Subscription Lists

I was recently asked to fill in for a vacationing teacher of an adult Bible School class which was chronologically studying the Book of Acts. They had finished chapter 6 the previous week, being introduced to Stephen, discussing his ascendance to leadership among the disciples and his subsequent charge by some among the Jewish community of blasphemy.

It was at this point, however, that the Jewish authorities made a strategic mistake, in that they challenged Stephen to defend himself; he having already proven his superior reasoning and debating skills – gained through the Holy Spirit. (Acts 6:10)

So why did he then proceed to recite a condensed history of Israel? When I first read chapter 7 in preparation for class, I wondered what in the world I could make of it. Upon prayerful thought and reflection, I believe the answer came to me. Stephen wasn’t merely reminiscing or stalling for time, he was establishing a connection with his accusers – some common ground from which to create a real dialogue.

In our present political climate, which often spills over into our churches, there is often disagreement and contention. How can conversation change that? By genuinely sharing ideas, stresses, disappointments – and disagreements – in an attempt to honestly understand where people are coming from; not finger-pointing and accusing each other of ulterior motives with arrogant disregard. Which doesn’t necessarily mean we have to agree on all points with each other but does facilitate a comprehension of differing viewpoints, some of which we may agree with more than we originally thought. All leading ME to adjust my expectations and demands, or at least voice them differently. Severe problems arising when we discount, dismiss and demonize those we disagree with, which leaves no room for compromise where possible, civil discourse and/or evangelization. All of which can be accomplished by creating common ground.

Stephen’s defense actually starts in Genesis 12 and then moves forward, reminding his adversaries of a shared history, a common culture and a reverence for Moses and the Prophets. (The “Bible” of even the early church at that time.) Christians of this time period were still very much a Jewish sect, Messianic Jews, but predominantly observing Jews none-the-less. They met in some homes, as there were no “churches” yet, and at the temple or synagogue. There were no New Testament writings in circulation at this time, the first “letter” to circulate being Paul’s epistle to the Galatians around A.D. 40; Mark’s gospel appearing around A.D. 50, the other gospels available between then and A.D. 90. (The Acts of the Apostles and other epistles being written and circulated during and after these dates.)

A truly separate Christian Church was initiated by Paul’s teaching and ministry – aided and abetted by many others – to the Gentiles; the Jewish church dwindling in influence and numbers over time as the gospel was eagerly embraced by many in the Greek speaking world; acquiring its own gospel and philosophy while fulfilling the prophecies of the older Jewish Testament. (See Moses’ promise of Deuteronomy 18:15)

Throughout Stephen’s discourse, he traced God’s promises and faithfulness through Abraham, Moses, David and the Israeli people as a whole. Finishing with a statement many would consider unwise, to say the least, calling his accusers a “stiff-necked” people – a common terminology used by God through his prophets throughout Jewish history – he accused them of never changing, of persecuting God’s messengers to them as their forefathers had; refusing to listen and continually resisting the Holy Spirit. (Acts 7:51-53)

Up to this point, Stephen had been pretty reasonable; attempting to find common cause and middle ground from which to articulate his real message – presenting the good news of God’s love and provision for them first, before presenting the bad news of their betrayal and “murder” of the very messengers sent to rescue them, finally offering the best news of the gospel that still held out hope for them in the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Some of what he said was and might still be considered harsh – or harshly delivered. But in the context of Stephen’s mission, it was appropriate. It was time for discussion to end and decisions to be made. All talk did indeed cease and it was decided Stephen should die. (Although as with so many other confrontations to follow some undoubtedly were persuaded to at least consider what was said by Stephen and others.)

But even then, Stephen’s real motivation for speaking frankly was revealed. He had finished his defense with some very direct words for his opponents obstinate refusal to listen to reason, yet still held out hope they would see the light – as Paul eventually did – and be saved. His heart was a servant’s heart and he wished evil on no one; committing his spirit to the Lord and requesting that their sin in this incident not be held against them. (Mirroring Jesus’ response and plea at his crucifixion.)

Could you, will you – respond similarly to those resisting your efforts to witness to the truth of Christ and the Christian ideals built into our society as Americans? How different would our political processes and institutions be if we did? How much more open would some be to our message if we would?

"Word from Scotland" from Sandy Shaw

Experience and Understand the Significance of Pentecost