SERMON: Three Slaps of Reality (Acts 1:6-14)


For many people, life can be a bit of a struggle. Reality at times can be too difficult to face. Yes, there are some who seem to breeze through life, apparently facing no difficulties at all. But there are others who seem to cop one thing after another—whether it’s ill health, a souring relationship, or just bill after bill—and there can seem to be no way out of the situation at all.

Because, whilst some find the difficulties of life easier to cope with, others can take them too much to heart. And, as a way of coping, some like to dream of a better life, and find themselves speculating of the possibilities of the future. Others tend to daydream, and plod along in their own time and at their own pace, somehow immersed in a whole new world of their own. And, others still don’t cope very well at all. They fill in their time speculating about why everything that could happen happens to them, what they have done to deserve it all, and what hope (or lack of it) they have for the future.

Now, sometimes we all need a bit of escapism, there are times when we all need to dream. And self-examination is important too. But to dwell on the extremes of escapism or self-analysis is not a healthy thing. It can be very helpful in those situations, then, to be faced with a good healthy dose of reality.


Now, one such group of people who’d been through a hard time, and got themselves so caught up with dreaming and speculating about the future we can read about today. They are the disciples of Jesus.

1. The Rough Patch
Now the rough patch they’d been through was the result of a number of factors. Firstly, they’d left their homes, jobs and families, to be with Jesus. They had spent two to three years following him from town to town, only to be hit with the bombshell that he was leaving. Secondly, they hadn’t done much to be proud of. Because even after Jesus had told them he was going, and why—and had made promises about sending “another counsellor” to be with them—within less than twenty-four hours they had betrayed him, denied him, or run away. And thirdly, we mustn’t forget their political and spiritual background. Politically they were Jews—a conquered people living in a land occupied by another nation. And even though spiritually they were waiting for the Messiah—someone who would establish Israel as a nation to which all other nations and peoples would be subservient—that expectation had been going for hundreds of years. And their expectation, as far as they were concerned, had still not been met.

2. The Speculation (1:6)
So, you can imagine the combination of feelings they would have felt when Jesus told them he was leaving. Because, whilst there may have been relief following the resurrection of Jesus, they would probably have been filled with confusion too. After all, he may have appeared before them several times in the previous forty days, but there was nothing very permanent about his appearances. They may have had continuing sorrow about their betrayal, denial and desertion of Jesus at his moment of greatest need—and they would have had some time to consider their mistakes—but certainly not enough time to have made them forget them. And regarding the hopes of Israel? Well, Jesus had visited them many times in the last forty days, but there were still many questions that they wanted to be answered, like: “Did his appearances mean that he had come to stay?” And, “Was he the political Messiah they were looking for?”

So, not backward in coming forward, the disciples when faced with Jesus just one more time asked the most natural question in the context of their situation: “How soon was it before the end was going to come? How soon would it be, until his kingdom would be established on earth?”

3. The Slap of Reality
And like us when we’re struggling, and when we dream, and we speculate that two and two make five—and we need that bucket of cold water thrown over us to bring us back to reality—that is exactly what happened to the disciples. Only they didn’t just get one bucket of cold water, they got three.

a) Jesus (1:7-8)
Because the first dose of reality was provided by Jesus himself. He told the disciples, in no uncertain terms, that when the kingdom would be established was God’s secret, and God’s secret only. In other words, there was no room for human speculation in that regard. On the contrary, he suggested, that instead of spending time indulging in wishful thinking or apocalyptic speculation, what they needed to do was to prepare themselves for the task ahead.

They were to be witnesses to him, telling the world what he had said and done. That is what they should have their minds on, not on dreaming of the future and speculating about what might be. Rather they needed to prepare to share their faith with the world, as they awaited the gift of the Holy Spirit who would help them in the task.

b) The Ascension (1:9)
The second dose of reality was the Ascension itself. Because the next thing that happened was that Jesus was lifted up and taken away in a cloud. Now this may have indicated the pattern for his ultimate return to earth, but for the disciples, this was a message that his continual visits had come to an end. Indeed, it indicated that there was going to be a gap between his Ascension and his Second Coming. A gap which needed to be filled with something. And that something was what Jesus had told them, a period of witness and mission by his disciples.

c) The Angels (1:10-11)
And the third dose of reality? Well as the disciples continued to stare into the sky after Jesus, longing for his reappearance or some other such spectacular event, two angels appeared and gave immediate commentary on what they had seen. And they reproached the disciples for dawdling there and for their longing for Jesus. And they told them that the time of dreaming and speculation was over, and it was now time to get on with the task that they had been given.

4. The Response of the Disciples (1:12-14)
It was quite a slap in the face that the disciples received. A wake-up call for reality. And bearing in mind what they’d been privileged to witness with Jesus—the teaching, the training, the example that Jesus had been to them, the miracles that they had witnessed, the compassion of Jesus that they had seen—in a sense, the necessity for such a slap is quite surprising.

But the disciples did get the message. And of course, the disciples went and did as they had been told. They returned to an upstairs room in a house in Jerusalem where they had established themselves, and they used the time between the Ascension and Pentecost to prepare and pray for their work of witness in the world.

5. The Result
And the disciples, broken of their unhealthy speculation of the future and being encouraged to put the past behind them, with their minds focussed very much on the job that God had given them, some ten days later, beginning at Pentecost, went out, and did what Jesus told them to do. And they were used by God to do some amazing things.


Now, it’s a fascinating story. A story of a group of people who’d been through a very rough time. But as part of their way of coping, remained stuck in their dreaming and in their speculation of the future. But they got through that, thanks to a healthy slap of reality from Jesus himself. And as a consequence, there are a number of lessons for us in this story of New Testament life.

And the first is, that when we’re feeling down and low, and when we’re going through rough times, we need to remember that we are not alone. Indeed, lots of people could equally say “Been there, done that”—the disciples included.

So, when we’re dreaming or speculating about the future, when we’ve made mistakes, or we’re punishing ourselves for the things that have happened, we can be assured that the disciples went through the same things in the period following the arrest of Jesus. Their behaviour at the time was not something to which they would have been particularly proud. They didn’t handle the situation well. And that is something we can probably all relate to.

Secondly, we need to accept that in life there will always be an element of mystery, an element of the unknown. And that’s not going to change no matter how much we want it to.

In Jesus’s words to his disciples, there was a reminder that not everything that happens—or will happen—will be explained or revealed by God during this present life. And not everything that the disciples wanted to happen was either going to happen or happen in the way they wanted either.

As a consequence, like the disciples, we might be keen to know the future. We might want to map out where we are heading and what’s in store for us in detail. We might have hopes and dreams of the way we want things to go. But the reality is, that in this life, we may never know, or experience things, the way that we want to experience them. And we can waste valuable time and energy speculating about what might be.

Yes, it may be good to have an enquiring mind. But to be consumed in trying to work out all the mysteries of life can be a pointless exercise.

So instead, thirdly, rather than live in our own world, we need to ground ourselves in reality. And in particular in the task that Jesus has given us to do.

Now Jesus, during his earthly ministry, had told the disciples many times what he expected them to do. He pulled them aside on many occasions and focussed on the preparation they needed for the time he would no longer be around. He even sent them out into the towns to help him in his ministry, but as a kind of a practice run for the future too.

So, when it comes to the matter of faith, we need to ground ourselves in the task that Jesus has given us to do too. Now Jesus’s command to his disciples was to go out and make disciples, to let people know the good news, and to teach them what it means to be a disciple of Jesus. It was a task the early disciples began but is still not finished. It’s a job that still has a long way to go and needs our part too—not only overseas, but in our own backyard as well.

And, fourthly, we need to accept that from time to time that we will need wake-up calls too.

Now the disciples needed more than one wake-up call to get them back on track. And my guess is that each time they received a wake-up call they modified their position—and probably then considered that they were back on track. However, nothing could have been further from the truth. Indeed, in this one story alone, they needed three such wake-up calls before they were ready to go and prepare for what Jesus had planned. And these weren’t the first wake-up calls they would have received, and they probably weren’t the last. As a consequence, we shouldn’t be surprised if we need wake-up calls from time to time too.

But then isn’t that the way that many of us have experienced how God works? A wake-up call as he deals with us, one issue at a time. And as each time an issue is dealt with—or is at least well in hand—we get another wake-up call raising another issue which we may not even have known needed dealing with.

As a result of their triple reprimand, the disciples locked themselves away and prepared for the future. When given their focus, they went up to the privacy of their upper room and spent time in preparation and prayer. However, ten days later, filled with the Holy Spirit they were out and about, and telling all and sundry about Jesus.

And in this is another warning. Because so easily can an unhealthy focus on speculation or dreaming or over analysing be replaced by an unhealthily period of preparation—where the preparation never ends, and the evangelism never begins. But the disciples had ten days and ten days only, and then they were out and about sharing their faith. And that’s the kind of timetable that we need to work to too.


When life becomes a bit of a struggle, then, and we seem to have lost the plot, we have story, a true story, that should give us great hope.

It’s a story of how God took the eleven remaining disciples—disciples who were down, who had gone through a very rough patch and were beginning to get so tangled in their hopes for the future that they’d lost track of reality—and got them to face reality and get on with the job that he had given them to do.

Jesus restored the disciples to be the kind of people they were meant to be—living in this world and telling others about him. And that is exactly our task to do today. The mistakes that the disciples made, we’re probably not something of which they were proud. But to combat the dreaming and speculation of better times, they needed that slap of reality.

Now, we all make mistakes, and bad things happen to all of us from time to time—and we all have our own way of coping in such situations. But sometimes we need a slap of reality too. And for a Christian part of that slap may well be a reminder to stop dreaming, to stop speculating, and to get on with sharing the faith.

That’s certainly the lesson that the disciples learnt. But is it a lesson that we have learnt too?

Posted: 28th July 2018
© 2018, Brian A Curtis

SERMON: Choosing Leaders (Acts 1:15-17, 21-26)


From time to time we all get involved in the selection of leaders. Not only for the different organizations to which we belong, but in respect to the people we want to represent us at the local council, in parliament, etc., etc.

And to choose a particular person to represent us, there are a variety of criteria we use. We choose someone we think has the right skills for the job. We choose someone who is popular or someone who we think we could get on with the best. We choose someone who is young, because the position requires youth, or we choose someone who is older, because maturity and experience are required. We choose someone who has a charismatic personality, and . . . Well, you get the idea.

Now some of these things may be important, and we can use them to weigh up the pros and cons—to get the right person for the job. But in the end, sometimes the person we have chosen gets through, and other times . . . Well, you just can’t win them all.

And just as that is true regarding the selection of leaders as a whole, so is it true of the church.

But in regard to the church, the selection criteria that we use elsewhere, may need to take a backward step. Because there are some very basic and essential criteria, which are far more important. And the passage from the Acts of the Apostles illustrates why.


1. Background
Now the story is set between the Ascension of Christ—forty days after his resurrection, when he returned to his Father—and the Festival of Pentecost—the day that God empowered his people, by giving them the gift of the Holy Spirit. And in this transition period, what was on the Apostle Peter’s mind, was the need to choose a successor for Judas, who had committed suicide after having betrayed Jesus.

As far as Peter (and probably others) was concerned, the twelve disciples were to have a special function in the life of the early church. And there was a realisation that their work was only just about to begin. As a consequence, the twelve needed to be restored to their full number. And so a replacement for Judas had to be found.

2. The Need for A Replacement (15-17)
And the story begins with Peter on his soapbox once again, taking the initiative in front of a crowd of about one hundred and twenty followers.

Now the number of followers is significant. Because it was the minimum number required in Jewish society to make decisions about the setting up of inner groups or deciding about leadership.

And so we find Peter explaining, firstly, by reference to the Old Testament, that what Judas had done had been foretold. It had been prophesied that the betrayer would be part of the inner circle of twelve, and that it would be necessary to replace him (20). And, secondly (and the real reason for needing a replacement), was that the task was still before them. They still had to share the gospel with all nations, beginning in Jerusalem (Luke 24:47). And that would require the full number of witnesses be restored.

3. The Selection Criteria (21-22)
As a consequence, Peter went on to outline the selection criteria, he thought was important, in order to find a replacement.

Now we might find it odd to note, that with the role of being one of the twelve apostles—and with the specific task of sharing the good news—that none of the criteria that Peter outlined, concerned being a good speaker, or having a loud voice, or anything else of that nature. No! Peter restricted his criteria to three ground rules, and three ground rules only.

The first was that the person had to have been associated with Jesus from the time of his baptism by John. The second was that he had to have seen the resurrected Lord. And the third was that the person had to have received a personal commission from Jesus to be one of his eyewitnesses to the world.

Now of course the people may well have considered the other attributes required—the ones that would help them more easily carry out the task. But they were not part of the essential selection criteria. There were only the three requirements.

4. The Selection Process (23-25)
And as a consequence, those in attendance nominated two candidates: Joseph Barsabbas, of whom we know nothing, except for a legend later in life where he was forced to drink poison and suffered no ill effects at all. And Matthias, about whom we also know nothing at all.

Then having selected two possible candidates, they then didn’t vote for them as it would be more normal today. Instead, they prayed to God that from these two, the person of his choosing would be made known.

And bearing in mind, at this point, they had not yet received the Holy Spirit—Pentecost was still to come—they then used the time-honoured Old Testament practice of casting lots. To which the result was that the lot fell to Matthias. And he took over from Judas as one of the twelve.

5. Comment
Now there’s are two very important points which shouldn’t be lost in this story. And both relate to the fact that apostleship was not a humanly ordained office.

And the first is, that even though the church were able to put forward candidates, only God could select Judas’s replacement. Those assembled could only pray that God would exercise his choice—for he knew what was in men’s hearts. In other words, the real choice regarding leadership was left to God.

And the second thing is, that the criteria for nomination for the position placed far more importance on the person’s spiritual relationship with God, than what we might consider to be the talents needed for the role.


And lest we be tempted to think that Peter’s criteria were specifically targeted to a “special” event, which called for different guidelines to those we would consider normal, we have other examples recorded in the New Testament to which we can refer.

1. The Teaching of Paul
Because according to the Apostle Paul the qualifications for other apostles, such as himself, were that they should have seen (the resurrected) Lord. And that they should have received a commission in person to be his witness (1 Cor 9:1f; 15:8-10; Gal 1:16f). And again Paul provided no guidelines in regard to the talents and abilities such a person might need.

Furthermore, the instructions that Paul gave Timothy (1 Timothy 3) regarding church leaders were . . .

Regarding the appointment of an overseer (or bishop) . . . They had to be a convert (but not a recent one), and that they needed to be a person beyond reproach (6). And regarding a person called to serve in any other capacity . . . They needed to keep hold of the deep truths of the faith (9) and that they were to be tested to see whether their claims were true (10).

In both cases, Paul said nothing about the skills and abilities required to carry out the task. The only issue was the level of faith to be considered for such positions, and the need for their lives to be beyond reproach.

2. The Practice of the Church (Acts 6:1-7)
But even leaving Paul out of the equation, we have the example of the selection of seven men to help in the welfare programme of the church (Acts 6:1-7).

For in a growing church, it was believed that a group of widows were being overlooked in regard to the daily distribution of food. But the twelve apostles, including the newly appointed Matthias, realised their dilemma: They just couldn’t continue to do all the things they had been doing, without some assistance.

So they called the other members of the church to put forward seven men to help in the care of the poor. And they didn’t specifically ask for people with the skills to do the job; they didn’t ask for a group of men who were good with the poor. What they did was to ask for men of faith, men who were full of the Spirit and wisdom.

And seven men were presented to the Apostles. And, after prayer, the apostles acknowledged that the men had been accepted by God for the task in hand. They then laid their hands on them, setting them apart for their role in the life of the church.

3. Comment
As far as the early church was concerned, the church was not a democracy, where people had the right to choose their own leaders. And leaders were not chosen based on their ability to do the job. Rather the church was a “theocracy,” where God chose the leaders. And leadership was based principally on a person’s relationship with God, not on any perceived ability.

And that, of course, brings us into sharp contrast with the practices of the church today. Particularly as church welfare and other agencies appoint board members and employees based on their abilities, not on their relationship with God. A practice that should be condemned.

But then in a world in which we are called upon to nominate and elect people for all sorts of roles, we have got used to using a range of criteria to assess the eligibility and the appropriateness of person to fulfill a particular role. But a range of criteria that is in sharp contrast to the criteria required by the church in New Testament times.


Now, of course, a person’s abilities and strengths may have been in the backs of people’s minds, even in New Testament times. But they formed no basis for the basic selection criteria. And by implication they should not be part of the basic selection criteria, in the church, even today.

Yes, we could say that times have changed. Because even in his time, the Apostle Paul recognised that times had changed (because of growth in the church, and because of the distance of time). Because it was no longer possible to choose leaders based on them having been with Jesus at his baptism. And the advent of the Holy Spirit had meant that visits from the risen Christ were no longer the norm for people who believed.

And yet regardless of that, the principals behind the decision-making process of the early church remained the same. And therefore are just as relevant today as they were back then.


So, when it comes to the decision-making processes of today—and in particular to all officer of the church (whether regarding the appointment of a Rector, the officers of the Parish Council, or whatever) the biblical principles remain sound.

1. Basic Criteria
And so the questions that should be asked of any person to be nominated for any position, should be: Firstly, does the person know Jesus? Have they committed their lives to their Lord and Saviour? Do they have the Holy Spirit living in their heart? Because if that is not true, then that person has no place in a leadership role in the church, regardless of their talents.

And, secondly, is the person committed to be a witness of Jesus? Are they devoted to telling others about what they have received for themselves? Have they a concern for others needing to hear what Jesus did in order that they might receive salvation? Because if they aren’t, then there is no place for them in a leadership role either.

If anyone fails one or both of those simple questions—the basic criteria essential for any leader in the church—then they are not fit to take on a leadership role within the church, regardless of any abilities they may have.

2. God’s Choice Not Ours
And having nominated people for a particular role—people who fit both criteria—it isn’t a matter of voting for the person and seeing who the majority choose. Rather, it’s a matter of putting forward that person or those person’s names, for the consideration of God. For his guidance, and for his choosing.

3. Comment
You see the church is different. It’s not like any other organization or institution. It is God’s church, not ours. And as a consequence, the people chosen to be leaders must be people of God. They must be of his choosing not ours.

Because, whatever a person’s talents and abilities, even if we think they would do a terrific job, that is not the basic criteria for a leadership position in the church. And if we don’t get that right, then the whole church structure is likely to fall flat on its face. Because it won’t be God’s church, it will our church. And, as a consequence, we won’t have God’s blessing upon our endeavours.


So today, yes, we are involved in choosing leaders from time to time—and it could be in club to which we belong, or for our local council or parliament. And, yes, we use different criteria to select our leaders. And in our church, we may be involved in the selection of our leaders too.

But in church, even if some people have good voices, good listening skills, or whatever—and we may like to take all of those things into account—none of those things should be part of our basic criteria.

In the church there are three basic and essential criteria when it comes to choosing a leader. And these are: That the person must be a person of God; that they must be committed to the mission of the church; and they must receive the approval of God to exercise their particular office. Because without those three things, whatever their skills, we have a recipe for disaster.

Posted: 18th January 2020
© 2020, Brian A Curtis

SERMON: A Cameo of the Church (Acts 2:42-47)


Ask any group of people what they think the church is – or should be – and you will come up with a variety of responses. Indeed it can seem, at times, that everybody has a different idea about what the church is all about.

Some think that the church is the building. That its presence is important as a focal part of the community, or because it represents some connection with the past. Some think that the church is the people. But not necessarily just the people who go to church regularly. But it includes anyone who in anyway feels connected. And some think that the church is the people. But only those who have a full relationship with God. And by that definition, it does not include everyone who goes to church.

Now, depending upon what we think the church is, or what it should be all about, will reflect our attitude towards it.

For example those in the first group, who see the church as a building, as the focal point of the community, with some sort of connection with the past, will more than likely have a focus on preserving the structure, and have a strong emphasis on maintaining historical values.

Those in the second group, who have a very wide interpretation of who belongs to the church, will more than likely want to encourage a variety of expressions of beliefs. They will be keen to maintain the building’s presence, so it is there when people feel the need or for those special occasions.

And those in the third group, who believe the church is about people who have a full relationship with God, well this group will be represented by people who want to emphasise the church’s role in terms of the importance of worshipping God, and in terms of sharing and caring within the Christian community. Indeed they may not have any real attachment to a building at all.

Three different groups, then, with three different attitudes to what the church is, or should be all about (and of course there are all sorts of shades in between). But the question is, “Which one is right?” Or are they all right? Do they all encapsulate elements of the truth?


Well, to answer the question of what the church is, and should be all about, I’d like to refer to the book of Acts (Acts 2:42-47). Because Luke records for us a cameo of the early church. And in comparison with modern attitudes about the church, Luke makes some very interesting observations indeed.

1. Four Elements of Christian Gathering (42)
And the first feature is, the extent of the devotion of all those involved.

For example, we’re told that the believers were keen to hear the teaching of the Apostles, who were noted as the guardians of the faith. Indeed they were keen to meet and be taught as often as possible, and they hung on to every word that was said.

We’re told that the believers were devoted to having fellowship with one another (and in those days that meant “sharing” with one another in a common religious experience). They met together regularly to build each other up in the faith.

We’re told that the believers broke bread together. In other words they shared meals together, at which they remembered the Lord’s Supper.

And we’re told that the believers sought every opportunity to pray together. And prayer was a regular part of their meetings.

2. Public Reaction (43)
The second feature that Luke records about the church is, that the public, those outside the church, were filled with a sense of fear or awe.

As a result of their devotions, God was able to do some wonderful things. Indeed, many signs and wonders were done through the Apostles. Something that not only would have encouraged the believers, but at the same time created a certain apprehension amongst the non-Christian population, in whose midst these supernatural events took place.

3. Christian Community (44-45)
The third feature of the church that Luke describes is, the distinctive way in which the believers lived. They practiced some kind of joint ownership of possessions. Indeed, people sold their possessions so that the proceeds might be used to help the needy among them.

Of course our first impression may be of a community whose members lived together and had everything in common. However, what really happened, was that each person held his goods at the disposal of the others for whenever the need arose.

4. Meeting Together (46)
The fourth feature of Luke’s cameo is, that the religious devotion of the early church was a daily affair. They met together in the temple, and joined in the daily worship at the temple. That is in addition to meeting together in their own homes, for religious gatherings and for common meals.

5. Church Growth (47)
And the fifth feature of the early church is, that they put their beliefs into practice. They praised God and shared their faith with those who didn’t know Jesus. As a result the church grew. And it grew at a phenomenal rate.


Now that is Luke’s cameo of the early church… the church in its infancy, as yet untainted by other influences.

So getting back to our modern day images of the church, and there were three of them, how do they compare?

1. Comparisons
Well, firstly, to the idea that the church is a building, the focal point of the community or that it has some sort of historical connection with the past, that whole idea is quite foreign to the image of the church as portrayed by Luke.

Indeed, Luke’s description of the church is of a living organic being made up of people, and people only. Yes, the early Christians may have gone to the Temple to meet (and they may have even worshipped there), but they then returned to their homes, where they had fellowship or other meetings. In other words the Temple was not the be all and end all of all their religious devotions.

Further, with their attitudes towards selling possessions, and for the priority of helping one another, one can easily conclude that the idea of a building being the church would have been quite alien to their beliefs and practices.

Secondly, to the idea that the church is about people who have a wide variety of beliefs, which include the idea that it is not necessary to worship on a regular basis, the church of the New Testament would have found that completely foreign too.

Because not only did they meet very regularly, some daily, but they knew nothing about an all-inclusive, all embracing church. Indeed, meeting together only occasionally for rites of passage, or for some other reason, was not part of their beliefs or practices. Rather the frequency and regularity of meeting together, and the purpose – to worship, to be taught, to share and to pray – were the essential features of the church’s life. Indeed they were keen on being taught, so they got it right. And they went out of their way to share their particular beliefs with others.

And, thirdly, to the idea that church is about people, not buildings, and about people who have a full relationship with God, and that caring and sharing is what it’s all about too, well, that would have to be the closest description of the three to the New Testament church that we can get to today.

Because that is exactly what the New Testament church was all about. It was all about taking the faith seriously. It was about maintaining the awe and wonder, the things that God wanted to do for his people. And it was about going out and sharing the faith with any who had not yet responded to the good news of Jesus, not keeping it to themselves.

2. What Makes The Church Tick?
Now obviously this cameo of the early church poses a real challenge to the modern church. Indeed it poses a completely different view of the church than most people believe in or practice today. So why the difference? Well, we can only speculate.

a). The Early Church
But for the early church the resurrection was a current reality. It was something that the people were excited about. Consequently their commitment to Jesus and to the life of the church was very real. And because it was real God was able to be very active in the church. Indeed the things that he did, and the way he blessed his people, was something to be seen. And because of the excitement, and enthusiasm, the faithful couldn’t help spread the word. And as a consequence the church grew at a phenomenal rate.

The reality of this cameo is that people not only believed in the resurrection, but they understood what it meant for their own lives. Yes, that meant a completely new life style, and sometimes great sacrifice, but they did so, knowing what it was that Jesus had done. And they were blessed because of it.

b). The Modern Church
In contrast however, if we look at the church today, the difficulties the church faces reflect the fact that the resurrection for most people is no longer a current reality. It’s no longer something that really grabs them. As a consequence, the commitment to Jesus, and the commitment to his people, is something that many people are no longer prepared to give. As a result God is not able to be very active in a church that is not being faithful. And, what’s more, the church finds it harder and harder to grow. Indeed, in the western world, the church for the most part is headed in the opposite direction.


Of course the solution to the modern day problem is obvious. We need to return the church so that it’s like the early church described by Luke in the New Testament . The question for us today, though is, “How do we do it?” How do we get back to that ideal? How do we move the many obstacles in the way, not least of which are all the wrong ideas about what the church is all about?

Well, the simple answer is we need to learn to let go, and let God. We need to let go of our own ideas, and our own wants and desires. We need to let go of the things that we love, and hold dear. And we need to let God, through his Holy Spirit, guide us, and take us on a journey we probably don’t want to go. (And having this passage from Acts, we should have a fair idea of where that journey will take us.) Ironically the way we to reform God’s church, is to turn back the clock. We need to pick up the features of the early church, and we need to apply them for ourselves.

That means, firstly, we need to begin with the need for teaching. The church isn’t about what we want, it’s about what God wants. Consequently we need to know what God is like, what he wants, and how he thinks. Teaching, reading the bible, and study therefore are all important aspects, essential for Christian growth.

Secondly, we need to take seriously the need for fellowship. The need to meet together and to share common religious experiences. Indeed the need to meet together to encourage and build up one another in the faith should be an essential element in the life of every believer.

Thirdly, we need to break bread together (that is, share meals together). Because the more formal aspect of meeting together is one thing, but we mustn’t forget the social aspect of living as a community too. As Christians we are adopted into a new family, a family of believers, and we need to take our family responsibilities seriously.

Fourthly, we need to pray. Because the need to meet regularly to pray is an essential feature in the life of the church. Now prayer involves many things. It involves adoration, confession, thanksgiving, and petition. But most importantly it’s about having a dialogue with God. Because whilst we can learn much about God through other means, there is no substitute for talking to God directly about things of a community concern, as well as those which are of a personal concern.

Fifthly, we need to build up a sense of community. We need to care for one another, and look after one another’s needs. And I might add, using the early church as an example, we need to be prepared to do this no matter what the personal cost.

And, sixthly, we need to share our faith with those around us. And dare I say, if we got the first five features right, then this would not be the hard task that some find it is today. Indeed, it would come very easily, because it would be the natural result of getting all the other basics right.

And if we were committed to all those things, with God’s help, then God could bless us too, as he did to the early church.


Now, as I said at the beginning, ask any group of people what they think the church is, or should be, and we would end up with a variety of responses. However, as we’ve seen today, many of them are just not true. The idea that the church is a building is not true. And the idea that the church is a sort of all-embracing description for a wide variety of beliefs and practices, which includes the need for a building to be there for special events, is not true either

Indeed, the church is the people of God; it is the body of believers. It is the group of people who have trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ for their salvation.

The dilemma the church has today, then, is, how to turn the church, as it has become with all the corrupt views, into the kind of church described in the Acts of the Apostles. A church that shows God’s people in action. A church that illustrates God’s response to his faithful people. And a church that is growing at a phenomenal rate.

So yes, today as a church we have a problem, a big problem, and yet the solution is so simple:
Teaching, fellowship, breaking bread together, prayer, a sense of real community, a commitment to meeting regularly together, and the need to share the faith with others, were all aspects of the early church, a church uncorrupted by other influences. And they should all be aspects of the church today as well.

But is this a model we would like to see in our own churches? And just how far are we prepared to go to turn back the clock, so that our churches can be as God intended?

Posted: 2nd June 2015
© 2015, Brian A Curtis

DEVOTION: A Cameo of the Church (Acts 2:42-47)
Ask any group of people to define what the church is, and you will end up with a variety of responses. Some will say that the church is the building, and that it represents the focal part of the community, or a connection with the past. Some will say that the church is the people, but it includes everyone who in some way feels a connection (no matter how tenuous) to the buildings past. And some will say that the church is the people, but only those who have a right relationship with God. The question today, though, is which one is right?

Well, to answer the question, we should perhaps go back to the cameo of the church that is described for us in the book of the Acts of the Apostles. Because what we have described for us is a church bubbling with life. The people were totally involved in being taught about the faith. They cared for one another, they shared meals in each other’s homes, they prayed together, they worshipped regularly, and as the need arose they supported one other financially. So much so, that they were a beacon in their community. They didn’t have to go out and tell others about their faith. Their beliefs and actions said it all. And as a consequence people came flocking to them.

Now, is this a picture of the kind of church to which we belong? I don’t think so. Because it seems to me that there is a great gulf between the cameo that we have described for us and the reality of our churches in Tasmania today. What this cameo does, however, is to clearly demonstrate that the church is not the building, and it’s not necessarily everyone who comes to “church”. Rather it is the people who have committed their lives to God, and who are devoted to learning more about their faith, and who care and spend time with their fellow believers.

Now imagine belonging to a church like that.

So is this the kind of church to which we like to belong? And if so, what are we doing (if anything) to reach this lofty goal?

Posted: 17th February 2017
© 2017, Brian A Curtis

DEVOTION: Reading Books Can Be Dangerous (Acts 8:26-40)
Do you like reading books? I hope you do. But if you do, has anyone ever told you that reading books can be dangerous?

Well, obviously, in the past, people have got themselves into trouble because they’ve tried to read the wrong books—books that have been banned because they were considered “dangerous” for political, cultural or other reasons. But that is not the only reason that books can be dangerous. Because books can be a challenge to one’s lifestyle and one’s whole way of thinking too.

Take the story of an important official, traveling from Jerusalem to his home in Ethiopia—a distance of at least 2,500 kilometres. Now he was probably in a covered wagon drawn by oxen, and in need of something to pass away the time. So, what was he doing? He was reading a book. But not just any book, but one of the books of the Old Testament—the book of the prophet Isaiah. And although we don’t know how much of the book that he had read, we do know that he had read the part of the book that foretold the crucifixion of Jesus.

And what was the official’s response to what he read? Well he not only wanted someone to clarify what it meant—and Philip described Jesus sacrificing himself for the benefit of others—but he then insisted on being baptized. Talk about books being life changing.

Now the Christian faith teaches that only those who have lived perfect lives, who have not made one mistake, will inherit eternal life—which doesn’t sound too good for us. And, yet, the Christian faith also teaches that to get around this problem, God sent his Son to pay the price for our mistakes, so that those who believe in him can have their mistakes wiped clean.

And that is what the Ethiopian Eunuch finally understood as he read from the prophet Isaiah, as he talked to Philip, and as he stopped his wagon in order to be baptised. He understood that baptism was about acknowledging that we are totally dependent upon God for our eternal welfare, and that we need our record of mistakes washed clean.

Reading books, then, can not only be dangerous, but life changing. And there can be no more dangerous book to read than the bible—the handbook of the Christian faith. It certainly made a difference to the Ethiopian eunuch, and it should make a difference to us too.

Posted: 30th June 2018
© 2018, Brian A Curtis

DEVOTION: The Structure of the Church (Acts 15:1-23a)
How the church should be structured, today, is often a matter of debate. Indeed, it is not unusual for some people to advocate one model over another—one denomination over another. And, of course, each model has its virtues.

Today’s models, however, are in stark contrast to the early church. Because, in the book of Acts, we have a description of a single unifying body (based in Jerusalem), but which allowed a diversity of structure to meet local need.

Now it seems to me that we have lost much in our modern approach. We have lost that unity. We have also lost that diversity to some extent—structures are imposed which do necessarily meet the local need. As a consequence, there are many things that we can learn and apply from the principles of the early church, no what the structure of our church or denomination today.

And the Council of Jerusalem is an example of how things should be done. Because when we read the story, we can realise at least four things:

Firstly, when the early church had an issue to debate, they created a forum to talk through the issues, to air their views, and to seek God’s mind on the subject.

Secondly, they created a situation where all views were considered. Yes, there were divergent views, but everyone had the chance to talk, before a decision was made.

Thirdly, the forum concerned itself primarily with the spiritual life of the church, not just then nuts and bolts issues.

And fourthly, the whole focus of the meeting was to grow the church, to remove all stumbling blocks—and not just to hold on to tradition.

Now does all that sound familiar? Because it should do. Because no matter what the structure of the church or the denomination that we belong to, those principles should remain the same.

Unfortunately, that has not been my experience. Indeed, my experience has been that people generally try to avoid spiritual debate. And when spiritual issues do arise, invariably one or two dominate the debate, not everyone has their say, and maintaining the status quo remains the priority.

The structure and example of the early church, then, creates a real challenge for the modern church. Not least of which is to realise that we need to go back to New Testament principles and apply them in our churches today. And we should do that, no matter what structure or denomination that we enjoy.

Posted: 24th February 2018
© 2018, Brian A Curtis

DEVOTION: The Need for Evangelism (Acts 17:15-18:1)
Every now and again, as a nation, we examine the number of religions present in our society and assess the apparent strength or following of those faiths. Indeed, we hold a census every five years which specifically asks people to nominate their religious affiliation. And even though, these days, it has become an optional question, the majority still answer the question.

All well and good. Except that the number of people who actually attend Church on Sundays—or any other day—is only a small proportion of the number who indicate some sort of affiliation with the Christian church.

We can easily conclude, then, “Do people really understand what Christianity is about? Do they really know why the church exists?” Because if the answer to both of these questions is “No,”, then perhaps we should ask, “What are we going to do about it?”

Now these questions are similar to the ones that the Apostle Paul faced when he entered the great city of Athens—a city noted, at the time, for the time people sat around talking about and listening to the latest ideas, and for the superstitious nature of the people. Indeed, there were idols everywhere, including (just to cover themselves) one to an unknown god.

But Paul didn’t need a census to tell him what was going on—it was obvious. The people didn’t know who the real God was. As a consequence, Paul was determined to put them right.

So he went to the synagogue, he spoke in the market place, and he stood up at a meeting in the Areopagus where the serious debating took place. In other words, he used everyday places to share the message of God; he used every opportunity available to him to share what he believed about God and about Jesus.

So what has changed in the last two thousand years? Not a lot. Missionaries have been sent out to spread the good news, but even in our own country people still don’t understand about God and the church.

Paul then is a great example. Indeed he used every opportunity to tell others about Jesus, and therefore has given us a model that we can follow. Because we need to use every opportunity to share our faith with others too.

Posted: 6th March 2020
© 2020, Brian A Curtis

DEVOTION: Baptism for Today (Acts 19:1-6)

Different things mean different things to different people.

Indeed, we could all be watching the same game of football, and what would be a reportable offence to one person, would be a fair tackle to another. We could all go to the same historic site, and what would make some googly-eyed, could leave others ho-humming. And we could all go to a movie together, and some would come out with a deep and meaningful message, whilst others would have only been mildly amused.

Different things mean different things to different people. We all come at things from different perspectives. And whilst that is true for things in general, it’s also true when it comes to baptism. Because baptism means different things to different people too.

Indeed, some think a baby has to be “christened” in order for that child to receive a Christian name. Some think “christening” is important because of family tradition. Some think a person has to be baptised in order to guarantee their life after death with God. And others … Well there are some really odd ideas about what baptism is about.

However whilst, for many things in life, it can be a matter of interpretation and a matter of personal interest, with baptism it is not the different meanings that we put on it that counts, but the meaning that God puts on it.

Now in biblical times there were three types of baptism that people could choose. There was Jewish baptism—the initiation rite into the faith of the living God. It gave the Gentiles in particular an opportunity to stand up and commit themselves to the worshipping life of the community. There was John’s baptism—with the idea of repentance. The opportunity to admit one’s failings and commit to turning one’s life around, to commit oneself one hundred percent to a new life directed on a relationship with God. And then there was Christian baptism—which not only incorporated the ideas expressed in the first two baptisms, but went on to include acknowledging our total dependence upon God for our eternal welfare, acknowledging that Jesus paid the penalty that we deserve for our sins, and a public commitment to follow him.

As you can probably realise, then, there is a great gulf between what many people think baptism is about, and what God thinks it’s about. True Christian baptism contrasts considerably with the ideas that christening is a rite in which a child is given a name, or that it something that is done to uphold a family tradition, or that the rite itself will guarantee a person’s eternal welfare.

Because, in God’s eyes, baptism is about an opportunity to respond to him in a very real and meaningful way. It’s a sign of commitment, of taking one’s place in the life of his church. And that means for an adult, it should be an outward sign of a commitment already made. And for a child, it should be an expression of hope that after being brought up in the faith and in the life of the church, that that child will, at some stage, come to believe and express it for themselves.

Different things mean different things to different people. And whilst that is true of things in general, we need to be careful when it comes to baptism. Because it’s not what we think that it’s about that is important, it’s what God thinks it’s about. So we need to respond to God’s idea of baptism, not our own. For he is the one who has our eternal welfare in his hands.

Posted: 11th April 2020
© 2020, Brian A Curtis

DEVOTION: Teaching the Gospel (Acts 20:7-12)

There are morning people and there are night people. Some work best first thing, and others work best at night. We’re all different, and our body clocks work in different ways.

Personally, I’m better in the morning (although not too early). But as a consequence, I don’t work too well at night. Which is why the story of Paul at Troas appeals to me. Because whilst I can understand his need to talk to the people—to use the limited time available—I can still sympathise with the man who fell asleep and fell out of the window.

The story comes in three parts.

Because, firstly, we’re told that it was a Sunday in Troas (7). Furthermore, the meeting was probably a fellowship meal in which the Lord’s Supper was celebrated. (Indeed this passage may be the first indication of a group of Christians who had changed their regular weekly day of worship from the Sabbath to a Sunday.) In addition, the meeting was in the evening, which was a convenient time for those who were not their own masters and who had worked during the day. But their meeting was not regulated by the clock. And the opportunity to listen to Paul was not one to be cut short.

Secondly, we’re told that there was an interruption to the meeting (8-10). The crowded upper room had grown heavy with the smoke of torches. And a young man named Eutychus, who was sitting in the window (where the air was freshest), had found it impossible to keep awake. Now he’d probably already put in a hard day’s work and, with the stuffy atmosphere, not even the words of an apostle could keep him from falling asleep. So the inevitable happened. He suddenly overbalanced, fell through the window (which was only a hole in the wall), and fell to the ground beneath (remembering the room was three floors up).

And Luke, the physician, tells us that they considered him “dead.” But whether he was dead or not Paul reassured the people that it was not the end and he ran down to embrace the young man’s apparently lifeless body (reminiscent of similar actions by Elijah and Elisha (1 Kings 17:21; 2 Kings 4:34-35) recorded in the Old Testament.)

Then thirdly, we’re told that Paul then resumed the meeting (11-12). He “broke the bread” and they shared their fellowship meal. He then continued to talk to them until daylight (the time when many of them would have needed to begin their next day’s work), by which time Eutychus had sufficiently recovered, to be taken home.

Now it’s a story which may be a familiar, and many may identify with the young man who fell out of the window. But I want to suggest that are at least three things that we can learn from this story.

And the first is that, like Paul, our job is to teach, encourage and equip people to grow in the faith. And whether that’s done at morning or night, our participation should not necessarily be restricted by the clock. Indeed, we need to make use of the limited time that is available.

The second is, if people doze off or have an accident or something else happens of an urgent nature, we need to be prepared to take time out to deal with issues that arise; we need to care for the people concerned. And I say that, because any words that we say are useless if we don’t have the actions to fit.

And the third is, that we need to be mindful not to be permanently side-tracked from our true purpose. Indeed, we need to realise that no matter what side-tracks we have to deal with, we need to quickly get back on track, and use the remaining opportunities that God has given us to get his message across.

In other words, we need to imitate the example of the apostle Paul.

So, can you identify with the young man, who’d probably had a busy day, and who fell out of the window? Well I can. As a consequence we need to pray for the stamina to stay alert, to carry out God’s task; we need to remember that it’s O. K. to stop, to deal with the pastoral issues that arise; but equally we then to need to quickly get back on track, and not remain diverted from our God-given task.

Posted: 24th January 2020
© 2020, Brian A Curtis