‘Dignified’: An Exegetical Soteriology of Divine Honour

2013 ◽  
Vol 66 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Borges

AbstractSocial scientists in disparate fields are now employing the construct of honour to ameliorate various social problems, such as immorality, failed states, international discord, poverty and mental illness. Moreover, historians of global religion cite Christianity's shift towards cultures shaped by the values of honour and shame. Despite this growing prominence of honour in social theories and the emergence of Christianity in honour–shame cultures, the notion of honour remains absent from theological discourse. In light of these global realities, we explore how God's active transformation of humanity from shame to honour can interpret both salvation-history and Christian theology. To this end I first explore the nature of humanity's problem of shame before God, using anthropological and biblical insights. Throughout the Old Testament, God's covenant initiatives with Abram, Moses and David, along with the common socio-literary pattern of God exalting a servant from unjust shame, reveals the dignified status God intends for humanity. God's programme to restore people from shame to honour climaxes in Jesus, who embodies honour in the incarnation, mediates dignity to the marginalised by healings and public fellowship, elaborates God's new code of honour which reinterprets social stigmas, and procures an exalted status for all peoples by atoning for shame and resurrecting to exaltation. Romans and 1 Peter are interpreted in their socio-historic contexts as apostolic instruments which expound the social implications of God's honour code. To unify the fractured Romans for the upcoming Spanish mission, Paul confronts social imperialism by replacing false honour claims with God's status now available by faith through grace in Christ. Meanwhile, 1 Peter assures maligned Christians of their exalted status and outlines honourable social relations. Then, in closing, we examine a soteriology of honour diachronically and systematically. In particular, how: biblical metaphors symbolise believers’ status transposition, group incorporation is key to New Testament soteriology, Eastern Orthodoxy's doctrine of theosis articulates the infusion of divine status, and other theological categories could be interpreted through honour-shame social values. These reflections towards an exegetical soteriology of divine honour are offered as an initial theological platform for addressing social issues where honour values prevail.

2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 249-271
Author(s):  
Hugh D. Hudson

For Russian subjects not locked away in their villages and thereby subject almost exclusively to landlord control, administration in the eighteenth century increasingly took the form of the police. And as part of the bureaucracy of governance, the police existed within the constructions of the social order—as part of social relations and their manifestations through political control. This article investigates the social and mental structures—the habitus—in which the actions of policing took place to provide a better appreciation of the difficulties of reform and modernization. Eighteenth-century Russia shared in the European discourse on the common good, the police, and social order. But whereas Michel Foucault and Michael Ignatieff see police development in Europe with its concern to surveil and discipline emerging from incipient capitalism and thus a product of new, post-Enlightenment social forces, the Russian example demonstrates the power of the past, of a habitus rooted in Muscovy. Despite Peter’s and especially Catherine’s well-intended efforts, Russia could not succeed in modernization, for police reforms left the enserfed part of the population subject to the whims of landlord violence, a reflection, in part, of Russia having yet to make the transition from the feudal manorial economy based on extra-economic compulsion to the capitalist hired-labor estate economy. The creation of true centralized political organization—the creation of the modern state as defined by Max Weber—would require the state’s domination over patrimonial jurisdiction and landlord control over the police. That necessitated the reforms of Alexander II.


Social scientists and political theorists have recently come to realize the potential importance of the classical Greek world and its legacy for testing social theories. Meanwhile, some Hellenists have mastered the techniques of contemporary social science. They have come to recognize the value of formal and quantitative methods as a complement to traditional qualitative approaches to Greek history and culture. Some of the most exciting new work in social science is now being done within interdisciplinary domains for which recent work on Greece provides apt case studies. This book features essays examining the role played by democratic political and legal institutions in economic development; the potential for inter-state cooperation and international institutions within a decentralized ecology of states; the relationship between state government and the social networks arising from voluntary associations; the interplay between political culture, informal politics, formal institutions and political change; and the relationship between empirical and formal methods of analysis and normative political theory. In sum, this book introduces readers to the emerging field of “social science ancient history.”


2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 254-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zachary M. Schrag

In revising the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (Common Rule) between 2009 and 2018, regulators devoted the vast bulk of their attention to debates over biomedical research. They lacked both expertise in and concern about the social sciences and humanities, yet they imposed their will on experts in those fields. The revision process was secretive, spasmodic, and unrepresentative, especially compared to rulemaking in Canada, where social scientists participate in the process, and revisions take place every few years. The result was a final rule that offers some wins for social science and the humanities, but that fails to solve the problems identified by Ezekiel Emanuel and in the 2011 advance notice of proposed rulemaking.


2000 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 169-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Edward Freeman

Abstract:Business ethics, as a discipline, appears to be at a crossroads. Down one avenue lies more of the same: mostly philosophers taking what they know of ethics and ethical theory and applying it to business. There is a long tradition of scholars working in the area known as “business and society” or “social issues in management.” Most of these scholars are trained as social scientists and teach in business schools. Their raison d’etre has been admirable: trying to get executives and students of business to understand the social impacts of business and to see business in broad, societal terms.


1994 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 430-446 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gervase Rosser

In the history of medieval ideas about community, a prominent place must be accorded to the fraternity, or guild. This type of voluntary association, found throughout medieval Europe, frequently applied to itself the name of communitas. The community of the guild was not, however, a simple phenomenon; it invites closer analysis than it has yet received. As religious clubs of mostly lay men and (often) women, the fraternities of medieval Christendom have lately been a favored subject among students of spirituality. Less interest, however, has recently been shown in the social aspects of the guilds. One reason for this neglect may be precisely the communitarian emphasis in the normative records of these societies, which most late twentieth-century historians find unrealistic and, perhaps, faintly embarrassing. But allowing, as it must be allowed, that medieval society was not the Edenic commune evoked in fraternity statutes, the social historian is left with some substantial questions concerning these organizations, whose number alone commands attention: fifteenth-century England probably contained 30,000 guilds. Why were so many people eager to pay subscriptions—which, though usually modest, were not insignificant—to be admitted as “brothers” and “sisters” of one or more fraternities? Who attended guild meetings, and what did they hope to achieve by doing so? What social realities gave rise to the common language of equal brotherhood? This essay is intended to shed some light on these questions by focusing on what for every guild was the event which above all gave it visible definition: the annual celebration of the patronal feast day.


Iraq ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 66 ◽  
pp. 187-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Lumsden

Space, or spatiality, has generally been relegated to the background by historians and social scientists (Soja 1989). The Cartesian worldview demands a separation between thinking and the material world, between mind and matter. In this view space is seen simply as something that can be objectively measured, an absolute, a passive container (Merrifield 1993: 518).An alternative view, propounded mainly by postmodern geographers, regards space as a “medium rather than a container for action”, something that is involved in action and cannot be divided from it (Tilley 1994: 10). Space is not an empty, passive container, but an active process that is both constituted and constitutive (Merrifield 1993: 521). So, in this view the social, historical, and the spatial are interwoven dimensions of life (Soja 1999: 263–4). History and society are not understood if space is omitted; there is, in fact, no unspatialised social reality (Soja 1989: 131–7; 1996: 46, 70–6).The philosopher Henri Lefebvre's concept of the social production of space plays an important part in this latter view of the active role of space in social processes. Lefebvre criticises the notion that space is transparent, neutral and passive, and formulates in its place an active, operational and instrumental notion of space (Lefebvre 1991: 11). He argues that it is the spatial production process that should be the object of interest rather than “things” in space, and that space is both a medium of social relations and a material product that can affect social relations (Lefebvre 1991: 36–7; Gottdiener 1993).


1974 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
pp. 1656-1662 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Neal Tate

This note reports the results of an initial exploration into the significance of the social environments (“contexts”) in which people live in the shaping of their individual political behavior. Many scholars have argued that social scientists should pay more serious attention to contextual variables when they go about constructing social theories. But there have been few systematic efforts to demonstrate empirically the overall importance of contextual variables as predictors of individual behaviors, especially relative to the importance of personal (“individual”) predictors. Here the relative potency of two sets of predictors—one individual and one contextual—is investigated for a sample of British voters by means of a well-known multivariate search strategy, “tree analysis.” The results suggest that contextual variables have little to add to explanations of voting behavior based on individual variables—at least for these data.


2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 818 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sevde Kaya

<p><strong>Abstract</strong></p><p>Since the occurance of the concept of consumption, it has been discussed by a number of theorists. In these works, the concept of consumption has been analyzed in many different ways. Even though the consumption concept is a very financial issue, the social scientists have done some studies about consumption. In this work, I will examine the consumption perception of Guy Debord who is an influential figure for several future studies and who is a preminent actor among other consumption theorists. Debord states that the consumption is imposed to individuals via virtual reality and it is presented to the daily lives of individuals in a very pragmatic way. Debord calls the communities in which people give priority to consumption upon arranging the social relations as ‘society of spectacles’.</p><p>Debord relates the concept of spectacle to the consumption. He suggests that spectacle manipulates the daily life and increases the will to consume and passivates individuals. The concept of spectacle has grown with the emergence of the leisure time and has been directed to daily pratic after the places were related to consumption. In this work, the relation between spectacle and consumption that Debord set up is examined. In the work, it is deduced that in order to accelerate the consumption, spectacle utilizes some areas such as mass media, place and fashion.</p><p><strong>Öz</strong></p><p>Tüketim kavramı ilk ortaya çıktığı andan beri birçok kuramcı tarafından tartışılmıştır. Bu çalışmalar tüketim kavramını çok farklı yönleriyle ele almıştır. Tüketim kavramı iktisadi bir konu olsa da sosyal bilimciler de tüketim ile ilgili çalışmalar yapmıştır. Bu çalışmada tüketim kuramcıları arasında önemli bir yer tutan ve fikirleri gelecek araştırmalar için esin kaynağı olan Guy Debord’un tüketim anlayışı incelenecektir. Debord, tüketimin sanal bir gerçeklik yoluyla bireylere dayatıldığını ve bu dayatmaların son derece pratik yollarla bireylerin gündelik hayatlarına sunulduğunu ifade etmektedir. Debord bireylerin pasifleştiği ve tüketimin toplumsal ilişkileri düzenlemede temel etken olduğu toplumlara “gösteri toplumu” adını vermiştir.</p><p>Debord gösteri kavramı ile tüketim arasında ilişki kurmuştur. Gösterinin gündelik hayatı manipüle ettiğini, tüketim arzusunu arttırdığını ve bireyleri pasifleştirdiğini belirtmiştir. Gösteri kavramı boş zamanın ortaya çıkması ile filizlenmiş, mekânların tüketime eklemlenmesi ile gündelik pratiğe aktarılmıştır. Bu çalışmada, Debord’un gösteri ile tüketim arasında kurduğu ilişki incelenmiştir. Gösterinin tüketimi hızlandırmak için kitle iletişim araçları, mekân ve moda gibi alanlara başvurduğu tespit edilmiştir.</p>


This chapter highlights some of the central themes that are relevant to discussions on sociology and seem to be the principal areas of concern. It examines the issues of disciplinarity, globalization, source material and the division between quality and quantity in research methods. There have been arguments that it is important to distinguish between the intellectual differentiation of scientific activities and the disciplinary divisions through which they are pursued. Nevertheless, there is a sense in which sociology can be distinguished from other social sciences. There is a general framework of ideas about social relations that may be the common concern of the social sciences but is the particular concern of sociology. This centres on the idea of what it is to talk about human ‘society’ in all its complexity.


Horizons ◽  
1980 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 219-230
Author(s):  
Anthony Battaglia

AbstractAn interest in the validity and importance of religion has led some social scientists to try to change some of the common assumptions of their discipline. In doing so, they have made statements, such as “Religion is true,” which invite analysis and response from the context of the traditional Ontological Argument. Recasting the argument in the vocabulary of the social sciences also sheds new light on traditional discussions of it.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document