Humility, Shame and Guilt

A reader writes in:

'I am having trouble lately distinguishing between proper humility and feelings of shame. When I look at my (pathetic, sinful) self, I know very well that humility is in order but I have difficulty going there without feeling really bad about myself. Can you help me to see this in a more helpful way?'

A problem being able to understand the difference between humility, shame and guilt is not uncommon. Our culture, including the Christian Culture, often conflates the three, making it hard to understand how different these concepts are. This is not suprising, considering that Christianity first spread in the Roman Empire, which is often used as a primary example of a shame society. Religion can never be completely separated from the culture it grows in. Let's examine the concepts with some definitions. Canadian writer Paul Hiebert characterizes shame this way:

"Shame is a reaction to other people's criticism, an acute personal chagrin at our failure to live up to our obligations and the expectations others have of us. In true shame oriented cultures, every person has a place and a duty in the society. One maintains self respect, not by choosing what is good rather than what is evil, but by choosing what is expected of one. "

Shame is externally initiated. It is the feeling we have when we know other people disapprove of us for our actions, lifestyle, appearance, or any other part of who we are. Guilt, by contrast, is internally initiated. Once again, Paul Hiebert:

"Guilt is a feeling that arises when we violate the absolute standards of morality within us, when we violate our conscience. A person may suffer from guilt although no one else knows of his or her misdeed; this feeling of guilt is relieved by confessing the misdeed and making restitution. True guilt cultures rely on an internalized conviction of sin as the enforcer of good behavior, not, as shame cultures do, on external sanctions."

Shame and guilt are similar - the difference is whether pressure to conform to community norms comes through sanction (shame) or through internal processes (guilt). Although both guilt and shame are considered exclusively negative in parts of our culture, it is hard to deny that they can sometimes be used for positive purposes. For example, a corporation who is polluting the environment in a way that is legal but immoral might be stopped by protest (shame) or by a whistleblower (guilt). On the other hand, both have been used for centuries by majorities to ensure compliance to norms of behavior that are often harmful to the populations the norm is being enforced on. An example might be the lingering idea (based on a particular interpretation of original sin) that women are inherently more sinful due to the Eve's actions in the Garden of Eden. The resultant shame was used to argue against women's equality.

Shame should almost never be a part of the Christian faith. We are specifically forbidden to judge others (Matt 7:1). Shame requires a judgement and then the application of punishment to bring the offender back into line. In the Episcopal tradition, the Book of Common Prayer ( p. 400) contains the 'Disciplinary Rubrics;"

If the priest knows that a person who is living a notoriously evil life intends to come to Communion, the priest shall speak to that person privately, and tell him that he may not come to the Holy Table until he has given clear proof of repentance and amendment of life.

The priest shall follow the same procedure with those who have done wrong to their neighbors and are a scandal to the other members of the congregation, not allowing such persons to receive Communion until they have made restitution for the wrong they have done, or have at least promised to do so.

When the priest sees that there is hatred between members of the congregation, he shall speak privately to them, telling them that they may not receive Communion until they have forgiven each other. And if the person or persons on one side truly forgive the others and desire and promise to make up for their faults, but those on the other side refuse to forgive, the priest shall allow those who are penitent to come to Communion, but not those who are stubborn.

In all such cases, the priest is required to notify the bishop, within fourteen days at the most, giving the reasons for refusing Communion.

In this case, shame is being used to bring a "notoriously evil" person back into the fold. As to exactly what "notoriously evil" means, that's a really good question. In seminary, we had discussions of when we might use this rubric, and we were all uncertain of what could possibly be so bad (and known to the priest as well) that might warrant using it. Most things we could come up with (murder, theft, abuse, etc.) would probably only be known to the priest after it had become public. (Confession is a different issue, but such things would be dealt with BEFORE the Sunday service.) Shame is a "Nuclear Option" that is as likely to send the sinner out of the church as it is to bring them to repentance, and it is very hard to determine if human judgement on divine matters is that secure.

Guilt, on the other hand, has the possibility to be a much more positive force, as it comes from an internal compass rather than being cohersive. The fact that someone might feel guilty after committing murder, robbery, etc. really is a good thing. Where it ceases being helpful is when we feel guilty about something that is either beyond our control or is actually good.

Sin is defined as anything that separates us from God. All sorts of things separate us from God, and only some of those are under our direct control. For instance, if my nation wages an unjust war, sin is imputed to me even if I speak out against it. If a company pollutes the environment and I buy their product, sin is imputed to me even if I have no idea about their practices.

Sin should be thought of as a state, not a set of actions and must not be confused with blame. It is a common state that all humans share. Being human means sinning. Although we can avoid specific sins, we cannot avoid the general state. One of the questions in the Episcopal baptism rite is: "Will you persevere in resisting evil, and, whenever you fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord?" (BCP 304) Not IF you fall into sin, but WHEN you fall into sin.

Humility is, in Christian terms, the acknowledgment of the proper state of relationship between ourselves and God. It is acknowledging that we are not God (not omnipotent, not omniscient and fallible) and that God is not us (Not an abusive parent, not irrational and loving without condition.) As far as our nature as sinful humans goes, we really should not feel guilty about it. Did we create ourselves in the image of God but without the other divine attributes? No. We are not to blame for the fact that we are sinners in general. When guilt convicts us of our sinfulness for specific acts, that is good, but guilt over our nature which we cannot control is not helpful.

Let's use the example of an alcoholic. A recovering alcoholic can feel guilt over the things that he has done under the influence, but to feel guilty over being an alcoholic and having the desire to drink is to feel guilty about something they have no control over. We are all members of "Sinners Anonymous." We are all tempted to sin. We all have "sinful thoughts." But guilt is not appropriate unless we either act upon them or obsess over them. Too much obsession over sin can actually be sinful in itself because it convinces the human that there is no way God can love them, thus creating a voluntary separation.

And even when we do sin, its not the end of the road. Indeed, in the end all things will be transformed to God's good. A powerful account of this is found in the Showings of Julian of Norwich:

"And God showed that sin will be no shame, but honor to man, for just as there is indeed a corresponding pain for every sin, just so love gives to the same soul a bliss for every sin. Just as various sins are punished with various pains, the more grievous are the sins, so they will be rewarded with various joys in heaven to reward the victories over them, to the degree in which the sin may have been painful and sorrowful to the soul on earth." (Long Text, Chapter XXXVIII)

Our forgiven sins are kind of like battle scars to God. The memory of them should inspire us with thanksgiving for the grace and love of God rather than guilt.

So in summary - Humility is the acknowledgment of our correct relationship to God. Shame is only appropriate in cases of "Notorious Sin" that harms the family of God. Guilt is only appropriate when we have done something specific that we need to make penance for. Otherwise, we simply need to acknowledge that we, like every other human who has been or will be( other than Jesus - a different topic), is a sinner in need of the grace of God, which is offered freely. God does not wish us to dwell on our sin. God wishes us to acknowledge our state (sin), confess and receive forgiveness for those sins which are known to us, and exalt in our beloved status with our loving creator.

David+

Further Reading:

"A Lesson of Love: The Revelations of Julian of Norwich" (Ojn Fr John-Julian, The Orde The Order of Julian of Norwich)

Technorati Tags: anglican, christianity, episcopal, ethics, forgiveness, guilt, humility, Julian of Norwich, Paul Hiebert, religion, shame, shame society, sin, theology

Comments

[*Christopher]

Fr. David,

Overall, this is a very helpful discussion.

However, I would take some issue with the division of shame and guilt that you make in terms of external/internal, as our internal compass is often shaped anteriorily by external relationships (and shaming) in such a way that we may not be aware that our guilt may be by coercion or may be inappropriate or dangerous and even enforced by long-standing cultural domination and oppressive ways of relating that have nothing to do with the Mind of Christ and the way Christ came relating to us.

As a gay man, I live with some sense of guilt for simply existing at all and I'm well aware of the many little ways over the years including comments by pastors, priests, parents, friends, teachers, etc.from the time I was quite small that shaped me to see myself that way. Unfortunately, generally speaking relationships within the institutions of the Church seek to reinforce this way of thinking about myself rather than not and are incredibly bound to culture and the world in ways the Church in its institutional representatives often deny. So that many times priests have not been reliable or helpful in terms of pastoral care, and at this stage it is the rare priest I would seek for counsel regarding my relationship or even the state of my soul on any matter. In other words, all of this hallaballoo has pastoral consequences and consequences for priests being able to pastor and has generally required that I seek spiritual direction from other than the ordained, and usually from Roman Catholic women religious who are more in tune with these types of dynamics, having experienced them themselves. I would suspect that people of colour in our racist culture both in the world and in the Church also live with such feelings.

James Alison makes some rather insightful comments on conscience in "The Joy of Being Wrong: Original Sin Through Easter Eyes." Alison would suggest that our internal voice, attending to the Still Quiet Voice if You Will, is something that too is always external, being a relationship, this time with God through the Holy Spirit.

I just don't think we can separate the internal from the external so easily, and that is why community, especially the Church, can be both powerfully freeing and incredibly debilitating, both of which I have experienced. The question I would ask is what difference does love make?

In the case of someone like myself, humility has begun by being embraced by others when I hated myself the most and recognizing that I am beloved of God, and letting that sink ever more deeply not simply into my head, but into my heart; beating up on myself was rather the opposite of humility, and indeed, its own form of pride. Humility for someone who finds himself (and it is often a him) on top of matters would looks somewhat differently. Unfortunately, as historian Carolyn Walker Bynum notes in her study of female Medieval mystics, much of our history and spirituality has been written from the perspective of men and of men on top of matters, and I often have benefited more from women religious, especially Benedictine women and their guidance in discipleship and on such matters than from men. Sr. Laura Swan's, OSB work "Engaging Benedict" is perhaps one of the best. She notes that for women (and I would say gay men as well), self-hatred is the primary sin, not pride (at least as understood in terms of men who are dominant in terms of the world).

I wrote something about this a bit back in response to Fr. Nick as I found his "investigation" mode somewhat naive given how we are shaped anteriorly by relationship:

http://regula.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_regula_archive.html

(just scroll down to Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Beyond Anteriority: What Effects Does Love Have?)

[FrDavid]

Thanks for your comments. I agree that separating shame and guilt is not easy. But the source of the suppression of an action can be discerned. Is the pressure taking the form of actual saction by others, or is it being applied from the person themselves. In some cases, probably both.

Humility gets a bad rap due to its sometime use as a blugeon, but the important point is that it calls us to acknowledgement of a proper relationship between God and ourselves. Just as a proper relationship requires us to acknowledge we are not God, it also requires us to acknowledge that we ARE human and therefore of infinite worth to God. An attitude that one is worthless is not a humble one - it usurps the judgement of God. Of course, when self-esteem problems are invovled, you don't want to tell someone this - it only accelerates the sprial.

Our state of Sin is not our fault, it is simply part of being human and in the end, all shall be well.

David+

[*Christopher]

Again, I just don't think it quite so easy to separate out the voices external and internal that pressure as our internal voices are often shaped by external pressures and on the other hand, sanction for actions that I would call immoral (such as bashing gay people or enslaving Africans) occured and occur externally that shape internal voices and gave/give sanction which is in turn reinforced by further external factors. In other words, I think conscience is far more complex than you have presented it to be with regard to shame and guilt, especially when dealing with minorities or those who face oppression in majority cultures, including Church (perhaps most dangerously as there is a tendency to attribute this to divine will and sanction and favor) in which certain types of people are not only majorities but often dominate others in ways subtle and not so subtle.

Humilty gets a bad rap some of it rightfully deserved indeed because it has been used historically to suppress women, African Americans, gays and others, and when used, must be done so with care, and open to questioning. To often in our history, humility, has suggested to women and minorities that men or the majority are very god, and true humility for such persons in such cases may be look quite differently than being simply submissive and so one, especially when that true humility is experienced by those in the dominant position.

[Ronnie Johnson]

What is the relationship between Humility and Forgiveness, in a Christ-like ambiance, I need some points for a presentation/discussion, can anyone please help me?
Thanks
God Bless