How Shame-Honor Culture Impacts the Church in the Philippines (Part 1)
Sean Ransom is president of The Expositor’s Academy in the Philippines, Regional Director for Asia for The Master’s Academy International, and Asia Regional Shepherd for Grace Ministries International.
This article is the first in a two-part series by Sean Ransom.
Shame and honor are defining realities of many Asian cultures. In a shame-honor culture, the twin concepts of shame and honor deeply influence the lives and relationships of the people who live within those cultures. Individuals are often pressured to maintain harmony in relationships at all costs, to seek to be viewed favorably, to attain the collective values of the society, and to share a common worldview.
But a shame-honor culture causes social pressures that challenge the church in the Philippines. For as the church seeks to act biblically, it also seeks to be sensitive to its culture. Yet a shame-honor culture sometimes makes it difficult for the church to faithfully uphold the mandates of Scripture.
In this two-part series, we will explore the impact of the shame-honor culture on the church in the Philippines. While some aspects of this culture reflect godly values, others threaten biblical ministry in Filipino churches, especially in regard to confrontation. This article, part one, will define and examine shame-honor cultures, both at large and in the Philippines specifically, and give examples where this culture has impacted the Filipino church. In the next article, part two, we will examine what Scripture says about shame and honor and then biblically consider how the church should act in shame-based cultures.
Culture Defined
Before examining the challenges that a shame-honor culture presents the Filipino church, it is necessary to define culture. Missiologist Marvin J. Newell defines culture as:
The distinctive beliefs, values, and customs of a particular group of people that determine how they think, feel, and behave. . . . Notice from the definition that culture envelops three manifestations common to humans: beliefs (thinking), values (feeling), and customs (behavior).[1]
While we do not agree that a person’s culture alone determines how he thinks, feels, and behaves, it nonetheless does tangibly impact how he lives. John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue add that, “culture includes works, art, music, education, and all areas where man interacts with his environment. God is the Creator of culture, and man is called to carry it out on God’s behalf.”[2]
But believers must recognize when a culture stands in opposition to God’s Word. While it is acceptable and at times advisable to embrace morally neutral expressions of culture, believers must know when to oppose cultural values that would cause them to depart from an accurate understanding of and willing obedience to God’s Word. Thus, more than embracing a “shame-honor culture,” believers should cling to a kingdom-focused Christian culture. More will be said about this concept in the second article.
Shame-Honor vs. Guilt-Innocence Cultures
While sociologists differ as to exactly how many types of cultural paradigms exist in the world, two distinct cultural mindsets are guilt-innocence culture (often found in the West) and shame-honor culture (often found in the East). At this point, it will be helpful to illustrate a distinction between these two ways of viewing the world.
In the West, children are taught from an early age to abide by rules; there are lines (no cutting!), rules (no breaking!), and consequences (no escaping!). Children quickly become obsessed with justice. “That’s not fair” and “I didn’t do it” are the anthems of many Western children. There is a clear sense of right and wrong, and morality is set by the standard of the law. In other words, you are free to do a given thing because the law (or an authority) does not prohibit you from doing it, or you are wrong to do something because it is illegal (or prohibited by an authority). In a subjective sense, the feeling of guilt refers to the primarily internal pressure of one’s conscience, which is then reinforced by external social pressure.[3]
Let us briefly examine how a guilt-innocence culture processes the feeling of guilt. The feeling of guilt occurs when a conviction, prohibition, or imperative is internalized and then established as an internal authority within a person.[4] For example, once a mother has told her daughter that eating a cookie is wrong, the girl internalizes the prohibition. Eating a cookie has now left the land of moral neutrality and has become wrong. Once the mother leaves the room, the girl has an internal battle to fight—to either heed this imperative or to transgress it. Guilt buds within her when she goes against the internalized imperative and eats the cookie. Her next move is to deal with her guilt, either by confessing it or by hiding her transgression.
By contrast, in Western cultures, the individual is more important than the community, so the individual conscience is more important than the community’s perception. In other words, for the girl in our example, her most important battle is within. What is she to do with this gnawing sense of guilt she now feels? In individualistic, guilt-based cultures, man is often found searching for the solution to this sense of guilt.
Shame-honor cultures view the world quite differently. Shame refers primarily to external pressure on the individual, which is then reinforced by an internal fear of man.[5] Every action is viewed as either shameful or honorable, and each decision is an opportunity for increased honor or increased shame in the eyes of others. But shame is commonly felt even when sin is not involved. Missionary Bruce Thomas writes:
Shame is a feeling and/or a condition stemming from a shortcoming in one’s state of being either before God or peers. This definition creates for shame the same real and imagined distinctions that exist for guilt. Just as there is legal guilt whether it is felt or not, and there can be felt guilt whether there is an infraction or not, so there is a tangible condition of shame whether it is felt or not, and there is a felt condition of shame whether it has an objective basis or not.[6]
Newell again cites two helpful definitions from other scholars. According to Jerome H. Neyrey, honor can be defined as “the worth or value of persons both in their eyes and in the eyes of their village, neighborhood, or society.”[7] In direct opposition is shame, which, according to Brené Brown, is “the intensely painful feeling or experience of believing that we are flawed and therefore unworthy of love and belonging . . . the fear of disconnection.”[8]
While Western culture is deeply ingrained with individualism and a guilt-innocence way of thinking, this is not the case for a shame-honor culture. Newell notes that:
People in most non-Western cultures see life differently. They’re mostly from collective societies that value group participation and affirmation. As such, they’re more concerned about justifying their actions in an honor/shame framework. Believers in these cultures gravitate to that paradigm when speaking about their salvation experience: having shame erased and honor restored because of Christ’s atoning work on their behalf.[9]
Missiologist Jackson Wu adds that in shame-honor cultures:
There is usually a more evident concern about issues related to purity, ritual, symbolism, tradition, and social boundaries. . . . Therefore, a moral person makes it a priority to maintain harmonious relationships. People are expected to demonstrate loyalty to those belonging to their “in-group,” such as a family or clan. . . . Honor-shame cultures tend to be hierarchal. Honor is ascribed based on social rank. Power and authority are critical for social harmony.[10]
In other words, when honor is not given to others, it results in broken relationships. When anticipated social norms are not followed, people are shamed for failing to meet the community’s expectations.[11] This causes social-norm violators (and any who experience shame for that matter) to experience great pressure to seek to restore their honor in the eyes of the community.
Within group-oriented shame-honor cultures, utmost importance is placed on belonging to the “group.” Accordingly, one’s social standing and reputation within these communities is critical. This framework results in making individuals in the society extremely “status conscious.”[12] Everyone has their place on the social scale of a shame-honor culture. Children are lower in social status than their parents, the same is true of the wife to her husband, as well as the young to the older. On this scale, shame lowers status and damages honor.[13]
The majority of the world’s population lives within shame-honor cultures. In the region of the world including North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia (commonly referred to as the “10/40 Window”) shame-honor culture predominates, but this region contains:
● 64 percent of the total global population
● 90 percent of the world’s unreached/unengaged people groups
● All four major non-Christian religions (Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism)[14]
With the majority of the world operating under a shame-honor framework, followers of Jesus Christ need to understand this mindset and the impacts it has on the church.
Shame-Honor Culture in the Philippines
As we have already established, Asian countries traditionally are ingrained with a shame-honor mindset. Despite the unique fusion in Filipino culture of Spanish, Western, and Asian influences, the shame-honor influence is still prevalent. It is seen in their sense of loyalty, their respect for age and position, their desire for relational harmony, and their careful avoidance of confrontation. The Filipino social structure is built to maintain strong familial and communal ties as they are taught not to offend anyone with words, actions, or inaction. When Filipinos disturb these relational expectations, most will experience a sense of shame.
Filipino author Narry Santos further explains that “the indigenous value shame, known as hiya, is most central of the Filipino cultural values.”[15] He also asserts, “Shame has become the dominant norm in almost all kinds of relationships.”[16] Similarly, regarding the importance of maintaining good relationships among Filipinos, Butch Diwa explains: “Friendship and relationships are placed in honored pedestals. This promotes much difficulty in saying no, even when the [ministry] leader’s conscience believes otherwise. Hiya becomes the normative grid for a person to say yes or no.”[17]
Because Filipinos find it so important to live in harmony with others, they experience tension when Scripture calls them to reprove, correct, or confront someone. They feel conflicted between following their cultural expectations and obeying their biblical responsibilities.
Two cultural catchphrases typify common Filipino cultural beliefs, values, and behaviors. To avoid shame and seek honor, Filipinos practice pakikisama and utang na loob. Pakikisama means basically “go along” or “get along with others.”[18] The practice of pakikisama is a regular part of Filipino life. To avoid offenses, Filipinos often tell others what they want to hear rather than speak the truth. Many Filipinos justify this behavior, reasoning that it is for the “greater good” since it prevents broken relationships, shame, and disappointment.
Utang na loob means to have a sense of obligation to return a favor. In Tagalog, the word literally means “debt inside” or “debt of one’s inner self.”[19] When Filipinos are helped in a significant way, they feel a strong sense of obligation to their benefactor, often long after the “debt” has been paid. This explains why many Filipinos have such a commitment to loyalty—they are bound to honor and repay those who do good to them. Failure to repay this debt causes Filipinos to feel shame.
While the phrases pakikisama and utang na loob are not familiar to most Western Christians, they are not without biblical support or merit. To strive to live in harmony with others (pakikisama) is a healthy and biblical desire. As Paul wrote in Romans 12:18, “If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.” Such harmony is seen even in the practice of the early church, as in Acts 2:42: “They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship.”
Similarly, utang na loob is rooted in a desire to express gratitude, which is a biblical value. As Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians 5:18, “In everything give thanks; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.” God is honored when we show gratitude to those who help us (Col 3:15; 1 Tim 5:4).
Nevertheless, when pakikisama and utang na loob are practiced with wrong motives, such as the fear of man, pride, or self-righteousness, they can become sinful. Sadly, these mindsets hinder Filipino believers, even those in church leadership, from full obedience to Scripture. Butch Diwa explains: “The ill effects of hiya promote a sense of bondage that prevents ministry leaders from advancing to higher ground in ministry work.”[20]
Filipino believers so intensely desire to live in harmony with others that obeying Scripture’s call to confront others becomes very difficult indeed.
Shame-Honor Culture Hindering Ministry
It is commendable how shame-honor culture strives to make others feel valued and honored. It is also commendable how it intentionally avoids hurting others. The downside, however, is that biblical ministry is compromised when those values are allowed to eclipse biblical imperatives, causing the church to shy away from necessary confrontation. To illustrate how a shame-honor culture can compromise biblical ministry, consider the following examples of how shame has impacted three areas of church ministry in Filipino churches: appointing elders, preaching, and reconciliation.
Appointing Elders
The first examples of shame-honor culture hindering biblical ministry are seen in the selection of church leaders. Although the qualifications for elders are clear in Scripture, saying “no” to men who fall short of those requirements continues to be a challenge for the Filipino church. Elders in the Philippines find it difficult to exclude men from becoming elders, even if it is questionable whether he possesses the qualities described in 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and Titus 1:5–9.
To reject a man who has been recommended or has come forward with a desire to be an elder brings great pressure on church leaders. A major reason for this pressure is that church members become upset when someone is shamed by the public insult of saying “no” to an honorable request. The ingrained feelings of pakikisama—the desire to please, honor, and avoid confrontation—causes many to place a higher value on maintaining relationships than on faithfulness to Scripture.
Our school, The Expositor’s Academy, partners with a church that struggled with this issue. A member of the congregation expressed a desire to be an elder, but the leadership of the church believed that he was not ready. The aspiring elder responded by becoming contentious and made accusations against the leaders. While his actions only confirmed the man’s lack of qualifications for the position, the pastor struggled to tell him directly that he could not be an elder. Instead, believing that being candid would only cause more damage, the pastor informed the man indirectly by announcing the names of the new men chosen to be elders of the church, without mentioning the name of the man who was not accepted. When asked about how he handled the situation, the pastor stated, “I didn’t want to be shamed or embarrassed by what the members would think or say, and I did not want to embarrass the man by saying ‘no’ to his face.” As a result of how this situation was handled, the shamed man who wanted to be an elder left the church and took twenty others with him.
A second story comes from a church that faced a similar dilemma. Though this is a positive example of a church acting faithfully, it illustrates well the struggle Filipino churches experience. Not only was a man who aspired to be an elder unqualified, he was also closely associated with some of the elders. This illuminates another highly valued aspect of shame-honor culture in the Philippines—loyalty. Loyalty caused these men to feel an obligation to affirm their friend. Even with apprehensions about his qualifications, some still considered appointing him because of the cultural value of preventing damage to relationships, reputation, and the feelings of others. The elders began moving toward affirming the unqualified friend while three of the elders privately expressed some concerns. Again, this demonstrates the Filipino practice of avoiding confrontation.[21]
When the time came to affirm or reject the friend as an elder, one of the elders broke the silence by sharing the concerns that were discussed in private. This led a few of the older godly men to share more concerns, and it was soon apparent to all that they could not appoint this man to be an elder, whether he was a friend or not.
The first instance where the pastor shrunk back from biblical confrontation resulted in a large number of his members leaving the church. The second church struggled to speak boldly, but the elders were, in the end, able to protect their church from appointing an unqualified elder.
Preaching
A second aspect of biblical ministry that can be hindered by shame-honor culture is the preaching of the Word. A certain pastor visited a Filipino church he had planted more than thirty years prior. During his visit, he was scheduled to preach for several Sundays. While he was a skilled evangelist, disciple maker, and church planter, he was not a gifted preacher.
Although members of the church expressed their sorrow and concern over his problematic preaching, the man was allowed to continue preaching Sunday after Sunday. One elder, who felt the preaching was not faithful to the text, was asked why the leadership allowed the man to continue filling the pulpit. The elder could only look down and shrug his shoulders. He and his fellow elders felt unable to say “no” to their honored, founding guest. The shame that the church would cause and feel for such a cultural misstep would be too great a price to pay.
In this case, the elders decided to compromise the pulpit and tolerate bad preaching rather than practice what they perceived to be bad manners. Unfortunately, many pulpits are filled with poor preaching because the congregations are unwilling to break the silence and bring shame upon themselves and their churches.
Reconciliation
A third way in which shame-honor culture can hinder biblical ministry is demonstrated in how two pastors struggled to resolve a conflict and restore their broken relationship. These pastors were friends who regularly confided in one another and ministered together. After what seemed to be a peaceful and relatively insignificant disagreement, the senior pastor felt offended and abruptly stopped talking with the younger pastor. The younger pastor was then removed from the preaching schedule without comment from the older pastor.
When the younger pastor became aware of the changes, he pursued the other pastor to resolve the problem (in accordance with Jesus’ teaching on reconciliation in Matt 5:23–24). The senior pastor insisted that nothing was wrong. The senior pastor, however, no longer confided in the younger pastor.
Only after another staff pastor was asked to help resolve the issue did the senior pastor admit to being offended. Even then, he did not tell the younger pastor what bothered him; rather, he made excuses in an attempt to avoid further confrontation. It took several meetings, months of pleas for reconciliation, and the intervention of another respected mediator before any form of reconciliation could be achieved.
Still, the issue was only alluded to and never properly resolved. The younger pastor had to settle for an affirmation of mutual love and the desire to put the conflict behind them. While the men keep in contact and remain friends today, the one-sided attempt at reconciliation led to the end of their close friendship and ministry together.
A second example of this culture impacting reconciliation occurred about a decade ago. Sinful patterns were discovered in the lives of two spiritual leaders of a growing Filipino congregation. The appropriate application of New Testament church discipline was implemented (in accordance with Jesus’s teaching in Matt 18:15–20), but the ultimate goal of restoration was not fully achieved. One leader felt unduly shamed, ignored the mandate of discipline, and left the church.
Sadly, the “shame” brought upon the church decimated the size of the congregation. A majority of the members deemed it “shameful” to rebuke a revered spiritual leader. As a result, three-fourths of the membership left the church embarrassed by the “inflexibility” of the church discipline applied by the leaders.
Conflict, acknowledgment of sin, and repentance are all necessary for the ministry of reconciliation. The deeply rooted desire to flee confrontation for fear of shame pushes against each of these biblical steps involved in reconciliation. Churches are fractured, relationships are strained and broken, and shame is brought upon the gospel when believers are not willing to pursue reconciliation in their relationships and churches.
To Be Continued
In each of these three categories of ministry, the shame-honor culture presents serious challenges to churches and believers that would be faithful. These examples from the Philippines are sure to find parallels in the many shame-honor cultures in Asia and around the world. In the next article, we will examine how shame and honor are treated in the Bible and then how understanding this helps guide the Christian life and ministry in cultures like the Philippines.
[1] Marvin J. Newell, Crossing Cultures in Scripture: Biblical Principles for Mission Practice (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2016), 17.
[2] John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, eds., Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 446.
[3] Lyn M. Bechtel, “Shame as a Sanction of Social Control in Biblical Israel: Judicial, Political, and Social Shaming,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 49 (1991), 51.
[4] Bechtel, “Shame as a Sanction of Social Control in Biblical Israel,” 53.
[5] Bechtel, “Shame as a Sanction of Social Control in Biblical Israel,” 51.
[6] Bruce Thomas, “The Gospel for Shame Cultures,” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 30, no. 3 (July 1994), accessed July 8, 2025, https://missionexus.net/1994/07/01/the-gospel-for-shame-cultures/.
[7] Jerome H. Neyrey, Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 15; Newell, Crossing Cultures in Scripture, 50.
[8] Brené Brown, Daring Greatly: How the Courage to Be Vulnerable Transforms the Way We Live, Love, Parent, and Lead (New York: Gotham, 2012), 59; Newell, Crossing Cultures in Scripture, 50.
[9] Newell, Crossing Cultures in Scripture, 52.
[10] Jackson Wu, “Rewriting the Gospel for Oral Cultures: Why Honor and Shame Are Essential to the Gospel Story,” in Beyond Literate Western Contexts: Honor & Shame and Assessment of Orality Preference, ed. Samuel E. Chiang and Grant Lovejoy (Hong Kong: International Orality Network; Capstone Enterprises, 2015), 64.
[11] Jayson Georges and Mark D. Baker, Ministering in Honor-Shame Cultures: Biblical Foundations and Practical Essentials (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2016), 18.
[12] Bechtel, “Shame as a Sanction of Social Control in Biblical Israel,” 52–53.
[13] Bechtel, “Shame as a Sanction of Social Control in Biblical Israel,” 52–53.
[14] Georges and Baker, Ministering in Honor-Shame Cultures, 21.
[15] Narry F. Santos, Turning Our Shame into Honor: Transformation of the Filipino Hiya in the Light of Mark’s Gospel (Quezon City: Lifechange, 2003), 3.
[16] Santos, Turning Our Shame into Honor, 32.
[17] Russell Butch Diwa, “The Filipino Value ‘Shame’ within Ministry Leadership” (DMin diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2009), 108.
[18] Jei Africa, “Pakikisama,” in SAGE Encyclopedia of Filipina/x/o Studies, ed. Kevin Leo Yabut Nadal, Allyson Tintiangco-Cubales, and E. J. R. David (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2022), 723–24.
[19] Christine Catipon, ‘utang na loob,’ in SAGE Encyclopedia of Filipina/x/o Studies, 1007–8.
[20] Diwa, “The Filipino Value ‘Shame’ within Ministry Leadership,” 108.
[21] It is not that Filipinos will not confront, but they will strive to avoid being direct if they can instead overlook a matter, live with it, or deal with it indirectly. If the matter must be confronted, Filipinos will tend to use indirect measures like informing a third party or addressing a group rather than the individual.