"I have become all things to all people"

I preached this week on the lectionary text from First Corinthians this week (9:16-26). I love the text for a variety of reasons but as it was still rolling around in my head this morning something occurred to me, I probably would not have liked Paul in real life. There is something about his tone that I think would have just annoyed me too much. At least in this chapter he comes across as supremely arrogant to me. His staunch claims of needing no reward and must preach the gospel out of compunction seems to demeen anyone who behaves differently. And then there are his brazenly politicing with regards to the gospel. Paul is willing to play whatever part is needed in order to spread the gospel. I both love and hate this idea. On the one hand I think that a lot of great progess has been made for the church at times when it realized that it needed to do something different in order to reach people. The church has often failed the most when it takes on a come to us, be like us attitude, rather than a willingness to realize that some people do not like what they see and do not want to god where they see the church. My wife watches a show on TLC that gives fashion tips to those who really need it. Still the way that this advice is given is not always in the most loving of ways. What occurs is really closer to an intervention and the end result is that almost everyone on the shows comes out looking about the same, they look good, but they look about the same. Is that what we want in the church? Is that what Paul wanted?

Some of what is not clear in this text is what Paul means when he claims to be all things to all people. Is he making a claim to do the ultimate bait-and-switch, that he lures Jews in with the understanding of law only to tell them their is no law, and lures Gentiles in the same way but reversed? Or is Paul instead emphasizing an understanding of Christ as being under the law to Jews and Christ being beyond the law to Gentiles? Is he meeting them in the middle or suckering them over to his side? I kind hope it is the first but something about his tone makes me think the second. Paul makes a third claim as well, to the weak he becomes weak in order to win more over to the gospel. Up until now Paul has operated with a dichotmy, playing both sides, but Paul makes no mention of becoming strong to win over the strong. What goes without saying in this text is that Paul considers himself strong, and needs to make no efforts towards that particular group. He may be one of the most successful church planters ever, but he just is so insufferable at times that I struggle to find the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in his almost self-congratulatory claims. Paul maybe the reason a lot of people have found the gospel, but I would be willing to bet he is also the reason a number of people have not found the gospel.

I was reading in Time today about a war being fought on the buses of London, it was started first by atheist but the battle was quickly joined by Christians of a variety of persuasions. Both sides were buying ad space on the buses to spread their religious or anti-religious messages. The one that caught my eye was one done by a Christian group that quoted Psalm 14, that fool says in their heart they do not believe in God. The not so subtle implication of course being that all these atheists and their billboards were fools. Ignoring the logical fallicy of such a claim, to me it was a bad thing because it did not reach out to those doubting or question God, but instead brushed them aside, mocked them, questioned them. In addition to being an incorrect assessment of the "if then" proposition to was also an ad hominen argument, assailing not the ideas of the person but instead calling into question who they were. It was one more strong arm tactic of a self-assured Christian.

The final blow, or final tipping point for me in all of this came when I heard on the radio today someone bemoaning that Obama was looking weak in seeking compromise compared to the GOP and their tactics. I would actually agree to some extent, but what I actually object to is this constant belief that compromise is weak, and really that weak is bad. Paul seemed to think it was that way, needing to reach the weak but still asserting his own strength, his own ultimate ability to be everything for everyone. I guess where I keep finding myself going in all of this is, is there a place for a weak evangelist, someone who reaches out, not in the strength of their own truth, but instead in the weakness of wanting to seek also, and how does one do so effectively? Can someone with some certainty earnestly seek along those without certainty? Is it weakness to acknowledge that my own understandings might be wrong? Is that sort of weakness a bad thing? Not sure where this has gone, how comprehensible it was, or where it leads to, so if you have made it this far and feel your time has been wasted, I offer you a full refund. Have a nice day.