The Preaching of the Cross

1 Corinthians 1:18-31.

Introduction.

Paul was sent to preach the gospel (v. 17; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4), which is foolishness to the world (vs. 18, 21). Gospel preaching is “not with enticing words of man’s wisdom but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power” (1 Corinthians 2:4), a power not understood in natural terms. The foundation of its power is the crucified but living Christ (1 Corinthians 15:14).

The message of the preaching is “Christ crucified.”

We preach Christ. Christ is the promised Messiah, the Anointed, the One Sent. Jesus is that Christ, the one sent, the God born of a virgin, manifest in the flesh, who came to seek and to save that which was lost.

We preach Christ crucified – not just Jesus the prime example, the great teacher, or the principal prophet. Jesus became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross, that he might reconcile man unto God by his death. He made peace through the blood of his cross. Without shedding of blood – the blood of Jesus shed on the cross – there is no remission of sins. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin. A message stripped of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus on the cross is diluted, debilitated, and – ultimately – dead on arrival!

The meaning of the preaching divides in twain, and unites in one.

The preaching of the same “Christ crucified” has different effects. To the lost it was foolishness. The things of the Spirit of God are foolishness to the natural man (1 Corinthians 2:14), but the wisdom of the world is foolishness to God (1 Corinthians 3:19). To the saved it was the power of God.[i] The gospel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation to salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek (Romans 1:16). To the Jews it is a stumblingblock.[ii] To the Greeks it is foolishness.[iii]

The Jews wanted a temporal deliverer. Jesus did not suit their case. They sought a sign.[iv] We see it demonstrated in those scribes and Pharisees who demanded, “Master, we would see a sign from thee.” Jesus responded plainly, “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.”

The Greeks exalted “wisdom.”[v] Matthew Henry points out, “They laughed at the story of a crucified Saviour, and despised the apostles’ way of telling it.” We see this demonstrated in the philosophical seat of Athens. “And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection…And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked.”

“but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God” (v. 24). Those who reject the preaching of Christ crucified are divided from those who receive it. Those who receive the message of Christ crucified are united in one, whether they be Jews or Greeks.

The method of the preaching is the same message for all.

The message is universal, keyed to the same one truth for all, whether Jews or Greeks. It is not chameleon-like, changing to blend to its environment, or a menu filled with sweets to suit the tastes of the shopper, mutating to fit the market.

The Jews require a sign, but Paul did not adjust his message to suit them. He preached Christ crucified. It was a stumblingblock to those who would not receive it. The Greeks seek after wisdom, but Paul did not adjust his message to suit them. He preached Christ crucified. It was foolishness to those who would not receive it – yet it was one and the same message for all.

God does not change his message to fit the man; the man must be changed by God’s message.

Conclusion.

May we, with the apostle, ground our ministry in the preaching of Christ crucified. Modern church theory advises us to appeal to the expectations and interests of the hearers. Give them what they want. From this modern mentality derives the pablum of parachurch entities, elaborate programs, and entertaining “pack-the-pews.” Games and gimmicks carry the day. Smoke and mirrors. Flashing lights and loud music. The idol of “success” rules and reigns in many churches.

Many 21st-century churches in the West have either intentionally or unwittingly swallowed a consumer mentality (hook, line, and sinker). They proceed as though they are selling a product rather than preaching a Christ. “Coming to our church” becomes the ultimate product for sale, and the churches must convince buyers why their product is the best buy among all the competition. The facilities must be state-of-the-art; the preaching must be relevant, smooth, and polished; the music must be energetic and entertaining; the events must keep attendees on the edges of their seats.

In contrast, biblical church truth teaches us to appeal with Christ crucified. Give them what they need whether or not they want it. The message of Christ crucified arrests the foolishness of man and promotes the power of God. What we say and what we do will be grounded in the word of God, where there is power (Ecclesiastes 8:4; Luke 4:32; 2 Corinthians 6:7; 1 Thessalonians 1:5). The acceptable way of worshipping God, to preach his word, and to serve him faithfully, is instituted by God himself, and is limited by and within his revealed will.

Our message is Christ crucified. May we preach it faithfully. Where it unites, let us dwell together in unity. Where it divides, let us be satisfied with and stand on God’s revealed will. May we not compromise the message or our methods to give people what they want. What folks want might be a varied as the terrain of Texas. What they need is the gospel, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures, and that he was seen alive by many infallible proofs. This is the power of God unto salvation.

---

[i] Power, δυναμις, strength, ability (to do, cf. Philippians 2:13). Sometimes “power” is “authority,” but here it is strength.
[ii] A cause or occasion of stumbling or falling. Cf. Romans 14:13.
[iii] Absurbity, folly. Cf. Proverbs 15:2.
[iv] A wonder or miracle, as proof. Cf. Acts 2:22.
[v] True wisdom is the right use or exercise of knowledge (Psalm 111:10).

Methods for Evangelization by J. H. Milburn

DO CHURCHES HAVE A RIGHT TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN MEANS AND METHODS FOR THE EVANGELIZATION OF THE WORLD? by J. H. MILBURN.

The proposition just stated, we would answer most emphatically in the negative, that a church or churches of Christ do not have a divine right to choose either the means or methods with which to evangelize the world unless they choose the means and methods which Christ instituted for that purpose. There is no greater fallacy nor one more mischievous than the idea that a church has a divine right to choose whatever means or methods it wishes, in the propagation of the gospel, and the choice, be as it may, is acceptable to God. Away with such an outrageous idea which would justify the adoption of Catholicism or anything else as a means through which Baptist churches carry on their missionary work, if only they so choose, and some Baptist churches, under the influence of designing men have been, and can be, lead into making any kind of choice. Turn to the Index in this book and find article on matters of choice and expediency, and read the same.
Notice 1. All must agree that Christ had a right to a choice in the evangelization of the world. To deny Christ this right would be at once to nullify the evangelization of the world altogether and convert all missionary work and effort into a mere farce. 
2. Christ was infinitely wise, he knew what the world needed, then and what the world would need through all the coming ages; he wanted the world evangelized, hence he constituted his church and made choice of it as the only organized medium through which the gospel should go to the nations of the earth. 
3. No Apostle nor inspired person ever chose any other organization through which to evangelize the world than the church.
4. The primitive churches themselves never chose any other organization through which to evangelize the world; their choice was simply that of Christ and the Apostles; why should our choice now be otherwise.
5. Baptist churches got along for over seventeen hundred years without choosing any other organization through which to evangelize the world, than the churches of Christ.
6. Christ not only made choice of the church as the organized medium through which the world should be evangelized, but he also commanded the church to “preach the gospel to every creature” to “teach all nations,” and the church cannot evade nor shift the responsibility to humanly invented organizations.
7. To choose any other organization or medium through which to evangelize the world, than the churches, reflects on the wisdom of Christ; such a choice says indirectly that Christ did not choose the best methods, my choice is better than his. The like of this offers an insult to Christ and to the Holy Spirit.
8. From no conceivable point of view is there the least shadow of reason in making any other choice than that which Christ made.
  (1) Christ made choice of the church to evangelize the world.
  (2) Christ commanded the church to “teach all nations.”
  (3) Christ promised the divine presence (the Holy Spirit) to accompany the church. to the end of the age, or world.
  (4) Christ gave to the’ church the ministry; he “set some in the church, first Apostles,”
but ministers set themselves in the Conventions. The ministry belongs to the church.
  (5) All the money which all the Conventions use comes from the churches.
  (6) Were all the Convention blotted out the evangelization of the world would still go on; but should all the churches cease to exist the Conventions would all die within one year, for all those institutions of human origin live off the churches and are dependent upon them.

Copied from The Baptist Waymark Vol. II No. 3 December 1989, originally from his book Missions and Mission Methods, 1909

Is bigger always better?

SBC Voices bills itself as "Just another Southern Baptist blog." Despite the humility, it appears to me to be one of the most active Southern Baptist Convention blogs and engenders some lively and interesting discussion. From Calvinism to racism, politics to philanthropy; one week they may deride Tribalism and the SBC, noting that "Tribalism can become destructive when we isolate from one another, when we start viewing the other Baptist tribes as our enemies, or worse..." then next week extol the SBC system as the best in the history of the church, for the propagation of the gospel.

I intended to make some comments in that thread, but its discussion sort of died on the vine before I got a round tuit. So I'm posting the comments here instead. First, I will paste a few excerpts, then will comment.

As a Southern Baptist, I am part of perhaps the most extensive world missions program in the history of the church.
According to the IMB website, there are currently 4867 IMB missions personnel, 4206 of those being career missionaries. That is down considerably from the days before the recession and the recent financial issues, but it is still a stunning fact. The old phrase, "we can do more together than we can do separately" is not a cliche. It is a fact.
By pooling our resources as a convention, we are able to support nearly 5000 missionaries around the world. 
Can you match that on your own?

Why should I have to match this on my own? We are not in a competition, are we? In the true spirit of the gospel should I not rejoice per Paul that "Christ is preached" (assuming He is preached) rather than rejoice over how much better my "program" is than yours? Years ago I heard Brother Lavelle Knight say that he and Brother James Broome "preached 52 revivals last year." After a pause and a chuckle, he explained that he had preached two and Brother Broome had preached 50! Bro. Knight wasn't jealous that Bro. Broome preached 50 revivals, and Bro. Broome didn't expect Bro. Knight to have to "match that on his own." If it is true that one plants, one waters, but it is God that gives the increase, jealousy and comparisons should subside with the realization that "he that planteth and he that watereth are one," as each servant answers to the Lord and not to the other servants, and we ask "Who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?"

When one lives by the numbers he must also die by the numbers. I looked up some other missions organizations online to compare with the 4867 IMB/SBC missions personnel mentioned in Dave's post. I checked six organizations that I could think of quickly and found that four of those six -- ABCUSA, BBFI World Mission Service Center, BMA of America and CB America World Venture -- seem to support quite a few more missionaries for the number of churches that they have than does the SBC. Now this was by a quick search of their web sites, and more detailed study might find some problems with the numbers I found and these comparisons. This comparison is solely number of missionaries per number of churches, and does not compare overhead costs per missionary and other variables. But, for example, the SBC has approximately 45,000 churches. CB America has only about 1200 churches and they support about 500 missionaries through their CB America World Venture. If my math is correct, for the SBC to support the same number of missionaries for the number of churches in the convention, the IMB would need to have over 18,000 missionaries. Yes, the SBC would need to increase their total missionaries nearly 4 times to equal the Conservative Baptists. I don't own any stock in CB America -- don't intend to -- and am not sure how their system even operates. This, nevertheless, gives pause when we look at and compare these numbers as numbers of missionaries supported per number of churches.

Dave mentioned that his church gives somewhere around $45,000 through the Cooperative Program on an annual basis, and that it could be possible to support one full-time missionary on their own. Assuming that just 1/4 of the churches of the SBC could support one full-time missionary "on their own," that could add up to support of over 11,000 missionaries. Would that be better or worse than the present system? Would God get more glory or less from it? Or are these even valid questions? I am not sure that it is any different in the grand scheme of things that one church gives $10 to 4800 different missionaries or 4800 churches each support one missionary. The same number of 4800 missionaries would be supported and the same people to whom they are preaching would hear the same gospel. The general mindset, though, is that it is better for one church to have a little part in paying for the gospel in 100's of places all around the world than for 100's of churches to each support the gospel in one place of the world.

This post only compares numbers. It does not consider the question, which must be considered, of whether God's organization, or men's organizations, or both, or something else are the best way or ways to carry the gospel to the world. Since the 1700's Baptists have disagreed and debated over the propriety of missions boards and missionary societies. I come down on the side of the local churches being the kind of organization God planted in the world for the propagation of the gospel. That subject must wait for another post.

All things to all

The “all things to all” text.

I Corinthians 9:19–23 – “For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.”

What does “all things to all” mean? Some think it means we should use great flexibility of methods to preach the gospel. Others go further, suggesting we must do “whatever it takes” to reach the lost (perhaps even reaching the unstated conclusion that the end justifies the means). Was the apostle Paul a wishy-washy hypocrite who would use any available gimmick to further his cause? Does I Corinthians 9 suggest that? Does the historical account of his ministry demonstrate that?

I Corinthians 9:19–23 means something quite different than what many of us have been taught – we must be willing to yield our rights for the sake of the gospel – a meaning that will harmonize with both the context and what the Scriptures reveal about how Paul conducted his life and ministry.

The broad context is an entire letter written by the Apostle to clarify doctrine and practice and to correct error in the Corinthian church. The letter may be readily divided into two main parts: Chapters 1–6, in which Paul deals with issues that had been reported to him (cf. 1:11 & 5:1) and Chapters 7–16, in which Paul deals with questions sent to him by the church (see 7:1). These are usually introduced by the words “now concerning” or “now touching” (peri de).

The immediate context is Paul’s addressing the question of whether to eat meat offered to idols (Chapters 8–10). Paul stated that every Christian had the right (liberty, freedom, power) to buy and eat such meat. It is only meat and an idol is nothing. But the freedom should be given up if this becomes a stumblingblock to a weak brother (8:9–13). Paul was not asking them to do something he himself would not do (8:13). These are not words merely written for effect. In Chapter nine he illustrates the principle and fortifies his case by the example of his own practice.

Paul’s example was that he had given up some of his rights and privileges in preference to the furtherance of the gospel (cf. 9:23, 10:33). Paul shows that it was his right as an apostle to receive some maintenance or support by the Corinthian church. Yet he emphatically states that he (and Barnabas) had not used this power (exousia, right, freedom) “lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.”

Placed in context, we see verses 19–23 as Paul’s next example of the principle. Paul was free – both a free born Roman citizen and a free child of God – yet he has voluntarily become a servant in order to gain as many as possible. Though he was free from the law, in his dealings with the Jews, he would if necessary lay aside his freedom in order to interact with the Jews (as in Acts 16:1–3).

These thoughts are followed by Paul’s asserting the need for self–discipline (verses 24–27). The Jews, despite their privileges and advantages (10:1–4), abandoned self–discipline, gave in to their lusts, and brought on themselves judgment and destruction (10:5–13). The Christian is to have no part in idolatrous practices (10:14–21), but is at liberty to purchase and eat the meat previously offered to idols (10:25–30). The good of others and the glory of God (10:23, 24, 31–33) must be the guiding principle. There is an important correlation between 10:32 and 9:19–22: Give none offence (cf. 8:13), neither to the Jews (9:20), nor to the Gentiles (9:21), nor to the church of God (9:21; the weak were brothers – 8:11–13).

What some others say.

“He would not sin against God to save the soul of his neighbour, but he would very cheerfully and readily deny himself. The rights of God he could not give up, but he might resign his own, and he very often did so for the good of others.” – Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible

“Though his conscience is free before God, he does not disregard man. Rather, he lives to serve other men. This is meant in a spiritual way – that is to render true spiritual service to man; not that Paul catered to every man’s whim or personal preferences.

“Paul required Timothy to be circumcised lest he be perceived, as a man of Jewish descent, of lightly esteeming the law – Acts 16:3. Paul did not require Titus to be circumcised lest he, as a Gentile, be perceived as condoning or compromising with the Judaizers who falsely asserted that it was needful for Gentiles to submit to circumcision – Galatians 2:3–5.

“These last two examples are important because they prove that becoming ‘all things to all men’ has nothing to do with appeasing others or fitting into a culture foreign from your own. It was all about abstaining from the appearance of condoning evil and error and always behaving in such a way as to magnify truth and right in the eyes of men.” – Mark Osgatharp, Landmark Missionary Baptist Church, Wynne, Arkansas

“Paul is commenting on his willingness to lay aside external ideas and even the manner in which he approached some religious convictions for the greater good of being able to minister to the flock of GOD in general...Paul’s willingness to circumcise Timothy was born out of this spirit of willingness to compromise on non–essential matters. Later he would not circumcise Titus for this very reason, because some had made circumcision a necessity.” – Mike McInnis, Grace Chapel, O’Brien, Florida

“I am made all things to all men; which is to be understood, as in all the other instances of his being so, not in cases and things criminal and sinful, contrary to the moral law, and the dictates of his own conscience, subversive of the Gospel of Christ, and of the order and discipline of it, but in cases and things of an indifferent nature:” – John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible

Conclusion.

The primary application of this Scripture is the setting aside of our rights or liberties that we have as a direct consequence of our status as children of God. Will we insist on our rights to the detriment and destruction of others, and for our own glory rather than the glory of God? We should not interpret Paul’s “all things to all” based on our own preconceived ideas, but by his own practice. Are we, like Paul, willing to give up, if necessary, every right we have and every privilege we enjoy in order to further the gospel? If not, perhaps we have not learned the true meaning of I Corinthians 9:19–23.

Here are links to two blog posts by Tom Ascol that also address the subject:

• 1 Corinthians 9:19-23, Paul on Accommodation
• All things to all men