English
Português
Español
Français
Answer
Understanding the distinction between guilt/innocence and shame/honor cultures is crucial for two reasons. Firstly, the Bible was authored within the context of shame/honor cultures. Those in guilt/innocence cultures overlook significant aspects of God’s mercy and grace when this is disregarded. Secondly, these are the prevailing cultures in today’s world. The emphasis on guilt versus innocence is predominant in Europe and North America, while shame and honor are highly esteemed in Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia. Grasping these differences is essential for comprehending one another and how diverse populations will react to the gospel.
Wrong Behavior
Guilt or innocence is an individualistic state. It categorizes individuals based on their actions. The status of being guilty or innocent is determined by a set of laws or regulations that outline acceptable conduct. Individuals are deemed guilty if they violate one of these rules and innocent if they do not. They have the autonomy to decide for themselves, and their status impacts only themselves. If found guilty, they must justify the action, offer an apology, make amends, and/or face punishment. Reconciliation takes place when they are pardoned for their transgression or offense. An example of biblical forgiveness for a grave sin is seen when Joseph forgave his brothers for selling him into slavery (Genesis 45).
Shame or honor can only manifest within the context of relationships. It defines who individuals are, not just what they have done. They either bring honor to the partnership, family, clan, or community, or they bring shame. Their group significantly influences their conduct, and their actions reflect upon their group. Shame cannot be forgiven; it must be eradicated or concealed. When Adam and Eve covered themselves with fig leaves and hid from God, they were attempting to conceal their shame (Genesis 3:7-10).
Communication Styles
Cultures that value guilt and innocence tend to be more direct—sometimes even abrasive. People speak clearly about issues, assign fault, seek solutions, and don’t condemn others who apologize and correct their errors. Communication in guilt/innocent cultures tends to be low-context: the necessary information is given in words, not through subtext, non-verbal cues, or mutually understood background information. Such direct speech to someone in a shame/honor culture can be incredibly offensive. Paul was very skilled at direct communication.
People in shame/honor cultures are high-context communicators. In one such culture, a host provides food and drink without asking to demonstrate the guest is welcome. In another, the host asks three times and the guest declines twice before accepting to ensure the host has enough food to share. It is considered shameful to say “no” outright unless the denial is given by a superior to a subordinate. Nuanced responses—or even outright lies—are used instead but are understood to mean “no” because of the cultural context. Correcting wrong behavior or a misunderstanding requires a delicate process unless the intention is to completely discredit the offender. People in guilt/innocence cultures find this communication style perplexing and passive-aggressive. However, that is not the intent. A biblical example of culturally distinctive, high-context communication is Abraham’s negotiation with Ephron the Hittite over a price for Sarah’s burial place (Genesis 23:1-16).
Atonement
People in guilt/innocence cultures strongly grasp the penal theory of atonement. They understand that our sin is a crime against God’s righteousness. His just wrath against sin must be endured. While Jesus hung on the cross, He bore the guilt of our sin and received the punishment we deserve as our substitute. We are justified by His blood: “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.”
, (Romans 5:9), and His righteousness covers us «even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: », (Romans 3:22).
Shame/honor cultures better understand the satisfaction theory of atonement. We have dishonored God by not being fully obedient to Him. We cannot make up for the debt of honor. When Jesus died on the cross, a perfectly obedient man and a fully honorable God, He accumulated merit that He bestows on His followers. By accepting His merit, God’s honor is satisfied, and our relationship with Him is restored.
Conclusion
No culture is entirely based on guilt/innocence or shame/honor. In the East, shame is caused by specific sins; Western cultures are becoming adept at “canceling” people for acts considered shameful. Both cultures need to understand that our guilt and shame are most egregious when directed toward God. Our acts of sin against other people are ultimately sins against God (see Psalm 51:4). The shame we may bring to our group means little compared to the dishonor we give the God of the universe who deserves all honor.
From the time of the first sin, God’s plan has been to address both guilt and shame. He promised Eve her descendant would crush the serpent’s head «and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. », (Genesis 1:15) and then covered her and Adam’s shame with garments of skin «And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt. », (Genesis 21:21). The Mosaic Law provides solutions for both individual sins and the shameful condition ofBeing “unclean.” When the prodigal son returned, he confessed his sin against his father «And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son. », (Luke 15:21), and his father covered his shame with the best robe «But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: », (Luke 15:22). Jesus bore our sins on the cross as well as our shame (1 Peter 2:24; Hebrews 12:2).
