Free to ServeFree to Serve
Text: 1 Corinthians 9:15-23 Revised for evening, 8 February 2009
“When John Harding wanted to communicate the gospel to young people, he decided to use modern technology to aid his preaching. So he bought an £8000.00 paramotor - a kind of powered parachute - to fly over a housing estate in Wiltshire, England.
‘I wanted to preach at people with a megaphone,’ he said. ‘I wanted to try to get through to the kids on council estates and I needed something with street cred. I thought maybe that if they heard this voice booming out of the sky, they would think it was God.’
As if the idea of a birdman evangelist wasn’t crazy enough, Mr. Harding became a national source of scorn when a practice flight nearly ended in disaster. Instead of soaring over the estate in Salisbury, he lost height and had to weave between houses, lifting his legs up to clear garden fences. One resident, Mrs. Margaret Blue, told newspaper reporters that the preacher flew so low she had serious fears he would collide with her bird table.
Although Mr. Harding managed to land safely in a field, he was taken to court by the Civil Aviation Authority and fined £1000.00 with £250.00 costs after admitting flying too close to a populated area.
Despite nearly disembowelling himself on garden furniture Mr. Harding was dismissive of the incident, describing it as ‘just a step on the way to the ministry.’”[1]
When Paul says, “I have become all things to all people, so that I might by any means save some,” he didn’t have Mr. Harding in mind. He was not talking about being gimmicky to win people for Christ.
Now, Paul was responding to a letter from the Corinthians (7:1), a copy of which we do not have. We are left to read between the lines of his response and reconstruct the Corinthian concerns. Paul’s words in chapter 8 show clearly that the Corinthians are exercising their rights and freedoms to eat food sacrificed to idols in the temples. He is concerned that such behaviour may turn weak Christians away from Christ and down the old road of their previous way of life: idolatry.
At first, chapter 9 seems out of place and it is difficult to see how they flow together with his discussion on food offered to idols. The chapter is a defence of Paul’s authority as an apostle and a justification for the way that he practices his ministry. He begins his defence by claiming his right to be paid for preaching the Good News and then repudiates this right to wages.
The Corinthians seem to be questioning the validity of Paul’s apostleship because of his refusal to be paid. Gordon Fee writes, “Philosophers and wandering missionaries in the Greco-Roman world were ‘supported’ by four means: fees, patronage, begging, and working. Each of these had both proponents and detractors, who viewed rival forms as not worthy of philosophy.”[2] Because Paul did not accept the patronage of some wealthy person and instead chose to be a tentmaker, there were those who took this as a sure sign that he really wasn’t up to much.
It wasn’t just his ‘working class’ status that rubbed the Corinthians up the wrong way, it was also what they perceived to be Paul’s inconsistency. As far as they were concerned, he said one thing and did another. It is quite likely that the Corinthians wrote something like this to Paul: “Hang on a minute! You’re being totally inconsistent here. You’re telling us not to eat meat offered to idols in the temples. But we know for a fact that when you’re with Gentiles you eat meat bought in the market place which has probably been offered to idols. Then, when you’re with Jews you decline to do so. This doesn’t make any sense.”
To sum it all up, the Corinthians took their freedom in Christ to mean that they could do whatever they wanted to do. Freedom meant exercising their rights even at the expense of those who were weak. Because Paul did not tell them what they wanted to hear, they attacked his authority.
Liberal democracy extols ‘rights and freedoms.’ But is my ‘right’ exercised at the expense of your ‘right’? Is my ‘freedom’ robbing you of your ‘freedom’? Does ‘freedom of speech’ mean that I have the right to say whatever I want - even if it is racist, abusive, or smutty? Does the ‘right’ of a mother over her body come before the ‘right’ of an unborn child to exist? In a sense the Corinthians were appealing to their ‘rights and freedoms’ in Christ at the expense of those who they perceived to be vulnerable and weak in faith. As modern day Christians, do we have the tendency to apply our individual ‘rights and freedoms’ before the well-being of others?
Paul’s whole argument hinges around the idea that, though he has a ‘right’ to be paid a wage, he would rather die than lay to claim it. Though he is perfectly free to receive the support of a patron, he chooses not to avail himself of this right. Contrary to what the Corinthians are saying, Paul’s refusal of patronage does not undermine his apostolic position. Rather, it strengthens his position. First, Paul is beholding to none except God himself. Because Paul does not receive a wage from a patron, he doesn’t have to set out to please them. He can say and do what he knows is right without the worry that his income will be cut off. Paul is answerable to God alone.
Second, Paul does not take a wage because, it is only someone who voluntarily enters into the employment of another person who receives a pay packet. If, on the other hand, a person is a slave to someone, they are obligated to work without payment. In verse 17, Paul says that if he is preaching because he wanted to preach, then he would take a wage. However, seeing that he is obligated by God to preach the Gospel (v. 16), he has no choice in the matter and is “. . .simply discharging a trust” (v 17b, REB). Paul is a slave to God’s call upon his life. Paul is not a freelance preacher who does what he wants, when he wants to do it. He does not preach by his own choice but by God’s will for him. Like Jeremiah, the Word of God burns in his bones. He could not keep the Good News to himself even if he tried.
Third, Paul’s non-acceptance of pay is a model of Christs’ self-giving sacrifice. Instead of exercising his right to be paid Paul embodies the Gospel which he preaches. Gordon Fee crystallises his intention, “In offering the ‘free’ gospel ‘free of charge’ his own ministry becomes a living paradigm of the gospel itself.”[3] Paul’s refusal to be paid is evidence that he is carrying out the commission given to him by God. Paul does what he does because he has no choice but to do the will of God and so submit to His authority. Paul argues that accepting a wage would show a lack of integrity and a misuse of his right.
Paul then addresses the issue of perceived inconsistency in his approach to eating idol meat purchased in the market place. Paul’s primary concern is to ensure that those who are weak in faith would not be destroyed. He also doesn’t want people to be put off by an emphasis on things that aren’t essential to the Gospel. The Corinthians thought that if Paul was really an apostle, he would lay down the law and enforce freedom - even upon the weak. They couldn’t understand how he could eat kosher foods and follow the law when in the presence of Jews and then when eating with Gentiles consume meat from the market place which would have been used in idol worship. They failed to grasp that Paul’s main aim was to win Jews and Gentiles alike that by whatever means possible some might be saved. Paul did not alter or adapt the message of the Gospel. As Richard Hays writes, “He will adapt his behaviour (not his message!) in whatever way necessary to achieve that end.”[4] His freedom of behaviour did not mean he was lawless - doing whatever he pleased. On the contrary, he was under the law of Christ - the law of love.
This brings Paul’s argument back to where it began in chapter 8. What is primary is, not our freedom to do as we wish, but the law of love. Love is to guide the way that we think and behave. The critical line is in verse 22: “To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak.” Up to this point he said that to the Jews he has become ‘as’ Jew, to those under the law ‘as’ one under the law, and to those outside the law ‘as’ one outside the law. He does NOT say, “To the weak I became ‘as’ weak.” He DOES say, “To the weak I became weak.” Paul waives his rights and totally identifies with those whom he is trying to win. The heart of the matter for the Corinthians was their lack of love towards those weaker Christians who would be destroyed in their faith through their exercise of freedom. They exercised their rights at the expense of the weak.
Evangelism is not about being gimmicky. Evangelism begins within the church community as we exemplify love for one another. The Corinthian’s arrogance and lack of care for the weak in their community was not a good witness to the Gospel. Paul’s deliberate choice to waive his rights and his freedoms to win people for the sake of their salvation was the embodiment of the Good News message. As Jesus became one of us in the weakness of our humanity, so Paul became weak with the weak.
I heard Dr. Tony Campolo tell the moving story of a white, middle class congregation in the United States. They had all come out to church dressed to the hilt. The organist played uplifting hymns as they gathered for worship. An elderly deacon hobbled on his stick to sit down in the pew where he always sat. He was highly respected in the church for his wisdom and godliness.
The service began. The hymns were sung with gusto. Just then there was a disturbance at the back of the church. Soon, every eye fell on the figure of a man who sauntered down the isle towards the front of the church. He had filthy bare feet and donned long matted hair and beard. His clothes had seen better days and the odour that came off of him was something else. The man continued up to the front of the church and sat down cross legged on the floor looking up at the pastor in the pulpit.
The minister paused. You could have heard a pin drop. What would he do? It seemed as if the seconds that passed were hours. Suddenly, the old deacon stood to his feet and walked down to where the man was sitting. With considerable effort, the old deacon laid aside his stick and sat down next to the stranger. The congregation hardly needed a sermon that morning, for the old deacon had shown them what the love of Christ is all about.
Do the people of Witney see in our congregation a loving church community? Are we willing to restrict our ‘rights’ and ‘freedoms’ for the sake of another? Are we prepared to become all things to all people - even weak - so that by all means some might be saved?
[1]John Buckeridge, 100 Instant Discussion Starters (Eastbourne: Kingsway Publications, 1999), 46.
[2]Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1987), 399.
[3]Gordon Fee, 421.
[4]Richard Hays, 153.
|
 Printable Version |