Over the last couple of days I have posted some sobering statistics on both divorce and cohabitation in the Bible Belt. To recap, the Southern states of the Bible Belt have the highest divorce rate in the country, the highest cohabitation rate in the country, the highest marriage rate in the country, and the youngest average age at first marriage in the country. On the bright side, they also have the lowest abortion rate in the country. And, the highest total number of adopted children are found in the South. There is a great love for children in the South. In passing, because of the divorce statistics, the South also shows the highest percentage of blended families. So, how do we pull all this together? The Pew Research Center states:
Correlation also was tested to see whether a state’s religiosity was associated with marriage and divorce patterns. Religiosity was expressed as the proportion of a state’s residents who said in response to a survey that religion was “very important” in their life. However, this analysis did not find a strong association between a state’s religiosity and its marriage or divorce patterns.
You should read the report found here in order to see what correlations there were. Note that the Pew Research Center did not find a link between religiosity and marriage and divorce patterns. So what linkages are there? Well, the Center found that there was some linkage between the basic politics of a state and its marriage/divorce statistics, that is whether your state is a “Blue” state or a “Red” state. There was also some linkage between age of marriage for women and whether the woman would divorce in the next 12 months. Oddly enough, that linkage was not clearly there for men. But, these linkages do not necessarily explain all that is going on in the South. Why are their statistics so negative, given that this is the region of the country where the name of Christ is so openly and freely spoken?
The easy conclusion is that there is hypocrisy at work, but I suggest that this is too quick a conclusion to draw. It would also be too easy a conclusion to draw that a Protestant theology of “once saved always saved” makes it all too easy to declare yourself a Christian while allowing yourself to behave as less than one, or at least not being as worried about possible consequences. Though there may be a little of both at work, I do not see them as being significant factors. So, what do I consider the significant factor(s) to be. It may surprise you, but I consider culture to be a more significant factor than the two above. What do I mean by culture?
Previously, in another post, I had mentioned that country music has long recognized both the “sawdust trail” faith of this area of the country and the strong relational problems in this area. But, from where do those problems come? I believe that they actually go all the way back to the immigrants who came to this section of the country. Remember that the Deep South has a history of receiving Celtic (Scots/Welsh/Irish) immigrants. Both the roots of old country music and the clogging dances of much of the mountain region traces right back to Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. The distinctive fiddle music and dances of those regions gave birth to the music and culture of the South. Add to that the Jacobites who fled to this country. Add to that the English Cavaliers who came to this area in reaction to their defeat in England, every bit as much as the Puritans went to the Northeast, and so on.
What this means is that the South was populated by people whose conception of personal honor was very high. By personal honor I do not mean what many people mean today, which is to speak of integrity, honesty, etc. Yes, of course those values were there, as they were among the Puritans. Rather, in this case honor means something similar to what Dr. Samuel Johnson wrote in 1755. There he defined honor as:
… having several senses, the first of which was “nobility of soul, magnanimity, and a scorn of meanness.” This sort of honour derives from the perceived virtuous conduct and personal integrity of the person endowed with it. On the other hand, Johnson also defined honour in relationship to “reputation” and “fame”; to “privileges of rank or birth”, and as “respect” of the kind which “places an individual socially and determines his right to precedence.” This sort of honour is not so much a function of moral or ethical excellence, as it is a consequence of power. Finally, with respect to women, honour may be synonymous with “chastity” or “virginity”, or in case of a married woman, “fidelity”.
Another way to put it is that the South lives a culture of honor. What does this mean? Let me give you this interesting quote about cultures of honor and you will see what I mean:
From the viewpoint or anthropologists, cultures of honour typically appear among nomadic peoples and herdsmen who carry their most valuable property with them and risk having it stolen, without having recourse to law enforcement or government. In this situation, inspiring fear forms a better strategy than promoting friendship; and cultivating a reputation for swift and disproportionate revenge increases the safety of one’s person and property. Thinkers ranging from Montesquieu to Steven Pinker have remarked upon the mindset needed for a culture of honour.
Cultures of honour therefore appear among the Bedouin, and the Scottish and English herdsmen of the Border country, and many similar peoples, who have little allegiance to a national government; among cowboys, frontiersmen, and ranchers of the American West, where official law-enforcement often remained out of reach, as is famously depicted and celebrated in Westerns; among the plantation culture of the American South …
Once a culture of honour exists, it is difficult for its members to make the transition to a culture of law; this requires that people become willing to back down and refuse to immediately retaliate, and from the viewpoint of the culture of honour, this tends to appear to be an unwise act reflecting weakness.
Did you catch that last phrase? Once that culture of honor exists, it is very difficult, even if that culture proclaims law and order, to learn “to back down and refuse to immediately retaliate …” Think back to country music. How many songs in country music involve some type of immediate retaliation for a perceived wrong? How many songs in country music assume that the offended person will take matters into their own hand and NOT call a law officer? The South has a culture that makes it difficult to compromise consistently. It is seen as a sign of weakness. Now imagine the harm that this does to a marriage! This is why the divorce rate in the South is higher than average for both religious and non-religious couples.
Honor is not the same as pride, but it can certainly appear to be that. When compromise is seen as a violation of honor, deadly harm is done to a marriage. When “losing” an argument, or when compromise, or when humility is seen to be the same thing as weakness, then overcoming an argument in a marriage becomes immeasurably more difficult. Unfortunately, that is what is present in the South. Thus, it is not surprising that the highest rate of divorce is found here.
So, why is the lowest rate of abortion found here? Because this is the Bible Belt, which does believe that abortion is a sin. And, since an unborn child cannot violate a person’s honor, there is no conflict, the child wins. But note that when it comes to divorce–or any of several other matters which will not be discussed in this post–a culture of honor makes it more difficult to follow the Bible, which after all insists on humility and turning the other cheek.
So, I see the South’s culture of honor as being the reason for the higher than average divorce rate in this area, not hypocrisy and not bad theology.
Your interpretation is very enlightening and insightful to me, Father. You have given me much to think about regarding my southern culture, and it may be just what I needed to better understand myself and others.
Interesting post. I think it is also due to the fact that it is not discussed in churches, which may be due to the fact that ministers feel the tension from the cultural element you mentioned.
Wow, good analysis. While there very well may be additional factors, I think you have accurately identified the root as the culture of honor. Like John above I now think I understand myself and my culture of origin better. I wonder if this “culture of honor” is one of the reasons my Lebanese Great Grandfather ended up settling down in Arkansas. This culture on honor explanation also helps me understand the Civil Wars/War Between the State.
What have you found to be the most effective way to resolve conflict with someone deeply entrenched in a culture of honor?
The trouble with a culture of honor is that at its worst there are few ways to easily resolve conflicts, since any backing down is seen as weakness. Think of the Old West “gunslinger” and you have an image of a person whose culture of honor drives them to be constantly defending their honor.
If you listen to country music, it is interesting to note that one way to resolve the conflict is to get into a good bar fight, get drunk together afterward, and now it is over and you can both shake hands. That is, the demands of honor are satisfied by a duel (bar fight)!
Hmmm, so “counselors” should invest in a padded octagon fighting cage, gloves, and head gear, then let their “clients” duke it out under medical supervision? Well, shucks! 🙂
Tangential silly joke:
What happens when you play a country record backwards?
That dude gets his dog back, gets his truck back, gets his girl back . . .
This is an interesting discussion of the culture of honour in the book Outliers: The Story of Success — is your quote from that book?
I think it unfortunate that (according to what you’ve written here, I haven’t looked at the Pew Research Center report): ‘Religiosity was expressed as the proportion of a state’s residents who said in response to a survey that religion was “very important” in their life.’ It is too easy to say religion is ‘very important’ in one’s life, especially in a culture where religion is expected to be important as is the case in the South. Research has shown the correlation between such ‘religiosity’ and voting patterns is weak, but religiosity defined as how often one attends religious services and voting shows a strong correlation. I wonder if the Pew Research Center might find a strong correlation between how often people attend religious services and marriage/divorce patterns.
Regarding the ‘blue’ state and ‘red’ state idea, I find the sixth map on the http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/ page is very helpful in understanding that one should not draw sharp ‘black-and-white’ (blue-and-red!!!) differences: the reality is much more a matter of grey (purple!). (Also useful, since the statistics are divided by state, is to look at the purple-by-state as found at http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/bush-gore-map.jpg (unfortunately from 2000 and not 2008, but the point remains).
There has been some correlation between regular church attendance and slightly lower divorce patterns. In fact, the Antiochian Youth Department reported that if a youth attends more than once a week, the rates of youthful indiscretions go measurable down.
Having said that, the reason the Pew Center said that this was not the main pattern was because the regional correlations were demonstrably stronger than the “church” correlations. In other words, the divorce pattern of a regular attender may be somewhat (or slightly depending on which study) lower than the surrounding culture, but it does reflect the surrounding culture. So, the divorce rate of a “religious” person in the Southeast is somewhat (or slightly) lower than the divorce rate of the “non-religious” but it is still higher than the divorce rate of a non-religious person in the Northeast!
Hmmm….
I wonder to what extent this explains the “my way or the highway” attitude of the Tea Party faction,including those in Congress, many of whom come from Southern states.
Certainly that attitude does reflect a culture of honor. The brinksmanship, the willingness to fight regardless of the odds, but on the positive side, the strong loyalty to yours are all part of a culture of honor. Any culture has both strongly positive and strongly negative sides. Frankly, there are times when a willingness to fight regardless of the odds is actually a very good thing. But, yes, the Tea Party certainly reflects some of its regional roots.
I moved from St. Louis, Missouri to rural northeast Texas for four years to pursue my M.Div.. While in school, I was a part-time local pastor. I don’t think I ever got over the culture shock of the difference between the Lutheran and Roman Catholic religious landscape of STL and the largely Reformed-influence in Texas.
In the congregation I pastored, I had two women who had been married and divorced over 5 times each. None of their husbands remarried. In many families, there was a three-generation deep trend of unwed teenage pregnancies. It was simultaneously frowned upon and celebrated when another high schooler got pregnant with her boyfriend. I wonder how issues of honor play out in that aspect of the culture.
The issue of honor–not backing down or compromising–made the congregation difficult to lead. This “Yankee” just didn’t get it, and even when I apologized, for mistakes as their pastor, I felt not that all things were made even, but that my surrendering of my honor was lorded over me. I would contest that a culture of honor, is in fact, bad theology–or at least, a lack of a theology of servanthood.
Just one point of correction: Protestant theology is not “Once Saved, Always Saved.” That perspective is Reformed Theology in the Swiss tradition. I’m a Wesleyan/Methodist, and my soteriology resembles more the Orthodox understanding of salvation.
You have some good points. A culture of honor, carried to an extreme, is certainly extremely bad theology. And, yes, you are correct that the theology I quoted was actually Reformed, not simply Protestant.
The problem with an honor culture is that a loss of honor sticks with you, as you found out, and is a sign of weakness. This makes apologies very difficult.
Wesleyans make great Orthodox Christians once they discover, as you seem to allude, that the roots of Wesley’s theology were largely planted in the early Church Fathers, men such as Ephrem the Syrian, and that Fr. Wesley was not only Evangelical, but also protoAnglo-Catholic. Come on home!
I am a southerner, partly of Celtic roots, but mostly an Army brat. Our family mantra was “Duty, Honor, Country.” I have been married and divorced–mostly, I think, because I never found anyone who had the same honor and integrity as I came to expect by looking at my father. (That and I seem to have sucker writter on my forehead.) I stayed in abusive marriages (more than one) once almost to my literal death because of that same duty and honor. Would that I had found a partner who was such a man of honor.
My Wesleyan roots come from my mother and grandmother and I would agree that Orthodoxy was a welcome home to me when I found myself welcomed here.
I still believe in duty, honor and country. My father who taught me that is buried at Arlington having served his country during three wars and numerous small “non-wars.” I do not see that that the Gospel and Honor are mutually exclusive. Jesus is God and He is the most honorable man who fulfilled His duty with All Honor–would that I could be more like Him.
I was taught that honor meant that you gave back because you were given much, that you held yourself to the highest standards of moral and ethical behavior, that you did not back down in the face of evil. One’s duty was to uphold that honor and show oneself honorable in all transactions and that included alms giving and caring for those less fortumate. THAT was duty–
I also see that maybe if I had chosen men of a similiar culture, I might not have had the issues I had. Perhaps my expectations were culturally biased and thus misunderstood. That being said, physical violence to a women or to children is NEVER the action of a man with any sort of honor of whatever cultural background.
One mistake I deeply regret probably could be understood in a frame of differing cultures. My husband whom I loved and whom I must say I still love came to me after a trip abroad and asked for a divorce. Acting from a cultural bias, I believe, I held my head up and gave him exactly that and walked away proudly, not looking back and made another life for myself (You don’t admit a broken heart!!). To this day–nearly 35 years later, he cannot tell me why he asked for the divorce as he says he still loved me and still does. Based on his cultural bias, I believe today, I should have pitched a hissy fit and dramatically dragged God and everyone into the situation including his very old fashioned Italian grandmother. We would probably still be married.
Ah well, That is another long story–and my life is what it is. I have found a beloved home in Orthodoxy and try to grow to be as like to God as I be.
Alix Marie
The definition of honor that you are using is what is the first definition of honor from Samuel Johnson in 1755. The one that gets people into “duels” or bar fights, etc., is the second definition of Samuel Johnson. It is that second one that sets up a culture of honor, where honor does not mean service, but rather something akin to not being insulted.
I see Jesus as very anti “honor.” Love your enemies. Don’t go to the altar as long as you have aught against your brother. Forgive 77 times. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.(Caesar wanted Him dead. He meekly complied.) It seems to me that an “Honor” society misunderstands Christianity,
Your article reminds me of America’s response to 7/11.