Zach’s Theological Musings

  The church-growth movement, whether the domestic American version, or the exported, American-based missions version, has a tendency to cheapen beautiful, challenging, life-transforming Scriptural principles into corporate-like methodologies for “success”. A prime example I see of this is when I Cor 9:19-23 is brought down to the level of a mere contextualization strategy. I would propose instead that, in context, this passage at its core is about love, not strategy. Love and strategy at times do indeed overlap. But there is a huge difference between having genuine love at the core of your being versus having a strategic orientation.

  Here is the passage:

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

Out of love Paul makes choices to sacrifice his own freedoms in order to “win” people to Christ. You might hear in that what sounds like a note of “strategy” as well, and if so I don’t completely disagree. But this passage does not cut down into us deeply enough unless we hear the note of love ringing louder than that of strategy.

  Consider, first, the context. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians is largely a question and answer session, dealing with some issues that the Corinthians raised and some that Paul has raised and wants to remind them of. This letter is more topically structured than possibly any other book of the Bible, and there are several very clear transitions from one topic to the next (”now concerning…”). One way to outline the book as a whole would look like this:

  In particular, note that chapters 8-10 form one section. In verse 8:1 Paul takes up the topic, “Now concerning things sacrificed to idols,” and stays on that topic all the way to his summary comments at the end of chapter 10. Indeed, when Paul speaks in I Cor 10:31 of eating and drinking as activities which must be done for glory of God, he is not merely illustrating a general point by picking mundane daily activities at random to serve as an example. He specifically mentions eating and drinking for the glory of God because that is the specific topic he has been talking about. To supplement that specific case, he adds that of course whatever you do you should do for the glory of God.

  It is not hard to see that food sacrificed to idols is the specific topic behind chapters 8 and 10. But what happens in chapter 9? Ignoring the context, we might conjecture all sorts of ideas for what motivated chapter 9. But when we do look at the context, we see that the flow from chapter 8 to chapter 10 is not at all lost in chapter 9.

  The common thread is love. The Corinthians are asking Paul, “Paul, are Christians allowed to eat food sacrificed to idols or not?” As with the way that Jesus often responds to his questioners, Paul doesn’t answer their question directly because the heart attitude behind the question is wrong. A simple “yes” would give the wrong impression, and a simple “no” would give the wrong impression. Rather than give a simple (and misleading) answer to their question, he wants to retrain their thinking so that they learn to ask better questions.

  Paul’s response begins with this,

[W]e know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies. If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know; but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.

The Corinthians’ question was knowledge-oriented. Paul wanted to turn them to a love focus. He goes on to say that, yes, we know that idols are nothing. Does that mean that Christians can eat food sacrificed to idols? Yes. Does it mean that Christians should eat food sacrificed to idols? Not necessarily. The bigger question is, “Am I behaving lovingly when I eat food sacrificed to idols?” Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial.

  Are Christians allowed to eat food sacrificed to idols? Well, yes, all else being equal Christians do have freedom to eat food that was sacrificed to so-called idols. But Christians, unlike Americans, don’t focus on their rights. What I’m “allowed” to do is not my primary concern. The Christian criteria for a good decision is not, “I want it and I have the ability and freedom to get it,” but rather, “This is glorifying to God and loving to my neighbor.” Christians, unlike Americans, gladly sacrifice their rights and give up what they would otherwise be “allowed” to do, because doing something else is more loving to God and man.

  That is Paul’s point in chapters 8 and 10, and he illustrates this point in chapter 9 from his own example. First, Paul expounds the rights and priviledges he could hypothetically claim if he was inclined to:

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord?… Don’t we have the right to food and drink? Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?… If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more?

If he was not walking in the footsteps of His Lord, Paul theoretically could “lord it over” those entrusted to him, and demand his rights. But he doesn’t. He instead makes a powerful counterstatement that strikes against the core of our selfish beings, and against the core of American culture in particular:

But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ.

  “But we did not use this right.” Oh how refreshing to hear those words! Yes, I have many rights, but it wouldn’t be beneficial for the kingdom of God for me to exert those rights. So I won’t. Hallelujah, how refreshing to hear!

  Now we reach the passage in question, I Cor 9:19-23, and it is clear that Paul’s heartbeat throughout this letter is love. Paul is tapping into something deeper than what you would find at a cross-cultural business ethics seminar. Yes, take your shoes off at the door, only shake with your right hand, and don’t show the bottom of your foot. Yes, do those things. Be respectable. Even a greedy businesman will show culturally appropriate outward acts of respect so as not to lose business. But he is probably not motivated by love. Likewise, Christians can display certain “social skills” and to outwardly spiritual acts without the motiviation of love. Paul says that such behavior gains us nothing (I Cor 13).

  Consider, now, the application to the modern missions movement. We often hear that much of what happened in the name of (Western) Christians missions in recent centuries came in the form of a colonialism where people were called to conform to Western culture rather than to the image of Christ. True. But here’s the thing. Say that we had a colonialist missionary here in our living room and we had the chance to share with him an exhortation regarding what our generation has learned from I Cor 9:19-23. What would we say?

  The wrong thing to say would be this, “Oh colonialist missionary, don’t you realize that your colonialist approach is not strategic? Your extraction evangelism methodology is removing people from their natural socio-ethno-linguistic networks. Your only chance to trigger a self-propogating church planting movement is if you train people how to follow Jesus while maintaining their culturally-defined religious identities…”.

  No, that would not be helpful. Contextualization as a strategy is not the cure for colonialism. Compassion is. Again, the central problem with colonialism is not that it is unstrategic, but that it is unloving. A better direction for discussion with the colonialist missionary might be to ask whether his demands for the “natives” to take on Western habits is genuinely motivated by love. And if he thinks that imposing Western clothing, music, and architecture is an act of love, then again the central problem is a greatly distorted view of “love” more than anything else.

  Finally, consider Paul’s words, “To the weak I became weak.” Paul didn’t “become weak” by pretending to be weaker than he really was when he was around weak people. Rather, he became weak by loving the weak, not setting himself above them, and by using his strength to bless the weak for their sake rather than to manipulate them for his own sake. And that is the same way he “became” a Jew and “became” a Gentile (one not under the law). The concept of a follower of Christ calling themself a “Muslim” or “Hindu” and acting like a Muslim, Hindu, or pagan was the furthest thing from Paul’s mind in this passage. It doesn’t at all fit the context of this letter, or the context of Paul’s life. Loving the Muslim, Hindu, and pagan by sacrificing one’s own rights and desires in order to build them up in the faith is much more the direction of Paul’s emphasis in the context of I Corinthians and in the example of his entire life and ministry.

  The minute we reduce people to the objects upon whom our methodology is to be implemented we have missed the whole point, whether we do it as a colonialist or as a hyper-contextualist. As we listen to I Corinthians 8-10, and especially 9:19-23, we need to step out of our corporate America strategic-planning mindset, and instead pray that we might absorb a heart of loving self-sacrifice that is ever ready to say, “I have not used any of these rights…. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law… To those not having the law I became like one not having the law… To the weak I became weak….”

  [See Hyper-Contextualization post for some background regarding what concerns me on this subject.] 

  Paul’s sermon in Athens is often cited, especially in missionary contexts, to support the ideas of “building bridges” and “meeting people where they are at.” If anything, though, the kind of “bridge building” that I hear coming out in Paul’s sermon is very different from the kind of “bridge building” that says we should identify as much with our listeners as possible. Note in particular, the contrasting first and second person pronouns in Paul’s opening words:

“Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, “TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you…. Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.” - Acts 17:22-23, 29-31

  The Greek word for “judge” here (in verse 31) is rooted in the idea of separation. In this sermon we see a chasm of separation. Paul is declaring to the Athenians that they are on the dangerous side of the chasm, the side that is soon to face that righteous judgement of God. He, on the other hand, has found safe ground by God’s grace. If he was still in their position he would be of no help to them. But precisely because he is not where they are at, he is able to plea with them, “Come, cross over from there to here.”

  Yes, there certainly is a bridge in this sermon. But Paul didn’t build it. He pointed people to the Man appointed by God, the One and Only who has ever bridged the gap from death to life.

“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes Him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.” John 5:24

  Jesus said,

“I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it” (Matt 16:18).

City gates in the ancient world, it has been observed, were a defense mechanism. Jesus here was not talking about a church on the defense, but a church on the offense, storming the gates of Hades. Lacking therefore the ability to stand up to the Church of Jesus Christ on the move, Satan sure does have a lot of ways to get us to voluntarily sit down.

  In certain places, his method might be to put on a big scary face and threaten people that he has authority to take away their possessions, property, and even life itself. And many times God does in fact grant Satan the authority to do those things. Look at Job. Look at the teaching and the life of Jesus and His disciples. But often times it is through the worst persecution that Spirit-filled followers of Christ become the most powerful threats to the gates of Satan’s kingdom, through their prayers and their testimony. So Satan has other techniques up his sleeve. One such technique is the effective use of what I call the “And Now This” phenomenon.

  The “And Now This” phenomenon became clear in my mind several years ago while reading a book by Neil Postman. The following book summary is taken from Wikipedia:

Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (1985), is a book by Neil Postman in which he argues that media of communication inherently influence the conversations carried out over them. Postman posits that television is the primary means of communication for our culture and it has the property of converting a culture’s conversations with itself into entertainment, so much so that public discourse on important issues has disappeared. Since the treatment of serious issues as entertainment inherently prevents them from being treated as serious issues and indeed since serious issues have been treated as entertainment for so many decades now, the public is no longer aware of these issues in their original sense, but only as entertainment.

  One part of the book stuck out to me in particular. Here’s a summary in my own words. We all know that English has conjunctions. A conjunction such as “and” might link two similar nouns or clauses. A conjunction such as “but” or “yet” might link two contrasting nouns or clauses. A conjunction such as “or” might link two distinct but related options. In any case there is a relationship, some type of link, between what comes before and what comes after. But television (especially the evening news) has introduced an entirely new grammatical structure in the English language in phrases such as, “And now this,” or “We’re back.” We might call this part of speech a disjunction. It says, “What has come before has no relationship whatsoever with what comes after.”

  Consider the following hypothetical example, “Three thousand Tutsi minorities were reported slaughtered today in Rwanda in what is being called the worst genocide of the decade. [Show a video clip.] And now this word from our sponsors… You won’t believe what happens when you get behind the wheel of the new Toyota Corolla. The comfort and spaciousness of a luxury sedan at a price that anyone can afford. So what are you waiting for? … We’re back and it’s time for Tom to fill us in on the latest results from college basketball. Tom…”

  Oh how quickly and easily our minds and hearts can move from significant, weighty, serious, eternal matters to silly fluff. From a strategic viewpoint, I think that for the kingdom of darkness to crank up persecution against Christians in America would be a bad move. That might actually make some of us stop and get serious about storming Hades’ gates. Much more effective is to allow us brief moments to sing, “Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also,” and then to subtly whisper in our ear, “Oh ya, speaking of goods and kindred, I really need that awesome new mountain bike, and don’t forget about the barbeque over at Ted’s place. Oh ya, and that also reminds me…,” and in literally less than a second, any threat to Satan’s kingdom has become impotent.

  Galatians is a book about the gospel – the true gospel versus a false gospel. Paul was an apostle, a herald sent to proclaim the gospel. Galatians 2 tells about a meeting between Peter, God’s chosen apostle to the Jews in particular, and Paul — set apart as apostle to the Gentiles. The meeting was about the core of the gospel that each was proclaiming. As they extended the right hand of fellowship to each other and bless each other on their way, something seems to almost come up “out of the blue” in this context:

They only asked us to remember the poor– the very thing I also was eager to do. - Galatians 2:20

  “Go Paul, preach justification by faith, preach the sufficiency of Christ and the cross, establish churches,… and as you go, be sure to remember the poor.”

  “But of course!”, he replies.

  This scene is so much more pleasant than some of the Christian infighting that frequently goes on regarding what form of ministry is most important. “Evangelism is more important than social action.” “No! Social action is more important than evangelism.” Whoa, brothers, hold on! It’s not a bad thing to be passionate about evangelism and church-planting missions. It is not a bad thing to be passionate about social action and domestic ministry. We’re not each other’s enemy.

  I really like this quote found on a particular page of the Desiring God website:

We do not want to compete for funding with churches, mission agencies, and organizations focusing on the poor and persecuted. We’d rather compete with McDonalds, Microsoft, and Miramax.

  Do you have a zeal to see the gospel reach the remote tribes of the world and you get frustrated to hear about a church “throwing away” their money on some domestic ministry project that seems not nearly so desperate? Or is it the opposite, do you have a zeal to help the poor in your community and you get frustrated when church members want to send money to some far off place while there are so many needs back here at home? Hey, don’t bite and devour each other. I dare say Christians will probably never be guilty of too much evangelism, too much social action, too much foreign missions effort, or too much domestic ministry. Too much time and money spent on videos games, vacations, and vehicles is entirely likely, but we can never love God too much, and we can never do too much to love fellow man for His sake.

  Oh sure, imbalances do exist. And they do need to be addressed at times. But in general, if you are passionate about something (anything!) that brings glory to God and is for the genuine well-being of man, then great! I want to be one who encourages you. Even if the area of service on your heart is not the same direction that I want to invest my limited time, talent, and treasure, if you are doing something more valuable that watching TV, then I salute you! (And if someone out there is truly watching TV for the glory of God, well then, um, please explain that one to me for my future reference.)

  I pray that within the church of Jesus Christ missions would not be the enemy of domestic ministry, and social action would not be the enemy of evangelism, but rather that all things which are good and righteous and pure would triumph over the frivolous, the sinful, and the shallow pleasures of this world.

  In 1963 MLK Jr. declared his dream of racial justice and harmony. From the Bible we know that racism, like every other sin, will only be fully and completely eradicated in heaven. There the great diversity of people from every nation, tribe and tongue will bring great glory to God as the One and Only Lord of all peoples. Nevertheless MLK had a good dream, and it is perfectly Biblical to dream dreams like his. Jesus taught us to pray, “Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven [emphasis added].” On the one hand we don’t let our hope rest in this ugly, fallen world, because we set our eyes solely on the treasure of heaven. But on the other hand we do pray and work and dream for more of heaven to come to earth.

  MLK Jr. had a good dream. And I have a dream too. A good one. My dream is a beautiful picture that plays clearly in my mind every day, and I certainly didn’t make it up. It was inspired by real life history.

[T]hey began selling their property and possessions, and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. Acts 2:45

For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles’ feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need. Acts 4:34-35

I have a dream of upper class, middle class, and even lower class American Christians voluntarily choosing a lower standard of living, joyfully sacrificing and doing without things that our culture deems as “necessary” for the sake of pouring our wealth into eternal-valued investments like feeding the poor and spreading the gospel to unreached nations. (Oh yes, feeding starving bellies does have eternal value, despite the claims of some people to the contrary. Perhaps we can look more into that topic another time; for now I’ll just mention Matthew 25.)

  Vague dreams are usually weak, and weak dreams are usually vague. MLK Jr.’s dream was powerful enough in his soul to fill him with specific images of former slaves and slave owners sitting together on the “red hills of Georgia”. He heard freedom ringing from “the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire”, “the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania”, “the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado”, and “the curvaceous slopes of California”, not to mention Lookout Mountain of Tennessee, and “every hill and molehill of Mississippi”.

  My dream, while not punctuated by such colorful adjectives, is equally clear, crisp, and specific. I have a dream of suburbian home owners downsizing to one or two bedroom homes, renting the basement in someone else’s home, moving into trailer parks or inexpensive inner city areas, and all of this in order to divert former mortgage payments towards humanitarian causes. The interest paid on a standard thirty year mortgage is approximately the same as the value of the house itself. Depending on where you live, that can be $100,000 to a quarter-million to a half-million dollars for a “middle class” home! Wow, how many missionaries could be supported and how many children crying from hunger could be fed with a quarter-million dollars over the next thirty years! What a wonderful dream!

  I have a dream of overflowing and abundant joy in Christ causing His disciples to say, “Hey, I don’t need that new technological gadget to play with, or that fancy piece of fabric to stick on my body, or that extra CD to add to my bulging collection. But hey, wouldn’t it be great to send money to rescue children forced into prostitution in Thailand, or to help families whose homes were destroyed in Darfur, or to support my local homeless shelter and crisis pregnancy clinic, or to help the wife of a martyred native evangelist in India, or to supply Zambian pastors with Bibles,… .” Wow, now that’s more like the kind of “shopping” I could get excited about. Isn’t it a great dream?

  I have a dream of Christian congregations voluntarily giving up their piece of real estate and channeling that massive monthly budget entirely into Word and people ministries. Where would the church meet? Good question. I don’t know that answer to that in all circumstances, but I do know that the body of Christ is full of very creative and resourceful members! I also know that Jesus spoke to 5,000 people (the size of a small/moderate megachurch) on a mountain/hillside without electronic amplifiers. How does that work? I don’t know, but I have a dream of congregations working and thinking hard to figure it out.

  I’m not saying that it is a sin to have a church building, I’m not saying that it is sin to live in a middle class suburbian house, and I’m not saying that it is sin to buy things at the mall. But those things certainly aren’t required for godly living. At best they are optional. So what I’m saying is that I have a dream. A dream about choices being made, not grudgingly or under compulsion, but from purposeful and cheerful hearts.

  See, the thing is, Jesus said that it is more blessed to give than to receive. And everything that Jesus says is true, because He is the Truth. I hope, dear affluent reader, that you won’t read about my dream and hear me pointing a finger of condemnation at you. All of us, including those who would call themselves poor, are certainly guilty of greed and gluttony to at least some extent, and that does demand repentance. But that is not what I’m going after right now. Law and conviction of sin have their place, but they alone have to power to fuel a transformed life. Christ, His cross, and His Spirit whom we receive when we trust in His gospel are the power for godly living.

  Look at the context of the two passages from Acts that I quoted above. Both of them follow immediately after words of gospel proclamation (in the form of preaching and prayer, respectively). Oh how futile and hopeless is my dream if it doesn’t flow from an overwhelming sense of awe and delight in Christ.

  The King of Kings has pardoned my guilt and granted me the gift of eternal fellowship with Him. We will dance on the streets that are golden. We will cast our crowns along the glassy sea. We will eat the healing leaves of the tree of life that grows along both sides of the river. Why would I want a video game or a Gucci armband? I’ve got all I need for eternity, and by God’s grace I even have three hearty, solid meals a day on top of it; let the money go to somebody who actually needs it!

  In my dream the recipients of the money aren’t the greatest beneficiaries, because Jesus is right when He says that it is more blessed to give than to receive. My dream is about much more than money itself. I have a dream of renewed spiritual vitality, long since choked out by the thorny “American dream” of success and prosperity (Matt 13:22). I have a dream of sleepy American evangelicalism being set free from the bondage of maintaining property and possessions, and even, by God’s grace, I have a dream of experiencing the kind of Christianity that I have read about in Holy Scripture:

And day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved. Acts 2:46-47

And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own; but all things were common property to them. And with great power the apostles were giving witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales, and lay them at the apostles’ feet; and they would be distributed to each, as any had need. Acts 4:32-35

  The church in Acts was not perfect. Oh no, no, no, no. Not by a long shot. But I dare say, there was a passion there unlike anything most of us have ever seen today. What happened? Well, I can’t claim to have a complete, authoritative answer. But I do see a principle in Scripture that wealth suffocates spiritual zeal (e.g. Matt 13:22, Mk 10:21-23, Rev 3:15-17). I have a dream of a church that casts off the burden of earthly possessions, and catches the fresh gust of wind that disciples were breathing long ago.