Sin, Offense, Guilt and Shame–Definitions, God’s Work and the Social Order.

Defines the common sets of terms pertaining to sin, offense, guilt, shame and honor, with a discussion of God's work and initial comments on the importance of their confusion in maintaining the social order.

In this post, I will simply define some terms necessary to the remainder of this series and offer a brief discussion of the distinctions made, with minimal argument and citation of authority. These terms all occur in groups of three or four concepts that are commonly confused with each other in everyday use, in Christian preaching and teaching, and most pointedly in Christian hymns and worship songs–from which we tend to internalize the confusion with what are often quite noxious results. But none of these concepts are, in fact, at all complicated, and they should be kept separate in our thinking.

First Group of Terms: Sin, Sins, Offend(ed), Offense(s)

“Sin,” in the singular, rebellion:

“Sin” is our inward attitude of rebellion against God. If Christ had not died to take away our “sin”–the word used in Hebrews 9:26 is singular, though often translated as plural–and promised to “cleanse us” who come to him in repentance “from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9)–our rebellion would contaminate both our persons and everything we do (even the “good” things). This would render them all ultimately futile and destructive (as even the best things in the world of human works, in fact, are).

So, if Jesus offered us salvation from consequences only, without dealing with the rebellion within, our message might properly be accused of being nothing but what Dallas Willard called “bar code Christianity (1):” If you cut the bar code label off of a box of gourmet ice cream and tape it onto a can of cheap dog food, at checkout the scanner will think the cheap dog food is gourmet ice cream, even though neither the can nor its contents have changed at all. It is still cheap dog food, even though the scanner “imputes” to it the character of wonderful ice cream.

This is a rather ridiculous example of what would be involved in the “imputation” of righteousness, as this doctrine is often taught. Because of the death of Christ, this teaching says, and a “sinner’s prayer” repeated on a single occasion, when the sinner dies the heavenly “scanners” will see Christ, even though the contents of the sinner’s life haven’t changed at all. The sinner is still by nature only a sinner, stuck in their rebellion. Christ’s righteousness is “imputed” like a new bar code that “tricks” the heavenly scanner into seeing the dog food as ice cream!

Fortunately, this is not the way things actually work. As John the Baptist said, Jesus is “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” John 1:29. (In this verse, “sin” is correctly translated as a singular in every version I know of!) He takes away our sin–our rebellion. He doesn’t just cover it with a deceptive “bar code.” We who believe in him may still lapse into our old behaviors sometimes, and he “forgives” those “sins” (discrete acts and omissions), while continuing the process of purifying us. But here is the crucial point–what is inside the container HAS been changed and IS continually being changed.  And God, who is eternal, is already just as much present at the end of the process as he is present with us now. So he already sees the end of the process–he already sees that the dog food HAS BECOME, in reality, ice cream. We HAVE BECOME like Christ, who lives in us, as I have written before. We just don’t fully see the outcome yet while we are trapped in time, but God sees it all. Now, already.

“Sins” in the plural, bad acts:

“Sins,” in the plural are individual evil acts or omissions or the aggregate of our evil actions. Of course, where the context ties a reference to a “sin” in the singular to a particular act or omission (a sin, a named “sin”), “sin” in the singular can also refer to particular discrete acts, but ordinarily the unqualified singular refers to the underlying rebellion, not to any specific act. In this context, an evil act or omission is first of all one that reflects rebellion against God–thus discrete “sins” (plural) are the result and evidence of “sin,” singular, but are not identical to it. An evil act or omission is one that is destructive (another primary meaning) or one that or one that departs from God’s instructions to us. Because God knows the outcome of everything and has our collective and individual good as believers in mind when he gives us instructions, it follows that any departure from his instructions will ultimately be destructive, so these two definitions are essentially equivalent. Another essentially equivalent definition is that anything that departs from the law of love manifests “sin”–rebellion against love–and is “a sin.” Finally, when I depart from his instructions, I show that I do not trust God. This ties together the definitions of “sin” singular–rebellion–and “sins” plural–evil acts: “…everything that does not come from faith is sin.” Romans 14:23 (NIV).

A few words need to be said here about what “sin” and “sins” are not. Sin is not a violation of social norms, and a mere failure to comply with what society or those around me expect is not per se sinful. Indeed, as a believer, I will often be required to consciously ignore certain destructive social norms. Sin is also not a failure to do what other people expect, or an act which is contrary to what other people want or expect, no matter how important those people are. And acts or omissions which merely inconvenience others or their collective activities or institutions are not necessarily sins. The express worldly penalties for these acts or omissions are just that–penalties–not proof that a “sin” has been committed. And the stigma resulting from all these types of social acts or omissions fall within the category of “shame,” which is a social construct mostly separate from the definitions of “sin” and “sins,” as will be discussed below. Many things which are not sinful result in actual social stigma and/or subjectively perceived social stigma, i.e., “shame.”

Also, an act, attitude, statement or omission is not a “sin” merely because other people insist that they are “offended” by it. Those in whom the risen Christ has full license to live his life naturally “smell” like a rotting corpse to unbelievers. 2 Corinthians 2:16. Just living in Christ is extremely offensive to the world!

(For those who are interested, a few years ago I wrote a whole series of posts about the distinction between singular “sin” and plural “sins” in which I exhaustively justified the distinction. For a careful discussion of the definitions of the New Testament Greek “sin” words, see this link).

“Offend” as a Verb, five broad and distinguishable senses, with multiple subparts:

The following definitions are synthesized from four online English dictionaries’ (1, 2, 3, 4) entries for the verb “offend”:

1. To cause displeasure, anger, resentment or wounded feelings in another:
   • To be disagreeable or offensive to them.
   • To be displeasing or disagreeable to them.
   • To cause another to feel resentment or indignation.
   • To hurt another’s feelings.
     • “Especially by being rude or showing a lack of respect.” (Cambridge Dictionary).
   • To displease; give offense or displeasure to; shock; annoy; pain; molest.
   • To affect (the sense, taste, etc.) disagreeably.
   • To cause a person or group to feel hurt, angry or upset by something said or done.
   • To be perceived as displeasing, disagreeable or offensive by another, regardless of whether the perception is justified.
2. To err in conduct (generally).
3. To violate a law or rule:
   • To disobey, violate or transgress a human law.
     • To commit a crime.
     • To commit a fault (that which is one’s “fault”)
     • To do something to which legal liability attaches.
   • To disobey, violate or transgress a moral law or rule.
     • To sin.
   • To act in disregard of contracts or promises.
   • Archaic: To disobey, violate or transgress divine law.
     • To sin.
   • To transgress or violate (a law or right)
   • To transgress or violate a social or cultural rule or norm.
4. To disobey someone (“offend against” them, first sense).
5. To strike, attack or assault another (“offend against” them, second sense).
6. To injure, harm, hurt, cause injury or pain to another (“offend against” them, third sense).
7. Archaic: To cause another person to transgress or offend (“offend against” them, fourth sense):
   • To lead into offense or evil.
   • To cause another to stumble morally or to sin.

This extended definition of the verb “offend” is offered to make four points:

1. The most common usage of “offend,” broadly definition number 1, above, involves only the emotional reactions of other people to what the offender did, said, or was said or imagined to have done or said–strictly social matters. It does not require any sin, real or imagined, only hurt feelings.
2. The only senses of the word “offend” that involve any sin are the moral and divine law branches of definition number 3 and definitions number 5 through 7. All of these are unusual usages, and the dictionaries even label the divine law branch of definition number 3 and all of definition number 7 as “obsolete” or “archaic.” This follows the tendency of Western culture for the last century and a half, at least, to dismiss the whole concept of sin as “archaic.”
3. The common usages of “offend” which involve only social faults and resulting hurt feelings are rather clearly distinguishable from the less common usages in which either a) an actual law or rule has been broken, b) legal liability has come into existence, or c) concrete harm has been done by a real (not imagined or supposed) act or omission.
4. Nevertheless, it is increasingly common for people or institutions in our culture to deliberately confuse these senses of “offend,” using the harm caused by an emotional upset to demand control of other people’s behavior.

“Offense(s),” as Noun, six broad senses (one of them irrelevant):

Once again, the most common usages are the two that focus on hurt feelings, and the next most common after these is a usage irrelevant to the present discussion that pertains to sports and military activities:

1. Something that offends the person asserting an offense:
   • something that outrages the moral or physical senses.
   • a lack of politeness; a failure to show regard for others; wounding the feelings or others.
   • the act of displeasing or affronting.
   • affront; insult; injustice; wrong; that which wounds the feelings and causes displeasure or resentment.
2. The condition of having your feelings hurt:
   • the state of being insulted or morally outraged.
   • the condition of having your feelings hurt “esp. because someone has been rude or showed a lack of respect” (Cambridge Dictionary)
   • a feeling of anger caused by being offended.
   • displeasure; annoyance; mortification; umbrage; anger.
3. In sporting or military contests:
   • the military formation or contestant that is advancing or attempting to advance
   • the offensive team or members of a team playing offensive positions
   • the act of attacking: assault
   • the means or method of attacking or attempting to score
   • scoring ability
4. An infraction:
   • a violation of the law.
   • an illegal act, crime.
   • a misdemeanor or transgression of the law which is not indictable, but is punishable summarily or by the forfeiture of a penalty.
   • a breach of social or moral code.
   • an act punishable by law; usually considered an evil act.
   • transgression; sin; fault; wrong; misdeed.
5. (Broadly) Harm; hurt; injury; without reference to the type of injury.
6. Specifically with reference to sin:
   • “archaic:” a cause or occasion of stumbling or sin: stumbling block.
   • “obsolete:” an act of stumbling.

“Offended,” verb and adjective usages apply very different senses of the word:

Dictionary.com lists four definitions of the word “offended,” with the simple grammatical meaning being the fourth (and least used):

1. feeling or expressing hurt, irritation or insult because of a perceived wrong or insult…
2. being the recipient or victim of criminally or morally repugnant behavior…
3. (of a sense, taste, etc.) affected disagreeably…
4. (verb) the simple past tense and past participle of offend.

The diversity of the distinct senses in which the word “offended” is used is also attested to by the three headings and nine–yes, nine–subheadings under which the Merriam-Webster Thesaurus lists its synonyms:

1. as in trespassed–to commit an offense… Synonyms and similar words:
   • trespassed, sinned, transgressed, broke the law, lapsed, backslid
   • fell, strayed, violated fell from grace, broke
   • wandered, erred, infringed, breached, messed up
2. as in insulted–to cause hurt feelings or deep resentment in… Synonyms and similar words:
   • insulted, affronted, taunted, slapped, disrespected, ridiculed, miffed, tortured, slandered, defamed, libeled, cut
   • outraged, wounded, hurt, slighted, mocked, pained, snubbed, jeered, disparaged, persecuted, smeared, slurred
   • upset, displeased, troubled, dissed, distressed, oppressed, tormented, maligned, reviled, sneered (at), libelled
3. as in violated–to fail to keep… Synonyms and similar words:
   • violated, transgressed, contravened, disobeyed, slighted, overlooked, resisted, flouted, poohed, shrugged off
   • broke, breached, fractured, rebelled, neglected, passed over, brushed (off), blew off, withstood, overpassed
   • traduced, infringed (on or upon), ignored, disregarded, dismissed, scorned, winked (at), tuned out, defied, pooh-poohed.

“Offender:” not everyone who offends in one sense is an offender in all of the other senses

With all of this said, the definition of an “offender” is deceptively simple: an “offender” is someone who offends or has offended.

Still, it should be obvious that someone who is incorrectly perceived to have said something another found insulting is not an “offender” in the same sense as a person who murders another, and that neither of these is an “offender” in precisely the same sense as one who actually holds or states a socially disapproved opinion.

Still, as I will explain in future posts, human efforts to maintain a social order which favors some over others always have fostered and still do quite deliberately foster–at the whole society level–confusion in this area. “Sin” and “sins” are confused with each other (although these terms likely will not be used) and the rebellion necessary to the definition of “sin” (or its substitute term) is redefined as rebellion against a monarch or other very “important” person, the government, the system or form of government or economic order, the “church” or a similar cultural religious institution, or “society” as a whole. Historically and in other cultures, these favored people or institutions were or are generally said to either be gods or to have a favored relationship with God or the gods. However, in modern America and the modern West generally, the concepts of “society,” “community” or “humanity” collectively simply stand in the traditional place of an impersonal supreme deity. Therefore, the modern equivalent terms for “sin” refer conceptually to a rebellion against deified “government,” deified “society,” deified “community,” or the deified “spirit of humanity.”

Once the “sin” concept is properly muddled, it becomes easy to blur the distinction between objective “guilt” for these “sins” against social rules and the social stigma (“shame”) that result from them. Further, the order of values of “sins” inevitably becomes warped, and certain types purely social or ideological slights or offenses that are seen as threatening to the favored institutions, social classes or leaders are treated as even more serious than grave moral wrongs. As I said, all of this has always been true in all cultures–only the identities of the social or ideological offenses which render one an offender worthy of death or banishment change from culture to culture, time to time and place to place.

The modern American weaponization of the phrase “I’m offended,” when repeated in response to certain disapproved opinions or perceived motivations is only one recent manifestation of this larger social process. When used in this way by someone socially authorized to say it, “I’m offended” (or “we’re offended”) stands as a moral statement that absolutely prohibits further expression of the proscribed opinion or continuance of the presumptively ill-motivated action on pain of ostracism, discrimination and/or legal sanctions. This application of “I’m offended” is, in fact, a fairly trivial manifestation of the larger social process I am describing. But it does quite nicely demonstrate one important aspect of that process–it is entirely asymmetric and nonmutual. Only a person who is socially authorized to become offended may declare “I’m offended” and expect sanctions and control of the offender’s behavior to result from it. Just let a traditional Christian say they are “offended” by something anti-Christian that is said by a public figure or media mouthpiece, and they will be ignored, laughed out of the forum, fired, sued, prosecuted and/or told that society itself is “offended” that they took offense at what was said! The behavior of the one who has “offended” the complaining Christian will not change and is not socially expected to change. The Christian was not socially authorized to take offense. But similar things are and always have been true of human efforts to maintain order by deliberately confusing the distinct classes of offense. The tools used to maintain the established order are always asymmetric and nonmutual, strictly favoring particular groups.

Second Group of Terms: Guilt, Fault, Wages, Punishment, Penalty

“Guilt,” as the natural consequence of transgression of a known or fixed standard of behavior, is the easiest of these sets of terms to understand, at least until it starts to become confused with social stigma (“shame”), which is a social process that does not necessarily involve either a transgression or a standard. Guilt for a transgression does involve punishment, or the fear of a punishment, which is believed to be earned or deserved as a result of the transgression, and “fault” for both the transgression and its consequences. But it does not, in itself, involve social stigma, the opinions of others.

“Shame” and “guilt” are often used interchangeably, and this is particularly true in Western Christian theology.   However, they are not the same, and the differences are important to life, psychology and theology.  The common saying that “guilt says I’ve done something bad, where shame says I am something bad,” while it has a great measure of truth, oversimplifies the distinction. I’ll start by defining “guilt” and the group of words that naturally surround it:

“Guilt:”

Sources for composite definition: Cambridge Dictionary;  Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

“Guilt” is primarily a noun, but has a modern usage as a verb as well.

Noun:

1. Objectively: the fact of having committed a breach of conduct especially violating law and involving a penalty.
2. Objectively: the state of one who has committed an offense especially consciously.
3. Objectively, archaic: a crime or sin.
4. Subjectively:
   • a. a feeling of deserving blame for offenses.
   • b. feelings of deserving blame especially for imagined offenses or from a sense of inadequacy; self-reproach.

Transitive Verb:

1. to cause (someone) to feel guilty.
2. to force or persuade (someone) to do something by causing feelings of guilt.

The most basic, underlying definition, which subsumes all of these, was stated in Wikipedia’s article on “Guilt (law):”

“Guilt” is the obligation of a person who has violated a moral standard to bear the sanctions imposed by that moral standard.

Wikipedia, “Guilt (law).”

Psychological usage, as summarized from American Psychological Association, APA Dictionary of Psychology,  Psychology Today Basics, and  Psychology Today Blog, May 30, 2013, Joseph Burgo, PhD, “The Difference Between Guilt and Shame”,  all accessed 21 Mar 2024, stresses that guilt “arises from one’s actions,” in which “one experiences conflict at having done something that one believes one should not have done (or conversely, having not done something one believes one should have done). “  This is true even when the act or omission is innocent, not objectively in violation of any moral or legal standard, when the person involved has violated an idiosyncratic moral standard or rule not shared by others, or when the offense is purely imaginary.  This violation of a believed or perceived standard distinguishes guilt from shame, as will be discussed below.

“Guilty:”

Sources for composite definition:  Dictionary.com, Wiktionary, Collaborative International Dictionary of English on Wordnik.

Adjective:

1. Having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong, especially against moral or penal law; justly subject to a certain accusation or penalty.
2. (Law). Judged to have committed a crime.
3. Responsible for a dishonest act; justly subject to a certain accusation or penalty; culpable.
4. Having or showing a sense of guilt, whether real or imagined:
5. Having a guilty conscience.
6. Blameworthy.
7. (Obsolete). Conscious or cognizant.
8. (Obsolete).  Condemned to payment.

“Fault:”

Sources for composite definition: Merriam-Webster Dictionary; Dictionary.com; Cambridge Dictionary ; Collins Dictionary.

Primarily a noun, but has both transitive and intransitive verb uses as well.

Noun:

1. A weakness or failing—
   • a. A weakness in a person’s character.
   • b. A weakness or failing in a person—especially, a moral weakness less serious than a vice.
   • c. A physical or intellectual imperfection or impairment: a defect.
   • d. A weakness or broken part in a machine, system or object.
2. That which causes a bad or undesirable situation
3. An error or mistake in something a person is doing or has done.
4. A wrongful act—
   • a. Usually, a less serious wrongful act; a misdemeanor.
5. Responsibility for a failure or wrongful act
6. A geologic fault, a fracture in a planet’s crust.
7. (Obsolete). A lack or want. 
8. An error especially in service in a net or racket game.

Intransitive Verb:

1. To commit a fault; to err
2. To fracture so as to produce a geologic fault.

Transitive Verb:

1. To find fault in or with someone or something
2. To blame or censure.
3. To produce a geologic fault in.

Punish

Sources for definition: Merriam-Webster Dictionary; Cambridge Dictionary ; Dictionary.com.

Transitive Verb:

1. [Relating to official action in response to a crime]
   • a. to cause someone who has done something wrong or committed a crime to suffer, by hurting them, forcing them to pay money, forcing them to do something they don’t want to do, or sending them to prison, etc.
   • b. to punish anyone who commits a particular crime
2. [Relating to retribution, whether official or personal, or to official action]
   • a. To impose a penalty on for a fault, offense or violation
   • b. To inflict a penalty or an injury for the commission of (an offense) in retribution or retaliation
3. [Relating to treatment of people, animals or objects]
   • a. To inflict injury on.
   • b. To misuse, abuse or hurt.
   • c. To use or treat something badly, violently, severely, roughly, or without care.
   • d. To put to painful exertion, as a horse in racing
4. “Informal:” To make a heavy inroad upon; to deplete.

Intransitive Verb:

1. To inflict punishment.

Punishment

Sources for definition: Merriam-Webster Dictionary; Dictionary.com .

1. The act of punishing.
2. [relating to retribution]
   • a. Suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution.
   • b. A penalty imposed on an offender through judicial procedure.
3. Severe, rough or disastrous handling or treatment.

Penalty

Sources: Merriam-Webster Dictionary; Cambridge Dictionary; Dictionary.com.

1. A punishment imposed or incurred for violation of a law or rule.
2. Something that is forfeited as the result of an act, omission or occurrence–often assessed in money.
3. A punishment, loss, or suffering to which one subjects oneself by nonfulfillment of some obligation or failure to follow a rule.
4. A disadvantage that is brought about as a result of a situation, action or omission.
5. An advantage given in some sports to a team or player when the opposing team of player breaks a rule.
6. Points scored in bridge by the side that defeats the opposing contract–usually used in the plural.

Bridging Concepts: “Merit” and “Deserve.”

The concepts that bridge the gap between “guilt” with its objective standards and “honor” and “shame” as social constructs colloquially lacking such standards are the concepts included in the terms “merit” and “deserve.” (Yes, I am aware that one usage of the word “honor” involves a group’s “code of honor,” which contains objective standards, but this is not the most common colloquial usage of “honor”). Thus, under one sense of the term “honor,” it can properly be said that a person who perfectly keeps a group’s or a society’s rules has “merit” or is “meritorious” and deserves honor. And, under a similar sense of the term “honor” and a parallel sense of the word “shame,” it can properly be said that someone who violates a society’s or group’s rules lacks “merit” and has earned or deserves “shame”–particularly if the violation is egregious.

However, violation of a rule does not always deserve or merit dishonor or shame, even when it objectively creates “guilt” that calls for “punishment.”

And pushing the inference in the other direction–i.e., from “shame” to “guilt”–does not work at all. Not nearly everyone who feels shame is guilty of any transgression. Indeed, I think it likely that a great majority of the people who have had shame cast on them by others are innocent: they are shamed for things they did not do, for reasons outside of their control, or simply for who they are (which is seen as defective for some reason).

So here are definitions of the bridging words “merit” and “deserve:”

“Merit:”

Sources: Dictionary.com; Cambridge Dictionary ; Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

“Merit” has noun, verb and adjective uses.

Noun:

1. [regarding worthiness or honor]
   • a. A claim to respect or praise; excellence; worth.
   • b. Character or conduct deserving reward, honor or esteem; achievement.
   • c. A praiseworthy quality; virtue.
   • d. A person’s qualities or actions regarded as indicating what the person deserves to receive.
     • [Theology]: Spiritual credit held to be earned by performance of righteous acts and to ensure future benefits.
     • [Roman Catholic Church]: Worthiness of spiritual reward, acquired by righteous acts made under the influence of grace.
   • e. “Obsolete:” Reward or punishment due.
   • f. “Obsolete:” Something that is deserved, whether good or bad.
2. Individual significance or justification; justification.
3. The state of being of significance or worthy of attention or action.
   • a. To deserve attention, discussion, investigation, or action.
   • b. [Usually plural, “merits”]: what people deserve; desert; “to treat people according to their merits.”
   • c. [Law, used in the plural, “merits”]: The substance of a legal case apart from matters of jurisdiction, procedure or form.
   • d. [Law, used in the singular]: If a court decides that a complaint, case, etc. has merit, it accepts that it is true or there is evidence for it.

Transitive Verb:

1. To deserve or be worthy of something.

Intransitive Verb:

1. To deserve.
2. [Chiefly theology] To acquire, earn or be given merit.
3. “Obsolete:” To be entitled to award or honor.

Adjective:

1. Based on merit, e.g., “merit pay,” “merit raise,” “merit award,” etc.

“Deserve(d)”:

Sources: Cambridge Dictionary; Dictionary.com; Collins English Dictionary.

“Deserve” is a verb that is used both transitively and intransitively, but the definitions of these senses differ only in the presence or absence of an object. It will also be noted that when “earn,” “merit” and “deserve” are considered together, their definitions are circular–the primary sense of each of these verbs is defined in terms of the others. This group of words stands for a primitive concept that can’t be rigorously defined. That is, it is an “I’ll know it when I see it” concept, or maybe, more accurately, at a social level, a “we’ll know it when we see it” concept. Here are the composite definitions:

Transitive Verb:

1. To merit or be qualified for something as a result of actions, qualities or situation, in either a positive or negative sense, e.g., to be qualified for or merit
   • reward.
   • payment.
   • assistance.
   • praise.
   • condemnation.
   • shame.
   • punishment.
   • misfortune (as in “they got what they deserved.”)
2. To have a valid claim to something.
3. To have earned something.

Intransitive Verb:

1. Obsolete: to be worthy.

“Earn(ed)”

Sources: Merriam Webster Dictionary; Dictionary.com; Collins Dictionary; Cambridge Dictionary.

“Earn” is a verb and is usually used in a transitive sense–i.e, with an object.

Transitive verb:

1. Used of recompense or return:]
   • a. to receive as return for effort
     • especially for work done or services rendered
   • b. to bring in by way of return
     • money received from a product or business activity.
     • money received as interest or profits on an investment or loan.
2. [Used of eligibility or merit:]
   • a. to deserve because of one’s actions.
   • b. to deserve because of one’s abilities.
   • c. to merit.
3. [Used of causation of events:]
   • a. to bring about or cause deservedly.
   • b. To acquire through merit.
   • c. To gain as due return or profit.

Intransitive Verb:

1. To gain income.
2. Obsolete: to grieve.

“Wage(s):”

Sources: Merriam-Webster Dictionary; Cambridge Dictionary: Dictionary.com; Collins Dictionary.

“Wage” has both verb and noun senses, while “wages” is the plural of some of the noun senses of “wage” but is often used as a singular. Both the verb and noun senses have original denotations which have now largely become obsolete.

Transitive Verb:

1. [obsolete, but the original primary meanings]:
   • a. To stake or wager.
     • for example, as used in the names for the forms of trial initially employed under some early English common law forms of action borrowed from Anglo-Saxon law: “wager of law” and “wager of battle.”
   • b. To pledge.
2. To engage in or carry on an activity that involves conflict, most commonly–
   • a. to wage war.
   • b. to wage a battle.
   • c. to wage a campaign.
   • d. to wage an argument.
3. Chiefly in the British Dialect: To hire.

Intransitive Verb:

1. To be in the process of occurring.
2. Obsolete. To contend; struggle.

Noun:

1. Often in the plural, “wages:” money that is paid or received for work or services, as by the hour, day, or week.
   • a. most commonly used of the remuneration of one who does work that needs physical skills or strength, rather than a job needing a college education; in this usage, contrasted with “salary” or “fee.”
2. Usually in the plural, “wages:” In Economics, the share of the products of industry received by labor for its work (as distinct from the share going to capital).
3. Usually in the plural, “wages:” what is given in return; recompense, return, yield.
   • a. In this sense, the plural was “formerly” often used as a singular, with singular verbs:
     • e.g., “the wages of sin is death” (Collins Dictionary)
   • b. In this sense, also used as a modifier,
     • e.g., “wage freeze.”
4. Obsolete [but the original denotation]. A pledge or security.

Third Group: Terms Involving “Shame” and “Honor”

The concept of “guilt” at least assumes an objective standard with which the violator is theoretically capable of compliance.

By contrast, “honor,” and its reputed absence, “shame,” are purely social entities. They do not necessarily assume any standard and do not concern themselves with compliance. They go only to the social perception of who a person is.

“Shame:”

 Sources for composite definition: Merriam-Webster Dictionary; Dictionary.com ; Cambridge Dictionary):

“Shame” has both noun and verb senses.

Noun:

1. An unpleasant or painful feeling that results from comparing poorly to others (being “put to shame” in a matter).
2. An unpleasant or painful feeling that results from consciousness of one’s own weakness, inadequacy or vulnerability.
3. An unpleasant or painful feeling that results from membership in or connection with an organization, or a group or class of persons (often a race, ethnicity, religion or nationality)
   • a. of which others disapprove; or
   • b. which others regard as inferior.
4. An unpleasant or painful feeling arising from the consciousness of something dishonorable, improper or ridiculous done
   • a. by oneself; or
   • b. by another (“He brought shame on his family.”).
5. An unpleasant or painful feeling resulting from the knowledge or assumption that others have lost respect for one of the reasons in definitions 1 through 4, regardless of whether that knowledge or assumption is factually well-founded.
6. The susceptibility to one of these feelings. (“Have you no shame?”)
7. Something that brings censure or reproach.
8. A cause of feeling shame.
9. Bad luck or a disappointing or unfortunate event (“It’s a shame that…”)

Verb:

1. To bring shame to or on; to disgrace.
2. To “put to shame” by outdoing.
3. To cause to feel shame.
4. To force or persuade (someone) to do something by causing to feel guilty or ashamed.

Psychological Usage:

Once again, the Wikipedia article on “Shame” (accessed 21 Mar 2024) contains a good capsule summary of shame:

"Shame is an unpleasant self-conscious emotion often associated with negative self-evaluation; motivation to quit; and feelings of pain, exposure, distrust, powerlessness, and worthlessness…”

Wikipedia, “Shame”

The Wikipedia article also usefully observes that:

Shame is a discrete, basic emotion, described as a moral or social emotion that drives people to hide or deny their wrongdoings… The focus of shame is on the self or the individual with respect to a perceived audience. It can bring about profound feelings of deficiency, defeat, inferiority, unworthiness, or self-loathing. Our attention turns inward; we isolate from our surroundings and withdraw into closed-off self-absorption. Not only do we feel alienated from others but also from the healthy parts of ourselves. The alienation from the world is replaced with painful emotions and self-deprecating thoughts and inner anguish. Empirical research demonstrates that it is dysfunctional for the individual and group level. Shame can also be described as an unpleasant self-conscious emotion that involves negative evaluation of the self. Shame can be a painful emotion that is seen as a “…comparison of the self’s action with the self’s standards…” but may equally stem from comparison of the self’s state of being with the ideal social context’s standard…

Wikipedia, “Shame” (emphasis added)

Further, and important to future episodes of this blog, the Wikipedia article explicitly notes the connection between shame, powerlessness or vulnerability, self-perception and the perceptions of a real or imagined “audience:”

When people feel shame, the focus of their evaluation is on the self or identity. Shame is a self-punishing acknowledgment of something gone wrong. It is associated with “mental undoing”. Studies of shame showed that when ashamed people feel that their entire self is worthless, powerless, and small, they also feel exposed to an audience—real or imagined—that exists purely for the purpose of confirming that the self is worthless… The key emotion in all forms of shame is contempt. Two realms in which shame is expressed are the consciousness of self as bad and self as inadequate.

Wikipedia, “Shame” (emphasis added).

Though I will discuss the profound theological differences between “guilt” and “shame” in later installments, Jesus’ life provides the best example of the difference.  Jesus was sinless, hence had no cause for guilt.  But he suffered the most shameful form of execution that has ever been invented, hanging naked on a cross after being beaten almost to death publicly, again naked, by a scourge which removed his flesh.  He felt shame, and endured it, but had no guilt.  See Hebrews 12:2.  

“Shameful:”

Sources:  Merriam-Webster Dictionary; Dictionary.com; The Free Dictionary.

1. Causing shame, disgraceful, humiliating.
2. Giving offense; indecent; scandalous; vile.
3. Arousing the feeling of shame.
4. Archaic/ obsolete: full of the feeling of shame: ashamed.

“Shamed:”

1. Past simple and past participle of shame (verb).
2. The condition of having been held up to shame in the eyes of others.

“Ashamed:”

Sources: Cambridge Dictionary; Dictionary.com; Collins Dictionary.

Adjective:

1. Feeling personal shame or embarrassment because something bad wrong or foolish was done
   • a. by the person feeling shame;
   • b. by another connected with the person feeling shame or believed by others to be connected with that person; or
   • c. by a collective entity–e.g., a nation, city or organization–with which the person feeling shame is connected or is believed by others to be connected.
2. Feeling personal shame or embarrassment because of one’s self-perceived inadequacy or inferiority.
3. Feling personal shame or embarrassment because of one’s appearance.
4. Feeling shame or embarrassment to be connected with a person or entity because of
   • a. something they have said or done; or
   • b. something the person feeling shame believes them to have said or done;
   • c. something others have told the person feeling shame that they have said or done;
   • d. their connection with or membership in, or reported or reputed connection with or membership in, a disapproved collective entity;
   • e. Their membership in a disfavored racial, ethnic, religious or national group;
   • f. Their perceived inadequacy or inferiority; or
   • g. Their appearance.
5. Unwilling to act or restrained because of fear of shame, ridicule, or disapproval, particularly
   • a. reluctant because fearing shame beforehand.
6. Chiefly Midland U.S: bashful or timid, used especially of children.

“Shaming:”

Sources: Merriam-Webster Dictionary; Cambridge Dictionary.

1. Adjective: causing feelings of shame  (adverb: shamingly).
2. Noun: the act or activity of subjecting someone to shame, disgrace, humiliation, or disrepute especially by public exposure or criticism (plural: shamings)–
   • a. especially on the internet (Cambridge Dictionary only).

I think I disagree with the Cambridge Dictionary’s apparent limitation “especially on the internet.” To be sure, the internet has provided a new and particularly easy and unregulated medium for public shaming. But shaming was both common and effective before the internet was invented, and involved, at various times and places in history, a rather long list of forms that included:

1. Rumor campaigns.
2. Public exposure in the press (which exists partly to make a profit off of shaming).
3. Formal or informal ostracism.
4. Physical punishments applied primarily as a means of humiliation (six examples in the Anglo-American legal past: punishment in the stocks or the tumbrel, branding, exhibition publicly in a cage, tarring and feathering, public whipping or beating).
5. Excommunication–at least where this did not have immediate secular legal consequences–and shunning.

I note that numbers 1, 2 and 3 are still in use in American society at large, sometimes–but not always–aided by the internet. Non-physical forms of branding have also been making a comeback, aided by the quick access to negative information provided by the internet, which makes the record of any transgression or failure, whether real or unreal but reported as real, a permanent mark against its subject.

Number 5 is still used, but only by religious organizations and not in society at large.

“Honor” (American English) or “Honour” (Commonwealth English):

Sources for composite definition: Merriam-Webster Dictionary; Dictionary.com; Cambridge Dictionary,  Wikipedia, “Honour.”.

Once again, this word has both verb and noun senses, of which the verb senses appear to be primary, and a use as an adjective (which is dependent on the verb senses):

Verb:

1. To hold in honor or high respect; to revere.
2. To worship, glorify, or serve (a deity).
3. To treat with honor.
4. To confer honor or distinction upon.
   • a. To give public praise or a reward.
5. To recognize and act in accordance with the higher social or governmental position or standing of the person honored.
6. To show a courteous regard for.
7. To comply with the terms of a contract or promise.
8. To accept as valid and conform to the requests or demands of (an official document).
9. In commerce, to accept or pay (a draft, check, etc.)
10. In many parts of the world and archaically in the West: to act toward others and the community in harmony with the relevant culture’s or social group’s understood code of honor.
11. In many parts of the world: to show deference to those of superior standing by consciously remaining within the bounds of one’s own social “place” as prescribed by custom.
12. In square dancing, to meet or salute with a bow.

Noun:

1. A code of behavior that defines the duties and standing of an individual within a social group.
2. An attitude or way of life:
   • a. that combines respect, being proud, and honesty
   • b. showing honesty, fairness, or integrity in one’s beliefs and actions.
   • c. In conformity with a group’s honor code
   • d. In conformity with the expectations of the relevant society, culture or group.
3. One’s character:
   • a. showing honesty, integrity and fair dealing.
   • b. showing courage or heroism.
   • c. showing eager compliance with the relevant group’s code of moral conduct or code of honor.
   • d. archaically, and in many non-Western cultures, as applied to women, showing chastity and purity, and fidelity in marriage.
   • e. archaically, and in many non-Western cultures, as applied to men, that honors and protects the chastity or purity of honorable women and shows fidelity in marriage.
4. One’s reputation for character in any of the areas enumerated in the preceding definitions.
5. High respect, as for worth, merit, or rank:
   • a. a source or reason for such credit or distinction.
6. High public esteem; fame; glory.
7. A person of superior standing —now used especially as a title for a holder of high office:
   • a. a deferential title of respect, especially for judges and mayors
8. A reward, prize, or title that publicly expresses admiration or respect
9. Usually plural, “honors:” evidence of high rank, dignity, or distinction:
   • a. a decoration or document evidencing such an honor.
   • b. a special ceremony at which the honor, or any decoration or document evidencing it, is conferred.
10. A privilege one holds.
11. In education, usually in the plural, “honors:”
    • a. special rank or distinction conferred by a university, college, or school upon a student for eminence in scholarship or success in some particular subject.
    • b. an advanced course of study for superior students.
12. In cards, any of the four or five (depending upon the game) highest trump cards.
13. In golf, the privilege of teeing off before the other player or side, given after the first hole to the player or side that won the previous hole.

Adjective:

1. Of, relating to, or noting honor.

Wikipedia “Honour” discusses four broad senses of in which the term is, or has been, used:

Honor… is a quality of a person that is of both social teaching and personal ethos, that manifests itself as a code of conduct, and has various elements such as valour, chivalry, honesty, and compassion. It is an abstract concept entailing a perceived quality of worthiness and respectability that affects both the social standing and the self-evaluation of an individual or of institutions such as a family, school, regiment, or nation….

Samuel Johnson, in his A Dictionary of the English Language (1755)… also defined honour in relationship to “reputation” and “fame”; to “privileges of rank or birth”, and as “respect” of the kind which “places an individual socially and determines his right to precedence”. This sort of honour is often not so much a function of moral or ethical excellence, as it is a consequence of power…

Honour as a code of behaviour defines the duties of an individual within a social group. Margaret Visser observes that in an honour-based society “a person is what he or she is in the eyes of other people”. A code of honour differs from a legal code, also socially defined and concerned with justice, in that honour remains implicit rather than explicit and objectified…

Finally, with respect to sexuality, honour has traditionally been associated with (or identical to) “chastity” or “virginity”, or in case of married men and women, “fidelity”.

Wikipedia “Honour” , citations omitted.

I will discuss both “honor” and “shame” and the relationship between them, much further in later posts.  Here, I will make only two additional comments:

First, as many others have observed, modern American culture and law—and Western culture and law, generally—openly denigrate the concepts of honor and shame by collapsing them into the concepts of social/legal guilt (imposed for violation of positive law and requiring judgment and punishment) and social reward (for being obedient or doing “good”). But this cultural denigration of the concepts of honor and shame does not make honor go away or actually convert shame into a form of guilt.  Instead, it only drives honor underground and makes shame difficult to talk about sensibly. 

Shame, as perceived social stigma or the fear of it, is not an offense.  Therefore, it cannot, in the proper sense, be either punished or forgiven.  It may be imposed AS a punishment, but shame in itself is not something that can be punished. And Jesus could not have died on the Cross to “pay the price” of my shame, the words of several popular hymns notwithstanding, as my shame has no “price,” no demanded penalty.  Shame exists in relation to other people, not in relation to God. So the answer to shame must lie somewhere else.   More will be written about this!

Second, the 1939 movie “The Wizard of Oz” unfortunately got our modern American concept of honor spot-on accurately.  Toward the end of the movie, the Wizard, a caricature of our cultural concept of God, was shown to be pure humbug, literally created by smoke and mirrors by a little man who didn’t even know how to fly the balloon that brought him to Oz.  However, by conferring honors (per noun definition 9b, above) on Dorothy’s three friends, the Wizard gives them honor (per noun definition 4, above) that they had not previously possessed.  In so doing, he demonstrates the difference between honor (noun definition 3) and a reputation for honor (noun definition 4), then says—as the “moral” of the whole movie–that the distinction does not exist. 

To the scarecrow, who had previously had a reputation for no intelligence, as he had straw in place of a brain, the wizard gives a diploma—an honor recognizing his intelligence, thus something better than a brain. Then suddenly the scarecrow recites the Pythagorean Theorem!  To the cowardly lion, the Wizard gives a medal for courage, and the Lion starts to talk as if he had courage.  To the Tin Man, who had a hollow can in place of a heart, the Wizard gives a “testimonial”–a heart-shaped pocket watch that will sound like a heart in his chest—and, viola!, his heart is “breaking” because Dorothy has to leave. According to the Wizard, Dallas Willard was wrong—if we collectively confer the honor of an ice cream bar code label on a can of dog food, the dog food really DOES become ice cream!

The Wizard then sums up the whole meaning of the movie by explaining that “a heart is not judged by how much you love, but by how much you are loved by others.”   Thus, character and reputation for character are the same, and it is the reputation that really matters.  We really ARE the collective judgments of others.

Of course, this is pure nonsense.  The crowds did NOT love Jesus, but instead shouted repeatedly for his crucifixion, threatening a riot if Governor Pilate did the justice that he knew he should do. Only a small band of disciples loved him, and even they ran away in his hour of need. So, Jesus’ love fails the Wizard’s test–other people didn’t love him, so his heart must have been bad. But we know that the Wizard’s standard is wrong–if for no other reason than that Jesus’ life continuously manifested love, as was finally demonstrated by his submission to crucifixion for us and his resurrection in which he invites us to join. But the Wizard’s standard is how we learn to live because we can’t talk about shame sensibly, without confusing it with guilt and looking for the “sins”—discrete acts and omissions judged to be bad, unprofitable, suboptimal or inconvenient by our own or someone else’s standard—that caused the shame.  

I will discuss the need all societies feel to maintain this confusion, and the first stage of its effect on the history of the organized Church, in my next post.

Next: What Really Happened in the Garden

Debts, debtors and paráptōmata in the Lord’s Prayer and Jesus’ associated saying on mercy towards others’ weaknesses–Matthew 6:12-15 and Mark 11:20-26

The Crediting of Righteousness to Abraham and the Question whether Jesus Died for Our Weaknesses or for Our Discrete Sins Only–Romans 4:25

Repentance, Confession and the Textual Variant in James 5:16

Dan Foster, The Church Needs Shame to Function–and That’s a Shame.

Endnotes

1. Willard introduced the “barcode Christianity” concept, and the example I used involving ice cream and dog food, in his book The Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering Our Hidden Life in God (1997, HarperCollins, San Francisco) ISBN 0-06-069332.