This morning we continue in our study in the
book of 1 Corinthians. Our passage for today
is chapter 9, verses 19 to 23. You will notice
that it's verse 27 in the bulletin, but I determined
to stop at verse 23 today. The subject is liberty
and the stewardship of the gospel. Let us turn
to the scriptures and read this passage. Then
we'll pray and see what God has for us in this
word. Verse 19. For though I am free from all
men, I have made myself a servant 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, that I might
win those who are under the law. To those who
are without law, as without law, not being without
law toward God, but under law toward Christ,
that I might win those who are without law. To
the weak, I became as weak, that I might win
the weak. I have become all things to all men,
that I might by all means save some. Now this
I do, for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker
of it with you. And let's ask the Lord's blessing
on this time. Oh, Father, we are gripped by these
words this morning, Lord. And we pray that we
might sense this passion and power in Paul, Lord.
And I pray, Lord, that we might apply it to us.
Lord, I pray that you would give us a burden
and a passion for the lost, like is expressed
here. And we pray, Father, that as we open up
this word today, that you might grip our hearts,
that you would open up your word and cause us
to understand and be deeply affected by it to
the changing and the improvement of our own lives.
We ask this in Jesus' name. Amen. Martin Luther,
in his treatise, The Freedom of a Christian,
wrote these words. A Christian... is a perfectly
free Lord of all, subject to none. A Christian
is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject
to all. This, in a nutshell, is the paradox of
Christian liberty as taught by the Apostle Paul
in 1 Corinthians chapter 8 and 9. Now there are
a number of paradoxes in the scripture. Statements
or doctrines that look contradictory at the first,
but are held together by complementary truths.
There are paradoxes such as theological mysteries,
such as the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
three persons, one God. Or there's the doctrines
of divine sovereignty and human responsibility.
Of the incarnation. How Jesus is both fully God
and fully man in one person. Then there are also
rhetorical or kingdom paradoxes. Like the ones
in Matthew chapter 10 that Jesus says. Whosoever
finds his life shall lose it. And whoever loses
his life for Christ's sake will find it. Or the
one in Matthew 20 verse 16. The last shall be
first and the first. shall be last. Paul has
just defended his apostolic right to material
support in verses 1 to 14. And then he explained
why he refused to use that right in verses 15
to 18. And now he shows the same principle and
paradox in the wider work of the gospel. That
is, freedom and liberty are used to serve and
not to just do. what you want. It is a trust.
It is given with a stewardship like the administration
of an estate. In other words, liberty is something
that we hold in our hands as given by God, but
it's a stewardship unto God and must be used
in accordance with his desires for it. Great
freedom, but also responsibility. In the passage
before us today, Paul is going to explain another
aspect of Christian liberty and freedom. Once
again, let's do a real quick review. What is
Christian liberty? It is freedom from sin, even
as we see and experience in the Lord's Supper,
and we remember the death of Christ. We have
been set free from the dominion, from the control,
and from the manipulation of sin, and our sins
are gone. They are washed away in the blood of
Christ. We are free from sin. Secondly, freedom
is freedom from the ceremonies and the regulations
that are now fulfilled in Jesus Christ. For he
is our high priest and our sacrifice as detailed
in the book of Hebrews. We are the new temple
of Christ and thus we have liberty. The third
aspect of liberty is that we are free from the
doctrines and commandments of men that seek to
bind our consciences in a wrong way. Our conscience
must be bound to the word of God and not to the
doctrines and commandments of men. And finally,
liberty is freedom to choose our own course in
all things that are indifferent. That is, things
that are neither commanded nor forbidden in the
Holy Scriptures. This fourth aspect is the aspect
of Christian liberty that is the subject of today's
portion of Scripture. And so we're going to be
looking at this more carefully. Nevertheless,
in all of our actions, our liberty must always
be accompanied with love, with wisdom, and with
self -discipline. Back in chapter 7, Paul reminded
the Corinthians that as freed men in Christ,
they were free because they were bought with
a price. And this price was the shed blood of
Jesus. But because they were bought, they were
also Christ's servants. And in this passage,
Paul builds upon this in the preceding verses.
And he shows how that serving Christ must include
aspects of servanthood in the winning of others
to Christ. Why is this? Because he and we also
are entrusted with a stewardship, that is with
the administration of the estate of God. He speaks
of this in verse 17. This has been committed
to us so that we might win some who may be saved
and won to Christ. The proposition. that encompasses
this passage or this portion of scripture is
simply this. The apostle who is free from all
men makes himself a slave and a servant to all
so that some may be saved and he himself may
share in the gospel's prize. For Paul, this meant
that sometimes he gave up some of his liberties
so that he could be more effective. The goal.
was that people would be saved from sin and brought
into a new life, that they might live as the
people of God in all of that glorious life, that
life of glory and beauty and order and majesty,
freed from sin and living that life. So let's
now look at the aspects of which he speaks. We
begin with the paradox of liberty and freedom
in verse 19. He says, for though I am free from
all men, I have made myself a servant to all
that I might win the more. Paul is free from
all men. That is, no man owns him. He is under
no human obligation that can bind his conscience
apart from the word of God. He asserted this
in the beginning of this chapter in verse one,
when he said, am I not an apostle? Am I not free?
And now he builds on this. I am free from all.
He was not owned by any patrons, as was common
in Corinth, nor was he beholden to anyone there.
He had been sent out with a commission by the
church of Antioch, but as an apostle, he was
at liberty. He was a free man, and yet he makes
himself a servant to all. The word is doulos.
It's a strong word, meaning one who's brought
into bondage. One who is, even going as far as
a slave. His freedom is not used for self. It
was spent to win more. The prominent church father,
Chrysostom, said that Paul's attitude reflects
his, quote, zeal and love for Christ and his
insatiable desire for the salvation of mankind,
end quote. Now this verse is a bit of poetry
or even a chiasm. A chiasm makes several points
and then follows after making counterpoints in
the same order. Now this is a real short one,
but we have the first part, being free from all
people. To all people, I am a servant and slave.
See how that corresponds together? He then goes
and gives examples of how he became a servant.
to win others. But first, let's consider a few
notes before we go there. Paul is adapting himself
to cultural realities on matters that are indifferent.
He does not accommodate himself to sin, nor will
he water down the gospel. That is very important
to keep in mind as we're going through and we
look at this. This is not about compromising
the gospel or living in sin. It's rather doing
certain things when he's with certain people
on matters that are indifferent. It's okay if
you do or if you don't do them. And when he was
with them, he would do some things here and other
things here. We'll get into that in just a minute.
He accommodated himself. to the customs, the
manners, and the way of doing things with the
people with whom he was ministering at the time,
as long as it did not violate the moral law of
God. His goal was to serve in order to gain the
more for the sake of the gospel and of truth.
And so he speaks as a missionary bringing the
gospel to the lost. Now, how could a free man
like this, Become a servant in this way. Was
this by compulsion? Did some external force in
somebody else in the church of Jerusalem or someone
else say you must do it this way? You must be
a servant like this? Did others command him or
attempt to put him under their authority in this?
No. The answer is no. Even the elders at the
church in Jerusalem in Acts 21 did not require
him, but requested. They asked him if he could
accommodate the Jews there by taking a vow and
shaving his head and performing some of the customs.
They did not command. So the solution to this
paradox then is this. Paul did this willingly
and not by compulsion. To live under compulsion
on matters like this, is tyranny. And God has
set us free from the tyranny of men, even well
-meaning ones. But to voluntarily give up freedoms,
especially for the sake of the gospel, that is
a different matter altogether. This is what Paul
did. And he gives three examples of what he did
and how he did it. That is our second point.
The three adaptations that Paul made. The first,
it is in verse 20 through 22a. It is to the Jews
and those under the law. I believe he's speaking
of the same people here. So I included this together
as one point. To the Jews I became as a Jew that
I might win Jews. To those under the law as under
the law that I might win those who are under
the law. Paul, as a Jew, was able to engage in
various Jewish activities and customs. And so,
for example, when he would go to a new city,
he would go into their synagogue, and he would
stand and read the word when requested, as they
often did. He was a Jewish rabbi, and they would
ask... often asked visiting people to stand and
to read the word of God and then to give the
sense of it. Although they sat down for their
preaching instead of standing like we do. So
they would read the word and then sit down and
explain the word. Paul did this. When with them,
he lived and he acted like a Jew. When he came
to Jerusalem. I mentioned this already. The elders
asked him to perform certain things like a Jew.
This is recounted in Acts 21. He took a vow,
he was purified with them, and he shaved his
head so that he showed how he walked orderly
and kept the law among them. In other words,
there was nothing off -putting about Paul in
his dress, in his customs, or in his manners
that would alienate a Jew at first glance. and
thus the Jew would hear the gospel from him.
Now, after the presentation of the gospel, he
might then be thrown out because of his proclamation
of the gospel. Actually, this occurred in the
city of Corinth. They heard it first. He went
into the synagogue, and he preached the word,
and they did not like it, so they cast him out.
Ironically, he goes into the house of justice.
He's a man who worshiped God. And guess where
his house was? Right next to the synagogue. Right
next to the synagogue. And so much was the power
of God there in Corinth that Crispus, the ruler
of the synagogue, believed with all of his household
and many other Corinthians believed and were
baptized. Paul continued there for a year and
six months. God does have a sense of humor sometimes.
Now Barnes writes how Paul did not needlessly
offend them, did not attack and oppose their
views when there was no danger that his conduct
should be mistaken. He complied with their rights,
their customs, even their prejudices in some
ways, not teaching them, but complying with them.
Henry says, though he looked on the ceremonial
law as a yoke taken off by Christ, yet in many
instances he submitted to it that he might work
upon the Jews, remove their prejudices, prevail
with them to hear the gospel, and win them over
to Christ. Now keep in mind that the Jews went
far beyond what was prescribed in the Old Testament
as far as the law, the ceremonial law. They had
many, many... hundreds, even thousands of other
customs and practices as revealed in what they
called the oral law. That was the law that was
handed down from rabbi to rabbi, from generation
to generation, and this just kept building on
and on and on and on. It still exists today.
Now, some of it is actually written down as just
a recording of the oral law, but it's a huge
book of laws, some of them very, very minute.
And I've spoken of this before. I'm not going
to get into it all today for the sake of time.
But they did this. They had tons of burdensome
regulations and legislation that minutely regulated
every area of their lives. Jesus speaks about
this, for example, in their whole thing of washing
cups and platters. He said they did this, but
they omitted weightier matters of the law. And
Jesus rebuked them for this in Mark chapter 6.
Now as an example of how far Paul would go, but
no further, let's consider a case study of how
he handled the cases regarding circumcision in
two of the young men that he discipled. Note
this very carefully. The first was Timothy. Now
Timothy's mother was a Jew, but his father was
a Greek. And so Paul determined that it would
be advantageous for Timothy to be circumcised,
not because of obeying the ceremonial law, no,
but in order that Timothy would be more effective
as a witness to the Jews in Paul's ministry.
Acts 16 .3 records this. Paul wanted to have
him go on with him. This is Timothy. And he took
him and circumcised him because of the Jews who
were in that region, for they all knew that his
father was Greek. Paul saw that Timothy could
have a more effective ministry if he simply would
be circumcised. And so he did it. Titus, however,
was a Greek, did not have a Jewish father or
mother. And Paul... absolutely refused to require
him to be circumcised. He writes in Galatians
2, verse 3 -5, Yet not even Titus, who was with
me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.
And this occurred because of false brethren secretly
brought in, who came in by stealth to spy out
our liberty, which we have in Christ Jesus, that
they might bring us into bondage, to whom we
did not yield submission even for an hour. that
the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
In the case of Titus, the very face and the principle
of Christianity was on the line. And what is
that? That one did not need to become a Jew in
order to be saved. It was so clear. And so Paul
would not compromise in that case. He would not
accommodate himself to the Judaizers on this
matter. Two examples, two young men. With the
one he did this, with the other he did this,
and for very good reason for both. Though he
complied with the ceremonial law and with many
of the other practices, he did so without placing
himself under the law as a way of justification.
Now this took great wisdom and care, or as we
might say today in our language, he threaded
the needle very carefully. He watched over this
with very careful to determine what the best
effect would be. He had to take great care to
emphasize grace and justification to a people
who believed they were saved by keeping the law
or that by being circumcised, they were saved
or that circumcision even was necessary for salvation.
And yet he did not needlessly offend them. or
create a barrier to the gospel. He did not want
to put an unnecessary stumbling block before
them, for the doctrine of Christ was in itself
already a major stumbling block to those who
would not believe. He loved them. He loved his
people. He wanted them with all of his heart
to know Christ. In fact, in Romans 9, verse 1
through 5, he writes how he had great sorrow
and continual grief in his heart for his brethren,
his countrymen, according to the flesh. And so
he served them and gave up some of his liberty
so that they might hear the word and be saved.
This is how he did it to the Jews. Then he goes
on to the next one, that is to the Gentiles.
This is verse 21. He describes them as those
without law. Of course, the Gentiles at that
time were mostly Greeks and Romans in his area
of ministry, and they were described as those
without law. So he says, to them, verse 21, who
were without law, as without law, that he might
win those who are without law. So to the Gentiles,
he did not present himself as a converted Jew.
but rather he conducted himself as a Greek or
a Roman in many ways. Again, he accommodated
himself to their manners and to their customs
in ways that would not set an artificial stumbling
block to them. He did not participate with them
in their idolatry, of course, but he met with
them in their various places. He lived among
them. He ate and associated with them. And he
worked a trade that was useful among them. He
sought with all his heart to win them to Christ.
Now there's a phrase here that needs more explanation
because it is sometimes misunderstood. He inserts
this parenthetical statement in the midst of
this verse. He says, not being without law toward
God, but under law toward Christ. So let me just
read this verse again, just so that you get the
full sense of it. To those who are without law
as without law, not being without law toward
God, but under law toward Christ, that I might
win those who are without law. What does he mean
by this? He wanted to make sure that the Corinthians
and we, that we do not think that he was advocating
being without law toward God when he talks here
about free from the law or not being under law.
What does he mean by this? Is he dismissing all
of the Mosaic law in the Old Testament and that
all of the law has now been completely replaced
by Christ as something? Are we to unhitch the
New Testament from the Old Testament as Stanley
teaches or as the ancient heretic Marcion taught?
No, certainly not. Rather, based on all of the
teachings of Paul on this matter throughout the
New Testament, I think he simply means that he
did not follow the ceremonial laws and the customs
and the manners of the Jews when with the Gentiles,
but he was still under the law in light of Christ
or toward Christ. In this, he illustrates how
we are to understand and view the law of God.
The moral law of God is binding for all times,
in all places, and in all ages. In other words,
thou shalt not commit adultery applied to them.
It applies to all the people, all the world in
Paul's day, and it applies to all the world in
our day. This is part of the unchanging moral
law of God. The Ten Commandments are a summary
of that law, and we are to seek to keep that
law in light of Christ. The law is to love the
Lord our God with all of our heart, our soul,
our mind, and our strength, and to love our neighbor
as ourselves. This is the moral law, even as
Jesus himself said in Matthew 22, verse 40. On
these two commandments hang all the law and the
prophets. Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount,
Do not think that I am come to destroy the law
or the prophets. I did not come to destroy, but
to fulfill. For assuredly I say to you, till
heaven and earth pass from the law, I'm sorry,
till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one
tittle will by no means pass from the law till
all is fulfilled. Matthew 5, 17 and 18. Let's
put this all together. Jesus fulfilled all the
laws of ceremonies, of sacrifice, of diet, of
certain separations in his own death. He atoned
for them in our sins and fulfilled all that pointed
forward to him. But in other areas, he tightened
the law. He showed that the law is not just something
where you just keep, for example, from adultery,
but you also keep from coveting. And if you covet
someone, then you're actually breaking the law
and you're guilty. He tightened the law. He showed
up the heart. He sent the Holy Spirit to help
us to walk in them. I believe this is what Paul
means with this phrase here. Yes, the moral law
of God is applicable. Absolutely. So when Paul
says he is without law, it's certain portions
of the law that would be particularly noticeable
to the Gentiles in some areas, but others that
would still be quite noticeable, he did not flinch.
Again, we'll see this idolatry. sexual immorality,
and so on and so forth. Not without law toward
Christ. In seeking to win those without law,
Paul again was careful not to minimize the commandments
of God. He taught against idolatry, against adultery,
against fornication, and all other sexual sins.
He taught against lying, against stealing, against
coveting. Christian liberty does not mean that
I get to do just whatever I want and then ask
God for forgiveness on the matters on the areas
where I've sinned. No, Christian liberty is fenced
by God's word and his law. It is not unrestrained
practice. But Paul would eat meat that was offered
to idols if it did not somehow sanction idolatry.
He mingled with them in the marketplaces, in
their homes. He used illustrations of their sports.
He read their poets, even quoting one of their
own to the Athenians on Mars Hill. He refused
to impose Jewish identity markers, and he practiced
table fellowship without ritual separation. He
used their own language, their own literature,
and their starting points. He lived among them
as a former Pharisee, but without the Pharisaic
wall of separation. And he insisted that the
gospel itself remain pure and unencumbered with
unnecessary Jewish accoutrements. As it is written,
in short, Paul laid down every non -moral covenant
boundary practice that would have forced Gentiles
to become Jews first. He kept every moral demand
of God as now expressed in the law toward Christ.
The goal was not cultural blending just for its
own sake, but the removal of needless stumbling
blocks so that the only offense left would be
the cross of Christ. This is how he did it with
those Who were not under the law. Thirdly then
he says to the weak. This is the first part of
verse 22. To the weak I became as weak. That
I might win the weak. What's he saying here?
I think he's simply restating the concern. Back
in chapter 8 verses 9 to 13. Remember how we
dealt with that. He said. Beware, lest somehow
this liberty of yours become a stumbling block
to those who are weak. For if anyone sees you
who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple,
will not the conscience of him who is weak be
emboldened to eat those things offered to idols?
And because of your knowledge shall the weak
brother perish for whom Christ died? But when
you thus sin against the brethren and wound their
weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore,
If food makes my brother stumble, I will never
again eat meat lest I make my brother stumble.
And what he's saying here is, this is the restatement
of this, that he would not eat in an idol's temple.
He would not eat food offered to idols if it
would wound the weak conscience of a brother
and cause him to lose faith and to stumble. He
did not despise them or judge them. When with
them, he did not use his liberty in a way that
would wound. A brother's conscience. But through
teaching. He did seek to gain them. How? By enlightening
their conscience. By enlightening their conscience
with the word of God. To bring them into the
liberty of Christ. But doing it without alienation.
And thus he pursued the things which make for
peace. And by which one could edify another.
Paul writes of this more extensively in Romans
chapter 14. We're not going to go there today,
but he gets into good detail on that and how
that a weak brother, the church is to receive
without dissimulation, but understand also that
he is weak in this. And therefore we accept,
we receive, but at the same time, we teach the
word of God. To the weak, I became as weak. Three
illustrations of how Paul accommodated himself
to minister to those to whom he was teaching
and preaching at that time. Now, number three
is in verse 22 to 23. This is the overarching,
the governing purpose of Paul's life and why
he gets into this. He says, I have become all
things to all men that I might by all means save
some. Now I do this for the gospel's sake that
I may be partaker of it with you. He says, I
become all things to all men. Why? So that I
might save them. So that they might hear the
word of God. This was the burning passion in
his life. This was his desire, his overwhelming
and strong desire that he would win them to Christ.
All of the accommodation, all of the giving up
of rights and of liberties on a personal level
was so that others would hear the gospel. He
sought to remove every stumbling block that he
could. that they would hear the gospel and be
saved. Note, this is not people pleasing. This
was not doctrinal compromise, nor was this syncretism,
which is mixing two religions in order to smooth
away differences. No, the limit is under law
toward Christ, and the motive is for the gospel's
sake, that he would be partaker of the gospel
with them. That he would win others and share
the blessings of the gospel. They could worship
together and receive eternal life. This ultimately
emphasized a strong missionary thrust of this
passage. Certainly there are other implications
and applications. But this was so that his preaching
to the lost would be effective. I have become
all things to all men. In order to save some.
This then is the meaning of this passage. I believe
this is a true teaching. But let us consider.
a number of further applications and considerations.
Why do I do this? Well, normally I have a time
of application, but I'm doing this in greater
detail today because this passage has been twisted.
It has been misused. It has been overextended
in ways far beyond what the apostle meant when
he wrote it. So we're going to look at a number
of these and just say, this is not what was meant.
This was meant, and so forth, as we consider
it. But first, Pillar Commentary makes this excellent
point. The Christian church could have simply
decided that the gospel was a Jewish message.
It was sent throughout the world and the proper
response to the gospel should result in adopting
the same cultural incarnation in all places.
In that way, Christians would all look and act
the same, all have the same culture or be identical
wherever and whenever they lived. Indeed. This
is the approach that some groups and churches
take even to this day. Our background was one
that was like that. Wherever they would go, they
would pretty much look and dress and act the
same way. You could go to almost any church and
it would be pretty much identical. They continued,
Paul understands that the gospel does not belong
to any particular culture. As the gospel takes
root among different peoples and cultures, its
essence will remain the same, but its look and
feel may be somewhat different. This is how we
can go into a church, into another country, and
we can be at home because the gospel is preached,
and yet there are things that just look and feel
differently, and it might be in a whole number
of different areas, of non -essential areas.
And yet, we can worship the Lord together. The
gospel was not a Jewish message sent throughout
the world that created or resulted in adopting
exactly the same cultural incarnation in every
place. No, we are true. We are in essence the
same, but the look and the feel can be somewhat
different. Secondly, we should seek to remove
unnecessary obstacles. to the gospel, becoming
all things to all men in order to save some,
especially in a missionary context, which is
what Paul was coming from here, especially in
a missionary context. Hudson Taylor, the great
evangelist and discipler and pastor in China
in the 1800s, he is a great example of this.
After living in China as an Englishman, He determined
that it would be to the advantage of the gospel
if he would dress, instead of looking like an
Englishman, if he would dress like a Chinese
man. Now this received great opposition from
some quarters, but he determined... Probably
based on this passage and others that this would
be the most wise way for him to minister. He
did so and it was tremendously effective. It
had an incredible impact because now the Chinese
no longer heard it as the Englishman's gospel
or a foreign gospel. It was rather now a gospel
for them. And the Lord used that to mightily,
mightily grow the church in China, which still
exists today. God's people there. They're there
by the millions, despite living under communism
and persecution. Yet the church of God is very
strong. The church of Christ is very strong in
the country of China. Part of that happened because
of the efforts of Hudson Taylor. Remove unnecessary
obstacles to the gospel. So we need to think
about that. Are there certain unnecessary obstacles
that we might face? It is something for us to
consider. Thirdly, all things to all men is and
must be bounded by the law of Christ. Now, I've
already emphasized this, but I'm going to bring
this just here as a special point. Flexibility
in indifferent things. but inflexibility in the
gospel and the moral law of God. If God's people
are offended by our obedience to God's law, so
be it. I'm sorry, if people are, if the people
surrounding us are offended by our obedience,
then so be it. Nor is Paul saying that we should
be like them in excess. Peter describes this
in 1 Peter chapter 4, verse 1 to 4. Therefore,
since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm
yourselves also with the same mind. For he who
has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin,
that he no longer should live the rest of his
time in the flesh for the lusts of men, but for
the will of God. For we have spent enough of
our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles
when we walked in lewdness, lust, drunkenness,
revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries.
In regard to these, they think it strange that
you do not run with them in the same flood of
dissipation, speaking evil of you. This is not
what Paul is talking about. Not going to this
extent. No. Therefore, we can only conform to
others' ways or manners or scruples in matters
indifferent, that is, things of neutrality in
areas where God has not spoken. These are matters
where it does not sin to practice or to refrain
from practicing. But we cannot conform to sinful
practices. This is not a license for unlimited
flexibility. David Garland is very clear on this
as he writes. He says, Paul does not think that
fundamental and distinctive demands are negotiable
depending on the circumstances. He did not tone
down his assault on idolatry. to avoid offending
idolaters or to curry favor with them. His accommodation
has nothing to do with watering down the gospel
message, with soft peddling its ethical demands
or compromising its absolute monotheism. Paul
never modified the message of Christ crucified
to make it less of a scandal to Jews or less
foolish to Greeks. End quote. Now done inappropriately.
This can have great harm. I'm threading the needle
for you, okay? I used that illustration before
because we have to look at this very carefully.
When this is done inappropriately, it can have
great harm and we must be mindful of this. One
example, and this is a pretty egregious one,
is the seeker -sensitive movement. In the decades...
of the late 1980s through the early 2000s. They
used this passage as a charter text and as an
affirmation of their strategy, but it had many,
many problems. So much did it have an effect
that their habits are still quite common in many
evangelical churches, especially, I would say,
megachurches. In its heyday, Willow Creek Association
conferences trained thousands of pastors. Contemporary
music, drama, felt -need preaching, casual dress,
and auditorium -style rooms spread widely throughout
evangelical and non -denominational churches.
By the 1990s, the model was the default successful
church pattern in much of American evangelicalism.
In 2007, Willow Creek's own reveal study reported
that the model was better at attracting attenders
than making disciples. Better at attracting attenders
than making disciples. disciples. Bill Hybel's
2018 resignation and subsequent attendance declines
at flagship churches marked the end of its cultural
dominance. Nevertheless, many churches have kept
the production values in casual style, but have
dropped the seeker -sensitive label. So what
went wrong? What can we learn from this? There's
a number of things, but I'm going to list four.
And I list this because it is still very pertinent
today. The effects of this are very much with
us in our culture. First of all, they used Paul's
missionary flexibility as a blueprint for redesigning
the gathered church. They turned the time of
worship and edification of the saints into a
performance show. A performance show with lighting,
music, and atmosphere to match. But the Lord's
day service is not primarily for evangelism.
It is the household of God. It is to be properly
ordered by the word and sacrament, by prayer
and holiness. Paul himself will address some
of the disorderliness in the Corinthians to the
Corinthians in the following chapters. He accommodated
himself as he went out, but he did not remodel
the assembly of the saints so that it would be
familiar or feel familiar to people still walking
as the Gentiles walk. When the gathering of the
saints is rebuilt around the taste, the attention
span, and the comfort of the unregenerate, this
principle has been inverted. It is not right.
It is not good to do so. Secondly, They treated
some moral and theological issues or matters
as if they were the same as ceremonial and cultural.
Oh, you want to do this? It's okay. And I can
name a whole bunch of things in there. It's okay.
It's a matter of liberty. We can have liberty
in this. And so consequently, you had floods
of couples living together in immorality or being
unmarried. on and on, I could go with it. No,
Paul laid down circumcision and food laws and
ritual separation. He laid it down, but he never
laid down the offense of the cross, the call
to repentance, the moral law, or the demand that
believers put off the old man. Seeker -sensitive
practices routinely softened sin, judgment, holiness,
and the cost of discipleship so that the room
would stay comfortable. This is not as without
law. Rather, it is becoming without the law of
Christ. Thirdly, they located the primary evangelistic
event inside the worship service rather than
outside of it. Paul reasoned in synagogues and
marketplaces, but then formed churches that belonged
to Christ. The seeker model made Sunday morning
the main outreach event and therefore made the
service itself the thing that had to be inoffensive.
Music, dress, architecture, length, and even
the sermon were calibrated to the outsider's
felt needs. The result was often a room full
of people who liked the church more than they
feared God. Lastly, they measured success by
attraction rather than conversion to holiness.
In this, they fostered a consumer mindset rather
than an active worshiper. Why do we have so many
responsive readings? Why do we sing so much?
Why do we have participation in the way that
we do? All of this is because we are gathered
here to worship God together. You're not to just
come here and sit and just be a consumer and
say, okay, what are you going to feed me today?
Now, yes, it's my responsibility to preach the
word for sure, but we're active participants.
We pray, we stand, we sing, we lift our hands
to God. We look to him. The brothers take part
in the reading of the scripture because we are
collectively a body of Christ and we worship
God together. We don't just come and think that
we're worshiping because there's a great band
up front and because the speaker meets the felt
needs that I have today. May that never be the
case here, but rather that we would be active
worshipers of God together. Paul's goal was to
win people, to bring them under the lordship
of Christ, not merely to get them in the door.
Now later data from the movement's own flagship
churches showed the predictable fruit. Many attenders
simply remained consumers. They had been accommodated
to and not called out of the world. This is a
powerful and poignant example of how not to interpret
this passage. I spent this amount of time on
this, which I don't normally do, but it's because
this is the foundational passage that was used
to support all of this. And we need to understand
that and why we do not want to do that. Number
five, we should not conform in matters indifferent
if others are interpreting it as a matter of
moral law. If we make them think that our conformity
is part of the moral law, then we should not
do it. What I mean here is Paul's example with
Titus. They thought that it should be, some of
the Jews, the Judaizers, they thought this was
a requirement of the moral law. And so Paul specifically
did not circumcise Titus, or did not have him
circumcised, so that they would not think that
in any way. As a matter indifferent, but they
were interpreting as a matter of moral law. Number
six. When we do conform to others in manners
or scruples, we are not putting ourselves in
a position of always doing so in every place.
The practices can conform to the various areas
and locations of ministry as needed. Paul did
not always practice the Jewish things when he
was with the Gentiles, but only when he was with
some of the Jews. And so consequently, when we
conform, it is not necessarily saying that we
have to do it in every place, wherever we go,
and no matter where or what culture we are in.
Among Christians, we must discern, though, if
our practice and our freedom will cause others
to offend and truly stumble or not. That is that
by our liberty, we are actually causing spiritual
harm. If not, If this is not the case, we are
not required to abide by their scruples, even
or although we might choose to do so. What I'm
saying is this. The practice of our liberties
among those who merely disagree with us is not
prohibited in the scripture. It is not prohibited.
It is only if we're causing someone to stumble.
In other words, when you come from various...
backgrounds, whatever it might be, perhaps your
family or somewhere, they don't like what you're
doing. Or it's not pleasing to them because you're
departing in some tradition that they think you
should be. But you practicing your liberty does
not cause them to stumble. It's just that they
don't like it. You have the freedom to do so.
You have to determine whether it's expedient
or wise or not to exercise your freedom. But
it's okay if you do. You're not prohibited from
the scripture from doing it. But then there are
also those Christians who see every decision
in life as a moral obligation before God. This
is why they agonize over every decision to make
sure that they are within the parameters of God's
will. But we must understand God has not revealed
everything to us. There is much liberty in the
law of God and in the word of God. And thus we
can delight in this liberty and live within it
as free men and women. And this is where, again,
we need to be a light to those who are held captive.
And sometimes they are agonized. Should I marry
this particular girl? I might be attracted to
this one over here. But I think, you know, I
need to know. God, I need you to reveal to me.
Must it be this one? Or should I move to this
place? Or on and on. We can go. And so we agonize
and agonize. When God has given to us wisdom,
discernment. even possibly looking for opportunity
or open doors or closed doors. But at the same
time, we are free in Christ to choose what it
is that we believe we should do. It's liberty.
The overriding thrust of this passage is a missionary
thrust. That is that we are willing to be a servant
of all in order that we may win them to Christ.
This requires both sensitivity and boldness.
For example, consider the abortion clinic ministry.
Sometimes, especially those who promote this,
the doctors and providers may need hellfire and
brimstone preaching. They need this. They need
to hear the solemn call and the warning about
what they are doing. But for the women coming,
Perhaps it's more effective for sidewalk counselors
to combine the telling of the truth with sin,
but about the sin, but also to extend compassion
and help and the hope of Christ. Again, embodying
by all means, save some. There are different
ways of approach. We need to use wisdom to seek
to bring them to Christ. Therefore, brothers
and sisters, may we be free sons and daughters
of Christ. Free men. and free women who live
in the light and the glory of Christ. May we
always be about the gospel, that transforming
power of God to put sin to death, to become a
new man and a new woman, and to be incorporated
into the people of God and the kingdom of Christ.
Let us then pray and commit this to the Lord.