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)

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 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 not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings. (1 Cor 9:19-23).
Notice the section in bold. I never noticed this before, but Paul is making a distinction between the “law” of the Jews and the “law of God” or the “law of Christ.” Paul became someone both inside and outside the law of the Jews, but not outside the law of God. What, then, is the law of the Jews? In Romans 2 Paul talks about the Jews who consider themselves true Jews because they follow the law of physical circumcision. Paul explains that true circumcision is of the heart, “not by the written code.” In Galatians 3 Paul talks about how the purpose of Jewish law was to bring us to Christ in faith (Gal. 3:24). But the law is not a means to salvation in itself. Salvation is only by grace through faith in Christ. Our hope cannot be in Jewish law, because it is a dead end.

So what exactly is being “under the law of Christ?” Paul makes this very plain in Romans 6:

“Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.”

In retrospect, this is actually a great passage for heretics who proclaim an anti-nomian type theology, which attempts to give freedom to commit all sorts of sin. But this passage will not allow for that type of lifestyle. The contrast between grace and law has nothing to do with what we can “get away with,” but everything that we are and should be as sinless instruments of righteousness. To live in grace, to be free in Christ apart from Jewish law or any law is simply to obey and follow Christ. True living is to live freely from the passions and lusts of our flesh. It is the freedom to choose against our self-centered will, and instead live as the servant-minded creatures we were made to be. We were created to live outwardly — to give, to love, to bring, to help, doing all of these things not with a self-serving attitude or purpose, but rather with the purpose of loving Christ and being free in Him.

Comments(0)

Acts 10:34, “So Peter opened his mouth and said: ‘Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.’”

In this verse, one can either learn wonderful biblical truths, or one can become greatly confused. One one hand, Peter clearly communicates that God does not favor any particular race of people — salvation is for everyone. On the other hand, the second half of Peter’s statement almost sounds like a man can become acceptable to God by his works. How should a Christian interpret and apply this verse and its context, while not ignoring difficulties?

(Read the article)

Comments(0)

“But the Lord said to him, ‘Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name’” (Acts 9:15-16).

Many Christians are familiar with this passage that refers to God’s calling of Paul to become a servant of Christ. Paul was to be God’s chosen instrument of the gospel to both the Jews and the Gentiles. What is particularly interesting and wonderful here is the insight into the way God planned to use Paul. By that I mean that God intended for Paul to “suffer” for His name’s sake.

God’s usage of the word “suffer” is crucial to an understanding of what it means to walk with God.

The form of “suffer” used here is the Greek word “pascho.” It refers to a real tangible experience, and is used almost always to refer to a bad experience. This same Greek word is used in Matthew 16:21 where Jesus prophesied that He would “suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.” Mark also recorded that “the Son of man must suffer many things. . .” (Mark 8:31). The point I’m making is that Paul’s future experience as a servant of God was not going to be easy. In fact, it was going to be the opposite. Paul was commissioned to suffer hardship after hardship for the purpose of proclaiming the gospel, and these hardships meant experiencing real distress, real trials, real burdens, real tiredness, real exhaustion, and real pain. Paul was called to suffer for Christ in an experiential way.

(Read the article)

Comments(1)

In my reading today, I came across this passage that is often misconstrued: (Acts 7:14-16) Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Explanation:

A standard belief of true Christianity is that when a person receives Christ, the Holy Spirit dwells in us and lives through us. Romans 8:9 could not be any clearer about this fact: “You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.”

Although this teaching is obvious, why does the passage in Acts seem to separate the receiving of Christ and the receiving of the Holy Spirit? Are they two separate events, as some have suggested? Can a person receive Christ without being indwelt by the Holy Spirit?

(Read the article)

Comments(0)