Thursday, June 21, 2007
-
Shame and Abuse
The effects of sin are far-reaching as we all know. One of its most powerful effects is to fill us with shame--Adam and Eve felt it right away and tried to cover themselves. But that's not the way we were intended to be. We were created free of shame, and part of the work of redemption is to restore us to that intended original freedom and dignity.
One of God's first acts of mercy was to sacrifice animals and clothe Adam and Eve with their skins, to cover their shame. In the ultimate act of mercy, Jesus hung naked on the cross, bearing shame to save us from it.
Shame is a powerful enemy of ours, seriously interfering with our relationships with God and each other. So, naturally, abusive systems have learned how to manipulate it to maintain control over their members. If someone is threatening the system, the leaders will use eager gossip and intrusion, even eaves-dropping and reading private letters and such, to try to find information on the trouble-maker with which to shame him. The most nasty acts of abuse that I've heard of involve shame. In our situation we broke up a marriage, which was used against us through vicious gossip and held over our heads for more than a decade, the shame of which kept us silent and unable to defend ourselves.
I know of at least two situations in which the pastors had manipulated women into sexual relationships with them, and kept the women silent and compliant through their sense of shame. I know of a young man whose struggle with homosexuality was the means, through gossip, of shaming him and pushing him around.
Leaders and their wives in abusive churches will pathologically violate confidences and turn into vicious gossips, defending their gossip as their 'duty' to the church. They can't help themselves--their appetite for power and status is too strong, and the power of shame too tempting to resist.
Shame is a specific form of fear--fear of rejection, and fear of public exposure by a certain moral community, but you have heard, I am sure, that perfect love casts out fear. If your leaders are working on your shame, they are not treating you with love; they are not doing the work of the Lord, who went to the cross to cover our shame.
-
recommend
- recs 0
- give stars
- votes 0
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Comments (33)
Why is it allowed for some preachers to be a certain way on the pulpit and then when they are alone with a person can be a viper. And no one sees it or believes it b/c of the way they preach on Sunday morning??
RYC: adaptability is a vital characteristic, but having a sound grasp of the task to be done and a sound strategy that addresses what one wants to accomplish, is the first step. After that, as the situation unfolds, flexibility will enable you to reevaluate and adjust. But just running off half-cocked without even establishing what exactly you want to do and making as much effort as possible to understand the factors involved is not only dangerous, but unbiblical. The biblical term for it is, according to Proverbs, foolishness.
Shame is certainly an easily abused concept. However, I see a world, and a church, that is rapidly losing all notion of why certain behavior is shameful to begin with. The risk of abuse does not negate the necessity of shame. I guess the hair I'm trying to split here is between those who try to create a sense of shame and an understanding of the gravity and ugliness of sin that internally invokes a sense of shame that one is trying to appeal to when he or she tells an offending party, 'you ought to be ashamed of yourself'. The fact that my wife teaches over a hundred kids who, for the most part, don't even get the concept let alone feel it, speaks volumes. People who have no sense of shame are a people devoid of conscience. Secularization is one of the leading causes of the loss of this sense. It obliterates the very categories of right and wrong, thus removing any basis for arguing why anyone ought to be ashamed over anything. I think the proper biblical term, as explained in 2 Corinthians 7 (or 8), is 'godly sorrow that leads to repentance'. That is a biblical sort of shame. The unbiblical sort, as explained by Paul, leads to death. It is the difference between the discipline he exhorted them to invoke in his first letter to them, and the distorted kind that he exhorted them to cease in the second letter (concerning the brother who had fallen into immorality). There are a number of passages where Paul encourages the use of church discipline in order that the offending brother or sister may in turn see the shamefulness of their sin and repent.
In short, the difference is a matter of motive. What is the purpose of shame: to lead the person to genuine repentance, or simply dominate and abuse? Which one lies behind the action will determine both the nature of it and its outcome. But simply failing to make the distinction and tossing the word - shame - out the door is just not biblical. The examples you are citing above are exclusively in the second category as I described it. I think addressing the first might be a necessary balance.
Yankee, I'll write more when I have time this evening, but I have to give a quick comment now to defend my fellow abused Christians:
Shame is already there with us. It's built into the system. We all feel it naturally as part of our fallen natures. Christ paid the ultimate price to redeem us from it, and it is abusive to resurrect shame and throw it in somebody's face. We bring it to Christ for protection from it and relief. What's more, inciting shame in someone is playing the part of the great accuser. The part we as Christians should be playing is the part of our great Defender and Advocate. Start with that. Take the right side first before you throw around an explosive and damaging thing like shame.
That's okay. I'm a pretty blunt guy so I try to be thick skinned about stuff, and I really didn't find your reply harsh.
The Bible talks about a 'seared conscience' (1 Tim 4:2), which is, in essence, a person who has persisted in sin to the point that their heart no longer even recognizes the shamefulness of sin. I would also argue, based on Romans 1, that a rejection of truth concerning sin, the nature of God and man, and the need for redemption also leads to a loss of a sense of shame. That is why Paul goes on to connect this state of mind, called reprobation, with every sort of vile thought and deed. So, contrary to your statement, shame is not necessarily with every one of us. For some it is as foreign a concept as blue nerferwidgets.
This will get a little long but I think the illustration will help clarify this: I remember quite vividly watching Dr. Phil one day. He had as his guest a young girl, maybe 17, who was a habitual thief. In fact, she had, over the course of three years, embezzled and stolen over four thousand dollars in cash and merchandise from several stores she worked at. He repeatedly tried to get her to admit to and appreciate the seriousness and plain wrongfulness of her actions. It was like talking to a rock. She just kept giving him a blank, uncomprehending look. At one point he even tried to give her a run down of her arrest record, which included four separate arrests. She would deny each one, he would explain in utter disbelief at her obtuseness that he had a copy of the arrest sheet in black and white, she would concede the point, etc. Finally she admitted to everything and he tried to outline a program of treatment. She nodded the whole time and agreed to everything he said. But here's the crux of the whole thing: For fifteen minutes I watched this girl, particularly her eyes, her body language, her non-verbal signals, and I promise you there was not the least comprehension in her mind that what she had done was something to be ashamed of. It was like a cause and effect thing to her, like someone was explaining that she had assembled a bicycle incorrectly and here was the correct way to do it. There was no moral comprehension.
I see, and my wife sees, and I know countless others who see this, day in and day out. Particularly those who work with youth. My sister worked with a sheriff's department monitoring youth offenders before going to work as a case worker for people on welfare to work programs. She could go on for days with examples of what I am saying.
I think what may be the disagreement here is semantical. You seem to be talking about guilt, not shame. Guilt is indeed something that we should not hang onto. Handing people guilt trips is not the biblical approach to an erring brother or sister. However, suggesting that one is never instructed in scripture to confront a sinning believer, and if that believer refuses to repent, denying that they ought to be ashamed of their sin, is just not biblical. Paul repeatedly in the epistles appeals to the believers' sense of shame when they fail to deal with sin in the church. He is not playing the part of the accuser. Satan does that because he desires our destruction. Again, the issue of motive is the key there. Paul desires restoration. Satan desires death and the absence of mercy.
"throwing" shame around is, of course, unbiblical. That's not what I'm talking about. But unless you can specifically show me where the Bible repudiates the concept of shame entirely, I have to believe that the weight of scripture as I understand it does not support such a view.
Yankee, I think that you have the burden of proof reversed. Mrs. Darcy doesn't have to prove the negative, you have to prove the positive. I'm not much of a Bible thumper, so I don't settle each and every argument with a proof-text, but let's follow your method...You show us where the Bible tells us that we should have a sense of shame, or teach people to be ashamed, or encourage shame, or use it as an instrument of moral deterrence.
Mrs. D has given her text in which Adam and Eve are ashamed so they run from God and hide. Is this a good thing? Did their shame help them? God, being who he is, searches them out, and covers (that is undoes) their shame.
You say that 'Paul appeals to the believers sense of shame". Where? Be specific. In Corinthians he specificially says that "I write not to shame you, but to warn you.". You might appeal to another passage where he "speaks to their shame", but that won't work for you. It only shows that they already have a sense of shame, and if that did the trick, then why all these problems.
You've fallen into a trap (actually several), you've confused social issues with pastoral ones. Abusers (and I'm not calling you one) do that too. They see a society degenerating into chaos and they say 'not on my watch' and try to make up for all the ills of the world on one or two wretched sinners who are under their care.
Too little shame in the world you say? Well then, let's get more shame. What you miss is that shame is what got us here in the first place. Shame caused Adam and Eve to hide from God. Shame causes erring teens to run away. Shame causes pregnant girls to abort their babies. Do you really think that girl on Dr. Phil had no shame? Of course she had shame, that's why she stole. She was ashamed to be seen as uncool. She was ashamed of the clothes she could afford with honest labor. She wasn't ashamed of theft. Her peer group doesn't reject thieves, it rejects people who wear last year's jeans.
Shame is a loss of status in the community. Guilt is a loss of inherent moral status. Shame is public. Guilt is internal. Shame is subjective. Guilt is objective. That girl on Dr. Phil shows what happens when we choose to use shame, that is rejection from the community, as the instrument of moral restraint, rather than instruction. We don't need more shame. We need more wisdom.
While I'm at it, I'd like to sharpen your thinking a little more. Solomon (who may have a little wisdom) speaks quite alot about shame. He associates it with pride, not with conscience. "First cometh pride, then cometh shame, but with the lowly is wisdom." Shame is a subdivision of pride. You start with the notion that be deserve great esteem in your tribe, then when you find yourself deprived of that esteem you feel shame. The 'lowly' cannot be shamed. They never thought to be put on a pedastal in the first place. They're thankful for their families and their jobs, for the rain and the sun and for all the graces that God gives. Status seekers (in and out of the church) deal in the currency of shame. Abusive leaders struggle to maximize their status and minimize their shame. They use shame as an instrument of coercian (ussually through gossip). They lie about their own failings and weaknesses because that's what you do in a shame-based community. No one can live up to the standard, but no one can stand the shame of failure.
Really, Yank, trying to bring even more shame into the Church! You should be a... well let's just say, you should stop.
I started off just wanting to respond to shanny's good points, but they're all good points:
Big-fish-in-small-ponders is classic. When you're in an abusive church situation, you find that the leadership is made up of people who, if they found themselves in any environment other than church, would have little hope of rising to the top. So they gravitate to an arena where the right kind of speaking patterns and earnestness and fruitless posturing are highly valued.
Great point also about why people show up at church, Jesus made them a promise and in-grown churches (which they refer to as 'community') look like they'll keep that promise.
Also liked the point about ministry that requires alot of man (usually woman) power. The big fish will keep teaching and exhorting and presiding (or in a different demoninational context) singing solos to themselves. That's for 'mature' Christians only. Kids and paint? That's for regular folks.
Well, bless them for it. Those who pray aloud to be seen in the synagogue, they already have their reward - religous status. Those who give a cup of cold water to these little ones, they will be blessed in heaven.
Reading these methods and your critiques alongside them could make one wonder just how people are lured into these awful situations. I think this is because one of the most effective tools of an abuser to keep their victim submissive is confusion. Unfortunately, you can't really experience or understand it when you're just reading it. (After all, what's confusing about being manipulated into having an affair with your priest?) But when you think about how very conflicting it can be to have thoughts, emotions, guilt, doubt, and then shame heaped on top, all rolling around in your head, muddling and warping things, it's really not that difficult to see how this can happen as much as it does. All it takes is some well-rooted confusion and someone ready and willing to take advantage of it.
Shame - a painful sense of having done something wrong, immoral, or immodest.
That's the Websters definition.
2 Corinthians 7:8-10, "For though I made you sorry with a letter, I do not repent, though I did repent; for I perceive that the same epistle hath made you sorry, though it were but for a season. Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death."
Sorry: from the greek word lupe, meaning, 'grief, sorrow, heaviness'. Vine's Expository Dictionary.
I think the argument here is over two different concepts. Apparently someone thinks I am arguing for a church that ridicules and browbeats. That is not what I am saying. I wish I could elaborate but I don't have time at the moment. I will try to get back here and do so.
It's odd, Yankee, that I asked you for a text which proved that the Scriptures encourage shame, and you gave me a text which doesn't mention shame.
It's odd also, that out of the multiple definitions of shame you cherry-picked the one that emphasized sorrow rather than the several which emphasized social disapproval. This is especially odd since the entire context of this discussion was of shame as a means of punishment by a church community. That's what this site is about. You came in to this context (shame as social exclusion recovery) and said there isn't enough shame because you saw this shameless girl on Dr. Phil. Despite that fact that the girl was at least ashamed enough to lie about her sins until outed by Dr. Phil, you concluded that she doesn't have enough shame and then went on to declare that the scriptures encourage shame, challenging Mrs. D to find a text that denies this. Mrs. D had already found a text which shows that shame harms our relationship with God (Adam and Eve). You ignored that text and generally declared that St. Paul used the Church's sense of shame to bring them to repentance. When I gave you a text in Paul which says specifically that he did not write to produce shame, you ignored that and went on to cherry pick a definition of shame which doesn't match the original context of the discussion or even of your own example about a girl caught in a lie, live in front of a studio audience, and then give us a text which doesn't even mention shame.
Why all the mental gymnastics. Why is it so important to produce a constituencey for shame in the Church that you skip all these steps in the argument and commit equivocations to make the case?
While I'm in question mode, why are all your shame example about other people 'kids today' and something you saw on TV? If shame is such a great thing, where are the stories about the shameful things that you've done? If you have such stories, why lead with other people's shame rather than your own?
Youngdumbledore: You know, apparently in an attempt to clarify something you seem to have decided that I'm one of those bad guys that makes the church so hard to live with. I'm not sure where you got that idea, and I also get the impression that you've decided to make a personal mission out of seeing if you can rub my nose in the dirt. So I tell you what: I'll give you those specific verses and then drop out of this discussion. Not out of some worry that I've been mentally demolished and am looking for the next exit - even if I thought you'd done that, which I don't, it really doesn't matter because the issue isn't supposed to be trying to show that one person is screwed up anyway. You seem to think that's the point. I just think the whole conversation is going south and I have little use for letting an internet discussion with a total stranger trying to get my goat.
2 Thessalonians 3:14-15,
And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, not that man and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.
The word shame is there. The context of church discipline is there. The word 'ashamed' is translated from the greek word entrepo, which means 'to put to shame; to turn one upon himself and so produce a feeling of shame, a wholesome shame that involves a change of conduct'. That is the definition straight from Vines, assuming you have no problem with that source (Robertson's Word Pictures in the NT concurs if you want a second opinion), and it virtually repeats verbatim what I've been trying to say since yesterday. Titus 2:8 is another verse to consider where this particular greek word is used. A similar example using a different greek word but carrying a somewhat similar meaning is 1 John 2:28, though obviously Paul isn't the author there.
That's as far as I'm going with this. I really hate the fact that this is going to come off like I'm just crying, grabbing my toys, and going home, because that's not the case. I simply don't think this is benefitting anyone at this point, considering the tone you seem to want to inject into the discussion.
Mrs. D, I'm sorry I stirred all this up. It really wasn't my intention at all.
Yankee, I'm not trying to rub your nose in the dirt. Remember, I'm the guy arguing against using shame in the churches, not for it. I'm not the guy who told Mrs Darcy she has to prove it from the Bible otherwise she's wrong. I'm not the guy who entered a community devoted to healing people from shame and argued that we need more shame among Christians.
Am I trying to make this personal? You betcha. Shame is personal, and that's the biggest point you missed. It's easy to declare based on some general sense of shamelessness in the culture, that more shame is needed. With no skin in the game yourself, you can say to the people on this forum (the vast majority of whom have, in fact, shown their vulnerability and uncovered some of their shame) who have skin in the game that shame is a good thing. It's an abstraction for you, but a painful memory for them. When I asked you personal questions, you started to feel it - shame. You didn't like the feeling and so you're throwing out a parting shot (from 2 Thes. which applies to shame in people OUTSIDE the church) and then leaving to avoid further shame. That's how it works with shame, it cuts both ways. If you use it on others, it often comes back and cuts you. Shame, as I pointed out before, causes people to run away. Then they don't get healing or wisdom. When that opportunity is missed (for Adam and Eve, for Judah in his encounter with Tamar) or for anybody else, it's a real s...well let's just say it's a pity.
If we make a discussion personal to the point that we insult others, then there is no hope of having a productive conversation. Contrary to what you think, I am not blind to the fact that many here have been hurt. The first church I attended outside of the Catholic church became quite abusive and tyrannical, and another I attended later was skating the edge. It is not abstract to me like you think.
The shame you say I felt isn't what I was talking about, and you have been confusing the two from the start. The passage I cited is most definitely NOT talking about people outside the church. It specifically states that the church was to not treat the offender as an enemy but a brother. How that could be taken as addressing outsiders is something I simply don't understand.
What hasn't been grasped here is that I don't disagree with 99% of what Mrs D said. I simply wanted to point out what I think is an important qualifier to the discussion. Characterizing that as wanting to demand biblical proof texts from Mrs. D or admit being wrong is flat out false. I don't even think that she took it that way, according to her comments. I do have to admit though that I'm a bit perplexed as to why you decided to take me on instead of letting her speak to the matter. Not saying you shouldn't have said anything, but you seem to have appointed yourself her lawyer here, so to speak.
In any case, no hard feelings. Let's just take a break from this.
Right back at you: no hard feelings, Yankee. The problem I have with your comment is this: I know that several of my readers, when they read it, flinched, and had a little flashback to their abuse and thought, 'maybe I deserved some of it.' It was unintentional, I'm sure, but the comment gave the abuse a little resurrection and fresh sting. I am devoted to making this a safe place. I won't delete such things, though, because I am not into avoidance. I am into answering all those voices we have in our heads telling us lies about ourselves and our relationship to God.
The truth is, we have a loving and merciful God who covers our shame and wants complete healing for the whole world. We all came to Him because of our shame and guilt, and to get relief from it, which He gave. But along came religious abusers, and careless legalists, and they piled shame and guilt back on us, and I hope to disarm their power, as much as it falls to me to do so.
From reading your post about abuse. I can say from an abused person going from the catholic religion into a nondenominational church. I was abused at that church but thank God I am in a new church. As my new church put it Spritual abuse.. When one is abused they have lowself esteem, insecurities, You know when some one is manipulating you but you dont know how to stand up for you self yet. You seem to fall into that trap and the way I found myself out of that trap is sticking closer to God Praying Keeping a relationship with him Keeping my nose in the word. Listening to my heavenly Father so I could over come that spirit of abuse and shame. The word of God is what sets us free Praise God...
I think I undestand
<LI class=itemsubmitter>yankeejwb part on shame its when we are doing things wrong in christ Jesus such as Gossip and slander If one is doing this about some one in the church God says we are not to gossip so if we confront that brother as the bible speaks of I think that would make them feel a little shameful about their actions and repent. I think their are two sides of the shame that is being taked about. The shame adam and eve felt when they where in the wrong.. <LI class=itemsubmitter>Shame when you first come to Christ Jesus and you have baggage you carrie you full unworthy to come before the Lord as a person with victory in christ Jesus <LI class=itemsubmitter>(So, naturally, abusive systems have learned how to manipulate it to maintain control over their members. If someone is threatening the system, the leaders will use eager gossip and intrusion,) This hear They cant manipulate unless you allow it that means you are not strong in christ Yet why been their but the more you dive into God you should know when you mature and grow in christ Jesus God will take care of it . They will reap what they sow and we are not a to please man but God and God knows the truth. When I went threw this crap at my former church I left it I could have caredless what was said and done because I put up with it for 12 yrs to long but in the process God was Helping me to grow overcome and get ready for the ministry and if I couldnt over come manipulation Then I couldnt do the work he has called me to do. We are to be lead by the Holys Spirit of God and listen to that inner man and not doubt ourselfs in who we are in christ Jesus (I know of at least two situations in which the pastors had manipulated women into sexual relationships with them, and kept the women silent and compliant through their sense of shame.) These women where abused before and if you are abused before and do not know and are not that strong in God then yes they will keep silent but if they confess their sin Jesus forgives they will own up to what was done the Pastor would have been exposed. These women could find a Real Pastor who could sheepered them properly so they dont fall in this trap any more of manipulations and feelings of unworth. I was abused I know and understand why they do the things they do. I am set free now thought. Praise God... (Leaders and their wives in abusive churches will pathologically violate confidences and turn into vicious gossips, defending their gossip as their 'duty' to the church. They can't help themselves--their appetite for power and status is too strong, and the power of shame too tempting to resist.) I guess they are not reading the same bible I am reading in then because whe I councile people nothing crosses my lips to any one else because the bible is clear on this and talks about Gossip, slander and it also some where in proverbs talkes about find some one you can confide in ... Tsk and for shame on them. Who abuse their God given authority its called Lording over. I am sure some of things I have seen in my life time I think Jesus even though he loves us all would want to puke... (Shame is a specific form of fear--fear of rejection, and fear of public exposure by a certain moral community, but you have heard, I am sure, that perfect love casts out fear. If your leaders are working on your shame, they are not treating you with love; they are not doing the work of the Lord, who went to the cross to cover our shame. ) Amen to that. well said. (You can only be shamed by someone if you allow them to shame you.) If you are abused you have no understanding why you are being manipulated when some one is weak in their faith and do not know the word of God they fall into this trap until they are taught properly. Or Lead by The Holy Spirit of God .. I know been their done that Praise God his hand of mercy was over me.. I got stronger.. Well thanks for the posting passed by threw some one who passed by threw my site I came over.. God blessMrs.D: My wife and I were discussing this post tonight and I said something to her very much like what you're saying, that I think I may have given the impression that I was attacking you and your other readers, and considering the backgrounds they and you have come from, I can see how it came off the wrong way. I thought I had made a clear distinction between the abuse you described and what I felt was different aspect of the concept of shame. I guess it just didn't come across.
Perhaps for some it just isn't the right time to get into it from that angle either. I don't know. It's pretty much impossible to know how people are going to react beforehand, especially if I've never talked to them before. But yes, I will try to frame any future comments in a way that takes these things into consideration. And yes, Christ has made the way for us to be relieved of the burden of guilt and shame. I agree 100%. There is no reason to stay stuck in it. And I completely agree that leadership that uses shame as a weapon to consolidate power and lead people by the nose is flat out bad leadership. In any case, this discussion has been helpful to me as well in that it has caused me to dig into some scriptures again and try to concretely think through the whole subject of church discipline in a fresh way. I hope in the next few days to put those thoughts down in post form, and I hope you'll share your own thoughts on it. I would greatly appreciate your input.
Yankee, I'm honored that this discussion merited a conversation at your home. I hope you'll remember to drop me a comment or message when you've posted about it so I don't miss it. And I do appreciate your understanding the environment here. You never know what you're stepping into in cyber space!
Peace.
Not trying to continue an argument here, but I see this debate as 2 sides of the same coin. Or maybe 2 edges of the same sword is a better analogy.
Anyhow, I agree with Yankee that there is the proper place of shame in the life of a Christian. It's the kind of shame that drives you back to the cross and on your knees before God confessing your sins and asking forgiveness. It's that shame that deters you from committing that same sin in the future. It's that type of shame that leads you to go to a brother you've wronged and make amends.
Mrs. Darcy is talking about a different type of shame, which is really emotional blackmail. "You'll do what I say because if you don't, I'll tell the whole congregation what you did. Just imagine what people will think of you when they find out what an awful sin you've committed!" That is abuse, and has no place in the church.
pathologically violate confidences --this is one mark of a church leader not to be trusted.
I see there has already been different aspects of shame involved, so I will just say I agree that as Mrs. Darcy posits, that shame can and IS used as a manipulative tool.I was brought up in a pstors home that whatever was heard inside or overheard never left the home, as to violate a confidence of a church member destroyed a ministry.
Of course, the Spirit of God can use the shame of willfully sinning to deal with his children, because it is an effective tool, to bring about repentence. If you are in the midst of willful sin, there is a hinderance in your prayer life, your communication with the Father. That has to be restored. It is always to be about repentance and restoration and a transformation of the heart. Behavior modification does not bring about heart transformation, but heart transformation will beget some behavioral modification-kind of along the lines that Luther used.The gospel is "I am accepted through Christ, therefore I obey" while every other religion operates on the principle of "I obey, therefore I am accepted. Now both church memebers and leaders are reflective of this also-Underneath our behavioral sins lies a fundamental refusal to rest in Christ's salvation and the drive instead to find our own. Martin Luther says the same. Here is an excerpt from Martin Luther Treatise Concerning Good Works (1520):
All those who do not in all their works or sufferings, life and death, trust in God's favor, grace and good-will, but rather seek His favor in other things or in themselves, do not keep the [First] Commandment, and practice real idolatry, even if they were to do the works of all the other Commandments, and in addition had all the prayers, fasting, obedience, patience, chastity, and innocence of all the saints combined.
If you look to your moral performance as the basis of your relationship with God, then you are breaking the first of the Ten Commandments: "Have no other gods before me." If you fail to grasp and believe the gospel of free justification through Christ's work you violate the first command. How could this be? Again from Luther. The heart continues to work in that way even after conversion to Christ. Though we recognize and embrace the principle of the gospel, our hearts will always be trying to return to the mode of self-salvation, which leads to spiritual deadness, pride and strife and ministry ineffectiveness.
I would suggest one thing further as well-those who operate on the principle of bringing shame on others through manipulating others are hiding something of their own and deflecting it onto someone else so it won't be discovered/uncovered..
I would add one additional thought in the how this posts evolution. I think Yankeejwb does bring up a valid point about how shame (or lack of consequence-accountability) has taken hold in mnay circles. But that has to be balanced by not overcorrecting- a very typical thing in Christianity.
The best way I can put it is we need to delinate what is God's function and what is mans function and not confuse the two. I have found that many times when shame is really evoked is in the midst of hypocrisy. Ted Haggard comes to mind as a most recent example of such. But if I may, I would like to jump to the larger picture of where I believe the church should be focusing on shame today.
One of the most proof-texted verses of the Bible is Numbers 32:23. Here Moses was dealing with men not willing to follow the commands of God and wanting to bask in prior victories and have a easy life, not fight the fight commanded. The shame of their sins being found out was failure to do the work God commanded.
Today we see pretty much the same thing. How many Christians know truths that God doesn't even know, and they find things in the Bible that God didn't put there? They can tell you all the types concerning what the beasts stand for; they can tell you the symbolic meanings of the leg on the beast, the foot on the leg, the toe on the foot, the nail on the toe and the polish on the nail. They want victories with no battles and crucifixion with no pain. In other words they are creating a distraction and concentrating on everything that the Bible does not command and ignoring what the Bible does command.
They talk about being crucified with Christ, yet they have no scars in their hands, no spear in their side, no jeering mob, no angry critics, no thorns on their brow. They have no pain. They suffer no heartache. They do not want to be called fanatics, and yet they glibly talk about being crucified with Christ.
These Monday-morning quarterbacks never make a tackle, never complete a pass, never kick a field goal, never block a kick, never make a first down and never win a game. They simply sit in the stands and cheer those who run off sides, are guilty of unnecessary roughness and boo the one who challenge them to get out of the stands and onto the field, who dare shame them for their failure to fulfill a Kingdom purpose, yet criticize those who do.
To all,
When Jesus came into the world, the world was full of shame. The pagan world-order was based on it. There was a honor/shame hierarchy that went like this: emporer, aristocracy, soldier, citizen, subject peoples, slaves, imprisoned criminals, crucified enemies of the state. Jesus who was by nature and emporer embraced the most shameful place in the order of the state - the crucis.
The Jewish world was based on shame too: Rabbis/scholars of the law, their followers (havarim), ordinary Jews, unclean Jews, colloborators with Rome like tax collectors and prostitutes. They did their prayers in front of the crowds "to be seen of men". Jesus who was a Great Rabbi and Scholar and by very nature clean embraced the most shameful people in the moral pecking order - the tax collectors and prostitutes.
He rejected the two shame systems into which he had been born and created a shame-free zone among his followers. Sure he exhorted, instructed confronted, but never shamed. Later Paul did the same thing and reserved shame as part of a kind of ecclesiastical death penalty for people who had completely apostosized. They were to be put out of the Church and maybe re-entering the shame culture as a reject from a despised community would bring them to their senses.
Mrs Darcy and I have tried, to the degree we're able to create a shame-free zone, in our home, in our Church, on this site. We've seen the harm that shame can do to us, to our children, to our friends. It has no place here. When you come here, leave it at the door. You'll feel alot better. No matter what you've done, or been accused of doing, you are welcome here. You don't be judged, you won't be shamed. Christ has made you clean and we make it a practice never to take issue with the Melech Ha'Olam, the King of the Universe.
Hope this helps