Becoming all things to all people

I've been reading my brother and Dad's blogs, and I thought I'd post some of my comments here, as well... (yes, you may call this intellectual laziness if you will :-)

One passage I just thought of is 1 Corinthians 9:19-23
"Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

The following comments are in reference to Eli's blog from yesterday.

You might want to reverse the names you've applied to Libby and Berger. I started reading Libby's bio on wikipedia, and couldn't get through his "Creative Writing" project. This man has a seared conscience. His writing and Anna Nicole Smith's life are indications of the crude sexual perversions in this culture. And, boy-o-boy, it's everywhere. And I hate it.
Frankly, I was surprised to hear your opinion on Ann Coulter. It seems that the verses "Answer a fool according to his folly" and "Don't answer a fool according to his folly" apply here. Not every worldview is rational, and not every person will listen to logical, well-explained reasons.
Amy Carmichael was once trying to explain who God was to another woman. She tried all sorts of approaches, and tried all sorts of good phrases. But the other woman just didn't understand. Finally, Amy pointed to a flower near her bedside. She told the woman, "God made that." Then the glimmer of understanding shone.
It's definitely a stretch to compare Ann's approach to Amy's, but if Ann's object is to make her liberal colleagues think, then she may be close to it. Her approach still has to be perfected, though: it seems she's elicited a spinal reflex, and bypassed the liberals' cortex.
Finally, I think it's hilarious how quickly the three Republican frontrunners hasten to distance themselves from her. They sound like three blind mice scampering after public opinion.

My observation, for what it's worth: people may passively agree with an idea that they do not want to actively defend. When Ann Coulter denigrated Edwards' moral character, it put her opponents in a rather awkward position. To disagree with her was close to vouching for Edwards' moral uprightness. If you could not vouch for his character, then the strongest statement you could make would be: "Well, that may be true, but you shouldn't have said it!"