I just pre-ordered my copy. Can’t wait to read it. The subject of honor and shame relates profoundly to our personal spiritual experience in the Christian faith. I encourage you to check it out. The readings are short and accessible to a non-academic audience—perfect for a daily devotional.
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.
At the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp on August 6, 2015, I took this picture of myself in front of an aerial photo of the center. I did this to acknowledge the shame of human beings (me being of the same species) who committed the atrocities there.
First, some background material:
But now in Christ Jesus, you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 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, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 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)
We launched the Ephesians 2 Gospel Project (E2GP) through my work with Mission ONE in January 2021. The key idea of the Ephesians 2 Gospel Project is this: There is a social and horizontal dimension to the gospel of Christ because there is a social and horizontal dimension to the atonement of Christ (Eph 2:13–17). Our short-term goal is a book. Our desired long-term impact is God’s people drawn into and embodying Christ’s peacemaking work through the gospel.
E2GP is a two-year research project which includes:
listening to and learning from the Global Church, including Mission ONE ministry partners,
grappling with relevant questions about the gospel, the atonement of Christ, the global mission of the church, and why the church has sometimes been complicit with conflict and violence,
reading relevant literature (books and articles) on history, theology, missiology, the social sciences,
writing a book (to be co-authored with Kristin Caynor), which is the catalyst for developing other resources for learning and practice,
facilitating a fellowship of Christian scholars and practitioners around the world to study and embody the gospel of peace as a solution to collective-identity conflict in the church in their own nations and contexts.
Since last January, Kristin Caynor has been contributing as a research assistant to the Ephesians 2 Gospel Project. Kristin grew up on the mission field; she and her parents serve with a mission organization similar to Mission ONE. Kristin is a qualified researcher. She has a lot of cross-cultural ministry experience, has a passion for helping marginalized peoples in the global church, and is a Ph.D. candidate at Trinity College Bristol/University of Aberdeen. (Check it out:Kristin’s recent lecture on the Ephesians 2 Gospel Project is for the Centre for the Study of Bible and Violence; it is outstanding. You can view the video here.)
About Germany and the Ephesians 2 Gospel Project
I am the son of German immigrant parents. My father was a soldier in Hitler’s army; he was a prisoner of war in Poland for four years. He became mentally ill in my teenage years. I took on a shadow of shame from my father and family.
Concerning WW2 Germany, the juxtaposition of two truths (below) should cause us to shudder.
WW2 Germany and Europe was the location of a massive violence and bloodshed. A central part of this conflict was the Holocaust (or Shoah). It was a deliberate, sustained, unspeakable evil. It was murder on the largest scale committed against the Jews on behalf of the supposed superiority of the German (Aryan) race.
At the time of Hitler’s rule, Germany’s people identified as 97% Christian.
Here’s how Holocaust scholar Robert Ericksen describes this statistic of Germany’s people identifying as 97% Christian.
“When Adolf Hitler came to power, 97 percent of the German population considered itself Christian, with about two-thirds being Protestant and one-third Catholic. Less than 1 percent of Germans were Jewish in 1933, and only a slightly larger percentage registered as pagans or nonbelievers. It is true that the entire 97 percent registered as Christian did not attend church regularly or maintain a vibrant Christian identity. However, all of them agreed to pay the church tax, money they could have saved by the simple act of leaving their church. Furthermore, they received religious education in all German schools, and, of course, many of these 97 percent of the population were fervent Christians active in their faith. Germany in the 1930s almost certainly represented church attendance and a sense of Christian commitment and identity similar to that in America today, for example.”
Robert P. Ericksen, Complicity in the Holocaust: Churches and Universities in Nazi Germany (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 9.
In Germany: Centuries of accrued Christian influence from the church, a population that identifies as 97% Christian … and yet, the Holocaust. How does this add up? How can this be?
Missionaries and missions scholars sometimes speak of the “redemptive lift” that comes to a community when the gospel of Jesus is embraced. I believe this.
But what happened in WW2 Germany? Widespread systemic evil and violence occurred in the society, despite the broad sustained influence of Christianity. Could it be that in the rise of Hitler’s Germany, somehow Christianity was complicit with a redemptive fall?
Was there a dimension of the gospel de-emphasized, tragically ignored?
Was there a cosmic, systemic dimension of sin ignored?
Were there forces—social, systemic, cosmic—against which the German peoples’ Christian faith had little or no defense?
Did the church in Germany ignore, abuse, or conceal the gospel text of Ephesiasn 2?
Is the gospel of peace (Eph 2:13–17; 6:15) about individual, vertical, personal peace-with-God—or something more social, horizontal, and corporate?
We hope to address these questions, among many others, in the Ephesians 2 Gospel Project through a journey together in the Global Church.
What can we learn from the tragic failure of the church in WW2 Germany? How might these lessons apply to nations today that are dealing with collective identity conflict or tribal conflict? What lessons can we learn about the kind of gospel we are preaching and living?
More on the Ephesians 2 Gospel Project will appear here in forthcoming posts from our ongoing research. Subscribe and stay tuned.
Doing Theology, Thinking Mission is available on most podcast platforms. Here’s a link to one: Apple podcasts.
I am enthused about our new podcast “Doing Theology, Thinking Mission.” Here’s why…
1) It meets a need. You will hear compelling (and surprising!) explorations of how Christian theology and the church’s mission relate to each other; that’s pretty special in the world of podcasts. We cover contextualization, honor and shame, biblical interpretation, and the church’s mission in the world.
2) It’s engaging. Dr. Jackson Wu, Carrie Vaughn, and I genuinely enjoy conversing together about the issues we cover and the stories we tell. I’m pretty sure our joy and passion leak through.
3) It’s relevant. It is no small challenge to make the Bible’s story and truths, centered in the life of Jesus Christ, relevant to our broken world. It is an endless quest with lots of discoveries along the way. I hope that this podcast will be a help for many on that same quest.
Check out Episode 1: “How the Bible Frames the Gospel”
In episode 1, we explore the way the Bible consistently frames the gospel. While gospel formulas are comfortable, our pursuit of simple, efficient, and portable gospel explanations have led to an anemic church. Is the gospel the message about how to get saved? Maybe not completely. What if the gospel is not so much the message about how we get saved but the message we must believe in order to be saved?
We also explore the following:
“We compromise the gospel when we settle for the truth.” What does this mean?
Creation, Covenant, and Kingdom—the three gospel frameworks found in the Bible.
Is the truth that “Jesus is King” central to the gospel?
Doing Theology, Thinking Mission is available on most podcast platforms. Here’s a link to one: Apple podcasts.
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).
I have found these books super-helpful in understanding sin and human nature.
I’ve got questions about sin. I’ve been reading about sin. I’m in two books currently:
Missing the Mark: Sin and Its Consequences in Biblical Theology,by Mark E. Biddle (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005). I bought this book in 2016. I have underlines, markings, and notes on nearly every page. I’m reading it again. (Unfortunately, the book is now out of print.)
The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil, by Philip Zimbardo (New York: Random House, 2007). This book is a recent purchase. I am engaging for the first time with one of America’s most famous and widely published psychologists.
Here’s why I am reading about sin: I believe that a limited understanding of the scope of sin has a profoundly undesirable result: It limits our understanding of the scope of the gospel. This, in turn, limits what sins and evils we address by the gospel of Christ—in our own lives, families, communities, nations.
Reductionism about sin leads to reductionism about the gospel.
Our view of sin is crucial
Our understanding of sin and how the Bible describes sin is part of many important beliefs. For example, our understanding of sin helps shape how Christians think about:
Human nature: The theological concepts of original glory, depravity, and original sin fit into this category. The Bible offers us a narrative that can be interpreted in various ways; how does theology shape a view of humanity and humanity’s sin?
The origin of sin: What does the Bible say about the supernatural origin of sin? What about “the demonic”? How does “the demonic” influence humans to perform evil in our world? What is “the Lucifer effect”? What do we make of human responsibility in light of this?
The essence of sin: Is sin atomistic—located first of all in the individual? Or is sin systemic—located first of all in the family-and-social system into which the individual is born? This debate is sometimes referred to as nature versus nurture.
The result of sin: According to the Bible, is humanity’s guilt before God the primary, objective result of sin—or is sin-and-shame equally primary and objective?
The scope of sin: Does sin consist first of all in human pride and willful rebellion against God? What about the witness of Scripture showing that sin can be involuntary or unintentional? What about not living up to our glorious potential as humans—is this sinful? What of sin as silence or inactivity—the passivity of sin?
God’s judgment of sin: Does the witness of Scripture show that God judges or critiques the sin of individuals (and no more)—or does God also judge or critique human social systems— families, cities, tribes, nations, empires? What about churches? Relatedly, does God’s view of sin change from the Old to the New Testament?
The atonement for sin: How does our understanding of sin influence our view of the atonement of Christ—and vice versa? Through his saving death and resurrection, Jesus Christ offers to cleanse persons from their sin, thus reconciling individuals to God. In what ways does Scripture show that the cross and resurrection of Christ offers reconciliation in other dimensions—in ways that transcend the redemption of individuals?
Does the gospel address more than individual sin? Does the gospel offer hope for systemic sin?
If sin is first and finally about individuals, then the gospel is first and finally about individuals. But if the witness of Scripture shows that the gospel addresses more than individual sin, if the witness of Scripture shows that the gospel also addresses the social, systemic nature of sin, what then?
My next series of posts will explore these issues, exploring some of the questions above. I will be referencing plenty of Scripture, the two authors above (Mark Biddle, PhD and Philip Zimbardo, PhD), as well as several other experts and their writings.
I will be making the case for a more systemic, more nuanced, more biblically-comprehensive understanding of sin than what some Christians are accustomed to. And along with that—an expanded hope in the gospel.
Please join me in the coming weeks—in thinking more broadly about sin—and the gospel.
In my last post, I emphasized the Christ-centered foundation of the honor-shame conversation by highlighting the presentation and corresponding article by Steve Hawthorne: “The Honor and Glory of Jesus Christ: Heart of the Gospel and the Mission of God.” Hawthorne’s article is the first article in Section 1 of Honor, Shame, and the Gospel: Reframing Our Message and Ministry, published in late 2020 by William Carey Publishing.
Below is an overview of the fifteen articles—in the order that they appear—in the two sections of the book.
Section One: Honor-shame in general contexts
Steven Hawthorne: “The Honor and Glory of Jesus Christ: Heart of the Gospel and the Mission of God.” The glorious Person of Jesus Christ is the crux and destiny of mission. The beauty of Christ includes this astounding reality: he who suffered great shame and rose in exalted honor shares his glory with all who call him Lord. Accordingly, believers endure hardship and suffer gladly for his name’s sake among the nations.
Jayson Georges: “Honor and Shame in Historical Theology: Listening to Eight Voices.” Significant theologians, from Ignatius to Anselm to Edwards to C.S. Lewis, have explained biblical truth in honor-shame terms. Honor-shame theology is in continuity with Christian orthodoxy.
Tom Steffen: “A Clothesline Theology for the World: How A Value-Driven Grand Narrative of Scripture Can Frame the Gospel.” A unifying story of Scripture is an antidote to fragmentist and specialist tendencies in theology—and vital for ministry among all of story-oriented humanity. The value system of honor-shame functions as a major theme in the Bible’s grand narrative.
Jackson Wu: “Saving Us from Me: Cultivating Honor and Shame in a Collectivist Church.” Scripture depicts the church as a collectivist body, which yields a particular Christian way of living based on honor-shame dynamics. This counters the self-centered, lonely individualism of much Western Christianity.
E. Randolph Richards: “The Shaming of Jesus in John.” Understanding honor-shame dynamics in the social world of the New Testament clarifies the meaning and integrates various stories in John’s Gospel—for example, Jesus cleansing the temple.
Mako A. Nagasawa: “Empowering Personal Healing and Social Justice with Medical Substitutionary Atonement.” Christians throughout history have articulated different views of the atonement of Christ. An early Christian approach to the atonement and resurrection (viz., recapitulation) connects to modern concerns of identity, sacrifice, and justice—along with sin and shame.
Steve Tracy: “Abuse and Shame: How the Cross Transforms Shame.” Sexual abuse and wartime rape horribly defile millions in our world. Early Church Fathers addressed the problem of rape and sexual-abuse shame. Jesus Christ—in his scandalous crucifixion and honorific resurrection—absorbs and conquers the subjective and objective dimensions of sexual abuse victimhood and shame.
Section Two: Honor-shame in various mission contexts
Lynn Thigpen: “The Dark Side of Orality.” Christian workers can unwittingly marginalize “adults with limited formal education” (ALFE). Billions of people in the world are oral-preference learners. Many ALFE suffer from toxic shame. Cross-cultural workers must acquire new skills and develop learner-centered, dignity-enhancing ministry among non-readers.
Arley Loewen: “Must Honor Clash with Humility? Transformed Honor Within the Emerging Church in Muslim Societies.” Honor competition was common in the Early Church; it is common today for Christian leaders around the world—including those in Muslim societies. Leaders can move toward a servant-based honor willing to relinquish position—by experiencing Christ as their unlimited source of honor.
Steve Hong: “Sharing God’s Love in an Urban, Pluralist Context.” The practices of vulnerability, listening, creativity, inclusion—and intentionally dignifying others—lead to deep relationships with secular moderns. They awaken to the gospel of the kingdom whose King is Jesus.
Cristian Dumitrescu: “Discipleship in Asian Honor Cultures.” Making disciples is not a culturally neutral endeavor. In the Asian context, attention to honor-shame issues is critical for effective discipling.
Rich James: “An Honor-Shame Gospel for Syrians Displaced by War: Jesus Christ as Good Shepherd & Honorable Patron.” A culturally relevant and biblically faithful gospel for Syrian refugees involves not just a morally good Shepherd but the honorable Shepherd and Patron who gifts his life for the good of the flock.
Katie Rawson: “A Gospel that Reconciles: Teaching About Honor-Shame to Advance Racial and Ethnic Reconciliation.” Attention to honor-shame issues and terminology can have a profound impact upon efforts to mend relational rupture and bring about reconciliation in contexts of conflict.
Nolan Sharp: “The Book of Samuel: A Reconciling Narrative.” Cycles of blood violence, nationalism, even ethnic cleansing—as was the case in the wars of Yugoslav succession (1991–1995)—are often driven by honor and shame. The stories of Saul and David in 1 and 2 Samuel are a fountain of insights to help reconcile peoples, tribes, or nations in honor-bound conflicts.
Audrey Frank: “The Muslim Woman’s Journey from Shame to Honor.” For women from Muslim backgrounds, barrenness or abuse can be sources of shame, exclusion, defilement. The gospel of Christ covers the shamed and cleanses the defiled—thereby restoring honor.
“Honor, Shame, and the Gospel”, Christopher Flanders and Werner Mischke, Editors
In late 2020, William Carey Publishing released Honor, Shame, and the Gospel: Reframing Our Message and Ministry. The book is a compendium of articles based on presentations given at the 2017 Honor-Shame Conference held at Wheaton College. My colleague Chris Flanders and I worked for more than two years with fifteen contributors in editing this volume. We are so grateful to Denise Wynn and her team at William Carey Publishing for their enthusiastic support for this project.
Book overview
Christians engaged in communicating the gospel navigate a challenging tension: faithfulness to God’s ancient, revealed Word—and relevance to the local, current social context. What if there was a lens or paradigm offering both? Understanding the Bible—particularly the gospel—through the ancient cultural “language” of honor-shame offers believers this double blessing. An honorific gospel offers new points of resonance with communities where shame and honor are critical values, including most unreached peoples.
In Honor, Shame, and the Gospel, over a dozen practitioners and scholars from diverse contexts and fields add to the ongoing conversation around the theological and missiological implications of an honorific gospel. Eight illuminating case studies explore ways to make disciples in a diversity of social contexts—for example, East Asian rural, Middle Eastern refugee, African tribal, and Western secular urban.
Honor, Shame, and the Gospel provides valuable resources to impact the ministry efforts of the church, locally and globally. Linked with its ancient honor-shame cultural roots, the gospel, paradoxically, is ever new—offering fresh wisdom to Christian leaders and optimism to the church for our quest to expand Christ’s kingdom and serve the worldwide mission of God.
Article #1 explores the honor and glory of Christ as foundational to the gospel and the mission of God
Steven Hawthorne, PhD: “The Honor and Glory of Jesus Christ: Heart of the Gospel and the Mission of God.” When Steve Hawthorne ended his presentation at the 2017 conference, there was an unforgettable silence. I remember an extended moment of Christ-focused worship and wonder. You can watch Dr. Hawthorne’s presentation here.
Click here to watch the presentation by Dr. Hawthorne.
Hawthorne’s article is the first in Section One of the book. (The article follows a foreword by Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen and an introduction/overview of the book.) Hawthorne opens with these two paragraphs:
“To understand honor-shame dynamics amid the intercultural complexities of mission, one must consider the honor and glory of Jesus Christ. And here’s why: Behind, beneath, and above all human shames and honors is the singular glory of Jesus. In this chapter, we will affirm the glory that Jesus is worthy to receive. But we will also consider the ‘praise and glory and honor’ (1 Pet 1:7), that the living God bestows upon people in Christ.
“Following some introductory remarks, we will explore what I call ‘true glory,’ the glory that God gives to people in and with Christ. Then we will identify a few highlights of the great biblical narrative of God’s glory. Finally, we’ll look at three occasions when God spoke from heaven in the Gospels, each of them increasing our understanding of how we are called to share in the suffering and joy of Christ’s glory.”1
Why is Hawthorne’s article first?Four reasons:
The Christology factor. The conversation about “Honor, Shame, and the Gospel” is grounded in the Person of Jesus Christ. Yes, the honor-shame conversation has tendrils in social science and anthropology. But for Christians, the honor-shame conversation rests upon a biblically-faithful Christology. An honorific gospel speaks to a world drenched in sin and shame (Hawthorne refers to “broken honor systems”). An honorific gospel is rooted historically and eschatologically in the glory of Christ. This is presented convincingly in Dr. Hawthorne’s article.
The statesman factor. Dr. Hawthorne is a “missionary statesman.” We wanted him to bring his passion for the glory of God and his credibility in the Christian missions community to the conference and this compendium. He is the author of “The Story of His Glory”, and editor of Perspectives on the World Christian Movement. For decades, Hawthorne has been promulgating a wise, infectious passion for the glory of Christ as central to the grand narrative of Scripture and the mission of God.
The glory-sharing factor. The multifaceted truth about the glory of Christ is well-known in the Christian community; less well known is the corresponding truth that God shares his honor and glory with those who follow Christ (e.g., John 5:44; 17:22; 1 Pet 2:7; Heb 2:10; 2 Thess 2:13–14). Dr. Hawthorne convincingly communicates this ‘both-and’ truth in his article.
The suffering factor. Hawthorne shows how our faithfulness to the Lord in the face of hardship is rooted in the glory of Jesus Christ. The longing for honor and glory, when rooted in Christ, fuels our obedience to God. Referring to Romans 8:17, the article concludes: “If we suffer with him, we shall also be glorified with him.”
Summary: Could it be, that Dr. Hawthorne’s presentation and article will become known as one of the foundational building blocks in the global conversation about honor, shame, and the gospel? I hope so. Our Christology should be central to the conversation. The honor and glory of Jesus are ever at the heart of the gospel and the mission of God.
Steven C. Hawthorne: “The Honor and Glory of Jesus Christ: Heart of the Gospel and the Mission of God” in Honor, Shame, and the Gospel: Reframing Our Message and Ministry (Littleton, CO: William Carey Publishing, 2020), 3.
The focus of this post is on the example of Apostle Paul. He is born and raised a Jew. He has an unquenchable passion for knowing and serving Jesus Christ. As an apostle of Jesus Christ, Paul says things that seem contradictory about himself concerning Israel and his Jewish identity.
On the one hand, Paul loves Israel intensely (Rom 9:3–5). He is proud of being Jewish: “For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin” (Rom 11:1).
On the other hand, for Paul, knowing Jesus the Christ gives him a glorious “surpassing worth” or honor. This honor surplus embedded in Christ is so glorious, that by comparison it apparently degrades other aspects of his identity, namely his Jewishness (Phil 3:8). I use the word degrade intentionally—he compares aspects of his Jewish identity to “rubbish.”
We observe that Paul’s honor, reputation, or social capital has become saturated by the glory of Christ. This makes other sources of honor, other facets of his identity—race, tribe, citizenship, education or other achievements—seem much smaller in comparison.
Paul’s life is an example of how Jesus Christ undermines the significance of one’s race or tribe.
Paul loves being a part of God’s people Israel
Being of the Hebrew race and culture, Paul loves God’s people Israel. Paul loves his “kinsmen according to the flesh” so much that he writes, “I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers” (Rom 9:3).
Paul also recognizes that God has specially chosen the “Israelites” (Rom 9:4). Paul is boasting when he offers this impressive list of honorifics attributable to his people: “They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen” (Rom 9:4–5).
Paul is proud of his race the Hebrews. He cares about God’s people Israel—the prophets and families and tribes and land. Paul cares about the ancient promises of God to Israel. Paul knows Jesus as the promised Messiah, the fulfillment of Israel’s story (Rom 1:1–5) by which God saves the world.
Who is Paul before knowing Jesus?
In Philippians 3, Paul describes what he is proud of in his life. He describes his ascribed and achieved honor as a Jewish man. (Learn about “Two sources of honor—ascribed and achieved”: short video / long video / chapter excerpt).
Who is Paul prior to knowing Christ? Here is the answer in Philippians 3:5–6. Paul makes a list of the features of his life about which he was most proud. He is comparing his ascribed and achieved honor status to others—Jews who claim to be Christ-followers but are demanding that gentile Christian converts be circumcised (Phil 3:2–3). Paul is playing a game of one-upmanship. You say you’re a good Jew? … Oh, yeah? … Well, “If anyone else thinks they have reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more” (Phil 3:4).
So Paul lays it out for his readers: Paul has a bounty of social capital as a Jewish man: “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” (Phil 3:5–6). Below is a chart that categorizes Paul’s honor status or social capital based on these two verses:
Having made his boast about his multifaceted Jewish honor, Paul then makes an absolutely stunning statement:
But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ.
Philippians 3:7–8
Paul intends to shock his readers. He succeeds:
Paul says that his status based on race and bloodline is “as rubbish.”
Paul says that his honor based on his parental upbringing is “as rubbish.”
Paul says that his social status based on his nationality is “as rubbish.”
Paul says that his honor based on his tribal identity is “as rubbish.”
Paul says that his social capital based on his educational achievements is “as rubbish.”
Paul says that his status based on his religious achievement is “as rubbish.”
Paul says that his honor based on any ethical achievement is “as rubbish.”
Paul is exaggerating to make a point
We saw in Romans 9–11 that Paul identifies himself as Jewish, and that he loves God’s people Israel. So in Philippians 3, why is Paul seemingly abusing his own racial, tribal, national, and religious identity?
What is Paul saying here? Is Paul saying: These honor status features in my life won’t get me to heaven? Or, No one can trust in theirgood works for salvation?
I believe Paul’s emphasis is elsewhere.1 Paul’s emphasis is on the glory of Jesus Christ. He is so enamored with knowing Christ that a gigantic shift has occurred in his sense of self, his sense of … Who am I? To whom do I belong? The surpassing worth of Christ makes everything else valuable in life pale in comparison.
Paul is enthralled with Christ. Paul is overwhelmed by the honor and joy of knowing and serving the Messiah-King. In Paul’s letter, the word Christ occurs no less that 35 times. Here is a sampling:
“…whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, in that I rejoice (Phil 1:18) … “For me to live is Christ and to die is gain” (Phil 1:21) … “and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father” (Phil 2:11) … “But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ” (Phil 3:7) … “the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord … in order that I may gain Christ” (Phil 3:8) … “I press on … because Christ Jesus has made me his own” (Phil 3:12) … “Our citizenship is in heaven and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Phil 3:20) … “I can do all things through [Christ] who strengthens me” (Phil 4:13) … “God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus” (Phil 4:19) … “Greet every saint in Christ Jesus” (Phil 4:21).
Knowing and serving the Christ is so magnificent that—by comparison—race, tribe, nationality, education, and other measures of social worth are irrelevant
Paul describes his life goal: “that I may know him” (Phil 3:10). His passion and treasure is “the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord.” This has a social impact. Cross-cultural, inter-ethnic unity in the church is a real possibility. This is no small issue for Paul. The religious leaders who have unbiblical obstacles to faith and unity in Christ are “dogs” and “evildoers” (Phil 3:2). This is a gospel issue: The body of Christ is to be a community of diversity (see my prior post: “The atonement kills hostility between peoples”).
The Bible undermines racism in Philippians 3: It happens in our lives through the glory of knowing Christ. I offer two summary points:
Because of “the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord,” all forms of social capital are relativized, including racial and tribal identity.
To gain greater diversity in the local church, we need more than a common faith in Christ. Paul’s testimony in Philippians 3 suggests that the risks of crossing social boundaries are overcome through a passionate allegiance to Christ and desire for the experience of Christ.
NOTES
Issues of salvation and the afterlife are secondary issues in Philippians 3 (Phil 3:11; 20–21). Paul is not making a distinction between Jews getting to heaven by works versus Christians getting to heaven by grace. The overwhelming emphasis in Philippians 3, as well as on the rest of the letter, is simply … Christ!—the magnificent, glorious, transformational reality of knowing and serving Jesus the Christ (Phil 1:21; 2:1; 5; 2:10–11; 3:3; 7–8; 12; 14; 4:13; 19). Paul wants his friends in Philippi (Phil 1:3) to imitate his passionate allegiance to the Christ.
This is my second post in a series on how the gospel of Christ offers a cure to the pathologies of racism and tribalism. My first post in the series, “All Gentiles are born ‘strangers and aliens’”, is here. A small part of this second post is adapted from my forthcoming article in Missio Dei Journal: “An Honor-Bearing Gospel for Shame-Fueled Crises.”
In Ephesians 2:16 we read that the cross is “killing the hostility.” What does this mean?
13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15by 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, 16and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. –Ephesians 2:13–16 ESV
Four verses on what Christ’s atonement accomplishes
In Ephesians 2:13–16 Paul proclaims a stunning truth: The cross kills hostility (Eph 2:16). The default hostility between Jew and Gentile is plain in these verses. Somehow the atonement of Christ makes it possible to resolve this conflict.
Once far off, now brought near
Verse 13. The phrase “But now in Christ Jesus, you who were once far off …” (Eph 2:13) is like saying, You Gentiles were distant from God’s people.You and your people were so very different from my people. This distance between us made us natural enemies. But now, in King Jesus, “you have been brought near by the blood of Christ” (Eph 2:13).
The crucifixion of Jesus did something world-altering in the social realm. Being “in Christ” is not merely an individual, vertical, largely internal and invisible, spiritual reality. Being “in Christ” is also about who we are (plural) right now, right here. It is likewise a spiritual reality that is social, horizontal, external, public, and visible. This happens “by the blood of Christ (Eph 2:13).”
Timothy Tennent writes: “The New Testament celebrates a salvific transformation that has both vertical and horizontal dimensions. Personal salvation in the New Testament is inextricably linked to becoming a part of the new humanity of Ephesians 2:15.”1
The gospel has a social dimension because the atonement has a social dimension.
The gospel truth: The atonement transforms both the individual-vertical and social-horizontal arenas of human life.
The crucified-and-risen Christ is our peace
Verse 14. When Paul writes, “For he himself is our peace,” it is understood that without Christ, conflict prevails. Hostility between peoples is humanity’s default. The phrase “who has made us both one” is not referring to two persons in conflict. It refers to two groups, Jews and Gentiles, in conflict. Paul is saying I belong to the Jews (collectively); and you (collectively) are the Gentiles. (See the post on HonorShame.com, “In Christ as a Communal Ethic,” which offers a fuller explanation.)
This making “us both one” is only possible because Christ has “broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility.” Paul is saying that when Christ’s body was crucified, something was broken “in his flesh.” That something is “the wall of hostility.” Somehow the atonement of Jesus the Christ breaks down walls of conflict between Jew and Gentile peoples “in Christ.”
But God is doing more than offering reconciliation to Jews and Gentiles. God’s purpose is “to unite all things in him” (Eph 1:10), and “to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross” (Col 1:20). Any conflict between peoples, any racial hostility, can be resolved in the Christ who is “our peace”—people together giving their allegiance to King Jesus.
The gospel truth: The atonement breaks down walls of hostility between peoples.
Abolishing values that fuel tribalism and segregation
Verse 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” (Eph 2:15). What does this have to do with atonement? We find clarification in Colossians 2:14: “by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.” Christ “abolishing the law of commandments” (Eph 2:15) overlaps with Christ “canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands” by “nailing it to the cross” (Col 2:14).
The law in the Old Testament was not only the moral law of God. The law also consisted of regulations that were more cultural in nature (such as food guidelines), and contributed to the “wall of hostility” between the Jews and the non-Jews (Gentiles). Mark Roberts writes, “The death of Christ has supplanted the law, and therefore all people can belong to God through faith because of his grace in Christ.”2 Cultural differences that are the basis for division, conflict, and hostility are subsumed in the crucifixion and resurrection of the man Jesus the Christ.
The gospel truth: The atonement nails to the cross cultural regulations or values that are the basis for tribal or racial separation.
The “one new man”—who is this?
More on verse 15. “that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace.” Who is this “one new man”? What is this new way of being human?
This is the kingdom-of-God program of identity formation. In Ephesians 2:19, God is democratizing honor for believers—insider status is available to all who give their allegiance to the Christ. This “one new man” (Eph 2:15), this new way of being human, relativizes every other form of social capital. Even racial identity is somehow absorbed into Christ. Roberts writes:
Recall that the recipients of the letter were… Gentiles “by birth” (literally “in flesh,” en sarki). These Gentiles did not become Jewish when they received God’s grace through Christ. Rather, Christ made them into something different from ordinary Gentiles and Jews. The early Christian writing known as the Epistle to Diognetus expresses this same point when it calls Christians a new race, “neither Jewish nor Gentile.”3
The Epistle to Diognetus calls Christians a new race, neither Jewish nor Gentile. This is an arresting thought. It informs how we think about the phrase “one new man” (Eph 2:15), hena kainon anthropon in the Greek. The phrase is also translated “one new humanity” (NIV), and “one new people” (NLT). Believers from Jewish backgrounds as well as Gentile backgrounds, believers from every social class together, gain not merely the ultimate insider status—“members of the household of God” (Eph 2:19); Christ-followers also gain a new core identity.
Could it be—the influence of Jesus Christ on who we are is so fundamental, it’s almost like gaining a new racial identity?
McNall captures the essence of this new identity. “This transformation [by the reconciling cross of Christ] is seen … in the tearing down of ethnic and cultural boundaries (‘the dividing wall of hostility’ [2:14]). This demolition results in a new community comprised of a new people who do not look like they belong together. Only Jesus and his spirit can account for this strange lot.”4
The gospel truth: The atonement creates a new way of being human—a new identity in Christ that’s like “a third race.”
That strange phrase—“killing the hostility”
Verse 16. “and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility” (Eph 2:16). Somehow, the brutal violence of the crucifixion of Jesus the Christ kills the hostility between “us both.” Paul is getting personal again when he says “us both” (Eph 2:14, 16). He himself is part of a collective identity (Jewish) needing reconciliation in Christ “to God in one body”—with another collective identity (Gentile).
These two groups are separated and segregated. Although they live in the same city, they are not in the same neighborhood. They generally do not live together, play together, or worship together. They do not intermarry. They have different physical features, There are hundreds of years of hostility between them. Their politics and cultures compete, sometimes violently. They are suspicious of each other.
But Paul says when persons and peoples give allegiance to Jesus the Christ—the One who was brutally crucified, the One who then rose from the dead and was exalted as king of kings—something glorious happens. The atonement of Christ is “killing the hostility.” This verse is in the active, present-tense voice as though the Christ-event, which happened two thousand years ago, is impacting humanity into our present days and forward into the future.
Reconciliation between peoples in conflict is not merely a dream. Reconciliation is embodied in the man Jesus Christ and his body crucified and risen again. Peace is possible. Paul boldly imagines a new humanity, “one new man” (Eph 2:15), a “third race,” embodied in Christ. The core identity of this body is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither red or yellow, black or brown or white. It is not that cultural distinctions are obliterated. It is that Jesus the Christ is so glorious and so magnified in our social relations that the walls of separation and hostility dissolve. Paul envisions this as the new normal.
The gospel truth: The atonement kills hostility between peoples.
Toward a social imagination based on Ephesians 2
What are we being called to believe? That the cross kills all hostility in the here-and-now? No, we are not called to magical thinking. I recommend three “steps of belief.”
The cross kills hostility—step 1: The social hostility between Jewish and Gentile peoples (although in some cases commanded by the Old Testament) was in some measure conquered by the violence of the cross. Peace is possible—now—through the “new humanity” (Eph 2:15). Traditionally at odds with one another, Jews and Gentiles really can worship in unity through their common faith in Jesus the Christ, despite cultural and racial differences.
The cross kills hostility—step 2: This biblical truth extends to any and all peoples in conflict, since the plan of God “for the fullness of time” is to “unite all things in him” (Eph 1:10), to “reconcile to himself all things . . . making peace by the blood of his cross” (Col 1:20). We see that this applies globally for all families, peoples, and nations. It is a sure hope for the future—an eschatological hope.
The cross kills hostility—step 3: In the third step, we dream. This dream stage is a call for Christians to develop a social imagination that is informed by Ephesians 2. It is a vision that, as Timothy Gombis says, “includes and celebrates racial, ethnic and gender differences . . . [whereby] no singular gender, ethnicity or race is any closer to God than any other. We are all one in Christ and are now free to explore the gifts that each group brings to the kingdom party.”5 This step combines the “now” of step 1 with the “whole-world hope” of step 2. Could it be that the pathologies of racism and tribalism may in some measure be cured by the atonement of Christ “killing the hostility”?
ACTION POINTS
Evaluate your view of the atonement. Have you ever considered Ephesians 2:13–16 as part of a comprehensive view of the doctrine of the atonement? Might Ephesians 2:13–16 be just as important as, for example, Romans 3:23–25? Why do you think this Ephesians passage is under-represented in the literature about the atonement? For example, in this best-selling Systematic Theology, an extensive chapter (Ch. 27) is devoted to the doctrine of the atonement. Not one mention is given to Ephesians 2:13–16. In fact, not one time is Eph 2:13–16 cited in the entire volume. This is the case, despite the density of truths concerning “the blood” (Eph 2:13) of Christ, “the cross” of Christ, the emphasis on “his flesh” (Eph 2:14), as well reconciliation and the act of “killing” (Eph 2:16). Is this evidence of a theological blind spot that ignores group identity issues? Does this hint at why the evangelical church struggles with how to address racism and tribalism?
Teach and preach the gospel based on the atonement truths in Ephesians 2:13–16. Develop a gospel message that calls people to give their allegiance to Christ based primarily on these verses.
