Posted on by Abe Austin

Commitment to the Ideal: Transient Devotion

The Hardest Love)

One of the hardest instructions Jesus gave to his followers was that they were to love their enemies:

32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.

33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

Luke 6:32-33, 35

I cannot imagine a time or culture where this mandate wouldn’t go against the grain. I believe it is inherent in our humanity to value those that are good to us, and to despise those that are not.

How, then, are we meant to overcome this basic nature and live another way? It would be one thing if Jesus had said to “put up” with our enemies, or to “resentfully tolerate” them, but he didn’t. He said to love them, and that suggests having cultivated a state of mind and heart that is totally unnatural.

I could easily do an entire series that explores multiple answers to this question. For now, though, I will just take two posts to examine one way in which people fail this mandate, and one solution to that failing. The failure is this: commitment to the person, and the solution is this: commitment to the ideal.

The Failure)

I hear many times in our culture when a person expresses his love, commitment, and devotion to another person, and he gives as his reasons a positive attribute that applies to that person today. Consider these examples:

“I always listen to my wife because she believes in me when no one else does.”
“I need to be a good neighbor because they’ve always been good to me.”
“I’ll always give everything to my children because they bring me such joy.”
“I’ll always be there for my friends because they’re always there for me.”

I think statements like these are popular because they are flattering to the person in question, but they also establish a culture in which devotion is conditional. Implicit in all of these is that the speaker’s undying affection is dependent upon the other person continuing to show up in a way that is positive.

What if the wife stops believing in him? And the neighbors become indifferent? And the children make disagreeable choices? And the friends let him down in a time of need?

These statements of devotion are very transient and weak. They essentially communicate that “I will be dedicated to you, so long as you remain as someone that I like.” Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, the behavior seems to follow the words. Even in our most sacred of mortal relationships, that of marriage, a man and a woman will separate themselves from one another for no other reason than, “we just don’t get along anymore.” Their commitment to one another was based on nothing more than personal delight, and once that delight is gone, so is their commitment.

In addition to being unhealthy for our society, this sort of transient devotion flies in the face of Jesus’s teaching. Our love, our commitment, our devotion was never meant to be dependent on the personal attributes of those we associate with. We were supposed to be able to love and be committed to the wellbeing of everyone, even our enemies.

Just how exactly can we foster this sort of unconditional love and devotion within us? I delve into my answer in my next post.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Is the Old Testament God Evil? – Response to Common Defenses #1

Yesterday I shared some of the common defenses to criticisms of God commanding the destruction of innocents in the Old Testament. I divided those defenses into three categories, and I would like to respond to each of those categories one at a time, explaining what I find convincing or unconvincing about them. Today, I will look at the first category, which was defenses that say that God never actually commanded such a slaughter. Here are two examples of this argument:

  1. God is exaggerating. If I say my favorite sports team “murdered” the other team in last night’s game I’m using the exact same sort of hyperbole. We never do read a verse describing the actual slaying of children, it was only the enemy army that was killed.
  2. This was the work of man, not God. Either corrupt leaders claimed to do this under God’s command, or translators misattributed these messages to God when it was really called for by man.

I wanted to start with these arguments because, frankly, I find them particularly unhelpful. That isn’t me saying that these claims are false, for all I know they could be completely valid, I’m just saying they are only conjecture and that they dodge the real issue.

Personally, it does not bother me to say that the Bible is the word of God…seen through a human lens. I am fine with acknowledging that it has several different versions of the same stories, not all of the details agree with one another, there is the possibility of human malfeasance and error, and some cultural nuances are lost on most of today’s readers. Because of all this, it is possible that when I read a passage, I am not actually getting the pure intention with which it was originally spoken.

But I think it is a dangerous to make oneself judge over which parts are genuinely from God and which parts should be cut out of our faith. To those that say that these passages are misinterpreted, or misattributed, or misunderstood, my reply is, “well, you may be exactly right…but what if God really did say this?”

If your testimony is dependent upon a particular reading of the Bible, and at some point you learn that your reading is false, does that mean that you no longer believe? If we can only accept God with the understanding that He did not order the destruction of these Canaanite nations, then must we reject Him if actually He did make that order? Is that the same conditional faith that we wish to inspire in others? To put their whole hearts and trust in God…well, as long as He didn’t order the destruction of the Canaanites?

Speaking for myself, I don’t know whether God really commanded the slaughter of innocents, but I seek to maintain my faith in Him regardless of whether He did or not. I seek to be able to trust in Him no matter if I understand His reasons or not. To that end, I choose to interpret these difficult passages as literal and accurate, so that I may work my heart into a place of believing no matter what.

Summary)

To be clear, I’m not saying that it is worthless to learn the evidence that lays behind these sorts of claims. I’m all for educating people to the fact that God may not have really commanded this thing. As long as that is not the end of the discussion, as long as there follows: “but even if He really did say to slaughter every man, woman, and child, I am still at peace because…”

Which is exactly what I hope to establish as I pursue this study. Thus, tomorrow I will continue by responding to the defenses that are designed to maintain faith in God regardless of Him ordering such a destruction.