Skip to main content

Inner Reality and Outward Mask

In one of his letters to Indira Gandhi, Nehru distinguished between privacy and secrecy. The terms should not be confused. Much of privacy is regulated by cultural demarcations. Privacy relates to modesty and decency. Secrecy relates to discretion. Privacy is ruled by external culture, secrecy is governed by inner understanding. Shame is opposed to modesty and occurs when privacy is violated. Fear or anxiety often accompanies exposure of secrecy. There is a healthy aspect of both privacy and secrecy. Privacy of our dressing room and secrecy of military strategy, for instance. However, when secrecy tries to cover inner foulness by means of a false masquerade, then the secrecy and privacy are means that are abused. The affront of dignity that conceals inner immodesty is hypocrisy. When the internal fails to accord with the external, inner confusion, delusion, or overt rebellion is bound to occur. Fear conceals inner reality and brandishes a fake glowing face as long as social ties seem necessary. Anonymity breeds evil by deindividualization and dehumanization (see Zimbardo). Shame and fear are thus related. The only thing that can bring accord between the internal and the external is confession. The confession of mouth and an inner brokenness...faith is heart brings healing. Hypocritical Christianity exists because culture exists, because society exists, but more because a sense of the need for acceptance exists. The fear of rejection compels secrecy to guard inner vileness. Privacy can only guard modesty. Where modesty is destroyed secrecy steps in to cover immodesty. Unless the sinner throws away his false coverings, God can neither wash nor clothe him. But the will is imperfect so repentance is a vague point. Repentance needs strengthening. It can only be strengthened by confession. One should stop covering up by means of arguments. One must submit in obedience. Lord have mercy on me the chiefest of sinners! May sin be abominable in my eyes, may your love be supreme, for love is purity and holiness. Forgive me Lord and cover me! If the outward mask is broken, the inner vileness will be revealed. But let it be so for your cleansing waters of grace and mercy to flow in irresistibly and wash my sins away. One can't wear the robe of righteousness over a body of sin. It is only a body redeemed and sanctified by His blood that can don the fair garment. May JESUS reign!

Domenic Marbaniang, 03 June, 2008

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is Water Baptism Necessary Before Partaking in Lord's Supper

"Last Supper" by Giovanni Domenico Tiepolo (1750) Yes, it is. Water baptism identifies one with the redemption work of Jesus Christ, with His death, burial, and resurrection. It is anticipated of visible identification with Christ and His Church. Every person has the personal responsibility to examine him/herself before deciding to partake in the Lord's Table. The Bible makes it clear that those who chose not to be baptized were rejecting the counsel of God (Lk.7:30). In a mixed congregation, it is not possible to always know who is worthy to partake of the Table; however, the minister must encourage only those who have been baptized for remission of sins (not just as a ritual but by faith in Jesus Christ) to partake of the Table. Before Jesus sat down to dip bread in the cup, He washed His disciples' feet. He makes the statement that they are already "washed" and only need feet to be washed. Of course, this may not explicitly/only refer to their baptism, fo

Matthew 6:31-33

"Therefore do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you." (Mat 6:31-33) The original sense of nakedness was from that deep insecurity of autonomy that sprung from man's first alienation from God due to sin-- spiritual death. Seeking God marks man's refusal to stay alienated by turning towards His Maker in whom alone is Covering and true Security and no reason to be ashamed anymore.

Is it not cruel for God to kill His Son in place of us?

The doctrine of atonement is a stumbling block for some who feel that it not only exemplifies cruelty but also does away with human responsibility. The issue abounds with various questions and attempts to solution. Questions: 1. If God knew that man would sin and fall, why did He create man? 2. Why doesn't God, if He exists, intervene and stop evil; why just be Judge but not be Governor with proper police security system that minimises the possibility of transgression? 3. How can the death of one particular man atone for the sins of many particular men? 4. Isn't it not cruel to punish an innocent man for the sins of others so that they go free? Answers that challenge the Christian doctrine: 1. God does not require sacrifice in order to forgive, He can forgive by sovereign authority. 2. Every man must bear his own guilt so that he has a sense of responsibility and possess a genuine reason to pursue good and turn from evil. Biblical Responses: 1. God's knowledge of human Fall