How Does David Look Now?

Now in the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it by the hand of Uriah.  He had written in the letter, saying, " Place Uriah in the front line of the fiercest battle and withdraw from him, so that he may be struck down and die."  So it was as Joab kept watch on the city, that he put Uriah at the place where he knew there were valiant men.  The men of the city went out and fought against Joab, and some of the people among David's servants fell; and Uriah the Hittite also died. (2 Samuel 11:14-17 NASB)

 When I visited the Dominican Republic some years ago we drove by a modern monument that was clearly tragic.  When I asked about it, I was told it was for the the men who killed Trujillo, the dictator of the Dominican Republic.  The story went that Trujillo had a group of men who would go through the city and kidnap women for him, once he slept with them, he would release them.  At one point he captured the wives of some of his top police leaders, and they refused.  So he jailed their husbands.  They still refused, so he killed them all and their husbands and threw them off this cliff where the monument stood.  So, 5 men (related to the victims) very high in Trujillo's court arranged for and carried out his assassination.  They paid for his death with their lives, but were remembered years afterward as heroes.

Trujillo was a tyrant, the worst of the idea of dictator.  He was an amoral thug, an evil ruler.  But, that's what we expect when someone has absolute power; absolute corruption.  We don't expect it from David though. 

Even knowing this chapter is coming, having gone through Samuel up to this point, it still shocks.  What David did as he sinned with Bathsheba is still such a deviation from his character to this point that it's hard to imagine.  Having Uriah killed is one thing, but to send the command by his own hand was a stroke of unusual cruelty for David.  It means that David knew he could trust the character of Uriah to not read the note while in transit.  It means that David knew the character of Uriah was above his own.  In fact, reading of Uriah to this point is tragically ironic as he consistently demonstrates more moral character than the king he serves so faithfully.  One of the saddest ironies of Scripture is the response by Uriah when David asks him why he did not go down to his house and hide David's sin with his wife.  He swears on David's life and the life of David's soul he would not do this thing.  He refers to the Ark and his fellow soldiers in tents, the army in the field.  Why was David not there?  It's a tragic irony, where you see his moral character and faithfulness to his king become his undoing.

David kills one of his own 30 faithful long-serving valorous body guards, one who fought beside him while running from Saul, while living in Ziklag, against the Amalekites, and in Hebron.  Uriah stands as one of faithfulness and character, highlighting these qualities lacking in David; at least right here.

It's true David seems devoid of these qualities right here, and that they are replaced with the worst of human qualities.  With David, the worst is never the end of the story.  With David there is another quality that remains at the bedrock of all the others.  He is willing to repent.  Chapter 11 is about his moral failure of epic proportions.  Chapter 12 is about his repentance, also of epic proportions.  Chapter 11 is the worst of David, where chapter 12 is arguably the best.

What this chapter does is bring David's rock-solid faith into sharp relief.  It's not a faith so strong he never fails.  It's a faith so strong he always gets back up and recovers from failure.  It's not amazing that David has this moral failure, it is shocking, but not amazing.  What is amazing is what Nathan is able to do in the next chapter.  And so you don't go all 'fearless-man-of-God' on Nathan, read chapter 11 carefully, and consider how many people knew exactly what David did.  I wonder how many of his faithful soldiers moved a few more blocks away from the palace.  While it wasn't amazing that Nathan knew, it was amazing that he had the courage, knowing what he did, to confront the king.  I'm sure he was afraid, but we'll get into that in the next chapter.

The hinge pin on which the life of David turns is the last verse of chapter 11.  From there a failure becomes a lesson.  But until that verse, it seems very dark, David seems in danger of becoming another despot, another malevolent dictator, another example of human depravity and the utter corruption of absolute power.

I wonder how many people, without the absolute power, hide from God wearing fig leaves, rather than approach the hinge-pin of their own lives.  I have lived from childhood comfortable with shadows and shades of truth.  I have seen it in my family (haven't we all?), but I never saw a real emergence from the shadows.  They weren't bad enough to really require some dramatic repentance, I suppose.  Or, like so many of us, denial makes living among them seem lit.  The gray semi-gloom becomes normal and we treat it like light.  Yet reading Scripture creates an uncomfortable feeling that all is not as light as it should be.

David passes out of darkness and into light.  He pays the consequences and accepts from his Master what comes from his own sin.  The pathway to light is often paved with consequences.  And it is usually these consequences that keep me in gloom, and my fear of them keeps me from a light I can barely imagine.  I suppose in times like this, what I need is the courage to follow the path of consequences into the light.  But I have found that I also need patience, peace, and joy never hurts either.  These things are only found growing on the branches of a life filled with the Spirit of my Master.  So, really, what I have always needed was the presence of my Master in me; just like David.

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...

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.

Frightening Things About A Holy God

Now one of the servants of Saul was there that day, detained before the LORD; and his name was Doeg the Edomite, the chief of Saul's shepherds. (1 Samuel 21:7 NASB)

 In almost every translation I have, Doeg is described as 'detained before the Lord'.  This is one of the few verses that I've run into where something like this is so commonly translated in so many versions.  The word in Hebrew can looked up in a Strong's Concordance as H6113 or here at the Blue Letter Bible website (one of my favorite online resources). 

The word is most often used for when God 'shuts' the windows of heaven during a drought, or shuts the wombs of women so they don't bear children, and so on.  The key here is that the word is not ordinarily used for what people do (unless to point out what they 'cannot do'), but rather for what God does.  If you read the rest of this story (into chapter 22), consider that, according to the writer, God caused Doeg to be present knowing he would betray and destroy the priests of Nob and their entire city.

Doeg's presence precipitates one of the darkest days of Israel.  King Saul has the entire city, men, women, children, infants, and animals wiped out.  In his paranoia he goes over the top in his punishment of priests; priests who weren't even rebellious or in defiance before him.  His servants wouldn't carry out his order to slay the priests, only this Doeg character.  So, why would a loving, holy omniscient God restrain such a character in Nob to witness David getting help from them?

First off, I don't really know.  I do have a theory though (go figure).  Not often in these places are we given that many clues, but here I think I can find a possible answer combined from two places.  The first is 1 Samuel 2:27-36; the prophecy against the house of Eli.  In it is this phrase:

'Behold, the days are coming when I will break your strength and the strength of your father's house so that there will not be an old man in your house.  You will see the distress of My dwelling, in spite of all the good that I do for Israel; and an old man will not be in your house forever.  Yet I will not cut off every man of yours from My altar so that your eyes will fail from weeping and your soul grieve, and all the increase of your house will die in the prime of life. (1 Samuel 2:31-33 NASB)

So, in a sense, due to the sins of Eli and his sons, the house of Aaron (not Levi, but Eli within the house of Aaron) would be cut off both from the land and from serving before the altar.

The second clue I find in 1 Kings 2:26, 27 where Solomon dismisses Abiathar (the last remaining priest from Eli's line) from service:

Then to Abiathar the priest the king said, "Go to Anathoth to your own field, for you deserve to die; but I will not put you to death at this time, because you carried the ark of the Lord GOD before my father David, and because you were afflicted in everything with which my father was afflicted." So Solomon dismissed Abiathar from being priest to the LORD, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD, which He had spoken concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh. (1 Kings 2:26-27 NASB)

What I surmise from these two passages is that the destruction of the priest of Nob was actually 'arranged' by God; which is very frightening to me.  What I mean by this is that the Loving King of Righteousness, in justice and judgment, restrained Doeg so that his presence would bring about a portion of His judgment against the priestly line of Eli.  At least, that's my theory.

And here's what I learn from this:  Not all my problems from other people are persecution for righteousness.  In fact, at least in my case, I would contend I suffer the consequences for my sin.  But beyond this, when my sin before my Master is great, these consequences can also be severe on my family; guilt-by-association or environment or something.  It's a reminder that my sin is not just about me, but about those around me. 

I hope therefore, that my repentance is also about others, not just me; that my heart broken before my Master will also positively affect others around me.  Truly, my sin, in addition to all the other reasons in my dark heart, is also selfish in that I afflict others without regard for their consequences.  So, I hope also my brokenness before my Master will be selfless, before my Master, and before others.  Strength to resist sin becomes something I exert for my Master, but also for those around me.  Once again, it's less about me.  Good grief, I really do need to just fade to the background, and be lost behind the view of my Master.

'Household Images' and a Heart Like God's

Then Saul sent messengers to David's house to watch him, in order to put him to death in the morning. But Michal, David's wife, told him, saying, "If you do not save your life tonight, tomorrow you will be put to death."  So Michal let David down through a window, and he went out and fled and escaped.  Michal took the household idol and laid it on the bed, and put a quilt of goats' hair at its head, and covered it with clothes. When Saul sent messengers to take David, she said, "He is sick." (1 Samuel 19:11-14 NASB)

 One of the things about David that is often pointed out is that he is considered by God to be a man after His own heart.  In other words, David has a heart like God's heart (1 Samuel 13:14).  It's not a pursuit, it's a quality of David's heart already.  I think it's interesting that having a heart like God's doesn't mean that David doesn't make mistakes.

The other thing most pointed out about David is his sin; usually David, Bathsheba, and Uriah the Hittite.  But what about the issue of David having an idol in his house while God is using him with Saul and the armies of Israel?  That's one we don't bring up much when we think of David, sin, and having a 'heart like God's heart.'

Samuel condemns these 'household idols' before Saul, and the implication is that he had wiped them out in Israel (1 Samuel 15:23 'idolatry').  So it's not likely that Michal brought it from her father's house.  I think this is David's 'household image'.  This term is one of those Hebrew words which is translated differently depending upon the context, but I think it's a common term used for a fairly common item.

I find a few common things:  1) they are condemned from Judges to Samuel to Kings, and into the prophets.  2) they are common in Israel and Judah.  Those are really somewhat odd when you think about it.  How can they be condemned and still be common?  I have a theory (go figure).

I suspect that the term used (which is not the normal term for 'idol'), is more of a common term for a category of object.  It's not an object from or used in a sacred site or temple.  Rather I think it's a common object used in a house or home.  I also suspect that it was an image of some sort of animal or bird or person.  Like a picture on a wall we use now.

Because of that, whether it's used for worship or other purposes may not be necessarily consistent. I'm not saying it was a paperweight for David, but Saul worshiped his (at least not according to 1 Samuel 15:23).  I'm saying that these household objects were a problem in that they were a violation of a basic command of God: not to make an image representing any created thing (Exodus 20:4).  I think that was the problem.  It was a compromise.

So here's what I learn from this:  A heart like my Master's heart is still a human heart, and not without compromise.  So, I know that I sometimes discover areas of my life and heart that I have been blind to; that are contrary to my Master's commands.  What I do with that discovery is where the character of my heart being like my Master's heart becomes evident.  Do I repent?  Do I change my mind to agree with the mind of my Master?

I have to remember that the 'heart' as Scripture uses the term is different than we typically use the same term.  It's not the same as 'mind' and it's not the seat of the emotions (like it is for us).  A heart like my Master's doesn't mean I 'think' like Him, it means that I pursue with dogged determination what He pursues to the same degree.  I'm faithful to the end, I'm patient to wait for Him, I never waver in my belief in His goodness.  But I may have 'teraphim' in my life that need to go.

Keep in mind that this 'household image' wasn't so precious to David that he takes it with him when he leaves.  So, what will I do when I find these things in my life, these unknown compromises with my Master's commands?  That's the question I have to ask myself from this passage.  I'm not sure David ever recognized the problem with his, Scripture never says.  But that's beside the point.  What will I do?  When his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah was pointed out, David repented (although I'm sure he was aware of that one).  What will I do when I discover my own?

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.

Repenting: Changing And Turning, Changes Everything

"So, King Agrippa, I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision, but kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance." (Acts 26:19-20 NASB)

 One of the things that drove me to study the Scriptures in original languages was to better understand terminology used in theology.  At least I couch it in those terms now, but at the beginning of my studies I really couldn't articulate it that way.  All I knew is that I wanted to understand those discussions for myself.  I knew I had to be able to work with the text as it truly is rather than as someone told me it is.

As with most lessons my Master brings me through, I never end up anywhere close to where I aimed at the beginning.  In this case, in studying original languages, I discovered "textual criticism" and the reality that I would never be able to 1) work with the text as it truly was; and 2) never really understand theology all by myself.  It was a very "unAmerican" discovery to make, that I would always be dependent on others for my understanding.

Instead, where I wound up was learning that terms and thoughts are much more vibrant and deep than I expected.  I wanted to know the real meaning of church-word, "holy" and all its uses.  What I discovered is a pagan word used by idol worshipers which was adopted and redefined by Scripture.  That wasn't what I expected to find.  All across my scope and range of assumptions, I found that I was usually wrong, or at least severely limited.

This passage in Acts 26 is an excellent example of the journey where I lost an assumption, replaced it with a false one, and then lost that one to be replaced by an uncomfortable combination of the two.  It's an example of how my Master speaks and says what He wants, rather than what I want to hear.

Repentance, I had been taught, was a 180 degree turn in my behavior from sin to obedience to Jesus.  To repent was to stop behavior.  So, no stop of behavior meant no repentance.  Well, it's not so easy.  Such a definition of repentance leaves it in my court, my choice, my power.  The reality is that Scripture uses three concepts for repentance, not this limited pale feeble guilt-ridden one with which I started.

In verse 20, Paul says that his message to both Jews and Gentiles was "...that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance."  Obviously there was more to his message, but this is how he boiled it down in this particular presentation.  Notice three elements in his message.

First, the word almost always translated as "repentance" refers to a change of mind or manner of thinking.  It's made up of the preposition, "after" and the word, "mind" or "thought".  It refers to what is concluded after thinking through something and arriving at a different place in the mind.  In other words, the mental perceptions about a thing have been altered to reflect a different point of view.  In this sense, and in all of its use in Scripture, this new point of view matches that of my Master.  So repentance is a change of mind to match the mind of my Master; partly.

The second piece is almost always translated as "turn", and is the common definition for "repent" although it's never translated as repent.  At first I said, "Aha!  See, repentance is a change of mind not behavior!"  And on the surface it might look that way, perhaps from other occurrences of this word or the previous one.  This is where my first assumption (that repentance was only a change in behavior) was crushed.  This word was never used for repentance.  In one sense I was free from the requirement to behave and be judged on my behavior, but such freedom didn't last long.

The third piece completes the structure of repentance.  Paul goes on to say in the same breath, "...performing deeds appropriate to repentance."  And there went the false prop for my new assumption.  This inescapably ties behavior to repentance.  There is a change in behavior tied to repentance.  The question I then asked was how do these three connect?

The three pieces may not require a particular order, but they must all be present.  In order to repent, my mind must be changed to match the point of view of my Master.  In order to repent the direction of my life must be aimed at my Master.  And, in order to repent, my behavior must reflect the previous two changes.

Now, I will admit that it can happen that I change my behavior, and learn to see things from my Master's perspective through obedience.  It's possible to change my behavior and discover the direction of my life has changed more toward my Master.  But I can't say that it always happens this way.  Now my belief is that, more often than not, these three are intertwined; first one preceding the others, then at another time the order changes.  But my belief can never separate the three from my understanding of repentance.  There is no longer an option for leaving out a change in my behavior to obedience to my Master, a change in the direction of my life toward my Master, and a change in my way of thinking to His way of thinking.  You see, I repented of my former misunderstanding of repentance. 

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.

How Close to Sodom Do I Get?

They also took Lot, Abram's nephew, and his possessions and departed, for he was living in Sodom. (Genesis 14:12 NASB)

Lot had moved from his tents and flocks on the valley floor near Sodom to actually living in Sodom.  This move made he and his stuff "plunder" and he was carried off by the kings of the east.  He saw the "good green land" and in spite of its proximity to Sodom, chose that.  He pitched his tents near Sodom, out of all the region of the valley.  And one chapter later he's in the city itself.

It's easy for me to point to Lot, and cluck my tongue, and shake my head, and think, "What an idiot", but am I that critical of myself?  If I look at my life, in the past and even now, have I chosen the "good green land" where it looks easy to make a living?  Have I ignored the influence of evil the sight of my Master so I could provide for my lifestyle easier?  Did I decide to pitch my tents, out of all the area I chose to live in, right next to the evil influence; away from the joy of my Master? 

Fernley used to be the fasted growing city in the nation.  It's now one of the most (if not the most) economically depressed cities/communities in Nevada, one of the most economically depressed states.  From Hero to Zero in less than three years.  It easy for me to look at the obvious mistakes of the area, the over building, the excessive amount of "investment property" and the over-growth of certain types of businesses (7 pizza joints, and no donut shop - that just confuses me).  Yet, what about my life, and my choices?

I chose to bail on ministry back in Y2K, (remember that?), and I probably should not have.  I chose to leave school instead of pursuing a PhD, and I probably should have stayed and gone into teaching.  I moved to California to get back into ministry only to have it unravel before it even began.  I probably should not have done that either.  Yet, I left ministry to protect my family; I left school because I was champing at the bit to get at what I had trained 10 years for; and I left Arizona to try and fix my past mistakes, and get back into the ministry I had left.  Nothing I tried worked very well.

When I was in ministry, the people tore me and my wife up emotionally.  When I was out of ministry and taking care of our home, I was in deep depression and nearly useless.  When I failed to get back into ministry I wound up in whatever job I could find, which turned out to be a huge mortgage company (which is now no longer in existence). 

I can focus on my mistakes, ones I've mentioned and the ones I haven't.  I can, but I don't have to.  If I continue to take Lot as my example, there will be a time when he has another chance to choose.  He could live with nothing or return to his uncle.  He chose to live with nothing in a cave with his two daughters.  He hit bottom and still refused to repent.  I need to learn from his example rather than following it. 

Sure I can see my mistakes, but I also have a Master willing to receive me back.  It's my responsibility to return.  That means admitting I have been wrong, submitting to my Master, and again taking up the role of walking before Him.  He has called me to wait on His word, worship Him as Master, and walk before Him as His servant.  Now, whatever job I am in becomes a ministry, whatever church group I am in becomes an opportunity for worship, and whenever I am confronted with confusion I have an opportunity for instruction.  Where shall I go today, my Master?

A Little Christmas Repentance

It is December 7, Pearl Harbor Day, and today I examine repentance.  It’s really easy at this day to remember the terrible thing done to my country on that day.  But that produces nothing helpful in me.  It is better to see the amazing things my Master has brought about out of that tragedy.  It’s possible that if the Japanese had not destroyed the battleships in that harbor, the United States may not have won the war of the Pacific.  But other good came out of it.  This country finally galvanized around our leaders and the again entered into the world to influence it with our character (which was better then).

That’s not very specific, and I wish I had specific stories, but even those would overshadow the point.  Changing my mind about how I see this day is what repentance is about.  The difference is my view of my life apart from my Master.  Sin is my actions, attitudes, and thoughts I pursue away from my Master or outside of my relationship with Him.  They could be “good” as actions, thoughts, or attitudes, but apart from my Master they are sin.  If I can experience that change of mind, change of paradigm to see these things as sin, then I begin to repent.  My actions, attitudes, and thoughts do change, but as a result of repentance.

I have referred to the 12 Steps of AA as a spiritual discipline of repentance.  The program is designed to change my mind about my behaviors, my thoughts, and my attitudes toward my compulsion.  All three need to change.  The program is really effective at helping me accomplish this partly because it is so intertwined with submission and obedience to my Master.  The problem with living my life my way is that my way sucks.  I have proven over and over that I can’t handle even the mundane elements of my life.  But my stubborn self is at odds with surrender to any other way.

Repentance is where I turn from myself and towards my Master.  Last night I put on my new comfy headphones, and listened to a whole bunch of Christmas music as I drifted off to sleep.  It was beautiful and peaceful, but it also brought me to tears.  I was awash in thoughts that my Master invaded the cosmos He created in the most tender and vulnerable ways; the same way we all enter life.  I was immersed in thoughts that my Master would condescend to such an existence for me and my fellow rebels.  I was sorry for all I contributed to that requirement on Him.  Yet the whole experience was peaceful and happy.

In 2 Corinthians 7:10, Paul says that the physical suffering from God leads to repentance without remorse.  The result does not end in remorse, which Chambers seems to forget.  He goes on and on about remorse being the normal response to the rare experience of repentance.  When the people of Israel heard again the word of the Law read before them by Ezra and his scribes, they lamented all they had done to bring the judgment of God on their nation.  The priests and scribes said, “Don’t weep; the joy of Yahweh is your strength!”  The words were supposed to bring them into a right relationship with Yahweh, not leave them weeping outside.

So, yes, I wept last night listening to Christmas music.  That’s a normal response for me this time of year.  But I don’t experience as much sadness as joy at what was done; what I celebrate in this season.  The birth of Jesus forms the center around which I celebrate Christmas; and the renewal He brings, the hope I have because of His birth, and the promise of life I have through Him mean I celebrate with joy.  I weep, but I weep tears of joy, of amazement, of thankfulness, and love for my Master.  I will every time I enter again into the stable and kneel at the feed trough holding the Creator of the universe.

My Utmost for His Highest, Oswald Chambers, December 7

Approaching, Cleansing, and Purifying: Spiritual KP?

This morning, I have to confess that I have no idea what Chambers is writing about.  I read the first paragraph several times, looked up precipitate, and went on to the second paragraph hoping for clarity if I pushed on through.  The verse he refers too doesn’t help clarify his point either.  James 4:8 is an admonition to draw near to God and a call to purify and cleanse myself (which should be expected if I am to draw near to God).  Chambers seems to be writing about an action that makes little sense, that I do over and over until I figure out I’m not supposed to, and is exhilarating when I’m in the midst of it.  I have no idea what he’s going on about.

Part of the reason I don’t is his description of it.  First it’s acting on the truth of God.  Once the act is done (I assume the act on the truth of God), then I am never the same.  When I act I live instead of exist and it involves my whole will.  Then he refers to it as “transacting business with God” and I’m even more confused.  Here I come and go not realizing I’m supposed to stay not go.  Yet, once I do this act, I’m never the same.  It seems he believes that just taking notes about a discovery or rediscovery of a truth of God is enough of an act to meet this description.  Honestly I have never found taking notes that exciting.  Seriously, I’m really confused by this one.

But when I focus on the Scripture he used, that to me makes sense.  James is referring to how I treat my fellow believers, and puts the problem on my motivation for what I do.  When I am friends with the world, I make my Master my Enemy.  But the response of my Master is to act in zeal to pull me back into that relationship (which can seriously hurt me, but with pain that is better than being dead – not in relationship with Him).  So, my response, as James puts it, is to draw near to God, cleanse my hands, purify my heart, and mourn and weep over my condition and rebellion.  Allow my Master to raise me up and not try to do that myself.  Then my treatment of my fellows will be what it needs to be.

So, the passage I can relate to; the writing of Chambers, not so much.  Fortunately that’s pretty rare.  I’m sure there will people who can’t relate to what I write either.  Either way, the point is joining with and remaining in a relationship with my Master.  It takes drawing near, cleansing and purifying, and grieving over my sin.  It sounds a bit like a 12-step program.  I suppose this would be a good time for me to wrap this up and draw near to my Master.  Anyone seen the soap and scrub brush I just had a second ago?  Yay! KP of the soul!

Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest, October 4

Crash, Burn, Replace…Repeat

In some ways, this blog and these entries, are intended to bring about what Chambers writes/speaks of in this entry.  In some ways my hope has been to use this blog for accountability.  To that end, I have invited the world into the interior of my life, with all the weaknesses and failures found there.  At the same time, I hope this opens me up more to my Master’s work in me.

 

So, last night I ignored my limits I call middle-circle boundaries, and flirted with my addiction.  The actions and thoughts were both preceded and followed by a rather nice time with my Master.  Clearly the preceding one didn’t have the effect I would expect, so clearly there was something wrong there.  I was tired and everything, so why go into a sort of behavior that would keep me awake?  This is the sort of thing that makes any sort of behavior like this crazy.  It is totally devoid of reality living or thinking.

 

I think there was a point in the time with my Master as I was drifting off to sleep where I mentioned fighting my threatening depression by doing what I don’t want (like going to a 12-step meeting tonight), and not doing what I do want (like giving into my addictive thoughts and behaviors).  I think that in the process I blamed my depression, and that was the go-ahead; it wasn’t my fault, I can’t help it, and so it is okay. 

 

It is my fault, I can decide not to, and it’s not okay.  Let me just say that, because I can easily blame my struggle on depression.  I believe I have a weakness, in that my brain has a propensity to over stimulate AO activity (the chemical imbalance that brings on depression).  The anti-depressant is an AO inhibitor, and these usually are used for a time, but sometimes, a long time.  But this can’t be my excuse.  My depression is not so debilitating that I can’t function or think.  I can fight it, but it is a fight I’m not used to winning, and that is probably my biggest hurdle. 

 

Fighting depression is done through doing what I do not “feel” like doing.  Fighting the lethargy that comes through depression is one important way to fight depression.  The fight is not hard in any other sense than that it wears me out.  Rejuvenation comes from my Master and His Spirit, so that should not be a problem, but it is.  Perhaps at some point I will be so immersed in Him that it won’t be, but I’m not there yet.

 

That is one thing I do to fight my depression, but there are others.  One symptom is anger, another is an abundance of emotion, another is a tendency toward resentment.  So there are are several things I need to do to fight against this problem, but none of them are that complex or particularly difficult.  What makes these symptoms difficult to fight is that another symptom is a lack of energy, and that not only makes it hard to fight the depression but works to perpetuate it. 

 

This is why an antidepressant is very helpful.  I’m not at a point where I can do all that.  It overwhelms me and I collapse under it.  I hope at some point I will be able to fight it, but I have no power to do so now.  My only hope is to admit my weakness, and reach outside myself for help.  The piece that helped me begin my months of success was admitting I could not do this, that I have this weakness, and that I need something to help.  It was dramatically helpful.  But it is not a permanent solution. 

 

Since depression is not “reality” thinking but distorted thinking, the element that Chambers talks about today, letting the world and my Master into my life, is really important.  The presence of others forces reality back into my mental matrix.  The distortion requires a single perspective or view of my life.  So a 12-step program is a great option for fighting this depression.  My hope is that such a program will provide the spiritual discipline I need to eventually live without antidepressants.  I suspect there will need to be other things as well, but the 12-steps  are designed to realign my mind with my Master’s; repentance.

 

In the past, practicing the steps always brought on the problems I was trying to fight against in my depression.  It brought on the emotional and spiritual crisis I was keeping at bay through my addictive “management”.  I think I am better able to face that crisis and work through it, but with the help of an antidepressant.  What I hope happens is that, on the other side of the crisis, I find the practice of getting through it equips me to do the same thing without the antidepressant.  It may take a couple of times of “practice” to get to the point where I can get through the crisis without the chemical help, but I hope that is where I get to.

 

The reason this solution appeals to me so much is that it will not be a solution that is from me or my ability.  No other solution so focuses on what my Master can do in me than the 12-steps.  They don’t work when it becomes about what I can do, or a “formula” I can process.  They work when, in sequence, I submit all my garbage to my Master and let Him replace it with Himself.  I jettison my expectation of self-management, I focus on my Master, I take the walk of shame as I inventory my failures, I lay those out as a display for the world and my Master, I strive to let them go and surrender them to my Master, I invite those I have hurt into the process, and then I continue the process of examination and confession.  It is not a process of my achievement of anything but reduction before my Master.  The success of this process stems entirely from the fact that my Master lives, He works in me, and He remakes me into His image as I disassemble my props and facades.

 

So here I go into another day, but I suspect the ending will be different.  I have invited in the world so that my distorted thinking will collapse, and reality will return.  Be sure to point out the distortions as you pass through, but please don’t touch them.  Pointing them out helps to make them disappear, there’s no need to carry them out with you.  These are mine, I’m sure you have plenty of your own.  Distortions are not something I should share well with others.  There’s a dose of reality as you leave, help yourself to plenty of that; no trick, sometimes a treat.

 

Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest, November 1