Several decades ago, I took a friend to a White Sox-A’s game at the Oakland Coliseum. (The White Sox won 1-0.) After the game, while we were stuck in traffic, we both noticed some verbal interplay between a young woman and a car full of guys. While both parties were in their cars, the guys were yelling at her, she was yelling at them – and there was alcohol involved. Suddenly, the young woman grabbed a bucket of ice, ran over to the guys’ car, and poured out the ice through the driver’s side window onto the lap of the driver. She then ran back toward her car, but the guys caught her and began beating her up.
I can’t stand to watch anyone get hit in real life, especially a woman.
Instinctively, I wanted to get out of the car and defend her, but my companion cautioned, “Don’t Jim – she asked for it.”
What would you have done in that situation?
As difficult as it is to watch non-TV people fighting, it’s even more disturbing to watch one-sided combat. And yet, that’s what Saul of Tarsus did the first time we meet him in Scripture.
The most prominent early Christian outside the apostles was Stephen, “a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit … a man full of God’s grace and power” (Acts 6:5,8). (How many Christian leaders would be described that way in our day?) Just like with Jesus, some Jewish leaders made up charges against Stephen, incited a mob against him, held a kangaroo court, and produced false witnesses to trump-up charges. Unlike Jesus, Stephen was able to mount a vigorous defense of his message from the Old Testament, but the verdict had been decided long before he began speaking.
Sometimes it’s hard to read Acts 7:57-58. Luke mentions five phrases that indicate that the mob had already made up its minds about Stephen’s guilt. Note the phrases in italics:
“At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him.” If a movie was made about what really happened on this occasion, it would be rated NC-17 – or maybe NC-35.
Here’s what I want to know: why didn’t anybody try and stop the mob from carrying out this horrible action? It was clearly a miscarriage of justice. It didn’t honor God. It couldn’t be explained away. It was wrong. But according to the text, no one protested this mob action.
And then Dr. Luke slips in a little phrase at the end of verse 58 to introduce us to someone: “Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.” Most commentators believe that Saul was more than just an innocent bystander; as Acts 8:1 notes, “Saul was there, giving approval to his death.”
Once again, what would you have done in that situation?
There is no doubt that by not protesting, and by watching the coats of the executioners, Saul’s silent tongue was an indicator that he agreed with Stephen’s guilt, stoning, and death. I am not saying that Saul could have singlehandedly stopped it. (Although we don’t know because he didn’t try.) But somewhere along the line, he made up his mind: Stephen needed to die, and Saul preferred a box seat to doing anything about it.
Saul would feel much differently years later. In Acts 22:20, while recounting his testimony before another Jerusalem mob, Saul (now Paul) found himself in their crosshairs. He summed up his actions years before: “And when the blood of your martyr Stephen was shed, I stood there giving my approval and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.” One can sense the regret in Paul’s voice: “I can’t believe I did that.”
This time, because the Romans were in charge of the proceedings, Paul was able to escape the mob and live another day. But I wonder how many times he was haunted by the fact that when an innocent man of God was being stoned, he stood idly by without registering a protest.
Why bring this up?
I had breakfast this past week with a Christian leader who started a ministry for terminated pastors many years ago. As we were discussing the statistics of how many pastors leave their churches every month, my friend told me that the latest statistic is 1,800. When I did a search online, I discovered that the stats being quoted now are that 1,800 pastors leave their churches every month and that 1,300 of that group are involuntarily let go. That’s a lot of pastors – and churches – in pain.
While I concede that there are pastors who need to leave their churches, the overwhelming majority of these forced exits happen to pastors who have done nothing worthy of being fired.
And in most situations, either a handful of board members (usually three) and/or a small contingent of opponents (less than ten) conspire together to remove the pastor from office. And when they do so, they exaggerate the charges against him and offer him no defense.
Here’s what I want to know: why doesn’t anybody protest this kind of clandestine behavior?
When there is clearly injustice being perpetrated, why doesn’t even one board member tell the spiritual assassins (called by some “the gang of three”) to knock it off? Why don’t they threaten to expose them to the congregation? Why do so many board members suddenly go silent when their more vocal colleagues plan to do evil?
And if matters get to the floor of the congregation, why don’t more people in the church vocally support the pastor? Why do supposedly strong believers suddenly wilt like Peter rather than stand strong like Daniel?
In other words, why do good Christians so often end up guarding clothes rather than fighting injustice?
When I was a kid, James 4:17 used to bother me. It still does. Our Lord’s half-brother writes, “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.”
When you know you should protest … when you know God wants you to speak up … when you know you should walk away from the clothes … but you don’t – that’s sin.
In our new ministry, Restoring Kingdom Builders, I want to empower lay people to speak up when it looks like their pastor is being verbally or vocationally stoned. I want to share with them specific measures they can take to counteract this plague of forcing called, trained, and godly pastors out of churches and even out of ministry.
Rather than guarding clothes for others, maybe it’s time we say, “Watch your own clothes. I see what you’re up to, and with God’s help, I’m going to do everything I can to stop it.”
Who’s up for this? Are you?
Wow, Jim very good. The story of Stephen has always brought me to tears because I can see what must of happened and it is to real. But didn’t Saul want to kill Christians? That is why he was proud to watch the cloaks. He was trying to persecute Christians because he was not a believer. But for believers treating other believers as Saul treated Stephen disturbs me. The more I think about it the more angrier I get. I understand the gang of three etc. but when will the congregation, board members, friends etc. stand up for their pastor?
LikeLike
Immediately after Stephen was killed, certain Jewish leaders became more emboldened against the Christians and triggered a great persecution. Saul was one of these leaders. Guarding clothes was a way of signaling his approval of Stephen’s stoning. In Saul’s mind, he was guarding the Jewish traditions against those who would change them. If every Christian church would come up with uniform ways of dealing with pastors, we could manage these situations much better. But when every church has either no guidelines or different guidelines, it’s hard because people don’t know if a process is being violated or not.
LikeLike
Do I get a response for my comments too?
LikeLike
Yes.
LikeLike