Can Attending Church Save You?

Church of Holy Trinity in Iškaldź
taken by Olga Maximova in 1975

That can be a loaded question. The common belief is that one does not need to go to church to be saved and one with God. They'll point to the thief on the cross that entered Paradise on his "deathbed." Forgetting, of course, that he was an exceptional case. If you want to have a deathbed confession of faith, and live like you want to most of your life, then you may have a rude awakening on Judgement Day. Especially when there is no time for a deathbed conversion.

All it does is point to: 1. God can save who He wants, by whatever means He deems necessary to accomplish His Will. 2. That it can be bypassed when necessary. It isn't an absolute necessity to accomplish one's salvation.

Now, I'm not suggesting that an occasional miss here and there for valid reasons is going to necessarily damn you to hell. All depends upon the circumstances and one's reasons as to whether that is problematic or not. However, there are some important considerations in faithful church attendance to one's salvation.

In each case that one can point to of someone who "made it" into paradise, there were circumstances that prevented church attendance or very frequently in most every case. There are the examples of several monastics who went to the "desert." They had little community church services that they attended. The most famous of these is probably St. Mary of Egypt. She was a whore for several years of her life. She is only recorded as having attended two, maybe three, "official" church services. Yet, she went into the desert for over 40 years and grew to be one with God more so than most at that time or since.

The problem with pointing to her as a reason that going to church is not necessary for salvation is multifaceted. One, she was called by God to go out into the desert. At first, mainly so she could stay away from men, her primary temptation she had to overcome.

Two, what convicted her was going to a church service. When she attempted to go into the service venerating the cross of Christ, she was prevented from entering. It was through repentance and prayer to God that she was able to enter the church, and is what turned her life around.

Three, she still had "church" services on her own, most of the time. All monastics do, whether in a community or on their own, they are constantly in prayer and services, even while doing other work. You will rarely ever find a monk sitting in front of a TV playing games. It was through St. Mary's prayers and focus on God that she grew to be such a great saint, due to her closeness to God. As a matter of fact, most monastics who go out on their own do so with the approval of their abbot, because most of them, and us, cannot pray consistently enough without the support of a community.

It is this last point that is the reason the Scriptures say:

And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. (Heb. 10:24-25)

Communion with God is the point of salvation. For most of us, that will require assembling ourselves together where we can pray as a community of saints, provoking each other toward love and good works. In other words, most of us won't commune with God as we should unless we are provoked.

"But, what if the congregation I find doesn't provoke me to love and good works? What if it provokes other, not so good, qualities in me?"

That is a valid consideration, in that churches are hospitals for sinners, like ourselves. So no one church will always provoke each other only the good things. In some cases, they may end up provoking hatred and gossip and other sins, with very little love and good works mixed in. Some people, to protect their salvation, may have to find an alternate means of communion.

"But, I have had bad experiences at every congregation I've been at."

Two issues here. One, was it one or two people at this church that were "bad"? If so, there were likely others there who were loving and encouraging. We often have the view that one bad apple spoils the whole lot. Yes, sometimes, depending on circumstances, one person can make attending a church destructive to one's salvation. However, in many other cases, it is someone who mistakenly is searching for the perfect church. So any sin, no matter how small or confined to one or two individuals, gets blown out of proportion. Make sure that is not happening in your situation,.

Two, an exception to the rule does not negate the rule. If you have genuinely not found supporting, loving people in the churches you attend, then maybe you are looking in the wrong place? Maybe you are surrounded by bad churches? On the last day, they will likely get spewed out of Christ's mouth. Instead of staying away from God, maybe your response is to pray to God on behalf of those people and churches. Christ will judge those churches on the last day, not us.

Going back to the title of this article, can I get away without attending church services and still be saved? Do I need to attend church to be saved?

Well, based on Scripture, you'll either need to have a deathbed experience, which if intentionally done, negates the conversion as sincere, and is risky at best; or you'll need to adequately hold services yourself, that is, communion with God, in such a way that you become one with God. A very tall order for anyone to fulfill on their own.

This doesn't even touch upon the bishop/priest of each parish as representing Christ and the Eucharist, as understood in the more traditional churches, as being something essential.

The truth is that Christ established the Church, the Body of Christ. That means we are all interconnected into one Body. Every child of God, is one with each other. But as Jesus said, there are tares among the wheat. That means we will have to put up with some tarry behavior at times. Jesus has already warned you that would happen. It should be no surprise when you find sinners in the Church. Just look at your own life. Any church you enter will have at least one sinner in it. The rest of the church also has to put up with your sins as well.

Now, I know what some people are going to say. That one isn't "saved" by such works. One is saved by faith in Christ. Sure, there is that. And if you are a "once saved, always saved" Calvinist, then what I've said here won't make much difference. (In which case, why have church at all?) But for everyone else, who believes along with St. Paul that you need to fight to attain the "crown." (1 Cor 9:25-27), our salvation is in large part also dependent upon our union with God remaining strong and growing toward him. For most of us, that will only happen in a church environment, if at all. So, yes, by far, most of us need to attend church to find salvation and grow in salvation.

After all, the apostles gave their lives to establish churches with bishops overseeing them. They must have felt it important enough to do that. Perhaps we shouldn't take it so lightly ourselves?

Allegorical or Literal?

Back when I was in seminary,  being a literalist in the interpretation of scripture,  I was curious about those who practiced allegorical interpretation. So I studied Augustine's view on the subject.

Needless to say,  he said things that were concerning to me at the time, as well as things I supported.

Essentially, he said that it was okay to interpret scripture allegorically as long as it ended up at the same destination as a literal interpretation of scripture.  Which,  he believed, the overarching destination all interpretation should end up at the greatest commandment:  that God loves us and we are to love God and each other.

Sounds good,  doesn't it? The problem is it forces every bit of scripture into this one message, as good as it is.

So when one reads that God commanded the Israelites to kill everyone,  including the children,  that doesn't fit the narrative of a loving God. So Augustine needed to interpret that passage allegorically in order to arrive at the "correct" message. See how this works?

I imagine I've got most of my readers nodding their head by this point. Certainly it is a problem when we want to arrive at a certain interpretation. A person is tempted to shoehorn scripture into a predefined narrative, often interpreting any section of scripture whose literal interpretation he doesn't like, allegorically.

But we are just as guilty of this as Augustine?

What!  Surely not!

First we should define when scripture is interpreted allegorically. The answer is . . . when it is written allegorically. One of the clearest examples is John 15, "I am the vine, you are the branches" speech. Most everyone agrees that Jesus did not intend for us to take that series of metaphors literally.

But that is the problem: clarity. Some sections of scripture are not clear which way they go. But what if that is more due to a history of interpreting scripture a certain way than because the text demands it? What if we have a end goal in mind that a scripture has to end up speaking about?

One example of that is "this is my body,  this is my blood" statement. From early on,  this was interpreted literally. Then around 1500 years later,  the interpretation changed to be allegorical. Why? Because the literal interpretation didn't fit the end goal. "Certainly Jesus didn't mean it literally," we'll suggest.

And so the debate goes on. However, is the allegorical being used because the literal meaning is unacceptable, or does the text written to be interpreted allegorically?

If we have those examples,  how many other interpretations of scripture do we hold that we tend to interpret allegorically when the literal is really what God meant? Could we be wrong about several parts of God's Word?

What's the Point?

Herod's Sheep Gate

What if I told you that the point of getting "saved" was not to avoid going to Hell? Not even to go to Heaven. Those are by-products of obtaining salvation, but not their purpose and goal. Yet, that has been the popular focus of what they are about in much of American Evangelicalism beginning primarily in the 1800s with the revival camp meetings.

I mean, you'll hear people talk about salvation as an "insurance policy" to avoiding Hell. The whole focus on Johnathon Edwards' sermon, "Sinners In the Hands of an Angry God" was specifically to this point. And how many others have preached similar messages from the pulpits of many of our biggest churches and denominations? Sort of the carrot and the stick approach to evangelism. Carrot: you'll get to go to Heaven. Stick: you'll go to Hell if you don't.

Rather, that the whole point of salvation is to glorify God by becoming more like Him. We obtain salvation not to get that mansion in the great by-and-by, but to become one with God through Jesus Christ.

This point was brought home to me yesterday as my priest preached on John 5:1-16. This is the story of the man who had been paralyzed for 38 years, who waited by the Pool of Bathesda for an angle to stir up the water, and the first one in the water was healed. The only problem was this man was unable to move, at least very fast, and so someone else always got into the water before him. Jesus asks him if he wants to be healed, and so Jesus does, and the man picks up his pallet and walks out of the place.

Now I hear you asking, how on earth did you get from that to the point I'm making? No, this wasn't at all what the priest focused upon in this passage. Rather, my mind went down this rabbit hole. Because it struck me what the reaction of the spiritual leaders was to this event.

For you see, once the man picked up his pallet and began to walk out of the temple, some of the Pharisees began questioning the man saying that it was not legal to carry anything on the Sabbath. The man told them what had happened, and cast the blame upon Jesus in that He had told him to pick up his pallet and walk. As if this released the man from his responsibility, the concluding verse of this section of the story says:

And on account of this the Jews began to persecute Jesus, and were seeking to kill Him, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. (John 5:16 EMTV)

What struck me about this is that this man just gave them a wonderful testimony. That he'd been healed of an affliction he'd suffered from for 38 years! And all the Pharisees were concerned about was him carrying a pallet on the Sabbath? Really? And it was such a big deal that they began to find a way to kill Jesus for commanding him to carry it on the Sabbath?

Talk about missing the forest for the trees. What should have become a cause for celebration and rejoicing instead was morphed into a death threat. Horror of horrors! He carried a pallet on the Sabbath. We need to kill someone!

And that's when the thought struck me. We do the same thing as it concerns salvation. We've become so practically focused on salvation as a means to avoid Hell and gain Heaven, that we've missed the whole point of why we get saved in the first place. As if the whole point of killing Jesus was so I could gain Heaven and live in bliss. Rather, St. Paul puts it this way:

More than that I also consider all things to be loss, on account of the surpassing worth of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have sustained the loss of all things, and I consider them to be rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ, and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through faith * in Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith; so as to know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, if in some way I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. (Phil. 3:8-11 EMTV)

Paul sums up the Gospel message here. In verse 10 and 11 he gives the purpose of the Gospel. To know Jesus Christ, God the Son, in His suffering, His death, and the power of His resurrection, for the purpose of attaining, interestingly he says "somehow," the resurrection from the dead personally.

Now we know that everyone will have a resurrection from the dead, for there will still be a last judgment to go through. What St. Paul is talking about here is obtaining a resurrection from our spiritual death brought on by the fall of Adam. Yet it is through becoming one with Christ's sufferings, death, and resurrection that this is accomplished. As I mentioned, getting to Heaven and avoiding Hell is a natural by-product of getting "saved," but it is far from the whole of it, much less the central focus of it.

The result of us focusing on what we'll get out of salvation is for us to be like the Pharisees, who could only focus on the fact that someone had broken their law of what constitutes working on the Sabbath, ignoring the miracle that has taken place right in their midst. When we reduce salvation to what we'll get out of it, we ignore the central miracle that has taken place in us and the commitment we are making by joining ourselves with Him.

The question we have to ask ourselves is whether our faith is so shallow that in getting saved, we've focused more on where we are going instead of who and whose we are to become?

The Meaning of the Resurrection

This past Sunday marked the celebration of Easter in the Western churches. In Orthodoxy and other Eastern Churches, this coming Sunday is Easter, or more appropriately,  Pascha (The English transliteration of the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word for "Passover," because originally this feast was known as the "New Passover" when we passed from death to life).

Why this difference in time tables? Without getting off into the weeds, the simple answer is the West adopted the Gregorian calendar while the Orthodox remained on the Julian calendar. Currently, those two calendars are 13 days apart, so depending on when the new moon is means our Pascha can fall on the same Sunday, one week later as it is this year (because it has to happen after the Jewish Passover), or even almost a month later.

Anyway, that is just by way of explanation, not the focus of this devotional. Would be a pretty dry one if it were.

What I want to focus on this Holy Friday is the following verse:

That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. (Phil. 3:10-11)

The question I hope to answer is this: Is the resurrection simply a celebration to us, or is it a life-modifying reality?

For St. Paul, it was the driving force of his existence. He was ready to even be made "conformable to His death." That's how important it was to St. Paul. Is it that important for us? Are we ready to throw our prosperity-laden sub-theologies under the bus in order to have "fellowship of His sufferings?" Is the faith really all about "Sunshine and Roses, only a thorn now and then?" Not according to St. Paul. The resurrection is so powerful, it enables us to conform to the sufferings of His death. It enables us to pick up our cross and follow Him.

Not for any kind of abstract happiness, but that we too might attain to the resurrection from the dead, when we will know what divine joy is really all about. As St. Paul also says in Romans 6, we must die with Him if we expect to be raised to new life with Him. You can't have only the resurrection without also going through the suffering of death, both metaphorically as well as literally.

That is why in our Friday service called the Lamentations of Christ, we sing in hope, not despair. Because we know how the story ends, and we know we too, through Christ's death, can attain to His resurrection from the dead for ourselves. Amen.

Creationism vs. Evolutionism: Go!

This debate is as old as the hills. On one hand, you have those Christians who say "The Bible says its a day, dagnabbit, it's a day!" On the other hand, there are those Christians who suggest that a day in the Hebrew represents only a period of time, not necessarily a 24 hour period. And that to God, one day is a thousand years, and a thousand years is but one day. Then there are those, on the third hand, who are not Christian and will point to the scientific problems of the Creationist view as evidence of their rejection of God and the whole shabang.

So what is the real beef? Who is right and who is wrong?

I'd suggest they all are. "What? Do you have a fourth and totally new option?"

Yes, and no. Yes, because it is a different way of looking at this issue. And no, because it isn't new. Allow me to explain.

First, the concept of evolution has only been around for almost the last couple hundred years of human history. Before that, it was commonly accepted among the Church Fathers and others that the day in Genesis meant a literal day. But they did so without attempting to prove that point or that the text in the Scriptures in any way actually hinged on that point.

The Church for the first several hundred years of its existence, for about 95% of its existence, simply accepted that what Genesis 1 meant when it said a "day," that what it meant was a day.  But they couldn't prove that anymore than I can now.

So the default viewpoint was that since it wasn't a key part of the Scripture or the creation story, they failed to focus on it. The real answer is they, and I, accept that it is a real day, upon which we may find out once in heaven that it wasn't for all we know, or that it was; but that the point of the Genesis story wasn't to tell us how God created the world, but simply that He did, and why He did, and His relationship to it and us.

In other words, it isn't important. I know people want it to be, for various reasons. The most common reason is where it concerns the "infallibility" of Scripture. The argument goes something like this: every word of the Scripture is "God breathed" and therefore if one part is shown to be in error (if a day is not a day), then the whole message of the Bible falls apart. It is for this reason that atheist and agnostics like to point out the inconsistencies of the Bible. Meanwhile, you'll have Christians doing backflips to reconcile those inconsistencies.

The problem is in their defintion of "God breathed," which comes from 2 Timothy 3:16, which says in full context:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Tim:3:16-17)

The "and" after that first phrase in the Greek denotes something more along the lines of "therefore." It is a cumulative "and." So what follows is showing the purpose of what exactly it is God-breathed to do. That is, it is God-breathed so that it can be effective in doctrine, instruction in righteousness. And ultimately, to make one fit for God's purposes, to accomplish His good works through us.

Now, we know that the Bible is primarily about our relationship with God, how it was lost, and how we can get it back. It isn't intended to be a science text-book. Especially in an age when people's languages tended to think in concrete and not abstract terms. That's why a day in the Hebrew literally means a period of time. There is no way to know exactly how long that period of time was, nor is it critical to the Genesis story to know. It could be 24 hours, or 5 minutes, or 1000 years. Unless you were there, you can't know.

And even if it did mean 1000 years, that is a reasonable period of time that the Hebrew word for "day" could mean. So, it would literally be what the Bible says. And that, my friends, is why you don't see any of the Church Fathers pulling their hair out over this issue. They accept it as written, and if they are wrong, they will be happy to accept that is the case. Until then, it says a day, so that's all we can say about it. That's because any change in this reality will not shake my faith in God, will not affect my salvation, will not change what I believe about this. And no, it will not shatter my faith in God's Word, because all it means is I didn't interpret the Scriptures accurately on that one minor point.

Since the point of Genesis wasn't to tell me how God created the world, or even in what order He did it in, I'll leave that information in God's capable hands and move on. If it was all that important for my salvation, I would have expected Him to make it clear like a science textbook would have.

So next time you find yourself in one of those debates, I would suggest leaving them to hash out the finer details of their minor doctrine. I'll focus on myself, my sins, because those will affect my salvation. Much more than whether the abstract debate on whether one day in Genesis is a literal 24 hour period or not will ever have.

Praying for the "Dead"

The Three Living and the Three Dead

In my church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, we often have liturgies during Lent where we intercede for those who have passed on from this life into the next. I put dead in quotes in the title, for literally they are not dead, but very much alive.

Those against such practices will often quote the following verses:

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment. (Heb 9:27 KJV) 

With the given understanding that between death and the judgment, there isn't opportunity for further repentance or aid. The general belief is that once someone dies, there is nothing else that can be done for them. That they are finished with their repentance and must await the final judgment in fear and trembling.

Problem is, this given idea isn't in the Bible. Certainly it is appointed unto men to die only once. It is equally true that after that comes the judgment. That still doesn't say what the condition of the soul is between the time they pass this life and the judgment. Rather, I would suggest, that is a Protestant Tradition that has been added to Scripture.

Now let me back up here a bit and tell you that I believe in general that we have this life to repent, and after that, for most people, the stone is cast as to whether they will make it to heaven or hell. Yet, that decision does not happen until the Last Judgment, which is to happen at the end of time.

There are also many people to whom have never heard of Christ before they die. Are they to face judgment without a chance of repentance or asking or spiritual healing? What about those who have grown up and never even heard about God? What about the mentally ill?

The fact is, we simply do not know what God will do for those people, but I believe there very well could be a chance for them to repent and accept Christ before being revealed to God's glory for judgment. I don't think we can or should limit God from doing whatever He wishes simply because we've assumed a certain meaning isn't included.

Plus, there may be some Biblical evidence of St. Paul praying for a dead person:

The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: but, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me. The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well.
(2 Tim. 1:16-18)

Now I say may because while verse 18 certainly sounds like someone who has passed on, it is not definitive that this is the case as St. Paul doesn't specifically state it.

Probably the biggest evidence, however, is the fact that the Jews, of which St. Paul was one, regularly prayed for their dead. You can see that in the "Apocrypha" book of Maccabees of which was included in St. Paul's Bible he preached from. Based on this, for the disciples to intend to exclude prayers for the dead from Christianity, there would have to be something in their writings which specifically denounced such things. Of which there is nothing in Scripture suggesting that we should avoid praying for the dead, or that it is a sin.

In other words, the onus is on those who wish to prove the default position of the Jews wasn't the default position of the Apostles as well. Without any such exclusions in the Scriptures, one has to assume that it was practiced in the early church as well, and that the above verse could very well be St. Paul's prayer for a dead person. At a minimum, it shows that God's mercy extended all the way to judgement day, not the person's death, in St. Paul's mind. For he says, ". . . that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day." That day would be the judgment day.

It also speaks against the "once saved, always saved" version of repentance, but that is another devotion.

However, while the Biblical argument for or against this practice isn't clear on either side, leaving it mostly to Jewish and Christian history which they certainly did practice praying for the dead all the way into the Reformation and beyond, the practical application of this is very compelling.

To a grieving mother who has lost her child, you are going to tell them that praying for their child is pointless? If I had a child who had died and of whose salvation was uncertain, I know I would be praying for God to have mercy on their souls. Not because I believe I can change God's mind if He has already made up his mind about a person's final destination, but if there is even a chance in a million that he or she can be saved and isn't, I certainly don't want it to be because I decided not to pray for them.

I'll intercede for them because I love them, because they are part of the Body of Christ and when one member hurts, the whole body does. Because who knows? If a persistent widow can change the mind of a judge through her prayers to him, and Christ demands that we do the same for God, then guess what? I'm going to do just that. Especially if it is someone I love and care about. The worst that could happen is I'm unsuccessful. So what? Is God going to throw me in Hell if I get that wrong? I don't think so. Not when he's got much greater cause in other things to nail me with.

No, with love you can't go wrong. Even if I'm wrong theologically, I'd rather be wrong about that and guilty of praying for them needlessly than right about it and not pray for those who've gone to face the Lord. I want to stand for those I love. Their souls may depend on it and I don't want to take that chance that they won't.

Are you willing to take that chance?

How to Go to Hell

The Last Judgment Icon

The image to the right is called the "Last Judgment." It is based on Jesus' words found in Matthew 25:31-45:

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:"
32 "And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:"
33 "And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left."
34 "Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:"
35 "For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:"
36 "Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me."
37 "Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?"
38 "When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?"
39 "Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?"
40 "And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."
41 "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:"
42 "For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:"
43 "I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not."
44 "Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?"
45 "Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me."
46 "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."

The contrast of faith and works here is important to understand how they work together for our salvation. But before we get into that, we perhaps need a definition of faith, lest we get headed in different directions.

Faith - shorthand for the Faith, or more directly, to trust in Jesus Christ with all your "heart, soul, mind, and body." Yep, in other words, to love God.

The common misunderstanding is to think "to have faith" is to believe in something, anything, hard enough, and it will happen. Sort of the "prosperity gospel" message: if you don't have what you ask God for, it is because you don't really believe it will happen. Note: there is some truth to that, but it needs context. As trust in Jesus Christ not only means "holding Him to His promises to us," but more importantly means holding ourselves to His will and desire for us. In other words, ask not what your God can do for you, rather, ask what you can do for your God, to paraphrase a popular saying.

Faith is commonly thought of as something that is abstract. We've turned it from a verb into a noun. This is due to the shortened version of the phrase: Have faith. But it is a shortened version of: Have faith in Jesus Christ. It always points to something you are having faith in. And since salvation can only come from Christ, it must point to Christ to be salvific.

However, the faith that people commonly talk about is a work-based faith because it references themselves. "If I have faith (in my own ability to believe it can happen), then it will. If it doesn't happen, it means that I didn't have the faith necessary to accomplish it. What it should say is that I didn't have the faith to trust in what Jesus Christ said, which is not only his promises, but what he said we will do: like carry our own cross and endure hardships for Him. If all we are in is for ourselves, we are no better than the seed cast on thorny ground.

With that context, we can make better sense out of the above verses in relation to works.

First, note how the people are divided: "As a shepherd divides the sheep from the goats." How does this happen? Through voice signals. Note in this video, that the goats are driven and the sheep are not. Also key is that the sheep know the shepherd's voice. (John 10:3-5) There is even examples of the shepherd carrying the sheep to where they belong, the few that get "lost."

How are the sheep called and the goats driven apart? Jesus states it is all involved in how they respond to Him as in how they treat other people. These "works" don't save us, but they are necessary to be there if we have a saving faith. Thus, it is not so much as what you do as who you are and whose you are. It involves a relationship with Jesus Christ through having faith in Him, that He is the Son of God and He alone has the words of salvation. The works, which must be there to be saved, are a reflection of our faith and love in Jesus Christ, which saves us. In other words, works must be present for salvation to be effective, but they are not definitive evidence of salvation if they are done without faith in Christ.

The first verse says that when Christ comes in "his glory", that it will be the defining moment of salvation. It is His glory that will "call" those to Him that know His voice, as well as that which will push the goats away because they experience God as eternal punishment. This is specifically why God says He hides himself from us, because if any of us were to look on His "face", it would bring about instant judgment upon us. If we are not ready, we would perish. In that day, we will see Him "as he is," face to face.

But God gives us time to establish that sheep-type relationship with Him. Because, as this parable tells us, there will come a day when we will stand before the full glory of God and be judged. That glory will either draw us to Him or push us away.

The good news is that Christ died for us while we were still goats, in order that we might become sheep. Then, it will be too late. Now, you still have time to become a sheep God will call instead of a goat that He will drive away by being who He is before us. That is by truly believing what he's said to be true and following through on what He's asked us to do.

So there is a synergy revealed between faith and works. So much so that Jesus' own words appear to be in contradiction to one another: "If ye love me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15) and "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me." (John 14:21a). There is no contradiction between salvation through faith and works in synergy. Either one without the other, however, will not save you.

Turning Water into Very Good Wine

When Jesus does something, He goes all out! No watered down wine for Him. No, he creates the good stuff. Out of water no less!

Most of us know the story of Jesus' first miracle at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. His mother and He were invited to a wedding. They both went with Jesus' disciples in tow.

One thing you have to remember about Jewish weddings at the time: they were week-long celebrations involving a lot of partying and the celebration of the couple's union, consummated by the couple going into a tent and having sex for the first time (theoretically). Then follows several days of celebration, of which wine played an important element of the celebration. So much so, that if a host was to run out of wine, it would have been a big embarrassment.

But that's exactly what appeared to have happened at this wedding. They were calling for more wine, and there was none to be had. So naturally, Mary turns to Jesus.

Why? Who knows? Maybe she saw Him do that for them a time or two at the dinner table. She apparently knew He could pull it off, or she wouldn't have come to Him in the first place. Jesus' response to her request to do something is interesting to our modern ears:

Jesus saith unto her, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come." (Jn 2:4)

Sounds pretty harsh, doesn't it. I mean, if I were to have ever said that to my mother, she would have flown off the handle. "Woman, what do I have to do with you?"

But in that day, "woman" was a term of endearment, much like our term "mommy." The rest of that statement was simply Jesus telling His mother, "Look, I'd love to help these people out, but my time hasn't come yet. I'd be prematurely revealing myself. And, why are you telling Me when it is the right time to start my ministry?"

But then Mary goes ahead and tells the servants standing by to do whatever Jesus says. I can see Jesus throwing up His hands and saying, "Okay, we'll do it your way!" So he tells the servants what to do and they do it. When they take a cup of the water . . . I mean, now it's wine, to the head of the bridegroom's party, He waves the bridegroom over and says the following:

Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now. (Jn 2:10)

This is the amazing thing, that Jesus made good wine. Really good wine. As I said before, He went all out.

What most people miss here is the parallelism between this event and the last Passover meal Jesus has with His disciples, otherwise known as the Lord's Supper, or the Eucharist. Both involve wine, both are rituals around which we build our lives. At the beginning of His ministry, Jesus created very good wine from water. At the end of His earthly ministry, He gave of Himself, turning the bread and wine into His Body and Blood. And it is very good, indeed.

The fact is if Jesus can turn the water into great wine, He can turn the bread and wine into excellent food and drink that not only feeds the body, but the soul as well.

Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. (1 Cor 10:31)

Now, go out there and make some great "wine" for the glory of God, today!

Putting God First

I have the one ring to rule them all!

Last time I mentioned that God said we were to love Him above any other as to how we put Him first, and that I would have more next time. After all, the next logical question is "how do we put God first?"

Our verse selection for this devotional spills the beans: