Love is ... (continuing)

In the Scriptures, most are quick to point to I Corinthians 13 as the acme of discourse on love. I believe, however, that another passage should be held in very high regard on the subject of love, namely I John 4.

One of the things that I John 4 does is provide the succint identification of God: God is love.

It should be acceptable then, since God equals love, to equate God to the 16 items that describe love in I Corinthians 13. God is the utmost example of those qualities. But does the analysis end there?

If God is love and love is exemplified or acted out by 16 qualities, then why do bad things happen? Why does God not always appear to be good?

I think that we are too closely focused on I Corinthians 13 to fully appreciate other aspects of love.

Let's start this way: Is license a characteristic of love? Tolerance? Freedom? Or can we better say that love is demanding? Expecting? Disciplining?

C S Lewis, in The Problem of Pain, gets right to this. We mean and desire kindness only when we think of love from God. We want benevolence with regard to our fulfilling of desires and our happiness. But love is more than that.

Love is . . .

I always think it is helpful, whenever possible, to define a thing in postive terms. Sometimes contrast is necessary or useful, but I would rather keep it positive when possible.

No, I am not some sissy-minded guilt-plagued soft-spined victim-oriented political correctness hound. It's just decent when it can be done.

So, how to define - or, describe - love? The famous chapter in the Scriptures is I Corinthians 13, which provides that love is:

patient
kind
does not envy
doest not boast
is not proud
is not rude
is not self-seeking
is not easily angered
keeps no record of wrongs
does not delight in evil
rejoices with the truth
always protects
always trusts
always hopes
always perseveres
never fails

Sixteen items in that list. Two of them are linked ("does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth") in a contrast picture.

Of the sixteen, half are positive and half are negative.

Can we move the negative definitions to positive? Should we?

I really like the last one as a negative. It is much stronger. Love never fails. especially after listing four "always" qualities.

But what about "does not envy"? What is the opposite of envy anyway?

Hang on, checking Merriam-Webster (M-W) ...

WOW ... I like the definition, especially in light of what I am reading in C S Lewis' The Problem of Pain ... envy (noun) is a painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage. Very cool.

Okay, the synonyms are the usual suspects, including covetousness and jealousy.

The antonyms are more interesting. They are labelled "near antonyms" by M-W and are listed as: benevolence, goodwill, kindness, sympathy.

Would contentment be a good antonym for envy in the context of love in I Corinthians?

Love does not envy.
Love is content.

M-W defines content as: to limit (oneself) in requirements, desires, or actions.

So, we can extend the idea of content to be the opposit of envy, right? Awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another (maybe painful awareness) but tempered or stayed by the limiting of one's self in requirements, desires or actions.

That works for me.

More on this another time.

The Economy of God

We operate, I believe, on a vastly different set of values than does God.

Those who are followers of Christ are quick to agree; the value system of the world is radically different from the value system of God.

Well, duh. But that's not what I am talking about.

I believe that we are prone to operate on the value system of religion rather than the value system of God.

This value system of religion, or Economy of Religion, takes on many facets. For instanct, call it theological humanism perhaps, but the point is we tend to think we have it figured out
intellectually. Somehow we know the mind and plan of God in all but a few, choice matters. Knowledge is the apex of the Economy of Religion. But in God's Economy, peace is more important that knowledge and sovereignty is something unique to God. Some things are properly the exclusive domain of God. Even Jesus said he did not know the hour of the return. That is the father's sole discretion. See Matthew 24:36 and stop thinking of clocks and start thinking of barometers. Peace surpasses understanding. Phillipians 4:7. Peace surpasses understanding AND guards our emotions and intellect. Try to reconcile that with the religious economy of knowledge and sureness and security. But if the Economy of Religion cannot offer answers and clarity, then it is a system without true value, right? I think so. That's why I don't trade in that system anymore.

In another area religion is prone to teach and seek "balance" among the many important aspects of our lives. The Economy of Religion subtley instructs that with balance, we can have it all. However, that is not in the Economy of God. His system is one of priority. If you think you can have it all, then you must settle for an outcome-based system. You can only have it all if all things are equal, thus some gain more importance and others lose importance so that all things may be on equal footing. It is subtle and it is wrong. The Economy of Religion probably needs this because teaching about priorities may lead the masses to evaluate and determine that religions programming and self-serving churchy-church functions are not really a priority to most people. Maybe I should spend this weekend with my family rather than at some retreat hearing other men bemoan the lack of time they have to spend with their families and being assured by some degree-laden skill-challenged pseudo-intellectual that better balance will lead to fulfillment. Get my drift?

More later.

BUSTED!

This is not a good year for things I own. To date, the following items have broken:

1. Washer - Lid sensor switch literally broke.
2. Saturn - 4 new tires ... okay, that is more of wear & tear than broke, but it did set me back some serious cash.
3. Saturn - Fuel filter began leaking at an o-ring. Space shuttle scary.
4. Air purifier - the wires corroded but it is being fixed under warranty.
5. My office computer - died yet again and was replaced rather than repaired.
6. Toilet overflows at our house - due to some dumb kid at a party.
7. Water line that runs from the well into the house - poor installation means that the pipe finally failed just outside the basement wall. It's still not totally fixed.
8. Accounts receivable - what's up people? Pay your bills!
9. Water heater developed a small leak. Easy to fix, but still.
10. Riding lawn mower - the tire came off of the wheel. Cause still not known.

Items that are near to breaking ...
A. Lawn mower (walk-behind variety) - I am surprised it has lasted this long considering the abuse I give it.
B. Truck - wheel hub bearing is going, going, going ...
C. My patience.
D. The fax machine at work.
E. My cell phone if it doesn't stop ringing.

Sigh.

It's like the warranty on my life is suddenly running out.

Rant

So, what does it take to be a delivery person for daily newspapers in a rural area?

Well, first you must have no life. You must be so utterly pathetic that getting up in the middle of the night to cruise back roads in any weather, dodging various species of nocturnal wildlife and craning to see the numbers which homeowners inevitably put on the wrong side of their mail boxes seems conversationally interesting. Either that or you are on disability and this is the only kind of work you can manage without screwing up your benefits. Or maybe you are between jobs. Or a convicted child-molester who can't find work because of that registry issue.

Whatever career realities lead you there ... there you are.

Now you will need a car. But not just any car. This car has to be a statement to the free world that you are in the vicinity and that delivering newspapers does not provide enough income to purchase what most would consider marginally acceptable vehicular transportation.

The car you are looking for needs to be older, with rust. It will be more suitable if one tail light is out and the brake lights are an option that you choose to live without. It should lean slightly to the left and tend to veer off the road if you take your hands off the wheel.

The brakes must be failing. Or at least squeaking noisily to the point that screech owls shudder in discomfort at the sound.

The exhaust system must be removed. Even if it is rusted and useless, it should still be entirely removed from just in front of the catalytic converter. This will provide the maximum amount of noise and pollution possible. Your car, heard in the distance, should wake all but the soundest of sleepers with the initial thought that a thunderstorm has sprung up at 4:15 in the morning. As you move closer, the bleary-eyed rural homedweller will wonder if a plane is crashing in their yard. And finally, as you come within several hundred yards of the house the now fully-awakened normal person will alternate between worrying that a gang of bikers is coming for their teenage daughter or that the biblical apocolypse is now upon them.

Lastly, you must have an utter disregard for whether the paper is actually delivered to the subscriber. You must be satisfied with the expansive nature of the rural setting so that any paper delivered within 1/4 mile of the driveway, and on either side of the road, will be considered accurate.

Try if you can to specialize in throwing the paper into the wettest area of the deepest ditch. Again, you may have to throw the paper out on the wrong side of the road in order to find such a water spot.

Give the subscriber as many reasons as possible to never give you a tip or Christmas gift. Then, when the lousy tightwad does stiff you, you can joyfully retaliate by revving your motor in front of their house. That will certainly give them flashbacks of Vietnam or the sensation of being pursued by a chain saw wielding maniac.

Chain saw wielding maniac. There's another career choice. What you will need is . . . Wait. I'll save that one for later.

Bible Reading

This is a thought in progress, so it may change over time.

What if we've been reading the Bible incorrectly? What if all this time that we have supposed that the inspired Word of God as we see it in the sixty-six books that comprise the traditional protestant canon is to be taken on equal footing, when in fact it is not?

Some would immediately disagree with me. Some may label me a heretic.

So first of all let me say that I accept that all the words are the inspired words of God expressed through the various authors.

But having said that, I am thinking ... why do we say all Scripture is on equal footing, then ignore parts of it that we deem no longer applicable. That would be the behavior of many who would shift uneasily in their chairs when they hear my statement.

Here is an easy example: In I Corinthians 14:33-35 and again in I Timothy 2:12, women are forbidden from teaching or holding authority in the church structure. There are a few denominations that hold to part of this philosophy, but for the most part it is now ignored. Especially the teaching part as women are no longer required to "remain silent." So what changed? How can those who criticize my questions claim that their own functioning belief system is without error when they consider these instructions to be contextual to a specific time, place and manner (TPM) while other instructions are not? What makes the difference?

An example on the other side would be the adherance of the qualities of overseers and deacons listed in I Timothy 3. Many, if not most, denominations still hold those as a literal list. (But then again, this may not be a good example because many of the qualifications are principles not tangibles.)

So maybe we can look at Scriptures this way: The OT is there for perspective and history. It is extremely valuable to learn about God and to point to the need for a Messiah. The story of the Messiah is in the 4 gospels which lay out the new economy of the Kingdom of God: the economy of grace. Acts provides some more historical perspective. Most of the rest of the NT is a record (primarily of Paul) of the application of the new economy to the world in which believeres functioned. They are TPM applications that are useful to us to see how the principles of the new economy institute and taught by Christ the Messiah are to be worked out in more tangible ways.

So what is the upshot of this?

For now, for me, it means that I want to focus on the words of Christ ... the gospels. Questions about those principles can be addressed partially by seeing how the NT church applied those principles. But the gospels stand on higher footing. It is, partially, my responsibility as a Christ-follower to apply the principles of the new economy to my world. To my TPM situation.

Yeah, less rules but more responsibility. Thus the need for growing up in Christ and the operation of grace to help me along the way. But that is better than nursing at the breast of step-by-step instruction and growing up into a rule-laden checklist-oriented anemic faith.

Another point is that this opens up the reality that God will still be communicating with us. I am not suggesting that the canon of Scripture should be opened for further additions (and possible deletions). But this does allow us to view great works, such as Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, as inspired writings which are worthy of great contemplation.

It also allows for the reality that the Spirit of God can move within the church universal to establish and assist God's instruction for our TPM situations. An example of that: slavery.

Slavery is not condemned in the NT. It is the subject of TPM instructions from Paul, but the institution is not condemned. (And regardless of how clever we are at applying those TPM instructions to our TPM situation of employer-employee relations, we are at the end of the day still talking about slavery in the NT.) But today there is not even a minority view that slavery is right. It is overwhelmingly understood to be wrong. Morally wrong. Sin. That is my view, too. It is wrong to own another human's life/liberty. Anyone who teaches otherwise under the authority of Scripture is an anomoly and evil.

So where did that change come from? I think it came from the Holy Spirit working to teach God's economy in the church universal. The church universal has, for the most part, always been on the right side of the slavery issue.

I think that is cool. What else are we seeing that may be the further instruction of God for the TPM of our world?

What does the economy of the Kingdom of God have to say to us about current situations?

Like the war in Iraq?
Like immigration?
Like same-sex marriage?
Like taxes?

So, concluding for now: I think a great way to read the Bible is to read the principles of Jesus, see how they were applied by Paul (and others) in the NT TPM and then seek God for how they should apply for our current TPM.

Galatians 5

I really like this part of the New Testament. You won't hear a lot of preaching from the first part of the chapter because it is about being free from the slavery of religion. That is not good news for most of the corporate churches because they rely to some degree on keeping adherents conscious of certain traditions, rules and arbitrary behaviors.

As I have said, corporate church today is like the body politic: More concerned about staying in power than in doing what is right.

The message of this section of Scripture if fantastically liberating. Don't be bound by rules; you are free. Don't use freedom as an excuse or license, but rather live by the Spirit in freedom (as opposed to living by rules in legalism).

There is a cool Greek wordplay used verses 7-10. The same Greek root is used to build 3 words that are shown as contrasting points of view:

vs. 7 "obeying" is peithesthai

vs. 8 "persuasion" is peismone

vs. 10 "I am confident" is pepoitha

Lastly, there is an beautiful truth that is contained in the listing of the "fruit of the Spirit" in verses 22 and 23. This listed is recited without thought as the exhaustive list of the fruit of the Spirit as if it were some magical mantra. "Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control."

But there is a coolness of the Greek language that is not present in most translations (in fact, none that I have ever seen). The beginning of verse 22 is actually, "The fruit of the Spirit produces . . ." That is different from "The fruit of the Spirit is . . ." Curious difference that tells me the phrase fruit of the Spirit may actually refer to something other than the 9 qualities that are listed.

Also, there is a punctuation issue in the list of 9 qualities. Instead of merely being a list, the Greek places an emphasis on love. So a better English rendering might be this:

"The fruit of the Spirit produces love: joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control."

Now that is interesting. Love is over all - that point is made clearly in other areas of Scripture (and even earlier in Galatians 5).

So could we really be reading a statement that the fruit of the Spirit produces love, which in turn manifests itself in these qualities.? Are the 8 following qualities really just more tangible or visible expressions of love, which is the mark that the fruit of the Spirit is within us? Is love defined by these 8 qualities?

Sorry to blow-up the traditional mantra . . . but we could use some real thought instead of blind repitition.