Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Why There Is No Truth Without Love
Most people it appears believe, in regards to love and truth, that truth is the content of the message while love is the motive. But Jesus negates that idea in Mark 12: 30-31 and reverses it by saying but the entire truth of the Old Testament is in loving God and loving others. (The Apostle Paul goes further by saying that the scriptures are summarized in simply loving others Gal 5:14). The point seems to be that love is both the content and the motive.
Let me explain further. In saying that the Hebrew Scriptures are summarized in the one word love, Jesus radicalizes ancient Judaism and therefore puts truth in love's service. In seeking love one finds truth but not vice versa. The entire purpose of scripture is love; just as the entire purpose of scripture is Christ. They are synonymous. Therefore, the communication of the gospel is less about Bible facts and all about Bible love.
The point is that too many Christians mistake facts for truth. It may be a fact that Memphis, Tennessee had 150 killings in 2013, but that is not truth. It may be a fact that Jesus was crucified, but that is not what Jesus was referring to when he called himself the Truth. Truth is not acknowledgement of the fact of Jesus Christ but rather is surrender to the person of Jesus Christ. This type of truth, like love, can only be grasped existentially or, more accurately, truth and love must grasp us existentially. This is what the Apostle Paul implies when he says that the love of God compels him.
When Jesus called himself the Truth, he removed truth from the realm of propositional statements and ideas and into the realm of personal relations. Truth can no longer be about correct thoughts, but rather about loving actions in relation to God and others. In other words, the Bible was not given in order to find truth, it was given in order to find love.
Many Christians treat the scriptures as if their primary purpose is to form doctrine rather than the creation and promotion of loving communities. They treat the Bible as the end in itself. Jesus addresses this issue in John 5:39 when he tells his hearers that they study the scriptures in order to find eternal life while missing the point entirely that the scriptures are about him.
However sincere Jesus hearer's may have been, they had their noses face down in the map because they mistook the map for the destination. It is like mistaking breadcrumbs on the path for the sumptuous feast to which they lead. The written word leads us to the Living Word.
Biblically love precedes truth, to the degree that truth is related to factual data. The Scriptures tell us that the entire inner life of the Triune God, the very essence of God is love (1 John 4: 8)...love within the Trinity. I John 4:8 also states that "whoever does not know love does not know God...and not the other way around. (John is always pushing the envelope).
To the degree that love and truth in the scriptures are are relational and interpersonal terms to that same degree they are interrelated and inseparable. Biblical truth is likewise relational and only has meaning as it refers to emotional and psychological honesty...the complete integration of one's entire being into love. In other words, integrity. That is why Jesus is "the" Truth and not "a" truth.
Marshall McLuhan said many years ago that the medium is the message. I say that their is no truth without love.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good stuff Larry! Important to remember.
ReplyDeleteFor someone like you Tom this is basically second nature and it is preaching to the choir...But I have had an especially hate filled two weeks by inerrantists...some very old friends from Bible College.
DeleteJust some thoughts in parallel or in tangent. I hope you don't see 'argument', but if you do, so be it.
ReplyDeleteI take "Thou shalt love the Lord your God with all your heart...and your neighbor as yourself..." as much or more as a promise than a commandment. In other words, to the extent I don't, I SHALT. Growth in love (as well as in all other graces) is not only possible, but necessary.
Paul clarifies the message (maybe after years of ministry?) as "unfeigned love" for the brethren. This is a spiritual quality that by it's very definition excludes "the left hand of christian fellowship" and every other form of outward-facing affection that isn't thoroughly 'backed up' by the practice of love.
The practice of Love is in Jesus Christ. The definition of love (since it can, like every other aspect of the fruit of the Spirit, be "feigned") is put beautifully in I Cor. 13. If God is Love, He is all that. To whatever extent I am 'that', then I am Godly. To whatever extent I am not, He tells me I will be. The very 'faith' in that fact transforms my heart daily, though not without humiliation and failure along the way.
I've confessed to not being a particularly 'emotional' creature. Could be that depression and the things I have both done and suffered have impacted that 'condition'. And it could be that what I compare my 'feelings' to is a facade and a fake, culturally conditioned or personally projected--in other words, NOT unfeigned. Could be it is both. Regardless, I expect to be healed from within and/or from without. It's already started in me, and He will complete that which He has begun. And if it is from outside me? When He completes His work in the rest of humanity, we won't have anything but Truth...genuine and unqualified love.
In the meantime--despite my sometimes inability to 'cry' over the poor bastard beaten and left for dead on the road, I'll keep trying to find a way to help a brother out, like any good Samaritan would.
I always look forward to your comments. They are enlightening and beautuful. We don't just speak the truth in love, rather the truth is love. That is my understanding of the gospel and yours too it would appear.
DeleteFurthermore, I love the idea of the commanment as promise. I think that is a clearer way of looking at all of them. I want to pindrt that some more.
DeleteI'm sorry to say, Larry, that most of christendom either doesn't know the truth, or doesn't believe or teach what little they know. With that out of the equation, "speaking the truth in love" is pure impossibility, no matter how much they "love". I'd put it this way, there is LOVE in TRUTH, and there is TRUTH in LOVE. Jesus is our example in ways both large and small. We either follow Him, or we don't. We have to start someplace, however. We're not 'full-grown' in the beginning. I'm thankful that the churches produce "children"...Lord knows I can't do it all. I would very much like to see a day, however, when they let them grow up.
ReplyDeleteDear Larry,
ReplyDeleteIn your blog you challenged the inerrancy of Scripture and specifically mentioned the account of Peter’s denial of Christ. In examining the three accounts in the synoptic Gospels, I don’t see a problem.
Matthew 26:34 NKJV ~ “Jesus said to him, ‘Assuredly, I say to you that this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.”
Mark 14:30 NKJV ~ “Jesus said to him, ‘Assuredly, I say to you that today, even this night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times.”
Luke 22:34 NKJV ~ “Then He said, ‘I tell you, Peter, the rooster shall not crow this day before you will deny three times that you know Me.”
If we examine all three accounts we find in each Peter will deny Jesus three times. Matthew and Luke speak generally: “before the rooster crows”; the rooster shall not crow this day before…”. Mark speaks specifically, “before the rooster crows twice.” There is no problem here, if the rooster crowed twice, then he obviously crowed once as well, end of argument! There is no problem here.
Yours In Christ,
Michael J. Barnard
Email: pastor_mbarnard@hotmail.com
www.shorelinecommunitychurch.net
2 Timothy 3:16-17
(part 2)
ReplyDeleteFor me one of the biggest proofs of the inerrancy of the Bible is fulfilled prophecies, of which there are many. If we just look at fulfilled Messianic prophecies, Josh MacDowell records in his book “A Ready Defense”, “In the Old Testament there are sixty major messianic prophecies and approximately 270 ramifications that were fulfilled in one person, Jesus Christ.”
Up until 1947 critics of the Bible claimed that Christians had rewritten the prophecies about Christ to make it “appear” that Jesus had fulfilled each of these prophecies. Up until that time the closest manuscript we had to the time of Christ was somewhere around 125-150 A.D. With the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 everything changed. Now we had Biblical texts that were from 150 years before the birth of Christ and a complete copy of the Book of Isaiah as well as other books in the Bible. I had the opportunity to see the Dead Sea Scrolls for myself along with many other scrolls from the Hebrew Scriptures in ‘The Israel Museum” located in Jerusalem. Now we can check the accuracy of the textual transmission over the years and we find it to be stunningly accurate. The Jews traditionally either buried or burned their scrolls when they became worn or tattered, but the Dead Sea Scrolls were preserved in the caves at Qumran when the Romans most likely made a quick advance on Qumran. I believe the Essenes intended to go back to them.
Bible prophecy and fulfillment makes the Scriptures different from any other ancient document and are a big reason why I believe we can trust the Scriptures as the Word of God.
Dear Larry,
The full text of my response was sent to you on FB via Vasanta Wettasinha. I hope it has been of some use and blessing.
Yours in Christ,
Michael J. Barnard
Shoreline Community Church
North Bend, OR
DeleteHello Mike...
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my blog. First of all let me say that I was born and bred on biblical inerrancy, both at church and in Bible College. I know the ins and outs of it very well. Second of all I quit believing in it about 27 years ago when I found it impossible for me to sustain intellectually.
My blog post is not supposed to be evidence for or against inerrancy, not in the main. I am simply trying to open the door for those that have honest and legitimate questions that cannot be raised in a typical inerrantist church. A few minor errors is not why I could no longer accept inerrancy.
Concerning your reply, let me at first agree with you that the three predictions of Peter's denial do not necessarily contradict each other. The minor discrepancy is in their FULFILLMENT. Again, you are correct that Matthew and Luke agree that Peter denies Jesus before the cock crowed ONE time. But not Mark.
Mark's fulfillment says that Peter denied Jesus three times and then the cock crowed a SECOND time... Meaning that the cock HAD ALREADY CROWED ONCE. (Sorry...I am only using capitals for the sake of easy comparison and I am not yelling :))
In the end I am quite sure that we can agree upon the fact that the purpose of Scripture is to point us to Christ. The Peace of Christ be with you.