Defending Shame: Its Formative Power in Paul's Letters

© 2020 by Te-Li Lau

Published by Baker Academic

a division of Baker Publishing Group

PO Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516-6287

www.bakeracademic.com

Ebook edition created 2020

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—for example, electronic, photocopy, recording—without the prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is on file at the Library of Congress, Washington, DC.

ISBN 978-1-4934-2230-2

Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture translations are the author’s own.

Scripture quotations labeled NRSV are from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1989 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

For ‘Genie

Contents

Cover    i

Half Title Page    ii

Title Page    iii

Copyright Page    iv

Dedication    v

Foreword by Luke Timothy Johnson    ix

Abbreviations    xi

Introduction: A Fractured Understanding of Shame    1

Part 1   Framework    11

1. Definitional Background    13

2. Greco-Roman Backgrounds    31

3. Jewish Backgrounds    61

Part 2   Exegesis    91

4. Paul’s Use of Retrospective Shame    93

5. Paul’s Use of Prospective Shame    123

6. Constructing Paul’s Use of Shame    149

Part 3   Cultural Engagement    173

7. Contemporary Contribution    175

8. Contemporary Challenges    205

Bibliography    235

Name Index    258

Scripture Index    263

Ancient Writings Index    268

Back Cover    272

Foreword

One of the things that the historical study of Scripture can do best is make the ancient texts by which we purport to live strange and new. Because historical analysis makes the text truly other than us, it also makes it capable of challenging us. We are able to engage texts gone so suddenly strange with fresh eyes. We are able to see both them and our own lives in new ways, precisely because the differences between them appear to be both clear and sharp. When it is done well, historical analysis shakes us out of our bored habituation—our assumption that we already know what the texts say—and startles us into new insight.

Such historical analysis is not easy. It demands the closest attention to the grammar and syntax of ancient languages, as well as the larger symbolic worlds within which those languages first made sense. Such close attention to ancient language and meaning is far from easy, even among those claiming the title of scholar. When any scriptural study—such as Professor Te-Li Lau’s on shame—bases itself not only on the original Hebrew and Greek of the Scripture but also on the original languages across a broad range of Greco-Roman philosophy, and then adds, as lagniappe, the contribution of Confucian thought, based on the knowledge of Chinese, a serious level of engagement, indeed, is on offer.

Readers will find here that a thoroughly contemporary and contentious issue is thrown into new light by the careful consideration of ancient wisdom from several little-known cultures, and in that light will find themselves capable of appreciating a dimension of life that up to now they have little appreciated, or even deprecated. The question pursued through all these ancient sources is the meaning and the function of shame.

As Professor Lau notes, the contemporary world is one that is particularly in need of help when it comes to the topic of shame. His description of our present discourse as fractured is apt. In a time and place dominated by mass and social media, we show ourselves to be at once most sensitive to being shamed and most willing to shame others. But what is most obviously lacking in our confused feelings and actions is an understanding of shame as a positive factor in building character, a positive element in pedagogy rather than a negative weapon for mutual destruction. And it is precisely this dimension that Professor Lau excavates and elevates from his knowledge of Greco-Roman, biblical, and Chinese discourse.

His specific focus is on four letters of Paul in which the language of shaming forms part of the apostle’s rhetoric. His careful analysis of such language within the overall occasion and rhetorical goals of the respective letters goes a long way toward helping readers see Paul not as an abusive or oppressive leader but as a teacher whose language was always directed not to the tearing down but rather to the building up of communities and the individuals within them. He draws support for this portrayal from the analogously positive ways in which the Jewish and Greco-Roman cultures employ the language of shame. Where Paul is distinctive within his world—and this is by no means an insignificant observation—is the way shame has a theonomous dimension: of ultimate importance for Paul is the truth that humans stand within the court of opinion that is the divine gaze. Not human opinion, but divine judgment, is decisive.

The real effectiveness of this book, however, is in the way Professor Lau positions Paul as a dialogue partner, not only with ancient biblical and Greco-Roman texts on shame but equally with the powerful voice enunciated by the classical Confucian tradition and with the best in contemporary moral psychology. There is much to be learned by listening to each of these voices. Professor Lau has provided the scholarly service of accurately and empathically assessing Paul’s pedagogical use of shame discourse, and he has suggested some of the ways that the several voices converge and conflict. By so doing, he has opened the possibility for us to do more than simply and reflexively either reject or submit to the voices from the past—he invites us to converse with Plutarch and Paul and Confucius. It remains for his readers to advance the conversation by following the leads he has provided.

Luke Timothy Johnson

Robert W. Woodruff Professor of New Testament

and Christian Origins, Emeritus

Emory University

Abbreviations

Old Testament

New Testament

Old Testament Apocrypha

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

Qumran / Dead Sea Scrolls

Philo

Josephus

Apostolic Fathers

Classical Authors

Patristic Writings

Bible Versions

General and Bibliographic

Introduction

A Fractured Understanding of Shame

We live in a world with a fractured understanding of shame. Unlike other negative emotions, such as sorrow or anger, which may be cathartic when experienced and processed, we generally wish to avoid shame as much as possible. The psychotherapist Joseph Burgo wrote in the Atlantic that we live in an anti-shame zeitgeist.1 Actors, psychologists, and social critics all consider shame to be the enemy that must be resisted and extirpated. Pop superstar Lady Gaga urges her fans toward self-love and confidence, never allowing themselves to be bullied or shamed. Her song Born This Way reminds her followers, There’s nothin’ wrong with lovin’ who you are. . . . Don’t hide yourself in regret, Just love yourself and you’re set. You should freely express your own individuality without fear of embarrassment or shame. In common parlance, you do you. American model Tyra Banks and actress Selena Gomez speak out vehemently against body shaming. Research professor Brené Brown appeared on Super Soul Sunday with Oprah Winfrey and declared, I think shame is lethal, I think shame is destructive. And I think we are swimming in it deep.2 For Brown, shame is a pernicious emotion that serves no constructive purpose whatsoever.

This sentiment concerning shame is also extant in academic circles. Shame is perceived as the primitive precursor to guilt, and its value as a moral emotion has been severely discredited.3 Shame is heteronomous and responds to the opinions and judgments of others, making it unfit for a Kantian system of morality. Guilt, however, responds to the inner judgments and sensibilities of the autonomous self. Beginning at a later stage in human development than shame, guilt is perceived to be more advanced and better than shame.4

University campuses are also not exempt. In the name of emotional well-being and individual self-fulfillment, fragile undergraduates demand trigger warnings on reading assignments that might be provocative or upsetting. They also push campus administrators to create safe spaces that will shield them from frank speech and uncomfortable ideas. These spaces allow full self-expression without fear of shame and discomfort. Eric Cartman, one of the main characters in the animated sitcom South Park, expresses this idea succinctly in a particular episode when he sings, There is no shame in my safe space.5

The anti-shame zeitgeist is nourished in part by the current ethos of therapeutic individualism. In this ethos, the individual self is the sole arbiter of authentic moral knowledge, and personal growth is the central purpose of human existence. External forms of authority are no longer structures to which the self must conform; rather, they are something from which the self must be liberated. Moral obligations are no longer disciplines that must be maintained; rather, they are chains that must be shaken off so as to attain maximal happiness and positive self-esteem. The individual self or psyche is the preoccupying focus of attention in this ethos. Individual emotional fulfillment or self-actualization is not just a personal good but a social obligation. Needless to say, shaming criticism of one’s failings is taboo.6

The aversion toward shame also arises because we all recognize its potential to be destructive. Toxic shame plays a prominent role in the dynamics that lead to suicidal thoughts and behavior.7 The shame of sexual assault can break a person’s sense of self-worth and may even push some to kill themselves, especially if photos of the attack are circulated on social media. Honor or shame killings are also endemic in parts of the world. The killing of the Pakistani social media star Qandeel Baloch in 2016 is one such example. In a defiant press conference, her brother claimed that he was proud to kill her because she brought shame on their family with her provocative Facebook posts. Shame has the capacity to push us toward unhealthy, self-destructive, and violent patterns of behavior. Whether shame is necessarily destructive is a question that needs to be probed.

Despite the aversion to shame, we nonetheless witness how segments of our society have a primal urge to shame others. We see how people are pilloried savagely for posting an ill-conceived comment on social media.8 The pronouncement of collective judgment is swift and furious, and the online shaming quickly devolves into a voyeuristic spectator sport as each accuser calls for a pound of flesh. The intent of the shaming is generally punitive rather than redemptive, and the gleeful brutality of the punishment in no way matches the severity of the crime. The virtual targets of such shaming often lose their jobs. They are also permanently traumatized as their poorly conceived tweets and respective backlashes live on forever in the blogosphere.

Despite the aversion to shame, we also see government entities using shame to encourage tax scofflaws to pay their taxes. The tax boards of states such as California, Vermont, and Delaware publish the names, addresses, and amount owed by tax delinquents on their respective websites. Removal of this humiliating information is pursuant to the full payment of taxes owed. Just the threat of being listed is sufficient in most cases to get reluctant taxpayers to pay. More creative ways to shame delinquents are adopted by government entities in other countries. In one of the suburbs of the Indian commercial capital of Mumbai, officials found that posting the names of delinquent taxpayers was not sufficiently effective since their websites were not heavily trafficked. They then decided on a more unorthodox approach. They employed drummers to accompany tax collectors to the homes of delinquent taxpayers. When the musicians arrived banging on their instruments, neighbors peered outside and gawked at the racket. Since the introduction of these percussionists, collection of property tax revenues has jumped 20 percent.9

The fractured and conflicting understanding of shame also percolates in the church. Many churches follow the anti-shame zeitgeist of mainstream society and adopt the therapeutic ethos of the larger culture. Therapy informs the calling and identity of ministers to the extent that Christian ministers and secular therapists perform many similar roles.10 Churches prefer to stay positive in their teaching, pastors proclaim the gospel in therapeutic idioms, and few churches practice formal discipline. According to the sociologist Christian Smith, the dominant religion among Christian American teenagers is a Christianized version of moralistic therapeutic deism—a system in which God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other and in which the central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.11 This is not a religion of sin, righteousness, justice, holiness, and repentance but a religion of feeling good and inner peace. The language of remorse, rebuke, shame, discipleship, and the cross is replaced by the feckless language of happiness and niceness.

The movement away from shame is also fueled by the recognition that some within the church suffer from chronic shame. Many people experience shame only for a short span of time, but those who suffer from chronic shame develop ingrained patterns of seeing themselves as shameful and unworthy. The sociologist Julius Rubin provocatively argues that certain forms of Protestant pietism gave rise to religious melancholy, a distinctive psychopathology that induced a neurotic personality haunted by shame, guilt, and anxiety.12 While the causal relationship of Rubin’s thesis is not convincing, we are nonetheless aware of individuals who are weighed down by chronic shame and are unable to accept the gracious forgiveness that God provides. Women who have had abortions fall dangerously within this group. They regret their actions and experience emotional trauma. Given the church’s stance on the sanctity of human life, such women are plagued by shame. They are afraid to tell others what they consider to be a shameful secret, and some are hesitant to join recovery groups lest their identities be known. Consequently, they do not receive the healing they desperately need. Their shame continues to fester.

On the other extreme, we see some segments of the church embracing shaming techniques that stigmatize and destroy. Most infamous in this regard is Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. The church is well known for its picketing and hateful vitriol, and the church’s URL (www.godhatesfags.com) unabashedly parades their contempt for LGBTQ people. The use of shame is also clearly seen in historical sources. John Demos notes that public humiliation was the primary instrument of moral and social control among the early Puritans. Some of the favorite punishments, with occasional refinements, were sitting in the stocks; standing on a pillory; wearing a so-called ‘badge of infamy’ (in the manner of Hawthorne’s scarlet letter) or a simple ‘paper’ describing the offense in question; branding (in effect, a way of making the ‘badge’ permanent); being dragged through the streets, tied to a ‘cart’s tail’; standing in the gallows with a rope tied around one’s neck. 13 The common element that connects all the above is public exposure.

While some segments of Christianity may not actively shame others, they nevertheless find themselves shamed by the larger society. This arises because they affirm values that run counter to the liberal conventional ethos. The reigning political and social authority therefore shames these Christian segments so as to destroy their resolve to hold these values. For example, LGBTQ activist groups urge the government to publish a shame list of faith-based institutions that request Title IX exemption from transgender rules.14 The Department of Education agreed to publish such a list in 2016. These activist groups also urge the NCAA to divest from all faith-based colleges that sought such waivers; the NCAA has, however, declined to take any action, for now.

In a world with a fractured understanding of shame, we possess a deep antagonism to shame. It shrivels our self-esteem and pushes us to hide from humanity. Yet we intuitively recognize that shame is fundamental to moral character, for none of us wish to be absolutely shameless. And if the nature of shame has a certain positive valence, what about the appropriateness of using shame as a means to reform behavior or punish misdemeanors? And if shaming is apt, how should such acts be conducted and by whom? These are difficult questions. Shame presents us with a hornet’s nest of issues.

A Way Forward

The extirpation of shame is ill-advised, if not impossible. As a human emotion, shame is part of who we are. It is an inevitable aspect of the human experience, just as fear, sadness, and joy are. To extirpate shame is to cripple our humanity.15 As a moral emotion, shame functions as a critical component of our moral apparatus. It helps us discern what is noble and base and provides the motivational energy that impels us to do good and to avoid doing bad. As a social emotion, shame is the glue that holds relationships and communities together. It has the potential to construct a decorous and harmonious society—a society in which individuals are sensitive to the social norms of the community and who respect the honor of others. What we need is not the extirpation of shame but a nuanced understanding of the complexity of shame that leads to human flourishing. The apostle Paul can help us point the way.

Paul sets before us a model in which shame can be meaningfully employed to bring one to ethical and spiritual maturity. He considers shame as a necessary element in moral formation, and he clearly understands certain behavior to be shameful. In line with Jewish sentiments of his day, Paul considers homosexual acts as shameless acts that arise from degrading passions (Rom. 1:26–27). He also castigates those who are shameless and who indulge in every sordid debauchery and impurity (Eph. 4:19).16 Their behavior is so deplorable that Paul considers it shameful even to mention what they do in secret (Eph. 5:12). In contrast to those whose god is their belly and whose glory is their shame, Paul exhort his readers to live carefully since their true citizenship is in heaven (Phil. 3:19–20). By cultivating a proper sense of shame, they will live lives that are prudent and self-controlled (1 Tim. 2:9; 2 Tim. 1:7; Titus 2:2, 5, 6, 12).

The classification of certain behavior as shameful is understandable, but Paul’s views on acts of shaming need further clarification. On the one hand, Paul criticizes the use of shaming rhetoric as practiced by some of his readers. He berates them for using civil litigation to accrue honor on themselves and to shame their opponents (1 Cor. 6:1–11). He rebukes the wealthy Corinthians for humiliating, in the Lord’s Supper, those who have nothing (1 Cor. 11:22). He also warns the church not to show disdain or contempt to those who are young (1 Tim. 4:12; Titus 2:15).

On the other hand, Paul himself engages in shaming rhetoric. He rebukes and shames believers when they do not walk in line with the gospel. When the morals of the Corinthians deteriorated to such an extent that there were litigations among themselves and hedonistic overindulgence, Paul explicitly rebukes them, saying, I say this to your shame (1 Cor. 6:5; 15:34). When the Galatian church abandoned the gospel for the law, Paul rebukes and shames them with pointed rhetorical questions: You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? . . . Are you so foolish? . . . Did you experience so much for nothing? (Gal. 3:1–4). Paul does not only shame his converts; he also has no qualms about shaming other apostles when their actions compromise the gospel. When Peter came to Antioch and stopped eating with the gentiles because he was afraid of the circumcision group, Paul confronts Peter to his face (Gal. 2:11). He points out Peter’s hypocrisy in front of everyone (Gal. 2:14). The public nature of Paul’s confrontation would be perceived as a shaming experience by all who were present.

Paul’s shaming rhetoric and action is not an apostolic prerogative. Paul intends it to be part of the disciplinary measures that the church is to enact against its errant members. Thus, in 2 Thessalonians 3:14, Paul tells the Thessalonian church to take special note of those who do not heed the moral teaching presented in his letter. Having identified them, the church is not to associate with them in order that they may be shamed. Such shaming action is not meant to be punitive but redemptive. For Paul quickly reminds the church not to regard the errant as enemies; rather, the church is to admonish them as they would a brother or sister (2 Thess. 3:15). In 1 Timothy 5:20, the church is to confront elders who persist in sin, rebuking them before everyone so that the rest of the elders will be afraid and not follow their sinful behavior.

Apart from actively shaming others, Paul also encourages his readers to live exemplary lives, full of integrity and gracious loving so that their enemies might be ashamed of their animosity toward believers. In Romans 12:20, Paul tells the church to respond practically to the needs of their enemies, giving them food and water when they are hungry and thirsty. Such actions will heap burning coals on the heads of their enemies; that is, their enemies will experience the burning pangs of shame. In Titus 2:7–8, Paul instructs his protégé Titus to show himself to be a model of good works and to demonstrate integrity, gravity, and sound speech in his teaching so that his opponents might be ashamed.

The above examples show that certain acts of shaming are prohibited, but others are necessary. In the latter case, Paul and the church not only actively shame by word or action but also passively shame others through their good conduct. The rationale for such actions must be that Paul considers the shame experience to be salutary for shaping one’s identity and behavior. He appeals to shame and recognizes its value as a moral emotion. But certain questions are not so easily resolved. How does Paul envision his shaming rhetoric to function? What is the relationship between shame and moral formation? What is the relationship between shame, as an emotion, and moral beliefs? Are there limits to the use of shame? How do Paul’s religious convictions affect his use of shame? Does the Holy Spirit play any role in this process? What is the relationship between shame and moral conscience? These questions have not been vigorously pursued in the history of interpretation of Pauline ethics.

Lacunae in Pauline Studies

Despite the presence of shame in the Pauline Letters, surprisingly little has been written regarding Paul’s use of shame for transforming one’s identity and behavior. There are books that deal with Pauline ethics and books that emphasize Paul’s use of shame; I am, however, unaware of any monograph-length work that constructs a Pauline ethic of shame. Books on Pauline ethics scarcely discuss Paul’s moral psychology. They do not examine his use of emotions, let alone shame, for moral formation. For example, the word shame only appears once or twice in the main texts of Victor Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul (1968); Brian Rosner, Understanding Paul’s Ethics (1995); or James Thompson, Moral Formation according to Paul (2011). The situation is only marginally better in Daniel Harrington and James Keenan, Paul and Virtue Ethics: Building Bridges between New Testament Studies and Moral Theology (2010), and David Horrell, Solidarity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Paul’s Ethics (2016). Nevertheless, the word still appears less than ten times. These authors do not index shame as a category, nor do they examine it extensively.

Studies that recognize the theme of shame in Paul, on the other hand, do not adequately emphasize its use for moral formation. Such studies employ cultural and anthropological models of honor and shame, defining shame vis-à-vis honor and understanding both as social values. Bruce Malina defines honor as "the value of a person in his or her own eyes (that is, one’s claim to worth) plus that person’s value in the eyes of his or her social group. Honor is a claim to worth along with the social acknowledgment of worth."17 Shame is divided into two categories. On the one hand, to have shame (positive shame) or a sense of shame means sensitivity about one’s own reputation, sensitivity to the opinion of others.18 Honor and shame are synonymous in this context (honor and shame-as-honor). On the other hand, to be shamed (negative shame) or dishonored refers to the state of publicly known loss of honor.19 Honor and shame are opposites in this context (honor vis-à-vis shame-as-dishonor).

There are recognized hazards in the application of cultural and anthropological models to New Testament texts.20 Nevertheless, when the necessary correctives are put in place, the application of honor and shame categories can yield fruitful results by helping us understand the social world of the texts. The relevance to moral formation is also readily apparent. Since concern for honor permeates every aspect of life, the pivotal social value of honor leads one to adopt certain mannerisms, postures, and actions, while the pivotal social sanction of shame for noncompliance directs one to avoid others. Honor and shame are used strategically as instruments of moral persuasion, and the vocabulary of praise and blame are viewed as social sanctions for moral behavior. At the same time, the recognition that honor and shame are social constructs reminds us that what is disgraceful within one group may be considered honorable in another. For example, while crucifixion is seen as a horrifying and humiliating death within the larger Greco-Roman world, Paul construes a crucified Messiah as God’s power and wisdom for the church (1 Cor. 1:22–25).21 Counter-definitions of what constitutes the honorable and shameful show how subgroups within a dominant culture construct an alternative court of reputation to prevent its members from conforming to values of the wider society.22

There are nevertheless limitations to this line of study. An honor-shame approach defines shame vis-à-vis honor and understands both of them primarily as social values. It does not focus on the shame experience, nor does it understand shame as a moral emotion. It may explain how a community maintains social control, but it does not focus on how an individual such as Paul brings about moral reformation in his converts via the practice of psychagogy.23 It may discuss the strategic use of honor and shame as external instruments of persuasion, but, in doing so, it does not explain how shame can internally reform the individual mind and conscience. Honor and shame studies thus negatively predispose us to consider shame to be heteronomous rather than autonomous or theonomous. An honor-shame approach also does not locate Paul’s use of shame within the moral psychology of his day. Finally, given their focus on the social dimension, honor and shame studies do not address the role of the Spirit in moral formation. In summary, an honor-shame approach has benefits, but it is not sufficiently refined to examine the role of shame for moral formation. My study builds on the contributions of the honor-shame approach but seeks to rectify its deficiencies. I understand shame primarily as a moral emotion and focus on the ethical significance of the shame experience in Pauline texts.

My Project

This study examines Paul’s use of shame for Christic formation within his Jewish and Greco-Roman context and compares it with various contemporary perspectives. Specifically, I argue that Paul uses shame as a pedagogical tool to admonish and transform the minds of his readers into the mind of Christ and that his rationale can best be grasped through comparison with