Skip to main content

What is love, John?

This post is a response to a comment on my previous post, "The problem with Liberal Theology". John raises some perfectly reasonable challenges. I'm not going to respond to all of them - just one.
John said: "you neglect that principally God loves the most rotten scoundrel and is Himself love."
What is love, John? A powerful act that reaches out to identify, judge, and destroy, that which is truly, objectively, morally wrong – wrong because it insults the good character of the creator God, to whom we are all accountable? Or a polite permission that avoids any moral assessment, that is fundamentally powerless to discern good from evil?
God’s love is revealed on the cross of Christ. No, more – God’s love is enacted upon the cross; it is established in the cross of Christ. And the Biblical testimony to that act is that is an act of judgment. The cross is the triune God taking into his triune self the consequences of our rebellion against him.
My experience of that love makes me speak the way I do. I have been brought to the foot of that cross, shown the error of my ways, and had no choice but to confess that I am wrong, he is right. The blog that you respond to is simply my continued confession.
It’d be much easier for me to be a univeralist. Or an agnostic. Or a Buddhist. Or whatever. It’s hard to be an Evangelical. It's so unpopular, sounds so closed-minded. But if what Christ achieved on the cross is real – if it the enactment, the establishment of God’s love towards sinners – then I have no choice. I must testify to that reality. It’d be unloving for me not to.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another.  Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24 ). Or something else.  The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrectio...

A better understanding of nonbelief

The Nones Project is an ongoing study into the belief systems of people who call themselves non-religious. A few weeks ago one of the project leaders,  Ryan Burge  of Washington University,  posted some really interesting preliminary results  on his Substack.  1. We've probably heard of people who are spiritual but not religious (SBNRs). SBNRs were "the largest group of nones" in the sample. They believe in the supernatural realm but not necessarily in "a God." They are "deeply skeptical of religion but highly interested in spirituality," therefore individualistic and anti-institutional.  2. But this study differentiated SBNRs from people they called Nones In Name Only, NiNos. They different to SBNRs by being religious about their spiritual. They believe not just in the supernatural but in "God." And they tend to engage in traditional communal religious practices while SBNRs practice individualised eclectic bespoke spiritual practices. The s...

Wax and Wright on the definition of "mission"

Trevin Wax has written a clear, simple, and charitable introduction to a debate about the nature and boundaries of the kinds of Christian activities that validly should be called "mission." In brief:  Should we use a broad definition, where "mission" encompasses all the various purposes which God calls Christians and the church in general to perform, e.g. being ethical at work; general acts of care and charity; standing against systematic oppression and working towards justice instead? If so, "evangelism" is only one part of the church's mission - a central, necessary, and irreplaceable part, but only one part nonetheless. The latter kinds of activities don't save anyone for eternity, but they do genuine good in this world which please God. And that kind of good makes a real difference in many parts of the world which have not benefited from the kind of Christian moral transformation which the West benefited from - the kind of moral transformation...