As for Christian Pacifism, it is true, as Thom Gressman says, that Christian men have a holy obligation to defend their families, but it is also true that Jesus Himself did not lift a hand to defend Himself, nor do those who emulate Him most closely.

This is one of the rationales behind the voluntary celibacy practiced by the holy men of old and of today – as Paul pointed out, the married man has earthly obligations in addition to his obligation to God, whereas the single man is less encumbered. Wives and children must be supported and when needs be, defended (and a married man who refuses to support and defend his own is “worse than an infidel!”), but a single person is free to more completely pursue Jesus’s personal example of poverty and nonresistance.

However, following your last comment above. True Christianity (i.e. according to the Bible) isn’t something one can get in his closet or practice all alone. It requires the public initiation rite of baptism (Acts 2:37-38; 1Peter 3:21) and observance of communion (which is exclusive), and requires assembling together with other believers (Hebrews 10:24-25) (which assemblies in the earliest days of Christianity were occasions for public church discipline, and should be still if needed -1Timothy 5:21). Both medieval Roman Catholicism and post-reformation forms of Christianity, while hopefully still acceptable to God by grace, are sub-biblical.

Overall, excellent post and series. This is a subject that all men need to dwell on until we get it fixed. Thanks for your efforts to help us do that.

One critique: The fact that humans have always been social creatures and that relational problems entered into the human family after the fall of Adam and Eve are not mutually exclusive. Rousseau and gang weren’t working with the best scientific info, but then again, neither are the anthropologists, etc. who argue humans are descended from apes. The very thought is destructive to an objective basis for honor in my opinion.

Kudos to Jan Broucinek’s October 16, 2012 at 2:38 pm comment. Well said.
“Jesus was quite exclusive.” Still is.

To Jay and Marty: I’m not Protestant, or Roman Catholic. Just Christian. It never ceases to amaze me how people can read the Bible (Old and New Testaments) and come away thinking it supports the idea of “once saved always saved.” Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Every anthropologist who had studied early man has concluded that he was a social creature. It would not have made sense to live way off on one’s own when survival depended on the pooling of resources. There could have been men who went off on their own, and probably were — honor means the possibility of being shamed and left outcast. I don’t suppose there’s anyway of proving 100% if man has always been a social animal, but all evidence certainly points to that, so it’s pretty close to certain in my book at least.

As far as Christianity goes, what you and others above have missed is that traditional honor is an entirely public thing. You are initiated publicly by the group, and whether you are living the code is judged entirely by your peers. And yet anyone can make the decision to become a Christian (at least when it comes to some varieties of the faith), and can even do it in the privacy of your closet. A man could convert to Christianity in a Communist country and keep it a secret his whole life, with only his conscience to guide him. And would not his fellow Christians say he was a Christian too? It is possible to join the “Christian honor group” and have it be a completely private thing. That God is the ultimate judge of how you have lived the code is in direct contradiction of traditional honor’s requirement that one’s peers are the ultimate judge of your behavior. There’s no way around that fact. Traditional honor also requires an intimate group with face-to-face contact, so that each member can monitor who is out and who is in. It is specific, not universal because the code only applies to the group, and you can’t just decide that you want in. If you’re not in already, others may invite you in, but it’s not up to you. Yet the “Christian honor group” numbers in the billions, and anyone can join whenever they decide to — it’s universal. Now a church can actually be a honor group, because it has the face-to-face intimate component where you are judged by your peers. But here we are talking about Christianity as a cultural force. In asserting that there is a universal code of behavior that all should adopt, that applied to all people, in all times, in all cultures, that was a higher code that one should choose above the code of one’s “tribe,” when its code and the Christian code contradicted, and that could ultimately only be judged by God himself, traditional honor was weakened.

To be more substantialy arguable, I find it interesting that you suggest christianity as contributing to the deconstruction of the honor concept. I can definitely see how that perception of Christian values would effect the honor concept, but I do not believe that christianity necessarily promoted inclusiveness and inner intent over outward appearance. The verse you quote from galations is in the context of sin and salvation, implying rather that all men are sinful in God’s eyes as well as welcome. There is still a concept of honor required, you cannot enter ‘the club’ of chrisitanity (I am referring to it as conveyed in the sense of the book of Acts) without making yourself accountable and subject to the scrutiny of your fellow christians. If you choose immorality over the christina way(i.e. the way of Jesus) then you cannot be welcome in their fellowship. The ‘exclusivity’ is present, but it has transformed from an accountability based on pride and physical strength to one based on humility and love.
My apologies if I didn’t notice any comments above for similar arguments….