Competing In The Arena of Thought

Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was being provoked within him as he was observing the city full of idols.  So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present.  And also some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him. Some were saying, "What would this idle babbler wish to say?" Others, "He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities," -- 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 which you are proclaiming?  "For you are bringing some strange things to our ears; so we want to know what these things mean."  (Now all the Athenians and the strangers visiting there used to spend their time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new.) (Acts 17:16-21 NASB)

Some faithful readers (more likely "reader") probably know that I am a philosopher.  But some who are more familiar with the term 'philosopher' would also know that I fit it in the sense that I think about what I think about, rather than in the classical sense found in colleges and universities.  I think a lot about my faith as well, since it's what takes up a lot of my thought.  So, in that sense I am a Christian philosopher.  I see myself that way anyway.

Paul doesn't really look at things this way.  He's into building bridges that connect people to Jesus.  I use that analogy because one bridge really doesn't fit several different spans, they have to be "custom built" or adapted to fit (normally).  Techniques are reused, but the bridges typically aren't.  Paul "builds bridges" and discovered a really difficult "span" in Athens.  These guys did a lot of "religion" and thought long and hard about it.  But philosophy also has a popular aspect to it, and different philosophies were in vogue at different times in Athens.  In Paul's day it was the Epicureans and the Stoics who captivated the prevailing arguments.

There's no great succinct description of a 'school' of philosophy, but here's an attempt with these two.  Epicureans believed/believe in the pursuit of pleasure as the center of life.  Their arguments all seek to support this viewpoint in some fashion.  The Stoics believed/believe that suppression of emotions was what brought harmony and peace.  They had their arguments as well.  As you can see, these two 'schools' were diametrically opposed, and debate was often lively.  One consistency between them was the rejection of any notion of resurrection; obviously an issue with Paul's faith.

Paul spoke in the synagogue, but really got traction in the marketplace.  This is where the "junior debaters" everyone else debated/discussed the philosophy of the day.  But new stuff (like Paul's view) went up the hill behind the market, to the Areopagus.  After days of discussion in the market, Paul is taken to the Areopagus.  In his presentation, he uses a lot of philosophy instead of Scripture.  How much of the Epicurean and Stoic writings with which he was familiar isn't known.  It's possible, in Tarsus, he was raised knowing some.  But he was raised to be a Pharisee which forced him to specialize.  I suspect he learned most of what he knew in the Athenian market.  And he displayed his use of it within days of his arrival in Athens.  This guy learned fast and learned well.

The take away for me in this is Paul's willingness to enculturate the good news of Jesus without sacrificing the news.  There is a huge similarity between Jews and Gentiles where the good news of Jesus is concerned; they both face the same problem.  The problem is that they are separated from their Maker and only Jesus can reconcile.  Regardless of their ethnic background, they are separated from a loving Maker, and Jesus reconciles.  That's pretty much the essence of the good news, everything else makes up the Who's, why's, and how's of the reconciliation.

Why can't I look at people this way?  What is so hard about seeing this as the only common ground necessary to engage in a discussion of faith?  It's everywhere in Scripture, both Hebrew and Christian.  How can it be that I would seek some other more complex, and often less meaningful, opportunity.  I wonder if my excuse has been that I'm seeking opportunity, but really just need to ask a simple question of their standing before their Maker.  Perhaps, and it can't be that hard to come up with a way to ask that question anyone will understand.  Perhaps it's not 'appropriate' with my customers during work, but it might be, depending on the customer.  I have a lot to do so that I practice this differently.