Over the past week, I finished reading a practical theological response to the prevalence of shame in late modern western culture. Shame: Theory, Therapy, Theology by Stephen Pattison (Cambridge 2000) is, in my estimation, the best among a number of works that have attempted to address the crippling effects of shame on persons, groups, and communities. Pattison weaves together a significant array of psychological and sociocultural theories of shame. He assesses the ways that Christianity, intentionally or not, induces shame, sharing his own experiences of being shamed in and through ecclesial practices. Just this section of the book is worth the price of the whole. He concludes with an exploration of how theologians and church leaders might unmask the work of shame in Christian symbols, images, ideas, and rituals for the sake, as I would put it, of participation in Christ’s ongoing ministry of healing and reconciliation in the world.
Shame, as a topic, is rarely undertaken in major theological texts. Guilt and sin remain predominant concerns, and consequently shame is often misinterpreted as guilt in churches today. Briefly, guilt emerges from a sense of transgression, from having done (or not done), said (or not said) that which honors God and humanity. Guilt, when accompanied by the conviction of the Spirit, presses toward liberation, toward the freedom that comes with forgiveness. Shame, however, is an acute sense of unworthiness, defilement, and humiliation. If guilt cries, “I have done wrong,” then shame cries, “I am wrong” in the core of my being. Shame leads to isolation, withdrawal, and fragmentation of the self. It does not press toward reconciliation but rather toward annihilation. It is an expression of the power of the void, of the nothingness that haunts and threatens God’s good creation.
Throughout my eight years of teaching, I have encountered far more than a few students, ministers, and professors trapped by shame. Too often, their theology reinforces their shame. Since I’ve taught at both a Lutheran and a Reformed seminary and since in my own childhood, adolescence, and youth adulthood, I participated in Roman Catholic and Pentecostal churches, I’ve encountered shame wrapped in the guise of at least four different theologies. But they have all a common core: an insidious denigration of the self.
In Reformed circles, it often manifests in vehement declarations of one’s own depravity (which, of course, eventually manifests in similar declarations about others) and in punitive applications of Calvin’s third use of the law. Shame feeds on these classically Reformed ideas, leaving too many people not only stuck in self-loathing but also transmuting self-loathing into a spiritual practice of sorts. Rigid, fear-based control of the self, particularly of one’s body and sexuality, stunts creativity, blocks relationships with others, and leads to despair, for no one can fulfill the perfectionist reaction to shame.
In Lutheran circles, where the third use of the law may be anathema, shame can be shrouded by bondage to Luther’s idea of the bondage of the will. The self is so crippled that human action is suspect. Practices that might break the power of shame are rejected. Instead, there is a narcissistic response to shame: an attachment to leaders who actually use shame as a form of control. Such bonding gives one a sense of goodness and importance, however fleeting.
Pattison is clear, and I agree, that eliminating all potentially shame-inducing ideas and practices in Christianity isn’t possible or advisable, since what induces shame for one person or group may not for another. At the same time, pastors and theologians—if they really are called to participate in Christ’s ministry of healing and reconciliation in concrete lives and relationships—ought to examine how the church’s teaching, preaching, and theological discourse induces shame. We ought, at the very least, to persist in the ongoing formation and reformation of our faith. As theologian Roberta Bondi persuasively argues,
“Theology . . . is about saving lives, and the work of theology . . . is saving work. First, it involves learning to see the ways in which false images of God, ourselves, and the world have bound us and taken away the life God intends for us. Second, it involves learning to know God as God is . . . Third, it involves imagining a future that is consistent with the God we have come to know” (Bondi, Memories of God; quoted in Pattison).
Perhaps it is time to seriously re-examine some long-held theological tenets, their expression in our churches, and their impact on human life. Perhaps it is time to give up the denigration of the self that reinforces shame and flatly contradicts Jesus command to “love your neighbor as yourself.”
I think that these issues are really important in pastoral ministry and I know that working through shame was really helpful in receiving and counseling people. Shame does seem to be an elephant in the room when it comes to spirituality and discipleship. So, I appreciate the post. However, I'm not satisfied with the clear distiction between guilt and shame.
I always come back to the question, "what kind of person would commit that kind of transgression?" Guilt and shame seem inseparable as much as I'd lile to try. Even in the Bible we not only transgress the law (guilt) but also have to be "born again" and become a whole "new creation" as if to say are whole person is off (shame). I'm still trying to work that out.
At this point, the difference seems to be between humility and humiliation. They are related but one is healthy and the other clearly is not. The difference for me is the difference between love and power, between trying to serve someone and control someone.
So, is God trying to get us to "shape up" or re-form us? Does God want us to be something we're not or be who we were always meant to be?
I guess I try to help people understand that it is not necessarily us who is the problem but who we have become because of sin in us. The solution then is for Christ to be in us instead which does not mean that "I" am lost but am finally found. Like I said, I'm still trying to figure it out.
Thanks again for the post.
Thank you for the article and the reference. I have been very actively involved in studying the issues of guilt and shame for a long time. I wrote a doctoral dissertation about Christian Counseling so these issues were key. I was on a study leave in 1979 with Dr. James Kallas, a Lutheran Theologian who discussed the impact of the theology of the fall on various societies. He taught that there are three results of the fall that various theologians and thus their societies hold. They are:Bondage, Renbellion and Guilt. Kallas then expressed how each impacted the social and legal ideas of each culture.
When I returned home, it struck me that each of these issues underlies one or more theories of psychology. Bondage underlies Freud and Skinner. Rebellion underlies AA and Integrity Therapy. Guilt feelings underlies humanistic psychology as does Shame when conflated with Guilt.
I studied scripture and concluded that Guilt is not a feeling and that Shame is as much a basic part of fallen nature as True Guilt. Neither are primarily psychological but are facts of our nature that must be part of redemption. I do not agree that the main cause is theology of the fall but a lack of emphasis on redemption and progressive sanctification. In other words, we need a better theology and psychology of growth and healing.
The answers.
Bondage is death so we need regeneration
Rebellion is doing my thing so we need to be converted
Guilt is justice so we need justification
Shame is a loss of identity and inheritance so we need to be adopted as eldest
I write and teach these truths to many emotionally distressed persons. It works!