Answer
Understanding the difference between guilt/innocence and shame/honor cultures is important for two reasons. First, the Bible was written in the context of shame/honor cultures. Those in guilt/innocence cultures miss a great deal about God’s mercy and grace when this isn’t taken into consideration. Second, these are the two primary cultures today. An emphasis on guilt vs. innocence is the predominant view in Europe and North America; shame and honor are strongly valued in Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia. Understanding these distinctives is imperative for understanding each other and how different peoples will respond to the gospel.
Wrong Behavior
Guilt or innocence is an individualistic condition. It describes people based on what they have done. The condition of being guilty or innocent is based on a set of laws or rules that define acceptable behavior. People are guilty if they break one of those rules and innocent if they don’t. They have the freedom to choose for themselves, and their condition affects themselves. If they are guilty, they need to justify the act, apologize for the act, make recompense, and/or be punished. Restoration occurs when they are forgiven for their sin or crime. A biblical example of forgiveness for a blatant sin is when Joseph forgave his brothers for selling him into slavery (Genesis 45).
Shame or honor can only occur in the context of relationship. It identifies what people are, not what they have done. They either bring honor to the partnership, family, clan, or corporation, or they bring shame. Their group strongly influences their behavior, and their behavior reflects on their group. Shame cannot be forgiven; it must be removed or hidden. When Adam and Eve covered themselves with fig leaves and hid from God, they were trying to hide their shame (Genesis 3:7–10).
Communication Styles
Cultures that value guilt and innocence tend to be more direct—even abrasive. People speak clearly about issues, assign fault, seek solutions, and don’t condemn others who apologize and correct their error. Communication in guilt/innocent cultures tends to be low-context: the necessary information is given in words, not subtext, non-verbal communication, or mutually understood background information. Such speech to someone in a shame/honor culture can be incredibly offensive. Paul was very good 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 prove the guest is welcome. In another, the host asks three times and the guest declines twice before accepting to ensure the host has food to spare. It is shameful to say “no” outright unless the denial is given by a superior to a subordinate. Nuanced answers—or even outright lies—are used instead but understood to mean “no” because of the cultural context. Correcting wrong behavior or a misunderstanding requires a delicate process unless the purpose is to completely destroy the offender. People in guilt/innocence cultures find this communication style confusing and passive aggressive. That’s not the intent, however. A biblical example of culturally distinctive, high-context communication is Abraham’s negotiation with Ephron the Hittite of a price for Sarah’s burial place (Genesis 23:1–16).
Atonement
People in guilt/innocence cultures strongly understand the penal theory of atonement. Our sin is a crime against God’s righteousness. His just wrath against sin must be borne. While Jesus hanged on the cross, He carried the guilt of our sin and took the punishment we deserve as our substitute. We are justified by His blood (Romans 5:9), and His righteousness covers us (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, perfectly obedient man and 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 getting good 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 descendent would crush the serpent’s head (Genesis 1:15) and then covered her and Adam’s shame with garments of skin (Genesis 21:21). The Mosaic Law gives solutions for both individual sins and the shameful condition of being “unclean.” When the prodigal son returned, he confessed his sin against his father (Luke 15:21), and his father covered his shame with the best robe (Luke 15:22). Jesus bore our sins on the cross as well as our shame (1 Peter 2:24; Hebrews 12:2).
