Believing we are loved

God telling us we are fully loved does not necessarily mean we believe we are fully loved. We can read and clearly see where God says he loves us and even comprehend the reasons for how and why, but that is not necessarily the same as actually believing it. 

If we are to experience and fully participate in the love that God truly has for us we must accept his assessment, fully believing it is true and reject our own or that of others (including Satan, the great accuser and deceiver).

Indications of unbelief…

How do we know if we are not fully believing? If you ever go through a hardship that causes you to question his wisdom, power, presence, or care/love for you; that very questioning is due to unbelief. I am not saying it's uncommon but it's unbelief nevertheless. 

Or if you choose to follow your directions over his directions, this also tells us we trust ourselves more than God; especially when he has clearly shown you an area you do this that you weren't previously aware of.

This questioning or choosing does not actually stop God's love, but it does prevent us from experiencing and fully participating in it.

Possible causes…

This happens for various reasons but perhaps the biggest reason is it is simply too hard for us to accept love offered to us that has nothing to do with whether we are lovely or not i.e. all our experience of being loved prior to God's love is based almost exclusively on our being "good enough" to be loved (the exceptions might be loving parents and family for those blessed enough to have such people in their life). 

It is hard to comprehend that God's love is based solely on someone else being good enough for us, on our behalf i.e. that someone removed the barrier that obstructed God's love for us and we had nothing to do with or for it. It is fully ours because of someone else's efforts. All we must do is believe it - accept it.

Our having trouble accepting Gods love can also be due to being mistreated so severely that we can not believe we are ever worthy of being loved.

Whatever the reason, we are called to believe God loves us not only because he says so but took action to prove it i.e. he told us the reason Christ came and died is because of God's love. In light of this action, the only question now is if God is for us who can be against us? 

What do you say? Do you believe?

Longing… Painful or Pleasant?

Longing for meaning, purpose, and happiness is both painful and pleasant. 

Too long for something is to desire what you do not have. 

To not have what you desire is to feel lack or emptiness. 

To lack or be empty is not pleasant but painful.

However, there is also no longing without hope.

If we have no hope, we cannot allow ourselves to feel longing out fear of not getting what we long for.

Without hope, our longing must be shut down or numbed or it will drive us to despair.  The reason people commit suicide is they lose hope. 

If we have hope of obtaining what we long for, we pursue it with excitement and anticipation of fulfillment. The greater the hope, the greater the excitement and anticipation. 

For these reasons, longing is both painful and pleasant at the same time.

Rom 8:24  For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25  But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. 

Rom 15:13  May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope. 

Changed by love...literally

God's love for us is the means of our transformation/sanctification/ spiritual formation.

Prior to eternity, we experience his love *primarily by faith. In our present existence, we are called to believe that he loves us no matter what we are going through. The main proof of his love is the past work of Christ on our behalf.  

*I say primarily by faith because God occasionally demonstrates his love through our experience and circumstances. But even these we benefit from by faith (do you know for sure a positive experience or circumstance is from the hand of God? Yes, but by faith i.e. it could be things went well by luck or happenstance. Of course, we know for the true believer there is no such thing as luck or happenstance. But we know this by faith as well) and these are still secondary to the demonstration of his love for us in Christ's past work on our behalf. 

Once we go into eternity we experience his love firsthand by sight. As we continue to gaze upon him and take in his love we are transformed and our capacity for that love expands throughout eternity.

An illustration:

What is fascinating about talents shows like "American Idol" and "The Voice" is the transformation that occurs with the contestants as they continue to progress in the competition. As they do their view of themselves changes. Often after years of rejection and no recognition, they are beaten down and begin to doubt they have anything worthwhile to offer. They must believe against all odds to continue. 

But as they progress on the show they are confirmed in their belief/confidence and begin to have that belief reinforced that they really are capable after all and do have something valuable that others want. They begin to believe in their own value and talent. As they do you notice they become more relaxed, more confident and even more creative and productive (and if they recognize their gifts are from God, more humble). They begin to perform in ways they didn't know they were capable of. In short, they actually look better and perform better. The full talent that they possess blossoms more and more. 

This is a picture of the transformation that occurs with the child of God as they begin to realize God really does love and value them.

The big difference, of course, is our value is not based on our talents and efforts but ultimately on that of another i.e. on Christ's efforts on our behalf.

Hating evil or loving your enemies?

Hate is not necessarily bad. To hate and fight against that - i.e. evil - which destroys others we are entrusted to love, protect, and care for, is actually loving those being destroyed by what we hate.

Nevertheless, it is not our job individually or collectively as the church to repay evil with evil.

While it is legitimate to call out, expose, and even resist evil (harmful and destructive behavior); to exercise retaliation or retribution against evil is not. That is God's job.

However, how that is worked out in real life is not always as cut and dried as we might prefer.

There is a tension that lies within what appears to be contradictory teachings in scripture.

There are two distinctions that need to be made to sort this out. We have to distinguish between: 

1. Self-defense vs punishment/retribution. 

And also between 

2. Personal vs civil punishment/retribution.

I will address personal vs civil punishment/retribution first.

God has appointed civil authorities to punish wrongdoing per Romans 13. So the punishment of wrongdoing is legitimate and necessary. But Scripture indicates that punishment of evil is assigned by God only to governing authorities and not just anyone in general. Governing authorities are appointed by God to reward good and punish evil (Rom 13:3-4; I Pet 2:14).

On the personal/private level, however, Christ teaches us (as private individuals and followers of Christ) to love our enemies, forgive those who do evil against us, and to turn the other cheek. 

These are two very different ways of handling evil. To resolve this we must understand that scripture distinguishes between the civil and personal (or public and private if you will) in addressing evil. 

As an example, during his campaign speeches, the crowds called for Trump to lock up Clinton for two reasons. 1. They (as individual private citizens) do not have the legitimate authority to do so. 2. Therefore they were appealing to Trump to do so (a not yet, but soon to be appointed civil authority). 

This is the same reason a policeman can legitimately take a life when a private citizen can not, assuming an officer is doing so legitimately within their allowed sphere of authority. 

Only civil authorities must do so and only within the boundaries clearly laid out in scripture. If they do not, they are no longer operating legitimately and must be tried by the very same laws they are authorized to enforce. For more on this click here. 

We often confuse these two. Because we, as private individuals/citizens, are instructed to love our enemies, we may think there is never a justification for calling out or punishing evil. That everyone must always "turn the other cheek" (and on a personal level this is correct). Some (those in civil authority) however are appointed by God to "take up the sword" and exercise or carry out God's judgment for wrongdoing on those who violate His law.

Some would say we are unloving if we desire and call for justice. However, wanting civil justice is not only right but we are encouraged and called to pursue righteousness (Mat 5:6) personally and as a nation/state. But it is not our role to enforce it as private citizens. On the public or civil level this is the role of civil authorities i.e. why they exist and at times must legitimately carry out this role.

Now to the second point regarding self-defense vs punishment/retribution.

Self-defense and protecting persons or things God has entrusted to my care is different from punishment or retribution. If someone breaks into my home and seeks to harm my family I am responsible to protect them and have every right to do so by whatever means necessary. Even taking the life when necessary of the one seeking to harm my family or me. This is not necessarily punishment or retribution. I am not acting out of revenge (no harm by an offender has has occurred yet) but out of defense of my loved ones as well as self-defense. The end result might be the same in both (the taking of another life) but the motive is entirely different. Protecting loved ones or even self defense could be considered a form of  stewardship i.e. faithfully caring for that which God has entrusted to me.

_______________________________

If you wish to see a further discussion of evil and the necessity of judgment, I discuss these in the following two posts...

* The necessity of judgment.

* Is God angry at evil

I also discuss further my understanding of Romans 13 at …

* Obeying the authorities

Doing what comes naturally?

Doing what comes "naturally" sounds good and even normal. Yet our natural state is one of blindness and rebellion to God, not pursuit of him, ultimately leading to permanent separation from Him i.e. death.

Outside of the Spirit of God revealing the Father and Son to us, we can not even see God truly, much less desire pursue him. (Joh 3:3)

Unless God reveals himself to us, we see nothing clearly. And even with his Spirit we still see through a glass darkly. We will not see with real or total clarity until we see Christ face-to-face. 

As a result, we are also naturally inclined to read our stuff into God's word(s) to us. We not only view scripture, but our experiences and our world through very distorted lenses. 

Though doing what comes "natural" may sound good or normal, our natural state is one of blindness and death.

In the true sense, doing what feels natural is actually unnatural, i.e., contrary to our original design.

Pro 14:12  There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.

Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." -Joh 3:3  

2Co 4:3-4 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

1Co 13:12   For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

1Jn 3:2  Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.

Willpower or affections?

Our desires trump our will (though they are not entirely separate from it)

To will something (simply choose to act) contrary to our affections does not work long term. Willpower alone does not sustain our actions or change our behavior.

This is a willing not because we truly want to do something but because we think we must. This is choosing because we believe we have to choose in order to be approved/accepted/lovable. This is seeking to earn love. 

Since we can never do enough to gain the love we were designed for this leads to burn out. We may press forward with considerable effort for an extended time only to find out no amount of effort gives us what we truly long for nor does it fulfill our deepest desires. 

A Shift

When we recognize we are already approved/accepted/loved in Christ the need to earn the acceptance of others (including God) is no longer necessary; everything within us shifts. This is not something we do, it's something we believe, recognize, acknowledge. 

What needs to change is not our wills but our affections. 

But our affections are not something we can simply will ourselves to have and into existence. They just are. Our affections automatically change once our beliefs about God and ourselves change. 

So where do affections come from? 

They are the result of what we believe is most attractive/beautiful/ significant. 

When we see something beautiful we are naturally drawn to it. This is not something we consciously choose or think about. We simply long for what we believe is most desirable. This is a given. 

We do not choose our desires, we choose what we believe will best meet them.

And what we long for, we pursue/go after. So our affections are central to long-term change but are also directly tied to what we believe is desirable or worthy of our affections. 

Why is something desirable? 

We believe it will give us what we want and/or need.

Why is belief necessary? 

Because we are limited in what we see, know and are able to do. We must trust in order to acquire what we need.

Our belief is based upon our seeing. 

If what is objectively most desirable is hidden from our view we will not desire or pursue it i.e. We will not subjectively experience the desire for it or have the will to go after it. 

If we are lost and dying of thirst and stumble across a muddy, leaf filled puddle, we will gladly drink from it. But if we looked up and saw 50 feet further there was a crystal clear spring fed stream we would find strength (i.e. the willpower) to continue past the puddle to the stream.

And what is it that we want? 

To be valued. To be treated as significant, worthwhile; in a word, loved. Whatever we believe will best provide this is what is most desirable to us.

And why is it we want this?

We are like God who is most valuable. In order to appreciate his value we had be like him i.e. have the ability to appreciate value and experience our own in so doing.  

The basis for change listed in order of priority/importance

* God ...the source of all love and beauty is most lovely, beautiful and desirable above all things

* Our seeing him as he is i.e. lovely, beautiful and desirable (by faith – a work of the Spirit)

* Increasing affections for God as we see him more clearly 

* Pursuit of God (faithfulness/obedience to him) as we recognize he is desirable above everything else

For a further discussion on desires and where they come from click here. 

Values, culture and racism

Can certain elements within a culture be wrong? 

What drives and shapes a culture? 

Are racism and culture somehow connected?

Culture in great part is the fruit of a given groups values. What we value shapes the way we conduct our lives. For example if a people group values art, art will be a major part of their culture and history, or music, or colorful attire and so on. 

Over time a people ¹group with similar values will repeat certain conduct driven by those values which eventually becomes a pattern or part of that groups *culture. 

You may have heard of a sports team talking about how a new coach or players changed the culture of the team. In essence, they are saying there was a change in values i.e. what is most important.

Is there such a thing as ²right or wrong, good or bad culture? It depends. Many aspects of a culture are likely neutral and based on the unique talents, skills, environment, and resources distributed throughout a people group. However, the degree to which our values are aligned with God's values is the degree to which our culture will honor God. 

*NOTE: 

• A "group" can be identified by ethnicity, region, religion, the objective or goal of the group as a whole, vocation, world view or any other common yet distinguishing feature of that group. 
• Also in discussing "culture" I am including behavior patterns that can be moral, immoral or amoral.  

²I am also assuming there is real objective morality. Many today reject the notion of an absolute right and wrong i.e. there is no objective moral standard. This will not be a topic of this paper, but if you wish to explore this issue more click here and here.

Certain aspects of any culture are more God-honoring than others. Likewise, a culture that is less in line with God's values overall will be less honoring to God than one that is. Not because we say so, but because God does. 

God says, for example, loving others as we would have them love us is better - a good or higher value - than coveting or stealing our neighbor's property or taking our neighbor's life. 

A culture built on the former (on love) honors God and is therefore superior to one built on the latter (envy, revenge, disrespect, or destruction), not only morally but practically or functionally. Cultures that ignore these absolutes never reach the potential of the strengths or abilities of its people and can - and usually do - ultimately self destruct or languish over time. The reasons? It simply goes contrary to our individual as well the world's design. 

In a word, a culture built on God's value system aligns with how we are designed to function and generally flourishes long term over and against one that isn't. Good - i.e. God honoring - values cause a culture to flourish, bad - God dishonoring - one's cause it to languish. 

Culture in itself is not sacred. Only God and his standard of love is. To the degree a culture embraces God's standard, it becomes sacred. To the degree it doesn't, it is not.

A classic illustration is when a spiritual awakening occurs within a particular people group or community. Before such an event, a group might display certain cultural characteristics that are destructive and harmful such as a high murder or theft rate or a high level of substance-abuse, familial abuse or infidelity, etc. After such an event many of these kinds of behaviors either diminish considerably or may disappear altogether  -- while those qualities which are amoral usually remain. That group or community becomes kinder, more diligent in good deeds, often more stable and productive economically, and frequently experiences a significant reduction in crime. Such events have occurred to all kinds of people groups historically ³regardless of race or ethnicity of the group. For some examples click here.

³Race (ethnicity) is irrelevant to God as far as our being in a relationship with Him and aligned with His design. He has no racial preference. He neither regards nor discards ones race over other races. To use a biblical description God is "no respecter of persons" i.e. He has no regard for those distinguishing characteristics man values above and apart from Him, genetic or otherwise.

Culture and race are not one and the same

Though culture, values, and race are often very closely connected, they are distinct. One does not automatically or necessarily follow the other. 

To say it another way, we must identify and isolate bad behavior and distinguish it over against a supposed "bad group." There are no bad groups per se. A particular behavior, on the other hand, can be right or wrong within any given group. 

The standard is entirely different. Morality is the standard, not group identity. The focus should not be a group but on appropriate or inappropriate (i.e. moral or immoral, loving or selfish) behavior. Certain behavior is inappropriate no matter which people group takes part -- e.g. virtually everyone recognizes things such as lying, stealing or murder is wrong. They undermine trust. A society can't function well without trust or an overall morality, i.e. the recognition and execution of right and wrong behavior. 

If we do not distinguish the difference between morality and race, we fall into the common mistake made today that all people within a given group are bad because a particular behavior is common to that group e.g. all cops are bad because there are some bad cops or all Latinos are gangsters because some are gangsters, or all liberals or conservatives are bad because some are bad, etc. 

Many wish to tie race (or ethnic group) and culture together as if they are the same. They are not. Because of this, if someone questions a certain aspect (behavior) of a groups culture -- regardless of which group is questioning or being questioned -- some will cry racism when it has nothing to do with race i.e. it's not genetic its spiritual, moral and/or philosophical i.e. determined by their beliefs and values. (Keep in mind I am assuming there are absolutes i.e. there are things that are always right or wrong regardless of what group we are a part of e.g. loving our neighbor versus desiring or stealing our neighbor's stuff etc.)

For example, if theft or murder or familial abuse -- or whatever deficiency or vice common to a group -- is more statistically common within a certain people group, to raise this fact is not racial, it's moral. We are addressing a specific behavior, not an emotionally charged racial matter. 

Values that are contrary to who God is and who we are -- as God's image-bearers -- corrupt any group regardless of its ethnicity-color-race etc.

The objective standard of loving and honoring God has absolutely nothing to do with one's race or the color of one's skin and everything to do with the beliefs and disposition of one's heart. All peoples are equally able to display or not display God's majesty and beauty because all of us -- regardless of race or background etc -- are created in God's image.

To say it another way, there is nothing innately valuable or odious about any culture simply by virtue of ethnicity or skin color. Again, determining what is good or bad within a culture is measured by a totally different standard than ethnicity. 

Anything within a culture that seeks to honor God should be embraced and anything that dishonors him should be abandoned, regardless of what group these qualities are or are not present in, be that western, eastern, middle eastern, African, Latin, Asian or any other people group.

Western Culture

What made western culture flourish morally, in work ethic and materially/economically, etc over other cultures had nothing to do with the skin color of those in that region and everything to do with the influence of Gods values/standards/laws expressed in and through God's people (the church universal). This was a major foundation for the development of the European culture during the Byzantine period and later on in the Reformation.

Of course along with strengths were also vices. Vices and strengths are a part of all cultures -- all cultures, after all, are made up of broken people -- depending on how closely a people group adheres to God's direction or not -- vices are due to our rebellion from God's prescribed directions; virtues are due to being aligned with those directions. The issue becomes which culture is more virtuous with less vices. Again we must look to an absolute standard outside ourselves to determine this i.e. to God and his law of loving him with all we are and have and our neighbors as ourselves. 

What we call "Western Culture" in turn spread to North America via the pilgrims and separatists who had high regard for God's laws/design. This is not to say the church -- made up of fallen people -- was (or is) perfect but simply recognizing the nature and extent of it's more positive than negative influence.

To say it another way, if the racial makeup of the group that settled in and developed the west were Latin, Asian or Negro (I use Negro technically, not derogatorily) versus Caucasian, and had the same value system, the outcome would have been *exactly the same.

*There may be slight genetic variations within a given people group possibly resulting in a minor difference in how those values would have been carried out e.g. as a people group, Asians tend to have higher IQ's and are smaller in stature than Caucasians. However, how much of this is environmental is uncertain. Some say 50/50, others suggest difference %'s. Asians growing up in the same western Europe region with the exact same environmental factors such as geography, diet, and climate etc may in fact turn out exactly the same in group characteristics similar to Caucasians  i.e. larger in stature with a slightly lower IQ. On the other hand, Caucasians living in the locations Asians lived, with the same diet, my turn out smaller in stature with a higher IQ. For an interesting discussion on this particular point click here. 

However, overall, to say one race is superior to another or preferred over another merely by virtue of race or skin color i.e. genetics, -- which was also the Aryan argument used by the Nazi's -- is the essence of racism no matter who holds such sentiments and what color one's skin is i.e. it's just as wrong and destructive for one race as it is for another.

The unfortunate reality is racism is generally a part of every people group and not unique to Caucasians, contrary to increasingly common assertions by the progressive side of the political spectrum.

All groups display different innate qualities genetically that are strengths or weaknesses compared to other groups -- again how many environmental factors come into play, if at all, is uncertain. All groups are each unique and bring something unique and of value to the human family, that others don't. This simply makes them different, not necessarily superior or inferior overall. In this sense, diversity is good because it expresses a facet of God's image that other groups or individuals do not. So in this way this expression of uniqueness would be superior to those who do not display it simply because something others don't display is experienced and shared.

This is also true among siblings within a given family -- who are obviously of the same ethnicity. Certainly, no one would argue one child is more or less worthy of the parent's love and honor within a given family. But they will all have their own unique strengths or lack of them and make unique contributions. They all have their place and play a significant role in the family unit.

There can be superior cultures. There are never superior races.

To give higher regard to certain values and behavior over others is good and right. To give higher regard or respect to one race over another is not -- which is not the same as having a fond affection for the neutral or best things in our own culture. This is normal and true of all cultures. Considering one race as superior to another however is the essence of racism, regardless of which people group displays this view. This means whites, blacks, Latinos, Jews, Asians, and so on can all have racist tendencies. It is the dilemma of being broken as a human race.

The biggest factor that overrides all of this is our commonality. We are all beings created in the image of God and are equally invited to be in a relationship with God and able to do so. All groups reflect his glory in our own unique way. Again, "God is no respecter of persons" i.e. He doesn't have a higher regard for your "station" in life over another's.

This was also recognized by the founders of America in our founding documents -- even though not consistently put into practice. It was because of this world view expressed within those documents and their writers that slavery was finally abolished -- even though abused by some in the beginning. It was followers of Christ who were the primary agents of its eventual abolition -- William Wilberforce, a committed Christian, was the key leader of the abolition movement in England, whose effects were eventually felt in America leading to the eventual abolition of slavery on both sides of the Atlantic. 

The constant focus on America's past mistakes out of the many good values it was built on is simply an attempt to divide us as a nation.

We must always pursue and embrace superior (i.e. God-honoring) values but reject racism in all its forms no matter what culture or sector of society it is found in, for all men and women are equally in God images and therefore have dignity; all are created to honor God. We must, therefore, embrace all fellow humans equally as God's image-bearers, no matter what their race or skin color.

But equally true, we must recognize and be aware there is behavior that is contrary to our design and destructive to our fellow man thereby dishonoring to God as well, no matter what race displays this behavior. Pointing out destructive behavior is not racial or racist, it's moral and deals with the flourishing and betterment of all men and women as well as honoring to God.

For a discussion on racial tension and keys to diffusing it click here. 

For a discussion on a personal experience of discrimination click here 

For a further discussion on identity politics click here