Honor and shame

[arapahoepark]

http://honorshame.com
I came across this and found it interesting, yet I am wondering is this a little too simplistic? At times, I wonder if it's the ghost of Krister Stendahl that's influencing this thinking i.e. The Bible has to be read through honor shame, guilt is western,etc.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Just a glance at the site makes me wonder how much gold might be included with the chaff.

In the first place, western culture had a healthy concept of honor and shame right up through the early 19th century at least. Any society that accepts dueling is de facto qualified as an "honor/shame" culture. So, it's a bit strange to see "guilt" pitted against "shame" as if those distinctions were truly helpful for getting to the "correct" interpretation of Scripture, or (on the other hand) identifying false cultural appropriations in doctrine and practice.

I have pointed out on several occasions how the loss of understanding of shame/honor contributes to misinterpretation of biblical texts. Our culture is awash with talk of "rights," which ideas have been imposed on the proper concept of guilt, while erasing honor/shame categories. It would not surprise me if some folks are taking advantage of this confusion to identify "marginalized" or "outsider/other" groups or people as "shamed" people for whom the gospel is some kind of "liberation/lifting" address, a grant of "honor." If this was the case, it would simply show a second confusion added to the first.

But there is no fundamental contrast between guilt (legal category, OT religion was significantly concerned with law) and shame (the subjective sense that one is despised, whether with or without reasonable cause). That is to say, ancient honor-culture, both Israelite and Greco-Roman, had little difficulty embracing both concepts: guilt and shame.

 

[arapahoepark]

In the first place, western culture had a healthy concept of honor and shame right up through the early 19th century at least. Any society that accepts dueling is de facto qualified as an "honor/shame" culture. So, it's a bit strange to see "guilt" pitted against "shame" as if those distinctions were truly helpful for getting to the "correct" interpretation of Scripture, or (on the other hand) identifying false cultural appropriations in doctrine and practice.

Immediately what I thought of too.

I have pointed out on several occasions how the loss of understanding of shame/honor contributes to misinterpretation of biblical texts. Our culture is awash with talk of "rights," which ideas have been imposed on the proper concept of guilt, while erasing honor/shame categories. It would not surprise me if some folks are taking advantage of this confusion to identify "marginalized" or "outsider/other" groups or people as "shamed" people for whom the gospel is some kind of "liberation/lifting" address, a grant of "honor." If this was the case, it would simply show a second confusion added to the first.

Sure. May I ask what examples?
I guess good shame is being eradicated, yet don't many already understand shame to a degree? I mean it's certainly there among the teens I teach. It faces sure depending.

I agree that guilt and shame are very close.

I wonder if the chasms are as huge as touted...

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Assuming you are asking me for times when I've appealed to ancient honor sentiment? Here's an example of one: https://puritanboard.com/threads/deut-22-and-ex-22.67474/#post-865067

Another: I happen to think the text that deals with the case of Noah's shame, and the brothers' effort to deal with it, is mostly misunderstood on this account, and Ham is made into a much worse figure than he is in fact. All three brothers make some effort to save their father's honor, however Ham is already devastatingly compromised--he's incurred shame (which his brothers aim to avoid).