Jesus - Pierced with shame to the glory of God!

Jesus was 'Pierced for our transgressions'…(Isaiah 53:5)

I don't know about you, but I had never thought of the fact that Jesus was 'pierced' being anything except the physical nails piercing physical hands and feet with physical pain, and moreover as John 19:37 states, the physical piercing of Jesus' side in fulfillment of Zechariah 12:10.

However, it is amazing how living cross-culturally can open one's eyes to parts of Scripture that have been there all along, hidden in plain sight from 'one-eyed' Westerners like me, who don't even have a clue there is anything else to recognise.

Some years back I was fascinated to realise that when a Motswana (person of Botswana - sing.) speaks about being shamed, it isn't just one word that is used... Well many concepts in Setswana (language of Botswana) are collections of words, kind of an explanation for something, rather than having just a single word... Instead its a phrase…. a phrase which means to be 'pierced with shame'.  So someone isn't just shamed, they are pierced with shame.  

According to biblehub, the word used for 'pierce' in Scripture is 'chalal' - and is also used for contexts such as to defile or pollute or 'violate the honour of/dishonour'

So isn't this interesting!…

The Zechariah Context 

It gets even more interesting when you go back and read the end of Zechariah.

Chapter 12:10 mentions that people will mourn when they look 'on him whom they have pierced'.  We take that on the basis of it foretelling how Jesus would die - that his body would be pierced, as per John 19:37. And I don't doubt that for one moment.

But did the people of Zechariah's day only understand it in the physical sense. And in relation to expecting the Messiah's side to be speared, did the piercing only have physical connotations, or is there a greater context that is culturally assumed within and surrounding such a physical 'piercing'?

Since we must keep in mind there are no chapter divisions in the original Scriptures, it makes sense to read the context of the text prior to and following Zechariah 12:10. So it shouldn't be surprising that just a few verses later in 13:3 it talks about a prophet who speaks lies and will have his mother and father 'pierce' him through when he prophesies.  

What is that all about?  Will they physically spear his body through and kill him or just punch a hole in his hand or foot or earlobe…or what?

Well whatever, it is, the prophet wasn't expected to be dead afterwards. The purpose wasn't to kill him, - at least not have him dead physically - instead, we are told in the next verse, he is still very much alive because he has a reaction to this terrible state.

Immediately after in the next verse (verse 4) it says 'on that day every prophet will be ashamed of his vision'. (Italics mine)

The purpose of the piercing, whatever it was, was in order to bring shame on the prophet of lies.

In other words, for the guilt of his wrongdoing - (his 'lies') - he was to suffer shame - the shame of piercing…piercing shame!

It turns out that in the following verses we get a bit more of a context when we are told that such a prophet ends up with wounds on his back. He was going to have to live with these wounds forever and thus the accompanying shame forever, as they prompt questions from onlookers which he has to answer about how he got such wounds. Every time he had to explain, the shame would be exposed again like it was just yesterday. He would live with ongoing, constant, unescapable shame.

So he was shamed for the guilt of his lies, - in other words the punishment is the shame, he bore the shame to pay for the guilt.

The John Explanation

What I am thus prompted to ask is: whether the piercing of Jesus' side was the only thing that fulfilled the 12:10 prophecy or was it the final 'piercing' act in a series?  First the 'stripes' on his back that would have ripped into (ie 'pierced') his flesh, then an even further piercing of his hands and feet, and then finally even his side.

From the Zechariah prophecy it seems to me that the Jews wouldn't have had too much trouble maybe connecting the dots from 12:10 to his 'stripes' and the subsequent wounds he would carry on his back forever after.  But Jesus' shame wasn't just the life-long shame of a whipping 'at the hands of family and friends' as in Zechariah 13. He also suffered the extreme humiliation of pierced hands and feet on the cross in the hands of his enemies - a death that the Romans perfected to deliver not only the most physical pain but also the most extensive public shame possible. But not even that was the whole story. 

Why didn't John comment on the piercing connection when he wrote of Jesus being whipped like a lying prophet, or when his head was stabbed by painful thorns, or even when he had his hands and feet punctured and was humiliated by his friends and enemies and family on a utterly shameful Roman cross? Instead John only commented on it when Jesus' side was pierced. That piercing was not usual in any context and seemingly not even as extreme in the original Zechariah context. The Roman soldiers only did it because they didn't have the 'normal' signals of whether Jesus had actually died, since he wasn't overcome by death, but gave himself up to death, so he died more quickly than normal. They would normally have just broken the legs of the person to speed up their death by suffocation. 

This was, we could say 'a one-off' piercing of the highest most extreme and unexpected level. 

This was even beyond the Roman piercing. Not only was his back ripped apart to be scarred with shame forever, not only were his hands and feet pinned down torturously and excruciatingly immobilising him, but his insides were then also ripped apart by a spear. His body was destroyed in its function to the very core, not just its appearance and movement.  This was unique. This was ultimate.  This was beyond even the most extreme human torture and shaming process.  He was made 'nothing' - nothing except a mangled, bleeding destroyed lump of human flesh - for you, for me.  

While this makes the resurrection even more amazing, it also makes his death something far greater than even what the cruelest humans could do. Now we also know that not breaking his legs was also part of fulfilling Scripture as the Passover lamb (Numbers 9:12), but this also took the punishment of 'piercing' to a whole new level - a level that clearly made him a unique God-appointed sacrifice who took a 'piercing shame' punishment like no one has taken before or since. Was this physical piercing (of a whole new level), demonstrating a shame piercing that was also being borne (also of a level greater than any other)?

He wasn't taking a 'piercing shame' punishment for his own transgression, such as the prophets in Zechariah were, Jesus was taking a 'piercing shame' punishment for the sin of the whole world (1John 2:2).

According to Zechariah 13:6-7, the purpose of the 'piercing' was so that the prophet would forever after carry the shame - the scars that would require explanation, an explanation that would be humiliating.  The purpose of the physical pain event was in order to have perpetual relationship-impacting 'shame pain' through the perpetual scars. He could never walk with full honour ever again.

It is therefore an incredibly humbling thought that Jesus still carries the scars of his physical suffering. It is, and will be, an ever present reminder to us all for all eternity, that someone else was shamed for us. He was our substitute.

The Shame Becomes Honour

But the amazing fact is that his shame actually brings honour - to him, to God and to us. God has exalted him, and we are clothed in him, and every time we will see those scars, like Thomas, we will just be overcome with worship - with giving glory and honour and praise and adoration to him as our king…as we join with Thomas in saying 'my Lord and my God'. Because those scars, unlike the lying prophets, will not be proof he is still the shamed one, but that he is the One who despised the shame - he shamed sin's shame by rising from the dead. Even the most extreme measures could not keep him physically dead, nor can the most extreme shame of sin, keep him defeated. Even with his scars, he is not rejected by his Father, but welcomed back to the Father's right hand, the position of honour, where he reigns for all eternity…and one day we will reign with him………..and all to the glory of God!

Pentecost and the Honour of His Presence

When the electricity fails, and you light a candle, have you ever lit just one candle and then taken that one flame to light many candles and create multiple light sources around a room?  It is certainly a common occurrence at our house. 

In the Old Testament, the symbol of God's presence with his people Israel as they were led out of Egypt and through the wilderness was the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night.(Ex 13:21-22, Ex 40:38, Num 9:15) Every day, that cloud/fire was a reminder that the Israelites were God's chosen people/family, with whom he chose to dwell.

When God met Moses at the burning bush, he spoke out of the fire that kept burning but didn't consume the bush.

God is described as a 'consuming fire' reflecting his almighty power and supremecy (Ex 24:17, Deut 4:24, Hebrews 12:29)

The Honour of His Presence Individually as well as Collectively

But God's presence as a fire over the tabernacle, was a corporate and collective presence for his people. His individual people only enjoyed his presence because they were part of the greater group of chosen people with whom God decided to dwell in a very special and unique way.  They knew his honour on them as 'chosen' primarily in a collective sense.

Today on this Pentecost Sunday, I am reminded that God brought the fire of his presence from the collective presence to involve an individual presence. 

We are told that God's presence in the form of the Holy Spirit, was symbolised in the coming of a fire that 'divided up' - 'separated' - into multiple flames, one flame for each individual person. No longer was God's presence a collective presence only. Not only was He with them as a group, but he was going to be in each of them individually, to guide, direct and empower (Ezekiel 36:27).

Prior to Pentecost God's people were still individually accountable, but as far as God's presence was experienced it was primarily by being part of the collective group. 

After Pentecost, God's presence was able to be experienced individually by everyone who belonged to God through Christ. 

Prior: God chose to presence Himself with the collective group in which individuals were a part, thus the individual's access to God was via the collective group. God's presence was something they looked to outside of themselves.

After: God chose to dwell directly in the individuals who then together formed the collective presence of God in Christ by the Spirit. Not only does the Christian enjoy the privilege of the honour of God's presence collectively as part of the body of Christ, but individually and directly as His beloved child. The temple where God dwelt was no longer only external to them, but internally within them as an individual.

In explaining Acts 2:3,  Scholar and Theologian Bill Mounce said:

Just as the Spirit of God rested on the nation of Israel corporately, after Pentecost the Spirit divides and rests on every individual of the new covenantal community.

But in this new reality, Christians can be assured that we don't each have 'part' of the Spirit, but like a flame when it lights many candles, we each fully experience the fulness of the power of God in our lives. 

This is also why, Jesus could say 'I am the light of the world', but also tell his disciples that 'you are the light of the world'.  His presence with us and in us collectively and individually as the many members of his body, is not diminished in any way by God moving from 'dwelling' in one huge cloud/fire and the one room of the Holy of Holies to dwelling within every Christian all over the world. He is not like a soup that you water down to make it go further, but a burning flame given from himself to empower each one of us.

The Honour of the Presence of His Power

In Acts 1:8 we are told that when the Holy Spirit came, Jesus' disciples would receive power. Not just a power to perform miracles but the power of his presence with them, that would enable them to be his witnesses, his ambassadors wherever they went. 

Israel looked outward to the cloud/fire and to be assured of God's presence with them and they had to wait day by day to see where and when the cloud/fire would move to know  if they would move here or there or wherever... and they would then follow the cloud/fire.

But when Jesus' ascended, he gave the command to 'go' into all the world and 'lo I am with you always'. He said when the Holy Spirit came he would enable that 'going' into the 'all the world' that they were instructed to go to.

Habakkuk 2:14 says

"For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea."

As we go into all the world, we go with the honour of His presence in us.  The wider and more extensively we go in fulfilling our great commission, the more the knowledge and presence of God's glory and honour fills the earth.

In the book of Genesis, the first family of Adam and Eve was meant to 'fill the earth' and cover it with God's image bearers. God's glory and honour in the human beings he created and had breathed his life into, were meant to wrap and fill the earth with His glory and honour.

But as we know, all we as fallen human beings managed to do was fill the earth with failure, sin and shame.

But through the Spirit and in his power, God gives a fresh opportunity for us as the New Family in Christ, spread the good news of restored honour in salvation. 

Right across the globe, the glory and honour of God's presence more and more fills the earth,  to end one day in the new heaven and earth which will be filled with the glory and honour of his presence forever.

Pentecost was both the culmination of God's plan to restore his presence in the life of human beings whom he created to be in his image…and the beginning of the working out of that plan - a plan that he calls us to be a part of, as we bring the good news of reconciliation to those who are alienated from the life of Christ across all nations, so that they too can come to know the reality of God's presence with, in and through them.

We have a great message to share with the world!

In Recognition of the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation: The Reformation and the Restoration of Honour - Part 3

In parts One and Two of this blog series, we looked at three ways in which the Reformation, sparked by Luther nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door, was about restoring significant issues of honour. And here we come to the final part:

Honour of God's People

One of the main reasons that such God-dishonouring doctrines were perpetuated in the church in the centuries prior to the Reformation, was because God's people were treated as inferior in knowledge and spirituality.  And the Roman Church leadership were assured the people could be kept that way by with-holding access to God's word.  Most people could not read or understand Latin (the language the Scriptures were in at the time, and was not what the people spoke in their daily lives), and even if they could they would be told that only the 'church' could properly interpret the Bible.  Not until shortly before Luther's theses, the printing press had not been invented and a person also would have had to be wealthy to own a bible or bible portion.  Only the noblemen - those in places of high honour in the society - even had a chance to get access to a bible.

We are told in the book of 1 Peter (2:17) to 'honour all men' - in other words there is no special category of people who have any 'higher' honour requirement than another. Everyone should be given equal due honour. As far as our place in God's family - the true church - is concerned there is no position of greater or lesser honour. Our nationality, gender or social position is irrelevent. In Christ we are all equal heirs of his riches in glory (honour).  (Phil 4:19, Col 1:27, Rom 8:17) We are all the saints (set apart) of God, and we are all members of a kingdom of priests with direct access to God (known as the term 'the priesthood of all believers').

The Reformation and the lead up to it with Bible Translator John Wycliffe (often called the Morning Star of the Reformation who lived 1330-1384)), gave to God's people the honour of equal access to the Scriptures, and the honour of an individual being able to come to the Scriptures to learn and know God's truth without always looking to the church for Scriptual knowledge and interpretation.

It restored the fulness of the honour of being able to access God in prayer through Christ without the need of other mediators. 

It restored the honour of the ability to come to God directly in confession of sin and for forgiveness of sin.  

It brought again the truth of the honour of truly being 'in Christ' - the assurance of individually being God's child eternally, safe and secure in Christ forever. 

It restored people to a place of knowing and seeking honour from God alone through Christ alone, instead of the church dictating who was shamed and rejected, and who was honoured and accepted.

It restored the honour of being able to access, read, study and learn from God's word - an honour we so easily take for granted. The average person could know more of the honour of being God's child by having access to God's word in their own language.  No longer did speaking only the local language and not the Latin language of the educated elite, place them in the lower and less honourable position of exclusion from knowing the truth of God's word for themselves.

This all in turn spurred on the ideas we are familiar with today of education and literacy for all, of individual freedom to be creative and innovative, of using one's money and time to develop, invent and build rather than having to spend all one's time and money on the church and securing salvation through buying indulgences.

Rejoice in the Reformation

As Protestant post-reformation Christians, we have so much we can easily take for granted.  But what we take for granted we can also easily lose.  No, it is true no earthly authority can remove heavenly realities and many before the reformation had God's assurance of their salvation even if they in themselves doubted it.  But in the process many people had the truth withheld from them which resulted in confusion, fear, shame, and for some, eternal death because they did not know the Truth which could have set them free. False teaching brings false hopes and false fears.  

We can rejoice that we have access to God's word, can read it for ourselves in our own language, and can buy and own our own full copy, and even multiple copies. 

We can rejoice that we have been able to know the honour of God's salvation in Christ, the honour of access to God's word, and the honour of being one in Christ Jesus as believers together.  

But let us guard the gift we have been given, that many lost their lives fighting for, ….and remember that just like the church became oppressive when it lost sight of the Scriptures many centuries ago, so individual freedom alienated from the authority of God through His Word can, will and has resulted in our current century,  just yet another form of destruction. 

So, as we remember what happened 500 years ago today, let us like Luther, be careful and diligent to be true to the authority of the Scriptures, whatever our nationality, generation, or era, and let us not only know God, but as Romans 1 says, honour Him as God in all things, with thanksgiving!

…..ps

In case you think that this event is saying what the Roman Catholic church was like 500 years ago and its not like it now, please read this article or check out this little video and be challenged that we still need to bring the good news of salvation in Christ alone by grace alone through faith alone to those who are falsely and hopelessly looking to the Roman Catholic church edicts, rules and requirements to save them. 

And if you are interested...take a look at this list of 5 ways in which this event impacted the wider world for the centuries following up to our present day!

In Recognition of the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation: The Reformation and the Restoration of Honour - Part 2

As we continue to look at the honour issues of the Reformation, sparked by Martin Luther nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door on the 31st October 1517, following on from Part 1, we come to the next two significant categories of honour restoration:

Honour of God's Word

When we don't honour God as God, we are consequentially not going to honour what God says the way we should. If we honour a human being, human leadership or human systems and rules above God, we are going to honour what they say as authoritative above what God says as authoritative.  And that is what was happening in the Roman Catholic Church.  The church was adding to Scripture's requirements. Words and concepts and regulations and warnings and systems were developed that had no basis in God's word whatsoever. Teaching on such things as Purgatory became central to church doctrine yet are not even mentioned in Scripture, let alone supported.  

God's word had become secondary. The focus was on the teaching of the church and authority of the Pope.  In fact they had gone one step further and made the teaching of the church of equal authority, infallability and holiness to Scripture.  Of course when that happens it is inevitable that the teaching of the church becomes elevated above Scripture.  When supposedly two 'equal' pieces of information conflict, and the church's teaching says that the church leadership speak as the voice of God, no-one is going to question what the church leadership says, and any Scripture that disagrees will be put aside in favour of what the church leadership says. 

To thus treat God's true word with such disregard, is to despise God's Word.  And as God accused and reminded king David when he sinned (2 Sam 12:9-10), to despise God's Word is to despise God Himself. 

There was also an understanding by the Reformers that God's word would lose no honour by being translated into the language that the people spoke.  The honour of God's word was not in it remaining in the Latin language accessible only to those of high church rank and status.  The honour of God's word was founded on its nature and source, not what earthly language it was in. Luther's translating the bible into German, like John Wycliffe before him in England translating it into English, was because they believed God's word would have greater honour in the hearts and lives of the people if they had access to it in a language they could understand and which they spoke on a daily basis.

The Reformation sought to restore God's word to its rightful place, that it might be once again honoured as God's supreme and ultimate authority shared with no other human authority, person or organisational rules, but that it could have the honour of being accessible to everyone in their own language.

Honour of God's Son and Salvation brought through Him

I remember sitting in a Christian Convention as a teenager, many years ago, and hearing the speaker say "Christ+ = Christ- = not Christ"! (ie Christ plus equals Christ minus equals not Christ)

God sent His Son, His only Son to be the only way of salvation for sinful humanity. 

He sent His Son to be the one and only Mediator between man and God.

We are not saved by any other name, only Jesus' name.

When we pray, we are to only pray to God the Father and only in the name of God the Son.

There is only one who sits at the right hand of God the Father, Jesus Christ. Only He is the firstborn from the dead.

Only Christ is the Messiah, only Christ is Immanuel God with us.

And I could go on…..

Mary is not Christ, she is not a mediator between God and humans, she does not hear and answer prayer. 'Saints' of the Roman Catholic Church are not deity in human form, are not elevated to some higher spiritual power after death, and have no power or influence over creation or life on this earth.  To say such things is to say we need more than Christ, which is to say that Christ is not enough for God's saving, sanctifying and sustaining work in a Christian's life.  A view of Christ that says this, is a view of Christ which does not equal who God tells us Christ is.

We are thankful for Mary's availability, obedience, humility and submission to God's will in God's plan, but we don't need her for salvation or answers to prayer.  She has no more powerful or special spiritual connection to Christ, than you or I. 

We are thankful for the lives of great Christians of the past and their example of godly actions but they too are not in any different spiritual catagory from anyone else…..if they truly came to Christ alone as sinners and accepted His full finished work of salvation for them, they were saved just like you and I can be, and if they did not they are just as lost eternally as you or I can be.

Not only was the Roman Catholic church denying the priesthood of all believers which allows us to all access God's throne in prayer directly through Christ, and not giving sole Mediator status to Christ, they were giving authority to priests to forgive sins, an authority that was only God's. 

The 'church' was also saying that salvation was not assurred in Christ.  The 'church' taught that to be saved, or have a good chance at being saved, you had to do good works. You had to participate in the seven sacraments of the church which were believed to be the channels of receiving God's grace including the Mass/Eucharist and Confession. The church had also invented the unbiblical category of 'purgatory' between life on earth and heaven, a category in which the church was telling people if they were to give money to the church (called indulgences) it could help them reduce their time in purgatory and to get relatives out of purgatory and into heaven.

From beginning to end the 'church' was promoting a works based salvation in which people often had no sense of assurance of salvation before or after death, and definitely no assurance if the priest hadn't given it. They had to hope that their 'good works' outweighed their 'bad works', or that they had paid enough indulgences or had relatives who would keep paying after your death.

To think there are some additions needing to be made to salvation in Christ alone, is to not honour God as God, because you are not accepting that God's way of salvation through Christ's once for all sacrifice, is enough.  It's saying you don't believe God when He says it is enough. That, in adddition to saying that the 'church' and its leadership know better, is thorough dishonour of God.

The Reformation was to restore to God's people a right and true understanding that they could be saved by faith alone and grace alone in Christ alone.  It was about restoring the honourable rightful place of God's Son as the sole means and assurance of salvation from sin.

To be continued in Part 3…..

In Recognition of the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation: The Reformation and the Restoration of Honour - Part 1

This is the year of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation - or rather the event that was the major trigger for the Protestant Reformation.

It was October 31, 1517 that Martin Luther, the preacher and professor of moral theology at the University of Wittenberg, nailed his 95 theses to the Wittenberg church door, which served as a bit like the community notice board. It seems he did not intend to start a new church or radical movement, but simply to put forward some issues on which he wanted to spark further discussion about matters in the church he was concerned about. But that wasn't how it turned out.

Yet there is so much to be thankful for because of that event.

When we think about the Reformation, we most readily recall the events themselves, the people involved and the tangible results it brought about of greater access to God's Word and greater awareness of the biblical basis of salvation and a greater assurance of salvation. But underlying the Reformation were actually foundational matters of honour.

In Romans 1, Scripture tells us that we can know about God but fail to honour Him as God. When we fail to honour God as God the way He says to honour Him, we fail to live the way He wants. Even worse is the situation, when the church and its leaders are the ones failing to honour God as God.

The word 'honour' may not have been prominent at the time, in regard to the Reformation, and not really be mentioned even now, but the principle was permeating the whole process. In fact we use the simile of of the word 'honour' all the time when we talk about the Reformation….the word 'glory'. 

The fifth all encompassing 'sola' of the five solas of the Reformation, is Soli Deo gloria: "to the glory of God alone"

The Reformation was all about the issue of 'glory' - the issue of honour, and I see it permeating in four significant ways. Over the next few posts, we will have a look at these.  Firstly we see the…..

Honour of God

By 1517, the church leadership and system had more and more overstepped its role and place. It had set itself up in the place of God. It saw itself as the one to decide if a person's sins would be forgiven, if a person could go to heaven or not, and what rules and regulations should define sin and as the only ones to interpret scripture. It saw itself as the voice and authority of God in the lives of people and in society. 

Not only that, but it was promoting idolatry by having people bow at carved images of Christ and Mary the mother of Jesus, at the feet of church leaders and of religious 'relics'. It set Mary up as a sinless human being to be venerated and as a mediator, encouraging people to pray not only to God but to Mary.  The dishonour of God went even further as certain people were elevated after death into a category of an unbiblical definition of 'saint', appointing them to some mystical position of great spiritual power over earth's events.

The Reformation was about wanting God to be honoured as God.  It was about a desire for God to get the glory He deserved. It was about wanting the Roman Catholic church and its leadership to ascribe the full honour to God that was and is due Him, instead of taking it for themselves. When the church refused, it was time to honour God and the true church of His children, above any earthly organisation that set itself in God's place. 

The Roman Catholic Church might have been saying that they honoured God above all, but in reality they were putting themselves in the authority position of God in the life of the church corporately and the lives of people individually, and that does not honour God as God. 

The Reformers were seeing a church giving more honour to rules and rituals than understanding the reality of God.  The Scripture that comes to mind is 'They honour me with their lips but their hearts are far from me' (Is 29:13, Matt 15:8). The honour of the church system and the honour of its leaders had overtaken the honour of God. The Reformers were zealous for God and His honour above all.

To be continued in Part 2…..

Christmas on Sunday

There's a problem with Christmas this year! …..apparrently in some parts of the world anyhow.  

Well its more a problem of the calendar…..the problem that Christmas is on a Sunday this year. 

It's actually a subject that is not on my radar at all, but I have just read an interesting blog post about it.  While I continue to live in Africa or Australia it probably won't ever be on my radar…..but the blog post was encouraging Christians in the USA to still go to church on Christmas Day.

This seems to be a unique cultural 'problem' for Americans, who as I understand it do not normally have a Christmas Day Service at their churches.

As Australians living in Africa, it doesn't pose a problem for us at all, in either our home country or our country of service.  

In both places it is normal tradition to always go to church on Christmas Day for a special Christmas Day Service.  The UK is the same.  Even the British Royal Family go to church on Christmas Day.

Because, (as I read recently somewhere else), Christmas day in the USA has become a day 'for family not faith',  Amercians seems to be worried about how they can manage to have family gift-giving on Christmas morning AND get to church. And like in the blog I mentioned above, some are concerned that people will opt for a family devotion at home and skip Sunday church for that week altogether.  

In my husband's family, family gift giving was on Christmas Eve when they were young kids, and in later years the gift-giving happened after church.  In my home as I grew up,  gift-giving was first thing on Christmas morning and we had a quick breakfast and all piled into the car and headed to church.  

It was never a problem, and in fact as kids we seemed to all manage to wear or take something to church that morning that we had received as a gift to be able to share stories with other kids of gifts received.

It was a wonderful time of carol singing, and remembering the whole reason for Christmas. Often the service structure was a little bit innovative with a 'sermon' in parts interspersed with appropriate carols, or the opportunity for the Pastor to bring out an aspect of the Christmas story that normally gets overlooked.  It always set a good tone and focus to the day.  

It was also the day that we knew church service numbers would swell with people who normally would never go to church - those twice-a-year folks - Easter and Christmas.  It was a great opportunitity to share the gospel with those who came, simply by reminding everyone of the real meaning of Christmas and its implications.

From there folks would head back home or to relatives' homes for family Christmas Lunch.  

Since it was holiday season anyhow, Sunday School was in recess and on Christmas Day the service was normally scheduled a little earlier (normal at the church I grew up at was 10am and Christmas was 8am) and it was limited to 1 hour to allow those time who had to travel longer distances to reach family gatherings. 

Here in our corner of Africa, it is the same, there is always a Christmas Day service.

So the fact that Christmas is on a Sunday this year, if anything it will feel a little strange for us because we will only meet together as a church once in the Christmas week instead of twice.

Though Americans may be stressing as to how they will manage to have proper gift giving AND gather with the church in the morning, other parts of the world have always done that and find no tension in the process, but instead find that it enhances the focus of the day and reminds us of the real reason for the day and its meaning for us.  

After all - we are the church only because of Christmas. Because the Son of God came and entered our world for the purpose of dying for sin and rising again to bring us new life, we in this world can be reconciled to God and united with Christ as His church.  

Surely for Americans,  that is a great reason to WANT to have such a unique opportunity this year to combine Christmas with a Sunday and share it not just with our earthly families but be reminded of our greater spiritual families and the GIFT that made it all possible!!  

We are just sorry that Americans only get to make it a church family day this one year, when in our part of the world, we get to do it every year!

Stop Church Planting!

Now that I have your attention, let me explain!

We had a fellow missionary visit recently.  He and his wife are 30 year veterans of ministry in Africa both in Zambia and here in Botswana.

We had good fellowship and as he was leaving he said (referring to missionaries in general):

"We need to stop church planting and focus on making disciples"

To which we say a loud AMEN!

To clarify…...In the current era of missions this might almost seem like heresy.  But we have felt this way for a long time.  Since before we first left Australia to serve in Botswana, we had individuals and churches 'apologise' that they couldn't support us because they only partnered with those doing 'church planting'.

While sounding noble, this actually lacks biblical validity, and narrows the focus significantly.  The term or a command to 'plant churches' is not to be found in Scripture.

Jesus' command was not to "go and plant churches".

We have concerns. As noble as 'church planting' sounds, it isn't actually the Biblical 'Great Commission'.  Jesus did not tell his disciples to go and plant churches.  

He did however tell them to go and make disciples and he told them to make these disciples across all the world.  

Our focus is not be be about  'planting churches', but about making disciples who will by definition as Christ's disciples be Christ's body and thus Christ's church. As those in a common area who become disciples gather together, they then become the local 'church' in that place.  

The 'church' description is not the start of the process but part of the result of the process. In fact though we talk of 'planting' a church, what about the 'watering' of a church or helping in the 'growth' of a church?

We are to make disciples and keep making disciples, not in relation to numbers of churches planted but in relation to loving others so as to win souls that grow to maturity. The 'making' process is life-long and on-going.  

 ….and as an aside, we want to confirm that 'making disciples' does not equate to collecting 'converts'. A profession of faith or 'alter call' response is not the same as the ongoing growth of a disciple - one who turns to follow Christ and keeps following. Again bringing people to the point of faith in Christ is part of the discipleship process but is not the totality of 'making disciples'.

There are consequences of confusing 'church planting' with 'making disciples'.

Sadly, we see several concerning consequences of the view that 'church planting' is the only valid ministry in relation to missions:  

• in some quarters it has become 'less' to be anything other than a 'church planter' if you are a missionary. 
• missionaries who are not specifically 'church planting' are subltly made to feel like they are not as important or 'biblical' in their role by those in their home countries.  It's like an honourable position vs a shameful position.  One 'measures' up to the noble standard and the other does not.  
• Not only does it demean and dishonour God's work being done in whatever doesn't fit the 'church planting' definition, but it also rejects those who God calls to serve in ways that are not directly 'church planting'. 
• It excludes anything, outside a group's definition of 'church planting', as not valid obedience to Christ's commission. 
• It also communicates to the (sending) churches that those who would not be 'church planters' cannot be involved in reaching out to share the gospel and make disciples cross-culturally so should feel no obligation at all to even consider that Jesus' commission could relate to them in a cross-cultural way.
• the emphasis can become the establishing the organisational 'structure' of  a church rather than making healthy growing and maturing disciples
• the focus leans to 'measurable outcomes' (such as number of activities undertaken, increase in numbers of attendees or baptisms etc), rather than immeasurable inner heart transformation.
• the churches 'planted' are often immature in ongoing spiritual growth

Instead, from a biblical perspective, the 'how' one makes disciples can take on various forms depending on the context God has called you to live and work in, the skills He has given you, the people and culture around you, your age and your strengths/limitations physically, etc etc.  No-one is exempt from being part of Jesus' command to go into all the world and make disciples.

While aspects of what we might label as 'church planting' (such as preaching, pastoring and training), are not excluded from ways discipleship can be carried out, it is not the exclusive definition or expression of discipleship. 

While you may think I am overstating the issue, this is not an isolated observation.

 Jackson Wu on his blog, over at Patheos also mentions the issue.

He speaks about the ethics of missions and missionary strategy, and raises three categories to examine to see which one you fit.  We found ourselves very much in his third category and agreeing wholeheartedly with his concluding remarks on that category.  

What does this look like in a ministry context?

Missionaries with this perspective lay stress on discipleship and the church's character. They will be concerned with balance so as not to be one-dimensional and stunt the church's growth. As a result, they might not see rapid visible results but they will more likely see fruit that lasts. Their holistic approach accounts for what is needed for long term growth in the Christian life.

What drives them? The conviction that God is glorified in diverse ways. Professions of faith, planting churches, etc. are just one possible way God can get glory. Faithfulness, healthy families, and service to the needy glorify God as well.

They do not want to compromise by only glorifying God in a single, narrow aspect of ministry.

Lets not confuse a 'means' with the GOAL

God can be glorified in the varied means and steps of making disciples, as long as the means doesn't become the goal to the exclusion of all other means, and the goal is still to make disciples so as to present them mature in Christ.  

There are many churches on mission fields that are 'functioning' with all the 'normal' structure and activities that a westerner might expect, but are full of members who are not born again and do not understand the biblical meaning of a disciple of Jesus Christ. Then there are those who may be saved but are not being discipled to maturity. 

There are young Pastors being trained and then going back to rural churches but have no access to Christian bookshops, internet, conferences or fellowship with other godly pastors nearby or older godly mentors who can give ongoing discipleship. In a 'church planting' definition of the Great Commission, such a context is not considered worthy or eligible for a 'missionary' because the church is already planted and has a pastor….but in reality the Pastor himself still needs ongoing discipleship.  Yet the global church sees it as a 'ticked box', the church is 'planted'….but it remains stunted and the fruit may be more limited than it could be.

Let's ensure that we keep the goal, the biblical one.

We are not called, (whether serving in our own town, cross-culturally, overseas or across the street) to maintain methods and traditions and systems and terminology. 

Rather we are called to Honour the King of the Kingdom we have been re-born into by obeying His commission to all of us and each one of us - to go and make disciples anywhere and everywhere in the world that He calls and places us.

Headship, Leadership and Honour

'Headship' is a topic that is sure to cause a stir if its raised - particularly in relation to marriage.  

Over the past few days I seem to have received an unusual number of emails and posts from blogs I subscribe to, mentioning the issue of 'headship' as it relates to leadership and honour.

Several of them were in relation to the what true biblical 'headship' looks like and doesn't look like.  They have looked at how a mis-placed understanding can lead to 'polite abuse', or a wrong understanding of what 'honour' a husband expects, or as Mary Kassian explains a false and oppressive idea of 'authority'.

One article from 'GoTherefore.com' by David Gilmour also looked at the issue as it relates to the role of Pastors and how it is a wrong use of terms to place Pastors in a category of headship.

This is a topic which our local co-worker and I have discussed at some length in recent months as it relates to the role of Pastors.  We have observed how easy it is for an honour/shame emphasis culture to import culturally framed honour dynamics and expectations into the church.  

In fact I have also recently received two newsletters from missionaries in other parts of Africa (Uganda and Malawi) who raised concerns that they are seeing Pastors acting like a village chief.  Without realising it, a concept of leadership is framed by traditional headship of a chief over his village.

The Pastor sees his position as one of honour and one in which he expects honour (often unquestioned honour and allegience and obedience).  Often the church Elders also see themselves as now in positions of honour, like traditional tribal elders.  A Pastor's position in Africa is easily and subtly assumed to be one of status and privilege certainly within the 'church community' he leads, but often also within the wider community.  It's not difficult to understand that when a person becomes a Christian, they believe that their life-long desire for honour (perpetuated culturally) is fulfilled when they come to Christ, not only in a Spiritual sense but in an earthly sense in the eyes of their immediate church community and the wider community.  

As mentioned in other blogs, this is much of the fuel behind the explosion of prosperity theology in Africa - people see good events, promotions, and financial success as honour that God will bring them so that they will no longer need to be in positions of shame before the eyes of others because of poverty, illness or bad circumstances.  So to become a church leader is to gain position and power and prestige such as a village chief gains from his village and even in the eyes of surrounding villages.  Often a Pastor's wish is a parishioners command.

A Pastor may go to theological college, gain Bible knowledge and even learn about the tasks a Pastor should take responsibility for, but it seems they are often not learning or understanding who they 'are'.  In other words they learn what to 'do' in the 'practice' of a Pastor, but without a foundation of a biblical perspective on who they 'are' in their 'position' of Pastor. They may not properly comprehend that Pastoral leadership means servanthood and humility not headship and pride and power, nor grasp what that looks like in the reality of their cultural context. They can easily sub-consciously absorb the status of what they see as their elevated position. This is even happening in what might be termed to be evangelical or reformed gatherings.

We have observed that this is not only an issue for Pastors to need a clearer understanding, but also the church members need a clearer understanding.  Often the church members fuel a mis-placed honour when they refuse to let the Pastor do what they see as a menial job - such as sweep the porch or scrub a wall or clean a toilet or serve tea.  They don't realise they are being like Peter who wanted to stop Jesus from washing his feet.

Misplaced cultural views are retained because they are not identified and corrected with Scripture, and then replaced with Biblical views through clear Biblical instruction on the issue.

The issues Mary Kassian raises in her blog in relation to husbands and the biblical correction she brings to misplaced views of authority could also be useful in Pastoral Theology classes, particularly here in the context of an honour/shame emphasis culture:

She warned:

Jesus condemned a personal-power view of authority. He condemned men who exercised authority in a selfish, domineering manner. He said, "It must not be like that among you!" (Mark 10:43-45)

The misuse/abuse of authority is an abomination to God. He wants leaders to be shepherds after His own heart. (Jeremiah 23:2; Ezekiel 34:1-4; Zechariah 11:17). Some of the Bible's most scathing condemnations are directed toward leaders who fail to exercise authority in a godly manner. The Lord's anger burns hot against them (Zechariah 10:3).

And also affirmed re husbands:

 I believe that the Bible teaches that a husband's position as head of the home does not give him the right to rule, but rather the responsibility to provide loving oversight. A husband is not imparted with privilege; he is entrusted with obligation—the obligation to love, cherish and shepherd, in emulation of Christ.

She went on to say how Scripture gives a radically different view of authority from culture - and ultimately its not about honour for one's self but honouring God:

Culture upholds authority as the right to rule and lord it over others, but Scripture paints a radically different picture about the true nature of authority. It teaches that:

• Authority is not self-appointed; it's delegated by God.
• Authority is not personally owned; it merely stewards and manages that which belongs to God.
• Authority is not about rights; it's about responsibility.
• Authority is not about seeking prominence; it's about giving prominence.
• Authority is not domineering and dictatorial; it's humble and gentle.
• Authority is not about getting; it's about giving.
• Authority is not about selfish gain; it's about selfless sacrifice.
• Every authority is accountable to a higher authority, and all are accountable to God the Father, who is the ultimate authority.

Godly authority is motivated by love and commitment. Godly authority builds up; it doesn't tear down. Godly authority serves as a channel of God's protection and blessing. Godly authority watches over the well-being of others. Godly authority works with them, and for their joy. Godly authority doesn't glorify self; it glorifies God.