the desert. … Yet Philip doesn’t hesitate to follow the Spirit’s guidance and move from a place where he was ministering to thousands to a congregation of one – the Ethiopian eunuch.”

We don’t know what ministry the eunuch started when he returned to his homeland – but because of his senior position there is no doubt that he would have had a significant impact on the local population – what do you think?

The prayer for today is good: “O God, this is indeed the greatest work in the world – bringing others to You. No matter what my role in life, help me to see my most important task is sharing Jesus. Someone shared Him with me; may I be used to share Him with others. Amen.”

A new topic is introduced today – ‘a further charatcteristic of the Early Church was this: there was no distinction between what today we call the laity and the clergy.’

 As Selwyn says: “Stephan was one of those who were chosen by the apostles to ‘wait on tables’ (Acts 6:2). He was a man of the ranks – a layman. We are told he was ‘full of faith and of the Holy Spirirt.’ (Acts 6:5), and ‘full of God’s grace and power’ (Acts 6:8) … Some members of the synagogue tried to debate with Stephan, but his wisdom and knowledge of Scripture was too much for them (Acts 6: 9-10). So, feeling grieved that they had lost the debate, they embarked upon a course of deceit and cunning that led to Stephen becoming the first Christian martyr.”

The scripture which Stephen covers is a history of God’s relationship with Israel – his listeners in the synagogue knew the history in great detail – in my view, it’s Stphen’s summary which made them furious re Acts 7: 51-53: “You stiff-necked people, with uncircumised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit. Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him – you have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it.”

He has in effect called them murderers and law breakers – and these are the people who are responsible for upholding religious law – therefore it’s easy to understand why they would want to kill him. Do you agree?

Selwyn continues his discussion on the ability of the Early Church, to reconcile or hold together in unbroken fellowship, strong people who differed.

There are a couple of good points made in today’s study: “(Today), the difficulty is not so much that Christians disagree – but they disagree disagreeably. It ought to be possible for those who are ‘in Christ’ to maintain a loving spirit even though they see things from different points of view. … Strong people will differ, and sometimes differ sharply, but the Church must always point them to the way of reconciliation. Any Church that does not do that is not following the example set by the Church in the New Testament. Reconciliation is the heart of the gospel; all else is subsidiary.”

I think that reconciliation is the stumbling block for many because it requires humility to recognise that there can be different legimate views. That is, our view may not be, the perfect and only view – it’s a question of pride and in our individual, assertive world – pride is often our master – what do you think?

The prayer for today is also good: ”O God, please bring your Church to the place where it is a redeeming and a reconciling community. For how can we preach reconciliation to a world that is lost when we ourselves remain unreconciled? Help us, dear Father. In Jesus name. Amen.” 

Selwyn continues to reflect on the sharp division that arose between Barnabas and Paul.

He makes a very important point, as follows: “But sharp though the disagreement was, some good came out of it. If Paul and Barnabas had travelled together, they would have gone to Cyprus and Galatia. One commentor points out that this would have consumed all their energy. However, by going separately, Paul finished his visit of the churches in Galatia with enough energy left to look for new places to win for Christ.

Another point to be noted is that John Mark was reclaimed for the work of Christ, and there is little doubt that Barnabas had much to do with it.”

Eventually, Paul in his second letter to Timothy was able to say that John Mark was helpful to him in his ministry. As stated in the study: ‘Happily, the sharp dissension between Barnabas and Paul had been healed.”

Selwyn’s prayer for today is great as it reminds all of us to be active in seeking the healing of broken relationships: “O Father, how good it is when sharp divisions between Christians are forgiven and forgotten. Reconciliation has the marks of the cross upon it – marks of love and restoration. Please help me restore any broken relationships. Amen.”

Do you need to restore any broken relationships – perhaps today, is a good day to start the restoration?

Selwyn continues to examine the ability of the Early Church to reconcile, or hold together in unbroken fellowship, strong people who differed. Today, we look at the event when ‘Paul and Barnabas had returned to Antioch from their missionary tour of Asia, Paul felt the call to visit the places once again. Barnabas agrees, but is eager to take John Mark with them. At this point Paul is resistant, because John Mark let them down on their last missionary tour.

Barnabas, a source of encouragement for all, wants to give John Mark a second chance while Paul is fully focused on his mission and does not want to carry the risk that they will be let down again. The outcome was as described in Acts 15:39; ‘They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company.’

As, Selwyn observes: ‘The church at Antioch was well aware of the strong differences between the two men, and was no doubt deeply concerned for them. It’s interesting that when Paul and Silas – the man Paul chose to replace Barnabas – departed on their journey, they were “commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord.”‘

It’s a lesson for us that went two strong men had differences that were not immediatly reconciled that they still continued their work within the Church, and more importantly the community did not split into two groups over the incident.

The prayer for today, is perhaps needed more than ever: “Father, even now, as I pray, somewhere in Your Church strong spiritual men and women will be differing – and may even be in danger of parting company. Let Your grace flow in and prevail I pray. In Jesus’ name. Amen.”

In today’s study, Selwyn continues his discussion on the ability of the Early Church, to reconcile or hold together in unbroken fellowship, strong people who differed.

The verses from Acts which are used as an example of where the Early Church reconciled different opinions are Chapter 11: verse one to eighteen; ‘The apostles and the brothers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also received the word of God. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticised him and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.” Peter began and explained everything to them precisely as it had happened … (picking up the account from verse 11) “Right then three men who had been sent to me from Caesarea stopped at the house where I was staying. The Spirit told me to have no hesitation about going with them. These six brothers also went with me, and we entered the man’s house. He told us how he had seen an angel appear in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He will bring you a message through which you and your household will be saved.’

“As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptised with water, but you will be baptised with the Holy Spirit.’ So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think I could oppose God?”

When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.”

Obviously, a pivotal moment in the Early Church – and one, I’m eternally grateful for!

Selwyn, summarises this event well: “It wasn’t easy for Peter to go to the home of Cornelius, a Gentile, and it wasn’t easy for the Jewish Christians to admit Gentiles (into their fellowship). The fact that they did is a tremendous testimony to their openness and responsiveness to the work of the Holy Spirit, who was moving in their midst. Bigotry and prejudice at this critical moment in the life of the Early Church could have brought it to a halt. How wonderful it would be if bigotry and prejudice were dealt with as easily in the modern-day Church as they were in, (the Early Church).”

The prayer for today: “Our Father, give us such an experience of the Holy Spirit, and such a love for Christ, that we, in the Church of today, will have the (same) ability as the Early Church had, to hold together strong people who differ. In Christ’s name we ask it. Amen.”

Today, we (in a general sense) lack the openness and responsiveness to the work of the Holy Spirit that is required to resolve our differences – do you agree?

Selwyn starts to look at ‘another distinctive of the Early Church: the ability to reconcile or hold together in unbroken fellowship strong people who differed.’ The verses being examined today, are Acts 6: 1 – 7; these verses cover the following: that, the Grecian Jews began to (secretly) complain that their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food.

As Selwyn states: ” … there is nothing wrong with criticism, providing it is presented openly and honestly. Criticism is dangerous, however, when it is expressed covertly and not brought out into the open. Fellowship is based on confidence; secret criticism breaks that confidence. Once the apostles got wind of what was happening, they took immediate action to resolve the issue. … Churches have been split because the leaders decided to pray and not to act. It’s not that prayer is unimportant; it’s that some things need action.”

In my mind, it’s also true that gossip breaks the confidence within the fellowship – in the repetition of gossip, often interpretation errors and bias opinions modify the truth (if there was any in the first place) to such an extent that it damages the cohesion of the community. Gossip, by it’s very nature, often has at its core some type of ‘secret’ criticism. Do you agree?

In addition, while I agree with Selwyn’s comment about prayer – more than likely their prayer is answered (that is, they do receive God’s advice on the action required), but they (the leaders) fail to act because of their lack of conviction and courage.

The prayer for today is: “Father, please give your leaders of your Church the courage and confidence they need to face and deal with every issue that threatens the unity of Your Body. In Christ’s name I pray. Amen.”