Cain & Abel, and the issue of Limited Good

Guest Post: Welcome to our first 'guest post' at 'Edge of the Kalahari', and its from Martin Munyao.  Martin is from Kenya and is currently a PhD student in the USA embarking on a Thesis in relation to the values of honor and shame in African Christian theology. His research concern is whether honor-shame is in Kenyan theology and missiology. And if not, why?...   

Earlier this month I posted a response comment on a post at honorshame.com about 'limited good'. It has turned out to be a topic that has stirred the international honour/shame conversation pot!  I believe there is quite a bit more to explore on the topic, and Martin recently emailed me with some of his further thoughts. 

I am still pondering on some of his comments, but overall I found what he had to say very insightful and immediately valuable. I continue to appreciate correspondence with him on this vital topic of honour/shame.  The fact that he went to the Biblical narrative about Cain and Abel in Genesis 4 was actually significant for me, as our local co-worker and I had ourselves been 'chewing' over this same passage just a couple of weeks before.  

So with this guest post, I want to further facilitate Martin's input into this international discussion, as another African who is digging deep on the topic and looking at it as an 'insider'.....

Cain & Abel, and the issue of Limited Good

I enjoyed reading your review of HonorShame.com's blog on the subject of limited good. I also thought of another portion of the Biblical narrative that introduces us to the issues of limited good so early in the Biblical story. 

It is that of Cain and his brother Abel, the first offsprings of Adam and Eve. Mind you, this is after the Fall, thus the dark side of (or rather misplaced) shame is already in force. I think one of the areas in which scholars and exegetes, and consequently pastors, have wrestled with is unravelling the motive behind Abel's murder by his blood brother. 

Was it the issue of election? Some in an effort to sustain a Calvinistic divine election doctrine have erroneously argued that the Lord had already chosen Abel and rejected Cain. Quite often this divine election view tends to lean on individual's (personal) standing before God which doesn't resonate well with collectivistic honor-shame contexts.  

 Was it over the offering they both brought before God? And if so, what was it about the offering that God was pleased with Abel's and displeased with Cain's. Some have even made assumptions and conclusions that an animal offering is noble and more acceptable before God than a crop offering. God had apportioned each of them to work the resources he had blessed them with and neither keeping sheep nor tilling the ground is a superior vocation than the other. At least the Bible does not suggest that.

So why did Cain murder his only brother? The question can also be rephrased this way: 'why did God regard Abel and his offering and disregarded Cain?' Gen. 4:4-5. 

 My take may not be exhaustive, however, I do see the limited good factor coming into play here. Let me put it this way: firstly, honor and shame was at the center of God's response to the two brothers' offerings; secondly, due to the already lost honor and diminished glory on humans after the Fall, honor was/is a limited good. Thus there was only so much honor to go around. Of course the object of this honor was/is God.

When examined closely, the Lord regarded or disregarded the person first, before the offering. The Bible clearly says that "And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard." Gen 4:4-5 (ESV). From the discussions on the subject of honor and shame it is apparent that these (shame and honor) affect the very core of our being (who we really are). Therefore, it is not about what we have done but who we are. The Lord rejected Cain first on the basis of his dishonorable condition, hence could not accept his offering. For "to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams" 1 Sam 15:22 (ESV). I suppose that the offering was secondary to loyalty here.

Honor as a limited good in honor-shame cultures is first revealed in this story as after Cain's rejection we are told of two reactions to the public shaming. One he was very angry and secondly his face fell, vv. 5-6. The Lord then asks Cain a rhetorical question in a manner to persuade Cain into loyalty. "Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? Already Cain is going through the anguish of public rejection by the Honorable one because of his dishonorable condition. How do we know that his condition was dishonorable? The Lord tells Cain, "if you do well, will you not be accepted?" The Lord was still giving Cain a chance to loyalty and consequent acceptance. But Cain declined the offer, instead his shame was piled upon shame leading to envy and finally sin overcame him; he murdered his brother.

There was only so much honor to go around in the eyes of the two brothers. Still, if both of them whole heartedly followed the Lord, there was inexhaustible honor from God for both of them. But Cain did not have that perspective. He thought that perhaps after having eliminated his brother, he would be left to enjoy the monopoly of appearing before God's presence. Instead, he got the opposite of his desires, namely, "from your face I shall be hidden" v. 14.

This passage has huge implications for discipleship in honor-shame based cultures (really in all cultures). The concept of limited good says that one's gain is another's loss, which has also been summarized as a 'zero sum'. This is true in some African cultures. In Kenya, particularly the image of limited good works in most spheres of life, economics, politics and religion. Due to the strong sense of community and ethnicity, there is a subtle but constant feeling of us-versus-them in competition. Thus, honor (not factors that maintain or take away from it) is a limited good. When I gain honor, my kin will praise me and celebrate with me. Those outside my community will be shamed and might take it to themselves to fight to regain their honor. Efforts to reconcile communities after the 2008 post election violence had all good intentions but lacked two important factors. One, is the awareness on the issue of honor being a limited good among competing communities. Two, reconciliation efforts were short of biblical resources for restoring a Christo-centric perspective on unlimited good in God's Kingdom that yields a win-win result.

Only within the context of the Kingdom of God does our perspective on honor-gain get transformed. Christians seek the right kind of honor in God by merely being accepted in His presence. Jesus makes our acceptance before God possible. This levels the ground for all in the family of God. Thus "There is neither Jew not Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" Gal 3:28 (ESV). There is inexhaustible, and unlimited honor in God for all in His family, hence a win-win situation. God grants us this honor and acceptance through obedience to Jesus Christ. Thus it is not about what we do (or not do), but who we are, our new and honorable identity in Christ.