Mission ONE partners with the Global Church to transform communities to look more like the Kingdom of God—and reach unreached people groups with the gospel through the local church.
For over 30 years, Mission ONE has worked with indigenous partners in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. Each of our partners focuses on church planting, reaching unreached people groups, and development projects to create long-term sustainability.
About the position
Through the leadership of the Development Director, Mission ONE seeks to usher in a new era of developing relationships with established and prospective supporters to expand the reach and effectiveness of the mission. The Director of Development will report to the President and actively develop a strategy for and participate in the organization’s fundraising efforts.
Qualifications you should have
Demonstrated ability in the past to create momentum that leads to outcomes; must be proactive rather than reactive.
A strong interest in non-profit Christian organizations.
The ability to effectively communicate the ministry value proposition of Mission ONE and confidently request gifts.
At least five (5) years of successful development and/or fundraising experience and a successful track record in closing major gifts.
You should
Be a committed follower of Jesus Christ and an active member of a Christian Church.
Have earned a BA or master’s degree, preferably in business, non-profit management, marketing, philanthropy, or a related field.
Possess excellent written and verbal communication skills.
Be an organized, concise thinker and communicator.
Be strong, inspirational, and persuasive.
Possess high moral integrity with a persevering spirit and drive.
Be able and willing to travel as needed to connect with major and principal donors; able to make evening and weekend presentations when needed.
Responsibilities
Develop a donor base by sharing existing Mission ONE resources to engage new audiences and donor communities.
Grow the existing donor base through engagement and re-engagement activities.
Identify goals for each year with the Mission ONE President and work towards accomplishing those goals.
Work with Mission ONE’s President and appropriate leadership to track and ensure that principal and major gift donors in the portfolio are being visited.
Participate in goal setting, prepare proposals, strategy development for solicitation, and stewardship as required for major or principal donors in the portfolio.
Successfully and consistently deliver funding proposals to prospective and current donors as the relationship dictates.
Maintain appropriate electronic documentation on time, including engagement activities, proposal tracking, contact reports, donor strategies, and forecasting into Virtuous.
Meet with President weekly. Attend weekly staff meetings virtually or in person.
Maintain a working knowledge of fundraising best practices; attend seminars and conferences annually for personal growth and development.
Perform other development duties as required or requested by the President.
This text, Ephesians 2:13–17, speaks of reconciliation between peoples— through the cross of Christ.
13 But now in Christ Jesus, you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17 And he came and preached [the gospel of] peace to you were far off and peace to those who were near. –Ephesians 2:13–17 (ESV)
Some questions:
What aspects of this text speak exclusively to Jew-Gentile reconciliation in the church? What aspects of the text speak of reconciliation between Gentile peoples, tribes, or other social groups in the church?
What does it look like in a given local context when Jesus Christ, the One who is all in all (Eph 1:23), is the Savior-King through whom our tribal, racial, or status divisions in the church are resolved?
What does it look like in a given local context when the crucified Christ, having “killed the hostility” (Eph 2:16), becomes the body of Christ living as the “one new man” (Eph 2:15)?
This text (Eph 2:13–17) has dense atonement-and-gospel content; why, then, has it been broadly ignored in atonement doctrine—especially at the popular level? Why do few pastors preach on this text concerning the meaning of the cross of Christ?
To what degree is collective identity conflict addressed by the atonement verses in Ephesians 2:13–17? Does the atonement of Christ/gospel of peace offer reconciliation horizontally between groups in competition or in conflict within the church?
How was this text used, abused, or ignored in three historical contexts when the church failed to halt violence and bloodshed—despite widespread Christian influence in the nation?
Christianity and the genocide in Rwanda, 1994
Christianity and the German Reich, 1933–45
Christianity and America—slavery and racism
How does Eph 2:11–22 fit into the broader context of Ephesians? How does this text relate to the three passages that refer to cosmic powers of darkness, “rulers and authorities” (Eph 1:21; 3:10; 6:12).
Does this text speak of a reconciliation in Christ that is simultaneously vertical with God and horizontal within God’s people?
How does this text speak to the problem of group-based honor competition or tribalism in the Global Church? How might this text speak to the church in America?
How does this text challenge our Western bias toward individualism in theology?
What can we learn from Early Church interpretations of this text?
What honor-shame dynamics in the Roman Empire might inform our interpretation of this text? (I begin to address this here.)
How do scholars and preachers from minority groups interpret this text?
What might this text say to the Church Growth Movement or the Unreached Peoples Movement?
In service of our Savior-King and the global church, to what degree can a team of scholars and practitioners from around the world, be in fellowship on a journey together, to answer these questions?
More on the Ephesians 2 Gospel Project will appear here in forthcoming posts from our ongoing research. Subscribe and stay tuned. Or write to me at werner@mission1.org.
I was baptized in a Baptist church at age ten. What I learned about sin as a boy attending church is the same as what I’ve heard in countless sermons through adulthood. I came to understand sin as a human, individual dynamic: Sin is when you rebel against God’s laws, when you fail to do what is right. I can still hear Billy Graham preaching—when unsaved individuals face God as their Judge after death, they hear God pronounce loudly, “Guilty!”
A popular Systematic Theology describes sin as follows:
We may define sin as follows:sin is any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature. Sin is here defined in relation to God and his moral law. Sin includes not only individual acts, such as stealing, lying, and committing murder, but also attitudes that are contrary to the attitudes God requires of us.
Wayne Grudem. Systematic Theology, Second Edition (pp. 965). Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition.
I agree: sin is any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature. The underlying assumption in this definition seems to be that the locus of sin is the individual. Individuals fail to conform to the moral law of God. Individual persons steal. Individual humans commit murder. Individuals have selfish attitudes. We all can attest to this truth.
However, in the Bible’s narrative, we also observe this: The failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature goes beyond the individualistic human realm of human life. In fact, the Bible reveals that sin is also observable and judged at the familial,civic,corporate,national, civilizational, and cosmicarenas.
In his brilliant book, Missing the Mark: Sin and Its Consequences in Biblical Theology, Mark Biddle writes:
“In the West, the dominant model of sin and salvation—developed especially in the thoughts of Tertullian, Augustine, Anselm, and Abelard—has long relied on a courtroom analogy. Human beings in willful rebellion against God’s authority violate God’s law. Their crime incurs the penalty of death. … This ‘sin as crime’ metaphor, with its emphasis on the juridical, the individual, and willful rebellion, and its interests in assignment of guilt and exaction of punishment, addresses certain aspects of the problem of human existence. Yet, although dominant in the Western popular mind, it does not fully reflect the biblical witness …”1
Biddle goes on to say that in the biblical narrative, many aspects of sin and evil cannot be reduced to the problem of individual humans. Human existence is just too complex to reduce sin to an exclusively individual dynamic.
Sin is cosmic—prior to human existence, from nonhuman personages who are involved in human affairs today
In the Bible, evil exists prior to human existence: Sin begins with a deceptive serpent (Gen 3:1–7), opposed to God’s will. The serpent is nonhuman, created by God, highly intelligent (Gen 3:1). The serpent speaks in a way understood by humans. The serpent is crafty, suggestive, indirect.
The serpent’s existence and communication with man and woman indicate that something has already gone horribly wrong in the cosmic realm, prior to the creation of man and woman. What happened? We do not know for sure. Genesis offers no direct information about the origin of the “crafty” serpent. There is a mystery here.
Some theologians believe that Isaiah 14:12–15 offers a clue. They interpret the passage as a description of an angel who is expelled from heaven prior to the creation of Adam and Eve; and “brought down to Sheol” (Is 14:15) because of rebellion against God. The angel’s rebellion is sometimes called the five “I wills”:
“I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God”
“I will set my throne on high;
“I will sit on the mount of assembly …” (Is 14:13)
“I will ascend above the heights of the clouds”
“I will make myself like the Most High” (Is 14:14)
Perhaps the serpent of Genesis 3:1 represents this fallen angel and its allied evil forces.
There are profound mysteries about the nature and origin of evil. But biblically speaking, this is plain: According to Genesis 3, evil and sin originate with a highly intelligent personage who is able to deceptively communicate with humans, and this personage is nonhuman and superhuman—beyond human limitations.
Thus, the narrative in Genesis 3 asks readers, ancient and modern, to grapple with the truth that the origin of evil is outside of human life. Sin and evil begin external to humanity.
Other passages of Scripture confirm the reality of nonhuman sin or supernatural evil. Here is a sampling:
Book of Job. “And the LORD said to Satan, ‘Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?’” (Job 1:8). The book of Job reveals a cosmic, nonhuman evil personage—Satan. And Satan is given permission by God to attack the man Job, “the greatest of all the people of the east” (Job 1:3). Job is completely unaware of the evil Satan. And yet it is Satan who destroys Job’s family, property, and health. The most honorable man becomes the epitome of shame. The book of Job explores the reality and mystery of supernatural evil, and that humans can be victims of such evil.
Daniel. Daniel is mourning, fasting, waiting on the Lord for three weeks (Dan 10:1–2). Daniel is finally told by one who looks and sounds like an angel (Dan 10:5-6): “The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me out …” (Dan 10:13). There is a conflict in the angelic realm between the forces of Almighty God and the forces of evil which have affected Daniel. Apparently, superhuman evil “princes” are attached to Persia and Greece (Dan 10:20).
Gospels. Jesus is “tempted by the devil” in the wilderness and for forty days and forty nights (Mat 4:1–2). Jesus engages with a superhuman personage, “the devil,” who powerfully tempts him. We also observe in the Gospels that Jesus encounters demons on various occasions. Perhaps the most dramatic account is when Jesus heals the demonaic (Mat 8:28–34; Mark 5:1–19; Luke 8:26–39). The man is horribly defiled, defaced, out of control, out of his mind. Jesus is setting people free from demonic, evil, sinful enslavement. The Apostle John plainly states, “The reason the Son of God appeared is to destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8).
Paul and Peter. “We do not wrestle against flesh and blood,” Paul writes in Ephesians 6:12, “but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” Paul refers to these evil “rulers” in three other places (Eph 1:21; 3:10; Col 2:15). Peter writes, “Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Pet 5:8).
Revelation. John mentions “the devil” five times (Rev 2:10; 12:9; 12:12; 20:2; 20:10). John writes of “the beast” more than 30 times in his Revelation. He says that Satan will deceive the nations (Rev 20:7). John prophesies that all cosmic evil will one day be judged and destroyed: “the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (Rev 20:10).
Sin is human—individual, social, collective
Below is a diagram I created which attempts to describe the range of human groupings in the Bible, along with examples of these groups being judged or critiqued by God for their sin.
At the left end of the continuum is the individual person. Here the emphasis is on the individual judged by God (or forgiven) for their sin. At the far right of the continuum is all humanity.
Range of human groupings in the Bible critiqued or judged—examples of single individual to all humanity. Yellow highlight refers to New Testament examples.
In my opinion, much theology aptly addresses the problem of human sin at the individual “persons” level at the far left, and at the “all humanity” level at the far right. What about the various kinds of collective identity sin in between?
Could it be that much theology—despite biblical evidence to the contrary—tends to avoid addressing the more systemic sin problems that exist at the family, corporate, national, or “collective-identity” level? I contend that there is an imbalance in Western theology’s relentless focus on the individual. I agree with Mark Biddle, quoted near the beginning of this post. A truncated view of sin results in a truncated gospel.
The Bible reveals sin to be a mixture that is cosmic/corporate/familial/civic/national/cultural. The synergy of sin seems greater than the sum of the parts. In Exodus, the nation/civilization called Egypt is judged for its idolatry and oppression. Indeed, nations are judged corporately for their sin all over the Old Testament. What about cities? Yes. Whole cities are judged for their idolatry and sin, for example, Jericho (Jos 6:1–21)2 and Niniveh (Jon 1:1–2).
In the book of Revelation, we also see an emphasis on the corporate. Seven different communities of believers—not individuals—are judged and critiqued (Rev 2:1–3:22). The cities are Ephesus (Rev 2:1–7), Smyrna (Rev 2:8–11), Pergamum (Rev 2:12–17), Thyatira (Rev 2:18–29), Sardis (Rev 3:1–6), Philadelphia (Rev 3:7–13), and Laodicea (Rev 3:14–22). There’s a different message for each church based on degrees of love and loyalty—and degrees of idolatry or immorality. The message to the church at Laodicea concerns their evil self-recognition about wealth and independence that makes for a despicable lukewarmness (Rev 3:16–17). The message is directed to the church as a whole.
In these letters to the seven churches, the Lord addresses the corporate whole while also addressing the individual. For example, the phrase “the one who conquers” is used four times (Rev 2:17; 2:26; 3:5; 3:21), encouraging individuals within these communities to be courageous in their loyalty to Christ. The “both-and principle” is clear: God speaks simultaneously to the community and the individual. It corresponds to the often complex, non-formulaic nature of Scripture.
Closing questions
Could it be that because we tend to understand that the gospel speaks exclusively to individuals (Jesus died for the sins of individual persons), we ignore the Bible’s critique of human groups? How does the gospel address cosmic evil? What about structural, collective, or cultural evil—does the gospel speak to these realities?
Could it be that evangelical tradition has overemphasized the significance of Christ’s atonement for individual sins, and has underemphasized the significance of the atonement in addressing cosmic evil (Col 2:14–15), collective identity sin, and group-on-group hostility (Eph 2:13–18)? See this post.
Could it be that in framing sin as an exclusively individual human dynamic, Christians are given theological cover to ignore structural and social sin dynamics such as tribalism, racism, and nationalism?
Are the myriad divisions in the church—divisions according to social status, race, or ethnicity—massive obstacles to scores of persons and peoples wanting to become followers of Jesus Christ? Are these divisions (divisions with which Christians are quite comfortable) examples of the complexity of sin?
Could it be that Christians often blame unbelievers for being rebellious against God—that’s why they don’t want to come to church; they are rebellious toward God—when we Christians should rather lament our own disobedience in displaying the reconciled new humanity (Eph 2:15) for which Christ died?
NOTES
Mark Biddle, Missing the Mark: Sin and Its Consequences in Biblical Theology (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005), viii.
The Bible is not explicit in saying the city of Jericho is sinful according to the record Joshua 6. The Bible assumes that its readers will understand that Jericho is a pagan city permeated by sin. This is unlike the book of Jonah, where the Bible explicitly acknowledges the collective evil of the city of Nineveh; God tells Jonah “their evil has come up before me” (Jon 1:2).
With this post I begin a series on how the gospel of Christ offers a cure to the pathologies of racism and tribalism.This blog post is adapted from my forthcoming article in Missio Dei Journal: “An Honor-Bearing Gospel for Shame-Fueled Crises.”
11“Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called ‘the uncircumcision’ by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—12remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.”
–Ephesians 2:11–12
“So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” –Ephesians 2:19
Who are the strangers and aliens?
“So then you are no longer strangers and aliens…” (Eph 2:19). To whom is Paul is speaking?
He is not addressing low class refugees, destitute sojourners, oppressed immigrants, or racial outsiders. He is addressing a much, much larger group of people whose levels of social status are as wide-ranging as all humanity.
He is telling all non-Jews, the vast majority in the magnificent city of Ephesus: before you became followers of Christ, you were aliens and outsiders to the people of God.
Paul is addressing Gentile-background believers, “called the uncircumcision by the circumcision” (Eph 2:11). Gentiles are simply anyone and everyone who does not belong to the Hebrews, the ancient people whose father is Abraham, specially chosen and blessed by God (Gen 12:1–3).
In Ephesians, Paul is primarily addressing Gentiles (Eph 2:11; 3:1) who now give their allegiance to the Christ. In their pre-Christian status they were non-Jewish “others.”
Who are the ethne?
The Greek word for Gentiles is ethne. In missiology, ethne has come to refer to the world’s range of distinct ethnicities, tribes, or peoples as a way to emphasize the need for reaching the unreached people groups. But this stretches the term beyond what it originally meant in its original context (see Jackson Wu’s fuller explanation here). The term ethne was simply “used by Jews as a label for non-Jews”.1 Paul’s emphasis here is not on the diversity of Gentile people groups; rather, it is on their monolithic status as outsiders. Their outsider status means objective shame before God.
In verse 11, Paul the Jewish Christ-follower reminds the Gentile Christians in Ephesus of their non-Jewish, non-people-of-God background. He tells the Gentile males in his audience they are not circumcised (as though they didn’t know). He says Gentiles are “called the uncircumcision by the circumcision” (Eph 2:11 ESV). “The label ‘uncircumcised’ is a literal description of Gentile males, since, at that time, Jewish men were known as having been circumcised.”2 Thus, Hart in his translation of the New Testament, renders verse 11 as: “Therefore, remember that you, formerly gentiles in the flesh, the ones called ‘Foreskin’ by the so-called ‘Circumcision’…”3
The principle of Scripture interprets Scripture applies here. Recall David’s bold question regarding Goliath: “For who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?” (1 Sam 17:26). This is clearly derogatory. For David, the military battle was an honor-shame contest as much as a life and death struggle. David’s use of derogatory labeling is apt, if not audacious.
In Ephesians 2:11, Paul seems undiplomatic, to say the least. Paul indirectly claims honor status for his Jewish ancestry; at the same time, Paul seems to be putting all Ephesian Gentiles into the category of “uncircumcised Philistine.” This is who the Gentile believers were “at one time” (Eph 2:11) before Christ intervened in their lives. Is he insulting the majority of his audience?
An insult, or not?
Paul’s words might be read as an insult. But they could also be understood as a way of acknowledging humanity’s automatic tendency toward racism or ethnocentric attitudes. In this case, it is the ethnocentrism with which he is most familiar: the Jewish version.4 Could it be Paul is also critiquing the Jews? Could it be Paul is identifying a Gentile caricature of the Jews: the Jews are a minority group who are culturally separate, whose religious practices (weirdly) include circumcision, who because of ethnocentrism, look down on all who they consider “unclean”?
So although Paul’s words might be read as an insult, it is likely that this is a more complex relational dynamic. We do well to keep in mind that Paul’s vocation and passion as the apostle to the Gentiles was for the inclusion of the whole world of Gentiles in the salvation story of God (Rom 15:15–16). Plus, Paul is obviously honoring Gentile Christians in the first chapter of Ephesians as he gives eloquent voice to the church as a community possessing immense honor in Christ (Eph 1:3–14). Moreover, Paul is well-known for relativizing Jewish exclusiveness and identity (Eph 3:1–6; Gal 3:28).
(NOTE: In Philippians 3:4–8, Paul even relativizes his own very substantial ascribed and achieved Jewish honor. What he says is stunning and cuts to the bone. This is only possible in Christ; it is only through the magnificent honor gained through knowing the Christ. JESUS himself gives Paul the emotional and spiritual margin to relinquish the primacy of his traditional sources of honor. Jesus, Jesus, JESUS! We will look at this passage in Philippians more closely in a forthcoming post.)
Paul is relativizing all social capital outside of Christ
In Ephesians 2:11, we are not sure whether Paul is being insulting or conciliatory toward the Gentiles with the words, “called the uncircumcision by the circumcision.” But we can be confident of this: Regardless of the Gentile’s pre-conversion (or current) wealth, citizenship, race, nobility, education, popularity, power, or privilege … regardless of their local, cultural insider status, the Gentiles to whom Paul is writing had been at the margins of the only community that truly and eternally matters—the people of God.
Having relativized Gentile identity (in verse 11) among the Ephesians, Paul continues to describe Gentiles (in verse 12) from a Jewish perspective, again using shame-and-outsider terminology. They were 1) “separated from Christ,” 2) “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel,” 3) “strangers to the covenants of promise,” 4) “having no hope,” and 5) “without God in the world” (Eph 2:12).
Ephesians 2 describes only two groups—two levels of honor status. Outsiders comprise the first group. They are outside of God’s gift of grace in the Christ; they do not belong to God’s people. Insiders comprise the second group. They are recipients of God’s grace in the Christ and belong to God’s people. Paradoxically, this new community of God’s people is amazingly inclusive—anyone can be an insider through relationship with Christ. Everyone is welcome by receiving the gift of God’s grace (Eph 2:8–9).
The only social status that matters
Whatever honor status they held as pre-Christian Gentiles adds not one iota to their actual, eternal social capital. The only thing that matters is this: Who are they in relation to God in Christ and his people? These Gentiles are being reminded of their pre-Christian identity by what they were not: they were not in Christ. They shared no ancestry with God’s people Israel or their covenant-promises. They were outside of God’s family.
Could it be that Paul intends that believers who hold an attitude of supremacy or exceptionalism to feel the sting of conviction? Could it be that any Christians treasuring their blood-family relations, vocational pride, Ephesian identity, or Roman citizenship above their in-Christ identity are limiting the impact of the gospel?
Willie James Jennings, in his remarkable book, The Christian Imagination: Theology and the Origins of Race, describes the theological and historical underpinnings of racism. It is eye-opening to see how racism, white superiority, and conquest were theologized by white European Christians. Toward the end of his book, he considers the truths in Ephesians 2:11–20. Dr. Jennings writes, “The power of this account of Gentile status radically undermined any distinction Gentiles held for themselves vis-à-vis other peoples. It is the ultimate deconstructive statement regarding Gentile ethnocentrism.”5
What is God saying to me?
Concerning me personally. Essentially, God’s Word is telling me in Ephesians 2: Werner, you being white, American, and middle class isn’t worth what you think it is in God’s big story. Remember, you are a Gentile. At one time you were a stranger and alien to the people of God (Eph 2:11–12). You had the status of “outsider” before your allegiance to Christ.
But now, you’re no longer an outsider, an alien, a stranger (Eph 2:19). You’re part of the forever family of God—all because of Jesus Christ.And you know what? Your black and brown Gentile brothers and sisters in Christ are just like you.You had a common ancestry—being “alien” to the people of God.And because of God’s amazing grace (Eph 2:8–9), you now share with them a common allegiance to the king of kings—Jesus the Christ. You share “insider status” with all believers, regardless of their race, ethnicity, or social status.
Concerning “my people.” Essentially, God’s Word is telling me in Ephesians 2: Werner, your racial identity having white European blood is in no way superior to any other. Remember: Your people are all Gentiles—they were outsiders, strangers, pagans, aliens to the people of God (Eph 2:11–12). And your Gentile brothers and sisters in Christ (including those who are black and brown) at one time all had the same status as outsiders. You have this in common with them: Your ethnicity and theirswere all at one time “alien” to God’s people.
But now, you’re no longer an outsider, an alien, a stranger. Your people’s story now makes sense as persons and families from various peoples are “grafted in” to the story of God’s people (Rom 11:17–24). You’re part of the forever family of God—all because of Jesus the Christ.
Now, if somebody asks you, “Werner, who are your people? To whom do you belong?”, begin with the eternally honored social group, the body of Christ. Tell themthatyou, along with your brothers and sisters in Christ from all different races and peoples, are ‘fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God’” (Eph 2:19).
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.
Guenther Mischke was married to my mom, Hannelore, and the father to my sisters Karin and Ursula and me. He was a German immigrant and he loved the Lord in his own way. Living in Rochester, NY, he attended a Baptist church with many German-background families for nearly 40 years. He also suffered from severe bi-polar illness. He had a great sense of humor, and oh, how he loved my mom, and my two sisters and I. He died in 1992 from a heart attack at age 68.
My relationship with my dad was complicated. Here’s the story of how he gave me his blessing.
I had been married for 14 years. My wife Daphne with our two sons were living In Lee, Massachusetts, serving as members of a small Baptist church. And I was in transition—from being a small business owner—to taking a step of faith into the world of global missions.
I wanted to leave my graphic design business and work with evangelist Bob Schindler, who had just founded a cross-cultural partnership ministry called Mission ONE. I had to tell my parents what I was planning to do. My decision required moving from Massachusetts to Tennessee—1500 miles away—with my wife Daphne and two boys. A drastic move like this meant I would not see my parents as often.
In the fall of ’91, Daphne and I were visiting my parents in Rochester. My dad had begun kidney dialysis treatments. I knew I had to share my plans with him individually. He was proud of me for owning my own business, and he loved the periodic visits we made to see them, so I honestly did not know how he would react to my announcement. Would he be disappointed? Mad? Confused?
Daphne had gone shopping with my mother. So there we were, just Pop and me, in the small living room in their apartment. I presented my plans, and why I wanted to make such a radical change in our lives. The financial outlook was uncertain. I wasn’t completely sure how I would support my family. But I was undeterred. I said something like this, “This is my desire—to serve with Bob Schindler in the ministry of Mission ONE—and I think somehow it will all work out. We are trusting God.”
I explained the big move my family and I were planning to make. Then I asked, “So Pop, what do you think?” I waited for his response.
“Werner, we are behind you one-hundred percent, whatever you do.”
Immediately, my eyes filled with tears. I got up from the couch and hugged him. Pop kissed me. Together we embraced. My tears took me by surprise.
Despite Pop’s bipolar illness, he loved me. Despite my need to compensate for his weaknesses, he gave me his blessing.
A few months later, in January of 1992, Pop passed away. I was honored to give his eulogy at his memorial service.
There is much that I wish I could have received from Pop—counsel, friendship, financial assistance, spiritual encouragement. I had decided not to ask for what I knew he was unable to give.
But the one thing I needed most I did receive—the honor of his blessing. I am forever grateful.
A Syrian refugee family being provided food and cleaning supplies by Mission ONE partner, AFA Middle East Team
Syrian women hoping for basic provisions for their families
The standard provision per family costs about $75, includes rice, bulgur, lentil, chickpeas, beans, flour, milk for children, tea, canned food, and detergents
