Posted on by Abe Austin

A Loving Relationship with Christ- Love Without Obedience

Love via Obedience)

In yesterday’s post we gave both an acknowledgement and a question. Yes, Jesus does love you, but how do you love him back? Can someone say that they genuinely care for their Savior while shamelessly performing the very sins that make him suffer to death? Surely, genuine love for the Lord must look different.

The scriptures detail exactly what genuine love would look like. Jesus, himself, said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments,” (John 14:15).

We also learned yesterday the importance of knowing Jesus. There, too, the scriptures tell us how to do so.

“And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments,” (1 John 2:3).

“Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him,” (1 John 3:6).

The message of the scriptures is clear. If we want to do our part to gain salvation, we must love and know the savior, and the means and the fruit by which we come to love and know the savior is by keeping his commandments.

The Proper Framing)

There is an important distinction that we must make here, though. We are not saying, “keep the commandments to make it into heaven,” or “do enough good works that you deserve to be saved.” Those sorts of messages make people overwhelmed and uncomfortable, and well they should, because they stray from the true theology.

When we focus primarily on the works, we stop being motivated by love, which is supposed to be the core of our behavior. It is entirely possible to do good works without love, and those offerings are not acceptable to the Lord, as Cain famously learned.

We should always frame our obedience to the commandments as a natural extension of our love of him. We should say, “he loved me first, and he died for me, and me following his word is just the way that I love him back.” Any time we feel that our works are being driven by a different motivation, such as fear, we need to recenter ourselves on love.

Posted on by Abe Austin

A Loving Relationship with Christ- Reciprocated Love

The Need to Know)

In the last post we made clear that all of us are loved by Jesus, all of us are offered salvation in his name, but not all of us who call upon that name will actually be saved. What, then, still remains? What must be paired with the love of Jesus for us to be redeemed?

Well, continuing with the scripture from yesterday, what explanation did Jesus give to those that would be rejected from his kingdom. He said, “And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matthew 7:23).

Contrast that with Jesus’s description of eternal life was: “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3).

Both of these passages use the very “know.” Clearly, “knowing” has something to do with those that are saved and those that are not. But let’s look at two more verses to expand this further.

“Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment,” (Matthew 22:37-38).

“He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love,” (1 John 4:8).

Here, the verb “know” is joined by “love.” Thus, we need to know Christ, and be known by him, and also part of that knowing is loving the Almighty, which is the greatest commandment that we are called to do.

Divine Relationship)

So yes, being loved by Jesus is an essential part of our salvation but so is loving him back. We need to be known by him, but also, we need to know him. In a word, we need “relationship.” This is the part that we were missing in yesterday’s post, this is why salvation is a two-way street. Being loved without reciprocation is not a relationship, and it isn’t enough for a man to be redeemed by.

We started this study by considering those who openly defy the commandments of God, but justify it by saying, “Jesus loves me just the way I am,” suggesting that their salvation was made sure by the fact that Jesus cared for them. They are correct that Jesus loves them, but that was only ever half the requirement for salvation.

To these people the correct response is, “Yes, Jesus does love you, but how do you love him back?”

Posted on by Abe Austin

A Loving Relationship with Christ- Unconditional Love

Awe-inspiring Love)

I mentioned in my last post that those who excuse sinful behavior by saying Jesus loves us, and always will, do have some truth to their claims, but also some falsehood. Let us first consider what is true.

It is, in fact, true, that Jesus loves us virtually unconditionally. There is the special case of the Sons of Perdition and denying the Holy Ghost, but I believe the vast majority of us do not even qualify for these categories. Pretty much all of us have never done anything that puts outside the reach of Jesus. Though we may have been unquestionably selfish, may have hurt other people and ourselves, may have given ourselves to all manner of lusts, yet the love of Jesus remains firm, and he offers grace to us all.

This is an incredible promise. Indeed, it is so incredible, that I think it is hard to really take it seriously. Such unconditional, patient, persistent love is so strange and unfamiliar when compared to our usual earthly relationships. I know that for myself, I truly had no real grasp on this sort of love for most of my life. I had to see echoes of it in some very special people to really comprehend it at all.

This truth of the gospel cannot be understated, and insofar as a disciple of Jesus truly has a conviction of this, they are in the right. But now let us consider where one can take this truth and go astray.

Half of a Bridge)

Yes, Jesus’s love for us is unconditional, and he offers salvation to us all, but that doesn’t mean we are guaranteed to end up on the right hand of God. Jesus’s love and mercy is an essential component of salvation, but it is not the only essential component. It is only half of the bridge between us and God, useless without the other half.

Jesus, himself, made this very clear with his own words: “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven,” (Matthew 7:21).

Those who say “Lord, Lord,” but are denied the kingdom of heaven will surely be people who were loved by Jesus, who had their sins paid for by Jesus, who had the offer of salvation extended to them by Jesus…but none of that is the same as actually being saved.

In the following posts, we will explore more of what is required of us to connect our half of the bridge to Christ’s, but I hope it is already clear that while Christ’s love for us is unconditional, our place by his side is not. Jesus has freely given all of us a path, but we still have to walk it!

Posted on by Abe Austin

A Loving Relationship with Christ- False Comforts

Twisting the Love of Christ)

There are a number of false doctrines relating to our relationship with God that are taught in the world today. There are those that say God does not exist and there is no absolute moral truth, so we may do whatever society will allow. There are those that say God does exist, and we must obsess over every shortcoming, trying to attain perfection on our own. But it is not as though unbelief is always paired with moral depravity, and belief with moral legalism. There are also those that mix the two in strange ways.

One example that I have seen repeatedly are so-called Christians who live in or support direct violations of God’s commands, and when challenged on that incongruity say something along the lines of, “Jesus loves us, no matter what we do.” Because they know Jesus loves everyone, they are sure that he accepts everyone, and to suggest otherwise is a hateful suggestion that he really doesn’t love anybody.

In short, they conflate love with acceptance and twist the gospel message. It is a difficult issue to disentangle, because they actually do have a correct understanding of the nature of Christ, but a terrible misunderstanding of what that actually means in regard to our salvation.

Roadmap)

In the course of this study, I am going to try and correct this confusion. I am going to start by acknowledging the points that the morally liberal Christian gets right but then show where they go astray. I will use scriptures to establish what the correct conception of our relationship with Christ is, and the signs by which we can gauge how aligned we are with those truths.

My purpose in doing this is not to be cruel to those who invoke the love of Christ incorrectly. To be frank, I do believe that they need to be awoken to the pain and guilt of wrong actions, but not because I desire ill for them, but because for all of us this is the first step to true healing and joy. I seek to dispel the palliative lies, only so that we can live in the healing truth.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Redeemed Through Christ- Part Two

This last Sunday I was invited to speak to my congregation, where I shared my personal experience with redemption. I posted the first half of that message yesterday, now here is the rest of it.

Part Two)

There is another pairing I saw in my journey of redemption that I would like to share as well. It is the pairing of Jeus’s unconditional love for me, and my love for him.

Just before I began my path of recovery, and wrote that letter to my wife, if you had asked me if Jesus loved me, I would have said, “of course!” But just as with my testimony of his atonement, it was only something I knew in my head. I did not feel it in my heart.

It wasn’t just ignorance, either, I was actively keeping his love away. I did not love myself, did not see how anyone could, and I certainly did not want the love of the most perfect being in the universe. I didn’t deserve it, so I couldn’t receive it. It was my therapist who started to break those paradigms. His name was Corey Holmgren. 

When I first met Corey, I was already breaking down the facade I had so carefully built up, and was now identifying with the shameful me underneath. But Corey helped me to see that underneath the shameful me there was also a wounded me, and under the wounded me, was a Son of God. And it was that Son of God, not the facade, the shame, or the wound, who was the real me. And that Son of God was lovable forever.

Where this really hit home was when Corey introduced me to a brotherhood of men also seeking recovery, and I cannot describe how paradigm-shifting of an experience it was to tell that brotherhood all of my deepest shames and regret, all the things that I thought it would kill me to tell to another person, and to have them respond by still loving me and wanting to be my friends. I didn’t know that that could happen. We were actively testing the promise in James 5:16: “Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed,” and we found that promise to be true. And by seeing that sort of unconditional love in other men, I started to  believe that that love could be in God and Jesus as well.

In time, I came to hear these messages firsthand from my Savior. He and I had long conversations, where He took my mind back to experiences in my past, experiences that had built a wall between me and Him, and He showed me how His frame of that experience was different from my own, and that the wall was only on my side, and that I could take it down now, if I wanted, because it was keeping out the love that He had always had for me.

I became much more confident in the love of Christ, but like I said, there is a pairing here. Being loved by Jesus brought me to a certain level of redemption, but being able to sincerely love Him back was what made it complete.

I learned this on my recovery journey when I had a relapse. By that point, I genuinely felt comfortable in the love of Jesus, I still felt sure of it, but for the first time I realized that it wasn’t complete. It was a melody that needed a harmony. I prayed for God to come into my cold heart, but instead I felt the impression to start looking for a hymn to sing. Very quickly, I was led to a hymn I had never heard before, it’s not even in our own hymnal, called My Jesus, I Love Thee. I knew I had to sing it, out loud. I’ll spare you the singing, but I’d like to recite for you the first verse of that song:

My Jesus I love Thee, I know Thou art mine
For Thee all the follies of sin I resign
My gracious Redeemer, my Saviour art Thou
If ever I loved Thee my Jesus ’tis now

This song was a redeclaration of my love to Jesus, and as I sang it, I felt my heart come back to life. The tears flowed, and I learned that just as there is a Son of God inside of me that can always receive Jesus’s love, that Son of God can always love him back, even in my lowest moments.

A one-way love is charity; but reciprocated love is a relationship, and relationship is what Jesus ultimately seeks to redeem us back to. Relationship, being known and loved by Christ, and knowing and loving him back, is the literal definition of eternal life. John 17:3: “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” 

My experience of redemption is the most precious thing in my life. It is the story of me that I value the most, the one I hope to be most defined by. It isn’t just a story for me, though. It is meant to be the story of each and every one of us. And though this story can play out universally, in each instance it is totally unique. Every person’s story of redemption is their own, beautiful and different from any other. It is the most interesting story that any of us have to tell. 

For most of my life the principles of Redemption were ones that I believed in my head, but now I know in my heart that they are true. I hope that these things are true for you as well, or that they soon will be. In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Grit vs Surrender- The Beginning of Good

The Greatest Commandment)

Yesterday I shared scriptures which assert that refusing to surrender one’s will to God leads to all manner of evil, selfishness, and causing harm to the world. Today, I wanted to consider one other passage, the one where Jesus is asked which is the greatest commandment in the law:

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
-Matthew 22:37-39

Loving the Lord with all of one’s heart, soul, and mind involves offering each of those to Him, which is elsewhere summarized in the scriptures as our will “being swallowed up in the will of the Father” (Mosiah 15:7). Jesus listing this as the first commandment suggests that it is of a higher priority, but that it is not all. By putting it first, he is suggesting an order. Devotion to God naturally comes before loving our neighbor as ourselves. Thus, if not surrendering one’s will to God leads to harming the world, then surrendering one’s will to God leads to healing the world.

While the world may no longer be convinced of the importance of submitting to God, we do still value helping and treating one another with kindness. We value it, but also we are really bad at it. By inverting the proper order and putting self and fellow-man before submission to God, we have broken the entire sequence. We want to be good to each other, but we don’t want to submit to God, and so we end up treated each other horribly instead, violating our own ideal. Any cursory glance at the contention in our modern society will bear that out. The only way to get back to civility and compassion will be by putting things back in their proper order and first loving the Father and submitting to His will, just as Jesus taught.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Faulty Premises- A Better Example

Scrutinize Premises)

Over the last two posts we discussed two social movements which made their gains under slogans that were untrue. For feminism, its “what a man can do, a woman can do as well,” was explicitly false, describing an equivalency that never has and never will exist between the sexes. For the LGB movement, its “love is love,” was implicitly false, as the subtext of that statement was that “any romantic or sexual union was good and equal to any other,” which we easily disproved yesterday.

The fact that each movement was founded on a lie means that either the changes being championed were either motivated by the wrong reasons or were fundamentally wrong no matter the motivation. Since each movement prevailed by getting society to accept its false premises, society was then set on a track that could only lead to harm the further it was pursued.

As mentioned at the start of this study, every movement is trying to convince society of some premise, which, if accepted, naturally leads to the changes that the movement desires. We should highly scrutinize any such premise, as if it is accepted its effects will go far beyond its initial campaign. We need premises that are good and true. Even if our cause is just, but the premise is faulty, then the long-term damage will be worse than any short-term positive outcome. And if our cause is not just, then the premise will always be faulty, no matter how we try to work it.

Hate and Love)

To finish this series, I wanted to present an example of another campaign slogan, one that has at its core a truer premise. When I think of Martin Luther King Jr.’s branch of the Civil Rights, one of the key phrases that defined that movement was, “hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.” This was a premise which, if accepted, would lead his followers to treat their foes with kindness, would encourage onlookers to join the cause of brotherly love, and would make his foes question their motivations. Thus, it was a premise which, if accepted, would likely lead to the changes that the movement sought for.

But we dare not only consider its short-term effectiveness, we also have to consider the truth of the statement itself. It wouldn’t matter how noble King’s motivations were, or how good his short-term objectives were, if the banner by which he got there was twisted against reality.

As with the “love is love” slogan, let us consider the subtext of these words. The “hate” that Martin Luther King Jr. is referring to is that of one group of people seeking to harm another, and the “love” that he is referring to is one group of people showing kindness and grace to another. King is presenting love and hate as opposites, and just as only light can illuminate the darkness, and only filling can remedy emptiness, and only good can overcome evil, so, too, only love can drive out hate.

Notice that hate is both a state and an action. If there is a state of hate in the world, and we attempt to erase it through more acts of hate, we leave those acts behind to be the new state of hate. Hate used as a cure produces more of itself—and invites another cycle. It is trying to wipe away filth with mud; thus, no matter how much we scrape away, we keep adding more grime. Hate therefore requires a different active force to extinguish it, an anti-hate. Something that can dispel hate, without regenerating it. Anti-hate means the opposite of hate, and as mentioned before, the opposite of hate is love.

To me, the underlying logic of King’s slogan was sound, and therefore worthy of being adopted. Not only for the changes that it would cause in the Civil Rights, but because any further changes downstream would likely be sound and positive as well.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Faulty Premises- Trojan Horses

What is Love?)

In the last post we examined the feminist movement, and the explicitly false statement, “what a man can do, a woman can do as well.” As I pointed out, anything built on a twisted foundation was sure to lead to twisted outcomes down the road.

Now, let’s consider another example, one that is more subtle. Around 20 years ago the LGB movement (as it was known then) entered the mainstream and claimed many victories in social and legal status. If there were a single, defining slogan of this campaign, it must have been that “love is love.”

This is an interesting statement because it is, on the surface, obviously true. It is a tautology. If love is equivalent to anything, it must be love. But, of course, the slogan means more than just that. In addition to its explicit meaning is an implicit one. The “love” at the start of the assertion stands for the sexual and romantic relationships that the LGB community engaged in, and the “love” at the end stands for either traditional, heterosexual marriage, or for the abstract concept of love, which is considered to be one of the greatest goods. Thus, “love is love” is standing in for, “my relationship is just the same as yours,” or “my sexual or romantic relationship is always good.”

And these more specific claims are obviously false. I believe that all of us can think of multiple sexual and romantic unions that we would label as bad and different from the ordinary. Polyamory, incest, AI sexbots, pedophilia, and bestiality all come immediately to mind.

A Slippery Slope)

Of course, back when the LGB movement was really gaining traction, there were many who foretold of even worse sexual perversion being championed later on. This is the argument that is classically known as “the slippery slope.” It is important to note, though, that this slippery slope was not simply an argument of “once you given them some advantage, they’ll press it for more and more,” it was, “the premise by which you justify this change also justifies more.” It was therefore not idle fearmongering, but a reasonable analysis of the movement’s central logic.

Maybe those in the LGB movement of 20 years ago only meant “love is love” to secure legal marriage for gay couples, but once Pandora’s Box was opened, once the rising generation was inculcated with the belief that anything under the umbrella of “love is love” goes, then that logic would necessarily lead to further transformation.

In my last post I mentioned the transgender movement as being downstream from feminism. It is also clearly downstream of the LGB movement, giving that acronym its now-familiar T. If there is no difference between men and women, and every kind of sexual identity is good, then transgenderism has to be a logical conclusion of those two premises. Even as transgenderism has seen a sharp decline in popularity over the last year, it remains to be seen if the faulty premises of feminism and the LGB movement will also decline. If not, then you can be sure that we have not yet seen the end of their unintended consequences.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Commitment to the Ideal: A Richer Soil

A Difficult Requirement)

Yesterday I spoke of the trouble in having all of our relationships and commitments based purely on the attributes of the other person. If we only show love and devotion to those who love and are devoted to us, then we are not following Christ’s mandate to “bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matthew 5:44).

How do we offer such blessing, and good, and prayers, to those that are unpleasant to us. And how do we “give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver?” (2 Corinthians 9:7).

Love for the Ideal)

The answer that I have found is that we must have a love for the principle and ideal, one that is even more foundational to us than love for the individual. As I consider our society today, I see a great need for people who are not just devoted to their spouse, but to the very idea of marriage in-and-of-itself. We need people who are not just committed to taking care of their children, but who are committed to the role of fatherhood or motherhood itself. We need people who are not just supporters of their friends, but who are supporters of friendship itself.

If people loved marriage, loved parenthood, loved friendship, and loved neighborliness, then they could continue to act in those roles even when the other side of those relationships turned cold. If, instead, when companions turn from us, we abandon our relationship with them, we reveal that marriage, parenthood, friendship, and neighborliness never really meant anything to us at all. We just wanted to get, and if we couldn’t get, we wouldn’t be had.

Of course, I would advise anyone that they should marry someone that they genuinely love, and raise their kids to be people that they genuinely like, and build friendships with people that are genuinely good for them, and settle down in a neighborhood that is genuinely inviting. I believe it is right and wise to plant one’s relationships in promising ground, but sometimes the topsoil erodes, and roots must cling to something deeper if the relationship is to survive.

A Choice of Who to Be)

If one does not care whether the relationship survives after the initial excitement has worn off, then they hold a very shallow view of what it means to be a spouse, a parent, a friend, and a neighbor. They will never have a relationship of true depth and meaning. They will live petty and forgettable lives.

If, on the other hand, one remains committed to a marriage, a parent-child relationship, a friendship, and a community, through good times and bad, then that is a person whose bonds actually mean something. That is a person who is living a life of value.

At the end of the day, we are temporal, transient beings, and also the other people in our lives, so our commitment to them is naturally temporary and dynamic as well, ever shifting from moment to moment. We can, however, have a deep, abiding, and overriding commitment to an ideal. We can always believe in marriage, in fatherhood and motherhood, in friendship, and in neighborliness. We can be devoted to those ideals even when the relationship to the other person grows stale. We can continue giving of ourselves to those ideals with a passionate and cheerful heart, no matter how we feel about the person receiving on the other side. It is our commitment to the ideal that will see us through every drought and flood, every change of season, and every passing year.