Australia Day Fruit - paying attention to roots of identity and language confusion

As I look  from afar off in Africa, on this Australia Day….

What's going on?

Today is Australia Day! My birth country's national 'day'.

It's meant to be a day that brings every Australian together in unity and celebration in what some would call 'national pride', but some seem to want it to be a day of national 'shame'.

When I was a child I used to think that Aussies were pretty 'low-key' when it came to patriotism. In contrast I looked at America and thought it was quite 'over the top' in its national patriotism. Australia Day back then was a national holiday to give out Australia Day awards and citizenships, but not much else happened except maybe an excuse for another extended family picnic. Cheaply imported 'Aussie' paraphernalia seems to have changed all that.

HOWEVER, This year as I hang a simple Aussie flag in our home far away from Aussie shores, there are so many reasons I am thankful for being born an Aussie. I also watch scenes on Youtube from Aussie news broadcasters that show how some want to turn a happy national day into an angry day with a different name.

What's going on?

What can or should be done about it?

I am not going to try to give an answer on which day of the year should be Australia Day, or any other of the obvious controversial issues. Because I think this is something more than that.

Sometimes standing back and looking from a distance, can help.

Living cross-culturally for the last 23 years as also helped me learn to look at life and culture with fresh eyes….and pay attention to elements of cultural life that once upon a time I didn't even notice, or know I should look for. 

We also need to look below the surface and dig to root level if we want to address and solve root issues. Some might think these aren't root issues but just a lot of minority 'noise'. But root issues start at lower levels of a plant first and creep up to the top fruit level. We need to recognise the first signs of problems appearing in the fruit and address the problems early at the root…otherwise it will get so bad the only result is that the whole tree rots and falls or is taken down. And often the 'root' issues are actually 'soil' issues…as any gardener will tell us.

Here are two 'soil' issues I am seeing underneath the 'Australia Day Fruit'

1. Identity

Identity issues I have addressed many times on this blog. However, when our core human identity is not in Christ our Redeemer, and more deeply not even in God our Creator, we try to find it elsewhere. 

The first substitute is likely to be national identity and earthly citizenship. And because we no longer rest in our heavenly sourced identity and citizenship, we begin to rely on our earthly identity and citizenship.

But in God's scheme of things, while our earthly ethnicity and nationality is God-given, it is not meant to be the zenith of our identity as explained by American honour-shame scholar (and past Asian missionary) Brad Vaugn here on his recent blog post.  

There will be some from every ethnicity in heaven, but that is not because of the ultimate greatness of those ethnicities. It simply shows that ethnicity in no way excludes anyone from gaining a new and higher honour and identity in a new kingdom and citizenship - in Christ and His eternal holy Kingdom of glory. We no longer need to join an earthly nation (Israel) to be God's people, but we come into Christ, in whose Holy Spirit all ethnicities that were once separate, are now joined. 

We go from all being many nations under differing honour-code ethics which divide us, to all being under one Christ-directed set of holy honour code ethics that unite us. 

However, when we forget, ignore, deny, or are just plain blind, to God's Kingdom identity, 

we have no secure assurance of any identity….and so

 we will try to find a substitute, and then fight for it.

Many Australians have found their substitute identity in a mis-placed inferior earthly national identity and felt blindly 'safe' that it was a sufficient substitute for Kingdom Citizenship and they don't really need God in the 'lucky country'.

But along comes a problem…

When you settle for finding your deep human identity in a lower level substitute, suddenly you discover there are others at the same lower level as you also trying to find their human identity in the earthly ethnicity or nationality. Now there is no higher unifying identity for all. 

And what does this lead to?

Still a yearning for identity but one that leads to tribalism and fighting for supremacy of your tribe - whether that's your gender or your ethnicity or your sporting team, or gang, or profession, or whatever..

Meanwhile the soul of man knows there is something more is needed than just national earthly identity, in order to fulfill the deep longings of the heart.

And so we go looking for something to make us feel that deeper, elusive sense of honour. 

So what is the Aussie likely to do?….they go looking for what is a cultural honour-code pillar... fighting for the 'underdog' - ie the oppressed, the less fortunate or the vulnerable, shamed or neglected. If your world has moved to what is now tribalism and you want to do a culturally honourable thing and fight for the 'oppressed', what will you do?

You will find who you think is the 'oppressed' group and you fight for it …and you will think you are doing the most honourable important thing on the planet!

So you find your ultimate honour in trying to be a 'hero' in 'helping' the 'oppressed' group be 'heard', by increasing their voice to those who you think are not listening and oppressing the 'underdog'. 

Without God in your life, 

you fight for the ones you perceive or believe are the shamed ones, 

and try to shame the ones 

who are your opponents and who you believe are the oppressors.

The fact that it will never satisfy, the fact that it will only further divide and not unify, the fact that it is a shameful lie of the devil to keep you away from the true identity and honour available in God through Christ... you are blind to it all. You don't realise that in a misplaced honour-code that is no longer God's honour code, you will mis-take what is truly honour and what is truly shame, you will mistake what will truly unify and what will truly divide.

And to add to the subtlety of the devils lies, helping the oppressed is what we are called to do as Christians, but we have to make sure our definitions and interpretations of 'oppressed' are God's, and the way we do it is His way. We have to make sure also (even as Christians) that our identity is not found in our 'works', but in Christ.

It's not that we as human beings don't have things to be ashamed for. Before God, in particular, we all do. Some of what we see in our world today, is no doubt the reality that deep in every heart is an awareness that we are all in a place of shame and we should be ashamed of something we have done wrong and an identity we should mourn. 

We also want to alleviate our own sense of shame 

by pointing out, blaming and shaming others. 

We put others down to put ourselves 'up' in our own minds. 

But when we leave God out, we have no answer to why we feel shame for anything at all, and we have no answer to how to deal with the shame or to know what it is we really should be mourning. We end up being sucked into lies and substitutes that never satisfy and only confuse, disappoint and divide.

All because we are trying to find our identity in the wrong 'soil' source.

2. Language Confusion

The next issue that seems to be exposed in this mess is what I would call 'language confusion'. Australia only has one official national language - English. 

But in cross-cultural missions we often talk about communicating in a person's 'heart language'. A language is more than particular tones and sounds used to identify items and actions etc in communication, and which differ from culture to culture. Those are rooted in the Genesis 11 tower of Babel. We know such language differences need translation to enable the different language speakers to 'hear' each other. 

We could call that the 'what' of language.

But language is more than 'what'. 

It is also 'how' and 'why'. 

It's how we express what we mean and why we express it that way.

For example we talk about 'love languages' where different people who might all speak English could express their idea of love in different ways but still using English words. Such languages can also end up in mis-understanding and require 'translation'. There is a need to learn to understand the lens of how the other person 'sees' (and feels) love.

But there is another heart language issue that is so evident across our multi-cultural world. And its creating mis-understanding, stress, pain and conflict in a multitude of settings. 

Its the issue of the different heart languages of guilt-innocence and shame-honour. It's the languages of how we look at right and wrong, good and evil. It's the languages of the conscience, of motivation, of persuasion, of significance, of goals, of crime and punishment, of advocacy, of righteousness and sin.

Australia has a cultural conflict  - not just about Pro-Palestinians protesting on the streets, but in regard to ideology (beliefs) and theology (God) and thus also anthropology (humanity) and eschatology (future). It's not just about different ethnic cultures either, but also about generational cultures. Evangelist and Author Sam Chan has said how that younger generations in Australia have to be reached from the perspective that they think in 'shame-honour' terms rather than 'guilt-innocence' terms. This is a generation who has been raised not only in the soil of a God-denying society (without even an awareness of Creator or Redeemer rooted identity), but also in a social-media honour-shame fuelled world.

And in the process these two differing cultural focuses (worldviews) are talking in different languages about how to progress through these conflicts. They are speaking past each other. Neither are truly hearing the other, and thus both think the other one is blind, stupid, reckless and evil.

Now, don't get me wrong, 

what God says is evil is evil, and what God says is righteous is righteous. 

There is no debate to be had about that.

However, the lenses by which a person sees how to understand and explain right and wrong can differ. This impacts how we interpret the world, ourselves and even the Bible. When that lens is functioning in a mis-placed way, the problem of differences and divisions only increases.

The lenses in Australia (and in the wider western world) have some people shouting through 'shame' terms, and others shouting in 'guilt' terms. And both think they are right and that the other side is 'out of touch with reality'.

Let me explain -

The 'guilt-innocence' side is championing truth-restoration and thus the exposing of lies. They accuse the other side of telling lies, breaking promises and refusing the truth.

The 'shame-honour' side is championing honour-restoration (or they might use the term respect), and thus shame-removal. They accuse the other side of shameful behaviour and refusing to show respect.

This was highlighted to me in stark reality today.  I was catching up on Aussie news on this Australia Day on Youtube!….and the top news bulletin was talking all about truth, and the lies of broken promises. Just below it on Youtube was a news bulletin on a different Aussie TV channel about thousands marching in the streets to say it is not 'Australia Day' but 'Invasion Day'. That side's mantra is all about making the 'invaders' feel ashamed…so ashamed that they should change or cancel Australia Day being on January 26th.

So where to from here?

We have to start speaking the language of those we are trying to reach with the gospel.

Those who see life through honour-shame lenses primarily need to be spoken to in honour-shame terms. 

Truth is important, but we don't speak in those terms first…we explain truth in terms of honour and shame. We say how that to speak truth is respectful, and lying is shameful. We have to translate our message into the language that is understood. If a leader lies, he is shameful. We don't just fight for truth, but we fight for the truth about honour and the honour of truth. We don't just fight against lies, but we expose the lies of mis-placed shame and the shame of lies.

We have to 'learn' a new language. We - including the church - have to expand our vocabulary, both our social vocabulary and biblical vocabulary. 

Like learning a language when going cross-culturally, we have to listen to hear how people articulate their feelings, aspirations, goals and describe their actions and choices. When we use a different language, the listener doesn't 'hear'.  They have to hear the gospel in their language. It has to be a language that speaks about identity, and belonging and honour and shame and acceptance, and what God affirms and rejects. It needs to acknowledge and not dismiss that their desires for identity and honour and acceptance and affirmation are valid, but where they seek it might be mis-placed.

The reality is that we all are sensitive to honour and shame but we articulate it in different ways. And Scripture talks more about shame than it does about guilt. So learning more 'shame' oriented language not only will help us communicate and share the gospel better with others, it will also give us a greater insight and experience of the God of the gospel.

Australia's Voice and the issue of 'Respect'

Profound! …not surprising….but….It's official….well about as 'official' in Australia as it can be, that 'Respect' is 'king'. 

The voice of the highest office in the nation of Australia - the Prime Minister, is choosing to use the concept of 'respect' to motivate the country to do what he believes is right. Thus also by implication, this infers that if you do the opposite, you are 'disrespectful'.  This was highlighted on a recent Australian news clip I saw on Youtube this week.

Attached to the campaigning for the upcoming 'Voice' referendum is one side pushing for 'Yes' and one side pushing for 'No'. And due to the nature of the proposal, the current Labour government (and thus the Prime Minister) put forward, and is promoting, the 'Yes' side.

So with his most recent statement, the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is in effect saying, that to vote 'Yes' is to show respect.

And by saying this, he is obviously of the opinion (consciously or otherwise), that this is the line of argument that will sway the majority of voters.

Observing from across the ocean

Looking from afar, this is fascinating.

In this blogpost, I have no intention of 'taking sides'…although we definitely know how we would have voted had we been in Australia. However, what I want to comment on is the significance of the Prime Minister's statement and how it signals something important about Australian culture in relation to morality, and thus about Gospel evangelism and discipleship in my country of birth. 

Once upon a time….and earlier in the campaign, there was more emphasis on what a law or decision would 'do' - what practical benefits were hoped would eventuate. However, it seems the focus has become far more heavily weighted now not on what the decision would 'do', but on what the decision says about who we 'are'. The persuasion technique hinted at this before, but now it seems to be based firmly on the assumption that people will want to show they are respectful and not be someone who is  'disrespectful'. 

Here in Africa, as we have said often on this blog, the context of 'right and wrong' - ie morality, is deeply rooted and emerges in the context of honour and dishonour (shame). In English vocabulary here, that is most often verbalised in the words of 'respect' and 'disrespect'. 

Here, as an African friend and theologian had once explained, 'saying NO is very difficult for an African'. And the reason is that it is seen as disrespectful and to show disrespect is the most sinful/shameful thing a person can do. Thus to say 'Yes' to any request, command, idea or proposal (especially from elders and leaders) is respectful and right, and to say 'No' is to be disrespectful and wrong.

So it is interesting to hear the Australian Prime Minister as he heads up the "YES" vote, trying to use the motivation of 'respect'.

Australia has historically been an interesting mix of moral motivation. But from personal experience and Culture Test results, it is a nation that has been very highly motivated by a guilt-law-innocence perspective rather than an honour(respect)-relationship-shame perspective. As a country it's culture has been rooted in British monarchy but also influenced highly by the influence of the guilt-law orientation of the USA. And even the British side of things was more of experiencing the legal punishment arm of Britain, in being established as a convict colony. So along with free settlers who had no distaste for monarchy and the UK, the convicts of course had little desire for that kind of rule. In fact a previous Prime Minister Bob Hawke has apparently said that Australia was a place of 'no hierarchy of descent' or 'privilege of origin'. Australia was a place that wanted equality under a common rule of law for all, and not a place based on hierarchical familial relationships. Thus, alongside an element of respectful relationships reflective of British culture, it had become a place where relationships would be sacrificed in order to uphold rules and thus we would classify it as more of a guilt-law emphasis culture. Any concept of 'respect'  was more and more deeply entwined into the greater 'respect for rules'.

As previously discussed on this blog, Western culture, and within that Aussie culture, is shifting. Social media, multi-culturalism and a 'pendulum reaction' to supremacy of 'rules', alongside a separation from Judeo-Christian ethics that strives to bring the matters of rules and relationship together under God, has meant that especially younger generations are increasingly linking in to the part of how God made us that values respect in relationships.

However, as we yearn for respect and significance in relationships within a 'there is no God' 21st century society, we form such values outside of God's design and look for them outside of God…and thus in and from the creature, rather than the Creator. We thus begin to frame our concept of 'respect' not on giving honour to God and seeking honour from God, but giving it to people and getting it from people.

Thus the Prime-Minister didn't just talk about a 'Yes' vote showing 'respect', but that such showing 'respect' would make us 'feel good about ourselves'. In other words he asserts that a 'Yes' would demonstrate respect (and thus show you to be a good respectful person as viewed by others, in Australia and globally), and also give you a feeling of personal moral satisfaction as a good person, fulfilling a sense of purpose. The problem is that respect that is determined by what makes me feel good, is doomed for disaster.

Implications

So a few things stand out to me from this - a few things that the Aussie Christian and the Aussie church need to more and more take note of …and apply if we are to reach Aussie hearts with the gospel.

• Majority morality does not factor God in (we've known this for a long time of course)
• Majority morality has not only moved away from what pleases God, but as the bottom line also has moved away from what is best in the interest of others (although we still tell ourselves we act for the good of others and this 'respect' argument plays on that), to actually being determined and motivated by 'what makes me look morally right' in the eyes of people, and 'what makes me feel good or better about myself' 
• Majority morality is fast moving towards being oriented toward 'respectful relationships' rather than 'rule keeping'
• ...this feeds into then seeking respect from, and giving respect to, people rather than God ….and thus seeking affirmation, approval, acceptance, significance, value and identity on a human creature level rather than a Creator level.
• this provides great gospel-sharing opportunities to people who are seeking to give and receive respect and value and are searching to find a satisfying identity and purpose

So as I look at the 'Voice' debate, the 'voice' of the Prime-Minister is a 'voice' that speaks of where Australian society is at in regards to its morality and worldview. 

And thus it should remind us once again that God's 'VOICE' of the gospel needs to come to needy ears and hearts…. bringing the good news of the true honour and identity to be found in Christ before the eyes of God. For this is an identity that does not need to seek its place by affirming earthly cultures and groupings, but finds a higher more satisfying and joyful place by being part of God's family in which all people are granted an equal identity that surpasses all others and frees us from trying to find value and significance in the offers of this world. Such offers will always fail to satisfy, and will lead us away from that for which we were made and fall short, but which Jesus came to restore.

The Boy at the Gate - Grass roots honour-shame renewing of the mind.

Our study and research is all about an end-goal of practical teaching that transforms lives as we seek to help others around us learn God's ways of how honour-shame dynamics should function. Sometimes that practical application is in situations we have thought about and worked through deeply before confronting. Many other times it turns up in unexpected impromptu daily-life ways. Today's story was not only a reminder that sin is not just about disobedience but about disrespect, but was another situation of the unexpected….

It was a sunny afternoon in the village, and about the time the local children were walking home after school. 

Without any warning God landed me another situation to help others out of cultural mis-placed honour-shame dynamics and to begin to see and experience honour-shame dynamics as God desires. This time it was a group of village children.

Suddenly I had heard our gate bell ring (its a cow-bell tied to the inside of our gate that you don't even know is there unless you have been inside our yard, or seen someone else ring it.)

I was brought a message that some girls from my Saturday village girls' bible study were at the gate.  

However when I got to the gate, I discovered only one of the girls there, but she was with 2 other boys I had actually not seen before. They were all on their way home from school. The girl immediately pointed with a stick she was playing with, to the older boy, indicating it was him who had rung the bell.

But when I asked what they wanted, there was silence. 

No-one wanted to say why they were there. 

After a few more questions and the older boy particularly continuing to be sheepishly silent, I figured out that they were pulling  a prank... but for some reason they didn't actually run away when I had come to the gate….maybe because the girl knew it would be disrespectful to do that and she would be 'shamed' next bible study time if what she did was exposed.

I asked a few more times, in various ways, just to be sure if there really was a real reason for ringing the bell. Each time I asked, I just got silence, and then a hint of a smirk from the older boy. When I tried to ask the other young boy and the girl about it, they also just kept silent and pointed to the older boy.

But rather than just reprimand them for wasting my time, and then telling them to go, I thought momentarily about using it as an opportunity. I had never specifically told them previously to not ring the bell for no reason, so it wasn't a situation of saying 'why are you ringing the bell for no reason when we have told you not to do that?'

So, I firstly responded to the boy using honour-shame language, saying that if he is ringing the bell for no reason, he is being 'disrespectful'.

Well that immediately got a different response. His head dropped and he wouldn't look at me. 

When, culturally, the one major sin to avoid is 'disrespect' or 'dishonour' or 'shame', then without linking the wrong act to the wrong attitude of disrespect/dishonour, there is no conscience prod. But when sin is brought back to the dynamic of honour/respect, then the conscience starts to kick-in. And often here, especially with kids, the English honour word used is most often is 'respect/disrespect'. So the cultural context of sin that envelops the word 'disrespect' sunk in to his heart.

I talked a bit longer to the boy and the two others about how his 'playing' just for 'fun' also means I am less likely to believe him to have a genuine need next time he rings the bell, because this time was not an honest need. So ringing the bell for a joke is like not telling the truth and is making him to be seen as less trustworthy. I asked him if he wanted to be known as someone who was trustworthy? He nodded, 'yes'.

So that was progress…at least he was responding even if not verbally yet!

So then I asked again if he had a reason for ringing the bell. And, with head down again, I suddenly heard a quiet 'no' emerge from his lips. 

I thanked him for being honest, and explained that it is always honourable and never shameful in God's eyes to speak the truth.

But before they went, I said that what he needed to then do was say 'sorry Mma …. for ringing the gate without a reason...'

Well that was just too much, and he went quiet again. So I repeated myself. 

Quiet.

His head was down with eyes looking at the dirt.

The problem is that confession is self-shaming, and if culturally, shame is the big something to be avoided at all costs, he was in a difficult situation.  To respect me, he has to shame himself. He may want to restore respect but he doesn't want to self-shame (in front of me or his friends). To speak the truth meant he self-shamed. To complicate it even further, a child learns that often culturally to speak the truth is also seen as shameful if it might dishonour an elder. So a child learns that culturally it is not always acceptable to others and can be a 'wrongdoing' to speak the truth, let alone it also destroying personal honour.

So I then explained that if he said sorry, there was the offer of forgiveness, and instead of going away shamed, he could go away with the shame removed and back in a position of respect and honour.

I then further explained that God says, that to say the truth and admit (confess) wrongdoing is always respectful and honourable in His eyes, and thus also it's the same for me in this situation.

Wow! Then I heard him break his silence again with, 'I'm sorry' …and he then continued to say fully what he was sorry for.

So then I said 'I forgive you'. 

He looked sincerely a mixture of relief and confusion and puzzlement and wonder. He had probably not ever had such an interaction or experience of forgiveness and shame-removal in that way before.

I then explained again that his disrespectful bell-ringing shamed him, but now his truth-telling and admitting/confessing his sin was honourable and respectful again…so now with my forgiveness he could leave and continue on his way with respect (honour) in the relationship again instead of shame. I re-iterated that is how it is with God…telling the truth and admitting and confessing sin is never shameful in God's eyes, it restores honour in the relationship.

As he left, and walked with his friends toward home, he still seemed a bit bewildered by the whole event…but his head wasn't down, and although as he left I heard some interaction indicating that he seemed to want to brush over the embarrassment of the incident with his friends, I pray God would etch that experience and conversation into his memory, and even if I never see him again, that he will one day remember that God's way of honour is different from his culture's way, and God's way is the only way that truly sets us free from the bondage and shame of our sin.

The Cross Solution to our Sin Problem is Rooted in an Honour-shame Answer in Genesis

Photo Credit

Ken Ham of the organisation 'Answers in Genesis' has often stated how that all the issues of life have their answers rooted in Genesis 1-11

So when we might wonder what these issues of honour and shame are all about, or if they are critical to making disciples and having a right gospel understanding of salvation and sanctification, or if they might have a vital part to play in solving the problems of our world, we will not go wrong to look in Genesis.

We don't have to go far into that first book of the Bible to discover God's great honourable plan of creation, and then the entry of shameful sin into our world. And in the midst of the story we also begin to see the first glimpses of what would be required to provide a solution to the sin problem which damaged God's honourable creation.  Let me summarise in 3 points.

Honour in the beginning

1. In the beginning God…

- that's the first statement of honour….God's holy and honourable presence is the foundational setting for the entire universe, including us

2. God created…and it was good

- all that God created was good - God's good creation gives glory (honour) to God because it reflects Him and fulfils the creator's purpose and carries out His will

3. In His image

- God created human beings 'in his image'. Human beings were created with an honourable status above all other creation - of being in God's image. Human beings were the crowning glory of God displaying His glory. Humans were created in his glory for his glory.

4. Unashamed

The final word of chapter 2 is 'unashamed'. The final word of how God describes his pre-fall sin-free world in Scripture, is 'unashamed'. To be without shame is to be in a place of full honour. People were able to live as God created them with no barriers between them and God and between each other as humans. They were free to live in the honour in which they were created.

Shame enters the story

1. The Situation Changes

The serpent comes with the temptation to eat the fruit. Some will say it was a temptation of disobedience to God's command. And that certainly was part of it. But a temptation to disobey a command is just a result of something else happening prior to this…and that is a disregard or 'dishonouring' of the command-giver. 

Adam and Eve failed to enquire of the Lord first (in other words 'pray'), to think about God first in their situation. Honouring God as God, their Creator and life-giver somehow vanished from their radar.  In commenting on this another blogger noted that 'man doesn't account for God because he believes he doesn't need God'. So underneath the disobedience was a mind that aleady didn't adequately prioritise God or factor God in, and underneath that was a belief that God was not needed for and irrelevant to the situation. 

Now all this can happen in our mind and thinking in a fraction of a second, like it probably did for Adam and Eve.  But it happened because Eve had somehow been more pre-occupied with, and already moved closer to the tree that God had prohibited, rather than staying in what God had gifted. Without realising she had already increased her opportunity for temptation. 

Maybe she had already allowed the eyes of her heart to wander away from thankfulness (honouring) and satisfaction in the sufficiency that God would provide for her, to dishonouring God by elevating/honouring her own opinions/assessments which in turn fed thoughts of dis-satisfaction that God was with-holding something from her.  

I don't say this just from supposition, but also because in 2 Corinthians 11:3 Paul uses the context of Eve succumbing to the deceptive cunning of the serpent in the garden in Genesis to explain that we as Christians can be easily 'led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ'. He doesn't say anything about actions of disobedience but being 'corrupted' from a heart attitude of sincerity and purity in Christ. And that word 'corrupted' comes from the Greek phtheiró whose root meaning according to Helps Word Studies is a 'moving down from a higher level (quality, status) to a lower form'…in other words a loss of honour. Eve's problem, like ours, is a temptation to move away from God being the one to whom we give honour, and from whom we seek our honour.

Ken Ham in a message at an Easter conference in 2019 proposed what he calls the 'Genesis 3 Attack' and that Eve's problem was that she fell for the same temptation that we can all have to question the word of God. This I would suggest is simply another way of saying we have a temptation to not honour God and His Word as we should (Romans 1:21; 2 Thessalonians 3:1). So again, we have emerging in Genesis a context of 'dishonour' that enters the world and underlies the fruit of disobedience.

So by Genesis chapter 3 verse 10….just 10 verses later, Adam and Eve are in a vastly different situation. Honour is lost and shame enters.

Now, Adam and Eve are suddenly aware of something new (nakedness) they had never felt before. They felt vulnerable and exposed for the first time, and they instinctively wanted to cover themselves and hide in fear. No-one had yet explained why they felt this way…but it was such an overwhelming awareness and feeling that it dramatically changed how they acted toward God and his creation and toward each other. It was so powerful it consumed their focus and guided their decision making. 

2. Alienation and fearful Separation emerges in place of Fellowship and Joyful Togetherness

What was joyful open relationship with God suddenly altered and they felt pulled away from the freedom of walking with God. We can only imagine what it must have felt like to suddenly sense shameful separation after only knowing the joy and honour of full fellowship with God.

3. Human efforts to cover our shame don't work 

- Rev Clive  …. the preacher at St Andrew's Cathedral in Sydney last week (as I watched online), interestingly did not emphasise guilt in this Genesis story, but repeatedly emphasised shame. Maybe his Indian ethnic background and ministry focus helps him to recognise the presence and significance of shame in the 'Fall' story, and makes him less vulnerable to the Western presumptions of guilt as the main factor. His observation, I would suggest is 'spot-on'. The issue is primarily about shame. 

Shame makes us want to hide and to cover. We can feel shame long before we understand any guilt-law association. Evidence of a law-breaking is helpful not because it is the critical factor, but because it reveals to us what God already knows before we know it, and shows us what we need to know. Disobeying a law simply reveals a heart that had moved to a place of dishonouring the law-giver. Adam and Eve ate the fruit because they first listened to and believed the lie of the tempter that it might be nice to have the honour of becoming what they were told was 'wise'. They were attracted to an idea that they could be 'more' or 'greater', and thus made a choice to try to access that potential higher status and power. But of course the lie only brought the opposite of honour….and they suddenly felt shame.

Salvation's picture presented

Genesis goes on to show us more of the honour-shame context of sin, and its remedy:

1. Only God Can Cover Our Shame

After his statement that 'human effort to cover our shame just won't work', Rev Clive in his sermon also then said 'human religion never works, God himself must cover our shame'.. 

there are two interesting issues to note here…

a. he insightfully equates 'human religion' with 'human effort to cover our shame'. 

Let's think about this a little more….

Whatever the 'brand' or 'style' or 'cultural requirements', at the heart he recognises that any human religious effort is an effort to find a way to overcome, or outweigh, or cover-up or hide from our shame. Whether that is finding fig-leaves, or re-defining adultery to just being 'consensual sex' or denying that homosexuality is outside of God's plan, or lying to protect a risk of shame to our reputation, or avoiding showing up at a food van or homeless shelter even though we need help because we feel ashamed, or committing suicide rather than go home and face the family after being fired from a job, we are seeking ways to avoid or deny or rid ourselves of shame. 

Religion in its various forms offers ways to join a group or embrace an ideology or do good works or find absolution or redefine what is shameful and not shameful…and becomes a 'way' in which we follow and try to find peace, acceptance, and welcome for our hearts that at the deepest level are aware of some kind of inadequacy - a 'falling short'.

b. The skin's covering was to cover shame

Rev Clive then read chapter 3 verse 21: 'the Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them', and pointed out that God got the 'skin' from somewhere and it wasn't like animal skins were just lying around. The skin had to come from an animal. This is something that most Christians are fully aware of, but we often don't make the honour-shame connection. He goes on to unhesitantly say that 'the first sacrifice in the bible is actually performed by God, to cover the sin of humanity, to cover our shame'. He then later points out that this was just a small glimpse of the eternal plan of God to 'send His only Son Jesus to be the perfect sacrifice to cover the sins of the whole world'.

He said:

 'God's ways are higher than our ways, our ways are to grasp at being like God and to blame others to justify ourselves and try to cover our shame, but when the Son of God came into the world, he didn't grasp at being equal with God but humbled himself and made himself nothing'…'he didn't blame others but instead died to take the blame for all of our sins and cover our shame'

2.The Curse Foretells a Coming Honour Restoration 

The curse given to the snake - of permanently travelling on his belly down in the dust, and the promise given that the woman's seed would have his heel bruised but Satan would have his head bruised (Genesis 3:14-15) are also a picture of a future hope of punishment and remedy for our sin-shame condition. Satan would not get away with his deception, but shame would be his lot, and ultimate victory honour would belong to a Saviour to come, who would conquer Satan. Satan may have thought he succeeded in messing up God's design and succeeded in separating humans from God and from each other and having them ejected and rejected from the garden. But in another garden the Saviour said 'not my will but yours be done' and became our shame-bearer, and then in yet another garden he rose victorious over the final shame-separation of death….so that we could join him in honour in a new garden one day in a new heavens and earth (Revelation 21:1; 22:2).

To Conclude…..

Verses like Romans 4:7 remind us that the gospel is not just about lawless deeds being forgiven but about sins being covered, so that as we are told in Romans 9:33 'whoever believes in Him will not be put to shame'.

Romans 8:21,30 and Colossians 1:27 remind us that the gospel is about restoring glory that was lost.

The gospel is the 'honour' answer to the 'shame' problem. It is the grace given to us in Christ - the second Adam (the one who would bruise the head of Satan and provide the perfect covering for sin) that provides undeserved honour in place of the shame (that began with the first Adam in the Garden of Eden).

Sin is inherently a shame problem. 

Guilt is not meant to be the core of the story, guilt from disobedience is just the signpost that reveals and points us to the deeper issue, the deeper need and the deeper remedy. 

Once again Genesis shows us the foundation of what we need to know….don't miss it!

Easter Women and the Honour of Knowledge

photo credit - Sunday School Zone

As I write, the International Women's Day with this year's theme of 'Embrace Equity', has just passed, and Easter is just a couple of weeks away.

I have various messages from the first still lingering in my mind, and various contexts of the second beckoning me to think on them once again.

But this year for some reason those two issues have seemed to intersect for me in a fresh way.

The World's Confusion about Women

International Women's Day is often an opportunity for championing women's rights of various kinds. It might be highlighting the difficulties women in some countries have just to be able to drive a car or be seen in the streets. Or it might be giving awards to women, or highlighting high achieving women in sports or community. 

But of course we live in a crazy 21st century mostly God-less world. So this year it was reported that the USA First Lady awarded a women's 'courage award' to a biological man. And then in other quarters recently it seemed some leaders in the world struggled to even define a 'woman'. So, as the world on one hand wants to promote the 'rights' of women, it is at the same time undermining the meaning and value of who a woman even is.

When a world sadly ignores or rejects God this should come as no surprise.

On the other hand, Easter is a great time to be reminded that God knows and cares about women. He created the gender distinction with clear biological sexual markers and is deeply concerned about the women in this world, just as much as He is concerned about the men in this world. He doesn't need a 'Women's Day' in order to properly value women.

The Concern of Christ for Women

A reading of the gospels brings clear reminders of how Jesus' showed honour to women who were not culturally honoured, giving them equal value alongside men, on many levels. 

One of these ways was in regard to knowledge and learning. Like Paul explains (Acts 22:3) that he sat 'at the feet' of Gamaliel, it was common for a man to be a 'disciple' of a great teacher and learn in this way. 

So when we read in Luke 10 about Mary sitting and learning at the feet of Jesus as her 'rabbi' (teacher), this has counter-cultural significance. The average Jewish man would have found this unacceptable. Jesus not only allowed the situation of a woman being in the position of one of his devoted 'disciples' but endorsed it as being of even greater value (thus honour) than doing the normal culturally expected household tasks associated with the cultural honour of a woman. So while he may have chosen men as His core disciples and be the ones to later lead the post-pentecost church, He also promoted the idea of women having the opportunity to learn and grow in their understanding of Biblical truth and even be in a position of what we might call today a 'theology student'. 

One of the ways in which honour is culturally assigned in any culture is related to who has knowledge (or access to knowledge) and who does not.

Here in Africa, traditionally an oral society, knowledge (particularly cultural knowledge but not limited to that) is something still seen very much as a sign of honour status. It gains a person a level of superiority above others, not only through power of how to use that knowledge more than someone else, but simply having others realise that some people have a certain exclusivity to access certain knowledge.

But the issue is not limited to the culture of Jesus' day or of Africa. I couldn't tell you how many times in my school days (too many to count) when someone would proudly chant: 'I know something you don't know'! It was a statement of superiority and higher importance and greater status than others.

Even today, there is a sense where the degree to which women are given access to certain fields of study, is taken as the signal of whether women are considered equally mentally competent to learn something that may have been previously considered only for men to learn.

While Jesus (as Creator) knows perfectly why He chooses to have men in certain leadership roles, it is in no way a reason to say he thought of women as having 'less' value as people or as disciples. 

*we must be careful to differentiate between a woman's identity value as a human being and member of the body of Christ, and her activity roles which very much depend on how God created us to be  having differing skills, strengths, weaknesses, physical capabilities and calling, and thus hold differing positions from men in some instances, both in human society as a whole and within the church (see a previous blog post on understanding this often mis-understood vital distinction).

Jesus made it clear that women could and should learn and have equal value in that regard. They didn't need to gain their sense of identity and honour from what was culturally expected of them, nor did they need to feel angry or threatened by those who moved away from having culture as defining and directing them and had rather chosen Christ to be their standard and Lord.

All of Scripture shows God's counter-cultural view of women, from including women in the earthly genealogy/lineage of Jesus (Rahab, Ruth, Tamar, Bathsheba and of course Mary) to using someone like Esther to be the means of saving the Jews from extinction and annihilation, we are shown in Scripture that Jesus not only valued women but chose women for critical service to Him and His people. 

The Gospel, and Women at the Cross

I find it very interesting how all of Jesus' disciples forsook him (except for John  - John 19:25-29), being unwilling to risk being associated with the shame of the cross. And yet we have recorded that it was the women who were willing (along with John) to be seen supporting and being identified with the shame of the cross. They stood watching when others had abandoned Jesus.

Then along with Nicodemus, it was women who were concerned about showing honour to Christ, and who visited the tomb despite the difficulty, discouragement and shaming they may have faced. But their love for their Lord outweighed such obstacles. And thus it was the women who were the first to learn of the good news of the resurrection - while the men were hiding away in fear. It was Mary Magdalene who was the first to see and talk with the risen Christ, and it was her and a couple of other women, to whom Jesus gave the first 'go, tell' gospel (good news) 'commission' (Matthew 28:7; Mark 16:9).

It is easy in a Western setting to miss the significance of this occasion. In the West we are generally used to women being supposed to have some level of equality to men. In the West we are also not as cognitively attuned to the realities of how honour and shame play out in many other cultural social contexts. We may not notice or be impressed by the fact that the culturally less-thought-of women are the 'first' to see the risen Christ, speak with and be spoken to by the risen Christ, and be entrusted first with the message of the risen Christ.

Women were culturally more in the category of 'last' than 'first', but here Jesus' puts life to his previous but profoundly honour-oriented words, about the 'last shall be first'.  

Here, the women were elevated to 'first'. They became the first ones to have the most important knowledge ever gained - 'He is not here, He is Risen'!

The Gospel, and Women on Commission

Matthew 28:19-20 gives us the most well known 'Great Commission' verse…

...But it is also the chapter (28:7) that gives us the description of the instance of the first post-resurrection gospel message 'sending' out. This wasn't the 'go into all the world' message, but before that could be given to the disciples, the disciples had to hear, comprehend and believe the resurrection message themselves. 

It was women who were sent by Jesus to 'go quickly and tell' the message to the disciples who for all kinds of reasons had closed their minds to even the possibility of such a reality. 

The men were still locked away and focused on themselves and their own fears and shame risks, and although they had had the privilege for 3 years of being the most deeply exposed to the Truth, at that point they were missing the most significant truth of all. Thomas was so filled with doubts about this new 'unbelievable' and maybe heretical message, he took quite a bit of extra convincing. They had got locked into only part of the story, part of the truth and were missing the most important factor.

Instead, it was the women who were the first to hear and know what must have been the most profound relief and joy of their lives - their Saviour was alive, there was no reason for shame, for hiding, for fear. Though the world might shame them for association with the cross, they knew this good news turned all that upside-down…or right-side-up. They now knew that the cross was not the end, the shame was not the end, the resurrection victory had been won and Christ's honour had been not only restored but magnified. This was not a message to hide from, but to share.

The gospel is a message which not only overcomes the shame of sin, but it also is a message which overcomes ungodly social shame boundaries and brings new value to a person. To understand we are all equal in value as God's created human beings in His image (which sadly our modern world has rejected), is a gift of inherent fundamental honour, but in Christ we are given the further ascribed honour of being 'in Christ' where there is no male or female, slave or free, Jew or Gentile. No gender, social position or ethnicity matters or determines such foundational value. We don't have to switch genders, or change social position, or achieve great feats, or share 'sameness' in appearance or capacity, or try to redefine or rely on our ethnicity for significance. This is wonderful good news.

The gospel is something which we all equally have the opportunity to rejoice in, and the responsibility to share.

This Easter, be reminded of what good news about 'honour' the gospel message truly brings…and then 'go quickly and tell' it to others.

Nationality and Ethnicity Can Never Fulfill Humanity's Desire for Identity

*Nationality

*Ethnicity

*Identity

Once again, foundational issues both in world events and Australian politics in the lead-up to the federal election, seem to be intersecting with so much of what Africa has taught us about honour and shame….and as Christians, how we desperately need to develop a strong biblical theology of honour and shame. Without it, we not only fail to understand our world, but can then also fail to bring clear, appropriate solutions to our world.

Something which has emerged as a common thread in all the above settings is the issue of national or ethnic identity. We might call it national pride, or tribal identity, or tribal totem, or nationalism, or patriotism. Call it what we may, in essence it is all the same thing.

However, while glorying in, or having pride in, or fighting for, our national identity or ethnicity is often held up as noble and right….

…. it can become a problem when it is supreme and not held carefully and submissively under our identity in God our Father and Creator, and in Christ our Redeemer and Saviour.

When earthly  identity or identities direct and determine our goals and choices or what we live for and uphold at any cost….we enter the zone of disappointment, of disillusionment, and ultimately of destruction. We lose perspective, and the very thing we aim to preserve - our personhood - (who we are), is what we will ultimately lose. Who we were created to be will be subsumed in cultural constraints, and we will succeed only in fulfilling 'less' of the humanity God intended for us, not more.

First We See This in Our Current World Events…..

What is it that drives a fight in which both sides believe they are fighting for nationalistic pride and identity, and which each side believes is at risk of being lost?….identity honour!

Russia (under its leader) is fighting for its 'glory'!

Ukrainians (under their leader) are seen shouting and affirming 'glory to Ukraine'!

While that current battle is seen on our screens night after night, it can seem a problem 'over there' , for 'those people'. But what about us?

But...This is not a 'their problem', but an 'our problem', and more than we might first realise. 

It might not turn up in our lives in quite the same way, but it is lurking there none-the-less for every person on the planet. And sadly it makes us very vulnerable to Satan's schemes of 'attractive' ways to enhance, promote or protect our desire for identity and to seek it in earthly identity forms.

Also in the African Context

….time and again tribal identity issues are raised. Africans will often not even first identify by their country, but rather by their tribe. It is such fighting for tribal identity superiority that fuelled the Rwandan genocide and was said to be the cause of political issues in Kenya. It's what fuels arguments about national budget allocations and presidential candidates.

What About the Australian Context?

Here is another example of the same problem of finding our identity-honour in the form of our earthly cultural identity.

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price (an indigenous Australian who is a Senate candidate for the Northern Territory) explained in a recent interview with ACL, that while there is a desire by some Australians to see Aboriginals hang onto all traditional culture and keep their full Indigenous identity, it's not that simple….. She explained the clash between customary law (traditional culture) and Australian law, and was asked, in considering that clash, can the two systems work in one place?

Her short answer was no it can't!

While she considers herself a 'traditionalist' in some regards, she says she has seen how traditions also encourage some of the violence in the indigenous communities….she also talked about how she believes the Aboriginal culture has not had their 'enlightenment' like the West had.**  She also sees that customary law flies in the face of Australian laws which desire to protect the rights of women and children.

She talked about neglect and abuse of children in traditional settings and gave examples, but how that sadly some in the cities try to say that instead of indigenous children being given opportunities in abuse-free settings that require them being out of their cultural settings, they should be kept in their cultural settings. But as Jacinta pointed out, it is these cultural settings that provide cultural 'permission' for the abuse of those children.

(she gave an example of a child who was literally wandering the streets, was mute, was discovered he had been sexually abused, and because his mother and father had got together outside the normal permitted 'kinship' bounds, he was considered cultural 'rubbish' and was thus abused and neglected. So the best thing for the boy, and the only option if he was going to grow and flourish was to be taken care of in a family totally outside the cultural context where instead of being treated as rubbish, he would be loved and cherished.)

She believes it's not about upholding culture but about upholding human rights, and that right now indigenous children are being failed because of a warped ideology. She believes Australia should be consistent across the country when it concerns the lives of Australian citizens. There shouldn't be unequal standards of care for one set of Australian citizens and another for other citizens. She believes there should be one law for all Australians because indigenous Australians are Australians and non-indigenous Australians are also Australians. She wants to fight for that from a parliamentary position.

I certainly stand with her in wanting more appropriate care for Australian indigenous people especially children.

But, it is interesting that the foundation from which she is fighting this, is the desire that above whether a person is white or black, indigenous or not, above all they are Australians. She is essentially fighting for dignity based on an identity 'above' indigenous.

However, while her cause is noble, I believe it's going to take more than that to enable a change at indigenous community level to let go of traditional culture. Not because of issues of how it affects children, but because any effect on children is culturally secondary to that of the cultural imperatives that require a preserving of culture in order to maintain cultural identity. There is no category on an earthly level to enable a person to be able to let go of culture, yet still have an identity. 

To say one should let go of indigenous culture in order to be 'an Australian', might sound and feel a 'higher' identity for Jacinta and be a terrific goal to aim for, but it will most likely feel to her people like she is asking them to forsake their own culture for just another alternative earthly culture on the same 'level'. 

In fact it may not even be seen as on the 'same level'….because the indigenous Australian believes they have an ancestral connection to the land and the need to maintain honour of those ancestors is paramount - no amount of earthly reasoning will make it seem worthwhile to give that up in order to supposedly be fully and 'equally' 'Australian'. I think she is missing how spiritually deep-rooted the cultural beliefs are held and thus determine identity.

The belief isn't just about logical treatment of children. The belief is about ancestral honour. It's a spiritual belief. Jacinta believes that traditional beliefs can still be upheld at one level while trying to achieve letting go of traditional beliefs (like forced marriage, beating of wives, or kinship honour that results in neglect of children etc) at another level. 

Some would say she feels justified to pick and choose which traditions go and which stay….based on how she sees Western culture of the recent past. But that Western culture came about through its own changes brought about by Judeo-Christian ethics in Biblical Christian revival. But those changes didn't occur as simple cultural evolution which she seems to assume, but because of Christ's transformation in hearts which we were privileged to live in the light of, for several following generations in the West.

The Only True Solution

Yes, whatever can be done to help care for the helpless and vulnerable indigenous children is to be applauded and hopefully Jacinta can have great impact if she is elected.

But….

The only 'cultural identity' sufficiently above both European and Indigenous 

so as to enable cultural change, 

is not simply 'Australian', but 'Christ-ian'. 

Once we are in Christ where there is no Jew or Greek (Gal 3:28), ironically we are then free to be either Jew or Greek or both (like Paul becoming all things to all men - 1 Cor 9:19-20) without fearing cultural identity loss, to the degree that our cultural ways don't usurp our new identity in Christ. While there is no 'Jew' or 'Greek' nationality, Christ's body still will include people that can be identified as coming from every nation/ethnicity. We don't lose our earthly categories alltogether, but they cease to be our primary identity source and authority. As Christians, only then can we let go of being English, or African or German or Japanese or Indigenous (of whichever tribe), and just all be Australian….because then we don't have to have a foot in two cultures, or hang onto our earthly culture in order to have identity, so we are free to take up whichever 'lesser' identity is needed on an earthly level as we submit it all to our greater 'Christ-ian' identity.

Alister, the co-host of the ACL interview with Jacinta, rightly explained that every culture on this earth has sin issues, and problems lurking within them, and they all have aspects that need godly correction. That is so true…because without that acknowledgement, and thus a willingness to let go of those things and submit to whatever God defines as our ultimate identity and honour, we will fight to keep hanging onto the threads of what we believe holds together who we 'are'.

Otherwise, to loosen or lose those threads means losing identity, which means losing 'human-ness', which means losing one's foundation and reason for living….and no-one willingly does that unless they take on what they believe to be a 'greater' or 'higher' or 'more honourable' supreme identity both now and in the future.

We can easily ridicule the 'woke' world for fighting about identity politics all the time, but its not a meaningless fight for those in it…and they are fighting for it because they have 'banked' all their identity in it, in their efforts to find who they are apart from God their Creator or any religious view of God or a 'god' at all.

It's only in Christ that we become willing to 'give up' who we think we 'are', to discover in Him who we really are meant 'to be'. It's only in Christ that we don't have to feel we must fight to the bitter end for our earthly identities and try to eliminate others who oppose us.

Let us be examples of what it means to live with our identity rooted in Christ above any earthly culture or tradition or law. 

And let us strive to more clearly understand and share how the gospel brings a new identity, which both keeps our earthly identities to some degree, but also at the same time frees us from them, ...and enables us to love one another honouring the dignity of other human beings, and most of all to honour God through our identity in Christ.

**the enlightenment that Jacinta refers to and influenced the West to change and move forward to greater respect for human dignity etc, was spawned not just by some abstract movement but was preceded by Luther and the Protestant Reformation. It was a returning to God and his Word and seeking to live according to His Will for human beings above all (even above church politics and systems), that provided the freedom for people to live as God created them to live with their first and highest identity in Christ not belonging to or 'in' anything else this earth offers.

Fighting for Freedom - A Cross-cultural look: Part 5 - Being Human

As we conclude this series on fighting for freedom, often in discussions about freedoms, it seems to be a battle for arguments for and against particular types of freedoms or lack thereof. It can feel like it is a topic that is only about conflicts and differing opinions and goals.

But what if we recognised that underneath it all, we are all fighting for the same thing.

Firstly we are all fighting for what we think is 'right'. We are fighting for what we believe is good, beneficial and useful to us for our wellbeing and happiness in whatever way we define those things.  The problem is that we differ on what we think is 'right'….and that depends significantly on our worldview, whether we know Christ as Lord or not, or how much our society has influenced us and how much we have allowed God to transform and renew our minds according to his Word.

But secondly, we are all fighting not just for freedom for the ability to do certain human actions in daily life, but we are fighting for the freedom to be the human beings we believe we should be. 

We don't just want the ability to make certain daily decisions and act accordingly, we more fundamentally want dignity!

It is from whatever we believe is human dignity (honour) of being, that we derive what we believe should be human freedoms of decision for our doing.

Thus deep down, we are fighting for the freedoms that are rooted in the hunger of humans for honour.

Our desire for freedom is….the fight to be fully human - based on whatever you believe is 'being fully human'….you want the full dignity of that status acknowledged and allowed, and you see any restriction on living in the full dignity (honour) of being human as one and the same as restricting your rights to freedom.

Essentially it is a desire to be free to be you….

Free to be you?

Now, while that phrase fills our world, and some of you might be thinking that 'free to be me' is just plain sinful thinking….let us just pause a moment and think more deeply about this:

God created us as humans - we are meant to be human - we are meant to be who we were created to be.

If your worldview context includes God as Creator then you desire the freedom to be who you were created by God to be, and if some authority restricts that you will feel your created human dignity is being eroded.

But if it does not include God as Creator then you still desire the freedom to enjoy human dignity. However, either your society (if you submit to its demands) or yourself, becomes the measuring stick of what it means to be 'human', and what it therefore means to have 'dignity' (honour) ….and thus what it means to have 'freedom' ….and thus what 'freedoms' you will fight for believing that violations of certain freedoms are a threat to your—human—dignity (honour).

We see this awareness of being treated as 'less than human' and thus without (or with less) dignity, in things like:

Slavery - long been seen as treating people 'less than human' - to be 'owned' by another human and thus not allowed to make any choices about their own life - where to live, what to eat, what to wear, when to wake up, when to sleep, with whom to have sex and preventing them from owning anything themselves or being able to earn, buy and sell with their own money or tradable goods.

…and as an aside (but important aside)….I believe it was rightly observed and pointed out in a lecture by Martyn Isles that many women in our modern world feel that 'serving an employer is freedom and serving a family is slavery'…and this feeds an ungodly notion that a woman who does not have a paid job outside the home is not 'fully' who she should be…the inference is she is not fully the person (human) she is meant to be. When she believes this lie, she then 'fights' for the chance for the power of freedom beyond the home because she feels the home is a place where she is 'enslaved' (…to the kitchen sink, as is sometimes sarcastically - but harmfully - said)

Victim mentality - throws shame on your opponent and thus when you are successful at shaming someone else (lowering their status, image, reputation). It by default 'elevates' you - (raises your position relative to the opponent) to feeling restored to some degree in human honour, or at least higher than (looking down on) those who threaten what you believe is your right to human dignity ( honour).

Lockdowns - in these COVID years, lockdowns became no just a momentary sacrifice or inconvenience (especially in Melbourne, Australia who gained the sad reputation of being the most locked-down city in the world), but apart from the huge financial stress, it becomes a threat to being able to have the dignity of work, the dignity (sometimes called self-worth) of having a job (as opposed to being unemployed or a failed businessman or businesswoman), the dignity of providing for your family, and the fear of not being able to do those things, of feeling a failure….it is linked to being properly 'human' in its fullest sense.

Government control - whether it be lockdowns or masks or QR code check-ins or 'quarantine' regulations, people fear not having the freedom to 'determine their own destiny' - to choose how they live out their humanity, and to live to the full in the dignity of their humanity.  Again if you believe in God the Creator then your dignity is defined and directed by confidences and assurances of his design and the destiny that he has for you. But if you deny or ignore God and leave that all to society or yourself you will live according to how well you can control your ability to live in accordance with your idea of what defines the dignity of being human. Some people also substitute the authority of government for the authority of God in their lives and the government becomes where they put their trust, hope and confidence for guidance and safety.

African view of evil - evil is the disrupter/destroyer of virtue - where virtue is considered to be goodness and living in virtue is seen as being human - anything that inhibits what is believed to be part of the virtue of being human in community with other humans, is looked on as restricting/inhibiting the freedom to be full humans. This is not so different in all communities to one degree or another.

Poverty - is seen as preventing some people having the ability to enjoy the basic human food and shelter requirements for good health and safety, or even education, in order to have equal opportunity to social position and ability to care adequately for themselves and their family.

War dehumanises society - it involves people killing other human beings in order to preserve the dignity and freedoms of their own society. Human beings become enemies and a danger to each other instead of working together. It 'tears down' instead of 'building up' people and societies. It destroys business, breaks apart families, leaves children as orphans, ruins supply of goods and services etc etc. 

LGBTQ+ - separate of the issue that these are distortions of God's plan, people who categorise themselves this way feel that they are 'excluded' from acceptance in mainstream society and thus thought of as not as having equal human value as others, and thus they fight for what they believe is their identity as a human being.

Segregation - whether it be Apartheid or Vaccine passports, to be treated as 'not acceptable' to fully participate in community life along with everyone else is to be seen as less than equally valued and embraced as human, or prevented from full human participation in society. To be excluded from what other humans are doing, can make a person feel 'less than' others in value and dignity. It is the same concept of lepers in bible times who were excluded from society. When COVID-19 quarantine hotels were first instigated people made comments about how they felt like they were 'ashamed' because of the 'exclusion' they had to experience.

Ultimately, underlying all this is the inbuilt desire to 'be human'. Whether we understand it or not, or articulate it clearly or not, or even recognise it or not, ….because we were designed to be what we were created to be—human, it is what we seek to be. 

We are not 'accidentally' human, just like we are not 'accidentally' male and female as humans. We did not by chance, evolve to what we are, nor are we continuing to evolve into higher forms of humanity or into some other form of life. We were designed as uniquely humans, in God's image, within God's greater eternal divine purposes for his creation.

However, because of mankind's fall into sin, we are no longer fully what we were created to be. Human beings - as male and female - were created to have the honour of being in relationship with God. That is not some optional extra and nice addition to human existence like a bonus add-on, it is the very core of our being, reason for living, hope for the present and future, and what should define the root of our human identity.  

But its gone. 

And we search for this dignity of being 'human' because in its place all we have is shame, whether we fully realise it or not. We are not 'satisfied' and we 'feel' a need for something more that will give us true human dignity.

…interestingly, here in Africa, when a baby is born it is not considered yet fully human but grows into being fully human as it grows into higher and higher levels of relationship status within a community. Both evolution - which believes humanity evolves into higher and higher states of skill and communication and community over time (from apes to neandathol man to present man to ??? in the future), and African tradition seem to have a underlying awareness that humanity as it is 'lacks' something, and has needed and does need to 'progress'. The lie that is believed by both is that such 'progress' occurs, when in reality the longer a human being is alive and humanity continues, without the intervention of Christ, it does not progress but it continues on its path of regression - further and further away from the Creator with whom we were created to enjoy the honour of relationship.

But in this we see that there is a sense or sub-conscious awareness that being human is not just a 'physical' and 'biological' state, but a 'belonging' state and of 'knowing honour and value in relationship' state. …and we cannot escape that….

Our identity is rooted in what we understand to be our humanity. 

We are meant to be in right relationship with God and thus right relationship with the other humans God has made, and we seek for the peace and happiness of such relationship. But when we reject, ignore or reduce the part that God should play in our humanity, we don't just move on and still find all is well. Instead we continue to seek what we have lost, and seek it in all the wrong places. We seek to be human apart from the God who made and designed us as human. 

The first place we seek to find that lost human identity and honour is from relationships with other humans, especially with those who for some reason we feel we share some commonalities, shared goals or shared struggles. We may feel shamed and afraid when alone but that is eased when others welcome and accept us. But its just a warped shadow of the honour we are meant to know in relationship with God. 

Instead of giving to others from what God has given us, we begin wanting to get from others what we are meant to get from God. 

But we don't get from others what we hoped for. 

And what we get from others doesn't satisfy. 

Some give up and seek to exit life on earth, others accept this is all there is and seek to get as much from it as they can in this life on earth with little regard for anyone except themselves. Others try to redefine what it means to be human, to be someone of worth, to be male, to be female, so that it will fit their own ideas and sinful fallenness and they can feel they have 'achieved' it. Others keep searching.

In the West we have gone a step further and told ourselves that the answer lies in not only ignoring God's definition and design for being human, but we don't need to look to others either. We tell ourselves that we are sufficient as individuals to define our identity and thus should have the freedom to design a form of living according to that which we believe will make us feel the honour of being 'fully human', content and complete, satisfied and secure. But it doesn't and it won't.

*It bears consideration that…..To be 'human' as human beings created by God, we must acknowledge we are not all-knowing and thus we are not sufficient to determine what is best for us or what is true. Not only do we need God, but under God we need each other and the exchange of ideas and perspectives of insight that we all bring to the extensiveness of humanity. We should be free to think, analyse, gain knowledge, listen carefully to others even if they disagree, and above all bring all this together in the pursuit of what is true and best. To disallow certain people from speaking respectfully about their perspective and letting them be heard, while allowing others is to show partiality and inhibit humanity. It not only excludes and segregates but it ultimately steals from humanity the very broadening of knowledge under God that will benefit it and help us be 'human'. This is why the freedom to express varied ideas and opinions even if they differ from our own, to challenge each other, and stretch each others thinking is so important.

Some people in their desire to have freedom to 'live out' their humanity, want to shut down those who they feel are a threat to their opinion, cause or belief by which they have defined their idea of being 'human'. They are fearing what they believe is the freedom of their human dignity. But they don't realise that these Devil's offerings of 'freedom' are in fact bondage in 'freedom' language clothing.

True freedom of being truly human only comes through a new human identity in the second Adam - Jesus Christ. We were created as 'human' by the Divine and it is only through the Divine-who-became-human that we can individually be born again so as to belong together in a new humanity on God's design terms. 

Let us not belittle or deride the desires of others to pursue what they believe is the 'dignity of being human', but lets pray to be better bearers of the good news of how to know a new identity in the true humanity in Christ, to a desperately searching but hopelessly lost world.