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.

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

Before the Honour Code changes you have to....

......Identify the current mis-placed honour code

HONOUR 

CODE

In the previous blog I looked at the issue that if we are to impact our world we have to focus on changing the 'honour code'.

What is the West's current 'honour code'?  What is Africa's 'honour code'?  ie what are people focused on in relation to gaining honour?

Whatever it is - it may not be something that simply appears 'bad' that we need to throw away and preach judgement against (although it might be bad and under God's judgement)......rather it will be something that is 'mis-placed'.  It will be something that is a twisted version of something good.  Satan didn't 'invent' evil as something separate of good.  Evil is often when good is twisted and mis-placed.  Satan is not a creator.  Satan is a destroyer.  He takes something that God did Create as good and mis-uses and mis-directs it, so it is no longer the good that God intended. Evil is inherently the absence of the good that God intended and created.

So we need to find what a person honours, and realise it will be sinfully twisted, broken and mis-placed.  Their search for honour in that area will not be irrelevant - rather it could be the key to the person's heart.  

As I look at Africa - I see a desire for honour that is framed as 'honour within family/tribe' (the honour of relationships)- with unswerving allegience/respect to elders and ancestors.

As I look at the West in the 21st Century - I see a desire in the form of 'personal dignity'  - with unswerving allegience/respect to self.

Now both of these at their core are actually the same - both are searching for identity honour.  But both are looking to some aspect of the world to fulfill what only God can give.

But we need to 'tune in' to how honour is expressed and understood and in what form it is sought and from whom it is sought. In what forms a culture mis-places honour will signify the areas of honour that are priorities for that culture.

Recognising and speaking a person's 'heart language' is more than just learning to speak Setswana, Swahili, Xhosa, Hausa, Thai, Spanish, French or English.  It's about how people express what their heart feels and seeks and honours.

We need to train our 'ears' to hear what honour 'dialect' a person or culture is speaking.  And that dialect (like regular languages) is not static - new things are added and old bits fall away and new meanings are absorbed.  What 'worked' with connecting the gospel to hearts a few decades ago may not 'work' the same way now.

In particular I am thinking of the West.  Capturing the attention of hearts is no longer just about asking 'do you want to be happy?' or even 'do you fear the future?'  The gospel is still about giving good news in Christ to the deep questions and yearnings of the human soul - but if we are going to bring answers, they have to be brought so that they are actually answers to the current questions people have.

and we then need to Connect to that honour code by replacing it with the truth.

Neither true 'dignity' or 'family honour' is the complete message of the gospel - but it is certainly an important part of it. 

We have to identify the 'gate' of receptivity of any person or group and start the message of the gospel in a form that connects to a person's thinking.  If it doesn't connect it will be seen as irrelevant.  

We don't want people to reject the gospel because they have never seen it as relevant. 

Neither do we want them to appear to accept it on the surface but reject it at heart and day-to-day level.  

If they are going to reject it or accept it, we want them to reject it because they understand it and have made a conscious choice to reject or accept God and all that He wants to bring them in truth, in contrast to the mis-placed lies they have been living by.  

We want to create 'Rich Young Ruler and Woman at the Well' encounters, where people come to the point through the process of relevant interaction, of being face to face with the reality of the gospel, and they either 'go away sorrowful' or are 'transformed and want to share it'.

The 'Good News' of the gospel is that God's Honour Code is more important and fulfilling than anything the world offers.  But it demands a choice and change of allegiance to honour  Jesus as King. A choice that we have the obligation to make sure is understood by the hearer in a form that connects with and convicts their hearts.