I can remember when I first read Acts chapter 17 where Paul engaged the high culture of the Athenians on Mars Hill. I can remember how vividly my mind painted this scene and how I embellished it with an obelisk reminiscent of “2001, A Space Odyssey,” which read “To an Unknown God.” I can remember others championing this story as the pinnacle of good Christian apologetics. Along with Romans 1, Acts 17 became one of my most favored chapters in scripture.
I would have to admit that I am a thinker. I would rather read, meditate, and think about profound spiritual truths than do most other things. To this day, I still love to engage the “upper crust,” of academia, the philosophers, scientists, lawyers and doctors. I can play well in their arenas. I enjoy bringing their unknown gods into the discussion and playing minds games. And while those engagements are fun, they’re not always fruitful.
My thinking on this hadn’t changed until the other day when a commenter on this blog post suggested that Acts 17 and Paul’s skirmish with the Athenians might just have been his most Epic ministry fail.
I thought for many years and admired the sheer brilliance of Paul’s approach. I respected Paul as an underdog of sorts and his tenacity in bringing the Gospel into whatever situation he encountered. His message to them was original, rational, methodical, and culturally relevant.
He enters their Areopagus with finesse – “Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects.” Acts 17:22
He quotes some of their own poets – “for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’ Acts 17:28
It’s interesting to note that Luke never mentions anything good about Paul’s approach as a model for ministry. In fact, he even subtly mocks the Athenians for wasting their time philosophizing (Acts 17:21). Paul’s sermons don’t lead to thousands converting to Christ. In fact, the crowd mocks him when he’s done (Acts 17:32). Only a few believe (Acts 17:34). We never see the city of Athens featuring prominently in church history, nor do we have a letter from Paul written to the church there. If we accept Paul’s approach on Mars Hill as a model for ministry, then can we say that it’s a mediocre model, an epic fail, or neither?
I am not settled on which, but I am reconsidering the import of the passage itself. What are your thoughts? What are the good things about this interaction? What are some “not so good” things?
Missionary in the Andes Mountains Cloud Forest Region of Ecuador. My last name, "Labrador," is the word that's used for "Vine Worker" in the Spanish Bible, and it's OK with me. 
Carlos on I'm 76.5% Completely Sold Out To Jesus! 
Tom Schultz on I'm 76.5% Completely Sold Out To Jesus! 
Nige on I'm 76.5% Completely Sold Out To Jesus! 
He may not have won thousands at Mars Hill. But he did plant seeds. Since when is the measure of our ministry success the number of people who stumble to the “front”. Sometimes we are only given the job of planting seeds … planting them well … What happens later is up to God, and maybe through contact with someone else.
I agree with Al. Paul planted, Apollos watered, but God gives the growth, according to His timing, His will. We all wish for results, like on the Day of Pentecost, but the reality is the Lord saves one person at a time.
Al,
Thanks for the comment…
I don’t think the measure of ministry success is based on number of converts, but I do find it interesting that this scene appears to be the least productive. What was 100% successful in this situation is that Paul was provoked in his spirit Acts 17:16, and responded appropriately. We can not say for sure that this provoking was of the Spirit, but his general tendency was on of obedience.
I dont think this was less productive than others. I just think Acts 17 is an example of evangelizing people who do not have the same history and culture as you do – you have to lay the ground work that you dont have to lay if you come from the same culture (as evidenced in Acts 13).
http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/paul-and-evangelism-acts-1716-34/
Walter,
Thanks for the comment. I suppose the answer or commentary on this question is rooted in how we each gauge success. My intention here is not to place a yoke on anyone, just have a good discussion that is fruitful. I’m off to check your link.
I’ll have to give this some more thought, still, seems that it had nothing to do with Paul or his approach. It had to do more with the soil. As we learn from Matthew 13, not all soil (people) are ready or willing to receive the seed (gospel).
Rick, this is an interesting viewpoint as well. It makes me wonder if we should be assessing the soil before we plant seed. The sower didn’t seem to concerned about where his seeds fell.
I couldn’t agree more with your comment about testing the soil, Miguel.
Farmers plant seeds and fertilize them only in good soil. Before sharing Jesus “Good News” too extensively with an individual, I test their receptivity in the context of 1 Corinthians 2:4 and 2 Corinthians 4:4.
Jesus let the rich young man walk away, eh!
My soil tester is Holy Spirit’s leading following my prayer. I don’t worry about making a mistake, God doesn’t really need me to gather His elect. He’ll use another, I’m sure.
Like you my Brother, I also am a thinker. Recently I found an acronym, you and others may like as much as I did. Before I speak or even reflect, I do my best to prayerfully decide:
T – is it TRUE?
H – is it HELPFUL?
I – is it INSPIRING?
N – is it NECESSARY?
K – is it KIND?
Blessings all,
Gary in Toronto
Oops! I meant to type 1 Corinthians 2:14 in my comment immediately above. gfp
Throughout history there have been individuals, families, communities and nations that have both responded to God and rejected Him. Ultimately the whole world will hate his people because they hate him.
If my own heart an indication of how precarious a thing the ‘love that works by faith’ is, then I can see why entire nations reject Him, including nations that have seen His mighty acts, heard of His mercy and received His goodness. Jesus was unable to penetrate a few of His own cities because of their unbelief.
I wonder if we haven’t been hoodwinked by our own rhetoric of missionary think.
Just because we have pulled missionary models and theological underpinnings for ministry out of the bible and history doesnt mean to me that God must stick within our boundaries.
Abraham, the first recorded pagan, wasn’t preached to that we know of.
I know of a northern Canadian Indian that came to Christ, without having contact with white men, because he received a revelation of Him when contemplating nature.
I came to Christ, after several years of resisting Him, because the Lord gradually brought me into judgement and chastisement. I clearly remember standing over the toilet with my bag of street drugs, knowing that if I didnt dump them, that was my last warning.
I dumped them to save my own skin, which God treated as a loving response.
He calls Israels crossing of the Red Sea faith.
Faith my foot.
They had the enemy behind, no vision of what a Promised Land might be and they just wanted to go home and cook some leek soup.
We dont take into account how much less missionary activity we would need if we were obedient in loving one another as His family, as He commanded us.
Father says that’s how unbelievers know He’s real.They don’t read the bible, they read us.
One of my favorite unbelieving honest writers (Sam Clemens aka Mark Twain) wrote that he was more concerned with the scriptures he did understand than the ones he didn’t.
Seems to me the missionaries could listen to that kind of evangelism.
blessings
Greg
Greg, what a transparent comment.
I agree, we are to prone to boxing (packaging) God within our own understanding. It’s impossible the come to scripture without preconceptions. I do think though, that there is a “Missionary Mandate” for the people of God, or if you will, a missional propensity. “As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world.” John 17:18
You are right in saying that if we lived our everyday lives in such a manner as to let Christ shine through, we may need less going… but:
“How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent?” (Rom.10:14-15)
The post is a something that I considered thought worthy, and your comment has had the same effect.
Thanks
By that standard, Jeremiah (one of the most beloved, faithful, and powerful preachers/prophets ever) and his entire ministry would be more of a failure than Paul’s Aereopogus sermon considering he had zero converts. Considering the fruit of Paul’s ministry and the fact that very few of his actual sermons were recorded by Luke, the Aereopogus sermon was recorded for a reason, and it was definitely NOT as a how-to on what to avoid.
The dude was in the middle of THE center for higher philosophical and religious thought of the day, and he had “some” who criticized (not a majority like your post leads people to believe), some had a stone put in their shoe and desired to hear more (a number you left out completely), and some were converted, if not immediately then very soon after the sermon (the scripture doesn’t say “a few” believed, but “some” and Luke just sees fit to name “a few”). Those are fantastic results, especially considering the circumstances. That’d be like a preacher going into the reason rally or some other atheistic center, preaching the gospel, and only some of them ridiculed him, others wanted to hear more, and some joined him and were converted.
The commenter on your blog got you thinking the wrong way. You were in a much better place prior, so come on back to the winning team.
I await a response to my critique… and not the facetious one.
Here’s the recap from Luke, with some emphasis on key words:
32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, SOME began to sneer, but OTHERS said, “We shall hear you again concerning this.” 33 So Paul went out of their midst. 34 But SOME men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and OTHERS with THEM.
Also, I read the original response that got you thinking about this, and he was inaccurate in his description as well, implying that everyone left untouched. That is absolutely NOT the case. Just because Luke only named two people does not imply they were the only converts, as you know.
I’m just saying I think you’re veering into strange waters on this one. If you want to do an expository critique on the sermon itself, go for it… and then you’ll be back on the winning team.
Chad,
The post is a question, and something to think about. Not only do we have biblical examples like Jeremiah, “the one no one would listen to,” but plenty of real life examples of missionaries who worked for years without seeing fruit only to have the next generation reap the harvest. They were faithful.
I’m not so sure you can say with 100% certainty what the reason for Paul’s sermon was. Surely there are applications we can draw from it, and it certainly contains truth, but I think the context is more descriptive than prescriptive.
Yes, I did leave out the few who believed, but to say that is a fantastic result is subjective. What qualifies biblically speaking, as fantastic?
As to thinking the wrong way, it happens a lot. Thankfully though my mind is being transformed daily and sometimes it comes through this kind of thinking.
All that said, this blog post was an epic fail. ;-p
Wow, thanks for encouragement brother ;-P
30 comments is not an”epic fail” in my book even if they all disagree!
30 comments hardly qualifies as am “epic failure.” Would that my blog got more than a steady flow of spam comments!
I had never thought on this before, but I think Miguel is on to something here. I once heard a missionary talk about teaching Muslims who “allah” really is, by equating him to God. This made me uncomfortable. Allah is not just another name for the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He (if he existed) is a completely different entity with different character qualities. I think what Paul did at Mars Hill is perhaps a similar error. Is it wise to identify the one true God with the other ‘gods’ of another religion? I am not saying I have the answer, but I am also not convinced it’s the best idea.
Thanks for commenting Pamela,
There are a lot of descriptive (i.e. “this is what happened”) events, and some of it is prescriptive (i.e. “this is what happened and should happen”) events. I am not convinced that this is either. But certainly it warrants thought.
I like the question you bring to the table, and I think pertinent.
I do find it interesting what happened after Athens in Corinth when Paul said:
For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will thwart the cleverness of the intelligent.” Where is the wise man? Where is the expert in the Mosaic law? Where is the debater of this age? Has God not made the wisdom of the world foolish? For since in the wisdom of God the world by its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased to save those who believe by the foolishness of preaching. For Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks ask for wisdom, but we preach about a crucified Christ, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. But to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. (1 Corinthians 1:18-25)
When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come with superior eloquence or wisdom as I proclaimed the testimony of God. For I decided to be concerned about nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and with much trembling. My conversation and my preaching were not with persuasive words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not be based on human wisdom but on the power of God. (1 Corinthians 2:1-5)
Sounds like a person who may have learned a lesson or had a change of heart on the mode of presenting the gospel. Like I said said in my post, I am convinced of nothing right now and am reconsidering the import of this passage.
Came here to say this. He went to Corinth as someone who seems to have “learned his lesson.”
Kenneth, thanks for your first time comment.
Help me to understand, are you agreeing with the statement in the comment “Sounds like a person who may have learned a lesson,” or questioning it.
Blessings
This comment doesn’t seem to be finished. Do you mean to agree? Are you being sarcastic?
I’m not sure we have definitive information in the text to make a firm exegetical conclusion one way or another.
Since I KNOW for sure Paul was under the direct guide of the Holy Spirit, then what he said and taught was God’s exact words for that situation. The Gospel is successful EVERYTIME it is preached. As Paul said in 2nd Corinthians, “But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. For we are the AROMA of CHRIST to God among those who are BEING SAVED and among those who are PERISHING, to one a FRAGRANCE from DEATH to DEATH, to the other a FRAGRANCE from LIFE to LIFE. Who is sufficient for these things? For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God’s word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ.”
Tim, In Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas get into a heated disagreement so that they part ways. Is this a model of what should happen to ministry teams based on how the Spirit was directing, or was it something else? Are you saying Paul was infallible?
Good question you asked Tim, Miguel.
As I read Tim’s statements, I was reminded that imperfect Paul was the one who told us that we ALL, including Him, see through a glass darkly. Also, before heading for Greece, he headed off in three wrong directions, first. Very discerning, eh?
In my being used by God, I take comfort in the fact that Paul put his toga on the same way I do my pants every morning. Thankfully, he wasn’t perfect. And the worst of sinners …just like me.
And if Tim means by the Gospel always being successful when it’s lovingly shared I’d agree if he means Holy Spirit brings the other person “one step closer to Jesus” because “the how” and “when” are up to HIM.
Wouldn’t Paul’s approach to the Athenians be consistent with 1 Corinthians 9:19-23? It seems like laying the “failure” at Paul’s feet doesn’t take into account the role of the Holy Spirit in conversion.
I also wonder how we can qualify the success or rightness of the effort based on the number of those who responded. Were Dionysius, Damaris and the others with them not worth it?
Nate,
I do think it’s consistent with 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. Excellent to bring that in to the discussion. I am not a fan of quantifying our success in ministry and I have written on that subject often here on this blog.
Remember, this post is more of a question or alternative view of that text, and makes no declarative statement.
If we focus only on the Areopagus event it’s easy to see that it was an epic fail according to our evangelical, or Christendom standards. Yet, Paul’s life was not defined by that one moment. Many still wish to define his life by the experience he faced on the way to Damascus. Paul himself would argue that his life was meant to be defined by the Christ crucified and resurrected.
Paul was a risk taker and a brilliant man. The epic fail on Areopagus would have been in not being Paul and responding to the Spirit’s pressing on his heart about the idols he saw throughout the city of Athens. Let’s admit, he was so full of Jesus that he knew what was breaking God’s heart. In the end what he spoke was the gospel of Jesus. There is no epic fail in that unless we choose to focus on how many followed Paul.
Like, Miguel, Acts 17 is one of my favorite chapters in the Bible because of what Paul did. He understood the cultures around him. He reasoned with the Jews and God-fearing Gentiles in the synagogue. He spoke in the public square to those who would listen (I doubt with a bullhorn). He spoke on the Areopagus to the great minds of the day and challenged their way of thinking and believing.
As I said earlier. The failure would have been in Paul not being Paul…led by the Spirit and speaking the gospel.
I think the example of Paul and Barnabas’ disagreement shows that God will extend His Gospel by splitting teams,
Well! I didn’t envision such controversy!
I did not mean to imply that Athens was a total failure, nor that the sower is to be careful where he scatters the seed, nor that missions should be judged and directed by conversion numbers. I fully believe that the Holy Spirit can direct us (although Paul’s dream with the call to Macedonia was not reported as though it was a daily occurrence), but I wanted to point out that, reading between the lines, Paul seemed happier when he was got away from Athens (and that relatively quickly). I can imagine, at least, that he left highly disillusioned by the reception in the intellectual forum (and I can personally identify with that same reception in the academic settings where I spent most of my career).
Tom,
It’s a great discussion and those are rare without a little bit of controversy. I think you made some very intriguing propositions. I find that the depth of the comments proves this to be a topic of deep interest and perspective.
Blessings
Miquel,
Great question and discussion. I’m not sure that there is enough information for us to know a definitive answer on the issue. But I think Al’s first comment and those of many others are wise and provide a good note of caution.
But on related matter, you pointed out another common interpretive principle that I think sometimes leads us to dismiss too easily what the early church actually did—the difference between prescriptive and descriptive portions of Scripture. It’s true that the book of Acts is filled with descriptions of what the church did and not necessarily what we are commanded to do. Okay, good. But before we trot off into the sunset and say to ourselves, “We have the freedom to do other things that they did not do” or “We don’t have to do what they did,” or “We don’t need to use their example as templates for our ministries.”
They changed their world. Starting with nothing, they overcame the Roman empire. Persecuted from the beginning, without schools, seminaries, church buildings, libraries, Kindles, computers, Bible software, the internet, blogs and blog commentors to interact with, etc., they had the unbelieving world looking at them and saying “see how they love one another.” Churches dotted the Empire from India to Spain, and Africa to Northern Gaul before the span of a man’s life had ended.
For that reason alone, I look at what Paul did in Athens and say, “It didn’t seem to produce the same type of fruit, at least not immediately, but God’s Spirit put the record of it in my Bible and I can’t dismiss it. Given an Athens type situation in my ministry context, I will attempt what Paul did and leave the results to God.
Love your stuff brother. Missionaries are my heroes.
Marty, glad you commented…
I think, at the end of the day, if I were to have a Mars Hill opportunity today, I would still engage the Areopagites in the manner that Paul did. I would try to remain sensitive to the Spirit as to not overstay or overstep.
Truth: While sometimes I long for these types of opportunities, my day to day real life issues with the surrounding communities are enough to keep me occupied until the Lord returns.
As for being a hero, this is a tough life, and many times I’m not so sure I do it well. Lord willing, and in His strength, I will press on…
Sorry, I have a duplicate comment part way back which I can’t seem to delete–perhaps you have that power?