GUILT.......SHAME
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.
------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment