Codes of Honor: What do you think?

[URA]

For more context, it came from this great article: www.kofc.org/en/columbia/detail/knighthood-the-new-man.html


I find codes of honor to be fascinating. Generally based in knighthood, these codes reflect somebody who has all the physical and material strength the world can offer, and bring all of it to its fullness with moral strength, as outlined under the ideal of honor. Live honorably, use your skills for good, be dedicated to something higher. It takes a real man to live like this.

That is an abbreviation of my thoughts on the matter; what are yours? Feel free to discuss this example & share your own examples, though I don't want this to entirely be a discussion of any particular point. There is value in discussing the specifics, but discussing the idea of these codes of honor is more the focus of this thread. Thank you, and I look forward to a good discussion!

 

[Tinker Grey]

There may some value in codes of honor. But I think too many people are prone to treat the items as rules rather than principles.

On a personal note, the included code of honor is of little to no value to a non-believer.

 

[Occams Barber]

For more context, it came from this great article: www.kofc.org/en/columbia/detail/knighthood-the-new-man.html


I find codes of honor to be fascinating. Generally based in knighthood, these codes reflect somebody who has all the physical and material strength the world can offer, and bring all of it to its fullness with moral strength, as outlined under the ideal of honor. Live honorably, use your skills for good, be dedicated to something higher. It takes a real man to live like this.

That is an abbreviation of my thoughts on the matter; what are yours? Feel free to discuss this example & share your own examples, though I don't want this to entirely be a discussion of any particular point. There is value in discussing the specifics, but discussing the idea of these codes of honor is more the focus of this thread. Thank you, and I look forward to a good discussion!

I find it fascinating that these codes are applied to a particular class of males. By inference they are not codes which can be applied to females or the common man. This differentiation is a product of a time when misogyny and class were all important. It also represents a highly romanticised image of a group who were essentially privileged thugs.

Your linked article appears to be disturbingly based on an inferred male dominance and an implied sense of the 'weaker sex'.

OB

 

[bèlla]

Thanks for sharing Alex! I love chivalry.

Tags your fellow knight @SarahsKnight

Yours in His Service,

~Bella

 

[Amittai]

Erasmus was a writer of literature. It should be remembered Chaput is meant to be a plain pastor to all his flock. Please don't join confraternities, sodalities or wouldbe prelatures. Personally hijack for your entirely own purposes, what items from the list you want and don't accept anyone else's interpretation but your unique individual one. I've witnessed the utter destruction caused by these cliques of manipulators - whom OB rightly calls thugs - in large numbers of families across several generations.

Never defer to what or who doesn't deserve it. If you've sworn oaths, just break them, unilaterally. It's worth it. Invent your own relationships with the people around you, on your own initiative and to your own discretion. Don't be passive and don't be dictated to. Principles that ought to attract us if the playing field were kept level, get "packaged", and the wrapping the "animators" give is that we can have mutual self-determination and subsidiarity but the show is in reality entirely steered by them.

BTW I've founded the "Knights Of The White Knuckle" for those of us that are hanging in there!

 

[keith99]

So if you love your parents but they are raving racists or antisemites you should not show any pity or concern, not even giving a glass of water to a Jew or 'inferior' race?

I don't think so.

Also I'm rather good at math. But not at all good at foreign languages. It would be extreme foolishness to spend my time trying to excel in languages when far less effort in math or the science that use it would benefitte both myself and others.

Not as foolish as my ex deciding to try to turn her fear of heights into a strength. That would likely get her killed.

No I think I'll pass. I'm already committed to enough foolishness as I have pledged there will not be a Kitty Genovese where I can hear.

 

[URA]

There may some value in codes of honor. But I think too many people are prone to treat the items as rules rather than principles.

That is always a threat, and may be considered the cardinal sin of religious people. I find that the mentality of living honorably is a good remedy for that, though of course any attempt to write down what that means can degrade into something far too legalistic for its own good.

On a personal note, the included code of honor is of little to no value to a non-believer.

There are Christian elements here; that is undeniable. Yet what about the points that have no direct religious references? I would use pieces of this with the teenagers I taught at summer camp, and it resonated very well with them. "Never do anything, in public or private, that the ones you love would not hold in esteem." That is an excellent piece of wisdom that transcends religion.

Looking closer at this list, only 7 items are religious. Suppose I called it "The 15 Rules of Knighthood" and dropped the religious references; how would this change your perspective?

 

[Carl Emerson]

For more context, it came from this great article: www.kofc.org/en/columbia/detail/knighthood-the-new-man.html


I find codes of honor to be fascinating. Generally based in knighthood, these codes reflect somebody who has all the physical and material strength the world can offer, and bring all of it to its fullness with moral strength, as outlined under the ideal of honor. Live honorably, use your skills for good, be dedicated to something higher. It takes a real man to live like this.

That is an abbreviation of my thoughts on the matter; what are yours? Feel free to discuss this example & share your own examples, though I don't want this to entirely be a discussion of any particular point. There is value in discussing the specifics, but discussing the idea of these codes of honor is more the focus of this thread. Thank you, and I look forward to a good discussion!

Sounds good to me except #18.

There are times when obedience is required without seeing outcome or consequence.

 

[URA]

I find it fascinating that these codes are applied to a particular class of males. By inference they are not codes which can be applied to females or the common man. This differentiation is a product of a time when misogyny and class were all important. It also represents a highly romanticised image of a group who were essentially privileged thugs.

I cannot answer for Erasmus' particular view, or that of any knight at the time. Yet the code itself, even when I phrase it in terms of manliness, can be applied to anyone. Suppose a code of honor grew out of female fashion model culture; would it only apply to attractive adult women? The origin may be based in one group of people, but I fail to see any point in the 22 Rules that suggests misogyny of any kind. Only the last point, which includes the line "Encourage your brothers", is in any way suggestive of males only, and this is easy enough to read as "Brothers or sisters". When reading books written by nuns, I see the phrase "sister" or "daughter", yet that makes it no less applicable to me.

Your linked article appears to be disturbingly based on an inferred male dominance and an implied sense of the 'weaker sex'.

The fourth paragraph after the heading "Memory and the New Knighthood" describes a group of men who assemble to protect people from, among other things, rape. Protecting others from rape may be the farthest thing from 'male dominance' there is. Go down to the seventh paragraph, and the description of the "New Knighthood" being promoted acknowledges and directly opposes the 'privileged thug' mentality that was far too common among the knights of the time.

Especially through the section "Sex and the New Man", the idea of male dominance is called to complete annihilation. What in this article made you think about male dominance?

Regarding the weaker sex, I could see how you saw that from the article, with a bit of a theme of men protecting women. Yet I doubt that women being told to help out men would refer to men as a 'weaker sex'. If I hold myself to a code of honor that demands taking special care of women, is that because I think they're weaker, or is it done as an act of humility? Am I recognizing that my strength may be used in the wrong direction (as happens far too much with God's daughters)? Do you think anyone who uses women in porn or lust or dominance puts themselves in the mentality of protecting women?

Do fill me in with more of your thought process here; it's the only way we'll have a good discussion. I've learned over the years that a frustrating ignoring of someone else's post never ends well, but a longer conversation often realizes that there is more in common than either realized.

 

[URA]

Sounds good to me except #18.

There are times when obedience is required without seeing outcome or consequence.

That is true; you raise a good point! I've always struggled with this point from the basis of not knowing what the outcomes will be. Yet I think the mentality of considering what effects an action may bring is more to the point. Following the letter of this 'law' is impractical and sometimes contrary to obedience, but understanding that actions have outcomes can lead to greater prudence when acting.

 

[Occams Barber]

I cannot answer for Erasmus' particular view, or that of any knight at the time. Yet the code itself, even when I phrase it in terms of manliness, can be applied to anyone. Suppose a code of honor grew out of female fashion model culture; would it only apply to attractive adult women? The origin may be based in one group of people, but I fail to see any point in the 22 Rules that suggests misogyny of any kind. Only the last point, which includes the line "Encourage your brothers", is in any way suggestive of males only, and this is easy enough to read as "Brothers or sisters". When reading books written by nuns, I see the phrase "sister" or "daughter", yet that makes it no less applicable to me.

I'm not arguing that the code could be applied to all people but it was originally written as a knight's code with the inference that they were a special class. At the time it was written it was an extension of the fictional concept known as chivalry and was seen as specific to knights. The inference is that the virtues described were peculiar to knights.

The fourth paragraph after the heading "Memory and the New Knighthood" describes a group of men who assemble to protect people from, among other things, rape. Protecting others from rape may be the farthest thing from 'male dominance' there is. Go down to the seventh paragraph, and the description of the "New Knighthood" being promoted acknowledges and directly opposes the 'privileged thug' mentality that was far too common among the knights of the time.

Especially through the section "Sex and the New Man", the idea of male dominance is called to complete annihilation. What in this article made you think about male dominance?

Regarding the weaker sex, I could see how you saw that from the article, with a bit of a theme of men protecting women. Yet I doubt that women being told to help out men would refer to men as a 'weaker sex'. If I hold myself to a code of honor that demands taking special care of women, is that because I think they're weaker, or is it done as an act of humility? Am I recognizing that my strength may be used in the wrong direction (as happens far too much with God's daughters)? Do you think anyone who uses women in porn or lust or dominance puts themselves in the mentality of protecting women?

Do fill me in with more of your thought process here; it's the only way we'll have a good discussion. I've learned over the years that a frustrating ignoring of someone else's post never ends well, but a longer conversation often realizes that there is more in common than either realized.

Fast forward to the 21st century... The same list is reintroduced to (wait for it) a men's club under the auspices of one of the more patriarchal Christian sects. It gets better - they're called Knights. Even the article's title about protecting families infers protecting the 'little woman and the kids'. The 'manliness' theme (read patriarchal) is obvious. The dog whistling is deafening.

Even you acknowledge the 'men protecting women' theme inherent in the article. You also hold yourself 'to a code of honor (sic) that demands taking special care of women'. It would be hard to find a more patronising statement.

OB

 

[Carl Emerson]

#10 is interesting because folks often think that the tempter is in control of temptation - this is not the case.

Further the Scripture "Resist Satan and he will flee from you is not well understood.

The Greek for resist is 'to make arrangements against' - this is something one must do in advance.

To it is refreshing to see that it seems this was understood.

 

[Carl Emerson]

#3 I refuse my fears in Jesus name - "prefect love casts out all fear...

So this one is a little disappointing -

Jesus came to set us free from whatever grips us...

He did not tell us to manage and understand our issues, but to be set free from them.

Addictions, fears etc. are all robbery and not His will.

Managing disorders is the speak of modern psychology, not the language of the Kingdom in which He reigns.

 

[Carl Emerson]

#17 is not walking by faith.

He often leads us out not knowing where we are going or how.

Man plans his way - yes... but as we go He orders our steps and we often end up far from where we expected -

Our plans need to be in His grip - not ours.

 

[Carl Emerson]

#19 I think I know what is meant - but often those we love do not understand what God is doing in and through us. The danger is to model ones behaviours on the expectations of others rather than Christ.

I have known folks to be offended by my words, then come back 6 months later with thanks.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I'm not arguing that the code could be applied to all people but it was originally written as a knight's code with the inference that they were a special class. At the time it was written it was an extension of the fictional concept known as chivalry and was seen as specific to knights. The inference is that the virtues described were peculiar to knights.



Fast forward to the 21st century... The same list is reintroduced to (wait for it) a men's club under the auspices of one of the more patriarchal Christian sects. It gets better - they're called Knights. Even the article's title about protecting families infers protecting the 'little woman and the kids'. The 'manliness' theme (read patriarchal) is obvious. The dog whistling is deafening.

Even you acknowledge the 'men protecting women' theme inherent in the article. You also hold yourself 'to a code of honor (sic) that demands taking special care of women'. It would be hard to find a more patronising statement.

OB

1 Peter 3:7

7You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.

 

[Paidiske]

Protecting others from rape may be the farthest thing from 'male dominance' there is.

That depends. It could be done in a way which lifts up and empowers women, or it could be done in a way which restricts and controls them. (Think of how purdah could be seen as a rape-prevention strategy). I am wary of the "men protecting women" kind of trope.

My reaction is similar to @Occams Barber; we know that in practice, these codes were often used to legitimate and reinforce violence and all kinds of social problems. (In fact the code seems to assume that the violence of battle is normative rather than a grave evil).

While it might be good to develop one's own personal code of honour, I would not use a medieval code developed for knights, nor consider that an appropriate foundation for 21st-century morality or life.

 

[Occams Barber]

1 Peter 3:7

7You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.

Maybe this explains why people rarely seem to quote Peter. Based on this quote he's a bit of a misogynist.

(I note that your quote waters down the even more insulting "weaker vessels" used in other translations.)

OB

 

[Carl Emerson]

Maybe this explains why people rarely seem to quote Peter. Based on this quote he's a bit of a misogynist.

(I note that your quote waters down the even more insulting "weaker vessels" used in other translations.)

OB

NASB is my 'go to' translation for accuracy.

Sorry you are not a fan of Peter, I guess I am not a fan of Freud.

 

[Carl Emerson]

In fact the code seems to assume that the violence of battle is normative rather than a grave evil

Is the code addressing physical violence or spiritual warfare?

You may be right - I was thinking of Pilgrims Progress...