I have a pastor friend who reads Acts 17, Paul’s “Mars Hill” encounter, a bit differently than many of us. He sees it as Paul’s least effective ministry endeavor, even as a failure and a negative example. I see Mars Hill as a success. One purpose of Acts is to tell the story of how the Gospel went to everyone and everywhere in the known world, and so in that sense it's part of the successful story. But I think it's a success in more ways than that.
As someone who spends a good time up on the 'Mars Hill' of Penn State University with students who like to debate all the latest ideas, I'm keenly aware of the challenges Paul faced. One aspect of my ministry has been to militant atheists, agnostics, and pagan students. It’s a challenge to redemptively engage with them, particularly during the last couple years when the New Atheist movement has been throwing its weight around.
At the root, my friend’s discomfort with Acts 17 is this: not many people come to faith (Paul’s day at Mars Hill would still be a really good day for most of us, right?) Isn’t this, when compared with the rest of Acts, a failure? I think stories like Mars Hill cause us to reevaluate our grid for what constitutes success. Not every day will be Pentecost, and Paul never gets the instant results like Peter does, but that doesn't mean he's a failure, right?
