Shame culture and the RPCNA

I recently read a great article about how Southern honor/shame culture has infiltrated Christianity. https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/where-does-the-south-end-and-christianity - titled "Where Does the South End and Christianity Begin? Understanding the role of shame/honor culture in the roots of Christian rage."

The point is that Christianity should be about guilt - a natural feeling that comes about by doing something wrong. Shame on the other hand, is about being something wrong. I have said in the past that the RPCNA twists the doctrine of Total Depravity to trap members into participating in shame culture.

The article has a poignant quote:

In a guilt culture you know you are good or bad by what your conscience feels. In a shame culture you know you are good or bad by what your community says about you, by whether it honors or excludes you. In a guilt culture people sometimes feel they do bad things; in a shame culture social exclusion makes people feel they are bad. 

This is very applicable to the RP church because shame/honor is used as a rod to drive expected behaviors. I want to point out how some comments made on my blog demonstrate how shame culture is used to make in/out black/white divisions. If you're interested in digging deeper, I also want to point out the my regular commenter Chris specifically does NOT engage in the shame behavior, which is, I believe, why we are able to have collegial conversations.

Comment #1:

You sound like a bitter woman, Kathy.

Note that this is loaded with shame. The author, almost certainly a man, is flat out trying to discredit anything I say. First of all, the word bitter has been defined in Evangelicalism as a point of no return. That is, there is no need to treat me as a human because I'm beyond redemption. Secondly, why does the commenter want to point out that I'm a woman? I suspect that this person is steeped in patriarchy, such that woman itself is intended to put me in a lesser category (note to RP women...). Third, calling me Kathy (i.e. Kathy Stegall) is intended to put me in a category of people who have been marginalized and shamed in the RP church. Kathy was, at this point, still a member in good standing in the RP church, so this person is essentially calling me (assuming me to be Kathy) an unrepentant sinner. This person is insubordinate to the RP church.

The other thing of concern... in shame culture, there is typically an IN group - they determine what the community says. In the RP church, that group is typically elders and pastors. So, it's likely, being that this person feels comfortable shaming others on their own authority, that this person is a pastor or elder. This may be another reason why Chris does not choose to shame, or it may play some small part, because Chris is, in my opinion, one of those genuinely kind RP's.

Comment #2:

You rant and condemn the RP, but are not willing to identify yourself. You hide behind the cloak of just1sojourner.

Did I mention that these comments are all uninformed pot shots? Beyond a cursory glance at the site, it should be abundantly clear that I'm not Kathy and I'm not just1sojourner

Again, there's about 1% substance - yes, I choose to be anonymous - and about 99% turn anonymity into some sort of character reference. Keep in mind that we sometimes honor anonymity, for example Silence Dogood and Publius were names used in Colonial times. So, condemning someone for anonymity is an argumentative fallacy, by which they can ignore the substance of the argument by challenging something external to the argument.

Keep in mind that in a shame culture... in and out is determined by the community, so let's say I have friends and/or relatives still in the RP church. Guilt culture would recognize, despite disagreement with me, that my guilt does not fall on my RP connections, but shame culture would use shame to pressure those connections for maintaining their connection to me - someone out of the group. Remember that Jesus was shamed for being "a friend of sinners". That is not guilt culture, but shame culture.

Comment #3:

Kathryn Stegall, the EPC would be a good fit for you. I am sure Mr. Hemphill will put in a good word for you.

Again, this is a subtle shaming. Mr. Hemphill, Kathryn Stegall, and the EPC have apparently been determined to be "out" of the RP circle of true believers, therefore, my being or being associated here is a point of shame.

This brings up an interesting point for you remaining RPs. What does the RPCNA teach about churches that are "in" and "out"? It's really unclear. The NAPARC churches appear to be "in" because there are fraternal relations, but on the other hand, they are "out" because they don't hold to the RP doctrine of exclusive psalmody. At best, they are Christians with an asterisk(*).

There is no reason to actually take time to consider. Here's an example. I've called out specific errors in the Westminster Confession of Faith - primarily that it ignores domineering and abuse by "superiors" - which enables the authoritarian culture we see in WCF churches. The EPC holds to the WCF, which is a significant reason why I would not be interested in the EPC.

The RP church is steeped in shame culture. Your position in the church is based on the community opinion, which is, effectively, the opinion of pastors and elders. In my case, I held a position (women deacons) which was church doctrine, yet my pastor and elders opposed women deacons and used public shaming of me to, I suppose, prevent me from influencing those around me.

Christians should refuse to participate in shame culture. Another good quote in the article about shame culture:

Ancient (and modern) Middle Eastern culture that is the Biblical context, is thoroughly shame-based. But traditional Western (as in European) readings of Scripture are more guilt-based, and have tended to … impose their guilt-based worldview on Scripture. This is why the penal substitution metaphor for the Cross (we’re guilty and deserving of punishment, Jesus takes on our guilt) has so dominated Western theology. Much of the movement of theologians of color, especially from Asian-Americans, has been to recover that original shame-based context and message. So, the Gospel is not just “We’re guilty; Jesus removes our guilt” but “We feel shame—and we have no way to deal with it effectively—but Jesus absorbs our shame.”

If Jesus absorbs our shame, then there is no place for shaming of Christians in the church. We accept each other, as Paul did, as brothers and sisters. We're all "in", unless we act in ways that lead those around us to believe that we are "out", which becomes a matter of church discipline.