…reluctantly, I might add. My parents had to drag me to the voting booth, kicking and screaming. I don’t even think I filled out the form correctly. I only read later that you were strictly supposed to tick the box, not colour it in–I will never know if my vote was valid or not. The whole idea seems ridiculous to me, that my vote could be opposed by someone else who had no idea and choose the funniest name. Read more of this post
The Apostle John argues in his letter to Christians, that to love is the mark of a Christian.
“Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.” 1John 4v.7
In other words, essentially, the Spirit of God is a Spirit of love. The knowledge of God that is given to us when we are saved is essentially a knowledge of a loving God. All else would be in vain if we did not have the knowledge of the provision for sin through the love of a Saviour in us. Matthew Henry says that it is “love [that] oils the wheels of his affections”–and surely this is a sign of being born again: being compelled to love.
“In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through Him.” 1John 4v.8
John then proceeds to explain what the application of this love is: in the image of Jesus. Jesus was God’s only Son, the manifestation of everything–there was no other son that God had left. What Jesus accomplished on this earth was that we would live through Him. What is love, if we do not continually relate it to Jesus? What life is there of the Christian, if we are not continually comparing ourselves against what standard Jesus set for us?
Too often, I think it is too simple to compare ourselves to other people and see how ‘good’ we are compared to them. I can look at the Pat Robertsons and Rick Warrens of this world and think I am better than them, superior in the faith perhaps, and that could be no further from the truth. I am continually needing grace when I see myself and how Jesus needed to die on the cross for all of my sin.
“In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.” 1 John 4v.9-11 (English Standard Version)
In another reiteration from John to emphasize and expand his point, he describes specifically the work accomplished in the death and resurrection of Jesus. What John is describing is not a menial love, that cannot stretch far–but a love that goes till the death. That if we were to love with the love of God which has filled us, it should be a lot that sacrifices itself totally for one another.
The description that John gives a complexity beyond just loving those who deserve love, but those who do not deserve our love. The same applies to grace, that we not only are lavished with this unmerited favour, but we are so fallen beyond deserving or even seen as neutral before God. I like to think of it as a negative bank account balance, no bank would dare give us a loan. The reality is this: that we can only love, when we realise that we are loved undeservingly. We can only love if the love of God inhabits within us.
==
I was in church the other day, and there was a man who was struggling with addictions. He described how it would go in cycles, he would stop for a time and then when he thought he was victorious, it would come back with a vengeance. There was a certain doubt and defeatism that had entered this man’s heart, that he couldn’t believe in himself to fight this any longer. In an open conversation, my pastor gave two points:
1. The Holy Spirit in our hearts is the only thing that can truly change us. Him, entering our hearts will undoubtedly change us and conform us into what God would want us to be like. Freedom from alcoholism, freedom from drug abuse, and even greater–from sin and the eternal bondage to these depraved things.
2. I can guarantee you that everyone in this church would die for you. We all believe in the Holy Spirit’s power, and His love toward us–I think I am safe in saying that everyone here loves you so much that they would do anything for you.
It’s a monumental statement from my pastor to proclaim that anyone would die for him. He certainly knew his own worthlessness better than anyone else in the church, therefore, better than anyone else in the church should he know of what a love there is in the Church. Where there is a worthless feeling, surely this should be matched with love–that there is a value assigned to us in Christ. To be afraid of love, is to be afraid of God and who He essentially is. I am certainly reminded of what Saint Francis of Assisi said many years ago:
“Where there is hatred, let me sow love. Where there is injury, pardon. Where there is doubt, faith.”
I truly believe that to love others truly it demands everything of us, and this in turn, is a monumental task. I daily realise how far short I fail in this standard and where I don’t have enough faith, I doubt. What does love demand of you, and what ? Is your life different from before you knew Christ, are you loving more?
“It necessarily follows, Polemarchus, that people who are harmed become less moral.”
“So it seems.”
“Now, can musicians use music to make people unmusical?”
“Impossible.”
“Can skilled horsemen use their skill to make people bad horsemen?”
“No.”
“So can moral people use morality to make people immoral? Or in general can good people use their goodness to make people bad?”
“No, that’s impossible.”
…
“So harming people is not the function of a good person, but of his opposite.”
“I suppose so.”
“And is a moral person a good person?”
“Of course.”
“It is not the job of a moral person, then, Polemarchus, to harm a friend or anyone else, it is the job of his opposite, an immoral person.”[1]
What Socrates argues here is a interesting precursor to what Jesus would preach a few centuries later. The dialogue begins with Polemarchus arguing that morality is doing good to those who are your friends and doing harm to evil. The dialogue evolves and Socrates tears apart Polemarchus’ arguments through various means including question who is a friend, and whether a insane man could determine what a friend or foe is. The conclusion is clear though:
““You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’”But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,” Matthew 5:43-44 (English Standard Version)
[1] 14. Plato. Republic. Oxford University Press: London. 1993.
Ayn Rand is what you would call an Objectivist. That is, that reason and logic is the only true way through which we can acquire knowledge–implicitly rejecting religion and faith. She arrives at this through the subjectivity of human experience, that reality exists outside of human consciousness and our perceptions of the world can be defined only through inductive and deductive reasoning. Of course, that statement cannot be proved through reason or logic, but that is beyond the scope of this blog. Moreover, a myriad of other things cannot be proved through empirical evidence–love is the first that comes to mind.
Objectivism means that the human pursuit in life (a human assignment, mind you) is aggrandizement of the self. Therefore, her perspective on love are somewhat different from what we are used to, to the point where it is almost Stoic. She says:
“Love should be treated like a business deal, but every business deal has its own terms and its own currency. And in love, the currency is virtue. You love people not for what you do for them or what they do for you. You love them for the values, the virtues, which they have achieved in their own character.” -Ayn Rand.
The second perspective is from Don Miller.
I know I’ve been speaking about Don Miller a lot recently, and I know that I am quick to say state my disagreements with him as well. Yet, to his own protests, I would define him as an Emergent. Hence, I do dislike some aspects of his work, but most aspects of his work is quite wonderful. He provides a wonderful foil to what Rand has said above, defining love purely by what it can do for you. After all, what is the point of loving someone if they don’t love you back?
In her book, “An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology”, Rand argues that love is measurable–it is only Romanticism that muddies the waters. A man may not marry a person because it would affect their class or other people’s perception of him–”still another man may risk his life to save the woman he loves, because all his other values would lose meaning without her.” (33-34) She uses this to define varying amount of self-sacrifice to create a hierachy of love. Yet, what is love if it is not all love?
Don Miller provides the antithesis to Rand, and proposes a selfless love–one that would love if there was going to be no return, nothing good inside the person you love. Loving purely because it is our inherent nature as humans to love.
“Mr Spencer asked us about an area in which he felt metaphors cause trouble. He asked us to consider relationships. What metaphors do we use when we think of relationships? We value people, I shouted out. Yes, he said, and wrote it on his little white board. We invest in people, another person added. And soon enough we had listen an entire white board of economic metaphors. Relationships could be bankrupt, we said. People are priceless, we said. All economic metaphor. I was taken aback.
The problem of Christian culture is we think of love as a commodity. We use it like money…if somebody is doing something for us, offering us something, be it gifts, time, popularity, or what have you, we feel they have value, we feel they are worth something to us, and, perhaps, we feel they are priceless.” - Miller, Don. Blue Like Jazz. pg 218.
What is Love? Is your Love really love, if it isn’t love to the end?
“The cross is the perfect statement both of God’s wrath against sin and of the depth of his love and mercy in the recovery of the damaged creation and its damagers. God’s mercy, patience, and love must be fully preached in the church. But they are not credible unless they are presented in tension with God’s infinite power, complete and sovereign control of the universe, holiness, and righteousness.
And where God’s righteousness is clearly presented, compassionate warnings of his holy anger against sin must be given, and warnings also of the certainty of divine judgment in endless alienation from God which will be unimaginably worse than the literal descriptions of hell. It is no wonder that the world and the church are not awakened when our leadership is either singing a lullaby concerning these matters or presenting them in a caricature which is so grotesque that it is unbelievable.
The tension between God’s holy righteousness and his compassionate mercy cannot be legitimately resolved by remolding his character into an image of pure benevolence as the church did in the nineteenth century. There is only one way that this contradiction can be removed: through the cross of Christ which reveals the severity of God’s anger against sin and the depth of his compassion in paying its penalty through the vicarious sacrifice of his Son.
In systems which resolve this tension by softening the character of God, Christ and his work become an addendum, and spiritual darkness becomes complete because the true God has been abandoned for the worship of a magnified image of human tolerance.” (1)
I think at every moment there is a tendency to rush towards one or the other. The cross is love poured out; the cross is wrath poured out. Binaries fight out in our mind, and we become ingrained on one side of the expanse. We have tried to create a dialogue between the two extremes, but it is impossible. And it is impossible except through what we have known. Then, we remember that Jesus’ sacrifice is sufficient for the sins of the whole world–great enough to cover the great expanse, and wash our doubts away.
Enough for my haughty heart, enough for my lifeless soul.
Great enough to cover my lack of love, and my lack of righteousness.
Is the cross meaningful if you remove the wrath of God away from it? Is the cross meaningful if you remove the love of God away from it?
(1) (Lovelace, Richard. Dynamics for Spiritual Life, 84-85) the irony is that both those buildings could readily be defined as modernist.
Announced on the Westboro Baptist Church website, Mark Driscoll’s Federal Way Mars Hill church will be picketed this Sunday (June 19, 2011).
According to their site, the church “will speak the truth to you in love – as God defines “love” ” which means probably hate and shouting–because everyday in heaven is opposite day.
The sin of the Mars Hill church is the idea that: “God loves everyone and Jesus died for the sins of all of mankind”. Yet, even a quick reading of the Bible–the most quoted bible verse in history: John 3:16 would be abundantly clear where it says that, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whoever believes in His shall not perish but have everlasting life.”
There are semantics on the definition of “world” but that is irrelevant in this context. I don’t know what is possessing these people at WBC, they are largely a family of Harvard-trained lawyers–how does that lead you so far away from ignoring some simple facts as above? What do they teach at Harvard?
Anyway, Mars Hill Church is promising free donuts and free coffee, as well as smiles and chuckles–I’m not sure if they are directed at the picketers or with the picketers. If you’re part of the picketing group, be sure to pick up a copy of Doctrine by Mark Driscoll for free!
Will you be attending the church this Sunday? Is it even more reason to attend this Sunday?
Francis Chan’s new book Erasing Hell will be coming out July 5th.
That isn’t important though, the more important thing is that this post is better than the JesusneedsnewPR blog. Teehee, I’ll delete that sentence later, but anyway–I can’t say I’m a fanatical fan of Francis Chan, I’m excited with what he says and what an influence he has on other people. Ask any youth group who their favourite preacher is and it most likely will be either Rob Bell or Francis Chan. I much prefer the latter by a long shot, and indeed, Francis Chan has, since the release of “Crazy Love”, exploded in popularity. I’m currently listening to Crazy Love through audiobook, and I’m about halfway through it and I can see why. There is a certain humility in his work, that is relevant and relatable to the audience to whom he is addressing. This is further amplified listening to him speak, he speaks with utmost conviction, which comes across, you’ll see in the video below. Reading that he has given all royalties from Crazy Love to a ministry to children trapped in sex trafficking — his ambition and convictions are ever clearer.
There is another side to Francis Chan that makes me uncomfortable though. I’ve read Forgotten God before–actually I’ve read it a couple of times because I was blessed by it a lot the first time. It undeniably has had a great influence on my Christian walk actually. Yet for all its importance and relevance, what is distressing to me so is how little was dedicated to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. I’m not doubting he knows his material about the Holy Spirit, but he jumps quickly to the application of the Scripture without addressing the subject where he drew it from. Without creating that Scriptural foundation, his applications seem bare and according to his own agenda. Why yes, in case you were wondering, I do have complaints about every single author out there! Naw, I truly do like Francis Chan, he’s a great guy. I truly hope you get to the time to watch the video and purchase his new book though — you won’t regret it.
Nevertheless, I always look forward with anticipation to any new project of his. This one seems in a direct reaction to he-who-shall-not-be-mentioned. There is a simple honesty and down-to earth attitude that pervades everything that he says, and I admire that in him above all else that he does. Apparently in the youtube comments, his honesty and fervour is taken as over-acting and false, but I would argue otherwise. I see his willingness to engage and provoke thought in people is wonderful.
There is a moment in the video where he muses the relationship between God and men described by Paul as the relationship between a clay and a potter. He laments how he is a piece of clay, and it is expected of him to teach other pieces of clay about the Potter, and what he is like. At about 1 minutes in, his genuine nature comes through especially in this scene. I wonder what depth that statement truly means in our own lives–perhaps with greater humility we do need to approach things.
There was an interview I read where Francis Chan was asked about the emergent church, a potential hot potato that no one wants to own up to or reject often. This is what he said: “As a pastor I hear a lot of emergent leaders talk about what is wrong with the church. It comes across as someone who doesn’t love the church. I’m a pastor first and foremost, and I’m trying to offer a solution or a model of what church should look like. I’m going back to scripture and seeing what the church was in its simplest form and trying to recreate that in my own church. I’m not coming up with anything new. I’m calling people to go back to the way it was. I’m not bashing the church. I’m loving it.”
What do you think about Francis Chan, which books of his have you read? Would you be purchasing Erasing Hell? Does he have a lesser emphasis on doctrine and understanding, and greater emphasis on the application of bible verses? Do you see this in his writing, and how does it compare to other authors who have written on similar topics like “Don’t Waste Your Life” by John Piper or even, “The Irresistible Revolution” by Shane Claiborne?
I just finished watching The Princess and The Frog.
In many ways it matches what I’ve been blogging about the past few weeks — and I have been going on the same vein for the past few weeks with what I have been saying, but not that anyone has been following. In many ways it was summated in the rejection of the American Dream, and a search for meaning in the Gospel in my last blog. Though, at first “The Princess and the Frog” may not on the surface be a ideal movie for demonstrating this. I am reading that Christianity Today, in their review of the film they criticized its sexual undertones, and moreover they said that, “it’s the use of voodoo that ultimately reveals the movie’s hollow, thoughtless core.”
I find that somewhat untrue, in the light of the greater message which is question what we put our value in. The voodoo and the “magic” used made me somewhat uncomfortable in light of the children I imagine would watch this movie. But to assert your own narrative on the film, while not commenting on the larger film as a whole is dishonest.
“You know the thing about good food? It brings folks together from all walks of life. It warms them right up and it puts little smiles on their faces.”
Indeed, the movie is the reclaimation of the idea of community. In an individualised world, we are often disconnected from one another, and alone we can only bring ourselves so far. This movie upholds the principles of a classic Disney movie, assembling together the most diverse of characters together in a team to conquer one common evil. In the Lion King, there was Timon and Pumbaa. In Snow White and the 7 Dwarves, the emotional capacity of man is demonstrated through each of the 7 dwarves. In Dumbo, he is befriended by crowes which teach him to fly. In Cinderella, she has two mice and various animals to aid her in her fight. I’m not going to keep on reading the Wikipedia entry on the List of Disney Theatrical Films because I realise I’m only up to the 1950′s and another 60 years to the present. It is never a theme within a Disney movie to keep on a single character, but a myriad of diverse characters bring an irreplaceable dynamic to the main character.
This is something I have never realised, and something that is absent from the movies today. The warmness of the animation brings this back — it is an oft forgotten concept, the importance of community.
The question of the film essentially is what is your dream?
It’s a modernised Disney hand drawn animated feature, modernised in the sense that it re-evaluates the message of all the previous films. Where in countless Disney films, the subject and aim of the film was the concept of “true love” – this film deals with the idea of success, the main character Tiana works at two jobs to pay for the down payment of her own restaurant.
There is a scene late in the movie where a voodoo doctor asks her, what is her dream? She is presented inside of her dream restaurant, she looks at the guitar player, and he is unfamiliar to her. The splendour of the establishment was sure; she is undoubtedly inside the place which she had dreamed about since she was little.
“Just look at this place! Gonna be the crown jewel of the City.”
In many ways, this is what we set our eyes upon. Our dreams are earthly things, and things that would fade. The prize as Christians should be one of the “upward call of God in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 3) The movement from the horizontal view of life, to acknowledging the larger context–namely the vertical acknowledgment of God in the operations of the world, is a total paradigm change that should be the first step of a young Christian. This movie demonstrates this as both of the main characters develop through the movie — the realization strikes them that they cannot change the situation without the community around them. I’m not saying that we should seek answers in jazz-playing alligators or talking fireflies though.
I cannot tell of the end of the movie, for that would ruin it and people would be displeased with me. But the movie represents a rejection of old Disney film ideals to a degree. Whether intentionally or not, Disney movies of old, were a reaction against the simplicity of menial existence, presenting the transcendentalism of both love and wealth. Yet this film rejects that mold and further refines the ideal — not only with an African-American protagonist in this film — the film presents a critique of the American Dream, and how that is not enough either, but purely love.
Of course, the question will never be answered in the medium of film because Jesus is the fulfillment of life. Though, the Princess and the Frog speaks of a love on a horizontal level, with the love between a princess and a frog. It speaks also of love being greater than any earthly principle. It is a paradigm change, with the rejection of material for immaterial — specifically love. “[Our] citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,” Philippians 3:20 (English Standard Version)
There are a multitude of themes that “The Princess and The Frog” brings up, some less palatable, as evidenced with the great criticism that has arisen from the release of the film. The French even accused the movie of racism because of the working title: The Frog Princess. I don’t know what complaints there can be, where there is a children’s film that continues to promote an undying love. Moreover, the utter sufficiency of love in life that can weather any storm, mirroring the love that Christ has for His church.
“My Dad never did get what he wanted, but he had what he needed. He had love.”
The past royal wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton brought the attention back to the Westminster Abbey in which they were married.
The building, in fact has a grand history behind it, and has by no means a sorry history. The church having been born “through the influences of St Alban, St Illtud, St Ninian, St Patrick and, later, St Augustine, St Aidan and St Cuthbert” These are not the weakest of Christians in the history of Christianity. Beginning as a humble church in 604AD built on an island on the River Thames, the building was refounded in 960AD. The church was supposed to have been miraculously consecrated by St Peter from his grave, this is something that the Pope pointed out in his address to the Abbey last September.
The architectural context of the Abbey is important, situated within the spiritual heart of London – the Parliamentary buildings were built close to this building, signifying the comparative importance of religion over politics. I am not going to comment whether this rings true today, but the building began as a beacon of light in those days, the shining diamond of the Church of England. But now, it seems to only be used as a meaningless beacon for no truth at all. That one day, royalty would get married inside, yet on Sunday and whatever day, they would struggle to be full of people singing hymns to God again. The statistics are dire, in only 3% of England attending the church of which is the established church of the country. Furthermore, this statistic is a once a monthly membership, which is hardly dedication.
“When a church forfeits its doctrinal convictions and then embraces ambiguity and tolerates heresy, it undermines its own credibility and embraces its own destruction.” Read more of this post
At the moment, I’m working through the book, “Why We’re Not Emergent” by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck. To be honest, I’m only picking it up because David F. Wells wrote the foreword, and he’s a fantastic theologian, one of my favourites.
I’ve only finished the first chapter so far, so I have no particular opinion on the book so far. In the introduction though, there was something fascinating with how much of my form of Christianity is similar to the emergent Christianity described within the book. I admit I’m a bit of a hipster, but the correlations to emergent Christianity is interesting, almost when alternativeness is taken to an extreme and applied to theological epistemology.
DeYoung gives a long list of attributes which are somewhat generalised, but such measures are important when describing a diverse and somewhat undefined movement in Christianity. Then again, it is all the more dangerous because there is no single proponent of it, but a collective message of many pastors who are more subtle in their change. It is difficult to combat because there is no Le Corbusier, no Jean Paul Sartre, no Thomas Hardy, no one pushing ambitiously the movement forward.
Anyway, the following quote is a checklist of sorts that I seem to somewhat fulfil most, which is kind of disparaging to me, for all my efforts to be not one of this group:
“You might be an emergent Christian:
If you listen to U2, Moby, and Johnny Cash’s Hurt (sometimes in church), use sermon illustrations from the Sopranos, drink lattes in the afternoon and Guinness in the evenings, and always use a Mac; if your reading list consists of primarily of Stanley Hauerwas, Henri Nouwen, N. T. Wright, Stan Grenz, Dallas Willard, Breannan Manning, Jim Wallis, Frederick Buechner, david Bosch, John Howard Yoder, Wendell Berry, Nancy Murphy, John Franke, Walter Wink and Lesslie Newbigin (not to mention McLaren, Pagitt, Bell, etc.) and your sparring partners include D. A. Carson, John Calvin, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and Wayne Grudem; if your idea of quintessential Christian discipleship is Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, or Desmond Tutu; if you don’t like George W. Bush or institutions or big business or capitalism or Left Behind Christianity; if your political concerns are poverty, AIDS, imperialism, war-mongering, CEO salaries, consumerism, global warming, racism, and oppression and not so much abortion and gay marriage; if you are into bohemian, goth, rave, or indie; if you talk about the myth of redemptive violence and the myth of certainty; if you lie awake at night having nightmares about all the ways modernism has ruined your life; if you love the Bible as a beautiful, inspiring collection of works that lead us into the mystery of God but is not inerrant; if you search for truth but aren’t sure it can be found; if you’ve ever been to a church with prayer labyrinths, candles, Play-Doh, chalk-drawings, couches, or beanbags (your youth group doesn’t count); if you loathe words like linear, propositional, rational, machine, and hierarchy and use words like ancient-future, jazz, mosaic, matrix, missional, vintage, and dance; if you grew up in a very conservative Christian home that in retrospect seems legalistic naive and rigid; if you support women in all levels of ministry, prioritise urban over suburban, and like your theology narrative instead of systematic; if you disbelieve in any sacred-secular vide; if you want to be the church and not just go to church; if you long for a community that is relational, tribal, and primal like a river or a garden; if you believe doctrine gets in the way of an interactive relationship with Jesus; if you believe who goes to hell is no one’s business and no one may be there anyway; if you believe salvation has a little to do with atoning for guilt and a lot to do with bringing the whole creation back into shalom with its Maker; if you believe following Jesus is not believing the right things but living the right way; if it really bugs you when people talk about going to heaven instead of heaven coming to us; if you disdain monological, didactic preaching; if you use the word “story” in all your propositions about postmodernism – if all or most of this torturously long sentence describe you, then you might be an emergent Christian.”
How emergent are you? Does it worry you that your favourite blogger is seesawing on the fringes of emergent churchery?
The Apostle John argues in his letter to Christians, that to love is the mark of a Christian.
“Isn’t a moral person a good human?”
“The cross is the perfect statement both of God’s wrath against sin and of the depth of his love and mercy in the recovery of the damaged creation and its damagers. God’s mercy, patience, and love must be fully preached in the church. But they are not credible unless they are presented in tension with God’s infinite power, complete and sovereign control of the universe, holiness, and righteousness. 
Announced on the Westboro Baptist Church 
I just finished watching The Princess and The Frog.
There is a scene late in the movie where a voodoo doctor asks her, what is her dream? She is presented inside of her dream restaurant, she looks at the guitar player, and he is unfamiliar to her. The splendour of the establishment was sure; she is undoubtedly inside the place which she had dreamed about since she was little.
The past royal wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton brought the attention back to the Westminster Abbey in which they were married.
At the moment, I’m working through the book, 
