All posts tagged Love

Oxytocin: The Neurotransmitter of Love

by brad on January 18, 2013 in Counseling Reflection with 2 Comments

oxytocinOxytocin is the neurotransmitter associated with bonding love. It is involved with erotic love, like orgasm in sexual intercourse, but appears to have a more profound influence in the bonding of a mother and child (released in high quantities after child birth and while nursing) or a couple cuddling.

Using oxytocin and the common experience of bonding love, I’d like to quickly examine three questions. (1) Does knowing the biology of love reduce the experience of love to an animal instinct? (2) What would be the benefits and detriments if there were an oxytocin nasal spray?[1] (3) What practical implications can we draw about marital romance based upon our knowledge of oxytocin?

First, I do not think knowing the biology of love should reduce it to a purely physical experience – “I’m not in love, I’m just experiencing an oxytocin surge… It’s not you, its my oxytocin level.” But we can easily feel this way as we learn the mechanics behind something special. A similar experience often happens to seminary students. As they begin to study the Bible as a textbook, something precious becomes sterile as it is dissected.

This is one of the main dangers in an era where we are learning so much about the biology of emotions. We reduce emotions to our biology. That is the equivalent of reducing art to ink or music to notes. We can learn some important things, but it misses the most important elements for the most tangible.

That leads into the second questions. What if you could squirt a little love potion up your nose and recapture that lost spark with your spouse (or anyone else who happened to walk by while you were snorting infatuation)? Beyond the biological parody of Cupid’s stray arrow, would that be a good thing? Could it be used as a “treatment” for the loneliness of single adults or neglected children?

Doubtless, if such a medication were available, many would use it as a form of biological pornography (instead of visual or narrative) seeking the façade of closeness without risking the vulnerability of real relationship. Others would use it as a substitute or compensation for not adequately investing in their marriage – like a multi-vitamin taken by those who don’t eat healthy. These would (in my opinion) be detrimental uses of this hypothetical medication even if it “worked” as they propped up dysfunction with the emotional sensation of healthy.

I would be intrigued about whether doses of oxytocin could help with the development of neglected or orphaned children. But even in such a case, it could not be a substitute for involved parents or adoption as the only means for prolonged health during the formative years.

Yet I think we quickly realize something very important – an artificial replacement of a neurotransmitter cannot replace the actual relationship that was intended to produce it. Even if a nasal spray could help a child’s social and neurological development, it would not be as good as that child having loving parents.

But the most profitable discussion seems to be the third question. What can knowing about oxytocin, its effects and triggers, teach us about marital romance? What I’ve found, in my reflection on the subject, is that it can reinforce “common sense” relational advice with an additional layer of scientific explanation.

Oxytocin is triggered by prolonged skin-to-skin contact (among other ways). The effect of oxytocin (evidenced by studies where it has been artificially elevated) is that it creates a sense of closeness and trust with other people. So what does that mean for married couples?

  • Holding hands and cuddling are important even after marriage.
  • Couples should not rush foreplay before sex and rely solely on orgasm for closeness.
  • Physical touch is not merely a “love language” some people speak and others don’t.

These are not “profound” new insights. Hopefully they are not new at all. But I suspect for many people, particularly in a day when there is so much curiosity about the neurology of emotions, knowing this information will help reinforce some basics of what it means to steward God’s gift of marriage and honor our spouse.


[1] Curiosity caused me to do a Google search for “Oxytocin Nasal Spray” and sure enough there is already a product available called “Liquid Trust.”

C.S. Lewis on Savoring Temporal Pleasures

by brad on March 12, 2012 in Counseling Reflection with 1 Comment

A Counselor Reflects on Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

“I must take care, on the one hand, never to despise, or be unthankful for, these earthly blessings, and on the other, never to mistake them for the something else of which they are only a kind of copy, or echo, or mirage (p. 137).” Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

How should we treat temporal pleasures? There seems to be very little balance in the way we live out the answer to this question.

Some people live for temporal pleasures and try to find life in ways that resembles chasing for a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow – lots of effort, but with inevitable failure.

Other people respond to temporal as if it were a synonym for bad, evil, or wasteful. To them a lack of permanence is the equivalent of a complete lack of value.

Lewis’ quote calls for a balanced response and makes me think of how my wife responds when I buy her flowers. She knows the flowers will not last. She likes them better when I buy the “clearance” flowers, which means she really knows they’re not going to last.

The fact that the flowers will wither does not detract from her enthusiasm for the gift. She gets out a vase, fills it with water, and places them prominently in our kitchen. She comments on them frequently and always looks at them as she walks through the room.

But she doesn’t mistake the flowers for my love, of which the flowers were only a representation. There is no fear in her that when the flowers fade my love is failing with the collapse of each petal. She gets the message of the flowers, so she can embrace the flowers for what they are.

I believe this captures God’s intent for temporal pleasures. They are meant to be a love gift from Him to His children. A good meal, a stimulating conversation, health, a vacation to a beautiful location, or a nice home are all good, temporal gifts.

If we accept them as signs of God’s love and do not mistake them for the substance of God’s love, then we can enjoy them and let them fade without fear or despair. We receive the joy they were intended to give and our affection for the Giver grows.

How would your perspective on temporal pleasures change if you treated God’s blessings like my wife treats my flowers? How would it influence your anxiety and insecurity? How would it affect your sense of gratitude and joy? To whom would these changes be most noticeable?

Do you feel guilty right now? That is another misuse of the gift—further guilt only extends this misuse. If my wife (hypothetically speaking) became too attached to the flowers and missed the love they represented, her repentance would be best expressed through rejoicing in my love—not sorrow.

If my wife (hypothetically speaking) under-appreciated my flowers to protect herself from being disappointed at their fading, her repentance would be best expressed through vulnerably receiving my love—not beating herself up.

If you have not responded well to God’s temporal pleasures through over-indulgence or under-appreciation, repent now by embracing the message of His love that He sent in the form of temporal pleasures. He will rejoice as He sees His purpose for creating those pleasures fulfilled.

From Suffering to “Love Covers a Multitude of Sins”

by brad on December 9, 2011 in Application Supplement with No comments

This post is meant to offer guidance to common “What now?” questions that could emerge from Pastor J.D.’s sermon on I Peter 4:1-11 preached at The Summit Church Saturday/Sunday December 10-11, 2011.

In these few verses Peter takes a long journey through human experience and redemption. Unless we take this journey with Peter and his readers, I do not think we will make appropriate application of the well known verse “love covers a multitude of sins” or appreciate its impact beyond a sentimental level.

Peter is writing to Christian friends who were forced to leave their homes for their faith (1 Pet. 1:1). He has spoken to them at great length about suffering (1 Pet. 1-3). This passage is a continuation of his encouragement and instruction to them.

At this point in his letter Peter warns these exiles of the intense temptation that comes with intense suffering (v. 3-4). When it feels like God has failed, it is easy to seek comfort or escape. When it is hard to believe you can “cast your anxieties on [God] because he cares for you (1 Pet. 5:7),” we will often settle for a bottle, a lover, or rebelling against anything that represents the “order” that failed us.

Recognizing the powerful draw of this cynicism during suffering, Peter calls on these believers to be “self-controlled and sober-minded for the sake of your prayers (v. 7).” When we suffer intensely there is a strong tendency to “run from” something (i.e., the pain, the oppressor, or reality itself). Self-control is the opposite. It is “running to” something intentionally because you still believe in hope. Without this kind of self-control, they would not pray.

When we suffer intensely our thoughts ride the wave of our circumstances and we take on a pattern of thinking, bracing against worst-case scenarios. Sober-mindedness is different. It refuses to take God out of the equation. When we lose sober-mindedness we are no longer a child praying to our Father. We are the prophet of the unknown or unreal god making repeated predictions of continued doom.

It is out of this flow of thought that Peter says, “Above all, keep loving one another, since love covers a multitude of sins (v. 8).” His primary example of this love gives us a clearer picture of what he has in mind—show hospitality (v. 9). When are homeless exiles most tempted to extravagant sin? When it’s time to eat and there is no food, and when its time to sleep but there is no shelter.

Hospitality covers these sins. Those Christian exiles who were able to secure lodging and food were to share with those who did not in order to protect their souls.

What is another major temptation time for an exile? Being alone with their own thoughts and thinking they have nothing to help themselves or anyone else. What was Peter’s second example? Serving and encouraging one another with whatever God has given you (v. 10-11) even if it’s not lodging or food.

This kind of mutual care was soul-nourishing for both the giver and recipient. It covered a multitude of sins that would have been present in its absence.

What questions should we ask in light of this passage?

  • Who is suffering that you know?
  • What are the unique aspects and times of their suffering?
  • How has God provided or gifted you with the means to care for them and “cover a multitude of sins”?

This is not a passage about us serving as one another’s saviors. It is a passage about the power and responsibility of life in Christian community to conquer sin, even sin rooted in the most intense suffering. These questions proposed are not as hard to answer as they are scary to ask. Why? Because the presence of suffering reminds us the world is not a safe place, so we want to self-insure.

Let us pray for the same courage and faith to serve those who are suffering as it takes for them to remain self-controlled and sober-minded enough to pray.

C.S. Lewis on Loving Myself

by brad on November 28, 2011 in Counseling Reflection with No comments

A Counselor Reflects on Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

“For a long time I used to think this a silly, straw-splitting distinction: how could you hate what a man did and not hate the man? But years later it occurred to me that there was one man to whom I had been doing this all my life—namely myself. However much I might dislike my own cowardice or conceit or greed, I went on loving myself. There had never been the slightest difficulty about it. In fact the very reason why I hated these things was that I loved the man. Just because I loved myself, I was sorry to find that I was the sort of man who did those things (p. 117).” Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

Is the primary problem of the human condition that I don’t love myself enough (low self-esteem) or that I love myself too much (pride)? That is a question that can stir a great deal of debate.

I would contend that the fervor of the debate itself reveals that the scales tip toward pride. If low self-esteem were really the core human ailment, then we would timidly defer to one another and our disagreements would be mousy.

When reading the larger works of C.S. Lewis you will find that he sides on the pride side of this debate. However, here he is discussing self-love in a way that is distinct from pride. He does not seem to denigrate the self-love he describes here as pride (nor do I think he should).

Lewis describes this healthy self-love as hating the sin in my life because it destroys something that was intended to be good – namely self.

This points helps to answer one of the strongest points made by critics of the self-esteem movement (and I count myself in that number) – self-esteem assumes that we are basically good people who only do bad things because of negative outside influences. Scripture clearly teaches the opposite. We are people marred by sin who naturally love darkness instead of light (John 3:16-21).

Yet Lewis’ depiction of healthy self-love allows for a fundamental moral brokenness in the human race. His take on self-love still allowed him to admit, “I was the sort of man who did those things.” No silly, illogical excuses like, “You know I didn’t mean it,” or “I only behaved that way because…,” or “That wasn’t really me who did/said that.”

I believe it is instructive to see how Lewis got to this view of self-love. He got there by thinking of others. He wanted to know how you could hate the sin and love the sinner. Taking the Second Great Commandment seriously led him to consider the one example where he already obeyed it. Coincidentally, it was the example Jesus said to use – love others “as” (implying something that is already naturally occurs) you love yourself (Matt. 22:39).

It was from this example that he got an answer to his question: how do you hate the sin and love the sinner? Answer: You are grieved for how sin destroys the life of the sinner. Even when the sinner gets an advantage or pleasure from his/her sin, you are grieved that sin’s addictive roots are being reinforced.

How is this love? It is love, because all grief is rooted in love. You will only grieve after you have loved. You are saddened because of an obstruction in a desired joy. In this case, another person’s good.

So let us realize that we love ourselves naturally even when we are made miserable by our actions. Our misery actually reveals our love for self – we genuinely desire our good. After realizing this let us love others with that same desire for their good. That is the only thing that will prevent a healthy self-love from becoming pride, self-centeredness, or self-preoccupation (insecurity).

Forgiveness Made Easier: Part II

by brad on November 21, 2011 in Counseling Reflection with No comments

A Counselor Reflects on Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

“And secondly, we might try to understand exactly what loving your neighbor as yourself means. I have to love him as I love myself. Well, how exactly do I love myself (p. 116)?… [Lewis was using a war illustration] Even while we kill  and punish we must try to feel about the enemy as we feel about ourselves – to wish that he were not bad, to hope that he may, in this world or another, be cured: in fact, to wish his good. That is what is meant in the Bible by loving him: wishing his good, not feeling fond of him nor saying he is nice when he is not (p. 120).” Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

In a politically correct world where we must say that every one is “nice” or “good” even “when he is not,” it makes it harder to love our neighbor as ourselves and, thereby, harder to forgive. I’ll try to follow Lewis’ logic from each point.

First, Lewis connects a forced attribution of niceness as an impediment to loving our neighbors as ourselves. When we cannot declare bad to be bad or foolish to be foolish, then we are prematurely forced to extend grace by the abolition of negative words.

When this happens, a basic form of loving others is taken away. We are no longer able to want “good” for them, because we have been forced to declare what they are doing “good.” Because of this we are forced to a higher level of relational involvement – from wanting their good to appreciating what they are doing.

This brings us to Lewis’s second connection. Now their offense against us not only has to be forgiven, it must be enjoyed. Forgiveness must mean more because love means more. If I cannot merely love them by wanting their good (because all things are good), then I must agree with their offense as being acceptable.

Think about one of the most common modern sayings given in resistance to forgiveness – “I’m not going to say that what they did was okay.” At first it may sound like a leap, but in light of Lewis’ assessment, it makes more sense.

Now let’s work Lewis’ logic backwards. If I am allowed to say that an offense or even an offender is bad (which Scripture holds to be universally true; Romans 3:23), then forgiveness would be made easier. I can now desire their good – being delivered from the moral condition that resulted in their offending me.

This is actually the same sense of regret I feel for myself every time I become convicted of my own sin. I desire my good – that I would be delivered from the moral condition that makes sin so deceptively tempting and illogically appealing. I now want for them what I would want for myself in the same situation.

When I can love them by wanting their good, I can see how forgiving them does not mean condoning or approving of their offense. Forgiveness, by definition, must declare something wrong before it can be enacted. Declaring everything good, neutral, or a matter of personal preference makes forgiveness an illogical exercise.

To summarize: wanting someone’s good is the foundation of love and allows us to see that loving them is not a contradiction to the moral infringement we feel when they offend us.

Being “In Love” and Promises

by brad on September 26, 2011 in Counseling Reflection with No comments

A Counselor Reflects on Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

“The idea that being ‘in love’ is the only reason for remaining married really leaves no room for marriage as a contract or promise at all. If love is the whole thing, then the promise can add nothing; and if it adds nothing, then it should not be made… As Chesterton pointed out, those who are in love have a natural inclination to bind themselves by promises. Love songs all over the world are full of vows of eternal constancy. The Christian law is not forcing upon the passion of love something which is foreign to that passion’s own nature: it is demanding that lovers should take seriously something which their passion of itself impels them to do (p.107).” Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

It is an interesting question. If being “in love” is the pinnacle experience, then why have we added marriage to it? You might begin by asserting that “we” did not add marriage to love, but it was God’s design. I would agree, but that rebuttal does not address the audience who would ask the question.

We find that even those who reject God (at least as defined in the Bible, interpreted by author’s original intent) fight fervently for the right to be married because they believe that it would add something to their experience of being “in love.” I reference the gay-marriage debate here, not for political purposes, but merely as an example.

As I have observed these debates (admittedly from a distance, I am not a highly politically-motivated person), my impression is that their motives are larger than, “You told me I can’t so I’m going to prove I can.” They sincerely want to be married. Why? If one should be free to exit marriage because “I fell out of love” would those not seeking to follow a particular religious code (like the Bible) want to add marriage to their experience of being in love?

We make vows for a reason that is beyond pragmatic. We make vows because we are made in the image of a covenant-making God. There is something higher than being “in love,” namely reflecting the image of the God we were made to glorify.

We do not serve a temporal God. Therefore a temporal experience of being in love is not the ultimate expression of the character of the God who is love (I John 4:8). What is more in keeping with God’s character is when that state of being in love is sealed within a self-sacrificing covenant.

As Lewis notes that Chesterton pointed out, even secular love songs from all cultures and time periods testify to this. True romantic love longs to seal itself in promises of fidelity, exclusivity, and sacrificially finding joy in the joy of the other.

What difference does this make? I would contend that it undercuts one of the primary decision making criteria in our culture. Consider, how many harmful decisions are made based upon the justification that “I am in love” or “I am no longer in love”? If that standard were removed from its place at the pinnacle of decision making, how many life tragedies would be avoided?

As a final addendum, please do not hear this as a condemnation of being “in love.” I firmly believe that being in love is one of the most blissful blessings that God has bestowed upon the human race. It may be one of the purest foretastes of Heaven’s perpetual worship. This reflection is merely a warning against one of the most basic human tendencies – trying to replace God with one of His gifts to us.

What Belongs in Love?

by brad on August 3, 2011 in Counseling Reflection with 2 Comments

What is love? Am I really in love? I love you, but I’m not sure I like you right now. Looking for love in all the wrong places. Agape. Phileo. There are many things we say and ask about love. Hopefully this post does not muddy already murky water.

I frequently have conversations with people whose definition of love is about to exhaust them (physically, emotionally, or financially), but they feel incredibly guilty if they “love less.” How could that be loving, Christ-like, or God-honoring?

Unless we answer this question many of us will become burned out and/or bitter by trying to do what we believe God calls us to do.

Let’s start with an image. Picture love as a basket and begin listing the actions, motives, and dispositions that belong in the basket. Service. Protection. Sacrifice. Joy. Pleasure. Forgiveness. Benefit of the doubt. Etc…

If we are not careful, we will end up saying that “love is everything.” But as with any word, when it means everything; it means nothing. Even the fact that love could require almost anything (moral) should not push us to say that “love is everything.”

So, how do we begin to take things out of the basket? We can start by recognizing that we are finite lovers. That means that my ability to love is limited by a 168 hour week. Nothing that requires more than the time I have to give can be placed in the basket. I also have a limited financial budget over which God has placed certain instructions (i.e., tithing, saving, avoiding debt). Nothing that love requires should cause me to live outside those instructions.

This begins to change the questions. Before, we might ask, how could I be loving and not do [blank] for my spouse? Or, how could I be loving and not give [blank] to my kids? I would have wanted those things, and I am called to love them as myself. They would be in a better position for life if given this opportunity.

These questions are rooted in guilt, because they are rooted in the assumption of an infinite resource. They could be applied to any good thing and with a little emotional tug result in everything going in the love basket.

The new question becomes, what is the best way(s) to love [name] with the blessings God has placed in my life? This recognizes that God blessed me in order that I might be a blessing (Gen 12:2). It also recognizes that to whom much is given, much is expected (Luke 12:48). So love is challenged to be sacrificial.

However, it also recognizes that there are limits to what we can put in love. The widow could only put in two copper coins (Luke 21:2). When we try to put more into love than God has given us to give, this is one way to define what is often called codependency.

When parents buy things for a child they cannot afford in the name of “sacrifice.” When a friend “protects” another from the consequences or revelation of substance abuse. When a spouse “forgives” physical abuse without contacting legal authorities or demanding counseling. In these cases, sacrifice, protection, and forgiveness do not belong in the basket of love (at least as defined in these examples).

But as long as we define love as everything nice, we will feel guilty when we “love less” by taking things out of the basket of love that were never ours to put in the basket.

Marriage As A Portrait – Ephesians 5:22-33

by brad on November 1, 2010 in Application Supplement with No comments

As the Church, As Christ (5:23, 25)

Too often we attempt to understand this passage backwards. Paul has spent five chapters describing the relationship between Christ and the church so that we could understand these few verses. Yet when we begin our application we just want to know who gets the last say in a disagreement, how often they can/cannot enact this power, and how this is not being a doormat.

There is absolutely no way to make proper application of this passage with that approach. Unless both spouses are coming to this passage with a reverent awe for how sacrificially Christ loves the church and how completely (with joy and protection) the church submits to Christ, each spouse should stop and reread Ephesians 1-5:21. Until this happens you have two people wanting to use God and the Bible to support their agenda and dreams. No marriage will function until you have two servant-minded people in the covenant.

Application: Try to write the wedding vows that would exist between Christ and the church (basic principles of salvation). Imagine what the division of household labor would look like between Christ and the church (how we grow in sanctification by grace). Consider how Scripture teaches the church to make major decisions under the headship of Christ. Reflect on how the church is called to administer discipline to its members (children) under the headship of Christ. After this reflection (based upon Scripture not personal opinion) you are prepared to try to apply Ephesians 5:22-33 to marriage roles.

That He Might Present

(BCH_Eph5C_handout for Printable PDF Handout)

Upon her arrival into heaven, Christ will present His church in the splendor He cultivated in her to Himself (Eph 5:27). As a husband, I am to keep this in mind as I love my wife through this life. The life my wife shares with me and the manner in which I love her is to beautify her body and soul. AND! I am to enjoy the process as I delight in the progress.

Here are some ways we engage with this biblical job description for husbands:

  • Model timely, thorough, and healthy repentance for our own sin.
  • Lead our family to live within our means with money and time.
  • Instruct, discipline, and enjoy the children of our home.
  • Be dependable in the things we say we will do.
  • Romance our wife in a way that resembles God’s delight for her.
  • Share what God teaches us in our personal Bible study.
  • Volunteer information about how our wife can pray for us.
  • Sacrifice time and energy for her to express her spiritual gifts.
  • Engage with other Christian couples with similar passions.
  • Like Christ in prayer, listen with concern to the content of her thoughts.

We will never love our wife like Christ does the church without taking seriously our call to be like Christ. I pray (and want to pray more often than I do) that one of the trophies of my life is a wife who reaches the arms of her True Husband “in splendor” with many marks of grace as a result of our journey through life together. If you would also take up this prayer, I would encourage you to read Gary Thomas’ book Sacred Marriage.

Because We Are Members of His Body (5:30)

Usually (at least from my experience) this phrase gets under taught. There is so much to teach in Ephesians 5:22-29 and the summary punch of verses 31-33 that this phrase just gets lost. Why does Christ love us so well? He has taken us as members of His body—the church. How should a husband think of his wife in order to love her as Christ would? We are to think of her as a member of our own body.

When we fail to love our wife well we usually either do not think of her or view her as against us. That would be the equivalent of trying to solve severe hunger by distracting ourselves or solving a headache by banging our head against a wall. That is not what we do with our body. We may over eat or over medicate, but we care for “our body.” The challenge to love our wife well is a challenge to take our “one flesh” relationship seriously.

Application: (Taken too far this becomes codependency) Treat each concern of your wife as if it were your own. Do not merely ask, “What would I do if I were her?” That would be duplicating yourself as your wife. Your call is to “incarnate” yourself in your wife’s experience (as best you can). The new questions are, “How does this affect my wife? When does this become more intense for her? What is most comforting for her? How can I remind her of my concern and protection?” These are the questions we ask of and pray that God would be involved with our concerns, so it is how we should love our wife as “members of our body.”

Introduction to the “Living Our Faith” series.
TOOL: “Using Prayer Time to Cultivate Ministry”
BLOG POST: “Teachers Equipping Ministers Through Prayer Time“

Good and Bad Desires Do Not Exist

by brad on August 17, 2010 in Counseling Reflection with 1 Comment

A Counselor Reflects on Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

“It is a mistake to think that some of our impulses—say mother love or patriotism—are good, and, others, like sex or the fighting instinct, are bad… Strictly speaking, there are no such things as good and bad impulses. Think once again of a piano. It has not got two kinds of notes on it, the ‘right’ notes and the ‘wrong’ ones. Every single note is right at one time and wrong at another. The Moral Law is not any one instinct or set of instincts; it is something which makes a kind of tune (the tune we call goodness or right conduct) by directing the instincts (p.11).” Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

I think we too often treat good and bad as qualities (like hot and cold or sweet and sour) instead of directions (like East and West or high and low). In terms of what Lewis is saying, if good and bad are qualities then particular impulses inherently have a particular quality. For instance, mother love would be good in the same way that a jalapeño is hot. The definition of jalapeño necessarily includes hot.

Yet mother love can be both good and bad. Mother love is at the root of fond childhood memories and the negative cliché’s associated with the title “mother-in-law.” This is where the metaphor of direction (towards or away from God) is helpful. If I am traveling North to New York City and reach Canada, then I have gone too far North. North was originally “good” but the excess now makes South “good” and continuing North “bad.”

The movement of the “direction” is love.  Too often we try to think of sin as hate and holiness as love. But in actuality all sin is love and holiness is also love (just in the opposite direction). Consider the Great Commandment passage:

And [Jesus] said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 22:37-40).”

If the command to is to love God first and neighbor second, then I break this command by loving something or someone else first and second.  Therefore, all sin is love (in the wrong direction or order). Hence, Paul would warn Timothy, “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs (1 Tim. 6:10).”

Hopefully this will help us in our battle with sin. Too often we have turned to God and His Word asking, “Tell me what I should and should not do; should and should not feel; should and should not think.”  This is a request for labels; not direction (or a tune).

Now, as we turn to God and His Word we can ask, “Tell me where my love should go; what should it sound like; what is the outcome I should strive for?” The answer to this question is not primarily rules, but outcomes.

A young pianist memorizes notes (and this is good for the novice). An experienced pianist reads the music, understands how the music is to “move” the audience, and delivers a song. As we read God’s Word and learn to follow it, let us begin with memorizing notes (learning good from bad), but let us not be content until we allow the Word to “move” us in the rhythm and direction of God’s heart.

Thorns, Pride, & Love – II Corinthians 12

by brad on August 16, 2010 in Application Supplement with No comments

Thorn in the Flesh (12:7)

I believe both the timing and vagueness of this verse are significant for its application. Paul discusses the humbling effect of his “thorn” right after discussing an incredible experience that could have easily caused pride (2 Cor 12:1-6). Paul viewed his character as more important than his comfort, therefore he could see the goodness of God in stripping his comfort to protect his character.

Yet the “thorn” is also vague. While the best guesses seem to be sight impairment from the Damascus road experience, it is impossible to be sure. I believe Paul (by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) used a metaphor to describe his ailment instead of a precise description so that we would be better able to relate to God’s work in Paul’s life.

Reflection: Can you see the goodness of God in the midst of your suffering? Admittedly, this is a very difficult question. Paul came back to God at least three times before he could answer it affirmatively. Does your struggle to see God’s goodness come from valuing comfort more than the refinement of your character? When you speak of your suffering do you consider the way others may be reading their experience of suffering onto your words (2 Cor 1:3-5)?

Sufficient Grace

(BCH_2Cor_12_handout for Printable PDF Handout)

“My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness (2 Cor 12:9),” are some of the sweetest and most difficult to apply words (personally, not abstractly) in all of Scripture. These are words we can cling to in the darkest night of our soul, yet when we try to figure out what to “do” with them it gets hard.

Almost by definition (God’s power in our weakness), the “application” of these verses will be an altered perspective rather than a set of steps. This sanctified perspective emerges from three concepts.

  • Redefined Weakness (“Therefore I will boast all the more of my weakness, so that the Power of Christ may rest upon me.” 2 Cor 12:9b): Paul so lived for God that anything—including his own weaknesses—that pointed people to the greatness of God was a reason for celebration. Paul’s life was so not about himself, that insecurity was an irrelevant concern. Yet neither did he become a doormat—by being a people-pleaser—because that also would have defamed God (2 Cor 10).
  • Contentment (“For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities”2 Cor 12:10a): What an amazing list. It captures most every dimension of human suffering. Once Paul’s life became about proclaiming the sufficiency of God’s grace, then every moment of suffering became an opportunity to proclaim, “God is more satisfying than this suffering is disheartening.”
  • Redefined Strength (“For when I am weak, then I am strong.” 2 Cor 12:10b): In a world that constantly tried to measure “good enough,” what a liberating statement! The best part is that Paul did not wait until everyone agreed with that statement before he lived in its freedom. But by living in the emotional freedom that Christ’s strength defined him more than his weakness, Paul’s “boldness” opened many doors to share the message of God’s sufficient grace.

As you face your own forms of suffering, and subsequent insecurities or fears, walk through this passage asking God to change your perspective rather than telling you what to “do” next.

Seeking Not Yours But You (12:14)

 

What a great definition of love! So often our loving is a self-centered seeking or savoring of something about the other person. In this case Paul was saying I was not seeking your money (see 2 Cor 9), but we could legitimately transfer this principle to attractiveness, intelligence, humor, touch, or power. But Paul would say that a love that pursues another primarily for what it gets from the other person is still an immature, selfish love.

Rather Paul says, “I was seeking you. I long to see you redeemed and enjoying Christ more than anything else you could give me in return. You were the ‘cake’ and I did not care if it came with ‘icing.’” Paul goes on to compare this love to the love parents have for their children (a mature love); a love that gets joy out of seeing the joy of their beloved grow.

Reflection: Are you a mature lover? Do you measure relationships based upon what they have to offer to you? Do you tend to insist on things being done the way you enjoy them? Can you take delight in the interest of another person and be deeply satisfied by their enjoyment? This is not natural for any of us, but is harder for some than others. Pray earnestly that God would make you a mature lover.

Introduction to the “Living Our Faith” series.
TOOL: “Using Prayer Time to Cultivate Ministry”
BLOG POST: “Teachers Equipping Ministers Through Prayer Time“

← Older Entries
 
UA-1304055