Winsome

We don't win the world by become like the world - and the lines of demarcation are become more and more clear - there is a difference between the teachings of the Scriptures and the philosophies of this world. In 1st John 2, after he writes that we are not to love this world, the writer says this:
18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.
21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

Later, he writes about the spirit of the antichrist that is in the world today - it existed in his time, and has existed since before the Garden. We have to learn to recognize it and make sure that we are rejecting the ideologies of this world that reject God and reject His Word.  We have to consider what it means to have a compelling witness in a world where there is clear hostility - it calls for a dependence on the love of God, certainly, and we can rely on Him to be able to display who Christ is to those who may not really want to see Him.

+++++

Because Jesus lives in us, we are distinct, different from the world, new creatures who represent Christ. Colossians 3 shows us the contrast between the old and the new life:
8 But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth.
9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds,
10 and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him,
11 where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.

There has been a rhetorical debate recently centered on social media regarding the use of the word, "winsome."  Dictionary.com gives this definition: "sweetly or innocently charming; winning; engaging..." I don't think I made this up, but you could say that if you are "winsome," then, in the Christian sense, you could "win some" to Jesus.

In an article on the First Things website by associate editor James R. Wood, I believe that he says that we should evaluate our approach in a culture that has moved from neutral toward Christianity to negative.  He writes:

Aaron Renn’s account represents well my thinking and the thinking of many: There was a “neutral world” roughly between 1994–2014 in which traditional Christianity was neither broadly supported nor opposed by the surrounding culture, but rather was viewed as an eccentric lifestyle option among many. However, that time is over. Now we live in the “negative world,” in which, according to Renn, Christian morality is expressly repudiated and traditional Christian views are perceived as undermining the social good.

Wood contends: "...the 'negative world' is a different place. Tough choices are increasingly before us, offense is unavoidable, and sides will need to be taken on very important issues."  He goes on to say: 

If we assume that winsomeness will gain a favorable hearing, when Christians consistently receive heated pushback, we will be tempted to think our convictions are the problem. If winsomeness is met with hostility, it is easy to wonder, “Are we in the wrong?” Thus the slide toward secular culture’s reasoning is greased. A “secular-friendly” politics has problems similar to “seeker-friendly” worship. An excessive concern to appeal to the unchurched is plagued by the accommodationist temptation. This is all the more a problem in the “negative world.”

It seems that he is saying that in order to appeal to a hostile world, we have to guard against becoming like that world and compromise our moral, Biblical authority.    

Rod Dreher, writing at The American Conservative, sheds some light on Renn timeline, saying that the author had described the era before 1994 could be described as "positive world."  He writes:

Renn is not claiming — it would be absurd to claim — that there was no hatred of Christianity in Positive World. Nor is he claiming that Christianity is everywhere hated. He’s generalizing about American culture — and he’s absolutely right about Negative World. I have far too many conversations with people who are senior within American institutions, both public and private, who tell me in detail what’s happening in their professional circles. I have described America as a “post-Christian nation,” meaning not that there are no Christians, but that Christianity is no longer the story that most Americans regard as explaining who we are. You might think that’s great, you might think that’s terrible, but it’s simply true.

Dreher and Wood seem to be advocating for a new understanding of the world we live in and a bolder strategy to reach an increasingly hostile world.  Dreher adds:

I stand with James Wood and Aaron Renn here: the moment really has passed. The moment for Christians to love our enemies and pray for them will never pass, this is true. But the idea that they will embrace us, or even tolerate us, if we just be sweet is no longer viable. I don’t advocate at all hating our enemies. Neither did Martin Luther King. But King also recognized that he and the movement he led really did have enemies, and that these enemies were willing to do violence to them. We non-conforming Christians are moving into the same world, very rapidly — except this time, the technological powers that our enemies have to use against us are without parallel in world history.

He adds:

Winsome World Christians are failing to prepare themselves, their families, and (if pastors) their flocks for the world that exists today, and the world that is fast coming into being. Again, I am thinking of the pastor I argued with who believed that he didn’t need to speak about gender ideology to his parish (“I don’t want politics in my congregation”) because, as he explained, if he just keeps winsomely teaching Biblical principles, all will be well. I am certain that man believed he was taking a virtuous stand against fearmongers and alarmists like Dreher. I think it was cowardice.

And, Dreher warns, in bold letters: "American Christians have to learn how to endure persecution without capitulating to apostasy or to hatred."  

Here's a quote from Twitter from recent Meeting House guest Erik Reed of Knowing Jesus Ministries and pastor of The Journey Church near Nashville:

The overly winsome, tip-toe approach some of our evangelical thought leaders take on secular ideologies like abortion, gender, and sexuality forgets the enormous number of Christians facing pressures to conform. Their silence and lack of clarity isn’t helping those people at all.

Reed adds: "With a church of 1500+ ppl, our staff/elders can’t afford to ignore the realities our kids, students, college kids, and adults face each day. Secular progressive ideology is the air they breathe in this culture...They’re not helped if we are silent or ambiguous on these issues."

That is a powerful image and can lead to this question: What air are you breathing?  Are we breathing in the toxic air of the world and the culture that can pollute our souls, or the "fresh air" of the wind of the Holy Spirit?

We can also consider if we are boldly standing on truth or if our lives are reflecting compromise.  There is talk of a "third way" on issues that the Bible speaks clearly to, in order to be more appealing to the world.  While Jesus calls us to reach the world, He doesn't direct us to appeal to it by watering down the gospel.

Scripture speaks to a host of issues - directly through proclamation or indirectly through principle.  We can "agree to disagree" on some to preserve unity, but there are others that call for a bold stand for truth. We have to recognize what is primary and what would be considered secondary and not confuse the two.

In closing, here some words from podcast host Josh Daws, who tweeted out: 

We need to distinguish between winsomeness as a strategy and winsomeness as a demeanor. Winsome strategy seeks to engineer a response from those we're trying to win. Whereas a winsome demeanor is focused on Christ-like interactions rooted in truth regardless of the response.