Secrets Versus News

Now when they came into the house, as he was lying on his bed in his bedroom, they struck him and killed him and beheaded him. And they took his head and traveled by way of the Arabah all night. (2 Samuel 4:7 NASB)

David answered Rechab and Baanah his brother, sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, and said to them, "As the Lord lives, who has redeemed my life from all distress, when one told me, saying, 'Behold, Saul is dead, ' and thought he was bringing good news, I seized him and killed him in Ziklag, which was the reward I gave him for his news.  How much more, when wicked men have killed a righteous man in his own house on his bed, shall I not now require his blood from your hand and destroy you from the earth?" (2 Samuel 4:9-11 NASB)

 In this modern information age, the age of instant news, satellites, cell phones, texting, email, the internet, and social media we think we're so smart.  We think we know everything, that there are no secrets, and that privacy is something to be guarded by firewalls, passwords, and  PIN's.  Why do we continue to forget that our Master (regardless of whether we acknowledge Him as such) knows everything?

So, 3,000 years before any of that stuff I mention in the first paragraph, these two soldiers get tired of following the "man of shame", Ish-Bosheth.  And in order to get things moving, murder him in his own bed, cut off his head, and bring it overnight (overnight shipping 3,000 years ago?) to David in his capital.  They travel over night by the fastest route to the guy they think would be most interested in knowing what they've done, and yet...he already knows.

They tried to impress the king with the head of his enemy, and instead only succeed in incriminating themselves in murder.  Yes, three millennia before the cell phone, the news of their crime was faster than the current method of communication.  Why now do we think it's any different?  Why do we think that now, of all times, we can outrun the news of our sin?

The Apostle John tells us that if we confess our sin, our Savior is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sin and cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9).  So, why do believers still think that we can fool the Master of all the universe?  Why would someone still think that knowing all things, this one thing He doesn't?

Actually, I don't think we do.  I think, or suspect, that we simply don't care that He knows.  I know with me, that more often than not, I sin knowing I'm sinning but simply choose to do so anyway.  I then don't confess it because I know He knows, and don't care; at least not at first.  The hold of my Master doesn't let me rest that way for long though.  He doesn't leave me alone, even in my sin.  So, when I sin, and I do daily, I bring my Master with me; not because He does my bidding, I'd rather He wasn't with me when I sin.  He chooses to go with me out of love and mercy, and I choose to go where I have no business going.

Lately it has been arrogance, apathy, resentment, and probably fear that have been my preferred places to go.  Arrogance denies the mastery of my Master.  Apathy denies the worth of my King.  Resentment denies the sovereignty of the Prince of Peace.  Fear is a direct challenge to the will and reality of the King of kings.  Faith is really the answer to all of these, and for some reason it's the first thing I jettison when I encounter stupid stuff, stupid people, and my own stupidity.

When, instead, I let my Master reign (as if I somehow prevent it) everything eventually starts to make some sense and I have peace.  Or, more often, nothing ever really makes sense, and the peace is there anyway.  Truly my Master reigns, but I pretend to rule my own life.  All I accomplish is an embarrassing futile rebellion against He who loves me without limits. 

Here's what's really happening:  Within the infinite space of this universe there is a spec in one corner comprised of several galaxies grouped together.  Within that group is one particular galaxy which has, toward one of the outer spiral arms, a loose cluster of stars.  One of those stars has a system of planets, one of which has enough solid material, spins slow enough, is close enough, and tilted just so as to support the fragile life forms crawling about on its surface.  In the scheme of the universe, their life-spans are ridiculously short.  Yet their attitude is so shockingly arrogant that they behave as if all the universe is really about them.  I am such a specimen.

While this entire construct we refer to as a 'universe' is probably no more than the decoration on the workbench of its Creator, many claim that it is the height of arrogance that He should want us to worship and praise Him.  It's ironic really.  We miss that it is the probably the height of mercy that He would choose to inhabit the praise of such people.  We seem to completely miss that worship merely helps us place ourselves within the real shape and scheme of this universe.  It gives us a clearer sense of scope and scale without the overwhelm of actually trying to fit the universe into our tiny pea brains.

So there's nothing to be gained by hiding my sin from my Master.  I see no value in pretending that I'm not arrogant, that He didn't see it, or that the Creator and One sustaining my life doesn't care. Since the Maker of the vastness of all time and space has it all under His control, and is aware of all of it, why then am I afraid of a future I can merely perceive as dim and insubstantial?  If He loves me, what do I have to fear of anything clear or dim?  Am I not some ridiculous pair of soldiers carrying a grisly secret sin already known to the very one I was trying to impress?  They were killed, how much more do I expect from my own failures to hit the mark of my Master?  Isn't it much more sensible to simply confess my sin and let Him forgive and cleanse me from all that mars our relationship?  Watch me now:  It will probably take me about 10 minutes to make the same mistakes all over again...

Treating Causes Versus Treating Symptoms

Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.  All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything. (1 Corinthians 6:11-12 NASB)

One minor difficulty with 1 Corinthians 6 is its internal relationship, and its relationship to the previous chapter (ejecting the sinful man from the congregation).  Within this chapter and even at the beginning, the typical transition used by Paul to introduce a new topic is missing:  "Now about..."  The result is that what transitions are there are left to the reader to piece together, and internal relationships are expected to be picked up along the way.  It's probably easier if one reads ancient Greek and is familiar with ancient Greek literature and informal writing.  Most people don't fit this description and instead rely on a variety of translations.

So, in the previous chapter, a man who has been publicly guilty of incest (with his father's wife) is to be expelled from the congregation.  It's a clear admonishment to address sin within the congregation.  The final element to Paul's argument tells them not to judge 'outsiders' but instead only those within the congregation.  This actually dovetails well with the first element of chapter 6 which deals with outsiders judging issues between believers; which Paul commands them to stop doing.

It is the linkage between the first admonition to keep civil cases within the church and addressing sexual sins that we might miss the connection.  The only grammatical transition is found in the above verses, but they may seem difficult to connect in theme or topic.  But if I step back, I think I can see a literary transition when I connect the final piece of chapter 6 with Paul's charge in chapter 5.  In fact, all along to this point, I believe Paul has been trying to wake the congregational leaders up to their complete neglect of sin within themselves.  And I believe he wraps up that argument here in chapter 6.

Their perspective of these sins which have been plaguing them has been that they either don't see them at all or seem them completely differently from how God views them.  Paul's correction has been less about specific behavior and more about shifting their paradigm through which they view them.  He has used sarcasm, biting criticism, and logical argument to correct these deviations from the teaching he first gave them.  His method has been partly in response to their disrespect for him on top of all else.

So in verses 11 and 12, what we see is Paul's return to paradigm correction.  He moves from their current status (washed, sanctified, justified) and begins to use that to correct the paradigm.  He starts in verse 12 by conceding their belief that they are not under law (see my previous blog entry), but adds to it, adjusting their perspective to include what is profitable to them and their being mastered by what isn't profitable.  I believe the reason for this is that he wants them to apply those foundational truths about themselves from verse 11.

But even topically, what verses 12 through 20 are about might actually provide a partial view of why the incestuous man was permitted to remain in the congregation.  If sexual sins were actually rampant in that participating in prostitution was actually a common practice, then accepting the man with his father's wife would suddenly make a lot more sense.  While it's not clear how common this practice was in the congregation, that it warrants its own section indicates it was far too common.

So, I see this final part of chapter 6 wrapping up Paul's correction of the paradigm which forms the broken framework supporting the rest of his sections in this letter.  In other words, what he is addressing in the first six chapters is the causes of the rest of the problems, not additional symptoms.  He refers to symptoms to support his points, but his aim is deeper.  He continually uses their 'words' or their twisting of his against them, each time shifting them away from the broken view they have to the more right view of their Master.

Okay, so what I derive from this is that I too need a paradigm shift.  Perhaps I need it constantly, and maybe we all do.  But I think that repentance is that process of correcting my perspective on my behavior to bring it more in line with my Master's perspective.  Repentance aligns my mental framework with His, which requires reconstruction of mine to more closely match His.  I get this concept of what my Master's framework looks like from Scripture.  So, basically, I begin to think more like my Master through studying Scripture.  Or at least that's how it's supposed to work.  I wish it made me smarter too.  Clearly there's more to it...

A List of Who Won't Be There

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.  Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NASB)

This passage or these verses are Paul's answer to why he thinks the church is seeking civil cases outside of the church.  He says they defraud each other, and his charge to this is for them to become aware, again, that this sort of thinking comes from the world, not from God.  But he puts it in very strong terms, terms that most churches in our country today would find uncomfortable.

I don't hear much today that the 'unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God.'  I attend a church where our 'slogan' is 'No perfect people allowed.'  Which is well and good, no one is perfect, I get it.  But we can't then become complacent and simply accept sin.  Here's the problem:  We're not supposed to remain as we were before we were 'saved' by God.

So, while we still make mistakes, 'mistake' isn't supposed to be our 'default setting'.  These mistakes are supposed to lead us into repentance and renewal.  The idea is that we are constantly in a state of repentance from one thing or another.  Our need for the Spirit of our Savior is constant, and His work with us is also constant.  Our minds are constantly being adjusted more and more to reflect His thought, His nature, and therefore His attitudes.

In other words, we are to display the fruit of the Spirit of God more and more as we spend time with Jesus.  So sins with which we struggle are supposed to go away.  I say this as an addict, one who has struggled with his addiction for years.  I'm never supposed to just resign myself to it, play it down, accept it, become comfortable with it, etc.  It's never 'just the way I am.'  It is always contrary to my identity before my Master.  But it seems to be a part of my 'nature'; a part that is dying (or it sure better be).

What Paul is pointing out here is that people who live such lives haven't 'confessed Jesus as Lord,' nor have they 'believed in their heart that God has raised Him from the dead.'  If they had, then they would submit to Jesus as Lord, and the power of the resurrection would be at work in them to revive them from their body of sin and death.  If that's not happening, then they are not going to inherit the Kingdom of God.  We're either in a state of submissive repentance, or we're headed for a very fiery end.

It's at this point that I have had discussions with people who then have simply given up.  "I guess I'm headed for a fiery end," they'll say.  I've said that, or at least wondered if it were true of me.  But there is something about my addiction that has been true all along, I've never been 'comfortable' with it.  What I mean by that is that my mind and heart have never seen it as acceptable.  Now, that's not 'repentance' as such, but it does mean that my mind has always had some part of it more or less with my Master.  He's always had a 'handle'.  And it's been this handle of which He has never let go.  I am free and different now, not because of my own work, but because of His.

So, the point is verse 11.  We were this way, but we were 'washed', 'sanctified', 'justified', and this in the name of Jesus and the power of His Spirit.  It's not the word 'baptism' in the Greek, but I believe it's an allusion to the practice or event.  We were washed.  We didn't 'wash ourselves' but were washed.  We didn't sanctify ourselves, we were sanctified.  We didn't justify ourselves, we were justified.  What else could be wrong?  Our condition is different, but does our behavior match that new condition?

I have been 'saved' but my struggles as an addict came after that event.  Did I lose my salvation in the midst of that struggle?  I'm not sure, but I don't think so.  I still considered Jesus as my Lord, but I found it so difficult to let go of this other 'master'.  It may be a 'mental condition' of some sort, but it's not really unassailable.  It's difficult, but not indomitable.  It can be defeated, must be defeated, and it can't form an excuse to have something which I don't submit to my Master.  I can't.  It doesn't work that way.

So, Paul's charge to the ancient church is also the charge of the Spirit of God today:  Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.  Having said that, this is also true:  Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.  The question is, will I live in the victory I've been given, or will I live in the defeat of the life I lived before?  I choose victory.  

Church Response to Internal Sin

You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst. (1 Corinthians 5:2 NASB)

Chapter 5 of 1 Corinthians is about 'church discipline' in a way.  It is about the application of Jesus' principles in Matthew 18 in a specific situation.  It is probably good to note that Matthew wrote his Gospel after this letter had been written, but still the principle was within the church and its teaching in the oral accounts of the Twelve.  But truly, the idea/concept of this is actually derived from the Hebrew Scriptures.

What Paul pulls his application from is the various passages from the Hebrew Scriptures about removing the practice of sin from Israel.  There are plenty to choose from, but he seems drawn to the Law, specifically Deuteronomy.  In so doing, he raises an interesting question about the practice of church discipline.

In Matthew 18, the process Jesus describes is restorative trying to bring about confession and repentance.  Here it sounds more final, but that may be because Paul is correcting a dangerous perception and practice.  It seems that in the fledgling church in ancient Corinth that they were proud that they would tolerate such behavior.  For Paul this is unthinkable, for them it is something to boast about.

It may be that this letter, with all its biting sarcasm so far, is really leading up to this discussion.  Paul seemed worked up before, but he is truly hot here.  But what is his real point?  Why is he so worked up?

I believe the key to understanding Paul's attitude in this chapter stems from his statement in verse 2, 'you are arrogant and have not mourned instead.'  The response to sin in the church (and within ourselves as well) should be mourning.  This is the word Jesus used in the Beatitudes where He said 'Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted' (Matthew 5:4).  This should be the attitude toward sin.  And I believe this is the mark in a person repenting as well.

So my response to sin within me and that I see in our church should begin with mourning.  Then movement to change, but the change will stem from the right attitude.  I can't come with an attitude of superiority or pride or arrogance.  Even any anger I feel should come out of my grief over this sin.

When I 'wink' at my own practice of sin, then I am being so selfish that I refuse to see the effects it has on my relationship with my Master, my wife, my daughter, and my church.  I fail to accept that it robs me of courage to bring my faith to my neighbors.  I refuse to see that it has become a weapon of my enemy which I have forged, sharpened, and handed to him.

When I 'wink' at the practice of sin within my church, then I am refusing to protect the 'Bride of Christ'.  The practice of sin in the church incapacitates ministry.  Everything stops.  Some may mourn the loss of 'fire', others the 'way we used to be', some may be sad about how the Spirit doesn't seem to move any more.  That's a good place to start, but this sadness needs to become pervasive if change is to come about.

The practice of sin is difficult to keep secret.  Once known it must be dealt with.  The idea is to keep a single mistake from becoming a practice, both within ourselves and within our congregation.  The process described in Matthew 18:15-17 is really four-part:  1) go to the one and bring it up; failing repentance 2) bring another to verify the validity of repentance; if that fails to bring repentance 3) bring it before the church, and if that fails to bring repentance 4) 'let him be as a Gentile and a tax collector'.

Paul 'illuminates' what is meant by 'let him be as a Gentile and tax collector' when he calls on the church to 'remove the wicked man from among yourselves.'  Such a person is cut off from participation in the congregation, in much the same way that the Hebrews were to expel certain people from the Temple or Tabernacle; they were cut off from the 'assembly'.

Churches are hesitant to follow this practice.  Whatever reason they cite, the effects are the same.  It shouldn't be done, it can't be done and the church survive.  And neither can I accept such practices in myself.  I can't.  If I do, then I'm shot; my availability to my Master, my effectiveness in His Kingdom, and my role as knight and servant are nullified.  And I can be sure that He knows, there are no secrets with Him.

In order to keep even mistakes from becoming practices I must confess.  There's really no other way.  I have an accountability partner, and he and I work to keep each other 'current'.  Just as in the church we have to work together to keep the church sin-free, so I also need another to help keep me sin-free.  It's the way my Master designed it to work.  Confession is good for my soul; and healthy for my church.

Who's To Judge?

Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God. (1 Corinthians 4:5 NASB)

One area of confusion within church and living out faith in Jesus is the idea of judging other believers.  In my opinion from my observations, here's what I think is going on:

• Christians state to each other and to non-believers that we are not to judge each other at all.
• In general practice, believers compare themselves to others in matters of faith, practice, belief, intelligence, and acceptability before God.
• In general practice, believers only reveal their judgements to people they believe will agree with their 'judgment' or in anger with anyone.

This is a huge generalization, and my observations are limited to my own church experiences in the few churches with which I've been a part.  I have myself been guilty of these statements and behaviors, and I have witnessed people from old, young, ministers, professional clergy, the educated and uneducated alike behaving in this way.

Part of the problem is that there are contrary Scriptures which claim that we will know each other by our 'fruit', i.e. our Christ-like behavior.  In fact, in the very next chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul states that he has, with the believers there in Corinth, already passed judgement on one of their own.  Other passages state that believes are to be wary of 'false teachers' and so on.  How can we do that if we don't judge others?  If we do these things, aren't we violating the clear admonitions above?

One of the problems involved with this issue is the language barrier between English and Greek.  Unfortunately this is exacerbated by cultural differences between modern American culture and first century Roman/Greek/Jewish culture.  But there is also the problem that Paul actually does mix his terminology with these statements, where in both prohibition and promotion he will use 'legal' terms for 'judgement'.

The answer to reconciling these separate concepts is to examine the context; literary and historical/cultural.  So, here's my interpretation, and probably a gross oversimplification of Paul's intent here:

• In chapter 4, Paul has church members and their 'assessment' of him in view.
• In chapter 5, Paul has church members and their 'acceptance' of sin in view.

The problems start when we find the terminology is pretty much the same.  I labeled what they do to him as 'assessment' but he uses the term 'judgment' as in the legal term as well.  I used the term 'acceptance' but he again uses 'judgment' there.  So, since the difference isn't the terminology, it must be found in the objects.

The 'assessment' of Paul in chapter 4 has to do with his 'fitness' to teach, how 'wise' he is, how well he led, and so on.  It wasn't dealing with a sin or some unscriptural teaching on his part.  The 'acceptance' of the church member in chapter 5 has to do with a clear violation of Scriptural teaching.

I'm going to revisit this again with chapter 5 and 6 later, but I wanted to first put forth the problematic seeming contradiction first.  Partly because it causes confusion, and mostly because I believe 'we're doing it wrong' when it comes to 'judgmentalism'.  I was the target of a religious groups judgmental attitude, and it had nothing to do with sin.  I'm no longer a vocational minister, and would no longer consider such a position because of their treatment.  So I have an emotional stake in this, I freely admit that.  Perhaps I still have some resentment that I need to surrender to my Master, even after all these years (it's only been 15 after all).

But I also believe the church does need to address sin within the body.  This usually falls on the pastor to preach at or address.  But while that may be necessary, it also falls to the responsibility of the believers at large to confront and address sin found among them.  This is dangerous ground because the point to the exercise, as Jesus describes it in Matthew 18, is the restoration of the 'offender', not their 'destruction'.  Like I said, we're not doing it right.  And we don't do it well.  But I also believe we can both do it, and do it well.  We just need to think through what we're doing and why.  So, who's to judge? I believe we are...sometimes.

What Sort of Music Do Evil Spirit's Hate?

Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD terrorized him. (1 Samuel 16:14 NASB)

So it came about whenever the evil spirit from God came to Saul, David would take the harp and play it with his hand; and Saul would be refreshed and be well, and the evil spirit would depart from him. (1 Samuel 16:23 NASB)

So, last Sunday I'm outside the sanctuary working on cleaning up the church coffee bar, and this teenage boy comes up and asks if I 'work there, at the church.' He wants to know if they're is a 'suggestion box' and I tell him to leave a note on the information center counter.  Then he tells me for free that the music in the sanctuary is too loud.  I had one of those moments where you think of a good comeback only after the time has past.  I should have told him we do that to drive off evil spirits since they don't like loud music either. 

Oh well, the time for such a comeback was past and it was never said, but it does bring up an interesting question.  What sort of music does drive off evil spirits?  It's not a silly question either.  Look at David's relationship with Saul.  David played his harp and the evil spirit left Saul.  It didn't always work, but it did until Saul became jealous of David.  Think about that.

So God sends an 'evil spirit' to torment Saul (it wasn't enough to reject him as king).  And when David plays the harp, the evil spirit departs.  If order is important here, then it goes like this:  David plays, Saul is 'refreshed', and the evil spirit departs.  What was it about music, specifically the music David played that caused a spirit sent by God to depart? 

I'm just guessing, but I would assume that 'evil spirits' prefer music like rap music about killing and sex, or heavy metal music about similar things, or crazy screaming singing with little beat or melody regardless of what it's about, or anything recommending suicide.  These, I would think, would be some favorites and classics for a basic evil spirit; on their iPod/phone/other mobile device.

So, what would be the opposite of such songs?  What sort would simply drive an evil spirit out of the house?  I'm not sure.  It's probably a matter of picking a Psalm of praise, and playing a tune for it on the harp.  Again, I'm guessing here.  But there may be more to this than simply the effect on the evil spirit.

If order is important in verse 23, then Saul is 'refreshed' and then the evil spirit departs...for a while.  The word translated as 'refreshed' is a word that means, 'to breathe easy, be wide or spacious, be relieved.' It is very closely related to the word for 'spirit' itself.  I think of it as the feeling marked by a deep sigh; usually followed by flopping on the couch.  Rushing around, stressed over what needs to be done, finish, all done, deep sigh, flop on the couch.  That feeling.

What if that feeling in Saul was why the evil spirit departed.  Maybe the music just brought Saul to that point, and then the evil spirit departed.  Here's why I bring this up.  I think the evil spirit was sent by my Master to drive Saul to his death in battle with the Philistines.  I don't know that, it's not like it's written in Scripture or anything.  I get it from looking at Saul's erratic behavior with David, and with the Philistines.

I suspect that the stress of the guerrilla warfare with the Philistines was wearing on Saul's sanity.  He worried about it, about failing, about what needed to be done next, would it work, how could he pull off the next ambush and so on.  He knew that since Samuel wouldn't help him any more that he was no longer in God's favor, so success was no longer assured.  It was on him, and he didn't have the mettle to sustain the stress.

I figure the evil spirit used Saul's condition to drive him where God would then destroy him.  So when he was 'refreshed' the condition was no longer there for the evil spirit to use.  It would just come back later when the condition returned.  That's my theory.  If that's the truth, then my lesson from this is to relent.

Relent?  Saul's situation was that he had been rejected by God as king.  But he continued to act as king.  It's one thing for him to confess that he had sinned, that was good.  But hanging in there as king when he already knew he had been rejected only made it more difficult on the people, and I think, on himself.  Had he relented, and abdicated the 'throne' (or pomegranate tree as it were), I think his stress level would have been much less, and there would have been no need for an evil spirit from God to torment into fatal error.  In any case I suspect Jonathan would have survived.  As it was, Saul would lose his three eldest sons along with himself.

For me, when the punishment from my Master comes, and I am to endure the loss of some position or responsibility, do I fight to keep it or relent, and give it up?  That's the point of application I see here for me.  I used to be a pastor.  That is a role and responsibility that has passed for me.  Now when I'm in a church I do not have the 'option' of looking longingly at that role, wishing it were mine.  That would be wrong, and to rebel against the decree of my Master. 

Eventually, I reached a point where I don't even want the role of pastor.  Now it's not a temptation, and I really enjoy the roles that I have now.  I see my role as support for the pastor, I get to teach without some of the down side effects of being the pastor.  I can more easily engage with people without the risk of vulnerability.  It's really a lot less stress.  Perhaps that's what Saul needed; to step down, relent and accept the discipline of God.  Jeremiah basically tells Judah to do that with the Babylonians; that's the core of his prophesy among them.  It's a good lesson.  It sure has helped me.

The Fractured Reality of Sodom 5: The View From Outside

Abram settled in the land of Canaan, while Lot settled in the cities of the valley, and moved his tents as far as Sodom. Now the men of Sodom were wicked exceedingly and sinners against the LORD. (Genesis 13:12-13 NASB)

Then they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah and all their food supply, and departed.  They also took Lot, Abram's nephew, and his possessions and departed, for he was living in Sodom. (Genesis 14:11-12 NASB)

 The king of Sodom said to Abram, "Give the people to me and take the goods for yourself."  Abram said to the king of Sodom, "I have sworn to the LORD God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth, that I will not take a thread or a sandal thong or anything that is yours, for fear you would say, 'I have made Abram rich.'  I will take nothing except what the young men have eaten, and the share of the men who went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their share." (Genesis 14:21-24 NASB)

Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. (Genesis 19:1 NASB)

But they said, "Stand aside." Furthermore, they said, "This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them." So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door. (Genesis 19:9 NASB)

The problem of Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't a secret.  When Lot settled there after he and Abram left Egypt, it was known what sort of place it was.  In spite of that, he settled close.  Very shortly thereafter, he is found living inside the city, having given up his tents (we're not sure about the flocks, herds, etc.).

Abram knows what sort of place Sodom is, how it's view by his Master, and doesn't accept anything from their king.  In fact he says something rather interesting, he says that he doesn't want the king of Sodom to be able to say that he made Abram rich.  The reason I find that interesting is how he ties wealth to Sodom.  Lot's wealth seems to evaporate, yet the city and its king are known for wealth.  There isn't a reason given, but in that time period, trade is the usual manner in which cities and people gained wealth.  The reason that Lot chose that area was because, as the text says, it was lush like the garden of God.  So, agriculture would likely have played an important part, both farming and herding.

On the other hand, they really weren't soldiers or at least not good ones, and one consistent thing about agrarian cultures is that they can usually wallop city-folk.  They only lose because they don't have the numbers, but man-for-man bet on the farmer.  That's not very..."good" deductive reasoning or even an educated guess; really it's more personal observation and prejudice.  But it leaves room for another marginal hypothesis on where the wealth of Sodom came from.  What if it were gambling and other "pleasure" commerce?  Is it a general truth that people who work hard, also play hard?  Maybe not, but it is often true, especially if they work hard remote from their homes and families.  So what if Sodom were filled with distilleries, bordellos, casinos, and restaurants?  Perhaps all of these were combined into an "Inn" where travelers passed the night.  Who knows, but it's not as likely as trade commerce.  Those sorts of things may have been present, but it is a long shot that they fueled the economy (although distilleries do burn well...).

The reason I bring up those particular business types is because they fuel the degradation of my culture and country, at least in my opinion.  Those sorts of businesses make  their income from the weakness of people.  Both legal and illegal chemicals to loose touch with reality are available here.  While prostitution is illegal (except in outlying regions of Nevada), it is a common vice in major cities.  Now casinos are popping up on Native American Reservations all across the country.  And restaurants feed a natural, but over indulged human appetite.

I like restaurants, and frequent them; but I'm gaining weight (not their fault, but they don't hep either).  I don't drink, don't have a problem with people who do, but it's hard not to read at least one local news source without one of the articles announcing another alcohol-related death.  Prostitution is wrong, most people agree with that, yet in movies, advertising, and other entertainment sex is usually a part of the "attraction".  Gambling consumes peoples time, finances, and souls; my opinion, and I know it's not alone in that, but there it is.  These examples of "commerce" are hurting my country and my people.

As I said, I do participate in some of these businesses, well, restaurants anyway.  So, in a sense I too am "entranced" by Sodom, giving in to the attraction of what I know to be wrong, or at least dangerous.  On other elements, I look on but don't address the problems, somewhat like the cities and regions around Sodom.  They traded with them, contributing to their wealth and, therefore, their degradation.  How far off am I from Lot and others?  Not as far as I should be.  I believe my Master calls it "holiness" and it gets tough really fast.  Time to, once again, put on my "big boy pants" and get after it.  See you tomorrow?

The Fractured Reality of Sodom 3: Why Is It So Hard To Leave?

When morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Up, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away in the punishment of the city."  But he hesitated. So the men seized his hand and the hand of his wife and the hands of his two daughters, for the compassion of the LORD was upon him; and they brought him out, and put him outside the city.  When they had brought them outside, one said, "Escape for your life! Do not look behind you, and do not stay anywhere in the valley; escape to the mountains, or you will be swept away."  But Lot said to them, "Oh no, my lords!  Now behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have magnified your lovingkindness, which you have shown me by saving my life; but I cannot escape to the mountains, for the disaster will overtake me and I will die; now behold, this town is near enough to flee to, and it is small. Please, let me escape there (is it not small?) that my life may be saved."  He said to him, "Behold, I grant you this request also, not to overthrow the town of which you have spoken.  Hurry, escape there, for I cannot do anything until you arrive there." Therefore the name of the town was called Zoar.  The sun had risen over the earth when Lot came to Zoar.  Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven, and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.  But his wife, from behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt. (Genesis 19:15-26 NASB)

Okay, so Lot knows who these guys are, they tell him they are here to destroy the city, and yet, he can't seem to get it together to leave.  Really?  A roving mob of nocturnal rapists makes up the most common past time of the place and yet Lot can't let the place go.  I find it difficult to understand why he's there in the first place.  I was hoping that he was hoping to share the influence of his God with them.  But his refusal to leave flies in the face of that.  If he truly believed in the power of God and truth of the coming destruction, I would hope his faith would impel him to get out of Dodge.

The text is alarmingly specific here.  Lot "hesitated".  The angels had to take he, his wife, and his two daughters by the hand and bring them out of Sodom.  They were told to run for the hills, but Lot then negotiates to make for a small town on the plain because the hills are too far.  The angel tells him that nothing will happen until he's safe, but he wants the town.  And God gives him that. 

The text is also specific that this is happening for Lot because of the compassion of God and his love of Abraham.  I would also include the patience of God.  These two angels put up with way more than they should have from Lot.  So strong was the love and compassion of God (in the midst of His wrath - don't miss the irony here) that He endured the failures of Lot as He saved he and his family. 

We are not told, and I find it really difficult to guess at the attraction of Sodom.  What was it that was so difficult to give up, especially given the description of the place?  On the other hand, I am not so far out of my own refuse pile of sin that I can't remember how difficult it is to release.  There are many things to which people give themselves that consume them and yet are difficult to let go.  I remember mine, and still, occasionally feel it's pull back.  So, while the text may not tell us what it was specifically with Sodom, I suspect that it had to do with all those things to which a person can loose themselves.  I suspect Lot had his, even though we may not be told what it was specifically.  It was as if all the addictions off humanity were located in those two cities.  That would explain such a fractured reality on an entire community.

I see the difficulties and the casualties of my own sin in my life.  I see here the description of Lot's (and his gets worse on in the chapter).  While I'm not told the specific sin, the consequences are described, and I can readily recognize the connections with my own life.  In fact, there are still things I find it difficult to give up, and I don't know why.  Perhaps I need to spend more time here letting the lesson of Lot sink in.  There is a message from my Master to my soul here: LET IT GO!

The life I live in this world, I should be living in relationship with my Master.  Only then is life truly eternal.  Isn't it another kind of fractured reality to endure something in my life that hinders this relationship?  Does it make any more sense for me to hold on to anything, sinful sounding or not, that impedes my walk with my Master, my availability to Him, my ability to hear Him, and therefore obey Him?  In these ways, am I not like Lot?  A little too much for my comfort.

Losing Who I Am, Gaining Who He Is

One of the questions I have not heard but I’m waiting for is this, “Why, if Jesus died for the whole world, do some still go to hell?”  This question is one that has rattled around in my head and I have answers for it, but I still realize I’m not likely to hear it. 

 

I ask it from time to time because I have accepted two other things.  First off, Jesus didn’t die in my place or for me per se.  Jesus died as atonement for the sins of the world.  That is different.  In 2 Corinthians 5:21 Paul says that God made Jesus sin (the noun sin, not the verb).  Literally that is what Paul said.  It is as if the Father transforms the Son into the sins of the world, and then sacrifices Him on Mount Moriah.  That is how Paul describes the Atonement of Jesus.

 

Since Jesus didn’t “die for me” or as is popular, “take my place” my response is just, “Wow! Thanks!” and then carry on my merry way.  I see that and have done that, but that does not match what Scripture presents.  The other half of 2 Corinthians 5:21 says that the Father made Jesus into sin “so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”  In other words, the Father made Jesus into sin so He could then make me into His righteousness in Jesus.  I’m going to be made into something I am not now.  I will be different.  So, how do I get a chance to participate in this transaction?

 

What I see in Scripture is that my Master initiated my relationship.  As Chambers put it yesterday and refers to today, He reveals to me what He has already done on my behalf, and I believe that.  I don’t bring anything of my own making or accomplishment to the party, it’s all the Master of the universe.  I respond to what is revealed, and I suppose in that sense I have a choice to believe or not.  What I am believing in is my Master’s identification with my sin and atonement for it, and then that I will be remade into His righteousness.  I accept His solution to my problem (which requires me to accept His definition of my problem), and I accept that He will change who I am into something else; I choose to loose my identity that I have worked so hard to establish.

 

I want to bargain, negotiate, and offer alternatives for both the atonement and my transformation.  I want partial credit for the work of Jesus, and I want to retain part of my personality.  That is not how the exchange works, and it is therefore difficult to accept in this culture.  Thankfully, my Master does not require me to understand it all up front.  It is in some ways like making an uninformed decision, but really, once I accept His definition of my problem, accepting His solution is obvious, at least on the surface.  The transformation He works in me requires me to love Him and be devoted to Him only.  That is really pretty simple.  I make it hard by focusing on what I’m loosing, rather than on my Master who I am gaining.

 

The reward is that my Master forms His righteousness in me… actually no, what happens is that I become His righteousness.  That is a personal transformation into righteousness, not just a relocation of righteousness.  I don’t “contain” the righteousness of my Master, I become the righteousness of my Master.  Something contained within me can be relocated elsewhere and I can misplace it and so on.  When I am transformed into something else, that is not so easy to “lose”.  That would require another transformation to negate.  The work of my Master is not so temporary as my own.  My work is fairly shoddy, His work is masterful workmanship that lasts for eternity.

 

How is such an amazing result not worth giving up my identity?  How is it that I can require more of the One having Atoned for my sin along with the sin of all human existence?  What is my identity worth compared to being the righteousness of my Master?  He forms stars, traces quarks, and forms me into His righteousness.  Is that not enough?  Do I want more?  Is there something about my identity among my fallen fellows that is so precious that is becomes more valuable to me than the righteousness of the Master of all creation?  I can’t think of anything.  So, why is it so hard for me to let go of it?  It’s not like my Master is asking me to accomplish some great task, He asks that I believe and accept His transformation of me.  As much as I don’t really like hard work, you’d think I’d be all over such an offer.

 

The solution for me is become a fool among my fallen fellows, and not before my Master.  Okay, it’s really not so far to go to become a fool before my fellows.  It is much longer to stop being the fool before my Master.  The choice before me is life or death, blessings or curses.  Relating to my Master is life and blessings, not relating to Him is death and curses.  Today, I will practice choosing life.

 

Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest, October 29

Living Life: That’s the Hard Part

Seeing death as relational rather than physical I thought was pretty radical.  But it makes even more sense when I put sin in the same relational basket.  Now the reason death is relational is explained.  If sin is choosing independence from the Master of the universe, then sin would be death; being out of relationship with the Master of the universe.  On the other hand, since I can’t bridge the gulf in that relationship, I would have to be dependent upon what the Universal Master would do on my behalf.  So, Jesus is the solution placed before me.  The terms, “redemption” and “rebellion” now fit better into my understanding of the solution and problem with the world.

I don’t like dependence.  I don’t like going to the doctor or dentist for that reason and more.  I don’t like not being able to direct my destiny.  But, on the other hand, by giving up my independence and my destiny to the Universal Master, I gain access to Him.  So which is better, directing my destiny on this lump of space rock, or sitting down with the One having created space and everything in it and learning about Him?  Sure, as an American, I want independence, I was born to it, I have a sense of entitlement to it.  But I have another human condition which places me independent where I was never intended to be.  I belong in a garden.

So, when I consider the solution of the Universal Master to this human condition, I see a burden as massive as the shear crush of history and future of the human creatures crawling over this terrestrial ball.  All that hereditary isolation from the Creator, couched in the terms of independence, was summed up and consumed in the penalty paid by my Master.  For me, the event of Jesus’ death is more than an event of physical suffering; the physical suffering was almost a parable compared to the unthinkable amount of suffering at its climatic end.  When my Master, having revealed Himself as Three, suffers a separation within Himself, then suffering is redefined, and I cannot wrap my mind around the enormity of it.  That separation is the undeserved, substitutionary death which bought my access back into the garden.

But I’m not there yet.  This redemption I have gained the benefit of which was so expensive is not yet complete.  So, here in this place, I am directed to model my life after this indescribable gift.  I have been redeemed, and I am to live in this universe as such.  What does that look like as I relate to my wife, my daughter, my friends here in this community, and my church?  Claiming to understand life and death, dependence and sin, blessings and curses is all well and good.  But understanding is borne out in living.  If I really understand, then I will live in this world.  If I behave as if I’m dead, then what do I really understand?  And why do would I live as if I were dead?  For me, it is usually out of fear.  How ridiculous is that?  I have life but am afraid to live because of what the dead people might think.  Really? Seriously?

I am a fool, that much is clear.  I just need to become fine with being a fool for my Master, considered such by the dead around me.  I have spent too much time being a fool before my Master, acting foolish in His eyes.  How much that has cost me I will not know until I give an account of myself before His throne, but one day I will know.  The irony that strikes me to the heart is that, even as I played the fool, His love and grace never waivered.  He hated the sight of what I did, yet His love and desire for me never dimmed.  Even in those times, He had my back, keeping me from the deadly deep waters around which I played.  He kept me from things I can’t imagine, and the enemy was never able to snatch me from His hand.  Unbelievable, yet I am a testimony to its truth.

Today, my wife and daughter head to the Sierra Nevada’s for a weekend retreat.  I will be here holding the home for their return.  I will be alone in one sense, but I will be communing with the Universal Master in another.  The question is will I give into my compulsion for independence or will I surrender my right to myself to my Master.  It’s easy to choose life on the front end of the day, in the beauty and cool of the dawn.  It is another to hold that choice in the heat of the afternoon when reality bears down hard.  I hope to be able to post tomorrow that I enjoyed victory in my Master today, and then to post that again on Sunday.  That’s what I hope, I pray for that hope to be a fertile seedbed for faith, and that faith to lead me to love as I am loved.  Life is relational, and so my Master leads me to live.  I may be visiting you later, just humor me, I’m following the lead of my Master; I’m just not as graceful at it as He is.

Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest, October 7

The Cross or the Grave, or Both?

Is it a semantic thing to combine the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus rather than to focus on the crucifixion?  I find myself very alone on this issue.  Here, I’m the one appealing to my buddy Paul.  He seems to focus on the resurrection with the cross rather than the cross alone.  The passage in 1 Peter mentions that Jesus took our sins to the “wood”, and does not mention the resurrection.  The context is about Jesus suffering and using that as an example for our daily conduct.  But I call the day approaching, Resurrection Day rather than Easter.

In my way of thinking, to focus solely on the event of the crucifixion is like half-baptizing.  If the resurrection is not an equal component, then leave people under the water.  I was “raised to walk”, out of water, but also out of my dead ways.  Here is my divergence with a lot of “cross theology”":  I believe that Jesus did not overcome sin on the cross, but rather in resurrection.  Sin brings death, and He suffered that on the cross, but He went beyond the penalty into life, and it is that life I experience instead of death.

Is this semantics?  I don’t think so.  It could be though, because I am fairly lonely in my view.  Most seem to believe that Jesus paid it all on the cross and because of that we have life.  I only pause at the cross, and then, when it is finished, keep walking for an entire lonely Saturday, and wait by a guarded grave.  It is here I believe I will witness the conquering of the penalty I have worked so hard to earn.  Had I stopped at the event of the crucifixion, I would have witnessed the physical death of a man.  But having witnessed the crucifixion, I can then in the resurrection witness the re-united Triune God wildly overcoming my circumstances.  Again the ground, terra-firma, is shaken.  The shocked and grieving creation is again shocked, but the grief is shattered in joy as the One through Whom all things were made once again emerges into all those things.  Angels, guards, stone rolled away, and an empty tomb are all setting for this second of impossible events.  They fade into gray as the light of the Son shines forth from what was once dark.  Here I sit, here I worship, here I am undone as God wins my war.  The cross is where my salvation starts, but I must follow through to the empty grave, where it is finished.

Oswald Chambers' "My Utmost For His Highest": April 6th.