Guilt, Shame and the Good News

That something can both be a cliché and not well understood is a paradox I keep running across. The biggest one might be all the people who think they understand the gospel and then equate that good news with “be nice.” And if they have arrived at that point, you will never preach or explain them out of it. Only events will move them. Another one is the difference between guilt and shame. Those are the two words in English that cover the result of sin.  We can feel guilty, or we can feel ashamed. They are related, but worlds apart.

One can be guilty without feeling any shame. “I did it, and I’m glad I did it.” One can be guilty, but think the offense is ticky-tack. Like getting a ticket for 73mph in a 65mph zone.  There are also all the cases that won’t land you in the legal system, they might even be encouraged by sections of society, but are still contrary to the law of God. I often think how we just blow right past the 9th and 10th commandments.  Luther’s explanation of the 9th would hold us guilty if we scheme to get our neighbor’s stuff in a way which only appears right.  The law requires that we be of help and service to our neighbor in keeping what they have. But so much of our capitalist system is schemes to extract everything we can from our neighbors. And I’m a capitalist, fully credentialed with MBA/CFA, but pushing credit cards with 30% interest on 20 year olds, or $100k student loans, or gambling devices on your phone at any time, especially when they will kick you off if you win too much, but big losers will get personal contact. These are all legal, and they appear right.  The people taking the other side do so willingly.  They sign the paperwork. That doesn’t remove the guilt of the scheme.

Maybe it is here that guilt moves into shame.  It is the other side of those schemes that eventually feel shame.  Did they do anything wrong in a guilt sense?  You can argue that the gambler knew they were in a zero-sum game.  If they got richer, they were making someone else poorer.  And the only reason they would enter that would be envy.  But I think I’d argue in most of these cases that the people entering into such schemes don’t recognize the wrong. Which doesn’t remove any guilt, but it does mitigate it.  What does happen is that when you become cognizant – when all of sudden you have eaten the apple and know that you are naked – you feel shame. Shame at naivete. Shame at the justifications employed to engage in various activities. Shame at being brought low and being made a fool.  What might seem like years of never-ending shame digging out from a moment’s mistake.  Like wearing a scarlet letter, although in our day and age I think that letter would be a D, for debt instead of the A for adultery.  It is interesting that like the cheeks that burn, both are marked by red-ink.

The Reformation church I think spends most of its time on guilt. The law is proclaimed which increases the trespass (Romans 5:20). The purpose of the law is to help us understand “ticky-tack” breakings of the law of a Holy God are disqualifying. We are called to be perfect, as our Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48).  And when we’ve felt the guilt and cried out with Paul, “who will deliver me from the body of death (Romans 7:24)?” We proclaim the good news of free remission. What our Old Testament Lesson says first, “The LORD has taken away the judgements against you (Zephaniah 3:15).”

The Reformation church spends it time on guilt, but the gospel also has something to say about shame. And maybe it’s the bigger thing the gospel promises.  Because long after we might have accepted the remission of sins, we might still be dealing with the results of sin.  We might also just be dealing with a world that is fallen.  We might be in a shameful position not because of acts we have done, but just because that is the way the world is. How does the remnant of Israel in the decadence of the time before the exile feel?  How does an exile after 70 years, 3 generations later, feel?  Yes, Isreal was sinful, and that had brought on the shame.  But why is it falling on me?  What have I done to deserve this?  Yet it is shameful.

The gospel in Zechariah addresses the shame.  “I will gather those of you who mourn for the festival, so that you will no longer suffer reproach…I will save the lame and gather the outcast, and I will change their shame into praise (Zechariah 3:18-19).”  The promise of God is that He shall be our pride. The LORD loves you.  And from his love he shall restore your fortunes.  “He will quiet you by his love.” When the shame cries out, it is met with the love of God. “he will exult over you with loud singing…for I will make you renowned and praised (Zechariah 3:17, 20).”  Rejoice O daughter of Jerusalem, for the LORD reigns, and his promises to you are sure.

Both Get Asked the Same Question

31013wordle

Text: Luke 15:1-3,11-32
Full Sermon Draft

The text is the prodigal son. Actually the entire 15th Chapter of Luke should be taken together, but the assigned text was just the last of three parables. I struggled this week to find the clarity. Part of that I think was that pastors, especially those who are trying to be orthodox, feel something different from this parable.

The orthodox preacher teaches law and gospel. Both of them have their place. The church since the reformation has been about a specific viewpoint on the gospel. And that viewpoint is neatly captured by the prodigal or by the hymn amazing grace. I once was lost by now am found. The focal point is all on the individual and the God they are being reconciled to. Now what gets taken for granted in that reformation mentality is the whole. The prodigal is reconciled to the family of God. The prodigal is restored to the church. But let’s call it the reformation on steroids, TROS eventually loses the church. What we have is a whole lot of people in churches of one. They have achieved a state they think of as wholeness between them and their god. And then the church attempting to shepherd that person in holiness points out that the law is how God intended things to be. But in TROS the reply is “that’s not my God” or “God didn’t mean that” or some such answer. And the communicant in this church of one, if the true church persists, starts shouting things like Pharisee, or unloving older brother. You just need to accept me, because god has.

That is a completely different order than what the prodigal did. The prodigal may have thought he was returning but keeping his “freedom” – “make me a hired man”. That prodigal at the state wanted to enjoy the benefits of the family while still keeping his little shack just outside and rejecting those parts of the family he didn’t like. But by the time he has arose (a loaded term) and walked the path back and felt the compassion of the father in his embrace that demand or caveat on the repentance is gone. The prodigal submits himself completely to the household.

The question that both sons get asked is this: do you trust the Father’s judgment and ways? Older sons must accept the repentance of prodigals because God has. God works on repentance and absolution. Neither of those does away with the law. What they do is demonstrate that we have all fallen short. But prodigals, those being restored to the whole have to submit to that household. It is not Pharisaical for the church to point out that partial repentance is no repentance at all. In fact that is called Shepherding. (Ezek 33:8-11)

God is about restoring his people, restoring a whole. But we do not define that whole. All we can do is exclude ourselves from it. Do we accept the grace of the Father to be part of his family, or do we stand outside. We can stand outside in a far country. We can stand outside within the walls demanding our way. Both are forms of slavery to our sin. Only in submission and repentance do we find freedom. Do you truth the Father’s ways best revealed in Christ and the cross? The decision is life or death.