I'm now working on a paper that's due on Friday. I've chosen the topic of the temple in Acts and Stephen's speech, in particular.
Here's the thesis I'm playing with. I may yet scrap or revise it, but after an admittedly brief survey of the evidence, this is what I see happening.
The author of Luke-Acts achieves a delicate balance between the affirmation of the temple and its establishment as something legitimated or permitted by God as well as the subtle delimitation of its purpose and critique of human attempts to restrict God’s freedom to reveal himself to all people at any location.
Sorry, I'm not providing much evidence to back up the claim right now. I don't have the time to develop it all here. But see, of course, the temple in Stephen's speech but also reflect on what's happening in the healing of the lame man in Acts 3 as well as the cleansing of the Gentiles (10; 14.27; 15.1-21) and then Paul's altercation in the temple (21.27-30).
(Comments are welcome, and I'll respond if time permits.)
As a footnote, I find similar themes and dynamics in the depiction of synagogues in Luke-Acts.