The different "flavors" of Christianity

I came to Christ my senior year in high school at a Nicky Cruz Crusade in 1971. Cruz came to Christ through David Wilkerson who was of a more charismatic persuasion. 

My first church was a fundamentalist Independent Baptist Church (the John Rice, Jack Hyles, Jack Van Impe legalistic variety...if you are old enough to remember those dudes). Before that I was unchurched. Neither of my folks were practicing faith of any kind, though my mom was raised Catholic and my dad grew up in the Church of Christ, but had walked away from the church as a young man and never returned. 

A year after I came to Christ, I went to Lynchburg Baptist College (now Liberty U) and then transferred to Columbia Bible College (now Columbia International U) after two years. I graduated from Columbia in 77. Columbia's theological roots were in the Keswick or "deeper life" movement. 

While at Columbia, I was exposed to a whole spectrum of views through the various students and faculty, from Reformed, to Arminian, to deeper life, to charismatic. I also started reading folks like Francis Schaeffer and CS Lewis and some works out of a more Reformed tradition. I eventually landed in an Orthodox Presbyterian Church after College for a couple of years -- which is on the far right theologically and the most conservative spectrum of Reformed churches. Solid doctrinally for the most part, but very little life. I found the label "the frozen chosen" to be appropriate. They were all "up in their heads" and somewhat oblivious in their approach to the mysteries of the Spirit and how to live in God's presence (or possibly it was more my lack of spiritual maturity, and I was not ready to hear whatever they offered in this area). I learned a ton theologically while there, however, and became more convinced and grounded in a Reformed theological outlook.

With my then-growing family (2 already born and one on the way) we moved to Massachusetts in 1982 to open a sales office for my business. While there we attended a Christian Reformed Church (Dutch Reformed) for about 4 years, then a Congregational Church for about 6 years eventually landing in a Baptist church for around 6 years (my wife had left our marriage and the Baptist church had a strong youth group which I attended for the benefit of my 4 kids, ages 12, 11, 9 and 7 at that time). 

After living in Massachusetts for approximately 16 years, I moved to the West Coast and attended an Evangelical Wesleyan Church for 4 years, eventually landing in a non-denominational Charismatic Church (co-pastored by 2 brothers) for 13 years, where I taught an adult bible class for 12 of those years.

I moved to Texas - since my daughter and her husband were considering starting their family (they have a son now) - and attending a Baptist church (in name only...which they keep under wraps) that operates more like a Presbyterian church in its form of government (e.g. a plurality of elders/pastors) and also in their eschatology, but also like a charismatic church in their style of worship.  

The main thing Baptist about them is that they practice adult Baptism. Otherwise, they even enjoy a good glass of wine or a beer - definitely not the kind of Baptist Church I used to attend. (They also do not emphasize the "cultural mandate" and exercising dominion over all aspects of culture, which is more common in Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed circles).

Why my church history? I have seen a lot of shapes and varieties of churches and the full theological spectrum within the church as a whole. I have observed what I feel are the good and not-so-strong sides of these various groups and drawn some conclusions along the way. The following are the differences I have seen. I am not suggesting I am right necessarily, only giving you my observations and understanding. In the following thoughts, I will discuss these and mainly compare and contrast the broader groups of Charismatic to non-Charismatic.

Charismatics

Charismatics tend to draw their sense of God's love through his present work and activity, such as experiences and manifestations of his love in and through his Spirit and various spiritual gifts. They are more experience and feeling-oriented in how they approach God, tending to look to experiences/manifestations as much as God's word, sometimes giving personal encounters with God more weight than scripture. Given the inclination of our fallen hearts, I have concluded this ¹can be and often is very shaky ground to stand on. They tend to be so focused on present experience that they can lose sight of the significance, importance, and completeness of God's past work in and through Christ and the vast depth and richness of that work for us in our day-to-day lives i.e. they tend to chase present experiences/manifestations of God instead of appreciating the rock-solid realities of God's presence due to Christ's work on our behalf, despite present circumstances, experiences, and manifestations or lack of them.

Other Evangelicals

On the other hand, non-charismatic types i.e. Calvinists, Reformed, Baptists, and non-charismatic evangelicals, tend to focus more on God's past work and Christ's future return, with minimum emphasis on his present work i.e. the necessity of ²operating "in the Spirit" and what that means exactly. They have a tendency to draw their sense of God's love through the depth and breadth of Christ's past work - if they do at all. 

My observation is many evangelicals within the non-charismatic part of the church know more about God - in their head - instead of having an ongoing, vital, daily personal relationship and experience of God. This was also true of me for a long time and is something I am constantly discovering more about. 

I find this is where Charismatics are stronger than most other evangelical churches. They at least have some life in them and seek to operate in the Spirit, if not always as strongly grounded in God's word. The downside of this, however, is that Charismatics can confuse some subjective experiences as proof they know God, when their experience may have nothing to do with God. Non-Charismatics, on the other hand, are propositional or doctrine-oriented (even among those who do not consider themselves cessationists or recognize the validity of all the gifts and the various activities of the Spirit). In fact, non-charismatics are so focused on propositional truth in scripture that they confuse knowledge about God with knowing God. (I discuss this further here.) There is little emphasis on seeking God's presence or experiencing manifestations of his presence ²through His Spirit and what that looks like in our day-to-day walk with God. They are so focused on Christ's past work, they can lose sight of God's present ongoing work by His Spirit and what it means and looks like. This is especially true of those in reformed circles, from my experience. 

Both Christ's past work and the Spirit's present work are necessary means by which God shows his love and grace to us and through us. They are equally vital. I would also suggest that for us to experience the latter (the work of the Spirit) as God intends, we must be firmly grounded in the former (the work of Christ). I address this tension throughout the various posts on this blog. To focus primarily on one to the exclusion of the other is missing out on all the vital means by which God reveals himself to us, no matter which side you fall on. 

We cannot emphasize one to the point of minimizing the other or we will miss out on the full benefit of both and the vital connection between them. A key work of the Spirit is to reveal to us the things of Christ. And not just propositionally, but in the day-to-day experience and manifestation of his presence through the various gifts and other means of grace i.e. worship, prayer, meditation, etc. 

Now, in saying all of this, these differences are not absolute distinctions but tendencies. All groups for the most part would say they believe what the other groups emphasize, but from my experience and observation, there is a very definite distinction in practice, even if there is a verbal acknowledgment by each of the other's views and approaches.

I would also add that the last church I attended (Baptist in affiliation) was more "charismatic" than most, and the former charismatic church I was in was far more scripturally oriented than most, with a slight reformed leaning in eschatology, while Arminian in their soteriology. But even with these two more "centrist" churches, there is still a considerable difference between them when you look "under the hood" and see how they operate and what they emphasize. 

For the non-charismatic groups, seeking and knowing the work of the Spirit is vital and a key missing piece. We are under grace because of the past work of Christ. But to be under grace is also to operate in the presence of God by His Spirit. I touch on this more here.  

My last church emphasized the past work of Christ and minimized the present work of the Spirit, as is typical of most non-charismatic churches.

Where I have landed... at present

I have personally been heavily influenced by Jonathan Edwards (1703 - 1758 who was instrumental in the first Great Awakening during the 1730's and 40's) and those who have studied him, such as John Piper (a Baptist), Tim Keller (a Presbyterian), and Kyle Strobel, (a professor at Talbot Seminary - also the son of Lee Strobel, author of "A Case for Christ").

Strobel is considered an Edwards scholar and did his Ph.D. about his understanding of spiritual formation - often referred to as sanctification. Edwards is wordy and also uses the 1700s variety of English - not unlike King James type English minus the "thee's and thou's" etc - which makes him hard to read.  Strobel, however, wades through this and does an excellent job of distilling his work and bringing out key aspects of Edwards's understanding of God in a way we can understand. I highly recommend all his work. The book at this link is a good summary overview by Strobel of what Edwards addresses regarding "spiritual formation" or what most evangelicals call sanctification. 

I have also posted some main truths Edwards discusses, summarized by Strobel here. 

While Edwards (along with the others mentioned) is within the reformed wing of the church, Edwards understands the importance of operating in the presence of God and the role of both our affections and our reason. As some may be aware, he's written an entire treatise on "Religious Affections" in an attempt to address and assess the increase in emotional displays during the "Great Awakening" in the 1730s - e.g. folks loudly crying out to God for mercy, going into trances or convulsions, fainting, weeping sometimes for days, etc. Though he felt there were excesses and counterfeit displays of "the Spirit" he also believed much of this was the work of God. 

(by "religious" Edwards means spiritual, as we would use it today. Not the legalistic performance-based variety common within the Evangelical community today) 

Interestingly, Edwards stresses (correctly I believe) that Christ is the eternal Word of God i.e. the truth and light (knowledge) of God revealed in the flesh and the Spirit is the passion and love of God poured out on us, through which Christ is revealed and the grace of Christ's work is applied (for a further discussion on this click here). Or as Edwards also likes to say, Christ is the light of God and the Spirit is the heat of God. Both knowledge and affection are vital in experiencing all of who God is and offers according to Edwards. So Edwards would not fit well in either a Charismatic or a stereotypical Evangelical church today, or maybe, to say it more positively, he could possibly work well with either. 

The balance and conclusion

Our current walk with God and the presence of the Spirit are anchored in the past work of Christ i.e. the gospel of grace. Without that work and a clear grasp of grace, there wouldn't be our present walk with in and by the Spirit. Our present experience of God is based on a clear and full understanding of this past work.  The truer our understanding, the greater our faith and the stronger we will experience the presence of God through His Spirit and day-to-day walk with God right now, this moment. We are not to focus just on Christ's past work or our future hope of glory but on our present ongoing dependence on/faith in/walk with God. Our experience of God does not start and end with the past work of Christ but only begins there. This past work is the vital foundation for our ongoing participation in the ever-present love of the Father, Son, and Spirit. As scripture says, "the just shall live (present continuous action in the original Greek) by faith" and "If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit" (Gal 5:25) - it is worth noting the context of Galatians is a discussion of being under grace and not the law i.e. there is a direct tie into operating in the Spirit and being under grace. For a further discussion on how the Spirit and grace are connected, click here. 

God did what he did in the past so we might know Him and walk with him in joy and power in every present moment today for the glory of His name. 

___________________________________________________________________

¹Early on in his ministry, George Whitefield approached God in this way but later abandoned it after making a decision on "an impression from the Lord" that later proved to clearly not be His leading. 

²For a discussion on what I believe it means to operate in the Spirit, click here and here. 

For a discussion on being empowered by the Spirit, click here and here. 

Control… Our world disrupted

We do not like to have our world disrupted. We become very comfortable in how we go about things and relate to others because we settle into a pattern. Patterns are predictable. 

We like patterns because they give us an illusion of control over our world and do not require us to trust things or others we can't control. We *hate having to trust unless it's trusting ourselves.

However if a pattern is not healthy, but broken, it needs to be disrupted so it can be revealed to us and abandoned. If we do not address but allow this we will miss out on the riches of God's grace he wishes to extend to us in those particular areas of brokenness.

If we do, that area will become a place of healing and allow us to be more effective in ministering to others in those same areas.

A challenging and painful circumstance is often the primary means by which God accomplishes the above, especially those areas of deepest wound and brokenness we need freeing from the most.

_______________________________________________________

*We hate it because we hate pain. Anything we can do to minimize (control) pain and promote comfort or pleasure, we seek. 

#Disruption #Control #comfortable #thoughtsaboutGod #thotsaboutGod

Law and grace… Which is it?

We approach the law either as a means of performance (to save ourselves) or a means of guidance (grace).

With the former, we attempt to use the law as a means of earning God's acceptance and approval.

With the latter, if we are in Christ, we understand God's acceptance and approval are already secured for us in Christ, not through performance, and now recognize the law is...

* God's loving guidance for us

* the best way to operate according to our design (how and why he made us)

* which leads to our bringing God the greatest honor/glory and

* reaching our maximum potential and fulfillment

* Having the greatest impact on others for God's glory

Our bringing the highest glory to God through our actions is operating to the maximum of our potential and fulfillment i.e. these (God's highest honor and our greatest potential) are not in opposition to each other but the flip side of the same coin so to speak.

The Bible describes the above two dynamics (performance versus guidance) as operating either in the flesh or the Spirit; under the law or under grace. For more on this click here.

For a discussion on living by grace click here

For a discussion on why grace is always necessary, not just at conversion click here.

For a discussion on the value and importance of the law click here.

Liberal vs Conservative or vice-versa...you pick

The conservative/liberal debate is an interesting one and there are some real differences philosophically. 

The heart of the difference is the view of humanity's condition. 

Are we inherently ¹"good" or "bad?"  

If we are good and our problem is our environment/ circumstances then we need to fix these and our problems are solved. 

This view is more common among those with a liberal political leaning and is based on humanism.

If we are bad or corrupt from within, then our hearts must be fixed. Only then will the world get better. 

This is more common in conservative circles, though there are exceptions. However, also common with conservatives is the view that law alone is the primary solution to our problems vs a changed heart.

The real solution... a third way

Ultimately, receiving God's love first and sharing it to each other solves the world's woes. Expecting or looking to politicians or government to bring this about is not. 

The truth is liberals have the right idea but the wrong method, i.e. They recognize the need for love and compassion, often better than conservatives, but tend to count on government and politicians to bring it about through government-run social programs. 

However, corrupt men make up institutions, i.e. apart from God's grace, all institutions are corrupted by being run by men or women whose hearts are corrupt and alienated from their Creator. 

Corrupt institutions (including government) often pass and enforce corrupt laws that reinforce (even institutionalize) corrupt behavior. The solution to man's woes comes from outside us (i.e. God Himself) and addresses what is lacking within us. True and lasting change occurs from the inside out and not the other way around. 

Liberals usually don't recognize the extent of corruption in the hearts of individual men/women. They believe the greatest need for change is in our world/circumstances/institutions, not our hearts i.e. men and women are basically good. Therefore, politically, they are "program" driven and see the solution to the world's woes ultimately in man and the institutions he sets up. Create a program that will fix the broken circumstances/ environment. If it's not working, throw more money at it.  

But an issue with the conservative (as well as the liberal - they just do it in different ways) is the tendency to depend primarily on law (this can lead to a police state and dictatorship and loss of our freedom when taken to the extreme). Though law enforcement is valid and necessary, it does nothing to change the heart of man, nor is it intended to, it simply changes their behavior or removes it from society. This helps keep order, but doesn't get to the heart of the issue (no pun intended). It can only mete out consequences for destructive behavior. But this can lead to soul searching by the perpetrator, which could result in a change of heart. But this is not automatic and a separate topic. Only God can change hearts.  

Government and law enforcement have one primary role, to punish lawbreakers, not change hearts. (for a fuller discussion on this click here).

When men refuse to let their hearts be changed, law enforcement is necessary to prevent people from harming each other. The civil authorities are not in the heart-changing business but the morality enforcement business - i.e. law and order - for the safety of the public at large.   

The bottom line is all politicians tend to consider the solution lies with them/man/government. This goes for both sides of the political aisle.  

Government is not the solution. It has its role but not the bloated role it plays today (both sides practice big government though conservatives tend to preach against it while expanding it at the same time). 

What most don't realize is only 35 years before the American Revolution - which resulted in our Declaration of Independence as a country - we experienced the first Great Awakening as a nation. The people of this country at that time became considerably more aware and alive to our desperate condition spiritually and the need for the love of and for God and our fellow man. This was the soil out of which our "great American experiment" grew, resulting in the first and only government by and for the people.  

The point is our system only works best where men and women are self-governed most i.e. they have a strong sense of individual accountability to their Creator to love him with all their hearts, etc, and love their neighbor as themselves. This further indicates the solution does not lie in government but in people who fear God, starting with those who claim to know Christ and love God 2 Chronicles 7:14.  

This was the key to America's greatness, not our form of government. Our form of government was merely workable because of the spiritual orientation and moral integrity of the citizens. A spiritual orientation, the founders recognized and knew, was vital. This allowed them to set up a form of government with maximum freedom and minimal external restraints. When Benjamin Franklin (who wasn't known for his spiritual devotion) was asked what form of government we decided on, he said..."A Republic, if we can keep it." It is the best form we know of, but only if and when we are self-governed i.e. individual citizens have a high moral sense of accountability to their Creator and fellow citizens. This is also why the solution to our woes is a return to loving God and our neighbor, which is only possible when the hearts of individual men and women are made alive again to God and are moved by His love to live for God and love their neighbor. Once God's kingdom is eventually established on earth, there will be no need for these external restraints since all members will be guided and ruled by the love of God.    

Our form of government was originally intended to protect and preserve our "right" or freedom to pursue our Creator and other rights with minimal government interference. Most politicians advocate (especially the big-budget variety) for laws that are restrictive by taking away our freedom via increasing taxation, regulation, and enforcement.  Government produces nothing and can't grow money (though they try by printing it out of thin air). "We the people" and our individual talents and abilities (which are gifts from our Creator) are what drives the economy, not the government. 

In fact, our corrupt and abusive monetary system is a far bigger problem than most realize, yet no one ever talks about it (at least not in the mainstream news and not to the level of importance it deserves).  

The site below has a short two-minute video about this. This is the reality that NO one is talking about to any significant degree on EITHER side. (Ron Paul spoke of it often. His son, Rand, and even Trump have eluded to it).

²http://demonocracy.info/

The difference between conservatives and liberals is about HOW we divvy up the money, not that there is no real money. Though we have a currency, it's backed by nothing (it used to be backed by gold until Nixon cut its ties in 1971 when he ended the Bretton Woods Agreement). In fact, our "money" is now a debt instrument, the very opposite of an asset. In this way, both conservatives and liberals are exactly the same. They both operate under the pretense that we have an honest money system.  

Does the Bible have anything to say about honest money? Plenty. Here's only a sampling. 

There seems to be an indication that the Trump administration has some level of awareness of this. 

When our monetary system implodes (I believe it's a matter of when not if, unless we change it before then) there will be no money to do any of the things any politicians propose. We will be back to either bartering or a police state, depending on which way government goes and how the masses respond (or don't). Then no one will care about minimum wage or fighting terrorism or whatever you believe are the key issues. 

If we believe man is our solution, we are in for disappointment. Men can be a means of addressing the problem but our solution is and always has been God. We are learning more and more the hard way, exactly that. 

Should we put someone in office we think will do the best job? Absolutely, but we need to spend far more energy praying than focusing on who is in office or wringing our hands about whatever issue has us frazzled (issues such as abortion, are only symptoms and not the cause of our issues), if we wish to see the real solution and real change. Thankfully, at least Trump openly called us to acknowledge God, though some might question his sincerity.

To take a closer look at what made us great as a nation click here. 

For a discussion on what is the kingdom of God, click here. 

For a discussion on the dangers of globalism click here.

For a close look at the difference between true believers and cultural Christians, click here. 

For a closer look at what is the best "economic system" by which a country should operate, click here. 

_________________________________

¹The bible says we were originally made good with the capacity for great good but as long as we reject and remain disconnected from the source of life, love, and all things, we can do no real and lasting (eternal) good. And since we were made for eternity, that is where our primary focus must be if we are to be a healthy and stable society.

²When watching the video on this site, note the dollar amounts referenced on the bottom left side of the video. Obama raised the debt ceiling to 20 Trillion when in office (and this was not just an Obama thing. This has been going on for years by both parties, though Obama increased the debt the most and quickest of any President).

God works with the real you

Our ¹unfaithfulness to God is often the primary way we come to appreciate the value and importance of faithfulness. If we have ²experienced the love and presense of God to any significant degree, unfaithfulness leaves us with a sense of isolation and separation from God and missing His presence.

Though unfaithfulness definitely separates us from God, it is not on God's side, but ours. We have wandered from God; not Him from us. As God's children, he never leaves us and is always working in our unfaithfulness as well as our faithfulness. He, in fact, uses that sense of separation -- along with other consequences -- to call and draw us back to himself.

In this, we can relax, knowing he's ultimately using even our unfaithfulness for our good and his glory and not be concerned about our unfaithfulness in ³this sense. In a significant way, who we are, is who we should be i.e. we should not pretend to be something we are not because we think we are fooling God somehow -- though we might fool ourselves and others -- into thinking we are someone other or better than who we really are OR because we think we will somehow impress God with some feigned faithfulness. We simply need to be our honest, real, and true selves so we can identify and learn from those hidden areas of brokenness and distrust in God. God uses our mistakes to help better see where we need to grow. 

And maybe the most critical point is we will not turn away (repent) from something we deny exists and aren't aware of. If we are always masking our true self with some pretend self, we will never see what needs to be fixed i.e. where we need to let God's love shine and our trust needs to grow. You won't turn away from what you don't think is broken. 

Does this mean we are to deliberately indulge in unfaithfulness so that we will learn? No, it simply means we are who we are and will be who we will be and need to be honest with who we are before we can truly change. Pretending doesn't promote honesty and without honestly there is no true change/repentance. A performance-based approach to God verse a grace-based approach prevents us from seeing the true level of our unbelief/unfaithfulness. We can not turn away from destructive behavior unless we see its destructiveness.

We need to recognize God meets us where we are in all our distrust and brokenness, and works to advance His good purpose in us. We need to allow God to show us who we truly are in our unfaithfulness so we see the real us, in order to truly turn from our brokenness. If we don't see, experience, and feel our true brokenness and the emptiness of our unfaithfulness, we will never sincerely turn. We may make some external changes, but this is not a true change of heart empowered by God's Spirit/grace. Any change that is not Spirit/grace-driven is superficial and ***performance-oriented.

***by performance I mean acting in order to impress either God or others... seeking to earn or gain their acceptance and approval.

On the other side of this, we should also be aware that unfaithfulness always has consequences. Not only does it cause us to lose a sense of God's presence, but it also results in harm to others and ourselves -- not to mention it dishonors God. So for these reasons we should always be alert and seek to become more aware of our unfaithfulness and more diligent in our faithful pursuit of God. 

The point is we should not beat ourselves up over this. This simply is who we are and to recognize Christ already took our beating. The consequences of our unfaithfulness, in themselves, actually become a vital means of our seeing the need to abandon unfaithfulness.

When we come to the place that we clearly and honestly see the importance and value of faithfulness we will not depart from it. It will be our real, lasting, conscious, and deliberate pursuit of God, not superficial and some pretense of pursuing him.

When we do, this too will be who we really are.

For a further discussion on being real click here. 
____________________________________________________

*unfaithfulness being our lack of trust in God displayed by a lack of diligence pursuit of i.e. obedience to God. Lack of trust in God is the essence of sin.

**If you don't experience that sense of loss in your unfaithfulness, you may have never experienced anything significant enough to feel a loss, to begin with i.e. you can't miss what you never had.

However I would also argue we all experience a sense of loss of God, whether we are his children or not, we just don't know it's God we are missing.  All we know is we long for love and when we experience it we want more; the more love we experience the more we long for it.  

The reason we want more is that God is more than anything we can experience through the things and relationships in this life. Whatever little tastes of love we experience in this world can never be enough because we were designed for eternal, infinite love, not temporal finite love. Only infinite, eternal love can fulfill that infinite eternal desire for love built into all of us as God's image-bearers. 

***We should be concerned from the standpoint that we will suffer loss/consequences for our unfaithfulness. But again, this is as it should be and how we learn to be faithful. It is not something to be "uptight" about. God uses all things for our good, including our unfaithfulness. 

Why God is desirable

What makes God desirable?

1. He lacks nothing and needs nothing. 

Nothing we have or can offer Him meets any need of, in or for God. He has none. He is completely whole, other-oriented and self-sufficient. This removes any pressure we might feel to give God anything.

2. He is everything we need and desire. 

All things we seek and desire are ultimately a desire for God. We simply use other things as God substitutes to fill the void of God's absence due to our distrust of him.

3. He truly delights and finds joy in our delighting in Him.

We are created by God and are like Him - in his image - so we might enter into and participate in the joy God has within the eternal, blissful, and all-sufficient community of Father, Son, and Spirit. In short, he overflows in love and desires to share the joy of who he is with us.

This makes him both perfect and beautiful. In a word, desirable. This, in main part, is what makes God beautiful and glorious, full of wonder, worthy of all our worship and praise.

As we come to see God as he truly is, we increasingly come to love and trust him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength and love our neighbors as ourselves.

"Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! 

How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! 

"For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?" 

"Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?"

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. - A doxology of praise by the apostle Paul. Rom 11:32-36

Love at it's source

Love can only come from God's image bearers (you and I) in response to God's love for and to them first.

Though we have the capacity to *love, it is only a capacity. In other words we are able to receive or be loved and respond in love if and when loved by God but absent His love we are unable to give love i.e. we can not initiate love. Any true love we are able to give is only the fruit of being loved. We are not the Source, God is...love.

We were never designed or intended to be the source of love but rather recipients and responders to love that in turn can be conduits (vessels) of love.

And very good ones at that. In fact we alone, of all God's creatures, can consciously and deliberately respond to his love in a way no other of God's creatures/creation can. Though we are not hard wired to initiate love, we are hard wired to receive love, than respond back to God in love and also out to others with His love.

We will not (and can not) love others as God has designed us to (sacrificially), unless we first are loved (sacrificially) i.e. unless we are fully connected to God through Christ, the Source of love, life and all things.

Why? Simply stated, God is love, we are not.

But we are like God in that we can participate in the love that God is. We can enter into the union/fellowship of love between the Father, Son, and Spirit as image bearers of God.  But God alone is the source of love and life and all things. We are image bearers that participate in and reflect that love if and when we receive it.

If we are loving others as God loves us, it is only because we are *experiencing - by believing and trusting in - God's love for us first. We can only love others as God loves us, and will when we do.

If you are wondering if any of this is true, try giving sacrificially, none stop for an extended period and see what happens (such as parents of very young children or an infant). You won't last long. We must retreat to "recharge our batteries." The more we are engaged in sacrificial love and the more frequently we must recharge. We simply can not love without receiving it first to "fill our tank" or we will burn out.

Yes but...

Some may argue,"what about someone throwing themselves on a grenade to save others or a parent sacrificing themselves to save their child etc." First, this impulse is an expression of being in the image of God. We are designed not just to be loved but to give love. 

But note the order of the greatest commandment. We are called to love God first and than our neighbors. Why? Because true God inspired neighbor love flows out of God's love i.e. it comes from God. To say it another way, we would have no neighbor love if it wasn't for God, who is love i.e. it's hard wired into our spiritual/emotional DNA. 

So what is going on when someone who does not profess to know/trust in God, yet sacrifices themselves to save another? Because we are in God's image we can derive a sense of significance in giving up our lives for another. This is unlike God who demonstrates his significance in sacrificing himself [as the Son] for others. God is totally complete within himself as Father, Son and Spirit. We are complete only when in perfect union with Him. 

Without God driving our action, it is our need for significance that drives it i.e. doing a sacrificial act is an act of validating me, my significance, my importance, not honoring God i.e. it is not driven by a desire to honor God but to honor self; for self to be honored and praised by others. Though the very impulse we have to give our self for another comes from how we are wired by God, if we do not acknowledge and act for this reason (to honor God), at it's core, it is ultimately an act for ourselves no matter how much it is also for another. 

If we fully understood our ultimate demise in sacrificing ourselves this way without God being a deliberate and conscious part of the act - i.e. doing it for his honor - I propose we would not do the act i.e. we would not act if we knew our action would usher us into eternity resulting in our ultimate and eternal separation from God, His love and all good things. We act because we either believe our act will cause us to be remembered as a loving person or ultimately save ourselves by winning the favor of God (or Karma or whatever).

If we do not consciously and explicitly act for God's honor in our sacrifice, folks would likely say, "what a noble act and person" after our passing; they would not say, "what a great God they must worship for them to be willing to sacrificially give their life for the benefit of another" i.e. to not act for God's honor first and foremost brings praise and approval to ourselves, not to God.

So there are two parts to our truly loving others in the way God loves. 

1. Being like God. We act like him because we are like him...in his image -- which can happen with anyone, whether consciously connected to God or not.

2. Being loved by God **personally - which in turn empowers us to love others because He loves us. This happens only when we are fully and **deliberately connected to the source of love. 

It is the second part that distinguishes us from those who do not look to God for love and desire to honor God out of that love.
__________________

*When referring to love I am not talking about the warm and fuzzy feelings we all experience when things go our way. This is getting love or being loved. I am talking about extending (giving) kindness, care, thoughtfulness even and especially when it costs us something i.e. sacrificial love. We are not willing nor can we give to others in this way unless we have first received the resources to love in this way i.e. we can not give what we do not have and we do not have God honoring sacrificial love unless we received it first. To love in this way, we must be "plugged in" to the bottomless, infinite source of love...and that isn't us.

**God values all his image bearers generally but unless we recognize our need for God, and deliberately trust in and receive his love we will not partake of it personally. We must turn to Him for this to occur.

#love