"Hallowed be Your Name" - God's Honour is the core of the Lord's Prayer, as highlighted by John Calvin and John MacArthur

Photo Credit - Creative commons

We all can probably say it off by heart (or 'by head' as people here in Botswana would say).

We know it as:

 'The Lord's Prayer'.

Many churches say it together every Sunday.

Some treat it like an especially powerful or significant prayer and pray it over and over as beads on a chain, such as Roman Catholics do with Rosary beads.

For some, especially here in Africa, it is probably the only chunk of Scripture they can quote - although many might not even know it is a piece of Scripture!

Some go to the other extreme and forbid it to be 'recited as a prayer' saying it is like a ritual of praying 'empty phrases'. 

Yet, nonetheless, it is the answer Jesus gave his disciples when they asked Jesus to teach them to pray in Luke 11, and the way he taught his listeners to pray in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 6 in contrast to the pagans who think they will be heard by their 'many words'. 

Luke 11:2 (in the ESV) begins the prayer and says:

"And he said to them, "When you pray, say: "Father, hallowed be your name.…."

It is a model prayer for us, not a 'formula' or 'magic' that makes God hear us or forces God to heed our requests, or gives us 'holiness points'. They are words that we can pray, but only mean something for true pray-er if the heart of the pray-er is engaged in true communion with God and meaning what they are praying. They are also a guide for how we are to pray, 'when' …ie whenever, we pray. The tone and focus of this prayer is what should fill our hearts as we pray, whenever we pray.

Much could be said and many books have been written and many sermons preached on this and so I won't expand on it here at length.

However, I want to highlight a comment by John Calvin on the third phrase of this model prayer - 'Hallowed by your name".

The prayer begins with 'Our Father' and goes on to designate that its 'who is in heaven' so that we are clear which 'father' we are addressing. This is our true spiritual Father we are addressing…God himself, the Creator of heaven and earth, who we have the privilege of calling our Father. 

But after we move beyond the designation, like the 'Dear so-and-so' at the beginning of a letter, we move to the beginning of the rest of the prayer...

The very next phrase, in fact we might say it is the first phrase of the actual prayer says (in English):

'Hallowed by your name'

It is on the back of this phrase that the whole prayer is set. This is the foundation, the root, the core, the source, the beginning of all that follows. 

Yet do we recognise or know or appreciate the reality of what it is meaning?

Most English bible versions use the word 'hallowed'. The CSB says 'honor as holy'. CEV and NET talk about honouring God's name. A couple of others express it as keeping God's name holy.

John Calvin (as quoted in a sermon by John MacArthur on the prayer) commenting about this verse said:

 "that's God's name should be hallowed, is nothing other than to say that God should have his own honour of which he is worthy so that men should never think or speak of him without the greatest veneration".

In other words, God is worthy and should always be given the highest honour, and this honour should be the filter, the frame, the focus, within which all our prayers are formed.

Preaching briefly through this prayer at a Ligonier conference, John MacArthur went on to explain how that in this model prayer, the requests that follow are simply extensions of this phrase…In this prayer….

"What we are really praying for is what he has already promised…a very simple prayer…Lord, you're the priority, and when it comes to me, all I ask is that you fulfil your promise on my behalf to sustain my life for your glory, to forgive my sin for your glory, and to protect me from the evil one for your glory…so whatever it is that you do about this illness, or whatever it is you do about this dilemma or whatever it is you do about the suffering and the pain,  may it honour you, and may it manifest the fulfilment of your promises."

On another occasion - John MacArthur's last sermon, he explained about God's name while commenting on Jesus' incredible promise: 'anything you ask in my name I will do it'. He said 'to pray in his name is to pray, consistent with his purpose, ...consistent with his nature, and contribute to his glory'. 

So to pray that God's name be 'hallowed' is also to pray that God's purpose and will be done, his nature be magnified and his glory be prominent. To pray that God's name be hallowed is to pray that God's honour and glory be driving and filling and determining all that we do, including all our prayers. When we are praying for God's glory we are praying for his will to be done, and his kingdom rule to be supremely expressed throughout all creation including our own hearts.

The Lord's Prayer is not simply a prayer to recite or reject as a ritual, but a model to remind us that all prayer should be rooted in God being given the highest honour in the entirety of our lives. Let's pray it and pray more than just it, with God's glory always as our focus.

DISHONEST: A word surprise revealing a cultural shift and a fresh perspective.

Our world is full of dishonesty. Lies abound, deception is everywhere. I don't think you would disagree. Humanity has experienced the realities of dishonesty since the Garden of Eden. 

Yet... have we ever stopped to think about whether the meaning we have today of the word "dishonest", is the same as the meaning it once had? 

Does it mean, what we think it means? 

I had certainly never even thought it would have had any meaning different from the current meaning. Yet, I was in for a surprise recently, that resulted in a mimi-research project, which some of you participated in and have been waiting for this blog post! 

If you want to know what I discovered, keep reading…...

The Current 21st Century meaning

If you asked anyone in this 21st Century, what this word meant, the answer you would probably hear is the meaning I assumed it had: to not tell the truth. 

Or you might be told a slightly more descriptive answer like what appears as the 1st listed definition is in the "American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" (or also used in the 'Free Dictionary' online). It comes up on my 'Google' search…. saying:

"Disposed to lie, cheat, defraud, or deceive."

However, that same dictionary entry gave a 2nd and 3rd meaning. 

The 2nd was: 

`Resulting from or marked by a lack of honesty.' 

which would be assumed from the prefix of 'dis' in the word. 

The 3rd meaning was the one that was the most interesting and surprising, and caught my attention:

"Dishonorable; shameful; indecent; unchaste; lewd"  

Well, you might say, dishonesty is of course a dishonourable way to be, so that description could be understandable. But to give the actual alternative definition of "dishonest" as being 'shameful, indecent, unchaste or lewd', seems far removed from any use of the word today.

Before I reveal more of my further little bit of research and how I came to even find this, I want to list for you some other definitions of 'dishonest' in other online dictionaries.

Collins  Dictionary: "not honest or fair, deceiving, or fraudulent"

Cambridge Dictionary: "not honest"

…because this was so simple in its definition I took a look at their definition of "honest", which was: "telling the truth or able to be trusted and not likely to steal, cheat or lie"

Dictionary.com  gave two definition options: 1. "not honest; disposed to lie, cheat, or steal; not worthy of trust or belief"  2. "proceeding from or exhibiting lack of honesty; fraudulent"

Mirriam-Webster gave three options: 1. misleading 2. fraudulent 3. false

So it is clear from the above lists, what is the common 21st Century understanding of the word 'dishonest', at least at an official level.

To help gather appropriate data for my mini-research that arose from this word-surprise, I availed myself of English speaking friends and contacts across the world from 5 continents (Australia, Asia, America, Africa, Europe…sorry I don't know of any penguins in Antarctica who speak English!)

The replies that came back were remarkably similar, for example:

UK/Europe - "not being truthful"; "not sticking to the truth"; "knowingly giving an answer that is not truthful or honest for the purpose of deceiving or evading the truth"; "deceitful intentional lying"

America - "not telling the truth"; "lack of integrity"; "not being truthful, deceiving"; "not honest, not telling/representing the whole truth"; "speak or live in such a way that gives other the impression that is contrary to what is actual…"

Australia - "mis-representing the truth"; "not truthful";  "speak or act in a way that conceals the truth"; "giving an answer you know it not true"; "to deliberately lead another person to an incorrect (untrue according to the beliefs of the person doing the deceiving) conclusion - with intention to deceive"

Africa - "not telling what is true"; not being truthful"; "not telling the truth about a certain question or situation"; "untruthful, lies, deceitful; misleading"; "not being transparent or not telling the truth"; "not being honest, truthful; not being sincere"; "rejecting the truth and embracing lies"; "to not be truthful or straight-forward with someone"; "without integrity"; "deliberate action to withhold or hide the information...failing to disclose or communicate information about a specific subject matter to another…acting in a manner that violates an agreement with another"; "unfaithfulness, cannot rely on, no back bone".

Asia - "covering or even distorting the truth", "a conscious thought or act of not being true in words or deeds"

The common thread in almost all these replies is that dishonesty is the opposite of telling the truth.  There seems to be a fairly much 21st Century global consensus on this kind of meaning. This also reflects the majority of the definitions from various dictionaries listed above. 

So far, so good and all is consistent.

A few respondents also emphasised that 'intent' to deceive was also a significant aspect of dishonesty and others gave some words inferring lack of ability to be trusted. 

However, a few replies added some additional interesting explanations, which I will refer to later.

Unexpected Meaning 

….SO that brings me to that third definition in that first dictionary above which said to be dishonest is to be: 

"Dishonorable; shameful; indecent; unchaste; lewd" 

I had never heard—definitively or by nuance—a meaning of 'dishonest' which included the word 'dishonourable' as a direct definition, let alone including words like shameful, indecent, unchaste or lewd!

However, for an official dictionary to put in a definition, it is not merely some obscure or inconsequential notation. 

Thus, another element in my mini-research project on this word, then involved going not just to the dictionary but having a look at the etymology of the word. I wanted to find out where this additional meaning came from, not least because it suddenly moved the meaning from one category of meaning to another. It moved it from truth and raw facts to the context of honour in relationships (which is also linked with the concepts of "unfaithfulness" that some respondents gave).

Historical Meaning

I'm not a professional Etymologist, but I do consult the Online Etymology Dictionary quite often. This whole discovery process began with wanting to check something about the word 'shame' in relation to another aspect of my general honour-shame research and writing. I happened to scroll down further than what I must have before, and discovered to my astonishment that further down in the list of other linked or associated words was my surprise!

Now, we must recognise that at this point we are not just looking at the general meaning of the concept, but this is the particular historical meaning and semantics of the specific English word 'Dishonest'. 

This is where this mini-research project became very interesting indeed, especially in relation to the issues of honour and shame and that 3rd meaning back in the first Dictionary above.

➤ It seems that our 'modern' meaning of "lack of integrity" or "lack of truth" became the main meaning in the late 16th century. Whereas for hundreds of years before that its meaning was having a somewhat different emphasis:

The Online Etymology Dictionary explains the meaning in its entry for the noun "dishonesty"

late 14c., "disgrace, shame, want of honor," from Old French deshonesté (13c., Modern French deshonnéteté) "dishonor, impropriety," from des- (see dis-) + Latin honestatem (nominative honestas) "honorableness," from honestus "honorable; deserving honor, respectable," from honos "honor, dignity, office, reputation," which is of unknown origin. Meaning "want of honesty, lack of integrity," the main modern sense, is recorded from 1590s.

Looking at the entry under "honesty" gives us even more information:

early 14c., "splendor, honor; elegance," later "honorable position; propriety of behavior, good manners; virginity, chastity" (late 14c.), from Old French oneste, honesté "respectability, decency, honorable action" (12c. Modern French uses the variant honnêteté, as if from Latin *honestitatem), from Latin honestatem (nominative honestas) "honor received from others; reputation, character;" figuratively "uprightness, probity, integrity, virtue," from honestus (see honest). Meaning "moral purity, uprightness, virtue, justness" is from c. 1400; in English, the word originally had more to do with honor than honest.

The "AI Overview" response on a Google search gave "The word honest comes from the Latin word honestus, which means "honourable" or "respected". The word honest was first recorded in the Middle English period (1150-1500)"

Etymologyworld.com says about the word "honest":

Etymology:

From Middle English onest, from Anglo-Norman oneste, from Old French oneste, from Latin honestus, from the root onur, meaning "honor, dignity."

Meaning:

Having or showing a strong sense of moral principles; honorable

Having or showing integrity and uprightness

Worthy of respect or admiration

It makes some sense to think that the word "honour" and the word "honest" might have been associated at one time - a link which seems to have been long lost in the course of time.

It makes sense that the contexts and meaning of truth and integrity grew out of the earlier meaning and contexts of honour. 

In Anthropological demarcations discussed in our modern 21st century world we might be inclined to see honesty and honour as having differing emphases between guilt-innocence emphasis cultural contexts and honour-shame emphasis cultural contexts. However, while there is a definite strong emphasis on the truth/honesty side in the Western world, seeing it as a separate or alternative perspective is to detach it from its root meaning and context. 

So it seems that…..

...Honesty was never something only related to truth on its own. Honesty is rooted in a greater concept, one that has been minimised, especially in recent centuries of the Western world. This has in turn impacted perceived meaning across the globe.

A Meaning Migration - Not just a Semantic Shift but a Cultural Shift

Words and language are not static. They are dynamic and fluid. Language is governed more by the community context in which it is used than by fixed laws of meaning. And meaning can change as cultural contexts change over time. However, this word is one which I didn't realised had 'shifted' so significantly.  Semantic shifts come about because of the changing culture and thus also demonstrate what the changes are in a culture.

The semantic shift of 'honest' and 'dishonest' clearly tell us that we have become quite un-tethered from the original meaning of the word - both in its Latin roots and its earliest meaning in English. 

It also tells us that the English speaking world has over time moved away from a context where life was primarily governed by the motivations and contexts of honour and relationships.

A Magnified and Muddled Moral Meaning

Honesty means more than caring for truth

This also reveals that our morals have also shifted away from the direct context of what is honourable and dishonourable. We have moved to determine our morality more from a facts basis (what is true) rather than from a familial (relationship) basis. This of course is very consistent with more of a law focus rather than a loyalty focus. 

This also reveals that although we may put great emphasis on the issue of "truth" (and we should), even in our own English language we see evidence that a word we now associate with having a high view of truth, actually comes from having a high honour standard.

Honesty is rooted in honour. 

Honesty begins with honour. 

Honesty is not meant to be an alternative to honour. 

Honesty grows out of honour, and comes from within honour. 

Honesty is more than just our modern day meaning which mostly limits it to 'not specifically speaking the truth', to include issues of integrity, decency, and life lived, not just words spoken. 

In our modern world that so neglects truth and has redefined truth, we might be inclined to think that to put the world aright we need to return to truth. And so we do. But more than that, we need to return to a deeper ethic, which is proper honour.

Honesty can't flourish outside of the greater context and need for God-glorifying honour.

Honesty's meaning is muddled and distorted by our sinful world

Not only does Satan want our understanding of honesty to be detached from its deep and rich root meanings so as to cheat us from understanding the core motives of our hearts and the full goal for our lives, but he also wants to muddle, twist, and distort the meaning into ways which trap us rather than liberate us. He comes to steal life rather than give life. He comes to shrink great and transformative meaning that would bless and grow us, to strip us of any hope of learning or discovering any greater meaning, and to strangle us with dishonourable false meaning. He doesn't care if we think dishonesty doesn't include 'white lies' or if we detach it from the root context of honour. Whatever his means, he just wants to cheat us from the real meaning.

Above, I mentioned that a few respondents gave slightly more extensive answers. Some of their definitions were actually explanations, because, for them, honesty and dishonesty were not simply 'truth' matters but relationship matters. It was interesting to see that these extra 'honour' related honesty definitions almost all came from non-Western respondents - in Africa and Asia (+ one from Europe which is slightly less 'Western' anyhow).

Here are some of their answers:

Dishonest is:

"not being transparent or not telling the truth due to the desire to appear smart and or due to a fear of being judged or criticised"

"…since ancient times dishonesty was used as a means for survival, whether to gain approval, take advantage or simply get away from things that migh harm the self or one's honour"

"…people want to be polite and don't want to hurt others with the truth so they are trying to be a bit dishonest (if that is possible) in order to please the person…perhaps in conjunction with "flattering"…"

"hiding my true self and feelings to please others…hiding my true feelings and needs because I'd be afraid of disappointing others or facing criticism..telling white lies to avoid conflict or make others happy"

"sometimes it happens as a result of fear; lack of confidence to stand for what is right; at times because one is biased; choosing to lie just to be in good books with another person who is in the wrong; at times it might be to seize some opportunity at hand; at times it might be that one is naturally self-centered; grabbing anything falsely at the expense of others, taking advantage of simple beings. At times it may be to protect your own image or the image of a loved one, or a family name or organisation."

(underlining emphasis mine)

These respondents, although also acknowledging the truth connection to "dishonesty", went quickly to engage the word in an honour context. They revealed the way our sinful hearts and fallen cultures distort reality and even reverse our understanding of reality. 

Unlike the modern definition, they still knew that honesty is not detached from honour.  However, instead of 'dishonesty' being 'dishonourable' as its original word meaning was, Satan's own dishonourable dishonesty has tricked so many in our world into thinking that being dishonest is the route to saving and gaining honour!

Restored Meaning

However, as Christians, although our cultural awareness can alert us to wider possible meanings, we need to get back to a biblical meaning. 

When we read Scripture rightly we will see that 'honesty' is truly rooted in honour in the context of relationships, and thus dishonesty is rooted in dishonour in the context of relationships. The Bible is full of examples of lies that impacted relationships whether that be Abraham not being honest about his true relationship with Sarah, his wife (Genesis 12; 20), or Ananias and Sapphira trying to gain some kind of honourable status in the church by lying about how much they were giving (Acts 5).

In fact in Exodus 20:16 where we have in the 10 commandments, what we often abbreviate to 'do not lie', is actually phrased in relationship honour terms of: "you shall not bear false witness against your neighbour". Ephesians 4:25 similarly says: "let each one of you speak truth with his neighbour, for we are members one of another". John Piper refers to this important relationship context in this article about truth and lies. Dishonesty might tempt us to think it can actually honour others or ourselves to save their or our image, however, in reality it ultimately damages them (and us) and the relationships we all have.

Here are some more examples of "truth" being in Scripture as more than simply 'telling the truth' but having an honour context:

• John tells us in his gospel (1:14) in describing Jesus that his "glory" [honour] was full of "grace and truth". Truth is an expression and display of true glory and honour.

• In Romans 1, where people suppress the truth and exchange the truth for a lie, it is in the context of a main problem of people "do not honour God as God…" (1:21). In Romans 3:7, we are told that "…God's truth abounds to his glory" - truth isn't the end-goal, glory is.

• 2 John 4, and 3 John 3, both speak of "walking in truth" which implies something more than just speaking truth, but walking or living an honourable lifestyle that interacts with others in a manner that exemplifies integrity and truth.

• In 2 Peter 2:2 we see that an ungodly lifestyle results in "truth" being "blasphemed" (or as some other translations put it: maligned, slandered, defamed, brought into disrepute or dishonour). In fact the Greek word  βλασφημέω  translated as "blasphemed" is a combination of two root words that mean to "harm" "reputation". In other words to bring dishonour or shame. 

Honesty isn't something that should be defined from either twisted, reversed, or incomplete cultural-shift perspectives. Honesty also doesn't merely come from desiring to speak truth, but from desiring to honour and please the One who is The Truth, and who loves truth, and thus loves to be honoured with truth, and loves it when we honour others with the truth. Because such truth honours God.

Let us live as God's children who are honourably honest.

Forgotten Honour - William Kiffin

Have you ever heard of William Kiffin?

Maybe not, but he was more influential that you might realise.

Credo magazine lists him as one of the 10 Baptists everyone should know.

I have just finished reading his biography 'Stranger than Fiction' by B.A. Ramsbottom, which has been one of those books on my shelves that had somehow missed being read. I highly recommend the book.

He was a 17th century wealthy merchant but also very significant in the history of Baptists. He was described on the back cover of the book as 'one of the most remarkable men of a remarkable age.'

His early life didn't give any indication of where he would be in his later years….he was orphaned at the young age of 9 years and a glover apprentice at age 13. He was converted to Christ at age 17 through the preaching of some Puritan pastors. He had the ear of kings and interacted with men such as John Bunyan, the author of the famous book 'Pilgrim's Progress'. 

Yet, although this is all very interesting, what I want to highlight is a sermon he preached in his mid 20's. Sadly it is the only sermon that he ever published in any way, and the textual notes for it were put at the end of the book. 

The reason I want to highlight it, is, you guessed it…because he talks about honour and shame so naturally in the course of his sermon, that I was again alerted to how much these concepts filled the minds of Christians of the past without any effort. They were dynamics talked about in the course of normal life and in the normal course of preaching. They were issues automatically on the mind of a person, and in particular on the mind of a preacher. We have to now work so hard to learn a new track of thinking that for Christians of a past era, was just part of daily reality. So we can learn a great deal from them as we endeavour to no longer be conformed to the pattern of our current world's way of thinking and be renewed in our minds so we can properly discover God's will and purpose for us (Romans 12:2).

The sermon text was Hosea 2:7-8 and he had four main points:

1. Why this comes to pass

2.The means which the Lord here useth to reclaim her

3. The effect this means wrought

4. The main motive or consideration that wrought upon her spirit

And it is a few excerpts from his last point I want to highlight:

Reason 1. Because kept by God from disaster and sorrow and shame and confusion that seize those that forsake Him.

See Psalm 119:4; Psalm 99:4; Jeremiah 3:2

"It hath been well with the saints when they have closely walked in the ways of God"

What makes men ashamed and confounded? When frustrated in their hope and expectation. But God's people shall not be frustrated of the promise. Though they know reproaches, scoffs, imprisonment, yet these should be their honour and joy.

Reason 2. Because those who keep closest to God are most honoured of God.

"It's sin that brings shame and confusion of face, but when the soul walks closely with its God, it shall be sure to be kept from shame"

Those churches since Christ's coming which have been most holy have been most persecuted. See Revelation 2:9-10; the church at Smyrna.

At the end of the publication, Kiffin gives reasons for publishing his sermon and he gives two bible verses. It is interesting that both deal with the issue and challenge to not feel shamed. His primary context for gospel motivation in the midst of difficulty was that which was also spoken by the Apostle Paul centuries before, when the risk and threat of shame was high.

In our day and age—especially in the Western World, but also here in different ways—where to truly live and speak as a Christian is likely to be ridiculed or shamed, the testimony of William Kiffin is pertinent. His little sermon is a good reminder: "Though they know reproaches, scoffs, imprisonment, yet these should be their honour and joy."

His chosen two verses given for his reasons for publishing his sermon were:

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth" (Romans 1:16)

"Be not therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel (2 Timothy 1:8)

May we also echo his declaration.

'Stop Calling Church Staff a Family' - responding to a TikTok video with thoughts about foundational identity honour vs functional performance honour

I recently saw this little video on someone's WhatsApp status and…

here is the text of what it said….

"Ok, church staff, you're not a family. You're  more than likely a team. I think this shift in perspective and language could prevent a ton of hurt in the church, Yes, the church is a family but the way that most ministry models organise staff and volunteers to make church happen is way more like a team and there's a huge difference. Families don't require performance to belong but teams do. On a team your role is connected to how you perform and when someone isn't contributing or if there is a misalignment development is required and sometimes changes are made. That's not wrong. That's just how teams work. And teams can possess healthy aspects like honor, respect, dignity, confidence, empowerment - all these things that a healthy family should demonstrate - but its damaging when churches and organisations say they're a family but operate like a team, especially if they lack the characteristics that a healthy family would possess. That disconnect is disorienting and it hurts people. So what does this mean. Perhaps a new model for ministry is needed, but if not I think it could be extremely helpful to stop calling church staff and volunteers a family if it requires operating like a team. Just name it. If your model requires you to operate like a team, you're not a family. Own it and celebrate that teams can still be healthy, empowering and deeply honoring. I'd love to hear how you might nuance this too and what you think about this distinction."

…it got me thinking… and I sent the person a reply as he had asked for feedback from viewers of the status, and we had interacted to and fro on various things in the past and we had invited to our previous honour-shame workshops, and to be honest I was also keen to hear his response to my ponderings on it…

And I was challenged to then share more widely what I wrote and what he replied (he has given me permission to include his reply). 

I wrote (with a few minor edits here):

[I believe] this is linked to part of our ministry focus in helping people navigate and restructure Christian life and ministry perspectives around both relationships (honour) and rules (more law oriented structures). 

It's not a quick easy answer but…The West has been more rules focused in the 20th century in particular, but is becoming more desirous of 'relationship' focus in the 21st century…All the while the majority world has embraced more Westernisation over the recent decades.  I think both are struggling to find a balance of how both elements should work together…and finding that 'blending' the two is far more difficult than expected and will take more than just adopting other cultural ways or making our societies more multicultural . 

Sadly the tendency I see in both is being to gravitate back to the stronger and more comfortable historical social background context that each is familiar with and which still sits behind what has been more recently embraced, because the new 'blending' doesn't seem to be working as planned (although some of course will say the problem is that we haven't yet embraced the alternative view sufficiently). 

So [some of] the West is beginning to say we have to get back to more rules and structures (what some label as right wing politics), while [some of] the non-west says we have to get back to more traditional dynamics (what some see more aligned with socialism). Yet at the same time each is still trying to embrace the glimpes of what they think is 'good' in the alternative views. There is a tension and uncertainty that develops. …and as people from the society then become members of a church, the same tensions emerge in the church.

The problem also is that in our world we are surrounded with sin-distorted views of both views to some degree, (in all of our earthly cultures). It's only in Christ the sinless One where we see both functioning as they are meant to in God's perfect creation plan. Thus only in Christ can we begin to function as those who belong to Him, in the entirely new culture of those re-born into the new Kingdom of His body the church , for that is where the true functioning of how these dynamics [of both rules and relationships] should be—and have the potential to be seen—hopefully in ever increasing measure.

The reality is that we are all a work in progress, and often the church is just functioning as a section of the wider surrounding society, rather than an entirely new Kingdom culture.

However, I am challenged to think that just like in biological families, there are teams within families…I don't think it's an either-or situation but a both-and, primarily a one-within-the -other situation.

Growing up, one time my Dad involved me in his 'team' to research and prepare for what new refrigerator the family would buy. My mum didn't care for that kind of that research task and my brother was too young. My Dad chose based on skill and ability along with willingness. We were all family but a part of the family formed a 'team' within the family. The non-team members didn't stop being part of the family, just because they weren't part of that 'team' and the team didn't have to be an entirely new family in order to be a team…if you get what I mean🤔

We are (identity…thus foundational [equal] value based family) before we do (activity…thus functional based performance, roles and teams).
Eg. OT Nehemiah had teams to build the walls, within the family of God, and those teams were based on willingness as well as skills performed with excellence; Paul and Barnabas and John Mark set out as a missionary team based on the gifts God had given them to work together in the task God had called them and to do it well (maybe why Paul did not allow John Mark to continue with him at one point since Paul believed JM had failed to do his task as part of the team with diligent mature faithfulness); Paul tells Timothy to appoint Elders and Deacons who would become teams within the church family for each team to fulfill their appointed roles with a standard of excellence set forth firstly in the qualifications for appointment).

The reply came promptly back…

Thank you for sharing such a profound reflection. You've articulated the tension the church is facing. As you said, both the Western and majority world cultures are grappling with the shortcomings and attempts to blend operational guidelines

In Christ, we see the perfect harmony of truth and grace, structure and relationship. Gods Kingdom culture transcends our default human frameworks. And any we could ever come up with.

The family-team analogy illustrates how identity comes before function (roles, tasks, teams), and how teams within the church should emerge from spiritual maturity, willingness, and gifting. (not cultural pressure or institutional models)

As we disciple and build within the church, we must keep calling people back to this foundational truth: that we are a new people, living by a new set of values, shaped by the only One who perfectly models both justice and mercy. It's a call to build not just a better version of society, but something entirely new.

This was a reply to which I could say an enthusiastic AMEN. 

In addition to the the thoughts I shared above in the WhatsApp message...It is interesting to note that the video mentioned how that most of the dynamics desired were 'honour' related and it specifically mentioned three such words - 'honour, dignity and respect'. 

~In whatever way we term it, foundationally people are looking first of all for honour. 

When we attach such honour only to 'doing', in performance based contexts, we focus people onto achieved honour only and we stay blind to the need for honour to be rooted firstly and foundationally in who we are, in inherent or innate ascribed honour. Performance/task based, or merit based achieved honour is legitimate in its place. After all, Jesus accomplished the task the Father set for him and received the honour of that accomplished 'finished' task (John 17:4; 19:30), and we will receive crowns/rewards for the works we have 'done' on this earth because faith without works is dead (James 2:26). However, when we conflate ascribed/inherent honour and achieved/performance honour (as the West has done extensively, particularly the American part of the West), we end up with people trying to live out and frame foundational 'equality' honour by efforts of 'equal' performance, and that is something that can never be found…and it fuels unhealthy competition, jealousy, envy and rivalry, as well as impossible, unhealthy and unrealistic goals, fruitless searches, despair and hopeless resignation. 

God made us with equal foundational honour, and saves us into a new equal family honour in Christ, but not to all function equally in skills or performance. We are all part of Christ's body in equal foundational value, but not in varied functional use - the eye is not the foot and each performs totally differently and the eye can never perform successfully as a foot and was never meant to or gifted to. But the eye is equally of as much value in the body as the foot (1 Corinthians 12:15-26). There is only unity in the diversity when there is first unity in the shared foundational identity. This has implications for all of life.

These are issues I believe underlie so many of the complex contentions of our world today, as it grapples with the many lies about these issues that float around the globe. Such contentions ultimately find their source in the 'father of lies' whose one goal is to destroy what God designed and desires. It is only as we deal with these root issues that we will see new or different fruit in our societies and churches.

Once again,

As I interacted on Whatsapp, it was not only great to share truth that brings clarity and enthuses others to biblical discipleship, but makes my heart rejoice whenever the often overlooked unnoticed impacts of the dynamics of honour and shame are seen more clearly, especially as to how they impact church life, not least in Africa.

Furthermore, it is an encouragement for us to press on in what God has called us to, so that churches and their members and leaders are pointed to truths that are core to God-glorifying church life.

(Acknowledgement to the status posted and reply to my response, by Michael Opare-Kumi, who is originally from Ghana and is a husband and father and leads the media ministry at Sediba Life Church in Gaborone, Botswana)