Couldn't Help Noticing

Postscript on Acts 17

(View Gordon's first CHN on Acts 17.)

The Greek word ‘deisidaimonesterous’ is translated in Acts 17:22 as ‘very religious’ (although Rob Doyle, theology lecturer at Moore College, cheekily suggests a translation of ‘demon-possessed’). Here's the whole sentence from the ESV translation: “So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: ‘Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious’”.

Three Greek-English lexicons (Louw and Nida; Thayer; and Arndt and Gingrich) of the New Testament and an FF Bruce commentary on Acts later, I've confirmed what I suspected. That is, that this expression ‘very religious’ can't be used as an example of Paul smoothing the way for the bitter pill that is the gos-pill.

Summarizing what the lexicons say and adding a bit more, FF Bruce comments as follows:

This characterization of the Athenians by Paul was not necessarily meant to be complimentary: we are told that it was forbidden to use complimentary exordia in addressing the Areopagus court, with the hope of securing its goodwill. [Bruce here gives a footnote: “Cf. Lucian, Anacharsis 19”.]. The expression Paul used could also mean “rather superstitious”; it was as vague a term in Greek as “religion” is in English, and what was piety to Greeks was superstition to Jews (and vice versa). [Bruce has a footnote suggesting the reader compare with the noun ‘deisidaimonia’ in Acts 25:19.]

FF Bruce, The Book of the Acts, in the New International Commentary on the New Testament series, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1988, p 335.

Being an inquisitive soul, I read a bit further and found that Bruce had noticed something else I noticed—which is that Paul scarcely laid 'em in the aisles with his knockdown delivery:

There is no mention of any baptisms at Athens, nor is Paul said to have planted a church there. Although Athens was in the Roman province of Achaia, it is a family resident in Corinth that Paul describes as “the firstfruits of Achaia” (1 Cor 16:15). If the response to his preaching in Athens was scanty, the reason may lie with the Athenians' refusal to take him seriously ...

The Athenians of today have made up for their ancestors' indifference by engraving the text of Paul's Areopagitica on a bronze tablet at the foot of the ascent to the Areopagus, and by naming a neighbouring thoroughfare in honor of the apostle.

So there you go. It's always reassuring to find one of the great ones confirming something you thought you'd noticed. I don't know where old FF gets off, though, suggesting that the present-day Athenians have compensated by putting up a plaque and naming a road. Call me eccentric, but I'd have said that the way to make up for ignoring Paul is to start paying attention to his message, and start preparing to meet the risen Lord Jesus on the day of his terrible and glorious judgement of the whole of creation.

Paul, the cross-culturally sensitive missionary?

Acts 17:16-34 is frequently held up as a model of Paul's cross-cultural sensitivity in his evangelism of non-Jews who were completely unfamiliar with Christian ideas and teaching. Have a quick read:

Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there. Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, “What does this babbler wish to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? For you bring some strange things to our ears. We wish to know therefore what these things mean.” Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new.

So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for

“‘In him we live and move and have our being’;

as even some of your own poets have said,

“‘For we are indeed his offspring.’

Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, “We will hear you again about this.” So Paul went out from their midst. But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.

In making the case for Paul's cross-cultural sensitivity, various observations are routinely trotted out. For example, Paul doesn't move straight into the attack, offended though he is by the idolatry he sees everywhere (Acts 17:16). He goes to where the hearers are, and engages them, even physically moving into their own territory. He assumes no prior knowledge of the God of the Lord Jesus Christ, and goes so far as to begin by complimenting them on their religiosity, mentioning their altar ‘To the unknown god’. He is starting where they are, and sympathetically winning a hearing for himself and his message.

When he begins his explanation, his thoughtfulness and intelligent cultural sensitivity are again on display. He shows an awareness of what they know and what they don't know, and supplies plentiful background knowledge about the nature of God, who alone creates and sustains and rules the universe. And all this before even mentioning a word about Jesus.

Then, as he explains the truth about Jesus, he puts his best apologetic foot forward. He gently reminds his hearers of God's sovereign, patient, forbearing and sustaining grace before moving on to ideas they may find harder to hear. Indeed, he saves to the very last the objectionable but necessary truth of the resurrection, thus allowing him the maximum amount of time possible to speak about the other aspects of God he would like them to hear about.

Of course, some dismiss him and mock him as a fool (Acts 17:32), reinforcing their earlier judgement of him as a ‘babbler’ (Acts 17:18). But the success of his evangelistic approach is seen in that “some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them” (v. 34).

Sure, this is not as good as the 3,000 at Pentecost (Acts 2:41), to whom many were added daily (Acts 2:47). Nor is it as impressive as the 5,000 men in Acts 4:4. But let's forget the numbers for the moment. When it comes to sympathetic cross-cultural evangelism that would be the envy of our mission societies (not to mention our ministries at home to other ethnic groups), this is as good as it gets.

However, let me make some observations that suggest that Paul was never going to win the title ‘Mr Cross-cultural Sensitivity of the 50s’^* because of his performance in this place.

First, if we are to credit Paul with a thoughtful understanding of the people he is dealing with, it's a pity he spends almost no time learning the culture and customs of the local Athenians. That has to be a cross-cultural boo-boo, doesn't it? He's never been there, he is on the run from a mob in Berea (Acts 17:14), and the encounter described in Athens takes place in the short gap while waiting for “Silas and Timothy to come to him as soon as possible” (Acts 17:15). (But compare this to Acts 18:1, 5 where it seems that Paul had left Athens so quickly, Silas and Timothy had to catch him up.) Paul could have watched and waited, taken notes and thought carefully. Instead, he opens his big mouth.

Nor does following up potential converts seem to have been part of Paul's strategy on this occasion. His Athenian encounter is more like a one-night evangelistic stand than a slow and gentle courtship of ideas. Most contemporary mission societies worth their salt would shudder at the idea of parachuting in a culturally untested missionary like Paul (with a history of provoking violent conflict) into an area for the purposes of a one-off spontaneous debate hosted by the locals.

Second, Paul, as a rule, insisted that “the love of Christ control[led]” (2 Cor 5:14) and directed his evangelistic concern. But on this occasion, pure exasperation with the local idol industry seems to have been the button that triggered his apparently unpremeditated spray against the local collection of religions. At least as far as motivation, we seem to be seeing at least two parts John the Baptist to one part Jesus. Frothing at the mouth is not an attitude that is going to set you up for careful and detached, yet sympathetic, analysis of the prevailing culture.

Third, although we like to level the accusation of cultural sensitivity at Paul, isn't Luke (the writer of the account) the more likely recipient of such an award? He, not Paul, is the one who carefully identifies the enormous cultural diversity that Paul must now wisely navigate in this ultra-cosmopolitan city: “Jews ... devout persons ... those who happened to be there ... Epicurean and Stoic philosophers ... Athenians ... foreigners” (Acts 17:17-21). As the missionary on home leave might be tempted to say over the first slide, “Athens: a city of contrasts”. Luke identifies those contrasts, a fact that only serves to highlight how Paul simply lumps every different group together under the general heading ‘idolatry’. Paul scores approximately 0.18 cross-cultural points out of a possible 10 for failing to even acknowledge the less than subtle differences between Epicurean and Stoic philosophy, not to mention the famous, richly traditional Athenian school of “those-who-happened-to-be-there-ites”.

Nevertheless, all this would not matter if it turned out that Paul gathered his self-control and allowed the love of Christ to shape the theme of his subsequent message in the direction of niceness and goodness instead of grumpiness. But does he? Let us see.

Fourth, Paul describing the Athenians as ‘very religious’ is a little bit like the school teacher who writes the nicely ambiguous school report summary, ‘Jane is a student who is trying at all times’. Anyone familiar with Romans 1:18-32 is hardly likely to mistake ‘very religious’ for a compliment. But even if the Athenians did think Paul was being nice (understandably being ill-acquainted with writings Paul had not yet produced), the supposed attempt to ‘start where his hearers are’ comes badly unstuck the more he tries to explain. It quickly becomes clear that the one Athenian resident idol Paul is prepared to give time to is ‘the unknown god’. And he immediately moves to alienation mode when he proceeds to insist that of thousands—possibly tens of thousands—of idols on display in Athens, this ‘unknown god’ is the only true one. This is a bit like preaching the gospel of the beef kebab at a vegetarian Hindu Body-Mind-Spirit festival.

Indeed (and fifth), even picking out ‘the unknown god’ as the deity with whom the Athenians had hit the jackpot is a slightly awkward thing to do. Possibly the ‘unknown god’ was there as a form of insurance in case an inadvertent error had been made. Possibly there was an attempt at humility on the part of the idol makers in order not to seem to lay claim to too much knowledge. Whatever the case, if someone agrees with you that, yes, you are essentially as ignorant as you acknowledge yourself to be, they are not fast-tracking themselves to popularity.

From this point and on to the end of his address, Paul sticks fairly close to the gospel itself. Thus it is quite possible that any offence he now proceeds to give is simply because he's telling God's story the way it is. So let's go easy on him, and not mark him down for suggesting that God doesn't need us; we need him. And let's skate lightly over his faintly derogatory language about gods who need to be served “by human hands” (v. 25; cf. Deut 4:28; 27:15; 31:29; 2 Chr 34:25; Ps 115:4; 135:15; Isa 2:8; 31:7; 37:19, etc.)—especially since, most likely, only Jews would have picked up any insult here. Let's even acknowledge that quoting an Athenian poet (Acts 17:28) is pretty good stuff, really, in the cross-cultural stakes, even if ad hominem argument is logically light on.

Nor could Paul have avoided the offence of the resurrection, even if he had wanted to (along with its ludicrous and intellectually offensive assumption that God became a man, that that man died, and that this particular man has now been raised up to judge anyone who doesn't repent of serving idols). Yes, Paul knew that the idea of God becoming a man and dying was offensive (1 Cor 1:18), but whether or not he wanted to offend by telling his audience, the passage doesn't say. It's probably enough to observe that along with Paul's own struggles in the sensitivity stakes, the gospel itself is the crowning example of a message that fails to take into account the cross-cultural context of the people being addressed, beyond recognizing the universal cross-cultural truth that we are all sinners in the hands of an angry God.

^* That's the first century 50s, not the 1950s.

Back to mission

How times have changed. When I first went on beach mission *umphh-murmur-cough* years ago, we lived in tents, built a beach pulpit, put up with an appalling ‘amenities block’, got washed away when the inevitable rain came, and spent at least some part of every day whooping and hollering through the caravan park dressed in weird costumes to ‘scoop’ in the kids.

That was then. After a very lengthy break, Ali and I have recently gone back to beach mission—this time with a family in tow. Now I am that old guy who used to hang around the place, and try a little too hard in the competitive games: the Camp Dad. And that's not all that's changed: the mission we are part of now runs in mid-January rather than straight after Christmas, it is located in a school rather than a caravan park (there's covered concrete walkways and carpet on the floor!), and it is aimed at the locals rather than the holiday-makers.

However, even though some of the surface details have changed, in all other respects everything that was wonderful about beach mission in the old days still applies—even for the Camp Dad. There's the fun, challenge and joy of mucking in together and working hard with 40 or so other keen Christians for a week; the priceless opportunities for training younger Christians to have a go at things they never would have never dreamed of doing at home; and the scary but vastly encouraging experience of telling kids and adults about Jesus.

And here's the kicker: you get to do all this alongside your own kids.

It's tiring (of course!), and Camp Dads don't sleep as easily on camp mattresses as they once did. But let me testify to the fact that it's one of the best Christian things we've done as a family in years.

If you're keen to give it a go, it's not hard to sign up. Just let it be known quietly that you're thinking of going back to beach mission. Word will quickly reach the ears of a Team Member near you. You will be pounced upon!

MovieGuide

If I really want to find out whether I want to go see a movie, I check that useful and witty aggregator rottentomatoes.com. But now I'm thinking of adding MovieGuide.org to the list. Here's why.

The Sydney Morning Herald had a story recently about a man who's put some hard work into demonstrating that movies promoting sex, violence and atheistic world views are not as profitable as movies that don't. Among other things, the story reports that Ted Baehr, the man responsible for MovieGuide.org, has actually made a difference to the movies we watch, and has done so from a theologically conservative Christian position.

The movies are rated on the sorts of things you'd expect in a secular movie review—for example, features such as production values, plot, characterization. But there is also an ‘acceptability rating’—about which the site says:

We gear the ratings to parents with children but also provide information for discerning adult viewers. For example, an Acceptability Rating of Plus One means caution for younger children ages 2-7, an Acceptability Rating of Minus One means caution for older children ages 8-12, and an Acceptability Rating of Minus Two means extreme caution for teenagers and/or adults. These Acceptability ratings are arranged not only according to age levels, but also according to a traditional Christian view of art, going from the sublime and the divine, Plus Four, to the abhorrent and demonic, Minus Four.

So, for example, The Golden Compass gets three stars in the general review, but is given an ‘acceptability rating’ of ‘-4, abhorrent’. (Baehr's critique is worth reading.) Similarly, the summary for Alien vs Predator: Requiem gives a general rating of two stars, an Acceptability rating of -3 (excessive) and blasts the film to kingdom come with the one-line dismissal “A Waste of Theater Space”.

I suppose people in the US do this sort of Christian movie rating all the time. But the interesting thing about MovieGuide.org is that the moviemakers actually seem to be paying attention. This is encouraging for those of us—Christian and non-Christian alike—who dislike exploitative and sexually explicit trends in advertising, or TV and movie programming, and who make the effort to complain.