Yes, he (and we) must be in the world. And yes, you must actually speak in a way that is relevant. But no, this does not mean that the message is one of church and for church growth, as a prerequisite to the message of Christ. That is upside down.

Look at the common message and what is communicated in required secular community activity and presentation as a necessary requirement to people hearing the Gospel. That just ain’t so.

My next message will deal with the upside down side.

Now, some might take that as meaning that one’s approach needn’t remain completely insulated from “generatione ista prava” in order to be effective. I think, however, that if you don’t “speak the language” of your own generation, our God will remain an “ignotus deus” for our generation, which is the opposite of what Paul did.

In Paul’s mind, I think, the Gospel was so different, so other than the prevailing theories of the day, and he knew that ultimately it’s only God accomplishes anything through any plan, good or bad, that he did not particularly care what the actual details of any “plan” were, so long as the Gospel is preached. He never seems particularly concerned with modelling his ministry on what Christ did on Earth. He doesn’t even care whether the people carrying out these plans do so because of their ambitions and vanity.

Now, obviously, watering down the Gospel was the farthest thing from his mind, leaving out this detail or that, etc… But because he was so clear about what the essentials were, he was confident and bold with translating the message to the particulars of the day, as we should be too. For instance, if we need to call “sheol”, “Hades” to get the point across, so be it.

As Pauls says in Phillipians: “But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.”