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
There is no “honor and shame gospel”

There is no “honor and shame gospel”

Last updated on: October 11, 2019 at 10:32 pm by Brad Vaughn

There is no “honor and shame gospel” 2019-10-11T22:32:46-07:00 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.

Some people mistakenly suggest that honor-shame advocates change the content of the gospel to suit a target audience. This is the charge leveled in a recent post on AccessTruth called “Did the Apostles Proclaim an Honor-Shame Gospel?” For instance, the writer asserts,

What we find then is that the honor-shame gospel is malleable and “Conversion means granting loyalty and allegiance to a new group—God and His people.” [quoting The 3D Gospel]

Furthermore, he claims that a weakness of the honor-shame movement is “its willingness to adapt the content of the gospel to the target audience.” Today’s post is a response to this common misimpression.

Credit: flickr/mistermoss

(Note: As I explain in a previous article, the writer’s comments stem from a confusion about how I and others interpret the Bible.)

What is an “honor and shame gospel”?

The AccessTruth article asks the question, “Did the apostles proclaim an honor-shame gospel?” The writer answers in the negative. In my opinion, however, the question is not as direct and clear as it appears. Why?

First, let me state upfront: There is no “honor-shame gospel.”

There is only one gospel. Yet, it is obvious that biblical writers present the gospel in diverse ways. The gospel’s content never changes, but the apostles do adapt how they present it. With this point in mind, how would I answer the question, “Did the apostles proclaim an honor-shame gospel?”

“No” … if the phrase “honor-shame gospel” implies any content different from a “guilt-innocence gospel,” “fear-power gospel,” or whatever other so-called “gospel” one imagines.

However, my answer is “yes” if “honor-shame gospel” means a gospel presentation that takes seriously themes related to honor and shame.

Likewise, my answer is “yes” if “honor-shame gospel” implies that the gospel is inherently shaped by honor-shame themes. Most people have not considered this point. While I’ve explained before, many people have not yet read extensively enough to recognize the ways that honor and shame shape the biblical message. According, the AccessTruth article and others do not examine a fundamental assumption (evident in the following question).

“When studying the actual gospel-proclamation events in the book of Acts my concern becomes more acute as we face a curious question: Why didn’t Peter and Paul preach an honor-shame gospel to audiences from the honor-shame soaked Greco-Roman world?”

In this question, the writer merely presumes the apostles did not preach an “honor-shame gospel.”

(For a more detail example of how honor and shame influence the book of Romans, see Reading Romans with Eastern Eyes: Honor and Shame in Paul’s Message and Mission.)

It’s Scripture, Not Semantics

This distinction is not a semantics game. It simply reflects what we see in Scripture. For instance, compare just a few biblical passages that summarize the gospel.

And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” (Gal 3:8)

“Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my gospel…” (2 Tim 2:8)

“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures…” (1 Cor 15:3–4)

“Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news [εὐαγγελιζόμενοι], that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. In past generations he allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways. Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.” (Acts 14:15-17)

Finally, we remind you of Acts 17:24–31, where Paul’s presentation in Athens contrasts remarkably from Peter’s sermon in Acts 2, not to mention Jesus’ own preaching. Mark 1:14–15 says,

“Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.’”

In One Gospel for All Nations and in several blog posts (like here and here), I’ve tried to show how each of these presentations proclaim the one and only gospel.

Public Domain

Although the AccessTruth writer intends the following comment as a rebuttal, I wholeheartedly agree with every word. He says,

“We are absolutely free to remind our audience of how shame entered the world and how having our sins dealt with and becoming part of Godʼs family with a glorious, royal and reigning future restores our honor. But, those themes are supporting themes in Godʼs larger Story. Why? Because they werenʼt the main themes proclaimed to the unbelievers by the apostles in the gospel proclamation events recorded in the New Testament. We are not free to proclaim as the gospel what the NT doesnʼt.”

Amen!

We Need Gospel Clarity

In some respect, the way missionaries present the gospel today is far narrower and more uniform compared to the early apostles.

The biblical writers could be flexible in their presentations because they grasped the essence of the gospel and its implications. The early Christians could contextualize their message (not change it) because they discerned the gospel’s firm framework from the multitude of themes that help explain its significance.

Diverse presentations do not contradict one another; they provide clarity for different audiences. We must never choose one so-called “gospel” over another; indeed, that’s impossible. Rather, we clarify why the gospel is significant for everyone.

This task takes time. Like the apostles, we can only share a limited amount of information as any given time. Do not suppose that we (or others) change the gospel if time constraints limit what we can say or explain with sufficient clarity.

Confusing the Gospel with Atonement

Accordingly, the AccessTruth article breeds confusions when it says:

“We are not free, as the honor-shame movement would like us to believe, to develop a different plan of salvation for each culture type we encounter.”

To the degree I can speak for “the honor-shame movement,” I want to say, “No, it does not want anyone to develop different gospel content for every culture.”

This point leads us to a final yet critical observation. The writer and others routinely confuse the gospel with atonement theology. The atonement is an aspect or implication of the gospel. Though I’ve explained at length elsewhere, I’ll summarize my point briefly here.

There is wide agreement among scholars that the concept “gospel,” historically and biblically speaking, refers to a royal announcement, such as a king’s victory. The gospel announces Christ’s kingship over the world (cf. Rom 1:1–4; 1 Cor 15:4–8, 20–28), and salvation is the wonderful implication of that gospel. Because Jesus is Christ (i.e., King), having defeated death, therefore people can be saved.

The atonement and doctrine of salvation, more broadly, are inextricably bound up in the gospel. Although they cannot be separated, they are not identical.

(To say otherwise would suggest, for example, that the doctrines concerning predestination, sanctification, (un)limited atonement, and salvation-related doctrines are identical to the gospel.)

Using Scripture Against Scripture

I frequently see people commit a mistake when discussing the gospel and theology in general. They so prioritize one biblical passage such that they effectively mute various others.

Notice the consequence when the AccessTruth writer does not distinguish the gospel from soteriology. In a footnote, he comments,

“The gospel being that which Paul defines in 1 Corinthians 15 as the message of Messiah’s death for sin, his burial and resurrection as prophesied by the OT Scriptures. Consequently, we can say that the ‘gospel’, in this sense, was not preached until after the resurrection. For that reason, we are not dealing here with the ‘good news of the kingdom’ proclamation events in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.”

He contrasts and, perhaps unintentionally, prioritizes Paul over Jesus.

Similarly, people tend to focus almost entirely one one text at the expense of others. Traditionally, Protestants have done this with Romans and Galatians. For the AccessTruth article, the book of Acts effectively becomes the sole basis for answering the question, “Did the apostles proclaim an honor-shame gospel?”

Just as we should not read the Bible through a single cultural lens, so also we should be wary of isolating one text above or against others.

Previous Post

October 8, 2019

Honor and Shame Should Not Control Biblical Interpretation

Next Post

October 16, 2019 “People Groups,” “Unreached,” and the Semantics of Missions Strategy

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 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

Which prophet had a vision of a rebuilt Temple with flowing water?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Daniel Micah Joel Ezekiel

Books by This Author Books by Brad Vaughn

See All Titles »