The Image of God and Evangelism

Both in this blog and in discussions with friends, I've described 2020 as a kind of "turning point" in American culture. I've described in one post how one of the consequences of 2020 was an increased awareness of the political and ideological conflicts in our culture. With that greater awareness comes greater politicization and polarization. Now, it seems, talk of a "culture war" are commonplace. Pundits on both sides speak of political and ideological battle lines and speak of their opponents - those on the "other side" - as enemies, as if they are dangerous to the fabric of American culture.

This blog post, in one sense, is a confession. That year was a turning point for many individual Americans - including many Christians - just as much as it was for the country as a whole. Though I was not aware of this at the time, the crises of 2020 were so all-consuming that I allowed them to influence changes in me that I, on reflection, do not think were for the best. Prior to 2020, I was a Christian who was skeptical not just of nationalism, but even of patriotism. Though I have been interested in politics since high school, prior to 2020, I wanted to avoid appearing to hold my views because of a political orientation to such an extent that I avoided political labels. I prided myself on avoiding partisanship for its own sake and for holding some positions considered "conservative" and others considered "liberal" because, at bottom, I am a Christian prior to my politics. I select my positions based on my commitment to Christ first and foremost, not based on a commitment to a political party.

During 2020, and as a result of the world-changing controversies of 2020, I found my perspective changing, though subtly and gradually. Though I have never and will never call myself a nationalist, I had moved toward a more "America-centric" perspective. I had begun to openly identify as conservative and to concern myself with the details of Republican party politics. I listened almost religiously to American conservative political commentators, until at some point I realized that my viewpoints were shaped largely by these influences, rather than Scripture or Christ. Somewhere, I had lost the script.

Don't get me wrong; this is not a disavowal of all of my perspectives or the arguments that I made during that time. If you read my posts during 2020, you will still see a commitment to Scripture and Christ. My point is that I had eventually allowed sources other than Scripture and Christ to crowd them out, with the result that I would end up thinking largely in alignment with certain pundits, rather than critically engaging with their material from a Christian perspective. In the past couple of years, as a result of prayer, Bible study, and conversations with other Christians (chief among them being my wife), I'm re-evaluating what most influences me, whether in theology, philosophy, apologetics, politics, or culture. As always, I want to integrate the deliverances of other sources of knowledge into my overall Christian worldview, but I want to do so with a strong foundation in Scripture and Christ.

The changes of 2020 came in the midst of a major move to seminary education, which I've now completed. Life at seminary, in many ways, has been a wonderful gift from the Lord. It is also a bubble; everyone here agrees with you on the fundamentals: the content and truth of the Christian faith. That was an adjustment for sure; prior to seminary, I had been accustomed to living around non-Christians, and this constant interaction with those with whom I disagreed informed my evangelistic and apologetic approach. It's hard to think of the other as an enemy when she sits across the table from you. While the change in sources on which I relied was my problem, the "seminary bubble" is a problem in the seminary subculture. And many seminarians don't know how to interact with non-Christians fruitfully (or are out of practice) as a result.

This confession is the prelude to the topic of this blog post. In this post, I want to discuss two possible orientations that we might take about the wider non-Christian culture in which we live as Christians. The first of those orientations is the "culture war orientation." This orientation tends to see non-Christians in the culture as representatives of broader malicious or false ideologies - and therefore tends to see those individuals as ideological enemies. The second of those orientations is the "imago Dei orientation." This orientation views the non-Christian primarily as a bearer of the image of God with objective dignity and only secondarily as a believer of certain harmful or false beliefs or committer of certain sins. The primary difference has to do with emphasis. When we see the person who has not trusted in Christ for salvation, who do we see? My thesis is that the "imago Dei orientation" is biblical. We ought to see the individual image-bearer primarily. This will transform our understanding of our interactions with non-Christians as we seek to call them to faith in Christ with love.

This post will be split into two parts. In the first part, I will discuss the "culture war orientation." I will show that while certain aspects of that orientation reflect the truth, it is ultimately not the orientation that we should adopt in our approach with the non-Christian. Central to my discussion of this orientation will be examples of Jesus' interactions with the Jewish leaders of His day. In the second part, I will discuss the "imago Dei orientation." I will show that this orientation is more faithful as a whole to Scripture and to the example of Jesus in His approach to individuals around Him. It is likewise more faithful to how the New Testament epistles speak about evangelism and apologetics.

The Culture War Orientation

Though, in this part, I will make the argument that the "culture war orientation" should not guide our approach in evangelism to non-Christians, I do not mean to say that there is nothing true of this orientation. In fact, I think that Christians should be more serious about the ways in which Scripture describes the conflict between Christianity and other worldviews. Consider, for instance, Ephesians 6:12 (CSB):

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this darkness, against evil, spiritual forces in the heavens."

This verse tells us that an important part of the Christian life is a struggle, which is translated from the Greek word, πάλη, which literally means "fight." It is a term used in Greek literature to refer to what competitors do in wrestling matches. It is a combative term that connotes a victor and loser. This struggle is not against people ("flesh and blood") but is a spiritual struggle. At the heart of all conflict over worldview is a spiritual struggle. There is a malevolent influence in the world that wants others to believe error rather than trust in Christ for their salvation.

Likewise, in 2 Corinthians 10:3-5, Paul says (CSB):

"For although we live in the flesh, we do not wage war according to the flesh, since the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but are powerful through God for the demolition of strongholds. We demolish arguments and every proud thing that is raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to obey Christ."

What are the "strongholds" that we demolish in the name of Christ? They are "arguments and every proud thing that is raised up against the knowledge of God." So, it is clear from these biblical texts that we are to take with deadly seriousness the errors that we confront in the culture. As I've said many times before, our command from Scripture regarding false worldviews is clear: kill.

The actions of Jesus in His ministry demonstrate how seriously He took error. The Jewish authorities - the Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribes at the top of the Jewish religious hierarchy - had developed an elaborate tradition of oral and written interpretation of the Old Testament law. That tradition included commentary on the laws of the Old Testament that were meant to spell out the practical application of those laws. As a result, the Jewish religious authorities, learned men in the midst of a lay population, bound the consciences of millions of Jews by adding to the Old Testament law while, at the same time, failing to practice their own rigid standards. So, Jesus criticized them in strong terms on the one hand for adding to God's Word and on the other for their hypocrisy. One of His most intense denouncements of the Jewish authorities can be found in Matthew 23:1-36 (CSB):

"1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 'The scribes and the Pharisees are seated in the chair of Moses. 3 Therefore do whatever they tell you, and observe it. But don’t do what they do, because they don’t practice what they teach. 4 They tie up heavy loads that are hard to carry and put them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves aren’t willing to lift a finger to move them. 5 They do everything to be seen by others: They enlarge their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels. 6 They love the place of honor at banquets, the front seats in the synagogues, 7 greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called "Rabbi" by people. 8 'But you are not to be called "Rabbi," because you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers and sisters. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father, because you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10 You are not to be called instructors either, because you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. 13 'Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you don’t go in, and you don’t allow those entering to go in. 15 'Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to make one convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a child of hell as you are! 16 'Woe to you, blind guides, who say, "Whoever takes an oath by the temple, it means nothing. But whoever takes an oath by the gold of the temple is bound by his oath." 17 Blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold? 18 Also, "Whoever takes an oath by the altar, it means nothing; but whoever takes an oath by the gift that is on it is bound by his oath." 19 Blind people! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift? 20 Therefore, the one who takes an oath by the altar takes an oath by it and by everything on it. 21 The one who takes an oath by the temple takes an oath by it and by him who dwells in it. 22 And the one who takes an oath by heaven takes an oath by God’s throne and by him who sits on it. 23 'Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You pay a tenth of mint, dill, and cumin, and yet you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy, and faithfulness. These things should have been done without neglecting the others. 24 Blind guides! You strain out a gnat, but gulp down a camel! 25 'Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup, so that the outside of it may also become clean. 27 'Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of the bones of the dead and every kind of impurity. 28 In the same way, on the outside you seem righteous to people, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. 29 'Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous, 30 and you say, "If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we wouldn’t have taken part with them in shedding the prophets’ blood." 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your ancestors’ sins 33 'Snakes! Brood of vipers! How can you escape being condemned to hell? 34 This is why I am sending you prophets, sages, and scribes. Some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 So all the righteous blood shed on the earth will be charged to you, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all these things will come on this generation.'"

This passage is lengthy, but read it carefully. Hear in it Jesus' heart and what outrages Him about the Jewish religious authorities of His day. First, they had been guilty of "t[ying] up heavy loads that are hard to carry and put[ting] them on people’s shoulders" (v. 4). This is a condemnation of the oral tradition that the Jewish authorities had used to burden the consciences of lay people. Though Jesus tells the disciples to obey the teachings of the Jewish leaders (v. 2), He condemns the way in which they use Scripture to bind the consciences of others. Second, Jesus condemns the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders, who fixated on outward appearances and not the heart. They "clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence" (v. 25). God cares about the state of the heart, out of which one's actions follow in obedience to God. Third, Jesus condemns their neglect of "the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy, and faithfulness" (v. 23). The Jewish authorities had chosen to fixate on relatively small matters of the law, rather than its heart. Crucially, this implies a heart of God's law that Jesus proceeds to explicate in His teachings, especially in the Sermon on the Mount. At its heart, to obey God's law is to love God and love neighbor as yourself.

Worldviews, then, are in conflict, and God calls us to wage war against those ideas that oppose God’s Word. In this sense, the Culture War Orientation has a biblical basis in how Scripture talks about the conflict of worldviews and in the seriousness with which Jesus addresses error.

The Culture War Orientation, however, is wrong in a fundamental way. Namely, the Culture War Orientation tends to see the individual person as either an ally - someone who not only agrees with you but in the right way, to the right extent, and with the right amount of urgency and action - or as an enemy. People are little more than bundles of perspectives or platform-supporters. In other words, the Culture War Orientation tends toward a perspective on the human person just as ideologically-driven as the worldviews it opposes. If you are an ally, then you are expected to uphold the party position with alacrity. If you are an enemy, then at best you are naive, thoughtless, or gullible. At worst you are malicious or "compromised" by incentives that affect the way you think.

Recently, I wrote about the "Woke Right" in reference to the culture wars. The Woke Right refers to a growing movement among some conservatives toward claims that mirror the structure of Critical Theory on the Left. (Refer to my series on Critical Theory for more information on the structure of that worldview.) On the furthest end of this movement is a growing emphasis on anti-Semitism and Christian nationalism, a worldview built on grievances and group identity. On both the Far Left and the Woke Right, people with a Culture War Orientation view individual people through an ideological lens, rather than emphasizing what's most important about them: that they are bearers of God's image.

Why is this emphasis on ideology wrong-headed? The main reason why we should not adopt the Culture War Orientation is that it encourages us to see the person, rather than the false worldview, as an enemy. It discourages us from attempting to find common ground with people with whom we disagree, or even from communicating with those people. It encourages us to live in isolated bubbles with those with whom we agree. If someone is an enemy, then it's awfully hard to love them. The Culture War Orientation treats the person, not the false worldview or ideology, as the thing to be opposed.

The Imago Dei Orientation

In order to illustrate the difference between what I'm calling the Culture War Orientation and the Imago Dei Orientation, consider this hypothetical scenario. You, a Christian, encounter someone at a restaurant and, upon striking up a conversation with that person, learn that this person identifies with the LGBTQ+ community. They are attending Pride Month events throughout the month of June and are excited to see upcoming events, such as drag shows and pride demonstrations in the city in which you live. As this person tells you all of this, you notice that the person is wearing accessories related to the community. For instance, he or she is wearing a pin on his or her shirt representing the pride progress flag.

What should you think about this person? My suggestion is that whether you adopt the Culture War Orientation or the Imago Dei Orientation will affect how you see this person. If you hold to the former, you will rightly see the falsehood of the worldview underlying this person's beliefs and actions. You will notice that this person likely affirms queer theory, perhaps unwittingly, and that queer theory is both false and dangerous to the soul. You are likewise liable to see the person as a pundit, that is, as a supporter of this false ideology. Perhaps you'll then see this person as a danger to American culture, to the nuclear family, to the Judeo-Christian Western heritage of our society, etc. Notice that the first or primary thing you may notice about this person is what that person affirms of him- or herself.

If, however, you affirm the Imago Dei Orientation, you will first and primarily remember that this person is a bearer of the image of God. Though a sinner and someone bearing false beliefs about him- or herself because of a false worldview, this person is someone whom God loves and for whom the incarnate Son of God died. This person, just as you do, desires certain good things, such as community and fulfillment, even if he or she seeks the fulfillment of these desires in the wrong ways or in the wrong places. Because this person is an image-bearer whom God loves and for whom the incarnate Son of God died, you love this person and desire his or her salvation, though you rightly see the falsehood of his or her worldview and hate its underlying ideology.

Notice that, whether you affirm the Culture War or Imago Dei orientation, you will notice and take seriously the falsehood of this person's worldview. However, I want to highlight two important differences. First, the Culture War Orientation and Imago Dei Orientation emphasize the dangers of false worldviews in different ways. In the Culture War Orientation, the emphasis is on dangers external to the person to whom you're speaking. The dangers of false worldviews have to do with politics and culture, and this person is an impediment to the politico-cultural movement or purpose to which you subscribe. In the Imago Dei Orientation, the emphasis is on dangers particular to the person to whom you're speaking. His or her false worldview is disastrous for the wellbeing of his or her soul. Political and cultural issues, though important, are secondary to the eternal fate of a soul.

Second, the Culture War Orientation and Imago Dei Orientation result in different perceptions of the unbeliever. Under the Culture War Orientation, the perceived dangers of the false worldview to which this person subscribes are external to that person. Thus, that person is dangerous. The Culture War Orientation is prone to seeing the individual subscriber to false worldviews as an enemy. On the other hand, the Imago Dei Orientation, though not necessarily lacking in its assessment of the false worldview, cares first and foremost about the state of the individual person's soul. Perhaps this person has never heard the gospel. In light of this possibility, what they desperately need is to hear the gospel. Again, the primary truth about this person is who he or she is, according to Scripture, not who he or she thinks him- or herself to be. The person who affirms the Imago Dei Orientation will even ignore any issues related to LGBTQ+ ideology for the time being so that he or she can form a meaningful relationship with that person and find an opportunity to proclaim the gospel to that person.

How does this orientation align with Scripture? Here, I will focus on (1) Jesus' approach to individuals and (2) the ways in which the New Testament epistles approach evangelism and apologetics. Rather than present something comprehensive, I hope instead to present one example of biblical texts from each category supporting the Imago Dei Orientation.

Jesus' approach to individuals. We've already seen that Jesus took error seriously. He condemned the legalism and hypocrisy of the Jewish authorities in the strongest terms. Yet, with individuals who encountered Him, He often treated them with a gentleness that knew - and did not ignore - their sin but called them to a new life lived abundantly with Him. I will discuss multiple examples from the Gospels.

One example can be found in John 4:7-30. Rather than quote the entire passage in full, I will paraphrase it with certain quotations as necessary for making my points. Verses 1-6 set the stage for us by telling us that Jesus and the disciples were traveling through a region called Samaria on their way north to Galilee, the northern region of Israel. By the time of Jesus, Samaria had become associated with ritual uncleanness and betrayal, as Samaria was the center of power for the northern kingdom of Israel after the split of ancient Israel between the tribes of Judah and Benjamin in the south and the other ten tribes in the north. The Northern Kingdom committed idolatry and had forsaken the covenant between God and Israel. So corrupt was the Northern Kingdom that, in the Book of Kings in the Old Testament, not one king of the Northern Kingdom is called a good king.

So, this is the political situation as Jesus rests by a well - called Jacob's Well - outside the Samarian city of Sychar (vv. 6-7). To a politically-informed, conservative Jewish mind in Jesus' day, Samaria was a threat to the ritual purity of the Jewish people. The Samarian people, libertine and morally compromised, were the reason why the Jewish people continued to live in exile under Roman rule. The Lord would not restore the people until they were morally pure, in the mind of the Pharisee. It's easy to see, then, how the Pharisee might have addressed a Samaritan woman whose sin justified the exile of the Jewish people under Roman rule in line with the Culture War Orientation. If moral corruption had caused the disintegration of Jewish culture, then this woman is part of the problem and is therefore an enemy.

This, however, is not how Jesus addresses the Samaritan woman. He requests a drink from the Samaritan woman, who responds with the sort of surprise that would make sense in the social context they inhabit. She expresses shock that Jesus, a Jew, would request something from her, a Samaritan woman. John even notes to us that "Jews do not associate with Samaritans" (v.9). Jesus, breaking the social and political convention, addresses this woman directly when the expectation was for him to treat her as unclean, as an enemy. His request for water becomes an opportunity to teach her about "living water," which, when drunk, leaves one filled and satisfied forever. Though she could offer Jesus normal physical water, which would satisfy his physical thirst only for a short time, he could offer her living water that would satisfy her soul.

When the Samaritan woman requests the living water, Jesus tells her to get her husband, knowing how she would answer. When she answers that she had no husband, Jesus responds by showing her that he is a prophet and the Messiah; he knew that she had had five husbands and was living with a man who wasn't her husband. This would have been shameful for her, but he knew it before meeting her and talked to her anyway. The Samaritan woman, upon encountering the Messiah, becomes the first evangelist to the Samaritans. Because of her witness, many in Sychar "believed in Him" (v. 39).

What's fascinating about this passage, especially in the context of the current discussion, is that the Samaritan woman's mind was on the social divisions that existed between Jews and Samaritans. Twice, she mentions those divisions, the second time by discussing how Jews and Samaritans worshipped differently (vv. 19-20). Jesus' response is striking. On the one hand, he is not neutral; he says explicitly that "salvation is from the Jews" (v. 22). His perspective was that the Samaritans had deviated from the truth. At the same time, in light of the revelation of himself, Jesus will break down these social divisions; Jews and Samaritans will each "worship the Father in spirit and truth" (v. 23). Jesus does not compromise on the truth, but he ignores the social divisions between himself and the Samaritan woman for the sake of her salvation. It is a strikingly beautiful picture of what Jesus means when he says that the Father seeks worshipers of Himself (v. 23); through this encounter at the well, the Father had sought this Samaritan woman. He loved her and wanted her to know him.

Example from the New Testament epistles. Several New Testament authors - such as Paul, Peter, and John - wrote epistles, which were letters sent to particular groups of Christians in the first century to address various issues as they arose in the first-century churches. By far, the majority of the epistles were written by Paul, who was the most prolific evangelist to the Gentiles (non-Jewish people) in the first century. Because of their incidental nature, the epistles are, for the most part, not systematic treatments of theological topics, with the possible exceptions of Romans and Hebrews. Because of this, they provide great examples of how the earliest leaders of the Christian Church handled problems, whether those problems were internal divisions or external threats.

One of the most striking examples of the Imago Dei Orientation at work comes from 1 Corinthians 9, which again I will paraphrase with quotations to make clear my points. to make these points, I'll also need to lean on other New Testament passages to provide context. As many readers will know, at the time of the writing of the first epistle to the Corinthian church, Paul is dealing with serious issues in this local congregation. Among those issues is a claim that his own status as apostle is suspect - and therefore that he cannot be trusted. From what scholars can gather, it seems that there were teachers in the local area who were insisting on a higher standard of righteousness than that required by the true gospel or by Paul. In 2 Corinthians 11:5, he refers to these teachers facetiously as "super-apostles" and goes on to denounce them as "false apostles" and "deceitful workers" in 11:13. (Here, I am assuming that Paul is speaking generally of the same group of people in both letters, which seems likely given the details of 1 Corinthians 9 and 2 Corinthians 11.)

From verses 1-18, we can glean an idea of what these false teachers were saying to undermine the apostleship of Paul and Barnabas (who traveled together at the time and both planted the church in Corinth). It included several points:

• That they were not refraining from food or drink, perhaps by fasting or refusing to be paid for their ministry (v. 4)

• That they had no right to be accompanied by a "believing wife," which Paul sees as inconsistent with the standard applied to apostles, like Peter, who were married (v. 5)

• That they were willing to take pay for their ministry, though Paul is clear that he did not take advantage of this right (vv. 6-18)

Paul begins this chapter with the rhetorical question, "Am I not free?" (v. 1). This question places into contrast all of these charges with the liberty he has in Christ. Yet, in spite of the freedom to do things like take pay for his ministry, Paul foregoes these rights for the sake of the gospel (vv. 15-18). He is willing to give up much, even including what he has a right to request, for the sake of the gospel and the salvation of people.

This leads to verses 19-23 and our discussion of how this chapter supports the Imago Dei Orientation. To understand why this passage is especially significant for how Paul approaches evangelism, further contextual notes will help. Prior to planting the church in Corinth, Paul had planted a church in Galatia. Early in Paul's missionary work, a group of false teachers traveled throughout Asia Minor, including in Galatia, preaching a false gospel, according to which disciples of Jesus were required to keep the Law of Moses on matters such as diet and circumcision to remain in Christ. These requirements placed a heavy burden on the consciences of Gentile disciples of Jesus, who were not used to following these requirements. It also raised a very troubling question for the whole of the church: as Gentile and Jewish people trusted in Christ, what were the moral requirements of the Law? Must Gentile Christians "become" Jewish to remain in Christ? This issue made it back to Jerusalem, where the Christian Church convened its first council to decide the issue (Acts 15:6-21).

Paul's answer was an emphatic no, for he saw continuing insistence on following all of the Law of Moses as a denial of salvation in Christ through faith, apart from any works. In effect, by insisting on further requirements based on the Law of Moses, these false teachers had denied the sufficiency of Christ's atoning work on the cross. In Christ, he argues, we are set free from the requirements of the Law of Moses, from a "yoke of slavery." He is so emphatic on this point that he warns that Christians who pursue circumcision to be justified by God are such that "Christ will not benefit [them] at all." He says that "[n]either circumcision nor uncircumcision accomplishes anything; what matters is faith working through love" (Galatians 5:1-6 CSB).

Shockingly, in spite of such clear teaching on the matter, Paul has Timothy circumcised for the sake of his evangelistic work to the Jews (Acts 16:3)! This is not an act of hypocrisy on Paul's part. Rather, it shows that motivations matter. Circumcision is a painful procedure, especially for an adult male. Paul has Timothy undergo this procedure not for the sake of his salvation, which would have been inconsistent with his teaching in Galatians 5, but rather for the sake of evangelism. In other words, Paul is willing to take drastic steps pragmatically to remove barriers between people and the gospel. If doubts about Timothy's Jewishness would make it harder for some Jews to hear the gospel, then Paul is willing to remove this stumbling block so that they can hear the gospel. (We can safely assume that Timothy has the same perspective; he was a willing participant in this!)

Paul applies the same pragmatic rule to himself. In Acts 18:18, we find Paul sailing away from Corinth to eventually return to Antioch. There is a brief mention from Luke in this verse that while at Cenchreae (the eastern port of Corinth), "[h]e shaved his head...because of a vow he had taken." Luke does not tell us what this vow is. Later, and again shockingly, Paul ends up in Jerusalem, where he makes offerings for himself and the men with them after "the days of purification" (Acts 21:26 CSB). The best guess we have as to the vow taken by Paul is that it was a Nazirite vow, the requirements for which were established in Numbers 6:1-21. Again, this example is striking because it seems to be in conflict with Paul's own teachings on external demonstrations of righteousness or of one's being accepted by God in Galatians. It is likely, however, that the purpose behind the taking of this vow was to remove stumbling blocks for Jews to be able to hear the gospel, perhaps from himself as well as the men with him. The plan evidently fails, as the Jews at the temple accuse Paul and the men of defiling the temple by entering it unclean (Acts 21:27-29).

In light of this context, the words of verses 19-23 are revealing (CSB):

"19 Although I am free from all and not anyone’s slave, I have made myself a slave to everyone, in order to win more people. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win Jews; to those under the law, like one under the law—though I myself am not under the law—to win those under the law. 21 To those who are without the law, like one without the law—though I am not without God’s law but under the law of Christ—to win those without the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, in order to win the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that I may by every possible means save some. 23 Now I do all this because of the gospel, so that I may share in the blessings."

Paul has become all things to all people, in the hope of saving some. Notice how focused Paul is, single-mindedly, on the mission of the gospel. If anything gets in the way, remove that stumbling block in order to point that person to Jesus.

It is important to consider what this passage does not mean. It does not mean that Paul lied to people or accepted falsehood. Read his letters; he is more than willing to confront error when the situation calls for it. However, it does mean that Paul is so focused on Christ that he will set aside errors the unbeliever believes, for a time, for the sake of getting to the gospel. Some errors are a matter of sanctification. They can wait until this person is saved by Christ. Also, this passage does not mean to teach that Paul was duplicitous or deceived those he evangelized. It does mean that Paul was not willing to share everything he believed, all at once, and demand acceptance of all of it before a person could be saved by Christ. If Galatians is about the sufficiency of salvation in Christ, then Christ remains sufficient even if the person who trusts in him holds false beliefs.

Which false beliefs might Paul have set aside for the sake of the gospel, even if he would have addressed and corrected the belief at a later time, once the person was a Christian? Maybe that one must be circumcised to be acceptable to God. Maybe that one must continue observing certain festivals, giving offerings, or making vows to be acceptable to God. Maybe that biological sex and gender are separate things, and that the latter is a social construct. Maybe that a biological male can identify as a woman. Maybe that some races are morally inferior or that society is controlled by an evil cabal of globalist Jews. The point is this: though the individual unbeliever is full of false beliefs, many of which are harmful or evil to possess, Paul is willing to set these aside and to even become like that person in some ways for the sake of removing stumbling blocks on the way to sharing the gospel with that person.

For those with the Culture War Orientation, there is a tendency to think that a set of issues (abortion, same-sex marriage, gender and sexuality, race, etc.) are the issues most impactful in our culture today. These are culture-shaping, civilization-transforming issues. They are important issues, ones which Christians ought to care about and discuss. However, for the individual unbeliever, they are not the issue, even if the individual unbeliever is a blue-haired leftist or an anti-Semitic conspiracist. For every single person, made in the image of God, the issue is whether or not he or she believes in Jesus. Paul's perspective is radical in its focus. He will not allow other things to distract him from proclaiming the gospel. He will even sacrifice his own liberty in Christ for the sake of the gospel.

Let's briefly consider an example of this principle at work. One of the most interesting and important discussions happening in our culture today is about the compatibility of Islam with Western civilization. Migration into Western nations out of Islamic countries has brought this to the forefront. Many Christians argue that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Western civilization, and I agree with this claim. For this reason, some Americans on the Right, including evangelicals, have advocated for changing immigration policies to restrict immigration to the United States from these countries.

This is an important discussion happening in the West today. However, imagine that a Muslim family moves into your neighborhood. Imagine that a mosque opens down the street from you. Imagine that a Muslim college student moves into your dorm. Does the large-scale cultural conversation affect how you interact with the individual Muslim? If it does, might I suggest that it's time to repent of your Culture War mindset and to remind yourself of the Imago Dei mindset presented in the example of Paul? Might I also suggest that by the awesome and sovereign grace of God, bad immigration policy (if that's what it is) has brought this individual Muslim to your doorstep, and now he or she has the amazing opportunity to hear the gospel?

If you adopt the Imago Dei orientation, then it's time to build a relationship with your Muslim neighbor. Get to know him or her. Ask him or her what it's like to be a Muslim or what it's like to go to the local mosque. Ask him or her how he or she became a Muslim, and what it means to him or her. Pray that God will open his or her heart to hear about what it's like to be a Christian and believe in Jesus. Invite the Muslim to your house and learn their food laws (halal) so that you can cook him or her a proper meal. You have liberty in Christ and don't have to worry about food laws? Give it up for an evening to feed someone a meal and tell him or her about Jesus. That Muslim will experience a tremendous amount of love through your willingness to follow halal and show hospitality. And this should go without saying - don't mention large-scale cultural issues that might be a stumbling block for your Muslim neighbor! In light of that Muslim's individual salvation, those cultural issues are relatively unimportant. Put them aside. Stay focused on the gospel and the mission.

Conclusion

When we see the person who has not trusted in Christ for salvation, who do we see? This is one of the questions I began this post with, and I end it with the same question. In this post, I have argued that the Imago Dei Orientation, which primarily sees the unbeliever as image-bearer, is the proper and biblical orientation for us to adopt. Combating error matters. Cultural issues matter. But in your relationship with the individual unbeliever, these issues must be put aside for the most important goal: the salvation of people through Christ.

What I have not done in this post is lay out exact boundary lines for what it looks like to live out the Imago Dei Orientation. If the best biblical approach is to temporarily set aside other issues - false and harmful beliefs and practices - for the sake of the gospel, then do what degree do I set these things aside? Don't bring up transgender ideology with the transgender person, but do I use preferred pronouns? Even more interesting questions come alongside these. What happens when the unbeliever becomes a disciple of Jesus but has not yet repented of every sin? Should the local church baptize a married same-sex couple who have come to know Jesus but not yet stepped away from that sin in their lives? The same can be asked of other sins. The clansman of the KKK now follows Jesus, but he possesses some racist beliefs. Should the church withhold baptism until every false and harmful belief is corrected? Many of us would take for granted that the clansman is just not welcome in our churches. That is a sinful attitude for which we ought to repent.

I don't have easy answers to this question, but I do have an important point to consider: Jesus and the apostles never lied for the sake of the gospel. Paul had Timothy circumcised for the sake of sharing the gospel, but he never falsely taught an unbelieving Jew that he had to be circumcised to follow Jesus. If "winsomeness" seems to require that you knowingly affirm a false belief (i.e., lie), then you're on the wrong track. My sense is that following this principle, more often than not, requires not saying certain things rather than saying certain things. I will not affirm falsehood, but I might not fight about that error now. That is, at least, one indication of a principle for addressing this question, and the Christian community is the best place for us to have these conversations. What a good problem to have! I pray that my church is so active in sharing the gospel that these questions come up all the time.

That's it for this post! As I indicated at the beginning of the post, this is in part a confession from me. In the chaotic cultural moment of several years ago, there were times when I allowed important cultural issues to pull me away from the mission of preaching the gospel to the individual unbeliever. I am sure that this is true of at least a few readers. If this is true of you, let's agree to repent where needed and adopt again the proper mindset for the advancement of the Kingdom of God to all tribes, all people, all languages, all nations. May God strengthen us in this task for his glory.

If you've stuck with me the whole way, then thank you for reading! If you've found this essay helpful and think others could benefit from it, please share it with others. Comment below or leave a like to let me know what you think. And feel free to check out the backlog of posts on this blog to get more content on Christian philosophy, theology, and apologetics!

Thanks again for reading!