How Toxic Shame Turns Evangelization Into Abuse

"Compulsory conversion of Indians (sic) by Jesuit missionaries."
Artist unknown, c 1500.

Toxic shame is one of the most powerful forces in human culture.

It is commonly discussed in therapy and self-help circles. People also regularly talk about the "guilt and shame" of cultural Christianity, especially as it relates to sexuality.

But I have rarely heard anyone talk about how shame manifests in pastoral settings. How does shame impact how we function as pastors, activists and chaplains? In this post, I want to talk about the role shame plays in evangelization—how we share the good news of the faith.

It goes like this:

Another way of talking about shame is self-hatred and self-doubt. Shame is, after all, a feeling of disgust about some aspect of who you are and a desire to hide it.

Self-hatred is, by definition, a lack of self-love. Therefore it can be said that shame is a lack of interior self-validation. People with shame simply do not feel good about what they do or who they are on some subconscious level.

Going further, people who lack self-validation tend to seek out external validation to fill the emptiness and treat this wound.

And what is a powerful form of external validation?  To conquer someone else, dominate them or convert them. Since this post is about religious practices, I'll focus on the latter.

Imagine if someone else will give up something as personal and visceral as their own religion and culture in order to adopt your religion and culture. What a tremendous affirmation that must be! This external validation is a way of saying, "you must be okay, because someone else wants to be like you." It can be quite a rush. It feeds the ego. We think it'll treat our wounds, but sadly, it does not. The emptiness will not go away in any long-term way no matter how many you convert. The reason is because external validation can never overcome your own refusal to validate yourself. No form of bullying or abuse is ever truly satisfying.

Those who evangelize out of shame do it in an attempt to eradicate the other person and create a facsimile of themselves. They hate you because they actually hate themselves. They cannot appreciate the God-given dignity which everyone already has just as they are, because they cannot accept the same truth about themselves.

You would think it would be the opposite, right? Why would someone who displays self-hatred want to replicate themselves? Rather, doesn't this instead sound like pride? Don't prideful people feel so good about themselves that they arrogantly think everyone else should be just like them? But that's not what's really happening. Pride is always the mask that hides shame and self-hatred.

Prideful people spent enormous energy putting forth a positive image, but the only reason they are driven to do this is because they feel empty inside. True self-love is much more assured and calm. Someone who feels good about themselves will also find it easier to feel good about others just as they are—without any need to change them.

Someone struggling with toxic shame may look "together" on the surface. They may have what seems like the perfect look, perfect family and perfect job. In fact, shame-driven people work hard to control these appearances, because shame is linked to a need to be in control. But at their core they don't feel good about who they are. They may not even be aware of this feeling, but it gnaws away at them. They feel rotten inside.

This is not, I believe, the evangelization Jesus is asking of us in the gospels. Jesus speaks from the tradition of the psalmists, who remind us that "our cup overflows" (Psalm 23:5) with God's blessings. We can be so filled with God's goodness, so aware of the blessings in our lives, that we are naturally brimming over with joy and want to share that with others. It simply radiates out of us whether we intend to or not:

 For you shall go out in joy,

    and be led back in peace;

the mountains and the hills before you

    shall burst into song,

    and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.

Isaiah 55:12 (NRSV)

Evangelizing should not be about conquering other people as much as it is giving them a wonderful gift. God has given you such blessings that the only appropriate response becomes paying it forward to others.

The times I've evangelized the best were when I wasn't trying. My life and my joy simply witnessed to something so good that others wanted to know more about it.

That's the evangelization we're called to in Scripture. But that's not the evangelization that happens so often in the world.

Which kind of evangelization do your support? Do you want to turn everyone else into facsimiles of yourself as a way to treat your lack of self-worth? If so, just know that it can lead to abuse and is rarely satisfying in a long-term war.  Or are you so happy and joyous that it simply bubbles out of you naturally and you find you want to share this good thing you've found?

To be fair, not everyone with toxic shame lashes out in overtly abusive ways. The majority of the population—if not everyone—has some element of shame they are dealing with. That is why it is good to be on the lookout, as toxic shame, and the abuse which is often in its wake, can show up in surprising ways.

***

I highly recommend the book, Healing the Eight Stages of Life, by Fr. Matthew Linn, SJ, Dennis Linn and Sheila Fabricant Linn. It's the only book I found that approaches the eight stages of Erik Erikson in a pastoral way, rather than as an academic exercise. Shame features strongly in Erikson's theory of psychosocial development. This book is simple but shocking powerful.

Christian Unity: Warts and All

"I love you, warts and all," says this frog.
Picture from National Geographic Kids: http://tinyurl.com/ybvwz388

I've noticed a generational divide in the quest for Christian unity. People of different ages often articulate different priorities.

Many veterans of the work for Christian unity focus on what Christians have in common. Younger ecumenists often talk of finding peace in the midst of real differences.

This divide follows a natural pattern of healing and reconciliation. It reflects more than just two sides of the same coin.

When two groups first attempt to open a dialogue and mend a wound of division—a division that in some cases goes back hundreds of years, such as between Protestants and Catholics—it can be very delicate in the beginning. There is also a freshness as the relationship is pregnant with possibilities. It can be easy to be giddy with joy and see only positives.

It may be astonishing to discover that you are not as different as you were previously led to believe. You might even find kindred spirits in that "other" group.

The goal is to just start talking. Hundreds of years of separation between Catholics and Protestants have left a lot of hurt feelings and old triggers, and there is no sense stepping on any proverbial landmines in these first encounters. There is joy in just making the initial contact. You can dispel rumors and misconceptions but otherwise leave differences aside—they don't seem very important when members of the Body of Christ finally start talking after such a long, weary and costly separation.

When the prodigal son returned, his father embraced him. That moment was not the time to hash out who was to blame or identify which differences may remain. Their commonality as family was more important at that moment. [To be clear, I am not suggesting that the divide between Protestants and Catholics is like "father" and "son," I'm only using that story to illustrate an appropriate behavior when two separated parties finally reconnect for the first time.]

I'm sure this is what it felt like after Vatican II closed in 1965. Catholics in particular had the approval of their church leaders to interact, pray and engage with Protestants in ways that were previously strictly off-limits. Many Protestants were also committed to this (some have been working on unity for much longer) and the ecumenical movement was in full bloom.

As the relationship matures, however, it eventually becomes necessary to transition to a different phase. Focusing on similarities can run the risk of sweeping problems under the carpet if left unaddressed. This method which initially worked so well can devolve into a strained politeness. Ignoring differences also cloaks the full dignity and expression of each party, as people may feel pressure to downplay important parts of themselves for the sake of the relationship.

Ecumenical leaders have been working for decades trying to find out how to achieve the unity Christ himself prayed for (John 17:21). They do not attempt to water down or ignore our differences (as some critics wrongly claim), but often they hope that the differences may not be as severe as they initially seem—perhaps they can be boiled down to difference in perspective or the use of language but are not at their core church-dividing. Their success in this has been astounding.  However, after many documents of understanding, clarifying of ideas and mending of social and psychological wounds, sometimes what is left are still some very real differences. What, then, do we do with those?

Recent comments by Vatican officials from the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue give witness to the process:  "We are challenged then to go beyond the confines of tolerance by showing respect to all individuals and communities for everyone desires and deserves to be valued according to his or her innate dignity."

Respect for similarities is a great first step. The Vatican is right that the next, necessary step is to continue to respect each other even being full aware of each other's differences—not just tolerating differences but respecting people in those differences.

I'm reminded of a Billy Joel lyric from the song "This Is The Time":  You've given me the best of you, but now I need the rest of you.

If you want a person in your life, you want the whole person, not just the picture-perfect persona who shows up on the first date but the real nitty-gritty—"warts and all" as the saying goes.

At some point, the differences and messy disagreements are necessary to sit with. You don't always have to fix them or find a way around them—you have to first just let them be. By doing this, we may discern the next step in the relationship.

A relationship requires some things in common, but it is not stable if it depends entirely on having things in common. A mature relationship develops when people who are legitimately different can still come to the table in good faith and mutual respect. True respect means accepting the whole person, including all the attributes that don't neatly fit with yours. Those differences may eventually be reconciled, but we still have to learn to be in relationship until that happens.

This is not in any way to downplay the importance of identifying things in common. I work regularly with Roman Catholics and Evangelical Christians who are still meeting each other for the first time. Those initial encounters are still happening in rural towns in the U.S. where my organization primarily ministers. Identifying commonalities is still very much the work that needs to be done in these areas. The first step, however, must eventually be followed by next steps. Respecting differences is key to this next phase and, once we live this out, I believe it will help us see the phase that comes after it.