Last weekend here in Botswana, and many other places in the world, was Father’s Day.
And just the prior week I learnt something new, not about my late father, but his mother, my grandmother…something that surprised me in relation to honour-shame dynamics.
In the course of combing through all our files and papers to decide what to keep and what to toss, I came across a small bundle of old yellowed foolscap papers of Bible Study notes, typed on a traditional manual ribbon typewriter. At the top was a hand-written notation that these were my Grandmother's notes from the Bible Class she taught (estimated maybe taught in the 1960’s). I think maybe they were given to me after she died as her estate was being sorted through.
The topic of the first Class notes bundle was ‘The Wiles of the Devil’. The second was on ‘Genesis’.
As I read them, what I discovered both amazed and excited me. It also really made me ask more questions about our English speaking world’s recent Christian literature.
The Wiles of the Devil
I hadn’t even read 10 lines down the first page when I read what made me stop and think ‘wow’!
“The chief end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever”A charge to keep I haveA God to glorify…- God made man for Himself - He wants man’s allegiance and loyalty.
Now that might not sound very profound. However, two words stood out, which in all my research, don’t turn up very much in general Christian literature of the last century or so, unless I find them in the literature specifically discussing honour and shame dynamics and perspectives challenging the current and recent usual theological understandings.
The two key words were ‘allegiance’ and ‘loyalty’.
Both of these are not usual Western world ‘guilt-innocence’ and individual/rules/obedience language terms. It’s not that we never hear or read them, but that they are terms that are rare to see in the context of recent theological literature. They are very much related to honour-shame and relational/community dynamics.
But here in my Grandmother’s notes, not only are they there, but they are obviously foremost in her mind to include and emphasise at the very beginning of her Bible class.
She obviously believed that the best and primary way to understand God’s creation of man, was that we were made for God and were meant to give Him glory by our allegiance and loyalty.
Did she mention ‘obedience’ at all in her notes? Yes. But not much and not at the beginning. The primary thoughts and understanding she seemed to want to convey were not rules, but relationship; a relationship of ‘allegiance and loyalty’.
Before she talked about the ‘wiles of the Devil’ and how he tempts us, she wanted to lay down a clear explanation of what the Devil is going to tempt us away from. He will try to make us into the opposite of what is God’s will for us.
God’s will is for us to have relationship toward him in allegiance and loyalty. Therefore, we need to be alert to anything that is going to steer us away from that allegiance and loyalty. Temptation to sin, is temptation to not give God the allegiance and loyalty he should have and which he made us for. Here she is raising a concept long before the debate in recent years seen as ‘controversial’ to say that ‘allegiance’ is strongly involved in our walk of faith in God, such as explained in Matthew Bates’ book ’Salvation by Allegiance Alone'.
In all my extensive reading, it is rare to find theology or aspects of Christian living explained in these ways in the last hundred years or so. Yet here it was in front of me as I read her notes!
And lest I thought this is accidental terminology, within the first couple of pages she spoke in honor-shame language multiple times:
1. “He tempts the Christian to sin so that God and Christ may be dishonoured, instead of honoured, glorified, so that we are not able to enjoy fellowship with God, or offer Him worship.”
2.“We must need to keep a clean slate with God - sin must be confessed, forgiveness and cleansing sought. All sin is dishonouring to God and we are to live to his glory”
3.“…any failure on our part is this matter of conduct discredits the Gospel, discredits God and the Lord Jesus Christ and all for which we stand.”
Further along on page 7 she talked about the way the Devil uses the errors of the ‘isms’ — in other words other religions and belief systems. She first mentions Roman Catholicism and says:
“Roman Catholicism while believing in Christ as Son of God puts Mary before Him. This is dishonouring to God and His Son.” (underlining is hers)
Again and again the way the Christian life, the gospel, sin, false doctrines, and temptation is framed in her notes is dominated by the context of honour and dishonour.
Genesis
Then I turned to her notes on Genesis.
She noted the reliability of the Bible and the various views of how the world came to be. She pointed out the downfalls of such arguments as given by Theistic Evolutionists, summarising the emphasis of her main point by saying:
“It would seem they deliberately endeavour to discredit and dishonour the Bible.”
Again, I was so surprised at the terminology she chose, not because it is wrong, but just the opposite, because it is so rightly said, but so often not said in that way in our current era.
We generally talk about such matters of doctrine and Biblical truth using terminology such as ‘error' or ‘heresy’ or poor theology and hermeneutics. These all focus on the rules of textual study, or the right or wrong facts/doctrines, or analytical and logical processes. They don’t focus on the relationship we are supposed to have with God and His Word based on the honour we should have for Scripture.
The Dynamic of Honour and our Modern World
My Grandmother grew up in a context in Australia that was ‘Western’ but more British Western than American Western. She came from a heritage of English nobility and her official mail from certain British sources was addressed to the ‘Honourable……’. But her understanding of honour dynamics were clearly more than just a word on an envelope. It extended deeply into her understanding of the concept, not only in her cultural heritage, but her Christian identity, the pages of her Bible and her walk with God.
What surprised me, and challenged me, as I read, was how is it that between her generation and mine, we have so significantly lost this honour perspective? Why have I had to go digging for it like lost treasure and go against the tide of the current Western evangelical understandings of Biblical truth to discover this deeper and wider dynamic of honour that is far more than what I was taught, and continue so much to hear, even till today? I kind of felt a little vindicated and reminded that bringing the honour-shame dynamics of culture and Scripture to light, is not promoting a new or cultural ’strange’ doctrine, but is just returning to what Christians of the past knew far more about than what we now do, and was ’normal’ to them.
Is it important to recognise the guilt we have for breaking God’s law? Yes. But emphasising this in a way that separates or neglects the wider and deeper context in which the guilt sits—dishonouring God Himself—robs the Bible of its greater message and the gospel of its greater story, strength, and significance. It’s like giving a specific examination of the architecture of the wonderful stained-glass windows of a Cathedral and failing to realise that there is a full grand magnificient Cathedral building that they are a part of.
Keeping the main thing, the main thing.
Like the prophet Nathan, my Grandmother knew that the main thing—and the first thing—to be addressed in our walk with God is not the obedience or disobedience, but the honour and dishonour dynamics of giving glory to God. When in 2 Samuel 12 Nathan confronted King David about his sin, Nathan three times used honour language of (despised the Word of the Lord, despised Me [God], scorned/contempt) and didn’t once refer to David’s sin as disobedience (though murder and adultery are clearly incidents of disobeying God’s law). Nathan went to the crux of the matter which was the bigger issue of dishonouring, (despising, scorning) God and God’s Word.
Obedience will always follow true heart honour, and disobedience is always a result of heart-level dishonour. It is true that outward obedience can occur without heart allegiance and honour; it can be empty form and ritual for the eyes of people…but true heart honour will not ever occur without obedience from the heart. It’s the same principle of how faith without works is dead (James 2:26). Works doesn’t produce faith, but profession of faith in God without evidence/fruit of works is not real faith in God at all. Without the fruit of outward works or righteousness, there is no proof of inward heart faith.
The fruit is important, but the root from where the fruit comes, is more important.
Works are important, but the faith from where the works come, is more important.
Outward obedience is important, but the heart honour from where the obedience comes, is more important.
When I found these papers of my Grandmother’s and read them I was both really sad and really glad. I was sad that I can’t sit down with her and discuss this further. But I am glad to have found them, and have her teach me and assist me in my current research, ministry and walk with God as I read what she wrote. I thank God for the wonderful gift and privilege of having all my grandparents being strong Christians in a long line of Christian heritage, and I thank God for finding these papers.
I am spurred on by her legacy to continue to teach and alert the church of the current era to re-discover what previous generations seemed to more clearly understand and prioritise in their desire to make sure their lives brought glory and honour to the Lord.
