So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved. (I Cor 10:31-32).

As I was thinking on this text earlier today, it struck me in a way that profoundly affected me. In trying to live as one holy and set apart from this world, I have actually forsaken the delight of sharing Christ with other people. Not that being set apart means inevitable separation from non-believers — actually it’s quite the contrary. Rather, my approach to holiness has become flawed: ‘So they think I’m weird? So they find it hard to talk to me? Well of course they do. I’m holy. I’m not of this world.’ In biblical reality, Paul sets the example here that being holy means that Christians behave themselves in such a way that they are approachable. While we should be obviously different to non-believers, our desire to see them come to Christ means that we become the kind of person that pleases non-believers. Holiness does not equal unfriendliness.

I think one of the reasons why I fall into this way of thinking and practice is because the labels of introversion and extroversion are too firmly rooted in the way I think about myself and others.

In fact I’ve often considered myself to be an introvert. I’ve even been labeled by numerous personality tests as an introvert. I’m not the kind of person who usually looks for a conversation when I’m in a crowd, and I’m certainly not accustomed to or desirous of being the center of attention in almost any setting. Usually I’m the one who breaks awkward moments of silence, not because I want to do so, but because I simply don’t like feeling awkward.

Sometimes I catch myself thinking that my personality is a legitimate excuse to avoid conversations with people. Such thoughts take place in the dimly lit part of my mind, whereupon first glance there appears to be no one and nothing there, but if more careful attention is given, I can hear a very small voice whispering with the quietest sound humanly possible. That voice is saying to me, “Seth, you are an introvert. Just be yourself. It would be against your nature to go and speak to that person. Don’t trouble yourself. Besides, you have important things to do, like drive home and eat lunch.”

But what exactly is introversion? For that matter, what is extroversion? These are two concepts that the general population readily accepts as true and meaningful in defining the varieties of human nature. Truth be told, these actual terms were not coined until twentieth-century psychiatrist Carl Jung. Although the observation that different personalities exist is not new, the contrast between extroversion and introversion, as the concepts are strictly defined, is quite new. That being said, I think it is very important to avoid liberal use of these terms in a biblical context. Albeit these are handy little words, and we seem to be fond of using them often. “Oh, don’t mind Uncle John, he’s just a bit more extroverted than other people.” “Oh, don’t think that Susan’s quiet nature means she doesn’t like you, she’s just introverted.” Could it be that John’s so-called extroversion is more accurately defined as rudeness or obnoxiousness? Could it be that Susan’s so-named introversion is more precisely labeled selfishness?

I don’t mean to suggest that these concepts are necessarily wrong. In fact, I think that they can be quite useful. I think it is fairly apparent that God made some to be more reserved and internal, while He made others to be more outgoing and gregarious. I am merely suggesting that for a proper biblical understanding of human personality, Christians ought to carefully consider the concepts of introversion and extroversion. They are, after all, secular ideas, derived from the mind of a non-believer, and in case it isn’t obvious, the concepts of these words are in fact non-biblical.

So that brings us back to the biblical text. How does this particular text address the issue of personality? Interestingly, it says nothing about Paul’s personality and instead places the emphasis on everyone else around Paul. Paul does not focus on relationships with non-believers in the context of his personality. Rather, Paul’s relationships with the lost are based on who they are and what he can do to please them. He approaches relationships with non-believers based on who they are. He accomodates their personality querks and preferences in order to become closer to them.

So often in difficult discussions with lost people (or anyone for that matter) I find myself thinking things like, ‘I’ve asked them everything about who they are. How do they expect the conversation to continue if they don’t return the questions to me? Oh well, I tried.’ Or, ‘I guess this relationship isn’t going anywhere. We both seem to be very quiet people. I need this person to give a little more if this is going to work out.’

But this isn’t the mindset of Paul. His actions are the desires of outward compulsion. He is compelled to do things for others because his selfless nature drives him to do so. When he seeks a relationship with a non-believer, it is out of a desire for their best interests, so that they might know the joy of living in Christ. Paul wants to accommodate himself to their interests — not in a sinful way, but in a way that allows him to build a relationship with them. In so doing he overcomes the limitations of what may be natural tendencies of his own personality.

Consider a child who learns that by obeying his parents, he receives a reward, perhaps a small piece of candy. In later years that same child, now a teenager, discovers that by paying compliments and committing other acts of kindness he is able to capture the admiration of girls his age. In the eyes of the world, these acts are considered selfless deeds of service, but they weren’t truly selfless. He’s simply acting upon the result of certain cause-effect relationships. He acted in such a way only to fulfill his own personal appetites. To be truly selfless, one must act with a disposition that is completely disinterested in his own gain and is instead only interested in the glory of Christ.

The application that I’m making from this passage, then, is that our approach as Christians to reaching the lost cannot be based on who we are, but rather on who they (the lost) are. Are you challenged by someone who is quiet? Stimulate him to discussion. Overcome your fears. Find out what he’s interested in, and he might just start jabbering away. Are you challenged by someone who is cynical and sees through insincerity? Find issues where you have similar views. Be authentically sincere, and by the grace of God a doorway will be opened to share the gospel with him.

In conclusion, I think there is a real danger in using labels. The Bible is clear that God makes everyone different, but concepts like extroversion are not discussed. Rather, the example set before us is simply to become whoever we need to be, within God’s law, in order to reach the lost. We cannot associate our weaknesses and fears with extroversion or introversion and call it quits. We overcome. We persevere. We rise to the challenge. Not for our own sakes, but for the glory of Christ.

And now I have to practice what I’ve preached. Oh man is this going to be hard!

Comments(1)