LIBERTY & THE STEWARDSHIP OF THE GOSPEL, 9/6/26

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

1 Corinthians 8 · chapter mention

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

Matthew 10 · chapter mention

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

Matthew 20:16

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.

Mark 6 · chapter mention

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

Galatians 2:3–5

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

Romans 9:1–5

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

Matthew 22:40

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

Romans 14 · chapter mention

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,

1 Peter 4:1–4

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.