Knowing the Good Because of the Bad

For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it.  For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. (1 Corinthians 11:18,19 NASB)

In our culture, we are trying to get rid of competition.  It's a philosophy that seems to believe that aggression is inherently evil, that aggression comes from competition, and therefore competition must be eliminated to also eliminate the evil aggression.  Ironically, it's not working, not really.  I believe it's another attempt at the enlightenment philosophy which claimed that humanity is reaching/evolving toward a pinnacle in which we will attain perfection.

There are a host of problems with this philosophy which was supposed to have failed in World War II, but continues feebly to try and impose itself on people today.  The search for and the striving to create Utopia is a lot like the building of the Tower of Babel.  Which is a lot like the eating of the forbidden fruit in the Garden.  Which is a lot like children.

The church, or 'collection of those called out of society by their Creator', is supposed to be where the Spirit of our Savior creates this 'Utopia' within a society.  The problem with church has always been the same, the people.  From Paul's day down to our own, the human creatures making up the church have always marred the clarity of the Utopian concept set down in Scriptures.  And yet, there is a 'purpose' to such marring.

Paul, in his statement in verse 19, is probably being ironic or sarcastic toward the congregation.  He's probably both castigating one group and encouraging another, but he still said it.  So, since the Spirit inspired it, what does He mean by it?  I think it's wrong to create an entire 'theology' around any single statement in Scripture, and I'm not going to do so here.  But his statement does seem to correlate with another philosophical position: There is no understanding of light without darkness as a comparison.

I think a philosopher said something like, 'I did not know light until I had experienced darkness' or some such.  The typical application in philosophy is that difficulty in life enhances the enjoyment of the good times.  I believe it's the height of irony when those following such a philosophy turn around and try to rid society of competition.  Does anyone truly 'win' or even succeed if no one loses or fails?  How would we even know or understand the question without both extremes present?

The writer of Ecclesiastes uses this concept as a theme throughout that book.  But in that book, all the success and 'winning' paled after a time (there was no failure - and so it became 'failure'), and he realized that only God gives meaning to success, failure, gain, or loss.  The real reason humans rebel against God is because we realize how we are truly such 'losers' compared to Him.  Who wants to feel that?  Yet, by not accepting that, we then deny ourselves the realization that we are truly 'winners' because of Him as well. 

Selfishly, we want to be winners without Him, apart from our Creator and Savior.  The true evil of humanity is not in what we perpetrate against each other, it's the reason we do so; to add another brick to the tower to heaven.  But our rebellion doesn't change the truth that apart from our Creator we lose.  Our rebellion doesn't change our need to embrace our Savior to win.  Erasing competition, winning and losing from our culture doesn't change that either.  The failures and pains of life will continue to illuminate, in sharp relief only shadow can create, our need for the success and relief provided by our Creator and Savior.  This is where I find the 'faith of a child'; everything is provided to me by my Father.

The Law of Profit and Mastery

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.  Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, but God will do away with both of them. Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body. (1 Corinthians 6:12-13 NASB)

 It seems odd to say that all things are 'lawful'.  It just does.  It doesn't sound right.  How can all things be lawful?  Paul refers to the Jewish law and justification before God, but that's only possible to understand for us through other writings of his (Galatians and Romans for instance).  Even so, how can all things suddenly become lawful?  Paul can eat a ham sandwich because Jesus died on a cross and rose again?  It doesn't seem to fit.

The church in Corinth is made up of both Jewish and Gentile believers.  They keep the Passover together.  Their Scriptures are the texts of the Hebrew Scriptures translated into Greek, but still the Hebrew Scriptures.  They are mixed, very likely with a majority of Gentile believers, but there is still an inescapable Jewish context for the early church.  The teachings of Paul seem to have included resistance toward becoming Jewish either to be saved, or as a mark of salvation.

On the other hand, Paul has clearly said that no one who is characterized by any of several sins he lists, twice, will inherit the Kingdom of God; therefore behavior is a mark of salvation.  That in itself can be difficult, and has confused various church denominations causing strife between some.  What is the relationship between being justified solely by faith yet that justification being evident in activities?  Again, how can all things be lawful, yet following the rules is evidence of salvation?

Not all things are profitable, nor will Paul permit himself to be mastered by anything.  For Paul it seems that behavior, and therefore the evidence of salvation, is not a matter of rules and law, but of profit and mastery.  It almost sounds like a 'situational ethical' criteria.  But he goes on to explain in a specific instance, getting there from the oblique reference to food, but centering around a different appetite.

Food and sex are probably the most clearly difficult addictions to overcome.  After all, both are naturally occurring physiological drives of all humans.  One we can't live without.  Both have very pronounced affects on our emotions and brain physiology.  These chemicals released into our brains can become very pleasant, and our drive can easily tend toward such things rather than the behavior, which becomes a vehicle.  This is why it's also easy to jump from one to the other addiction, or between addictions in general (smokers who quit becoming over weight for instance).

So what?  Paul drives at the heart of this right here.  He is obviously familiar with these two appetites, what human isn't.  And he has probably seen more than most how destructive they can become when lives become obsessed with them.  He brings this home to this congregation in Ancient Corinth because it clearly has become an issue there, or at least an obsession with sex has.

Paul addresses this problem not from the standpoint of 'law', but rather from the standpoint of profit and mastery.  These people are proud of their 'mastery' over whatever, philosophy, intellect, debate, each other, and so on.  Paul points out that they have been 'mastered' by something else.  Ironically, salvation is made up of submission to God, so we are to be mastered, but by God, not our own appetites.

What Paul is doing can be guessed at by his method.  It makes sense if the ancient congregation has a prevailing thought that, since they are not under the Jewish law, giving in to their appetites is acceptable.  So while Paul concedes that they are not under law, he argues against giving in to being mastered by their appetites.  Since the basis for his argument can't be 'law', he instead bases it on profitability in their relationship with their Savior.

In essence, Paul is stating that when the believers practiced sexually immoral behavior, they brought the Spirit of God into the practice with them.  The Holy Spirit was 'joined' (in a sense) with an unholy act.  When put that way, it actually explains why behavior should mark salvation really well.  How could we join the holiness of our Immanent Savior with acts of unholiness, and then somehow believe it's all okay?  We can't!  It doesn't fit.  What didn't make sense before (all things are lawful) now is eclipsed by the sheer senselessness of joining the holy and profane.

So while it's not about some 'legal code' for me, it is about holiness.  And this holiness, like my faith, my righteousness, and justification is 'imputed' rather than earned.  In other words, just like I didn't earn faith but it is a gift, like I didn't earn my relationship with Jesus it was given to me, and like I didn't earn my 'not-guilty' declaration by God but received it from Jesus' payment on my behalf; so also holiness has been given to me.  Therefore it's now a matter of what I do with this holiness rather than about being under a set of rules.

My desire to please my Master means that I 'steward' this imputed holiness.  I keep myself a clean temple in which He has condescended to live.  I will not be mastered by anything, but I will be mastered by Someone.  That's the difference.  I am holy as He is holy, for much the same reason as the Hebrews in the desert.  For as God was among His people, so He is within me, within the wasteland of my soul.  And He still brings streams in the desert, and flowers in the wastes.

Idolatry: Representative Worship

To whom then will you liken God?
Or what likeness will you compare with Him?
As for the idol, a craftsman casts it,
A goldsmith plates it with gold,
And a silversmith fashions chains of silver.
He who is too impoverished for such an offering
Selects a tree that does not rot;
He seeks out for himself a skillful craftsman
To prepare an idol that will not totter
(Isaiah 40:18-20 NASB)

One of the ideas in the Bible, Hebrew and Christian Scriptures both, with which I really struggle is the admonishment against idolatry.  In most cases, it seems that the perspective of the Bible is that the person worshiping the idol thinks that the object really IS the god rather than a representative OF the god.  The problem I have is that this is obviously not the case.  I fear it puts Scripture in a place of appearing silly.

That idolatry is representative of the 'god' is obvious for lots of reasons.  First off, I don't think anyone would either accuse an idol worshiper or seriously believe they think for a moment that the gold or whatever object in front of them actually performed the activity in their myths ascribed to the 'god'.  Some statue of Zeus isn't actually the person believed to be on Olympus.  It looks like, represents, the person believed to be on Olympus.  I don't think this is in dispute, not by anyone.

So what's the deal with such a clear and vehement imprecation against idolatry?  There is a clear prohibition against any sort of 'image' of man or beast or fowl in Scripture, I'm curious; why?  The usual answer is that it's distracting from worship of the One true God, Creator of those things normally cast or shaped, and the Creator of the things imaged. 

The point being that He is neither man nor beast, so there is no true representation possible.  The worship of the God of Israel reinforces this concept.  All items that could have been used as a 'focus' of attention during worship of Him were hidden.  The bronze snake from the desert was put in the ark along with the 'budding staff' of Aaron, the broken tablets of the Ten Commandments, a jar of mannah, and so on.  Then the ark itself was secreted away behind curtains within the deep dark recesses of the Temple.  So worshipers would only be able to see the building where they knew those object were housed, not the objects themselves.  The focus remained on the invisible God.

But the people bowing themselves before a figure of a man/bird/fish/lion-thing really didn't think that the object in front of them was whatever deity they worshiped.  They believed their deity was 'invisible' as well.  So why the hiding?  Well, I don't know.  I'll just say it and outright because I think anyone reading this already knows I don't know.  For most people the explanation in the previous paragraph is probably sufficient, so you need look no further for 'ideas' or 'theories'.  I will pose two.

First, I suspect that there is a psychological reason.  It is the Creator of this universe who also created our human brains/minds, and I believe He is well aware of our psychological make up and weaknesses.  So, I suspect that focus on the object seen becomes more important, more influential, and more fixed in our minds than the 'Invisible God of All Things'.  I think the truth of this is borne out unfortunately in churches where disputes over trivial 'objects' and 'trappings' sometimes take precedence over focus on the One True Invisible God.  So, they are distracting, but on a more psychological, deeper level than just what we see when we bow ourselves down to something.  In this way, a cross, statue, painting, window, or whatever can cause the same problem.  Some of you may be thinking Catholic right now, but any Baptists reading this could easily substitute 'carpet', 'drapes', 'paint color', 'furniture', or even people and note the same problem.

Beyond the psychological possibility I think another issue is the understanding of 'holiness'.  Simply put, anything exclusively dedicated to the service or use of God (or a deity) is holy; it's not to be used for common (profane) purposes.  Rather than get into a protracted discussion of holiness itself and how I believe God uses and defines the term, I want to look specifically at why the use of idols may damage His purpose in holiness.

Idols are closely tied to a 'shrine' whether small ones in a home or larger ones in a location, to entire temples.  Things in and around the idol, within the sphere of the 'shrine' are considered holy.  In a sense this is what the Jewish Temple was in Jerusalem.  The object within, but also the grounds around were considered holy.  It's clear in Leviticus and other places that this is what God taught the Sons of Israel.  But it was never the whole understanding of the term.

The people of Israel were also called a 'holy nation', a 'kingdom of priests', and designated as a 'chosen people' making even the normal 'common' person someone holy.  The nation was supposed to be a 'shrine', their communities, homes, and national boundaries.  This changes some fundamental understanding of 'holiness'.  There were prescribed behaviors they were to follow, not just in the Temple, but in their homes, communities, and as a nation.  There were elements of the very basic elements of their lives where God insinuated Himself.  There truly was no 'shrine' in Israel, they were the shrine.

It's the representative idol worship around them that distinguished them and made them different.  That is what made them holy; they were different.  Some, very powerful nations, considered them atheists because they would not worship idols.  They could not conceive of a form of worship that was not 'representative'.  These 'idols' formed the diplomatic means to connect nations, their myths formed common bonds, and their practices enabled trade and commerce.  Israel stands alone outside this 'fraternity' of idolatry.  Like circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, and their dietary rules, this refusal to worship like the other nations caused difficulties for them wherever they went, with whomever they dealt.  That was the idea; it was by design; they were holy to the One True God.

So, that's my theory (or two of them), and while not very exciting or enlightening, and not even close to a full explanation; I think that between the three ideas, I have a better understanding of why 'images' are problems for my Master.  But I also think I have a good clear admonition to not let 'things' distract me from my Master; not people, crosses, flooring, clothing, trappings, sound systems, screens, music, or instruments.  None of this stuff or people should be able to drift my focus from my Master.  For, as the people of Israel considered themselves holy, so do I; psychologically and socially.

The Danger of Being Loved by my Master

Samuel said to the people, "Do not fear. You have committed all this evil, yet do not turn aside from following the LORD, but serve the LORD with all your heart.  You must not turn aside, for then you would go after futile things which can not profit or deliver, because they are futile.  For the LORD will not abandon His people on account of His great name, because the LORD has been pleased to make you a people for Himself." (1 Samuel 12:20-22 NASB)

"Only fear the LORD and serve Him in truth with all your heart; for consider what great things He has done for you.  But if you still do wickedly, both you and your king will be swept away." (1 Samuel 12:24-25 NASB)

Samuel makes his last public address in Gilgal after Saul has been ratified as king for the second time.  In it he asserts his own innocence and calls the people to affirm it and God to witness.  Then he affirms the faithfulness of God, while simultaneously the faithlessness of the people; right up to asking for a king.  Then he calls on God to punctuate what he's saying to the people by spontaneously bringing thunder and rain (out of season).

The people are terrified and call on Samuel to continue to pray for them so they won't die.  His response to them is mostly above.  I chose these two elements out of his response because they bring out a part of God's character which is sadly misunderstood today.  In my childhood, my Master was not described to me this way, at least that's not what I caught from the teaching.

What way?  Well, while I do remember the power of my Master to create and shake His creation, sweeping away His people wasn't one of the elements I remember.  Think about the two elements, one that He is pleased to make a people for Himself, and two that He will sweep them away for causing evil.  They appear contradictory, but obviously aren't.

Here's what I believe is missed about the character of my Master in this passage.  I believe that my Master demonstrates enormous grace and mercy in His choice of me.  Clearly there is nothing inherent in my behavior and attitudes that warrants such attention from my Holy Creator. But the love of my Master for me is also guided by His holiness, which constantly directs me into more of this same character.  In order to accomplish this direction, my Master will sweep me away if necessary to remove me from an environment where I have lost my moorings to Him.

Is that a lot to get from this passage?  Probably.  But this passage occurs in the larger history of the sons of Israel for whom this is exactly what happens.  But this larger story continues on to their restoration, at least partially, to their former place.  What is also true is that the these sons of Israel do not then cease to be the people of God's choice.  So, neither will I.  But as they suffered, and have suffered, neither will I be exempt from such treatment from my Master.  Why would I?

I believe the rational of my Master behind this is the larger story in which the history of the sons of Israel is placed; where my Master seeks to redeem His entire creation.  He chooses a people to use to redeem the rest of the people, including me.  Yet if He will not spare one from being "swept away", why would I believe He will not sweep away the others?  If He does not spare the first chosen from suffering, why would I believe He would spare me? 

Do you see the character quality of my Master peeking through?  But do you see also the critical implication?  There is a danger is drifting away from a pure devotion to my Master.  When I mix it with devotion to things, people, circumstances, and the elements of my life on this planet; then I am in danger of being swept away by Him Whom I have forgotten.  Swept away, along with all the stuff, people, and circumstances I found so distracting.  Perhaps this is an implication of Jesus' words, "If anyone wishes to save his life he will lose it, but whoever loses His life for My sake and the gospel's he will save it." (Matthew 10:39, Mark 8:35, Luke 9:24)  Keep in mind that in these passages, "life" is actually the word "soul".

What I see as my response to this passage is to serve my Master with all my heart.  It confirms the words of my Master to me that I am His servant.  He gave me that designation many years ago in my youth, and I rediscovered it some few years ago while seeking to climb out of my addictive behaviors.  I needed to know who I am, and my Master's definition of me included the designation of His servant.  So that is in my "signature": SOTK, Servant of the King.  The danger of forgetting this is real, tangible, and for my sake because of His holiness and love for me, inflexible.  Now where's my dish towel?  I think I hear my Master calling!  "Here I am, my Master!"

Well, Duh!

1Sa 7:3-4
3 Then Samuel spoke to all the house of Israel, saying, “ If you return to the Lord with all your heart, remove the foreign gods and the Ashtaroth from among you and direct your hearts to the Lord and serve Him alone; and He will deliver you from the hand of the Philistines.” 4 So the sons of Israel removed the Baals and the Ashtaroth and served the Lord alone.
(NASBStr)

This takes place after Israel has tried to defeat the Philistines using the Ark of God. The defeat is huge, the Ark is captured, Shiloh completely destroyed, and the people were confused. Why had their God abandoned them? Why had He allowed the gold box of His presence be taken? They were left wondering.

In this case it wasn't rocket surgery. Samuel knew. He didn't go with the Ark to battle. He was one of the Shiloh refugees, fleeing in the aftermath of disaster. But he knew why. God had already established him as a prophet, Israel already knew to seek God through Samuel, and he had been around the corruption of Eli and his sons.

The people were confused why God had left them, and the reason they sought was their confusion about their God's holiness. They totally missed it. In the previous chapter the Levites of Beth-Shemesh sent the Ark away because God was too holy; too holy for Levites. If the ones responsible for maintaining and teaching holiness didn't get it, it shouldn't surprise us that Israel didn't.

So they had seen no inconsistency in their practice of worshipping more than just the God of Israel. They had to renounce their other gods and practices before they were given success in battle. Am I any different? The rules haven't changed over the years, my Master still requires holy (singular) devotion. Yet what simple stupid stuff competes for my attention? What does it take to keep me from church? What does it take for me to miss my morning time with my Master. Why am I so easily distracted, so quick to give up time and attention to the One forming stars? And for what? What is so central to my mind that I lose focus on such a One? It's usually petty, temporal, and petty...oh wait I already said that. I was just distracted, again!

But putting all distractions and practices behind me will enable me to be used by my Master for His purposes. My success will be before Him, in His service, beyond the meager goals and aspirations of this earth. If I want transcendence, to be continually conscious of His presence, then I must be singular in my devotion. The question is, do I really want that.

The Progression of Understanding

And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.  That is why I came without even raising any objection when I was sent for. So I ask for what reason you have sent for me." (Acts 10:28-29 NASB)

 Why am I here?  It's a question raised once someone has time to think or reflect, usually on what's wrong in their life.  For one following the Creator of suns and quarks, it's a question typically uttered in prayer.  In Peter's case, the Master opened the discussion with him not waiting for the question.  I think it is the mark of the Great Teacher that the answer wasn't complete without obedience.

The linen is lowered with the unclean animals in it, and Peter is told to kill and eat, he says no, and is then told to not profane what God has sanctified.  This repeats itself 3 times (which resonates with Peter for obvious reasons), and then disappears into heaven.  But the context in which to understand this vision is missing.  That requires obedience.  Peter must go with strangers to a stranger's house.

Once he arrived, Peter really has only one question, "Why am I here?"  He knows that Cornelius holds the other piece of this puzzle which completes the context he needs.  What he discovers is that he holds the piece which will make all the other things the assembled people "already know" suddenly make sense (verses 36-43).  They have a context but no interpretation; he has interpretation without the proper context.  They need each other.

And so I have an example of the proper response to things that don't make sense, obedience.  This isn't that unusual actually.  When faced with peculiar situations, military training is to follow the last orders given.  That may sound simplistic, but once you see what an order looks like it will make more sense, they're pretty involved things.  It might make more sense to civilians to say, "continue with the mission."  This is good advice for followers of Jesus as well.

Sometimes church, the neighborhood or community, work, school, or family can throw a curve ball at me that I have to somehow hit with a stick of wood (or sometimes I'd like to hit with a piece of wood).  When faced with surprising, confusing, seemingly chaotic situations, my response should be like that of Peter, continue the mission, obey, in all things trust my Master.  That is probably the main theme of obedience in these situations, in all things trust my Master.

Of course, obedience requires knowing the orders in the first place.  I have to have read them.  Which means I have to have spent time in Scripture.  It also means I must spend time in prayer.  Often, the act of obedience really is prayer, or at least begins there.  So, that is where I go next.

Holy Maintenance

Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." (Acts 10:15 NASB)

 Acts 10 fascinates me for a variety of reasons.  There is the barrier between Jew and Gentile breached, which seems so ironic to me since they didn't have a problem with the Samaritan barrier being breached.  There is the character of Cornelius who is both devout to God in that he prays and gives to the poor, but then when Peter arrives, bows and kisses the feet of a person as if he is a god of some sort; a throwback to his paganism.  The character of Peter that, even after such a dramatic vision of being told to eat unclean animals, still doesn't realize what's going on until he hears Cornelius' story; and even then is still a proud Jew benignly meeting with Gentiles.  There are lots of ironies in this chapter, and clearly the Holy Spirit is the true main character.

Something that is not so easy to spot because of how it is normally translated is the charge to Peter in the vision.  At first he is told to kill and eat from the unclean animals in the linen "vessel" and he refuses.  The next charge is always translated as, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."  In some way or another it is translated this way, and that is the most logical way to do so, as it fits the literary context.  An alternative that does not fit so well in the literary context, but I feel brings out a new depth of meaning is, "What God has sanctified (made holy), do not defile (make unholy)."  The imperative verb at the end of the statement has that option as well, in fact it would normally be used that way.  But in this case that doesn't fit as well, and is most likely not what Luke meant.  I want to explore it because of how that option affects my daily walk before my Master.

In the case of Cornelius, clearly God had sanctified him (or was in the process of it).  In my case, I am one caused to be holy.  People around me may have been made holy.  I have to admit that the process begins with the declaration that I'm holy, and then begins a struggle to keep me that way.  I can only suppose that it works in a similar way with others.  Here's the point of application:  It is an affront to my Master to consider myself unholy, or profane myself.  It is also an affront to my Master to consider someone else He has sanctified to be unholy or profane them.  In other words, I sin when I defile myself (duh, pretty obvious), but I also sin when I treat others as profane, or when I defile them (or cause them to become defiled).

Has anyone reading these entries ever noticed that I have this tendency to unpack a box I'm never going to be able to inventory and re-pack in one entry?  Well, here we go again.  There are way too many ramifications to this than I can address in this entry.  Let me just address these two: 1) I must consider myself holy to my Master, it's not an option.  2) I must seek to preserve the holiness of those around me. 

Sound obvious?  Well the most common ways they play out in my life is in compromise.  I compromise with myself, and permit myself to indulge in (whatever, food, play, TV, etc.) and leave off something my Master has for me to do.  When do this, I have taken myself out of His purpose, and chosen my own.  Not that every time I eat, play, watch TV or whatever I have abandoned the purpose of my Master, but in those times I have chosen that over what He calls me to do, then I defile myself. 

But I also compromise with other people.  In this culture that doesn't sound so bad, but in the context of the culture of my fellow believers, it's desecration of the individual.  One of the things that can often irritate my fellow church attendees is how our pastor is so dogmatic about sin being sin, and how God should be first, even in small things.  That really bothers people, and some have left because of it.  But if he did not do that, he would be desecrating the people to whom he preaches.  It's not a small matter, it's huge.  But I can be found in compromise as well.  His venue is out in front and obvious, mine is not always. 

Whenever I influence someone in my circle of believers to do something I know is contrary to the will of my Master for them, I desecrate them.  When I don't say what I know He wants me to say to another, to encourage them away from something outside His will, I desecrate them.  Whether it is refusal to confront a sin, the encouragement to sin, or even when I do not address something in Bible study that I should, or pull out something I should not; even then I desecrate or run that risk.

So what do I do?  For one thing, I must seek to perceive holiness in myself and others.  I must discipline myself to become aware of it.  There are obvious examples, and not so obvious ones, and I need to become aware of both.  But I also must discipline myself to set apart Jesus as my Master, and Him as the defining example of holiness.  And then I must submit to this holiness.  That will be the hard part.  It requires that I leave sanctification to my Master rather mine to control, and seek only to preserve what He does in me and in others.  Submission to holiness means that I subordinate my own view of others to His.  I cannot make another person holy, but I can help preserve the holiness my Master is creating in them.  This much my Master would have me do.  Submission, never has been one of my favorite things, but here I go again.

Return to a Basic Principle

When I began this blog, one of the basic principles was that it would be a place of accountability for me.  This is partly why I have strenuously attempted to remain in the first person rather than "preach" to others.  If others gain insight into their own lives, I pray it comes through my Master's use of these words rather than my efforts.

This week, my need for accountability is higher than it has been in a while.  I will be mostly alone all day all this week.  What I have learned from the past 19 (nearly 20) years is that I am not emotionally suited to being alone.  I used to think I was fine alone, but I now believe that what had happened was the emotional pain of loneliness had become a callous.  It wasn't until I was married and had someone around me 24/7 that I realized a contrast to being alone.  Now, having this contrast, I believe I "crater" when I'm alone.

Fortunately for me, it is only a week.  Also, I will not be alone all day, just during most of my work hours.  That is good, but still very dangerous for me.  I venture into evil when left alone, trying to "self-medicate" the pain of loneliness.  It's dumb, sacrilegious, silly, preposterous, and down right idolatrous; but I still struggle against it, sometimes in vain.

What I need is light in the darkness of my alone time.  There are several ways I can do this, but accountability is always a very effective one.  Knowing that I am accountable to others for my actions helps me remember that my actions affect others, and they are not all about me.  The pain I cause others is right in line with what my Master teaches me in His Scriptures, but I deny this truth to myself if I think I can "hide" what evil I do, thereby "protecting" those around me from it.  It doesn't work.  I know this, but have to "re-learn" it every time I fail.

So, each morning, I want to populate this page with a record of how my thought life has been the previous day and night.  I want to record how my actions have been the previous day and night.  I need to include not only the pieces with which I obviously struggle, but also the emotional things that often trigger these morose activities and thoughts.

So, today and tonight will be the subject of tomorrow's post.  Tuesday will be reported on Wednesday, and so on.  I will continue to post links to these entries on Facebook.  Those of you who read these on regular or irregular basis will form my support group, my accountability group, my brothers and sisters in my Master's family.  Let me thank you in advance for what you do for me in just being there, even if you don't read.  But please do.  You will find that you help me glorify my Master more, and experience His holiness more in my life by your simple act of checking on me through this blog.

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?

Holiness by Association

This is one of those entries, where I wonder how the verse ever became associated with the entry substance.  It has the most oblique application in the person of Joseph.  The verse is Genesis 41:40 where the Pharaoh of Egypt gives Joseph control of the land to prepare for the coming famine.  If it were not for Joseph, I’m not sure how this verse would apply at all.  Joseph does demonstrate a very interested and elevated example of the life Chambers writes of.  Even though Chambers is referring to living as a Temple of the Holy Spirit, Joseph lives his life in much the same way Chambers describes.

While it’s possible that Joseph represents one of those people in the Hebrew Scriptures who has the Holy Spirit, it does not specifically refer to him that way.  It’s really clear in the account that God is with him growing up and in Egypt, but that reference used with the judges, prophets and kings is missing.  Joseph may have been one who kept himself pure without the benefit I have of the Holy Spirit.  He was upright in all he did, demonstrated integrity in his dealings, and God gave him success everywhere he turned.

Chambers says that living a holy life is possible for me.  I really didn’t want to read that, but I suspect he is right, at least to a large degree.  I do have the responsibility to live this life being holy to my Master.  I have to accept that my Master wouldn’t command it if it weren’t within my power, limited as it is.  My suspicion is that with this, as will so many other areas of obedience, requires focus on Him rather focus on my actions.  I suspect that my holy behavior will fall in line with my Master naturally by my association with Him.  At least, all advances to this point in this area have worked that way.

It’s when I get caught up in what I’m doing and the environment I do it in rather than before Whom I do it that the problems come.  I do everything in plain view of my Master.  It is in His presence that I live and breathe and have my being.  So, living like that, practicing that in the mundane elements of my life, and not worrying about one misstep.  The environment is not an excuse for me to step out of holiness.  It’s never that bad that my Master is no longer Master over that too.  Those around me need the holiness of my Master more than I need their approval. 

So, I agree with Chambers here.  I don’t want to, partly because I have said for years that I’m powerless, taking that as an excuse to live without power.  But I do believe in One powerful enough to overcome my insanity.  And I do believe that when I commit my will to Him, holiness follows.  I can’t use powerlessness as an excuse, that’s part of my environment.  But devotion and submission to my Master overcomes my environment, including my nature.  I am without excuses, my Master is present with me, and I have all that is necessary for holiness.

This week I have another opportunity to prove what my Master can do.  My wife will be travelling, and the loneliness will be my constant companion again.  Thankfully, once my daughter comes home, she will be a comfort to me, and she really is.  It is during the busy day and later in the evening that I will need to seek my Master.  These will be times to practice His presence in the daily routine and in the normality of my life.  This has been something I have experienced more and more this past year.  I suspect my pastor would be happy to know I was listening yesterday.  This is exactly what he preached on, and he did so really well.

Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest, December 5

Seeing my Master through a Legal Lens

One of the criticisms of the Book of James by Martin Luther was that it discounted the role of faith.  The problem with his assessment is that what is left is law.  Yet in the second chapter, James says that the law cannot save.  So, what was misunderstood by Luther is that James is saying that faith has a resulting change in the person which is evidenced by good deeds.  If the deeds are not present, the faith that led to change may not be there either.  So James is not discounting the need for faith or saying that faith does not save; but rather is saying “put up or shut up” about your faith.  So faith is evidenced more by deeds than words.

The role of the “law” in my life is probably not what it is for some.  I know there are Ten Commandments separated out, and lots of believers think of that only when thinking of the law.  But James refers to the “whole law” when he discusses keeping the law.  If one is broken out of the whole law, that person is guilty of all of them.  There are a lot more laws than those found in the Ten Commandments.  So what is the purpose or value of those?  I believe there is value for believers in those esoteric and forgotten laws.  It’s not to save a person from separation from their Creator, it’s to better understand Him and His character.

The major bodies of law texts are found in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy.  They are not the most riveting reading.  Once past much of the drama of Exodus, it becomes hard to get through the legal parts.  Part of the difficulty though is the difficulty in reconciling what is being read with a modern paradigm.  It sounds so foreign that is hard to visualize or imagine what it would look like today.  Therefore it makes little sense to modern readers.  This is where a technique I learned from my wife becomes helpful.  She would constantly ask me, “What’s the point?”  That’s the key question when examining a set of laws on a particular topic.

A lot of or most of Leviticus, the point is consistently the holiness of God requiring a subsequent holy behavior in His people.  Right down to what they wore and how they did their hair this concept was consistently, “Be Holy as I am Holy.”  In Deuteronomy the layout and structure is that of a Hittite Legal Contract or Covenant between a power and those under that power.  It could be the king or a prince, or a chieftain in power, but someone in power.  Once they conquered another people, this is the document the conquered ones were forced into complying with.  The nice thing for the conquered people is they knew what to expect.

Those two contexts make addressing their contents somewhat easier.  There are other historical issues to be addressed, like the setting of the writing and so on, but the essential over all context is a lot of help in understanding the paradigm it come out of.  The book of Exodus is not as easy.  This one is sort of a precursor to the other two, and provides some foundational sets of laws and lots of what is known as “sundry laws” in most modern translations (that is what the heading reads anyway).  The laws defy a particular categorical definition.  This makes the sets of legal matter in Exodus a bit more difficult to understand in one sense.

The key to any of these legal texts is the one consistent truth about them all.  The Deliverer of Israel provided His people with a glimpse of what was important to Him, and therefore of His character.  All of Scripture can be seen this way, but especially the legal texts.  In no other place do we see the Master of the universe giving direction so clearly and so distinctly.  It is one of the places I see a clearer glimpse of my Master.  It is one thing to see Him and His character in the poetic and prophetic texts of the Hebrew Scriptures, but those stem from these.  The legal texts give life and depth to the rest.  These lay a foundation for the Christian Scriptures.

Well, this is all well and good, but what would it look like.  I’m out of time this morning, so I’ll need to demonstrate it later.  In the meantime, I will be spending some time in those texts to refresh my memory (that’s right, I haven’t been there is a while, I know).  Perhaps I will discover something new.  Fortunately I don’t need to pass the bar or find my “powdered wig” to search through these laws.

Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest, December 1

Holy Like God is Holy, or Holy as I Consider God to be Holy?

Jesus used illustrations from the mundane to explain the profound.  So truth about very important aspects of my life with my Master can be found in the mundane areas of life.  In 1 Corinthians 10:31 when Paul is wrapping up his argument about food sacrificed to idols, he uses this statement as a general admonition to bring the focus of the glory of God into common aspects of my life.  Since Jesus used common aspects as illustrations, it seems He finds wisdom in these elements of life.

So, I have very common things I do each day where I can focus on the glory of my Master.  In these I can find wisdom when I look; lessons about the deeper things of my relationship with my Master.  For instance, washing dishes brings to mind Jesus’ statement about washing the inside being more important than the outside.  Even building something is used by Jesus to illustrate how it is necessary to plan for the end before I even begin my relationship with my Master; I am to finish well.  There are dozens more, and probably more that didn’t even make it into the gospels.

If those places of my daily life are made holy, not just the “holy” ones, I become more holy.  I don’t become holy in the sense that God is holy, but I become holy in the same way I consider Him holy.  I see my Master as completely “other”; distinct from any other person.  He is capable of creation at vast levels of complexity and in miniscule levels of intricacy.  I am not, nor will I ever be.  I’m not holy in that way; rather I’m holy in the sort of way I set Him aside as distinct from this common world.  I need to be distinct as well.  I need to be obviously different from others in my character and my behavior.

I am to be holy as implements are holy, not in the way that standing in His presence as a profane man would destroy me.  Although, I do need to abstain from unholy things as He does.  Jesus has the ability to transform common things to holy things.  Some things defy this transformation.  I want to follow this pattern of transforming common things I do into holy activities, and stay far away from behaviors and thoughts which defy such transformation.  Washing dishes, answering the phone (i.e. my job), and listening to my daughter talk and talk and talk and talk (oh my gracious…) are all things that can be and should be transformed into holy activities.

My interior thought life often runs headlong into the profane patterns that cannot be transformed into holy things.  Those I need to put under the ban.  These are the thoughts I bring captive to my Master.  The thoughts of sinful pleasures of my selfish nature are those things that will pass away in the process of my Master transforming this common man into a holy man.  I wish they were gone already, but they aren’t.  I still wrestle with them, and they still have a power over me; power I gave them long ago and still leave with them.  These things refuse transformation, so they must be destroyed.  I’m not there yet.

I am a man in transition.  I am a person in between the common profane life of this world and the holy glorious life of my Master.  My standard needs to be higher.  On that scale of holiness, I want to be further along.  I can be.  It’s not like I’m just getting by with my sinful thoughts until my Master comes for me.  I don’t want Him coming to find me consumed by sinful thought patterns!  How embarrassing, for us both!  I believe that when my Master calls me to be holy as my Father in Heaven is holy, this is a call that can be answered in this life.  Leviticus is full of explanations that the people were to be holy as God is holy.  It’s not a new idea.

So, today I dedicate my work, my family, and my mind to my Master.  I do so now, and I will need to do so again in about an hour.  And then I will need to do so around lunch, and then again as I get off work.  I will probably need to do so again at various times through my work day as well.  And there will be family time after work when I will need to rededicate my mind, words, and attitudes back to my Master.  I will have a lot of this going on I suspect.  But if I don’t I will miss the Person more amazing than anything I’ve seen through either my telescope or microscope; the One making all of it and holding it all together.  I can’t have that.

Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest, November 22