This is an article from the January-February 2015 issue: The Power of Honor

Why has the Church Lost “Face”?

Examining Our Blindspot About Honor and Shame

Why has the Church Lost “Face”?

Once again I found myself in the same conversation. The missionary shook his head and said, “That’s fine if you want to talk about ‘face’ as a gospel ‘bridge.’ But, ultimately, you have to talk about ‘law’ if you are going to really share the gospel.” Why do people find it so hard to understand the importance of honor-shame in gospel ministry? “Face” is a Chinese way of talking about honor and shame. Many Westerners have the impression that wanting “face” only has bad connotations, as if such a person is simply “proud.” No one denies that seeking face can express sinful pride. However, concern for “face” is not always sinful. In China, “You don’t want face” (你不要脸), is an insult. Why? Someone who does not want “face” (脸) is immoral and does not care about the opinions of others. They have no “sense of shame” (不知廉耻). 

As various scholars have observed, honor/shame (H/S) is “the pivotal cultural value” of the Bible.1 Figure 1 lists a variety of words in Scripture related to H/S. With just a glance, we see that H/S lies beneath the surface of countless biblical passages, relating directly to reputation, respect for authority, group identity, and the gospel itself. And yet the biblical presence and significance of H/S is widely overlooked in the Western theology embraced around the world. This essay seeks to explain why this blindspot exists. 

It is not sufficient simply to write off ignorance of H/S in the Bible to “cultural differences” in general. We need to understand the reasons for this oversight. And in removing this blindspot, we will better grasp both the Bible and how it addresses the needs of the people we serve. In what follows, we distinguish culture, theology, and biblical truth to give perspective on why this blindspot exists. We then identify fears that make people reluctant to treat H/S with the same seriousness as the parallel biblical framework of Innocence/Guilt. Finally, we consider the consequences of this H/S blind to the Bible’s teaching on honor-shame? What happens when we maintain a superficial view of H/S? 


Figure 2 illustrates the interrelationship between biblical truth, theology, and cultural context.2 Note first that biblical truth is larger and higher than any theology. No matter how refined one’s theology may be, it can never be as comprehensive as the totality of biblical truth. Humans have limited knowledge, but God is omniscient; humanity is fallen and fallible, but the Bible is holy and infallible. It follows that every theology is smaller than the totality of biblical truth. 

Now let’s examine the six numbered areas. 

Area 1 is where biblical truth overlaps with one’s theology but not the cultural context. Here theology reflects biblical truth in opposing cultural practices like abortion or widow burning. Another example is the legal framework for the gospel recognized in Western theology—e.g., “The Four Spiritual Laws.” This has biblical support but fails to resonate with many non-Western cultures. 

Area 2 is where biblical truth overlaps with the cultural context without being addressed in one’s theology, such as Heibert’s observation of Western theology’s “excluded middle.”3 This is where blindspots occur, as detailed below. 

Area 3 is where one’s theology and the cultural context overlap with biblical truth, as in a high view of the family. 

Area 4 is where elements in a theology overlap with a cultural context but not with biblical truth. For example the “prosperity gospel” overlaps with America’s culture of consumerism but not biblical truth. 

Area 5 is where elements in a theology overlap with neither biblical truth nor a cultural context, as when a missionary unwittingly carries excessive Western individualism into a community-based, “collectivistic” culture. In a “collectivistic” context, groups largely shape personal identity and the community’s needs are generally prioritized over individual concerns. 

Area 6 is where cultural beliefs or values are inconsistent both with biblical truth and a particular theology.4 Since every culture is fallen, any number of beliefs and values fall in this category. An example in American culture is a woman’s alleged “right” to kill her unborn child. 

What about the blindspot regarding honor and shame? 

Take a closer look at Area 2—where blindspots occur. Why? When crossing cultures, we are naturally less familiar with the local customs and worldview. Since cultures have sinful elements we are naturally suspicious of unfamiliar values and ways of thinking. If we never read the Bible through alternate cultural lenses, we will assume that our own historical theology is comprehensive and flawless, without recognizing that it too has been contextualized within our own Western culture. 

Just as all cultures contain sinful elements, so all retain facets of God’s revelation. We should expect every culture to help us see biblical truth that our own culture minimizes or overlooks (as in Area 2). A non-Western lens can help us discover the rich H/S dynamics throughout the Bible. Sadly, this is almost totally ignored by Western theologians; the indexes of systematic theology books have multiple references to guilt but almost none for shame.5 The same is true of familial piety, respect for ancestors, and collective identity. All of these not only were significant facets of the cultures in which the Bible was written; they also are present in many Majority World cultures today— both reached and unreached. 

These observations should humble us, causing us to slow down and dig deeper when we read scripture for application in “foreign” contexts. If we don’t, we may inadvertently “assume the gospel” by limiting ourselves to its legal framework without consideration of other 6 biblically faithful and culturally meaningful alternatives. Blindspots occur precisely where we imagine that our own understanding and presentation of the gospel are free of cultural influence. But every gospel presentation is shaped by the cultural values of the presenter and their perception of their intended audience’s cultural values. 

Lesslie Newbigin famously states, “We must start with the basic fact that there is no such thing as a pure gospel if by that is meant something which is not embodied in a culture.”7 To be sure, the gospel transcends culture and its relevance is not confined to any one particular culture. However, this does not mean that we naturally understand and communicate that message apart from our own cultural vantage point, with its countless metaphors, assumptions, images, and analogies. No one person—and no one theology!—transcends all time and cultures. 


I sometimes find people afraid to delve into honor/ shame, as if taking it seriously would undermine the guilt/ innocence dimension of the gospel or the objectivity of moral right and wrong as established in the Bible. Such impressions are quite mistaken.8 The acronym SCARE outlines five common fears people have about letting H/S substantially influence their theological and missiological thinking. 


H/S concerns one’s entire view of the world. Therefore, we cannot expect to “get” H/S quickly. It touches on every aspect of life. Furthermore H/S ministry is holistic, aiming at life transformation. If missionaries are too focused on numerical growth (i.e. conversions), they will lack the patience to invest in relationships and the process required for long-term maturity (i.e. discipleship). 


H/S is not a formula. Our worldview is more like a story than a system. H/S ministry cannot be reduced to four or five simple rules with guaranteed results. H/S feels complex because it integrates all of one’s life––head, heart and hands. However, ministry in the real world is complex (and not simply in so-called “honor-shame cultures”). Sometimes, we need to complicate our view of the problem if we are going to accurately solve it. For example, we wouldn’t tell cancer patients just to drink more water and get exercise. Similarly, if we want to minister in H/S cultures, we must wrestle with complexity. 


An H/S worldview understands that daily life is full of gray; not everything is black and white. The Bible does not give us clear commands regarding how we ought to behave in every context and relationship. It mostly tells stories from which we abstract principles based on our culture. 

Paul struggled with the ambiguity surrounding food offered to idols (cf. Rom 14; 1 Cor 8–10). It is intriguing and humbling that, according to Paul, people can “honor the Lord” even as they act out of mistaken theology (i.e. “the one who is weak in faith”; Rom 14:1–6). Our grasp of what is right and true might vary by degree in different settings. Such ambiguity may frighten those who want to draw distinct, universally applicable lines in the moral sand. 


Many people are conscious of sinful expressions of H/S (i.e. gang activity, honor killings, etc.). They fear that an H/S perspective opens the door to moral relativism. Yet Paul repeatedly explains sin in terms of “dishonoring” God and falling short of his glory (Rom 1:21–23; 2:23–24; 3:23). The gospel helps us more clearly apprehend God’s own standard for H/S. Several have detailed how H/S are critical themes in shaping a robust biblical theology.9


Ultimately, some fear that H/S thinking leads to theological error. After all, if the Church’s greatest minds have not emphasized H/S, who are we to pave new ground? To make matters worse, (Westernized) systematic theology consistently avoids any discussion of H/S. This is not without irony, as Protestantism itself is a testimony to the fact that church tradition often creates “theological inertia” in need of correction. In fact, H/S is not “new”; it permeates Scripture and the cultures in which it was inspired. The problem lies in the fact that we inevitability read the Bible with cultural filters, then dichotomize and absolutize theological categories. As a result, we end up with nearly as many blindspots as Bartimaeus. 

H/S should not “SCARE” people; it is a natural aspect of all human cultures, and especially “collectivistic” societies. Collectivism is woven into the fabric of God’s mission in the world. Christ’s church represents God’s human family, consisting of all nations. God made humanity for the sake of His glory. It is perfectly legitimate to say that God has “face” (i.e. glory),10 and that the gospel recounts how Christ “saves God’s face.”11

God’s people declare His glory (honor). Jesus himself explains faith in H/S terms: “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?” (John 5:44, ESV). By neglecting H/S in our theology and ministry, we make it more difficult for multitudes to believe in Christ. 


Here are four consequences of our H/S blindspot, which I’ll address further in my forthcoming book, due out in January.12

First, anxieties about H/S may lead missionaries into practices that are counter-productive for long-term fruitfulness in H/S contexts. For example, people in traditional H/S cultures have a high respect for authority and tradition. We may confuse mere conformity to a teacher’s request with obedience resulting from a changed heart. Missionaries can also easily forget that many non- Westerners will pray a “prayer of salvation” simply to preserve friendships and save “face.” 

Second, if we neglect to give attention to H/S, we are less likely to see worldview transformation. After all, H/S is a holistic concept, concerning every aspect of a person’s life. One’s identity transcends legal metaphors. The gospel transforms how we see God, ourselves, and others. It reshapes how we understand authority, reputation, and every human relationship. 

Third, by overlooking the importance of H/S, missionaries unintentionally foster “theological syncretism.” We may be content with doctrines that our denomination, organization or church affirms but that may not reflect the emphasis of the original authors in their context. Yet, emphasis too is an integral part of the biblical authors’ meaning. Christians can easily “compromise the gospel by settling for truth.”13 Rather than elevating specific truths beyond their biblical emphasis, we must seek to understand the truths of God’s Word in balance with one another and not settle for pulling truths out of their context. 

Without H/S, one’s theology can become abstract and less integrated. We can overemphasize systematic theology at the expense of biblical theology and exegesis. When this happens, Christian theology devolves into mere philosophy and we miss the grand narrative of scripture. 

Finally, missionaries risk the danger of “judaizing” their listeners. That is, if missionaries do not remove this H/S blindspot from their own thinking, they will unconsciously present the gospel in a way that requires listeners to think like Westerners (e.g. as individualists who emphasize law) before they can understand the message and believe the gospel. Sadly, such new believers become functionally “Western” Christians even though they may culturally be African, Indian, Chinese, or Thai. 

May God’s Word be a lamp unto our feet, exposing the blindspots that encumber gospel ministry.  

  1. Honor, Patronage, Kinship, Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture, by David A. deSilva (InterVarsity Press, 2000); The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology, by Bruce J. Malina, Revised Edition (Westminster John Knox Press, 1993); Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew, by Jerome H. Neyrey (Westminster John Knox Press, 1998).

  2. Figure 2 originally comes from Saving God’s Face: A Chinese Contextualization of Salvation through Honor and Shame, by Jackson Wu (WCIU Press, 2013), 52–53. What follows is a modification of Werner Mischke’s summary of Wu’s graphic. See The Global Gospel: Achieving Missional Impact in Our Multicultural World, by Werner Mischke (Mission One, 2015). Used with permission.

  3. "The Flaw of the Excluded Middle" by Paul Heibert, in Missiology: An International Review (1982).

  4. Under “culture” we can also include subcultures like denominations.

  5. Theology in the Context of World Christianity: How the Global Church Is Influencing the Way We Think about and Discuss Theology, by Timothy C. Tennent (Zondervan, 2007), 92–93.

  6. Saving God’s Face, 10–39.

  7. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society by Lesslie Newbigin (Eerdmans, 1989), 144.

  8. Saving God’s Face, 148–92.

  9. Saving God’s Face, 177–183, 193–292; Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew; and The Hope of Glory: Honor Discourse and New Testament Interpretation, by David A. deSilva (Liturgical Press, 1999).

  10. "How God Seeks 'Face'",

  11. Saving God’s Face, ch 5.

  12. One Gospel for All Nations: A Practical Approach to Biblical Contextualization, by Jackson Wu (William Carey Library Publishers, 2015).

  13. “We Compromise the Gospel When We Settle for Truth: How ‘Right’ Interpretations Lead to ‘Wrong’ Contextualization,” by Jackson Wu in Global Missiology 2, no. 10 (2013), n.p. Online: ojs.globalmissiology. org/index.php/english/issue/view/99


According to the irrevocable terms of the “new covenant” (Jer. 31: 31-34) and its unsung “seal” in Christ’s death on the cross (Matt. 26: 26-29), absolute truth, a.k.a., personally revealed knowledge of God, transcends even the Bible itself let alone theology and culture.

While the clear generalizations made between cultures is good for discussion purposes, identifying societies as one or the other is not realistic anymore.  We are living in an increased kaleidoscope of cultures with hybrid ways of seeing the world and consequently the Bible.  The 3 spheres brings helpful perspective to clarify the reasons why church planters need to take a new look at their particular hybrid of society and craft a church plant that is appropriate.  Thanks for the additional tools.

Ron, you are quite right about cultures being a blend of various types. Accordingly, I hope those in the West will see that they too live in cultures saturated with honor and shame (not thinking H/S are mere “Eastern” concepts). Thanks for your comment.

OK, I understand that I see the world through law/guilt lenses, and I value better understanding the culture to which one is sent to, especially if that is H/S. However, there is a part is this that I find troubling. Let me explain. I was raised Roman Catholic, and I heard the Gospel at 18 while at university. So I became born again. In doing this, I unknowingly brought great shame to my family. But if I HAD known it would bring shame, I might have rejected the Gospel. My friend tells me this is why so few Thai men accept the Gospel…because they know it will cause great shame to their family. So would we then say in order to accept Christ, one has to die to this cultural tendency to put man’s opinions above God’s? Because in church planting, I would guess that churches tend to have a cultural of law/guilt or honor/shame (or fear/power or unclean/clean) and what kind of church do we want to create? Because if we plant an H/S church, how will we deal with making sure we don’t elevate man’s opinions above God’s, AND how do we make sure we don’t have a fellowship of people living in the fear of man?

I mean, how about the story of The Heavenly Man? That guy was in China and he sure seemed to do a lot to cause shame for his family. And yet look at the power of God on display.

And look at the great shame both Jesus and cousin John brought to their families. I mean getting executed is a pretty dishonoring thing. Yet they did it because following Christ means rejecting the world’s ways. It also means the world may likely kill you just as it killed our Leader.

Can you please explain to me how being burned at the stake for one’s faith is consistent with a mentality of saving face? Would we say that denying Christ when faced with a Muslim sword is much more conducive to saving face?

I am not trying to be argumentative, but I do really want to understand this topic. Thanks.

The loss of face is not surprising at all for the church, which is nothing but an ID THEFT from Jesus Christ’s divinity and absolute authority, as declared (Matt. 16: 13-28), testified to (Ibid. 17: 1-13), finally revealed (Ibid. 27: 50-56), and acknowledged (Acts 2).

Mr. Wu, in your article you remark upon needing to learn of a culture when you cross it’s border. We have been translated from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of God’s dear Son. In it we have received the commandment to love one another. Inside of this border I know fellows from many nations and languages, societies and cultures. In the keeping of this kingdom’s commandment I can find no room for such a sentiment as that which you express when saying ” sadly ” about so many of my fellows on this side of the border. I invite you to book your very first tour of the kingdom of God.Should you ever do so you will find evidence of how gladly we take note of one another over here. You could learn by observation what comes of the admonition to associate with men of low degree were you to chance upon but one individual of irrelevant cultural status doing so with yet one other. You could learn by observation what comes from but one at their own door responding actively to John’s rhetorical, ” How can you say you love your neighbor if he comes naked and hungry to your door and you tell him to be blessed and filled? “. If you ever happen this way Mr. Wu you might have opportunity to see the seeming honorable things of your chosen culture employed somewhat scandalously. The noble covering the ignoble with all their nobility. To be sure, to a mercantilist and social climber and a snob the glad giving away of reputation can turn up the ancestral nose, but it is a law, one with no ambiguities, no shades of grey. It is what we do. In your culture we are seen from a distance shrouded in it’s own darkness, seen only because our light penetrates your darkness. Don’t mistake the grey for ambiguity Mr. Wu, it is our time honored invitation, gladly lit by us by God’s word to light a path for you from your darkened place.
With John we say, ” had they been of us, they would have stayed with us. ” and from Christ we hear that unlike in the kingdom of darkness, we will not be left as orphans, sad to some though we seem to be. Over here the culture has a law to keep one another. Over here we eat at the same table. In this culture you know nothing of Mr. Wu there are no gradations of class as in yours.

Jim Z,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments and questions. I appreciate your concerns. In response, I would say that the goal of a gospel presentation (from the perspective of honor-shame) is not to avoid losing all face. “Face” (i.e. honor) is always relative to some person or community, whether before our parents, friends, God, or any number of other persons. Inevitably, gaining face in one group will mean losing face in another group.

When preaching the gospel, we want people to have an entirely new honor-shame perspective, such that people rejoice in what glorifies God. Thus, those who serve will be the “greatest.” That which is seeming utterly shameful (i.e. the cross) in fact manifests the honor of God. In conversion, our group identity changes such that we join God’s people, who seek to honor what God honors. The church becomes family. Naturally, we should care about what our family thinks because they seek to glorify Christ. Accordingly, it’s not as simple as saying we shouldn’t care about other people’s opinions; in as much as God’s people love and reflect Christ, we will simultaneously please the Lord and his family from across all nations.

I’ve elaborated on some of these themes on my blog,

Also, I have posted a couple of videos that explain how one might present the gospel via honor and shame.

1. The first (Do you want “face”?) can be found at:
2. The second (How does God seek “face”?) can be found at:

I hope these comments help a bit.

Dennis Golding:

I appreciate your concern. However, you misunderstand me when I speak about crossing cultures. I’m not speaking of the divide between the “world” and God’s kingdom. I speak of “culture,” more generally, describing the basic perspective, practices, assumptions, etc of people around the world. This usage of “culture” does not necessary imply something good or bad.

For example, people in China use chopsticks. People in the States mainly use forks, knives, and spoons. Around the world, the are countless cultural differences (many significant) that impact people’s ability to understand the biblical message. If we are not careful, it is easy to “baptize” a particular country or location’s culture as if it were the more pure or biblical ways of living in the world.

I hope that clarification helps.


Losing face is the least of the church’s worries.

The church is about a CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE about history repeating itself in the form of Lucifer-type ID theft (Isa. 14: 12-15) from Jesus Christ’s divinity and absolute authority, i.e.,  “glory”, as taught (Matt. 16: 13-28), demonstrated (Ibid. 27: 50-56), and acknowledged (Acts 2).

woldeyesus, I can understand your why you would think this way.

Yet, I suggest when you understand the the concept of “face,” you will quickly see that it lies at the center of all Christian teaching. “Face” is simply one cultural expression of glory and honor (negatively, shame, dishonor, disgrace, etc.). In effect, 1 Cor 10:31 says that whether we eat, drink, or whatever we do, we are to do it to glorify God (i.e. give God face). Romans 1:21–23, 2:23–24, and Rom 3:23 overtly explain sin in terms of glory, honor, and shame. Our sin defames God, i.e. makes God “lose face.” Accordingly, “face” is the utmost of the church’s worries. Naturally, we would expect to see passages like John 17:22–23 where Jesus gives us his own glory. Justification is explained via “shame” in Rom 9:33, 10:11. These are just a few examples.

As I allude to in this essay, one reason for the H/S blind spot is that people tend to have a true but partial understanding of how honor/shame works. I delve into the subject most fully in my book “Saving God’s Face.” Smaller explanations can be found on my blog.

I hope these comments help. Thanks!

Leave A Comment

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.