On April 12, 1865, the Confederate army under General Lee surrendered to the union forces at Appomattox courthouse. Only days before the armies had been in pitched battle, and were exhausted and dirty. As Michael Schuck puts it, "The potential for humiliation was almost intolerable for the Confederates, and the opportunity for venting pent-up rage and ridicule was almost irresistible for the union."Union Commander Joshua Chamberlain (above) was given the task of receiving the surrendering army. It was in this tense moment that Chamberlain gave the order for his troops to salute their enemies, a salute returned by the Confederate soldiers. As Chamberlain later recalled, his salute was
one for which I sought no authority nor asked forgiveness... Before us in proud humiliation... stood the embodiment of manhood... Men whom neither toils and sufferings, nor the fact of death, nor disaster, nor hopelessness could bend from their resolve; standing before us now thin, worn, famished, but erect, and with eyes looking level into ours, waking memories that bound us together as no other bond.[1]It is impossible to read this without feeling keenly the honor and shame which hung thick in the air--shame at the Confederate defeat, and honor bestowed in the salute to enemies who had fought valiantly.
The concepts of honor and shame do not play a large role in our culture. They are most visible in the military context, but elsewhere feel foreign. Sociologists have long noted that cultures tend to fall into two categories: those with an emphasis on honor and shame, and those with emphasis on guilt and innocence. In guilt-innocence cultures, conscience plays an important role in determining individual action. In honor-shame cultures a high value is placed on retention of one's good reputation, and that of one's family (city, country, etc.). Guilt tends to be a more internal motivation than shame, and shame more dependent on the actions and attitudes of the group. "Shame cultures" differ from "guilt cultures" in that their members are group-oriented and governed in their attitudes and actions primarily by the opinion and appraisals of significant others.
Of course, there is really a continuum of emphasis between these two extremes, with the West lying far in the guilt-innocence direction, and Eastern and near-Eastern cultures generally occupying the shame-honor end of the spectrum. In the first century, both Roman and Jewish cultures placed a very high priority on honor, shame and status.
Rising out of Jewish culture and, for the NT, surrounded by Greco-Roman culture, the Bible also has a central theme of honor and shame. This is a topic introduced beautifully in a chapter of Timothy Tennent's book, Theology in the Context of World Christianity (320 pp., $11.99, Zondervan, 2007): In the OT, in the Garden of Eden Adam and Eve feel shame at their disobedience; the Psalmists regularly call on God to shame their enemies (40:14-15; 78:66); God shames pagan deities (e.g. 1 Sam 5:3-4); Zion's future glory is described in the language of honor and shame ("Do not be afraid; you will not suffer shame…", Isa 54:5); the shame associated with nakedness (Gen 37:3).
In the Gospels, the dishonest manager is too ashamed to beg; Jesus instructs his disciples not to take places of honor lest they be demoted and suffer shame; etc. Both father and younger son suffer shame in the Prodigal Son and yet the father's forgiveness restores the son's honor. In fact, the wording does not indicate the older son is angered by the father's forgiveness, but because the younger brother is shown honor despite having brought shame on the family. Another passage in which the honor-shame dynamic is central is Jesus' parable of the two sons asked by their father to work in the vineyard, one of whom refused, but then worked anyway. Westerners tend to overlook the tension added by the refusal, which publicly shames the father. In the culture of Jesus' day, it was better not to shame the father, even at the cost of not doing the work.Paul's letters also show the importance of honor and shame. In 1 Cor, for instance, Paul describes God's use of the foolish things of this world in order to shame the strong. An awareness of this theme sheds light on Col 2:15, which describes how, "At the very hour of Jesus' public shame on the cross, he was actually in the process of shaming his enemies, disarming the powers and authorities and making 'a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.'" Paul reverses the shame of the cross, both in Jesus' life and his followers, declaring that "before God we are actually being 'led in triumphal procession in Christ' (2 Cor 2:14), and what appears to be the 'smell of death' is actually the 'fragrance of life' (2 Cor 2:16)." The NT demonstrates in various places that the resurrection is not just about guilt and innocence. Jesus "endured the cross, scorning its shame and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God" (Heb 12:2). Satan was publicly shamed by Christ when Jesus "disarmed the powers and authorities" and "made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross" (Col 2:15). "Through the resurrection, we who were the bearers of guilt and shame are now declared to be the recipients of justification and honor" (Tennent, 91). The honor-shame dynamic adds a crucial dimension to Christ's public, shameful atoning death: Not only does the crucifixion relieve us of guilt, it removes our shame.
Tennent points out that since the honor-shame perspective of first-century Palestine resonates much more with modern Eastern culture than it does with ours, we are in a position to learn from Christians in Eastern and near-Eastern cultures. I am sure that for many readers of the Bible the honor-shame perspective is old-hat. Kenneth Bailey opened that door for us many years ago. Yet Tennent's chapter does a good job of not only pointing out where these concepts can inform our exegesis but how they influence our theology. I don't typically review books--and I am really just reviewing a single chapter--but I can heartily recommend it. Just the discussion of the influence on the atonement is enough to stimulate thought for a long time.
Just as interesting is Jesus' view of the honor-centricity of his own culture. He condemns the Pharisees for their love of honor (e.g. Lk 11:43). And he tells the parable of the friend at midnight to drive home an attitude of shamelessness (anaideia) in prayer. To embrace Jesus' teaching is not merely to put on the mindset of near-eastern shame and honor, but to think about where our honor ought to come from, and to seek not our own honor, but that of our Lord.
Western culture is certainly a long way from the honor-shame end of the spectrum. Yet, though we don't always think in those terms, these concepts are present and active in our lives. How much pride do you have in your employer, or church or country? The less pride we have in these, the worse we feel about ourselves and the more we are in need of a reminder that Christ's death on the cross takes away our shame, by making us part of a new organization, imbued with the honor of our savior.
Also, in our culture, there is an attrition of status and honor as one moves past middle age into retirement. We shed vocational responsibilities. We are tapped less often to participate at church. Our networks of acquaintances shrink, and with them the honor we associate with our social group. We may not think in terms of honor and shame, but we feel acutely the loss of status and respect, often without a real understanding of why. Many of us will die the death of a thousand tiny insults, leaving us carrying a shame we can't even name.
How important to recognize this aspect of cross. And what truly good news that our honor is in the Lord!
* * *
[1] This introduction follows that used by John H. Elliot in his paper, "Disgraced Yet Graced: 1 Peter in the Key of Honor and Shame," Biblical Theology Bulletin, 24 (1995), 166-178.
