The Church Meeting in Jesus’ Name
602 Oak Knoll Dr.
San Antonio, TX 78228
Epistle
January 2021
2021 Event Calendar
FEBRUARY 5-14
⦁ Revival with David Spurgeon
APRIL 10
⦁ Women’s Conference
JUNE 14 –18
⦁ Vacation Bible School
JULY 21 – 25
⦁ Mission Conference
OCTOBER 16
⦁ Men’s Meeting
The Moral High Ground
This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.
Genesis 19:9
When two men walked into Sodom one evening, Lot saw them as he sat in the gate, and immediately offered them a place to stay. He also made the suggestion that they leave early the next morning. So Lot knew something about his city that suggested that these impressive looking gentlemen were in real danger, whereupon he determined to protect them.
The men were not concerned with whatever was on Lot’s mind, and they refused the hospitality abruptly, saying they would “abide in the street all night.” These two men had no reason to be afraid, of course, as dangerous as the streets of the city were, because they were angels, sent to Sodom precisely to see whether it was as wicked as it appeared. The fact that the men publicly rejected Lot’s offer and declared their intention to remain in the street tells me they knew what Lot knew, and were brazenly baiting the wicked. Strangers wandering into the city had obviously been victimized before, and Lot’s intervention demonstrates his awareness of the wretched fact. So the question comes to mind, how could Lot remain in Sodom when he obviously disapproved of its moral depravity?
And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar. Genesis 13:10
Sodom was located in the Jordan river valley, which at the time was a plain as lush as the Nile delta, even compared to the garden of Eden. The text implies that Lot moved closer to Sodom because of its beautiful setting. But other aspects of Lot’s personality complete the picture. At one point Lot voiced a fear of being alone in the mountains because of some unidentified “evil” (19:19). Cities confederated for protection, and being a citizen offered some security, at least in theory. Sodom was also described as wealthy (Eze. 16:49), and greed should never be counted out as a motive for poor life choices. So for the beauty of lush vegetation, the advantages of city life, and good business opportunities, Lot found himself unable to leave, living among friends who from time to time sexually abused unsuspecting pilgrims right in front of him. The fact that he tried to protect these two strangers that he recognized as special doesn’t absolve him of responsibility if he had seen this behavior before. And his reaction proves he had witnessed it before.
So these two godlike specimens of apparent humanity walked into Sodom and pretended to be vulnerable pilgrims, to set up a showdown with witless homosexual predators. They didn’t need Lot’s help. But Lot just couldn’t let it happen. He insisted with such determination that they consented to go home with him. But before they could even turn in, the men of Sodom came calling, surrounding the house, both old and young, from every corner of the city. Obviously these men had made the news, and all the men turned out to see the show. What follows is one for the books. The angels draw the conclusion that the whole place is beyond redemption, and prepare to incinerate it. The rival of Eden was about to be blasted into the Dead Sea.
But notice during the moment Lot tries to reason with the Sodomites, they make a statement about him that boggles the mind. “He will needs be a judge.” You see, Lot didn’t just get in their way, or resist their demands. He had the gall to accuse them, “brethren, do not so wickedly” (7). But they didn’t just laugh at the goody-two-shoes and push him out of the way. They became indignant at the man for making a moral evaluation of their behavior. They react in rage because they can’t abide his disapproval! You would think that the wicked should expect to be despised by the righteous, and their reaction would be at the most, indifference. But these wicked aren’t content with getting away with wickedness. They don’t want to be despised for it. They dislike people criticizing their choices. They chafe at being disrespected.
But try to keep things in perspective. Sin is self-indulgence, gratification of selfish desire, following the path of least resistance, obsession with immediate cravings, disregarding annoying ethical considerations and consequences. There is nothing honorable or praiseworthy about such indulgence. Righteousness is self-denial, sacrifice, postponment of desire, self-discipline and focusing on the ethical questions at real personal cost. That is noble. Everyone knows this. So why would a self-serving hedonist living for his own pleasure and gratification be surprised, and even express outrage at the disapproval of the self-controlled? It looks strangely like envy. It seems to at least prove there is a conscience in even the most depraved. It is hard to kick against the pricks.
I’ve heard modern arguments claiming that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but rather violence, or sexual assault. This is an effort at distraction intended to justify a supposedly harmless variety of homosexuality. The idea is that there are people in society that have an innocent same sex attraction, and just want to be accepted the way they are. Compassion would argue for acceptance. But Jude (6) says the sin of Sodom was “fornication,” specifically, “going after strange flesh.” And the Bible reiterates over and over again that same sex lust is sin, and those who indulge in it will have no part in the kingdom of God (Rom. 1:27, 1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Tim. 1:10, etc.). All fornication is sexual indulgence disregarding the ethical questions, which by all accounts are significant. Same sex fornication is also indulgence. It is doing what one wants to do disregarding obvious design, natural function, biological health, species’ preservation, personal honor, and what is more, God’s glory and his revealed morality. It is never innocent.
But Lot’s neighbors were not demanding license to sin. They had that. If what they wanted was general acceptance of what God calls sin, as if it were morally neutral, well, in Sodom they had that too. But they wanted more. They wanted respect from people with obviously superior self-discipline. That’s why they railed on Lot. And today the morally bankrupt are not content with acceptance, moral neutrality, or even respect. They want to occupy the moral high ground. So today the self-indulgent revel in self-righteous indignation, accusing the self-controlled not so much of hypocrisy, or hidden sins, but of hatred, and not some indiscriminate hatred, some meanness against the innocent, but of a specific hatred, the unforgiveable hatred of sin.
In our wicked society, if Christians speak out against, or even avoid association with, deviant forms of sexuality, which we should, we will be accused of bigotry, as if sexual deviance is neutral, devoid of any ethical component. Doing what you want to do while dismissing or ignoring the undeniable ethical issues of sexuality is the very essence of immorality, and criticism of such self-love is not bigotry or hatred. But if the righteous can be painted as bigots, the immoral self-indulgent can pretend to be morally superior, more accepting, more loving. And as Lot’s neighbors demonstrated, the weak-minded self-indulgent want nothing more than to lash out at the self-controlled and obedient, because accusing them of some form of evil, as if hatred of evil is itself evil, deadens the consciousness of their own pampered depravity.
But in so doing, they betray a deep longing they cannot bear to admit. Their faux outrage belies a craving for self-respect. They can’t keep themselves from revealing their abysmal self-esteem, trumping up outrage at the self-denying not for what they do, but for what they say about what the wicked do.
That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought. Isaiah 29:21
If scorners catch believers in a sin, it makes them feel vindicated, and they assume their contempt for us is justified. It isn’t, of course. Stealing is wrong even when the accuser is a thief. But when believers maintain their testimony, and their actions match their words, scorners can’t help but feel the sting of their conscience. And they tend to react to their conscience poorly. But these outraged sinners arent just lashing out, they are turning righteousness itself into a crime. The crime is not any injustice or immorality, of course, but precisely the morality they can’t deny. They are angry not at being lied about. They are incensed because we tell the truth about them. The only crime they can allege is the rebuke they feel, nothing else.
It shoudn’t surprise us that the wicked hate us, and even lash out against us, for any stand on morality. That’s the instinctual reaction of the conscience. But when they confuse the issue by accusing us of nothing more than accusing them, pretending that moral judgment itself is hatred, their conscience is gasping it’s last breaths. They have been given over to a reprobate mind, overturning reason, and cutting themselves off from their only hope of salvation, the unvarnished truth. Such bloated outrage has confused the modern world, and maybe even confuses us sometimes, but as in Lot’s case, someday it will be enough that God can tell the difference.