Posted on by Abe Austin

Deeper Love- Unconditional Love

The Love of an Enemy)

I’ve already made a couple posts challenging the notion that I cannot love my brothers and sisters and also stand opposed to certain lifestyle choices that they engage in. I do not condemn such people, because it is not my place to condemn, and I do not seek opportunity to disparage or insult. I seek to speak with love and consideration, but if the matter of certain behaviors comes up, I will bear my honest testimony based upon the word of God. Thus, I will love my fellow man, but I will not compromise my conscience.

And as I’ve considered this conviction, I’ve realized that it is only from such a foundation that love can be unconditional and reliable. As I consider my own relationship with Christ, I must confess that for a long time I was his enemy, openly disobeying his word as a pattern of life, even though I knew he stood against it. But what does Paul teach of God’s attitude towards enemies like me?

“But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us,” (Romans 5:8).

God loved me, and sent His son to die for me, while I was still a sinner, still an enemy to everything that He stood for. And if He loved me when I was His enemy, what more could I do to lose His love? He was already diametrically opposed to me, so it didn’t matter what I did, His love was always still there. It was the surest, most unconditional thing that I have ever had.

A Sure Foundation)

And I truly believe that this is true for sincere disciples of Christ also. We are able to be opposed to sin yet still love the sinner. I would not consider myself to be your enemy, but perhaps you consider me such. Fine, so be it. Then I am at least an enemy that loves you. And even as you continue to do enemy things, and work against me, I will still love you.

Isn’t it obvious that the love that says, “Even though I disagree, even though I will never support your cause…I still love you as a brother or sister” is more powerful than the love that would say, “I will compromise all of my convictions to make you happy?”

Speaking for myself, I would far rather have 100 enemies who still had the basic love of humanity for me, than one “friend” who abandoned his convictions to be by my side. I could always trust in the love that came from the person rooted in his convictions. The “love” of the friend who has abandoned his core is far more unpredictable and conditional.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 23:4-5

4 If thou meet thine enemy’s ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again.

5 If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him.

We have already seen laws establishing the penalty for stealing a neighbor’s livestock, or for losing them while they were on loan, but today we see the responsibility of actually being a good neighbor, of going out of one’s way to help another in his time of need. Even when it is a neighbor that isn’t particularly liked.

If a person saw his enemy’s animal wandering, lost from its master, he was obligated to bring it back. If he saw it having collapsed under too heavy of a burden, he was obligated to relieve it. Not just encouraged, but obligated under the law. In fact, the phrase “and wouldest forbear to help him” suggests that if the thought arises in the person’s mind that he would rather not help his neighbor, then he is especially compelled to do exactly that! This is a good metric to gauge when our relationships with other people has gone too far astray: do we actively wish to not help them? And it gives us a good solution to turn things back around: then help them regardless!

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 17:8-9

8 Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim.

9 And Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek: to morrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in mine hand.

The account makes a sudden and dramatic shift, telling us now of an army of Amalekites that came to fight with Israel, even while they were still in the wilderness. As we have already seen, Israel’s sojourn in the wilderness was a time for them to prepare for life in the Promised Land. They had already had several lessons on how to rely upon the Lord and obey His word exactly, and now they were rehearsing the art of war, something that they would become very familiar with when they strove against the Lord’s enemies in the land of Canaan, including the Amalekites.

This is not the first that we have heard of the Amalekites, either. We heard of their forebearer back in Genesis 36:16, Amalek, who was the grandson of Esau, who was the brother of Jacob, who was himself the forebearer of the Israelites. As noted at the time, many of the nations that Israel fought in Canaan were people that branched off from the covenant bloodline. These fallen-away nations were a perfect foil to the Israelites, because they were similar, with a shared root, but had been twisted in pagan ways. They represent the beast that is too familiar, the evil that is too close for comfort, the worst version of our own selves.

The coming fight with the Amalekites also foreshadows Israel’s future in another way. Moses chose Joshua to lead God’s people in this battle, just as he would be chosen to preside over all of Israel after Moses’s death. Moses explains that he will help Israel in their fight, but from afar, while Joshua would be down in the ranks with them. So, too, Moses’s law would continue to aid and guide Israel after his passing, while Joshua would continue in the ranks.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Deeper Into Enemy Territory

Recovery is a multi-stage journey. I, and many of the other addicts that I have known, experienced an initial battle with temptation and eventually a victory over it, only to feel new battles springing up around us some time later. After the initial success, we tend to experience setbacks, or new addictions forming off to the side, and it makes us doubt the control we thought we had gained. Most great battles in recovery seem to be followed by a sequel.

As I have reflected on this phenomenon, the thought has occurred to me that the more you press against your foe, delving further into the heart of enemy territory, the more unpredictable and treacherous the terrain becomes. The initial push and triumph in recovery feels fantastic, but that is nothing more than breaking through the front lines. Yes, it is a victory, but you have yet to capture the capitol. Or, to shift metaphors, perhaps you have chased the bear from your home, but in so doing you have followed it into its lair where greater challenges await.

Virtually every addict finds that his bad behavior comes about by the following sequence:

  1. He has many hurts and frustrations in his life
  2. Those hurts and frustrations put him into a perpetually dejection and faithless state
  3. While depressed and faithless, temptation easily has its way with him

The first fight for recovery has to do with short-circuiting this pattern. The addict learns how to manage or mitigate his pain, removing unnecessary afflictions, ending negative relationships, and stopping behaviors that add stress. Less frustration means less dejection, and less dejection makes him stronger against temptation.

And this is all well and good, but the solution will last only as long as his management and mitigation efforts are effective. Sooner or later life will throw something new and unexpected, as it always does, and all his perceived progress will be undone. He will find out that his sobriety is dependent on life being easy, and no one’s life is always easy.

So the addict must go further into enemy territory, deeper into the heart of the problem. Sooner or later he has to learn to break the connection between the pain of life and becoming dejected. He has to learn how to be peaceful and content, no matter the simultaneous pain. This is a very difficult thing to do, of course, but if he can succeed in this critical battle, then the world will no longer have any power over him. He will have captured the heart of the enemy’s power, and the war will be over.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Anger Makes an Enemy

Raising a voice in anger, using insulting language, and swearing exhaust all forms of fear and coercion that we can impose on another before all that remains is to become physically violent. Shouting at other people communicates that we are one step from physically hurting them.

Shouting is, of course an antagonistic form of persuasion, as opposed to friendly forms of persuasion like reasoning, convincing, and offering. Shouting is to get the other person to give us what we want, though it personally hurts them to do it. As such, shouting communicates: that we are an antagonist, an enemy, a hater of the person. We can say that we do not hate the other just because we are shouting at them, but the message that others will receive is clear.

I have watched two people reassure one another of their friendship even in the middle of a shouting match, but as shouting became the standard form of communication between them, soon all talk of friendship ceased and they angrily parted ways. One must understand that whenever they raise a voice in anger, they raise the risk of ending the relationship forever. How often is that worth getting what we want in the moment?

So do we really mean to imply all that we imply when we shout at another person? Do we really want to tell our kids, our spouse, our friends, our coworkers, or our neighbors that we are their enemy, that we hate them, and that we are close to violence? Do we want to tell that to strangers and acquaintances just because they make a mistake or a social gaffe towards us? Do we even want to tell that to social rivals just because they have deeply held beliefs that contradict our own? When another person shouts at us first, does even that justify us in showing them the same message of hate in return?

Certainly we are justified to reason, to correct, to call out, and to oppose at all times. I would even say that at certain times there are those individuals and situations that are deserving of the threat of violence and hatred that we give in an angry shout, but these are very far and few between.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Respect in Our Differences- Personal Example

I disagree with you, but that’s okay. Is this something that we can respectfully look one another in the eye and say? So often in this world to disagree with another is to hate them. To hold a different opinion is a an irredeemable crime, it makes one a mortal enemy.

Absolutely I feel that we should evangelize for what we believe in, and should try to share what truths we have gained with those that are receptive to them. But some people will not wish to share in them, and the test is whether we can accept that graciously.

Without a doubt, each of us know people who we feel are unequivocally in the wrong. Or at the very least, are more wrong than us! Can we maintain that they are wrong, but also still a worthy person?

I have a friend who is an atheist. We spoke about religion a few times, and I am pleased to say it was always respectful from both sides. Each of us was genuinely curious to just understand one another better without judgment. In the end, my friend still thinks that I am naïve, and I think that he is cynical. We therefore see fundamental flaws in one another. I think that he is wrong, he thinks that I am wrong… And yet we still think that one another is a good friend.

Would it be nice if my friend became a believer? Of course. I honestly feel it would be a source of great joy to him. But for now it is not necessary for him to agree with me, only that he and I do the disagreeing respectfully.