So why am I harping on this? It’s just my old complaint about individualism: While loving without getting loved back can be made to sound like the ultimate kind of love, it actually promotes a kind of individualism by ignoring that we are relational beings for whom a mutual benefit to loving is good and healthy. Loving with no expectation of return can be a temporary discipline, but if we make it the ultimate definition of love we are actually undercutting the need for other people. We are setting up the individual self-sufficient lover/giver as the ideal. This person does not need to get anything back when he or she loves because, well, it would not really be love if they did. That just seems kid of cold and twisted if you think about it.

This is a really good reflection on something we rarely question ourselves. Click here to read the full post. It’s really worth reading.

I would say there is nothing wrong with having expectations or hope for a reciprocal response in a loving relationship. There is a problem only when we manipulate or coerce the fulfillment of that expectation. If that is the case, then it is not love. Love must be freely given and received in return.

“…… eternity is not an unending succession of days in the calendar, but something more like the supreme moment of satisfaction, in which totality embraces us and we embrace totality…… It would be like plunging into the ocean of infinite love, a moment in which time–the before and after–no longer exists. We can only attempt to grasp the idea that such a moment is life in the full sense, a plunging ever anew into the vastness of being, in which we are simply overwhelmed by joy.”

Pope Benedict XVI, Spe Salvi, 12.

Curses:

33 He turned rivers into a desert,
flowing springs into thirsty ground,

34 and fruitful land into a salt waste,
because of the wickedness of those who lived there.

Blessings:

35 He turned the desert into pools of water
and the parched ground into flowing springs;

36 there he brought the hungry to live,
and they founded a city where they could settle.

37 They sowed fields and planted vineyards
that yielded a fruitful harvest;

38 he blessed them, and their numbers greatly increased,
and he did not let their herds diminish.

Yes, you are right.

Curses are contingent upon the sin of mankind, but blessings are given freely out of God’s mercy without any human cause.

There is no “because” to make the blessings conditional.

What did Abraham do to merit God’s blessing in the beginning of Genesis 12? Absolutely nothing.

This contrast just highlights the inherent goodness and the steadfast love of God…… which is in fact the overarching theme of Psalm 107.

Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; his love endures forever. (Ps. 107:1)

The Sermon on the Mount by Carl Heinrich Bloch

“Effective proclamation of the gospel normally takes place when people see the effect of the presence or rule of God in the life of an individual or community…… Evangelism is the natural consequence of Christology and therefore of life under the rule of God.”

“In its most basic form, without deeds (whether works of compassion, the fight for justice or dramatic supernatural encounters) no one listens, but without words (the telling of the story of Christ and the invitation to believe), no one understands.”

“Evangelicals have been very good at what John Wimber calls ‘programmatic evangelism‘…… Planning, organization, gospel outlines all have their place, but if they do not find that place in the context of a community, an individual, or relationships which know what it is to live under the rule of God, and are caught up in God’s initiative towards the world, they are likely to bring little fruit.”

Graham Tomlin, “Evangelicalism and Evangelism,” in Evangelical Anglicans: Their Role and Influence in the Church Today, ed. R. T. France and Alister E. McGrath (London: SPCK, 1993), 91-2.

This pretty much sums up my theological understanding underlying evangelism.

Only Kingdom people can do Kingdom work.

Perhaps it’s time to read Matthew again.

Related posts:

1. Auxiliary Spirit
2. 天國願打願挨乎!?
3. 拓展神的國度

“……this is surely not a creedal issue, and such an action violates the preservation of Christian unity and catholicity which is grounded in matters of confessional orthodoxy, and which flounders when matters of a relatively secondary nature are inappropriately elevated. The creedal matter here is that God created the universe and humans, and the secondary matter is how He may have done so.”

“Do we insist as a faculty at Regent that all must hold to this to teach here? This would be to exalt a non-confessional issue as a ground for unity in a manner that mitigates against the apostolic appeal for unity which is based on foundational, Trinitarian essentials (Ephesians 4:4-6).”

Right on. Dr. Hastings said everything I wanted to say and exactly how I wanted to say it (but better). Read the rest of his post here.

Related posts:

1. Bruce Waltke’s Forced Resignation

I have taken Old Testament Theology from Waltke himself, and I am certain he is a man of integrity, who upholds the authority of Scripture, yet also intellectually rigorous and open to arguments that are sound and reasonable. I can’t help but question: Irrespective of whether his view is right or wrong, how essential is this to the gospel? Is it demonstrative that Waltke has given up the authority of the Scriptures and his belief in the centrality of Christ’s salvation? When has anthropogenesis elevated to the category of essential confessional doctrine?

Earlier I wrote an essay for my History of Christian Doctrine class, exploring Philip Melanchton’s understanding of adiaphora (i.e. non-essential matters in faith). I quoted a line from Charles Arand who said: “we should not conclude too quickly that adiaphora means anything goes as long as it does not contradict our theology… Nor should we conclude too quickly that every situation or every controversy requires that we enter into status confessionis.” I am more and more convinced that the distinction between essentials and non-essentials is necessary, because history tells us that we humans do have a natural tendency to enter into confessional warfare easily, entrenching ourselves in fixated positions and eliminating all others who disagree with us.

Alister McGrath also expressed in his book, Evangelicalism & the Future of Christianity, that one of the darker sides of evangelicalism is its apparent “dogmatism”, specifically understood as “a refusal to allow disagreement or doubt.”^[2] He further writes:

“All Christians can agree on the need to defend what is of vital importance to the Christian faith. Yet often issues of relative importance are blown up beyond any sense of proportion, forcing evangelicals to defend themselves to each other when they ought to be proclaiming the gospel to the world. The demand to ‘defend the gospel’ too often turns out to be ‘defend my rather rigid version of the gospel.’”^[3]

“Individual evangelicals owe the movement as a whole the responsibility of taking each other seriously, wherever Scripture permits more than one reading, just as they are obliged to defend evangelical truth wherever this seems to be under threat. But it needs to be realized that evangelicals are free to differ on matters of secondary importance. The escalation of such disputes serves no useful purpose, and it ultimately marks a serious lack of evangelical maturity and judgment.”^[4]

We evangelicals really need to come up with a clear understanding of what consists of essential doctrine, hold fast to that, and not let any secondary issues creep up and destroy our unity, which is exactly what the enemy wants. Otherwise, we’ll be expecting another Thirty Years War all over again. I thought we have learned enough from history already……sigh. Well, I’ll end with this motto that I find worth contemplating time and again: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.”

I hope Bruce Waltke feels peaceful to what’s happening to him. Maybe he can consider coming back to Regent =)

1. Refer to Francis S. Collins’ The Language of God p.199-201 for a definition of theistic evolution.
2. Alister McGrath, Evangelicalism & the Future of Christianity (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 143.
3. Ibid., 144-5.
4. Ibid., 148.

Related posts:

1. Elevating Non-Essential Matters

I just found out that the Evangelical Theological Society is holding its 62nd Annual Meeting during Nov 17-19, 2010 in Atlanta, GA , with these heavy-weight panelists speaking on “Justification by Faith“:

• Pastor John Piper (Pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneappolis)
• The Rt Revd N. T. Wright (Bishop of Durham)
• Dr. Frank Thielman (Presbyterian Professor of Divinity, Beeson Divinity School)

With Theilman leaning more on the side of Wright, I’m afraid Piper will find himself in a difficult position. Anyways, I’m sure there will be a fierce debate, but I hope they can come to a better understanding of each other after this.

I’m so tempted to go, but I need to find pals to go with first.

More resources about this debate:

• The Justification Debate: A Primer by Trevin Wax (Christianity Today)
• Introduction and Summary of the New Perspective on Paul by Mark M. Mattison (thepaulpage.com)
• Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision by N. T. Wright
• The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright by John Piper
• Paul and the Law: A Contextual Approach by Frank Thielman

Related posts:

1. What Jesus Demands From The World
2. Religious Pluralism: Is Christianity the only true religion?

RegentAudio.com

You just have to create a free account and start checking out these tracks priced at zero dollars.

Free stuff is always good, eh?

Related posts:

1. Regent Summer School

(The jaw-dropping fill beginning at 4:00 is what I want to comment about.)

I think this is a perfect illustration of what N.T. Wright proposed as his five-act play to understand what biblical authority means. The role of the church as living in the fifth act of a play with unscripted scenes ahead, is not to simply repeat what was done in the previous acts, but try to improvise with a sensitivity that maintains consistency and congruency with the overall theme and thrust of the plot, such that the end can achieve its intended grandeur.

So in order to be a church that is faithful to the biblical narrative and calling, we have to be a “Context-Aware Fill” church. Perhaps we need to upgrade first, eh?

“For until men recognize that they owe everything to God, that they are nourished by his fatherly care, that he is the Author of their every good, that they should seek nothing beyond him–they will never yield him willing service. Nay, unless they establish their complete happiness in him, they will never give themselves truly and sincerely to him.”

John T. Mcneill, ed., Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion 1. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 41.

True service or sacrifice is always preceded by an understanding of utter grace.

Related posts:

1. Sanctification By Grace Through Faith Alone
2. Conan exits with humility, grace, and truth