Author: W. Keith Brenton

Instruments Of His Peace

/ W. Keith Brenton / 14 Comments

Does anyone remember why musical instruments are forbidden in our fellowship, Churches of Christ?

My guess is, the answer is no – and anyone who could remember first-hand what started it all would be well over 150 years old by now.

You’d have to look it up in the history books, now – and the “wikipedia” entry on the matter reads like this:

… L. L. Pendleton, who was a member of a Midway, Kentucky church brought a piano into the church building. One of the elders of that assembly removed the piano that evening but it was soon replaced by another. Until that time all singing in the churches had been a cappella – without instrumental accompaniment. Generally speaking, the bulk of the urban congregations, particularly in the Northern states, were not totally adverse to this development, which was also gaining momentum in the other religious groups around them, while rural congregations, particularly in the Southern United States, tended to oppose this trend.

I haven’t found a refutation of any of these basic facts (although it was a melodeon, not a piano), including the one that Restoration churches had been singing a cappella until that time. Restoration churches had also been questioning a number of other items termed “innovations” – things like cooperative missionary societies or other church organizations which were condemned by some as divisive (though colleges were permitted). There were also questions of exclusivism – the belief that only people who had and followed the correct interpretation of scripture constituted the true church. And there were problems between Northern and Southern churches over slavery, and there is no point in glossing over any of them.

By the time that the U.S. Census Bureau separated the two factions officially, 40 years later, there were questions about baptism contributing to the division. Then lots more followed: how many cups? Bible school? dining in the building? … and even more nonsense that doesn’t deserve to be mentioned.

But it all started with a pre-World War II “battle of Midway” that forever changed the course of the movement.

All of the articles and papers that have been written on the subject since; all of the trees that have perished; all of the good intentions of serving and worshiping God the right way have failed to sound even one note of unity – or a few notes of harmony – as a lasting result of that division, capstoning the primary purpose of the Restoration Movement.

To read some of them, you’d think there was someone arguing back.

I haven’t encountered anyone arguing that the first-century church worshiped with musical instruments; though there is discussion about when it began – between the third and sixth centuries is the common thought. The fact is, we don’t know. It wouldn’t make much sense for Christians in prisons and catacombs to sing with musical instruments, but others meeting in houses and synagogues might have had the opportunity. The fact that musical instruments aren’t mentioned in most of New Testament scripture doesn’t prove that they weren’t used. (That would be like arguing that since God isn’t mentioned in the book of Esther, He had nothing to do with what happened in it.)

Certainly Israel worshiped God with instruments of music; you find references to them peppered throughout the Psalms. Do we have trouble with the fact that the sound of harps is heard in heaven during God’s Revelation to John, harps played as loudly as rushing waters and peals of thunder? Or that the saints victorious over the beast are given harps to accompany their praise to God?

Do we then conclude that at some point in the intertestamental period God changed His mind about accepting praise accompanied by musical instruments, but that in the kingdom yet to come He will change it back?

Are we just arguing the case because we still believe Christians have to understand and perform perfectly in order to be acceptable to God, and if our parents and grandparents and great-grandparents were wrong about this issue they are therefore forever lost and damned? If we accept the possibility God could forgive some of them for being wrong about slavery, could He not forgive them for excluding others based on a belief about acceptable worship?

Are we arguing it because we want to maintain our peculiar distinctiveness, our sectarian uniqueness, our tribal identity, our claim on the name “church of Christ”? And with it, the unquestioning confidence that we are right about this and if you’re not right about this you’re going to hell?

Are we arguing it because it’s hard to say that we were wrong and exclusive and prejudiced and divisive?

Or are we arguing it because we just like to argue?

Is that the way for us to be instruments of His peace?

I Resisted As Long As I Could

/ W. Keith Brenton / Leave a comment

Yeah. I’ve posted One Christian’s Affirmation as a separate, one-page blog.

Which doesn’t preclude the possibility that I might update, change, revise, amend, improve, clarify, edit and otherwise modify what I’ve said there.

And in case you’re wondering why I’ve strayed from my usual style of liberally citing with links to Bible Gateway, I’ve decided that the accounts of Jesus’ temptation in the desert make it abundantly clear that even the devil can quote scripture to his own purpose, so with one small exception I haven’t quoted any. Exactly.

Feel free to disagree, agree, and better yet WRITE YOUR OWN! If nothing else, it will tell you about yourself now and later when you look back on it. As I commented on another blog a few days ago, I think creeds are great.

Everyone should write one.

If We Really Modeled the Early Church Today …

/ W. Keith Brenton / 20 Comments

… when there was a question about new leadership, we’d consult God by rolling dice in complete faith that He would speak in the outcome of the roll. (Acts 1:23-25)

… we’d preach powerfully in many languages so that people, near panic, would ask what they should do to be saved. (Acts 2:37)

… the church would gather every day instead of just Sunday (or Saturday evening). (Acts 2:46)

… we’d sell our stuff and provide for those among us in need. (Acts 2:45; 4:32)

… we would, therefore, enjoy the favor of the people around us. (Acts 2:47)

… we’d fear lying to the Spirit and the church about our giving on pain of death. (Acts 5:1-11)

… we’d fear trying opposing proclaimers of good news on threat of blindness. (Acts 13:6-12)

… we wouldn’t hesitate to hop a ride with a foreign stranger and explain perplexing scriptures and we’d baptize folks in whatever body of water God provided when they asked. (Acts 8:26-39)

… we’d make sure that foreign widows didn’t go hungry. (Acts 6:1-7)

… we’d witness to both Jews and Gentiles. (Acts 10)

… we’d benefit from the prayers and prophecy of women as well as men. (I Corinthians 11:1-10; Acts 21:8-9)

… if we were of good character, we’d study the scriptures daily to double-check what our ministers told us. (Acts 17:11)

… we’d have visiting ministers who stayed, at most, only about three years; who would have a self-supporting job on the side; who might be highly-educated in religion or fishery management or medicine or not. (Acts 20:31; Galatians 1:18; Acts 18:3; II Corinthians 11:8; I Corinthians 9:11-13)

… those traveling ministers would select our elders. (Titus 1:5)

… we’d pay the really good elders. (I Timothy 5:17-18)

… ministers would resolve to preach nothing but the crucified Christ. (I Corinthians 2:2)

… some would travel the known world to do so. (Matthew 20:18-20)

… some would risk arrest and death to do so. (Acts 7:54-60; Acts 4:1-30)

… we’d pray with unshakeable faith to speak boldly anyway (Acts 4:31)

… when we had questions of doctrine, we’d convene to discuss them – probably at Jerusalem, since we’re such sticklers for detail, then we’d agree on a response, and stick to it consistently. (Acts 15:1-35)

… we’d select missionaries and mission fields by consulting the Holy Spirit, then commission missionaries by praying and laying our hands on them. (Acts 16:6-10; 13:1)

… we’d do the same with others who serve (Acts 6:1-7)

… we’d greet one another with a holy kiss. (Romans 16:16; I Corinthians 16:20; II Corinthians 13:12; I Thessalonians 5:26)

… at our potlucks we would all wait to eat until it was certain that everyone was served. (I Corinthians 11:33-34)

… we’d ask our elders to anoint the sick with oil as well as pray for them. (James 5:14-16)

… we’d give no special honor or regard to the wealthy among us. (James 2:1-7)

… we’d probably be banished as an organization by the government and jailed and executed for disloyalty to it, so some of us would be meeting secretly in catacombs among tombs and on the lam when we had to. (Acts 8:1-3; 9:20-25;

… the rest of us would be meeting in homes and synagogues. Acts 20:20; Romans 16:5; I Corinthians 16:9; Colossians 4:15; Acts 14:1; 17:2; 18:7)

… some would be tried before high government officials, giving them the chance to talk to them about Jesus. (Acts 5:17-32; 21:11, etc.)

… we would do the good that we know ought to be done, to avoid sinning. (James 4:17)

… people who would accuse us would see the good we do and praise God. (I Peter 2:12)

… we would be eager for Christ to come quickly. (Revelation 22:20; II Peter 3:11-12)

… miraculous things might well happen among us. (Galatians 3:5; Romans 15:18-20)

How are we doing so far?

201 Years Too Late

/ W. Keith Brenton / 8 Comments

I have been struggling today with the temptation to respond to the recently-published document A Christian Affirmation, but have decided that my response would be not only uncredentialed but unavailing.

Instead – although I am almost 201 years too late – I’d rather respond to the things I like and dislike about a document that many scholars have judged to be seminal in the formation of the Restoration churches now known as “Churches of Christ,” “Disciples of Christ” and “The Christian Church.” One of its signatories is Barton W. Stone, and it was called:

Last Will and Testament of Springfield Presbytery

For where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of the testator; for a testament is of force after men are dead, otherwise it is of no strength at all, while the testator liveth. Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die. Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a corn of wheat fall into the ground, and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. Whose voice then shook the earth; but now he hath promised saying, yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. And this word, yet once more, signifies the removing of those things that are shaken as of things that are made, that those things which can not be shaken may remain.–Scripture

Well, I guess the only thing I can reasonably take issue with here – since it is Scripture – is that it lacks citations, which are (in order): Hebrews 9:16-17, I Corinthians 15:36, John 12:24, Hebrews 12:26-27 … thus initiating a heritage of concatenating non-contiguous scripture when convenient, even though it creates questions like “Fruit whose voice then shook the earth?”

The Presbytery of Springfield sitting at Cane Ridge, in the county of Bourbon, being, through a gracious Providence, in more than ordinary bodily health, growing in strength and size daily; and in perfect soundness and composure of mind; but knowing that it is appointed for all delegated bodies once to die; and considering that the life of every such body is very uncertain, do make and ordain this our last Will and Testament, in manner and form following, viz.:

This is worded in a neat, legal-like way. It carries the sense of parody strongly, with an implied disdain for the governing body which will be described later. I like it.

Imprimis. We will, that this body die, be dissolved, and sink into union with the Body of Christ at large; for there is but one body, and one Spirit, even as we are called in one hope of our calling.

All right! Absolutely! You go, guys!

Item. We will that our name of distinction, with its Reverend title, be forgotten, that there be but one Lord over God’s heritage, and his name one.

Sure, why not? Distinctiveness is overrated, and who needs that “reverend” stuff? Why should anyone care whether the church is called “Presbyterian” or “Church of Christ” or “Lord’s Church” as long as it’s one with the Body of Christ?

Item. We will, that our power of making laws for the government of the church, and executing them by delegated authority, forever cease; that the people may have free course to the Bible, and adopt the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus.

Well, of course. Individual people should be making their own decisions and interpretations, rather than some old powerful church government. They ought to read and study for themselves and be guided by the Spirit! Go on!

Item. We will, that candidates for the Gospel ministry henceforth study the Holy Scriptures with fervent prayer, and obtain license from God to preach the simple Gospel, with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, without any mixture of philosophy, vain deceit, traditions of men, or the rudiments of the world. And let none henceforth take this honor to himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

Yeah, the last thing we need is a bunch of uncalled-for preachers licensed by somebody else. Though I’m not clear on how that license is obtained from God. Or how candidates know for certain that they’ve been called by Him. Maybe that’s something that should be ironed out later. Individually, of course.

Item. We will, that the church of Christ resume her native right of internal government,–try her candidates for the ministry, as to their soundness in the faith, acquaintance with experimental religion, gravity and aptness to teach; and admit no other proof of their authority but Christ speaking in them. We will, that the church of Christ look up to the Lord of the harvest to send forth laborers into his harvest; and that she resume her primitive right of trying those who say they are apostles, and are not.

Wait a minute. Didn’t you guys revoke that government thing in Item #2? Turn it over to God? Or was it that you were just transferring it from an outside group to the individual assembly? And what does this “try her candidates” language mean? Is that a multiple-choice test, or essay?

Plus, the whole “experimental religion” thing sounds dangerous to me. Like trying things out to see if they work. Do you mean “experiential religion” – doing stuff that’s already been tried?

Are you really planning to hold court on folks who say they’re apostles? Because that does indeed seem “primitive.”

And, well, are you going to stick with the name “church of Christ”? Because you’ve used it twice in the same paragraph now, and some yokel might go and trademark it or something.

Item. We will, that each particular church, as a body, actuated by the same spirit, choose her own preacher, and support him by a free-will offering, without a written call or subscription–admit members–remove offenses; and never henceforth delegate her right of government to any man or set of men whatever.

Um … I’m a little hesitant about this hiring-the-preacher clause, because it seems that the first-century church just had circuit preachers who worked a job on the side. And I’m not clear about the “written call or subscription” language regarding admitting members and removing offenses. Seems like there ought to be a procedure here. Yeah, a five-step procedure. “Five Steps To Salvation!” They’d make nice bullet points. Easy to remember, like a creed. Okay; maybe not. Last sentence — there you go with that government thing again. Aren’t you guys are men, constituting a set of men, whatever? Or do you mean it’s okay to turn over her government to women? Hmmm. I don’t think that’s ever been tried …

Item. We will, that the people henceforth take the Bible as the only sure guide to heaven; and as many as are offended with other books, which stand in competition with it, may cast them into the fire if they choose; for it is better to enter into life having one book, than having many to be cast into hell.

I’m with you most of the way here, but I’ve got to tell you that a lot of our preachers need to supplement their income by writing books … and I’ve been blessed by many of the books I’ve read about the Bible. Though there have been some I’d rather burn than give away. I appreciate you leaving that up to us.

Item. We will, that preachers and people cultivate a spirit of mutual forbearance; pray more and dispute less; and while they behold the signs of the times, look up, and confidently expect that redemption draweth nigh.

Yes, yes, yes … o God, please, yes!

Item. We will, that our weak brethren, who may have been wishing to make the Presbytery of Springfield their king, and wot not what is now become of it, betake themselves to the Rock of Ages, and follow Jesus for the future.

Okay, that “weak brethren” phrase seems a little condescending. Though it calls to mind some language that the Apostle Paul used in his letters. Maybe it’s okay. Certainly it’s all right to encourage people to commit themselves to Christ as King, rather than any particular church.

Item. We will, the Synod of Kentucky examine every member who may be suspected of having departed from the Confession of Faith, and suspend every such suspected heretic immediately, in order that the oppressed may go free, and taste the sweets of Gospel liberty.

Gutsy. There’s that hint of sarcasm again, boldly demanding to be called heretics by the oppressor. However … this is just awkward to have to say, fellows, but before you all signed this, did you hop a horse to the Synod and express your disappointment with their leadership? Because that seems like the Matthew 18:15-18 thing to do. (Though declaring independence in a document is a very American thing to do.) Maybe you did dialogue with the Synod and I just don’t know about it. I hope so.

Item. We will, that Ja— —–, the author of two letters lately published in Lexington, be encouraged in his zeal to destroy partyism. We will, moreover, that our past conduct be examined into by all who may have correct information; but let foreigners beware of speaking evil of things which they know not.

You could have done better with your penmanship. Folks would like to know that fellow’s name – who should be commended in his zeal to destroy partyism, because that’s a John 17:20-26 thing to do. And we’d like to shake his hand in heaven.

Item. Finally we will, that all our sister bodies read their Bibles carefully, that they may see their fate there determined, and prepare for death before it is too late.

You couldn’t have worded that any more carefully to avoid sounding judgmental yet still sound the alarm. It’s a little pushy, and I think some circuit-riding visits might have been in order, but it does fit with the whole tone of the document.

Springfield Presbytery, June 28th, 1804

Ahem. Dissolved in the Imprimis above, remember? Suggest: “Former Springfield Presbytery.” Otherwise, gentlemen, sign those names where there are no dotted lines. Even though I’m not real clear which of you are signatories and which are just witnesses, or both?

Robert Marshall,
John Dunlavy,
Richard M’Nemar,–Witnesses.
B. W. Stone,
John Thompson,
David Purviance,

— as recorded at ACU’s Stone-Campbell Archives

Richard McNemar was the original author of this document, as I understand it, which co-signer John Marshall later referred to quaintly as “the obnoxious instrument.” He also called McNemar an “eccentric genius.”

Though it does not specifically refer to creeds (other than the “Confession of Faith” one), opposition to the idea of creeds seems to have been one of the main motivators behind the document.

There’s no way to know, of course, how any of the leaders of the movement that followed would view “A Christian Affirmation.”

That would be an interesting dialogue to witness.

(Some illuminating background material can be found at Restoration Quarterly and The Restoration Movement Pages.)

The Altar Call

/ W. Keith Brenton / 4 Comments

I answered the altar call
and Jesus wasn’t there
and I melted, disappointed,
but was determined to find Him
and I did.

He was helping someone
and He looked around at me
and His look said,
“About time you got here;
I’ve been expecting you!”

So I asked Him about the altar
and He pulled me closer to help
and His look said,
“I’m done with that;
and the cross and the tomb.”

He formed my fingers
in the way I needed to help
the one He was helping
like He formed them in the womb.
Then He was gone.

But His look still said,
“You stay here and help.
I have to go.
Someone else just answered
the altar call.”

– for my friend Mike

Greetings, Aliens!

/ W. Keith Brenton / 5 Comments

Some time back, at Easter and just after the opening of The Passion of the Christ – when the church I attend was still committed to consistently beginning its worship with a greeting and call to worship and prayer; it no longer is – I was asked to word that greeting. It occurred to me how much of a challenge that really is, especially when there are many guests and visitors expected.

Many are not Christians, and they see Christians at work and elsewhere pretty much as people like themselves. But, if they gather in a building with religious purposes, Christians start doing a lot of really strange things … like aliens from a different world entirely. Our guests and visitors have no way of knowing how right they are to perceive us that way!

I took a cue from a brother whom I very much respect, who once gave a greeting that closed with an encouragement for visitors to ask the ministers or elders later about anything that took place during the service that they weren’t familiar with.

I decided to front-load the explanation as concisely as I could, and this – from the handwritten notes I just rediscovered in my briefcase – is what I said:

“Three years ago on a Sunday morning before Christmas, I was privileged to call this congregation to worship and I spoke of Christ coming to earth as ‘God’s most extravagant gift.’ I think those of us who experienced the movie The Passion of the Christ this week now have a very graphic picture of how much that gift cost. And even though the movie is peppered with moments you won’t find in Scripture or this church’s traditions, I would have to say that it is a powerful witness.

“If you are visiting with us, the family of Christ here welcomes you. If you’re with us for the first time,perhaps because you were invited by friends to the movie showing, you have probably already figured out that they asked because they love you – not just for yourself – but because you (like all of us) are someone for whom Christ died.

“You may notice that we do some things differently than other churches and fellowships. We will celebrate communion this morning, as we do every week, remembering – as Jesus asked – His body broken like bread for us, and His blood which flowed like wine for us.

“We’ll read from the Bible, to hear what God says to us through it.

“We’ll hear a message of encouragement from our preaching minister.

“We’ll sing praises together and share in the blessing of fellowship in song without any musical instruments, seeking to worship simply from the heart. Some of us feel strongly about this, and others do not. What we all agree is that God, His Son and His Holy Spirit deserve our praise.

“We will take a few moments to offer gifts to God that support the work of this church and many other ministries all over the world. If you’re visiting, we don’t want to discourage you from giving from the heart just as we all seek to do, but please don’t feel pressured or compelled to do so.

“If you have any question about anything you experience here this morning – or anything you saw and heard at the movie showing – or anything that’s troubling you, please feel free to ask. We’ll study and pray and struggle with you until your heart is at rest on the matter.

“I honestly don’t know whether it is by chance or God’s design, but our year-and-a-half study of the Gospel of John on Sunday mornings brings us today to the events chronicled in the movie The Passion. Our minister’s message this morning is titled ‘The Most Immoral Act of All.’

“Now let’s begin our worship together speaking to God in prayer through the intercession of His Son Jesus, and the interpretation of His Spirit for the things we have no words to say.”

Then I led a brief prayer. Looking back, there are things I probably would have phrased differently; some I might omit entirely.

But I still think that in our greeting time as gathered Christians we should remember – at least from time to time – to show hospitality to the aliens and strangers among us.

That must surely be how they regard us.

The "Only One Way" Fallacy?

/ W. Keith Brenton / 3 Comments

I said something that was a bit controversial right at the end of Sunday School class last week that prompted a murmur from the back of the room. I’m not wise enough to be able to interpret whether that murmur was approval or disapproval. But I ain’t taking it back, no matter which it was.

We were talking about interpretation of scripture in our “God’s Holy Fire” series. I said that I have a rule-of-thumb that I employ when I find myself defending my views and interpretations: Am I defending them because I believe they represent the one and only way to do or view something that is pleasing to God? Because, I pointed out, if that’s true I can get in a lot of trouble very quickly.

My example was prayer, borrowed from the class teacher (an elder of my age) from earlier in the discussion. Is there one and only correct way to pray? If so, is it in a closet? An upper room? With head bowed? With face upraised toward God? With arms upraised as well? Kneeling? Standing? Sitting? Prostrate?

How can we be absolutely certain that any scriptural alternative is the one and only way to view or do – and still please God? Are a lot of our “either-or” logical boxes really “both-and”s? Could some of them be “neither-nor”s?

So much of the “doing” questions have to do with worship. I’ve even heard defenders of a given “one way” call upon the Old Testament admonition to carry and not touch the Ark of the Covenant, and point out the penalties that resulted from disobedience.

I go back farther, to something that I’m convinced was related to worship rather than porting God’s earthly throne with due respect. I go back to Cain and Abel. As nearly as I can tell, neither was commanded to sacrifice. The urge to do so – to thank and worship God – simply welled up in their hearts and each expressed it according to his character. One expression was favored over the other – but God reassured Cain that if he did what was right, he would be accepted. And there was a warning about sin trying to master him.

The point? Worship came from the heart. There was something wrong with Cain’s heart. Nothing has changed. Worship has always taken the form of being a sacrifice of thanksgiving and recognition of God’s glorious providence. It still has to do with blood poured out. Practice became precedent. Precedent became custom. Custom became prophecy. Prophecy was fulfilled. A sacrifice was made that ended all others; yet ideally we still respond with sacrificial praise that can add nothing to God’s glory. But it comes straight from the heart.

In fact, I would venture to say that the condition of the heart is the most important factor we can contribute to worship.

Can we offer worship with a pure and undivided heart of thanksgiving and praise if we can’t perceive the good that God is doing among us in many different ways? Can we do so while appointing ourselves the feng shui experts of worship? (I believe that feng shui is Chinese for “I don’t like the way you’ve done things here.” I could be mistaken. But I’ve been one of those “experts” and I don’t ever want to go back to being one again.)

Maybe the same thing can be said about the “viewing” questions.

Is it grace that saves us? Faith? Baptism? Obedience? Or all of the above, plus a few more? Or is it Christ?

Is the Bible inspired by the Spirit word-for-word? In principle? In purpose? In completeness? In essence? In totality? In part? Or is it simply inspired?

Is God all-knowing and all-good and all-powerful? Some combination of the preceding? Mostly all three? Unquestionably perfect? Or just incomprehensibly God?

I know that inquiring minds want to know. I know I do. So I keep searching, seeking, asking, knocking, trying, stumbling, feeling myself lifted up – over and over and over. I may never know all the answers. But I will grow, and I will learn, and I will do whatever it takes to find God’s heart and draw closer to it.

And there is, without any possible fallacy in believing it, one and only one extraordinary Way to get there: His Son.

Maybe Gamaliel Was Right

/ W. Keith Brenton / 5 Comments

There’s a growing number of folks posting online their conviction that the emerging church is just a fad.

I was going to post a few links as examples, but you can read more than anyone needs to by simpling Googling “emerging emergent church fad”.

Some go so far as to call it a movement (most of the folks involved simply call it a conversation) and lump it in with WWJD, Purpose-Driven, Promise-Keeping, 40 Days Of, and anything else you’ve ever heard of that has enjoyed a bit of success.

My problem with being so sure about that is the same one Gamaliel had.

About the church itself.

You remember Gamaliel, don’t you? Paul’s teacher? The fellow who, in Acts 5:29-41, stood up in (and to) the Sanhedrin when they wanted to put Peter and the other apostles to death.

But the examples he gave were well-known failures, not successes: defeated revolutionaries Theudas and Judas of Galilee. Gamaliel’s advice?

“Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

Even the Sanhedrin was wise enough to yield to that advice and let them be – even though they threatened pain of death if any of the apostles ever spoke in the name of Jesus again.

It seems to me that the people conversing in emerging terms aren’t saying that the old ways of presenting the Story don’t work anymore. They’re just saying they don’t work for everyone. They’re not trying to change the Story; just the way it’s told.

In fact, they sound to me a lot like Gamaliel’s student Paul, who said:

“Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.” — I Corinthians 9:19-23