My passions are “Honor, Shame and the Gospel” … cross-cultural partnerships with great leaders in the majority world … adult learning theory and creative communications. I love integrating these passions to contribute my bit in sharing the transforming grace of Jesus Christ among the peoples of the world.
View all posts by Werner Mischke →
In post #1 in this series, I introduced the topic of allegiance to Christ as King.Post #2 was on allegiance and grace, referencing primarily Paul and the Gift by Prof. John M. G. Barclay. Post #3 focused on allegiance and faith, in which we referenced Matthew W. Bates’s Gospel Allegiance. We now begin post #4.
The question we are exploring in this post: What does allegiance have to do with BAPTISM? Theologian: R. Alan Streett (info on Amazon) Book: Caesar and the Sacrament: Baptism: A Rite of Resistance (Wipf & Stock, 2018), 190 pages (more)
First—let’s look at two New Testament verses highlighting Jesus Christ as King of kings:
1 Timothy 6:15– which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
Revelation 17:14– They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.”
Now let’s consider the main idea of Dr. Streett’s book on the sacrament of baptism in the early church, Caesar and the Sacrament: Baptism: A Rite of Resistance. Here it is:
When the early apostles travelled across the Empire and preached that the kingdom of God was at hand, calling on their listeners to repent, be baptized, and pledge their allegiance to Jesus as Lord, they challenged imperial Rome’s assertion that it alone had a divine right to demand peoples’ loyalty. When viewed in this context, we can understand why baptism might be considered a subversive act.
Streett, R. Alan. Caesar and the Sacrament: Baptism: A Rite of Resistance (p. 22). Cascade Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.
According to Dr. Streett, baptism in the early church was an adult decision involving no small degree of risk, impacting much more than the spiritual, internal life of the believer. Baptism was a public statement of allegiance to “the Christ” with lifelong external, significance. It impacted the social, political, and economic areas of life for believers and for the local church. It could mean rejection, loss, shame, persecution, and sometimes martyrdom.
Streett makes his case from numerous Scriptures and from many writings from the time of the Roman Empire. It appears likely that in the early church (before Christianity was legalized by Constantine around 313 A.D.), the sacrament of Christian baptism meant switching allegiance from Caesar to Christ.
Consider the religious cult status of “Caesar Augustus.” He is famously mentioned in Luke 2:1. Dr. Streett writes about the renowned Augustus:
By virtue of being Julius Caesar’s adopted son, Augustus held the most honored position in the Empire. Until Augustus’s reign, only deceased rulers were granted divine status. Not willing to wait for such an acclamation, Augustus claimed for himself the title Divi filius (“Son of God”). . . .
Augustus and all future emperors who succeeded him were given the title “Father of the Fatherland” (Pater Patriae), which implied that the Empire was a big family over which the emperor stood as a father figure who protected, disciplined, and blessed his family members.
Streett, R. Alan. Caesar and the Sacrament: Baptism: A Rite of Resistance (pp. 23–24). Cascade Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition. Streett cites Ronald Syme, The Roman Revolution, p. 202, and Suetonius, who wrote the biography Augustus as well as Lives of the Caesars.
Augustus was the first Caesar, but he was not the last to be called son of god, or worshipped as divine. So when Paul opens his letter to the church at Rome, saying Jesus “was descended from [King] David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power” (Rom 1:3–4), this was likely seen by many Romans as a tension point relative to the authority of Nero, Rome’s Caesar at the time. Jesus is Lord, Caesar is not.
Or consider Jesus calling God his Father (John 5:17–18). And that Jesus teaches his disciples to relate to God as “Father” (Matt 6:9; 23:9). In the social context of the Roman Empire, this also had political implications. Only Eternal God is rightly addressed as the Father who “protected, disciplined, and blessed” his people. According to Streett, Jesus’ message was probably subversive in the Empire because it challenged the so-called divine paternal authority of Tiberius Caesar.
The imperial cult and emperor worship
Dr. Streett cites numerous sources to describe that, “Apart from ‘obstinate Jews and Christians,’ the majority living in the Mediterranean region of the Empire “worshipped at the feet of the emperor” (p. 31). He writes of “the emperor cult” as the “super-glue” cementing together the entire Empire (p. 32). This aligns with our reference (in post #2 in this series): “The emperor was the patron, the benefactor, of his every subject. The subjects, in turn, paid him back for his benefactions with their loyalty; this was the basis of his power. Thus, the empire was a single enormous spider’s web of reciprocal favours.”1
At the time of Jesus, the imperial cult permeated every facet of Roman life and culture. Public events became opportunities to pay homage to the religion of the state. Special days were set aside to honor imperial Rome and its leaders. The emperor’s birthday, which marked the beginning of the Roman New Year, was such an occasion. Others included anniversaries of great victories at sea and on land, celebrations to remember deceased rulers and heroes, attendance at sporting events, and national feast days. Banquets were eaten in Caesar’s name where people expressed piety (eusebia) and devotion, and renewed their commitment to the emperor and Rome.
Streett, R. Alan. Caesar and the Sacrament: Baptism: A Rite of Resistance (p. 32). Cascade Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.
Streett’s last chapter gives special attention to the book of Revelation. It is in this book that the Bible’s message is most subversive relative to the Empire. Streett calls Revelation “the most overtly anti-imperial book” in the New Testament (p. 154). A crystal clear expression of this anti-imperial message is found in Rev 1:5 where Jesus is described as “the ruler of the kings of the earth.” The mentions of “Babylon” in Revelation (Rev 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2; 18:10; 18:21) are veiled references to the Roman Empire. The church of the Lord Jesus and Christ himself, the Lamb of God, are in conflict with the empire (Babylon).
New Testament scholar Dean Fleming affirms this view: “Whatever Revelation might tell us about future events related to the return of Christ, it was not written in the first place to twenty-first-century people. First and foremost the Apocalypse was intended to be a ‘word on target’ for seven churches in Asia Minor—churches that were struggling with what it meant to live Christianly in a world dominated by an empire that claimed ultimate allegiance for itself.2
Conclusion: The early church was sometimes in a stance of resistance against the evils of the Empire, and baptism was a sacrament marking this stance by publicly signaling allegiance to Jesus “the Christ.”
It was into a socio-political environment of emperor worship (Caesar Augustus worshipped as son of god) that Jesus was born (Luke 2:1).
It was during the rule of Tiberius Caesar (Luke 3:1), which is also when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, that John the Baptist began his preparatory ministry of calling for repentance, and Jesus conducted his three-year ministry.
It was in a Roman court with Pontius Pilate presiding (John 19:12–15), that Jesus was convicted of sedition (albeit cynically). “We have no king but Caesar,” said the chief priests (John 19:15)—and this settled it for Pilate. Jesus: sentenced to death by crucifixion, mocked with a sign that read, “King of the Jews.”
And it was inside this socio-political environment that Luke wrote the book of Acts. He records the birth and early growth of the church of the Lord Jesus, calling people everywhere to repent and give pistis (pledge allegiance) to “the Christ” for the forgiveness of sins.
Next post: Why specifically was baptism considered an expression of allegiance in the Roman Empire? I will finish my focus on the sacrament of baptism and its meaning in the social context of the Empire—in my next post.
NOTES
J. E. Lendon. Empire of Honour: The Art of Government in the Roman World (p. 12). Kindle Edition.
Dean Flemming. Contextualization in the New Testament: Patterns for Theology and Mission (p. 266). Kindle Edition.
What if, in some verses of the New Testament, the Greek word pistis means allegiance instead of faith?
In my first post I introduced this series on allegiance to Christ. My second post was on allegiance and grace, referencing primarily Paul and the Gift by Prof. John M. G. Barclay. In this third post, we examine allegiance and faith.
The question we are exploring in this post: What does allegiance have to do with FAITH? Theologian: Matthew W. Bates (bio) Book:Gospel Allegiance: What Faith in Jesus Misses for Salvation in Christ (Brazos, 2019), 272 pages (more)
Three points before we get into the heart of this post
First of all, the Greek word pistis was frequently used in the social context of the New Testament world, and it had a range of meanings. It could mean belief and trust, as well as faithfulness, allegiance, or loyalty.
Second, Matthew Bates is not arguing that pistis should be translated allegiance all or even most of the time. On page 64 he states plainly in a subhead: “Pistis Does Not Usually Mean Allegiance.”
Third, a striking thing about pistis is how often scholars find its use in texts from the Roman Empire to describe . . .
relationships between generals and soldiers, kings and subjects, patrons and clients, masters and slaves, friends, family members, and lovers, and even one’s relationship with the self. Its purview includes politics, economics, law, philosophy, logic, tradition, and everyday life. It also describes divine-human relationships. This wide-ranging word [pistis] was given applied meanings in nearly every sphere of personal, social, and institutional life.” . . .
In fact, . . . pistis (and fides, its rough Latin equivalent) as loyalty or allegiance to military commanders and kings/emperors was so common that it is attested across a wider range of sources than any other category! This loyalty was reinforced by a military oath of allegiance. This pistis was not described as a one-time decision; rather, its duration is consistently stressed—allegiance that was genuine endured over the course of a full campaign or military career.
The word pistis impacts this issue: What does it mean to be in a saving relationship with “the Christ”?
We are using this principle: We expect the way New Testament writers used the pistis word family is the same way that other writers from that time period and social context (the Roman Empire)—used the pistis word family.
Bates contends: When the word pistis is used in relation to Jesus “the Christ,” that is, Jesus the Anointed One, Jesus the Messiah, Jesus the King—then pistis often conveys the meaning of allegiance or loyalty.
How often do the words “the Christ” (meaning “the Messiah-King”) appear in the New Testament? Let’s consider just the book of Acts (all verses ESV):
Acts 2:31– he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.
Acts 3:20– that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus,
Acts 5:42– And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus.
Acts 8:5– Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed to them the Christ.
Acts 9:22– But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ.
Other verses in Acts which have the phrase “the Christ” are: Acts 17:3; 18:5; 18:28; 26:23.
A great King has a great kingdom
The kingship of the Christ makes no sense without a kingdom. So there is also an emphasis on the kingdom of God in Acts.
Acts 1:3– He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.
Acts 8:12– But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Acts 14:22– strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.
Acts 19:8– And [Paul] entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God.
Acts 20:25– And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again.
Acts 28:23– When they had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers. From morning till evening he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets.
And the last verse of the Acts of the Apostles describes Paul …
Acts 28:31– proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance.
In the Acts of the Apostles author Luke has completed the thematic bridge which began in his Gospel. What is that theme? Jesus is “the Christ” (Luke 3:15; 4:41; 9:20; 20:41; 22:67; 23:35; 23:39; 24:26; 24:46). And Christ reigns over a “kingdom”: (Luke 1:33; 4:43; 6:20; 7:28; 8:1; 8:10; 9:2; 9:11; 9:27; 9:60–62; 10:9–11; 11:2; 11:20; 12:31; 12:32; 13:18; 13:20; 13:28–29; 14:15; 16:16; 17:20–21; 18:16–17; 18:24–25; 18:29; 19:11–12; 21:31; 22:16–18; 22:29; 22:30; 23:42; 23:51.)
Again and again, when Jesus preaches in Luke’s Gospel, and when the gospel is proclaimed in Acts, there is a primary emphasis not on Jesus as ‘my personal savior,’ but on Jesus as “the Christ.” Jesus is Messiah, Lord and King.
The royal gospel framework
Bates emphasizes the royal nature of the gospel. He argues that pistis is best understood as allegiance in relation to Jesus’ kingship.
The core meaning potential of pistis is faithfulness or faith, but when a royal social frame is present, this potential can be actualized as allegiance. In other words, we should expect allegiance to be a prominent applied meaning for pistis or pisteuō when we are talking about the Christ, the gospel, or saving benefits that a king bestows.
What does Bates mean by a “royal social frame”? He means that when the scripture is referring to a king (“the Christ”), or the good news that a king brings, then loyalty to that king—allegiance—is the probable meaning of the pistis word family. Two examples:
Acts 16:31—“Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.” This can be translated, “Give allegianceto (pisteuson) the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.” Bates points out that since the jailer was likely an employee of the city of Philippi, he had probably sworn allegiance to Caesar. Giving his life to Jesus meant giving allegiance to another Lord, a higher King or Emperor—Jesus the Christ.
Romans 1:5—“through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among the nations.” The royal framework of “the gospel of God” (Rom 1:5) is seen in the setting of the first five verses of Romans. The Son of God is descended from the royal lineage of Israel’s great king David (Rom 1:3). This is an audacious thing to say right up front in light of the fact that everyone in Rome knew that Caesar was called son of God.)1 Moreover, “the obedience of faith (pistis) for the sake of his name among the nations” alludes to the Pax Romana, the Peace of Rome, which united many nations under Roman rule and created relative political stability. Bates contends that in the context of first-century Rome, this is better translated “the obedience of (pistis) allegiance for the sake of his name among the nations.”
Consider also Peter’s sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14–36). It has no specific call for faith or belief. Peter simply calls his Jewish audience to “repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus [the] Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). (Note: In my next post we will explore the significance of allegiance and baptism.) Peter’s sermon is saturated with royal symbols and references to Old Testament prophesies about the coming Messiah-King.
Therefore, God’s good news, the gospel, is calling forth allegiance to a good king, Jesus the Christ. Bates says that the “Short Gospel Summary” is that “Jesus is the saving king” (p. 277). God is calling forth allegiance from all persons and peoples who receive his saving grace and forgiveness of sins. A plain reading of the book of Acts leads one to see that a core gospel truth is Jesus is the Messiah-King who saves.
According to Bates, the common refrain in evangelical churches—“Jesus died for you as your personal Savior”—(while not untrue) is a deviation from the Christ-centered regal framework of the gospel in the New Testament:
The bottom line: The cross is theologically central to the gospel, but the focus is not individualistic forgiveness. Not even approximately. Proclaiming that “Jesus died for my/your personal sins” yields a salvation culture focused on individual belief in saving facts. We shouldn’t be astonished if it is hard to build church community and encourage discipleship within such a culture. We must proclaim the fuller truth: “The king died for our collective sins, so that we could yield allegiance.” When we do, we’ll find a community of loyal disciples emerging.
Meanwhile, gospel activity is summarized as proving or proclaiming that “Jesus is the Messiah” (Acts 5:42; 8:5; 9:22; 17:3). The gospel’s royal framework is everywhere apparent once we begin to look at our texts with fresh eyes. Jesus’s enthronement is the gospel climax.
Allegiance to King Jesus allows for lesser allegiances
The opening verses (Rom 1:1–6) of Paul’s letter to the church at Rome, capital of the Empire, comprise a description of the gospel. Theses verse could have been understood as politically subversive (Jesus is Lord, Caesar is not). They imply a challenge to the rule of Caesar.
But later in his epistle (Rom 13:1–7), Paul writes in support of governmental authority and institutions. “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” And Peter writes plainly, “Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor” (1 Pet 2:17). Even our Lord said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). So the Bible offers a multi-faceted and nuanced conversation on these matters.2 Bates offers a summary in the paragraph below.
But to say that “Jesus is king, so Caesar is not” is at the same time too simple. Our allegiance to Jesus might in fact call us to support Caesar—as when we pay taxes (Rom. 13:6–7), pray for government leaders (1 Tim. 2:1–4), and live an orderly life amid non-Christians under the government’s partial authority (Rom. 13:1; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13–14). On the other hand, gospel allegiance might compel us to actively resist Caesar and his policies (Rev. 2:10–11, 13; 14:8–12; cf. Exod. 1–3). Jesus as the King of kings receives our unconditional allegiance. Mere earthly kings and governmental leaders receive our qualified allegiance, as long as it is not in conflict with our allegiance to the true king. Beyond government, we also must sort out how allegiance to family, employers, friends, and colleagues can all be ordered appropriately under allegiance to Jesus.
Conclusion: Our key question in this post has been: What does allegiance have to do with FAITH? On the one hand, Matthew Bates in Gospel Allegiance makes it clear that in the New Testament there are many uses of the pistis word family which are best translated trust, believe, or faith. On the other hand, Bates has persuaded me: The Greek word pistis is often best translated as allegiance in many texts referring to the gospel of Jesus the Christ.
Robert Jewett explains that Roman emperors were worshiped as gods by the people of the Roman Empire. For example, concerning Caesar Augustus: “The imperial cult celebrated ‘the gospel’ of the allegedly divine power of the emperor, viewing him, in the words of an official document from the province of Asia, as a savior … ‘who put an end to war and will restore order everywhere: Caesar, by his appearance has realized the hopes of our ancestors; not only has he surpassed earlier benefactors of humanity, but he leaves no hope to those of the future that they might surpass him. The god’s birthday was for the world the beginning of the gospel that he brought.’” Robert Jewett’s citation is “Letter of the Proconsul of Asia, Paulus Fabius Maximus, honoring Augustus in I. Priene, 105.35ff cited by Ceslas Spicq TLNT 3 (1994) 353.” Robert Jewett, Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 138.
IN MY LAST POST I began exploring the topic of allegiance as a Christian mindset and practice. Specifically, I am discussing the vital importance for believers to give allegiance to Jesus the Christ, Jesus the Savior-King. We are exploring in this series the significance of allegiance in three Christian dynamics: 1) grace, 2) faith, and 3) baptism.
This is the second post in the series. We examine the dynamic of grace as we consider a few brief excerpts from Prof. John M. G. Barclay’s seminal book Paul and the Gift. We will focus on allegiance to Christ and explore a few implications for believers today. NOTE: This post is lengthy; the topic requires a lot of explanation.
The question we are exploring in this post: What does allegiance have to do with GRACE? Theologian: John M. G. Barclay (bio) Book:Paul and the Gift (Eerdmans, 2015), 656 pages (more)
Perhaps you are new to Prof. Barclay or his book. If so, you can get a sense of the quality and impact of his scholarship here, or in this helpful book review, or in this 25-minute podcast/interview with Prof. Barclay.
A book that took ten years to research and write, Professor Barclay’s Paul and the Gift is considered one of the most significant books on New Testament theology in recent decades. He introduces what he calls the “six perfections” of grace. This means there are different facets of grace, each of which can be perfected or taken to the “nth degree.”
Prof. Barclay names these six “perfections” of grace:
superabundance—how massive, enduring, and eternal is God’s grace,
singularity—the degree to which God is characterized by grace and grace alone,
priority—the sense in which God’s grace as first and before, thus marking God’s freedom to give,
incongruity—the degree to which God gives grace without regard to the worth of recipients,
efficacy—the extent to which grace achieves God’s intentions in those who receive it, and
non-circularity—the degree to which grace is reciprocal; it has “strings attached;” God’s people are obliged to return praise, obedience, allegiance to him.
It is this last of the six “perfections”—non-circularity—that will be the main focus of this blog post. That’s because Barclay contends that Paul’s understanding of grace was not non-circular, but rather, obliging.
In other words, Paul viewed God’s grace as circular or reciprocal. God gives the gift of salvation in Christ to all who believe, although none deserve the gift. Therefore, it is “incongruous.” This was counter-cultural to social norms in the ancient world. At the same time, God expects that those who receive the gift of salvation to return honor and praise, loyalty and obedience—allegiance—to him. Therefore, the gift is reciprocal or circular in nature. This reciprocity was not counter-cultural; it is how grace ‘worked’ in the ancient world.
Understanding patronage to understand grace
To answer the question Why is God’s gift of grace reciprocal?, and before we further explore the writings of Prof. Barclay, we need to answer this question: Why are patronage and grace intertwined in the social context of the Roman Empire? The next few paragraphs borrow material from my book The Global Gospel in the chapter titled “Honor/Shame Dynamic #7: Patronage.”
Here’s a description of patronage from New Testament scholar, David deSilva: “Patronage was a [prevalent] social framework in the ancient Mediterranean basin. Patrons were people with power who could provide goods and services not available to their clients. In return, clients provided loyalty and honor to the patrons. Social inequality characterized these patronal relationships, and exploitation was a common feature of such relationships.” [1]
I want to emphasize two points; the first is this: Patronage is a social dynamic between patron and client characterized by reciprocity. Clients return “loyalty and honor to the patrons,” as deSilva noted. History professor J. E. Lendon adds about the Roman Empire and its emperor: “The emperor was the patron, the benefactor, of his every subject. The subjects, in turn, paid him back for his benefactions with their loyalty; this was the basis of his power. Thus, the empire was a single enormous spider’s web of reciprocal favours.” [2]
The diagram below illustrates this reciprocity or circularity.
Reciprocity in the patron-client relationship. Diagram by Jayson Georges and Werner Mischke, based on dialog from the Patronage Symposium, held at Arab Baptist Theological Seminary, October 2018.
Our second point is this: People of the Greco-Roman world understood that grace (Gk., charis) is at the very center of the patronage dynamic. In fact, according to deSilva, first-century believers understood that “God’s grace (charis) would not have been of a different kind than the grace with which they were already familiar; it would have been understood as different only in quality and degree.”[3]
There was a distinct honor code about how to give and receive. The benefactor was to be wise, not self-serving. Their gifts were to be given only to honorable people—and thus, examples of excellent stewardship. Reciprocally, the client was to show proper gratitude and honor to the benefactor or patron.
According to the ancient writer Seneca, the reciprocal relationship between patron and client was to be characterized by “three graces”:
Some would have it appear that there is one [grace] for bestowing a benefit, one for receiving it, and the third for returning it; others hold that there are three classes of benefactors—those who receive benefits, those who return them, and those who receive and return them at the same time.
As quoted in deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship, Purity, 106.
Seneca compared these three “graces” of giving, receiving, and returning favor to three sisters who dance “hand in hand … in a ring which returns upon itself.” Speaking of the word grace or charis, deSilva says it “encapsulated the entire ethos of the relationship.”
Grace at the center of the patron-client relationship.In the Roman Empire, grace (Gk., charis)was understood to be at the crux of the social practice of patronage. Diagram from Werner Mischke, The Global Gospel, Fig. 2.17, p 126.
So the social practice of patronage and benefaction would have related to the love and grace of God. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Even the giving of God’s Son would have been seen in the light of patronage. A highly honored, magnificent Benefactor is providing a great blessing—the gift of his own Son to many people. Note: this helpful video by New Testament scholar David deSilva makes the point crystal clear—that grace and patronage were integrally relatedin the Roman Empire.
Is allegiance to “the Christ” integral to grace?
In the Roman Empire, clients of patrons—those who received gifts—were obligated to return honor, loyalty, allegiance—to the patron. Accordingly, Barclay frequently uses the word allegiance in his book (55 times, a few examples below) as well as the word loyalty (26 times) to describe the way believers ought to live their lives in following Christ.
Below I summarize in three points the view of Barclay who contends that Paul understood divine grace as being reciprocal:
God the divine Patron gives salvation by grace through Christ without regard to any social capital, moral achievement, or any measure of worth on the part of the recipient (Eph 2:8–9 is an example of this). God’s grace is infinitely greater than what God’s people can ever return to him.
At the same time, this grace has strings attached. The Patron’s clients are receivers of God’s gift. And as believers in Christ they have dignifying obligations to reciprocate to their Patron by living an honorable life of good works in praise to God. (I see Eph 2:10 as one example of this).
Therefore, one of the qualities of God’s grace is its circularity or reciprocity. This is contrary to the view that some Christians hold—that grace is non-circular. (The view that grace is non-circular holds that once a person is saved by grace, there are zero additional obligations. Allegiance to “the Christ” is optional for believers, not required.)
Below are a few excerpts from Paul and the Gift. Following each excerpt I make brief comments about how this applies or what it means.
Excerpts from Barclay’s Paul and the Gift highlighting allegiance to the Christ
The sublime glory of belonging to Christ—this is the heart of Apostle Paul’s entire project. But belonging to Christ also obliges Christians to a purpose—a new humanity marked by counter-cultural love and diversity.
Commenting on Gal 5:13 and the “freedom” of believers to, by love serve other believers, Prof. Barclay writes:
… what counts is allegiance to Christ and adherence to the Spirit. Paul’s paradoxical interpretation of freedom as slavery (“for freedom you have been called … through love be slaves of one another,” 5:13) recalls the opening statement of 1:10–11: Paul is free from human criteria of value (“seeking to please human beings”) because he is a slave of Christ (1:10). For Paul, “freedom” is not autonomy but the product of an allegiance that breaks the power of previously taken-for-granted (and now “alien”) norms. He is dead to the regime of the Law, since his life is derived from and governed by the Christ-event: “it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (2:19–20). All other criteria of value have been discounted by the superordinate worth of belonging to Christ.
Barclay, John M. G.. Paul and the Gift (pp. 428-429). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. Kindle Edition.
My comments: The key to this paragraph is the last sentence: “All other criteria of value have been discounted by the superordinate worth of belonging to Christ.” This reminds me of Paul’s words “the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord” (Phil 3:8). Because of this profound honor in knowing Christ, there is of necessity a transformation of value regarding one’s social network. Since believers belong to the incredibly worthy Christ they also belong to the family of believers. And all Christians have identities transformed by relationship with the incredibly worthy Christ.
The phrase “criteria of value” refers to the ways that people in all cultures create social hierarchies: Greek elites versus barbarian … free versus slave … insiders versus outsiders … men versus women … Jew versus Gentile … upper class, middle class, lower class … clean versus unclean … one political tribe versus another … literate or non-literate … black versus white, etc. According to Barclay, Paul is saying that any and all criteria of social value is “discounted” because knowing Christ, whose honor and worth is infinite, makes it not just possible—but vital—to have intimate fellowship with all brothers or sisters in Christ. And the emphasis is on all—without regard to social worth being higher or lower, better our worse. In relation to the all-honorable, all-glorious Christ, all believers have honorable insider status.
In is commentary on Galatians 1:6–12 , Barclay writes:
… Paul eschews crowd-pleasing, but the “crowd” whose opinion he dismisses is not the uneducated populace, but humanity as a whole: his arguments do not count for much among human beings, but they count before God. In his rhetoric, as in his practice, Paul’s allegiance is to Christ: “if I were still pleasing human beings, I would not be a slave of Christ” (Gal 1:10). Although Paul will celebrate “the freedom which we have in Christ Jesus” (Gal 2:5; 5:1), it is clear from this early declaration of “slavery” that what he means by freedom is the consequence of an allegiance to norms newly constituted in Christ.
The “good news” thus realigns and recalibrates Paul’s loyalties: announcing the incongruous gift enacted in Christ, he is at odds with the normative conventions that govern human systems of value. Hence the emphatic statement of (Gal 1:11): “I want you to know that the good news announced by me is not in accord with human norms” (οὐκ ἔστιν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον). This negation is of central significance to the theology of the letter. It signals a relation of misfit, even contradiction, between the “good news” and the typical structures of human thought and behavior.
Barclay, John M. G.. Paul and the Gift (pp. 355-356). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. Kindle Edition.
My comments: The key sentence above is this: “The ‘good news’ thus realigns and recalibrates Paul’s loyalties: announcing the incongruous gift enacted in Christ, he is at odds with the normative conventions that govern human systems of value.” Because Paul’s allegiance is to Christ and his gospel, there is a corresponding recalibration of who and what is worthy. The gospel is not merely that persons can have eternal life by believing Jesus died for their sins. The gospel creates a new humanity (Eph 2:15), a new egalitarian community free of traditional cultural divisions and hierarchies (Gal 3:28–29)—all because of one earth-shattering reality: They are in “the Christ,” they have the astounding honor of being in God’s ancient-and-cosmic story of promise-and-blessing.
The two sentences below from are also from Prof. Barclay’s commentary on the first chapter of Galatians.
As a believer, Paul is a “Jew” who (in his terms) no longer remains “in Judaism”: his ethnicity has not been renounced but subsumed within an identity and an allegiance governed by the event of Christ (cf. Gal 2:19–21). His “ancestral traditions” no longer constitute his salient currency of worth.
Barclay, John M. G.. Paul and the Gift (pp. 359–360). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. Kindle Edition.
My comments: I love this—“his ethnicity has not been renounced but subsumed within an identity and an allegiance governed by the event of Christ.” For Paul, his Jewishness ethnically and religiously had been his core identity before Christ. But Christ intervened. (“I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.”) He is still a Jew. But Paul’s core identity has been forever altered. This Jewish part of Paul’s life was relativized—it was “subsumed”—absorbed into the life of King Jesus through “the Christ-event” (Gal 1:20).
These sentences are from Prof. Barclay’s commentary on Galatians 3:26–29:
Neither ethnic nor gender identity could be simply removed, and in the eyes of the [Roman] law everyone counted as either “free” or “slave” (or “freed”). Paul and Peter remained Jews (Gal 2:15; cf. Titus, a “Greek,” Gal 2:3), and Paul was still identifiably masculine and free. What is altered, however, is the evaluative freight carried by these labels, the encoded distinctions of superiority and inferiority. In common solidarity with Christ, baptized believers are enabled and required to view each other without regard to these influential classifications of worth. Jewish believers should not withdraw from shared meals with non-Jews on the basis of their different, “inferior,” ethnicity (Gal 2:11–14). Slaves should not be disdained as “mere slaves,” since their worth as “siblings” is established in Christ (Phlm 16). What now counts for worth is only one’s status in Christ, and the consistency of one’s allegiance to him.
Barclay, John M. G.. Paul and the Gift (p. 397). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. Kindle Edition.
My comments:For Paul, allegiance to Christ and his gospel of grace “enabled and required” believers to have community with other believers who would normally be from social groups unlike their own. Humans are generally drawn to people like themselves, and tend to avoid being with people who are “other.” But Christians have something in common that bridges those normally entrenched social divides: the astounding incongruity of God’s grace to every Christian regardless of nationality, morality, social status, race, wealth, education, or other measure of worth.
In Prof. Barclay’s commentary on Romans (Section IV of Paul and the Gift), one chapter is devoted to Romans 11. On page 558 he writes:
Finally, as the preceding and following chapters make clear (e.g., Rom 6:1–23; 12:1–3), Paul’s radical emphasis on the incongruity of grace by no means implies its non-circularity: the following appeal “by the mercies of God” (12:1) may be taken to indicate that grace has “strings attached.” But the absence or lesser significance of these other perfections does not in the least diminish the radicality of the one perfection that is central to these chapters; as we have noted, the various perfections of grace are not a “package deal” (see above, chapter 2). What matters in Romans 9–11, as throughout this letter, is that God’s grace or mercy is operative without regard to worth. It is because this is the core of Israel’s identity and history that it is also the hope for the salvation of the world.
Barclay, John M. G.. Paul and the Gift (p. 558). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. Kindle Edition.
Relative to grace being “with strings attached,” Prof. Barclay adds the following in his Conclusion (Chapter 18):
Thus, throughout this book, we have been suspicious of the modern (Western) ideal of the “pure” gift, which is supposedly given without strings attached. We have been able to make sense of the fact that a gift can be unconditioned (free of prior conditions regarding the recipient) without also being unconditional (free of expectations that the recipient will offer some “return”). Paul has provided a parade example of this phenomenon, since he simultaneously emphasizes the incongruity of grace and the expectation that those who are “under grace” (and wholly refashioned by it) will be reoriented in the “obedience of faith.” What has seemed in the modern world a paradoxical phenomenon—that a “free” gift can also be obliging—is entirely comprehensible in ancient terms.
Barclay, John M. G.. Paul and the Gift (pp. 562–563). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. Kindle Edition.
Summary: What does allegiance have to do with GRACE? Apparently, in the ancient world, grace and allegiance was understood as a package deal. You receive undeservedly a magnificent gift (Gk., charis) from a great Patron; you return to the Patron your praise, obedience, loyalty, allegiance. This allegiance is embodied individually and corporately, physically and socially in the cultivation of a new humanity marked by counter-cultural love and diversity.
I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual [reasonable] worship. (Romans 12:1 ESV)
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:8–10 ESV)
“I pledge allegiance to the Christ.” In the early church, to confess Jesus as Lord could mean switching allegiance from Caesar to Christ; this was often subversive. What does it mean in your community to make this confession?
Next post: What does allegiance have to do with FAITH?Click here to go to the next post in this series.
NOTES:
David A. deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship, & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 96. DeSilva’s two chapters on patronage are titled “Patronage & Reciprocity” and “Patronage & Grace in the New Testament.” DeSilva describes in detail how the practice of patronage in the Roman Empire informed the early church’s understanding of the gift of God’s grace in Christ.
J. E. Lendon. Empire of Honour: The Art of Government in the Roman World (p. 12). Kindle Edition.
I grew up in America. Each and every morning at the beginning of the school day, from Kindergarten through 12th Grade, I joined my classmates by putting my right hand over my heart and saying “the pledge.”
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
https://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm
For patriotic Americans, to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America is as natural as breathing. It’s just something we do. For children in school (especially), it’s obvious and automatic. Of course, it is. Liberty and justice for all are values worth defending. Loyalty to our republic and its Constitution is noble and good.
Dictionary.com defines “allegiance” as:
1) the loyalty of a citizen to his or her government or of a subject to his or her sovereign; 2) loyalty or devotion to some person, group, cause, or the like.
In pledging allegiance to the flag of the United States, Americans are pledging loyalty to America and the government by which they are its citizens.
For me, allegiance is a word that all my life has been linked to being “American.” But the word allegiance also relates to an even more fundamental part of my identity: “Christian.”
“Allegiance” is a thoroughly Christian term
I intend to show in this series of blog posts that allegiance is vital for followers of Jesus. All believers are called to the mindset-and-behavior of loyalty to Christ as King.
In the social world of the early church and Roman Empire, allegiance and loyalty to Caesar included being a regular participant in the “emperor cult.” Paying homage to the emperor as a “son of God” was part of being a citizen of the Roman Empire. Giving allegiance to Jesus the Christ as a citizen of his kingdom was thus equivalent to denying allegiance to Caesar.
In the early church, allegiance was expressed in word and deed, beliefs and practices:
Allegiance was a key aspect of grace (Gk. charis).
Allegiance was often synonymous with faith (Gk. pistis).
Givingallegiance to Jesus the Christ—instead of Caesar the Emperor—was a central feature of baptism(Gk. baptismatos).
Grace, faith, and baptism—each of these dynamics point to the vital role of allegiance on the part of believers. Becoming Christian, living as followers of King Jesus, put believers into a lifestyle that was inherently subversive. Living out the gospel with the mind of Christ (Phil 2:5) and the values of Jesus meant active resistance (though peaceful) to the values of Caesar and Rome. As a result 1) believers often suffered exclusion socially, politically, economically, and 2) the church nevertheless grew by leaps and bounds.
For each of the three dynamics (grace, faith, baptism) I refer below to a different theologian and a book authored by that theologian. Although each theologian’s book covers a different topic, they all have this in common: They describe how the dynamic (whether grace, faith, or baptism) was understood in the social context of the early church and Roman Empire.
Three dynamics, three theologians, three books
GRACE John M. G. Barclay (bio) Paul and the Gift (Eerdmans, 2015), 656 pages (more)
FAITH Matthew W. Bates (bio) Gospel Allegiance: What Faith in Jesus Misses for Salvation in Christ(Brazos, 2019), 272 pages (more)
BAPTISM R. Alan Streett (bio) Caesar and the Sacrament Baptism: A Rite of Resistance (Wipf & Stock, 2018), 190 pages (more)
I will devote one blog post to each of these books and share a summary about what they say concerning our allegiance as believers to “the Christ.”
Christ as “the good king”
I want to say a few things about the title of this series: “I pledge allegiance to ‘the Christ.’”
As believers, we often refer to our Savior as Jesus Christ. We hear preachers use the name Jesus Christ a lot more often than Jesus, the Christ.
But we are mistaken to think that Jesus is our Savior’s first name and Christ is his last name. Werner Mischke is my name. Mischke is my last name or family name. But “Christ” is not Jesus’ last name. Most believers already know this, but it is worth revisiting the point.
Christ is not a proper name or family name. It is a title, an honorific title signifying Jesus as Messiah-King.
Thus, while Paul does not refer to Christ as king, his abundant use of the honorific “Messiah” [Gk., Christos] may indicate that he thinks of Jesus as the ideal king or ruler. Especially significant in this regard is Matthew V. Novenson’s recent monograph Christ among the Messiahs, in which he demonstrates that Paul’s use of Χριστός [Gk., Christos]actually conforms quite closely to common uses of honorifics in the ancient world. Thus, for Paul Χριστός is not a proper name but rather an honorific such as Seleucus the Victor or Judah Maccabee that can be used in combination with an individual’s proper name or can stand in for a proper name.
Jipp, Joshua W.. Christ Is King: Paul’s Royal Ideology. Fortress Press. Kindle Edition. Location 96.
Jipp argues that “Paul uses royal language to present Christ as ‘the good king.’” He surveys literature from the time of the Roman Empire describing the character and qualities of the good king. Jipp then demonstrates how the language from these extra-biblical sources overlaps in numerous ways with how Paul describes Jesus as “the Christ.” Compared to other literature describing the good king, Paul’s writing articulates Jesus as the true eternal good king. Jipp discusses:
The good king and law: Gal 5–6; Rom 13–15; 1 Cor 9
Hymning to the good king: Col 1:15–20
The good king enthroned: Rom 1:3–4; 1 Cor 15:20–28
In other words, Christos is a title with royal meaning. Jesus is the long-awaited Deliverer-Messiah, the Anointed One,theKing of kings—“the Christ.”
The phrase “the Christ” is common in the New Testament
A search of “the Christ” in the online English Standard Version Bible (ESV) yields 49 occurrences. It is worth scanning these verses to observe just how much regal honorific emphasis New Testament authors give to Jesus through the title Christos.
Here is a sampling of ten verses from just the Gospel of Matthew:
Matthew 1:17– So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.
Matthew 2:4– and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born.
Matthew 11:2– Now when John heard in prison about the deeds of the Christ, he sent word by his disciples
Matthew 16:16– Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Matthew 16:20– Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.
Matthew 22:42– saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.”
Matthew 23:10– Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ.
Matthew 24:5– For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray.
Matthew 24:23– Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it.
Matthew 26:63– But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”
Christ is King. The word “Christ” has a royal meaning. This is why, as I have color-coded keywords in my Bible, I always highlight the word Christ in orange. It quickly helps me see just how often the honorific majesty of the Lord Jesus Christ is being heralded in the books of the New Testament.
In Paul’s letter to the Ephesians (ESV), the word Christ appears 45 times, the word Lord, 11 times.
Remember the main point we are exploring in this series of posts: Jesus is our Savior and King. As believers, we owe him our loyalty and allegiance. “I pledge allegiance to the Christ.”
Next post: I will focus on John M. G. Barclay’s Paul and the Gift. We will examine one important aspect of his groundbreaking scholarship. How is allegiance is a part of a biblical understanding and practice of GRACE? To go to the next post, click here.
Would you enjoy a biblically-rich learning journey to better understand honor, shame, and the gospel? Are you interested in how the gospel of Jesus Christ speaks to issues of honor and shame in you own life, family, or ministry?
Good news—Mission ONE now offers for free: Unit A (video lessons 1–6) of “Journey of Discovery in Honor, Shame, and the Gospel,” with myself (Werner Mischke) as instructor.
Also available—a free 60-page PDF study guide that goes with the videos. I carefully and lovingly crafted this guide in order to help followers of Christ internalize the relevant biblical ideas and principles in a step-by-step journey.
Here’s how to get started
Bookmark the Mission ONE YouTube page, where you can watch videos 1–6 (Unit A).
Download the free 60-page study guide; two versions are available:
Watch the videos in order: ideally, one video per week, starting with Class A1. Follow up each video session by doing the relevant set of five reflection lessons in the free study guide.
If you want, you can also read along in my book, The Global Gospel. You can get The Global Gospel, ePub edition, for just $6 here—by using a 50% off coupon: 50TGGe (expires April 30, 2020). The Global Gospel is also available at Amazon in various formats.
Curriculum design for a rich missional learning journey
Your learning tasks in the study guide are based on adult learning theory:
Inductive—begin with what you already know.
Input—receive new information.
Implementation—try it out right away.
Integration—weave it into your life and ministry.
The study guide provides guided reflection with five lessons per video session—ideally, five reflection lessons per week.
Small groups can use this video-plus-study-guide format in a six week study.
It’s a step-by-step journey; there is not too much in a single session; it is simple to do, but not simplistic.
Unit A has six lessons covering the material below:
Class A1: Honor-shame in the mission of God: Intro stories / Overview: guilt, shame, fear / Pathologies of shame / Blind spot: H-S in Western theology / ‘Honor-shame wheel’
Class A2: Honor-status reversal as Bible and Gospel Motif: Overview of status reversal motif—Old Testament and New / Honor-status reversal in Ephesians 2 / The Father’s Love Booklet
Class A3: Honor-Shame Dynamic—Love of honor: Glory of God/glory of humanity / Longing for honor satisfied in Christ / Salvation as gaining a new source of honor in Christ
Class A4: Honor-Shame Dynamic—Two sources of honor: Ascribed & Achieved: In Jesus’ life, in Christian life / Justification as God’s way to give believers ascribed honor
Class A5: Honor-Shame Dynamic—Image of Limited Good: In Christ: unlimited good / Shame resilience & honor surplus in Christ / Gospel of more than enough glory and honor
Class A6: Honor-Shame Dynamic—Challenge & Riposte: Honor competition as prominent social dynamic in NT / Phil 2:5–11 gospel of Christ as conquering sin via death and resurrection
Endorsements
WEBINAR SERIES PARTICIPANTS
I am thankful for this shame and honor webinar class. I’ve worked in French Africa for the last 25 years. Werner’s book and his teaching on honor and shame are pertinent daily in my ministry.
Mary Stone, TEAM
Werner aims for heart-integration in this class that leaves both lay and scholar with an honor-shame framework to integrate faith with holistic kingdom living. I’ve been training people in this arena for over a dozen years, yet God is using Werner’s passionate and integrative approach in this class to so bless my heart.
Steve Hong, KingdomRice
Through his book The Global Gospel and especially the webinar series, Werner has clearly, and with great depth, helped me to understand the importance of honor-shame. I am motivated me to preach it to the church to which God has called me. Also, the Study Guide exercises really help to personalize these truths.
Dennis Schwarm, Pastor, First Baptist Church Of Oakridge
Outstanding introduction and review of the world of honor, shame and the gospel. Werner’s humble delivery and personality never impede the scholarly potent message.
Marilyn Nasman
Thank you for these wonderfully helpful webinars. Each one is like a bit of yeast which really starts working after the session ends, and continues to bring transformation in our thinking and seeing. Having lived in an honor-shame culture for close to two decades, I am well aware of the many individual differences which exist between my host and home culture. However, the honor-shame webinar training has helped me begin to understand how all these individual differences hang together in a coherent worldview, and more than that, to find that same worldview throughout the Bible!
David Bakewell, Frontiers
SEMINAR PARTICIPANTS
I have found Werner’s material more helpful than any of the missionary seminars I had been to. This honor-shame material helps us craft messages that are relevant to the heart and soul of people for whom concepts of purity, defilement, and honor-shame are at the core of their being.
Sam Winfield, Avant Ministries
[After one-day honor-shame conference] … “Werner’s passion and expertise of the subject matter moved our hearts. His training and personal stories resonated with our audience, many of whom work directly with Muslims and Middle Easterners. We learned how Jesus covers our shame and restores our honor.”
Shirin Taber, Director, Middle East Women’s Leadership Network
Unit B (lessons 7–12) will be available soon. If you have any questions, write to me at werner@mission1.org.
More than twenty years ago, I was reading Scott Peck’s A World Waiting to Be Born.[1] At the time, I saw myself as a good Christian husband. I was trying to be a good dad to two teenage sons. Our pastor’s favorite sermon subject? The family, of course. The organization, Focus on the Family, would regularly mail a long letter to our home from its president Dr. Dobson. His constant appeal was for families to be strongly Christian.
Nothing was more important to me than being a good family man.
Then I read these words from M. Scott Peck:
… Jesus took pains to make it clear that he was no great family man. He announced that he came not to bring peace, but a sword, that dealing with him would set children against their parents and brothers and sisters against each other [Mat 10:34–35]. When a disciple asked for a delay in order that he might attend his father’s funeral, Jesus coldly told him, let the dead bury their dead [Mat 8:22]. Jesus repeatedly tried to make it clear that one’s primary calling is to God, not one’s family . . . He needed to do this because he was fighting against the idolatry of family of his day. [1]
To this day, I remember the line: Jesus was no great family man. When we look at some passages of Scripture relating to family and kinship, examining them in the light of honor, shame, and the gospel, we can see some Christ-exalting truths.
Who belongs to Jesus’ family?
Consider Mark 3:31–35.
And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.” And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.”
Rather shockingly, Jesus is redefining family for the Jews, the people of God. Jerome Neyrey calls it a “new index of honor.”[2] No longer is it satisfactory to think that being ethnically Jewish equates with being a part of God’s family. Jesus narrows the criteria for membership in God’s family considerably. Pointing to his disciples, Jesus says, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” Doing the will of God—obedience!—became the deciding criteria; this is the narrowing dynamic.
But Jesus expands the concept of God’s family as well. Being a member of God’s family and possessing the corresponding honor of being related to Jesus is now available to anyone and everyone; indeed, it is available to “whoever does the will of my Father in heaven.” This “new index of honor”—this new way of defining who was an “insider”—deeply challenged the status quo understanding of family.
Jesus turned upside-down the traditional understanding of the people of God, family, and father. Jesus is not doing away with honor codes, he is redefining them. Jesus is democratizing honor. The greatest honor of all—honor before Creator God—is now available to all people who put their trust in Jesus the King, who are willing to be least in his kingdom by serving rather than being served (Mark 9:35; 10:45).
Paul relativizes his Jewish family honor
Paul makes a deeply personal statement about his own social worth and honor in Philippians 3:4–10. It is based on his Jewish and ethnic family honor—both ascribed and achieved honor. Paul boasts about his family honor and social capital in order to set up a contrast.
… If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.
Philippians 3:4–6
Then comes the contrast in an altogether startling claim. All this family honor, all this ethnic status, all this social capital—is loss, worthless, like dung and garbage, odorous—in comparison “to the surpassing worth of knowing Jesus Christ my Lord” (Phil 3:8)
Paul exaggerates his point to relativize the honor that comes from his Jewish kinship group. It is risky. Paul may alienate members of his extended family. He might incur the wrath of his tribal peers and kinship group. What would his Jewish relatives think when he says all this family honor is as worthless as “dung” (Phil 3:8, KJV). Paul can only say this because a higher, greater, more satisfying and eternal honor has been revealed to him. It is the honor of knowing and serving the Messiah-King, Lord of the universe, Jesus Christ.
Paul has a new source of honor: Christ himself.
Relativizing family honor is good for us
The benefits of relativizing family honor are manifold. Consider the stranglehold of family secrets. There is untold suffering from sexual abuse swept under the rug in the name of ‘keeping up the family name.’ When the family is idolized, family sins of every stripe are kept in the dark, and all the members in the family system, young and old and in between can be kept in bondage. Consider honor-based violence in the family. We see it in The Godfather—blood vendettas of the Italian mafia. Or the multi-generational killing feud between the Hatfields and the McCoys. What about killing to preserve the honor of the clan among various nations, tribes, and cultures—so-called honor killings?
Clearly: Family-based honor needs to be relativized—and the gospel of Jesus Christ offers this to us.
A little nuance and a summary
We have observed how both Jesus and Paul relativize family honor. But it is good to note that Jesus does not only relativize the family, he also affirms the family and marriage in various ways (e.g., Mat 5:32; Mat 19:19; John 2:1–12). Likewise, Paul does not only relativize his Hebrew family identity; he also valorizes his Jewish family and nation of Israel (Rom 9:1–5; Gal 4:21–31; Eph 2:11–12). Plus, he provides remarkable teachings to affirm the sanctity of marriage and family (Eph 5:20–33; 6:1–4; Col 3:18–21) all under the banner, Jesus Christ is Lord.
Summary: We were made in the image of God. We retain a longing for glory despite the corruption of sin and the Fall. God offers to cover our sin-and-shame and restore our honor through salvation in Jesus the Christ. From his exalted authority as the once-suffering-but-now-resurrected King, Jesus forgives our sin and raises us up in union with him. We are adopted into his family (Eph 1:5; Rom 8:15), complete with an inheritance (Eph 1:14) in a community that’s called a royal priesthood (1 Pet 2:9). This is our new, eternal source of honor, embedded in Christ. The relational honor of knowing Christ and being part of his family is beyond compare. It is so magnificent that all other honors, including family-based honor, fade in significance. This is how the gospel relativizes family-based honor.
FOOTNOTES
1. M. Scott Peck, A World Waiting to be Born: Civility Rediscovered (New York: Random House, 1993), 174.
2. Jerome Neyrey writes: “‘Who is my mother and who are my brothers?’ The question reveals a crisis within Jesus’ kin group. In such a situation, families tend to paper over their internal problems and thus keep up appearances before others. But here Jesus exacerbates the problem between himself and his family, which threatens their public reputation. Resorting to a comparison, he establishes a non-kinship criteria for family membership. ‘Whoever does the will of my father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother’ (Mat 12:50). He identifies with a ‘family’ but not with the empirical group standing outside; he has a ‘Father’ to whom he is duty bound to show loyalty, the kind of loyalty that is the stuff of later parables (Mat 21:28–31, 37). According to this new index of honor he turns away from the blood relatives standing outside and toward the disciples inside: ‘And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”’” Honor And Shame in the Gospel of Matthew, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 54.
The Honor-Shame Conference, June 8–10, 2020 at Wheaton College is gathering numerous practitioners and scholars to explore how honor and shame influence the gospel, the Church, and various disciplines, including theology, missiology, pastoral ministry, and counseling.
More than 40 workshops are scheduled; the list of presenters is truly impressive covering a wide range of fields and disciplines.
Overlapping ministry contexts and dialog between disciplines
In our globalized world we are grappling with complex ministry dynamics. We often deal with overlapping contexts, for example: rural to urban, Eastern to Western, Christian to pagan, youth to old age, collective identity to individualistic, secular to sectarian, or honor-shame to power-fear to innocence-guilt. The gospel of Jesus Christ should resonate with people characterized by any combination of these dynamics, values, and contexts.
When a cross-cultural trainer converses with a professor of theology it can be healthy and productive; likewise, a theologian can be well served by dialog with a missiologist, counseling professional, or anthropologist. A pastor surely benefits from reflecting with a theologian, cross-cultural worker, or social science expert concerning their own ministry context.
The Honor-Shame Conference is designed to facilitate dialog and learning across contexts and disciplines. Are you planning to join the conversation?
I presented “An Honor-Bearing Gospel for Shame-Fueled Crises,” at the annual conference of EMS (Evangelical Missiological Society) in Dallas, Texas on September 14, 2019. The EMS theme for 2019 was “Mission Amid Global Crises.”
Why am I concerned about the intersection of honor-shame with global crises such as terrorism, racism, or refugees? It’s partly because my parents grew up in Germany and lived through the trauma of World War 2.
My mother grew up in Hanover; she said the city was bombed every day for three years. My father was drafted into the German army; he was captured in Italy by the Allied Forces and became a prisoner of war in Poland.
Many millions of Germans were refugees after WW2. My mother was on a train filled with refugees that passed through the city of Dresden; the next day (February 13, 1945) the city was fire-bombed, killing an estimated 25,000 people.
Four years after the war, my father was released from serving as a POW in Poland. In 1953, my grandfather Mischke emigrated to the United States with his wife and three adult sons; the oldest of the three was my dad, Günther. They were fleeing post-WW2 Germany—seeking a better life in America.
I am grateful to be a second-generation American. I am sympathetic toward those who, like my grandfather, are seeking refuge and a better life in America.
Growing up in America, I learned about world history in school. I had a question for my parents concerning World War 2. Why the Holocaust? Did you know about it? Why did Hitler kill all those Jews? My mother said, “We didn’t know.” (My mother was a remarkable Christian woman for whom I am deeply grateful, but she had unsatisfying answers to this question.)
Today, my understanding of the role of honor and shame in nationalism, tribalism, racism and violence helps me make sense of it all. Honor and shame play a huge role in ethnocentrism, terrorism, racism, and the refugee crisis. I believe the gospel of Jesus Christ speaks loudly to these crises. The gospel answers these questions: To whom do we belong? In whom do we find our sure source of honor?
Overview of “An Honor-Bearing Gospel for Shame-Fueled Crises”
Humanity suffers from global pathologies including: the refugee crisis, terrorism, and racism. These problems have in common the concern for security and dignity. The security issue is marked by the question, How do we prevent hostility or violence? The dignity issue is marked by the question: Who are we—to whom do we belong? This dual concern, first, for our survival, relief from hostility—and second, for our honor, the recognition of our identity—is an unrelenting force in history. Shame writ large is at the crux of these historical forces. Is the gospel robust enough to offer a cure? Yes: One, the gospel deals with group-based violence (addressing the security question); and, two, the gospel offers to re-glorify humanity from sin’s objective shame (addressing the dignity question). Christ Himself is the cure as Honor Writ Large—Word made flesh. The gospel is both proclaimed and embodied by the Church—a gospel of hostility-killing peace and shame-covering honor.
Key ideas in “An Honor-Bearing Gospel for Shame-Fueled Crises”—
Toxic shame is both a cause and result of global social pathologies such as the refugee crisis, terrorism, and racism.
Ephesians 2:13–16 reveals that the atonement of Christ has a profound social impact—creating “one new man, so making peace” (v. 15) between Jew and Gentile, “thereby killing the hostility” (v. 16). This is a stunning truth: The cross kills hostility.
I reference Jackson Wu’s article, “Have Theologians No Sense of Shame: How the Bible Reconciles Objective and Subjective Shame,” which demonstrates conclusively that objective shame is widely represented in Scripture. Shame is individual, social, and sacred or theological. Referencing Romans 10:10–11, Wu writes convincingly, “The shame that is avoided is as objective as the justification that is gained.”
I reference Haley Goranson Jacob: Conformed to the Image of His Son: Reconsidering Paul’s Theology of Glory in Romans. She emphasizes believers’ “vocational participation” with Christ as a present-tense reign with Christ. She calls this the “reglorification of humanity.” “Those whom he justified he also glorified” (Rom 8:30). To be glorified in Christ means there’s work to do with Jesus today—exceedingly honorable work. We are participating with Christ for the world—ruling with Christ over creation on behalf of human flourishing.
How does the New Testament address the thorny issue of rivalry and honor competition? What might we learn that applies to our own mission teams and cross-cultural partnerships? My latest article offers suggestions.
The article title is “Giving Honor: A Key to Fruitful Cross-Cultural Partnerships.”
This article was published in the October–December 2018 issue of EMQ (Evangelical Missions Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 4). It’s now available without going through the online subscription system of Missio Nexus. (The Missio Nexus policy is that three months after publication, articles may be released to the public.)
View and download the 100-slide presentation here.
You can also access the PDF of the corresponding PowerPoint presentation from my SlideShare account. Click here. This is the presentation I used for a workshop given at the 2018 Missio Nexus Leaders Conference.
Consider using the article and PowerPoint—and adapt it for teaching the material yourself.
The article opens with this introduction:
We begin with two assumptions: First, challenges concerning honor competition and rivalry affect cross-cultural teams, networks, or partnerships throughout the world Christian movement. Second, solutions (though not easy) are found in Christ.
Problem: (1) Honor competition—rivalry—was a major cultural feature of the New Testament world and a problem in the New Testament church. (2) Honor competition and rivalry occurring in mission teams and cross-cultural collaborations hinder biblical unity and fruitful ministry.
Solution: (1) Jesus and Paul teach that serving and “giving honor” undermine the problem of rivalry. (2) Unity in the body of Christ happens when the so-called honorable “give honor” to the so-called less honorable. (3) The practice of empathic listening is an appropriate way of giving honor in any culture. Giving honor by listening builds trust and unity for fruitful ministry—a vital practice in the collaborative, intercultural, global mission of God.
The five “misunderstandings” below are followed by my thoughts on why they are incorrect or incomplete. –wm
MISUNDERSTANDING #1: “Honor-shame is first of all about reaching people like Muslims in honor-shame cultures.”
Actually, honor-shame is first of all about hermeneutics.
Of course, there is great value in understanding honor-shame for ministry to peoples whose primary cultural orientation is honor-shame. But honor-shame begins with the Bible and proper hermeneutics—the art and science of interpreting Scripture.
Much scholarship1 points to the fact that the pivotal cultural value of the societies into which Scripture was written—is honor and shame. Western theology has under-emphasized this in Scripture interpretation. It results in unnecessarily prioritizing guilt and law over shame, honor, and the regal dimensions of the gospel.
Moreover, the study of honor-shame in the Bible’s various ancient social contexts “advances the Word of God as being primary and first in the contextualization process.”2
Honor-shame reinforces the primacy of Scripture in hermeneutics as well as in matters of culture and contextualization.
MISUNDERSTANDING #2: “Honor-shame is a way to adjust the message of the gospel so that people in honor-shame cultures will be more responsive to it.”
On the surface this idea sounds right, but we need to go deeper.
Here’s why: “The gospel is already contextualized for honor-shame cultures” and “honor and shame are built into the framework of the gospel itself.”3 A variety of honor-shame dynamics are literally woven into verses and themes about salvation and the atonement of Christ.
These honor-shame dynamics include:love of honor … two sources of honor—ascribed and achieved … challenge and riposte … the concept of face … body language … patronage … purity, and … name/kinship/blood.4
Consider the doctrine of “justification by faith.” It is normally understood in an exclusively legal/individualistic framework. However, several honor-shame dynamics are woven into passages where the words justification or justify occur.5
When honor-shame dynamics are understood as integral to justification by faith—it adds critical nuance and relevance to the gospel.
MISUNDERSTANDING #3: “Yes, honor-shame teaching addresses humanity’s problem of shame. But let’s remember that theologically, shame is secondary to the more basic problem of humanity’s guilt. Guilt is primarily objective; shame is merely subjective.”
In the Bible, guilt and shame are both objective and subjective.
Contrary to this common belief …
… the Bible reveals that sin includes both objective guilt and objective shame. Shame is not merely subjective. Indeed, as guilt is both objective and subjective, likewise shame is both objective and subjective.
According to research by Jackson Wu, shame in the Bible has three types: 1) psychological, 2) social, and 3) sacred. Moreover, Wu’s article (reviewed here) demonstrates—in my opinion, conclusively—that in Scripture, shame is just as theologically objective as guilt. In fact, there are more types of objective shame than subjective shame.6
I heartily recommend Dr. Wu’s article with its carefully structured biblical support. Understanding that guilt and shame are both objective and subjective has major implications for how we teach and preach the gospel.
MISUNDERSTANDING #4: “Honor-shame is a method for improving ministry to the unreached in honor-shame cultures. But for Western peoples the application of honor-shame is limited—it’s just not as important.”
Not so fast.
The observer of modern Western culture sees the pathologies of social media and the erosion of political discourse, with many Christians as uncritical participants in these ills. Add to this the threat of Islamic terrorism and other culturally-rooted conflicts. Consider also … sexual abuse, substance abuse and addiction … inclusion and exclusion … tribalism, racism, and nationalism.
All of these social ills have profound honor-shame features. They have an enormous impact on a nation’s citizens, as well as on “kingdom citizens”—believers who are part of the kingdom of Christ. When the gospel has honor-shame content, it not only addresses personal salvation, it alsospeaks in a profound and transforming way to social and corporate issues—just as it did in First Century Palestine and the Roman Empire.
Honor-shame contributes mightily to a missional theology—even for Westerners.7
MISUNDERSTANDING #5: “Putting too much emphasis on honor-shame is risky. It can lead to syncretism, imbalance, or ethical compromise—especially in an honor-shame cultural context.”
Could it be—it’s just the opposite?
A biblically-sound emphasis on honor-shame should lead to an increase (not a decrease) in ethical integrity. With an emphasis on honor-shame, believers understand their “honor surplus” in Christ—and build “shame resilience.”8
By knowing Jesus (Phil 3:8) and through honor-bound loyalty to Christ the King, believers persevere despite suffering. They can challenge prevailing social values when those values violate God’s kingdom values.
These truths are explicit in the letter of First Peter.9
A proper biblical emphasis on honor-shame dynamics in salvation and discipleship should counter the tendency toward syncretism or ethical compromise.10
FOOTNOTES
1. See, for example, Jerome Neyrey, Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998); David deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000); Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007);John M. G. Barclay: Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015); and Joshua Jipp: Christ Is King: Paul‘s Royal Ideology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015).
2. Werner Mischke: The Global Gospel: Achieving Missional Impact in Our Multicultural World (Scottsdale: Mission ONE, 2015), 305–11.
3. Jackson Wu, “Rewriting the Gospel for Oral Cultures: Why Honor and Shame are Essential to the Gospel Story,” in International Orality Network: Beyond Literate Western Contexts: Honor & Shame and Assessment of Orality Preference.
4. Mischke, The Global Gospel, 206–78. Numerous scholars are cited.
5. See Mischke’s blog post series on “honor-shame in justification by faith” at http://tiny.cc/bginyy. For an expansive scholarly treatment of honor-shame dynamics in justification by faith, see Jackson Wu, Saving God’s Face: A Chinese Contextualization of Salvation through Honor and Shame (Pasadena, CA: William Carey International University Press, 2012).
7. See Andy Crouch, “The Return of Shame” in Christianity Today, March 2015. http://tiny.cc/tbinyy. He discusses, among other things, the impact of social media from a gospel perspective. The October 2018 issue of The Atlantic asks “Is Democracy Dying?” Several articles address issues that involve honor and shame … inclusion and exclusion … racism, tribalism, nationalism. The point here is simply that honor and shame are profoundly relevant issues in America and other Western nations. Does not the gospel speak about core identity as a matter of salvation? Does not the gospel therefore speak profoundly to these matters?
8. The concept of “shame resilience” is developed by Brené Brown in Daring Greatly: How the Courage to Be Vulnerable Transforms the Way We Live, Love, Parent, and Lead (New York: Gotham Books, 2012).
9. For a thorough examination of these truths, see 1 Peter: An Honor-Shame Paraphrase (Timē Press, Kindle Edition, 2017) by Jayson Georges.
