Christ Chameleon...

 

Christ Chameleon

 

1 Corinthians 9:16-23
9:16 If I proclaim the gospel, this gives me no ground for boasting, for an obligation is laid on me, and woe to me if I do not proclaim the gospel! 

9:17 For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward; but if not of my own will, I am entrusted with a commission. 

9:18 What then is my reward? Just this: that in my proclamation I may make the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my rights in the gospel.

9:19 For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. 

9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. 

9:21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law) so that I might win those outside the law. 

9:22 To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. 

9:23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.

 

 

Question: Is “becoming all things to all people, that I might win some” an ethical strategy? Let’s explore this question a bit today.

 

My wife used to say that I drove her crazy by seeming to be able to carry on a conversation with about anybody, about anything. As we moved around the varied “audience” of the congregations I served, she just didn’t believe I could “know” enough to do that, without a lot of gaslighting and faking. For example, if I was chatting with a NASCAR enthusiast, I could talk about some of that group’s history, or about the kinds of cars now running their tracks. If I was conversing with someone in the medical field, I could discuss an article about some new advancement in medicine that was getting attention. Or if the topic was sports—almost any sport, including obscure ones like Irish hurling, I could hold my own. The one that caused her to “go off” on me one day, though, was when I was discussing welding techniques and hardware with a professional welder. “There is NO WAY you can POSSIBLY know something about all of those things!”, she would exclaim. Fact is, I did, and I often do, but it is not because I’m some kind of genius (believe me, I’m NOT!), but because I like to read news articles and what used to be known as “periodical literature.” When you combine a person with a voracious reading appetite, but one who isn’t as much into reading fiction, you get a proverbial “Jack of all trades, master of none” character. That’s me. The other two attributes I manifest is that I was “raised” on television shows—as many documentaries and science programs as could be found—because my dad was fascinated by the emergence of TV technology; AND I was blessed with a weird memory that just doesn’t forget too many trivial and seemingly unrelated facts. “Useless knowledge” abounds in my cranium—useless, except when used as fodder for “cocktail hour” conversations, or those before/after church ones around the coffee station. Now, if any of these casual conversations might meander its way around to theology or philosophy, the floodgates could open. THAT, my wife got, in that I was an awarded academic during my college and seminary days, and I have “kept up” my academic reading and learning. But “brush techniques” in oil painting? The latest ideas about diets and healthy nutritional practices? (I got those from some of her professional journals she left lying about.) 

 

I share this story not to boast, but to illustrate that it IS possible to take interest in a broad array of “useless” information, and even become sort of a “master” at it. Now, would it be ethical to use this information to capture the interest of some “innocent bystander” for the purpose of manipulating the conversation around to religion, for the purpose of attempting to convert them? THAT, I would struggle with. As a people-loving extrovert, I have found my “gift” most helpful in fostering conversation and in making friendly “connections” with people. Did any of these conversations, especially with parishioners, “build” any extra rapport with them, or elevate their assessment of my credibility, such that they would take more seriously the Gospel I preached? I doubt it. It might cause them to remember me, like I remember obscure knowledge, I suppose. I will say that a few of those coffee-klatch conversations that naturally DID come around to religion MAY have provided an opening for a pastor to share encouraging theological information with one of my people. All of the conversations were edifying, though, except for my wife, who DID eventually come to believe that I wasn’t “making stuff up” to foster them. (Of course, as any of you who know me KNOW, I have never been bashful about sharing my OPINIONS about things!)

 

Regarding knowledge, it is clear the Apostle Paul was WAY out of my league, having been educated under one of the most celebrated academics of his day, and having been “singled out” by the Son of God on the Damascus Road. But in this narrative, and in a couple of others where similar strategies are shared by him, it is clear that Paul goes beyond conversation in attempting “gospel” connections with folk. He actually “adopts” certain positions or behaviors, in order to get their attention, and in this regard, I’m not sure he isn’t being a bid disingenuous. Does he “pretend” to be under the Jewish law in order to sway a Jew to hear his message? If so, this may be more devious and manipulating, than clever or benevolent. And his “boast” of seeing his faith-induced humility and servanthood as the equivalent to those who were actually enslaved? This may be more delusion than disclosure. 

 

Do I believe that “saving souls” is so important that engaging in what may be a type of deception to push for a religious commitment is justified? I’m just not sure I can go that far. First of all, I believe the Spirit of God is working to bring people into a redeeming relationship with Godself. The Holy Spirit doesn’t need my “cleverness” to complete the evangelization process, and the “God’s time is not OUR time” caveat applies, as well. The assertions that “the time is short” and “the harvest is ripe” were written over two thousand years ago, and during a time of immense persecution. They don’t necessarily apply in 2024. Our human attempts to “rush the process” of introducing people to Jesus Christ may not bear the fruit we believe they will. Worse yet, they may introduce “fear” into the equation, which is rarely a productive motivator for a sustainable relationship with a God who loved us so much God sent the Only Son into the world to redeem us. In short, if we believe our efforts are ultimately essential to someone’s having a relationship with Christ, we are probably the most deluded element in the equation. 

 

So, am I trying to hang Paul out to dry? Not really. I believe what Paul is “selling” in this narrative is the idea that the church “ought” to want to share the Good News with people that we are willing to “sacrifice” ourselves to do so. I’m sure Paul is not selling deception as a strategy. After all, we are “selling” the love and grace of God, not collecting pelts. (This is why I have always winced at the term, “soul winning.”) Paul believed so profoundly in the Gospel that he believed it should be the driving “force” behind everything the church does, from feeding the poor to teaching its members the faith. Our love and benevolence is best propelled by the “wind” of God’s love behind us. This understanding helps us mature as truly humble servants of this love. False humility results when WE think we’ve gotten pretty good at “doing good” and/or “convincing” someone of their need for Christ. True humility seeks to “come alongside” folk, understanding their needs, their suffering, and “who they are” to such a degree that we can both empathize with them AND help them find the resources and connections they need to experience spiritual, physical, and emotional healing. “One beggar helping another beggar find bread,” as one wise preacher once told me. 

 

I believe Paul is “peddling” genuine love and the kind of relationship building he found helpful to himself. As a pastor, who prided himself on his scholarship and theological insights, I was often most effective LISTENING to others and serving coffee at church dinners. These and other manifestations of servanthood may have best modeled God’s love and the love God had given ME for the people I was serving, than any profound sermon or cogent, intellectual “point” I ever made. I think THIS is what Paul is trying to tell us. Others might call Paul’s suggestions, “identification.” Demonstrating God’s love, grace, and acceptance is best done by this “coming alongside” people and trying diligently and genuinely to understand their perspective and status, not in criticizing them, or “proclaiming” how wrong they were, even when that is what we may have believed.

 

To translate the Greek word, kerdaiso, translated in this passage “win,” probably doesn’t help our case. We are such a sports-crazy (and now politically polarized) society that “win” means “beat” a foe, or “prove” that we are RIGHT and the other is WRONG. This has nothing to do with the Gospel, which is precisely what I think Paul is trying to tell us! Kerdaiso has more to do with “gaining” the other, or in other words, welcoming them into our community, and even into our faith. “Identifying” with them where they are, coming in the door, also will help us meet their needs, going forward. Expecting them to “be like us” is not representing the Gospel effectively, or even appropriately. After all, we follow the one who performed the ultimate act of “identification,” which we dub the “incarnation.” As Paul well describes in Philippians, Christ “emptied himself” of the privileges of being God to come alongside humans, in order to “gain” us, or to reconcile us all to our Creator. This identification process not only fertilizes the “field” for evangelization, but it also paves the way for the kind of diverse community the church will become, necessarily. 

 

Paul is not saying that we are to become “Christ Chameleons” in order to “fool” others into believing. Instead, we are invited to come alongside others—“identify” with them in their own Sitz im Leben. This opens the door for the Holy Spirit to do her work in their lives, not only to bring them TO faith, but to then begin the process of “sanctification,” or growing INTO that faith—joining us precisely where WE all are! Amen.