In terms of the way cultures control wrongdoing, there are two main possible responses.
In different parts of the world we have guilt cultures and shame cultures.
Guilt
If you HAVE done something you shouldn't have done and are found to have done so, you are said to be guilty. It is an objective thing. It is a judgement according to a standard and the deterrent is a punishment set out according to the law. Guilt cultures function this way.
Shame
The FEELING of guilt is called shame, so that is a subjective thing, not an objective one. And shame is used in shame cultures as a means of social control.
The apostles lived in a culture where (in the variously governed provinces of the Roman Empire) there WAS the objective standard of the Roman Law, but legal authority could be wielded in the most peculiar of ways by local officials, and falling foul of it in the provinces put you at the mercy of what was in effect a culture of shame.
"I know whom I have believed,
and am convinced that he is able
to guard what I have entrusted to him until that day."
2 Timothy 1:12
So if you fell foul of the law in a place like Thessalonica, for example, shame and social ostracism was the inevitable result.
Shame was being attached to Paul BECAUSE he was in prison
After Paul’s release from prison in Rome in 62 AD (see Acts 28) and after his fourth missionary journey, during which he wrote his first letter to Timothy and the Epistle of Titus, Paul was again imprisoned under Emperor Nero c. 66–67.
It was during this time that he wrote 2 Timothy.
In contrast to his first imprisonment, when he lived in a “rented house” (Acts 28:30), he was now held in a cold dungeon and chained like a common criminal.
Held in significant isolation and his friends had trouble even finding out where he was being kept.
Paul knew that his work was done and that his life was nearly at an end.
Most people seem to have deserted Paul, but he was concerned for the person that was most loyal and supportive to him still and that is why he wrote this letter to Timothy.
Prison evoked shame regardless of guilt
The shame culture around him placed Paul under significant disgrace simply on the basis that he'd been imprisoned, but Paul was having none of it and certainly wasn't about to submit to shame as a means of social control.
Paul was having none of it
To his way of thinking, sin wasn't defined by society but by God's objective standards ... His Law ... and the price of Paul's sin (his freely acknowledged offences against God's Law) had been paid once and for all by Christ on the Cross.
Where guilt was wrongly defined there was no guilt to be atoned for; and where sin was atoned for there was no place for shame.
The Point
We live increasingly in a culture that seeks to shame Christians who define sin according to what God has revealed to us in His Word.
It has been a very short journey from having the world around us decide that it will determine what is right and wrong and having it see fit to impose its' rules and regulations on the rest of us.
The shame is being piled up against the door of Bible believing Christians and even today the BBC website carries news of calls to legislate against 'Gay Conversion Therapy' which is defined like this:
"'Conversion therapy' refers to any form of treatment or psychotherapy which aims to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity, ranging from electric shock treatment to religious teaching and discussion."
Now that's not just a matter of shaming, but would prevent Christians from expressing the teaching of Scripture and would certainly prevent calling people from homosexual lifestyles or cross-dressing to repentance and faith in Christ ... and the Westminster administration has said they are supportive of the idea of doing this.
Shame is increasingly proclaimed as a means of social control and rapidly ends up in a very different place altogether, with the Christian position outlawed and shame-bullied.
The Takeaway
Paul is clear that there is only shame where there is guilt, and guilt is defined as the effect of a a transgression of God's Law.
Where God's Law has not been transgressed it is difficult to see where guilt (and its' effect - shame) can come from.
And where guilt DOES arise because God's Law has been broken, then repentance and faith leads to cleansing of our record and of our conscience.
As Paul writes elsewhere: "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death."
Romans 8:1-2
So in private and in civic life, the Christian does not accept the use of shaming as a means of social control, especially when the attempt is being made to put us under 'guilt' for upholding God's Word.
Instead believers, whilst maintaining a close self-watch and practising regular repentance, live in the light of Galatians 5:1 "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery."
The accuser of the brethren will seek to denigrate and castigate the believer, and he has his agents in our secular society, but on the authority of the God Who speaks in His Word, we do not accept shaming as a means of social or spiritual control.
Arguably, spiritual control is in itself is a form of abuse, and something we might arguably need to (verbally!) resist.
No comments:
Post a Comment