Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
How 9Marks Misrepresents Honor and Shame in Atonement

How 9Marks Misrepresents Honor and Shame in Atonement

Last updated on: August 27, 2019 at 5:33 am by Brad Vaughn

How 9Marks Misrepresents Honor and Shame in Atonement 2019-08-27T05:33:50-07:00 Brad Vaughn

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

9Marks’ recent article “Nothing To Be Ashamed Of: Penal Substitutionary Atonement In Honor-Shame Cultures,” leaves me at a loss for words. While the writers’ good intentions are apparent, the problems with the essay are no less obvious. This article is chockfull of inaccurate and misleading claims.Sadly, others have misrepresented honor and shame in similar ways. This causes some readers to become closed to the topic of honor and shame for theology and mission practice. Such critics also foster a culture of fear over generosity, a context that celebrates false dichotomies above true dialogue.

Problems Plaguing Theological Debates

I’ll use this opportunity to identify 6 characteristics that plague countless theology debates. In the process, I hope to clarify some misunderstandings that are perpetuated in the “Nothing to Be Ashamed of” article.

Here is the one way to know we are not honoring others and the Lord during a theological discussion.

1. Misrepresent your opponent

This might be the most common problem in contemporary theological debates. Unfortunately, Samuel and Sequeira, the authors of the 9Marks article, commit this error. Here are a few egregious examples.

Samuel and Sequeira make the following:

And finally, those who advocate re-interpreting the atonement for “honor-shame” cultures frequently argue that penal substitution is a product of a “Western” guilt and innocence framework and thus will not work in “Eastern” honor and shame cultures. Such a bifurcation of cultures is reductionistic and simplistic. For instance, Islamic cultures are often touted as being group-oriented and steeped in honor and shame and thus devoid of categories of guilt, retributive justice, and absolute standards.

They support the above statement by citing a blog post, “Jesus’ Death, for Muslims,” from Jayson Georges, lead facilitator at honorshame.com. The problem? It’s inaccurate. Georges does not make these claims in his argument. What does he say?

Ignoring Context

First, he says,

The “penal substitutionary atonement” which emphasizes the appeasement of God’s wrath on our behalf over our individual sins dominates Western theology because it offers psychological assurance.

Also, for the individual in this world who hopes to discover personal identity and purpose, Jesus’ death is the means by which he or she can be identified as God’s child and thereby find a purpose for life. Moreover, Jesus’ death is a demonstration of God’s love, offering security to the group-less individual seeker. For westerners who tend to value personal satisfaction and interests over those of the group, Jesus’ death purchased for you and me the true joy that we seek.

Undergirding all such application of Jesus’ death is the Western church’s praiseworthy desire to make Jesus’ death relevant for one particular worldview. Unfortunately, this is the only understanding of Jesus’ death westerners know. Therefore, it becomes the orthodox, universal, monolithic theology exported to the Muslim world.

This excerpt sufficiently shows the context of Georges’ remarks. He highlights how Western theology emphasizes the individual over against belonging to a community. He does not deny the importance of individual salvation; rather, he suggests that we must not forget the breadth of what Christ accomplished, e.g. his atonement brings us into his church.

Blatantly False Statements

Furthermore, Georges does not claim that “penal substitution is a product of a ‘Western’ guilt and innocence framework and thus will not work in ‘Eastern’ honor and shame cultures.” Instead, he says that penal substitutionary atonement is the dominant atonement theory in Western theology. In the latter half of their article, even Samuel and Sequeira explicitly agree on this point.

Inexplicably, the article’s writers assert that Jayson claims

the categories that form the basis for penal substitutionary atonement do not arise from an “Enlightenment worldview” or from the interpretive biases of a Western judicial framework. [vii]

Footnote vii says, “As claimed, for instance, Jayson Georges, ‘Jesus’ Death for Muslims.’”

Rather, the categories of law, guilt, retributive justice, and righteousness are inscripturated, biblical categories that are woven into the warp and woof of the biblical storyline and developed across the covenants of redemptive-history in the biblical canon.

In fact, Georges does not claim “law, guilt, retributive justice, and righteousness” “arise from an ‘Enlightenment worldview’ or from the interpretive biases of a Western judicial framework.” The writers’ accusation is the sheer figment of their imagination.

Credit: Flickr/JesperSehested

Misattribution of Ideas

Georges also does not say penal substitution is a product of a Western guilt and innocence framework. Nor does he argue that substitutionary atonement will not “work” (whatever that means) in Eastern cultures. If “work” means helping people become Christians, then all sorts of things “work.” Obviously, many people have followed Christ throughout Asia after hearing atonement theories popular in the West.

Georges wants the church to reclaim a more robust biblical theology, one that helps people grasp the gospel’s pervasive significance.

Samuel and Sequeira make another false attribution to Georges. They assert,

Islamic cultures are often touted as being group-oriented and steeped in honor and shame and thus devoid of categories of guilt, retributive justice, and absolute standards.

Again, this statement is patently false. Nowhere does Georges argue these points. Apparently, the writers badly misconstrue this statement in Georges’ post:

Group-oriented people do not feel guilt for failing to maintain an absolute standard, but shame for disrupting or dishonoring their community.

He clearly refers to feelings of guilt (not objective guilt or absolute standards), which Georges makes even more explicit in the sentences that immediately follow.

Therefore, since Jesus experienced isolation and rejection (Matt. 26:31, 69-75), his death is significant for Muslims because it paid for feelings of shame and social alienation in the group that may be experienced.

Georges never denies the existence of “categories of guilt, retributive justice, and absolute standards.” As I’ve argued elsewhere, we can speak of objective guilt and subjective guilt (i.e., guilt feelings). People can feel guilty but not have guilt, just as a person can be guilty yet lack feelings of guilt.

Ignoring Points of Agreement

As a noteworthy aside, Samuel and Sequeira overlook or ignore the very next sentence in Georges’ post:

Jesus’ death restores humanity to God not simply by paying the punishment demanded by absolute justice, but also by dispelling the shame, abandonment and disgrace that results when humans fail to remain faithful.

The phrase “not simply…but also” is pretty clear. What else could someone write? Yet, they accuse Georges of “bifurcating” guilt and absolute justice from shame and disgrace.

While I presume this oversight was accidental, one couldn’t blame writers who get miffed for being so badly misrepresented.

I promised you six things that undermine theological debate. So, I’ll share more in the coming post.

Previous Post

August 21, 2019

Must we choose either biblical theology or missions?

Next Post

August 28, 2019 9Marks’ Strawman Argument Against Honor and Shame (Part 2)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Atonement Biblical Theology Book Reviews China Chinese Church Chinese Culture Chinese Language Collectivism Contextualization Culture (General) Ecclesiology Evangelism Gospel Honor & Shame (Face) Interpretation/Exegesis Justification/Righteousness Missiology Mission Methods One Gospel for All Nations Other Practical Contextualization Reading Romans with Eastern Eyes Resources Romans Salvation (General) Saving God's Face Seeking God's Face The Cross in Context Theological Contextualization Theological Education Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month November 2026 October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who said, "My soul magnifies the Lord"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Elizabeth Deborah Hannah Mary

Books by This Author Books by Brad Vaughn

See All Titles »