“ALL.” (Screwed-Up Saints, Part 40)
The audio of the fortieth message from the SCREWED-UP SAINTS series, “ALL.” (1 Cor. 10:23-11:1) is now online, as is the streaming video.
Key quote: “All means all. Everything in our life is an opportunity to glorify God. Every thing—every moment—is an opportunity to call attention to the worth and beauty and magnificence and goodness of God. Every spoken word, every phone call, every Tweet, every Facebook update, every interaction with another person, every choice in what you eat, every penny spent, every second going by is an opportunity to glorify God.”
Here are the small-group discussion/personal application questions:
Conversation starter: Name five songs to which you know all the lyrics (Bonus points: Include no worship songs. Include several Michael Jackson songs)
Ask someone in the group to read 1 Corinthians 10:23-11:1 out loud.
1. What was helpful in this message for you personally? Were there things that were convicting or thing you hadn’t seen or understood in this text before?
2. Name some of the criteria given in this passage for wise decision-making with regard to cultural issues? Paul gives at least six or seven of them.
3. What’s the difference between what PB called “stupid offensiveness” and “gospel offensiveness?” (see vv. 32-33)
4. What does it mean to “glorify” God? Does it mean “to make him more glorious?” If not, why not?
Close by asking each other (as a group or separate as men and women) how we can each individually refocus our lives so that we do ALL things for the glory of God, and then pray for these things for each other.
Next week: FUSION GENERATIONS!
PB, curious about a comment you said in this message that I have been thinking about since. You had said, ‘if people think you are a jerk before you get to the gospel, you failed.’ I agree with that, as far as I know. But then you continued it and said you see this most happening when discussing politics. My question is, how would one work in politics without offending people?
I guess this question will ring louder for certain people than others. For me it does because I grew up in AZ. And now with all that is going on down there, it seems one could not speak to either side without people thinking you are a jerk. But this is a very real and serious issue down there, especially along the border where millions of dollars worth of revenue/assets are destroyed each year. Not to mention the numerous American deaths. Or the flip side, how can one say we should not be helping illegals, after all, they are just trying to make a little money to help feed their families back home.
I’m not wanting to discuss which side of that example is true, just using it as an example question. Should and how can one discuss a topic like that without being a jerk to the other side? Not looking for, our speech needs to be seasoned with grace. I tried that back home when discussing it with my Dad and brother and it got heated on there end super quick. I ended up quit talking about it. Are there times or arenas that are ok where one inevitably will think you are a jerk on a non-gospel hill?
Daniel, I won’t answer for PB, but that is a good question. I’m not sure if I’ve heard this message yet, so I can’t speak to that portion. I would say this though… one has to differentiate between people thinking you’re a jerk merely because you stand for truth and people thinking you’re a jerk because you actually are one. Bringing up or commenting on a divisive topic and disagreeing with those around you is NOT being a jerk. The manner in which you disagree is what determines your “jerkiness.”
So, in my opinion, feel free to talk about “non-gospel” (if there really is such a thing, more on that in a second) issues, but be careful in HOW you do it and what your motives are for discussing the topic. I know it can be difficult to avoid arguing “to be right” instead of arguing to convince the other person.
On that side note I mentioned above: in some ways, while not everything is the Gospel, everything IS informed by the Gospel. The Gospel should be the starting and ending point, but it necessarily leads one to take certain positions on social, cultural, and political issues. It’s unavoidable. What is avoidable is how we treat those who have been blinded to the truth or haven’t yet recognized it fully.
Daniel,
Thanks for the comment, bud. I think Darius’s distinction between people thinking you’re a jerk because you’re standing up for truth, and you actually being a jerk in the way that you say what you’re saying is right on.
The only thing I’d add (and this may be implied in Darius’s second paragraph) is that I generally counsel people who are conversing with unbelieving friends to stay away from hot button political topics if their hope is to focus their conversations with that person on Christ. In other words, as I said in the message, if you’re going to choose a hill to die on with your friend–or, to put it another way–if you’re going to risk the relational bridge being burned with one topic, make the potential bridge-burning topic the gospel, and questions like, “Who do you think Jesus is?” Don’t make the bridge-burning topic immigration laws.
If a person hears your perspective on immigration laws and despises you for it, nothing is gained. If a person hears the gospel and despises you for it, Jesus may still use that to get at their heart.