“What is this babbler trying to say? He seems to be advocating foreign gods,” (Acts 17:18 NIV). I imagine many Christians over the centuries have had a similar reception as the Apostle Paul when he tried to share the gospel with the Athenians. The Book of Acts contains an insightful collection of case studies of Paul’s efforts to engage people of diverse cultures and backgrounds. The account in Acts 17, set in Athens, “the cultural, intellectual, and religious nerve center of the Greco-Roman world” (Flemming, 2002, p. 200), is particularly paradigmatic for those interacting with non-Christian traditions, faiths, and worldviews. This article explores how Paul responded in the face of this initial reaction and exemplified a set of practical principles encapsulated in the acronym DEAR (Discover Embrace Adapt Reject). The DEAR acronym can help guide bridge-building with non-Christian traditions in relevant, respectful, and biblically faithful ways.
Communicating new ideas through bridge-building
Following his customary practice, Paul began by visiting the synagogue. There he engaged with Jews and God-fearing Greeks who were well-versed in the Jewish scriptures and therefore positioned to either accept his message or dismiss it based on their shared understanding. However, the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers of Athens had no such familiarity or affinity with the Jewish scriptures and the story in which Jesus was situated. In fact, according to Dean Flemming (2005), when Paul spoke of Jesus and the resurrection, his polytheistic Greek counterparts may have mistakenly assumed that Paul was endorsing multiple gods: “‘Jesus’ and his feminine [consort], ‘Anastasia,’ (Resurrection)” (Kindle location 806; Gray, 2005).
Similarly, many Buddhist Tibetans today lack a familiarity with Judeo-Christian scriptures or a shared tradition to draw upon when assessing the gospel. Consequently, like the Athenians, Tibetans may perceive Christians not as bearers of good news but as proponents of a nonsensical message about foreign deities, echoing the Athenian accusation of Paul.
While Christians believe the story of Jesus the Messiah to be universally relevant and beneficial, it can seem novel and peculiar to those outside the Christian tradition. Without a shared tradition to draw upon when assessing the gospel, people of other faiths may perceive Christians not as bearers of good news but as proponents of a nonsensical message about foreign deities, echoing the Athenian accusation of Paul. As missiologist Andrew Walls (2004) observed, “It is hardly possible to take in a new idea except in terms of ideas we already have” (p. 35). Paul’s mission to non-Jews required more than simply using his audience’s native language; it demanded that he understand his audience’s existing conceptual frameworks. He needed to identify touch points that could facilitate building bridges and pathways to connect with such a strange sounding message. Paul aimed to communicate in such a way that reduced barriers and enabled people of other cultures to truly grapple with the gospel’s implications and choose to receive or reject it with an informed understanding.
Transformation and cultural continuity
Paul described his mandate as this: “I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.” (1 Corinthians 9:22). He wholeheartedly undertook the challenge to become all things to all people. At times, his efforts yielded positive results. On other occasions, he faced expulsion or brutal beatings, achieving little tangible positive outcome. Nevertheless, he persevered in his mission to reveal Jesus not only as the Messiah for the Jews, but the Lord of all peoples. Paul’s goal was for them to follow Jesus while maintaining whatever status or cultural identity they already had, being transformed into Christ’s likeness within their own families and communities (1 Cor. 7:17-24).
For those who take up Paul’s mantle to reach all peoples and tongues, language learning is often the first formidable challenge. However, language represents merely the surface level of a vast cultural iceberg of different ways of perceiving and moving through the world. While humanity shares many commonalities, we are frequently divided by profound differences in worldviews, life goals, and sources of authority and trust. In light of these complex cultural and philosophical divides, how can meaningful communication begin? How should Christians approach engagement with people of other cultures and faith backgrounds, such as Buddhism, when these communities seem worlds apart in their conceptual frameworks?
DEAR (Discover Embrace Adapt Reject)
Often, the best place to start a daunting task is by asking a few simple questions. A friend recently introduced me to the acronym DEAR, which offers a helpful framework, though I’m unsure of its original creator to properly credit. And though it only functions as a mnemonic device in English, it echoes the approach that the Apostle Paul took back in first-century Athens.
DISCOVER
The process begins with taking the time to DISCOVER or learn about a culture, religion, or philosophy. In this stage, a temporary suspension of judgment is helpful. The Christian anthropologist and missiologist Paul Hiebert (1985) pointed out the tendency to prematurely judge other cultures without first understanding them on their own terms or genuinely appreciating them. Hasty judgments are often inaccurate and can shut down our curiosity, hindering further exploration and meaningful communication (pp. 100-101). Once we have invested time in understanding, we are better equipped to ask relevant questions and engage more effectively.
EMBRACE
Next, we need to ask what things we can EMBRACE and agree with as truth or as good. In this stage, we need to cultivate an awareness of God’s hand at work in every culture, encouraging people to seek him (Acts 17:26-27). In each culture, glimpses of truth emerge from God’s general revelation given to all people (Romans 1:19-20). Certainly, this revelation is often distorted by ignorance, self-centered desires, and the deceptive and imprisoning work of the powers of this age (Genesis 3; Romans 1:18-32; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 2:2-3; Galatians 4:1-9). Yet, we should be careful not to overlook aspects of goodness or truth, wherever we find them.
As the early church father Augustine put it, “Wherever truth may be found, it belongs to [God],” even when it comes from other religious sources; he exhorted Christians to recognize and acknowledge truth while rejecting the figments of pagan worship (St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 18).
ADAPT
Then, what things can we ADAPT and turn towards Christ? For example, Jesus transformed the Jewish water purification rites into the initiation rite of baptism for his followers; and he adapted the Passover meal to become the Lord’s Supper (Communion or Eucharist).
The Gospel of John introduced Jesus as the Logos, tapping into “a rich heritage in the religious and philosophical traditions of the day” (Flemming, 2005, Kindle location 3288) but adapting it to something more transformative. The term Logos touched on Greek Stoic philosophy’s principle of divine reason behind the cosmos, the Jewish tradition’s pre-existent Wisdom of God, the Greek Old Testament’s Word that created and accomplished Yahweh’s will, and the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo’s bridge between God and his creation (Kindle location 3288). John “embraces a familiar term that resonated with both Jewish and Hellenistic cultures . . . But he proceeds to melt it down and recast it with a new meaning that explodes the symbolic worlds of his contemporaries” (Kindle location 3293).
REJECT
Lastly, what are the things we ultimately need to REJECT? While there are things that we can agree with or adapt, becoming part of Jesus’ Kingdom requires repentance, turning away from the things that are irreconcilable and incompatible with God’s ways. Walls (1996) put it this way:
Not only does God in Christ take people as they are: He takes them in order to transform them into what He wants them to be. Along with the indigenizing principle which makes his faith a place to feel at home, the Christian inherits the pilgrim principle, which whispers to him that he has no abiding city and warns him that to be faithful to Christ will put him out of step with his society; for that society never existed, in East or West, ancient time or modern, which could absorb the word of Christ painlessly into its system (p. 8).
DEAR: Paul’s Guide to Bridge-Building in Athens
DISCOVER
While waiting for his companions in Athens, Paul was deeply troubled to find that the city was forested with idols (Acts 17:16; Fleming, 2002; Wycherley, 1968). Instead of accusing Paul of prematurely judging the Athenians, we should remember that we are entering the narrative midway—Paul had been studying and engaging Greek culture his whole life. Nevertheless, he took time to discover this particular city and interact with people of many different backgrounds—Jews, God-fearing Greeks, and people in the marketplace, including Epicurean and Stoic philosophers (v.16-18). Paul also mentioned his careful observation of their objects of worship (v.23).
EMBRACE
In verse 21, the narrator expresses a critical view of the Athenians, noting that “All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.” Even other Greeks, like the one recorded by the Greek historian Thucydides reproached the Athenians: “You are the best people at being deceived by something new that is said” (Arnold, 2002, entry for Acts 17:21). Yet, Paul embraced this cultural pattern of dialogue and debate. When the philosophers debated with him and later called him to the Areopagus (Mars Hill) for a more formal hearing, he seized the opportunity.
Paul assumed the position of a Greek orator and adeptly employed a conventional Greco-Roman rhetorical structure (Flemming, 2002, p. 201). He began with an introduction (exordium), designed to gain a hearing (Flemming, 2002; 2005). In Paul’s time, speakers on controversial topics typically began by building rapport and saved the more difficult points for later (Keener and Walton, 2016, entry for Acts 17:30; Fleming, 2002, p. 202). While Paul couldn’t commend the objects of their religious devotion, he diplomatically acknowledged their piety (v.22) as a starting point for discourse. However small the point of agreement, we can hardly expect to gain others’ trust if we cannot find something in common and begin from a position of generous respect.
There are certainly more points of truth that Paul acknowledged, but they may cross into the “adapt” category, so I will address them below.
ADAPT
Next, Paul articulated his thesis (proposito), presenting the goal of his speech, “to make the unknown God known to the Athenians” (Flemming, 2002, p. 201). Paul referenced an altar to an unknown god that he found as he wandered Athens. Paul agreed that there was a Divine Being of which the Athenians were ignorant by their own admission. This shrine to an unknown god presented an opportunity, not to introduce a foreign deity, but to impart and clarify true knowledge, and reorient their worship to the merciful God who created them and desired relationship.
Building on a mutual foundation
Paul then laid out his proof (probatio) for his argument (Flemming, 2002) by building on a set of mutually shared ideas and weaving together concepts that Epicureans, Stoics, other Greeks, and Jews could recognize in their traditions. Against a backdrop of temples surrounding the Areopagus (Keener and Walton, 2016), Paul declared that “the God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands” (Acts 17:24 NIV). This assertion would have resonated with both Epicureans, who rejected the necessity of temples and sacrifices, as well as many Stoics, whose “early tradition was pantheistic and saw no need for them” (Keener and Walton, 2016, entry for Acts 17:24).
Continuing in verse 25 verse, Paul added, “And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything,” tying into a basic premise of Stoicism. That “God does not need anything” was also “commonly affirmed in Hellenistic Jewish works” (Keener and Walton, 2016, entry for Acts 17:25).
Constructing apologetic bridges
Paul threaded Biblical ideas throughout his discourse. However, although every line was grounded in scripture, Paul did not appeal directly to Jewish scriptures as supporting evidence for his non-Jewish audience. As Flemming (2002) helpfully described it:
While it is true that the speech’s theology is firmly rooted in the Old Testament and Judaism, Paul is able to clothe biblical revelation in the language and categories of his Greek listeners-without syncretizing the message (see Charles 1995:53). He takes advantage of convergences between the Jewish Scriptures and Hellenistic thought in order to construct apologetic bridges to his listeners (Conzelmann 1966:221; Winter 1992:135). Paul views Greek philosophy as an appropriate conversation partner in his attempt to contextualize the Jewish Christian gospel for his educated contemporaries (Johnson 1992:319) (p. 203).
Biblically faithful use of non-Biblical sources
In fact, Paul reached deep into Greek mythopoeic tradition to bolster his credibility. Paul did not set a new precedent when he borrowed from a non-Christian tradition. Old Testament authors frequently invoked language, metaphors, imagery, and references from other ancient Near Eastern religious traditions to express truths about Yahweh. These authors tapped into a shared conceptual world while offering a distinct and contrasting theology (Bowers, 2018, Kindle Location 189; Hwang, 2022).
“In him we live and move and have our being”
In similar fashion, as Paul approached the climax of his speech, he strategically incorporated two quotes from Greek tradition. The first, found in Acts 17:28, “‘For in him we live and move and have our being’” is a citation from a poem attributed to the ancient Cretan philosopher Epimenides, circa 600 B.C. (Arnold, 2002). Because of Paul’s adaptation preserved in the Bible, the phrase subsequently became a common Christian worship refrain. Epimenides’ original poem, however, was likely referring reverentially to the Greek god Zeus (Harris, 1906):
They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one—
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!—
But thou art not dead; thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being (Arnold, 2002, entry for Acts 17:28).
“We are his offspring”
Paul followed immediately with another familiar line, “As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring,’” (Acts 17:28 NIV). This line, also originally penned in praise of Zeus, is found in two Stoic poems. The first instance appears in the poem of Aratus, a disciple of Zeno, the founder of Stoic philosophy (Arnold, 2002).
All the streets and all the marketplaces of humanity are full of Zeus.
Also full of him are the sea and the harbors, and everywhere we all have need of Zeus.
For we are also his offspring (Aratus of Soli in Cilicia, Phaenomena 2-5) (Gundry, 2012, p. 362).
“We are his offspring” also shows up in another Stoic poem, Cleanthes’ “Hymn to Zeus” (Fragment 537), hence Paul’s reference to multiple poets:
The beginning of the world was from you, and with law you rule over all things.
To you all flesh may speak, for we are your offspring.
Therefore I will lift a hymn to you and will sing of your power. (Gundry, 2012, p. 362).
Paul was not a pantheist, nor was he trying to promote Zeus worship. However, he recognized places where these Stoics and pantheists captured truth about God’s divinity. He adapted these truthful but misdirected lines of poetry to lay the bridgework to the new, controversial part of his speech.
REJECT
By leveraging his audience’s traditions, Paul buttressed his provocative claim that the divine Creator of the cosmos cannot be worshiped through the medium of idols fashioned by human hands. He also challenged Athenians’ claim to racial superiority by affirming humanity’s common descent from one ancestor, Adam (Flemming, 2002, p. 204). Further, he offered distinctive correctives to each group in his audience. Paul left no one unchallenged:
-
- To the Stoics, he countered their pantheistic belief in an impersonal, all-pervasive cosmic principle of reason with a personal Creator God (p. 204). The God Paul presented was both transcendent and distinct from his creation (p. 204).
- Additionally, contrary to a Stoic conception of time in endless cycles, Paul described a culmination of history in divine judgment (p. 206).
- To the Epicureans, Paul refuted their functionally materialistic worldview that relegated detached and distant gods to irrelevance (Flemming, 2002; Arnold, 2002 entry on Acts 17:18). Instead, Paul “proclaim[ed] a God who is actively and intimately involved in the world” (Flemming, 2002, p. 204).
- Paul likely knew that his Epicurean audience, who believed there was no afterlife, would rile at the idea of the resurrection of the dead (Croy, 1997). Yet, he did not shy away from this crucial hinge point of his argument.
Paul’s speech concluded with a passionate plea to the Athenians to abandon their idolatry and errant beliefs. He called them to redirect their devotion to the one Paul had made known to them—the Savior and Lord Jesus, appointed and authenticated through the miracle of resurrection by the merciful Creator. While Paul started with common ground, his end goal was not simply to accommodate his audience, but rather to transform their worldview and worship (Flemming, 2002, p. 205).
Concluding thoughts on Paul and DEAR
Paul’s contextualized message to the Athenians remained steadfastly faithful to scripture and avoided syncretism. He carefully observed their religious practices, and then graciously and respectfully engaged their worldview. He drew upon their literary and philosophical traditions, and utilized context-appropriate persuasive rhetoric and style to communicate the gospel in culturally relevant ways (Flemming, 2002, p. 207). Paul’s DEAR approach facilitated understanding among his Greek audience; but even so, not all of his listeners accepted his gospel. Some skeptics sneered when confronted with the concept of resurrection. Others were intrigued and desired further dialogue, and some believed and became Greek disciples of the Way. Paul knew the ultimate work of drawing, convicting, and transforming rested in God’s hands; Paul was only an instrument, guided by the Holy Spirit.
How can we emulate Paul’s approach and use the DEAR method to connect with people of other religions? What concepts, teachings, scriptures, and other glimpses of truth in their traditions can help us build commonality and lay the groundwork to dialogue about Jesus? Our aim is to embark on a journey of discovery, seeking to discern what aspects of other traditions and worldviews we can embrace or adapt while also addressing points of clarification and contrast. This approach might better enable our friends to wrestle with Jesus’ gospel and teachings from a place of deeper understanding, and allow space for the transformative work of the Spirit.
______________________
References
Bowers, R. H., Jr. (2018). Chapter 1: Can Christians use karma theory? In P. H. De Neui (Ed.), Gift and duty: Where grace and merit meet. (Kindle). Resource Publications.
Croy, N. C. (1997). Hellenistic Philosophies and the Preaching of the Resurrection (Acts 17:18, 32). Novum Testamentum, 39(1), 21–39.
English, J. M. (1898). Elements of Persuasion in Paul’s Address on Mars’ Hill, at Athens. The American Journal of Theology, 2(1), 97–109.
Flemming, D. (2002). Contextualizing the Gospel in Athens: Paul’s Areopagus Address as a Paradigm for Missionary Communication. Missiology: An International Review, 30(2), 199–214.
Flemming, D. E. (2005). Contextualization in the New Testament: Patterns for theology and mission. InterVarsity Press.
Gray, P. (2005). Athenian Curiosity (Acts 17:21). Novum Testamentum, 47(2), 109–116.
Gundry, R. H. (2012). A survey of the New Testament (Fifth edition). Zondervan.
Harris, R. (1906). The Cretans always liars. The Expositor, Seventh Series (2), 305–317.
Hiebert, P. G. (1985). Anthropological insights for missionaries. (Kindle). Baker Book House.
Hwang, J. (2022). Contextualization and the Old Testament: Between Asian and Western perspectives (Kindle). Langham Global Library.
Keener, C. S., & Walton, J. H. (Eds.). (2016). NIV: Cultural backgrounds study Bible. Bringing to life the ancient world of scripture. Zondervan.
St. Augustine: On Christian Doctrine, in Four Books—Christian Classics Ethereal Library. (n.d.). Retrieved August 27, 2024, from https://ccel.org/ccel/augustine/doctrine.xix_1.html
Walls, A. F. (2004). The cross-cultural process in Christian history: Studies in the transmission and appropriation of faith. (Kindle). Orbis Books.
Walls, A. F. (1996). The missionary movement in Christian history: Studies in the transmission of faith. (Kindle). Orbis Books.
Wycherley, R. E. (1968). St. Paul at Athens. The Journal of Theological Studies, 19(2), 619–621.
0 Comments