We had our first honor-shame webinar class yesterday. Here are three questions I received from one participant after the class:
1. You mentioned that ‘law’ is important in the guilt/innocence worldview. What is the equivalent in the shame/honor worldview? Would it be ‘peer pressure’ or something like that (it’s only bad if you get caught)?
2. You mentioned that the ways people deal with shame are generally unhealthy, while guilt leads to the possibility of reconciliation and forgiveness/pardon. Does this mean that we can make a value judgment and say that the guilt/innocence worldview is ‘better’ or ‘healthier’ than the shame/honor worldview?
3. (linked to 2) When discipling in a shame/honor culture, is it therefore a legitimate aim to introduce the more ‘western’ guilt/innocence elements of biblical truth? Or can shame/honor be redeemed without reference to guilt/innocence?
Here are my responses to these questions.
1. You mentioned that ‘law’ is important in the guilt/innocence worldview. What is the equivalent in the shame/honor worldview? Would it be ‘peer pressure’ or something like that (it’s only bad if you get caught)?
First of all, from the perspective of the Bible, the law is not separate from an honor-shame worldview. Consider for example Rom 2:23–24: “You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. For, as it is written, ‘The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.’” See also Daniel 9:8–11. When God’s people broke God’s laws, the result was shame and dishonor in God’s sight, and being “blasphemed among the nations.” This is appropriate shame. It is objective shame before God; it is subjective shame before people—subjective in the sense they felt and experienced it. All because of the corporate sins of God’s people.
Keep in mind that the Mosaic law was given to God’s people not by an impersonal judge, but by the creator God and King who calls himself the Bridegroom and his people his bride (see Eze 16). So the law was given to God’s people inside of an eternal, deeply relational covenant. (This is not how we think about the law in Western culture; the law is much more abstract and impersonal in the West.)
You said, “What is the equivalent in the shame/honor worldview? Would it be ‘peer pressure’ or something like that (it’s only bad if you get caught)?” There is some truth to this. What you are talking about might be described as the primary motivation factor in human behavior: Is this an internal legal code, sometimes called our conscience? Or is it an external social code? I believe that for most people it is usually not all one or the other, but a combination of the two. It’s a matter of degree—depending on the culture, the individual, the social circumstances.
“Peer pressure” is certainly one way of describing the primary motivation for many. I think the words “peer pressure” have the connotation of being something that young people struggle with. But aren’t most people influenced by their peers? Don’t most people do things in a way that advances their reputation? Everyone is concerned about reputation. Everyone is concerned about “saving face,” although it shows up in varying degrees and in varying social styles.
There is some truth to the fact that in many cultures—and for many people all over the world regardless of culture—“it’s only bad if you get caught.” For Christians everywhere, the discipleship process includes learning to live with Spirit-empowered integrity regardless of who is watching. I would add, that as our culture in America and the West continues to move away from a Christian worldview, this represents a corresponding growing need here. The psychological and social anxieties related to social media (Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, etc.) and the unhealthy dynamics of inclusion/exclusion are very much alive all across America and the West.
2. You mentioned that the ways people deal with shame are generally unhealthy, while guilt leads to the possibility of reconciliation and forgiveness/pardon. Does this mean that we can make a value judgment and say that the guilt/innocence worldview is ‘better’ or ‘healthier’ than the shame/honor worldview?
I remember a counselor telling me once that he tried to help people move “from shame to guilt.” I think from this perspective, shame is toxic and harmful. It’s reflected in the thought, “I am bad, disgusting, unworthy.” In contrast, guilt is more healing and is represented by the thought—“I did bad things that are wrong, but I am loved, I can be forgiven, I can change my behavior.”
Having said that, there is ample research and Scripture which shows that shame is not necessarily toxic, but rather, can be healthy for families and societies. Reflecting on the views of some parents I know, they actually wish their teenagers had a greater sense of shame and family honor; it might have prevented these teens from doing stupid things that have had negative long-lasting consequences!
So shame is not to be thought of exclusively as a toxic thing. There can definitely be a healthy side to shame. This morning as I was reading my Bible, I noted that I had highlighted Daniel 9:7–8.
“To you, O Lord, belongs righteousness, but to us open shame, as at this day, to the men of Judah, to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to all Israel, those who are near and those who are far away, in all the lands to which you have driven them, because of the treachery that they have committed against you. To us, O LORD, belongs open shame, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against you.”
Two observations about Dan 9:7–8:
- Shame is an objective appropriate response to the sin of God’s people. By “objective shame,” I mean this: The problem of humanity’s OBJECTIVE SHAME before God—whether we know it our not.
- In this passage—and many many others in the Old Testament—sin is understood as a collective reality, not merely as an individual problem.
Getting back to the question, Does this mean that we can make a value judgment and say that the guilt/innocence worldview is ‘better’ or ‘healthier’ than the shame/honor worldview?, the answer is a cautious “Perhaps.” I do think in some ways this is true. I believe that guilt-prone people will generally have healthier relationships than shame-prone people.
But consider honor-based violence—the most seriously pathological dimension of honor-shame cultures (think ISIS, honor-killings, the Mafia, gang violence). Will this honor-based violence be cured by new laws and a guilt/innocence worldview? If the desire to preserve and gain honor is at the root of much violence, isn’t the cure contained in the gospel and the Person of Christ—addressing the covering of shame and the longing for honor?
In other words, I believe that for whatever pathologies exist in honor-shame cultures, the cure is not to replace it with a guilt/innocence worldview, but to offer the upside-down honor-sharing, shame-covering blessing of the gospel. I believe a Christ-centered culture of honor/shame will produce an ethically superior society. Therefore, I suggest that we be very careful about attributing the values of “better” or “healthier” to a guilt/innocence worldview—especially if it is apart from the gospel of Christ.
3. (linked to 2) When discipling in a shame/honor culture, it is therefore a legitimate aim to introduce the more ‘western’ guilt/innocence elements of biblical truth? Or can shame/honor be redeemed without reference to guilt/innocence?
Actually, both are true. As Christians, we believe that humanity’s guilt before God is an objective reality. By “objective guilt,” I mean this: The problem of humanity’s OBJECTIVE GUILT before God—whether we know it our not. (See blog at HonorShame.com—“Exposing the Truth about Honor and Shame: The 4 Dimensions Christians Must Understand,” by Jackson Wu and Jayson Georges.) Therefore, as part of any discipleship process, the believer should learn about guilt/innocence, God’s laws, God’s judgment for sin—and Christ’s work of redemption that puts believers in a relationship of “no condemnation in Christ” (Rom 8:1).
This silent one-minute video communicates the basic idea of “Guilt & Shame—Objective & Subjective:”
However, shame/honor is not some separate truth, distinct from the guilt/innocence worldview or from guilt/innocence themes in Scripture. (In the biblical worldview, guilt/innocence, shame/honor, and fear/power are often overlapping realities.) If a person realizes that their sin, whether individual or corporate, is deeply dishonoring to God, isn’t that enough to qualify for the “conviction of sin” and the need for forgiveness and salvation? To support this from Scripture:
- Romans 1–3 in describes sin primarily using honor-shame terminology (Rom 1:23, 2:23, 3:23). The passage on God’s judgment in Rom 2:1–5 is wrapped by other verses and concepts using honor-shame language.
- The story of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11–32) describes sin not in terms of rules and laws broken. Rather, the Prodigal Son story describes sin in more serious terms: Sin is the unthinkable descent into shame—and the profound dishonoring of the father, who represents Almighty God. (See The Father’s Love Gospel Booklet which brings out the honor-shame realities of this story.)
- Salvation by grace (Eph 2:8–9) and being declared innocent (“no condemnation”, Rom 8:1) are not to be understood as ends in themselves. Rather, they are to gain the status reversal of being adopted (Rom 8:16; Eph 1:5) into the family of God (Eph 2:19) … being included in God‘s new humanity (Eph 2:15), the church … which is on mission with God to fulfill his honorific promise made to Abraham (Gen 12:1–3) to bless all the peoples of the earth (Rom 4:16–17).
So, concerning the question: “Can shame/honor be redeemed without reference to guilt/innocence?”
- I believe shame/honor need not be “redeemed by guilt/innocence.” It can stand alone as theologically basic. I believe shame/honor can be used without guilt/innocence to communicate the gospel.
- Nevertheless, guilt/innocence values are present in Scripture and should be taught as a part of God’s many-faceted revelation of himself—and of humanity made in God’s image.
