All Things to All People

"Anonymous" writes:
As I (an anonymous friend of Doug) have recently become good friends with a practicing Muslim I have been thinking about ways to foster Christian-Muslim relations. Specifically, I have been wrestling with how Christians ought to handle the religious rules that Muslims feel called by God to obey. This wrestling inspired the following…
“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.”
Fellowship among Jewish and Gentile believers in the early church was often strained due to the purity codes of Jewish law. In addressing this issue church leaders (in Acts 15) declared that although circumcision was not necessary for conversion it was recommended that Gentiles abstain from food sacrificed to idols, sexual immorality, meat from strangled animals, and from blood. These rules were seen as pre-Mosaic (and thus applicable to non-Jews) and as particularly important to harmonious table-fellowship within the church. In Romans 14 and I Corinthians 8 Paul goes further to state that eating food sacrificed to idols was not unclean in itself. Rather, certain believer’s consciences were “weak” and did not allow them to partake in it. These are the “weak” believers to whom Paul refers in the passage above.
The examples by which Paul illustrates his claim to be “all things to all people” are limited in scope. They all involve the relationship between the follower of Christ and the Mosaic Law. On one hand there were i) Jews fully under the law as well as ii) immature Christian-Jews who were still partially under the law due to their “weak” consciences. On the other, there were iii) Gentiles who were not under the law at all.
The difficulty in interpreting this passage lies in how one understands Paul’s claim to be both “like one under the law” and be “like one not having the law.” This stems from the fact that in first-century Judaism one either kept law or one did not. There was no real middle ground. The only way for Paul to claim he was “like one who observed the Sabbath consistantly” was to observe the Sabbath consistently. Observing the Sabbath only when around other Jews was not sufficient to count as being “like one who was under the Law.” So how then could Paul rightly claim to be “like one not under the law” if he consistently kept the law? Presumably it came from his attitude towards the significance of the Law. Paul viewed the Mosaic Law as non-salvic. For this reason he did not require Gentile believers to observe it. For Paul, the Law was no more important than a set of clothes that he had donned to better evangelize the Jews. Even though he continued to wear these clothes around Gentiles he made their lack of significance clear to Jew and Gentile alike. Although he observed the law he was not bound by it. It is here that I wish to offer up an unoriginal hypothesis. Perhaps Christians who are evangelizing Muslims ought to observe Islamic Shari’ah codes so that “by all means possible they might save some.” For example, one might fast during Ramadan, say “peace and blessing be upon him” after speaking of any prophet (including Jesus), wear exceptionally modest clothing, refrain from eating pork and drinking alcohol, etc. Of course the goal is not to pointlessly mimic Islam, but to engage in whatever behaviors are contextually appropriate to foster relationships. Likewise, this could not be a slavish obedience—for example, injunctions against proselytizing must be ignored (ala Acts 4:18-20). But for all that it seems to have a plausible Biblical precedent.