Evangelism: How the Whole Church Speaks of Jesus

From The Gospel Coalition:

Mack Stiles. Evangelism: How the Whole Church Speaks of Jesus. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014. 128 pp. $14.99.

Our church has always stressed the need for evangelism. Whenever our local missions pastor preaches, it almost always turns into a sermon on evangelism (especially when he’s trying not to). We have a local missions team that goes out every week to open-air preach and interact with individuals on the streets of our city, sharing the gospel at every opportunity.

But then, about a year ago, we did something really bold: we took all of our small groups through a personal evangelism workshop. The response?

*crickets*

I was a small group leader at the time, taking my group through the course. It was really challenging material that actually took a lot of the fear out of evangelism. But despite its initial “failure,” the impetus behind offering this training is a good one—a desire to create a healthy culture of evangelism, one where it’s seen as a normal part of the Christian life.

I have a hunch Mack Stiles would stand up and cheer if he knew this was something our church attempted (and continues to nurture). Why? Because that’s exactly what his latest book, Evangelism: How the Whole Church Speaks of Jesus, is all about.

It’s Not About the Results

If there’s one thing Stiles wants you to understand, it’s this: evangelism is not about programs or events. It’s not a technique or a specific kind of response. Many of our problems creating a healthy culture of evangelism stem from a lack of a biblical foundation. We count declarations of faith, hands raised, cards put in a bag, people walking down aisles—but do these things really mean anything? Maybe, but maybe not.

Regardless, if we’re going to see a culture of evangelism take root, “we must be very careful to conform our evangelistic practices to the Bible, because this honors God” (24). So, Stiles, general secretary for the Fellowship of Christian UAE Students in the United Arab Emirates and author of several evangelism books, begins by defining his terms—specifically, what evangelism means.

“Evangelism is teaching the gospel with the aim to persuade,” he explains. “This definition, small as it is, offers a far better balance in which to weigh our evangelistic practice than looking at how many people have responded to an appeal” (26-27).

Those four elements in Stiles’s definition are key: teach, gospel, aim, persuade. Without any of those, you don’t really have evangelism. Our goal in evangelism is to communicate the gospel with the purpose of persuading our hearers that it is true. That doesn’t mean browbeating or extorting a profession of faith. It just means speaking with conviction about the truth of the good news.

This, I think, is one of the places we all get tripped up. We tend to speak almost apologetically about the gospel, or we wring our hands, break out into a sweat, and worry about saying the wrong thing. But this is also where it’s helpful to remember something crucial: “conversion is required [for salvation], but conversion is a function of genuine faith, which is given by the Spirit” (37). In other words, you’re not responsible for the result. You’re only called to be faithful and speak.

What a Culture of Evangelism Looks Like

So what does a healthy culture of evangelism look like? Stiles admits that it’s impossible to instruct people on everything that goes into it, but he can describe the yearnings that surround it. He breaks these down into 11 points:

1. A culture motivated by love for Jesus and his gospel
2. A culture that is confident in the gospel
3. A culture that understands the danger of entertainment
4. A culture that sees people clearly
5. A culture that pulls together as one
6. A culture in which people teach one another
7. A culture that models evangelism
8. A culture in which people who are sharing their faith are celebrated
9. A culture that knows how to affirm and celebrate new life
10. A culture doing ministry that feels risky and is dangerous
11. A culture that understands that the church is the chosen and best method of evangelism

There’s so much that could be said about each of these points, but notice how they all work together. If the people attending week in and week out aren’t passionate about sharing their faith, then no amount of encouragement from the pulpit is going to change them. This culture builds up from within the body and should be celebrated.

Simple, but not.

Create and Cultivate the Culture You Want to See

Creating a culture of evangelism isn’t a one-and-done thing. You can’t preach a series on evangelism or offer an occasional course, pat yourself on the back, and think, Nailed it. You have to be intentional about creating and cultivating the culture you want to see, but there’s only so much control any church leader really has.

Why? Because “a culture of evangelism is grassroots, not top-down.” Stiles writes:
In a culture of evangelism, people understand that the main task of the church is to be the church. . . . The church should cultivate a culture of evangelism. The members are sent out from the church to do evangelism. (65-66)

Do you feel the tension there? It’s so easy to fall into the trap of trying to force the change from the top or to program evangelism. But it doesn’t work that way. A church only becomes more evangelistic as its members become more evangelistic. And this is big, scary stuff. Church leaders can and should model it, but the members have to own it.

Thankfully, every faithful Christian can own this vision. We should want this for our churches. We should want to be the kind of people who take risks to share the gospel, who understand that entertainment doesn’t equal ministry and that God truly rejoices when one lost sheep is found. This is the vision Stiles presents in Evangelism: How the Whole Church Speaks of Jesus. It’s what I want to see in my own life and in the lives of all the members of my church. How about you?

Not Evangelism

Evangelism means preaching the gospel. That is all, and there is no substitute.

[S]ocial action or “mercy ministries” (e.g., soup kitchens, medical clinics, etc.) must never be mistaken for evangelism. They may be a means to evangelism, but they are not evangelism. The church’s main responsibility is gospel proclamation. Nothing must obscure the church’s central obligation to preach the gospel. Expounding Scripture in the local church equips members to understand and express God’s character of justice and mercy appropriately to the world. And this rightly means touching on issues of poverty, gender, racism, and justice from the pulpit. Such teaching, however, should normally occur without committing the church to particular public policy solutions. For example, Christian preachers could strenuously advocate the abolition of human trafficking without laying out specific policy proposals for how to do it. Christian preaching can speak to [sic] what ought to be done without assuming it has the expertise to untangle all the means necessary for achieving those good ends.

A non-Christian’s greatest need is to hear the gospel. The proclamation of the gospel addresses the greatest part of human suffering caused by the fall. It is central to fulfilling the Great Commission (Matt 28:18–20). And it is central to fulfilling the great commandments (Mark 12:29–31; cf. Gal 6:2). For the Christian these commandments must lie at the heart of any cultural mandate (Gen 1: 28).

—Mark Dever, The Church: The Gospel Made Visible

Preaching God's Love in Acts?

Preaching God's Love in Acts?
By Gregory Koukl
What was the emphasis in the evangelistic preaching of the Apostles as recorded in the book of Acts? Does the record of Acts support the notion that the central focus of Christianity is one's love relationship with God and personal life enhancement? Or did these disciples of Christ focus on something else?

The list below includes every instance of evangelistic preaching in the book of Acts, a summary of content, and an analysis of emphasis.

1. Pentecost, Acts 2:14-39
Peter notes the manifestations of the Holy Spirit that all had been witnessing, then ties them to the fulfillment of prophecy of Joel about the last days. He then preaches Jesus as the Messiah--attested to by miracles and by the resurrection which was prophesied by David--and the guilt of the crowd for the crucifixion.

The emphasis is on forgiveness of sin by Jesus the Messiah. There is no mention of God's love or a relationship with Him.

2. Peter at the Gate Beautiful, Acts 3:12-26
After Peter and John healed a man lame from birth, Peter placed the blame for Jesus' death on the shoulders of the listeners. He then appealed to fulfilled prophecy and told them either to believe and return and thus receive forgiveness and times of refreshing, or be destroyed.

The emphasis is on forgiveness of sin by Jesus the Messiah. There is no mention of God's love or a relationship with Him.

3. Peter before the High Priest, Acts 4:8-12
Peter attributes the healing of the man lame from birth to Jesus the Messiah, whom the Jews had crucified, but whom God had raised from the dead. He quotes prophecy and says there is no other means of salvation but through Jesus. Peter then refuses to be silent about the Gospel.

The emphasis is on forgiveness of sin by Jesus the Messiah. There is no mention of God's love or a relationship with him.

4. Peter's Defense a Second Time before the Council, Acts 5:29-32
Peter proclaims the resurrected Christ as Prince and Savior who brings forgiveness of sin and gives the gift of the Holy Spirit. He accuses the Council of putting Jesus to death. They are so infuriated they want to kill the Apostles. Instead, on the advice of Gamaliel, the believers are flogged and released.

There is no mention of God's love or any kind of tender relationship with Him.

5. Stephen's Defense before the Council, Acts 7:1-60
Stephen recounts the history of the Jews in which they constantly rebel, rejecting God's deliverer. He accuses the Jews of being stiff-necked, resisting the Holy Spirit just as their forefathers had. He accuses them also of betraying and murdering the Righteous One, the Messiah. They are so filled with rage they murder him.

Emphasis is on the guilt of the Jews. There is no mention of God's love.

[Note: When God speaks to Saul about his future during the events surrounding Saul's conversion (Acts 9), there is no mention of an intimate relationship, only that Paul would suffer much for the sake of Christ.]

6. Peter's Message to the Household of Cornelius, Acts 10:34-43
Peter talks of the ministry of Jesus, His miracles, death on the cross, and resurrection. Peter tells the Gentiles it is his job to solemnly testify that Jesus is the One appointed by God to judge the world, that Jesus' coming was prophesied, and that belief in Him brings forgiveness of sin.

The emphasis is on Jesus, the prophesied Messiah who either brings judgment or forgives of sin. There is no mention of God's love.

7. Paul's Message to the Jews in the Synagogue at Pisidian Antioch, Acts 13:16-41
Paul preaches Jesus as the anticipated Savior, affirmed by John the Baptist, crucified by the Jews, who rose from the dead in fulfillment of prophesy. Paul then proclaims forgiveness of sin and freedom from the Law for all who believe.

Paul proclaims Jesus the prophesied Messiah crucified and resurrected. His emphasis is on forgiveness amidst warning.

8. Paul at the Areopagus in Athens, Acts 17:22-31
Paul discloses the nature of the "unknown God," One who is responsible for all creation, and in whom we all depend for our very existence. He calls all men to repent, because God has appointed a judge, a man who has risen from the dead.

Emphasis is on the nature of God, and the reality of judgment. There is no mention of relationship or God's love.

9. Paul's Defense before the Jews in Jerusalem, Acts 22:1-21
Paul gives his testimony, detailing his persecution of Christians motivated by his zeal toward God, his conversion on the road to Damascus, and how his sins were washed away in Jesus' name. When he mentions his mission to the Gentiles, however, the Jews protested violently.

Emphasis is on Paul's personal encounter with Christ, his own forgiveness from sin, and his subsequent mission. There is no offer of personal relationship with God or mention of God's love.

10. Paul's Defense before the Sanhedrin, Acts 23:1-6
Paul says he is on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead. There is no mention of the love of God.

11. Paul's Defense before the governor, Felix, Acts 24:10-21
Paul establishes his innocence regarding the Jews' charges, then affirms the Law and the Prophets and the general resurrection of both righteous and wicked, a belief for which he says he is on trial.

There is no mention of God's love or even of forgiveness.

12. Paul before Felix and Drusilla, Acts 24:24-25
Paul speaks of righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come which frightens Felix who then sends Paul away. There is no mention of God's love or of a personal relationship with Him.

13. Paul's Defense before the Agrippa, Acts 26:1-29
Paul gives his testimony, noting the importance of the resurrection. He tells of the commission Jesus had given him, proclaiming the Gospel with a goal of deliverance from Satanic darkness to receiving forgiveness and an inheritance from God. Paul claims his message is the same as the prophets regarding the Messiah's suffering and resurrection.

Emphasis is on the resurrection of Christ, prophetic fulfillment and forgiveness, and Paul's responsibility to preach the Gospel. There is no mention of love or a relationship with God.

The love of God is never mentioned a single time in the entire book of Acts.

New Testament Evangelism

There is no true evangelism without the doctrine of sin, and without an understanding of what sin is. I do not want to be unfair, but I say that a gospel which merely says “Come to Jesus”, and offers Him as a Friend, and offers a marvelous new life, without convicting of sin, is not New Testament evangelism. The essence of evangelism is to start by preaching the law; and it is because the law has not been preached that we have so much superficial evangelism . . . evangelism must start with the holiness of God, the sinfulness of man and the eternal consequences of evil and wrong-doing. It is only the man who has been brought to see his guilt in this way who flies to Christ for deliverance and redemption.

—D. Martin Lloyd-Jones

Only Once in 30 Days

Only Once in 30 Days - Thabiti Anyabwile resolved that he would be a more faithful evangelist, yet he has found that far more difficult than he had thought. This article is very honest, sharing both success and failure.


How often do you share?

Rich Young and Lost

From Pulpit Magazine:

Luke 18, Mark 10, and Matthew 19 give us the familiar story of the rich, young ruler. This story is perhaps the most commonly used model for evangelism from the Gospels, and provides a stunning insight into Jesus’ approach to evangelism.

Obviously the synagogue ruler did not get saved. This fact is essential in understanding how Jesus models “ successful” evangelism. This is not to suggest that Jesus failed, but it does show that the goal of Jesus’ evangelism was to expose the motives in the heart, more than it was to convince people to follow him. If anything, this exchange is remarkable because it shows Jesus saying things designed to drive this ruler away.

It seems that many of today’s gospel presentations are geared to trap someone into a logical corner where reason dictates that they make a commitment to follow Christ (if you want out of hell, if you want a happy life, if you want your hole in your heart filled, just repeat after me). Reason demands that people follow Christ, and God demands that people follow Christ. But Jesus did not appeal to reason or a logical argument when talking with the rich young ruler. Instead, Jesus structured this command in a way that caused the person to ask, “Is Christ more valuable than everything in life?” Most of our gospel presentations ask, “Do you want to go to hell? If not, then follow Christ.” Jesus asked, “Do you value me more than everything in the world?”

Jesus used the Law as an entry point into the conversation with the ruler. But, he did not use the Law to lead him to repentance. Remember that when Jesus used the Law, the ruler replied that as to the Law, he was blameless. Jesus did not argue with him. He did not say, “so are you saying you have never lied, not even once?”

Instead, he set the whole discussion of the Law aside, and asked the ruler if he would treasure Christ above the riches of the world. Jesus used the ruler’s self-professed obedience to the Law to make a dramatic point: law keeping does not save anyone, but rather treasuring Christ leads to salvation.

People need to know the bad news, that they are sinners, before they know the good news, that Christ died as a substitutionary atonement for their sin, and rose from the grave. But, when Jesus met the rich young ruler, he did not make the issue the Law. It is as if Jesus said to the ruler, “You have kept the Law your whole life? So what? You are lost because you love your life more than you love me.”

If I could change modern evangelism in one way, this is it: that we would stop reasoning people to a commitment or decision, and we would start calling people to deny their life, and follow Christ.

Even if it means that they walk away.

Scare Tactics

In the late 1980s, TV commercials in the U.S. asked, “What goes through the mind of a driver who is not wearing a seat belt in a head-on collision?” Then they showed a crash dummy having its head crushed by a steering wheel in a collision, and said, “The steering wheel!” Those were scare tactics, but no one complained because they were legitimate scare tactics. We should fear what happens in a head-on collision if we are foolish enough to not put on a seat belt.

Fear itself is not a bad thing. Fear stops us from stepping off a 500-foot cliff. It keeps us away from fire. It holds us back from sticking a fork into a live power outlet. These types of fear are self-preserving, but the ultimate self-preserving fear is the fear of the Lord. That fear is called “the beginning of wisdom,” and because of it, the Bible says men “depart from sin.”

To warn of hell is fearful, but it is absolutely legitimate, because the Bible says that it is a fearful thing for a sinner to fall into the hands of the living God.

Hebrews 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

The (Lost) Art of Street Preaching

From Geoffrey Kirkland:

You may have a particular view on street-preaching (for purposes here, street preaching and open air preaching are synonymous). This could be from a street preacher that you heard or from a YouTube video that you watched, or just the seemingly “weird” people that do it. I want to propose today that this art of public open-air preaching is an important way the gospel of Jesus Christ can effectively be proclaimed to the lost in our culture.

I propose nine reasons why street-preaching should be considered as a valid way to present the gospel of Jesus Christ.

1. It presents the gospel to people who may not otherwise step foot into a church.
Many people in our day and age refuse to step foot in a church. This may result from a myriad of reasons. But one undeniable benefit of open-air preaching is that instead of waiting for the people to come into the church, the preacher goes out to the lost. Thus, those people who may not enter into a church building can hear the gospel proclaimed to them in an area or setting in which they gather. Rightly did Spurgeon remark regarding preachers of the gospel: “traders go to the markets, they follow their customers and go out after business if it will not come to them; and so must we.”

2. It allows the preacher to obey the most frequent command regarding the manner in which the gospel is presented.
One only needs to read through the Scriptures (both OT and NT) to find the clear emphasis on the bold, public, and even at times “in-the-moment” proclamation of God’s truth. A concept that very frequently arises is the command given and pattern exemplified in the act of preaching the Gospel and proclaiming the truth of salvation (cf. Acts 26; 2 Tim 4:2; Luke 14:23; cp. Neh 8).

3. It follows the historical pattern of pastors open air preaching.
Beginning with Noah who was a preacher of righteousness (2 Pet 2:5), to Ezra (Neh 8:1-4), to Jeremiah (Jer 7:2; 19:2), Ezekiel (Ezek 11:off), other prophets (cf. Jonah 3:2-4), John the Baptist (Matt 3:1-2), our Lord Jesus Christ (Matt 5-7, et al.), Paul (Acts 26), Peter (Acts 5:17ff), and hundreds through Church history, an unbroken pattern of open-air preaching can be observed. For instance, in the 18th century, Gideon Ouseley, heralded God’s truth in the open-air in the country of Ireland. Ouseley first preached in a church-yard, at a funeral, and after this point, he preached in the streets and church-yards, at fairs and markets, at wakes and funerals, wherever in fact he could find a congregation assembled. He would ride on his horse from county to county preaching and exhorting wherever and whenever he could.

Even Spurgeon provided a list of eleven qualifications for open-air preachers: (1) a good voice, (2) naturalness of manner, (3) self-possession, (4) a good knowledge of Scripture and of common things, (5) ability to adapt himself to any congregation, (6) good illustrative powers, (7) zeal, prudence, and common sense, (8) a large, loving heart, (9) sincere belief in all he says, (10) entire dependence on the Holy Spirit for success, (11) a close walk with God by prayer, and (12) a consistent walk before men by a holy life.

4. It plainly understands the command of our Lord to “go into the highways and the country roads” and compel sinners to come.
In Luke 14:23, Jesus commanded His disciples to go out into the highways and the country roads (or, hedges) and compel sinners to come in so that His house may be full. Open-air preachers take this verse and read it at face value and have no need to spiritualize or take this text figuratively. O how important it is to go out to where the sinners are, gather, commune, party, and live so that the biblical gospel is presented to them in a winsome and compelling way so that they may repent of their sin and believe in Christ.

5. It trusts wholly that God’s Word will never return void.
Every time the preacher heralds God’s truth, he recognizes that God’s truth never returns void. It especially is the case when the open-air preacher takes God’s Word and delivers it to the passers-by that an unshakable trust in God’s promise that His Word will never return empty but it will always accomplish what God sovereignly ordains.

6. It encourages believers to go out together as a team and it mutually stirs others to more fervent and urgent evangelism.
Open-air preaching can provide a great opportunity to take other believers from a local church to gather and hand out tracts and to approach people who have listened to the preaching of the Gospel and engage in further conversation. It can be an effective way of openly proclaiming the Word and deliberately engaging people in personal conversation about their own heart and soul before a sovereign Judge.

7. It convicts Christian passers-by who are not sharing their faith to consider evangelizing with greater zeal.
Oftentimes, the open-air preacher will hear from Christians who walk by and say something along the lines of: “I wish I could do what you’re doing,” or “I could never do that!” but this allows the preacher a great opportunity to challenge those passers-by to be diligent, vigilant, and urgent in their own gospel-proclamation in the life-setting in which God has placed them. By the preacher’s urgency and intensity, he reproves other Christians who wonder if God may ever put them up to such a daunting task of evangelizing in public! The open air preacher must, from beginning to end, be an intense man and preach with urgency, intensity, and bulldog tenacity. And, it could be argued, he could shepherd other Christians to do the same in their evangelism.

8. It always glorifies God because His Word is being proclaimed.
When a man of God proclaims the Word of God that salvation is found in the one true God, Jesus Christ, and in His righteousness received by faith alone, God is always glorified. He can be glorified in the drawing of sinners to repentance or He can be glorified in the hardening of sinners further toward judgment. God’s Word that is faithfully proclaimed always glorifies God even if the outward results are nonexistent.

9. It depends wholly on the sovereign Work of the Holy Spirit to quicken dead hearts to new life as sinners hear the word preached.
Preaching by definition takes the divine message and preaches that message of new life to dead sinners who cannot, in and of themselves, listen to, hear, and respond to new life. They simply can’t believe by their own freewill. The open-air preacher heralds God’s truth anywhere and everywhere depending wholly on the sovereign work of God the Holy Spirit to awaken spiritually dead souls and impart spiritually new life into the sinner’s soul. This is the divine act of regeneration. God can do it from the pulpit in a church. And God can perform this sovereign act on a streetcorner in a public square.

A concluding thought comes poignantly from Spurgeon:

“No sort of defence [sic] is needed for preaching out of doors; but it would need very potent arguments to prove that a man had done his duty who has never preached beyond the walls of his meeting-house.”

What are your thoughts?

Should We Answer the Questions People Are Asking?

Ed Stetzer’s most recent research found a significant change in the kinds of spiritual questions people are asking.

Very few are asking questions about heaven:

• Just 8% say they wonder about heaven every day (down from 20% just five years ago)



• While 46% say they never do

More are asking about meaning and purpose:

• 18% say they wonder about meaning and purpose every day



• Only 28% say they never do

Ed’s Conclusions
1. Christianity has the answer to the questions people are asking. Through Jesus Christ, people can have both meaning on earth and eternal life in heaven

2. As People are now more concerned about how to get happiness in this life than in the afterlife, the church should start at this point in evangelism.
As Ed says, “Knowing people’s questions and the gospel answer is a key part of clear evangelistic communication.”

My Question
While I appreciate Ed’s research, and I think the church should heed it and learn from it, I do wonder if unbelievers are really the best judges of the questions they should be asking? (I certainly wasn’t) Is it not a bit like asking an Inuit (an “Eskimo” for the non-politically correct) if they have any questions about gardening in the Sahara?

I’m not saying we should ignore the questions of unbelievers. As Ed says, they can be a starting point. But having answered them, perhaps we should go on to say, “Now these are important questions you’ve asked, and I’ve tried to give you serious answers. But there are even more important question you should be asking, like, “How can I get my sins forgiven? How can I get right with God? How can I be changed from within? How can I be born-again?” If an unbeliever isn’t interested in these questions, he/she has not begun to understand the seriousness of their state.

When the rich young ruler came with questions about the lack in his life and about how to gain eternal life, Jesus did not answer him directly. Instead, He started asking him about the commandments. It’s almost as if he was saying, “Wrong questions! Here, let me supply the ones you should be concerned about.”

Again with Nicodemus, Jesus interrupted Nicodemus’s introduction with a question that Nicodemus had clearly never even thought of before.

Sometimes we have to destroy the unbelievers’ bridges to nowhere, and start boring tunnels into their deepest problems.

Apostolic Preaching of the Gospel

God’s love for the world was demonstrated by the giving of His Son so that all who believe in Him will in no way perish, but instead, have everlasting life.

The majority of American evangelism is reduced to “God Loves You and has a wonderful plan for your life.” But was the love of God even part of the Gospel that the Apostles preached in the Book of Acts?

What was the emphasis in the evangelistic preaching of the Apostles as recorded in the book of Acts? Does the record of Acts support the notion that the central focus of Christianity is one’s love relationship with God and personal life enhancement? Or did these disciples of Christ focus on something else?

The list below includes every instance of evangelistic preaching in the book of Acts, a summary of content, and an analysis of emphasis (©1999 Gregory Koukl. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333).

1. Pentecost, Acts 2:14-39
Peter notes the manifestations of the Holy Spirit that all had been witnessing, then ties them to the fulfillment of prophecy of Joel about the last days. He then preaches Jesus as the Messiah–attested to by miracles and by the resurrection which was prophesied by David–and the guilt of the crowd for the crucifixion.

The emphasis is on forgiveness of sin by Jesus the Messiah. There is no mention of God’s love or a relationship with Him.

2. Peter at the Gate Beautiful, Acts 3:12-26
After Peter and John healed a man lame from birth, Peter placed the blame for Jesus’ death on the shoulders of the listeners. He then appealed to fulfilled prophecy and told them either to believe and return and thus receive forgiveness and times of refreshing, or be destroyed.

The emphasis is on forgiveness of sin by Jesus the Messiah. There is no mention of God’s love or a relationship with Him.

3. Peter before the High Priest, Acts 4:8-12
Peter attributes the healing of the man lame from birth to Jesus the Messiah, whom the Jews had crucified, but whom God had raised from the dead. He quotes prophecy and says there is no other means of salvation but through Jesus. Peter then refuses to be silent about the Gospel.

The emphasis is on forgiveness of sin by Jesus the Messiah. There is no mention of God’s love or a relationship with him.

4. Peter’s Defense a Second Time before the Council, Acts 5:29-32
Peter proclaims the resurrected Christ as Prince and Savior who brings forgiveness of sin and gives the gift of the Holy Spirit. He accuses the Council of putting Jesus to death. They are so infuriated they want to kill the Apostles. Instead, on the advice of Gamaliel, the believers are flogged and released.

There is no mention of God’s love or any kind of tender relationship with Him.

5. Stephen’s Defense before the Council, Acts 7:1-60
Stephen recounts the history of the Jews in which they constantly rebel, rejecting God’s deliverer. He accuses the Jews of being stiff-necked, resisting the Holy Spirit just as their forefathers had. He accuses them also of betraying and murdering the Righteous One, the Messiah. They are so filled with rage they murder him.

Emphasis is on the guilt of the Jews. There is no mention of God’s love.

[Note: When God speaks to Saul about his future during the events surrounding Saul's conversion (Acts 9), there is no mention of an intimate relationship, only that Paul would suffer much for the sake of Christ.]

6. Peter’s Message to the Household of Cornelius, Acts 10:34-43
Peter talks of the ministry of Jesus, His miracles, death on the cross, and resurrection. Peter tells the Gentiles it is his job to solemnly testify that Jesus is the One appointed by God to judge the world, that Jesus’ coming was prophesied, and that belief in Him brings forgiveness of sin.

The emphasis is on Jesus, the prophesied Messiah who either brings judgment or forgives of sin. There is no mention of God’s love.

7. Paul’s Message to the Jews in the Synagogue at Pisidian Antioch, Acts 13:16-41
Paul preaches Jesus as the anticipated Savior, affirmed by John the Baptist, crucified by the Jews, who rose from the dead in fulfillment of prophesy. Paul then proclaims forgiveness of sin and freedom from the Law for all who believe.

Paul proclaims Jesus the prophesied Messiah crucified and resurrected. His emphasis is on forgiveness amidst warning.

8. Paul at the Areopagus in Athens, Acts 17:22-31
Paul discloses the nature of the “unknown God,” One who is responsible for all creation, and in whom we all depend for our very existence. He calls all men to repent, because God has appointed a judge, a man who has risen from the dead.

Emphasis is on the nature of God, and the reality of judgment. There is no mention of relationship or God’s love.

9. Paul’s Defense before the Jews in Jerusalem, Acts 22:1-21
Paul gives his testimony, detailing his persecution of Christians motivated by his zeal toward God, his conversion on the road to Damascus, and how his sins were washed away in Jesus’ name. When he mentions his mission to the Gentiles, however, the Jews protested violently.

Emphasis is on Paul’s personal encounter with Christ, his own forgiveness from sin, and his subsequent mission. There is no offer of personal relationship with God or mention of God’s love.

10. Paul’s Defense before the Sanhedrin, Acts 23:1-6
Paul says he is on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead. There is no mention of the love of God.

11. Paul’s Defense before the governor, Felix, Acts 24:10-21
Paul establishes his innocence regarding the Jews’ charges, then affirms the Law and the Prophets and the general resurrection of both righteous and wicked, a belief for which he says he is on trial.

There is no mention of God’s love or even of forgiveness.

12. Paul before Felix and Drusilla, Acts 24:24-25
Paul speaks of righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come which frightens Felix who then sends Paul away. There is no mention of God’s love or of a personal relationship with Him.

13. Paul’s Defense before the Agrippa, Acts 26:1-29
Paul gives his testimony, noting the importance of the resurrection. He tells of the commission Jesus had given him, proclaiming the Gospel with a goal of deliverance from Satanic darkness to receiving forgiveness and an inheritance from God. Paul claims his message is the same as the prophets regarding the Messiah’s suffering and resurrection.

Emphasis is on the resurrection of Christ, prophetic fulfillment and forgiveness, and Paul’s responsibility to preach the Gospel. There is no mention of love or a relationship with God.

The love of God is never mentioned a single time in the entire book of Acts.

Concerning this, Steven Langella observed, “What we do see is God’s love continually mentioned over and over in the epistles, letters written to Christians. But we really do not see it in any of the evangelistic outreaches of the apostles. Yet most gospel messages today are nothing but “God loves you,” with no mention of judgment, repentance, the work of Christ on the cross, etc… Just do your own survey. Stand on any street corner in your city and ask 50 people what they think about God. I am sure that the majority will say “God is a loving God”. The love of God has been elevated above all the other attributes of God. People will be quick to tell you “God is love”. But the Bible also says “God is Holy”. In fact the bible never says God is “Love, Love, Love.” But it does say God is “Holy, Holy, Holy”.

So what am I saying? To not speak of God’s love? Not at all, but to ONLY Speak of God’s love is doing a great injustice to the Gospel. I believe we need to preach the love of God which is displayed through His Son Jesus Christ and what He accomplished on the Cross.”

The Sin of Counting

I’ll admit to being weary, to the point of irritation, whenever I hear ministers of the gospel reporting their statistics as external evidences of success. And I know I’m not the only one. (The first minute-and-a-half of this video makes the point.)

Enough already.

I’m not saying I’m less tempted than the next guy to hope for big numbers and stats, the apparent signs of God’s blessing on my ministry. I am. But I’ve seen the focus on numbers as a temptation to be resisted, not something to be embraced. And when preachers find a way to mention the numbers in public, and often, it comes across as bragging; it’s worldly and unbecoming of Christians who are to be characterized by humility and meekness.

One of the worst plagues to hit Israel came about when David numbered his troops, taking pride in his military might. For all the external, visible signs of success David could see and count on a human level, only God could knew the true condition of Israel. Widespread spiritual decay would soon divide David’s kingdom and eventually expel the people of Israel and Judah from the land of promise.

Counting isn’t always pride, right? God commanded Moses to take a census of the people (Num. 1, 26), and for very practical reasons (e.g., to register the fighting men, to determine per-tribe ransom for servicing the temple). Here at Grace to You, we have to keep track of certain numbers to make sure we’re good stewards of the resources God entrusts to us.

But just like David’s pride in counting the troops, we too can tend to grow proud when we look at the stats—baptism numbers, conference attendees, book sales, etc. It can get ugly pretty fast. Big numbers, or maybe just upward-tending numbers, can flatter. They’re like the applause of a crowd, patting you on the back and making you feel good about what you’re doing. Numbers can easily lull you into a false sense of security, keeping you from the hard and painful work of self-examination before the Word of God.

Our modern preoccupation with numbers—the emphasis on the visible, external, measurable—reminds me of a few theses in Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, which proved to be at the theological center of the Reformation.

19 That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened.

22 That wisdom which sees the invisible things of God in works as perceived by man is completely puffed up, blinded, and hardened.

Without getting into the details, the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church justified themselves by pointing to external, visible signs of success. They assumed, as Luther pointed out, that God’s work (which is invisible) are visibly manifest, something that could be perceived, measured, and counted. Simply put, if it worked, if it was successful, if it was mighty, if it was manifestly glorious, then God was in it. Luther called that a theology of glory, meaning a theology that is focused, not on the true glory of God, but on what appeared to be glorious in the estimation of man.

The error of the theologians of glory is the same as the pragmatists of our day. They assume they can perceive, measure, count, and glory in the invisible things of God, things that are truly imperceptible and uncountable. That kind of thinking, as Luther said, “is completely puffed up, blinded, and hardened.”

As he confronted the heart of Roman Catholic theology, Luther pit the theology of glory against the theology of the cross. Here’s how he put it in thesis 20:

20 He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.

The theology of the cross recognizes God’s work as a subverting work, one that overturns human pride, thwarts human wisdom, and acts opposite of human expectation. The suffering of the cross—what is truly visible and manifest about God—is not impressive by any measure of man. That which is humble and weak and low and unimpressive—namely, the stuff of suffering—is not something that grabs attention, fills your conference, gains a following, or builds your fan base. But that’s the way of the cross, which is God’s true work, demonstrated “in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption” (1 Cor.1:30).

The theology of the cross is not the message of pragmatic growth methodology, whether we’re talking about old-school Seeker or today’s more fashionable, hipster version. Pragmatists are like Luther’s theologians of glory, practitioners of methodologies that “work.” And the preoccupation with signs of visible success is making many Christian leaders, as Luther saw in his day, “completely puffed up, blinded, and hardened.”

It’s embarrassing to hear them couch their growth stats in pious sounding phrases like, “It’s so amazing how many churches God is planting through us,” or, “I’m so humbled to see that ___ people made decisions for Christ,” or, “I was humbled to be speaking to ___-thousand people last week,” and on and on. Parading acts of personal piety, completely contrary to Jesus’ teaching in Matt. 6, is proof positive of being puffed up. Those who are puffed up are blinded to their error and hardened to any correction.

None of us is completely free of the charge of pragmatism. Pragmatism is only a matter of degree, isn’t it. But being sullied by the error of pragmatism doesn’t exonerate us; it just shows how utterly in need of grace we really are.

That’s what David learned, when God brought swift and deadly judgment against the people. “Behold, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly. But these sheep, what have they done?” (2 Sam.24:17). Would that today’s church leaders would not only repent of their own sin of counting, but take a keener, more heartfelt interest in the good of the Lord’s sheep.

Let us all strive to “cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Cor.7:1). In an attitude of humility and repentance, we’ll truly find the grace and blessing of God.

You Might Be a Pragmatist...

I’d imagine most of us on the conservative end of evangelicalism understand the wrongheadedness of church growth methodology. It’s easy to see how men like the early pioneers of church growth (Donald McGavran, C. Peter Wagner, Robert Schuller) and their most famous disciples (Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen) got it wrong.

The theology of the Bible teaches us God is absolutely sovereign over salvation; He alone predestines, calls justifies, and glorifies fallen sinners who are dead in trespasses and sin. Christ is the sovereign head of the church who receives the elect bride from His Father; He alone directs, equips, and grows the church according to the will of the Father. The Holy Spirit is the executor of the Father’s will, drawing the elect to Jesus Christ; He alone regenerates the sinner, seals the elect, and empowers the church for growth and service.

We don’t deny the human element, even as we affirm monergism and divine initiative. God uses means and we’re part of the means He uses to do His work, right? As Paul said, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.” And it’s important to see that the apostolic pattern of planting and watering were not according to a pragmatic, “the end justifies the means” approach. Paul, Apollos, and every other exemplary minister of the apostolic age did ministry according to the means God prescribed (i.e., Eph. 4:11-16) and not according to what seemed reasonable to the culture (i.e., 1 Cor. 2:1-5).

The end goal, as well as the means employed to achieve that end, are important to God. So, when we use pragmatic-oriented church growth principles to plant and water, we go against the grain, planting and watering according to the pattern of the flesh rather than the power of the Spirit. That’s wrong. We, along with Paul, want the faith of those who hear us to rest, not “in the wisdom of men but in the power of God” (1 Cor. 2:5).

So, here’s my concern: Are we truly squeaky-clean? Are we free from the charge of pragmatism? Do we condemn in our preaching what we practice in our ministries?

At times, I can imagine the church growth practitioners with wry smiles on their faces. They listen to us condemn the methodologies they’ve openly embraced, while using them to grow our churches and ministries. Sure, there’s a difference in degree, but that only makes our public denouncements all the more hypocritical. After all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

When those of us who claim to be Reformed, or Calvinists, or faithful adherents to the Doctrines of Grace (or whatever the most accurate title happens to be for your brand of biblical fidelity), when we eschew in our preaching and teaching what we practice in our ministries, we unwittingly become one of the strongest arguments in support of evangelical pragmatism.

So, just to help you think it through, to provoke you a wee bit, here’s a quick Top 10 list you can use to evaluate yourself and your ministry for signs of pragmatism.

1. If you see ecclesiology as a subset of missiology, you might be a pragmatist.
   
   
2. If you believe evangelism rather than edification is the purpose of the church, you might be a pragmatist.
   
   
3. If you are trying to figure out what works in evangelism and church growth, and you’re using resources less than 100 years old to answer the question, you might be a pragmatist.
   
   
4. If you turn to sociology and psychology rather than theology to help you understand human response, you might be a pragmatist.
   
   
5. If you think the feel of your church, the music you play, and what you wear makes it more/less likely for an unbeliever to believe the gospel, you might be a pragmatist.
   
   
6. If you are often counting your numbers (e.g., number of visitors, baptisms, and “decisions for Christ,” visitors to your website, sermon downloads, or any other countable sign of growth), you might be a pragmatist.
   
   
7. If you feel the need to quote your numbers to establish your credibility, you might be a pragmatist.
   
   
8. If you are more concerned with the opinions and comfort-level of unbelievers who visit your church than you are with the opinions of believers in your church, you might be a pragmatist.
   
   
9. If your church youth program is designed to accommodate and entertain young people rather than teach and confront them, you might be a pragmatist.
   
   
10. If the young set the tone and determine the culture of the church, you might be a pragmatist.
    
    

I know that’s a short, somewhat simplistic, and woefully incomplete list, but hey, it’s a start. If any of those points are true of you or your church, you might need to repent. Start by confessing your sin of relying on the flesh and using fleshly methods, and study the Scripture to set a positive course for your ministry.

• Study biblical anthropology so you understand the truth about the human condition and human response (Rom. 1:18–3:18; Eph. 2:1-3).
  
  
• Study the true purpose of the church and the pattern of church growth as laid out in Scripture (Eph. 4:7-16; 1 Tim. 3:1-16).
  
  
• Study the ways and means of God until you see how opposite they are of the ways and means of man (1 Cor. 1:18–2:5; Jam. 3:13-18).

Learn to live by faith and not by sight; that is to say, stop counting! God’s work is largely invisible, growth takes take time, and wisdom is generally not recognized by her contemporaries, but by all her children (Luke 7:35).

The Final Word on Contextualization (Almost)

John MacArthur opened this series by asking an important question: Where did Christians ever get the idea they could win the world to Christ by imitating it?

Believe it or not, church marketing specialists answer that question by claiming the apostle Paul as their inspiration. They say he modeled contextualization when he addressed the Athenian philosophers on Mars Hill (Acts 17:22-34). But their favorite passage to cite to justify contextualizing the gospel is 1 Corinthians 9:22-23, where Paul wrote, “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.”

John MacArthur confronted and corrected that false way of thinking about Paul’s statement with a careful, reasoned explanation of the text. Far from mandating pragmatism in ministry, the apostle Paul was calling for personal sacrifice on the part of the evangelist.He was describing not his willingness to sacrifice the message, but his willingness to sacrifice himself to preach the message. He would give up everything to promote the spread of the gospel—his rights, privileges, and ultimately his own life.

That’s precisely how Paul lived and ministered. The history of his ministry in the New Testament bears proof after proof of that claim.

Paul was no contextualizer. His point in 1 Corinthians 9 was that no evangelist should let his Christian liberty hinder anyone’s hearing and understanding the message of Christ. In that passage, Paul was describing—and in some sense, advocating—an attitude of personal sacrifice, not compromise. Paul would never alter Christ’s call to repent and believe the gospel under any circumstances—and neither should you.

By All Means Save Some

Paul’s one aim in making himself the slave of all was so that they might be saved. He was not trying to win a popularity contest. He was not seeking to make himself or the gospel appealing to them. His whole purpose was evangelistic. C. H. Spurgeon, preaching on 1 Corinthians 9, said,

I fear there are some who preach with the view of amusing men, and as long as people can be gathered in crowds, and their ears can be tickled, and they can retire pleased with what they have heard, the orator is content, and folds his hands, and goes back self-satisfied. But Paul did not lay himself out to please the public and collect the crowd. If he did not save them he felt that it was of no avail to interest them. Unless the truth had pierced their hearts, affected their lives, and made new men of them, Paul would have gone home crying, “Who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?” …

Now observe, brethren, if I, or you, or any of us, or all of us, shall have spent our lives merely in amusing men, or educating men, or moralizing men, when we shall come to give our account at the last great day we shall be in a very sorry condition, and we shall have but a very sorry record to render; for of what avail will it be to a man to be educated when he comes to be damned? Of what service will it be to him to have been amused when the trumpet sounds, and heaven and earth are shaking, and the pit opens wide her jaws of fire and swallows up the soul unsaved? Of what avail even to have moralized a man if still he is on the left hand of the judge, and if still, “Depart, ye cursed,” shall be his portion? (Spurgeon, “Soul Saving Our One Business,” The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. 25, 674-676)

That is precisely my concern about today’s pragmatic church-growth strategies. The design is to attract the unchurched. For what? To entertain them? To get them to attend church meetings regularly? Merely “churching” the unchurched accomplishes nothing of eternal value. Too often, however, that is where the strategy stalls. Or else it is combined with a watered-down gospel that wrongly assures sinners a positive “decision” for Christ is as good as true conversion. Multitudes who are not authentic Christians now identify themselves with the church. The church has thus been invaded with the world’s values, the world’s interests, and the world’s citizens.

By all means we are to seek the salvation of the lost. We must be servants to all, deferential to every kind of person. For Jews we should become Jewish; for Gentiles we should be like Gentiles; for children we should be childlike; and so on for every facet of humanity. But the primary means of evangelism we dare not overlook: the straightforward, Christ-centered proclamation of the unadulterated Word of God. Those who trade the Word for amusements or gimmicks will find they have no effective means to reach people with the truth of Christ.

Contextualization and the Corruption of the Church

It should be clear that modern church marketers cannot look to the apostle Paul for approval of their methodology or claim him as the father of their philosophy. Although he ministered to the vilest pagans throughout the Roman world, Paul never adapted the church to secular society’s tastes. He would not think of altering either the message or the nature of the church. Each of the churches he founded had its own unique personality and set of problems, but Paul’s teaching, his strategy, and above all his message remained the same throughout his ministry. His means of ministry was always preaching—the straightforward proclamation of biblical truth.

By contrast, the “contextualization” of the gospel today has infected the church with the spirit of the age. It has opened the church’s doors wide for worldliness, shallowness, and in some cases a crass, party atmosphere. The world now sets the agenda for the church.

This is demonstrated clearly in a book by James Davison Hunter, a sociology professor at the University of Virginia. Hunter surveyed students in evangelical colleges and seminaries, and concluded that evangelical Christianity has changed dramatically in the past three decades. He found that young evangelicals have become significantly more tolerant of activities once viewed as worldly or immoral—including smoking, using marijuana, attending R-rated movies, and premarital sex. Hunter wrote,

The symbolic boundaries which previously defined moral propriety for conservative Protestantism have lost a measure of clarity. Many of the distinctions separating Christian conduct from “worldly conduct” have been challenged if not altogether undermined. Even the words worldly and worldliness have, within a generation, lost most of their traditional meaning.… The traditional meaning of worldliness has indeed lost its relevance for the coming generation of Evangelicals. (Hunter, Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation, 63)

What Hunter noted among evangelical students is a reflection of what has happened to the entire evangelical church. Many professing Christians appear to care far more about the world’s opinion than about God’s. Churches are so engrossed in trying to please non-Christians that many have forgotten their first duty is to please God (2 Cor. 5:9). The church has been so over-contextualized that it has become corrupted by the world.

For the Weak, I Became Weak

In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul models self-sacrificing love toward unbelievers. He explains his willingness to forfeit personal liberties and accommodate himself for the sake of the gospel. He’s already mentioned two groups of people in the first section of this chapter—Jews and Gentiles. Paul was willing to forego his apostolic freedoms in order to reach both races. But racial application was only the beginning.

In verse 22, Paul mentions a third group: “To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak.” Who are the weak? In Pauline theology this expression refers to overscrupulous Christians—immature believers who don’t understand their liberty. In the Jewish community, for example, some new Christians still wanted to observe the Sabbaths, attend the synagogues, follow the dietary laws, and maintain all the feasts and ceremonies of the Old Testament law. Some in the Christian community had weak consciences and still felt such things were obligatory. They were just emerging out of Judaism and still holding on, feeling the pangs of conscience to do those things that had become habit and were associated with the true God and the Old Testament Scriptures.

Among the Gentiles, on the other hand, there were those saved out of idolatry who now feared having anything to do with meat offered to idols. Perhaps some clung to old superstitions and feared demonic idols or simply wanted nothing to do with anything reminiscent of the former lifestyle.

Paul, of course, was free from such fears and superstitions. And he was free from the ceremonial law of the Old Testament. The law of Christ governed him. Although he felt free to do things that other people’s consciences wouldn’t allow them to do, when Paul was with weaker brethren he was careful not to violate their sensibilities. He adapted his behavior so as not to offend them. He yielded in love rather than offend a weaker brother.

How did he do that? At one point he took a Nazirite vow to quell a false rumor among the believing Jews in Jerusalem that he was preaching against Moses and urging Jewish people not to circumcise their children (Acts 21:17–26). Ironically, it was the carrying out of that vow that ultimately led to his arrest and imprisonment. The unbelieving Jews hated the message of the gospel, so they undertook to destroy the messenger. But they had no legitimate complaint against Paul personally, for he had gone out of his way to be a Jew for the Jews, a Gentile for the Gentiles, and a weak brother for the weak brethren.

Again the question comes, why did Paul subject himself to all that? First Corinthians 9:22, 23 says: “That I may by all means save some. And I do all things for the sake of the gospel.” “By all means” may sound at first like an echo of pragmatism, but don’t forget, Paul is speaking here of condescension, not compromise. What is the difference? To condescend is to remove needless offenses to people’s religious consciences by setting aside some personal, optional liberty. To compromise is to set aside an essential truth and thereby alter or weaken the gospel message.

Paul set himself in contrast with the compromisers and marketeers in 2 Corinthians 2:17: “We are not like many, peddling the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God.” The compromiser sells a cheap gospel and tries to make it appealing by stripping away the offense of Christ. Paul simply wanted to keep himself from being an obstacle or a stumbling block to people’s consciences so that the unadulterated message could penetrate hearts and do its work. If people were offended by the message, Paul did not try to remove the offense of the gospel or abolish the stumbling block of the cross, and he would not tolerate those who tried (Gal. 5:11). But he was willing to practice self-denial and deference if that opened opportunities for him to preach.

For the Gentiles, I Became a Gentile

As long as it did not violate God’s Word or compromise the gospel, Paul was willing to accommodate himself to his audience. As we noted in the last post, that was certainly true of his Jewish audience. But Paul didn’t stop with the Jews. He demonstrated the same heart of sacrifice toward the Gentiles—all for the sake of the gospel.

Going back to the ninth chapter of 1 Corinthians, you read in verse 21, “To those who are without law, [I become] 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.” “Those who are without law” are the Gentiles. Note the qualifier Paul inserted. He specifically stated that he is “not … without the law of God but under the law of Christ.” He clearly was not saying he became morally lawless to please despisers of true righteousness.

Though he became as “without law” in the ritual or ceremonial sense, he was not living licentiously or behaving unrighteously. He would have no sympathy with antinomians—people who believe all law is abolished for Christians. “Without law” is not a reference to the moral law. Paul is not implying that he lived it up just to make the Gentiles admire him. He did not encourage people to think they could become Christians and hang on to a worldly lifestyle. Again, he was talking about the Old Testament ceremonial law. When he ministered to Gentiles, he dropped all his non-moral Jewish traditions. When Paul was with the Gentiles he followed Gentile customs and culture insofar as it did not conflict with the law of Christ. He avoided needlessly offending the Gentiles.

When Paul was in Jerusalem, for example, he followed Jewish religious customs. He observed the feasts and Sabbaths, and he followed Jewish dietary laws. When he went to Antioch, however, he ate with the Gentiles, even though that violated his own tradition and upbringing. Peter came to Antioch and also ate with the Gentiles, until some Judaizers showed up. Then Peter and some others withdrew and held themselves aloof (Gal. 2:12). Paul says, “Even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy” (v. 13). That was when Paul rebuked Peter to his face in front of others.

Notice why Paul confronted Peter: “I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel” (v. 14). Paul’s reason for becoming all things to all men was not so he could slip the gospel in covertly. On the contrary, it was so he could without hindrance proclaim the truth of the gospel more straightforwardly than ever. He wanted to remove any personal offense, so the offense of the gospel would be the only one. Paul saw Peter’s compromise as something that undermined the clarity and the force of the gospel, and that is why he confronted him.

For the Jews, I Became Jewish Part 2

When Paul wrote, “To the Jews I became as a Jew … to those who are under the Law, as under the Law” (1 Corinthians 9:20), he was not talking about accommodating the message. He was simply saying he would not jeopardize his ability to preach the message by unnecessarily offending people.

Several illustrations of that principle appear in the New Testament. In our last post, we looked at the example of the Jerusalem Council. Out of love and concern for Jewish unbelievers, the council asked new Gentile converts to abstain from engaging in cultural practices that the Jews found offensive. That was in Acts chapter fifteen.

Acts chapter sixteen includes a similar illustration. It is the first time in Scripture we meet Timothy. Luke records that he was “the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek” (v. 1). Jews would have considered him a Gentile, because his father was a Gentile. Moreover, Timothy’s mother would have been considered a virtual traitor for marrying a Gentile.

Yet Timothy “was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him” (vv. 2, 3).

Wait a minute. Why did he do that? Paul certainly didn’t believe Gentiles needed be circumcised to be saved. In fact, Paul refused to have Titus circumcised when the Jerusalem legalists demanded it (Gal. 2:1-5). Furthermore, Paul once opposed Peter to his face because Peter had compromised with the legalists (Gal. 2:11–14). He asked Peter, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (v. 14). So why did Paul have Timothy circumcised? Was he compromising the issue, demonstrating inconsistency?

No. Timothy wasn’t doing it for salvation. He obviously had not undergone circumcision when he was saved. And he wasn’t doing it to make hardened legalists happy or to tone down the offense of the gospel. He simply wanted to identify with the Jews so he might have an entrance to preach the gospel to them. Paul and Timothy were not hoping to pacify pseudo-Christian legalists, act the part of hypocrites, or mitigate the gospel in any way. They simply wanted to keep open lines of communication to the Jews they were going to preach to. This was not an act of compromise or men-pleasing. It was loving—and physically very painful—self-sacrifice for the sake of the lost.

Wherever he could acknowledge the strong religious tradition of a people and not offend their sensitivities, Paul was glad to do so—when it did not violate God’s Word or impinge on the gospel. But the apostle never adapted his ministry to pander to worldly lusts or sinful selfishness.

For the Jews, I Became Jewish Part 1

As we noted in the last post, Paul was not advocating “contextualization” when he wrote to the Corinthians, “I have become all things to all men, that I may be all means save some.” He was calling for self-denial and sacrifice for the sake of reaching unbelievers with the gospel.

How did Paul apply that principle? In 1 Corinthians 9:20 he describes the practical outworking of self-denial: “To the Jews I became as a Jew … to those who are under the Law, as under the Law.” This describes a selfless sacrifice of Paul’s personal liberty: “though not being … under the Law,” Paul willingly subjected himself to the law’s ritual requirements in order to win those who were under the law. In other words, he adopted their customs. Whatever their ceremonial law dictated, he was willing to do. If it was important to them to abstain from eating pork, he abstained. If their sensibilities demanded that a certain feast be observed, he observed it. Why? Not to appease their pride or affirm their religion, but in order to open a door of opportunity for him to preach the uncompromised truth, so that he might win them to Jesus Christ.

Paul would stoop to no compromise of the truth. He simply sacrificed personal freedoms and preferences, removing any unnecessary diversion or excuse that would thwart the opportunity to declare the powerful, saving gospel plainly to them.

Paul was not suggesting that the gospel can be made more powerful by adapting it to a certain cultural context. He was not speaking about accommodating the message. He was simply saying he would not jeopardize his ability to preach the message by unnecessarily offending people. If the message was an offense, so be it: “We preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness” (1 Cor. 1:23). But Paul would not make himself a stumbling block to unbelievers: “Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God” (10:32).

Several illustrations of this may be adduced from the New Testament. In the fifteenth chapter of Acts the Jerusalem Council, the first church council, met to determine how they should assimilate the Gentile converts. Many of the Jewish believers were so steeped in Jewish tradition that they were skeptical about the Gentiles who were turning to Christ. Then some men came down from Judea and began teaching the Christians, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (15:1). In other words, they were claiming the Gentiles couldn’t become Christians unless they became Jewish first. The church was thrown into confusion.

The Jerusalem Council was assembled to discuss the issue. Scripture says there was much debate (v. 7). At one point Peter testified that he had been present when Gentiles first received the Holy Spirit, and all the evidence demonstrated that God was in it (vv. 7–12). Finally, James, the leader, handed down this ruling: “It is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles” (v. 19).

That settled the question. The church would accept Gentiles as they were, without placing them under the Jewish ceremonial law.

But then notice the next verse. James went on to add this: “We [will] write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.” He listed four things the Gentiles were to stay away from.

First, “things contaminated by idols” meant food offered to idols. That was precisely the issue that troubled the Corinthians. Eating food offered to pagan idols was grossly offensive to Jewish people. They despised pagan idolatry. But as Paul suggested, there is nothing inherently wrong with eating food that had been offered to idols. What is an idol, anyway? “We know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one” (1 Cor. 8:4). Nevertheless, the Jerusalem Council added this warning to stay away from things contaminated by idols, so as not to needlessly offend the Jews.

Second, the Gentiles were to stay away from fornication. This does not mean simply that they were not to commit fornication. That is obvious. It is not a gray area. There was much in the apostolic teaching that prohibited every form of fornication, or sexual sin. So “abstain … from fornication” is much more than a command against acts of fornication. Since the Gentile religions revolved around sex rites, temple prostitutes, and orgiastic ritual, James was saying the Gentile believers should have nothing to do with their former ways of worship. They should not attend any ceremonies where these things were going on. They were to sever the tie completely with pagan styles of worship so repulsive to Jews.

Third, they were to abstain from the meat of strangled animals; and fourth, they were to stay away from blood. Strangled meat retains a lot of blood. Jewish law demanded that any animals to be eaten must have the blood completely drained from them. To the Jews, the eating of blood was one of the most offensive of all Gentile practices. And some pagan religious rites involved the drinking of pure animal blood. The Jerusalem Council therefore commanded Gentile believers to abstain from all such practices.

Understand the significance of this. The Jerusalem Council’s decision was an explicit condemnation of legalism. The Council refused to put the Gentiles under the Mosaic law. So why did they lay these four prohibitions on them? The reason is made clear in Acts 15:21: “For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

In other words, they were to abstain from those four things so they would not offend the Jewish unbelievers. If Christians practiced these most offensive of all Gentile rituals, unbelieving Jews might turn away from the gospel before hearing it.

Servants of a New Covenant

“All things belong to us, and we are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.” Paul made that tremendous, seemingly unqualified promise to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 3:21–23). Christians are free. Yet there is a paradox that balances that truth. Though free, all Christians are slaves. It is a new kind of bondage: we are “servants of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor. 3:6). As willing slaves, we must voluntarily restrict our own liberty for others’ sakes. Isn’t that what Jesus Himself taught? “If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all, and servant of all” (Mark 9:35). Paul applied the principle of voluntary servitude to evangelism. He made himself a slave to all—including the roughest, most contemptible, loathsome pagan. Being free, he nevertheless joyfully entered into slavery for the gospel’s sake.

This principle of voluntary slavery was pictured graphically in the Old Testament law. Exodus 21:5, 6 describes the process by which one could choose to make himself another’s servant: “If the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently.” The Israelites were permitted to keep fellow Jews as slaves only for six years. On the seventh year they were to be set free. But if one voluntarily chose to continue serving as a slave, his master would literally put his ear against the doorpost, take an awl, and drive it through the ear. The hole in the slave’s ear was a sign to all that he was serving out of love, not because he had to. Paul was saying he had voluntarily relinquished his freedom in order to serve all men. In a spiritual sense, Paul had perforated his ear on behalf of the unsaved. “Though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more” (1 Cor. 9:19).

The word translated “made … a slave” is the Greek verb douloō, “to enslave.” This is a strong expression. It is the same word used in 1 Corinthians 7:15 in relation to the marriage bond. And the same word is used in Romans 6:18, 22 to speak of our union with Christ. It describes an exceedingly secure bond. Paul had denied himself in the truest sense by placing himself under such a bond to everyone else.

The phrase “that I might win the more” is not talking about winning earthly or heavenly rewards. Paul was speaking of winning the lost to Christ. Such was Paul’s concern for lost souls that, though he was free in Christ, he was willing to enslave himself to people if it would give him an opportunity to proclaim the gospel. He expressed a similar commitment in 2 Timothy 2:10: “I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory.”

Consider all that Paul suffered for the gospel’s sake. He became a prisoner. He went to jail. He was beaten, whipped, shipwrecked, and stoned. He continually set his own life aside. Ultimately he was killed for the testimony of the gospel. He would have gone even further if it were possible. To the church at Rome Paul wrote these shocking words: “I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh” (9:23, 24). In other words, he felt as if he would have given up his own salvation if he could, so that his Jewish brethren could be saved.

In contrast, the Corinthians were demanding their rights. They were misusing their freedom at others’ expense. Weaker brothers were stumbling, and it is very likely that unbelievers were repelled by the selfishness and strife that dominated the Corinthian fellowship, so carefully chronicled in Paul’s first letter to them.

Instead Paul wanted them to follow his example. “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). And what was his example? Go back one verse, to the end of 1 Corinthians 10: “Just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved.” So the only sense in which we as believers are to be men-pleasers is in looking “not only to [our] own interests, but also to the interests of others” (Phil. 2:4, niv).

That’s the point Paul was making here. He was not advocating a marketing plan. He was not making a plea for “contextualization.” He was not suggesting that the message be made more acceptable, or that the role of preaching be replaced by psychology, skits, and worldly entertainment. He was calling for self-denial and sacrifice for the sake of proclaiming the unadulterated truth to those who do not know Christ.