The Atonement and the Problem of Shame

Missiology, 2016

Honor and shame are critical aspects of a biblical soteriology. In order to demonstrate the point, this article surveys three key doctrines-sin, atonement, and justification by faith. Shame is a subjective and objective reality. It is both the consequence and defining feature of sin. Within the context of a collectivistic covenant relationship, Christ pays the honor-debt owed by those who give their loyalty to him. In so doing, Christ not only glorifies his people; more importantly, he saves God's face.

2020

Atonement theology is quite controversial. Each tradition has its own way of explaining the historic and salvific event of the death and resurrection of Jesus. However, even within the realm of atonement theology there are a couple of issues that reign supreme as the center of most atonement controversies. These two subjects being: justification and substitution. What does it mean that sinners are justified by the blood of Christ? How is Christ a substitute for sinners? These two aspects of the atonement have received considerable scrutiny over the last century. These doctrines have been called unjust, incoherent, and many other slanderous terms. The question is though, are they right? In this essay I intend to give a defense for both the coherence and morality of both of these issues.

Dialog: A Journal of Theology, 2000

European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 2019

The doctrine of the atonement of Christ is the distinctive doctrine of Christianity. Over the course of many centuries of reflection, highly diverse interpretations of the doctrine have been proposed. In the context of this history of interpretation, in my book Atonement (OUP, 2018), I considered the doctrine afresh with philosophical care. Whatever exactly the atonement is supposed to be, in Christian theology it is understood as including a solution to the problems of the human condition, especially its guilt and shame. In Atonement, I canvassed the major interpretations of the doctrine that attempt to propound and defend a particular solution, and I argued that all of them have serious shortcomings. In their place, I explained and defended an interpretation that is both novel and yet traditional and that has significant advantages over other interpretations, including Anselm's well-known account of the doctrine. In the process, I also discussed many concepts in ethics and moral psychology, including love, union, guilt, shame, and forgiveness, among others. At an author-meets-critics session at the American Philosophical Association Central Division, 2018, organized by Craig Warmke, three critics presented papers raising questions about one or another strand in the book. I am grateful to these critics, Michael Rea, Trent Dougherty, and Brandon Warmke, for their stimulating comments on this book. (I should add that I owe both Trent Dougherty and Michael Rea a special debt for their extensive help with the manuscript while it was in progress. Each of them worked through it carefully then and gave me extensive comments-Rea in writing and Dougherty in the course of a reading group and workshop that he organized. The book is undoubtedly better for having had the benefit of their comments while it was being completed.) The comments and questions of all three of these presenters at the APA session are helpful, and I am glad of the chance to clarify one or another element in the book further in consequence. I am only sorry that in the short space available to me here, I am able to comment on only some of the interesting issues they raise. II. RESPONSE TO MICHAEL REA Michael Rea's paper focuses on what, using Aquinas's terminology, I called 'the stain on the soul'. I argued that the stain could be removed by Christ's atonement and that God could forget the stain (in an analogous sense of 'forgetting') and thereby alleviate it. In his paper, Rea wants to call our attention to cases in which the stain on the soul stems not from a person's guilt, but from something else, such as a person's victimization at the hands of others or a person's suffering something, including something for which God might be blamed. Rea makes two claims about such cases, first that (a) Christ's atoning work cannot remove the stain in such cases,

Recherches De Theologie Et Philosophie Medievales, 2007

The topic of shame has attracted little attention in Augustinian scholarship. This article will provide a detailed analysis of Augustine's case studies of Lucretia's rape and Adam's act of covering himself after the Fall in De ciuitate Dei. It will be argued that Augustine's subtle depiction of shame-feeling in the context of guilt and sin offers us an illuminating interpretation of shame and its intimate relation to personal identity.

Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 2018

Although most researchers maintain that shame and guilt are distinct emotions, the debate on their differences is still open. We aim to show that some of the current distinctions between shame and guilt need to be redrawn, and their adaptive and social implications need to be revisited. We suggest the following distinguishing criteria: the kind of self-evaluation involved (inadequacy versus harmfulness); one’s focus on the perceived discrepancy between actual and ideal self versus one’s focus on the perceived responsibility for one’s fault; and consequently the different domains of self-esteem involved. Although these criteria have been in part suggested or alluded to in the relevant literature, we use and integrate them with each other in a novel way. This allows to better distinguish between shame and guilt, as well as to account for their possible coexistence or the shift from one emotion to the other.

Theology Today, 2024

The aim of this article is to first investigate the history of the English usage of “atonement” as a theological term and the confusion caused by it, uncovering the cause of this confusion. Secondly, it examines how the original interpersonal concept of the term was lost and explores the recovery of the original concept and its influence. Finally, it introduces the fact that the concept of personality was lost in Japanese translation and highlights its contemporary issues. The term “atonement,” originally created as a translation of the Latin word “reconciliation,” lost its connection to its original concept. This article demonstrates that the cause lies in the history of English Bible translation. Firstly, it confirms the understanding of the term as translated by William Tyndale. Tyndale originally used atonement to mean “recovery of a relationship between people” in the New Testament, but the Old Testament uses the same word to mean “expiation.” However, the Bible translators after him starting with translation of the Old Testament, were likely not aware of the theological intent in its Old Testament use, and automatically limited its use to “expiation”. Then, it acknowledges that due to the limited use of atonement in the King James Version and the Geneva Bible, which adopted only the passages used by Tyndale in the Old Testament, the personal concept of reconciliation was lost from atonement and was replaced with the word “expiation.” Furthermore, it confirms that this understanding of atonement has persisted in Bible translations to this day. However, it points out that since F. D. Maurice, related concepts have been reintroduced, leading to a flourishing of theological studies on atonement. Finally, it reports that a similar process has occurred in Japanese translation. This study offers a valuable contribution to modern theology of the atonement.

2016

Contemporary pastoral theologians, though describing and interpreting shame from an interdisciplinary perspective, drawing both from theology and psychology, tend to propose healing for shame only from a theological perspective. Transposing Martin Luther's doctrine of the two kinds of righteousness into an interdisciplinary framework, this work proposes that pastoral theologians need to describe and interpret shame as well as suggest strategies for its healing from both theological and social-scientific perspectives. Luther distinguishes between two kinds of righteousness, one passive and the other active. Passive righteousness is the righteousness of Christ bequeathed to us through the Word and the Sacraments (baptism and Holy Communion), which we receive through faith alone, a total trust in God and God's promise. This righteousness justifies us before God (coram Deo) and is salvific. Active righteousness, on the other hand, is what we do to serve and to care for the well-being of the self and the neighbor. It justifies us before the world (coram mundo), but is not salvific. The two kinds of righteousness can be associated with theology and sciences. Also, the conditions of the relationship between the two kinds of righteousness can determine the conditions of the relationship between theology and sciences. The two kinds of righteousness are inseparable, distinct, and asymmetrical in order, with passive righteousness having primacy over active righteousness. Theology and sciences are also iii inseparable, distinct, and asymmetrical in order, with theology having logical priority over sciences. The two kinds of righteousness as an interdisciplinary framework therefore recommend that pastoral theologians approach pastoral issues such as shame from the perspectives of both theology and sciences. Indeed, the two kinds of righteousness as an interdisciplinary framework recommend that pastoral theologians address shame from both theological and scientific perspectives, not only at the descriptive and interpretive levels, but also at the pragmatic level. Hence, while chapters two and three of this work develop Luther's doctrine of the two kinds of righteousness as an interdisciplinary framework, chapter four interprets shame from both psychological and theological perspectives, chapter five describes the personal, social, and theological dynamics of shame among Malagasy, and chapters six and seven suggest strategies for the healing of shame from social-scientific and theological perspectives, respectively. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Bless the Lord, O my soul, and all that is within me, bless his holy name. Bless the Lord, O my soul, and do not forget all his benefitswho forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases, who redeems your life from the Pit, who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy, who satisfies you with good as long as you live so that your youth is renewed like the eagle's (Psalm 103:1-5, NRSV). I did not accomplish this work alone. The Malagasy Lutheran Church (MLC) endorsed me to pursue my Ph.D. degree at Luther Seminary. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and Luther Seminary granted me and my family a full scholarship for my study. I am grateful to the MLC, the ELCA, and Luther Seminary. Likewise, I am grateful to the ELCA Global Mission personnel, Tammy Jackson, Cindy Zamora, Kaleb Sutherland, and Luther Seminary Office of International Student and Scholar Affairs (ISSA) personnel, Marie Hayes, and Chenar Howard, for their kind support throughout our (my and my family's) journey at Luther Seminary. My professors, Theresa Latini, Jessicah Duckworth, and Carla Dahl, have broadened and deepened my understanding of the theory and practice of pastoral care and counseling. More importantly, they have instilled in me a deep passion for this particular theological discipline and specialized church ministry. A heartfelt gratitude goes to them all. I thank my adviser, Theresa Latini, in particular, for her invaluable insights, comments, and support throughout the writing of this dissertation, and specifically for v teaching me that clarification matters in academic writing. All unclear statements and arguments throughout this dissertation are completely my own. Lois Malcolm and Andrew Root, my academic readers, gave me helpful comments and support. Peter Susag, Associate Director of the Center for Writing and Research, patiently revised my work and corrected my English grammar and syntax. Thanks to all of you! The Malagasy community of the Twin Cities made Saint Paul a second home for me and my family. The Twin Cities Malagasy Choir (TCMC), the Malagasy Domino Players, and the Malagasy Pétanque Players gave me recreation away from my reading and writing when I needed it! My dear friend Andria Gerson hosted me at his house for the last three months of my stay in the U.S., while Germaine Razanarivo, a.k.a. Ramatoa Claire, kindly transcribed my interview data. Misaotra indrindra anareo rehetra, tompoko! Living Word Antioch Church (LWAC), Falcon Heights, welcomed me and my family as members of the church, and even appointed me as an associate pastor. Regularly preaching and leading the worship service has tremendously helped with my spoken and written English skills. Pastor Perry Toso, Pastor Steve King, Benjamin Toso, and Lydia Hinojosa read parts of my work and gave me helpful feedback. Thank you!

2018

Many of us are familiar with those deeply unsettling experiences of guilt and shame that occasionally rise up and disruptively confront us with how we perceive ourselves. What our experiences of guilt and shame have in common is that they give us awareness of our own attachment to ourselves. These experiences are profoundly discomforting and unpleasant as they involve a negative appraisal of one’s Self in relation to a certain set of values or norms that one has failed to uphold. Since guilt and shame are so closely related and often ‘fused’ together in a specific situation, it has proven to be difficult to differentiate these experiences in a precise manner. Neuroscientists, biologists, psychologists and others have made several attempts to resolve this issue. This thesis should be seen as a contribution to this debate, yet it follows a different approach for dealing with this question, namely: phenomenology. Starting from Heidegger's phenomenology of guilt and Sartre's phenomenology of shame, I try to come up with a meaningful differentiation between the lived experiences of guilt and shame. To do so, I will take my clues from a wide array of philosophers, such as Levinas, Gadamer, Scheler, Ricoeur, G. Taylor, among others.