Monday, December 18, 2006

Guilt, shame and fear

As I have much contact with M@slim background people, I am constantly trying to separate out what is cultural for me as a Westerner and what is biblical and therefore how best (most faithfully and relevantly) to impart the gospel to Eastern friends.
Theology always takes on a new feel when engaged in mission. The bible becomes clearer as we come up against new situations and new ways of thinking. Mission to new cultures forces us to know the truth and convey that truth in a way that we didn't in the comfort of the pew.

I have some questions that I am grappling with....any insights?
(I am reading Roland Muller, missiologist/churchplanter)

Are we (the West) a 'guilt-based' culture as oppposed to a 'shame-based' one?

If that is so, then where does that emphasis come from? Are we right to think MOSTLY within a guilt/righteousness paradigm because the Scripture would have us do so? Or is it right to say:

Christians must recognise the incredible impact that guilt-based culture has had on their history and understanding and interpretation of the Bible. (R. Muller)


Some say that the early church theologians and the emphases of Reformation theology reflect this cultural influence of Roman legal thought. Has Pax Romana shaped the way we think more than we realise?


The diagram expresses a three-fold understanding of sin. There are it seems, broadly speaking, three classifications. We talk of 'guilt-based', 'shame-based' and 'fear-based' cultures. In most cultures it seems that all three are present, but one or two are more obvious. In my evangelism, I am keen to emphasise guilt as the dominant expression of sin for all cultures. I think we're biblically right to do that. The thrust of Scripture as I see it (though not ignoring the shame and fear elements) is to emphasise guilt and law culminating in the cross where the righteous judgement of the holy God fell on the innocent and willing God-Man in the place of the guilty.

Does a culture that sees things more in terms of shame and honour need to adjust its worldview to come into line with a stronger emphasised guilt basis?

What would a good gospel explanation look like to someone from a shame or fear based culture?

Here's an interesting article.

http://nabataea.net/h&s.html

2 comments:

Unknown said...

Hey Andy!

Great blog entry. Incredibly fascinating article you linked to. Wow. Might read it over Christmas... exciting stuff.

Keep blogging bro.
No shame in that.

Anonymous said...

"Does a culture that sees things more in terms of shame and honour need to adjust its worldview to come into line with a stronger emphasised guilt basis?"

Better questions would be:
1. Is a guilt-based (as opposed to shame or fear based) "morality" or "world-view")superior?
2. How did you determine that superiority? Just because early Christians absorbed the "Right/Wrong" "Innocent/Guilty" concepts from the Romans does not make them superior OR desirable.
3. Are you confident you can re-engineer the foundations of a shame based society (where respect for decisions is given to a tribal chief and NOT a code of laws)into a guilt-based system in place for thousands of years?
4. How do you think the tribal leaders will greet attempt to replace them with your guilt-based world view?

I think the word for the notion that a society "should" change in the direction you propose and that you can direct or even promote that change is called "hubris."

"Hubris" also describes the recent US/UK attempt to fundamentally change a society.