East, West, North, and South

Here’s an interesting trivia question: Which states (of the United States) are the farthest North, East, West, and South? I’ll give you a hint: The answers are not four states; the correct answer contains fewer than four states. I’ll give you another hint: Fifty years ago, the answer would have been Maine (farthest North and farthest East), Florida (farthest South), and Washington State (farthest West), but none of those states are on the list now.
Okay, I’ll admit it, it’s actually a trick question. First of all, most of us that live in the contiguous United States (or lower forty-eight) have a bad tendency to forget about the other two states, Alaska and Hawaii. Even those that think about those two realize that Alaska is the farthest North, Hawaii is the farthest South, but usually aren’t sure which one is farther West, and even then, most of would never consider either one of them to be the farthest East. They are both West of the lower forty-eight, how could either one of them be considered the farthest East? The answer is that somewhere along the line, mapmakers decided that we needed an imaginary line that splits the Eastern Hemisphere from the Western Hemisphere. This line passes through Alaska. So, in general, if one stands and faces North, then to one’s left is West, and to one’s right is East. If one stands on that line in Alaska, though, then to one’s left is East, and to one’s right is West. One could be standing two feet on either side of that line, and the normal rules apply, but, since Alaska spans the two hemispheres, it is considered to be both the farthest East and the farthest West of all the United States. Of course, this is essentially due to convention; in any given person’s mind, when traveling in a westerly direction on a spherical planet like ours, one is always moving farther West, no matter how many imaginary lines one crosses, or even if one return’s to one’s original position.

Casting Crowns released a song awhile back that asks how far the East is from the West. The purpose for the question is because the Bible tells us that when God pardons a sin, He separates that sin from us as far as the East is from the West. I want to make it clear that, in that context, at least, God has no respect for our imaginary lines (it’s possible that He has no respect for our imaginary lines in any context, I’m not sure; to be honest, I don’t know of any context where He would respect longitudinal lines). He’s not talking about standing on an imaginary line and saying, “Okay, you’re on one side of the line, and your sins are on the other.” He’s not even talking about standing at the equator and removing your sins from you by a distance of 12,500 miles (approximately half the circumference of the earth at the equator). He’s really just saying that once He forgives you, and separates your sin from you as far, or farther, than you can possibly imagine. Once God separates you from your sin, you don’t have to ever worry about hearing about that sin from God again—unless you refuse to forgive someone else. You might be very surprised at how quickly God remembers everything you ever did wrong if you refuse to forgive someone else for what they did to you. It’s no accident that Jesus said that if we don’t forgive other men’s trespasses, then God wouldn’t forgive our trespasses either.

Go, And Sin No More

I think most of us are familiar with the story of the adulterous woman brought before Jesus for judgment. If nothing else, we all know better than to cast the first stone, based on what Jesus said (some of us end up throwing a lot of stones anyway, but that’s beside the point). One thing that I think some people miss, though, Jesus told her that He didn’t condemn her, but He didn’t say that what she had done was okay.
She was fortunate enough to have been caught in the middle between Jesus and the Pharisees. She probably didn’t feel fortunate at the time; under Roman law, adultery did not carry a death sentence, but under the Law of Moses, it did. The Pharisees wanted Jesus to either affirm the Law of Moses, which would lead to a charge of insurrection against the Roman government, or not, which they could then use to accuse Him of heresy. So this woman, who ordinarily would have been left alone, is arrested, and taken to Jesus, presumably on her way to be stoned. That must have been a frightening experience. In any case, Jesus sidestepped the question entirely, and did not address her guilt or punishment, and instead addressed the guilt of her accusers. Once the men who were prepared to stone her walked away, then Jesus asked her, “Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?” She, fortunately, had the wisdom to say, “No man, Lord.” He responded, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”
I think some people get the idea that Jesus didn’t condemn her because she had done nothing wrong. I don’t think that the Scripture suggests that. He didn’t say that she hadn’t sinned, rather, He told her not to sin any more, which, in fact, suggests that she had sinned. I think that it is safe to say that the entire episode had nothing to do with her guilt or innocence, but on the willingness of sinful men to accuse other people. Are any of us truly guilt-free? Yet, we have this ideological flaw that, if we look at our sin, and we look at someone else’s sin, well, at least my sin isn’t as bad as his sin… But, in God’s eyes, sin is sin. At judgment day, you can’t tell God, well, at least I never killed anybody, He will just remind you of the people that you have hated for no real reason badly enough that you would have been glad if they had died.
I don’t imagine that it was easy for the adulterous woman to walk away from the lifestyle that she was accustomed to. Of course, having come that close to death because of the way she lived was probably enough incentive to keep her on the straight and narrow. Some people don’t turn to Christ until they have had a similar experience. The rest of us need to learn that kind of urgency. Either way, none of us can keep from sinning for any length of time, it is only the grace of God that sustains us. We need to give God our best, and pray that our efforts will be blessed.

There Is No Try, There Is Only Do

James 1:22 says, “Be ye doers of the Word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.” James goes on to compare a man that hears, but doesn’t obey, to a man that looks at his reflection in the mirror, and then walks away, and forgets what kind of man he is. If you look in the mirror, and see that your hair needs to be combed, you would comb it, wouldn’t you? If you don’t like the way you look in the mirror, you would take some kind of corrective action, right? If you see something in the mirror that you don’t like, and then walk away and forget about it, what does that say about you as an individual? Worse than that, if you hear the Word, and realize that you need to make some corrections, and just forget about it, what does that say about the state of your soul?
There are a lot of passages in the New Testament that talk about doing things. In Luke 6, Jesus made a similar comparison, but Jesus compared the doer to a man who built his house upon a rock, and the hearer to a man who built his house upon the sand; one had a solid foundation, and the other didn’t. In Matthew 5:44, Jesus told us to love our enemies, to bless those that curse us, and to do good to people that hate us, and to pray for those that persecute us. In Matthew 7:12, He taught us the Golden Rule. In Mark 3, Jesus came across a man with a problem with his hand on the Sabbath day, and the Pharisees watched to see if Jesus would heal this man on the Sabbath. Jesus asked them if it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath, but they wouldn’t answer Him (of course, Jesus healed the man anyway). In Luke 17:10, we are told that when we have done everything that we are commanded to do, we are still unprofitable servants (good thing God is rich, and doesn’t need us to turn a profit). At the wedding at Cana, Mary told the servants, “Whatsoever He saith unto you, do it.” That’s good advice for all of us.
Jesus Himself said that He did nothing of Himself (John 8:28). The former blind man in John 9:33 told the Pharisees that unless Jesus were of God, He could do nothing. In John 14:12, Jesus said that we would do greater works than He did.
In 1 Corinthians 10:31, we are told that whatever we do, we should do to the glory of God. Hebrews 13:16 tells us to do good. 2 Peter 1:10 says to be diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you do these things, ye shall never fall. 1 John 3:22 says that when we ask of God, we receive, because we do those things that are pleasing in His sight.
Now, Romans 7:15-22 gets really interesting. Here Paul talks about not doing what he wants to do, but doing things he hates doing, because in his flesh dwells no good thing, so, as much as he wants to do good, he finds himself committing sin, anyway. So, if we do things that we don’t want to do, it isn’t because of us, it’s because of the sin that lives in us. Of course, if you commit sin because you want to, then you are just a sinner, but if you get caught up doing things that you really, honestly don’t want to do, then God understands. Galatians 5:17 tells us that the flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh. The two are contrary to each other, because flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, so the flesh is going to try to get its fun now, while the spirit is going to strive for an eternal reward. The question is, which one do we want in charge? Which is more important, to enjoy the pleasures of the flesh in this life, or to reap rewards in the life to come?
The bottom line is, we can never do enough, that’s why salvation is a gift. At the same time, if we don’t do anything, we aren’t going to make it. A lot of people get hung up n the ides that it is simply a matter of faith, but read Hebrews chapter 11: How is the faith of those that have gone before us described? Isn’t it by their actions? Look at James 2:17, faith without works is dead. Don’t walk around with dead faith; that doesn’t do anybody any good.

Security of the Believer--as Long as You Believe

In Romans 8, there is a long list of things that cannot separate us from the love of God. It would seem to be an all-inclusive list: “35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. 37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. 38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Wow. That’s encouraging. At the same time, though, in Isaiah, God says, “But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.” Is there a contradiction here? Is this Old Testament vs. New Testament? No, really it isn’t; look at the passage in Romans again. We are not promised that we can’t separate ourselves from God. Everything in the list is external to one’s self.
Many people use Romans 8 as an excuse to say that one cannot fall away, once one has made a profession of faith. It is true that God will remain faithful to us, as long as we remain faithful to Him, but He doesn’t take prisoners: You always have freedom of choice, even in terms of whether you choose to remain faithful or not.
In explaining the parable of the sower, Jesus said, “They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.” Now why would Jesus talk about falling away, if one couldn’t fall away? Further, in the parable of the foolish virgins, the foolish virgins couldn’t go in to the wedding because their lamps had gone out. Please notice that it doesn’t say that they couldn’t go in because their lamps had never been lit, which would indicate that they had never shined for Jesus, but because their lamps had gone out, they were no longer shining for Jesus.
In Hebrews 6, it talks about falling away. Some people have said that it is describing a “hypothetical situation,” something that could never really happen. It does say “it is impossible” and it also says, “if they shall fall away” but it goes on to say, “to renew them again unto repentance.” I don’t think it means that it is impossible to fall away, it just impossible to renew someone unto repentance after they have fallen away. I think that grammatically, that makes more sense, logically, it doesn’t make sense to spend so much time warning the church about falling away if that could never happen, and spiritually, if Hebrews says that Jesus is wrong, and we can never fall away, then we should disregard Hebrews (but that’s a hypothetical situation, because Hebrews doesn’t contradict Jesus).
1 Timothy 4 talks about people departing from the faith, speaking lies in hypocrisy. Should we expect to meet those people in Heaven? I think not.
In 2 Peter 2, it tells us that someone who escapes the pollutions of this world through Jesus, and then is entangled again in the things of the world, that “… it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.” Wait, you mean that it is better to be lost than to be backslid? That almost makes me wish that I had never known the truth. Then again, though, it is definitely not a good thing to be lost.
Someone told me once that you can’t ever lose your salvation, because God holds you in His hand. I haven’t been able to find that particular scripture (that doesn’t mean it isn’t there, just that I haven’t found it), but, as I said earlier, God doesn’t hold prisoners. It seems to me that, if you’re in God’s hand, and you try to leave, that he isn’t going to stop you. He will guide and direct us as long as we are willing to be led and directed, but He is not going to again stretch out His hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people. He’s had enough of that, that’s why He has chosen us, in hopes that we will not be like those people.

You Judas!

I find it interesting that in the Gospels, Judas Iscariot, the traitor, lived with the other Apostles and they never even suspected what he was. Jesus knew, of course, and He never let on that He knew until the Last Supper. No one else even suspected. John 13:29 tells us that Judas 'had the bag,' meaning that he was the treasurer for this little group; that's a position of trust. Jesus didn't have to trust him, because Jesus knew exactly what Judas was doing, every step of the way; but every one else did. Matthew 26:22 tells us that, when Jesus revealed that one of His disciples would betray Him, the other eleven each asked the question, "Is it I?" Think about that for a minute: Judas was so trusted by the eleven that each of them found it easier to believe that he himself would betray Jesus than that Judas would. In John 13:26, Jesus pretty much told them that Judas was the traitor, and yet, they still couldn't bring themselves to believe it. Why not? Were they stupid? I don't think Jesus chose eleven faithful imbeciles and one clever traitor. It's just that Judas was so good at playing the part of a committed Christian that no one could believe that he would betray the Lord. They had traveled together for three years, and Judas had always kept his agenda secret from the others (of course, it's possible that Judas really was a committed Christian for some of those three years...). God knew, of course, but God had a plan, and Judas was an important part of that plan.

I have heard a lot of criticism in the last few years of churches that find themselves in awkward positions. What is the proper procedure if the leader of a congregation is accused of improprieties? In retrospect it seems clear that, if the allegations are serious, this man should be removed from his position, at least until the allegations can be investigated. Of course, it is somewhat understandable if the church doesn't take allegations seriously when those accusations are accompanied by a lawsuit. It's easy to side with the minister if the person making the accusations stand to profit financially from the situation. On the other hand, just because someone feels that they have a right to restitution for their legitimate pain and suffering, doesn't mean that they haven't suffered wrong. How does one tell? Unfortunately, those decisions are ultimately made by people that know the accused--usually other clergy that trust this minister just as much as the eleven trusted Judas. Why he can't possible be that kind of a man, I've known him for years! So, what often happens is, a man who is very good at playing the part of a man of God, but is secretly the worst kind of monster, gets moved to another church--often without so much as a warning (oh, by the way, he was accused of misbehavior at his last church, we don't think he did it, but we are investigating. If we find anything out, you'll be the first to know).

Now, granted, sometimes this is done to protect the church's assets. There is a fear that an admission of guilt will trigger more lawsuits. The church goes into damage control mode, using the philosophy that, if we cover up what has happened, no one will know, there will be no more lawsuits, people will continue to come to church, we can continue to do God's work. This is particularly easy if the other clergy don't really believe that the reported incident actually happened. Sometimes churches will pay off families just to get the allegations to go away, without ever really considering that the accusations might be true. Of course, the thought of the damage that could be done to the church if the allegations are true makes it easy to go into denial, also.

Unfortunately, the damage done to the people in the congregation being led by a man who is not being faithful to God can be nothing short of devastating. We, as Christians, can not allow this to happen. I have spent a lot of time trying to explain why this does happen, but I don't mean to suggest that it's okay that it does happen. It's not. We need to trust God, and let Him show us what to do whenever there are indications of improprieties within the church.

Urination

I overheard somebody ask the question, "Why is it that, in the Old Testament, urinating against a wall was such a terrible sin?" That question threw me for a little bit. That isn't even addressed in Old Testament Law, where did this person get the idea that it was a terrible sin? "Well, several times in the Old Testament, God told Israel to kill everyone that did it." Oh, that. All right, let me try to explain that--but, it isn't what you were thinking.

In ancient times, it was commonly believed that if your people and my people went to war, then my gods and your gods fought also (or, at least, influenced the outcome of the war). If you won, that proved that your gods were stronger than my gods, so I shouldn't worship my gods anymore, I should worship your gods. After all, my gods didn't help me win the war, did they? Most of the time, that wasn't that big of a deal. If I were Greek and you were Roman, then I stopped praying to Zeus, and instead prayed to Jupiter. If you were Norse, then I prayed to Odin. Maybe I would start praying to Thor instead of Apollo. Whatever. Most of the time, it was just learning new names. A lot of the stories were very similar, if not the same.

If you were Jewish, though, then I have a problem. I have to replace my entire pantheon with your one God. If I've grown up with a god over the other the other gods, and a god of war, and a god of the sea, and a god of the forge, and a messenger god, and a god of brushing my teeth... And suddenly I can only have one God... No matter how many times Israel defeated the Philistines, the Philistines kept going back to their gods. They just couldn't wrap their minds around the idea of one God creating the whole universe and maintaining control of it (What does that have to do with urination? Bear with me, we're getting there. I just need to lay some foundation first).

For some reason women accepted it more easily than men, but a lot of them couldn't do it either. Children were easier, depending on their age. Usually, once a male child was indoctrinated into polytheism, he couldn't accept monotheism. Further, you ran into the problem that a son who witnessed his father being killed by the people that are now occupying his country, then there will be, almost inevitably, thoughts of revenge. These thoughts can make accepting a new religion difficult, if not impossible. So, how does one determine if a male child is old enough to reject Judaism? Well, if he pees standing up, that's probably not a good sign. Keep in mind that God didn't always tell Israel the same thing when they conquered another nation. Sometimes He told them to kill everything--including their farm animals. Other times He was more selective. But God knew the hearts and minds of the people. He knew when people were ready to accept Him, and when they were not.

Bottom line, it wasn't that urinating against a wall was a sin, it was just a measure of maturity, or of the ability to accept the truth as opposed to what one was raised to believe.

Rahab

Most of you should be familiar with the Old Testemant story of the battle of Jericho: When Israel came out of Egypt, they wandered in the wilderness for forty years, and when they finally entered into the Promised Land, they found that cities had been built there by the Canaanites. God told Joshua to first attack Jericho, a heavily fortified city with massive walls around it. Maybe 'attack' isn't the right word: the battle didn't happen for at least a week. First Joshua sent two spies inot the city, presumably to get a sense for the feelings of the people of Jericho. To be honest, the spies report had no real bearing on the outcome: God told Joshua what to do, each step of the way. But while the spies were in Jericho, they were found out, but a woman known as Rahab the harlot helped them to escape. As a result, she, and her household, were allowed to convert to Judaism after Jericho was destroyed. It's almost as though God had Joshua deploy spies just to see who was ready to accept Him as their God.

It's an odd thing: In ancient times, it was commonly believed that if two peoples, with different belief systems, went to war with each other, then their gods also went to war; so the victor was believed to have the stronger gods. In other words, if you can defeat me, that doesn't necessarily mean that you are stronger than I am, but it does mean that your gods are stronger than mine; clearly, I should accept your gods as my own. The problem that the Jews kept running into was that, even though this belief was widespread, they were uniquely monotheistic. Other peoples had a hard time with the idea that one God was stronger than all of their gods (even Rachel had a hard time giving up the gods that she had grown up with, even after seeing how Jacob's God blessed him).

For some reason, most preachers don't want to talk about Rahab's profession. We had a visiting preacher at our church once that commented on it: He pointed out that everyone in Rahab's house was saved, and he postulated that she must have had mom and dad and grandparents and cousins by the dozens in her house. He made a little joke, that she must have been a very good harlot--apparently she was able to buy the hotel that she worked out of. Of course, that's all supposition; the Bible doesn't tell us how many people were in Rahab's house. I have to wonder, myself, how many of her family could she have told about her agreement with the spies? I'm sure that there were lots of people that she would have liked to have had with her when the Israelites attacked, but that would have turned her in if they had known that she was consorting with the enemy.

I feel confident that she found another line of work once she became a Jew, but isn't it interesting that out of all the people in Jericho, the one that God chose was a harlot. We know something about her heart, because she helped the spies. The Bible doesn't give us any indication as to how she knew who the spies were. Maybe God knew that she had a willing heart and revelated that to her; maybe she realized who they were simply because they were the only men in Jericho that didn't treat her like a harlot (after all, it didn't make any difference to them--all of the people of Jericho were non-believers that were destined to be slaughtered).

Sometimes we, as Christians, get very caught up in our own image. I don't want to be seen with that woman, she's a prostitute; someone might think that I'm soliciting her (or being solicited by her. Whatever). It doesn't help that some very prominent people (both televangelsts and politicians) have been caught actively seeking sex with someone other than their spouse. Most people automatically assume that a man talking to a woman is more interested in her physically than spiritually, because that's the way our world works. But, if you stop and think about it, one sin is very much like another in God's eyes. A prostitute and a liar occupy the same moral ground. We are taught to love the sinner but hate the sin; all too often the hatred of the sin bleeds over, though. What we need to understand is that it isn't what a person does outside of Christ that is important; it's the fact that they are outside of Christ. The Bible says that to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin (of course the obverse is true: if you know not to do something, and then do it anyway, that is also sin). We can't expect those outside of Christ to have a clear understanding of what they should and shouldn't do (although it would be nice if they would at least be discrete about their sins, so that we would not be tempted), and it really doesn't matter what they do; quite frankly, if they aren't going to seek God for salvation, then their 'final destination' is the same, no matter what sins they commit here on earth.