Solomon, King of Israel, wrote these comments late in his life. They follow his introduction in verses 1-9, which outline his view on the vanity of life. Although he had the ultimate in abilities and opportunities, he concluded them as nothing more than a vapor, a breath, vanity.

According to Matthew Henry, noted commentator, Solomon warned his readers of two attempts to save them from the vanities of life. Our text describes them as the novelty of invention, i. e., newness, and the memorableness of achievements.

However, even these attempts prove fruitless. First, “There is no new thing under the sun“ (v. 9). Second, we tend to either glamorize the past or diminish and dismiss it. In either case, “The only thing we have learned from history is that we have not learned from history.” (2)

Sadly, those who have not learned from history, repeat it. This describes the emergent, postmodern, and seeker-friendly church movements, which fall prey to two problems. All dressed up in modern styling and 21^st Century jargon, they envision themselves cutting edge theologians. Actually, they emulate shallow and impotent movements of the past.

Worse yet, they attempt to use Scripture as the foundation for their beliefs and practices. One of their favorites comes from the Apostle Paul’s first letter to the Church at Corinth.

“…I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.” 1 Corinthians 9.22

“Aha,” they say. “The ends justify the means, even if it results in only one person. When in Rome, do as the Romans.” “Thus,” they say, “the Church can practice anything and everything in pursuit of souls. After all, Paul did. “

You may think that those statements oversimplify the positions of the emergent, postmodern, and seeker-friendly Church movements. However, they do describe their practices in essence. Nothing seems sacred to these movements. They have placed everything on the table for effecting their goals, even to the removal and compromise of their perceived offensive Biblical doctrines.

Consequently, the Church battles confusion over matters of apparent indifference. Confusion never comes from God. It comes from the devil. (1 Corinthians 14.33; James 3.16) In large part, this text lies at the center of the Church’s confusion.

Unfortunately, the emergent, postmodern, and seeker-friendly Church movements misinterpret Paul’s statement. They take it out of context and misrepresent it. A text without a context produces a pretext.

The context for Paul’s statement begins in chapter 8 and continues through chapter 10. The context explains Paul’s answer to the Corinthians’ concern over eating meats offered to idols. In this matter of indifference, Paul discusses many issues.

For this commentary, we will examine three of them relevant to his statement in verse 22: his self-denial, his selectivity, and the salvation of the lost, his goal. They provide a foundation to understand Paul’s testimony.

Through out his answer, Paul emphasized his self-denial. He abstained from satisfaction of his fleshly desires. For example, he refrained from eating meat served to idols, if it would offend his brother. (1 Corinthians 8.13)

Further, He described his rights as an apostle to receive financial assistance from those to whom he ministered. Using his Old Testament knowledge, Paul proved his rights. Yet, he denied his rights in order to preach without charge so as not to abuse his rights. (1 Corinthians 9.12, 15, 18)

Moreover, where possible, he made his person inoffensive to those to whom he sought to win. He set aside his privileges to reach Jews, those under the law, those without the law, and the weak. (1 Corinthians 9.19-22)

Paul frequently called himself a servant. Primarily, he served God. At the same time, he made himself a servant of others. He gladly and repeatedly denied himself to become inoffensive to the lost.

Sadly, that does not describe the emergent, postmodern, and seeker-friendly Church movements. In fact, they emphasize the opposite. These methods accentuate self-satisfaction and self-attainment.

Paul’s sacrificial life precludes the use of his statements as Biblical support for the self-indulgent practices of the emergent, postmodern, and seeker-friendly customs.

In addition, Paul’s answers incorporated selectivity. In verse 22, “all” appears twice. This frequently misinterpreted word does have several meanings. It can mean always, totality, everything, or anything.

In this instance, however, it does not. It means one or some of the total, not every one. Therefore, he did not say that he adjusted to everyone, to every instance, and to every thing. He practiced selectivity in his responses to circumstances.

For example, on one occasion he circumcised Timothy in deference to the Jews. (Acts 16.1-3) Yet, Paul did not circumcise Titus to conform to demands from legalists. (Galatians 2.3)

In the context of Paul’s answers to the Corinthians’ question, he identified several criteria that affected his actions. I have already listed his examples of self-denial. In chapter 10, he listed five others.

From the Old Testament, Paul used the Israelites’ sin to warn his friends:

• not to lust after evil things (1 Corinthians 10.1-6);
• to reject idolatry (1 Corinthians 10.7, 18-21);
• to deny practices that led to fornication (1 Corinthians 10.8);
• to resist tempting Christ (1 Corinthians 10.9); and
• to avoid murmuring (1 Corinthians 10.10).

He then ended the chapter admonishing them to edify one another. (1 Corinthians 10.23-33) Christ-followers need to seek the benefit of others.

Paul emphasized one other criteria. In chapter 9.21, he stated that in his attempts at harmlessness, he always remained in subjection to the law of God and Christ. He never compromised God's word to adapt to any circumstance.

This condition affects the third issue in Paul’s answers, salvation of the lost. The current false Church growth movements described as emergent, postmodern, and seeker-friendly repeatedly fail to meet this requirement.

Although they use Paul’s statement as a basis for their freewheeling practices “to reach the lost,” they deny the gospel that he fervently proclaimed. They proclaim heretically a “gospel” that

• excludes regeneration and repentance,
• adulterates the crucifixion of Christ,
• replaces the atonement of Christ with inclusivism, and
• promulgates a “Christianity” of emulation instead of one based upon justification by faith alone in Christ alone, which results from regeneration by the Holy Spirit alone.

Yes, Paul observed self-denial and selectivity to become a servant of others. These he did to become inoffensive to others so that he could proclaim the gospel. But, he never altered it to suit his audience because it offended them. He wore the offense of the gospel with honor.

Let me state it clearly. The emergent, postmodern, and seeker-friendly Church growth movements do not proclaim the Biblical gospel. At best, they include parts of it, the “acceptable” parts, which they think unbelievers will not find offensive. They have attempted to legitimize their unrestrictive methods with a misinterpretation and misapplication of Paul’s statement found in 1 Corinthians 9.22.

To enjoy again the glorious, manifest presence of God, the Church of Jesus Christ must experience a visitation of the Holy Spirit. He will reprove, rebuke, reform, and revive the Body of Christ.

In this day of confusion and error, the Church can hoist her sails to catch the winds of revival by proclaiming fearlessly and shamelessly the Biblical gospel to a lost and dying world. Again, Paul said it best to his friends at Rome: