The five “misunderstandings” below are followed by my thoughts on why they are incorrect or incomplete. –wm
MISUNDERSTANDING #1: “Honor-shame is first of all about reaching people like Muslims in honor-shame cultures.”
Actually, honor-shame is first of all about hermeneutics.
Of course, there is great value in understanding honor-shame for ministry to peoples whose primary cultural orientation is honor-shame. But honor-shame begins with the Bible and proper hermeneutics—the art and science of interpreting Scripture.
Much scholarship1 points to the fact that the pivotal cultural value of the societies into which Scripture was written—is honor and shame. Western theology has under-emphasized this in Scripture interpretation. It results in unnecessarily prioritizing guilt and law over shame, honor, and the regal dimensions of the gospel.
Moreover, the study of honor-shame in the Bible’s various ancient social contexts “advances the Word of God as being primary and first in the contextualization process.”2
Honor-shame reinforces the primacy of Scripture in hermeneutics as well as in matters of culture and contextualization.
MISUNDERSTANDING #2: “Honor-shame is a way to adjust the message of the gospel so that people in honor-shame cultures will be more responsive to it.”
On the surface this idea sounds right, but we need to go deeper.
Here’s why: “The gospel is already contextualized for honor-shame cultures” and “honor and shame are built into the framework of the gospel itself.”3 A variety of honor-shame dynamics are literally woven into verses and themes about salvation and the atonement of Christ.
These honor-shame dynamics include: love of honor … two sources of honor—ascribed and achieved … challenge and riposte … the concept of face … body language … patronage … purity, and … name/kinship/blood.4
Consider the doctrine of “justification by faith.” It is normally understood in an exclusively legal/individualistic framework. However, several honor-shame dynamics are woven into passages where the words justification or justify occur.5
When honor-shame dynamics are understood as integral to justification by faith—it adds critical nuance and relevance to the gospel.
MISUNDERSTANDING #3: “Yes, honor-shame teaching addresses humanity’s problem of shame. But let’s remember that theologically, shame is secondary to the more basic problem of humanity’s guilt. Guilt is primarily objective; shame is merely subjective.”
Contrary to this common belief …
… the Bible reveals that sin includes both objective guilt and objective shame. Shame is not merely subjective. Indeed, as guilt is both objective and subjective, likewise shame is both objective and subjective.
According to research by Jackson Wu, shame in the Bible has three types: 1) psychological, 2) social, and 3) sacred. Moreover, Wu’s article (reviewed here) demonstrates—in my opinion, conclusively—that in Scripture, shame is just as theologically objective as guilt. In fact, there are more types of objective shame than subjective shame.6
I heartily recommend Dr. Wu’s article with its carefully structured biblical support. Understanding that guilt and shame are both objective and subjective has major implications for how we teach and preach the gospel.
MISUNDERSTANDING #4: “Honor-shame is a method for improving ministry to the unreached in honor-shame cultures. But for Western peoples the application of honor-shame is limited—it’s just not as important.”
Not so fast.
The observer of modern Western culture sees the pathologies of social media and the erosion of political discourse, with many Christians as uncritical participants in these ills. Add to this the threat of Islamic terrorism and other culturally-rooted conflicts. Consider also … sexual abuse, substance abuse and addiction … inclusion and exclusion … tribalism, racism, and nationalism.
All of these social ills have profound honor-shame features. They have an enormous impact on a nation’s citizens, as well as on “kingdom citizens”—believers who are part of the kingdom of Christ. When the gospel has honor-shame content, it not only addresses personal salvation, it also speaks in a profound and transforming way to social and corporate issues—just as it did in First Century Palestine and the Roman Empire.
Honor-shame contributes mightily to a missional theology—even for Westerners.7
MISUNDERSTANDING #5: “Putting too much emphasis on honor-shame is risky. It can lead to syncretism, imbalance, or ethical compromise—especially in an honor-shame cultural context.”
Could it be—it’s just the opposite?
A biblically-sound emphasis on honor-shame should lead to an increase (not a decrease) in ethical integrity. With an emphasis on honor-shame, believers understand their “honor surplus” in Christ—and build “shame resilience.”8
By knowing Jesus (Phil 3:8) and through honor-bound loyalty to Christ the King, believers persevere despite suffering. They can challenge prevailing social values when those values violate God’s kingdom values.
These truths are explicit in the letter of First Peter.9
A proper biblical emphasis on honor-shame dynamics in salvation and discipleship should counter the tendency toward syncretism or ethical compromise.10
FOOTNOTES
1. See, for example, Jerome Neyrey, Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998); David deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000); Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007); John M. G. Barclay: Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015); and Joshua Jipp: Christ Is King: Paul‘s Royal Ideology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015).
2. Werner Mischke: The Global Gospel: Achieving Missional Impact in Our Multicultural World (Scottsdale: Mission ONE, 2015), 305–11.
3. Jackson Wu, “Rewriting the Gospel for Oral Cultures: Why Honor and Shame are Essential to the Gospel Story,” in International Orality Network: Beyond Literate Western Contexts: Honor & Shame and Assessment of Orality Preference.
4. Mischke, The Global Gospel, 206–78. Numerous scholars are cited.
5. See Mischke’s blog post series on “honor-shame in justification by faith” at http://tiny.cc/bginyy. For an expansive scholarly treatment of honor-shame dynamics in justification by faith, see Jackson Wu, Saving God’s Face: A Chinese Contextualization of Salvation through Honor and Shame (Pasadena, CA: William Carey International University Press, 2012).
6. See Jackson Wu: “Have Theologians No Sense of Shame? How the Bible Reconciles Objective and Subjective Shame” in Themelios 43.2 (2018): 205–19. http://tiny.cc/u2hnyy. Also, see blog by Jackson Wu and Jayson Georges: “Exposing the Truth about Honor and Shame: The Four Dimensions Christians Must Understand”, at https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2017/february/exposing-truth-about-honor-and-shame.html.
7. See Andy Crouch, “The Return of Shame” in Christianity Today, March 2015. http://tiny.cc/tbinyy. He discusses, among other things, the impact of social media from a gospel perspective. The October 2018 issue of The Atlantic asks “Is Democracy Dying?” Several articles address issues that involve honor and shame … inclusion and exclusion … racism, tribalism, nationalism. The point here is simply that honor and shame are profoundly relevant issues in America and other Western nations. Does not the gospel speak about core identity as a matter of salvation? Does not the gospel therefore speak profoundly to these matters?
8. The concept of “shame resilience” is developed by Brené Brown in Daring Greatly: How the Courage to Be Vulnerable Transforms the Way We Live, Love, Parent, and Lead (New York: Gotham Books, 2012).
9. For a thorough examination of these truths, see 1 Peter: An Honor-Shame Paraphrase (Timē Press, Kindle Edition, 2017) by Jayson Georges.
10. See post by Jayson Georges “CAUTION: Honor-Shame is ‘Unbalanced’ and ‘Extreme’!!,” http://honorshame.com/honor-shame-unbalanced/.
