Missing the Martyr: "A.D." on the Death of Stephen
The 12-part mini-series A.D.: The Bible Continues releases tomorrow on DVD. Today's guest Sarah Frase considers some of the strengths and weaknesses of the series. Sarah loves words, action figures, artists, teenagers, and Jesus. After teaching high school English and Theatre for eight years, Sarah is currently pursuing a master's in Media Arts and Worship at Dallas Theological Seminary.When a new adaptation of the Bible is dramatized either for television or film, Christians commonly evaluate it by four criteria: 1) Is the adaptation theologically or doctrinally sound? 2) Is it close to scripture, leaving room for varying interpretations? 3) Is the adaptation historically accurate in light of additional texts outside of scripture? And finally 4) Is the quality of the production (such as the writing, acting, sets, costumes, camera shots) high?As Christians we are called to be critical, not passive, consumers of media, not in the spirit of culture wars but rather in the spirit of the Bereans, who saw wisdom in testing all ideas against God’s truth.What’s interesting is that typically the above-mentioned four criteria create a spectrum on which most thinking believers fall in terms of what they value most highly:Theologically Scripturally Historically High Production Sound Accurate Accurate QualityThis spectrum is not meant to imply that theological soundness and high production quality are mutually exclusive values, only to illustrate a trend that Christian consumers tend to treat them like mutually exclusive values. A Christian who typically privileges doctrinal soundness above all else won’t object if the quality of the production is poor, observing, “Well at least the theology’s right.” This is how terribly written and poorly acted productions such as “God’s Not Dead” garner viewership.On the other end of the spectrum, a Christian who privileges filmmaking techniques, a well-developed story, and acting will express great admiration for productions like Darren Aronofsky’s “Noah,” observing, “We as Christians know what correct doctrine is, so it’s not going to harm us to enjoy this as a good piece of art.”Those Christians who value scriptural or historical accuracy typically also hold these values in combination with one of the other two—either doctrine or production quality. The bad news is that somewhere in our history, Christians have bought into the lie that these four criteria are somehow mutually exclusive values—that we can expect a movie to have some of them, maybe even three of them, but never all four. Until we cease accepting this lie, all films made which are adaptations of scripture are going to fall closer to one end or the other of this spectrum—especially as Christian and secular producers continue to see Christians as a viable market for newly created content.Unfortunately, the television mini-series, “A.D. The Bible Continues,” is no exception. A sequel to the NBC mini-series “The Bible, A.D.” begins with the resurrection of Jesus and covers the events of the first ten chapters of the Book of Acts. Under some misapprehension that this text does not have enough controversial action to keep the attention of current audience, producers Roma Downey and Mark Burnett have added political conflict and intrigue plotlines, mostly centering on the power struggles between Rome, the Sanhedrin, the Zealots, and the new Church.The costumes, acting, and even dialogue are for the large part well executed, and the casting director ought to be applauded for casting early Christians, including the apostles themselves, with actors of varying ethnicities (even if they all still speak in Shakespearean as opposed to Semitic cadences). The additional plotlines don’t harm the adaptation, but they do derail it, and reveal another misconception: that you can’t wring drama out of an ancient text that a contemporary audience will connect to. This is why we need our screen writers to be good Bible expositors—so that they will see the drama already inherent in the text and how it parallels present-day conflicts the audience faces.Best MomentOne of the best moments of the series occurs in the episode, “The First Martyr,” because writers took a less-shown Semitic cultural practice and shared it with the audience. When looking on the dead body of a zealot, whom the Romans slaughtered graphically as an example, Peter begins singing a psalm of lament, and Caiaphas joins in with him. This simple moment proves powerful to the audience, because two leaders on opposite ends of the Gospel are both grieving the violence their people are experiencing. That they both know the words and the tune by heart establishes the shared culture between the Jews and Christians in a way that is illustrative and beautiful rather than preachy. And that ephemeral unity between these typically opposing figures plays right into the dramatic tension of the following moment when Peter can’t resist following the song with a call to the Gospel, and Caiaphas has him instantly arrested.Missed OpportunityUnfortunately, this same episode that gives the audience a moment of good writing, fails to repeat this feat for the main act, offering a highly disappointing adaptation of the death of Stephen, Christianity’s first martyr. Part of this is because what A.D. tapped into with their multiracial casting—the need for a more inclusive rendering of the early church—they failed to see in the actual text of the New Testament. Stephen was most likely a Hellenist, and ethnic tension played a decisive role in his trial and death. Stephen’s death is a missed opportunity to dialogue about racial tensions and racial reconciliation, chief issues that the church is wading through today.In the television series, Stephen is introduced to the audience at his baptism instead of during his appointment as a deacon. He travels with Peter’s daughter back to Jerusalem and yells out from the crowd demanding the release of Peter and John from the Sanhedrin. He witnesses the raising of Tabitha, and tries to convince Peter to take the news of this miracle to the Temple. Additionally, he initiates a confrontation with Cornelius, standing in his way as he is escorting some arrested Jewish boys, leading to his being beaten by the Roman in the street. Rather than depict the Stephen actually described in Acts, selected for his reputation of a mature and godly character, he is written as a replacement for Peter—impulsive, emotional, and quick to provoke trouble with his words.Besides inheriting the character traits Peter showed in the gospels, in A. D. Stephen might also be nicknamed “the impatient evangelist.” When Peter tries to appoint him over the camp of Christians outside of the city (the show’s only minor nod to placing Stephen in a leadership role), he insists that since he has studied Torah since he was a child, he should be in Jerusalem preaching.Later on in the same episode, when the apostles have been arrested and badly beaten for their testimony, Peter tells Stephen that they all knew from Jesus’s words that they would have to make sacrifices, and Stephen responds with adolescent delivery: “not like this.”The following day he goes to the Temple, confronts the Sanhedrin, accusing them of the unjust punishment of righteous men, calling them those who received the Law from angels but did not keep it and the descendants of their ancestors who murdered the prophets (Acts 7:51–53). Stephen also challenges them that God doesn’t dwell in a house made by human hands (vv. 48-49), and brings up Jesus’ words about the coming destruction of the temple. His claim to see Christ at the right hand of God (v. 56) is what at last provokes them to take him outside the city and stone him to death.While the establishment of Stephen’s character in the show as impulsive and confrontational, and his professed knowledge of Torah makes this final confrontation plausible for the audience, building this dramatic tension would not have been necessary if the writers had instead depicted his character and heritage as it appears in the book of Acts. If the screen writers of A.D. had also known how to exegete the Bible, they would have seen the ripe context for drama in the fact that Stephen was likely a Hellenist.The Real Stephen One of the earliest conflicts within the Church that was a test of its leadership in the complaint that the Hellenist widows were being neglected in the daily food distribution (6:1). The Hellenists were foreign Jews from places such as Cyrene, Alexandria, Cilicia, or Asia (v. 9). This means not only were they a minority group within the church, but also that they did not have the shared cultural commonalities with one another that the Jews did. As proselytes and descendants of Hebrew families who had lived outside of Israel for a generation or generations, the only thing the Hellenists had in common with each other was that they were worshipers of Yahweh and outsiders. The complaint that their widows are being treated as second-class citizens within the Church was taken so seriously by the existing leadership that an entirely new office—that of a deacon—was created just to minister to the needs of this people group and others like them. Additionally, the men appointed to this new office all had Greek names, including Stephen. This suggests that they were foreign Jews and Hellenists themselves. So not only did Church leadership demonstrate that they took the complaints of the Hellenists seriously, they further proved that these people were equal to the Jews in importance within the church by building a leadership team out of that minority.In the Book of Acts, the drama created by the marginalizing of a people group within the Church is handled in a way that is beautiful and should be a model for churches experiencing the same protests from their own congregants. Placing confidence in people by placing them in leadership speaks volumes more than just making reparations, but no changes.Stephen is one of the men in whom the confidence of the early Church was placed. He is described as “a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit” and also “full of grace and power” even performing wonders and signs among the people so that even priests came to faith in Christ (6:5–8). So not only was Stephen recognized as faithful and meant for leadership by men, but by God, as the power of his ministry showed. His presence in leadership unified the Church where it might have become divided. These factors in the story naturally compel the audience to like Stephen and to find his death devastating, since it affects the Church so greatly.In the biblical text there is also a plethora of dramatic tension already present in Stephen’s arrest and trial. It was bad enough to have Jesus and Peter, Jews from Israel, doing irrefutable signs and wonders in the sight of the people. But then Steven as a Hellenist performed them! As if this were not complex enough, the people who brought him to the Jewish leadership for judgment were local synagogue members from different nations than the Jews (6:9). The Hellenists even supplied false witnesses to slander Stephen, because they couldn’t out-argue him as a Spirit-filled apologist (vv. 10–14).Ironically, instead of taking note of his witness and considering joining the Church where they may be recognized as equals, Hellenist Jews took Stephen to the Sanhedrin, perhaps leveraging his arrest to build their credibility and unity with the Jewish religious leadership.When Stephen testified in his own defense before the Sanhedrin (Acts 7), Stephen showed a deep knowledge and understanding of Torah, which would have been a slap in the face to the Council of Jews judging him. His eloquence directly challenged and refuted any stereotyping about foreign Jews that they might have held.Moreover, Stephen’s conduct is repeatedly described in terms of constraint, such as “his face like the face of an angel” (6:15). Nothing rebukes a charge that a person is inciting conflict quite like their conducting themselves with self-control and appealing with reason. Stephen’s submissive conduct and choice arguments calmly but boldly delivered were echoed by leaders such a Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi, both of whom endured arrest and spoke out for human rights.Finally, the majority of Stephen’s address involved Moses, the bringing of the Law, David the beloved ruler, and the sacred place of the Temple itself (Acts 7). Before the most learned Jewish men in Israel, Stephen dared to discuss these subjects. Not only that, he connected them to Jesus of Nazareth (of whom they had forbidden the apostles to speak). And Stephen claimed to behold Jesus standing at God’s right hand (7:56). This claim, along with the stinging indictment of Deuteronomy 10:16 in calling them “stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears” (Acts 7:51) were even more unbearable coming from the mouth of a Hellenist. Stephen’s words provoked the leaders to protest, “Who are you to rebuke us?”Yet in all his actions, including the surrender of his spirit to God and forgiving his murderers (vv. 59–60) Stephen modeled Christ.Pseudo-StephenIn A.D., the replacement of this powerful existing biblical narrative with that of an impulsive and misguided young believer is a poor choice at best, and a downright irresponsible one at worst. Failing to tell Stephen’s story as it appears in Acts is a missed opportunity for a contemporary audience to identify with first-century believers. The grievous loss of Stephen could even be paralleled to the grievous loss the Church experienced earlier this year with the shooting of Africa-American church leaders in Charleston.In Stephen’s story we also see a beautiful model in the honoring of the Hellenists as equal church members. This serves as an example of how the Church today can hear and honor the voices of minorities and the marginalized within the Church.And this is why it is essential that writers, especially those who write for television, receive a brief education in Bible exposition. Even a rudimentary expositor of the Scriptures will have the tools to discover the drama inherit in the real human conflicts the Bible records and see how relevant they can be for viewers today.Find more from Sarah:On FraseologyBlind Corner FictionTwitter: @SarahEFrase