Christians, Stop Apologizing For Hell

I've often told the story of the Bible verse that freed me from the wrong kind of apologetics. That is, the idea that if I explained the more difficult parts of the Bible in just the right way, or depicted them in just the right light, a skeptic or non-believer would accept those things in the Christian doctrine that are, even for many Christians, hard to accept. The verse was Genesis 38:7 - "But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord killed him."
A simple and unassuming verse. Unassuming except for the part where God kills a guy. But there it was, in plain black and white, with no footnote added, no theological context to remind the reader of God's sovereignty and right to give and take life, no information on the degree or manner of Er's wickedness to try and make God seem more justified in taking his life. It was simple: "The Lord killed him."

Somehow, this verse reminded me that God does not need a dullard like me to defend Him, explain Him, or try to make Him look right - He's God and He is above such requirements. He is above the need for human approval or justification; this is why Jesus tells the Pharisees who were indignant at the praise the people were giving to Him, "I tell you that if these should keep silent, the stones would immediately cry out" (Luke 19:40). I don't mean "defense" in the same sense as Peter does when he instructs us to give a defense for our faith - a reason we believe, a reason for the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15). I mean this in the sense that for years I thought my articulation and logic would lead people to Christ; and what I was essentially thinking was, the only way to God was through Christ, but the only way to Christ was through me and my awesome apologetics and speeches.

I think that as Christians we sometimes feel a need to explain certain parts of the Bible in a way to make them seem less abrasive, less uncomfortable. The doctrine of eternal damnation for non-believers is one of the hardest, saddest truths we face as believers in God's holy Word. No Christian should desire for anyone to go to hell, and that should therefore be one of the reasons we must strive to show love and share the good news of Christ before the Judgment: "And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire" (Revelation 20:15). What kind of hatred could a believer have to not share the Gospel that leads to eternal life? Why would we want anyone to spend eternity without God's love and presence? That's what hell is, after all. The permanent absence of God is worse than the fire.

So, many times we find ourselves using this shopworn expression to try and explain God's actions as if they were wrong, or at least suspect. We say:
"God doesn't send people to hell - people choose to go to hell when they deny Him."

In essence, this is basically true. People choose to deny Christ, and in doing so mark themselves for eternity without Him. But when we say this, we gloss over the sovereignty of God. We try and sugarcoat the fact that, being an omnipotent and perfect Creator, He is the only Being with the right to save or to damn, to kill or to give life.
This morning I happened to be reading about the destruction of Jericho in the book of Joshua. A verse even more troubling that God's sudden destruction of Judah's wicked son made me groan and think, "Lord, You're not making this easy on me." The verse was: "And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword." This verse is not unique in the Old Testament, as many times in ancient Israel's various wars, this was standard protocol.

Yeah, I know.

But I don't need to apologize for God (and I'm not talking about the practice of apologetics). My God is sovereign and perfect, with the right to direct life and death for His Creations. I could go into detail about how, under the New Covenant of Jesus, God's wrath has been satisfied through His sacrifice on the cross. I could make winding and longwinded explanations about the Mosaic Law and how it's been fulfilled through Jesus, so there's no more need for stoning adulterers and adulteresses to death. I could use semantics and theological terms to explain why, if God's wrath was satisfied through Christ, there is still a hell and not everyone will go to heaven. But if I did so with the thought that it would lead a person to accept Him, I would only be fooling myself and, worse, trying to paint a picture of a God that I like, rather than accepting His sovereign judgments, no matter how difficult they may be to accept sometimes (many times).

Hell is a real place. I don't want anyone to go there, but I know they will. I would have thrown up had I seen the bloody destruction of Jericho. But if I want to accept God as He is - and He is perfect - I must accept that He has the divine right to ordain such gutwrenching things. And I must remember that He played by the rules you and I face, suffering on the cross the wrath shown to Jericho so that a New Covenant could be made, a peace could be made, that you and I would have the chance to know Him. And knowing Him, we know more than an angry God, but a God with such depth, mercy, kindness, and love, all of it wrapped in an unbreakable holiness: mercy, kindness, and love we often think is absent when we read of the things He did in ancient times - and will do at another foreordained time.

And, after all, who would want to lower themselves to only worship a god they can understand?

Christians, Discuss: Is Unrepentant Porn Addiction Grounds For Divorce?

In recent years, as porn has become more and more of an epidemic, the Church has made no bones about the destructiveness of pornography and its effects on the covenant of marriage, and has strove to educate and help those tangled in such addictions and backsliding. But one thing I seldom hear addressed is the adultery factor in such situations. Jesus says in Matthew chapter 5, when describing how sin begins in the heart, "I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." He goes on to elaborate on the seriousness of the things that lead us to sin and the need for us to be rid of them: "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell."

(Let it be noted that in some translations, the word "sin" is substituted or footnoted as "offend" or "stumble." I don't know how significant that is, but I want to be as precise as I can in such a complicated issue.)

We know that lust is essential in pornography. Each time we gaze at a man or woman in the throes of the glorification of what is against God's purpose for sex, we delight in that rebellion, and we lust. So I would feel safe to say that if a married person indulges in pornographic material, they're committing adultery. 

Jesus says in a short discourse on marriage and divorce in Matthew 19: "I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." 

Here's where it's important for me to be precise again: in some translations, "sexual immorality" (which porn certainly is) is rendered: "fornication." We know that porn and the self-abuse of the Holy Spirit's temple (i.e. our bodies) are adultery and lust, but it's not the physical act of fornication. Or, is that what Jesus even means when He says "fornication?" Is He referring back to His words on lust being adultery, and that there is no difference, spiritually, between physically having sex with someone not your spouse, and delighting in watching the act on a computer?

The Spirit writes through the author of the book of Hebrews: "Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge" (Hebrews 13:4).

Unquestionably, the subject of grace and forgiveness must enter into any marriage. It's been said that the keys to a good marriage are to 1. repent well and 2. forgive well. But what if the spouse engaged in their destructive behavior remains unrepentant? What if they've failed to show fruits of repentance? We know that forgiveness is key in any relationship a Christian has, be it with their spouse, friends, family, strangers, their congregation. We're called to forgive and show mercy. But it's important to remember that forgiving someone doesn't:

- obligate you to trust the person who has hurt you.

- require you to minimize, make excuses for, or ignore their bad choices.

If we continually allow others to hurt us, we eventually become bitter and paranoid, rendering ourselves unable to show love or positive influence to others in Christ's name. Those around us who habitually hurt us can drag us down with their destructive behaviors, and leave us callous and uncaring. This undoubtedly affects our faith. In 1 Corinthians 15:33, Paul quotes an expression of his day: "Do not be deceived. Evil company corrupts good habits." Which brings us back to Jesus' words:

"And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell."

This brings us to God's instructions through Paul, also in 1 Corinthians. In chapter 5, Paul discusses the challenge of living godly lives in a world that does not agree with or believe in our values and standards, a world that even holds those views in contempt. Are Christians to avoid contact with non-believers, i.e. those "outside" Christ's Church? No, Paul says, for we would have to leave the world. We are called to be in the world, but not of the world; there must be a distinction between a man or woman of Christ and a man or woman of miscellany. To be "holy" is to be "set apart." Rather, Paul states that it is Christians, or those who are called Christians, who engage in unrepentant sin with which we are to have no association: "I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner - not even to eat with such a person. For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person."

Does this associating with unrepentant Christians, and Biblical command against it, extend into the marriage? Especially if we know the unrepentant spouse's evil habits can corrupt the other's attempts to live a godly life?

There's also the question of how porn affects one's ability to show intimacy and affection to their spouse. The thing with porn is, it's fantasy for the viewer: they can have sex with, do anything with anyone they want, and still only be concerned with giving pleasure to themselves. In actual sex, one must be concerned with the sexual desires of the other person. Porn addiction renders this not a privilege that God has given to married couples, but a tiresome chore: the porn user is prone to become less interested in pleasing their spouse because it interferes with their fantasies. It's too difficult to please two people when your mind has become focused on pleasing only one's self. This is in contradiction to Biblical words to a husband and wife:

"Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control" (1 Corinthians 7:3-5).

However, Paul says next, "I say this as a concession, not as a commandment."

What does he mean? Which parts of the above are his "concession?" All of it? What is he "conceding?" Does it refer to his express desire that less Christians during the time were married? We know from reading his epistles that he found it a good idea to refrain from marriage - and therefore taking on the responsibilities of marriage - in a time when Christians were being slaughtered by Rome and other persecutors. Is that what he means? 

And later in the same chapter, "Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife." Further, referring to those who became Christians while already married, with the other spouse being still an unbeliever: "But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?"

What then? Do the latter four verses apply when the issue is unrepentant sexual immorality and not unbelief? 

The issue of divorce seems - at first - cut and dry to many of us when the problem is sexual immorality. But we know that marriage is discussed many times and in many ways, some of them complex, some of them to be taken at face value, under the New Covenant. And I should probably elaborate that when I say "New Covenant," I'm not exactly strictly referring to the New Testament, but to the commands and instructions that exist for those who have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior. I'm not negating the Old Testament - only emphasizing it be read in context with the entire Bible, a Book whose climax is the New Covenant under Jesus.

So, what do you Christians out there think? Is divorce an option for Christians when all attempts at getting the spouse to seek help for porn addiction have been exhausted? Are two Christians stuck with each other "'til death," even if one is capable of destroying the other's walk with God? Are permanent separations an option over legal divorce? Is there any difference between the two, Biblically? Are we focusing too much on semantics? What about the effects on children in the marriage?

What do you think when you read the Scripture? And, more importantly, do you begin your Scripture reading with prayer for discernment? That God would open your heart's understanding? That He would blow away any preconceived opinions you may have that may not be in line with His Word?

"Open my eyes, that I may see wondrous things from Your law.

I am a stranger in the earth; do not hide Your commandments from me.

My soul breaks with longing for Your judgments at all times."

-Psalm 119:18-20

"Tonight our bed is cold, lost in the darkness of our love

God have mercy on a man who doubts what he's sure of."

-Bruce Springsteen