a bible, theology, politics, news, networking, and discussion site
How would you differentiate shame and guilt regarding Christ's substitutionary atonement, considering Romans 8:1 - "there is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus". What exactly did he do with respect to shame and guilt?
What do you do with this regarding sin of believers?
What role should shame and/or guilt have in the preaching task?
Guilt is more of a legal sort of issue. It is the reality that we have sinned.
Shame is the proper response to the knowledge of guilt. Shame should be akin to, or lead to, godly sorrow and repentance.
Preaching should be aimed at showing people their guilt before God so that they would become ashamed under the power of the Word and the Spirit and repent and turn to Christ.
David prayed that men would be put to shame that they would seek the glory of God and know that He was God alone.
Are you talking about Christ's shame and guilt, or mine? I don't even have the distinctions between my own shame and guilt in nice clear categories. Why would I muddy an explanation of the atonement over that? I'm content to leave Christ's shame or guilt a mystery and not even bring it up. If you are talking about MY shame and guilt though, I think it is possible to over-emphasize the "you are a guilty sinner" bit. Why belabor a point that everyone accepts. We all do things wrong. We know it. Instead of focusing on what I have done that needs atonement, I'd rather focus on what HE did. I think "we all fall short" needs to be PART of the message, but not a huge focus of it.
My response (and I am human so take this to God) would be first of all to redefine shame and guilt. Because many times people feel ashamed and so as well feel guilty even if they have repented for the millionth time. I think what your referring to is more conviction and condemnation. Conviction is where you have a believer who is guilty of sinning and the Lord comes along and basically says "since you are a child of mine you shouldn't have done that so you need to repent." Condemnation is where the Devil comes along and says "you are not a child of God because you did a, b, and c" which will leave someone ashamed and feeling guilty even if they have repented.
In the role of preaching if it is one believer is sinning the issue needs to be dealt with one-on-one and in love. God confirms their son ship but deals with the issue (the sin), also God hates being distant from all of His kids and so that is the reason why He asks us to repent because sin causes distance keep that in mind. If the issue is more corporate than the issue can be dealt from the podium but in love. Addressing the weakness of the sinful flesh and the readiness of God to forgive. For me remembering, whether is a public setting or private, that I am just as likely to sin as they are so I need to be compassionate towards them no matter what. And just going a little further if they don't repent (not if they want to repent but don't understand that they have the power to overcome sin in Christ, which their response to the conversation will probably make it clear) to do as the Bible says and take a witness with you the next time and talk with them and if they still don't repent take a leader with you ect.
Actually there is reference to walking according to the Spirit and not the flesh in vs. 4. Many interpreters have determined that the reference in vs 1 was a scribal addition. It makes sense without it since the removal of condemnation is accomplished because of what God did through His Son (Romans 8:2-3) and therefore, there is no condemnation to those who walk after the Spirit (or belong to the Spirit cf Romans 8:9). I actually think "according to" is a better translation since those who are not condemned belong to the Spirit (i.e. believers) as opposed to those according to the flesh (non-believers)
Another issue with this question is how we define guilt and shame. I think it is safe to say based on this passage and others (2 Corinthians 5:2 and Romans 3:24-25 come to mind), that Christ removed the guilt associated with the penalty of sin. In other words, we are not guilty because Christ has made us righteous. However, sin brings on shame. Therefore, sin will remind us of the guilt that was removed and create shame. So I think that has implications for how guilt and shame is preached. People of God should be reminded that the only way to take care of the shame is to understand the removal of guilt and alignment through repentance brought on by conviction of the Holy Spirit.
Danny Feliciano said:
I agree with Jason and Yvonne but I cringe every time I see Romans 8:1 quoted without reference to walking after the Spirit and not the flesh. "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."
Jesus Christ traded off my guilt for His righteousness, on the cross. But, When I sin, I bring shame upon the Name of Christ, and upon myself.
From my own perspective, I believe a lot of this delves into us proclaiming what Dallas Willard calls the gospel of sin management. We see our roles as bringing behaviour management, rather than setting captives free and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom. It's like when I taught a group of Africa pastors recently, we got into a discussion about a specific issue (sin?). I can't remember the exact topic, as a few of them came up on the side. But one argument put forth was, 'If we don't put up this guard, then people will go rampant with this issue.' I sensed a lot of this came down to behaviour management and fear, fear that we cannot manage people's behaviour. I challenged them, rebuked them if you will, to not teach anything out of that kind of fear and desiring to micro-manage people's behaviour. It will bring death - to them and to the teacher.
I'm pretty certain we are not called to micro-manage people's behaviour. We have a gospel that sets captives free. We are calling people to a transformed life, the life of the age to come. Not a moralism about what to drink (or not drink), what to wear, what to listen to, what to watch, who our friends can be, etc. Our foundational approach can be quite askew at times. We approach it that way, we are going to have all sorts of problems. The gospel becomes, again, about managing sin and a nice moralism.
Now, having said that, there is a time for rebuke and challenge, very much so. But many times our rebuking comes out of the 'I have to' mode - I have to tell people how bad they are, I have to make sure that all they see is their sin so they run to Jesus, I have to help them understand the doctrine of total depravity, I have to make sure they are doing the 'right' thing during the week, etc. And we do this all by telling people how to behave like nice little boys and girls. You know, maintain the moralism status quo. But when we are proclaiming a gospel that sets captives free, makes new creations, etc, and then as we are led by God, listening to him and what and when is appropriate to rebuke and challenge, there will be, I believe, much more fruit in this approach.
Change our foundation. And let the rebuke and challenge come out of a proper understanding of the gospel of the kingdom that sets captives free. Judgment is not first and foremost about torturing lost sinners. It's ultimately about making things right. That is God's prerogative. As he makes things right, he will have to deal with sin. But start from the right foundation and move out from there.
Guilt is a condition. I am guilty of sin. Shame is the emotional result of realizing our guilt. Shame, however, is not always the result of acknowledging out guilt. We can be ashamed of the Gospel...afraid. We aren't to live in guilt and shame as Jesus set us free from it because he took on all at the cross and freed us from it. We should learn to walk in that freedom, but do so in respect. Satan tries to remind us from where we've been in order to keep our light hid. How dare you speak against what you are also guilty of doing. But without the pardon, we couldn't speak, but with the pardon we can speak and should speak boldly because it will give others hope for freedom from their shame as well.
Well, guilt is the verdict. Condemnation is the sentence. By placing ourselves in Christ, we are adjudicated not guilty (justified). This is typified in the sin offering.
Nevertheless, our disobedience hereafter as well as heretofore is damaging to our relationship (shame). This is also covered in the work of the Cross, typified by the peace offering (restoration to a right relationship).
A friend of mine puts it this way. You invite me to your house. You say, help yourself to anything you want, except don’t touch my classic car. Friend goes off to work, and I decide I need to run out to Starbucks. I say, “I’ll just run out and back; he’ll never know.” So I jump in the ’57 Ford and off I go. As I’m driving along, I find myself in some guy’s blind spot, and he drifts over into my lane and takes off the fender. Now I have two problems: the car (sin—direct disobedience) and the relationship (shame and lack of trust going forward). The sin offering takes care of the first. And there is, therefore, no condemnation. The peace offering deals with the second.
Yes, you'd be guilty of the offense but shame is optional. It is a condition of the heart. Without shame there is no way the offer of forgiveness can be considered, really.