Εἰ δέ τις οὐχ ὑπακούει τῷ λόγῳ ἡμῶν διὰ
τῆς ἐπιστολῆς, τοῦτον σημειοῦσθε μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι αὐτῷ, ἵνα ἐντραπῇ[1] (2 Thess.
3:14)
It was in the context of this type of culture that the New Testament
documents came into being. In the group culture of Mediterranean peoples, the
honor-shame system was quite powerful and the language of this culture
dominates much of the NT writings. An understanding of such social practices contributes
a great deal to biblical studies. It was important to be an honorable person
and to be viewed by society at large as honorable. Society had values by which
one would maintain and even increase in honor. Of course, the opposite of this
is true as well. If one did not live up to those values, they would be shamed.
Hardly anything is worse in that culture than being shamed. It drove Judas to
suicide. Enter the Christian group. The Christian group was very small and very
distinct. Repeatedly, the NT writers fill their time writing and preaching
about the divine values brought to them by the revelation of God in Christ.
These values serve to identify who you are as a person. A person could not pass
themselves off as Christian unless he or she lived by these values. And on
those occasions where the effort was made to do so, the consequences were clear
and could prove severe. This is what Paul had in mind as he penned this
sentence to the Church at Thessalonica.
But if anyone does not obey our word by this letter, mark this
person and do not associate with him in order that he might be shamed. NAS
In a pluralistic culture like ours, the standard for what is right
is a variable as the daily returns on the stock market. The sense of
entitlement fits nicely within a pluralistic framework. After all, not only
will I determine what is honorable and noble and right myself, I am without a
doubt entitled to make such determinations. The level of ignorance and outright
stupidity that has taken over debate in this country, at least at the common
level, the practical level, has to be at an all-time high. In fact, it is so
high that I wonder how it could possibly get any worse. I would be remiss if I
didn’t provide some examples of what I am talking about.
Take the abortion debate as one example. Abortion isn’t argued
along the lines of life, as it should be. The abortion proponent argues along
the lines of reproductive rights. For the life of me, I cannot even begin to
understand how killing an unborn baby can possibly be viewed as a woman’s right
not to reproduce. Do women have a right not to reproduce? Well, in a free
country such as ours, I suppose from that standpoint one could answer in the
affirmative. However, within the Christian community that answer is a little
more complex than this blog is intended to address.
Another example is the homosexual argument that anyone who
supports the biblical view of marriage is a hater and a bigot. This argument is
one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard. Still, reasonably intelligent
people fail to see just exactly how stupid it is. They attempt to make this
argument in defense of the gay lifestyle. They insist that in order for you to
be loving you must support and approve of homosexual behavior while at the same
time criticizing others for saying that in order to be Christian you must
denounce homosexual behavior. It just doesn’t make any sense. Why is it that we
can disagree over politics and not be accused of being a bigot and a hater? We
can disagree over religion and not be accused of being a hater. Christians
believe that Muslims are lost, following a false religion and worshipping a
false god. Yet, they are not accused of hating all Muslims because they believe
that Muslims should repent and place faith in Jesus Christ. Christians do not approve
of adultery, lying, or living together outside of marriage either. Yet no one
accuses them of hating these people. The gay argument just doesn’t make sense.
What makes even less sense is how the Christian group has come to
treat people who take up sides of an issue in direct opposition to the
teachings of Scripture. Of the Greco-Roman culture and its influence on
honor-shame, David deSilva wrote,
Those who
violated those values, whether through adultery (attacking the stability of the
family), through cowardice (undermining the security and the honor of the
group), through failing to honor the gods or the rulers (risking the loss of
their favors), through ingratitude (being unjust toward the generous and
threatening to diminish their willingness to be generous) were held up to
contempt.[2]
Repeatedly in the New Testament, the writers are concerned
with the Christian group’s new source of honor: the values of Christ. Jesus
taught these values to His apostles who later taught them to the rest of the
Church. Essentially, these values demonstrate who the true follower of Christ
is from the heart and who is an imposter, following Christ with their lips
only. It was these new values that the Church, the Christian group must hold in
high esteem for the values of the culture were now to be abandoned because they
would be shame upon the believer. David deSilva comments, “Those who do not have faith do not have all the facts necessary to make
an informed evaluation concerning what is honorable and what is censurable.”[3] This
raises the question why so many so-called Christians are so quick not only to
give the unbeliever a place at the table to discuss values, but even treat them
as a source of authority on certain issues. In the NT Church, those who
rejected the values laid down in the authoritative teachings of the apostles
were recognized as being in serious need of correction and rebuke or perhaps
excommunication. They were not issued the right hand of fellowship in the name
of peace and love and unity. NT unity was a unity of truth as expressed in the
NT documents. It was a unity of values as expressed in the values taught by
Christ and His apostles. Rejection of this truth and these values came with
severe consequences
Paul instructs the Christian group at Thessalonica not to
associate with anyone who does not obey the instructions laid out in his
letter. A person who claims to be a Christian but who rejects apostolic
teaching is to be marked by the Christian community, noted as a rebel, set
aside especially as one who disturbs and upsets the community by their conduct.
Paul goes further than this saying that the Christian can keep no company with
such a person at all. The idea is that the only company one can keep with this
person is to evangelize them and encourage them to turn from their sin.
In I Cor. 5:11, Paul instructs the Corinthian Church to do
the very same thing. Anyone who makes a claim to be among the Christian group
as a follower of Christ and they are at the same time displaying disdain and a
mockery of the values of that community: the community cannot have reciprocity
with them as believers. The relationship has to be one of serious correction
rebuke, or evangelistic. As for judging, Paul says we are to judge those who
are in church. God judges those in the world. Abandoning the values of the
Christian group as laid down by Christ and his apostles is abandoning Christ.
It is marking yourself off from the group and demonstrating that you really are
not part of the group. Individuals have no authority to change the values of
the Christian group. Any attempt to do so must result in serious correction or
even excommunication from the group.
Jesus gave the Christian group instructions on what to do
when any member in the group failed to adhere to its values in Matt. 18:15-18.
A witness to this failure as a moral obligation as part of the Christian group
to go to this person and help them see their failure. Gal. 6:1 tells them to go
with all humility and gentleness. If the person hears and repents from the failure,
they have been recovered by the group. If not, the witness is to take a second
person with them. If the individual refuses to listen, they are to tell it to
the entire church. The church, having heard of the refusal to repent has a
moral obligation to confront the erring member. If the member refuses even to
hear the church, the individual is to be excommunicated and treated as a target
for evangelism. They are not to be treated as someone with whom you
respectfully disagree. The soul of this individual is at stake. The process of
confrontation and rebuke and the threat of excommunication was how the
Christian group produced shame upon the individual. This shame was intended to
generate true repentance. II Cor. 7:10 tells us that sorrow that is according
to God produces repentance. This sorrow is brought about by godly shaming,
shunning, and loving confrontation.
Jesus Christ Himself considered the “one anothers,” “the
Church,” “the Christian group” more important than any one individual. The truth
and the values that make the Christian group what it is must be protected from
error and values that serve to contaminate it. This is why Paul wrote that it
only takes a little tolerance for leaven to contaminate and infect the values
of the entire group. Error and ungodly values represent a threat to the very
existence of the group. Since God’s values are fixed, changing the values of
the Christian group essentially is impossible. The result of attempts to change
such values is that the group ceases to exist. If no one held to the values of
Christianity as laid out in the first century, there would be no Christianity,
no true Church, no Christians. The truth and values of the Christian group are
inseparable from the group. They are the group. Abandon the values and truth
claims of the group and you abandon the group. To be a Christian is to adhere
to the group's values and truth.
[1] Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Matthew
Black et al., The Greek New Testament,
4th ed. (Federal Republic of Germany: United Bible Societies, 1993), 541-42.
[2] David Arthur deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity:
Unlocking New Testament Culture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
2000), 36.
[3] David Arthur deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity:
Unlocking New Testament Culture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
2000), 62.
No comments:
Post a Comment