Monday, March 31, 2008

Brother In Need

For those of you who grew up in the same religious tradition (aka tribe) as I, you know that we were taught that the Bible has different ways of teaching. Two of those ways are inference and example. I am still trying to figure out where I stand on the following and what it means if I end up where I think I am heading. Let's look at the following scriptures starting with Acts 4:

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34 There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

Followed by Acts 2:
42 They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

If this is the example set forth in Acts, then why do we still have poor and needy in our fellowship? What is my responsibility to them? What about the believers in Central America, Africa or China? I have never heard a sermon based on the inference of these two passages but I wonder if someone dared would we have an auditorium full of rich young rulers who went away sorrowful because we have much possessions?

I'm not saying that we sell everything we have, move into a commune and sing Kumbaya. What I am suggesting is that we examine to see if we are more American than Christian when in comes to the value we put in our possessions.

I would love your comment.

In Him,

David

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hmmm I was hoping someone had an answer.

David said...

JOhn, I was hoping you would provide some insight. I don't have the answer but I do have a lot of maturing to do when it comes to this. For a long time I have said that I am not my job, not my car, not my house and yet I get a sense of worth out of these things. I am judging myself out of an American standard and not a God like standard. I know this because I call them MINE, I will say that they are God's but I still call them mine.

Anonymous said...

David--you ask good questions. I am afraid though that many of us--our tribe and others included--do very much confuse being American with being Christian. We certainly see it on the mission field where churches are set up to look just like American churches.

As for materialism, that's an insidious sin that many of us don't want to recognize!

Anonymous said...

David, I think there is a feeling against throwing money at situations that need more than cash. The NT talks about a "widow's role" and gives a set of qualifications for the "widow indeed" that suggests that when a person is without support and unable to gain support, we should help them on a continuous basis. Is this being played out in the Kingdom? I do not see it. In that vein, I wonder if there would be openness to participation in financial management classes, help with finding jobs, getting GEDs, i.e. teaching them to fish rather than giving them fish. Our community in Monroe is about to undertake an effort like this - although it is still in talking stages. Does the verse you mention mean that no one should have more than another? I do not think so ... and do not think this was the view of the early church. I would hate to know that in my church there were hungry children, or homes w/out electricity due to a lapse in payment by someone who was struggling but just couldnt' make it. "Could not" is different than "will not" ... lots more to explore here.