Eer en skaamte in Chrysostomos se homilieë oor Romeine (Afrikaans)

Abstract

Much research has been done on Chrysostom’s life, work and character. He is extensively quoted in debates on homosexuality, ( Feinberg, J.S. (1996, c1993). Ethics for a Brave New World. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books.) textual criticism, ( Robertson, A. (1997). Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. V c1932, Vol. VI c1933. Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems) homiletics and exegesis. (MacArthur, J. (1997, c1992). Rediscovering Expository Preaching (p. 44-45). Dallas: Word Pub.) The information important in this research, focussed on aspects of honour and shame in Chrysostom’s preaching, as well as his theological focus points with regards to the letter of Paul to the Romans. It is clear from Chrysostom's preaching that he regarded his individual congregants very highly. He placed a high value on the ability of every individual to make informed and correct choices. ( Landman, C. (2001). John Chrysostom as Pastoral Counselor. Acta Patristica et Byzantina, Volume 12. Department Antieke Tale (Ancient Languages), Pretoria: Universiteit van (University of Pretoria.)) In keeping with this aspect of his work, the research noted a divergence in the homilies with regards to a more recent concept of individuality. A recent conception of individuality maintains that an individual’s need for identity does not have to be embedded in his or her role and function in society. It is rather seen as a need to know himself or herself, and to know his or her place in society as a free and unbound individual, gifted with choice. (Meyer, W.F., Moore C.&Viljoen H.G. (1997). Personologie. Van Individu tot Ekosisteem (bl. 185). Johannesburg: Heinemann.) This is in stark contrast with both the view of Chrysostom and the New Testament, which rather works with a diadic concept of who a person really is, and moves it to a subjective experience of a person as unique. Initially the researcher focussed on exposing information on specific remarks on “honour” and “shame” within the corpus of Chrysostoms Homilies on Romans. It soon became clear that Chrysostom placed other values on the same concepts. Where he diverged from the conventional view of what “honour” and “shame” is, it was mainly to justify the choices that the new community of believers were making to leave the old ways and start anew. By doing so, he was justifying a change in worldview, departing both from the Jewish as well as gentile ways of determining honour and shame. By changing the rules of the game, Chrysostom first of all gives his congregants justification of their faith, and thereafter provides them with a new means by which they can decide what is the honourable life to live. In this process the time-honoured way in which honour and shame was determined, is changed. The specific impact of Chrysostom’s perspective is then taken as an explanation of subtle changes to individual faith-experiences. The categories in which the research is compiled, include the hearers’ reaction to the Gospel message, humility, the practice of a just life and the law, steadfastness in adverse times, interaction across cultural boundaries, homosexuality and unrelated examples of honourable behaviour. <ul> <li>Honour: Denotes leadership, good family, ritual cleanliness correct behaviour.</li> <li>Shame: Denotes propriety, sense of humility, correct behaviour. </li> <li>Homiletics: The science and theory of preaching.</li> <li>Exegesis: The analysis and explanation of parts of the Bible.</li> <li>Congregants: Individual members of a church, congregation.</li> <li>Subjective: As experienced by a single person</li> <li>Individuality: A sense of Self as experienced in likes, dislikes and function in society.</li> <li>Diadic: Established through interaction between several people.</li> <li>Textual Criticism: Judging and measuring the worth of certain texts, specifically the Bible.</li> <li>Worldview: A shared set of values, beliefs and cultural practices.</li> </ul>