This whole discussion needs a bit of lateral thinking, thinking out of the box.
A need to set things out objectively, so that when anyone looks at it, whatever their views, they’ve got to say, “OK, I get it”.
Imagine a pastor telling his congregation,
"Folks, you've been feeding, training, now it's time to go the next level. Putting things into practice.
"I want you to go out and share the Gospel with your neighbours, family, friends, even with strangers on the streets."
This is not unusual. It happens all the time.
So the congregation, feeling very dutiful (and at the same time, a little apprehensive, because yes, it's Biblical, but it's what you read, not do, every day) go right out and begin sharing the "Gospel": If you believe in Jesus, you will not perish, meaning you will go to heaven and not hell.
Everybody comes to church the next Sunday feeling very accomplished, because they've done what's taught in the Bible. After the service, most probably, over a cup of tea or coffee, some share their experiences. They report, almost all, that they bravely talked to people about the Gospel, and got the expected responses: mostly disinterest. Maybe, even the pastor listens in. No one's surprised.
What's your reaction to this ? I suppose it's the same, not surprised.
Mine? Astonishment.
At the hubris.
What? Where's the hubris?
Look, the pastor asked the congregation to go out and share the Gospel.
These people went out and shared the Gospel.
So what’s wrong with the picture?
For starters, no one was a disciple.
And then, they went out asking people to come out of Egypt. Turn away from depending on their own efforts to live temporal lives, fill appetites repetitively. For perishable end results. And turn towards depending on God. For giving them purpose in life, towards having permanent, quantifiable results. With their earthly needs added on, without asking for them to be met.
Oops, my mistake. That's exactly what they didn't do. So no hubris, no big headedness of taking on a job they couldn't possibly do. What they did do was much safer. They offered a solution to a problem that didn't exist.
No wonder they never got any responses. And no wonder they weren't surprised. Their understanding of the Gospel is so impoverished, it's not surprising that the impact on their own lives would be so minimal.
And the reaction they felt at being poorly received? Well, it's not surprising either. That last understanding programmed them to have little self worth, have a sort of false humility, a result of shifting of the responsibility to transform lives, to God, because that's what they have been taught.
What a difference from the attitude of the believers of the First Century! They really believed that when people looked at them, they saw God. And heard His voice.
The other mistake I made (apart from thinking they really shared the astounding message), believed that there was hubris?
Like I said hubris would have been involved if they had thought they could pull of what they were doing. Prove the Gospel was true.
The Gospel, the news that what was promised to followers of God, before Jesus was sent, but never received, was now actually available, after the Cross.
They could actually be saved from a body of death. From the dilemma of a mind that could recognise right responses and acts, imprisoned in a body that resisted doing those right responses and actions, because of the survival drives. And by receiving that gift, be prepared, transformed, to live in the real world, the world to come, of which this world is only a preparatory stage.
I repeat, the hubris would be in making that claim without being able to give proof.
Consider, Moses was asked to prise israel out of Egypt. Of course Israel had been crying out about oppression in Egypt, but wandering out into the desert with no visible form of support and protection, to reach and settle in an unseen destination, filled with hostiles, with no army to remove those hostiles, with only the promise of continued support from God, isn't a very good alternative. What if God could not pull it of? What if God didn't WANT to pull it off? What if God wanted to trick them, lead them into a kill zone, and exterminate Israel, like He had done with countless other nations?
Why should Israel believe Moses himself, in the first place?
That is exactly what Moses asked God. If he hadn't, he would have been guilty of pride, or he would have not understood what was being asked. The last being the situation of most of the believers of the church I gave as an example.
God’s solution was to equip Moses, just like Jesus empowered the seventy two. God gave Moses signs to perform so that when israel saw the signs , she would believe that Moses was God’s messenger.
Now why didn't the congregation ask the pastor the same question Moses asked of God?
Well, if they had, they would have received no suitable answer, or depending on the denomination, they would have received theological constructs.
Maybe, "Our job is to share, it's the Holy Spirit that convinces". If that was so, why study the Bible in detail? Why not just go by the basics. Share the gospel, don't try to convince, that's the Holy Spirit’s part, pray for the person, be happy that you stepped out in faith, be sure of your own reward.
After all, the theologians, and the pastor were the experts right? If there was a boo boo, it was the fault of the leaders, the teachers.
Does this work in real life, passing the buck?
If you are non compliant because your tax consultant goofed up, will you escape the penalties that the IRS rains down on you?
At least you can sue your consultant, can you sue your pastor?
Especially when the instructions are made available to the public, and even the way to become an expert in those instructions are taught in those instructions, is there any excuse to not do due diligence, do your homework?
If you HAD done your own homework, you would have learned that the proof required to convince strangers to leave a safe but sellout, oppressed life, is available to you, the proof that you are God’s messenger, His voice, addressing the listener personally.
The message (never changes): God is not like man, and involved with gold or silver or stone (Acts 17:29) and He wants you to serve Him, not material needs.
The proof (acquired by prayer, asking for bread) signs for the believer (yes, even the “believer” , God's children, must be evangelised), wisdom for the unbeliever (crumbs for the dogs).
How does this play out?
First I pray for a proof to convince the listener, you for example, God’s child, that it is God’s message (leave Egypt).
God gives me proof, supernatural explanation, prophecy of Scripture, tells me to tell you that the perfect is love.
However, prophecies are the imperfect, these will disappear, because when I look in the mirror, the prophet disappears, and what I will finally see is not a prophet, but a lamb, a sin offering. An acceptable offering, because it has found rest, abides in Christ, our hilasterion, by being faithful, and I am saved/fulfilled/perfected by loyalty, which allows me to abide in Christ, God's gift of grace, sufficient to wash clean, overlooking my personal imperfections.
The listener agrees, because the overarching theme of the pericope is how serving each other moves, progresses from prophecy, convincing, to actually washing away the scales that cover the listener's eyes. It's not coincidence that Paul witnessed Stephen's sin offering.