Having set the stage
for a basic presentation of the honor and shame culture and how it might relate
to the church in general and the Corinthian church in particular in connection
to the action of speaking in tongues, it is very much worth taking some space
to provide a basic outline of the functionality of honor and shame in the world
in which both Jesus and the early church arose.
An important first
century Roman Stoic philosopher by the name of Seneca, in writing about honor
from within an active and functioning honor and shame system, had this to say:
“All our arguments start from this settled point, that honor is pursued for no
other reason except because it is honor.” This says much about the value
system of the Greco-Roman world, though those that live within the confines of
western civilization cannot readily relate to such a sentiment, primarily
because the pursuit of honor has been primarily replaced by the pursuit of
material possessions and wealth.
Though it can
certainly be the case that wealth and material possessions were attendant to
honor in Paul’s world, this would not necessarily be the case. Even if
modern perceptions of honor and shame has been skewed, one can still peruse the
wider world in order to find the systems of honor and shame still in operation
much like it was operating in Corinth. Christians throughout the world
still live within cultures in which one’s true status is largely determined by
the values of honor and shame, and are in the enviable position of being able
to more easily identify with and understand the situation with which Paul deals
in his first letter to Corinth. In a world so governed, the primary
motivation for performing a good deed (public benefaction) or for living a life
marked by virtue, was the attainment of honor.
The opposite end of
the spectrum from honor, of course, was shame. As was alluded to earlier talk
about Jesus, a person might seek to increase his honor by publicly shaming a
rival through insults, reproach, physical abuse, confiscation of property, and
even public execution. Mention of Jesus in connection with this leads to
a helpful aside, in that Jesus’ insistence that His disciples turn the other
cheek, go the second mile, bless when cursed, and offer the undergarment when
sued for the outer garment, gain substantial meaning when understood alongside
concerns of honor and shame. Everything that Jesus suggests be done essentially
as part of a mission statement, which He then lives out through His passion,
would be immediately viewed as honor-disavowing and shame-accruing.
So how exactly was it
determined who was possessive of honor and who leaned towards the shameful end
of the spectrum? There was no formal system by which honor was
assigned. There were no checklists to follow. Rather, public
consensus, which is always shifting, plays the most important role. The
shifting sands of public consensus meant that one would always have to be on
guard, not only performing according to wider public opinion, but also doing
one’s level best to shape public opinion and drive the public debate concerning
what is honorable and what is dishonorable/shameful. This can be loosely referred
to as a governing construct known as the “court of public opinion.”
