Resting in God and His Word

Cats,…. the purry, furry companions of so many….including myself, have a habit of demonstrating their friendship by coming to sit on a piece of paper that is the page of the book or newspaper that we happen to be reading right at that very moment!

My cat is no exception.

However, today she didn't quite sit right on top of the page I was reading (as I was at the time reading on my laptop), but she did choose to sit right on top of my bible, laying open beside me at the page I was regularly referring to.

But as she covered up the very section of Scripture I was periodically looking back at, and then relaxed back even further and began to have a 'bath', I had an object lesson from God right there! (and yes, I took some quick pics!).

As she rested right on top, and then cleaned, and then went to sleep, it was a good metaphorical reminder that we too should be quick to go to the pages of Scripture and rest in the truth of all that God shows us in those pages that he truly is.  

It should be the rock, the resting place, the source and security of all our lives, whether sitting, working (cleaning) or sleeping!

As we look at the mess of our world this is a good reminder…especially considering my time in God's Word is currently in Paul's letters to Timothy. Paul tells Timothy toward the end of his second letter that in the last days sin will abound (chapter 3). We shouldn't be then surprised when we look at the world…

But I am reminded that we should also take note of Paul's other directives to Timothy after this…that he is to remember God's inspired Word and keep on preaching and teaching it (Chapter 4). Though some might not like it or welcome it, as we keep eternity and Jesus' return in mind, the response to the sinful mess of the world is not to be shocked about it, or just ignore it, or try to escape to some quiet corner of this earth where we think it might be less, or spend all our energies fighting it, but to continue to evangelise, to preach the Word, live the Word, teach the Word, and not neglect the gifts that God has given us for his Kingdom work, so that souls might be saved.

It was a short lesson with significant reminders, but those are sometimes the best!

April Fools Day and the Christian

photo credit -cropped: creative commons

Today is known in some parts of the world as April Fools Day.

It is the day when it is culturally acceptable to play practical 'jokes' on people, to trick people and if they fall for the trick they are a fool, and we laugh at them, and everyone is supposed to take it in good fun.

But as the group of young men my husband mentors studies what it means to be a biblical christian rather than a 'cultural christian'  via reading the book "Man in the Mirror" by Patrick Morley together, and I read yesterday on Challies.com about worldliness, I am challenged about this 'cultural practice' of the West.

If we are going to be biblical rather than cultural, what does the bible say about what April Fools Day accepts as culturally ok?

Proverbs 26:17-18  says: 

Like a madman who throws flaming darts and deadly arrows, 

so is the man who deceives his neighbor and says, "I was only joking!" 

Proverbs 10:23  says: 

Doing wrong is like a joke to a fool, but wisdom is pleasure to a man of understanding.

or as the Holman Christian Standard translation puts it: 

As shameful conduct is pleasure for a fool, so wisdom is for a man of understanding. 

Scripture shows us that God has quite a different view on the matter.

God says in Proverbs 26 that 'I was only joking' is deception, or as the New Living Translation puts it, "Lies"!

Such 'joking' is not 'just a bit of fun' in God's eyes, it is cruel and brings death.  

Part of what it brings death to is trust in the relationship.  

It reminds me a bit of a childhood story of the 'boy who cried wolf'.  He did lots of 'I was only joking' after pretending that he was in danger of a wolf and called all the village to come and help him….and then when he really did have a real wolf and called people to help, no-one came, because they had got tired of running to him to be told 'I was only joking'. They thought he was just doing it again.  His word could not be trusted and in the end his foolishness was self-destructive.

This is a trust issue - maybe I'll write more about trust in another blog. But Christians should be people of their word.  Their words should be filled with truth, and their word should be trustworthy.  If the fruit of the Spirit includes faithfulness, when we are truly allowing the Spirit to fill our lives, we should be characterised more and more by faithfulness - in other words trustworthiness.

Often April Fools jokes are full of laughing at others and 'fun' at another's expense, in the process deliberately shaming and embarassing others by making ourselves look clever and others look stupid and gullible and thus foolish.

This should not be part of the character of the christian.  We instead should be known by those whose words and actions bless others and build others up, encourage others and bring growth to others.

God seems to tell us that rather than the ones who are tricked being the 'fools' who are shamed and embarrassed, that the one who does the tricking/joking is the fool and to be considered shameful.

There are plenty of ways to have fun without shaming others and playing with lies and deception, even if it is 'culturally' acceptable.

As Christians we are called to be counter-cultural when the culture of God's family is different.

Is Guilt the answer to Shame?...or is there something GREATER!

When I first read the last couple of chapters of Shame and Vulnerability Researcher Brene Brown's (PhD) book 'Daring Greatly' I was disappointed to read that she felt the answer to shame and its negative impact was to emphasise guilt more heavily.

She said on p 224  "...we need to separate our children from their behaviours.  As it turns out, there's a significant difference between you are bad and you did something bad.  And, no, its not just semantics.  Shame corrodes the part of us that believes we can do and be better.  When we shame and label our children, we take away their opportunity to grow and try on new behaviours.  If a child tells a lie, she can change that behaviour.  If she is a liar--where the potential for change in that?

Cultivating more guilt self-talk and less shame self-talk requires rethinking how we discipline and talk to our children."

She went on to use terms such as a child is 'good' but just makes bad choices.  Now, we know that from a Biblical perspective we are not inherently 'good' and just make bad choices.  We are sinfully bad and thus we make bad choices.  We lie not because we accidentally made a bad choice but because sin hates the truth.  We lie because at heart level we are liars.....so much so, that in saying we are 'good' is actually a lie in itself!

BUT separate of the false 'good' premise she promotes, she actually has a very good point that I failed to realise at the time of that first read.

She is right, guilt is imperative.  Or should I say an awareness of the reality of guilt and its place and function is imperative.  Without it, we have a lop-sided and detrimental perspective on our wrong-doing.

Living, as I do, in a culture that according to The Culture Test results has some of  the highest honour/shame emphasis levels in the world, I see more and more the problems of a lack of guilt emphasis.

You see, Brene Brown is right.  As she and so many others point out that shame is about who I am, and guilt is about what I do.  And if we leave off half the story we create a problem for ourselves.

But you see, I suggest Brene Brown is also wrong. God offers an answer to 'who I am' as well as 'what I do'.  If we only emphasise the 'what I do' we will miss out in offering people an answer for 'who I am'.  

Psychology has for years said that telling people about guilt is a bad thing,  Brene Brown is right in saying that perspective is destructive, because it has left us with only the 'shame' side of the picture.

We may not think so, but God blessed us with guilt in addition to shame.  It gives us balance.  It gives opportunity to hope and start again.  You see, we can see what we do more than who we are.

So when we see what we do, its easier to believe we 'are' something different. When we see what others do, its easier to believe they might be becoming something different.

This is where, if you are managing to follow me, her argument actually contradicts itself.

There is a reason that seeing what we do can give us hope that we 'are' becoming someone different.  And that is because what we do, does come from who we are.  If we are Christians, new creatures in Christ, the 'who we are' changes and thus the 'what we do' changes. ('by their fruit you shall know them' Matthew 7:20).  

What we do comes from who we are

But on the other hand, in our sinful nature, we lie because we are liars.  We sin because we are sinners.  Even our 'good works' outside of Christ are for our own honour and pleasure apart from God, and come from a heart that is self-focused. (Although it is true there is a vague marred image of God's character in our world and a knowledge of 'good' and 'evil' as well as the living example of Christians as salt and light that draws people to desire the benefits of 'good' and to avoid the realities of 'bad'.  And there are certain God ordained 'cause and effect' realities in our world of what happens when 'good' is done as opposed to 'evil' that the world enjoys as part of 'common grace'.)

The problem with her argument comes when a person for whatever reason does something 'bad' again.  At some point they will inevitably still feel that they are becoming 'bad' again.  So they will hide it because to 'become bad' is a  shame issue.

So Brene hopes that teaching kids to emphasise the guilt factor will help them focus on the 'bad thing' and not feel a 'bad person' and thus be more willing to even admit wrong in the first place and learn from it. She believes this will help to create 'shame resilience'.  But its an argument that is built on a false foundation that won't stand the tests she hopes it will.  Focusing on guilt may reduce the impact of shame, but it won't eliminate it.

Focusing on guilt may reduce the impact of shame, but it won't eliminate it.

Now, lets take a leap from this point, as I want to use what we have just talked about to talk further about the place and importance of guilt.  You see Brene Brown is on the right track, she just got a bit diverted by another aspect of psychology (that we are all inherently 'good') along the way.

When there is no or little emphasis on guilt, if a person does wrong, as we have said, there is no room for any interpretation except that the person is bad.  There is no distance between the act and the one committing the act.  There is no space or hope for change.  

But as we interact person to person, God has given a design that includes both guilt and shame.  When we focus on shame alone, and someone does something wrong, we have only two options.  1. ignore it.  2. have full on shame/rejection.  There is no middle ground.   Shame is a 'being' related function whereas guilt is a 'behaviour' related function.  

Shame severs relationship and if we only have 'shame' as a means for dealing with wrong, and emphasise the 'being' without the 'behaviour', we have no means for acknowledging the wrong but still offering relationship in which the person can bring new behaviour and rebuild the honour.  Forgiven guilt is the bridge one has to cross to properly move from shame to restored honour.  Without that bridge, the only answer to shame is a total separation of the relationship....or an ignoring of the behaviour so as to avoid the separation of the relationship.

Forgiven guilt is the bridge one has to cross to properly move from shame to restored honour. 

Aussies are seeing a form of this possibly playing out when the Speaker in Federal Parliament was 'found guilty' for claiming some transport allowance that when 'exposed' was beyond what the Australian public and other parlimentarians thought was acceptable even though it was within the 'rules'.  The Speaker explained it was not done as a deliberate breaking of any rule and she immediately offered to pay it back and did promptly pay it back with penalty.  She also made a significant statement of apology exhibiting remorse.  

Now I am not here to judge the sincerity or accusations surrounding this incident but....it reveals some interesting dynamics.

There were many (especially in the opposition) who demanded the Speaker step down and that she has totally lost their respect over the incident.  They say they cannot respect the position she holds in the Parliament while she fills it.  Interestingly a poll (31 July 2015) taken by THE AGE newspaper had about 2/3 agreeing she should step down because people have lost trust in her, and 1/3 who said she should stay otherwise the punishment would be greater than the crime.  

Here we have a situation that is like big flashing lights to me of a guilt-shame culture collision of a Western culture that is in tension, and dare I say transition, between a once guilt emphasis and a growing shame emphasis - although neither side would be aware of what is going on.

The Speaker (age 72) did all the 'right' things expected in a guilt emphasis culture - she confessed (didn't deny it), she gave an apology showing remorse, and she paid back the amount even with additional 25% penalty.  Not only that but she voluntarily asked the Finance committee to check all her other past expenses so if there is anything else that is felt she should pay back she will. I think she expected forgiveness and permission to 'start again' and show she would not do the same thing again.

Those accusing her, however have little room for forgiveness of guilt, it seems.  In their framework, she has broken the trust that they believed was necessary to hold the relationship of respect together.  So now the relationship is broken and the only way for the Parliament to move on is for her to be removed.  In their minds, the relationship has ended.  Behaviour is inseparable from the person, in their thinking, and opportunity for behaviour change is not permissible.  There is not the slightest hope for forgiveness and in fact the word hasn't even been mentioned in anything I've read. This is considered enough to ruin her reputation with no room for reparation.  From their perspective what she is guilty of, is that she lost their respect.

While details may differ, the elements of this scenario are so common in situations I've observed in the culture around me.  There is nothing positive about losing a right emphasis on guilt.  The West has been blessed for many years to benefit from a 'guilt factor' reality.  Brene Brown is right to be concerned about its fading from the scene and the need to make sure it comes back.

Lest I be thought to be simplistic in this, I am not saying an over-emphasis on guilt is the answer.  Part of the reason I was originally in disagreement with Brene Brown's statement was that if we just keep ignoring shame and emphasising guilt, it won't just go away.  Shame is not a human construct that we can eliminate.  Focusing on behaviour alone will not remove the reality of our 'being'.  We cannot detach 'what we do' from 'who we are'. 

Our world in its broken sinful state, and the West with its post-Judeo-Christian legacy, is grasping at ways to solve its problems.  It sees some blurred images of truth, that are fast fading in the Western world, but neither understands their source nor seeks the fullness of their truth.  Our world wants the blessings of godliness without God.

God has an answer for 'who we are

What our world fails to realise is that God has an answer for 'who we are'.  We do not have to declare ourselves 'good' in order to escape a knowledge 'we are bad'.  In fact when we do, we keep ourselves estranged from the very One who is good, and who wants to give us a new 'good' nature, in Himself.  

We can't rename a bad thing 'good' in the hope it will change.  But God doesn't just re-name us (although that's included since we go from sinner to saint!), but He remakes us and redeems us!  We get to change who we 'are'. 

We don't just have to learn shame resilience, but we receive shame replacement. We gain a new identity - one of honour instead of shame.  Not only are our sins forgiven, but the old 'me' goes and a new 'me' comes....a new 'me' is born!  

We can be born again when the One who cannot sin and does not sin is born into us and give us His new life!  Then since we behave from a base of who we are, our behaviour also begins to change.  

We won't be perfect in behaviour in this life as we battle the reality of this sinful world and our 'old' sinful nature in our flesh, but as we submit to Christ, we are being transformed from one degree of glory (honour) to another.

This is the good news of the gospel!

Trust in the midst of Mis-placed Honour and Shame

T r U S t

We are learning a lot about 'trust'.

And it has popped up in a very interesting context recently - both here in Botswana and in Australia..... in relation to elections.

In the lead up to the recent national elections here the ruling party (who were returned to power), had signs and banners saying they were the party people 'can trust'.

Then just recently an Australian news bulletin email (ABC 3-11-14) came our way saying:

 "Victorian Premier makes trust a central election issue -
The Victorian Premier has made an election pitch to voters calling on them to decide who they can trust to manage the state's finances.  .......Dr Napthine said the election was about three things: choice, trust and good decisions......."Over the next 24 days, Victorians will be left in no doubt, it is only the Coalition that they can trust to keep our finances in order, to have the money to pay for facilities and services that Victorians need and deserve. To deliver safer communities, to attract investment, to create jobs, and provide opportunities for Victorians to live satisfying and fulfilling lives," he said." (emphasis mine)

Now, maybe I was just unobservant in years past, but I don't recall an Australian election ever before making 'trust' a key election issue.

Not only is this an issue related to every human being, it is an issue of particular interest to us  in our research on honour and shame.

Trust is not a stand-alone commodity, it can only exist where there is something/someone to trust. It means 'to rely on' or 'to put faith in' or 'to believe in'.  

To expect people to have some level of degree of trust of each other requires other people to be trustworthy - faithful - reliable.  It is true that ultimately the only totally faithful and trustworthy One is God Himself, and Scripture tells us not to put our ultimate trust in man but in God. (Ps 118:8)  But God created us in His image, to function in this world according to His character and life within us, which though lost at the Fall, is to be evident in all Christians as we allow the Holy Spirit to produce His fruit in us....and part of that fruit is 'faithfulness' - ie trustworthiness.  It is also still the standard by which this world and relationships within it are designed to function. We of course should be people who can be trusted to keep our word, tell the truth, fulfill committments, love others etc.

However, when a culture (family, community, nation) is or becomes a culture with mis-placed honour and shame and people live for the approval of others rather than or above the approval of God, trust breaks down....well trust in the sense of honesty, anyhow.

When trust breaks down in a society  that once had it, it is no longer something that 'goes without saying'.  It is no longer something automatically assumed.  Honesty becomes some rare jewel as opposed to something good and widely enjoyed.

Our Western world has failed to realise how much its Christians have in the past provided 'salt in society' and how much the history of a Judeo-Christian ethic has formed a safe environment for what the Victorian Premier described as the desire to "live satisfying and fulfilling lives". It has failed to realise that true and full trust is built on honesty.  Honesty can't occur without truth.  In fact the concept of honesty presupposes the existence of truth.

However, the Western world has also failed to realise that they have built for themselves an inconsistency and thus an unreachable goal - that of consistent reliable honesty while denying the existence or need of consistent reliable (absolute) truth.  

The last couple of generations in the Western World have been living in a fools paradise, thinking they can have the benefits of honesty while denying absolute truth.  Society seemed to be able to work with both, whereas in reality it was simply a section of society that refused absolute truth while a large proportion of society was still living under the awareness of absolute truth.  This has slowly changed and now society is living with a large proportion refusing absolute truth and only a small proportion acknowledging absolute truth. The balance has shifted.  Honesty is becoming a rarer commodity because universal honesty according to an external standard is only possible when someone acknowledges an 'absolute truth' outside of themselves or their family or their society.

The west has played with fire and is now getting burnt.  It has said there is no absolute truth - that your 'truth' is as good as my 'truth' or someone else's 'truth'.  But you can't have three 'truths' or three hundred 'truths' that differ from each other and are inconsistent with each other and still have 'satisfying and fulfilling lives' in a community.  I can no longer 'trust' you to act according to a standard that will govern us both, if we don't both acknowledge the 'absolute truth' over both of us.  Everyone does what pleases themselves and is 'right' according to their 'own truth'.

The result: honesty is a rare commodity, trust breaks down and also becomes a rare commodity.   A society loses a sense of safety and community, and thus loses the joy of satisfying and fulfilling lives.

When people are more concerned for honour and are afraid of shame before people as their sole standard for living, and there is no sense of absolute truth and a God who sees and knows all, then people have no cause for concern for truth outside of themselves - they just do whatever suits their personal goals at the time.  But there is a cost, not least that trust breaks down - one's word is no longer consistent in all situations...and thus a sense of community breaks down, a sense of safety breaks down and satisfying and fulfilling lives seem less obtainable.

A slight variation on this is that when a person loses sight of God, instead of having the attitude of "It doesn't matter what other people think, I'll do what God thinks is right", that person doesn't just remove God from the picture, they replace that place of highest honour and authority in their lives with themselves.  So now they say "It doesn't matter what other people think, I'll do what I think is right".  When a person displaces God as absolute authority, they also displace him as absolute truth.  When a whole community of individuals do this, and such individuals become the majority in that community, then that community no longer has a 'community norm' that holds them together except that no-one knows how anyone else is going to act anymore.

The short definition of that is 'dis-trust'.

But deep down in each of us, we yearn for community. We were made for relationships.  But for relationships and a sense of belonging, and 'satisfying and fulfilling lives' we have to have trust.  Where it has become a rare commodity, it can now be held out as a rare jewel being offered, rather than the good that all (or almost all) once enjoyed.

Now of course, whether political party promises of trust are to 'be trusted' is another topic of discussion.  But the point is, that it is a topic to be used at all, is significant.  It infers that all around us are people and groups that cannot be trusted.  It infers that the 'norm' now is untrustworthiness.  It infers that the group offering trustworthiness, is different, better and will bring a return of the 'satisfying and fulfilling lives' we all wish for.

The truth is that 'trust' is a pre-requisite for 'satisfying and fulfilling lives', but only when that trust in placed first and foremost in the One who is totally trustworthy.  When the majority of members of a community are putting their trust in the One who is totally trustworthy, as their Absolute Truth and Authority - there will be an overall level of trust in the society.  Without it there will not.

As Christians it starts with US. Are we living in such a way as to allow the Fruit of the Holy Spirit to be evident? Are we trustworthy and faithful?  Are we known for keeping our word, fulfilling commitments, giving sacrificially, loving others, being diligently honest, upholders of truth, faithful at work, at home, at church? Are you the salt you need to be in the contexts God has placed you. Yes it starts with US.  It starts with ME.  It starts with YOU.

In a futre blog I would love to share with you some excerpts from a terrific book I have just finished reading all about 'trust' and the consequences of its presence or lack in a society and economy.  Meanwhile if you can source a copy for yourself, though not a Christian book, I would highly recommend it.  It is called "Trust: the social virtues and the creation of prosperity" by Francis Fukuyama.