This is a devotion discussion I am starting on Facebook so if there are any personal references, then you know why:
From the NIV first and then the King James:
20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law, so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.
20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
Now before I can analyze the passage, I think it is important to analyze the context of the writing. Someone can correct me on this but the epistle (or conflation of epistles) was a letter to the church in Corinth, Greece from Paul of Tarsus and his friend Sosthenes. From Wikipedia, I got that "it was written from Ephesus (16:8) about the time of the Passover in the third year of the apostle's sojourn there (Acts 19:10; 20:31), and when he had formed the purpose to visit Macedonia and then return to Corinth (probably AD 57). The news which had reached him from Corinth, however, frustrated his plan."
The people of Corinth at this time were a part of what was called the Roman Era and the city of Corinth's population consisted primarily of Romans, Greeks, and Jews. When you analyze the entire book it is interesting in understanding the continuity of the view expressed within this verse. There was such a diverse crowd that Paul (or Sosthenes as I don't know who is the particular author of this verse) expressed his sentiments for "becoming all things to all people" (which seems like a quite Pauline tactic). In light of this verse I will be reading the entire book of 1st Corinthians soon, but you can pick up on his "tactics" by looking for a moment at the preceding and following chapter (chapters 8 and 10 respectively) as he relays Christian ideals by relating to people by using O.T. Mosaic Law in order to relate (more than likely) to the Jews of Corinth and in chapter 10 he discusses the history of Israel (once more, probably to relate to the Jews).
So, as for my interpretation of this passage of Scripture - how are we to approach making people aware of where they stand with God or the idea of Christianity in the first place? Do we approach it as Fred Phelps the mastermind behind godhates[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth].com? Do we tell someone, Well, I love the sinner, but hate the sin"? Or should we take an approach that is somewhat innovative for our generation but classic in a Biblical and a very much Pauline approach.
What I have become aware of is that we must find common ground why would anyone listen to us otherwise?
In Acts 23, Paul takes a somewhat different approach to finding common ground. Paul who as a Pharisee before had persecuted Christians, now uses this title to be a witness! In verse 6b, Paul says, My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee, I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead. He said this among Pharisees and Sadducees in order that they would understand his belief in the spirits and as he said the resurrection of the dead. By finding this common ground, Paul testified to his beliefs and he was blessed for it. In verse 11b, God says to Paul, Take courage! As you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome.
Another Biblical example is seen in Hebrews 3, where the writer of Hebrews (very much a Pauline author if not Paul himself) compares Jesus with Moses in order to stress the importance of Christ. He uses this approach because the Hebrew Christians are very well-versed in the Mosaic laws and have great reverence for Moses (whether you believe he is a great man and author or simply just a man of God it is still important). So, when the Hebrews hear of Christs superiority to Moses that will probably hit them pretty hard.
So, as for modern day application what do I believe? How can you hope to reach someone if you cannot meet them at some point and answer the important questions that they have to ask? I hope that no one takes this personally, but I feel this is one of the dangers that fundamentalism poses and it rubs people the wrong way. Tonight, in my Humanities II class the teacher accused the church of running away from knowledge. This not only troubled me, but also offended me. There is a trouble that we face today within the Christian community and that is that we do not know ENOUGH. We take the phrase faith like a child and assume that this means simple, blind faith but how do you minister to someone who knows more about Biology or Anatomy or Physics than you do?
Is telling someone just to have faith like a child going to win anyone over?
No.
Is telling someone, Youre a sinner, and you are going to go to Hell for it! going to win anyone over?
No.
So, what am I saying? Christians have the responsibility to have knowledge and to understand where someone is coming from. If you have no basis for defending Christian claims, then to me, you have a very weak witness and I think Paul would agree.
Here is where, to me, being a Christian becomes activism as well as struggle. We need to know just as much as everyone else and we need to know how to use it this is, once again to me, one of the ways in which we dichotomize knowledge and wisdom (a very Proverbial distinction). So, ultimately, what I am trying to say, is that Christians should not simply walk in blind faith though faith cannot be removed from Christianity but should understand how Christianity fits into the big scheme of things. So, I guess I am saying that Christians are responsible for understanding the backgrounds of the people they are ministering too (I pretty sure this is invaluable in mission work). So people like Stewart make it very difficult to be smart enough to be a really strong witness sometimes. But we are responsible for being able to answer their questions as well as addressing the necessity for faith. We can see that through Pauls sneakiness and tactics he was much more effective than a lot of modern day evangelists. It seems we have a lot more to work with, but that does not remove our responsibility which I think fundamentalism has done. So, my basic point is that though someone can be wise and that takes precedent a lot of the time knowledge is a necessary evil in fighting the good fight.
Thoughts, comments, scriptural references? Should I write more! Critique me!
From the NIV first and then the King James:
20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law, so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.
20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
Now before I can analyze the passage, I think it is important to analyze the context of the writing. Someone can correct me on this but the epistle (or conflation of epistles) was a letter to the church in Corinth, Greece from Paul of Tarsus and his friend Sosthenes. From Wikipedia, I got that "it was written from Ephesus (16:8) about the time of the Passover in the third year of the apostle's sojourn there (Acts 19:10; 20:31), and when he had formed the purpose to visit Macedonia and then return to Corinth (probably AD 57). The news which had reached him from Corinth, however, frustrated his plan."
The people of Corinth at this time were a part of what was called the Roman Era and the city of Corinth's population consisted primarily of Romans, Greeks, and Jews. When you analyze the entire book it is interesting in understanding the continuity of the view expressed within this verse. There was such a diverse crowd that Paul (or Sosthenes as I don't know who is the particular author of this verse) expressed his sentiments for "becoming all things to all people" (which seems like a quite Pauline tactic). In light of this verse I will be reading the entire book of 1st Corinthians soon, but you can pick up on his "tactics" by looking for a moment at the preceding and following chapter (chapters 8 and 10 respectively) as he relays Christian ideals by relating to people by using O.T. Mosaic Law in order to relate (more than likely) to the Jews of Corinth and in chapter 10 he discusses the history of Israel (once more, probably to relate to the Jews).
So, as for my interpretation of this passage of Scripture - how are we to approach making people aware of where they stand with God or the idea of Christianity in the first place? Do we approach it as Fred Phelps the mastermind behind godhates[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth].com? Do we tell someone, Well, I love the sinner, but hate the sin"? Or should we take an approach that is somewhat innovative for our generation but classic in a Biblical and a very much Pauline approach.
What I have become aware of is that we must find common ground why would anyone listen to us otherwise?
In Acts 23, Paul takes a somewhat different approach to finding common ground. Paul who as a Pharisee before had persecuted Christians, now uses this title to be a witness! In verse 6b, Paul says, My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee, I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead. He said this among Pharisees and Sadducees in order that they would understand his belief in the spirits and as he said the resurrection of the dead. By finding this common ground, Paul testified to his beliefs and he was blessed for it. In verse 11b, God says to Paul, Take courage! As you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome.
Another Biblical example is seen in Hebrews 3, where the writer of Hebrews (very much a Pauline author if not Paul himself) compares Jesus with Moses in order to stress the importance of Christ. He uses this approach because the Hebrew Christians are very well-versed in the Mosaic laws and have great reverence for Moses (whether you believe he is a great man and author or simply just a man of God it is still important). So, when the Hebrews hear of Christs superiority to Moses that will probably hit them pretty hard.
So, as for modern day application what do I believe? How can you hope to reach someone if you cannot meet them at some point and answer the important questions that they have to ask? I hope that no one takes this personally, but I feel this is one of the dangers that fundamentalism poses and it rubs people the wrong way. Tonight, in my Humanities II class the teacher accused the church of running away from knowledge. This not only troubled me, but also offended me. There is a trouble that we face today within the Christian community and that is that we do not know ENOUGH. We take the phrase faith like a child and assume that this means simple, blind faith but how do you minister to someone who knows more about Biology or Anatomy or Physics than you do?
Is telling someone just to have faith like a child going to win anyone over?
No.
Is telling someone, Youre a sinner, and you are going to go to Hell for it! going to win anyone over?
No.
So, what am I saying? Christians have the responsibility to have knowledge and to understand where someone is coming from. If you have no basis for defending Christian claims, then to me, you have a very weak witness and I think Paul would agree.
Here is where, to me, being a Christian becomes activism as well as struggle. We need to know just as much as everyone else and we need to know how to use it this is, once again to me, one of the ways in which we dichotomize knowledge and wisdom (a very Proverbial distinction). So, ultimately, what I am trying to say, is that Christians should not simply walk in blind faith though faith cannot be removed from Christianity but should understand how Christianity fits into the big scheme of things. So, I guess I am saying that Christians are responsible for understanding the backgrounds of the people they are ministering too (I pretty sure this is invaluable in mission work). So people like Stewart make it very difficult to be smart enough to be a really strong witness sometimes. But we are responsible for being able to answer their questions as well as addressing the necessity for faith. We can see that through Pauls sneakiness and tactics he was much more effective than a lot of modern day evangelists. It seems we have a lot more to work with, but that does not remove our responsibility which I think fundamentalism has done. So, my basic point is that though someone can be wise and that takes precedent a lot of the time knowledge is a necessary evil in fighting the good fight.
Thoughts, comments, scriptural references? Should I write more! Critique me!
