P.O. Box 53055    
Los Angeles, CA 90053   

THE REBEL VICE-PRESIDENT

Here in the United States, I guess we'll never get over the CNN nightmare called "Election 2000." Who in the world, on November 7th, would have predicted the endless weeks it took to decide that George W. Bush should finally move into the big White House in Washington, D.C. and become our 43rd President?
And you know, in the 36 days that it finally took before all the court cases and the Florida recounts and the "chads" in those paper ballots settled themselves down into a number we could live with, all sorts of politicians and pundits were making suggestions. How could we get out of this mess? Should there just be another election - with no butterfly ballots? Should it be settled, as some states and countries actually do, with one toss of a coin or a single hand of poker? Should Gore take it the first two years and let Bush have it the last two? Should the Democrats be in charge Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, with the Republicans running the show the second half of the week? Dave Letterman, in a Top Ten List, suggested: "Let's find some guy named George W. Gore and make him president."
One scenario that was discussed at great length was that whoever won would certainly be wise to reach across the aisle and invite key members of the opposition party to be a part of the inner circle, the Cabinet. But one proposal that nobody really thought about very hard was to have a Gore/Bush White House team, or a Bush/Gore administration. Or to have President Bush ask Dick Cheney to step aside in order to allow Democrat Joe Lieberman to be his Vice President.
Well, friend, I realize full well that I'm revisiting some emotions that most of you would like to stay 270 electoral miles away from. But you know, as we continue to think about the Bible topic of perfection, and perfect obedience, the imaginary prospect of a Bush/Lieberman kingdom in Washington, D.C. gives us a very interesting object lesson.
Let me depart from the political world, and take you instead to a very fascinating book. It's entitled The Nature of Christ, written by a great Christian scholar, Dr. Roy Adams, who serves as an editor for the Adventist Review, worldwide journal of my Seventh-day Adventist Church. Perfection is a key element in the discussion, and Adams has a chapter with this very plain title: "What Is Sin?" Which would certainly help define what PERFECTION really is too. If the people who eventually live in God's eternal kingdom are perfect, how does that mean they will be living and thinking and behaving?
It's a deep, deep book . . . but at one point Roy Adams takes us to a simple sounding Bible passage. Psalm 32:1, 2. There are actually four references, not just one, to the issue of sin. And we get a unique and distinct picture in each. But first, here's the passage:

"Blessed is he whose TRANSGRESSION is forgiven, whose SIN is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not INIQUITY, and in whose spirit there is no GUILE."

Did you count them? Four words: "transgression," "sin," "iniquity," and "guile." They all sound like just plain-jane "sin" - but let me share the powerful nuances here, the word pictures.
Let's start at the top. "Transgression." "Blessed is he whose TRANSGRESSION is forgiven." That's good news, of course, but here in the book of Psalms, in the original Hebrew language, we find this word: pesha'. The scholars tells us that pesha' means "rebellion," a "departure from God." The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible - and again we thank Roy Adams for this great research - says, "Pesha' is the Old Testament's most profound word for 'sin,' indicating its theological meaning as 'revolt against God.'" So this pesha' isn't just stubbing your toe and blurting out an X-rated word, or having too much ice cream at Baskin-Robbins; it's an act of shaking your fist at God. It's tremendous good news that God forgives even such an act of rebellion.
Here's definition #2, from the word "sin" itself. "Blessed is he whose SIN is covered." And "sin" here comes from chata'ah, which paints a picture of "missing the mark, failing to do one's duty," according to the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol. 3. The good things you should do, but don't; the cups of cold water you could share, but you don't. The witnessing you could do, but you don't. We call these "sins of omission," and Dr. Adams shares a cute Sunday School line from a kid who says: "Sins of omission are sins I should have committed, but didn't!"
Let's move to #3: "Iniquity." "Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not INIQUITY." And here's a third Hebrew word to dissect: 'awon." What's that mean? The commentaries describe 'awon as "moral distortion," or "crookedness." Friend, we're all born - I mean, we actually show up in the delivery room - with a spiritual deformity inside of us. Adams uses the words "perverse" and "twisted" as part of the resumé of every human on this planet - except for Jesus. That kind of sin is hardwired inside of us, just like the software which automatically comes with your new laptop computer. King David himself, just a few psalms later, admits:

"I was SHAPED in iniquity; and in sin did my mother CONCEIVE me."

Here's the final kind of "sin" found in this Bible passage: "guile." "Blessed is the man . . . in whose spirit there is no GUILE." We already have a picture of what "guile" means, but in Hebrew the word is remiyyah. And yes, it means what you think it means: "deceit, falsehood, duplicity." We think of the slippery answers of the politicians: "No controlling legal authority." "What does 'is' mean?" "Were you ever arrested for drunk driving?" "I don't remember." That kind of thing, and it happens with you and me too, doesn't it, friend?

Well, there's the list of four. Sin can be rebellion. It can mean falling short, not doing all I could do. It can mean the inner twisted-ness of the soul, something I began to exhibit on April 5, 1932. Or it can mean sneakiness, an attitude of slippery deception, where I can't be trusted.
And friend, God promises to forgive us for all four of these ailments. Even the deception. An Old Testament sinner named Jacob is glad about that. Even the rebellion. A NEW Testament bad boy named Paul is very thankful for that one.
But the question for us today is this: when we come to the end of our road in life - either because someone drives us to the cemetery, or because we look up in the clouds and see our Friend named Jesus coming to rescue us - will a saved person still be sinning in these four ways? Falling and failing and sinning and swearing? Or will God's people have become perfect? When the book of Revelation describes these spotless people, does that mean they will have gotten over all four of these avenues of sin?
Well, Adams gives us an answer that makes perfect sense. Will the people of God - either now or in the last days - still be facing the reality of chatta'ah? Missing the mark? Sometimes falling short? Yes, we will. Because we're humans. And God knows that we are humans, children of dust.
Another question: will even the saints in the final generation have a genetic problem with 'awon - that inner distortion? Will the last Christian babies born here at Simi Valley Adventist Hospital still have a deformity inside caused by the fact that they are great-great-great-great grandsons or daughters of Adam and Eve? I'm afraid so. These two kinds of sin - falling short, and inner distortion - are curses that won't be removed until God takes us to that better land and makes us new.
But now to the other two. Rebellion. And slippery deceitfulness. Could a rebellious, fist-shaking, God-hating person be saved? Would a person with a suitcase bulging with pesha', with thoughts of revolution, be safe to take to heaven? Well, why would he even want to go there? Could a man or woman who clung to a lifestyle of endless lying, of covering up, of unrepentant, defiant Lewinsky-izing, be a good candidate for the wide-open, honest, pure-as-snow government of Paradise?
Let's go back to Washington and the administration of Bush and Cheney. Friend, I'm sure there are days when the President has to say to his second-in-command, "Dick, did you get such-and-such done?" And Cheney has to say, "Mr. President, I'm sorry. I just . . . I didn't finish that yet. I was sweeping up chads all day yesterday." Or: "I had a family emergency with Lynne, and couldn't get it done. I'm sorry. But tomorrow for sure." That would be, in a sense, a "sin of omission." And Mr. Cheney could call over to the senate and get his good friend Joe Lieberman to give us an orthodox Jew's very good interpretation of chatta'ah, couldn't he? He's loyal; he means well . . . but he messes up now and then.

But would it do for the President to have as his V.P. a man who actively opposes the agenda? Would President Bush want to have Joe Lieberman, faithful American that he is, sitting down the hallway, trying to overturn the President's tax policy and sabotage his Supreme Court choices? We can understand that there would be nothing but pesha', pesha', and more pesha coming from a Vice President Lieberman's office down the hall. Rebellion, rebellion, rebellion. And you can't have that, friend . . . not in the Oval Office, and not in the kingdom of God.
Fortunately, we have a Commander in Chief who knows how to give out pardons. And new hearts.