Cain & Abel, and the issue of Limited Good

Guest Post: Welcome to our first 'guest post' at 'Edge of the Kalahari', and its from Martin Munyao.  Martin is from Kenya and is currently a PhD student in the USA embarking on a Thesis in relation to the values of honor and shame in African Christian theology. His research concern is whether honor-shame is in Kenyan theology and missiology. And if not, why?...   

Earlier this month I posted a response comment on a post at honorshame.com about 'limited good'. It has turned out to be a topic that has stirred the international honour/shame conversation pot!  I believe there is quite a bit more to explore on the topic, and Martin recently emailed me with some of his further thoughts. 

I am still pondering on some of his comments, but overall I found what he had to say very insightful and immediately valuable. I continue to appreciate correspondence with him on this vital topic of honour/shame.  The fact that he went to the Biblical narrative about Cain and Abel in Genesis 4 was actually significant for me, as our local co-worker and I had ourselves been 'chewing' over this same passage just a couple of weeks before.  

So with this guest post, I want to further facilitate Martin's input into this international discussion, as another African who is digging deep on the topic and looking at it as an 'insider'.....

Cain & Abel, and the issue of Limited Good

I enjoyed reading your review of HonorShame.com's blog on the subject of limited good. I also thought of another portion of the Biblical narrative that introduces us to the issues of limited good so early in the Biblical story. 

It is that of Cain and his brother Abel, the first offsprings of Adam and Eve. Mind you, this is after the Fall, thus the dark side of (or rather misplaced) shame is already in force. I think one of the areas in which scholars and exegetes, and consequently pastors, have wrestled with is unravelling the motive behind Abel's murder by his blood brother. 

Was it the issue of election? Some in an effort to sustain a Calvinistic divine election doctrine have erroneously argued that the Lord had already chosen Abel and rejected Cain. Quite often this divine election view tends to lean on individual's (personal) standing before God which doesn't resonate well with collectivistic honor-shame contexts.  

 Was it over the offering they both brought before God? And if so, what was it about the offering that God was pleased with Abel's and displeased with Cain's. Some have even made assumptions and conclusions that an animal offering is noble and more acceptable before God than a crop offering. God had apportioned each of them to work the resources he had blessed them with and neither keeping sheep nor tilling the ground is a superior vocation than the other. At least the Bible does not suggest that.

So why did Cain murder his only brother? The question can also be rephrased this way: 'why did God regard Abel and his offering and disregarded Cain?' Gen. 4:4-5. 

 My take may not be exhaustive, however, I do see the limited good factor coming into play here. Let me put it this way: firstly, honor and shame was at the center of God's response to the two brothers' offerings; secondly, due to the already lost honor and diminished glory on humans after the Fall, honor was/is a limited good. Thus there was only so much honor to go around. Of course the object of this honor was/is God.

When examined closely, the Lord regarded or disregarded the person first, before the offering. The Bible clearly says that "And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard." Gen 4:4-5 (ESV). From the discussions on the subject of honor and shame it is apparent that these (shame and honor) affect the very core of our being (who we really are). Therefore, it is not about what we have done but who we are. The Lord rejected Cain first on the basis of his dishonorable condition, hence could not accept his offering. For "to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams" 1 Sam 15:22 (ESV). I suppose that the offering was secondary to loyalty here.

Honor as a limited good in honor-shame cultures is first revealed in this story as after Cain's rejection we are told of two reactions to the public shaming. One he was very angry and secondly his face fell, vv. 5-6. The Lord then asks Cain a rhetorical question in a manner to persuade Cain into loyalty. "Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? Already Cain is going through the anguish of public rejection by the Honorable one because of his dishonorable condition. How do we know that his condition was dishonorable? The Lord tells Cain, "if you do well, will you not be accepted?" The Lord was still giving Cain a chance to loyalty and consequent acceptance. But Cain declined the offer, instead his shame was piled upon shame leading to envy and finally sin overcame him; he murdered his brother.

There was only so much honor to go around in the eyes of the two brothers. Still, if both of them whole heartedly followed the Lord, there was inexhaustible honor from God for both of them. But Cain did not have that perspective. He thought that perhaps after having eliminated his brother, he would be left to enjoy the monopoly of appearing before God's presence. Instead, he got the opposite of his desires, namely, "from your face I shall be hidden" v. 14.

This passage has huge implications for discipleship in honor-shame based cultures (really in all cultures). The concept of limited good says that one's gain is another's loss, which has also been summarized as a 'zero sum'. This is true in some African cultures. In Kenya, particularly the image of limited good works in most spheres of life, economics, politics and religion. Due to the strong sense of community and ethnicity, there is a subtle but constant feeling of us-versus-them in competition. Thus, honor (not factors that maintain or take away from it) is a limited good. When I gain honor, my kin will praise me and celebrate with me. Those outside my community will be shamed and might take it to themselves to fight to regain their honor. Efforts to reconcile communities after the 2008 post election violence had all good intentions but lacked two important factors. One, is the awareness on the issue of honor being a limited good among competing communities. Two, reconciliation efforts were short of biblical resources for restoring a Christo-centric perspective on unlimited good in God's Kingdom that yields a win-win result.

Only within the context of the Kingdom of God does our perspective on honor-gain get transformed. Christians seek the right kind of honor in God by merely being accepted in His presence. Jesus makes our acceptance before God possible. This levels the ground for all in the family of God. Thus "There is neither Jew not Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" Gal 3:28 (ESV). There is inexhaustible, and unlimited honor in God for all in His family, hence a win-win situation. God grants us this honor and acceptance through obedience to Jesus Christ. Thus it is not about what we do (or not do), but who we are, our new and honorable identity in Christ. 

Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me! - X - NotTrue!

Last weekend I had a small discipleship session with a couple of ladies.

One of the topics that came up that they had questions on was in regard to persecution as Christians.

November - the month for prayer focus for the persecuted church 

In the Western church we have heard of and pray for those suffering persecution around the world.  In fact this month - November - is deemed the month of prayer for the persecuted church around the world.  

As Westerners we may think persecution is something only experienced by people far away.  

This perspective maybe comes from an understanding that persecution is primarily physical persecution - torture, imprisonment, loss of homes, jobs, violent invasion of communities, people dying at gunpoint.  We think of people like John and Betty Stam or Richard Wurmbrand.

Physical suffering and persecution is a horrible situation and certainly deserves our attention and prayers.

Something beyond physical persecution

But there is another side of persecution - the psycho-social side......shame.

Physical persecution and suffering involves both the threat and taste of physical death through everything from minor discomfort to intense pain - its about separation from life and life-giving provision.

Psycho-social persecution and suffering involves both the threat and taste of psycho-social death through everything from minor embarrassment to intense shaming - its about separation from relationships and the protection of community.

In the West, we have begun to experience on a much greater scale in recent years, the power and prevalence of public shaming through social media.

And in China there has begun a process to implement a new 'social credit' system that aims to pressure people to conform to expectations economically and socially. (Thankyou Jackson Wu for bringing attention to this on your blog) If people do not conform, strong shaming measures will be enforced. What they are calling 'sincerity' and 'trust-keeping' is to be desired in all aspects of society and everyone is to know that if they don't do what is expected then they will experience punishment via blacklisting and other withdrawal of privileges systems.  

The document says the system is to ".....shape a thick atmosphere in the entire society that keeping trust is glorious and breaking trust is disgraceful, and ensure that sincerity and trustworthiness become conscious norms of action among all the people."

If you conform, your name (reputation) will be positive, whereas if you don't conform your name will be an embarrassment and cause you shame and separation.  There is hope that the fear of the latter and yearning for the former will drive behaviour.

Interestingly this seems to be a situation of a very strong honour/shame culture wanting to find continued success on the international playing field and in the process discovering their own society has been influenced by non-China-approved beliefs and behaviours.  As a result they want to find a way of forcing the populous to obey laws through social pressure to conform - via fear of shaming for non-conformity and reward of honour for conformity.

They are putting what the West would term as 'breaking the law', in terms of 'breaking trust', as they understand the concept of trust based on loyalty to the greater community.  They want to protect the reputation of China in the eyes of the world as well as preserve the power of the governing Socialist party and political system.

This could bring a very interesting new wave of persecution.

There is impact whether formally or informally enforced

And lest the West sit back and believe it could never happen in the West, beware!  China is simply trying to make formal what the West through social media and public opinion is already doing informally......and also beginning to do formally as we consider the current debates and law changes surrounding same-sex marriage.

Both China and the West thoroughly understand (whether consciously or unconsciously) the fallacy of the Western proverb that 'names will never hurt me'.  

And its time for the West to 'wake up' to that reality.

And furthermore, its time for the Western church to wake up to the honour/shame realities within their own culture and within every human heart....To realise that shame before people as a manipulation tool for destruction will only be overcome when the church realises what Scripture teaches about honour and shame, and how that it is only in Christ that shame can be covered and true honour bestowed.

As the church teaches members what it means to persevere under persecution, the first step is to realise that persecution means more than physical torment.
Preparing for only physical persecution will fail the church in preparing her for psycho-social persecution.

As we pray for the persecuted church this month, let us also be alert to how we can better prepare for persecution and bear up under persecution that is flowing fast toward the Western church.

The rain came down and then the sun came out!

Remember that little Nursery Rhyme:

Incy Wincy Spider climbed up the water spout

Down came the rain and washed poor incy out

Out came the sunshine and dried up all the rain

And Incy Wincy Spider climbed up the spout again

Well the rain finally came down and we got about 70 mm over 4 days - rivers started running, power went out and the ants got flooded and had to build air vents to their tunnels

 

The plants have been amazingly quick in taking up the water and going from dry and wrinkled to fat and lush in just a few days
 

 

 Such good rain and then gentle warm sun to follow has given the plants such a boost that trees are now starting to look green again, and new shoots are appearing.

 

 Not only are  the plants happy but it is the trigger for all kinds of bugs and butterflies to emerge - flying ants were swarming, sebokolodi millipedes are everywhere, butterflies are all over and I even spotted some spectacularly arrayed kind of 'fly'? that I had not seen before.

- the little white dots are part of the swarm of flying ants that arrived after the rain

A Sebokolodi (millipede - its also the word that is used here for a train!) crawling down our house wall

And isn't this guy amazing!...God had so much fun designing and decorating His creation!

And there's just a fresh sense of 'clean' in the air from the bush all being washed clean of the dust and dirt that has filled the air for many months.

Mind you I was amazed that within three days after the rain, daytime humidity was dropping back down to around 10%!......such is life at the Edge of the Kalahari!

Terror or Error! - what might Culture, IS, and the Prosperity Gospel have in common?

'The war on terror'

How often have we heard that phrase in the last 14 years since '911'? .....and especially in the last week.

Yet while the world stage is consumed by 'combatting terrorism', the church needs to be busy combatting 'error-ism'.

Error is the greatest terror.  Why?  Because from error grows evil.  

Truth feeds righteousness but error (false teaching) breeds evil (sin).

Remember that Satan is called 'the father of lies'.  His mission is to promote error and have people believe it and act on it, to their own and others destruction.  He is out to destroy life.

The terror of terrorism that the world is experiencing stems not simply from 'evil hearts' but from mis-guided sincerity of people who have 'died to self' and believe they are 'living for God' to restore God's honour and God's people's honour. They are simply believing a lie and acting on it. To read more on this I highly recommend this blogpost over at honorshame.com

When my dad ended his days on this earth and went to be with Jesus some years ago, one of the legacies he left was his example of godliness and his faithful daily time with God and in His Word.  But the legacy was more than just an example as he also left behind his collection of old Scripture Union 'Daily Bread' notes from many years - in particular his ones from before 1970.  And in the course of things, I inherited them. They have been sitting on my shelf for a while, and I keep saying that one of these years I'll use them.  Back in those days they were these thin little booklets with tiny (but very clear) print, that are just the right size to tuck into my small bible.  So this year I started using them - well, what a gold-mine.  The richness and depth of these is something you rarely come across.  They are short and simple, yet profound and expository in style.

I have been wanting to put down some thoughts that stem from something in the booklet from some months back that looked at 2 Peter chapter 2. The notes -in part - had this to say:

"All down the ages the Christian Church has had to fight a war on two fronts.  It's first enemy is called "Error", and the name of the second is "Evil". (i)Error (vs 1.2). At the end of chapter 1 Peter spoke of true prophets, whom he described as 'holy men of God'.  Here he deals with 'false teachers' (v1) who twist the truth, and confuse and mislead their hearers.  What makes their heresies so dangerous and indeed 'damnable' is that they are sometimes disguised as Christian.  We must beware of any teaching which claims to be Christian, and yet undermines the deity or the authority of Christ."

This little paragraph so aptly sums up our world. 

Whether its abortion, same-sex marriage or IS beheading people and gunning down people at concerts and in restaurants,  our world is full of chaos and 'anti-life' activity built on believing lies....lies that ultimately oppose the authority of God and His word. In fact not only are the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage a matter of 'error', but as John MacArthur says these are also the greatest acts of terrorism.

But as Christians, we must not think that lies are 'out there' only, and not able to penetrate the church.  

In the church Satan is much more subtle.  In the church, one of the ways we 'get sucked in to error' is when we allow cultural thinking to guide our Christian thinking and we don't even realise - when we allow culture to have higher authority than Christ. When we put ourselves under the expectations of our traditions and cultural standards and/or rules for living as if they are God's standards, (no matter how noble they might appear), without carefully examining them to see if they are actually biblical, we are putting ourselves under bondage and bringing destruction to ourselves and to others, as well as disregarding God's truth.

................And there is one particular error which is alive and well in many churches, and in particular many churches in Africa.  

And that is when Scripture talks about believers not being 'put to shame'. It is understood by many that this means a believer should not ever be in a position of shame in the eyes of the community - that God's people are recipients of God's favour(honour) and so God will ensure they are not ever in a place of shame in the eyes of others.  

This has both cultural roots of avoiding shame and seeking honour, but also of mis-reading the context of the Old Testament, and prosperity gospel influences. ( I touched on this in a previous blog)

In the Old Testament the Jewish people were God's chosen nation among the nations of the earth - those selected by God through Abraham's family to show forth God's character and spread His truth and the honour of His name.  If they were shamed or did something that God said was shameful, God's name was shamed in the eyes of other nations. They were meant to show forth who God is to the nations around them, as they lived according to God's truth in the Law.

However, as New Testament Christians God has chosen us, not through an earthly nation but through the person of Christ. He perfectly revealed to the world who God is.  Yes we are part of His body, the church, to be the light to the dark world around us, but Christ has already conquered shame by enduring the cross and separation from His Father for us, and then rising from the dead and being now honoured at the right hand of His Father in heaven.  His honour is already secure eternally.  

Therefore, our being 'in Christ' ensures that though He endured shame on this earth and we will share in his sufferings in that way, ultimately in Him, we can never be in a place of ultimate or eternal shame.  

When it comes to Judgment Day, we have the assurance in Christ that we will have no shame of sin, rather we will have our names written in the Lamb's Book of Life.

Not only is there a mis-placed understanding about earthly shame and eternal shame but inherent in this is also a mis-placed understanding about what defines shame in God's eyes.

Pentecostal Prosperity Gospel churches are increasing in number across this continent and 'Christian TV' which is full of such teaching is freely and widely accessible to a huge proportion of households. (I have even seen a mud hut with no running water or electricity having a TV satellite dish outside - the TV and dish are run off a 12V battery).  

People are told that God doesn't want them to be poor or sick.  That seems to be so logical and right to a mis-placed honour-shame culture person when culturally to be poor is less honourable than rich and to be sick or disabled is seen as something shameful to be hidden.  

The desire for honour and avoidance of shame is deeply ingrained and the dominant motivator of every aspect of life.

So they believe what they hear - and after all, who doesn't want to be rich and healthy especially if it gives you positive advantage in your community and relieves you of being 'looked down on' or avoided?  

But then if they don't get rich or do get a chronic illness or disability they believe God has stopped blessing them and they are essentially shamed even within the church!  They have not had their mis-placed cultural perspectives on shame re-defined and so they are imported sub-consciously into their Christian walk.  

That was the main reason a lady came to me for counselling after being diagnosed by her Psychologist as having 'religion induced depression'.  It was amazing how the depression just 'went away' once she understood the truth of God's word about His true blessing and that not being rich and not always healthy is not because God has withdrawn His favour..... 

She had accepted a false theology that was negatively directing her psychological state because cultural issues of shame had never been addressed with true biblical theology.

I have also sat with those who begin to explain their rationale for making this or that decision in life, only to discover that it is based around whether or not the choice would result in being in a position of shame.  They will say 'this option could not be what God wants because it would end up with me being in a position of shame in my family, and as the only Christian in my family, God would not want me to be shamed in their eyes.'

Instead of a biblical definition of sin before God's eyes defining what shame before God entails, 

shame before God has become defined by what is thought to bring shame on God's name in the eyes of people according to a cultural definition of shame.

Thus we see situations such as if a girl in the church is unmarried but gets pregnant, the sexual sin can remain entirely unaddressed but the church will put the girl through a 'shaming' process for the period of the pregnancy (ie the period of time where before the eyes of people the situation is obvious).

This is all done with the sincere belief that it is how God wants the situation handled.  A cultural life understanding of right and wrong is assumed as 'normal'.  If we just say to 'do right' and 'not do wrong' then the cultural definitions of 'right' and 'wrong' will be the filter through which that injunction is interpreted.  If 'right' is to 'not bring shame', then to 'do right' is thought to make every effort, by whatever means or manipulation, to not bring shame on God according to what they think that would be. 

- This is actually not so different in belief and sincerity as the IS terrorists who believe they should make every effort to remove shame from Allah's name.  It might not be comfortable to think about, but to use cultural definitions of right and wrong in the West, is no different from using cultural definitions of right and wrong in Africa and is no different from IS using cultural definitions of right and wrong, and then acting according to them with passion, self-lessness and sincerity. Though the styles and means may be different the underlying principles are the same.  Let us remember that the Apostle Paul, before his conversion to Christ, was not attacking Christians because he hated God but because he believed in all sincerity that he was defending and protecting God's name.

The more we dig on this issue of shame, the more we see how deeply the mis-placed shame/honour roots permeate our world, and instead of the church correcting them, most churches have left the entire topic unaddressed, and sadly the prosperity churches are actually fertilising the mis-placed shame concepts even further.

(and while we are thinking about this....this 'shame of the church in the eyes of the world' false perspective may be part of what is driving some churches to compromise on issues such as homosexuality - its erroneous view that the Western church  wants to be respected and doesn't want to stand 'shamed' or ridiculed in the eyes of their own Western world)

Western missionaries and the Western Church, in leaving the issue of shame unaddressed, have not created an empty space, but instead culture continues to define and direct that area of life....and when shame factors affect over two-thirds of life in Africa (according to the Culture Test results), then the reality is that culture not only still directs at least two-thirds of a person's life but it is fertile ground for false teaching that perports to be Christian, yet is just bringing another bondage and destruction.

We value your prayers for our part in helping Africans be free of this bondage and destruction that this and other error brings.

And...

Let's not forget to take a good hard look at our own lives, culture, church and thinking to see where we are living under the lies, bondage and destruction of mis-placed shame and mis-placed honour rather than the freedom and truth of our God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!

Instead let us be extremists for good, for godliness and for God's true glory!

Social Media = the new 'omnipresent force' causing FOMO!.....but maybe a great gospel stepping stone too!

Here are some very enlightening excerpts from a recent ABC news email I received a couple of days ago (Sunday 8 November):

*#FOMO leading to higher levels of depression, anxiety*

The fear of missing out (or FOMO) generated by high levels of social media use can lead to depression and anxiety, according to a new report looking at the way social media impacts wellbeing.

........over half (53 per cent) of Australian teens reporting that they used social networking sites for 15 minutes before bed every night.

Sydney student Jessica Sahay, 17, spends over an hour browsing through Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat before she goes to sleep.

........More than half of young respondents in the survey said they had felt worried, jealous and anxious after finding out they had been left out of a gathering through pictures or status updates on social media.....

"You feel a bit jealous and the next time you see them it gets a bit tense but that stuff happens all the time."

.......The survey found that a fear of missing out does not stop once people enter adulthood, with the survey noting that those aged 18-35 reported the highest feelings of being left out amongst all adults. 

Dr Ferrier said that people needed to be aware of the positive and negative impacts of social media. 

"It makes it harder for people to feel happy and have gratitude for their own lives and that's quite a debilitating and serious thing," he said.

"We've got an omnipresent force here that's making people feel less satisfied and less happy with their own lives."

(emphasis mine)

LEFT OUT

Social Media which appears to promise SO much - popularity, approval, likes, inclusion in a group, connection, happiness, acceptance, - a sense of belonging, importance, value and honour...........delivers much less.  Not only can it deliver less it can be destructive and damaging and debilitating, so the survey revealed.

People are feeling 'left out'.  This is nothing other than a sense of rejection - "why wasn't I invited".  This is part of the picture of shame - or lack of honour.  It's about fear of disapproval - fear that somehow I've not done enough of whatever it is to get included, and instead I get 'left out'. I've not met the expectation of those I desire approval of and someone else got invited and I didn't.  

If ever there is evidence of a subconscious belief of 'limited good', here it is. 

Here are millions of people who feel they have been excluded simply because they haven't been 'included'.  They inherently feel that someone else has somehow got valued higher than them simply because they didn't get asked to a party. .....and what is the evidence of that.....the little word 'jealous'.  Along with worry and anxiety (essentially fear), there is a very real awareness that someone else got something that they were deprived of.  Along with it is worry and anxiety - this is essentially fear - fear of the pain of loss of psycho-social connection and honour - the fear of shame of not being chosen that translates to awkwardness (shame) 'next time you see them'.

WHY?

Because people are looking to other people for what God created them to receive from Himself.

The last line of the news bulletin is the 'tell all' statement - "We've got an omnipresent force here that's making people feel less..."

The reason there is a sense of an 'omnipresent force' of the negative variety is that people were actually looking for an 'omnipresent force' that would always notice them and praise them and approve of them and like them and want them to be near and part of their lives.  That's why they are spending hours every day checking their social media status and updates - they want 'constant' and 'always with them' belonging and honour.  They are actually looking for God and not knowing who it is who is the answer to their heart's longing.  

GREAT GOSPEL OPPORTUNITY

Although this is very revealing as to how the 21st Century youth and young adults are functioning and what they are longing for, it also reveals a great 'contextualisation' point thoroughly immersed in shame, honour and identity dynamics.

This is not an era in the West where you can walk up to someone and ask 'do you feel under a load of guilt?', or maybe not even 'do you want to go to heaven?', but it is a generation that you can walk up to and get into conversation about the positives and negatives of social media and how it makes a person feel.  There is great opportunity to use even the terminology mentioned in this news bulletin....and great opportunity to bring people desperate for connection, belonging and approval and honour to an understanding of what they are really looking for and a realisation that the world's solutions to such problems are empty and even destructive and we need to look to the only One who is truly omnipresent.

They are looking for an omnipresent (always seeing and knowing), loving Father who accepts and approves.  They are looking for a family outside their biological family where they belong, are loved, and valued.  They are looking for others to know them and still accept them.  They need to know how much God wants to be their Father and how He wants them as part of His family sharing in His Son's identity.  They need to know that its sin and rebellion that separates us from God and from each other, its our insistence on looking to people for what only God can give that brings us worry, jealousy, anxiety and depression.  They need to know that the truly Omnipresent One is both our Saviour to rescue us from this mess, but also our Judge if we choose to stay as part of the mess. They need to know that any sense of 'left out' now is but a minimal taste of what its going to mean to be 'left out' of the party for eternity (and according to Jesus' parable about the Rich Man and Lazarus those in hell are able to see the party and those at it and have constant 'salt rubbed into the wound' of exclusion).

Good news is only good if it is the answer to bad news.  The social media world is handing the Church the 'bad news' answer opportunity, on a platter.

Don't get caught in the social media trap, but also lets open our eyes to those around us who are caught in it or fast heading in that direction where they are seeking in Facebook what only living before the face of God - 'Coram Deo' -  can do.

Let's bring them the good news of Jesus Christ!

Social Media's Empty Promises of Connection

"we are and therefore I am"

 This is how honour/shame collective society has been described.

 "I share and therefore I am" 

This is how Sherry Turkle, researcher and author of "Reclaiming Conversation" describes our modern social media saturated society in the TED TALK above - Please take the time to watch it.  

We are obsessed with connection, but we are avoiding conversation and ending up with isolation.

She talks about how we fear being alone and yet with social media we are constantly trying to overcome loneliness.  And in the process we are cutting ourselves off from the very thing we want.

She says:

• Make room for solitude
• Reclaim spaces for conversation - like the kitchen
• We need to listen to each other - including the boring bits

She says people tell her: "Life is hard, relationships are filled with risk. And then there's technology, simpler, hopeful, optimistic, ever young...."

It is true - life is hard, relationships are filled with risk.  But we will never enjoy the beauty of the mountaintop without the risk of the climb.  Social Media tells us the lie that we can get all the beauty of relationships without the face-to-face work of relationships, and we are trying to gain identity from social media's promise of connection.

We need to stop, think, pause and listen to each other and not just be rushed to get onto the next thing, or write the next text message.  We need to value the person in front of us and not keep treating them as unimportant.  And as Sherry says, we need to be willing to let people talk and be willing to listen - to tune in even to the boring bits.  We need to think more about what the person needs to say, not just what we think we need to hear.

While technology may be useful to some degree, it will never give us real relationships or identity.

And on the other hand, maybe our fear of solitude and quietness testifies to the fact that we are seeking identity and belonging from people first rather than God.

You see if we converse and truly connect with God in relationship, even when we are alone in the sense of not being with other human beings, we aren't really alone.

A sweet little girl that I used to babysit many years ago came home from pre-school one day and in answer to her mother's question, "So who did you play with in the playground today?"....she said "no-one, I just played by myself, but that's ok because I just talked with Jesus while I played"

If we stop seeking significance, honour, belonging and the feeling of being 'wanted' or 'needed' by people around us and instead seek relationship with God first, we will be free to take the face-to-face relationship risks and do the hard work of listening and 'being' with others.
But we will also not be reliant on others and constantly keeping up social media and virtual 'connection' with people at the expense of the real people in front of us. 
We will also not be fearing solitude, because we will know the comfort and presence of God with us, even if we are not having other people around us. 

While God created us for social interaction, we must not let that social interaction become an idol that we feel we can't live without...it won't deliver want it promises.

The Issue of 'Limited Good'

WIN - LOSE     

or   

WIN - WIN

Recently over at the great blog honorshame.com the issue of 'limited good' came up.  What I really like about this post is that it reflects a willingness to think more deeply and challenge long held anthropological views so as to gain a better understanding of how the dynamics of honour and shame function in our world and how to better address them with the truth of God's word.  It's made me to think more deeply on the topic.....

As a part of the anthropological categories that are said to epitomise honour/shame cultures, the concept of 'limited good' has been put forward in the above blog as one to look at more deeply. In response to that blogpost, I want to make a few comments as I feel it raises some valid points, and ones which also point to the need to press for greater clarity in some of our HS conversation.

Firstly here is an excerpt from the honorshame.com blogpost briefly explaining the concept of 'limited good'.

"Here is the basic idea proposed by Western anthropologists. The image of the limited good describes, "how certain people perceive all the world's goods (i.e., wealth, land, happiness, honor, and the like) as absolutely limited in supply" (Neyrey, 18). People, especially those in peasant/rural contexts, view the world as though all desirable objects exist in a finite quantity. There is a limited number of goods to go around. So at the functional level of everyday life, this means my gain is your loss. If I gain something of value (e.g., land, wealth, victory, honor, etc.), then your social position is diminished. This common feature of honor-shame cultures leads to intense competition. Success is generally countered by aggression or envy. People feel compelled to counterbalance any loss of status or honor. That is the idea of how honor-shame cultures are noted by their "image of limited good." "

Now to my comments....

1. Observations in the honorshame.com blogpost about the West are true - and as Westerners we need to be as diligent to assess honor/shame dynamics functioning in our own culture as much as in other cultures.

2. Characterizing a cultural mind-set in general terms is never going to be accurate 100% of the time in any culture - however I don't believe we should discount the usefulness of observing differences in what predominently characterises a culture.

3. All the anthropological categories can be both helpful and a hindrance: helpful if recognised that variations in how they 'flesh out' will vary from culture to culture; a hindrance if we insist that a culture must exhibit all aspects, all the time, in ways we pre-determine. While neither cultures nor individuals are all pressed out of the same mold, neither are what we call  'honor/shame cultures' or individuals all pressed out of the same HS mold. There are general and very helpful similarities, but there will be differences as well.

4. The issue of 'limited good' so well 'exposed' in the honorshame.com post, not only highlights our human tendency to generalize, but it also highlights another issue I believe that needs to be better clarified in the HS conversation.....that of the issue of mis-placed HS. 

As we observe characteristics in what are deemed HS cultures or innocence/guilt (IG), we have to recognise that we are essentially observing characteristics that are playing out in a mis-placed way.  Secular anthropologists are simply observing action with no reference to how God created us to honor Him or receive honor from Him or how we should feel shame for sin before Him.  They have no category for HS except on a person to person (horizontal) level. As Christians we have a totally different frame of reference.

When we observe a culture we must keep in mind that unless a person has been born again and/or a local culture has been deeply penetrated with the gospel, both HS and IG factors will be mostly functioning in a mis-placed way - not necessarily mis-placed in the sense of being totally unrelated in any way to true God-ward HS and IG, but mis-placed in the sense that they will be twisted reflections that are mis-directed. Such mis-placed HS will result in dark destructive functionality bringing death and bondage to humans and their communities, rather than life.

5. I certainly do not agree with Darwinian belief which promotes the idea that there are 'less evolved' peoples who are less advanced.  However, 'limited good' is an evidence of the fact the peoples of the earth no matter where they are, are unregenerate and are humanity-focused rather than God-focused. Without a right God-focus, any individual or society will 'devolve' to live according to the sinful nature and start to function on 'temporary earthly' level rather than an 'eternal heavenly' level.  Life on earth is temporary, and thus limited, so if we focus on that alone we will be governed by all that goes along with that mind-set. It is only when a limitless eternal loving God is directing a person's mindset that we are free to function differently.

6.I believe that the aspect of 'limited consumption' as far as material wealth goes is only a very small aspect of the issue. Westerners have to a great degree benefited from Christian principles that have permeated society even if people didn't know where those assumed principles came from. As Christians we understand that God provides for us abundantly, has created this earth for our good, is BIG enough to supply ALL our needs ALL the time, can feed 5000+ from a boy's lunch if need be, sends rain on the just and the unjust etc etc. It is only when one leaves God out of the picture or has a faulty view of God that one starts to look to human effort (mine or people around me) and good becomes 'limited' - and limited it is. We are not meant to find unlimited good at the hands of anyone except the Creator.

7. Limited good is demeaning.  We demean ourselves when we act within it.  In various sinful ways, we all act at times as if there is only limited good.  We all feel we have 'lost' when someone else 'wins'. It's only when we get God's perspective that we realize we are all 'lost' in sin and in Christ we are all to run to 'win' to collect the prize.  As Westerners who are fast ignoring or rejecting God, we are more and more functioning within 'limited good'.  It's only in Christ that we can be free from jealousy and envy.  Our Western world is full of wanting to look 'bigger' than the next person - we want to show our prowess, whether it be by a bigger house, bigger car, flashier wardrobe, more likes on Facebook.

The 'lack of progress' or 'change' observed in collective societies and commented on in the blogpost stems from far more than the concept of 'limited good', but from the fact that 'change' is countercultural. To honour the elders requires community members to keep what the elders have passed down.  Current elders are guardians of what the ancestors left behind and they are obligated to ensure it is passed on to the next generation 'in tact', preserved and maintained.  To do any different is to dishonour the elders, and that would be 'doing wrong' and thus 'sin'.  This is not about a limited number of available pieces to the honour pie, but a limit to what is acceptable community practice.  In modern days, as benefits of Westernisation are desired, such benefits are only 'allowed' so much as they do not remove traditional practices.  

8.The characteristics of 'limited good' are definitely a very strong part of life in Africa - certainly in the area I live.  Jealousy is endemic. I even have Africans ask me 'why are we so jealous of everyone?' People are suspicious and resentful of any other individual advancing and progressing further, whether in the community or workplace.  Achievement is applauded, yes if it brings honour to the whole group, but not if it doesn't.  I've had people tell me how hard it is to juggle trying to achieve 'high' because of the honour it could bring to a whole family, while trying not to look like they are (or even want to) achieve higher than others in their class or group or workplace.  

When a Westerner observes a villager bringing honour to their village through high achievement it is not necessarily because of a belief in un-limited good but because honour for one village means it puts that village 'higher' than another village. When we first arrived in Africa there was 'competition' between villages to get the 'new missionary'.  Being allocated a missionary was an honour and a village that hadn't had a missionary for a long time felt 'less' and so they wanted to re-instate their importance, value and honour among the various villages that the mission had been associated with.

 The appearance of win-win is often not as it seems on the surface - it is a kind of 'conditional win-win' - what might seem to be self-less collaboration can be selfish manipulation - I give to you because I expect xyz back - you owe me. Collaboration can be more about how I can use you to put myself in a position of higher honour than you are - underneath it can be subtle combative battle tactics (both conscious and unconscious). This can be the case even in Western culture. True self-less giving in any culture only comes about through a heart transformed by Christ.

I have had explained to me that from an African point of  view, a person is always aware of 'accumulating' honour.  The more honour one can accumulate with those around them the lower the 'chance' of something they do resulting in shame.  Because honour and shame are quite subjective to a great degree (see previous blogpost about this), and reliant on whether the 'court of reputation' decide a person's actions warrant shaming or not, it is worth a person doing all they can to 'build credit'.  In English we would say it could help put any possible accuser 'off the scent'.  While someone is feeling 'good' toward you and happy with you, there is less likelihood they will notice or focus on any unpleasantry.  If they are willing to overlook and not bring public attention to the unpleasantry then no shame is brought and all remains 'in honour' and relationships are preserved.  This is not done because of an understanding of un-limited good but out of a desire to 'take out insurance' against risks within the limited good paradigm.  It is only in Christ that one can love and feel no loss of ultimate personal honour despite the despising or shaming that might come from others around.  If one's court of reputation is only human then 'good' is inherently limited and jealously guarded.

When we see large communities (that would be predominently HS) appearing to spur on their members to train or 'advance' in skill, there is expectation that such individuals will be using that advancement for their whole community/country - within the context of helping their community 'climb the ladder' or 'get a bigger piece of the pie' of a global economy.  In this aspect there is very much still an attitude of 'limited good' - that there is a pie and they want a bigger piece of it.  Inherent in that concept is that if I have a bigger piece, you get a smaller piece, therefore I have more power and you have less, I have more honour and you have less.  If those members of the community who the community approved to be 'trained', do not come back to that community and give back into it (whether it be family, or tribe or country), then big problems arise.  I not only see this happening around me on this continent but the issue was highlighted by Francis Fukuyama in his book 'Trust' in relation to Asia.

This is not to say that there may not be times when someone joyfully and sincerely gives hospitality.  It also doesn't deny the fact that Africans function according to a perspective regarding natural resources that incorporates an awareness of there always being more for later - whether that be berries on the trees or animals to hunt for food.

9. I totally agree that the term 'limited good' along with how it is often understood can be unhelpful.  I could agree in principle with the following statement on the honorshame.com blogpost: 

"I accept the presence of many dynamics associated with cultures of "limited good," but do not think "limited good" is a helpful umbrella terms for  explaining those dynamics. To say they view "their total environment as one in which all of the desired things in life…exist in finite quantity and are always in short supply" is woefully reductionistic. Obviously there are cultural differences, but let's be sure we're explaining those differences in a helpful and fair manner"

But for now I don't know of a better alternative and I feel that 'limited consumption' further narrows and limits the concept in an unhelpful way. The term 'Consumption' restricts the connotations and implications to socio-economic production/comsumption facets.  Whereas the the original 'limited good' term, to me, encompasses the psycho-social aspects as well, which must be included, as they involve the root values.  Yes, earth's natural limitations need to be held in balance with an all-powerful unlimited God, but again this is more about how we honour God in managing the resources He has given, than the concepts that attempt to be highlighted in the issue of 'limited good'. Sometimes terms have to be explained to be properly understood and maybe this is one of these times.

10. Let's keep the conversation flowing on this and other aspects of the honour/shame dynamic that is at work in a mis-placed way in every human being at consistent core value levels, but emerges in slightly varied 'cultural clothes', and needs to be redeemed and replaced in every one of us.  May God give us discernment and grace to observe, identify, understand and biblically address it in a way that resonates with the hearer and changes lives to God the Creator's honour and glory!!

Is shame objective or subjective?

Following on from the last blogpost, Challies also makes comment in his blog post that guilt is objective and shame is subjective.  

Jackson Wu, author of  the superb book 'Saving God's Face' addressed this objective/subjective issue in his recent blog as he commented on Tim Challies' blog.  Wu explained that the terms objective and subjective can be mis-leading.  He rightly showed how that our shame position before God is objective (as after all God's standard is an objective one) and he also said that shame through failing to meet the standards of a group or community is objective.

For those interested in digging a bit deeper on this topic and want to keep reading, I would like to weigh into the discussion with some of our own observations and research.

I agree that shame before God is objective and believe that it is also true that guilt can be described as subjective in that a sense of guilt is determined by whatever laws one subscribes to and they can differ from place to place.

However, although both guilt and shame can have both objective and subjective aspects, there is a sense in which I can also agree with the generalisation that Challies used. 

I think it can be unhelpful at times to use the broad categories of 'honour/shame' and 'guilt/innocence' without differentiation between what I call a 'vertical' form and a 'horizontal' form.  How these factors function 'vertically' before God and 'horizontally' before mankind, significantly impact how we understand them.

Vertical Right-Placed OR Horizontal Mis-Placed

Maybe we would do better to 'pre-fix' them with "right-placed" and "mis-placed".  The vertical form of honour or shame before God is 'right-placed' and always objective.  The horizontal form of honour or shame before man is 'mis-placed' and subjective.  Vertical guilt is always from an objective and unchanging and universally binding law.  Horizontal guilt is subject to variation in laws from one earthly society to another.  Although, within that society there may still be some sense of 'objectivity' about the law, and thus in regard to guilt.

Part of the gospel message is the good news that honour and shame, & guilt and innocence are no longer determined by or reliant on changeable, subjective human opinions or decisions.  

A major factor in the moral decline and confusion in the West is because 'we' have denied that God is the source of absolute truth, and in the process we have also denied ourselves the blessing of peace that comes with that objectivity.  Instead, in the 'wisdom' of our foolish darkened hearts we have given ourselves the added stress and confusion of constantly trying to navigate people's opinions, desperate for the honour and acceptance of people above God  - ie we have replaced the Creator with the creature.

But to help us understand this, and better share the gospel in our world today, I think it is important to be aware of how both shame and guilt function in a horizontal person-to-person way in our world's various societies.

Generally speaking from our observation and research, we have seen that mis-placed shame in Africa is very subjective. It is determined by a partially flexible and fluid implementation of the 'standards' of honour of a group or community, by those in authority within the community.  It is reliant on the response of the elders (present at the time) - and they are multiple and fallible, rather than singular and infallible as God is.  A person can do an action one day and the elders are angry with you thus there is shame, but the next day you could do the same action and nothing happen at all.  

Nabeel Qureshi gives an example of this also on page 60 of his book "Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus":  an incident occurred where his uncle was speaking in front of their Muslim elders and said something that would normally not be allowed as it would be considered shameful because it put the Quran in a 'less than it should be' light.... but.....his uncle's "eyes were set on the elders, who did not display any reaction, so he proceeded".

Guilt, however, before a clear fixed law is not 'subject' to approval. It is 'objective' fact.  

Our Objective Vertical Standing before God

God is perfect in consistently matching objective law with 'subjective' opinion - his opinion is never contrary to his law. In that respect his 'opinion' is objective.  God is the one 'author' of the law and the law is an expression of His nature and His unchanging character.  When we fail to measure up to His standard, at the same time we have transgressed His law/s.

Therefore, shame before God is never inconsistent with guilt before God.  

He may be patient with us in metering out the punishment, but there will one day be judgement and we will never escape the punishment for shamefully breaking his law.  (His patience is not lack of judgement but gracious delay in judgement.)  But even in human 'law' contexts, the law stands objectively, unchanging in standard, whether people approve of it or implement it, or not.

The Impact of Orality and Written Law/s

How guilt and shame play out in our world is also influenced by the level of the orality of the community or group - the greater the level of orality the greater the reliance on subjective shame rather than objective written law.  Written law is objective in the sense that all those within the juristiction of that law have equal non-negotiable standing under the law as well as opportunity to examine and know that law......  it remains unchanged in its content and all are equally obliged to obey the law and equally come under the effect of the law.  If a culture is essentially 'oral' there is simply not enough 'memory space and accuracy' to properly implement a detailed and extensive law code. 

 It is perfectly understandable that the unwritten 'law' simply becomes 'don't bring shame'.

 (It seems to me at this point in our research, that any 'objectiveness' of shame in mis-placed honour/shame emphasis cultures actually stems from this. The objective standard within an honour/shame dynamic is singular and of a general all-encompassing nature. There are not firm and specific, unchanging definitions of all that means in the multiple complexities of life.  God on the other hand not only gave the singular  and general 'honour law' of "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind and strength" but went on to give multiple written 'laws' as definition of what that main one 'honour law' entailed. )

Written law/s are not subject to an individual's memory or opinion or mood at the time as to whether it is 'present' or not.  It's verdict stands. The metering out of its punishment may be subject to a person's mercy, but its existence and verdict is essentially unequivocal.  If I fail to stop when the traffic  lights are red, whether another person turns a blind eye to it or the court grants me leniency, the fact that the law has been broken objectively stands.

The Subjective Perspective of Horizontal Mis-Placed Honour and Shame

Honour/Shame directed authority has far greater 'room for movement' than authority that also acts out of of firm and definitive laws. Defining what right and wrong means becomes 'subjective'.  And because any honour/shame emphasis culture has mis-placed the 'object' of their honour from God to human beings, they have removed it from the One who is unchanging.....to.....many ones who can differ from each other as well as change or modify what they do or do not allow at a particular time.  The only 'unchanging' factor is that the general concept of honour remains, but how to fulfil it exactly is never entirely predictable.

Honour/shame is about navigating the nuances of multiple and varied relationships and social exchange - in any culture.  But we have to recognise that when it is the dominant driving force for life's peace and success in a HS emphasis culture, the dominating 'objective' factor of written laws that we have in the West, as we have emulated a Judeo-Christian design, is lacking.  We have lived for so long in the West with written laws, we have little idea of what it would be like not to have any written law at all. 

The ability to read and write and worship a God who gave us written laws to graciously define for us what it means to obey His supreme law of honour and love, is an immense blessing that removes the huge burden from our shoulders of having to 'learn by mistake' and constantly walk warily through life.  

God, through Christ has released us from the bondage of subjective, multiple 'people-pleasing', and provided us the freedom to serve and worship and belong to the One Creator-King God who is the embodiment of absolute truth and objective holiness.

I want to once again say how much I value all input to the shame/guilt conversation....

...even if it comes out incomplete or muddled or only with a partial perspective or with a differing perspective, lets keep the discussion going as we fuel each others thinking and study on this vital topic.  Even reading the books and post mentioned above has proven opportunity for me to further pursue a growing comprehension of these issues....'as iron sharpens iron'...lets persevere!

Guilt or Shame - which comes first?

GUILT.......SHAME

It is really exciting to see the amount of conversation or mention in current Christian media that is including the topic of 'guilt and shame' - ie. its not just guilt that is being talked about but shame as well.

I am enjoying how the conversation is becoming 'interactive' as various ones respond to what others are saying/writing.  It's enjoyable because its really making me think harder and deeper on the topic in ways I wouldn't have otherwise.

However, it has become increasingly clear that there appears to be a significant difference between how guilt and shame function in a pre-dominently guilt emphasis culture as opposed to a pre-dominently shame emphasis culture.

When guilt is the major paradigm of thought in a guilt emphasis culture it stands to reason that it might have some slightly different emphasis and role than when it is a minuscule factor in a shame-emphasis culture. 

Likewise, when shame is the major paradigm in a shame-emphasis culture it stands to reason that it would have a different emphasis and role in the West which majors on guilt.  

Third Culture contexts could be the exceptions. This is when kids of shame culture parents grow up in another country which has a guilt culture context, or when shame culture kids are growing up in their own country but in highly Western influenced urban contexts and schooling in Western-education-saturated settings. It also can happen when a family from a Western guilt culture are living overseas and their kids grow up in a culture with a shame emphasis, as is the case with my husband who grew up as a 'Missionary's Kid' - 'MK'.   According to The Culture Test the balance between shame and guilt emphasis in such circumstances is about equal, so either one may have higher chance of having a strong influence in life, thought and priorities.

 The West that has been strongly guilt culture emphasis but which is growing in shame culture emphasis and welcoming a growing number of immigrants from shame culture contexts, is heading for an increase in Third Culture combinations as well.

The varyied outworking of guilt and shame was an issue which we observed very early on in our research and was a major factor in catapulting us into our current ministry focus.  From our own personal Western experience we understood shame as something that follows guilt, yet around us we thought we were seeing guilt only following shame.  Guilt wasn't felt until a person was 'caught'.

I have recently read a blog post by Tim Challies on the Guilt and Shame and a section of a book "Killing Sin Habits' by Stuart Scott who is Associate Professor of Biblical Counseling at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Firstly I want to commend both these guys for venturing into the 'zone' of mentioning shame and endeavouring to understand its presence and effects and how it interacts with guilt.  I firmly believe there needs to be much more of what they are nudging the edge of.  

But both these men are North Americans (Tim Challies-Canada and Stuart Scott- USA) and reflect a Western perspective.

There is a tendency to interpret shame, and even base its existence, from a foundation and lens of a guilt/legal premise.  Jackson Wu tackles some of this in his blog post response to Challies, which was then reposted by honorshame.com.

But for now, I want to touch on something else that emerges from Tim Challies post and Stuart Scott's book...

Tim says

"sin incurs guilt and guilt generates shame."

"My guilt, the realization that I have sinned, brings a feeling of shame."

 Stuart Scott, on page 3 of his book, diagrams the cycle of temptation and places guilt well before shame.

So does shame always follow guilt - does guilt always come first?

This is where I am reminded that although material mentioning shame is being written in the West, not all of it is transferable to the context of Africa and other shame-emphasis cultures. Core shame realities may be common, but how they play out in life can be different. 

To use  the cycle of sin and temptation in Stuart Scott's book here in Africa would create confusion rather than conviction, and would not resonate with the African's heart at.  I'm sure the author wants to help the reader to understand their own heart and sin's processes, but he doesn't realise just how much his analysis of how sin works in a human heart, is 'cultural'.  A few years ago I would have had no reason at all to disagree with him.

However.....

From our observation and experience, shame-emphasis culture people do not encounter guilt before shame, rather they experience guilt after shame.  For them, shame triggers guilt, rather than guilt triggering shame.  It's not that a shame culture person doesn't experience guilt at all, they just experience it differently.

If this sounds all confusing, let me explain further:

In a guilt emphasis culture many laws are set down itemising various boundaries and requirements.  If a person breaks one of these whether others know or not, the internal conscience is pricked and guilt is experienced.  Shame may follow as a person feels they haven't lived up to their own standard but significantly kicks-in when found out and exposed that they haven't lived up to others' standard.

On the other hand.....

In a shame emphasis culture there is one overarching 'law' or boundary; Don't bring shame.

So no 'guilt' is felt until the law of 'don't bring shame' is broken.  In other words, if a person brings shame/does something shameful, they are then 'guilty' of breaking the cultural rule/law of 'don't bring shame'.  Thus inherently, the conscience doesn't kick-in as crossing/transgressing a boundary, until shame has occurred.

(now, it could maybe be argued that there would still be an increased and additional shame for the guilt status of having brought shame, but the shame factor is so dominant that some have even proposed that the conscience functions according to shame, not guilt....although for reasons too long to go into here, I am not entirely keen to follow the line of reasoning that the conscience functions on shame not guilt.  I am in agreement however, that shame is so strong that it appears that way.)

Thus in contrast to the above quotes from Tim Challies and Stuart Scott, in recently reading another superb book called 'Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus' by Nabeel Qureshi, I found something he said, from the position of a very honest, open converted Muslim growing up in a shame-emphasis home and religious culture, very profound:

 "..for children raised as second-generation Western Muslims.  We wrestle with the honor-shame principle that tells us, "It's okay as long as you don't get caught."  If there is no dishonor, it is not wrong."

This also perfectly reflects the African shame-emphasis.

Both Guilt and Shame are functioning in all of us as post-fall human beings, but how they function can differ.  True contextualisation of the gospel cannot occur until this difference is realised.  Otherwise how we explain the gospel will not make sense to the hearer and not reach the heart.

Are guilt and shame separate entities or out-workings of each other?

Although maybe not intended, Challies article could infer that shame is almost a byproduct of guilt - so that if we fully understand guilt and what Jesus did on the cross to deal with our guilt, we can 'lump shame in the same package' and have our shame dealt with too.

It is absolutely true that Jesus dealt with shame at the cross alongside guilt, and for a person to comprehend that can be profoundly life-changing. But shame does not get dealt with as a byproduct of dealing with guilt.  Shame is not a 'sub-set' of guilt.  In fact for various reasons I would be inclined to say the reverse. (maybe a topic for another blog post)

It is true that in days past many theologians would put shame within the topic of guilt, (if they mentioned it at all).  In the index at the end of the book 'The Vanishing Conscience' by John MacArthur, if you were to look up 'shame', you would see written beside the entry: 'see guilt'.  But shame is not just a sub-set of guilt.  Shame is not automatically dealt with, just because guilt is.  They exist on two entirely different planes - guilt is about what we 'do' and shame is about who we 'are'.  They are vitally connected but shame is not simply a by-product of guilt.

To complicate matters, as Nabeel Qureshi explains, those of shame-emphasis heritage growing up in a more strongly guilt-emphasis Western culture, encounter all kinds of confusion.  

It's not so different here in urban Africa where kids grow up in a shame-emphasis traditional culture and then encounter aspects of education and business practice that teach and expect guilt-emphasis approaches and responses.  Like Nabeel, there is a subtle yet very real situation where they don't 'fully fit' in either culture and don't really understand why....and both cultures get frustrated with them.  Part of their thinking is 'guilt' influenced and part is 'shame' influenced and they don't even realise the different dynamics at work.

Now, if we are to look at the matter biblically to see whether guilt or shame comes first, that opens up a much greater discussion.  Both guilt and shame emphasis cultures have got something to contribute to understanding the two dynamics and how they interact.  But suffice to say that not everyone on this planet has the dynamic of guilt kick-in as the clear first response.

 .... to get you thinking.....Scripture mentions the concept of shame (they were 'naked and not ashamed' - Genesis  2:25 ), prior to any mention of guilt.   The West could learn something here that has been largely ignored - sin should involve both shame and guilt. Scripture intertwines both but gives much more textual space to shame than to guilt. If Scripture mentions 'shame' more than 'guilt', then that ought to make us even in the West to sit up and take notice.  It should also give us reason to consider that if 'shame' is felt first, if may not be so surprising.

Maybe the problem is not simply that shame is felt before guilt in 'shame-emphasis' cultures, but before whom the shame is felt!

The Mis-placed-ness of shame in shame-emphasis cultures is more about the fact that the shame is felt before people and culture rather than God the Creator.

------------------