"I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."
In reading this passage, I've wondered if Paul was being two-faced. Did he act like a Jew around Jews, a weakling around weaklings, a strong person around tough guys, a skin headed, guitar-strummin' pyromaniac around Brett Probert, etc.? What gives with Paul's chameleonlike tendencies in this scripture? I've come to believe that Paul wasn't misrepresenting himself or being deceitful in his identity. I believe that Paul was building on the common ground that he had with whoever he came into contact with. Paul was, in fact, a Jew. So around Jews, he could connect on that level, and then bring in his perspective on Christ and the gospel. With those who are weak, Paul could connect as one who has weaknesses (don't we all?), and with those not under the law, Paul could connect as one who is no longer under the law, but as one who now lives under the Law of Christ, and can share that with people. The title of this post focuses on traditional or contemporary, and I think Paul would say "yes" if asked which was better. Both have their value, and both can connect with different people in different ways. I think the concept of entertainment in worship is also something that Paul would say 'yes' to, as long as it was done appropriately and 'for the sake of the gospel.' It's not where you start, it's where you finish. I'm glad we have different types of churches and different styles of worship, because there are so many different kinds of people in the world, and one worship style wouldn't work for all of them. What is important is not the style of worship, but the focus of worship. As long as the focus is on Christ, and as long as the gospel is being offered, then the video clips, praise choruses, hymns, liturgies, etc. are all the icing on the cake. Are we so set in our ways that we can't change or be open to new expressions of worship, or are we willing to be all things to all, in the hopes of saving some?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I've always squirmed a bit when people attempt to use this scripture as a means by which to justify situational ethics or, even worse, shallow inclusivity.
Anyone who reads Paul's letters earnestly cannot come to the conclusion that Paul is suggesting here that we compromise our christocentric convictions. This is the same Paul, after all, who told the passionate circumcisionists in Galatia to "go castrate themselves!" Paul was never afraid to "throw down," theologically speaking, when convictions were at stake.
But, in the words of Scripture to which you refer, I do think that Paul is highlighting the urgency of being relational enough to identify with people wherever we find them and to stand with those people in the common ground of our humanity and brokenness. He's calling us, in other words, to resist the hierarchical worldview that would cause Christ-followers to fall into an arrogant holier-than-thouness.
Paul's method of evangelism among the people gathered at the Aereopagus is an excellent example of Paul putting his own teaching into practice. In that moment, Paul refuses to condemn the people for their false faith and idol worship. Instead, he affirms them for their religious sensitivity and uses their religion as a doorway into talking about the God who has become known in Jesus Christ. He becomes Greek, in a sense, in order to win the Greeks.
All of which is to say............uh......er.......thanks for a happenin' post.
I agree with you, Jeff. In many ways the end justifies the means...anything that brings people to a saving faith in Jesus Christ is a worthy pursuit. But as I said in my latest post, we often times get too wrapped up in our own methodology rather than on our purpose. Good Post! Made me think!
Jeffrey:
Very good application of Paul here. I remember listening to a recorded sermon of yours a while back, about how our Message must remain constant, but the Method of presenting that Message must change based on the situation in which we find ourselves. If I remember your illustration correctly: All of the automobiles on the road today are fundamentally the same machines.... but a family of 5 in the suburbs will not be driving the same vehicle that Marco Andretti drives in the Indy 500!
Jeffrey
(The Quintessence of Punkness)
Jeff- the automobile illustration is correct, but it focused more on modern cars vs. older cars. Every few years, we update our cars, and most of us aren't still driving the same cars we were 50 years ago. But, some people/churches are still driving the same models for the church that worked for hem 50 years ago. It may be time for an upgrade!
Jeff, I agree...to a point.
You wrote, "...there are so many different kinds of people in the world, and one worship style wouldn't work for all of them."
Worship is first and foremost, as you make clear, for God...to glorify the Father through the Son by the power of the Spirit.
That being the case, shouldn't we be concerned that worship works for God, and not worry about what humans desire? Someone may not like praying in worship; does that mean we just stop praying?
In other words, if worship "doesn't work" for someone, do we just stop doing it, and listen to country music instead (or some other horrific activity)?
"Some other horrific activity..." such as listening to The Beatles?
Post a Comment