Temple Tuesday

Temple Tuesday

 

Acts 2:42-47

The believers' common life 

 

2:42 They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

 

2:43 Awe came upon everyone because many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles.

 

2:44 All who believed were together and had all things in common;

 

2:45 they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.

 

2:46 Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts,

 

2:47 praising God and having the goodwill of all the people. And day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved.

 

One of the recent trends in my perusing the weekly Common Lectionary texts for ideas to write a sermon about is that often a single word jumps out at me. I wonder why that particular word was chosen by the text writer, or the translator, which sends me on a bit of a word study. Often, though, it is not the word choice that grabs me, as much as the questions it raises. This week’s message is one of the latter circumstances.

 

Now, this particular text in Acts has always raised questions, especially among Western Christians who relish their bourgeoisie status in “free” capitalist states like the United States. As a pastor, I was often asked, somewhat incredulously, “Did they really support Communism in the early church?” Short answer: No. The earliest Christians were first and foremost, mostly Jewish “commonfolk,” who were either fascinated by Jesus and began following him, or who had been the recipient of one of his many acts of healing and/or mercy, and out of gratitude, signed on. The next largest group of early Christians were former pagans, or those who practiced the Greco-Roman faiths that had a god for everything. As we have covered before, some of these pagan groups engaged in bizarre “worship” practices that could include wild orgies and sexual practice, most of which exploited either prostitutes or young boys—sometimes both. The latter, coupled with the Greco-Roman “bathhouse” culture among men, were the reasons Paul writes what he writes about “homosexuality,” because it was exploiting and corrupting young men. (Similarly, the Old Testament prohibitions about “men lying with men” were condemning the Mid-Eastern practice of raping both men AND women, when conquering a foe, as a sign of dominance and degradation.) Most scholars believe that neither body of prohibitive texts were aimed at persons who simply had a “same sex” preference in terms of life partners, and even the early church left these folk alone.

 

The “had all things in common” text of Acts was more about survival and trying to assure that new-found faith “siblings” weren’t starving or struggling to subsist. Many of these early converts to Christ-following (remember, they weren’t called “Christians” until Antioch) were being ostracized by family and friends, be they Jewish “purists” or members of a pagan, cultish religion. The early church had a “thing” about caring for the “least of these,” and “loving thy neighbor as thyself,” that they had heard somewhere. No “doctrine” of Marxism arises in the church, nor to we read really anything else about this early attempt to meet needs by sharing resources “commonly.” It is clear that this “experiment” doesn’t survive the first century or so of the fledgling church. So you diehard capitalists don’t have to worry…unless you take the “love thy neighbor” and caring for “the least of these” seriously? Jesus didn’t say, “Go and become a socialist,” although socialism in some benign form is a legitimate way to keep people of lower means from starving. Today, we call it “Social Security.”

 

I had to get all of that out of the way because I knew you’d be thinking about it. Believers and their money (resources) are not easily parted. In fact, there is a whole “branch” of Christianity out there that supports the “blessings of wealth” line. You know, “your best life now” thing? Osteen is just the modern incarnation of “Rev. Ike,” a black preacher from my youth whom we used to watch on television. “Money LOVES me!”, he would proclaim, and “You can’t LOSE with the stuff I use!”, meaning that God wants “true believers” to be blessed financially. The good reverend used to tell his TV audiences that if they thought God wanted them to be the “humble poor,” they could send their money to HIM, because God wanted to bless HIM. Not bad work, if you can get it…

 

No, the word that caught my eye was “temple.” The text clearly says they spent “much time together in the temple.” So, the early “Christians” had a “Temple Tuesday”? As I mentioned earlier, the early Christ-followers were of all different religious ilks, including the first-century “nones,” however, most of them came from a Jewish background, since Jesus was himself a Jew. But this text says they did the temple stuff “together,” meaning it was an inclusive undertaking. A bit of research says that the temple “tolerated” and “hosted” these early gatherings, so as not to disenfranchise the many Christ-followers who practiced their Christianity as a subset of their Jewish faith. Just as the Essenes were a “sect” of Judaism, so many of the early Christians saw themselves in this regard. (The Essenes would have been welcomed into the temple, too, had they not been kind of xenophobic and hanging out in the desert.) This idea of “Temple Tuesday” fascinated me, especially in its apparent inclusiveness. Some commentaries said that the band of Christ-followers probably were welcomed into some of the meeting or common areas of the temple, since they were not all of Jewish heritage, but probably not into some of the specifically Jewish “worship” or Torah study parts of the complex. I can see this. 

 

Today, many of our churches (certainly some in survival mode) rent out “space” to community groups, or even other religious gatherings. Before I arrived on the scene, my first church had rented out the entire educational wing, which was not being used by the church, to a group from the local high school, that turned it into a giant, month-long, Halloween haunted house, as a fundraiser. I tactfully shut it down when I found out that the Christian TV station in a neighboring community was slandering the church for doing this (a fundamentalist view, for sure, but one that was certainly harmful PR for that local church, especially if we were to turn around its fortunes), AND when a brief study of the utilities costs of the haunted house showed that renting it out was showing a substantial deficit. Another of my congregations rented provided space for a group of charismatic Roman Catholics—they called themselves the “Children of God Community”—to meet, as they were not welcome to assemble in the local Catholic Church. It seems that the Vatican was more restrictive than the Methodists, if they weren’t sure if they “endorsed” the religious practices of one of their own “sects.” And while their theology wasn’t exactly Wesleyan, we went by the old John Wesley chestnut, “If your heart is of my heart (holding common ‘essential’ Christian beliefs), I give you the hand of fellowship.” Besides, they were really nice people, and their kids were classmates of our kids. 

 

This last part is my central point. Inclusiveness, which was a hallmark of Jesus and the early Christian movement, doesn’t have to mean we all believe exactly the same thing. Methodists, it turns out, latched on, thanks to Mr. Wesley, to this early church concept, and functioned as a VERY inclusive group, welcoming many “strangers” into our church AND ministering cooperatively with other believers whose doctrines were divergent from our own. That is, up until the various splits, schisms, and now this modern “disaffiliation” took hold. The Baptists are even worse. Thanks to numerous differences in doctrine, dogmatic “wars” among their preachers and theologians, and various schisms, there are over 100 different forms of “Baptists.” I don’t know how they keep things straight. 

 

On one hand, I have often defended the differing “denominations” of the Christian faith by suggesting that we all tend to “find our friends” at a party. If we’re into sewing, or cars, or reading good books, we will drift around until we find like-minded folk, among whom we are most comfortable. And people who are looking for a place to nurture their spirituality are like this, too. Hence, churches of various styles of worship, musical expression, and types of theological divergence have sprung up, and folk have affiliated, accordingly. I have tried to apply this same reasoning in order to come to terms with the disaffiliation that my denomination recently went through, but I find it hard to be tolerant, given the nasty—and often deceptive—tactics employed by those driving the movement. Secondarily, there has been a tendency for many who have disaffiliated to adopt the position that the United Methodist Church is “wrong” or “apostate” in its more inclusive stance, theologically, and claim the high ground of doctrinal correctness and “appropriate” scriptural “authority.” I really struggle with this tact, on their part. (Full disclosure: One of the most historic, heavily resourced, and beloved churches I served was persuaded to disaffiliate by my successor, who then became a member of the hierarchy in the “new” denomination.)

 

As I said in a recent sermon, quoting the late Rodney King, “Why can’t we all just get along?” It is clear from this text that both the early Christians AND even the Jewish temple did their best to live this kind of inclusive and tolerant faith perspective. The early church was more about sharing than power, more about living the teachings of Jesus than fighting over them, and more about being trustworthy than sorting out who had “more true” than the next person. If there is an “early church” concept I would like to see us emulate, it would be this “commonness” of faith and openness of fellowship. If there is any one who should be deeply grieved over what has transpired in the church down through history, it would be the Holy Spirit. Maybe it is time to look to another of the practices of these early believers?

 

That would be what this text says in verse 46: they “broke bread” in their homes together. Their homes was a “safe space” to develop meaningful relationships, apart from the antiseptic temple grounds. Oh, they had their “Temple Tuesdays” where they could maintain their former religious relationships, and probably get some good, historically based teachings, but the real growth of the early Christ-followers happened in their homes! And this formula worked quite well, as the Acts text tells us that goodwill abounded and was shared, and that “the Lord added many to their number of those who were saved.” God honored their inclusiveness, their hospitality, their open-hearted goodwill, and their compassion for each other, and their neighbors. That works, friends!

 

There is something about this “welding together” of the “Temple Tuesday” and the home-based fellowship and relationship building that we should rediscover, in my opinion. Our churches are seeing less and less folk “interested” in coming, and maybe it is because the “home” element has been lost? And I am aware that a number of efforts to start “home” churches have likewise failed or fell flat, either because some “big fish” in those little ponds attempted to dominate, or because the resources and more “formal” worship setting represented by the local church facility (and history) was excluded. Perhaps the “magic formula” of the church that God blessed was this marriage of institution AND home-based fellowship? I do know this: if less and less “believers” continue to eschew “Temple Tuesdays,” the institutional church is doomed, and probably within a couple of decades. Is Acts trying to warn the church that it takes two elements to build a sustainable religious community? The institutional church provides a safe, sane, and “educated” framework for Christians to grow, learn, and come together to serve the work of the Gospel. The home-based fellowship may be the “incarnational” entity that could welcome “seekers” and invitees into the faith, something we are beginning to miss out on. Just a few biblical thoughts this week as “grist for the mill.” Think about it. Amen.