guilty

     As the judge slams down the gavel and officially enters in to the transcripts of the proceedings his judgement, he is concluding an evaluation process of both objective and subjective reasoning. He has heard all the evidence to both support and refute the charge laid on the defendant. He considers physical, and circumstantial evidence, along with witness testimony which establishes whether or not the defendant "did it". The subjective reasoning comes in to play in establishing the essential factors in the commision of a crime, (motive, opportunity, and a reasonable expectation on the part of the accused of getting away with it.) The latter factor may go to motive, but it also may suggest a level of denial of consequence. The objectively reasoning judge considers all the hard evidence which points to guilt.
     After all the work of the enterprise is done, a verdict is reached. The result is a consideration of guilt. Innocense is not a consideration of the judge. He only considers the issue of guilt. In our court system, innocense is already assumed, at least until proven otherwise. Our system of justice guarantees innocense right up to the time of judgement. However, because judgement is made by assesment of evidences and not first hand knowledge on the part of the judge, we allow that the standard of proof of guilt is "beyond a reasonable doubt". That is to say, that no reasonable man, after assessing all the evidence, would have a cause to doubt the truth of the charges against the defendant. In order for our system of justice to succeed, this compromise of truth must be allowed.
     So, as the judge slams down the gavel and proclaims the defendant guilty, it becomes established in the documents of the civilization of men that he is indeed guilty. But, what about the man who is falsely charged, prosecuted and convicted? Is he truly guilty? The short answer must be yes. To simplify the understanding of the process we must familiarize ourselves with the term culpability. If I am culpable of an act, it means I did it. The justice system's protection of the innocent must assume that the culpable are also innocent until proven guilty. Let's say I go to my neighbors house and shoot him dead. At that moment in time, and forever after, I am culpable. I am not, however, (in legal terms) guilty. Until the laws established to make murder a crime are imposed upon my existence, I, (while certainly not innocent), am not guilty. I will remain in a state of non-guilt until judged guilty. From that moment on I will be guilty. Only an overturning of the judgement can change that fact.
    An innocent man sent to prison, if he understood these foundational truths, would know that he is getting a just punishment for what he is found guilty of. Injustice has not been served. When a judge says guilty, he is guilty. He may not be culpable, but he is guilty just the same. His only solace is the knowledge in his heart of the truth of his innocense.
     This morning I read in Genisis the story of Jacob's daughter Dinah and Shechem. He having raped Dinah, fell victim to the retribution of Dinah's family. He and his entire clan were killed at the hands of Dinah's brothers. It's important to note two things here. First, there was no law. Moses would not climb the mountain and receive the ten commandments from God for another five hundred years or so. Technically, the rape was not a criminal offense, nor were the subsequent murders. Second, even without laws available, the actions of the sons of Jacob were guided by an unspoken awareness of right and wrong. Not only had the brothers not committed a crime, but they neither committed a sin. The apostle Paul states that he would not know what sin was, except that the law revealed it to him. Yet, Jacob was aware that they had done "wrong". Jacob said, (Gen 34:30), "You have brought trouble on me by making me a stench to the Canaanites and Perizzites, . . . . . if they join forces against me and attack me , I and my household will be destroyed." Here we find no fear of the judgement of God as we do a fear of the consequence of wrong actions. Jacob is then called by God to re-establish relationship with Him by moving the entire family to Bethel, and building an altar to God there. As they went, " the terror of God fell upon the towns all around them so that no one pursued them." (Gen 35:5) Not only had God not judged them, but He protected them from the consequence of their wrong doing, for there had not yet been established anything by which to convict them by. Jacob's sons were certainly culpable, but at the same time not guilty. God, much like the judge of our legal system today, did not consider their innocense, (for with God's system of justice our innocence is not presumed. As fallen man, we have no innocence to rest in.) He only considered their guilt. No law, no guilt.
     Paul teaches us in Romans 8 that there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Following the theme of this essay, we may be culpable, but we are not found guilty. In our case, it is not the fact that there is no law, but that the keeping of the law has been done on our behalf. He has not wiped away the law, but has wiped away the judgement of death that the law imposes on our souls. Paul further teaches in Corinthians that there is nothing that is unlawful for him. There are, however, many things which are unprofitable. This conjecture on my part is intended to be an incouragement to all who know Christ as their Lord. For all that we are, and all that we have done, despite the length, breadth, and depth of our culpability, we are found not guilty. Not guilty by the blood of the Lamb. All glory to God.
     Our actions in this life will have consequence. We would be best served to recognize that the burden of guilt has been removed. Our best actions will be those that seek profit for the kingdom of God. Be profitable in spiritual things. Do not let guilt burden you any longer. Confess sin daily, so that you may see again that He will seperate it from you and remember it no more. Let Jesus move you to a new place of worshipping Him, as He places a hedge around you on the journey.

Patrick O'brian

The following is a letter I wrote to the Sunday schoolteacher at church.  I invite your comments.

Hal,

    Several years ago, my wife, (Gigi), saw a program on public televison celebrating the life and works of a unique author, Patrick O'brian. His collection of novels written over the course of several decades, (1950's-90's), tell the tale of a British naval captain, Jack Aubrey, and his particular friend, Stephen Maturin, ship's surgeon and natural philosopher, in the early part of the 19th century. The entirety of the work was 20 and 1/2 novels. The last, was never completed before O'brian's death in the nineties. This program cited the reverant testimonies of famous characters such as Walter Cronkite and William F. Buckley, to name a few. You may be familiar with the Hollywood screen adaptation from a few years ago called "Master and Commander, The Far Side of the World". The movie starred Russel Crowe and it received excellent reviews. I enjoyed it very much, myself.

    Gigi was so impressed by the PBS documentary that she found a collection of the "Aubrey, Maturin" novels on line, and purchased them for my birthday. I have loved reading them and have developed a rather keen interest in the sea and sailing; not to mention, I've always been a bit of a history buff. I am almost done with the set, and would highly recommend them to anyone, especially anyone who appreciates good literature. The author, (O'brian), reveals an extemely sharp and intuative mind and has stunned me on several occasions with his insight into the spiritual realm, even though I otherwise have no evidence to consider him a believer, or not, through the telling of his tales.

     In light of the Sunday school teachings of recent weeks, I would like to share a quote from one of the books entitled,"The Letter of Marque". I will first set up the scene and then let my imaginations fly. This was what I had in mind when I asked for your e-mail address after class. Of all the good folks I've met at FBC, I felt you had the most receptive and analytical mind. Should what I have to share not amount to much in your estimation, I thank you for receiving it and humoring me. However, if you see where I'm going, please go with me.

    Through a series of adventures, one of our heros, Dr. Stephen Maturin, finds himself in a new fangled contraption, a hot-air balloon. As would most anyone, he enjoys himself immensely as he sees the world from an entirely new perspective. However, the experience being what we now understand it to be, he rests and considers amid the peace and tranquility in the bottom of the wicker car with nothing but clear blue sky to be observed.

           

           " . . . . .During that long day he had been strongly aware of time, if only because he had to avoid being benighted on the mountainside: now there was no time.                 That is to say, there was succession, in that a gesture or a thought followed its predecessor, but there was no sense of duration. He and Diana might have been             floating there for hours or even for days. "

    In Genesis God created the earth in seven days. "And God said, ' let there be light,' and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he seperated the light from the darkness. God called the light' day and the darkness he called 'night.' And there was evening and there was morning  - the first day."  (Gen. 1, 3-5, NIV)

". . . . . .  And God said, "let there be lights in the sky to seperate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.' And it was so. God made two great lights -  the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to seperate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning - the fourth day."  (Gen 1:14 - 19, NIV)

  

  Unless I am mistaken, God created light on day one, but didn't create the sun until day four. It seems that something must be considered here. we know that the earth revolves around the sun. In the amount of time it takes the earth to rotate on its axis 365 times, it makes one revolution of the sun. At the same time the moon revolves around the earth some 13 times and appears to us in waxing and waning phases, as Gen 1:14 says, " and let them be signs to mark the seasons and days and years, . . . . " Hadn't God, on day 4, established the clock? Was not time set into motion that day? Was not time, therefore, an earthly enterprise  established for the coming of man on day six? No other part of creation, to my reasoning has any knowledge of it. Was not this from God to man, on earth?

    In order to futher clarify, may I ask of you; did time exist before day 4? Does time exist anywhere else other than on earth where the clock is witnessed? Can anything else in all of creation even consider time?

    If I am in a hot-air baloon with Stephen Maturin, and "loose track of time'" I have to concede that time is only perceived when the clock can be viewed. The never changing crystal blue of a summer sky gives no indication of the lapse of minutes or hours. I perceive succession, but lose duration. 

    If I am a space traveler who's dashboard "earth" clock is on the fritz, I have no traversing of the sun from horizon to horizon to inform me of the fulfillment of a day. Nor do I have the accumulation of those days to count telling me that a year has passed. Haven't I then  lost duration. There was no yesterday and there will be no tomorrow. I eventually lose thoughts of before, and ultimately have no consideration of after. It is always today, it is always now.

    Scripture gives visuals of these things in the concepts of heaven and hell. Is not heaven represented as being beyond the perceptable heavens: removed from the earth, away from the human experience? Is not the clock an earthly device? We speak of eternity as being forever, but isn't forever a reference to a calendar?  Perhaps, heaven is that place of the eternal existence with God, where there is no yesterday and no tomorrow. Perhaps being in the presence of the glory of the Lord is about being with him now.

    Hell is refered to scripturally as being down, under the earth. Wouldn't it make sense,  that hell is an experience of everlasting duration?  " I've been here soooooooooooo long, and I've got even farther to go. Can you hear the gnashing of teeth? The immature mind cannot conceive of worshipping God through eternity. He eventually concludes that even that wonderous joy would eventually lose its appeal. After all forever is a very long time. But given these thoughts, I conclude that heaven is time not. while hell is nothing but time. Our young receivers of the gospel messages of hope for eternal existence with their creator, I fear, will fail to understand what eternity means. They will confuse heaven with hell. And who wants to go there?

    When God began creation light was created. I deduce that that light came from God. He turned it on and turned it off. How long was it on? I mean in hours. Remember, there was no clock. I can't answer that question, and I don't think you can either. Imagine, if you will, that it resembled an equivelant of a billion years as counted by the solar, lunar earthly clock. What differnce would it matter? The light came on and the light went off afterwards. Day one.

    The new heaven and the new earth will be a place where the sun and moon have been removed. God will eliminate darkness. There will only be the light of God. No before, no after, only now.

    Heaven cannot, given this reasoning, be a succession of AHA moments. It is an AHA moment without beginning and without end, right now.

Let me know what you think, please.

In Christ,

Joe

P.S. : more to come if you're interested.