Acts 16:1-5: in context

At Lystra, Paul meets a young disciple named Timothy, the son of a believing Jewish mother and a Greek father, well spoken of by the believers in the area. Paul wants Timothy to join him on his mission, and he has him circumcised, because of the Jews in those places, since they all knew his father was a Greek. As they travel, they deliver the decisions of the Jerusalem council for the churches to keep, and the result: the churches were strengthened in the faith and grew in numbers daily.

Two things are worth noticing. First, the young man of mixed heritage who becomes Paul's closest companion. Timothy was the son of a Jewish mother and a Greek father, caught between two worlds, and he might have felt he did not fully belong to either. But his mixed background, and the faith passed to him by his mother and grandmother, became exactly the equipment God used; he was well spoken of, and Paul saw in this young man a coworker who would carry the gospel across the same cultural boundaries he himself straddled. God often uses the very in-between-ness we think disqualifies us. Second, the flexibility of the circumcision. Paul, who fought fiercely against requiring circumcision for salvation, here has Timothy circumcised, not for salvation but for the sake of the mission, to remove an unnecessary obstacle among the Jews they would reach. Paul held firm on the essential, that we are saved by grace, not by circumcision, and flexed on the non-essential, willing to accommodate for the sake of reaching people. There is wisdom in that combination, unbending on the gospel itself and endlessly flexible in the incidentals that might needlessly hinder it. And the result of this partnership and this wisdom: the churches strengthened and grew.

Do I let a sense of not fully belonging disqualify me from God's use, when he used Timothy's in-between heritage, and can I hold Paul's balance, firm on the gospel and flexible on the incidentals for the sake of reaching people?