Sodom

The chapter to which we are giving attention this morning, it just so happens, is the most frequently cited or the most frequently alluded to portion of Genesis everywhere else in the Bible, that no other section of Genesis is more frequently mentioned. I don't mean to imply by this that it is the most crucial or foundational text in this book that has been so helpful to us, obviously I think pride of place would be long to the opening chapters on creation or in terms of the unfolding of redemptive history to the covenant with Abraham that's recorded in Genesis 12 and then again in 15 and 17 and so on. But nevertheless, Genesis 19 provides us such an arresting, unforgettable picture of the holiness of God reacting to the extremity of human sin, such a dramatic portrayal of the ultimate reality of how our lives collectively and individually stand accountable to God that it's no wonder that it made its impressive. It might be well for us to keep in mind as we think about this passage that whatever sins might be attributable to the city of Sodom, the rest of the Bible in alluding back to this text almost invariably makes the point that our sins are worse. Whatever we decide, a Sodom was built of according to Ezekiel chapter 16, for example, the sins of God's people are far more offensive and abominable to our holy God. Indeed Israel's sin according to the prophet Ezekiel made Sodom look good by comparison. Similarly, our Lord Jesus warns us that whatever the severity of this response of judgment to the sin of Sodom, the severity that will be well deserved to our sin and the sin of his contemporaries will be far greater in the day of judgment for having turned our backs on a much clearer revelation than was enjoyed by the citizenry of Sodom. So this study of this text as it touches all of our lives is certainly not one from which any of us can escape. Its implications, its relevance is immediate and powerful. I've read that Genesis 19 is not only the most frequently cited portion of Genesis elsewhere in the scripture, but it also happens to be the most frequently quoted part of Genesis in contemporary writing. This is the passage which more often than not is mentioned in irate letters to the editor will be found on web pages almost endlessly being discussed. In fact, it may surprise many of us that this passage has inspired an enormous body of research and literature sponsored by virtually every major church denomination. In its attempt to come to grips with the claims of the gay rights movement and with the urgent need to give attention to what ought to be the appropriate response of the Christian church to its own members as well as to its neighbors who struggle with this matter of homosexuality. One of my friends and colleagues at Gordon Conwell, theological seminary, Professor Richard Loveless, was in fact an individual on the faculty who spent a fair number of years serving on the task force on homosexuality of the United Presbyterian church. Loveless, in the course of that work, actually produced two fabulous books. It's very helpful. It seems to me one titled Homosexuality in the Church, Subtitle Crisis, Conflict, Compassion, and another one Homosexuality. What should Christians do about it? Loveless responds to the objection of the enormous dedication of time and energy of all the scholarship trained on a re-evaluation of Genesis 19 and the various other passages dedicated to this subject. In his characteristic charity, he compares it to the space project. Most of us don't really have any interest in traveling to the moon. But every time we put on our scratch-resistant lenses or take advantage of the new metals that are used in braces to straighten our teeth or any of a zillion other applications, we're enjoying the happy by-products of all that massive investment of technology and energy and money resource and the like. And so it is with this project of the 20th and 21st century church re-evaluating its stance on the matter of homosexuality. It's actually more often than not the by-products of that research that has been tremendously helpful in giving us perspective and opening up our eyes to the true lessons of a passage like Genesis 19 and re-awakening the church to its real mission, to reach out to the members of its body, its fellowship into its community and fulfill God's calling. We'll return to those considerations toward the end of the message. What does Genesis 19 teach? What is it stance with respect to homosexuality? It's obviously the first text on any list of passages that tends to be considered just because it's the first passage in the unfolding of scripture that arguably deals with the topic. In 1955, Sherwin Bailey published a landmark book entitled Homosexuality in the Western Christian Tradition. Bailey's book has had enormous influence particularly in Britain but also on this side of the Atlantic. His volume perhaps more than any other was responsible for the decriminalization of homosexuality among consenting individuals that took place in Britain a dozen years after his book. The development that I know we would welcome in terms of guaranteeing and assuring a civil society and the civil rights of each of its members. But Bailey's radical thesis started with the claim that the early church fathers, including Tertullian, Christus Thumb and Augustine, had badly distorted the message of Genesis 19. That they had completely misread the text and that their misinterpretation, which was that the sin of Sodom was essentially or quintessentially the sin of homosexuality, their view then solid the entire Western Christian tradition and was permanently then embodied in this traditional stance of rejection of homosexuality. Bailey argued that as opposed to that view the actual sin that Sodom was guilty of was the sin of inhospitality, also pride and callousness toward the needy and various other social sins. In order to advance that thesis Bailey did mention the fact that this Western tradition, starting with the church fathers, in fact was embodied in the very use of the word Sodomy, it entered into a church Latin as the normal term for homosexual behavior. It then from their spread into all the vernacular languages including English, which tends to then seem to perpetuate this understanding of Genesis 19. Bailey's arguments, he presents essentially two arguments for this thesis, for a reinterpretation of Sodom. His first argument is based on Ezekiel chapter 16, that's one of these later passages that refers back to the sin of Sodom. In Ezekiel 16 verse 49 we read, now this was the sin of your sister Sodom, she and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned, they did not help the poor and needy. Bailey argues with I think some force that my goodness, if the quintessential sin of Sodom was sexual immorality, it would seem like this would be a glaring omission from a rather extensive list that the prophet Ezekiel provides. Maybe then according to Bailey, maybe sexual immorality has nothing to do with it or homosexuality in particular. Then returning to the text in Genesis 19, Bailey goes on to argue that well in fact we've been misled by our translations, our common translations of the Bible, in verse 5, when in fact the men surround the house of law, they call out to law and they say, where are the men who came to you tonight, bring them out to us so that we can know them as it is translated in the King James version, not in our few Bible, so that we can know them, and in fact the Hebrew word that appears here is the ordinary word for knowing. And so Bailey argues that my goodness, if you look at all the uses of that verb to know, it occurs more than 900 times in the Old Testament, most of the time it does refer to cognitive awareness or acquaintance with another. Based on that majority use, that's probably what it means here he argues, and that the citizens, the men of Sodom, all they wanted to do was become acquainted with these two angelic visitors of law. They were concerned and offended by law's behavior as an outsider and alien because he was monopolizing the time of these distinguished visiting guests, these dignitaries, and they wanted to correct that and examine his credentials and respond appropriately. By the way, this view, though articulated in 1955, has continued to be repeated everywhere, the topic comes up. Most recently Susan Ackerman, a very fine Old Testament scholar, a professor of religion at Dartmouth College, in the most recent edition of Bible review, echoes again the Bailey understanding of Genesis 19. She writes, the sin condemned in the Sodom story is not homosexuality, but a failure of hospitality. A traditionalist who encounter this reinterpretation of Genesis 19 very frequently respond with impatience if not anger. They tend to be dismissive of the scholarship that's behind it and wonder what kind of agenda is driving this reinterpretation. My own response, I think, is to remind myself and others of gracious maximum that you don't take the wrong side of an argument just because your opponent has taken the right side. In other words, let's at least listen to the argument and perhaps be helped by some of the observations even if we are unwilling to swallow it, hook line and sinker. Bailey actually has done us a great favor, it seems to me, by drawing attention to the wider context of this passage and later texts that refer back to Genesis 19 that had tended to be eclipsed in the traditional interpretation. It is in fact the case that Sodom had a whole history of grievous, outrageous sin and it isn't simply a matter of the final attempted sexual assault on the guests of law that provokes their judgment. It's true in Genesis 13, 13, it says, now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the Lord, that's long before the angels arrived. In fact, the precise word outcry is used three times in Genesis 18 and 19 to describe the sin of Sodom. In Genesis 18 we read, then the Lord said, the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great in their sins so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me if not I will know. Likewise the angels in our text repeat this, they said, because we are going to destroy this place, the outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it. Three times we read of an outcry actually using two different words in Hebrew but three times the text speaks of an outcry in Genesis. Ezekiel, it seems to me, is picking up on that because that vocabulary of the outcry against the city, elsewhere in the Pentateuch, typically does refer to extreme acts of abuse against others, maltreatment of others, callous disregard and indifference to their rights in their worth. We get for example in Genesis 4, the Lord saying, to cane after his murder of his brother, what have you done? Listen, your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground, you can see kind of parallel that calls God to come down and investigate and respond to this grievous injustice that taking of innocent life. Likewise in the book of Exodus, Moses, who wrote Genesis under the inspiration of the Spirit, Moses speaking of his experience and that of his fellow Jews in slavery and in bondage to the Egyptians, describes it in this way during that long period the king of Egypt died, the Israelites groaned in their slavery and cried out and their cry for help because of their slavery went up to God Exodus 2.23. Moses likewise uses the same vocabulary to describe the offense experienced by rape victims and how their outcry is heard and is an evidence of the terrible wrong that has been perpetrated against them. And so the laundry list of sin that Ezekiel mentions I think is well taken. It isn't just one sin, it's a whole culture of decadence that is the problem. In fact, really, we do well to look back at that text in Ezekiel and not just zero in on one verse, let's look at the verses on either side of it, Ezekiel 16 verse 48. As surely as I live declares the sovereign lord, your sister saw them and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. This is God speaking through the prophet Ezekiel to Jerusalem, the holy city, speaking of the city and of its inhabitants. Their sin, the sin of Jerusalem, eclipses the sin of Sodom. Their sin makes Sodom sin look good by comparison. This is the sustained message you get in so many other passages in the prophets and in the New Testament. It's one we need to take the heart and say why is Israel sin so much worse? Well, because you see it's against greater revelation. Their sin is against the covenant sworn by oath. Their sin is not against angels who come in disguise as the angels did at Sodom. But rather against a God who revealed himself by delivering his people out of Egypt with a mighty arm and many miracles who revealed himself in a pillar of fire and cloud that descended on Mount Sinai. That allowed them to hear his words spoken out of the cloud which he then inscripturated with his own hand in the tablets of stone. Their sin is worse for the same reason. Our sin is worse. Our sin is against an even greater revelation, the revelation of the word that has become flesh who made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory as of the one and only who came from the Father full of grace and truth. He was in the world, John writes and John won, and though the world was made through him the world did not recognize him even as the citizens of Sodom didn't recognize these holy visitors. He came to that which was his own but his own did not receive him, yet to all who received him to those who believe in his name he gave the right to become children of God. As Hebrews chapter 2 says, how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? No wonder the urgency is upon us to take to heart the warning of these things. In any case the opening verse then in verse 48 of Ezekiel 16 reminds us that let's not have some kind of pecking order of better or worse sins. Or if we do so, make sure we rank ours the worst of all. We are the worst of sinners on any gradation of these sins. But then Ezekiel goes on and yes summarizes their sins and says of that generation they were arrogant those Sodomites overfed and unconcerned. They did not help the poor and the needy. There's a litany of offenses. It's true. And perhaps supremely as we see them interacting with lot, objecting to lot's judgmentalism as they imagine it against them. Presuming to stand in judgment on them, we could say the ultimate sin of Sodomy is postmodernism that no one has a right to stand in judgment over them. They're their own law. They're only answerable to their own standards. And so no wonder there's a whole cluster of abuses and offenses that come under the umbrella of their decadence. But it doesn't just end with the social sins. What Bailey and others fail to do is they fail to read on to the next verse. Verse 50 in Ezekiel 16 says they were haughty and they did or they committed an abomination before me. Therefore I did away with them when I saw it as the revised standard version puts it. What's this ultimate sin, the last in the list, the one that provokes God to judgment when he sees it is called an abomination. This is the one that's conveniently ignored by Bailey and others. It's ignored because unfortunately it undermines their thesis. The term an abomination is used very broadly in the Old Testament, but it's used in order to emphasize how sins are not just sins against one another. It's not just sins against our own higher standards and preferences, not even just sins against love. An abomination that which is declared to be an abomination is called an abomination because it's abominable to God. The ultimate standard for our lives is not love. What is it done in love? Of course that which the citizenry of Sodom had in mind was the antithesis of love. But even if they had loved these visitors, even if they had approached them and gained their mutual consent. Love by itself doesn't sanctify our behavior. Many have come to me over the years, married men and women for counseling and have protested how they no longer love their spouse and how they have now fallen deeply in love with this other woman or this other man. But you see, love doesn't turn that which God has said is wrong into something that's acceptable or right. It's a whole separate question. What is God's view of our behavior of our lives? And of course as I say, it's one that catches us all up short. They committed an abomination before me. The Pentateuch, the book of Leviticus in particular, defines among other sins the sin of homosexuality as an abomination. It's standard vocabulary. Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman. It is an abomination Leviticus 1822. In other words, it offends God's standards no matter how regularized it might be in this or that culture. It offends the Lord. And so other texts then do not hesitate to do what Bailey says isn't the case. Other texts do not hesitate to identify the sin of Sodom as including sexual immorality. The New Testament book of Jude 7 verse 7 says in a similar way Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. And so they serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Then what about Genesis 19 and what Bailey does there? Is it the case that all the citizens had in mind was a friendly neighborhood chat with these guests of lot. And clearly that is not the case. It's obvious what they had in mind by their own words. Later on in verse 9 they tell Lot get out of the way and they said this fellow came here as an alien. He wants to play the judge. You know, we're not answerable than anyone else's standards. We'll treat you worse than them. What does that mean? Obviously it's an intention. The intention is to intimidate Lot by a threat that that which they are planning to do to these guests is it pales in comparison to what they're going to do to him. Well, if that is the case then what they're planning to do to the guests is not simply have a conversation or check their credentials. The implication is that they're intending some form of terrifying abuse. Moreover, the word to know, even though it is the word that's here, the word no does often have a sexual reference in Genesis 4. He read how Adam knew Eve his wife and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. Adam had met his wife long before. They had already married. He declared her to be his wife and so on. This is a reference to sexual intimacy. It's an interesting reference. It's interesting why the Bible uses the word no. There is a development in the language that is intriguing. The word no means to know or to acknowledge typically, but it is used in a specialized way in the Old Testament and elsewhere when you acknowledge a covenant partner. In the book of Amos, for example, God says of Israel, you alone of all the nations on the world have I known. Therefore I'm going to punish you for your sin. Now what does that mean? Well clearly God knows about Adam and he's heard of Egypt. He knows where Babylon is on the map even if we're unable to reproduce a map of the ancient areas that's all familiar to him. He knows them all. But only Israel does he know in the sense of you alone have I acknowledged, acknowledged as a covenant partner. And from that use then derives the sexual use because the means of acknowledging a covenant partner in the covenant of marriage is sexual intimacy. And so it is used characteristically in that way. In any case, in our text itself, immediately after the threat of the neighbors, when Lot responds, he uses the word as a term of sexual reference. He says, look, I have two daughters who have literally not known a man. They are engaged to be married, but the marriage hasn't been consummated. They have not known a man. Clearly in verse 8, then the word has a sexual implication. So there is no reason to deny that it has earlier. Indeed there would be no point to Lot's offer as gruesome and appalling and horrific as it is. The whole point is the repacious mob will not be satisfied without their carnal lusts being addressed. If Lot thought all they wanted to do was have a friendly chat, he could offer himself as an option. But instead he realizes and applies that what they're after is an act of sexual abuse. So in conclusion, then what are we to make of this? Well, of course then, Genesis 19 describes not consensual homosexuality, but a parable act of threatened mob violence involving, of course, then a homosexual assault. For that reason, Genesis 19 is not the most relevant or helpful text to address the larger issue with which the church needs to struggle. But does that mean there are no other texts that can assist us or allow us to know what God thinks of this issue of homosexuality? And here, I think we have to depart from Bailey and others in their wishful thinking. The fact is, the Bible is filled with texts that give us clear guidance on this point. Positive texts that describe God's intention for sexuality, and it is not just something for the user to decide on his own whatever feels right is okay. A God intends for it to be operative within the marital relationship as a means of acknowledging your spouse as your covenant partner. There are many say, well, wait a minute, Jesus never condemned homosexuality, and of course that's true. On the other hand, neither did he condemn many other offenses. He doesn't mention bestiality, he doesn't condemn rape, he nowhere condemns incest, he nowhere condemns white collar crime, and you can just go on and on. But he doesn't need to, because in the sermon on the mount, Jesus makes it plain, I stand on this book. He begins this sermon, don't think I've come to abolish the law of the prophets, I've come not to abolish them, but to fulfill them. He says anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. And so we got to go back to God's law to see what he thinks about this or any other matter with which we might be struggling. And in this case, as I've already mentioned, there are these other texts. In fact, Leviticus 18, verse 22, would be one, do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman. But that is an abomination, it fends God. Some have tried to blunt the force of that passage, or the passage in chapter 20 of Leviticus, verse 13. Try to blunt the force of the passage by saying that, well, this isn't really applicable in the modern context because if it's an abomination, that often means there's idolatry connected with it. And so, so long as you practice your homosexuality within the context of a Christian church, it should be okay rather than in the context of idolatry. That's the view of John Boswell, for example, who writes for the Metropolitan Community Church. But this is an unconvincing response, just as an honest scholarship. The word abomination is used for many other kinds of offense that have nothing to do with idolatry. Leviticus 18 also condemns adultery as an abomination. Does that mean that so long as you commit your adultery with a fellow Christian, it's okay? It also condemns incest as an abomination. Does that mean that so long as incest takes place within the household of faith that's clearly not. This is a distortion that anyone can see through. Others have argued that, well, Leviticus 20 sanctions homosexuality with a death penalty. And none of us would wish to so penalize or criminalize a homosexual behavior in our day. It doesn't dispense relativize the force of these commands. The problem with that response. It is true, Leviticus 20 does mention the death penalty for a man who would sleep with another man as one sleeps with a woman. It does, both are to be put to death. Likewise, by the way, it sanctions other offenses, other sexual offenses like adultery and incest, investigality. It also sanctions idolatry with the death penalty. We're shipping the wrong God. What are we to make of these penalties? I think our first response is looking in context. It's obvious why these are here. It isn't that this is to set a model for modern legislation, that anybody who worships another God other than Jesus Christ should be put to death. Otherwise, none of us would be here. We wouldn't have had a baptism this morning. We would have only had a funeral. Because every one of us has committed idolatry, worshipping the wrong God. If it's not a God by name, it's the God of money, as the New Testament calls the materialistic tendency that we are so given to. Why does Leviticus take such a harsh view of idolatry and also sexual immorality of whatever kind? To require that both kinds of sin would be penalized with death. Well, it's because God is telling his people it's these sins which were characteristic of the Canaanites who lived in the country before you. And God wanted to make a point that he's no respecter persons. If the Canaanites afforded their lives because of sexual immorality and idolatry, God's going to hold his people to no different standard. In the context of the Theocracy, the unique calling of Israel, it was appropriate that that point be made loud and clear. And so though we might say then find these penalties have been set aside, it doesn't mean that God now likes the behaviors that were sanctioned. It's not that it's okay now to worship another God or that it's okay now to commit adultery. The wrongs are still wrong even if the penalties are no longer applicable because we do not live in a Theocracy. What are then we to conclude from Genesis 19, what are the lessons for us? Well, of course the obvious and most sobering lesson is that our lives individually and corporately are answerable to a holy God. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. That while God and His amazing mercy and forbearance has stayed the arm of judgment against us. Nevertheless, there will be a day of reckoning. A day of reckoning that will come for many of us even in this life because God does visit the world with His temporal judgments in the New Testament and in Ios and Sapphira. In fact, forfeited their life for sinning by lying against the Holy Spirit. A God still reserves for Himself the right to bring punishments even in this life. But ultimately, of course all these things point to the final punishment, the final judgment before which we are accountable. The former pastor of this church once pointed out that individuals are judged in eternity but nations are judged in time. In churches also, churches like nations are judged in time rather than at a great future judgment day. Nations have their formative period, their birth, their growth, their flowering, their fructification, their decay, and their oblivion. Many nations have moved in and off the scene of human history and so it is with churches. Jesus threatens the churches of His day in Revelation 2 and 3 when He talks to the seven churches of Asia Minor and warns them that He's going to remove their lampstand if they don't repent. Societies that flout the standards of decent human behavior and spurn God's call to repentance cannot hope to escape divine judgment. That is a message that's writ large through the entire scriptures even though we're amazed that God withholds His judgment for so long and puts up with so much. But may we not be misled by His patience into a false security. If this be true, then what's our job? Well, then you and I are now on a rescue mission. Where to be like Lot reaching out to His sons-and-law, prevailing with them, begging them to flee Sodom, hurry, get out of this place because the Lord is about to destroy the city. The scripture says but His sons-and-law thought He was joking. Such often is the resistance that we are met with because it's a hard message. I'm often reminded of the disaster on Interstate 95 and Connecticut and Greenwich back in 1983 when at nighttime in the aftermath of a terrible storm that was still rainy and kind of foggy, all of a sudden a section of the bridge gave out. And what made it so horrible and so disastrous was that as drivers would drive along, they couldn't see that there was anything missing because all the ground was flat until you came to the ravine for the Mayanus River. A river well below the road there, out of sight. And we read from contemporary reports that apparently one driver seeing the road ahead at night and suddenly noticing the car in front of him losing its headlight. And then another one and then realized maybe there's something wrong here and he pulled aside and walked ahead in the foggy night and to his horror saw that there was a missing region in the bridge. And so he then put on his own flasher and stood out and waved and begged motorists to slow down. And one of my friends actually who was there says that the owner of that car actually had the experience of one car filled with kids slowing down, rolling down their window and then shouting obscenities at him as they then drove on. There is a way that seems right to man, the scripture says but in the end it leads to death. Our job is to cry out, turn, turn, to cry out to ourselves and to others, turn from your evil ways. Why will you die, O house of Israel? It's a hard message but it's better to call people to flee a burning house than to give them the false comfort that perhaps they will keep the fire will keep them warm. We also have to call ourselves to repentance. It's a reminder of our job as the church to be a rescue mission even for our own benefit. Lot is a frightening example to me and he should be a frightening example to you. He was given a high and holy calling to be a witness to his age. The scripture tells us that Lot began by being deeply offended by the behavior of his contemporaries. In 2 Peter 2 it says Lot was a righteous man who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men. He hated all that pride and surfeit of food in disregard for the needs of others and the sexual immorality as well that troubled him. We read in our text how he said no my friends don't do this wicked thing. In so his moral compass at least at one point was pointing to North. But the Bible also describes what happened to Lot as by degrees he takes on the spirit of his contemporaries. In Genesis chapter 13 he begins by pitching his tents near Sodom. In Genesis 14 he's now living in Sodom. In Genesis 19 Sodom is now living in Lot. In Genesis 19 in our text we find that Sodomite spirit in Lot with this horrible suggestion that these neighbors can abuse his own daughters. Look I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you. You can do with them what you like but don't do anything to these men for they have come under the protection of my roof. What kind of protection is that? If his own daughters don't enjoy that protection. And of course don't make mistakes that somehow rather the Bible agrees with Lot in this appalling suggestion. He's condemned for it. Genesis 19 ends with the victims now being the villains. The would be daughters who would have been abandoned to the abuse of these neighbors are now visiting on their father the very thing he wanted to do to them. They figured well they didn't grow up in Sodom for nothing. They invite the values as well. And so there's a warning for all of us. A warning for us not to follow in Lot's easy accommodation. The stallion of his own conscience by his contemporaries. What is the point of the church? The point of church is not to run away. It's not to circle the wagons. It's not to draw a circle and say you're outside and we're inside. The purpose of the church is to be not a mutual admiration society for the well but a hospital for the sick. Jesus answered them. It's not the healthy who need a doctor but the sick. I've come not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. This last week, Keith Johnston died, a young man, 45 years of age, a dear friend and brother to many of us. An amazing Christian, a wonderful example, a brother who led one of the best neighborhood Bible studies we have going in this church. And whose burden to reach out to the homosexual community from which he came was so great that he initiated a live in Christ, a ministry of this church that has been so helpful in this regard. Only hours before Keith died on Monday afternoon, I talked with him and prayed with him probably a half an hour and we talked about this mission of the church. We joked about how, you know, what we really need is not alcoholics anonymous but sinners anonymous. That's what the church is. It's sinners anonymous. Where we can come in, roll up our sleeves and get to work on the deep issues of our lives, the sin that clings so closely for every one of us. Philip Yancy writes, we in the church have much to learn from the people in the recovery movement as much as we have to offer them. I was struck by one observation from an alcoholic friend of mine. When I'm late to church, people turn around and stare at me with frowns of disapproval. I get the clear message that I'm not as responsible as they are. When I'm late to AA, the meeting comes to a halt and everyone jumps up to hug and welcome me. They realize that my lateness may be assigned that I almost didn't make it. When I show up, it proves that my desperate need for them won out over my desperate need for alcohol. The word of God says, let us give, let us not give up meeting together as some are in the habit of doing but let us encourage one another and all the more as you see the day approaching. Encourage one another daily as long as it's called today so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness. That's our job.