Page 32 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 18

is, the sen�ment, “Anything else, only not cause it harms the rela�onships that cons�tute
that!”, is tantamount to worship; it is posturing
toward social respect as the idol that must be
sa�sfied; without it, life is unendurable. It is my
treasure, my fulfillment.
Instead, in invi�ng Jesus into the feelings of
shame, we recognize how close he is to our
suffering (he is here, with me in my suffering)
and we place our contentment in his hands. We
no longer need to put on a fine façade for fear
public exposure, nor do we need to lose oursel-
ves in avoidant or rebellious self-indulgence.
Rather, we experience a sense of God’s forgive-
ness, acceptance, and closeness. In fellowship
with God and other people, I am free.
Alsdorf then presents a medita�ve poem that
expresses a lovely image of laying the broken
fragments of our life in God’s hands. His appen-
dix then helpfully offers a contempla�ve prayer
that requests forgiveness for rebellion and for
façade-making, expresses sorrow for shaming
others, asks Jesus to meet us anew in our sha-
me-fear prison, and asks the Spirit fill every
part of his Temple (our body).
It is evident that the understanding of shame-
fear cycle, ineffec�ve responses, and resolu�on
in Jesus, are all rooted in an understanding of
humans as essen�ally rela�onal. This rela�onal
essence is part of the imago Dei. “Boundaries”
is a term that is �ed to thinking of ourselves as
essen�ally separate selves (e.g., “a person
should not let others violate their personal
rights, space, or dignity”), but I think that Als-
dorf uses the word in a way that reflects a hu-
man rela�onal essence. The examples he provi-
des show that shame arises when we—indivi-
dually or collec�vely—fail to act in virtuous
loving rela�onship with God, our selves, others,
or community. It is indeed a “social death” be-
32
our life.
Shame is therefore �ed to rela�onal harm. This
helps us see why the responses of the self-righ-
teous false façade and self-pitying self-indul-
gence are ineffectual and harmful. These re-
sponses do not address the rela�onal ruptures,
in fact, they compound them. Real rela�onship
cannot happen with a false façade, and so a he-
aling rela�onship cannot ensue. Real rela�ons-
hip cannot happen when we focus inward—
through self-indulgence, or cast off community
altogether—through rebellion.
In contrast, the response of invi�ng Jesus into
the feelings of shame is profoundly rela�onal.
It severs a rela�onship with the idol—the all-
consuming desire for respect, and replaces it
with rela�onship with Jesus—who joins us in
our suffering and sa�sfies our central longings.
Jesus’ yoke is much easier than the burdenso-
me desire for respect from others.
Similarly, I think Alsdorf’s third response—invi-
�ng Jesus—is a sort of mental pivot strategy
that is characteris�c of contempla�ve prayer.
Indeed, Alsdorf offers a contempla�ve poem
and medita�ve prayer. Rather than figh�ng
shame-fear directly (e.g., “It is not ra�onal to
feel shame”), the approach is indirect. That is,
the approach redirects our sustained a�en�on
toward Jesus and away from the idol. Invi�ng
Jesus into our feelings of shame is intended as
a spiritual discipline, a prac�ce of the heart that
we express throughout the day. In this way, Als-
dorf’s third way is akin to the ancient medita�-
ve prayer, “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have
mercy on me”, because it reflects a realis�c un-
derstand of oneself and places us in a properly-
oriented rela�onal posture of a�en�on and
worship.