Draft: Honor and Pain

[jpholding]

This is a draft for an article I wish to post this week. Input is appreciated.


Honor and Pain: A Refocus on the Atonement and Eternal Punishment


The recent release of The Passion and questions we have received because of it have brought to bear, and to mind, some issues of regular interest and debate:

Did Jesus really suffer as much as the film indicates?

Why was it necessary for Jesus to suffer as he did?

And from the Skeptical side, Is the few hours of pain Jesus endured really sufficient to atone for the sins of the world?

These questions, it has occurred to us, are in some sense perhaps misdirected. Our focus as persons is on pain, but is this what the Bible puts its eye on when describing what Jesus endured? In fact, it does not. The NT writers never speak of the pain of the cross. What do they speak of? Hebrews 12:2 says:

Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

In several articles we have noted that there is a vast difference in attitude between modern Western society -- a "guilt culture" -- and the ancient Biblical world, which was an honor and shame culture. This popular summary will fill in the details for those new to the matter, but for the present we will stress the most relevant point, that in this world, honor was as important as paying the bills is to us; that which was honorable was, to the ancients, of primary importance. Honor was placed above one's personal safety and was the key element in deciding courses of action.

Malina and Rohrbaugh note in their Social-Science Commentary on John [263-4] and the Synoptics [406-7] that what Jesus underwent in the Passion was a "status degradation ritual" designed to humiliate in every way: The mockery, the buffeting, the spitting; the crucifixion with its symbolic pinioning of hands and legs signigfying a loss of power, and loss of ability to control the body in various ways, including befouling one's self with excrement. We focus on the beatings and think the purpose was mainly to inflict pain. But in fact, the pain was of secondary focus to the ancients, for whom such rituals were a "process of publicly recasting, relabeling, humiliating and thus recategorizing a person as a social deviant."

How might this affect our understanding of the atonement? In answering Skeptical objections that Jesus endured "too little pain" to atone for the sins of all men and prevent their eternal punishment, Glenn Miller has written a detailed article in defense. Miller argues, essentially, that it is because of Jesus' divine identity that his experience of death, and that the emotions would remain with Jesus throughout eternity, made for the difference: "His sacrificial death/suffering was ‘once for all’, but the memory and emotional experience of that will be forever with Him." While not wishing to critique Miller directly, we believe that the issue can be resolved at a different level by understanding that it was not the pain, but the shame and degradation (of which, the pain was of course an integral part) that was the "payment" for our sins -- and that this makes much better contextual sense of the doctrine coming out of an honor and shame setting.

Consider what this answer accomplishes:

It destroys the argument that Jesus could not have suffered "enough" in those few hours to pay for all sins. The issue turns now from one of quantity (amount of pain) to one of quality (honor versus shame). Jesus' divine identity made him a personal being due the highest honor by nature (what Malina and Rohrbaugh call "ascribed" honor, such as that one has by being born into a noble family) -- not infinite of necessity, but the highest. The reversal of this value upon Jesus, and the experience of status degradation -- his public humiliation in the eyes of others, and thereby loss of ALL honor status -- undermines and makes irrelevant the question, "Could he have suffered enough for all sins?" As my good friend among the Skeptics, Kyle Gerkin, puts it, the experience allowed people "to recognize that Jesus was undergoing something extraordinary (a god willingly being shamed) in their stead."

It clarifies and simplifies the argument that sin is an "infinite offense" against God requiring an infinite payment. Under the honor and shame paradigm, sin is particularly an honor offense against God, in effect an insult to His honor and place by means of disregard of His authority and rules. The paradigm demands that such insults to honor be repaid with shame. In this instance it remains that the value of the response must be equitable -- hence Jesus, in his divine identity, remains the only adequate payment for this honor offense. However, because it is a matter of quality and not quantity, and is an "either-or" rather than a mathematical-value proposition, it is no longer necessary to argue that a sin is an "infinite offense" or to even deal in terms of quantity. Indeed, the matter of quality rests on that while all of God's honor is ascribed (due Him by nature), no ascribed honor of our own can match His (being born into a good family), and we are otherwise only capable of having what they call "acquired" honor.

The application of honor and shame to this issue leads to another area of great sensitivity, for which we also find some new answers: Is it really fair for one who does not accept Jesus to suffer in Hell forever?

Several authors, some used by Glenn Miller in his series, have set the pace for a new look at this question by dismantling the old-fashioned conception of Hell as a place of flesh being seared on sizzling grids, of torture devices and of extreme physical pain. In contrast Miller argues -- even apparently without recognition of the Biblical world as an honor and shame society -- that the components of eternal punishment in the Bible are shame and disgrace. Let's now look at some of his primary points and relate them to our own arguments:


The 'logic' of hell in the bible is surprisingly simple: You receive back the treatment/effects you gave other agents (including God and yourself) with some kind of multiplier effect. [The bible is full of images of this reciprocity concept: reaping what you sow, being paid back, suffering loss as you had despoiled others, unkindness for unkindness shown, apathy for apathy rendered, 'eye for an eye', proportional judgement, etc] This is suited as well to what we have said of honor debts and shame as a response. You dishonor God; you receive dishonor in return. Appropriately your required response is to acknowledge your own need -- in effect, giving up your "honor" -- by admitting that you need God's help to pay the debt.

Miller cites sources indicating that the torment of hell is relational in nature and involves banishment from heaven. A source says, though again apparently without knowledge of the Biblical world as agonistic: Mental and physical anguish result from the sorrow and shame of the judgment of being forever relationally excluded from God, heaven, and so forth.

Biblical passages support our thesis: Daniel 12:2 speaks not of everlasting pain, but of disgrace and everlasting contempt. The "weeping and gnashing of teeth" associated with punishment verses "describes a reaction of persons who have been publicly shamed or dishonored" (Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary, 76, emphasis added). Miller says of the passage in Luke, of the beggar Lazarus and the rich man: [The rich man's] "quality of life" is equated to the quality of life that the beggar Lazarus had during his lifetime (e.g. lack of getting all of his basic needs met in community). Note that a beggar was a person of the lowest social status, and therefore one of the most "shamed" individuals.

So in conclusion on this tangent: The data would indicate that the primary focus of eternal punishment is the denial of the honor accorded to those who reject God's offer of salvation. Therefore there is no inequality in the "suffering" -- these persons have denied God His ascribed honor; they are denied in turn the honor that is given to human beings, who are created with the intent that they live forever in God's service, reigning with Christ and serving him. They choose rather the shame and disgrace of serving their own interests -- denying their ascribed place in the collective identity of humanity, they are placed outside the boundaries, excatly as they desire to be.

[Ted]

JPH,

You do well, as far as you go. But the cultural issues are secondary to the theological. Jesus was a sacrifice.

2 Corinthians 5:21 21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

John 1:29 29 The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

Jesus died on the cross as my sin offering. Physical hardship or torture is completely foreign to this concept. All that is important is the death of the sacrifice. This is emphasized two ways in scripture. First, all that the Bible writers say about suffering is “he was scourged,” he wore a “crown of thorns,” he was unable to carry the cross, and “he died on the cross.” There isn’t a word in the Bible that describes suffering.

Second, Paul (1 Cor 11) points out that we “celebrate His death.” We don’t celebrate suffering.

The movie is devoted to something that is completely absent from scripture. As such it is completely worthless to teach the nature of the cross. It may give us something tangible in a sense, but that tangible idea is opposite to what the Bible writers emphasized.

Next, there is no meaningful resurrection in the movie. In 1 Cor 15:13, Paul tells us that if Christ is not raised, we have no hope. How is the movie supposed to show hope when the basis for that hope is absent?

Finally, there is no context. Every good movie gives the viewer enough material to understand the reason for the story. All this movie shows is a (seemingly) never-ending brutalization of a man who doesn’t die when anyone else would. If you don't already know the story, you won't understand what it is about. If you know it well, you will see that the movie is so full of factual errors as to be worthless.

The message of the cross is that Jesus died in my place. How can Gibson’s movie say anything meaningful about the cross if it pays no attention to that central fact?

Ted

[Sheepdog]

looks good. Ted's comments on the sacrificial nature of the atonement is indeed true, but misguided in the context of what kind of objections you are dealing with, IMO. (perhaps the two views are not mutually exclusive, also)

definitely something worth adding to the Tekton arsenal :thumb:

[jpholding]

Yes, the sacrifice issue is a bit of a tangent but I will go ahead and note something about that as a secondary issue. The point about sacrifices not being "torture" subjects is also a good point in my favor.

Thank you, Ted and Sheepdog.

[flipper]

I have given this some thought on occasion, as these questions are legitimate ones.

I always conceived of this as making the infinite a finite term - a human. The crucifixion could perhaps be seen as the Creator's willingness to be fixed in human terms. If the whole stream of time is laid bare before an inifinite being, then at one particular point the creator is eternally suffering as a human and with the rest of humanity. Maybe it's like having a stone in your shoe for all eternity?

[Pate]

Seems like a good article. But there is one issue that got me thinking.

Your emphasis on the honor-shame mindset of biblical characters and their society is very often helpful when we try to figure out why the writers describe things the way that they do, why the characters in the narrative behave the way they do, etc. Obviously it helps us to understand the biblical worldview. But in this article, you seem to go further than that. If you say that understanding the values of honor-shame society gives a sufficient solution to otherwise problematic issue of the mechanisms of Jesus's work at the cross, you seem to imply that not only the people at that time were honor-shame oriented (and therefore God wanted to communicate with them in a way that reflects their honor-shame values), but even that those honor-shame values are THE values that God really holds to.

So it would not be the case that God revealed himself in the Bible in a way that's consistent with honor-shame values because that's the way people thought back then (and many still do), but instead, the reason was that God himself thinks (and has always thought, and always will, because God's nature doesn't change) in accordance to those values. Is that your position, or am I misinterpreting you?

[jpholding]

So it would not be the case that God revealed himself in the Bible in a way that's consistent with honor-shame values because that's the way people thought back then (and many still do), but instead, the reason was that God himself thinks (and has always thought, and always will, because God's nature doesn't change) in accordance to those values. Is that your position, or am I misinterpreting you?

No, you are correct. That God thinks this was logically follows. Someone asked me the same question regarding collectivism. I replied that the Trinity itself suggests a collectivist orientation in the Godhead.

A further point is that OUR way of thinking in the West is after all a mutation. It would be more likely that God's way of thinking was like those of the first humans he created.

[TuckEverlasting]

I was thinking along exactly the same lines as Pate, and my question then is: if we (I) find the whole honour/shame paradigm a bit... eerie, or frankly objectionable, as a social arrangement, does that therefore mean that we are (I am), in fact, opposed to God and the way he wants society to be?

[Pate]

I was thinking along exactly the same lines as Pate, and my question then is: if we (I) find the whole honour/shame paradigm a bit... eerie, or frankly objectionable, as a social arrangement, does that therefore mean that we are (I am), in fact, opposed to God and the way he wants society to be?

Yes, and my follow-up question would have been whether we as christians should actively promote the honor-shame paradigm.

Another question would be this: Presumably there are at least SOME differences in the ways that the honor-shame paradigm was applied in different periods of biblical time. In which stage the paradigm is at its "purest" form? Which version should we promote? Probably we should regard Jesus's application of that paradigm as the most authoritative one?

[Andrew]

Pate, I was thinking exactly the same thing. As regards JP's article on atonement, I felt far more comfortable with the original.

It's hard to grapple with the suggestion that God must, by nature, respond in a honour-shame manner when we don't even value the concepts in our Western culture: "God's proper response is to require the shaming and punishment of those who degrade His honour."

Is the suggestion that, if we want to be Godly, that we should adopt an honour-shame culture?

It almost seems as though you must embrace an honour-shame mindset in order to make sense (certain in the way the modified article is written) of atonement. How do we make it understandable to people of our generation who live in the West? Mustn't we be able guide people to where they can, in any context, say, "Ah, I can see how this is necessary because it is the way in which God's just and merciful nature can both be satisfied."

[jpholding]

I was thinking along exactly the same lines as Pate, and my question then is: if we (I) find the whole honour/shame paradigm a bit... eerie, or frankly objectionable, as a social arrangement, does that therefore mean that we are (I am), in fact, opposed to God and the way he wants society to be?

I don't think so, though I think we need to be aware of where our tendencies conflict (esp. individualism vs collectivism) and adjust accordingly how we behave.

Pate: Yes, there are varying applications. In my last class someone noted that they were going to do missionary work among a people who considered it a dishonor to grow old (because it means you didn't die for your country in war), while of course age is highly honored in other cases. My answer would be that any questions need to be handled on a case basis.

Andrew: Yes. That you need to understand (not embrace necessarily) the mindset is crucial to understanding. Making it understandable of course is the job of scholars, as well as "translator" hacks like me...

[Socrates]

I have given this some thought on occasion, as these questions are legitimate ones.

I always conceived of this as making the infinite a finite term - a human. The crucifixion could perhaps be seen as the Creator's willingness to be fixed in human terms. If the whole stream of time is laid bare before an inifinite being, then at one particular point the creator is eternally suffering as a human and with the rest of humanity. Maybe it's like having a stone in your shoe for all eternity?
That seems consistent with the Passover sermon in AD ~170 by Melito, Bishop of Sardis www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=229260#post229260 This makes perfect sense if he was under the honor-shame paradigm.

[Lazy Agnostic]

It doesn't make sense: God supposedly sacrificed himself TO HIMSELF to pay a debt for which he is the creditor and yet powerless to handle things in a way which doesn't smack of ancient myth and superstition.

[jpholding]

It doesn't make sense: God supposedly sacrificed himself TO HIMSELF to pay a debt for which he is the creditor and yet powerless to handle things in a way which doesn't smack of ancient myth and superstition.

Another non-substantive non-answer from cheap-shot Charlie. :lmbo:

Hello? Charlie? It is not "sacrified himself" -- it is, "sacrificed his hypostatic extension". Other than that, keep your bigoted "ancient myth and superstition" drivel to yourself. 99.999999% of all people who have ever lived on earth have not been modern materialistic bigots and would have no such value judgment. Who are you to namecall?

Of course, it's not unusual for this sort to consider himself the pinnacle of human civilization. :ahem:

[Lazy Agnostic]

Another non-substantive non-answer from cheap-shot Charlie.
I don't think it was an attempt at an answer.


It is not "sacrified himself" -- it is, "sacrificed his hypostatic extension".
That's a new one to me; can you explain? Are you saying that Jesus is NOT God? I don't see the need for a "sacrifice" of any kind.

Other than that, keep your bigoted "ancient myth and superstition" drivel to yourself.
Bigoted; how? Are there no ancient myths and superstitions?

99.999999% of all people who have ever lived on earth have not been modern materialistic bigots and would have no such value judgment. Who are you to namecall?
About the same ratio understand what you're saying now. If it were the word of God, I don't think he'd need YOU (or the thousands of other self-anointed apologists who differ with you) to explain it to us. If it doesn't stand to the Creator's gift of Reason, we should not be required to believe it---certainly not under the bogeymanism of "Believe-it-or ELSE!". I don't see God as that kind of bully.

Of course, it's not unusual for this sort to consider himself the pinnacle of human civilization.
I'm no stranger to sarcasm, Bobby. The only thing I'm an expert on is my own opinions---and they are merely current notions. I do know when smoke is being blown, though. I'm sorry, you don't come across as a straight shooter.

You often fly under cover of the "challenge-riposte paradigm" . Do you also deploy the "honorable lie" which is a component? Would you lie or mislead to further the kingdom of Christ?

[jpholding]

I don't think it was an attempt at an answer.

Well you can certainly say THAT again! :lmbo: So it was just an attempt to pass gas into the arena?

That's a new one to me; can you explain? Are you saying that Jesus is NOT God?

Sigh...

1) "God" is used today as a proper name. Theos was not a proper name but a noun like "deity". It is preceded by an article in the Greek ("the god").
2) Thus theos reported a quality of what it represented. Jesus was indeed theos (deity), so was the Father (deity).
3) Jesus was/is a hypostatic attribute of the Father. If you don't know what this means, then you have homework to do and an apology to issue afterwards.

I don't see the need for a "sacrifice" of any kind.

Why not?

Bigoted; how? Are there no ancient myths and superstitions?

By implying that it sounds like one to begin with. What "myth" is this like and how is it "superstitious"? (Note that question-begging arguments calling theism or god-belief a "superstition" are not permitted.)

of God, I don't think he'd need YOU (or the thousands of other self-anointed apologists who differ with you) to explain it to us.

There is nothing that inspiration and education can do that stupidity, stubbornness, and mouth-foaming ignorance (spin-labelled "reason" by the pompously arrogant) cannot overcome. How's that for a vague generilization, Charlie?

The only thing I'm an expert on is my own opinions

That too is more than latently obvious. :lmbo: Of course it is a modern delusion that merely having an opinion is enough to warrant opening one's mouth widely enough for all flights to come in.

I do know when smoke is being blown, though. I'm sorry, you don't come across as a straight shooter.

Such are the perils of lacking education on your part.

You often fly under cover of the "challenge-riposte paradigm" .

You imply that the paradigm does not exist?

Do you also deploy the "honorable lie" which is a component?

Oh yes, in the respects in which the honorable lie was used, most certainly.

Would you lie or mislead to further the kingdom of Christ?

No, such is not a component that would be applicable under the honorable lie paradigm. The honorable lie is used when persons who have no right to certain information are given false, incomplete, or misleading information to "blow them off" or to force them to cease damaging activities (like espionage). It is used to spare offense to others (like telling Grandma her cookies are delicious, when in fact they taste like wet cement). As usual you merely expose your lack of thorough education on these subjects.

Of course if you have moral objections to any of this, I am sure the CIA -- and Grandma -- would be interested in your opinion. Or you could just call honor-shame socities stupid and ignorant if you like. It's the easiest way out if you don't want to do homework.

[Andrew]

Hey, JP. Have a few questions not all strictly related to this thread but I'd appreciate if you could have a shot.

If, because of Semitic Totality, it could be said that God died on the cross because of a separation of the spirit (in this case God) and His body, did God really suffer in a meaningful sense. What I mean is that if you have the eternal trinue God who is perfectly sufficient existing as that, what loss is it really when the assumed human nature dies? That was the original position. That seems to force me into thinking that what occurred must be judicial outpouring of wrath from God the Father to God the Son (Jesus in His divine nature). This raises another problem, though, which I find hard to understand. Why, then, the need for incarnation? Could judicial outpouring of wrath have occurred from Father to Son in heaven without incarnation?

Andrew: Yes. That you need to understand (not embrace necessarily) the mindset is crucial to understanding. Making it understandable of course is the job of scholars, as well as "translator" hacks like me

I can understand the mindset. What I'm wondering is whether atonement can be framed in concepts familiar to our own culture. If it isn't particularly meaningful in our culture (because we don't value honour, for example), can't it be said that atonement can only be understood in honour-shame concepts because those concepts (and no others) can reflect the reality of what occurred? If we cannot explain atonement in terms of our own culture, then couldn't it be said that we ought to embrace honour-shame mentality ourselves for that mentality is God-like? Look at this, for example (from your atonement article):

"God's proper response is to require the shaming and punishment of those who degrade His honor."

Now I suppose this would have to be on the basis that degrading God's honour (I totally hate how you yanks leave out the 'u' :P) is actually destructive to the community, ie. immoral. Since honour/shame concepts weren't just applied to God, the principle presumably applies to everyone. So that, in general, it is immoral and community damaging to degrade someone's honour. Clearly, then, honour is something that should be valued. But since our culture does not, then it should!!!???

Thanks.

[jpholding]

Howdy,

What I mean is that if you have the eternal trinue God who is perfectly sufficient existing as that, what loss is it really when the assumed human nature dies?

The Skeptics say none; Glenn Miller's reply was that, among other things, that living with the eternal memory of the separation made for an equitable loss. I'm hesitant to critique Miller's position more than that.

Why, then, the need for incarnation? Could judicial outpouring of wrath hae occurred from Father to Son in heaven without incarnation?

I think it would be argued that, by the collectivist mindset, a human representative had to absorb the wrath for human offenders. On the other hand it could also be said that without the incarnation we also do not have a covenant community in Christ.

If it isn't particularly meaningful in our culture (because we don't value honour, for example), can't it be said that atonement can only be understood in honour-shame concepts because those concepts (and no others) can reflect the reality of what occurred?

Yes, but on the other hand, it isn't a difficult bridge to cross. We understand honor and shame; we simply do not value it the same way they did. It can be explained and understood, but our burden is to not use prejudices to reject it.

then couldn't it be said that we ought to embrace honour-shame mentality ourselves for that mentality is God-like?

Practically speaking there are those who may wish to do so. I have to an extent.

So that, in general, it is immoral and community damaging to degrade someone's honour. Clearly, then, honour is something that should be valued. But since our culture does not, then it should!!!???

I would note again that I don't think we lack value for honor; we just rank it lower than other things. On the other hand our lack of value for it has translated into degradation of persons and arguably a devaluing of human life. The sociologists would be able to say much better; I merely say it is arguable.

[Jeiel]

Sorry for butting in, but I do think we still have an honor and shame mentality rooted in us, especially the Christians.
Though it is obviously not dominant.

Also, I think that though Christ's offer was made in an honor and shame paradigm, he has paved a higher way than honor and shame: One of forgiveness.
Even if someone damages our honor, Jesus says we should forgive them because the Father has forgiven us so much more.

I think that long-time Christian cultures have taken forgiveness for granted (Just look at a common attitude when we make mistakes: "You have to forgive me, because Christ commands it and we are all sinners", or in secular post-Christian thought "We all make mistakes, and you have to forgive me", (Christian morals without Christ)).

And because forgiveness is being taken for granted, we are desensitized to honor and shame.
Yet in extreme cases it does surface. (Just think of the reaction typical parents, especially Christians, would have if their daughter would become a prostitute.)

God can certainly be understood in a modern context.
Afterall, God sends His Holy Spirit, who operates for modern people in modern ways. (Though, the bible isn't always as easily understood in our modern context, to the delight of misotheists, most of it actually is.
I mean, how much of the bible actually makes little sense to modern believers?
Most of it does make perfect sense.
Only in apologetics is a thorough understanding of the ancients essential.
In "being a good Christian", as in trying to be like Christ, it takes a back seat and only becomes important when you try to understand the bible in the details.)


Also, some food for thought on why honor-shame is God's way of vewing things:
I think God primarily thinks and operates in vague and abstract concepts.
Concepts like love, mercy, trust, grace, honor, faith, truth, spirit, patience.

Westerners are often pragmatic in their thinking.
That which brings comfort, safety and pleasure is good.

But think about it.
With God in heaven, everything is comfortable, safe and delightful.
We might put away our honor in order to get more money (which translates in above three.)
But why on earth would God value something He can trivially create with the blink of an eye?

But even in heaven trust can be betrayed and honor can be damaged, such as when your most beautiful and powerful creation, your masterpiece whom you place second in command to yourself betrays you and rebels against you.
And God cannot trivially create a being to love Him, because real love needs real choice and real choice can choose not to love.

So I think it's logical that God values honor more highly then pleasure (and thus hates shame more than suffering.)

[Andrew]

Hey, JP :smile:

"The Skeptics say none; Glenn Miller's reply was that, among other things, that living with the eternal memory of the separation made for an equitable loss. I'm hesitant to critique Miller's position more than that."

As far as Miller's article was concerned, I am satisfied that the period on the cross was sufficient let alone the memory of it. But Miller's article seems to look at it from a God the Father/ God the Son perspective (ie. a judicial outpouring of wrath from the Father to the Son (in His divinity). Miller even uses (although he couldn't literally mean it) the idea of the Trinity ripping apart at that time. So I can understand the significance of an outpouring from God the Father to God the Son, but not what a split between a divine nature and a human nature has to do with it.

"I think it would be argued that, by the collectivist mindset, a human representative had to absorb the wrath for human offenders."

Do you think that the incarnation was contingent? Suppose God chose to perform His once-for-all act of salvation and the immediate recipients of that message were the people of Sydney (like me :smile: ) rather than in 1st century Palestine. If that were the case (and we're not collectivists here), would God have needed to incarnate? Could you please explain why?

"On the other hand it could also be said that without the incarnation we also do not have a covenant community in Christ."

Can you explain this?

"Yes, but on the other hand, it isn't a difficult bridge to cross. We understand honor and shame; we simply do not value it the same way they did. It can be explained and understood, but our burden is to not use prejudices to reject it."

I think my question is that since God's act of salvation (the most important thing possible) is understood in honour/shame concepts, aren't those concepts really a reflection of how God really works (God's working cannot be understood merely in concepts/emphases of any old culture!!! I suspect that's why you framed it in a shame/honour way) and, that being said, we ought quickly embrace them ourselves if we want to be Godly, think like God, etc.?

"Practically speaking there are those who may wish to do so. I have to an extent."

But if it's God-like, then how can we be so flippant about it? Wouldn't it be more than a "wish to" and more like a "have to"?

"I would note again that I don't think we lack value for honor; we just rank it lower than other things. On the other hand our lack of value for it has translated into degradation of persons and arguably a devaluing of human life. The sociologists would be able to say much better; I merely say it is arguable."

Got a question but it depends on whether or not there is a necessary relationship between collectivism and holding to honour/shame concepts. Is there that relationship?

I was also wondering whether you could tell me why your point #4 is so in your atonement article:

"God's proper response is to require the shaming and punishment of those who degrade His honor."

I had problems understanding that point and I sent the article to a Muslim friend of mine who asked for an explanation of atonement and she didn't grasp it, either (although it would seem the Allah of the Qur'an actually does do this but not necessarily so). I understood your article as it was framed in terms of God's need to react out against sin because punishment is the morally appropriate response to a crime but don't understand it in terms of honour. It almost seems as though what God is reacting against is not moral failing (hurt to the community, etc.) per se, but he's acting to redress an intellectual point (ie. the intellectually honest position is to honour God the highest, sinners don't do that so they need to be shown).

Thanks.

[jpholding]

Howdy Andrew,

Do you think that the incarnation was contingent? Suppose God chose to perform His once-for-all act of salvation and the immediate recipients of that message were the people of Sydney (like me :smile: ) rather than in 1st century Palestine. If that were the case (and we're not collectivists here), would God have needed to incarnate? Could you please explain why?

I would first say that I would think that a majority of people alive -- not just immediate recipients -- would have to be individualists for any difference to happen. Socially that isn't conceivable anytime in the past and no time in the forseeable future.

I do think an incarnation may have still happened, though the mission of Jesus may have had to emphasize a return to group concern and agape love more than it did.

On the other hand it could also be said that without the incarnation we also do not have a covenant community in Christ.

Can you explain this?

A community requires a leader. Arguably it would have to be a human leader.


I think my question is that since God's act of salvation (the most important thing possible) is understood in honour/shame concepts, aren't those concepts really a reflection of how God really works

Yes, I would say so. And we certainly need to embrace knowledge of it, if nothing else, if we want to be and think like God (assuming that that is even necessary to serve Him at all, which I will not claim).

But if it's God-like, then how can we be so flippant about it? Wouldn't it be more than a "wish to" and more like a "have to"?

Not necessarily. Our culture around us won't change. We still need to be all things to all men and there may still be a role for thinking as we do.

Got a question but it depends on whether or not there is a necessary relationship between collectivism and holding to honour/shame concepts. Is there that relationship?

From what I have read, one goes with the other, hand in hand, yes.

appropriate response to a crime but don't understand it in terms of honour. It almost seems as though what God is reacting against is not moral failing (hurt to the community, etc.) per se, but he's acting to redress an intellectual point (ie. the intellectually honest position is to honour God the highest, sinners don't do that so they need to be shown).

I would consider the two intertwined and make no division between the moral and intellectual points. God is the source of life and salvation. To dishonor God is to compel others away from Him and thereby compel them from the source of life and salvation. Put it this way: Honor and authority go hand in hand. Taking honor from God is the same as taking authority from him in the eyes of others.

Making sense, I hope... :smile:

JP

[nathanLpaylor]

Hey J.P.,

Sorry to butt in; I have a quick question about the application of socio-contextual studies in 'everyday Christian life', if that's ok :smile:

Recently I was involved in a BBC-hosted debate where the methods the Context Group use were supported by yours truly, albeit tentatively due to my lack of qualification- woe be me! :ahem:

Aaanyway, this objection was raised (and it's one I've come across before in a similar guise):

God was presumably trying to communicate to all cultures, not just to one. Cultures change (as any omniscient god with foresight would know), and a literal description is more likely to preserve meaning than a non-literal one. Scientists such as myself tend to describe ideas literally for that very reason; when metaphors are used (as in Richard Dawkins’ “Selfish Gene”) they are explained at some point in the text itself. If God had an important message to communicate to all mankind, for all times and in all languages, it would make sense to communicate in a robust, factual and therefore literal manner and to spell out metaphors at some point.

In other words- why didn't God inspire the authors of the text to 'say what they meant' so that it is applicable and completely understandable by all peoples and all cultures?

I've got my own ideas for a response, a few actually, but it would be interesting to here Mr.J.P. take a shot :teeth:

Take care and God bless,

Nathan :wink:

P.S. Just on a general aside- this next academic year sees me begin to decide on a dissertation title for my B.T.h. Partly due to your influence, hence me telling you this, and also a number of other factors, I think it worthwhile to note that I'm edging towards studying the hermeneutical and theological implications of the social-scientific approach.

So I guess I can class this as 'research'... heh. :lol: :tongue:

[jpholding]

Hokey smoke -- isn't there a penalty for resurrecting threads that haven't been used for more than a year? :lol:




Aaanyway, this objection was raised (and it's one I've come across before in a similar guise):

Please put that in the Screwball thread too. That is just plain stupid. It is a "why didn't God kiss my rear end" crybaby objection. Following God means willing to learn about God and what He has to say, not playing the couch potato and demanding the God attune what He says to every nuance and peculiarity of your personality. Why not demand personal editions of the Bible, then ("Good News foir Joe Padooski")?

it would make sense to communicate in a robust, factual and therefore literal manner and to spell out metaphors at some point.

No, it would not. This is an expression of literalist bias that is again, sheer laziness at work, and also a bigoted assumption that metaphorical speech is somehow inferior,


In other words- why didn't God inspire the authors of the text to 'say what they meant' so that it is applicable and completely understandable by all peoples and all cultures?

The question in essence shows a remarkable ignorance of the diversity of culture; such a text would need to be moved in a fleet of vans. Why not also then demand, again, texts personalized to every person's unique POV?

I've got my own ideas for a response, a few actually, but it would be interesting to here Mr.J.P. take a shot

Interesting to say the least! :lol:

Congrats on your upcoming academic pursuits. :thumb:

God bless,

JP

[nathanLpaylor]

Heh heh I knew that you would rip it a 'new one'...

I had similar ideas, but certainly not as thought through.

I also thought that the fact that God communicated His message via a particular means of 'application' (for example, the 'atonement' through the eyes of the honour-shame paradigm) does not mean that the essential and aforementioned message is 'lost in translation'.

But like I said, yours is much better :teeth:

Oh and no problemo, I'll post it in the Screwball thread now.

Nathan :smile: