SHAME, GUILT, PRIVILEGE, AND TRUTH

 

 

What if your parents worked hard to save money to send you to good schools enabling you to get a good job and to raise your own family? Consequently, you have been advantaged, at least financially, compared to the underprivileged. Should this be a cause of guilt and shame? Should you be made to feel ashamed of your advantage?

 

How are we to begin to answer these questions, especially now that many are moral relativists. Consequently, they believe that morality is just something we make up as we go along. Therefore, it is always evolving according to evolving social norms. Consequently, it lacks any solid foundation from which to answer these questions.

 

If this is true and there are no absolute moral laws to inform us if we are truly guilty for making use of our “advantage,” then there are no objective answers to our questions, and we must fend for ourselves in a meaningless, valueless, and uncaring universe. Without objective moral reasoning, manipulation and coercion reign.

 

If there are answers, they can only come from moral laws that are higher than we are, laws to which we must conform - laws which depend upon God.

 

Therefore, I will try to answer these questions from the perspective of God’s Words. Are we guilty for enjoying the benefits of the labors of our parents? Evidently not! Instead, this is part of God’s plan:

 

·       Disaster pursues sinners, but the righteous are rewarded with good. A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children, but the sinner’s wealth is laid up for the righteous.” (Proverbs 13:21-22)

 

Caring of the family is righteous. According to the Lord, there is nothing wrong about reaping from our labors:

 

·       The hand of the diligent will rule, while the slothful will be put to forced labor...Whoever is slothful will not roast his game, but the diligent man will get precious wealth. (Proverbs 12:24, 26)

 

It is fitting that the diligent should benefit. Therefore, we must not allow anyone to shame us because of the benefits we have received through the righteous labors of our families. Besides, the family, not an institution, has been commissioned to be responsible for the well-being of their families:

 

·       If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her care for them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are truly widows. (1 Timothy 5:16)

 

Providing for our own family is an honorable undertaking in the eyes of our Lord. It is even the best way to bless our neighbors.

 

Love must work its way out from the center of the family to others. Instead, if the husband were to equally bless his neighbors with his money and attentions, this would sow discord within his own family and eventually create problems for his neighborhood. Instead, a happy and righteous family is a blessing to its neighborhood.

 

Whenever the government assumes the role of the family, tragedy follows. It is inevitable that financial entitlements and income redistribution will undermine the foundation of the society – the family.

 

The Bible repeatedly claims that it is fitting that those who work should benefit from their labors, while those who refuse to work should bear the consequences:

 

·       For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. (2 Thessalonians 3:10)

 

There are no Biblical mandates for income redistribution. Instead, such programs are antithetical to the Bible. To reward laziness creates more laziness and undermines initiative:

 

·       Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. (2 Thessalonians 3:6)

 

We should not reward laziness but praise righteous motivation. Instead of making outcomes equal, Jesus was ready to increase the disparity:

 

·       “For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.” (Matthew 25:29)

 

Jesus found no problem that some would be left with nothing, while others would have everything:

 

·       “The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear." (Matthew 13:41-43)

 

Jesus' teachings were based on those of the OT, where we find that God had often blessed His servants with riches, as He had done with Abraham and Job. Evidently, there is nothing immoral about having wealth, but rather the selfish love of wealth.

 

Nor is wealth to be envied. I was raised in a family were we never wanted for anything. Yet, I was seriously depressed and dysfunctional for decades. (I later learned that the “oppressors,” now regarded as the whites, have a suicide rate almost three times that of blacks, the “oppressed.”).

 

However, as Christians we know that everything we possess is a gift from God (James 1:17), even our labors. This is why we give thanks for our food. Therefore, we have a duty to share the gifts of God:

 

·       “If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be.” (Deuteronomy 15:7–8)

 

However, such giving – a loan – would not dis-empower. It is given with discernment to someone who had become poor because of his circumstances. Nor would it be regarded as an entitlement. Instead, he would regard it as an act of love and would try to prove himself grateful through his labors. It would build community rather than to destroy it by the entitlements of an undiscerning, impersonal, condescending, and overbearing government.

 

Do not allow any to shame you because you and your family have been enabled to enjoy the fruits of your labors. The alternative means the end of all fruit, sharing, and the destitution of all. In 1776, Adam Smith explained the economic success of Great Britain:

 

·       That security which the laws of Great Britain give to every man that he shall enjoy the fruits of his own labour, is alone sufficient to make any country flourish.… The natural effort of every individual is to better his own condition, when suffered to exert itself with freedom and security, is so powerful a principle, that it is alone, and without any assistance, … capable of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity.… In Great Britain industry is perfectly secure; and though it is far from being perfectly free, it is as free or freer than in any other part of Europe.

 

Free enterprise energizes; its elimination brings decay and neediness to all, except the elites, the enforcers at the top. Ironically, the Marxist nations have gone capitalistic to survive, while the West refuses to learn the consistent lessons of history. However, the “Marxists” hypocritically insist that this is only temporary.

 

BLAME, SHAME, AND MARGINALIZATION

The California legislature has just voted in favor of a resolution (ACR 99) blaming “religious groups” who hold to Biblical understandings of sex and gender as responsible for “disproportionately high rates” of suicide among homosexuals and transgenders. Their resolution reads:

·       “The stigma associated with being LGBTQ often created by groups in society, including therapists and religious groups, has caused disproportionately high rates of suicide, attempted suicide, depression, rejection, and isolation amongst LGBTQ and questioning individuals,” it claims. It calls on “the people of California – especially its counselors, pastors, religious workers, educators, and legislators” to eschew and work against anti-LGBTQ “stigma.” https://culturewarresource.com/newly-passed-california-resolution-blames-religious-groups-for-lgbt-suicides/

Where is California’s supportive evidence for its indictment against religion, namely Christianity? It seems instead that it is Christianity that is being stigmatized and hated. However, it seems that the same negative outcomes for LGBTs are present within even more gay-friendly nations like Sweden and Scotland, where the Christian faith only exerts a minimal influence:

·       Research out of LGBT-friendly Sweden has found that homosexual and transgender residents remain more likely to attempt or commit suicide, despite having achieved the type of culture advocated by ACR 99. (Ibid.)

·       The University of Cambridge’s Stonewall report found that 96% of trans students in Scotland attempted self-harm through actions such as cutting themselves, and 40% attempted suicide. 40% in the United States have attempted suicide, as well, according to a 2016 survey from the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE). According to a 2011 study from Sweden, trans people remain 19 times more likely to commit suicide than the general population, even after “sex-change” surgery. (Ibid.)

However, the pro-LGBT lobby, which has militantly encouraged people to adopt the LGBT lifestyles, needs to blame someone apart from themselves for the dismal fate of the LGBTs. This lobby has succeeded in radically changing public and institutional opinion in favor of LGBTs. However, the death march continues unchecked.

Meanwhile, this lobby has stigmatized Christianity as “haters” and has converted Christians into the outcasts. However, they are not jumping off bridges, overdosing, or beating their sexual partners in greater numbers.

Instead, in compassion, we warn that these alternative lifestyles are disordered and oppose our God-given human nature and even God Himself. No wonder the horrific statistics! We also warn against pornography, incest, and adultery. Do these warnings make us “haters?” Hardly!

THE INSISTENCE OF SIN

Much of our Western world denies that sin really exists. One respondent stated:

·       I am convinced that sin does not exist; nor am I tainted with it. Sin is the fearful creation of medieval minds.

I responded:

·       To deny the reality of sin is also to deny the objective reality of guilt and shame. It is like denying that your kitchen is on fire or that you have operable cancer. Such denial might be comforting in the short run, but in the long run, there is a great price to be paid.

Is sin really so tangible. Well, let’s look at one of its common manifestations – the wake produced by guilt. Guilt is so powerful that it has taken us captive. Consequently, humanity can be characterized by our attempt to rationalize away this very disturbing and shaming feeling and has resorted to many techniques to overcome these life-controlling feelings. Here are a few of the ways:

1.    We deny the existence of Sin.

2.    We harden our conscience and insist that morality is relative, just something we create.

3.    We might even deny that we have freewill to convince ourselves that we aren’t culpable.

4.    We give ourselves positive affirmations, even when they contradict the reality of our lives.

5.    We distract, drug, and busy ourselves to avoid sin’s voice.

6.    We go to a psychologist to teach us to love ourselves.

7.    We feverishly seek out accomplishments, power, prestige, and money so that we can tell our guilt/shame feelings that they are lying.

8.    We wear fronts to disguise who we really are.

All of these maneuvers represent a flight from the self, making it impossible to really know ourselves, despite all of our mindfulness meditations. They also testify that we do believe in sin, at least on a subliminal level.

Although these solutions might cover or repress our guilt and shame, they are unable to get at its root – that we are indeed guilty.

However, when we treat sin as if it really exists, we can do something about it. Similarly, when we are willing to acknowledge that our house is on fire, we can take remedial action, if only to call for help.

But what action is necessary to address sin? Well, for starters, we have to admit our wrong, especially to the one we have offended, and to apologize!

Here, however, we run into a predicament. For one thing, we have been denying the reality of sin so long that it is also impossible to face it. It is too damaging to our self-image. How? We have to appear right and virtuous. It’s too painful to appear otherwise.

Besides, if you do not believe in sin, then you do not believe you have anything to apologize for. Okay, you say that you have to apologize to repair a relationship, but if you do not believe you have done anything wrong, you are acting hypocritically if you apologize. Besides, eventually you will be found out.

To deny sin is to deny a critical aspect of our lives and to run from what our conscience wants to tell us. And if we will not listen to ourselves, we will not listen to others either. Ironically, by denying sin, we live as its captives.