I especially took note of his reference to Timothy Keller in The Reason for God, Chapter 5: How Can a Loving God Send People to Hell.  (see part 1 - G) I haven’t read any of Timothy Keller’s or Rob Bell’s books or others of the same vein, but I’ve read a few blurbs by some of them to get the drift of some of their beliefs.

Regarding peoples’ problems with the subject, I have long fancied the idea of making a bumper sticker that says, 

“How could a loving God send anybody to Earth?”

The point being that isn’t this earth hell enough to make everyone want to avoid this type of existence in eternity? The other point is that enough hell exists on earth already to suggest such a thing could certainly exist in the next realm.

Why wouldn’t it exist in eternity? What’s to prevent it from existing? (I’ll make this personal so as to implicate myself) If I hate God and ignore God, and if I love rebelling against God in this life (as I have done) why would I be different in my transition? What would cause me to have a change of heart––especially since I can continue to rebel and love sin and enjoy it for eternity? Short of divine inducements, why would someone who loves sin in this life want to give it up in eternity?

I don’t understand

I don’t understand why anyone would have a problem believing Hell exists, again, at least because there is enough evidence in this realm to make it plausible in the next. I also don’t understand why some do not believe and repent. I don’t understand why there is a hell prepared for the devil and his angels. I don’t understand why Satan would have rebelled in the first place. Nor do I understand why there is forgiveness for fallen man but not for fallen angels.

As for eternal torment of the lost, I don’t understand how I could be happy in Heaven knowing loved ones on earth are suffering in hell. That’s beyond me. I do understand, however, that if the ship is sinking, I must get in the lifeboat. I can’t be deterred by the fact that others, in spite of repeated warnings, obstinately choose to continue partying onboard. I must look steadfastly on Christ and hope in His mercy toward me and leave others to Him.

I don’t think God expects me to understand or even wants me to understand these things. But this much I understand: If God were to let me into heaven without giving me a complete “do over”––the miracle of forgiveness, of reconciliation, of justification through Christ, and sanctification––a completely new, pure, heavenly nature––I would quickly set about turning Heaven into Hell.

Heaven would not be Heaven with me there as I am.

Something was wrong with my Christian walk, and until listening to these men I didn’t have the indisputable confirmation. Much of the evangelicalism I learned and embraced (starting with my conversion experience years ago)  is far from the true, saving gospel.  Perhaps you will identify with it. Of course if you don’t care for MacArthur, Ryle, Washer and the like, you probably won’t. Nevertheless, I pray you listen, and may God’s glory be our mutual desire and pursuit.

Grace

His writings, as well as others from previous centuries and from contemporaries such as John MacArthur and Paul Washer have confronted my half-hearted faith, my fuzzy beliefs, and my disregard for a consistent and coherent doctrinal framework–all of which are characterized by a lacked authentic repentance and a shallow, nominal, unfruitful easy-believe-ism type of Christianity.

I submit his writings for your careful consideration. The times demand a severe look at our lives in the light of Scripture and pointedly in the light of the severe words of Hebrews 12:14: “Without holiness no man shall see the Lord”.   J.C. Ryle clearly lays out what holiness should “look like” in the lives of those who profess Christ as Lord.

Current popular man-centered consumer Christianity has taken over large parts of evangelicalism and purports to be authentic Christianity. It will not stand the test of scripture, and it will not stand the test of persecution. Neither will it stand the test in the presence of Christ.

The entire work in PDF is 211 pages. To get it, click Holiness by JC Ryle-1 Or for the MSWord version with dynamic table of content, click Holiness by JC Ryle-2

For the last six months or so Jewel and I have been listening to online sermons and interviews of John MacArthur and of Paul Washer. My longstanding unknowledgeable and ill-conceived ideas about MacArthur have been done away with. Years ago we attended Grace Community Church’s Sunday services a few times and with just those few scant experiences I concluded MacArthur was a stanch legalist and that Grace CC was stuck in the stuffy, moribund way of “doing church”.

Prejudices die hard.

At the time I was in the Charismatic stream of things—expecting to see the power of God move in services—healings, prophecy, words of knowledge, tongues, and other spiritual-physical signs and wonders. Yet in the years of being in that stream of belief, we never witnessed a verifiable no-nonsense healing. (I had attended many leg-lengthening services and other such goofiness.) All of the bona fide healings, in the end, turned out to have been the result of surgery and natural healing rather than the supernatural. Slowly over the course of years I concluded that, although supernatural healing was vociferously preached and claimed, we never truthfully witnessed any and that much of the in-vogue Christianity was suspect and needed to be challenged. Little did I know that it already had been effectively and rightly challenged for years.

For me it has meant many years of confusion and frustration. The gospel I embraced in my early Christian life was a shallow, cheap, humanistic, man-centered gospel. I spent many years seeking the god who would fulfill me instead of the God who would transform me. My theology allowed me to live a double-minded life––to be unrepentant in some areas but with enough outward obedience in other areas (church going and church-related activities) to give me a false sense of security and of being right with God.

Well to make a long story short, a friend loaned us a few MacArthur Cds. As we listened to him some of the cobwebs of our Christian theology began to dissolve. Then one day while in a thrift store, I saw a book of MacArthur’s: The Gospel According to Jesus. For three bucks I thought “Why not? It’s not much to lose.”

As I continue to read his book my meager hodgepodge of theology, my inner life, and my views about what it means to be Christian––a follower and disciple of Christ––continue to be challenged and revolutionized. Pieces of the “Christian puzzle” are finally snapping into place. Things are finally starting to make sense.

It’s like I’ve been petting a cat the wrong way for years and marveling why it always scratches me. I keep wondering what in the world is wrong with the stupid cat––never thinking perhaps it’s me …that maybe I’m doing it wrong.
———————

Paul Washer:

While browsing the internet I came upon some YouTube videos of Paul Washer. I had never heard of him before but the title of some of the messages seemed thought provoking so I listen. Again, as with listening to MacArthur, my theology and Christian life have begun to be transformed––revolutionized. Paul Washer is a missionary and heads up HeartCry––a missionary organization. He preaches with passionate urgency––different than MacArthur’s well-honed, systematic style. Yet each man’s sermons are packed with weighty content that counters the easy believe-ism and shallow, casual, entertain-me-Christianity that has overtaken the American church.

As with MacArthur, there are many who contend that Washer is preaching legalism. (Does it make sense that insisting upon unconditional obedience to a sovereign Master and Lord should be called legalism …as though anything less than unquestioned obedience is acceptable to a sovereign master?)

Both MacArthur and Washer have websites that are loaded with media that is free to listen to and free to download. YouTube has many clips and even some full sermons of their messages. Check them out.

John MacArthur      Grace to You 
Paul Washer             HeartCry

There is a worldview undertone held by Christians (i.e. many American Christians) which briefly stated is that the United States of America is synonymous with the Kingdom of God and that as America goes, so goes the Kingdom of God. This belief is one of the core beliefs (if not the core belief) that energizes, defines, and directs Christian political activism. While it is certain that an all out assault against Christ has occurred in American politics and in the media, it is much less certain what is to be done about it.

Americans have enjoyed freedom and prosperity such as no other nation has experienced. However, we are so far removed from the source and the processes of this freedom that as a national consciousness we (1) don’t even know what such a freedom really “feels like” (2) we don’t even realize that we are losing it and (3) we don’t even care.

The question is this: Is America the last bastion of God on this earth? Is the American experiment–the Constitution, the Bill of Rights–with its emphasis on the supremacy of individual liberties–the last refuge as well as the last powerhouse for the gospel? In other words, if America fails, is God finished–washed up–on Planet Earth?

American Christians are at the place that Christians were during the end of the Roman Empire. Rome was to become the benefactor of the Christian religion. The impending collapse of that empire must have shaken the worldview of the entire civilization–Christians included. The shaking of our worldview is taking place, and it is equally unsettling. This country was founded chiefly upon the Bible and Christian principles. Christianity was a vibrant integral part of personal life as well as being the epicenter of the philosophy and ethics of law, politics, and culture. It was not Judaism or Islam, or Buddhism that burned in the hearts of the county’s founders; it was Christianity. It was the God of the Bible; it was Jesus Christ and the God of Jesus Christ. Currently however, everything is being done in this nation to make us forget this.

God bless America. Stand beside her and guide her

America is an empire, and empires come and go. Perhaps in the not-so-distant future American government, along with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, will no longer exist. In that event, institutions that we have trusted in and believed to be immovable would dissolve. Even things such as national monuments could be obliterated. Mt. Rushmore, for example, could easily be dynamited into a pile of rocks, the Statue of Liberty could be dismantled and sold for scrap, and the memory of what once was could fade into nothingness.  

The Bible states that God is in control. God controls the events of the world. God raises up nations and empires and God is the one who brings them down. In light of this, we should wonder and deeply consider why God gave the Islamic world, with its hatred of Christ and the Jews, all of the oil.

In light of God’s supreme control over all nations and events, America is merely God’s momentary agent in accomplishing His will and His plans for Planet Earth. God used the Babylonians to affect his purpose on Israel. God used the Assyrian, the Greek, and the Roman empires to do his will. These empires came and went, each lasting mere centuries. Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world. If it were of this world, then his disciples would have fought, and the weapons and methods of this world would have been used. Jesus never entered the political arena. He came to do the will of His Father–not to set up an earthly empire.

Well, we struggle with these concepts because we remain in this world, and in various ways and degrees, we influence and are influenced by the world. Just as our predecessors could not imagine life beyond the crumbling Roman Empire, Christian Americans cannot conceive of life beyond America. We have enjoyed our so-called rights to freedom, including religious freedom, for a couple hundred years. Now these freedoms are being threatened. Additionally, America has been a major base of evangelism. Yet, all of this is being weighed in the balance.

What if America falls? Religious freedom will cease, and Christians will be killed. What is new about that? Christ is hated in this world. Should we be amazed that even Americans turn against Jesus and persecute his followers? Should we be amazed that God would allow this country to fade into oblivion? Should we be amazed that God would allow this nation to be turned into a third world country with absolutely no value to the rest of the world except to be a source of cheap labor and to be plundered of its resources?

Babylon was once the mightiest nation on the planet. Nineveh was invincible. Egypt was the greatest. Greece had its moment, along with Rome, France, Spain, Germany, and England. God will just as easily move his favor, and the center of world power, from America to China, South America, Russia, or even the Middle East. He is no respecter of persons or nations or governments.

Is Christianity about saving and defending America and our religious freedom? In Jesus’ day, there wasn’t any religious freedom. One was not free to believe in any other way except what was prescribed by the religious leaders. The point is just this: Jesus was killed precisely because He worshiped God. Even so, Jesus and the apostles didn’t preach politics or seek to adjust the policies of the worldly government. They lived in an era of violence against their faith. Yet, they didn’t preach against the government or seek to establish a new one. Rather, they preached the Kingdom of another world.

However, we are Americans and as citizens, the government is our responsibility. But let us watch our backs and not be foolish as to whom our friends are. To trust in government or the political process as our benefactor and securer of our liberties is to put the cart before the horse. Is God supported by this nation, or is this nation supported by God? Was it God who made this a great nation or was it this nation that made God great? The founders of this country were of the former view. In fact, the founders of America didn’t trust government. The chief purpose of the founding fathers was to limit government–not the people––and certainly not to limit God. If they didn’t trust government, we surely shouldn’t either. Yet we Christians are ever seeking to make government Christian-friendly, and the danger is in wanting government as our benefactor.

Within Christianity, various movements in recent history have come into existence, which have offered a change to the moribund influence of Christianity on society. Pentecostalism, the Charismatic renewal, the Toronto Blessing and, lately, the end-time restoration movements and emergent church movements have sprung up. The church is hungering for power, influence, and relevance. On the political or worldly front, Christian activism has risen to the challenge. Christians are to be true light and true salt to the world. However, if the principles and premises on which a movement is founded are faulty and non-Biblical then, no matter how big, how well funded, and how impressive the movement or organizations are, disaster is sure to be the result.

Also, to believe that Christianity will prevail as the dominate, social-political force, and that a victorious Christianized world order will usher in the return of Christ, ought to be suspect. The current popular Christian movements seem to be more about entertaining the troops than about fighting any wars or enduring suffering as a faithful soldier. On the other hand, the Christian conservative movement is not deluded into thinking that we will win anything by fanciful, emotionally driven, moronic, spasmodically-falling-down religious fervor. Its temptation, perhaps, is in being lulled into believing that funding the pro-Christian legal and political processes will, of itself, carry the day. To change the law is a vital strategic step; to change the heart is the only acceptable victory.

The world doesn’t want our banal silliness. Jesus Christ was crucified. It was a brutal death. This is a brutal world, and His is the brutal truth. Might it be that the world is hoping Christianity will “get it head out of the sand and get its act together? The world is reeling and about to fall apart, and furthermore, it knows this. Is it possible that the world is really saying “Show us a Christ in whom we can believe”?

The average unbeliever would, I presume, admit that Christ was done dirty. However, Jesus did not want our sympathy. Even while carrying His cross and while dying as a pathetic fool on the cross (the world’s view) he did not seek sympathy. Rather, to his last breath, he demands us–He demands us–to obey him–to kneel before him and to repent.

Let us be done with sentimental Christianity. Let us give up our consumer religion. The cross is an offense. Let it be so, but let us stop making it ridiculously offensive. The world needs the authority of a humbled, repentant church––a church that falls on its face before God rather than backwards into the arms of a catcher. I think the world would sooner have the honesty of God’s cross and its stark implications than the not-so-slick con job being proffered by pop-Christianity.

We Americans–––believers and atheists alike–––owe our tremendous individual freedoms, as well as our security and safety, to Jesus Christ. Christianity is what made Europe great; it is what made this country the bastion of freedom that it has been. Take away the principles of the Bible and there is nothing left but tyranny.

As Christian Americans, we need to keep the better perspective and the higher objective. It’s about saving souls for the Kingdom of God–not about Christianizing the culture. Nor is it about retreating into our own little subculture and erecting a defensive barrier between them and us. Again, it is about saving souls for eternity–not about maintaining a comfortable buffer between us and persecution.

© Mike Williamson 2002

____________________________________________

The lack of serious discipleship in the church today (at least the American Church) calls for a penetrating examination of all aspects of a Christian’s personal, inner and outer life. It calls for an evaluation of each Christian’s commitment to the gospel as it was declared by Jesus and then by his apostles. It then calls for an examination of what “the church” is thinking and doing. It calls for repentance.

I am firstly indicting myself. I am writing about my own need for a serious, deep, and thorough change of my thoughts, priorities, and motives. I hope not to devolve into morbid introspection which is another aspect of me-ism. That is the antithesis of what we are called to do and to be.

In the process of coming to Christ, I heard and received a shallow gospel. The leadership of various churches I first attended did not confront me with a critical evaluation of my personal commitment, conversion, and subsequent life. The person who first broke through to me in the early 1970’s with the message of Christ also had a skewed gospel since he wrote in the New Testament that he gave me, “To Mike, the Kingdom of God and Aquarius forever”.

The gospel I heard and which I readily accepted was fuzzy. My basic assumption in hearing it and in being accepted into the ranks of believers was that I could have my cake and eat it too. In other words, I could have my sin, enjoy my sin (at least in modest amounts), and still be accepted into the Kingdom of God and into eternal life and right relationship with God. Essentially, God did not, and does not, require much more of me than to “accept” His Son and for me to make a vapid decision of some sort to acknowledge Him as my savior, attend church, read my Bible, and make a half-hearted attempt to turn away from sin. I was not scared into the Kingdom. Rather, I was invited into the Kingdom and then given applause and a badge of merit and accomplishment for doing so. I’m serious. People applaud when someone accepts or makes a decision for Christ.

Now, it must be said that perhaps the people were applauding God, His Son, and His Spirit for this new birth. But the effect it had on me was just the opposite. The upshot of all this was that I came to Christ believing I was less bad than I really was. After all, anyone who accepts Christ proves he has some inherent goodness and merit because of doing so. Such was the case with me and I suspect with many others. That was the impression Christianity gave me in spite of the clear biblical account to the contrary, and that is the message I wanted and adopted. The disastrous effect of such a conversion and such a profession of faith is borne out in the fruitlessness of one’s life and in constantly looking over one’s shoulder––of seeing what one can get away with.

The crux of coming to Christ is just this: that upon the gospel penetrating the heart, one is both terrified––scared to death of judgment and due punishment––and at the same time completely swallowed up in the inconceivable offer of, not just pardon, but of citizenship, sonship, and unbounded inheritance among the King’s family.

The clear and complete gospel message––including a complete break with the love of sin and a complete break from the love of the world––never reached my heart although it was on every page of the Bible that I confidently carried. Many preachers, who are eager to make converts more so than disciples, welcome such persons into the Kingdom and into fellowship without much investigation into the actual state of the professed convert. They invite and initiate them into the “kingdom” without determining the converts understanding of who Christ is and what He demands, and without insisting on the necessity of a thorough, honest change of one’s affections from self, sin, and the world and of submitting oneself unconditionally and wholeheartedly––nothing held back––to God. In short, they omit serious repentance and the need to count the cost.

In the process of holiness we have our struggles with the flesh, with old habits, temptations, and ups and downs. However, I am concerned it is doubly hard for those who have had such a false or skewed start. It is as though we must go back and start over and regain, or get for the first time, a sense of who and what we were in the sight of God and our terrible state apart from his grace. Perhaps this is what the Apostle Paul alludes to when he said “My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ is formed in you.” Gal 4:19. Even now years later, I struggle with the effect of such a conversion––a birth where one is half in and half out––a sort of “yes, but” affair.

It is the utmost cruelty to “go easy” on a seeker or an inquirer––to go easy on one “coming to Christ”. Curiosity and interest in spiritual things and even affinity for the teachings of Christ are not even remotely signs of conviction or conversion. The phrase making a decision for Christ is, perhaps, the most negatively momentous phrase to attach itself to modern Christianity. It is apt to suggest that one is doing God a favor by accepting His Son and that in doing so, God (so to speak) wipes the sweat from his brow and breaths a huge sigh of relief. The Bible does say that there is joy in heaven for each sinner who repents, who is converted, and who is given new life. (Luke 15:7) But there is no sense of it being thankfulness on God’s part. Furthermore, making a decision to accept Christ (I hate the term) makes it seem that God is obligated to me because I accept and make a decision for Christ. It puts me in the driver’s seat and subjugates God to being a passenger who adds something––but not everything––to my driving experience. Just for the record, I do not accept Christ; it is Christ who accepts me.

Jesus did not make it easy (by easy I mean, comfortable) for people to come to Him. It certainly is easy in the sense there is nothing we can bring to the table. We have nothing to offer except our impotence––our own desperate neediness. I am fond of saying only beggars go to heaven. I did beg for forgiveness and acceptance before Christ, and I did so upon my knees at the front of a church full of people. If one is too proud to beg upon his or her knees, he or she will not enter the Kingdom of God. We come as beggars. Anyone who came to Christ, or rather anyone who got anywhere with, or anything from, Christ, did so as a beggar and often did so literally upon their knees. And they came to Him strictly on His terms.

But some might say of believers that we are sons and daughters and are dressed in robes of righteousness. Some perhaps think we have no further need for such attitudes or posture. Christ the Son of God, however, fell on his face on the ground and prayed, “if it be your will.”

I suspect evangelical Christianity has forgotten this. Perhaps we conclude that, upon accepting Christ and being forgiven and cleansed, we no longer have need of kneeling, bowing, or prostrating ourselves––of repentance.

Personally speaking, and to sum all this up, I need whatever puts me on my face mentally, emotionally, spiritually, and even physically. I need the comfort of being on a very short leash with God. His rod and staff do comfort me. Much of modern, popular Christianity does not do that in the least.

© 3-28-2011  Mike Williamson

Website:    www.genesis224.com  
Blogs:        http://genesis224.wordpress.com/
                    http://hisbiz.wordpress.com/ 
Email:        mw_hisbiz@yahoo.com

In this time (2005) of international terrorism, the world’s attention is focused on Islam. The term radical Islamic group or some such derivative is a term that we constantly hear. Because of the unceasing media coverage of suicide bombings and the like, the word radical has been impressed upon our minds as something horrifically and insanely dangerous.

The world may easily use the term radical Christianity in the same breath that it uses the term radical Islam. That’s understandable. World opinion makers are liable to think of conservative Christianity as being as radical and as dangerous as radical Islam.[1]  It is possible that the world court is using Islamic terrorists for just this purpose i.e., to build a case against all exclusive religions–Christianity foremost.

However, if Christians endorse and embrace the concept of radical Christianity as a valid term, it reveals several points. The first point is that, if we think it is a valid term, it means that, as the proverbial apple, we have fallen far from the tree. The second is that the term is, or rather should be, pointless.

Christianity is radical; it doesn’t need the superlative. To say the word Christian is, at the same time, to say radical. Or, at least, it should be so. Christianity is radical at its epicenter namely, Jesus Christ.

If we use the term, it only reveals that we are not like Jesus, our example. When he was questioned about which of the commandants was the greatest, what did he say? Didn’t he say it was to love God. Yes, but rather he said it was to love God with everything we have and everything we are.

And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:  And you shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. Mark 12:29-30

To be a hundred percent anything is to be radical. Giving your whole self to someone or something is radical.

Again, the first commandment is not to love God. Rather, it is to love God with everything you got. Have you ever given yourself one hundred percent to anything or anyone? Romantic love and infatuation are that kind of deal. That’s what feels so good about it. That’s what makes you feel so alive, and it’s what can make life so wonderful and give us a sense of well being. Infatuation, and the passion and romance that accompany it, are euphoric feelings. We crave such feelings.

Well, that feeling is the result or by-product of being consumed by another–of giving your whole self to someone or some thing. That “something” can be another person, work, sports, sex, or whatever. It doesn’t matter what the thing is; what matters is that we go for it with everything we got and with everything that we are. We are wholehearted, gung ho, all the way.

It is in this sense that Jesus speaks of loving God. It is an all-consuming deal. The extent to which we hold ourselves back is the extent to which we lack joy, peace, and enthusiasm. In the same sense, a married person is to love his or her spouse. (Eph 5:25-28). We are to be committed to and we are to love our spouse in the same way and with the same quality as Jesus loves the church and is committed to us. Jesus did this with his whole heart. We are to do the same with our spouse, our fellow brothers and sisters, and ultimately with all people.

In marriage, for example, the commitment isn’t to endure your spouse until he or she dies. It is to love your spouse with your whole heart until he or she dies. If romance is the blossom, then commitment and covenant (God’s kind of love) are the root, the trunk, the branches, and the leaves.

 Radical Christians are a pain in the …conscience

It is human nature to make judgements according to one’s own mindset, worldview, or standards. We tend to think that our own opinion is better than anyone else’s is. Anyone who falls below our standard is judged as less than we are, and we derive some comfort from that judgment. However, anyone who exceeds our standards is judged as emotionally unbalanced, radical, or fanatical. There is something wrong with a person who is too much of anything (too much meaning that they are more whatever than I am). Again, we are tempted to derive smug comfort from branding someone as a radical or as overly zealous. In this way, we shut out the voice of conscience. Otherwise, if they are right and we are wrong, the only valid response would be to emulate them–to become like them.

Well, we Christians pass these sorts of judgements all the time against our fellow Christians. If someone is zealous for the Lord (more zealous than you or me), we might be tempted to dismiss him or her as being overly zealous. However, again, a term like over zealous is illogical. One cannot be overly zealous. In fact, one cannot be zealous enough! It’s almost like asking someone how much money they would like to be given. If someone were willing and able to give you any amount of money, how much would you want? Would you ask for ten dollars? A hundred dollars? A thousand dollars? How about a million or a billion dollars? 

The point is that a zealous person never believes he or she has done enough, has loved enough, or has served enough. Zealous people don’t think like that. That kind of reasoning doesn’t enter their minds. They love with passion and abandon, and they could never give enough or love enough.

Where did Jesus draw the line? When did he say that he had loved God too much or that he had loved humanity too much? 

Dear Christian, do you realize that this is Christianity …that this is the faith? Do you realize that this is all that we are commanded to do? We are to emulate Jesus. We are commanded to love God with all we got …with everything we are. The Apostle Paul, speaking with divine authority, said that we should follow his (Paul’s) example. We should use him as the example of how a Christian ought to live.

Radical Christianity is normal. Non-radical Christianity is abnormal.

The question to me (and to you) is this: When and where do I stop loving? How far will I go in loving (in following and emulating) Jesus? Where do I draw the line and say “enough”?

© Mike Williamson 2005
Website:      www.genesis224.com
Email:           mike@genesis224.com
Blog:            http://genesis224.wordpress.com/

Genesis224 is the marriage and pre-marriage ministry of Mike & Jewel Williamson

[1] ] Since writing this on 2-10-2005, TV talk show (the View) host Rosie O’Donnell, stated this exact view. Read the following transcript from Newsbusters.org.

Media Analyst Defends Rosie O’Donnell’s ‘Radical Christianity’ Comments

From the website URL   http://newsbusters.org/node/7656
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
September 15, 2006 – 10:28 ET 

As most of you are sadly aware, new “View” commentator Rosie O’Donnell made some truly absurd statements Tuesday concerning what she perceived as “Radical Christianity” being just as bad as radical Islam as reported by NewsBusters. On Wednesday, Joe Scarborough of MSNBC addressed this issue with a pair of media analysts, with one actually defending Rosie’s preposterous position (video link and full transcript to follow).

As the discussion ensued, Jennifer Pozner of “Women in Media and News” used the tremendously infrequent and unfortunate attacks on abortion clinics as an example of “Radical Christianity” as well as a justification for Rosie’s comments:

Are Christians running around blowing people up? Actually, yes. And I`ll give you a good example. Since – between 1999 and 2001, eight dead and 33 gravely wounded, 10 arsons and attempted arson — 20 arsons and attempted arsons and 10 bombings and attempted bombings all by fundamentalist Christian anti-abortionists against women`s health centers and abortion clinics and doctors and harassment of children.

Scarborough challenged this, and asked Pozner whether she feels more threatened by terrorists or Christians. Pozner amazingly responded:

Here is how I`m going to answer that. I actually fear for my life — I have feared for my life significantly over the last two decades off and on volunteering for women`s health clinics because for example, Clayton Lee Wagner, who is on the FBI`s most wanted terrorist list and escaped from a custody .

What follows is a full transcript of this interaction – including the comments by media analyst Steve Adubato who fervently disagreed with Pozner’s view – and a video link.

SCARBOROUGH: But first, “The View” got nasty on Tuesday when new co-host Rosie O`Donnell compared radical Islamic terrorists who blew up the World Trade Center to Christianity in America. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROSIE O`DONNELL, “THE VIEW”: We were attacked not by a nation. And as a result of the attack and the killing of nearly 3000 innocent people, we invaded two countries and killed innocent people in their countries.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You understand that the belief funding those attacks, OK, that is widespread. If you take radical Islam and you want to talk about what is going on there you have to .

O`DONNELL: One second. Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have a separation of church and state. We`re a democracy.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We are not bombing ourselves here in the country.

O`DONNELL: But they are bombing innocent people and other countries, true or false.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But Christians are not threatening to kill us.

UNIDENTFIIED FEMALE: Well Iran hasn`t threatened to kill us. Iraq hadn`t. Iran is a danger. Iraq and Afghanistan never threatened to kill us. Ever.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

———————————————

The following is written with men in mind. However, the principle can be applied to woman as well. Lust is not just a sexual matter. Rather it is an issue and experience common in all. The only difference is in the way it manifests.

We were five years into our marriage before my wife began to stop mentioning her first husband. As she occasionally talked about her earlier life she would always say “we” when referring to her former marriage: “We did this, and we did that”. It bothered me because she had not given up the emotional bonds of that relationship. She was still angry with him–she was still spitting out little barbs of vengeance–hoping that he would get his. She had supported him for ten years while he went to school–after which he divorced her.

The one rejected feels great loss, horrible pain, betrayal, anger, rage, and devastation. The one who rejects often feels unconquerable guilt, remorse, and continued dissatisfaction in future relations. Often the motives for divorce are the same motives used to seek a new relationship, namely, egocentric passions. Self-centeredness dooms any relationship. My wife was not good enough for her former husband …she wasn’t what he wanted. I have to admit that I have wondered if she was good enough for me either. The essence of this matter is lust.

Men (at least worldly men generally speaking) have an aberrant ability to choose mates like choosing a car. Uppermost in our minds are such thoughts as: “How does she look? Is she pretty? Is she sleek? Is she fast? How does she perform? Let’s look under her hood? Let’s test-drive her before we buy. Is she expensive to maintain? Does she come equipped with any accessories? Can I modify her? Does she come with a money back guarantee? Can I trade her in on a newer model?” Such attitudes betray self centered, self-gratifying concerns. They haven’t anything to do with love or the real purpose for marrying.

Apostle Paul says to the unmarried that if they can’t control their sexual passions they should go ahead and get married (It’s better to marry than to burn). But that isn’t the only reason to get married; he only said that as a concession to the weakness of flesh. The real (or best) reason to get married is stated in Malachi 2:15. It is for companionship, for raising godly offspring unto the Lord, and for promoting the Kingdom of God. We should view marriage as a calling.

Some people, perhaps most people, are called to marriage. In other words, the reason why a Christian should do anything is that he or she is directed to that course of obedience and life. Hence, such obedience glorifies God, edifies the body of believers, and promotes his kingdom. To glorify God, to build up his body, and to promote the Kingdom of God should high on the list of reasons for marrying. A person who wants to get married in order to have a family unto the Lord is on good ground. A person who marries primarily because they are in sexual overdrive, or they really like or “love” someone or because they don’t want to be single the rest of their life is not on the most firm ground. But, I’m drifting away from the subject.

The big chunk of sin in my life has always been my craving for beautiful women and sex. It’s an insatiable desire. Let me give a perfect illustration. In a women’s’ magazine there was an advertisement for nylons. The ad showed a handsome man walking with a stunningly beautiful woman–his wife or date. They were on their way out of a formal evening event. They were classy, rich, and beautiful. (In other words, they were models!) Just beyond them was another beautiful woman who was wearing an equally classy evening dress with a slit up the side that revealed a lot of her leg. She had just walked past them, and the man was looking back at her as though powerless to take his eyes off her. The ad would have us believe it was all because of the brand of nylons she was wearing! We know that’s nonsense, but we also know that many men are, indeed, powerless against the compulsion to look, to stare, and to fantasize about a rendezvous with such a tasty treat. What is more amazing is that (as the ad depicted) the man already had the most gorgeous hunk of women on his arm that any guy could want. Even so, He wasn’t satisfied with just her.

This phenomenon of turning the head is sometimes called rubbernecking. Its most absurd example is the guy who piles his car into a fire hydrant because his head was jerked around watching a girl at a bus stop. But it also has a secret, stealth bomber mode–the subtle glance away from your wife when another women enters the restaurant. You know what I’m talking about guys–that split second which is just enough time to measure her vital statistics, judge her on a scale of one to ten, and enjoy a mental quickie! A real pro can evade even the most acute feminine radar detection systems. (You do it when your wife is engrossed in reading the menu!)

When it gets right down to it, though, the only people we are really fooling is ourselves. To be interested in women other than your wife–even in fantasy–is a double life and an obstacle to your own soul. In order to be happy and victorious we must be single minded–to our God–to our wife–to ourselves. “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.” [James 1:8]

Lust (More is better)

Lust, simply stated, is the desire for “more“. We think “If I could just have more sex, more women or a different woman, more money, more power, …more chocolate, then everything would be fine, and I’d be satisfied.” But, the secret nature and the real goal of lust is to never be satisfied. Lust doesn’t want to be satisfied. Nor can it be.

A lustful man reminds me of a squirrel I once fed in a park. It had gathered a few peanuts and was trying to carry them all at the same time. It put one in its mouth and tucked a couple against its chest with one paw. It was a funny show; the squirrel didn’t get anywhere! After a few hobbling steps, it dropped the whole bunch. Then it gathered them up again and repeated the same disaster. Finally it gave up and did it the old fashion way; it carried one up the tree in its mouth and then came back for the others–one at a time. Sometimes “more” is actually …less.

Variety is the spice of life

This saying is applicable to food but not to women. Women are soul and spirit. They are consciousness, and consciousness mandates relationship, which, in turn, mandates responsibility, respect, care, and consideration. In a word, love. Contrary to feminist and humanist propaganda, Jesus Christ has championed the dignity, worth, and the equality of women. Woman is the helpmate; she is not the slave. We are partners in life. It is in partnership that we are to work together and keep our relationship in order–each fulfilling his or her tasks as is fitting. God’s order for human relationship is “One man, one women for life”. Because of sin man does not know or follow that order.

Sexually addicted men have a tendency to want every woman they see. One is not enough …ten is not enough …a thousand is not enough. Man doesn’t lust because he wants to be satisfied. Rather he lusts because he doesn’t want to be satisfied. It’s crucial to understand that a man lusts because he doesn’t want to be satisfied. We think that we are looking for satisfaction, but that is not true. We think that the reason we look at other women is that we are dissatisfied with the one we have and that some other women will make us happy. That’s what we think, and that’s what we tell ourselves, but it’s just not the truth. The truth is that we do not want to be satisfied. The very nature of lust mandates that it be “un-satisfiable”. (That word isn’t in my dictionary, but I know it must exist …somewhere!)

Picture a donkey tied to a threshing mill. (A threshing mill served the same purpose as a wind mill but was animal powered.) An apple is placed on a stick a few feet in front of the donkey. The animal wants the apple and moves forward to get it, but the apple is always just out of reach. It’s what motivates the donkey to move. It is not the least bit motivated by the human’s desire to move the millstone around and press out grain. Once the apple is removed or finally given to the donkey, the animal stops. It no longer is motivated to move. The apple is what it truly wanted.

But with lust, the goal is not the apple. The goal of lust is actually the process of wanting. In fact, the real goal of lust is to make sure that we don’t get the apple. Lust exists only for one reason: to want. If lust wanted to be satisfied, it wouldn’t be lust. A man who lusts is not seeking satisfaction, but rather, dissatisfaction. If we think we are looking for satisfaction, we are being deceived. If, by lusting, we think we are looking for the women who will make us happy, we are deceived. The truth is we do not want to be happy. We do not want to be satisfied. If we wanted to be satisfied, we’d be because we’d be …satisfied! Instead, we want something different …something more. Lust doesn’t primarily mean that we are bonkers over women. That’s just the effect. Lust means we willfully refuse to be satisfied.

Consider the famous rock song by the Rolling Stones. The title lyrics are “I can’t get no …satisfaction”. I try …and I try …and I try …and I try …(but) I can’t get no …satisfaction.” Nonsense! You can’t get satisfied. Satisfaction does not come with wanting, getting, or trying.

Doesn’t this make sense? Am I saying the obvious? Well, it’s not so obvious to everybody. It has taken me half a lifetime to get this!

The following scriptures setup the context for a few thoughts about marriage.

Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it? [John 6:60]

…Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like    angels of God in heaven. [Matt 22:25-30]

…and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.” [Matt 19:9-12]

Now concerning the things whereof you wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. [1 Cor 7:1-2]

But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none, For the form of this world is passing away. [1 Cor 7:27-31]

Some of Jesus’ (and Paul’s) sayings are difficult to understand. Some of them, however, because of our flesh, are just plain difficult to accept and to put in practice. Jesus said there are some who are celibate for the Kingdom of God. Paul said that those who had wives should be as though they had none. There doesn’t seem to be much (if any) preaching on these scriptures.

We are to love each other with agape (God’s) love. Having been married for 32 years, I can see the progression of God’s redemptive spirit slowly changing me. Although I had been a Christian for more than five years before my second marriage, I started this marriage full of the ways of the world and the old nature was little mortified.  

God’s love has nothing to do with how my spouse makes or doesn’t make me feel. It has nothing to do with how she fulfills my desires or needs. Rather, it has to do with living for another motive–for the higher calling of loving in the love of God. It has God as the purpose for marriage and the center of attention–not me or my wife or even “us” (our relationship). Our relationship is not the motive, the focus, or the reason for our marriage.  

…And God said, It is not good that man is alone. I will make him a helper comparable to him. [Gen 2:18]

The counseling books that we use are based on the Bible and on biblical counseling concepts that have been “resurrected” primarily by Jay Adams. These books state, and it is commonly accepted, that companionship is the primary reason for marriage. Marriage is thus viewed as the answer to loneliness. The above verse declares this view. We marry so that we will not be alone. Included in companionship are such things as pleasure, attraction, affection, love, and fulfillment. These are earthly-oriented, human-oriented needs which are ours to experience and to enjoy completely. However, there are some pitfalls regarding this approach. For example, a lonely, insecure woman might be driven to marry out of desperation. The fear of loneliness drives her to marry the first person that comes along who shows her any attention. A person in such a state is apt to make the wrong choice. Thus, the desire to overcome loneliness is not, in itself, the most reliable motive.

Is there a higher motive, a better motive, a heavenly motive? Might we take it a step further? Companionship is a means to an end; it is not the end itself. It is not the primary reason God created marriage. The primary reason for marriage is that it is God’s design and, therefore, for his purpose.

“You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and by Your will [for your pleasure KJV] they exist and were created.” [Rev 4:11]

All things that are made are made for His glory. God made us for His glory. Thus, marriage and all elements of marriage such as companionship are firstly for His purpose, design, and glory.

I will say to the north, ‘Give them up!’ And to the south, ‘Do not keep them back!’ Bring My sons from afar, and My daughters from the ends of the earth.  Everyone who is called by My name, whom I have created for My glory; I have formed him (her), yes, I have made him.” [Isa 43:6-7] (Emphasis added)

As a side note, some men believe that woman (our spouse) was created to meet “my” needs. Genesis 2:18 is used (in a roundabout fashion) to support such a view. Woman, however, was created–not for man’s pleasure–but for God’s glory.

What are the implications of the verse where Jesus says, “in the resurrection they neither marry or are given in marriage”? (Matt 22:25-30) We may surmise from this verse that in heaven we will not have the legal and moral responsibilities of a marriage relationship. We will not have the desires and passions of this life. It might even be that we won’t have a gender identity. We shall not have corrupt flesh as we now have, and our spouses will be free of the desires and obligations they experience here on earth. My wife will not be bound to me, and I will not be bound to her. In heaven, each will be bound exclusively to Christ and corporately we will be bound by pure love energizing every one. We will have no need or desire for exclusive relationships in heaven.

Scripture says, “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband” [1 Cor 7:2] However, it won’t be so in heaven. Paul directs us to this heavenly love for our spouse even while we are yet upon the earth. The scripture says if you can’t control (or sublimate) your passions and desires, then get married. Even so, Paul directs us to make God the focus of our marriage.

But I want you to be without care. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord– how he may please the Lord. But he who is married cares about the things of the world– how he may please his wife. There is a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world– how she may please her husband. [1 Cor 7:32-34].

He who marries cares for this world and how he can please his wife. Likewise, the woman who marries does not live a life exclusively devoted to Christ but to her spouse, and how she may please him. Single people are free to be totally devoted to Christ and how they may please him.  Even so, he who has a wife is to live as though he has none. [1 Cor 7:9] What does this mean?

God created everything for his own purpose, glory, and pleasure. We do the same thing. Anything we make is made, not for the thing’s sake, but for our sake. For example, a chair does not exist for itself; it exists for its maker. Likewise, we exist for our maker’s purpose. The purpose of marriage is the same purpose of everything else–to glorify God. Somewhere along the line, the married couple must see that the purpose for their marriage is the Kingdom of God. Each mate must give the other the liberty, and should encourage each other, to turn to Christ and to set their heart on the things of heaven. Will such a view turn us into sterile, antiseptic nuns and monks–repressing the natural, the normal, the human? Or, will it cause us to align with what is going on in the spirit realm, in the heavenly realm, in the Kingdom of God? I believe it is the latter. It does not mean that we abstain from romantic and sexual intimacy or from any other aspect of our marriage relationship. If we put the Kingdom of God first in our marriage, the other things we need and desire will follow. They will have there proper place, order, and expression. [Matt 6:33]

            . . . and yet I show you a more excellent way. 1 Cor 12:31

Assuming you were both believers, do you recall that, before you married, your spouse was first your sister or brother? What is the higher calling–that which is eternal or that which is temporal? Well then, we shall not always be husband and wife, but we shall always be brother and sister (or the heavenly equivalent).

Do not many couples, after years (or perhaps …months) of marriage, begin to take each other for granted? What does that mean except that we downgrade one another? We are less in each other’s eyes than during our courtship. Yet, we were only brother and sister during the time of dating, engagement, or courtship. If marriage is a more exalted state, how can it be that we downgrade each other, take each other for granted, and treat each other with less respect and love then when we were merely brother and sister in the Lord? How is it that, having first been brother and sister, we become husband and wife and lose (or forfeit) that brotherly-sisterly relationship? Are we not still brother and sister in the Lord? [1 Cor: 9:5] [1] Not only that but, if we divorce (God forbid), are we not still brother and sister? Therefore, the brother-sister relationship is paramount (superior) in this earthly life too and not only in the next.

It is with this eternal perspective that Paul admonishes us to live our married lives. Certainly, we are to be companions–bonded into one flesh–in this life, but to what end?

She is my helpmate. For what? To fulfill my kingdom? …Or to fulfill God’s?

© Mike Williamson 2008
Website:  www.genesis224.com
Email:      mike@genesis224.com
Blog:        http://genesis224.wordpress.com/

Genesis224 is the marriage and pre-marriage work of Mike & Jewel Williamson