The Shame Game
By George on Mar 5, 2010 in Featured
We often hear the phrase, “Shame on you!” or “You ought to be ashamed of yourself!” when we do something unacceptable. The truth is, we do feel ashamed, but do we learn anything? Usually not.
Think of overbearing parents who want their children to achieve well in school. If one child fails to meet the parents’ expectations, a common tool for correction is to embarrass the child in front of their siblings or other friends. For example one parent might say, “John would have made all As, but his best wasn’t good enough when it came to his science final.” While the child might study harder in the future, his shame can lead to resentment (toward his parents and school), even though that was never what the parents wanted to happen. In essence, using shame, guilt, or embarrassment for positive change can be a kiss of death.
As humans, we use shame to change our, and other peoples’, behavior. Our intentions might be good, but the result is never what we intend. Religious leaders can often use shame to gain control over their followers, and commonly, the followers evolve into emotion-driven zombies with very little understanding of what they’re following. Though the leader might feel a sense of accomplishment in his pastoring, the deep-rooted flock he hoped for is essentially a group of robots.
Adam and Eve felt ashamed when they realized their nakedness, but it was not God who shamed them, it was their sin. The Holy Spirit convicts, corrects, teaches, and leads us in life-giving understanding. If we want to be effective leaders, we must follow suit.
On Mar 5, 2010, Sarah Hart Landolt said:
That’s hard to remember when overwhelmed by shame. Guilt is such a familiar, instinctual emotion.
On Mar 8, 2010, Kenny said:
George,
I think you may be on Biblical thin ice here, or at least in dangerous territory. To me, this is a judgment between motive and truth. If the motive is constructed as your example, where the parents are “overbearing”…then that’s clearly bad motive and evil in intent. If, however, the parents indeed desire that their children “do well in school”, then speaking truth into their lives is not only only not wrong, but right. Again, if the context of the conversation is as you have constructed here, “his best was not good enough”…then clearly, the parents in your story have the clear intention of shaming the child into action. If, however, the instruction was slightly different in its motive, example: “you didn’t give it your best effort, did you?”; then again, the truth prevails.
Richard Rohr speaks to the circumstance where we sometimes hide behind piety because what we really are is afraid. Shame works the same way. A person who is hiding behind a veil of truth could move directly to shame because the truth has been revealed to them, and that truth stings. Shame is sometimes easier to wear than change.
There is never a good way to say a hard thing, especially to someone you love. Here, the parents obviously are not approaching this circumstance from love, but if they did, they would only need to change a couple of things to be biblical. 1. say it to him in private, and 2. say it to him with humility. Pride is the always the counterparty of shame; but shame is only wore by a willing participant, since it is emotionally conveyed and emotionally appropriated. Christ in US rises above all shame, does He not? In hearing the truth… in love….maybe the kid will indeed rise to the level of the Father’s calling in his life.
Thanks for allowing me to share these thoughts.
Kenny
On Mar 9, 2010, Joey said:
How is this skating on thin ice or in dangerous territory when everything you wrote supports the entire blog post?
On Mar 9, 2010, Kenny said:
Because sometimes shame is good and the post says that it’s bad.
On Mar 10, 2010, Drew said:
kenny, the question you created about “best effort” wasn’t really a question. it was veiled criticism.
could you give us a specific example of when shame has been good in your own life?
On Mar 10, 2010, Kenny said:
Drew…after just reading how you judged my question as a veiled criticism, I would have to say that right now would be an example of me being shamed; because you are right, it was a veiled criticism.
Kenny
On Mar 10, 2010, Kenny said:
Drew
As to how being shamed has been good in my life? Right now is a good example, but I need an honest answer from you so that I can elaborate within the context of your question.
When I read your post, it felt like an attack; so that made me ashamed of myself. Because, it felt like you were making an intellectual assualt on me in defense of George, under the auspice of a post. In other words, when both you and Joey posted after me, it felt like you were both more interested in defending George than you were in my real opinion. So I felt a little attacked…and a little ashamed that I had posted.
Is that what you had hoped to accomplish, or did you really just want to understand where I was coming from? What was your frame of mind when you asked me to respond to my earlier post?
Thanks for letting me post.
Kenny
On Mar 11, 2010, Kenny said:
Joey, I’m sure George wants to move on to his next entry, so while I wait for Drew’s response, I’ll answer your question.
Maybe my wording was bad…but the post represented that shaming someone was bad, then we “probably are ashamed”, and usually we don’t learn anything. And I disagree.
I disagree because irrespective of the motive of the shamer, the shame, if in context…can be the beginning of your healing. It will be your own pride, the shamee’s pride, that may keep them bound.
If I use the exact words in the post, but change the actors…I hope it will illustrate my point.
A son of a Christian father enters the room . The father is watching Red Shoes Diaries on HBO. He knows it’s inappropriate, but he’s doing it. His teenage son comes into the room unseen and sees what’s going on and says, “Shame on you!” The father IS shamed (just as the post says)…..here’s where I differ with the conclusion, however, and why I posted in the first place.
1. The post implies that the Shamer is in the wrong. I disagree. When shame is “earned”, shame should be delivered. In my example, I earned that shame and when it happened to me, I was ashamed and my son’s motive was to shame me, and he did, and I had it coming.
2. The post says that we rarely learn anything. I think this is wrong. I learned a lot from that episode. I fixed the problem (as much as that can be fixed), but anyway, I changed behavior. That’s why I said in my post that shame is sometimes easier to wear than change, because the shame only will work into an ultimately positively thing if I commit the CHANGING what shamed me versus STAYING in the shame.
For the point that George made at the end that the Holy Spirit convicts us, I totally agree. I was convicted.
My “thin ice” statement was made because the post seems to imply to me that the Shamer (the person who makes a shaming statement) is wrong to do so, because the shaming doesn’t work, so a better method would work, e.g., gentleness, kindness, pointing out the wrong in love.
Well these may work too, but in the example that I have given you, I’m not sure that shame was not the right medicine; by the giver of it and the receiver of it. Shame is reserved for the deepest of our troubles, because it challenges the deepest of our pride.
Only my own pride…e.g. if I had turned to my son and said, “Why don’t you mind your own business”…and just continued with my life….but the shame did work and it did initiate change, after conviction.
So I don’t think I was looking to say that ALL of the original thoughts offered up were bad, but that my experience had been different. So, yes, I do believe that sometimes shame can be the beginning of something that has a good ending.
And in this answer…I guess I did humiliate myself enough to have already given Drew his answer about an example where shame worked for the positive in my life.
Guys…thanks for mixing it up with me. I’ve learned something. Georege, thanks for the original post.
Kenny
On Mar 11, 2010, Winn said:
Man… I *LOVE* the Red Shoe Diaries!!!!
On Mar 14, 2010, Joey said:
Kenny,
Interesting observations.
My initial question to you was in no way to shame you, but start a conversation (which it has!). Your entire response reads like you’re arguing with yourself, which is fine, because I do that too. But, you were bringing up arguments against points that were never even in the post. I wasn’t defending George, just curious as to why you you wrote the comment.
Now, I see why.
Your scenario about Red Shoe Diaries was a little weak. For me, if I were caught looking at something I thought I shouldn’t be looking at, the shame wouldn’t make me stop watching it, it would just make me more cautious. The last paragraph in the post, however, speaks about how God deals with us in our sin (which is the same God that sees you watching Red Shoes Diaries, even if no one walked in on you). I’m glad that you learned something from the situation, but I think you don’t need to say “shame” is what taught you, it was the Holy Spirit (which reaffirms the last paragraph in the post).
I don’t believe that shame is the beginning of healing, I think recognizing shame is the beginning of healing. Shame drives us deeper into what we’re shameful about. But, when God reveals to me my sin, my shame, then the change begins. To say shame begins the healing is to say the firewood will put out the fire. I believe, in ANY context, true change only comes by the Spirit.
And, I don’t write all this to be right. I write this to respond. I don’t think you should feel ashamed for anyone disagreeing with you, especially when it comes to such deep matters. We all have the freedom to write what we need to write, and I hope God is glorified in our thinking.
Joey
On Mar 15, 2010, Kenny said:
Joey, you’ve been honest to your old blog. Impulsive, honest, and a little offensive.
But, sincerely…thanks for the kindness in your words.
I’m sorry my Red Shoes Diaries was weak…and if this blog was private, I could give you a longer list; but it looks like we at least got Winn into the dialogue with the example.
George’s original post stated that shame may be well intended but the results are never what we intended. Well…what did we intend? If the shaming is warranted…then the response should be conviction. The fact that the conviction comes from the Holy Spirit…I agree with you. But it was the words of shame that was the catalyst to the conviction. God was indeed watching me when I was watching something I shouldn’t have…but only when my son intervened did I change my behavior. Can’t that in itself be an act of the Holy Spirit…that my son was used as a vehicle for that moment? That’s been many years ago but I still remember it. If you’ve not had a similar experience, that’s fine, but I’m telling you what happened to me.
My son was not out to “prove” something to me…he just spoke the truth. In the original post, the spoken truth, the “shame” speak…well, if the person receiving that interjects their own pride into it…then, yes, the shame will not lead to the behavior that the shamer wanted…e.g. I said you should be ashamed because you implied a bigoted statement and you said, “take a hike wise guy”. But who is not acting from conviction? Clearly, the person reacting is not acting in a spirit of conviction, while the person who made the statement may have been (notice I didn’t say always is).
The conviction came in the form of shame. The original post was about the giver of shame…how it rarely results in the behaviors that motived the shame in the first place. This is what I greatly disagree with. Shame given in the right context can be a vehicle of the Spirit and can motivate positive change -if/when accepted and recognized, then moved to conviction. This was shown again to me this week when I saw The Blind Side movie, where the women were sitting around the table talking about the big black kid living in the house, and one lady said, “aren’t you afraid for your daughter?”…the implication very clear…and the Sandra Bullock character said, “you should be ashamed of yourself”…and she should have been. If she was convicted by her statement, then thats the work of the Spirit in her life. The shame statement was the work of the Spirit in the life of the person who said, “you should be ashamed”.
To relegate all acts of behavior change to the Holy Spirit would mean that we, as believers, never interject into one another’s lives. He is the basis of all conviction, I agree, but a believer speaking into the life of another believer is that spark. You can’t say, either, that “change comes only by the Spirit”. This is a poetic thought, but it’s just wrong. Change comes through sin, also. God has provisioned us to be very capable of changing in many ways at our pleasure…whether in conformance to His Spirit or not. One is a life of the Spirit and another is a life in sin.
For me, having the courage to speak bolding into a life is the work of the Spirit. We’re not called to just stand there and watch somebody in their sin, because we’re too afraid that somehow our words will be pride based. The gospel is a great mystery but it’s not mystical. It’s pragmatic and rooted in relationships based in love for one another. If I don’t love you, I never risk anything. Relationships mean that we risk things with one another and when we’re wrong, we fix it. But we risk it.
I believe that it’s perfectly fine to say to someone, “hey…you should be ashamed of yourself”…if the truth is that they should be ashamed. Even the blog notes that the person being shamed “is ashamed”…but then argues that they just don’t react as they should. Well…this is the issue of the person doing the wrong, not the issue of the person who said, ’shame on you’.
The post seemed to imply that shame stated to another is never justified, and I say it can be. Shame, when stated to another who deserves to be shamed is justified. Shame when stated to another who does not deserve to be shamed, is not. One is the recognition of sin or shortcoming in the life of another and pointed out in truth. The other is the pride of the shamer trying to lord power/position/authority over the other.
The other thing is about the flock of emotion-driven zombies with very little understanding of what they’re following. It’s not just shame that can lead to that condition, which is why I believe that blogs that discuss holy matters deserve a lot of back and forth, honest, disagreement…discussion..etc.; not just ‘read and accept’. Like we’re doing now.
Firewood can put out the fire if the firewood is wet. Also, the reason that I felt a little ashamed was because it seemed in my spirit that my good friend Drew was racking on me a little…and that was the foundation of that statement.
I’m happy to see that you were wanting to discuss rather than defend. Thanks for that…and
Thanks for letting me post.
Kenny