Lots of Love

I traveled to North Carolina this past weekend to join in on the celebratory birthday bash for my now 80-year-old grandfather. There are many details of the trip that could be shared here, such as the history of rock and roll marathon, the late night world’s biggest mysteries, the 100 year old lady, the realization of how selfless my grandmother is, the laughs, the flawless execution of a surprise party, the aunt Jane tour of the town, etc.; however, I will share one. At the end of the surprise party for my grandfather, a lady made this comment to me “This family sure knows how to love.” This lady who I had never met was my great aunt. I suppose that her comment describes the trip.

Faith + Discipline = Freedom

In my last post I mentioned Foster, here are some quotes from his book The Celebration of Discipline.

"Superficiality is the curse of our day."

"The desperate need today is not for a greater number of intelligent people, or gifted people, but for deep people."

"We simply do not know how to go about exploring the inward life."

"The disciplines allow us to place ourselves before God so that He can transform us."

"Joy is the keynote of all the Disciplines."

On Freedom

After Reading some of Margrave’s posts, I came across the one titled Freedom/Structure/Vocation. Listen with me:


Speaking for adult commitment rather than a childish "freedom," Williams writes

It is like Wordsworth's sonnet on writing sonnets: once you have the shape, you have a real freedom from distraction and wooliness and wondering what to do next. You concentrate, yet not in a strained and effortful fashion. You have a "home" to work from. To refuse commitment or discipline or structure because you want to safeguard freedom and keep your options open is rather a misunderstanding of freedom. If you never learn a language well, you will be able to say nothing... (156)

Williams then says that when a person explores their identity in God, discovering their own language and structure, they find perfect freedom:

...what does it mean to talk about the service of God being perfect freedom? It means that living with or in or from God provides the structure and shape that most frees us from distractedness and fragmentation of life and thought. (156)

Concluding his thoughts on vocation, Williams writes

Vocation may be to be what we are, but that doesn’t leave us where we are. We shall need to work to find the structure and form of life that is most our own because it leaves us most alert, most responsive, most open to the never-failing grace of God. We have to find the meter for our poem, the key in which to sing our song to God, the cell where we can pray to him, the person in whom we can love him, so as to give “a local habitation and a name,” face and flesh, to our own particular following of Christ. (159)

I think that these ideas, like those of Richard Foster, promote the the need for an absloute(s) in which we can find our freedom. I suppose that in "balancing" one would always be dealing with "distractedness and fragmentation of life and thought." I think i also see a connection between between faith and freedom. Any ideas?

"The Secret of Life"

Last Sunday at church the teacher made this statement, ?The secret of life is?balance.? After making a claim with the all the hype of the mystery of life I was eagerly anticipating a biblical defense, because in my mind the statement carried much weight. The notion of the statement being a hyperbole can be dismissed immediately due to the context of the lesson. From my perspective the lesson carried too many presuppositions that should have been included, along with solid definitions, in the framework. It is hard for me to state the presuppositions and the definitions because of the rapid movement between differing ideas. This was much of the problem. Without clear meanings of words and ideas everyone was left to their own personal presuppositions and definitions. In addition, the lesson moved into broader generalizations (cooperate verses individual) that led to confusion among the group of listeners. There was no biblical support of the statement in my opinion. There is another problem here, but I will leave it alone for now. However, I was struck by a comment made from one of the students. Her comment was that in the Christian life there are absolutes and within these absolutes there is freedom. I guess one could liken this idea to a race. The track is the absolute, however, not every person takes the same line. The driver has the freedom to take whichever line he or she chooses. Am I to seek balance or to enjoy freedom? Do they fit together? Is balance the secret of life?

"Best"

Last night I caught the Foo Fighters (I guess someone has to do it) performing the song “best of you” on the MTV Movie Awards. The song asks the question “are they getting the best of you?” I am not sure of the question’s meaning. I suppose it means one of two things: (1) Is someone getting the best of you by taking advantage of you, or (2) Is someone getting the best of you. I began to think about the latter. Are the people I know (co-workers, family, friends, etc) getting the best of me? Does the best mean “all” of me? Does the best mean 100% effort? Does best mean honesty? Does best mean full attention? The truth is, I don’t really know what it means for me to give someone my best. Maybe if I asked the Father how, He would tell me to simply love them. The avenue is always lengthening and I am still learning how to walk.

Saddle Up!

Is anyone else excited about the Tour de France? I am.

Check out the link on the right for the official site.

With a little help from my friend(s)

It seems possible that when friends get together there is almost always a object which provides a means to the end. However, I wonder if the end is ever accomplished due to the means being a major consumer. I guess there is something to be said for the duration of the relationship and how it effects what the end can actually be. Or perhaps what I am thinking is the end, is really the means and the means is the end. In this case the duration doesn’t seem to influence the end, it would only make it more enjoyable. Personally, I desire a fix on the former rather than the pleasure of the latter.

Rod has written much to bring about these thoughts. I didn't realize that he had until after I finished the above paragraph.

"Somewhere there is a subtle(or not) difference in coming together to do something, versus doing something to be together. Both are valid, but should not be mistaken one for the other." - Rod

If you have the time, check out the cyberdeck posts hub and spoke community and the voice of intimacy - being .

Much of my thoughts and thoughts on Rod's thoughts find their roots on the avenue .

Reaching

Join me in left field for a few moments. It seems that the Church, at least the churches I have been around, have placed a large emphasis on "reaching the lost" through commercial means. We have programs for everything. As of late the popular program of purpose. I wonder how much money is going towards programs verses how much is going towards the poor, sick, widows, etc. It seems we place a high priority on "reaching" people. Are we reaching them to place them where we want them to be, or where God wants them to be. I think that all this "reaching" is internally man-centered with a God-centered exterior. Our theology is too weak making our desire for joy too weak. This leaves us half-hearted, externally righteous, and probably just busy instead of productive. I have been studying a doctrine of grace that is becoming dear to me. It seems that if this doctrine is true, and the church embraced it, our "reaching" would be transformed. I suppose that I will have to learn this new "reaching" on my own or perhaps, (and hopefully) with a group of like-minded and like-hearted people. In fact, I am pretty sure that if the apostle of the heart set free visited this group he would see the church. Of course, I could be wrong.

A work in progress. What do you think?

Introduction

Dwight Robertson, President of Kingdom Building Ministries says, “The greatest gift you can give the world is your intimacy with God.” Surely this concept is not a new one, for Jesus Himself said that the greatest commandment in all of God’s law was to love the Father. Although there is much say in regard to this great command, with this essay I am seeking to put forth a biblical answer to a question that one could and most likely will ask if they desire to be obedient to that which has “like” the greatest commandment. In Matthew 22:39 Jesus said, “You shall Love your neighbor as yourself.” Craig S. Keener, comments on the action of the two great commandments, “Amid the multiplicity of proposals concerning the greatest commandment in antiquity, only Jesus wielded the moral authority among his followers to focus their ethics so profoundly on a single theme.” The phrase “you shall love” in the action commanded in this great teaching, what differs is the object of the action and the means of the action. As is clear in the first commandment the action is “you shall love,” the object of the action is God “the Lord your God,” and the means is “with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” In the second greatest commandment the action is “you shall love,” the object is “your neighbor,” and the means is “as yourself.” The means of the second greatest command is the focus of this essay, for it is saying that the degree to which you love yourself is the degree to which you should love your neighbor.
When considering the implications of command in question it seems as though one could say “the more I love myself, the more I will love my neighbor, for am to love my neighbor as myself; therefore, to better love my neighbor I will pursue a greater love of myself.” This thought seems entirely out of place with that which Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 13, where we learn that “love seeks not its own,” in other words love is not selfish. To further complicate the issues, Jesus, in response to Andrew and Phillips objection said, “He who loves his life will lose it, and He who hates his life in this world will keep it.” The issue now brought to the forefront and again, the issue, which the essay will attempt to answer, is why did Jesus say, “love your neighbor as yourself”? Why did Jesus say that “as yourself” was the means in Matthew 22: 39? Seemingly the means by which the action is accomplished to the object in the second greatest commandment could have been our love for God or better God’s love for us. In fact, Jesus did give a new commandment to the disciples in John 13:34, “A new commandment I give you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you love one another.” Herein lies a familiar action with a new object and means. Comparing the new commandment to the two greatest commands, the action is again “love,” the object is “one another,” and the means is “even as I have loved you.” The means that Jesus provides in John 13 is His love, Jesus says love each other as I have loved you, with the love I give to you so you love one another. Why is the means of the new commandment not the means of the second greatest commandment? For the means of the former appears to be a much higher standard and therefore a greater ethic than the means of the latter.
I would like to suggest the possible answer to the question, “why are we the standard” in Matthew 22:39 and then defend the obvious objections. The answer is not my own (and I make no guarantee that it is correct), it comes through a synthesis of biblical teaching that I have derived from those who are on a higher level of thinking than I am.

Historical Background and Setting

Before we tackle the question at hand, let us first look to the background of the primary text and then to the context of the stunning reply of Jesus. The book of Matthew was written to Jews in 50’s or 60’s A.D. “prior to the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70” (Macarthur). Elwell and Yarbrough note, “Fundamentally, Matthew wrote his Gospel to preserve what he knew about Jesus’ life and words,” and while this is true John Macarthur provides a much stronger background and setting for the first Gospel. Although “the precise occasion for the writing of this account is not known” (Barbieeri), “the Jewish flavor of Matthew’s Gospel is remarkable” (Macarthur). Ryrie suggests, “Matthew was written to Jews to answer their questions about Jesus of Nazareth who claimed to be their Messiah.” The following comes directly from John Macarthur’s Study Bible: … Luke aiming to show Christ as the redeemer of humanity, goes all the way back to Adam [in his opening genealogy]. Matthew’s purpose [in his opening genealogy] is somewhat narrower: to demonstrate that Christ is the King and Messiah of Israel. […]

Should I continue writing?