Something Worth Dying For

Acts 7:54-60

This takes place in response to Stephen's masterful defense before the Sanhedrin. Stephen has just accused the national leaders of rejecting the one prophesied by Moses, keeping the tradition of rejecting those sent by God that had been established through the history of the nation. This generation, according to Stephen, is guilty of the ultimate act of rejection because they have rejected not just the prophet but the one who was predicted by the prophets.
Luke reminds his reader that Stephen was full of the Holy Spirit, something that he has mentioned at least twice before this. Out of this fullness, Stephen receives a vision of heaven. In some ways this vision proves his defense; the God of glory has moved from the temple and the land. He is not confined to the temple. His vision of Christ standing on the right hand of God prompts the crowd to stone him.
Why did Stephen die? Because his understanding of Christianity threatened the established religion of the time and the national identity of the people. He could have compromised and not been so emphatic about the end of the religious system but his integrity and the integrity of the message of Christ would not allow him to go easy on the religious system. Besides the free access offered through Christ that would be compromised by supporting the ceremonial law, Stephen understood that the implications of the message of Christ could not be confined by the borders of Palestine. The gospel message must be preached to the Gentiles and the scope of God's mercy extends to them. This was probably as offensive to the ruling council as the end of the religious system. Stephen died because he understood the scope of Christ's message and ministry and was not willing to compromise that, even to save his own life.
This is something worth dying for, which means that it is something worth living for.

rejecting the God by rejecting his messangers

Acts 7:1-53

This passage contains a long discourse by Stephen in defense of the false charges brought against him by the synagogue of the Freemen. The specific charges were that Stephen had spoken against the temple, against Moses and, therefore, against God. Since yesterday, I've learned that the Synagogue of the Freemen was made up of former slaves and therefore Jews who were likely Greek speaking, like Stephen was. I think that they were so intense in their opposition to Stephen because they recognized Stephen as a threat to their synagogue. He was a Greek speaking Jewish follower of Christ who understood the concerns and mindset of the other Greek speaking Jews, and spoke with power and conviction, making it likely that he would attract others to discipleship of Christ.
Stephen's defense is on two fronts: the first is that the nation of Israel is who should stand accused of rejecting God because they have a history of rejecting God's messengers. This trend has continued right up to the rejection of God's son Jesus. The second defense is that the Jews have relied too much on the temple. Stephen makes it obvious from his review of Jewish history that God has been at work outside of the temple as well. In fact, for a significant portion of Israel's history, there was no place of worship and, for another significant portion of Israel's history, the place of worship was portable. The Jewish people are guilty of confining God to a building.
There are two obvious applications to me:
1) How am I rejecting God's message, and therefore God? Just yesterday I did the first draft of our volunteer staff covenant which included a section on the Authourity of Scripture. If I believe Scripture to be God's word (2 Timothy 3:16) and, therefore, to hold authourity over every area of my life, then I must not just read, study and memorize it. I must obey it. Am I obeying the message of God?
Also, is it possible that God is speaking to me through other people? I must be very careful and listen prayerfully and thoughtfully to the counsel/advice/confrontation of other people for it is possible that God is using them to speak to me. I must not be so proud as to think I have it all figured out. I don't want my historical pattern to be the same as the nation of Israel: "you always resist the Holy Spirit... you who received the law... and did not keep it" (v. 51-53).
2) How am I confining God? This keeps coming up for me. I obviously don't confine God to a building. In fact, I fight against church buildings being called "the house of the Lord" for Scripture makes it clear that both the individual follower of Christ (1 Corinthians 6:19) and the community of Christ followers (Ephesians 2:21-22) is the dwelling place of the Spirit. However, I am sure that I confine God in my caucasian western briercrest conservative evangelical box (whew! That's a lot of descripters. The problem is I'm sure there's more restrictions that I'm unaware of). Again, I am totally dependent on the wisdom of the Spirit to make it clear to me what is the work of God. I do not want to restrict God in ways that he does not restrict himself. I do not want to define God in ways that he should not be defined. I pray that I would be more open to the work and voice of God in all its manifold diversity and glory.

false accusations?

Acts 6:8-15

This passage is all about how God works through those who are available to him. There is a direct parallel between being full of God's grace and power and being full of the Holy Spirit. Stephen, being in complete submission to the Spirit and full of God's grace was able to perform great wonders among the people. This caused some opposition from a certain sector of Jews. I'm not sure why this particular synagogue was so anti-Stephen. I'm sure it's significant that these were Jews from other regions who had re-settled in Jerusalem but I'm not sure why. Whatever the significance, they were able to stir up enough trouble the Stephen was eventually brought to the Sanhedrin. Just like they did to Jesus, they drummed up false charges against him.
The specific charges were that Stephen was threatening the destruction of the temple and the customs and religious rituals that had started in the time of Moses. Luke makes it clear that these charges are false - that Stephen had never blasphemed the temple or the law. However, I think they had a case. They recognized that if Jesus was truly the the only way to the Father, then following the teaching of Jesus would mean the end of their religion. There would not be a need for the temple and the religious customs and rituals.
I am a lover of structure and tradition. I need to be careful or I will find myself on the same side of the Pharisees and religious leaders of Jesus' day and the day of the early church. I need to evaluate every area of my life, including this blog, to determine what has just become religious ritual and structure and what is truly giving me life. I need to make sure that I do not impose my structures on others. I need to recognize that there is no temple, except for the individual follower of Jesus and the community of followers, and there is no required ritual except loving God with all I am and have and loving my neighbour as my self. Yes, there are things that are helpful and useful in my (and your) spiritual development but I must remember that the end goal is not the completion of the spiritual discipline but knowing Jesus. This is hard for a a lover of structure and tradition.