Still evangelical after all these years...

(Tim) Some of our elders and closest friends think the commitment David and I have to evangelicalism is quixotic, with the kindest of them hoping we'll see the light some day, and give it up. It's not likely.

Take the sermon text this past Lord's Day, for instance. It was Matthew 22:34-40, where Matthew records the exchange between Jesus and a lawyer who asks Him which is the greatest commandment? Jesus answers that the greatest commandments is to love God with all our heart and soul and mind.

Today's evangelicalism has eviscerated love of much of its objective biblical content, so I'm not suggesting anyone take out membership in a megachurch and join in a sing-along...

It's easy.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
All you need is love (all together now)
All you need is love (everybody)
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.

On the other hand, I wouldn't propose old school presbyterianism, either, where it carefully avoids placing any emphasis on conversion--what Jesus called being "born again"--and has no intimacy, fellowship, or house-to-houseness at the center of Christian life...

The Lord's Supper without unity around the Table is a violation of that Table. Without that unity, love of God and neighbor is a sham. Our Lord made this clear when He initiated the Lord's Supper in the context of His prayer:

I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. (John 17:20-23)

Yet really, Lennon was on to something here. All we need is love. Not the ceremonial laws. Not circumcision. Not the Sabbath. Not phylacteries. Not circumcision. Not the icons. Not the Mass, Eucharist, consubstantiation, or the weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper. Not covenant-renewal liturgies. Not baptism in the Name of the Triune God administered by a properly ordained minister of the Word and Sacrament. But love.

You say I'm setting up a false antithesis. Really?

Consider. Jesus could have answered this question in a number of other ways. The scribes and Pharisees did. Most of them considered the ceremonial law weightier than the moral law. And taking their speculation down to the individual laws, they were split over whether the weightiest law was the Sabbath, phylacteries, or circumcision. But love? No one would have expected that to be Jesus' answer. And if we're honest, we'll admit we wouldn't answer that way today. Sure, the answer wasn't unknown in Jesus' time; and yet, who'd have guessed it? Love?

Apparently, faith without love is dead.

Comments

[Catherine R.]

In light of the love thing, I wonder what significance, if any, the King James Version has being that it uses "charity" instead of "love" whenever it appears. Maybe I should call the Bible Answer Man.

[Keith LaMothe]

"God is love." That's what He told us Himself.

So when we accept or invent an unbiblical understanding of love, we are immediately committing raw idolatry, straight-up disobedience to the first commandment.

Thank God that He is merciful to us, working in us both to will and to work according to His good pleasure.

[Mark Chambers]

All we need is love

Because love is a verb having very little to do with feelings (as the motivating factor) and everything to do with the affections (not to be confused with emotions), those being informed by what is good and right and holy and true, acting as the motivating factor for all we do. Love does what is right regardless of how one feels. Turning the other cheek is the perfect example.

So we see in 1Cor 13 and Gal 5 examples of actions proceeding from a Spirit wrought state of being. Love is something done and is an expression of what one is.

[Joel A. Klein]

Hi Tim,

I am confused by your use of the word "evangelicalism" in your first paragraph. What are the alternatives that the elders you mention would want you to convert to?

The only movements I am familiar with that don't fall under the rubric of "evangelicalism" (which I have always taken to be a very broad term) are Roman Catholicism, mainline (liberal) Protestantism, and perhaps those varieties of - as you put it - old-school-presbyterianism (which is non-evangelical in the sense that they are stodgy, doctrinaire conservatives, but particularly disinterested in evangelism).

Thank you,

Joel

[Bike Bubba]

Catherine, "charity" had a different meaning in 1611; at the time, it was the closest thing the translators knew to agape. And as Yoko's song (at least my brother blames it on her) notes, it's awfully hard to describe real love today. What she meant is not agape, I'm guessing.

Good posts today.

[Keith LaMothe]

Some emphasize that they are "Reformed" and not "Evangelical". That doesn't necessarily equate to the "old-school-presbyterian" movement. I've heard murmurs like this from the FV/covenant-renewal side of presbyterianism, but my hearing might be bad.

There's also Fundamentalism, out of which Evangelicalism came. Obviously it's got it's issues, but if I had to choose between standing with Leith Anderson (head of the National Association of Evangelicals) and Jerry Falwell (God rest his soul), then... dude, I'm with Falwell. But that isn't the choice before me, or Tim.

And then there's the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman church. Those aren't legitimate options, but when I realized that many of the "converts" weren't so much in love with Rome (or EO) as they were fleeing the Protestant trainwreck... well, it makes a lot more sense from that perspective.

There's also Anglicanism, and I don't know how to categorize that. England always defies categories.

Technically there's mainline/liberal Christianity, but that's a joke.

[Tim Bayly]

>Jerry Falwell (God rest his soul)...

Dear Keith,

I'm concerned. Are you about to cross the Tiber, or are prayers for the dead part of some esoteric Protestant theological tradition, about which I'm clueless?

Repent, and turn.

Smiling, with love,

Tim Bayly

[Keith LaMothe]

Lol, good catch. I was trying to find some way to indicate that I was aware that he had already passed on to glory, so some wiseguy wouldn't rib me about standing next to a grave. We don't have any wiseguys around here, so I don't know why I bothered.

Blessings,
Keith

[Josh Congrove]

Dear Catherine,

The question of why the KJV uses "charity" on some occasions and "love" on others is slightly complicated. Although "charity" likely did have a meaning somewhat different than we ascribe to it today, this is not the complete answer to the question. Without going into an incredibly detailed explanation, the simple answer is that the translators were instructed to retain the traditional ecclesiastical language whenever possible. At the time there was controversy about whether to use "charity" or "love" to translate the Greek, just as there was debate over whether to use "church" or "congregation" to translate 'ekklesia.' The Puritans pushed for the latter term in both cases, and essentially lost in both cases.

Beyond that, the Latin Vulgate had often used 'caritas' to translate the Greek 'agape,' and so there was ample precedent to keep this in place. Earlier translations such as the Tyndale and the Geneva had tended to use "love" more often (esp. in 1 Cor. 13), but these too had occasionally used "charity." So it ended up that the KJV, with its wonderfully sonorous mix of influences (yes, I'm a fan) sometimes used "charity" in its translation, and sometimes "love."

Of course, "all you need is charity" doesn't quite have the same ring, does it?

Warmly,

Josh Congrove

[Josh Congrove]

Dear Tim,

Certainly "love" would never have been my answer to a lawyer asking that question. How unsophisticated and profound! It's an eternally good thing that the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of men.

Warmly,

Josh

[Tim Bayly]

>I am confused by your use of the word "evangelicalism" in your first paragraph. What are the alternatives that the elders you mention would want you to convert to?

Dear Joel,

They don't want me to convert to anything, but rather not to continue to work for reform in a moribund movement they consider thoroughly confirmed in its error. They would say evangelicalism is not a church and that only the church is worthy of our love and labors.

And I'm almost there, although as you see from this post, hope springs eternal in this human pest.

Love,

Tim Bayly