How Can the Shameful be Unashamed?

6 · States the sermon's thesis: Christianity uniquely transforms the shameful into the entrance to salvation through the proclamation of God's righteousness

Christianity is the only religion, the only philosophy, the only way of life that takes the areas of life that you would want to hide, the areas that you should be utterly ashamed of, and focuses on them and says that in fact, they are the very entrance into power and salvation. And so today we're going to see the gospel message turns shame into power and glory. And it does it in a particular proclamation of the righteousness of God, which we will get into. And this is the argument, this argument about the The gospel and its effect is the argument Paul's gonna make for chapter after chapter after chapter. It's the thesis of the whole letter. And he's gonna set it out here defiantly, defiantly in Rome's day and in ours.

7 · Defines 'gospel' as a proclamation of victory, not generic good news, and summarizes its content as the Christ event—incarnation, death, and resurrection

Now, point number 1 then, the power that is shame but glory. Look at verse 16. He says, for I am not ashamed, for it is the power of God for salvation. Now, Paul is going to begin speaking about the gospel here, so it's important we understand what that word means. The word gospel literally means good news, but it doesn't just mean like good news, I saw a dog today, or good news, it's sunny outside. It is a— it's a particular word, a unique word that means a proclamation of victory. It's V-E day. Right? It's Victory in the Pacific Day. It is front-page news. This is the gospel that Paul is proclaiming, and it is the good news, as we've already seen in chapter 1, that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has entered human history, and He has lived, and He has died, and He has risen again.

8 · Reconstructs the Roman perspective on Christianity—a religion centered on a humiliated crucified King and preached by a wandering, beaten messenger

And Paul says, this is the big front-page news of the world, but the Romans would not see it this way. In fact, the Romans would see the gospel as limp and powerless. Now, why? Well, the King the Christians followed was a humiliated King. He was a crucified King. He was naked and ashamed and bleeding in front of the whole world. He was unsightly. He was shamefully humiliated in view of all. And further, the messenger, Paul the Apostle, well, he once was a well-to-do religious leader. He once was a noble one. He is a Roman citizen after all. But now, far from being a noble thought leader, scholar in Jerusalem, he is just a beat-up homeless man wandering from town to town, proclaiming a humiliated and crucified King. Now, the Romans, they would laugh at this. They would point to their powerful, mighty temples, their giant economic powers, their markets, their armies, their Circus Maximus, and they would see Paul and see his message and they would laugh at him.

9 · Argues Paul's counter-claim: the gospel is divine power—categorically superior to Rome's earthly power—and saving power in the eschatological sense of cosmic remaking, not mere political protection

But Paul says they've got it wrong. They've got it wrong. For the announcement of the gospel of Jesus, Paul says, is power. Power, in fact, greater than any power in Rome or in the world. It is qualified in 2 ways. It is divine power and it is saving power. It is divine power, which puts it in an utterly different category of power. Look, you can have Caesar power, you can have army power, you can have naval power, You can have economic power, but listen, all of those are in a different and lower category than a divine power. That's what Paul's after. And not only is it divine, it is a saving power. Now, in this day, everyone looked to Rome to save them, to be their savior. Rome prospered you. Rome defended you. Rome entertained you. Rome kept you safe. But this power, this word salvation, has more behind it than simply defending you from a wandering tribe in Gaul. This is salvation power that is world and humanity at stake saving power. This is a big epic word that refers to an end-of-days power, a saving power not to keep a village safe from a wandering army, but an end of days unmaking and remaking the world kind of saving power. That's what's in view here.

10 · Applies the divine power vs

So Paul says, this is why he's defiant. He says, listen, you can keep your Roman power. You can keep your Caesar power. I am proclaiming a different power. I am proclaiming a God power that is the unmaking and remaking of the world kind of power. Now, why does this matter for us today? Well, because when it comes to dealing with our shame, our areas of life we want to hide, one of our impulses is to grab power to cover our shame, to grab power and cover the parts of ourselves that we don't want others to see. A number of years ago, I was talking to a man who who was very successful, very— had become very wealthy, had a number of degrees, had a number of accolades from the community, but he shared that he grew up poor. And he shared that he grew up ashamed, ashamed of his parents and ashamed of their poverty. And so he determined from a young age that he would get degrees, he would get important jobs, he would be powerful, and then he would not be ashamed.

11 · Draws the applicatory conclusion of the first point: receiving the gospel requires acknowledging that we are 'failures at achievement' and that no earthly power can cover our shame

But Paul, Paul comes and says to us that we can only accept the gospel if we acknowledge something, if we acknowledge that we are failures at achievement. It is only when we get to the point when we acknowledge that our power, our degrees, our position, our success, our whatever it is, our sports accolades, all of that, it's only when we get to that point where we say it's not enough that you can accept and receive the gospel. Because he's saying this is a power not like the rest of the world, but an utterly different power. And so the question today is this: are you willing to accept the gospel at the cost of giving up all of your earthly power and stop trying to cover your shame with it? That's this first point.

12 · Opens the second major section by asking 'who's on the inside?' and unpacks Paul's 'to the Jew first and also to the Greek' as the gospel's movement from Israel to the Greek-speaking world

Second point then, the reach that is shame but glory. Now notice this, it says, for it is the power of God for salvation to— to who? To who? Who's on the inside of this power? To everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. Now, when he refers to the Greeks and to the Jew first and also to the Greek, he basically means that this power has been proclaimed first among the Jewish people and now in the Greek-speaking world, meaning Rome and all of its empires. And Paul is speaking to this. It's going to be a big theme of the letter because there's this tension in the church and in Rome between the Greek, the Roman, and the Jewish.

13 · Details the mutual contempt and insider/outsider claims between Jews and Greeks/Romans

And Paul immediately sets the stage for this longer conversation by pointing out, as he will later, that the Jews and the Greeks were entirely separate in ethnicity and culture and background, in desire, in facial features, in dress, all of those things. And they each considered— this is important— they each considered their group the superior one. Over and against the other, right? So, you'd have the Jews saying, oh, we're the best. We're the insiders because you Greek speakers, you Romans, you don't have the identity of one of God's legacy people. Your people didn't receive the 10 Commandments. Your people don't have the Old Testament scriptures. You're on the outside. We're on the inside. And the Greeks and Romans would have said, well, you Jews, you're a backwater people. You're a conquered people. You don't have the idea and legacy of Rome behind you. This, these centuries of victors and conquerors. You're not in. You're out. And we're in. We're the Romans.

14 · States Paul's radical counter-claim: the gospel demolishes all identity-based claims to insider status—ethnic, cultural, political

But Paul says something that undercuts Both of them from the very beginning. He says the gospel news, this power for salvation, is for everyone who believes regardless of their ethnicity, their citizenship, and their privilege. He is immediately from the very beginning undercutting the idea that you can be saved through ethnic markers or cultural markers or political allegiances or personal identities, anything that you would grab and say in your identity, this is why I'm an insider. He says, no, that's not how you get in at all. The reach of the gospel is across every single dividing line of identity in the human race, save one, those who believe. Actually has nothing to do with your identity at all.

15 · Offers a contemporary sociological illustration of identity-as-shame-covering through Gen Z girls' disproportionate LGBTQ+ identification

Now, why does this matter today? Okay, one of the main ways we deal with our shame today is one, we try to grab power and cover our shame, but the other one is that we grab an identity that we think, if I have this identity, if I hold this identity, it will mean I am on the inside and not on the outside, and therefore I'm okay, therefore I'm safe, therefore I'm secure, therefore I'm fulfilled, therefore I'm I have life. Now, I'm going to use an illustration that you got to stick with me here, but I think can be helpful. There's some recent data that I was looking at over the last few years that there's been a particular spike in identification of people as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. Where historically it was a very small group of people and it occurred mostly among young men in adolescence. But it has swung sharply in the direction in the last few years of Gen Z girls in particular. Across all groups, across all sort of data, this one group is struggling with their identity. And it is double the boys of their age, and it is more than any other generation or group, specifically— listen to this— specifically clustered at girls aged 12 to 17. And sociologists have puzzled over this. Why wouldn't this thing affect— this struggle with personal or sexual identity, why wouldn't it affect everyone equally? If it's an innate thing? Well, one reporter argues something that I think is very insightful. She argues, a female reporter, that the reason we're seeing this is that young girls in this age, 12 to 17, are those most affected by the tough identity transition from girl to woman and often feel they do not fit with their body. They do not fit with their friends. They do not fit with their emotions. They do not fit with their desires. And they live in a social media world in which the females of their age online are 10x more attractive, perfect, successful, beautiful, glamorous, athletic, you know, all of these things, and then they look at themselves in the mirror, and here's what happens. They feel intensely that they're not in, but they're on the outside. And so they're searching for where's an identity that I can grab, that I can feel on the inside, that I can feel safe and secure and full

16 · Applies the Gen Z illustration broadly to all identity-grasping ('I'm smart, I'm fit, I'm a real American') and repeats the shame-covering pattern from point one: the gospel requires admitting we are 'failures at identity' before it offers a new identity in Christ

Now that may be more of a different illustration than perhaps where you are. Some of you may be there right now actually, but others of you say, well, I can't relate to that. Friends, the point still stands that when we find ourselves at a place where we go, I don't know who I am, I don't know where I fit, I'm on the outside, I'm not inside, we grab for an identity that will help us feel secure. Secure and safe and cover our shame. We long for the ability to say in the place of our shame, I'm smart. I'm fit. I'm hot. I'm successful. I'm a real American. I'm part of this group. I'm part of that group. And here's the thing. Just as in the first century, we are still grasping for an identity where we will be able to say, now I'm okay. This will save me. And yet the Gospel comes to us and says we can only accept it if we are willing to acknowledge we are failures at identity. That we have not with our conceptions or discoveries or constructions of identity found something that will save us, and we have been trying since the beginning of human history. And so the gospel comes with good news though. The gospel says There is good news for failures of identity in the gospel of Jesus Christ. That if you will lay down your identity as the thing that covers your shame, as the thing that you hope will save you, there is good news for you. That there is a new identity available to you, to all, to any who believe.

17 · Opens the third major section by walking through Paul's chain of 'because' statements leading to the climactic claim: the righteousness of God is revealed

Third point. The righteousness that is shame but glory. Verse 17, for in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, or some translations would say by faith from first to last, as it is written, the righteous shall live by faith. Now, stay with the argument here, okay? We're gonna have to get used to Paul. Paul is— look, he's a lawyer, okay? We have some lawyers in our congregation. We love you. We're for you. But you never get to the point quickly, especially when you're getting paid by the hour. I mean, I understand, but— I'm just kidding. We love you guys. But Paul's logic as a lawyer is intricate. It is Layered, and notice the way he ties these things together. He says the— this word for is actually very important. Highlight that actually as you go through Romans in your Bible, the word for. It often can be translated because, right? He says, I'm eager to preach the gospel because I'm not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for salvation, because— and you're like, okay, here's the crescendo. Because in it the righteousness of God is revealed. And we go, what? That's the, that's the big climax? That's the big crescendo? Because in it the righteousness of God is revealed. And you go, I'm not, I'm not following here. Well, we best follow because this is the main assertion of Paul's argument here and in the entire book of Romans.

18 · Defines righteousness as 'right standing' and uses C

Right? He is saying we should boldly and unashamedly hold on to the gospel as God's power to save because it reveals something. It unveils something. Something big, something powerful, something unique, something world-changing, and that something is the righteousness of God. Now, righteousness though, the reason this doesn't land on us and make us go, oh wow, is that righteousness is not a category we're used to hearing about or seeing, is it? I wouldn't say most Americans in the 21st century are deeply concerned about their righteousness, right? But everyone deep down actually does care about righteousness because what that word means is unfamiliar to us, but it really just means right standing. Our justness, our morality. And C.S. Lewis in his classic apologetics work points out that human beings are funny creatures because they say 2 things that are contradictory. Number one, they say everyone can be free to live their lives however they wanna live their lives, but then they constantly appeal to a high morality. Moral standard above them as if everyone acknowledges it. So we'll say things like this, that's not fair. I mean, you're like, well, if everyone's just free to live their life however they wanna live, shouldn't they get to, you know? But what happens with us when somebody does something unfair? What rises up in our hearts? That's not fair, right? Or, hey, I helped you on that project, Now I need you to help me. Says who? Right? But we appeal to it like, well, you should because you should. Right? Lewis is pointing out there, we're pointing up and saying, well, this thing says you should. Or, but you promised. Like, well, it's a free country. I don't have to keep my promise. But you should. Right? We're constantly pointing above ourselves and saying, But this says that you should. So are we free or is there some higher standard above us? All of us end up appealing to some standard above us. Even like, this is one of my favorite things, is that even people who say that we should accept all beliefs and that no one's belief is any more important than anyone else's belief, they believe that that belief is more important and right than anyone else's belief. Right? And so you're like, but wait, I'm sorry, what is that? You know, you're going, we're doing these mental gymnastics. We cannot escape the idea, the belief, the deeply held understanding that there is actually a moral law above us that we all are pointing to. And Lewis points out that if there is a moral law, there must be a moral lawgiver. Otherwise, where did we get it? There is— we understand, even if we try to suppress it, as we'll see later, there is a standard of rightness above us, a standard of good and bad above us, and that standard comes from God. That's what Lewis argues and what we believe.

19 · Narrates Martin Luther's discovery of the gospel in Romans 1:17—the shift from terror at God's righteousness as a standard to be met, to joy at God's righteousness as a gift given through Christ's substitution

Now, this righteous standard though, Paul, remember, says is good news. But, but think about that for a moment. If there actually is a righteous standard above us that we all must adhere to, why would that be good news? Because in actuality, if we understood that, it would terrify us. Take, for example, the case of the German monk in the 1500s. This particular monk became a monk after a near-death experience and in a moment of panic declared that he would give his life in service to God if he didn't die. And so, he dedicated himself then to the task of being a monk. He wanted to be the best monk. He strove with all of his might to be good. After not being good. Now he would be good. Yet he found something strange at work. The more he stared at God, the more he beheld the true standard of justice above him, the standard of rightness above him, the more he stared at it, the more imperfection and flaws and failures he found in himself. He wore out the others at the monastery with his constant in unceasing confessions. People ran when they saw him coming thinking, oh boy, here we go again. And when asked if he loved God, he said he would have responded, sometimes I hate him. And yet this monk found himself reading Romans 1. And at first, this phrase, the righteousness of God, he described like an anvil being ready to be dropped on him from heaven until, until he realized he had misunderstood the verse. Because this verse, when it's saying the righteousness of God has been revealed, he understood in studying this in its original language that this righteousness of God, this righteous standard of God, this righteous standard— the gospel proclamation was that this righteous standard was not just of God, it was from God. This righteousness, this standing was revealed as a gift for the unrighteous. That's the whole point of the letter to the Romans. This righteousness, this standard of God was then given by God to the unrighteous. When Christ on the cross offered himself as the only righteous, he offered himself for the unrighteous sinner that the unrighteous sinner might become righteous. Righteous. And this monk named Martin Luther said, here I felt that I was altogether born again, and the very gates of paradise opened up before me.

20 · Brings the Luther illustration to doctrinal precision through John Stott's compressed definition: God's righteous justification of the unjust, in which He both demonstrates and gives righteousness

Now you see why this is power. Now you see why this is the whole theme of the letter to the Romans. John Stott, a scholar on this text, says this: the righteousness of God is God's— just, I mean, just let this land on you— God's just justification, or making justness, God's just justification of the unjust, his righteous way of pronouncing the unrighteous righteous, in which he both demonstrates his righteousness and gives righteousness to us. I mean, it's extraordinary. It's extraordinary. That, friends, is a world-changing proclamation. That is the reason we're not ashamed. That is power. And that is for all.

21 · Diagnoses the pattern of moral self-justification in contemporary culture: first denial, then comparative righteousness ('at least I'm not Hitler'), then therapeutic reframing ('it's not sin, it's trauma/illness/brain chemistry')

And let me ask this, why does this matter so much? Because despite our words, despite our posts, despite what we would tell others, we all in 21st century America live deathly in fear of being discovered as what we really are, which is a moral failure. All of us feel it. All of us feel it. Look, what happens every time a celebrity or a CEO or a politician is caught doing something that they shouldn't? Caught at a concert with somebody not their spouse, stealing funds over years, exploiting others, lying, cheating. What happens? Well, First of all, they always say, no, no, no, I didn't, I didn't, I didn't, I didn't. And then we present the evidence and they go, well, okay, maybe. Right, so first we fight it, first we fight it. And then what's the second thing we do? We go, well, well, well, but they, but they, but he, but they, but it, but that. Basically what we're saying is, I may not be sort of objectively righteous, but I'm definitely more righteous than that guy. Right, Hitler is very useful in those moments. Listen, I'm not Hitler here. You're like, wow, that's a— that is a bar you have cleared in some ways. I don't know if that's something to be proud of, but— right, that's what we do though. What happens in marriage? We're confronted. We have failed in our marriage and we go, but they, but she, but he. And then when we realize, okay, well, we can't really say that, then what do we do? We then— well, here's what we've gotten good at in 21st century America. We reframe our deeds not as sin, not as unrighteousness, but as something else. We say, well, it, it, it's not really a sin so much as it is an unfortunate product of my upbringing. Or we reset it into amoral therapeutic or psychopop categories. It's because of my illness, because of this, because of that. That's why I did it. It's not really a sin. It's just— well, it's a— it's just my chemical brain misfiring. It's the inevitable product of the family I grew up in. I could do nothing else.

22 · Answers the 'why?' of our self-justification—fear of exposure as moral failures—and pivots to the good news: the gospel is precisely for moral failures

Why? As Shakespeare would say, methinks we do protest too much. Because deep down, what do we fear? We fear being exposed as a moral failure. Failure before the right standing, the righteousness that we know sits just above us. And the gospel comes to us and says we will only receive it if we admit we are moral failures, if we will admit that we are not on the side of the just but the unjust. But friends, here is the unbelievably good news of the letter to the Romans. The gospel has come precisely for moral failures, and that's the good news. Look, the gospel has not come for righteous-ish people. The gospel has come for the unrighteous. And the gates then are thrown open wide for anyone who will admit the truth they fear to speak aloud, which is that I am a moral failure and I need help. That's the entrance into the Gospel.

23 · Expounds the final phrase of Romans 1:17—'from faith for faith'—as faith from beginning to end, and connects this to Habakkuk 2:4 to show justification by faith is not a New Testament innovation but the consistent Old Testament pattern (Abraham, David, Habakkuk)

So then, this entrance into the Gospel, this entrance, your entrance, is that is not shame but glory. How then do we get in on this? Okay, how then do we become the unrighteous made righteous by the gospel? Well, the way we get it is not the way we would expect, because what we would expect is for such a great gift we must offer something in return. We must prove ourselves worthy. We, we must trade money or enough spiritual power or enough of a good life or a renewed commitment to do better to receive that gift. What does it say? For the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, the righteous shall live by faith. Look, that phrase, from faith for faith, is probably best translated— it's kind of a play on words— it's probably best translated as from faith, or faith from first to last, or faith from beginning to end. What it means is that God's gift of righteousness is revealed and offered to us, and the way that we receive it is by faith from the beginning to the end. In fact, this quotation from Habakkuk 2 reinforces that this is not a new thing. Sometimes Christians get the idea that, okay, in the New Testament we come to God by faith, but in the Old Testament they came to God by the law. No, Habakkuk 2 shows us that it actually was always the path. The path of Abraham, the path of David, the path of Habakkuk was this. The righteous shall live by faith, by belief, by open empty hands grasping on to what they could not earn and do not deserve. That, friends, is how you enter the world of the Gospel. But few do.

24 · Introduces Wilt Chamberlain's granny shot—an objectively superior technique he abandoned because it felt undignified

Why do so few do? Well, there is a technique I want to tell you about in basketball. That is assuredly one of the most effective techniques in sports that nobody uses. In the 1960s, Wilt Chamberlain was a dominant basketball player. Wilt the Stilt Chamberlain, with one glaring weakness, as so many big men in the NBA, his free throws. Abysmal. Absolutely abysmal. Worse than Shaq, in fact. If anybody remembers that. So somebody convinced him in the middle of the season to try a new technique, to throw the ball underhanded up at the bat. Now, what do we call that? Granny style. Not the most flattering of terms. But Wilt the Stilt Chamberlain, master of all the game except for for free throws, tried it. He threw underhanded and his free throw percentage improved dramatically, somewhere in the range of 20 to 30% at minimum. But at the end of the season, Wilt Chamberlain abandoned it and did not use it again, saying that it felt silly. And that he felt like a sissy doing it. Now, look, physicists can give objective data for why the underhanded free throw, lovingly known as the granny shot, is objectively better than shooting overhand. Objectively. Softer angles, more forgiving, higher percentage of conversion, yet no one does it. No one.

25 · Applies the granny shot illustration to the gospel: people reject it not because it doesn't work, but because it requires surrendering dignity

And that, friends, is often why so few come to Christ. Because to come to Christ means to say, I am an achievement failure. I am an identity failure. I am a moral failure. And almost as if to add insult to injury to our pride, the way that we receive this gift of righteousness is with the empty hands of faith. And like so many of us, we say, well, that feels silly. I can't keep— look, here's the reality. You cannot come to Christ and keep your human prideful dignity, quote unquote, intact. You cannot hold on to Christ and hold on to your pride. You just can't. That's the reality. And Paul is going to lay out for the next many chapters, the righteous shall live by faith. Period. That's it. There is no other way to Christ, right? It requires us to lay down our dignity, our power, our self-importance, and simply humble ourselves and ask and open our hands, right? That, that means that you're not trading something for it. You're not offering something in return. You're not going, well, you might give me this, but I can offer— no, it's faith, and that's it.

26 · Begins the closing invitation by tying back to Paul's defensive opening and urging those outside Christ to lay down power, identity, and comparative moral superiority

So friends, as we close, I want to point out 4 things we must lay down. And this is— now do you see why Paul is defensive from the beginning? He's like, I'm coming to preach the gospel, but I'm not ashamed, he says from the beginning. And the whole rest of Romans is his argument for why this thing that the rest of the Roman world says is a shame and a humiliation is in fact the glory and power of salvation for all who believe. Right? He is absolutely— he is going to tear into theological kind of explosion after explosion after explosion to lay out for this Roman church and friends, for us in 21st century America, why we should cling to the gospel that looks like a granny shot to the rest of the world. Because we believe that in it is power for salvation to all who believe. So friend, today here is the invitation. If you are not in Christ, will you come to him today? Maybe this is the day, friend, that you finally will stop trying to use your power and to cover your shame, your identity to cover your shame, your moral superiority— at least I'm better than my sister— to cover your shame. And instead, admit the truth about yourself and come to Him.

27 · Addresses believers with the pastoral reality that the Christian life is lived the way it began—by faith alone—and the temptation to reclaim a little pride or achievement

And friends, for those of us who are in Christ, here is the difficulty. In the Christian life, we continue as we began. For faith, from faith, by faith. We can't— here's the thing. At some point, we're like, I did surrender. I did the surrender. I laid myself down. But if I could just get a little pride back, that would be great. If I could just hold on to a little bit of this identity, a little bit of this power, a little bit of this achievement. If I could just— it's like Jesus really did save me, but I'm not that bad. There are some respectable things about me. No, friend. This is a call to just go, we got to lay it back down. Lay down the achievement, lay down the identity, lay down the success, lay down the power.

28 · Returns to the Fosbury illustration with a final twist: elite athletes rejected the technique even after witnessing gold-medal success, but powerless kids with nothing to lose adopted it immediately

And let me end with this. After 1968, Dick Fosbury said in an interview that even after he won a gold medal flopping his way to victory, The other athletes refused to adopt the technique from that Olympics. All the people, they all saw him win the gold medal and they all went, nope. But do you know who did adopt the technique? All the kids who ran track and who were watching the Olympics. You know why they did? Because they had no power. They had nothing to lose. They had no pride. And so they said, you know what? That guy is standing on the podium. What do I have to lose? And they flopped their way to victory.

29 · Ties the baptism service from the beginning of the sermon to the Fosbury illustration, framing baptism as the ultimate 'flop'—going limp and powerless as a symbol the world sees as humiliation but believers experience as victory

Friends, we just witnessed in baptism, one of the most humbling moments that you could ever participate in. We witness person after person go limp and powerless and declare they are being buried in the likeness of Christ and then raised to newness of life. Friends, that should be a symbol to the rest of the world of humiliation, but for those of us in Christ, it is a proclamation of victory. It is a proclamation that the power of God for salvation comes to the unrighteous as the righteous Christ offers us what we cannot earn and do not deserve, and it is only by faith as we flop our way into his arms that we are raised to newness of life. Amen. Amen.

30 · Closes in prayer for two groups: the unconverted struggling with shame and searching for identity/power/achievement, and the church as a community willing to be 'losers and failures in the eyes of the world' and unashamed to tell their testimony of coming to Christ empty-handed

Would you stand? Would you stand and let's pray. Now, Heavenly Father, I first pray for anyone in this room that Lord, I just sense that there are some you are calling to yourself today. Lord, I specifically want to pray for those that may be dealing with just a subjective sense of shame about themselves and who are looking everywhere and anywhere to try to cover it. Maybe it's a failure in their past. Maybe it's a failure they feel when they look in the mirror. Maybe it's a failure that they feel when they talk to their parents. Like, whatever it is, God, whatever it is, and they've been trying to find an identity, find a power, find an achievement, find something to give them a place to stand, to make them secure, to give them life. And Lord, I just sense that you are inviting them. You're calling them to yourself right now and you are inviting them to lay down everything and come to Jesus Christ today. And Lord, I pray that they would— Lord, I pray that you would give them the grace to lay it all down and to open their hands and like a child run to you, for that is the only way. That is the only way. And Lord, I just pray also, in addition to that, I just pray for our church, God. I just pray we would never be afraid to be a humbled church, unafraid of being losers and failures in the eyes of the world. Lord, may we never as a church long for power, long for achievement, long for success. Lord, may we be a happy band of people who said, we laid it all down because none of us could make it on our own. And I pray that we would be a church that is unashamed, unashamed to tell our testimony, unashamed to speak of our failures, unashamed ashamed to come to Jesus Christ that we might find divine power for salvation to all who believe. In Jesus' name, amen.