Erhalten Sie Zugang zu diesem und mehr als 300000 Büchern ab EUR 5,99 monatlich.
- Herausgeber: IVP Academic
- Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
- Sprache: Englisch
- Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2016
Many a Westerner has had a cross-cultural experience of honor and shame. First there are those stuttering moments in the new social landscape. Then after missed cues and social bruises comes the revelation that this culture—indeed much of the world—runs on an honor-shame operating system. When Western individualism and its introspective conscience fails to engage cultural gears, how can we shift and navigate this alternate code? And might we even learn to see and speak the gospel differently if we did? In Ministering in Honor-Shame Cultures Jayson Georges and Mark Baker help us decode the cultural script of honor and shame. What's more, they assist us in reading the Bible anew through the lens of honor and shame, often with startling turns. And they offer thoughtful and practical guidance in ministry within honor-shame contexts. Apt stories, illuminating insights and ministry-tested wisdom complete this well-rounded guide to Christian ministry in honor-shame cultures.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 499
Das E-Book (TTS) können Sie hören im Abo „Legimi Premium” in Legimi-Apps auf:
Ähnliche
MINISTERINGinHONOR-SHAME CULTURES
BIBLICAL FOUNDATIONS and PRACTICAL ESSENTIALS
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
T
HE IDEAS IN THIS BOOK CANNOT be separated from the community I shared in Central Asia. Thanks to the team for being our family. And thanks to those Central Asian believers who, amid various trials, live as though no other glory matters. This book has described God’s honor; your lives embody it. I wish I could mention your names here, but they are already written in another book.
Over the last eight years I’ve been encouraged and sharpened by conversations with hundreds of people about honor and shame. Thank you for those invaluable discussions. But overall, the sustained conversations with close friends have been the most meaningful. So thanks to Ted, David, John, Wayne, Colin, Cy, Werner, Larley and Jackson for being friends and partners in this effort.
I wish also thank Mark for coauthoring this book and mentoring me through the writing process. I have learned much from your long-standing passion to overcome the tyranny of shame, and your strategic ways of doing so. Also, thanks to our IVP Academic editor Dan Reid for your insights and encouragement from beginning to end. We have benefited tremendously from your experience and enthusiasm.
And finally, my wife deserves immeasurable thanks for her encouragement and patience. You, my dear, are far more precious than jewels and clothed with dignity. Sharing life with you is a great honor.
In the process of writing this book, my own emotions halted progress at times. I have been overcome by the reality of my own shame (a reality faced by anyone who writes about shame), but also captivated by the splendor of God’s honor. For example, reading Mark’s paragraphs on the saving significance of the cross in chapter five prompted a powerful and transforming time of worship for me. Glory and praise to the only one who saves from shame and restores honor, Jesus Christ.
Jayson Georges
First and foremost I am grateful to Jayson for inviting me to write this book with him. I have learned much from his deep knowledge on the subject. His passion for the topic added to my already strong convictions of its importance.
I am grateful to Doug Frank for introducing me to the theme of shame years ago. More importantly, he led me to experience freedom from burdens of shame through Jesus. Norman Kraus, through his writings and personal conversation, first led me to sense the importance of this topic for communicating the gospel in honor-shame cultures. Grace May reinforced that. New Testament scholars Kenneth Bailey, David deSilva, Joel Green and Ryan Schellenberg have taught me valuable insights on honor and shame. I have used those insights in countless Bible studies in many places, including Honduras, seminary classrooms and the Fresno County Jail. I have been enriched by the opportunity to proclaim the gospel through the lens of honor and shame and by the opportunity to learn from many in those studies who shared their stories with me.
I have taught at Fresno Pacific Biblical Seminary (formerly Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary) since 1999. I have learned a great deal on the topic of honor and shame from international students and students who have been missionaries in honor-shame cultures. I am especially grateful for the privilege of teaching a number of students from the Japanese Mennonite Brethren Church. They have taught me much and fueled my conviction of the importance of this theme in global mission.
This is the third time I have worked on a book with IVP Academic editor Dan Reid. I am grateful for his skill and wisdom as an editor and for our growing friendship. Jayson and I benefited from Dan’s years of editing experience, but we were especially fortunate to have an editor who grew up in Japan, who was a child of missionaries and who taught in the Philippines for two years. His firsthand knowledge of the subject and passion for the importance of this book was an extra gift.
Jayson and I would like to thank those who read parts or all of the manuscript and gave us valuable feedback. Some cannot be named because they are missionaries in sensitive areas. Those we can mention include Robert Brenneman, David deSilva, Sandra Freeman, Yoshio Fuji, Mathieu Gnonhossou, Karen Huebert-Sanchez, Ryan Schellenberg, Yuritzy Villasenor and an anonymous reviewer arranged by InterVarsity Press.
Finally, I thank Lynn, Julia and Christie for their love and for their support of this project. I am honored to have them as my wife and daughters.
Mark D. Baker
- 1 -
A WORLD of SHAME
There is nothing in this entire world that you need to protect more than your honor. Because you’re nothing without your honor. You’d be dirt, just dirt and nothing else. If someone tried to take my honor, thenI’d do anything to get it back. Literally anything.
What is more sacred than honor?
A
ISHA ACTIVELY LIVED OUT HER FAITH as a mature Christian. From the time she trusted Christ as a university student, Aisha was a fruitful disciple maker in her campus ministry. After that season, Aisha and her husband joined a local church-planting team. To assist them, my (Jayson’s) team hosted a weekend of training. Over the previous months I had begun exploring honor and shame in the local culture and in Scripture with increased intensity. The training time with Aisha and her teammates provided an opportunity to dialogue with national Christians on the topic. We examined the biblical story through the lenses of honor and shame for over an hour. Reading the Bible in honor-shame terms came easily to them since their Central Asian culture mirrored the social world of the Bible in many ways. They became increasingly animated as the study progressed. Aisha grasped the implications full well. She spoke with wonder and joy, but also with sadness and confusion. Her eyes watered up, and she begged to know, “Why has nobody told me this before? I have shared with my sister many times that God forgives her sins, but she just says her shame is too great for God.” Her understanding of the gospel, similar to that of many Christians, did not address shame. The consequences of that reality upset her and filled her with sorrow. What was lacking in Aisha’s explanation of how Jesus saves? Why did Aisha’s theology say so little about the very forces of shame that defined her sister?1
Mike ministered to refugees in the United States by sharing life together and helping them get settled. He would often visit Abdul’s house and be regaled with generous hospitality. Being from Iraq, Abdul maintained Middle Eastern values of hospitality and eating. Visits to Abdul’s house would extend for hours. Good conversation and food were guaranteed. One day, Abdul came to visit Mike. But when he arrived, Mike was busy preparing to leave for a scheduled meeting. Upon opening the door, he greeted Abdul, but explained he was busy and closed the door. Mike’s actions offended Abdul. Though polite on the surface, internally he left angered and confused by Mike’s not welcoming him into the home. Mike continued on his way out the door, unaware that his actions might be offensive to Abdul. Why did Mike assume he acted appropriately? Why was Abdul offended? What cultural values influenced Mike’s actions?
Enrique was an eager disciple, soaking up all the theological input I (Mark) gave him and earnestly seeking to live it out. I invited him to go with me to a conference on holistic mission in a nearby Honduran city. Aware of his limited finances I offered to pay for 75 percent of the cost, including meals and an overnight stay at the retreat center, if he would pay the rest. He enthusiastically accepted my offer, and gave me the amount of money I had requested. Enrique later asked me if Francisco, a young man he was discipling, could come as well. I agreed that Francisco could come under the same financial arrangement, and asked Enrique to explain that to Francisco. The day came to leave for the retreat. Enrique had not given me Francisco’s portion, and neither did he mentioned anything about it. I assumed he would give me the money before we registered. We got off one bus, and took a local bus to the retreat center. The closer we got the more concerned I became. I wanted to talk to Enrique alone about the money, but had no opportunity. Finally, just a few steps from the door of the building where we would register, I stopped in the middle of the path and directly asked Francisco, “Could you give me your portion of the registration fee now, so that we have the money straight before we have to actually register?” They both looked very uncomfortable; Francisco turned away, and Enrique looked at me, his expression communicating, “I can’t believe you just did that.” But all he said was, “He was not able to get the money.” I asked, “Why didn’t you tell me? We had an agreement.” They said nothing. They simply bowed their heads slightly and looked down. I alone walked to pay the fee for all three of us. Although I tried to mend the relations, the damage done in that moment hung over us the whole event. Why was our sense of the right thing to do so different? Was I wrong to have asked? Why did Enrique not mention the lack of finances beforehand?
Q: Why did Aisha’s sister not welcome the gospel?
Q: Why was Abdul offended?
Q: Why did Enrique not communicate about Francisco’s finances?
A: Honor and shame. They all interpreted their circumstances through the lenses of honor and shame.
The values of honor and shame guide most of life in Majority World cultures: how you hear the gospel, how you relate to others and how one should communicate. For Aisha’s sister, Abdul and Enrique, their cultural compass directed them toward honor and away from shame. Avoiding shame and maintaining honor was the default operating system of their culture.
Most of the world thinks and lives according to the cultural values of honor and shame. Christians ministering among Majority World peoples encounter this reality in many ways. For this reason, we must use an “honor-shame missiology”—a biblically rooted approach to Christian ministry among the nations that proclaims and mediates God’s honor for the shamed.
A foreign culture is like the night sky—initially fascinating, but quickly daunting without a configuration to meaningfully connect the dots. Amateur stargazers see stars, but miss the constellations. Honor-shame is like the lines between stars; they give meaning and structure to life. Westerners rarely get honor-shame dynamics; they seem foreign. When we fail to connect the dots, we experience cultural frustration and miss kingdom opportunities. In light of the prominence of honor and shame for shaping life in many cultures, too much is at stake to not account for them in Christian mission.
THE DEPTH OF SHAME
On April 15, 2013, two pressure-cooker bombs exploded at the Boston Marathon. The tragedy and ensuing manhunt for the Tsarnaev brothers fueled a media frenzy. As the media dug into the bombers’ background, they interviewed people whose lives intersected with the Tsarnaevs. Their American friends and classmates expressed mostly disbelief and sorrow about the tragedy. Meanwhile, their Chechen uncle lashed out at them, outraged over the social repercussions. Listen to his words: “You put a shame on our entire family—the Tsarnaev family. And you put a shame on the entire Chechen ethnicity. . . . Everyone now puts that shame on the entire ethnicity.”2 When the Boston Marathon bombing occurred, we suspect most Americans did not think all Chechens are shameful, yet that was the Chechen uncle’s primary response. He interpreted the event as fundamentally shame inducing. Americans grieved the loss of safety, but the Chechen uncle feared the shameful actions of two members would infect the whole group.
The testimony of international Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias reveals the powerful force of shame in many cultures. As a young boy in India, he lived to play cricket but was a jokester at school. This conflicted with cultural values. Zacharias explains, “Indian children are raised to live with books and get to the top of the class, or else face failure and shame.”3 His subpar report cards from school reflected poorly on his parents, and led to humiliating thrashings from his father. As a teenager Zacharias made a halfhearted commitment at an evangelistic rally, but his life of failure at school continued to haunt him. He decided to end his life to escape the shame. At age seventeen Zacharias reasoned to himself, “A quiet exit will save my family from further shame.” Zacharias’s attempt to end his own life was motivated by shame, not depression. His family’s reputation was more important than his own life. (His attempt to overdose on drugs was unsuccessful, and he eventually recommitted his life to Christ while recovering in the hospital.) When social reputation is the basic foundation of life and identity, people’s pursuit of respect, honor and status frames every facet of life.
In 2014 a group of militant Muslims overtook regions of war-torn Syria and declared themselves the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria—ISIS. Interestingly, they interpreted those political events as the liberation from disgrace and restoration of status. Note the honor-shame language in their propaganda magazine:
Soon, by Allah’s permission, a day will come when the Muslim will walk everywhere as a master, having honor, being revered, with his head raised high and his dignity preserved. . . .
The time has come for those generations that were drowning in oceans of disgrace, being nursed on the milk of humiliation, and being ruled by the vilest of all people, after their long slumber in the darkness of neglect—the time has come for them to rise. The time has come for [the Muslim world] to wake up from its sleep, remove the garments of dishonor, and shake off the dust of humiliation and disgrace, for the era of lamenting and moaning has gone, and the dawn of honor has emerged anew.4
As morbid and evil as the ISIS ideology is, it reflects an inescapable reality—humans crave honor and abhor shame. The desire for honor and glory cannot be dismissed as a byproduct of sin or some cultural abnormality, but an innate part of being human, somehow rooted in God’s creation. God created every human in his image, and “crowned them with glory and honor” (Ps 8:5). According to recent scientific research, the pursuit of honor and avoidance of shame appears hardwired into the human brain. The limbic system within our brain senses social threats (e.g., shame) the same way as physical threats. Both types of imminent danger trigger the same self-preservation instincts and share a common neural basis in the brain.5 The human brain, and soul, was designed for honor. C. S. Lewis notes,
Glory, as Christianity teaches me to hope for it, turns out to satisfy my original desire and indeed to reveal an element in that desire which I had not noticed. . . . Apparently, then, our lifelong nostalgia, our longing to be reunited with something in the universe from which we now feel cut off, to be on the inside of some door which we have always seen from the outside is no mere neurotic fancy, but the truest index of our real situation.6
Though designed to experience God’s true glory, our honor was exchanged for shame in the Garden of Eden. As a result, humans crave honor and grasp for it in warped and destructive ways, apart from God’s original design.
In World War II the American military faced an unprecedented problem. For the first time a Western nation was warring with a modern military not from the Western cultural tradition. So in June 1944, the US Office of War Information assigned the American anthropologist Ruth Benedict to investigate and explain Japan’s “exceedingly different habits of acting and thinking.”7 Benedict had gained renown for her ability to explain worldviews. To help Westerners understand the anomalies of Japanese culture, Benedict highlighted the unique role of honor and shame. She explained the basic cultural difference as follows: “Shame cultures rely on external sanctions for good behavior, not, as guilt cultures do, on an internalized conviction of sin.”8 With Benedict’s analysis, American policy in Japan during the war and subsequent occupation accounted for the realities of shame. In the same vein, contemporary scholars in a variety of fields—diplomacy, crime, ethics, psychology, community development, politics and social reform9—now recognize that honor and shame must be considered before developing practices and policies for catalyzing social change.
Despite heightened attention to honor and shame among social scientists, honor and shame play a negligible role among Christian theologians and missionaries. As the US Office of War did during World War II, those involved in global mission would also do well to examine honor and shame at a cultural level. In this book we turn, however, not just to anthropology for insight, but to the Bible itself. Just as Westerners fail to adequately observe cultural underpinnings of honor and shame in today’s world, Western Christians also often overlook the prominent role of honor and shame in the Bible, though it comes from an honor-shame context.
A BIBLE COVERED IN SHAME (AND HONOR)
Nurdin and I (Jayson) became friends through an English club. One weekend I visited his family. After lunch we strolled through his village, in part so Nurdin could introduce his American friend to neighbors. Every person I met seemed to be a relative of Nurdin—a cousin, an aunt, a nephew and so on. So I jokingly asked, “Does the whole village consist of just one family?” He chuckled, and then explained an important feature of his culture—all children must know seven generations of ancestors. Village elders would even stop children at play and require them to recite their family lineage back seven generations.
Nurdin’s explanation helped me understand the importance of genealogies in cultures like those found in the Bible. Genealogies, overlooked by modern Western eyes as irrelevant, are essential in group-oriented societies.10 They determine identity, define family, confer status, identify potential spouses and establish social rank. Genealogies function as a manual for life by defining the boundaries of honor and shame. I heard of one young Middle Eastern man who, upon trusting in Jesus, first memorized the genealogy of Matthew 1:1-18. He wanted to know his family ancestry, the lineage he was born into spiritually. As in many contemporary cultures, people in the world of the Bible thought a person’s identity comes from the family they are born into. So honor, in essence, is inherited from one’s kin. For this reason, the New Testament opens, “An account of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Mt 1:1). Genealogies are just one aspect of honor-shame that Western readers overlook in the Bible.
From genealogies to Jesus’ confrontations with Pharisees, from the exile to the crucifixion, from Ruth to Romans and from the psalms of lament to Jesus’ parables, honor and shame are presupposed furniture in the minds of biblical authors and their original audiences.11 The pervasive concern for honor and shame in biblical writings gives a precedent for addressing honor-shame dynamics in contemporary ministry. The Bible consistently reveals God’s heart to honor the shamed.
The Greco-Roman culture into which the early church expanded exhibited particular concern with honor. Aristotle said honor is the greatest of all goods after which important people strive.12 Cicero, the Roman philosopher-politician, explained that ancient Roman life “was lived under the constant, withering gaze of opinion, everyone constantly reckoning up the honour of others.”13 Roman philosopher Dio Chrysostom asks rhetorically, “What is more sacred than honor?”14 Honor and shame prevailed throughout the ancient Mediterranean Society. In fact, one of the premier virtues in the Greco-Roman culture was philotimia—the preoccupation and pursuit of honor. The Oxford Classical Dictionary explains, “Philotimia, literally the love of honour (time). The pursuit of honour(s), tangible or intangible, was a constant of elite behavior throughout Greco-Roman antiquity; all that changed was its context and the extent to which it was given unbridled expression or else harnessed to the needs of the community at large.”15
The apostles wrote to Christians socialized in a Greco-Roman world that perceived life as “a ceaseless, restless quest for distinction in the eyes of one’s peers and of posterity.”16 New Testament professor David deSilva tells us, “The culture of the first-century world was built on the foundational social values of honor and dishonor.”17 As we train our eyes to see the dynamics of honor and shame in the biblical world, we glean insights from the apostles’ ministry in contexts marked by honor and shame. The Bible provides guidance for kingdom ministries among the many honor-shame contexts in today’s world.
GLOBAL REALITIES
For the church to fulfill her mandate to “make disciples of all nations” (Mt 28:19) and “present everyone mature in Christ” (Col 1:28), a biblical missiology for honor-shame contexts is crucial, due to several global realties.
Honor-shame is the predominant culture type for most people in the world. As we will explain in more detail in chapter two, “honor-shame cultures” refers to collectivistic societies where the community tends to shame and exclude people who fail to meet group expectations, and reward loyal members with honor. In contrast, an “innocence-guilt culture,” as commonly encountered in Western, Anglo contexts, is more individualistic.18 It relies on conscience, justice and laws to regulate social behavior. The third cultural orientation Christian missiologists speak about is “power-fear culture.” This refers mostly to animistic or primal contexts where people fear the unseen world of spirits, curses, ancestors and so on, and so act to gain the power of the spiritual world. The three types of cultures are not isolated silos; all three dynamics interact and influence every culture to some degree, but usually one is more predominant in a given culture. So the term “honor-shame culture” is akin to “right-handed person”—it doesn’t suggest the person never uses their left hand (or does not have a left hand!), but simply indicates their primary preference.
In 2014 Jayson developed TheCultureTest.com—an online questionnaire to assess a group’s culture type. The initial nine thousand results from around the world have confirmed what anthropologists and missionaries commonly observe—non-Western cultures are most influenced by honor-shame values. Figure 1.1 indicates the degree to which each cultural dynamic (i.e., guilt, shame and fear) shapes “Majority World” and “Western” cultures.19
Figure 1.1. Comparing culture types
This data suggests that approximately 80 percent of the global population (i.e., Asians, Arabs, Africans and even Latin Americans) runs on the honor-shame operating system. Westerners (i.e., North Americans and Western Europeans) not familiar with honor and shame, globally speaking, are the odd ones out. Western society is like a computer running Linux—its cultural “operating system” has a minority share of the global market.
A person’s culture type significantly shapes his or her worldview, ethics and identity, even more than individual personality. And more significantly for Christian witness, cultural context influences how people experience sin (i.e., as guilt, shame or fear) and conceive of salvation (i.e., innocence, honor or power). The global influence of honor and shame requires Christian theology and mission to account for their reality. Failing to biblically address them leaves significant aspects of people’s daily life and worldview outside of the realm of God’s salvation and truncates the gospel.
The accelerated rate of global migration also makes the topic of honor and shame crucial for ministry in Western countries as well. The face of the Western world has changed quite significantly over the last seventy years. Waves of international students, refugees and immigrants from honor-shame cultures have entered Western countries. As of 2010, forty million people in America are foreign-born immigrants. Since 1965 most immigrants to America have been from non-European backgrounds, resulting in significant demographic and cultural shifts.20 As a result of this migration, Americans now regularly encounter people from the honor-shame cultures of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. As a simple example, Mark’s two immediate neighbors in Fresno, California, are Mexican and El Salvadoran; Jayson’s immediate neighbors in Atlanta, Georgia, are Iraqi and Nepali. Understanding honor-shame is vital, at the very least, for living as Christians in today’s multicultural world. An honor-shame missiology is not only for foreign missionaries fulfilling the Great Commission among the nations (Mt 28:16-20) but also for Christians in the West desiring to fulfill the Great Commandments among their neighbors (Mt 22:39).
While these two global realities (i.e., culture types and immigration) influence Christian mission in today’s world, an even more significant reality about the changing face of the global church calls for an articulation of the gospel in honor-shame terms—Christians globally are increasingly from honor-shame cultures. Researchers have documented how global Christianity is shifting away from the West (i.e., Europe and America) and toward the South (i.e., Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa) and East (e.g., Philippines, Korea, China). In 1900, 82 percent of all Christians were white; by 2050, about 80 percent of all Christians will be nonwhite.21 This rapid shift in global Christianity toward the Majority World mandates fresh theological and missiological reflection. While some movements of Christianity have received and retranslated the gospel into cultural modes fitting their worldview and daily needs, that is hardly the global norm. Most expressions of Christianity in the world continue to be predominantly Western, in both liturgy and theology. The global church must articulate a biblical message for the pivotal values of honor and shame in order to help Majority World Christians love, obey and follow Jesus in their own sociocultural context marked by honor-shame realities. We hope over time more and more “honor-shame natives”22 from the Majority World will themselves develop Christian theology and embody Christian mission for their honor-shame contexts. In the meantime, Western Christians, as they begin to note the honor-shame themes of Scripture, can encourage and foster this process of self-theologizing.
Though people of honor-shame cultures are following Jesus more than ever, the fact remains that most people in honor-shame cultures remain unreached for the gospel. Most of the ethnic groups with limited or no access to the gospel (i.e., unreached people groups) are predominantly honor-shame in their cultural outlook. The region of the world including North Africa, the Middle East and Asia (commonly referred to as the “10/40 Window”) is predominantly honor-shame and contains
64 percent of the total global population,
85 percent of the people living in abject poverty (less than two dollars per day),
90 percent of the world’s unreached/unengaged people groups,
all four major non-Christian religions (Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism), and
a “Christian” population of only 8.5 percent (compared to 70 percent in the global West and South).
The lostness of people and the significant missional opportunities in this global bloc summons the church to consider how they could best engage this unreached region. Perhaps a reason for the church’s limited presence in the 10/40 Window is a lack of biblical reflection on the core values structuring life. A biblical missiology in honor-shame terms may be strategic for fulfilling the Great Commission of making disciples of all nations.
The predominance of honor-shame in global cultures, the surge of immigration into Western contexts, the southward shift of global Christianity and the persistent reality of unreached peoples in honor-shame contexts all highlight the need for a more relevant theology, and a corresponding missiological approach to address honor and shame.
THEOLOGY IN A WORLD OF SHAME
The process of contextualizing the forms and content of the Christian faith for various cultures is commendable and essential. Yet many attempts at contextual evangelism “assume the gospel.”23 That is, many Christians tacitly presuppose a Western gospel with its emphasis on the legal aspects of salvation. For them the very question, how do we communicate the gospel? assumes a priori that “our” particular theology is the absolute and complete truth.
However, one must realize even Western theology is itself contextual. In the words of Lesslie Newbigin, “Every interpretation of the gospel is embodied in some cultural form. The missionary does not come with the pure gospel and then adapt it to the culture where she serves: she comes with a gospel which is already embodied in the culture by which the missionary was formed.”24 All Christian theology is embedded in the values and language of a particular culture. Western theology has skillfully applied God’s truth to the needs of its specific cultural milieu—characterized as individualistic, rationalistic and guilt-based. For example, Augustine and Luther, significant voices in Western theology, wrestled through seasons of introspective guilt. So their experiences of individual pardon and forgiveness shaped their theological formulations and subsequent Western theology.25
Because of its inevitable cultural constraints, Western theology does not exhaust the full meaning and application of biblical truth. Western theology itself is not “wrong,” but simply incomplete and limited by cultural blinders.26 There remain areas of biblical truth that Western theology has not yet examined because cultural conversations have not yet prompted such a theological inquiry. One such “blind spot” in Western theology is honor and shame. The topic remains in the shadows of Christian theology and mission because shame has been a secondary concern in Western culture (although that seems to be changing).
The neglect of honor-shame in Western theology ultimately leads to shallow forms of Christianity, as people trust God for one component of salvation (i.e., forgiveness of sin’s guilt), but then bypass Christ’s work for absolving sin’s shame. Western theology, in effect, keeps one hand of God’s salvation tied behind his back, only allowing him to save in one arena of life.
Our objective is not to replace or correct Western theology, but to complement it. Hence, you will read the phrases “not only . . . but also” and “both . . . and” throughout the book, particularly in the theological sections. The gospel is a many-sided diamond, as we have outlined in our previous books.27 But despite the multidimensional nature of salvation in Christ, Western theology’s emphasis on one aspect of salvation truncates other facets of the gospel. So we aim to “rotate the diamond” to examine often-neglected aspects of Christian salvation so that readers can see (and proclaim) the gospel in a fuller, more complete manner.
Imagine that Joe was a builder who built homes with nails. So his main tool was a hammer. Every year Joe upgraded to the latest, strongest hammer. Then one day, Joe traveled eastward where people built homes with screws. But because Joe always built with nails, he instinctively pounded the screws with his hammer. No matter how hard he hammered, or how many hammers he used, he labored in vain. Then Joe discovered the screwdriver. Though it operated much differently than a hammer, the screwdriver was clearly the tool of choice when building with screws.
We cannot blame imaginary Joe for trying his best with the hammer. It was all he knew, and it worked so well in his home region. Likewise, our aim is not to criticize people for using hammers in a land of screws (i.e., rehashing theology and practices developed in the guilt-based, individual-oriented Western culture for ministry in Eastern, shame-based cultures). Rather, we want to share about screwdrivers, so you can work more effectively. This book broadly addresses the topic of honor and shame with applications for various aspects of ministry, such as spirituality, relationships, evangelism, conversion, ethics, discipleship and community. We offer not just one screwdriver but a broad set with different sizes and heads. To bear witness to God’s kingdom and build Christ’s church where honor and shame are the dominant values, we need a new set of tools—a reality we both realized as missionaries.
JAYSON’S FLOOD
I first encountered the topics of honor and shame as a biblical studies major in university. We learned about the ancient Mediterranean cultures to better interpret Scripture. My view of honor-shame cultures was mostly cerebral and generally positive, especially when contrasted to Western narcissism and individualism. But then two years later I encountered honor-shame in person as an expatriate missionary in Central Asia.
One afternoon, Nargiza came to visit our home. She was my wife’s friend who regularly attended an investigative study of Jesus’ life at our house. But on this visit she explained she could no longer attend, even despite her personal preferences. Her neighbors had noticed she visited us regularly, and began gossiping that Nargiza was becoming a Christian. Her association with us threatened her family’s reputation, so her parents demanded she stop visiting our house. Through my relationships with Nargiza and other locals, I experienced the underside of honor-shame cultures: fear of others’ opinions, rejection by family, gender inequality, gossip, nepotism and cronyism, hiding weaknesses, pressure to marry, focus on externalities, unquestioned obedience and public shaming.
As our work continued, two recurring episodes highlighted the cultural prominence of honor and shame. First, unbelievers hardly sensed personal guilt nor desired forgiveness of their sins. They disregarded my traditional evangelistic presentations as illogical or unintelligible. Somehow, my two plus two did not equal four in their minds. Second, the cultural forces of honor and shame regularly influenced Christians. They commonly faced persecution from family, pressure to marry unbelievers, strong expectations to conform and the inclination to mask shameful aspects of their lives. Although honor and shame dictated Christians’ lives Monday through Saturday, they were hardly discussed on Sunday morning. To successfully engage nonbelievers and disciple believers in that context, our ministry team needed to understand honor and shame biblically.
Anthropology publications helped me understand honor and shame culturally but not theologically. How is Jesus good news to people mired in shame and seeking honor? I first explored biblical verses about honor and shame, and then noticed a larger theological motif—the removal of shame and the restoration of honor lies at the center of God’s salvation. Shame is not just a social issue plaguing human relations, but a spiritual reality separating us from God as well. Ever since the fall, humans have been in a state of shame. But in Christ, our honor is restored as we enter God’s family. God cares greatly about restoring honor, so much that he willingly bore the ultimate shame of the cross. Jesus is the solution for shame.
With this realization in hand, our team adjusted various aspects of our ministry—our business platform, relational bridges, evangelism methods, discipleship content and so on—to best account for the honor-shame realities. The exploration of these ideas in ministry, training seminars and publications28 has been akin to an unplanned hike—the ascent of one peak revealed further peaks to explore. The stories of that journey, both the frustrations and breakthroughs, will be recounted throughout.
MARK’S STREAMS
Using water analogies, we might say a wave of honor-shame realities hit Jayson when he went to Central Asia; my experience is more like two streams that have joined into a growing river. Although honor and shame are secondary cultural drives in most contexts in North America, a growing number of authors are exploring people’s experience of shame.29 The first stream began when a professor introduced me to some of these writings. He helped me become aware of shame I carried and guided me to experience release from that burden through Jesus’ loving embrace. The stream grew; with greater awareness of shame I began to observe the burdens of shame of many Hondurans. I had observed how they viewed God as a distant, angry and accusing figure. Rather than alleviating shame, their concept of God increased it. Kenneth Bailey’s books Poet and Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes heightened my awareness of the themes of honor and shame in the New Testament.30 Leaning heavily on Bailey, I developed a number of Bible studies and sermons to invite people to bring their shame to Jesus and to form their concept of God based on the Jesus they encounter in the Gospels. The great need and the depth of appreciation expressed by people who met Jesus through these Bible studies compelled me to write a book, in Spanish, that wove together these Bible studies and stories of shame and release from shame.31 I continue to passionately proclaim release from shame through encounters with Jesus, most commonly now in Bible studies at the Fresno County Jail.
The second stream flows from a book I coauthored with Joel Green, Recovering the Scandal of the Cross.32 In one chapter we summarized Norman Kraus’s work contextualizing atonement theology in Japan. Kraus’s experience introduced me to the reality that Jayson described above. Japanese people struggled to understand common guilt-oriented explanations of the cross’s saving significance. That chapter on shame and the cross received the most comments from readers. Missionaries working in and people from honor-shame contexts have been especially appreciative. This fed my desire to better understand honor-shame dynamics and to look for examples of people taking them into account in their evangelism, discipleship and theology.
As these two streams joined I began realizing that the honor-shame dynamic was much more prevalent than I had thought. This new, and growing, awareness flowed into and enriched all realms of my life and ministry in Honduras and now as a seminary professor.
THE ROAD AHEAD
An honor-shame missiology serves as a compass helping Christians fruitfully navigate the terrain of Majority World cultures. To equip readers for ministry among Majority World nations, we address these issues.
Cultural anthropology (chapters two and three). In chapter two we explore the nature of honor and shame, and how they function in society. What is the difference between guilt cultures and shame cultures? What are the various types of honor-shame cultures? In answering these questions, we aim to unfold the inner workings of honor-shame cultures.
Then in chapter three we discusses the various ways cultures encode honor-shame values into daily life. How can we recognize honor and shame in cultures? Why are hospitality, indirect communication, purity regulations and patronage common features of honor-shame cultures?
But more importantly, once we see the dynamics of honor and shame playing out, what is a biblical response to them? Without understanding the cultural language of honor and shame, Westerners can feel culturally frustrated. When Nargiza’s parents prohibited her from visiting us, I (Jayson) was appalled and outraged they would decide on her behalf. A series of negative cultural experiences in my first year prompted me to replace the prevailing honor-shame culture with Western values (e.g., egalitarianism and individualism), not transform or redeem it with kingdom values. We’ll propose that the Bible, rather than dismissing honor-shame as inherently negative, advocates a balanced approach to honor-shame cultures, which notes both strengths and weaknesses. An informed cultural understanding of honor and shame can catalyze kingdom breakthroughs in our relationships and ministries.
Biblical theology (chapters four and five). A grasp of honor and shame aids our reading of Scripture as well. We can better understand why Adam and Eve “hid themselves” (Gen 3:8), or why the actions of the prodigal’s father were so scandalous (Lk 15:11-32). Awareness of honor-shame allows us to rightly grasp the full weight of biblical words (e.g., curse, scorn, reproach), images (e.g., slaves, sons, thrones, feasts) and motifs like God’s promised blessing or psalmists’ yearning for vindication from shame.
Yet the values of honor and shame help us understand not just the culture of the Bible but also the theology of the Bible. In chapters four (“Old Testament”) and five (“Jesus”) we examine key biblical narratives in order to reframe theology in the key of honor and shame. What does the Bible say about honor and shame? What is the relationship between sin and shame? How does God save the shamed?
Honor and shame are not merely cultural themes laced through the Bible, but are foundational elements to rightly understanding biblical salvation. The mission of God has always included removing shame and restoring honor. God pursues glory for himself by honoring and welcoming people from all nations, as we will explain.
Practical ministry (chapters six–eleven). The work of God to remove shame and restore honor must inevitably redefine our conception of Christian mission. How can we, as the body of Christ, embody and express the kingdom of God in the various honor-shame contexts of today’s world? Unpacking the nature of Christian mission in honor-shame cultures is the focus of chapters six–eleven.
In chapter six we reflect on the nature of shame in Christian spirituality, especially for you the reader. Before Christians proclaim God’s honor to the nations, we must first possess and embody it ourselves. As we have taught Christians about honor-shame in theology and ministry, students note the degree to which shame influences their own identity and relationships. Shame is a defining aspect of human existence, but rarely addressed in churches or ministry. When is the last time you heard a sermon addressing shame? Most people have never heard such a sermon. Salvation from shame is not just a theological doctrine or ministry tool, but fundamentally a spiritual reality to be appropriated by faith. For these reasons, in chapter six we analyze the nature of shame in Western culture and guide readers toward salvation from their personal shame.
In chapter seven we propose eight “commandments” of relationships in honor-shame cultures so Christians can relationally communicate God’s honor in culturally relevant ways. What are honoring ways to resolve conflict and reconcile relationships? What is a culturally appropriate (and God-honoring) way to share resources and help materially as a patron? How should Christians handle situations of hospitality and gift giving to bless people? When (and how) should we transform the sinful elements of honor-shame cultures? What is a good way to “give face” to people? Living out kingdom values in these nitty-gritty aspects of everyday relationships forms a vital element of Christian witness. So we offer practical tips for honoring people through relationships.
Building on the foundation of honoring relationships, chapters eight and nine explore the nature of evangelism in honor-shame cultures. To help define the “gospel,” we examine two primary aspects of salvation in the Bible—status reversal and group incorporation. Then we propose practical ways to communicate those aspects of the gospel. Since evangelism is a process, one must also be aware of how the conversion process works in group-oriented contexts, at both social and spiritual levels. In honor-shame cultures the community plays a central role in the process of evangelism and conversion. We offer theological reflection and various examples of evangelism to help readers lean into more fruitful evangelistic approaches for their respective contexts.
In chapter ten we set forth a biblical ethic for collectivistic cultures. When people feel mostly shame instead of guilt when doing wrong, what is the best approach to moral transformation? What is the basis of morality and ethics in shame-based cultures? Following the example of 1 Peter, we note the New Testament presents a new honor code—a new paradigm of evaluating what is truly honorable and shameful—to guide Christian morality. A new honor code focused on glorifying God reshapes all of life, especially Christian leadership, as we examine.
Finally, in chapter eleven we explore honor and shame in the life of Christian community. What is a biblical vision for the local church in an honor-shame context? How can Christians resist the social pressure to conform, especially during shaming persecution? How can we address sin without destroying the relationship and causing the sinner to lose face? Is there a way to shame people biblically? How can Christian leaders successfully overcome shame and serve with genuine humility? We examine how Jesus’ disciples in collectivistic cultures can live as true community.
SOME QUALIFICATIONS
This sort of book presents several challenges for us as authors. For one, we use terms such as Western, honor-shame cultures and Majority World to label complex cultural realities. Categorizing all seven billion people into a few groups obviously sacrifices nuance for clarity. We do realize that Western includes countries as geographically separated as the United States and Australia, and that Majority World is an umbrella term including diverse cultures from Honduras to Kenya to Japan. These terms, along with others such as individualistic and collectivistic, or shame-based and guilt-based, are rather imprecise and broad, but they are convenient and widespread terms that help clarify complex realities. The terms are simply generalizations (which always have some exceptions); so we ask readers to read accordingly.
Also, we as authors are Anglo-Americans. We do not sense a need to apologize for that fact, but we do acknowledge it. Our years of living in non-Western countries have in fact made us “bicultural” in some ways. This means at times we feel more comfortable in an honor-shame context than in Anglo-American culture. But nevertheless, honor-shame is not our birth culture; we are “adult immigrants.” So our take on honor-shame cultures is ultimately that of bicultural outsiders. While recognizing the limitations of such a perspective, we try to play to the strengths of this vantage point in writing for fellow English-speaking Christians.
Finally, this book is not a magical key to unlock the door of ministry success. The vast diversity of global cultures, even honor-shame cultures, makes it impossible to offer a one-size-fits-all method or program for ministry. This does not mean we steer away from the practical. Along the way we offer many stories and positive examples of Christian mission in various honor-shame cultures. Our aim is to lead you in a paradigm shift—to see God’s world and God’s Word through a new lens. As you see honor-shame in both culture and Scripture, we pray God’s Spirit will lead you to apply God’s salvific honor to various cultural contexts in creative and redemptive ways for the glory of his name.
DISCUSSION AND APPLICATION QUESTIONS
What are some obstacles that keep people in Western cultures from understanding honor-shame cultures?
Can you identify how the pursuit of honor (or avoidance of shame) might be influencing any current events in the world?
Based on your experiences, what are the consequences of not having a biblical view of honor and shame?
PART ONE
CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY
- 2 -
THE HEART of HONOR-SHAME CULTURES
Honor is the good opinion of good people.
Shame: A painful feeling of humiliation or distress. . . . A loss of respect; dishonor.
W
E INVITE YOU TO IMAGINE the following scenarios in a North American context. A high school teacher, respected by her students, asks one of them, “Was my lecture today clear?” The student responds truthfully, “Well, actually I couldn’t follow it. I did not get the point.” Or another scenario: while putting his purchases into the car, a man realizes he inadvertently walked out of one store without paying for an item. He walks back into the store and pays. What is going on in these scenarios? Why does the student tell the truth? Why does the man make the extra effort to return and pay? Both scenarios display a high commitment to obeying rules—even when no one else would know if they had broken the norm or not. The motivation for right behavior comes from within.
Now picture another scenario: a grade school teacher briefly steps into the hallway. While the teacher is out of the room two students take something off the teacher’s desk. You see them. The teacher comes back in and says, “Who took this? I know someone did this, or saw someone else do it. Tell me who.” What do you feel? Your internal rule-orientation urges you to do the right thing and tell the teacher. At the same time a feeling of group loyalty and peer pressure compels you to be quiet and not say a thing. In this scene we observe two different approaches of how societies influence how we behave. One is rule/guilt based, oriented toward internalized principles. The other is community/shame based, focusing on preserving relationship.
Imagine a student trying to solidify her place in a group and one of the most popular group members asks, “Did you like my party?” Though she did not like the party, she does not say, “No, it was a lousy party!” Why might the same student who responded honestly to the teacher about the lecture give an evasive answer to a popular classmate about the party?
Think back to high school. Think of the group you were in, or a group you were trying to be in. How did your group’s behavior or appearance differ from students in other groups in the school? Take a moment to recall how your group got you to do those things. How do they get you to behave, look and talk a certain way?
When I (Mark) was in high school in the 1970s the dress code to be “in” was simple but strict. We all wore Levi’s and Converse sneakers to school every day. Before high school I had worn cheaper Wrangler jeans and off-brand sneakers. I still had some and would wear them at home after school or on the weekends. While I can recall going back to a store and paying for something that I had inadvertently not paid for, I never “confessed” to my friends at school that I sometimes broke the dress code and wore Wranglers. In the first case my internal sense of right and wrong compelled me to act; in the second I had no sense that I had done anything wrong since no one from my group had seen me wearing Wranglers.
We begin the chapter with these scenarios from North America for a number of reasons. First, to highlight that even if you are from a more guilt-oriented, rule-based society, you have had some experience with the honor-shame dynamic. Of course to have had some of your actions shaped by peer pressure is not the same thing as living in a context saturated by honor-shame. But keeping your experiences of behavior shaped by group expectations in mind will aid you as you read this chapter.
Second, we hope that the contrasting scenarios will help you recognize how behavior that is considered normal and appropriate can shift depending on what framework you operate out of. The example of informing a peer group that one had worn the “wrong” clothes at home likely strikes you as far-fetched—ridiculous. Yet one of Mark’s Japanese students found the first scenario of directly answering a teacher as far-fetched, even ridiculous. He recounted that he hesitated to even ask a question in class because that would dishonor the professor by implying the lecture was unclear. For him to directly tell a teacher the lecture failed was unthinkable.
Third, we start with examples from North America to reiterate the point made in the previous chapter that these categories are not nice and neat. Rather, as Timothy Tennent explains, “Virtually every culture in the world contains concepts of both guilt and shame, including the pressure to conform to certain group expectations as well as some kind of internalized ideas about right or wrong. The difference is not in absence of shame or guilt, but rather in how dominant these tendencies are.”1
Scholars often prefer to avoid such general labels, but we use the term honor-shame culture for ease of communication and in line with conventional discourse.2 In this book, “honor-shame culture” refers to a context where the honor-shame dynamic is dominant. No group of people would self-identify as an honor-shame culture. Rather, the classifications “honor-shame culture” or “shame-based culture” are etic (i.e., outsider) terms for describing social groups that utilize public reputation to control behavior.
SHAME VERSUS GUILT
Gulzel was a young Christian who attended university in the city. On most weekends, Gulzel traveled back to the village to help her family tend the land and host guests. One particular Sunday Gulzel prepared to return to the city for Monday-morning classes. This meant finding a vehicle in the village center heading to town. Gulzel arrived at the taxi-stand lot and found a car waiting for a final passenger. Gulzel got in and the vehicle departed on its one-hour trek through the hill range—four men and young Gulzel.
After a short while the men began propositioning Gulzel and inviting her to their homes for tea. As a young girl she felt uncomfortable and tried to downplay the situation with a minimal response. After a while, the men stopped along the road for a round of vodka shots. Being intoxicated, the men became more assertive toward Gulzel. Their comments became harsher, and they were becoming physically aggressive. Gulzel feared what the men might do next. Just that moment, Gulzel noticed her uncle in an oncoming car. What would you do if you saw your uncle in that situation? How did Gulzel respond to the sight of her uncle? Instead of jumping onto the road and flagging him down, she turned away and hid—even though she had done nothing wrong!
This incident confounds Westerners. How could Gulzel shy away from an uncle who would surely protect her? For Gulzel, social shame trumped physical dangers. When I (Jayson) learned about this incident, my knee-jerk response to such injustice was anger. I wanted to file a police report so the perpetrators would be punished and justice served. But that would have only compounded the incident by exposing the shameful situation. Shame guides behavior much differently than guilt.
In shame-based cultures, acceptable behavior is defined by ideals from the community. You must be the person others expect you to be. For a young female like Gulzel, chastity is a primary expectation. The community expects her to remain sexually modest to ensure that her children are legitimate descendants of the family. So in the roadside situation, the community ideal of a pure, undefiled girl directed Gulzel’s behavior. She acted so that her personal reputation matched the group expectation. Gulzel would have learned this expectation throughout childhood as she heard neighbors gossip about those who deviated from the ideal. The pressure to meet social expectations, and threat of shame for those who failed, outweighed her concern for physical safety. Being seen was more dangerous than being hurt, regardless of who was right and who was wrong.
Because shame leads to exclusion and rejection, the primary response is to hide or cover the shame. If others are not aware of the issue, then shame does not exist. This explains why Gulzel hid from her oncoming uncle at the roadside. And Gulzel’s mother later assisted in hiding the potential shame, knowing her own reputation as the mother was also at stake. People contain shame to avoid alienation and rejection.
In contrast, guilt-innocence cultures define what is acceptable through rules and laws. Governments, corporations, schools and even families establish rules to guide our behavior; people expect those rules to apply universally to all people at all times. A mature person is a “law-abiding citizen” with a strong internal sense of right and wrong. Guilt-oriented cultures do not simply emphasize rules and laws, but socialize people to internalize them into a person’s conscience. They rely on people’s internal conscience (not external social pressure) to keep them from doing wrong.
One of my (Jayson’s) earliest childhood memories is of a guilty conscience for stealing a Hot Wheels fire truck from preschool. Even though no one witnessed me, my young conscience tormented me until I returned it the next day. Guilt needs no audience because it results from breaking an internalized code. Note the wording of the above sentence, “my young conscience tormented me.” The punishment came from within, not from the involvement of others. In a shame-based culture, this internal sense of self-torment is rare; consequences are external—you are shamed by others. Since shame means falling short of the opinion of others, it requires an audience. Gulzel avoided shame by staying out of her uncle’s sight.
The difference between the culture types is not “Western cultures believe in right and wrong. Majority World cultures believe in honor and shame.” That statement falsely implies honor-shame cultures do not sense right and wrong. Honor-shame cultures do have morality, but their basis for defining right and wrong happens to be communal and relational (not legal or philosophical). For them, what is best for relationships and honors people is morally right; what shames is morally wrong.
Not only does the process of arriving at guilt and shame differ, but the procedure for alleviating guilt and shame also contrasts starkly. Guilt is removed when a person confesses wrongdoing and makes restitution. Taking ownership of transgressions and apologizing is rewarded. For example, an American politician accused of marital unfaithfulness can generally repair the situation by publicly acknowledging wrongdoing. Since the problem is a wrong action, the solution is a right action performed by the violator. Justice is served through community service, paying a fine or jail time. These interrelated concepts of guilt, introspective conscience, confession, restitution, innocence, forgiveness and justice guide behavior in Western societies, but rarely surface when shame is at play.
Guilt says, “I made a mistake, so I should confess,” but shame says, “I am a mistake, so I should hide.” With shame the problem is the actual person, so the group banishes the individual. To avoid such rejection and isolation, people mask their shame from others. Managing shame is essential because a shamed person (unlike a guilty person) can do very little to repair the social damage. Removing shame requires more than forgiveness. The pardon of wrongdoing addresses something external to the person; it doesn’t actually change a person’s public standing or address the root cause for shame. Overcoming shame requires a remaking or transformation of the self. One’s identity must change, and this happens only as their relationship to the group changes. That usually means a person of a higher status must publicly restore honor to the shamed, like the father graciously did for the prodigal son in Luke 15. Table 2.1 summarizes the preceding paragraphs to compare the behavior and “moral logic” of people in guilt-based versus shame-based contexts.
Table 2.1. Comparing moral systems
Guilt-Based Cultural Behavior
Shame-Based Cultural Behavior
Cultural Context
individualistic, Western
corporate, Majority World
Definition of Normal
rules and laws
expectations and ideals
Guide for Behavior
introspective conscience
public community
Result of Violations
guilt
shame
Core Problem
“I made a mistake” (action)
“I am a mistake” (being)
Affected Party
the transgressor
the group
Violator’s Response
justify, confess or apologize
hide, flee or cover
Society’s Response
punish to serve justice
exclude to remove shame
Means of Resolution
forgiveness
restoration
WHO, NOT WHAT
Another way to explain the cultural differences is this: shame cultures focus on who you are; guilt cultures emphasize what you do.
One day a roadside policeman in Central Asia flagged me (Jayson) to stop for making an “illegal” right turn. Sensing he was trapping people to extort money, I got upset before I even stopped the car. Without even greeting the policeman, I demanded he show his badge with proper identification and explain why he stopped me, requesting the precise traffic violation in the legal code. Then, as if a trained lawyer, I argued the finer technicalities to demonstrate my innocence as a driver. The cultural values of guilt, justice and innocence guided my behavior, though I hardly knew it. I focused entirely on my actions—what
