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!