Jonathan Edwards on distinguishing between true Christian love and counterfeits

Not all love is equally virtuous. Jonathan Edwards makes an insightful distinction:

"There is commonly in the wildest enthusiasts, a kind of union and affection, arising from self-love, occasioned by their agreeing in those things wherein they greatly differ from all others, and from which they are objects of the ridicule of all the rest of mankind. This naturally will cause them so much the more to prize those peculiarities that make them the objects of others’ contempt. Thus the ancient Gnostics, and the wild fanatics that appeared at the beginning of the reformation, boasted of their great love one to another; one sect of them, in particular, calling themselves the family of love. But this is quite another thing, than that Christian love I have just described: it is only the working of a natural self-love, and no true benevolence, any more that the union and friendship which may be among a company of pirates, that are at war with all the rest of the world. There is enough said in this passage [1 John 4] of the nature of a truly Christian love, thoroughly to distinguish it from all such counterfeits. It is love that arises from apprehension of the wonderful riches of the free grace and sovereignty of God’s love to us, in Christ Jesus; being attended with a sense of our own utter unworthiness, as in ourselves the enemies and haters of God and Christ, and with a renunciation of all our own excellency and righteousness. See ver. 9, 10, 11, and 19. The surest character of true divine supernatural love—distinguishing it from counterfeits that arise from a natural self-love—is, that the Christian virtue of humility shines in it; that which above all others renounces, abases, and annihilates what we term self. Christian love, or true charity, is an humble love. 1 Cor. xiii. 4, 5. “Charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked.” When therefore we see love in persons attended with a sense of their own littleness, vileness, weakness, and utter insufficiency; and so with self-diffidence, self-emptiness, self-renunciation, and poverty of spirit; these are the manifest tokens of the Spirit of God."

[Source: Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God; Section II] 

Augustine on enduring people who talk but have nothing to say

Augustine had hoped to get some answers from the Manichean, Faustus. Faustus doesn't have answers, but at least he is modest about it, unlike too many others...

"He knew that he did not know the answer to my questions and was not ashamed to admit it, for unlike many other talkative people whom I have had to endure, he would not try to teach me a lesson when he had nothing to say."

(Source: Confessions 5.7; tr R S Fine-Coffin)

Why leaders don't listen

Sometimes leaders don't listen because they are afraid it makes them look weak, or because it takes too much time, or because it might mean they themselves have to change. This can be too true in the church as well as in the world. I thought the below were some good insights worth listening to.. about leaders being able to listen 🙂

Listening has its enemies

Our findings support existing evidence that managers who listen well are perceived as people leaders, generate more trust, instill higher job satisfaction, and increase their team’s creativity. Yet, if listening is so beneficial for employees and for organizations, why is it not more prevalent in the workplace? Why are most employees not listened to in the way they want? Research shows that a few barriers often stand in the way:

• Loss of Power. Research from our team has shown that some managers may feel that if they listen to their employees they are going to be looked upon as weak. But at the same time, it’s been shown that being a good listener means gaining prestige. So it seems managers must make a tradeoff between attaining status based on intimidation and getting status based on admiration.

• Listening Consumes Time and Effort.In many instances, managers listen to employees under time pressure or while they’re distracted by other thoughts or work. So listening is an investment decision: managers must put in the time to listen in order to see the future benefits. 

• Fear of Change. High-quality listening can be risky because it entails entering a speaker’s perspective without trying to make judgments. This process could potentially change the listener’s attitudes and perceptions. We observed several times that when we trained managers to truly listen, they gained crucial insights about their employees — they were stunned to learn how little they knew about the lives of people they’d worked with for many years.

Source: https://hbr.org/2018/05/the-power-of-listening-in-helping-people-change 

Calvin and Jewish Badges in the Law (Ephesians 2:14-16)

One of the ongoing debates amongst Christians is the question around the place of Mosaic law (torah) under the "new covenant" in Jesus. How and to what extent does it still apply to Christians? And what was the purpose of it for the Jews?

This is massive question, and it is an important one. One of the classic ways to handle the question is to understand that there are three different ways to categorise the various commands and regulations under Moses: moral, ceremonial, civil. This is an approach that Calvin uses.

In recent times there have also been fresh ways to think about the "works of the law", by proponents such as N T Wright. Is this phrasing more about morality and merit, or is more about some kind of badge of identity? Interestingly Calvin also uses this terminology of "badge" or "mark" in relation to ceremonial law.

Below are some pertinent quotes from Calvin's commentary on Ephesians 2:14-16, where Paul speaks about law and commandments being abolished:

And breaking down the middle wall of partition. To understand this passage, two things must be observed. The Jews were separated, for a certain time, from the Gentiles, by the appointment of God; and ceremonial observances were the open and avowed symbols of that separation. Passing by the Gentiles, God had chosen the Jews to be a peculiar people to himself. A wide distinction was thus made, when the one class were “fellow-citizens and of the household” (Ephesians 2:19) of the Church, and the other were foreigners...

Bounds were thus fixed by God to separate one people from the rest; and hence arose the enmity which is here mentioned. A separation is thus made. The Gentiles are set aside. God is pleased to choose and sanctify the Jewish people, by freeing them from the ordinary pollution of mankind. Ceremonial observances were afterwards added, which, like walls, enclosed the inheritance of God, prevented it from being open to all or mixed with other possessions, and thus excluded the Gentiles from the kingdom of God.

But now, the apostle, says, the enmity is removed, and the wall is broken down. By extending the privilege of adoption beyond the limits of Judea, Christ has now made us all to be brethren...

Having abolished in his flesh the enmity. The meaning of Paul’s words is now clear. The middle wall of partition hindered Christ from forming Jews and Gentiles into one body, and therefore the wall has been broken down. The reason why it is broken down is now added — to abolish the enmity, by the flesh of Christ. The Son of God, by assuming a nature common to all, has formed in his own body a perfect unity.

Even the law of commandments contained in ordinances. What had been metaphorically understood by the word wall is now more plainly expressed. The ceremonies, by which the distinction was declared, have been abolished through Christ. What were circumcision, sacrifices, washings, and abstaining from certain kinds of food, but symbols of sanctification, reminding the Jews that their lot was different from that of other nations; just as the white and the red cross distinguish the French of the present day from the inhabitants of Burgundy. Paul declares not only that the Gentiles are equally with the Jews admitted to the fellowship of grace, so that they no longer differ from each other, but that the mark of difference has been taken away; for ceremonies have been abolished. If two contending nations were brought under the dominion of one prince, he would not only desire that they should live in harmony, but would remove the badges and marks of their former enmity. When an obligation is discharged, the handwriting is destroyed, — a metaphor which Paul employs on this very subject in another Epistle. (Colossians 2:14.)

Some interpreters, — though, in my opinion, erroneously, — connect the words, in ordinances, with abolished, making the ordinances to be the act of abolishing the ceremonies. This is Paul’s ordinary phrase for describing the ceremonial law, in which the Lord not only enjoined upon the Jews a simple rule of life, but also bound them by various statutes. It is evident, too, that Paul is here treating exclusively of the ceremonial law; for the moral law is not a wall of partition separating us from the Jews, but lays down instructions in which the Jews were not less deeply concerned than ourselves. This passage affords the means of refuting an erroneous view held by some, that circumcision and all the ancient rites, though they are not binding on the Gentiles, are in force at the present day upon the Jews. On this principle there would still be a middle wall of partition between us, which is proved to be false.

That he might make in himself. When the apostle says, in himself, he turns away the Ephesians from viewing the diversity of men, and bids them look for unity nowhere but in Christ. To whatever extent the two might differ in their former condition, in Christ they are become one man. But he emphatically adds, one new man, intimating (what he explains at greater length on another occasion) that “neither circumcision, nor uncircumcision, availeth anything,” (Galatians 6:15) but that “a new creature” holds the first and the last place. The principle which cements them is spiritual regeneration. If then we are all renewed by Christ, let the Jews no longer congratulate themselves on their ancient condition, but let them be ready to admit that, both in themselves and in others, Christ is all.

Haven't the "cool kids" always been there?

I noticed an article over at the Gospel Coalition, called "Canceled: How the Eastern Honor-Shame Mentality Traveled West". It is an interesting article about honour-shame culture, and East Vs West. I agree the West is more individualistic, but I'm not so sure that shame is such a new thing, though perhaps it is getting more accent at the moment.After all, hasn't shame has always been a powerful weapon in the arsenal of the socially powerful, and social majorities, and especially of abusers who manipulate by shame? 

For example, have we ever been strangers to using weaponized mockery and ridicule to oppress by shame? Perhaps it starts with the "cool kids" at school who shame the minorities, and those who don't fit. Hasn't shame always been currency for racism and sexism in the West? Shame has always been a good sickle for cutting down tall poppies. It has always been readily at hand, whatever size the community, whether it is "big" culture or sub-culture. Sadly, shame has too often been badly used within church sub-cultures as well. There are "cool kids" there too, even amongst the "grown ups". And now, as Christians have moved more into the minority in Western "big" culture, we are also feeling more what it is like to be the easy targets of abusive shame.

But I do love the article's ending, pointing us to John 9. Jesus has also always been the answer to those cancelled by shame! Jesus seeks out those battered and squashed by abusive and oppressive shaming, and lifts them up, showering them with the purest and truest love.

Calvin on the God-Man, and Matthew 28:18

In the person of Jesus we are often confronted with the two great mysteries of the Christian Faith, both the Trinity and the Incarnation. How do we have three persons in the one God, what are the distinctions, and what is the same for each person? And how can one person be both truly God and truly man, what are the distinctions, and what is the same within this one person?

Recently I was in a situation where a question was raised about the words in Matthew 28:18, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me". The question was along the lines of this: "If Jesus is God, didn't he always have all authority? How can it then be given to him?" Or to put it more technically: "Since Jesus is one of the persons of the Trinity, and equally God, didn't he always have all authority, and so how can it be given to him? Or is he somehow inferior to the Father?" But perhaps sometimes our trouble is that we jump to one mystery--the Trinity--while forgetting the other one--the Incarnation. In Jesus both these mysteries intersect, and we have to be very careful about jumping to conclusions as we try to navigate doubly difficult terrain. There is a danger sometimes of downplaying the actual text of Scripture (and perhaps we can add in another mystery, that of Divine Inspiration), and instead resorting to our doctrinal assumptions of what the sacred text may be speaking about. And sometimes the answers may be found in remembering all the mysteries of the faith.

In the case of Matthew 28:18, I think John Calvin helpfully upholds the plain meaning of the text by rightly resorting to the mystery of the Incarnation rather than being overwhelmed by the Trinity. Listen to his comments, where he interprets Jesus' words as speaking about his authority in the Incarnation rather than his authority as God:

Yet let us remember that what Christ possessed in his own right was given to him by the Father in our flesh, or—to express it more clearly—in the person of the Mediator; for he does not lay claim to the eternal power with which he was endued before the creation of the world, but to that which he has now received, by being appointed to be Judge of the world. Nay, more, it ought to be remarked, that this authority was not fully known until he rose from the dead; for then only did he come forth adorned with the emblems of supreme King.

It was night (John 13:30)

In John 13:30, we have this little statement, seemingly a little bit of trivia, "It was night". Jesus had just announced his betrayal, and Judas had "immediately went out". Prior to that Jesus had washed the disciples' feet, a pointer to the way he would love "them to the end" (13:1), after saying he will be "lifted up from the earth" (12:32) and that he came "to save the world" (12:47). As with many details John gives us, I think his choice of words are very intentional and meaningful. He makes use of facts and details to craft a story of divine realities.

The phrase, "It was night", seems to introduce us to the darkest--and actually also brightest--parts of John's Gospel. These are the last days and hours up to and including Jesus' crucifixion. One disciple betrays Jesus, and another disowns him. The Jews and the Gentiles join together to crush Jesus. And they seem to succeed. Arresting him. Falsely accusing him. Unjustly condemning him. Beating him. Mocking him. Killing him. These are the darkest of times.

Interestingly when Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb, John describes it as "while it was still dark". He could have used the language of "dawn" (Matthew 28:1, Luke 24:1; although actually two different Greek words) or "when the sun had risen" (Mark 16:2), emphasising the beginning of light of a new day, like the writers of the other Gospels. But instead he chooses to speak of darkness. John also doesn't tell us about the supernatural darkness that came during the crucifixion (cf Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33 and Luke 23:44). Perhaps John wants us to think of that whole period from "It was night" until "while it was still dark" as a time of great darkness, and not be distracted by the peculiar darkness just at the crucifixion (although one might expect him to highlight that).

Yet at the same time, I think John wants to see this time as the time when Jesus shone the brightest, because the "light shines in the darkness" (1:5). After John told us "It was night", he also records Jesus as saying, "Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him" (13:31). Ultimately in Jesus' death, as God-become-flesh dies, to demonstrate the greatest love and "lay down his life for his friends" (15:13), it is then that we most brightly see "his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth" (1:14), and it is at that moment, more than any other in all of time, that "grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (1:17).

Jesus is "the light of the world" (8:12), and "the darkness has not overcome" (1:5) his light, not ever. And our amazing privilege is that anyone who trusts in Jesus "may not remain in darkness" (12:46), and in following him we "will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life" (8:12). And as the Father sent Jesus into the world, so now Jesus sends us. (17:18, 20:21).

J C Ryle on what Jesus says about the Bible

What did Jesus think about the Bible? In John 10:35 Jesus says, "Scripture cannot be broken".

I like these comments by J C Ryle (1816-1900) about this verse...

We should observe.. in these verses, the high honor that Jesus Christ puts on the Holy Scriptures. We find Him using a text out of the Psalms as an argument against His enemies, in which the whole point lies in the single word "gods." And then having quoted the text, He lays down the great principle, "the Scripture cannot be broken." It is as though He said, "Wherever the Scripture speaks plainly on any subject, there can be no more question about it. The cause is settled and decided. Every jot and tittle of Scripture is true, and must be received as conclusive."

The principle here laid down by our Lord is one of vast importance. Let us grasp it firmly, and never let it go. Let us maintain boldly the complete inspiration of every word of the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. Let us believe that not only every book of the Bible, but every chapter--and not only every chapter, but every verse, and not only every verse, but every word, was originally given by inspiration of God. Inspiration, we must never shrink from asserting, extends not only to the thoughts and ideas of Scripture, but to the least words.

The principle before us, no doubt, is rudely assaulted in the present day. Let no Christian's heart fail because of these assaults. Let us stand our ground manfully, and defend the principle of plenary inspiration as we would the pupil of our eye. There are difficulties in Scripture, we need not shrink from conceding, things hard to explain, hard to reconcile, and hard to understand. But in almost all these difficulties, the fault, we may justly suspect, is not so much in Scripture as in our own weak minds. In all cases we may well be content to wait for more light, and to believe that all shall be made clear at last. One thing we may rest assured is very certain--if the difficulties of plenary inspiration are to be numbered by thousands, the difficulties of any other view of inspiration are to be numbered by tens of thousands. The wisest course is to walk in the old path--the path of faith and humility; and say, "I cannot give up a single word of my Bible. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. The Scripture cannot be broken.""