Hands Across Millennia

Sermon, January 30, 2000

Texts: Numbers27:18-23; Acts 6:1-7

I don't know how many of you are familiar with the history of the Benediction. First, let me clarify what a benediction is not: It is not a "closing prayer," as many people seem to assume. The Latin "benedictus" literally means "a good saying." I've been told that the origin of the benediction was in the first century "house" churches; the apostle or the appointed minister would go around the home following worship, laying hands on each individual worshipper's head, one by one, and pronounce the "good saying." Liturgically, what he was doing was calling into the worship experience the sense of touch. The invisible, intangible God would become liturgically "visible" and "tangible" through the apostle's/pastor's touch, the worship leader being the divine representative in the congregation (and I underscore representative; the leader was not in any sense divine in and of himself). With the rapid growth of the church, this individual touch eventually became impractical; the apostle or pastor might have to spend all day were he to touch each individual and pronounce individual benedictions in a congregation of 100 or more. So the worship leader began to hold his upraised hand (or hands) over the congregation, symbolically "touching" them as he pronounced the "good saying."

Today we will install and ordain officers in the church. Our practice of laying hands upon those we ordain to offices of ministry, be they deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament, bears some similarity to the benediction, but with some key differences. The laying on of hands upon new leaders is a practice that goes back at least to Moses. When the time came for Moses to pass leadership office on to Joshua, God told Moses, "Take Joshua, son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay your hand upon him. Have him stand before...the congregation and commission him in their sight." (Numbers 27:18-19). We also read in Acts how the seven original church officers stood in front of the Apostles who prayed and laid their hands on them. This laying on of hands was not in any way to be understood as some mystical giving or transmission of the Spirit. In Moses' day, and in the day of the church in Acts, the laying on of hands did not give the new leaders the Holy Spirit. The Bible tells us these leaders were already filled with the Holy Spirit; in fact, that was the primary criteria for their being selected. They weren't selected primarily because of their organizational skills, they weren't selected because they were savvy with their silver and gold investments, they weren't selected because they were "nice people," they weren't selected in order to get them "more active" in the church, and they certainly weren't selected because the first century Nominating Committee couldn't find anybody else who would be willing to give it a shot! Then and now, the primary criteria for nomination to office was the visible evidence of the Holy Spirit in their lives. (This is reflected in our denominational constitution, The Book of Order of the Presbyterian Church, which stipulates: "Those who undertake particular ministries should be persons of strong faith, dedicated discipleship, and love of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Their manner of life should be a demonstration of the Christian gospel in the church and in the world. They must have the approval of God's people and the concurring judgment of a governing body of the church.") The nominating committee of this congregation has been faithful to this charge, and the congregation unanimously affirmed their nominees at our Annual Meeting last Sunday. The people of God select for leadership those who have evidenced the working of the Holy Spirit in their lives. Again, nothing mystical is happening when we lay hands on new leaders. We are not transmitting any "spiritual power" or "blessing." In fact, it is primarily a form of recognition...our hands acknowledge and affirm that God has had His hands on these leaders long before our hands got a hold of them; again, we only lay hands on those who give evidence of being filled by the Holy Spirit. These leaders are already in God's hands, and we want them to be accountable not just to us, but far more importantly, to God Himself. They are servants of the church, yes, but they are leaders upon whom rests the hand of God.

To give some background of Joshua's "installation:" Moses had led the people these past 40 years, and his era was unique. The nation of Israel had been through a long, difficult time in captivity to the Egyptians; they had been immersed in this pagan culture for many, many years. They had to be "rebuilt" as a nation; they had to be purged of Egyptian customs, Egyptian tastes, Egyptian morals. They had to learn self-sufficiency, they had to learn how to organize themselves, and they had to learn the law of God. God used the forty years in the wilderness under Moses' leadership to regroup and rebuild His people, to train them in His ways, to anchor them in His law and His word. However, Moses was not going to lead them into the Promised Land of God. It just may have been that Moses was not equipped to lead them beyond the Jordan. The people of God were in need not of a better leader, but of a different kind of leader. They were going to need an experienced military leader as well as a devoted spiritual leader. It is always God's way to call spiritual leaders to lead His people to a certain point, while He prepares "Joshuas" to take over and lead the people beyond into the fuller promises of God. Change was needed, a change in leadership was warranted. Now, in the transition from Moses to Joshua there was certainly continuity because the purpose of God for His people persists and the promises of God remain unchanged, but there was discontinuity because the era of Moses was definitely unique; there just was no "going back to the way it used to be." Change was necessary. So, as God commanded, and before the assembly of God's people, Moses laid hands on Joshua and commissioned him for office.

Let us jump ahead to the New Testament book of Acts, the history of the early church's growth and development. Since there was no Social Security or Medicaid or Meals on Wheels, the early church cared for its widows, elderly, infirm and other people who had no one else to provide for them. We read in chapter 4 that believers sold many personal possessions and gave generously to a common fund, and the giving was so bountiful there wasn't anyone among the believers who had a need. But as the church continued to grow and increase, there began to be believers who had unmet needs, which bring us to Acts 6. At this time the church had roughly two groups of members -- the Hebraic Jews and the Grecian (or, Hellenistic) Jews. There is some debate among scholars about these distinctions; the most commonly accepted view is that these groups are divided primarily by language and culture. Hebrew-speakers were most likely native-born-and-bred Jews, and Greek-speakers were most likely Jews of the Diaspora, Jews of different nationalities who have now returned to live in or near Jerusalem. Many of these dispersed Jews had moved back to Jerusalem in their later years in order to be buried near it, and their widows would have had no relatives near at hand to care for them as would the widows of the longtime residents. When it came time for the distribution of the daily portion of food, it seems the Hebrew widows were well cared for, but the Grecian widows were neglected. We don't know exactly why that was; we aren't told it was prejudicial. As someone put it, and I love this bit of wisdom: "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence." Maybe it was just an organizational problem, or a language barrier, or an oversight, or a cultural misunderstanding; or, maybe it was that the sheer number of Grecian widows was becoming disproportionately large. We don't know.

Whatever the reason for neglecting the Grecian widows, it understandably did not set well with the Grecian Jews. So they "complained against the Hebrews." Note that the text says complained against, not complained to. That is significant. The word in the original describes not so much of a protest as it does a murmuring. It is the kind of thing one says cynically to someone who is neither part of the problem nor part of the solution; it was something the Hebrews themselves did quite often in the Exodus. When the twelve Apostles realized the problem and finally got wind of the murmuring going on, note what they didn't do. They didn't complain about the complainers, which is always tempting. Nor did they pander by saying, "We'll do whatever you want to keep everybody happy." Nor did they set up a special task force called, "The Committee to Research Social Justice for Grecian Widows." What they did was prayerfully develop and propose a new model of leadership that would change the church. Remember, the church came into being in Acts, chapter two (the Day of Pentecost). Now we are up to Acts, chapter six. The church can't survive four chapters without having to make necessary changes as it grows and develops....and the church has never been able to survive without making necessary changes as it grows and develops.

The primary reason the church made changes and continues to make changes is to best accommodate, to best minister to, the very real physical and spiritual needs of her people. If the Grecian widows or ANY groups in the church family are being neglected, then we have to make changes! The change the Apostles suggested was that the church select seven who are "full of the Spirit and of wisdom" to be appointed to oversee this distribution of food. Here we have the origin of the ministry office of deacon, those ordained to care for the people of the congregation. The Apostles suggested this, not because they didn't want to be bothered with serving food or other necessary administrative tasks, but because that was not their primary calling. Their calling was "to serve the Word of God," and it takes time, energy and effort to do that well. More than likely they also suggested it because they realized they needed some diversity and representation in leadership; note that all seven of the men who became the first deacons had Greek names. With the institution of this office of deacon, things changed dramatically in the church. The leadership did become much more diverse. No longer were the apostles to do all the nuts and bolts of the church's ministry. The deacons, and later the elders, were given responsibilities, leadership and administrative responsibility; these ministry tasks were dispersed and delegated to people "full of the Spirit and of wisdom." We are told in verse 5 that the people liked it, but you have to know there was more murmuring later. When the deacons took food to the home of the widows, some of them had to say, "It's nice that you're here, but when are one of the Apostles going to come for a visit?" There is always resistance to change...but the church will not survive without making changes.

So we, too, commission with the laying on of hands those who are "full of the Spirit and of wisdom." And we affirm our confidence that God has had His hands on these leaders long before we put our hands on them. And again, since these leaders are in God's hands, we expect them to be primarily accountable to God as they serve the church. Their primary duty is not to service complaints, their primary duty is not necessarily to always give us what we want, but their primary duty is to prayerfully seek the will of God in addressing very real needs and concerns of His church. What is also happening as we lay hands on these leaders is that they are being commissioned with the hands of those who have served before them. Today when we lay hands on our new elders and deacons, it isn't just our hands on their heads. There are also the hands of those before us, hands that were placed on us in our ordinations, a series of hands that go all the way back to Moses' hands on Joshua. Sometimes these hands across the millennia will push our leaders ahead, telling them to navigate the necessary changes that confront the church. Sometimes the hands will hold them back, restraining our leaders from sacrificing something central to the gospel. Sometimes the hands will be called, reluctantly, to discipline. These innumerable hands across the millennia will push, comfort, encourage, reprove, discipline, and guide our leaders in the right path. The business of the church, the leadership of the church, is never just about administration. It is never just about the daily distribution of the church's "goodies." It is never just about committees and deliberations and board meetings. As we lay hands on those to be ordained this morning, the hands of those who've led the church for so long--and the hands of God -- will push for much more than just "running a church." Those hands will push, those hands will pull, and those hands commission Joshuas who will lead us further into the promises of God.