"And on that day a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the region of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. Devout men buried Stephen, and made great lamentation over him" (Acts 8:1, 2, R.S.V.). But I wonder how the less devout felt about the incident.
Can you hear the discussion in a church board meeting? "That fellow, I always knew he was a bit blunt, but this time he went too far!"
"Yeah, things were just starting to go good—we were getting a lot of the priests and even some Pharisees on our side—then he goes and calls the council stiff-necked and accuses them of being prophet killers!"
"Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we send a letter to the council dis avowing Stephen's speech. As mad as the elders are, we're liable to have to leave town to keep from getting stoned like our 'dear deacon'!"
Cooperation or confrontation—which is better for the church that finds itself besieged by hostility from without or within? The question has challenged leadership at least since the day Moses killed the Egyptian taskmaster. Jesus Himself faced it, and answered it unequivocally when Satan offered Him a "cooperative" kingdom. Jesus did not hesitate. Not for one second would He compromise to secure cooperation.
But if we read our New Testaments carefully we soon recognize that cooperation does not always mean compromise. In relation to civil government, Jesus' counsel to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's comes to mind first. Then Paul's "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed" (Rom. 13:1, 2, R.S.V.). And, of course, Peter's "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him" (1 Peter 2:13, 14, R.S.V.).
It would be easy to dismiss Paul's and Peter's counsels as light and easy talk from men who hadn't seen the depths of injustice we see in some nations and even in some religious organizations today. But one point of faith and two points of fact prevent such easy dis missal. 1. Faith in the inspiration of all of Scripture. 2. The fact that these apostles had suffered imprisonment or torture at the hands of both civil and ecclesiastical government. 3. The fact that both of these counsels probably were written during the reign of Nero, who had claimed his throne in the wake of fiendish machinations culminating in the assassination of his predecessor.
Could the Holy Spirit really direct the apostles to teach cooperation with such a government as Nero's?
Yes.
Today we hear some voices calling Christians to oppose evil governments and others calling us to enforce Christian morality through civil authority.
Two letters to the editor published in this issue chastise MINISTRY for not taking a hard line against the Communist government of the Soviet Union. And Seventh-day Adventist administrators have recently been criticized for recognizing the portion of the Hungarian Adventist church that cooperates with that country's government.
From a pragmatic standpoint it would be easy to answer such criticisms by simply saying that having some church organization is better than having none. If church leadership followed a consistent course of confrontation in some countries, organization might soon dis appear altogether. Pragmatically, cooperation seems the only viable option.
But there is a thin line between pragmatism and rationalization. It is even thinner and harder to discern than the line between cooperation and com promise. It is not safe to be purely pragmatic. It is only safe to avoid compromise.
As a pragmatist Stephen could have uttered mealymouthed phrases that kept everyone comfortable. But equivocation in his situation would have constituted compromise, not cooperation. Stephen preached for conversions, not for com forts. And that is what got him into trouble.
Paul before Felix, Festus, and Agrippa could have simply pleaded innocent and been released. Instead he took the opportunity to preach evangelistic sermon after evangelistic sermon, even though he knew his zeal might only fuel the ire of those who held his life in the balance. There was nothing pandering about this evangelist who urged cooperation.
Paul and Stephen give us good examples of how to deal with the forces around us, whether they be governments, church organizations, or our own congregations. My job as a Christian is to present the claims of the gospel upon individuals—let the chips fall where they may. If I will do that consistently, prayerfully, and with an evangelistic zeal like Stephen's and Paul's, I will not be found to be compromising with evil.—K.R.W
