This statement from Acts informs directly about a positive problem solving attitude but also implies more. It implies among other issues, that there are unpleasing statements that are common enough, even if they are good and appropriate. It is a part of the human condition that there is pervasive conflict, not necessarily physical, but intellectual, emotional, professional, religious – even within the ranks of a devout group. The differences may not represent good and evil conflicts (although they may), but simply differences based on varieties of experiences, differing presuppositions, and other common factors, such as faith, priorities, the worth of issues, and the like. Personalities often play a major part in the context. The situation here was simply that one group of Christians believed that another group (Jewish Christians) were receiving better treatment in charity from church ministries managed by Jewish Christians. Tensions rose among these new Christians. Perhaps the Apostles sighed and rolled their eyes. In the light of the importance of the advance of the gospel, why must they be delayed in the main task to work through lesser local ministries? Each matter was important and necessary but there was clear priority. That priority remains for the Church, many centuries following the event reported in The Acts of the Apostles. Matters are much larger for the secular society than the Acts illustration.
Today’s church also encounters difficulty in managing its affairs. Churches are not favorite clients in the world of commerce. One of several reasons for this is that so much of the church business is conducted by lay persons who are volunteers. They may not be careful about schedules, or formal reporting, or follow up, or evaluating business context. The members may do a great deal for nothing, and assume that others will sacrifice for the church or offer a special deal because it is a church. Some members appear to believe that the Church, with high idealism, and, without profit, is dedicated to assisting persons, but may overlook careful management, or fulfilling legal requirements, or duty to its own members to function in standard fashion so to be faithful to society and order. The idealism of the church should not be used to avoid the features that mark a sound business model. A good business, even a church, should be careful to evaluate what it does, communicate its purposes, relate properly to its employees, who ought also to return that attention by sharing the concerns of its membership (clients/customers). Often, to evaluate a church or her institutions is taken as confrontational criticism rather than motive to search out effective and less effective procedures, so to accent the strong factors, and buoy up or abandon the lagging ones. This is not negative conduct but positive. It ought to be followed with concern for professional effectiveness. Casualness does not serve well. Even Scripture critiques churches.
It is interesting that Jesus made it a major matter that he please the Father, and that the Holy Spirit would serve to carry through on his, Jesus’, ministry in future history. The concept of evaluating our work and ministry is a major matter, and without it we may be sure we are not achieving what ought to be achieved in the work of pastors and people. There will be full evaluation at the end of the age – so we adapt to Scripture narrative. That evaluation can be moderated upwards by genuine attention to objective and careful evaluation in Christian life and service. However, there is common oversight in the matter of evaluation, both secular and sacred. There are different routes to solutions in daily life. Both candidates in an election may see their programs through to solutions, even when they differ markedly, but the secret lies in their ability to marshal the followers to believe and do what must be done to achieve solutions. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020