The Upside Down Kingdom

Ephesians 1: 11-23
¹¹ In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, ¹² in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. ¹³ And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, ¹⁴ who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.

Thanksgiving and Prayer

¹⁵ For this reason, ever since I heard about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all God’s people, ¹⁶ I have not stopped giving thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers. ¹⁷ I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. ¹⁸ I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, ¹⁹ and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength ²⁰ he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, ²¹ far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. ²² And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, ²³ which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

Luke 6:20-31

²⁰ Looking at his disciples, he said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. ²¹ Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh. ²² Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. ²³ “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.

²⁴ “But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort. ²⁵ Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep. ²⁶ Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.

Love for Enemies

²⁷ “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, ²⁸ bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. ²⁹ If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. ³⁰ Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. ³¹ Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Introduction

The way that one preaches preaching from two texts: The two speak together, saying more than either on its own. Today the passage from Ephesians calls us to greatness, and the gospel passage redefines greatness. In Ephesians we hear that we are the heirs of the kingdom, and Jesus makes it clear that this kingdom—the greatest of all kingdoms—turns all of our human values upside down as we find and follow him.

Ephesians 1

Verses 11 to 14: Our Christian lives did not start with us. God chose us to be “for the praise of his glory”. I don’t want to spend time this morning on the concept of predestination. It is enough to say that our lives in Christ begin and end with God. God calls us. God reigns in us. God uses us for his purposes from beginning to end. How the sovereignty of God fits with human free will is the source of many arguments, which we will not pursue this morning.

The mark (or guarantee) of God’s presence and work in us is the Holy Spirit. Sometimes we talk as though “life in the Spirit” is an optional extra for Christians; but of course Paul says “When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit.” The Spirit is simply the presence of Jesus continuing with the disciples—and with us. If you are a Christian, you have the Holy Spirit. If you don’t have the Spirit, you are not a Christian. We could explore this line of thinking at length, but (as with predestination) we will note it and leave it aside.

You notice that all of this is for God’s glory. This is important: Our lives belong to God, and we live for God and for God’s glory—never for ourselves and our own reputation.

Verses 15 to 23: This truth leads Paul into a prayer of thanksgiving.

I thank God for your faith in Jesus.

I thank God for your love for other Christians.

I ask God to give you his Spirit (which you already have).

I ask God to help you know him better.

I pray that you may know the riches of being God’s inheritance.

I pray that you may know the power of Christ’s resurrection, active in your own life.

I pray all of this because God has raised Christ from the dead and made him the king of the universe. This king of the universe is also the head of the church. Christ is the head; the church is his body.

You notice that Paul does not say we inherit God’s kingdom, but that we are God’s inheritance. We are the people of God. We are the kingdom of God made visible on earth. We are those who live in the world as God’s representatives. If God is the greatest, then we (God’s people) are also the greatest! We live for God’s glory, and God’s glory shines out in us.

Now we move to the Gospel reading. Luke records words that take this soaring picture of our lives as the people of God and stands them on their head. We are the kingdom of God made visible, and Jesus tells us that this kingdom is an upside down kingdom.

An example of God’s reign realized on earth: Chinese Christians following the earthquake about five years ago. [The details given during the sermon are omitted since this is online.] Now the Chinese church with the help of Chinese businessmen is making plans to start building similar bubbles in Africa to fight poverty there.

Luke 6

Verses 20 (24): The first verse lets us know that this passage is parallel to Matthew 5. Whether we think of these as two similar sermons that Matthew and Luke record coming from two different occasions, or as one sermon reported by two different witnesses, it is clear that here we are at the very centre of Jesus’ teaching about what it means to follow him. Blessed are the poor: not just the poor in spirit (as in Matthew), but all those who are poor. In his theological dictionary Kittle defines the poor in the NT as “those who need God’s help, and know it.” Everyone needs God’s help, but the rich think that they can take care of themselves. Verses 20 and 24 pose the two options: Either you rely on God and receive eternal blessing, or you rely on yourself and receive the blessing you are able to manufacture today.

Remember the rich young ruler, whom Jesus told a) to keep the commandments (this he had done) and b) to sell everything and follow Jesus (this he could not do). His problem was not that he was rich, but that possessions ruled him. He used possessions to control his life and would not (could not) allow God to control him fully. God’s kingdom is only for those whom God rules.

Verses 21 (25): Similarly, those who hunger and those who weep learn to trust in God, and thus receive release. And those who are well fed and celebrate life tend to trust in themselves, and thus enjoy life now; but their future is one without God and without hope.

Verse 26: That is why Jesus tells those who are persecuted for his sake to rejoice. Human rejection of God’s People is a sign of God’s acceptance, which is the source of true joy. Christians are not meant to be masochists who seek pain and suffering for its own sake. Rather we embrace God’s joy, even though the path leads through pain and suffering here on earth.

Here you see how God’s reign is upside down from human kingdoms: We seek God’s joy, not our own. We seek God’s will, not our own. As a result we tread paths of greatness, as Paul describes in Ephesians, but they do not look like the kind of greatness our world would expect. The verses that follow give the heartbeat of that greatness.

Verses 27 to 31

But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

E. Stanley Jones says of these verses in Matthew’s gospel:

When I come to the following verses I breathe a little faster, for we have now reached the very crux of the whole Sermon on the Mount. This refusal to retaliate, the turning of the other cheek, and the loving of one’s enemies are the center of the whole. If this principle is not workable, then the heart of the sermon does not beat—it is a dead body of doctrine. If it is workable and every other way that cuts across it is unworkable, then its heart does beat, and beating it pumps its warm lifeblood into every portion of the Christian soul and of Christian society and makes them live. (Jones, The Christ of the Mount: 169)

Love your enemies. Bless those who curse you. Respond to mistreatment with love and care. Jesus then gives two examples: turn the other cheek; give your shirt as well. Then he adds the general principles: Give to those who ask; do good to others as if you were the recipient. In Matthew’s gospel Jesus adds the case of a soldier who compels you to carry his goods for a mile. One then goes the second mile as a gift to the oppressing legionnaire.

Jones describes the actions thus:

Jesus is not teaching passive resistance, but an active resistance on a higher level. … He tries to break your head, and you, as a Christian, try to break his heart. In turning the other cheek you wrest the offensive from him and assume moral charge of the situation. … If a man compel you to go with him one mile, you are his slave; but if you voluntarily go with him two, then you rise up from your slavery, confer a bounty on him and thus become his master. If he sues you at law and takes away your coat, you are his servant, but if you confer on him your own cloak also, you assume the mastery by your own moral daring.

Allowing a man to smite you on one cheek, and letting him have the coat, and submitting to him when he compels you to go one mile does little or no good. The fact is that it does harm to the man who does it and to the man who submits to it. It is the other cheek, the cloak also and the second mile that do the trick. It is this plus that turns the scale. The one cheek, the coat and the one mile—this is passive resistance; but turning the other cheek, giving the cloak also and going the second mile—this is an active resistance on the plane of unquenchable good will. Passive resistance may reveal nothing but weakness; this active resistance of love reveals nothing but strength. (Jones, The Christ of the Mount: 172f)

You see why I think of the example of the Chinese Christians as the light of God’s kingdom shining in the world. They acted out of love, not out of a desire for power; and God rewarded them with remarkable success. That is always how it is. We do what we are called to do as God’s children, and God does his work in the process.

I was reading an article in the most recent Christianity Today on the use of power. We like to portray ourselves as servant leaders, who don’t exercise power but lead collaboratively. That’s good; but we use power in every arena of life all the time—what these Chinese Christians did is powerful! The key is to rely on God’s grace and not to seek power for ourselves. The Reformation phrase, “For the glory of God Alone”, is more than a slogan. It is the essence of the Christian life.

A Closing Word

This brings us back to Paul’s words in Ephesians. In verses 13 and 14 he refers to the way in which the Holy Spirit serves as the guarantee of our lives as God’s inheritance. The fact is that we are not able to live in the way I have been describing. Left to our own devices, living in our own strength, we are certain to fail to love and live in the way God wants us to. But when we accept our own weakness, when we acknowledge our own complete inability to exercise the “audacious offensive of love”, when we admit that we cannot live God’s life without God’s Spirit, we are ready for the fullness of the Spirit. God delights in filling us and transforming us and making us into the kind of people that Jesus and Paul describe. Live God’s life; throw yourself into God’s arms and open yourself to God’s Spirit.

Thanksgiving for the Land

Here is my sermon for today at Steinbach Mennonite Church:

Text
Deuteronomy 6:1-15
6 These are the commands, decrees and laws the Lord your God directed me to teach you to observe in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess, ² so that you, your children and their children after them may fear the Lord your God as long as you live by keeping all his decrees and commands that I give you, and so that you may enjoy long life. ³ Hear, Israel, and be careful to obey so that it may go well with you and that you may increase greatly in a land flowing with milk and honey, just as the Lord, the God of your ancestors, promised you.

⁴ Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. ⁵ Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. ⁶ These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. ⁷ Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. ⁸ Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. ⁹ Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.

¹⁰ When the Lord your God brings you into the land he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give you—a land with large, flourishing cities you did not build, ¹¹ houses filled with all kinds of good things you did not provide, wells you did not dig, and vineyards and olive groves you did not plant—then when you eat and are satisfied, ¹² be careful that you do not forget the Lord, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

¹³ Fear the Lord your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name. ¹⁴ Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you; ¹⁵ for the Lord your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land.

Introduction

Context: The children of Israel are on the brink of entering the Promised Land, after escaping from slavery in Egypt and wandering around the desert for 40 years. Finally they are ready to take the next step in becoming the people God wants them to be. The whole book is set in that moment before they enter, giving final instructions for who God wants them to be. 

The passage reminds them that God has given them “commands, decrees, and laws” that govern their lives in the Land. Prosperity and peace lie ahead of them; but that prosperity also contains a fundamental challenge: They may forget God. So the passage reminds them of the centre of their faith, what we call the “Shema Yisrael”: “Hear, O Israel”. We want to explore briefly how God tells the people to respond to the prosperity he has promised them, the prosperity which in fact they did enjoy in the years that followed.

Shema Yisrael

You hear the great call that Moses taught the people: “⁴ Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. ⁵ Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” The people engraved these words on their doors and wore them on their sleeves, because these words expressed the centre of their life with God. Today we might have them tattooed on our arms—or on our foreheads.

But this central affirmation of life—that God is all our love and loyalty—was threatened by the temptation to follow the gods already in the Promised Land, and by the peace and prosperity that God promised them lay ahead.

The Great Threat

This promise of prosperity and danger is the point at which the text connects with us. The specific laws of Deuteronomy were not given to us. We don’t have to avoid certain foods that are not kosher, and we don’t have to make sure that our clothes are made of one kind of material only. The specific laws of Deuteronomy were meant for the Israelites in their context, not for us today. Jesus tells us that all of these laws in the Torah are fulfilled in him and in his new command to love each other with his love.

But the call to love God with our heart and soul and strength is reaffirmed in the words and life of Jesus. And Jesus reminds us that the threat of prosperity is as real for us as for the children of Israel: “No one can serve two masters…you cannot serve God and money.”

Consider Steinbach. Some 10 or 12 years ago the final question on Jeopardy brought Steinbach onto national television. “This city has the highest per capita rate of millionaires in Canada.” I think that the options on the screen were Oakville, Steinbach, and Shaughnessy (Vancouver). The answer: “Steinbach!”

 
Now the question is misleading—per capita means the most millionaires for every thousand people or so. A smaller city has an advantage counting this way. And of course the continuing immigration that has enriched our community in so many ways probably has probably brought down the per capita millionaire count today. But the fact that we could be in the question at all reflects the truth that we have a lot of money. We have done well!

So we face the threat of prosperity as much as any of the Israelites ever did. What is that threat? Hear the Deuteronomist: “¹⁰ When the Lord your God brings you into the land he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give you—a land with large, flourishing cities you did not build, ¹¹ houses filled with all kinds of good things you did not provide, wells you did not dig, and vineyards and olive groves you did not plant—then when you eat and are satisfied, ¹² be careful that you do not forget the Lord, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.” There’s the threat: We can begin to forget God and to think that we built our wealth ourselves. And if we did this all ourselves, then we can use our possessions exactly how we want.

There’s another smaller threat inside the big one: Sometimes we respond by feeling guilty that God has given us material possessions. Notice that the passage assumes the people are enjoying the peace and prosperity God has given them. That’s good! When you enjoy these good things, remember God. So remembering God does not mean that ignore God’s gifts. God wants us to enjoy our homes and food and other good pleasures we have received. But the bigger threat is that we will start to take all of the credit for what we have.

The Truth in the Threat

Now there’s real truth in this temptation to think that we did it ourselves. A basic reason that there is so much money in our community is that we have been a hardworking people and we have been a thrifty people. If you work hard and don’t overspend, you tend to save a lot of money! But look again at the Israelites. When they achieved prosperity and heard these words, they may have been surprised. “What do you mean cities we didn’t build? We built every house around our neighbourhood with our own hands? What do you mean houses filled with good things we didn’t provide? We worked hard for what we have? We tended the gardens and fields that brought forth their crops. We deserve the fruit of our work!”

But the truth in the threat of prosperity conceals a greater falsehood. None of us can take full credit for what we do. Even if you work with great skill and incredible endurance, you did not create that skill or endurance in yourself. We have only what we have received. And when we do work, we are constantly part of a larger system that benefits us. As a side note, one can see the truth that hard work alone is not enough. Poor people often are extremely hard workers, but are trapped by personal habits or by public structures that make it impossible for them to receive the fruit of their hard work. Those of us who have learned from our parents and from others how to work and how to budget and how to get ahead financially know that we are reaping the rewards of what many other people in our lives have done.

So we reject the lie that our prosperity means that we are somehow better than others. God gives us all good gifts, and the good things that we have in our lives come from God.

What Do We Do?

The passage tells us how to respond when God grants us material blessings.
1) Enjoy the material possessions God gives us, but don’t try to take all the credit.
2) Don’t forget God, or what God has done in your life.
3) Keep God’s laws and commands and rules—this one we could reword as: Follow Jesus in all that you do.

Giving thanks for the land—giving thanks for the possessions and material blessings that we have—means that we turn to God in gratitude and praise, and that we show our gratitude by loving and serving God with all that we are and have.

Jesus quotes this great command from Deuteronomy, “Love the Lord your God.” He adds to it, “Love your neighbour as yourself.” That is how we thank God for the good things he has given us. Love God, and show that love by the way that we treat each other. I have seen that kind of thanksgiving often in this community. There are those business folk who show their love for God by the way that they open their hands to help others who have less materially. Because I sit on the committee that supports our Community Outreach program, I hear of such things often, and I rejoice.

I see this thanksgiving every Christmas in the way that some volunteers put on a Christmas Dinner for those who do not have family, or the resources to celebrate themselves. Sharing what we have is the best way to say to God, “Thank you!” May we always show our gratitude to God for the blessings we have received by worship and with our love returned to God and to all people around us.

Wedding Vows

Lois found our vows earlier this week. We promised each other all those years ago (30 July 1977) that we would be true—except that we wrote our own vows, and there was no chance that I would remember what we actually said.

Lois claimed that I promised always to answer the telephone so she wouldn’t have to. I was doubtful, but had no proof otherwise. I made up my own versions: She would write all the thank you notes. We’ve almost kept those two promises. She’s a more faithful writer than I am, and I do tend to pick up the phone. (If you call us and there’s no answer, she may be close by, just not answering.)

 

Then Lois found our vows. I wondered, what did I really promise?
“Lois, I choose to take you as my wife and to share my life with you. I love you, and I will continue to love you for what you are in the hope that you will become all that God wants you to be. I give myself to you knowing that you, in turn, will help me to do the same. I promise to share our joys and burdens, making the joys greater and the burdens lighter. I promise to remain faithful to you and to support you through good times and bad. With God as my strength, all this I will do as long as we both shall live.”

And Lois? She said,
“Daryl, I choose to take you as my husband and to share my life with you. I love and will continue to love you for what you are in the hope that you will become all that you can be. I give myself to you now, knowing that you in turn will help me to become the person that God wants me to be. I promise to remain faithful to you and to support you through good times and bad, so long as we both shall live. With God as our strength, we will grow together.”

There are small differences in the wording. The way that they were written out differs—mine was double-spaced and the length of the page; hers was single-spaced with several phrases crossed out or re-worded. Mine was dated and signed. Small details that reflect the people we still are today.

The substance is the same in both: We committed ourselves to each other and to God, and we promised to seek our own and each other’s growth. Although I am deeply aware of my failings in various areas of my life, we have kept the essence of this promise made to each other so many years ago. We have grown, and continue to grow. We have grown at different rates and in different ways; we are so clearly not the same people we were then. But we have also come closer together in that commitment to each other as people who change and become more than we were.

Of his own marriage Scott Peck says, “I believe our most powerful shared passion has been for our own psychospiritual growth…. Indeed, the most common complaint of our staff is: ‘Oh, no, not the G word again!’” [In the preface to Abounding Love, a collection of sayings on love and friendship.] Peck sets a higher bar than I can reach; but it states the goal of our marriage vows from July 1977. We commit ourselves to grow in Christ, and to help each other grow in Christ. It’s a wonderful path, and I hope we can walk it for many years to come.

Baptism!

22 September 2011
Mitchell Christian Fellowship

Baptism

In my background we call baptism and communion the two basic ordinances (i.e., commands) of the church. Contrast ordinance (“Low Churches”) with sacrament (“High Churches”):

Sacrament = A means by which God’s grace is active in our lives. Ordinance = A symbol: “An outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace.”

            We baptize because baptism is basic to the command to make disciples (Mt 28:18-20). In the churches around us there are different forms that we use for this baptism. You will be immersed, lain backwards into the water, symbolizing being laid into a coffin with Christ’s death. Rising from the water symbolizes your new life. Other forms: Pouring (e.g., at SMC); Immersion (three times forward in the BIC). In each case the symbolism remains.

Baptism is an “initiation rite”: Baptism marks the movement from one role and status in life to a new role and status. You are going to be baptized into the death of Christ—which means that you die to your old life outside of Christ. You are baptized also into the resurrection of Christ—which means that you have a new life, the resurrection life of Christ.

Initiation Rites

Victor Turner’s work among the Ndembu people in Zambia concerning initiation rites. From a source (Acadia University) found via Google:
“Separation: The boys have a night of feasting…. Then they receive a last meal from their mothers before being marched off to another camp. Liminality: The initiation camp is called ‘the place of dying’….  The boys remain in seclusion under the supervision of a group of male guardians. Here they are circumcised, hazed, harangued and lectured on manhood for a period of four months or so. Reintegration: Finally, daubed with white clay that signifies rebirth, the initiates are taken back to their families. After the novices are washed and given new clothes, each performs the dance of war to signify his new status as an adult.”

We have various initiation rites in our culture, although not nearly as involved as the Ndembu: high school grad; first car; marriage; and so on. In each case the person being “initiated” moves from one stage of life to a new stage—as Paul puts it, “the old has gone; the new has come!”

That’s what is happening here today. Your old identity is a Canadian. Your new identity is a child of God. You have chosen to change your orientation to life. Most people in our country live by one set of standards. We call it “the Canadian way”, or “I am Joe, and I am Canadian!” But you have chosen to live by a different set of standards. Paul describes these as “walking in the resurrection”. That is the phrase in Romans 6:4 (“live a new life) more literally. They are the standards that go with following Christ, imitating Christ, becoming Christ in the way you live: “I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ lives within me.”

Getting Baptized

I remember my baptism. I was baptized in 1964 in the Mpopoma BIC, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. The whole event was called a "Love Feast". There was a Friday evening testimony and examination of the 30 some candidates (including me). On Saturday afternoon we were baptized. Sunday morning we held feetwashing and communion.

On Thursday my father (the officiating minister) and I practised, since I am deathly afraid of water, and we baptize by immersion—three times forward. On Saturday we entered the water, and I went under three times without any problem. It was the most wonderful moment of my life! We came out of the water and walked down the church past a long line of the members, who each shook our hand and welcomed us into church membership. The next morning we washed feet and took communion together, and I knew that I had entered a new life as a child of God. Conversion is basic, the fundamental step from death into life; and baptism is the way we symbolize our new life in Christ. That’s what we are here for today.

Some Added Meaning

One other fact: In baptism you join a new family. You are joining the church, not just this body that has gathered at the lake and meets normally in Mitchell. You are becoming a part of the family of God, that “great cloud of witnesses” that the writer of Hebrews refers to. Hebrews 12: “Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith.”

We think that the church is a relatively weak entity in our world. Certainly in Canadian society it is so; the church has become marginalized, a voluntary club that a few people find helpful. But the church itself, the real church of God throughout the world—that’s a different story!

Brian Stewart

Brian Stewart was a journalist from 1964 to 2009 and foreign correspondent for the CBC. In 2004 he gave the convocation address at Knox College (part of the TST in the University of Toronto). There he spoke to his amazed discovery of the strength and influence of the church around the world. He simply did not expect to find much of significance about the church in his work, and instead discovered Christians everywhere, doing work that most people never see.

You can read an interview based on this theme here: http://www.christianity.ca/page.aspx?pid=13716 or Google "Brian Stewart On The Front Lines" and read the full text in a PDF file from gomission.ca

Do You See?

You see what is happening today? This is the church you are joining. You may feel like nothing in yourself. You’re right! But you are embarking on an incredible adventure. You are being baptized into the body of Christ, living the life of Christ on behalf of the world. I don’t know what you think you were doing; but I am telling you that you are now becoming one of Christ’s ambassadors to represent God in the world today. It’s bigger than you can ever imagine.

Conclude by reading Romans 6: 1-14

6 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? ² By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? ³ Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? ⁴ We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

⁵ For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. ⁶ For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— ⁷ because anyone who has died has been set free from sin. ⁸ Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. ⁹ For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. ¹⁰ The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

¹¹ In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. ¹² Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. ¹³ Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. ¹⁴ For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.

Taking It to the Next Level

So my friends and I discussed global warming. The end of the discussion revealed an interesting (and perhaps predictable) divide: The two who take the threat more seriously would support some kind of government action to help us live with less dependence on fossil fuels; the two who think the threat is overblown support the ability of individuals and business to find better ways of doing things—and mistrust the government having any significant role in finding a better way. That’s oversimplified, but I think accurate. It does not mean that the sceptics are not environmentalists; but it does mean that they don’t want the government to regulate how we treat the environment.

I have some sympathy for the libertarian impulse behind their position. I have both a Canadian and an American identity—having lived and worked in both countries. I have seen the tendency of those in power to think that they have the answer to the world’s problems, and I have seen how those answers get turned on their heads and produce the opposite of what the policy makers intended.

The problem is that I don’t see who else one can turn to in such a big arena. My own level of trust for business per se is not great. I know many good business people, and them I trust. But then I hear a story about a gas drilling company that starts fracking to re-open an unused well in the middle of a residential district—without consulting with the people who live there, or even notifying them of the event! (Hear the story at http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=218995973&m=218998205.) The residents respond by pressing for laws that compel the company to at least keep them informed. Who must pass the laws? Who will enforce them? Not business.

But these deeper disagreements as to the place of government aside, I want a sense of how Christians should live their lives with respect to the environment. Here are some simple statements that move towards an answer.

·        Don’t call nature “the environment”. Call it “God’s Creation”. It’s good to remember who gave us this earth. One effect of this change is to take away some of the fear that Al Gore and company use to try to motivate us for change. God is in control of the universe. We don’t need to fear, “though the earth tremble and the mountains fall into the sea”! Another effect is to replace fear of the future with the fear of God—used in the sense that the writer of Proverbs says: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” Fear in the sense of awe and awareness of our own finitude, our own smallness in the presence of the Creator.
·        Remember that God gave us the earth in trust. Some Christians grab the command, “Subdue the earth and multiply.” But the Genesis account is clear: God’s command to rule the earth is “rule in his stead”—that is, we are trustees, and God will hold us to account for how we handle our trustee-ship.
·        Work out what it means to be trustees (or stewards) of God’s Creation in the small places we control: Our vehicles, the trash we generate, the space we call home, the roads where we drive and walk and ride our bicycles, the fields we farm. Our small piece of God’s Creation. My guess is that if we learn not to drop a paper (or plastic) cup on the sidewalk because we remember that we are caring for that piece of the earth, we will not sit by idly when larger groups of people begin to tear up the Alberta Tar Sands, or blow off the tops of mountains to extract coal, or dump so much plastic in the ocean that it forms dead zones where nothing can live.

If I tell the truth, I don’t care nearly as much about whether the world is heating up or not as I do that we remember God’s Creation mandate. I am a conservative at heart, and a conservative Christian to boot. I believe in God’s judgment at the end of time. I recite the Apostle’s Creed regularly because I believe it to be true: “I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ his only Son…He shall come again to judge the living and the dead.”

I know that referring to judgment brings in many stereotypes that people have about Christians. We have, I regret to say, lived (or down) to many of those stereotypes. I don’t want to do that. My primary motivation here is not God’s judgment, but God’s incredible love and grace in entrusting this great creation to us. I want to live up to that responsibility and show that God’s trust in us is not misplaced. I want to treat God’s Creation well, really well! I see many examples of mistreating the earth all around me, and I want to help change that. I hope that those who disagree with me on the likelihood of global warming can agree at least on this point: We will take care of the piece of God’s Creation given to us.

P.S.: There are many other issues. For example, should one trust scientists (just out for the money), or business (polluted by the bottom line), or government (corrupted by power)? That is worth discussing at length. The streak of distrust in our society that writes off what “experts” say just because they are experts is distressing—and evaporates just about the time one has to go into cataract surgery (as I did this past month). But that really is another discussion.

Too Socialist to Speak?

Recently I had a Facebook conversation with some friends. I quote the conversation (more extensive than most in that forum) below, with names removed, since I did not ask their permission. I will post to them that this is going up, so if I take it down, it will be because they prefer not to have this discussion posted on my blog.

I found it interesting that the conversation moved from global warming (the presenting topic) to the implication that we should not listen to Obama (implying also thus to others who advocate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions) because he is a Socialist.

My location in Canada makes this conclusion ironic: We have a “Conservative” government that is more socialist than the “Socialist” government south of us. Obama is more “conservative” than Harper! In any case, I present the long discussion below without further comment.

Page owner (PO): “We … know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.” - Barack Hussein Obama, May 29, 2013. Actual temperature change since “ten years ago” (May 2003 - May 2013): 0.09 degrees Farenheit of COOLING.

Reader 1: Once again, my friend . . .

PO: Once again I present scientific data.

Reader 2 (Me): Working on the assumption that not all climatologists are crooks, why do you think they do not read the data the same way as you do? I have watched non-specialists interpret data in my area of training (faith and culture) and they usually get it wrong, even when what they say is plausible. You may have seen the same in your own area of specialization. So why do you think they don’t simply abandon the models of “climate change” or “global warming”. Conspiracy theories are usually wrong. I need something more in tune with reality. (Just as you want explanations of temperature readings that are in tune with reality.)

Reader 3: Just because most so called scientists have bought the schpeel, does not make them right either. Both sides are allowed to make mistakes, but why is it that ONLY the skeptic side of the argument is poo pooed, put down, defamed, ridiculed.... ? Isn’t it passable that the majority of scientists could be wrong?

R2: It happens that since PO is my friend, I hear the majority view held up for scrutiny. I accept that the scientific community can be wrong. Scientists do too. That’s how science works—present a theory, examine it, keep it if the data fits; discard it and try another if the data doesn’t fit. So why haven’t they discarded it? I’m quite sure they have looked at it. Perhaps it fits the model better than we think. So I’m back with my question: Why do you think they have “bought the schpeel”?

PO: Many of the best climatologists do indeed read the data much as I do and reject aspects of CAGW. Notable among these are the two men credited with the first successful development of a satellite temperature record. (Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John R. Christy). I'll give you a list of others if you are interested. The oft-quoted 97% consensus simply does not exist. Here's a good discussion of that point: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Few scientists have abandoned the climate models because few ever gave them any credence in the first place—other than those whose employment or grants were derived from the models. Some conspiracy theories represent actual conspiracies (e.g. Watergate and the 9/11 attack). Having read much of the Climategate papers, I believe that a CAGW conspiracy is entirely plausible, especially since there is political gain to be had.

R2: 1) I accept (readily) that a hard consensus does not exist. (I note that you say “aspects of”, which weakens your point significantly.) For example, I agree that solar activity and other long-term factors may account for much of the change that we experience. That makes sense—and has made sense for a long time. 2) I haven’t taken note of a supposed 97% consensus. What I have observed is that many scientists hold that human activity has shaped the physical health of the planet negatively. I suspect that there is a strong consensus on that point. The question is “how negatively?” 3) There is, I think, a political and social orthodoxy that wants to shape all policy as if we already understood what is happening—perhaps that is the “conspiracy” that you refer to. I applaud your continued efforts to shake up that orthodoxy. 4) I do not believe that the scientific community as a whole is engaged in such a conspiracy. Money talks, but only for so long. Sooner or later the data speaks louder. It bothers me not at all if the scientific community abandons what most people think they are saying now in favour of a better theory. It bothers me significantly when most people decide they don’t trust scientists ... just because.

Here’s my own viewpoint. I am not a scientist. I am a Christian. God’s command in Genesis 1 and 2 is to take care of the garden that he has given us. We haven’t done that. We have destroyed more than we have taken care of. I believe in the judgment. And I believe that God will judge each of us—especially those who call themselves Christians—for how we treat his good creation. The oil pits of Nigeria (formed by the action of Big Oil) and the tar sands of Alberta are just two examples. Fracking may or may not be—the evidence is not in, but it’s troubling enough to hesitate before doing it.

And finally, I hear your evidence against a simplistic Global Warming. I agree that the evidence requires scientists to work with their theories and either refine them or come up with new ones. I hear you also implying that conservationists in general are crackpots and that we should dismiss their efforts as a waste of time. That implication is deeply troubling. Whether you meant that or not, presenting only one side of evidence over a long period of time makes that implication. I am equally guilty (especially in forums like this) of implying a whole bunch of stuff that I don’t actually intend to. That’s why I have made this extended reply—to try and find out what’s behind the repeated presentations of one line of evidence only.

PO: 1) I also approach issues as more Christian than scientist. I regard honesty and truth as central Christian values, so when I hear a false statement coming out of Washington, I feel that it is appropriate to point it out. Although I am not a scientist, I do have a BA in mathematics, which gives me some minimal credentials to evaluate scientific data. I am painfully aware that a vigorous debate, not a bad thing in itself, easily begins to sound unchristian in its tone. I often make my comments very brief in the hope of avoiding this unchristian tone; but I am not always successful. I apologize if this has happened.

2) There probably is a consensus that human activity has had some negative effects on the planet. There is not a consensus that fossil fuel use has been a NET negative. The nations that use the most fossil fuels generally have longer life spans, less disease, higher standard of living, and so on.
3) When two groups of well-credentialed scientists present two opposite views, it is wise to not fully trust both groups (unless you want your head to explode). That’s why I present data, not the opinions of scientists (or, worse, the opinions of political types).
4) I can’t imagine what I might have said that implies that conservationists are crackpots. I am a conservationist. I might be persuaded that politicians in conservationist clothing are generally crackpots; but even then, most of them are just listening to advisors who have their own agendas.
5) I don’t present both sides of the argument because the one side has been presented so extensively already. A good debater does not try to make his opponent’s case for him.
6) If you want to know more about what I believe about CAGW, you can request my book “Anthropogenic Global Warming Skeptic's Guide”.
7) Here are some good web sites/articles that have influenced my thinking: http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/a-renewed-call-to-truth-prudence-and-protection-of-the-poor/

R2: Under #2, the use of fossil fuels has helped human life; it has not necessarily taken care of the garden, which God gave us in trust, and for which God will take an accounting. To use an example that I know better from experience, in Zimbabwe there has been large-scale deforestation as people try to get fuel to cook. Replacing wood with coal (mined in western Zimbabwe) doesn’t help. Re-forestation does. But we (as a species) are better at mountain-top removal for coal and de-foresting for wood than we are at restoring anything. God has placed wonderful recuperative powers in creation; we should regularly promote the use of those powers. I don’t hear that case being made by most who speak against global warming. I hear rather, “Don’t mess with my standard of living.”

Under #5, what persuades me most is listening over a long period of time and hearing balance. I understand your effort to promote balance in what you see as a forum dominated by one side. But we’re not in a debate. We’re in a search for truth, and if we do not acknowledge truth in what our “opponent” says, you can be sure that we will not find truth even in ourselves. Most (not all) of the people on both sides of the “debate” are people of good will. Accusations (whether made by Al Gore et al or by conservatives of various stripes) don't usually help us find truth. (That, btw, is why I give less credit to Al Gore and Michael Moore than some people I know.)

#6: My book list is already immense. I teach for a living! If I get a chance I will check this out. For my part, I am satisfied that we do affect the environment around us; that is I think incontrovertible. And God's judgment on his people is sure.

Blessings, PO!

R1: Here are some links about scientific consensus.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/140083876/THE-CONSENSUS-ON-THE-CONSENSUS
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/cherry-picking-one-survey-to-discredit-a-survey-of-scientists-on-climate-change/2013/05/07/e69607d2-b77b-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_blog.html
And here is a brief (and chilling - if things getting all of a sudden significantly hotter chills you) of why the year after year air temps have been flattening.
http://www.npr.org/2013/08/29/216415005/a-cooler-pacific-may-be-behind-recent-pause-in-global-warming

R3: R1, that is one side of the argument/theory, I want you to hear and investigate the other side of the consensus. Then tell me what you think is good/correct about what you have not believed in the past.

R1: R3, I don’t understand your second question. As to the first, about 5 years ago a fellow in the congregation challenged me on the climate change thing. So I decided to dig in and prove him right. Life would be a lot easier if he were right and we didn't have to worry about this stuff. And, so I was trying to prove myself wrong. That is science and the scientific view point, scientists are always trying to poke holes into each other’s theories. It is an academic rivalry that has worked to move science forward. If you read the two pieces I posted above, you will see that there is an overwhelming majority of scientists who are very concerned about climate change. And after all my work looking at this, well, you see what I came up with. I devote a good portion of my life to attempting to move our world away from the disaster we are creating/have already created. I’m unpaid, by the way. (I know a lot of people, now, who are working on this, including some casual interaction with actual climate scientists. No one is making any money off of this except Exxon and the other corporations you and PO support.)

When PO posts data, I take time trying to see what he's saying. I look at his data and where it comes from. He is not good at giving me context for his data so I have to figure it out. (Actually, I’ve really benefited from doing all the research in response to Keith.) I’ve been to web sites where he’s taken a page of data, yet there are many other pages which give context to his page, these other pages he’s ignored, and the very site he sent me too had clear conclusions which sync with what I am saying about climate change. I do look at other sites which deny climate change. I find lots of things like “Al Gore” this or that. But no real proof that Gore is wrong on the essential problem. Ad Hominem attacks are not scientific proof, but they can sway many people politically.

Let me remind you, my friend, I do this out of my faith in Jesus as my Lord. If I am wrong, please show me. Until I can see real scientific proof that CO2 does not act as a green house gas, or when we have several summers in a row that the Arctic does not continue to melt at frightening speeds, I will do what I can to save the world for my grandchildren.

PO: Online surveys represent the opinions of the subset of scientists who happen to stumble upon the survey and who care enough to bother filling it out. There are hundreds of prominent skeptical scientists, including two Noble prize winning physicists. They may not be a majority (yet), but they are no fringe group of crackpots either.

R3: There is data, I am told, that shows that climate change is cyclical and not completely man made. That is all I expect any climate change fanatic to accept...

R2: What I hope for all to accept is that we are responsible for the piece of creation given into our care. If that is accepted, it has implications for industrial farming, fracking, mountain top removal in coal mining, extraction of oil from the tar sands of Alberta, the size of houses we build today, the tendency to throw our trash out of the window as we drive, and on and on.

R3: We must have trees for homes, mining for brick and cement and iron and .... , something that will produce ENOUGH electricity for both homes and industry, methods for producing chemicals for drugs and more. There are lots of things that are necessary that environmentalists criticize that they do not realize the long term implications on life and productivity....

R2: I live in Manitoba, which means that I know the value of a good heating system. Europe has adopted a model of encouraging small family farms--that has one kind of impact on the Creation and on society. North America has adopted a model of industrial farming--which has another kind of impact. I don't know which is better. I do know that the usual American (and Canadian) response is purely monetary. That is wrong. The bottom line is not financial, but the judgment at the end of time (I am a conservative Christian, and I do believe in judgment!), in which God will ask: How did you use the Creation I gave you in trust for today? If I am honest, I will squirm when he asks me that question. I'm not better here; just raising the issues.

R3: What will God say to those who rely on the government (live off the government)?

R2: Not sure where your question is going—especially when discussing climate change. Sorry PO for hi-jacking your f/b comments section! If you’re noting that our welfare system is broken, that is I think true. If you're saying that we should not rely on government; well, I’m not a libertarian—Jesus did say at least, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar” alongside the capstone: “Give to God what belongs to God.” And Paul says that government is to be obeyed because it is there to bring justice on those who do evil. But this discussion carries us far from PO’s original post.

R3: I question everything this government is doing. If they are involved in climate change, I will question them. Since they are involved in welfare and dependency of the poor, I will question them. It is not for liberty nor freedom that our government is involved in many things, it is control. When our government controls the air, water, soil, production and consumption, I will question them....

R2: Question away! I have lived under a true dictatorship (in Zimbabwe, under Robert Mugabe), and I know what a truly oppressive government is like. The American government is not oppressive or corrupt, in comparison to some that I have direct personal knowledge of. In the 1980s I used to say that Ronald Reagan was dangerous (because of things like the Iran Contra stuff). I have changed my mind. I disagree with much that he did, but he was a good man seeking to his best for his country. Bush (Sr and Jr) took us into Iraq—both times I believe wrongly. But I believe that they also sought to do what was best for their country. Obama is in the same mould—seeking to do what is best, but (I think, especially in his foreign policy) making some bad choices in the process. Tea Party folk (vilified by many Democrats) are (I believe) trying to save their country. Democrats (hated by the Tea Party and by many Republicans) are also trying to do what is best for their country. There are bad people out there, but most of the real crooks are not those we say they are.

The only line I don’t listen to anymore is the one that tells me to hate those with whom I disagree (a line that I haven’t heard anyone here say. That’s bad politics, and bad governance, and for me as a Christian not one of the options. I’ll stop now. This is PO’s page, and I’ll let him have it back! Thanks for your (R1’s and R3’s and PO’s) input on these issues, helping me to understand more of what is happening in our world.

R3: R2, that is a good commentary of this topic. I do not believe Obama has the People’s best interests in his mind. He is more concerned with maintaining power through gifts to the people so they will continue to vote his direction. He is a SOCIALIST through ant through, and that is what is wrong with this president. Comparing a controlling government to a despot like Hitler would not gain any credibility. I do believe this country has better opportunities, but this government is messing that up, big time.

"The Four Loves"

Steinbach Mennonite Church
25 August 2013
“The Fruit of the Spirit is Love”

Introduction

I admit to some surprise when I looked over the qualities in the fruit of the Spirit and found that this pre-eminent quality of love still available. All but two had been taken, and “love” was one of them. So I took it! Love is one of the primary qualities that our society admires. We have a variety of ways in which we lift up this one quality of love. “Love makes the world go round,” we say. For many people, the verse from 1 John that says “God is love” is the only part of the Bible they actually believe. We place love at the centre, and so does Paul in his list of the qualities in the fruit of the Spirit. Love comes first because everything else expands what it means and builds on this fundamental quality of love. So let’s talk this morning about love.

“The Four Loves”

Human Loves
You may have heard that where we have one word for love, Greek uses at least four words—storge, philia, eros, and agapé. Let’s look at these quickly.

Eros is the one most people know about. When the Beatles sang “All you need is love”, they meant eros: sexual love. The ancients knew all about eros; they called the goddess behind this love “Venus” (Roman) or Aphrodite (Greek). One of the odd things about our own culture is that we have decided that eros must be the centre and primary glue of marriage. In point of fact, eros is basic to marriage; but a lifelong commitment to another person goes much deeper than the physical love we call “eros”. That takes us into our second word: storge.

Storge means “family love”. The old saying tells us, “Blood is thicker than water.” That is, we stick by our parents and our brothers and sisters and children when we like them and when we don’t, when we like what they do and when we don’t. Storge is a milder creature than eros, but can be more stubborn and continue on when eros fades. At their best both eros and storge help us to build strong families with people for whom we care deeply and who care for us in return. There is a sense in which both of these loves are especially evident to us as strong feelings.

I have heard people say that love is not a feeling, but rather that love is a decision, a choice. These forms of love—sexual love and family love—are probably not what they are thinking of. We experience these as strong feelings in which we care deeply about the one who we love, and we want them to love us in return. You might say that in some sense these are “need-loves”. That is, we want something and we need something from those whom we love.

Eros wants and needs sexual satisfaction. Storge wants and needs to take care of other family members, and to be needed and taken care of by their family members. If a child spurns his/her mother’s love that hurts the mother almost more than anything else we can think of. To be cut off by our family is almost unbearable to us. We love each other, and we need to be loved in return. This brings us to philia.

Philia is friendship love, the love between friends who share interests and ideas and experience a deep bond based on their shared outlook on life. Philia appears in the name of the American city, Philadelphia, whose name means “brotherly love”. The first two words we looked at hardly appear at all in the New Testament. Philia does appear, for example in Hebrews 13:1: “Let brotherly love continue” (KJV), or in the NIV: “Keep on loving one another as brothers and sisters.” In the church we are bound together by our common commitment to Jesus and by the new life that we have when we are baptised into his death and raised with his new life in us.

In John 15:14 and 15 Jesus addresses his disciples as “my friends”. The Greek word for “friends” is related to this word, philia. The category of friend is one that carries special power in our context today. I remember the speaker from our older son’s graduation ceremony from the SRSS. She emphasized the value of friendship and encouraged the graduates to hold on to their friends from High School, wherever they went in their lives. I think we value friendship partly because we don’t choose our families, but we do choose our friends.

With family love there is great joy and power; but with friendship we step into a new area. Bound together by common ideas and commitments, friends give their love without demanding anything back. We care deeply for our friends, and we are able to face the world better because our friends are there.

When we first came to Steinbach to buy a house, we visited the library. Our younger son Nevin found Luke Janzen in the library as they both were looking at what books and videos were in the section on Star Trek. Two months later we moved into our new house, and Nevin saw Luke across the street! Nevin and Luke discovered that they were in the same grade, on the same street, going to the same church—and were both trekkies! There was an immediate friendship that has been good for both of them down through the years.

So there are three loves: eros, storge, and philia: These three forms of love encompass almost all that books and songs and human experience know about love. But the New Testament uses only the third as part of Christian love, and uses a fourth word almost entirely to describe God’s love, and to describe the Christian love that flows from God’s love. That word is agapé.

Agapé

We know this word in Steinbach as the name of the centre for abused women in Southeast Manitoba: Agapé House.

Agapé is the Greek word used throughout the New Testament for “love”. Consider:

John 3:16: God loved the world so much—God Agapéd the world so much.
John 13:34: I give you a new command, that you love one another—that you Agapé one another.
Over and over again the Bible talks about love, using this word—not sexual love, not family love, not even friendship love; but Agapé love. What is Agapé?

I observed earlier that a dominant characteristic of sexual love and family love is our own need. We love, because we want receive something in return, and we need what we give. When we sing, “love makes the world go round”, that is part of what we’re thinking of. When the Beatles sang, “The love you take is equal to the love you make,” that’s what they were thinking of.

Now please understand me here. This is not a bad thing. Sexual love has been called “the exchange of mutual felicity”—that is, we give each other joy. That’s good! Family love binds us together powerfully: “blood is thicker than water!” That’s good! Even friendship love, which Jesus used to describe the relationship between him and his disciples, contains this element of mutual exchange, of giving and receiving. We need each other. That’s good!

Because these forms of human earthly love have this element of mutual exchange that binds us together in love, they include a strong aspect of emotion and feeling. We care for each other. We care about each other. Paul describes this kind of caring in Romans 12 with the words: “Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep.” When someone I love is hurt, I feel that hurt. We care deeply for each other.

Even God cares in this way through the Incarnation of his Son, Jesus. You remember how Jesus responded to the Jews when they rejected him, recorded at the end of Matthew 23: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.” By living on earth as a 1^st century Jewish male, Jesus the Son of God knows the forms of love that we know.

So the various forms of love we know on this earth are good gifts, given to us by God. But Agapé love goes a step further. Where eros, storge, and philia are primarily emotions and feelings, Agapé is pure will. The old English word in the KJV for this love is “charity”. This perfect love does not decide what to do based on feelings, but has only one question: “What will make you more like Christ? What will make you into what God wants you to be?” In his perfect love, God does whatever is needed to make us like himself. If we complain that it hurts, God continues to love and to do what we need. If we say that we don’t like what is happening to us, God continues to love us and to do what we need to make us perfect. This is a difficult concept, one that I can hardly grasp; but it is basic to what it means to be a Christian.

When Jesus and Paul and John say that we are to love each other, they use the word Agapé. So they aren’t asking us to feel good about each other, or telling us simply that we should care about what happens to each other. Indeed it is good that we care for each other and like each other, but Agapé goes deeper and further than our feelings. To love each other with God’s love means that we are ready to do whatever is needed for each other to help each other become fully what God wants us to be. That is why Paul describes this kind of love in the verses after the passage on the fruit of the Spirit by saying that it means carrying reach other’s burdens by “restoring those who fall into sin.” God loved us so much that he sent his Son to die for us, and John draws the lesson in 1 John 3: “¹⁶ This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. ¹⁷ If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? ¹⁸ Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.”

To put it another way, real Christian love, the fruit of God’s Holy Spirit, has to do more with how we treat each other than how we feel about each other. To be sure, feelings follow action, and the various kinds of human love all go together. We will indeed care about each other and feel life together. But the crucial piece is that we live lives of love, not just that we feel “loving”.

Conclusion

I like being able to give some specific examples of what I’m talking about. This morning I won’t do that, but I will give you a homework assignment. Stop and think through the way that you treat people around you. How can you and I live in ways that show real Agapé love?

Ken Medema has a song that says, “Don’t tell me that I’ve got a friend in Jesus, without showing me that I’ve got a friend in you.” How do we become truly the family of God? How do we love each other with both human and divine loves, loving each other as family and friends with the very love of God?

These are easy questions to ask, and we can give simple easy answers; but they are really very difficult questions to answer well and to live out the answers that we give.

They generate other questions too: Since Agapé love focusses on the other person (cf Philippians 2), we get the old acronym: Jesus; Others; You—putting Jesus first, others second, and yourself last gives a life of Christian joy. But people sitting here can relate examples of how this formula has become destructive, leading to people whose self-image is so bad that they have hurt their families and themselves by trying to show “Christian love”. How do we avoid this danger, well known in Mennonite circles, as we live lives of Agapé love?

You can think of other questions, and your homework is to try to answer them—in your families, in care groups or talking with your friends, and as you engage in your own private devotions on your own. This particular quality is the foundation, the very centre, of the fruit of the Spirit. Without God’s love at work within us, we can hardly even call ourselves Christians. Remember: The fruit of the Spirit is love!

Scripture Passages

You may have noticed that we did not read a Scripture. That is because I wanted us to hear the Scripture with this conversation about love in mind. So now we read the Scripture. We start with Ed reading 1 John 3: 1-3; 11-18. Then Keith reads 1 John 4: 7-21. I conclude with 1 Corinthians 13.

There are so many other passages we could have chosen, but these three remind us a little bit of what the New Testament says about love: the beginning of God’s Spirit at work in our lives bearing his fruit.