We cannot avoid conflict in human relationships. Conflict with an enemy can be dangerous. Interpersonal conflict is painful. Conflict within an organization can demoralize workers. Conflict within a church can feel like a betrayal of what we hold most dear.

From Judas' betrayal of Jesus to rthe recent scandals in the American Catholic Church, conflict has been a constant reality in the life of the Church. No denomination escapes it. Rare is the local congregation that escapes it altogether. But the Church faces more than one kind of conflict.

Acts 3-5 showed us one kind of conflict. People outside the Church, who feel threatened by the Church, put pressure on the Church in an effort to remove the threat. Jewish authorities didn't like Peter's message of their responsibility for Jesus' death and of Jesus' vindication, when God raised Him from death. They tried to intimidate the Church into silence by threats, jailing the Church's leaders and flogging. External threats will always be aimed at the Church.

Acts six is going to show us a different kind of conflict. People inside the Church get each other worked up, usually because someone or other offends somebody and occasionally because someone teaches a doctrine that makes a lot of people feel uncomfortable. The shortest chapter in the book of Acts will illustrate both kinds of internal conflict.

Internal Conflict over Discrimination
The first half of the chapter tells the story of Christians getting worked up by each other because of real or perceived discrimination. The first verse cuts to the chase. In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food.

Just in passing, we should note that this problem was the result of church growth: In those days when the number of disciples was increasing. As you get bigger, you have to work harder not to get bitter. More people generate more challenges, and certain challenges make people feel uncomfortable and even irritable.

I wonder if any of the people in that Jerusalem congregation said, "It was so much nicer, when it was just 120 of us in the upper room. We were all together in one place (Acts 2:1). Now, there are so many of us we can't know everybody, and those people from North Jerusalem are far too quick to speak their mind, even though they haven't been here very long."

I don't, of course, know what conversations took place, but we do know from verse one that two different groups of Jews called the Church home, and the Church had gotten big enough and organized enough to look after the needs of its widows on a daily basis. It seems that the Grecian Jews (Jews born outside Israel and speaking Greek) thought their widows were in some way being neglected by the Hebraic Jews (Jews born inside Israel and speaking Aramaic). They complained, loudly enough to get the attention of the apostles. That brings us to verse two.

So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, "It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables." It was a remarkably democratic way to address the issue, as was the proposed couse of action that we'll see in a minute. It also lays down a strategic principle.

When the apostles said it would not be right for them to wait on tables, they didn't mean that waiting on tables was beneath their dignity. What they meant was that, if they took it on themselves to sort out the social security of widows, then they were going to neglect the ministry of the word of God. They dared not do that. It doesn't make sense to fill the car with gas, when the car has no engine. They had to do the unique thing they were called to do without neglecting the legitimate concerns of the widows. Verses 3-4 tells us what they did.

The said, "Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word." We don't know what procedure they followed, but the congregation accepted from the apostles the responsibility for choosing the people, who would rectify any miscarriage of justice among the widows of the Church.

For their part the apostles behaved most wisely and democratically by asking the congregation to take responsibility for making the choices, and they took themselves out of the loop by turning responsibility for carrying out the new plan over to those whom the congregation chose.

The first six words of verse five sound like a line from the minutes of a congregation meeting. This proposal pleased the whole group. Whereupon the congregation acted in a timely manner and demonstrated some wisdom of their own. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism.

The last name in that list gives you a clue to the wisdom of the Church's collective action: Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. Nicolas is a Greek name. His hometown, Antioch, lay outside the Promised Land. And he himself was a Gentile by birth, who had converted to the Jewish faith and then to that particularly unique strain of Judaism that organized itself around Jesus as Israel's true Messiah.

Nicolas belonged to the group that had been complaining, the Grecian Jews. As a matter of fact, with the possible exception of Philip, every name in that list is a Greek name. It was as if the congregation was saying, "We didn't mean to neglect anyone, and it doesn't matter to us that you Grecian Jews were born outside Israel and speak Greek. We love you and trust you to do what's right. We want to be unified in spirit and purpose. So, we ask you to assume this responsibility."

Then, the congregation did one more thing that demonstrates their wisdom. Verse six: They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them. They honored their spiritual leaders by asking them to sanction their congregational action. And they did.

And what happened as a result? Verse seven: So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith. More souls to pastor. More widows to feed. But also more trained leaders to share the load. It was a good place to be.

A Dangerous Doctrine
One of the seven men the Church chose was Stephen. Stephen, it turned out, had capabilities that exceeded what was needed to provide for widows. Verse eight describes im this way. Now Stephen, a man full of God's grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people. You can see this man visiting among members of the congregation with his almost apostolic powers and attracting lots of attention. Not all of it was good.

Verses 9-10 introduce us to conflict very different from the complaints about the widows. Opposition arose, however, from members of the Synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called) - Jews of Cyrene and Alexandria as well as the provinces of Cilicia and Asia. These men began to argue with Stephen, but they could not stand up against his wisdom or the Spirit by whom he spoke.

Those are interesting verses, because they may open little windows into the diversity of the Jerusalem Church, if in fact they were Christian Jews. Incidentally, Cilicia was the province where the city of Tarsus was located, and Tarsus was Paul's hometown. Was Paul among Stephen's critics? Verses 9-10 don't tell us what they argued about. We learn somewhat indirectly in the next four verses that it was about doctrine. I cannot emphasize enough how important Stephen's doctrine was to the future of Christianity. We learn what that doctrine was from Stephen's own words in chapter seven. We learn what it was from the accusations of his opponents in verses 11-14.

Then they secretly persuaded some men to say, "We have heard Stephen speak words of blasphemy against Moses and against God." So, the charge is blasphemy, but we have no idea what that means. Verse 12: So they stirred up the people and the elders and the teachers of the law. If Stephen's opponents were Christian Jews, you have to wonder why they didn't talk to the apostles. They may very well have been non-Christian Jews. Verse twelve goes on to say of the elders and teachers of the law, They seized Stephen and brought him before the Sanhedrin.

The Christians and the Sanhedrin were seeing far more of each other than either side really wanted. In this encounter we begin to see the outline of Stephen's doctrine that caused so many people so much consternation.

They produced false witnesses, who testified, "This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place (meaning the temple) and against the law (the Torah, the religious foundation of Judaism). Verse 14 offeres evidence for these charges. For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us."

Do you remember the charge that people brought against Jesus at His trial? Mark 14:58 records the testimony of witnesses against Jesus. "We heard him say, 'I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days I will build another, not made by man.'" I accept Luke's statement that the people who said this were false witnesses, but obviously, Stephen was saying something about the temple that was open to serious misinterpretation.

The second accusation, also false, was that Jesus will "change the customs Moses handed down to us." That seemed closer to the mark, because we know that Jesus set on edge the teeth of a lot of people by his Sabbath behavior, non-kosher meals, and method of forgiving sins. Again, it would seem that Stephen was saying something about the customs of Moses that was open to serious misinterpretation.

Was Stephen making inflammatory and blasphemous statements about the temple and the customs of Moses, or had he seen something in the teaching and practices of Jesusthe others had missed and which had far-reaching implications for the Church and the human race? He will make his case in chapter seven.Stay tuned.

The Pastoral Center of Gravity
Before we leave chapter six, I need to share with you some reflections on this chapter that have a bearing on our life together in this local congregation that we call our church home. I want to reflect on pastoral ministry and, somewhat less, on church conflict, even though no conflict disturbs us at present.

First, we the pastors of the church give ourselves to the ministry of the Word. We declare it, explain it, and protect it from error. Our pastoral care provides many an occasion on which we can bring the Word of God to bear on human need. Our faithfulness in pastoral care builds the credibility we need with you that will encourage the church to hear the Word of God. If something diverts us from this calling, the church will suffer.

I bear witness before God that we who pastor this congregation have great liberty to minister the Word of God, unencumbered by other responsibilities, which are good but which can be done by other capable people in this church family. I hope that if you see any of us pursuing responsibilities that take us away from our primary calling, you will offer to help us return to that primary calling to minister the Word of God.

Second, we the pastors of the church give ourselves to prayer. Let me say a bit about how that happens. There are four expressions of prayer in the pastoral ministry of this church. We lead the church in prayer, when we gather as a community to worship. Sam and I do not think about music as entertainment or excitement. We think of it first as prayer, a singing and making melody in our hearts to the Lord (Eph. 5:19). There is confession before communion. There is intercession. My own prayers are deeply informed by the language of scripture and ancient prayers of the Church.

Another pastoral ministry of prayer makes prayer a part of the church's structure. For example, our entire staff, Ministry Leadership Team and support staff, worship together every Tuesday morning. That includes a time of intercession and praise for each other and some of the needs within the congregation. We pray with the deacons prior to board meetings. We pray at congregational meetings and team meetings.

A third expression of our prayer ministry is to pray with people. I pray with people who get baptized here. I pray with parents who dedicate children. I pray with everyone who seeks pastoral advice in my office. I pray with people on the phone, by a hospital bed, at a person's place of work, over a meal, and in my home.

It is also important that I pray alone, as a personal act of devotion to God. I do that nearly every day, the first thing in the morning. I read scripture, offer praise, and pray for my immediate family and for you, my family of faith. I did this before I became a pastor, and I hope I will do it, when I no longer pastor a congregation.

Third, I want to say something about church conflict. I don't like it, but the reality is that conflict often leaves a church stronger. The conflict over care for widows left the Church stronger. The point of the book of Acts, as we shall see, is that the conflict over Stephen's controversial doctrine left the Church stronger, although people paid a high, personal price in the process.

Conflict in the Church is like conflict in marriage. If you make it about winning and losing, someone close to you will lose; the winner is never right on every point. No conflict troubles BVBC today, but it has done so in the past, and, no doubt, it will do so again in the future. In the meantime let's make every effort to keep the unity of the faith in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3) and pay close attention to conflict in the book of Acts.