02 May 2006

is love enough?

Two recent 'daily thoughts' from John Stott's ministry:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May 1 - Faith and Love.
"Faith and love are signs of new birth (1 Jn. 5:1; 4:7). They are also commands. Some people object that faith and love are not amenable to discipline and are beyond the reach of any command. How can you tell me, they ask, to believe what I do not believe or love whom I do not love? The answer to this question lies in the nature of Christian faith and love. It is when faith is regarded as an intuition and love as an emotion that they appear to lie beyond the sphere of duty. But Christian faith is an obedient response to God's self-revelation in Christ. This revelation has a moral content. If people hate the light, it is because their deeds are evil (Jn. 3:19-21)...Similarly, Christian love belongs rather to the sphere of action than of emotion. It is not an involuntary, uncontrollable passion, but unselfish service undertaken by deliberate choice."

May 2 - A Sign of Authenticity.
"Love is as much a sign of Christian authenticity as is righteousness."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

With the proper definition of love, the May 2 statement becomes rather thought-provoking.

I'm not sure I'm ready to jump on board 100%, but it does speak to the frustration that many Christians feel with fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who do not share either the same personal convictions or non-essential doctrinal beliefs.



Quotes taken from "The Letters of John" (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries" rev. edn. Leicester: IVP, 1988), p. 164, 209. Excerpted from "Authentic Christianity", p. 219, by permission of InterVarsity Press.
Posted by at

6 comments:

Dustin said...

That's good stuff. Trying to thinking systematically about it, I think the question that has to be asked is, "Is love a by-product of righteousness or is righteousness a by-product of love?" Or, "Does each one stand as its own and is not a by-product of the other".

It's too early to think like this!!!

May 3, 2006, 8:32:00 AM
palomita said...

Thinking systematically, I'd say positional righteousness comes first, because I can scarely imagine a person who demonstrates (real) love without having been first made righeous by God.

Following that, I would imagine that both behavioural righteousness and love are by-products...and that they can and do grow at different rates.

It's not clear what exactly Stott is referring to in his statements about righteousness. Perhaps in the fuller context it's more evident.

May 3, 2006, 9:33:00 AM
Dustin said...

What if the definition of love is God.... (I'm a little more awake now :)

May 3, 2006, 12:17:00 PM
palomita said...

Then I think my point above still stands. Stengthened, even.

I don't know how to relate your question to the usage of 'love' in the original post/quote.

May 3, 2006, 1:06:00 PM
Dustin said...

.....and I'm cross-eyed

May 3, 2006, 3:26:00 PM
The Doctor said...

Making no attempts to refrain from saying the same thing as my opinionated brother, I'll say that I believe that God's love is the love we have in us because He has given to us (John 17)the love with which He loves the Son. Our righteousness, similarly, is a gift, because He has maed us righteous. We do not become righteous and then strive to maintain it, for we certainly would fail miserably. On the contrary, our righteousness is maintained by the One who made us alive in the first place.

As Botso has said, His love is perfected in us; not by our efforts, but rather by His. Our task, then, is to seek Him and to obey Him in that very love and righteousness that we have been given.

As to Stott's comment, I would say that he is just rewording the phrase, "they will no we are Christians by our love."

May 4, 2006, 12:38:00 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)