What is love?

I've been wanting to write this post for a while now, the idea keeps going through my mind but the time never seemed quite right, I'm not sure the time is right now, but...today I will attempt to write what I keep thinking about.

There's so much in America today about love. It seems that society would like us to believe that we are to unconditionally love every person we encounter and all those that we don't encounter. We are to show that love by embracing and supporting everything each and every person in the world thinks and does. Common sense tells me that this doesn't make sense. I highly doubt that the people pushing 'love' on the world embrace the actions of murderers. I doubt they support the decisions of child abusers. And how long would they love an abusive husband if he turned his anger on them. But it goes beyond that. 'Love' is pushed at us so much that the very definition of love is being redefined. As I understand what is being pushed as 'love' today, 'love' has become some wishy-washy, weak kneed, total acceptance and embracing, all -encompassing, ever-lasting, never disagreeing, kind of emotion that is more show than true emotion.

In the name of 'love' we are supposed to see every choice that every person makes, every action they take, as being right for them and therefore okay. Where is the line in that? Where is the right and wrong. We can even see this 'love' mentality shifting into law enforcement. I don't know that law officers are putting 'love' above their job, but the masses online seem to think that every person should be treated in such a way that no one is offended by what the law enforcers are doing. I have to wonder...what do those masses think will happen when the police are afraid to enforce laws because they must be kind and gentle to everyone they encounter? The offenders of the law sure won't be kind and gentle but we are working our way into a society that wants, and is demanding, a week-kneed kind of security in our law enforcers. I'm not saying that what law enforcers do is right but I'm not saying it's wrong either. What I'm saying is that what society is demanding of law enforcers is wrong.

Where did this whole 'love' mindset come from? 

I don't know where it started but I don't really think it started in Scripture. Christians are commanded to love our neighbor, meaning everyone, and to put others above ourselves, something that isn't always easy, and is, I will admit, one of the more harder parts of Scripture for me. I have a hard time overlooking some of the things people do. And I sure don't want some of those people around me and my family. Is that wrong? Maybe. Probably. But I think if everyone were honest they would admit that there are certain people that they just don't want to be around and there are people that they sure don't want around their husband/wife and children. We are all, after all, fallen people that must survive in a fallen world, and some of that surviving means keeping ourselves from some people and things in this world.

I watched a very short video online today. In the video a couple gave a ride to a hitchhiker. This man immediately proceeded to get confrontational with the couple, eventually pulling a gun on them and asking them if they were willing to die for the 'Christianity' they had laid claim to. He called them hypocrites and proved to them that they would not back their  talk with actions. 

That was a video that someone made to prove a point but its true for so many professing 'Christians' and, after watching that video, it made me wonder, no matter what we think we would do now, here in our safe little worlds, what would each and every person do if they were faced with just such a situation. Would the person you thought would gladly die for Christ be the first one to say they would not die for Him? Would you be the first to say no? Would I? What we think we will do is often shown in life threatening situations and I've heard, in those situations, what a person does isn't always what they thought they would do.

Not all that long ago I experienced a natural disaster. We had more of a close brush with it than an actual encounter with it but people all around us were being impacted and displaced because of it. We were affected by it. During this disaster there were many people that did many things. People that reacted in many ways. I saw people going well out of their ways to help others and people that stood back and took videos of those that needed help the most. There were people that lost everything and people that lost nothing. There were celebreties telling others to help the community in any way they could while those same celebrities were nowhere to be seen. There were individuals getting as far away from the disaster as they could, and others that wouldn't leave. There were those that took risks for themselves, their families, and even strangers, while some would do nothing to even help themselves. We see it all the time in any kind of survival situation.

I used to be fascinated with survival situations, read lots about them, and how to survive. Those in the survival field say there is a big difference in people that survive and people that don't. I know that life and death are in the Lord's hands and if someone does not survive a survival situation, or any situation, it is because that is the means the Lord used to end their time on earth. I'm not disputing that. For right now, I'm speaking only of human situations and mentalities. And among those that have studied survival and those that do and do not survive a survival situation they say that those that survive do so because they have a 'I will make it through this no matter what' mentality, and the ones that don't survive have a 'I'm gonna die' mentality. 

A couple of years ago there were stories in the news about a little girl that survived a plane crash. She was the only surviver of the crash and she walked, I don't remember how far, from the site of the crash to someone's house. If I remember correctly that little girl knocked on someone's door and a man opened his door to see a child with no shoes, and clothing not fit for the weather, bloody and freezing on his porch. This little girl made it through a crash and went after help in an area she did not know, walking quite a ways, if I remember right, while injured, sustaining further injuries, to get help. Why? What made this child do such a thing? Why didn't she just curl up in a ball and stay there? Why didn't she sit next to her dead parents crying? Why didn't she do any of the other things one would expect an injured child in a frightening situation to do?The correct answer is that the Lord had plans for her and part of those plans were for her to do what she did when she did it. But human logic says that this child did something miraculous. She did what no one would have expected her to do.

In a survival situation, whether its a plane crash or someone asking if you're ready to die for Christ, people will do what they never believed they would do. Could you say yes, when asked if you're ready to die for Christ, knowing that the person holding the gun to your head is going to pull the trigger if you say 'yes'?

Could you love the person holding the gun to your head? Could you watch them shoot your husband...wife...children...and love them? That is more the kind of love spoken of in Scripture. The 'love' being promoted in America today is more of a, they are doing what's right for them and we should accept their actions and 'love' them, tell them that what they're doing is okay because they are misunderstood and not accepted because of their actions, kind of 'love'. 

THAT isn't love.

Children are being raised with the same kind of 'love' today. I know someone that, when their child is bad, really bad, as in, attacks a sibling, they say that the attacking child just needs more attention and they love on the child that attacked the sibling. WHAT is that teaching the child? WHAT kind of person will that child become, has already become, because of that kind of 'love'?

A number of years ago we heard a lot about 'tough love' this was what family and friends did when teenagers and adult children became problems. It was said that this 'tough love' would straighten them up when nothing else would. I never experienced such 'tough love' and never used it but I have heard about it, read stories about parents that used it, known kids/adults that needed it. Today we hear little, if anything, about 'tough love' and hear more about 'love' everything they do, accept it, embrace it, let them know you 'love' them and their choices.

This is life in America today.

This is now the American definition of 'love'.

That, to me, is not 'love'. It doesn't even come close to resembling 'love'. It is accepting sin and selfishness, which is sin, and embracing it, encouraging it. We may as well be inviting Satan to throw a party in our homes...because that is essentially what is happening.

That is NOT love.

For many years now I've noticed that parents can easily see the misbehavior's of other people's children, would quickly correct certain behaviors in those children, but can't see their own children's misbehavior's so easily. I am no exception to this.Love for our children blinds us to things that others can see in our children, and a lack of that same parental love for other people's children allows us to see things in those children that their parents can't see.

I have babysat for other people off and on since I was in my pre-teens. I've kept a lot of kids, loved a lot of kids, disciplined a lot of kids. Over the years I noticed that I would put up with things from my own children that I wouldn't put up with from other people's kids. Why? What makes the difference? The behavior is the same. The age of the child could be the same. What made me put up with something in my own child that I wouldn't in another person's child? In a lot of cases it was the fact that the child's behavior made life more difficult for me. And in some cases I noticed that it was often the need to train my own child over the long run but only needed to control someone else's child for a short time. But in the end the biggest difference was the love I held for my own children. It's sad to say, but a simple fact, that a parent will always love their own child more and different than they love another persons child, even if they love the other child.

I had a family member that recently discovered her very young children had been endangered while in a 'church' nursery. In the days following the incident, an incident that came about because of the adult in charge in the nursery, this relative asked several family members for advice on the situation. I spent a good deal of time on the phone with this relative, discussing the incident and what I would do if it had been my child or children in that situation. In the end, I asked my relative a question. I knew this relative was babysitting for a friend. My relative already has a one year old and a three year old and when she's babysitting for her friend, she then has another three year old. I asked my relative if her three year old was in one place, in danger, and her friends three year old was in another place, in danger, what would she do? I asked her to imagine that both children were in life threatening situations at the exact same time...which child would she run to?

My relative reluctantly admitted that she would go to her own child. And in reality...most parents would do the same thing. It's a sad situation. It's a horrible situation. If something like that truly happened it would be horrific but a parents love will send them after their own child pretty much 100% of the time. That is parental love. That is a mother's love for her child. That is a dad's love for his child. That is a grandparent's love for their grandchild. And let's face it...that is love for anyone. We would save anyone we loved, with a stronger love, before we would save someone we loved with a weaker love, or didn't love at all, not in the sense of true human emotion love.

But American society today is teaching a totally different kind of 'love'. From my rather uninvolved, and mostly disinterested, observations of this 'love' being pushed down our throats at every moment, it seems to me that society, as a whole, would have us think that we should have that same blinded, total devotion, kind of love for every single person in the world, that we should accept each and every persons actions, reactions, faults, strenghts, weaknesses...SINS...as if they were the greatest things ever, that we should embrace them believing that everything another person does is the right thing and that we should be happy for all these differences because 'love' makes our world better.

Love does make our world better.

But not that kind of 'love'. That kind of 'love' creates monsters out if people. It creates selfish children wallowing in sin and turns them into selfish adults wallowing in sin. It teaches people that the only line between right and wrong is the line that they draw for themselves. Where then, is the line for murder? We, as a society, have already erased that line. Abortion is legal and in many cases encouraged. I know a 'Christian' that believes abortion is right in the case of rape. WRONG! Abortion is murder and God's laws say murder is wrong. It doesn't say murder is wrong unless one is raped. And even if it did, which it doesn't, common sense would say the murdered person should be the rapist not the child created by the rape. But even that is not justified by Scripture, yes, we see many people killed in Scripture for their crimes, but we also see that Scripture says do not murder.

But American society would have us believe that murder isn't murder when the murdered person is an unborn baby. I have seen news articles several times over the last few years talking of people trying to get laws passed to allow 'abortion' on children up to a certain age. These children supposedly wouldn't be murdered if they were younger than a set age because...well, I really don't know why...because someone's depraved mind thinks it's not murder, I guess. And yet if these laws were passed young children would be killed by the thousands...millions...because of any reason a parent deemed okay to 'abort' their child after it was born.

And really...what is the difference in killing a child before birth or after birth? It's all murder. Is a baby less of a baby because it hasn't taken it's first breath? There are states where a person can be sent to prison for life for causing the death of an unborn baby. Those same states allow a mother to have an abortion. How can one person go to prison for life for murdering and unborn baby while in the same town a woman is allowed to murder her own child and she walks free?

But 'love' would have us believe that we should embrace the mother that aborted her baby, tell her she did the right thing because she did what was right for her, because she may even claim to have made the choice she did out of 'love' for her child, while we are supposed to be horrified at the murder of another woman's baby, a baby that could very well have been at the same gestation as the aborted baby, simply because one woman wanted her baby and the other did not. 

The person that caused the death of an unborn baby and went to prison for it would make the evening news, show up in news articles online, might very well make national news, while the mother that killed her own child would walk away free but for her own conscience, if it bothers her at all. 

What is the difference?

Why are we supposed to 'love' the mother and her choice and be glad to see the other person put in prison? If the mother's murder isn't wrong...why is the criminal's murder wrong?

But those are both cases where a good majority of people would see the right and wrong of things...or we would think they would. Only...there's no longer a right and wrong of those things anymore. But bad as that is, it's worse. Because in our society of redefined 'love' we are now told that we 'hate' because we think the mother that aborted her child is a murderer or that we think she is wrong for doing what she did. What would people say if we told them the mother that had the abortion should be sent to prison?

This 'love' is now trickling down into America's children. They are being taught things that can't leave them anything but confused, made to accept things whether they believe those things are right or not. They must set aside their own beliefs in order to embrace the beliefs and behaviors or others.

What kind of mixed up 'love' is that? We must love those that do 'these' things but what you believe is wrong. And I'm not talking of Christianity here. I'm not speaking of Christian beliefs or teachings. I'm simply speaking of children having to embrace the beliefs of one child, or a set of children, while being told that that child, or children, is right simply because that child is the way they are or believes the way they do, while being told that their own feelings and beliefs is wrong.

Does that even make sense?

The answer is no. And those with any common sense, we'll forget Scripture all together here for a moment, recognize that. If we must embrace the ideas, beliefs, and behaviors of some people because those people believe those things to be right, than common sense says we should embrace the beliefs, ideas, and behaviors of all people because when someones own beliefs determine right and wrong then every last person's beliefs should be embraced and welcomed not just a select few.

But that is now 'love' in America.

If a Christian, by any definition, speaks against something on the basis of Scripture, we are labeled as haters or worse. We are told, even by other 'Christians' that Jesus loves everyone, that he died for everyone, and that we should love them too. Well...they're right. And they're wrong. We are commanded to love, something that, as I stated earlier, isn't as easy as it sounds. Some people are easy to love, others make us fight hard to find a single speck of love for them. Loving others, as defined by Scripture, also comes easier for some than for others. My husband finds it much easier to love and accept others, and their faults, than I do. 

And this, this single point of loving people according to Scripture, brings me to the thoughts that keep rolling through my mind and have made me want to write this post for some time now. What is love as defined by Scripture? Something I'm not really going to attempt to answer, not exactly anyway. And...how are we to love others as defined by Scripture?

Let me say straight out...I have no doubts that there will be many that will disagree with my observations and understandings. There will be many that will disagree with the conclusion I have come to after spending quite a bit of time thinking on, reading Scripture about, and observing the implementation of. That's okay. That's more than okay. We all should form our own understandings of all things Scripture and we should base those understandings on nothing but the Lord's guiding of us in His word. We need never form our beliefs off of someone else's beliefs.

When I was growing up my grandmother often said, 'you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar'. I suppose she may have been right but I never tried to catch flies, or much of anything else. When we wish to catch something though, we must bait the trap according to what we want to catch. Supposing we want to catch anything at all. It would do us no good to bait a trap with lettuce when we want to catch a cat. Nor would it do us any good to bait a trap with lemon juice if we wish to catch a dog. Meat would be a much better bait in both of those cases. After that, so would cat food, dog food, and chocolate cake. We must use the right bait for what we're trying to catch.

But what if we don't want to catch anything? What if we're simply trying to mind our own business, live our lives peacefully, and keep ourselves from that which we believe is wrong?

And we are labeled as 'haters' because of it. 

Quite honestly, I don't care what anyone labels me as. Just because someone wants to call me something doesn't mean I am that. And even if, by their definition, I am what they labeled me as...what is that to me? 

I am what I am. And I answer to the Lord, not to people that wish to slap labels on me based on their own beliefs. But let's suppose I wanted to do what American society says I should...'love' everyone. Well, I would need to love them based on Scripture and not on American 'love' by today's standards. And I will be totally honest here, I don't think very much of America would like to be loved with that kind of love.

First of all...I would have to 'judge' them according to Scripture. Are they living in defiance of God's word? Do they keep the ten commandments? Do they show the fruits of the Spirit or...do they show that they belong to the god of this world, Satan? Are the 'Christians' that say we should love everybody showing signs of true 'Christianity' or are they showing signs of being white washed tombs as Christ called them? 

And when they say I should act like Christ...

Do they understand that Christ Himself said...Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:34.  'Christians' and those opposing Christianity love to tell anyone claiming Christianity in any form that they should be more like Christ, and they should, Scripture says so, but they fail to realize that Christ wasn't the all accepting, all loving Person they believe him to be. They live with the delusion that Christ loves everyone the same, those that believe in Him and those that don't, that He came to save every last person on earth, and they see Him as some sort of magical Santa Claus or something. A Being that loves without wrath, that saves without asking anything in return, that accepts all without making any demands.

That isn't Christ.

Do those wanting Christians to be like Christ, as we should be, understand that if Christ had acted in the way they believe Him to be that He would never have been crucified? He wouldn't have challenged anyone's beliefs, wouldn't have told them that He is the only way to heaven, wouldn't have told them to follow Him before men. The Christ they believe in doesn't exist. They believe in a false Christ that lets them embrace their sins instead of in the Christ that died because of Sin. Christ became the complete payment for sin, He took all of God's wrath against sin, against the sin of the elect, of His people, onto Himself and suffered the ultimate price, death, to appease a God that requires payment for sins. 

That isn't the God that most people believe in and it isn't the Christ they believe in. And it sure isn't the Christ they want. They want the Christ that is nothing but love and accepts all that they do and embraces the same sins that they do they sure don't want this Christ....

 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples,2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. 4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear,[a] and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, 6 and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues 7 and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi[b] by others. 8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers.[c] 9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.10 Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For youneither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.[d] 15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell[e] as yourselves.

16 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ 17 You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? 18 And you say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ 19 You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it.22 And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it.

23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!

25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.

27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones andall uncleanness. 28 So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, 30 saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? 34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah,[f] whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation....

Christ was speaking to a specific people but this is an example of Who Christ was, of the things He said and taught. This is the Christ of Scripture. He called them broods of vipers, hypocrites, blind tombs... He said they appeared beautiful but were full of dead peoples bones. He said they were unclean. He said all the blood of the righteous would be on them. 

Does that sound like the Christ that 'Christians' say we have today? Does it sound like the 'Christ' they say we should emulate? Do you suppose the 'Christians' really want us to treat them as Christ did or would have?

Does the Christ in Matthew 23 sound anything like the hand holding, coddling, totally accepting, all embracing, unconditionally loving Christ they would have us to believe in and act like? 

A child wants a parent that will pat them on the back, hug them, and encourage them in their misbehavior. But if a parent does that they create a monster that no one wants to be around. There has to be a line that the child cannot cross. Teens and young adults that have gone wild want a parent that will allow them to do what they want to do, they want a parent that will enable them to do the things that they chase after despite the dangers to themselves but a parent should draw a line. Just because a child, no matter their age, wants to do something, doesn't mean their parent should allow, encourage, or in any way support that. 

Christ drew the line. God drew the line. Sin is sin. Christians should act this way. The world will act that way. If a Christian acts as the world...what are they? If they embrace and encourage sin...what are they? If they 'love' as the world loves...what are they?

Is Christian love and all encompassing 'love' that accepts everyone? Is it the 'love' that embraces sin and the sinner? Or is it telling people of their sins? Warning them of the consequences of them? 

Should we tolerate sin and selfishness, total chaos, and everything else because of 'love' or should we show them love and draw a line? Is complete freedom truly love? 

Is it theft is someone steals something from you? Is it theft if they take something you didn't want anyway, something you were about to throw away but hadn't yet thrown out, and they didn't know you were going to throw it away? Is that theft? Taking anything that isn't yours without permission is theft. Does it become something other than theft because your child does it? Should you laugh it away or wave it away because your child did it? I've known parents that accept, encourage, and badger others into encourages their child's need to take a toy from someone else's house. The parent tells the owner of the toy, or the parents of the owner, that they will bring the toy back next time. But in reality all they're doing is encouraging their child's stealing. There must be a line.

Life is no different. There is a line between right and wrong. The Lord drew the line between murder and not murder and he did not place unborn babies on the side of not murder. Taking a life is murder. Unborn babies are alive. America even have laws to protect them, because they are alive. Yet...we embrace and accept the murder of unborn babies by accepting what is promoted as a medical procedure called abortion. We use words like embryo, fetus, and pregnancy to remove words like baby and with child, or expecting a child.

What would the Christ of Matthew 23 say to someone walking into an abortion clinic today? What might he say to those running the abortion clinic? 

And maybe far worse...what would he say to the 'Christians' embracing and accepting sin in the name of 'love'? A love that in no way resembles the love of Scripture.

Journeying with Paul...part eleven

Journeying with Paul...continued

It took five days before Paul's accusers arrived but when they did they presented their case to the governor. Paul's accusers made their case to Felix and then Paul was allowed to respond. He defended himself, explaining what he had done and why, disputing much of what his accusers had said. Felix, who was familiar with the 'Way', agreed to hear more of the accusations against Paul when the other accusers arrived and to keep Paul in custody until that time. But he gave Paul freedoms and allowed him to have visitors.

Paul spent two years in prison, being questioned often by Felix. That was where Paul was when Felix was replaced by another governor. It was during that time, those two years of imprisonment, that it is believed that Paul wrote the letter to the Philippians.

That was a much shorter letter than the last letter that Paul wrote, the one to the Romans. I can't help wondering if Paul had less to say or if maybe he had less access to writing supplies. Paul was no longer free to come and go as he pleased. He wasn't free to work and earn money or to barter his work for supplies to write on. Did he have what he needed to write a long letter and simply did not have need to say as much to the Philippians as he had to say to the Romans? Or did he not have what it took to allow him to write such a long letter.

Two years of Paul's life has passed and we were told nothing about it except that he was in prison and was brought before the governor, a man hoping to get money from Paul, many times. That's it. What did Paul think while he was in prison? What did he feel? Did he miss friends and family? Did he long for the freedom to travel and teach as he had been doing? Was he content to stay in one place? Did he enjoy whatever comforts he had in prison? Was he fed well? Was he starved? Was he treated good? Was he beaten?

As we begin to read his letter to the Philippians we see that he wasn't alone when he wrote the letter, Timothy was with him. I would guess that having Timothy there brought Paul comfort and may have helped assure that he was treated at least half decent but we really don't know for sure. For all we know having Timothy there may have brought Paul pain. It may have made him worry about Timothy as a parent would agonize over a child suffering through an incarceration with them, being denied freedoms, possibly being denied food, clothing, warmth in the winter. We really just don't know.

We can see in Paul's letter that he thinks of the believers, most likely he thinks of all the believers he has previously known and led although he doesn't say that here. What we do see is that Paul says that his imprisonment has 'advanced' the gospel, spreading it through his captivity.

We also see something else. In chapter one verse 15 Paul says that some 'preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will'. There is much to be gained there. Even in Paul's time he differentiated between those that preached Christ out of good will and those that did it out of envy and rivalry. Not all that taught of Christ did so out of their own belief in Christ but out of some kind of petty, selfish, human reasons that were to serve themselves.

Paul goes on to say, 'the latter do it out of love knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment.' Paul tells those reading his letter that there are some preaching Christ for the sake of love for Paul...it isn't said here but I'm wondering if that love was a love for Paul because he was their hero, the person they looked up to, the person they emulated and wanted to be like, or if they preached out of love for Christ. I kind of want to assume that both would be the case but where Scripture is concerned I try not to assume anything and Paul leads us to believe here that those preaching out of love are doing it for the love of him, Paul, and not saying they are doing it for the love of Christ. At least that is the way I'm taking these verses.

Paul then says, 'Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.' So Paul essentially says that he doesn't care what their reasoning is for preaching Christ, Christ is being preached and that's all that matters, its cause to rejoice.

I must point something out here, something that stands out to me. Paul doesn't say anything about preaching the gospel here, he doesn't say anything about preaching Scripture, he doesn't even say anything about just preaching as so many preachers and their followers do today. Paul says they are preaching Christ. That is what was being preached. Christ is what was important.

And we see that in what Paul tells the Philippians. He tells them that to live is Christ, to die is gain. He shows through his words that he is torn between staying on earth to lead them and leaving earth to be with Christ. And he says that he knows whatever happens will bring glory to Christ.

I'm very much a fallen human in a fallen world. I know that heaven will far surpass anything we have on earth. I know that one tiny taste of heaven will forever wipe any desire for anything of earth and yet...I'm still human. I have family here on earth. A husband that needs me. Kids that need me. Other family that would hurt if I weren't here. What I wouldn't give to truly face each day with the feelings and thoughts that Paul portrays here, that he gives us as an example of what we should feel like, and yet I can't reach that point. When I think of my death, I think not of what I will gain but of what others will lose. I know that for the majority of the world my living or dying makes no difference. I know that there are those, even among the people that are closest to me, that could probably care less, and might even be glad, if I were gone, but I can't help thinking of those that would hurt the most if I wasn't here. I can't help hurting for them. And so I can't reach the point of saying it would be nothing but good if I were to die. Not for me, but for them.

But then Paul's situation was different than mine. For one thing, he was receiving direct revelations from God. For another, he had no family that was close to him. He doesn't have a wife, doesn't seem to have any kids, even his sister isn't shown as having any contact with him. All we see of those he may be close to are other believers, who I have no doubt would hurt if Paul were to die, but who do not seem to have any daily, dependency on him. They do seem to rely on him to stay in their faith and that leaves me to wonder about how strong their faith really was. Why do they require Paul's guidance to believe in Christ?

The entire letter seems to be more about encouraging the Philippians and edifying them, to me anyway, than it does about giving them any specific instructions. Paul does tell them that he counts everything as a loss in order that he might gain Christ.

That gets me to thinking about this earthly life. If we really stop and think about it, everything, every little thing on this earth that holds our attention or our affections takes our focus off of Christ. I don't know that that is what Paul meant but...our earthly lives, even, are a loss. We live out this life, separated from Christ because of the sins of this world, sins that live within us even if we don't want them to, and we cannot put God first all of the time. We sin daily because we fail daily to make God the most important thing in our lives every single second of every single day. Even in my sleep...it's not Christ that fills my dreams but life here on earth. I sin even as I sleep.

Everything on earth separates us from God. Even his own creation separates us from him. It may point us to him but it also keeps us from him. How many times do we marvel about a flower without thinking of the God who made it? How many times do we enjoy a cool breeze without thanking the God that sent it to us? How many times do we enjoy the feel of sunshine on our skin without giving God the credit of warming us with his sun?

Paul, in chapter 3 verse 12-16 says that he has not managed to attain perfection, I'm going to go ahead and make a quick assumption here that he is speaking of perfection in Christ, but that he presses on to make perfection his own because Christ has made him his own. He tells them that he forgets what is in the past and presses toward what it yet to come.

I remember when the Lord first opened my eyes to the Truth of Scripture, when He changed me, opened my heart, and gave me eyes that see what I never saw before...I remember that I was head over heels in love with Him. I was literally walking on clouds when I read Scripture. I was happiest when I was reading, discussing or hearing of Christ. It was like I was in a fog through which I viewed all of life, in love with Christ.

It was new. It was exciting. And I never wanted it to end. I happily forgot what was behind me, forgot the very pale shadow of faith I had once had and eagerly pressed into this new deep faith I now held. Oh, the joy I had in Christ.

The joy in Christ is still there but it has changed. Time and circumstances paled the rosy hue through which I viewed my own faith and the Lord that gave it to me. Nothing has changed in my faith but I have lost that head over heels, can't breathe for the wonder of it all, kind of feeling. Now...I've settled into my faith. The love is no longer the brand new love of falling in love but the more settled love, tried through time, tested through fire, and secure kind of love.

Even as I write that I wonder if it's the wrong thing to write, if someone will take it the wrong way. I can't find a good way to say what I'm trying to say. When a mother first has a brand new baby she loves that baby with a strength that defies all description. It's as if that baby can do no wrong and every little thing that baby does is the most wonderful thing in the world. As that baby grows, so does the love, so does the wonder. It's amazing when that baby learns to move it's arm, to reach for things. That new mama probably even rejoices when the baby picks it's nose for the first time. But let time go on. When that tiny bundle of joy is a toddler and slaps mama because mama told it no...baby isn't quite so amazing anymore, not in that moment, and a bit of the head over heels love settles into a 'I'll love you through anything kind of love.' And as the years pass, mom's love gets tried and tested through good things and bad things. She holds her not so little baby through bouts of illness, injuries, and heartache. She wipes her not so little baby's tears when life makes them hurt and then she wipes her own tears when her baby makes her hurt. But through it all she loves her child and that love changes, deepens, goes from a euphoric love of a newborn to a we've faced life together and I'm your mother and I still love you, still remember when you were my wonderful baby, and now you're my wonderful child no matter what, kind of love.

What I'm trying to say, and feel as if I'm doing a miserable job of it, is that my faith is deep and strong but the brand new amazement of that faith has settled into something lasting and permanent that has seen the test of time and trials and is still there.

But it was the early days of that deep faith that keeps tugging at me, pulling at me, making me long for the euphoria of what was there. I want that back. When I was in my teens there was a country song about a girl that wanted to fall in love. She sang about how she wanted to 'feel that rush'. The rush of falling in love with Christ has faded through time but the love is still there. But I would give just about anything to feel that head over heels in love rush again. There was something so wondrous about it.

My husband says he thinks that feeling is what, at least in some small way, we will feel in heaven, with Christ.

I wonder...did Paul live with that feeling? Is that what kept him pressing on so much so that he was able to say being beaten and imprisoned was a good thing? He got direct revelations from God...did he live in the rush of love for Christ, staying in that head over heels euphoria, because he had close encounters with the Lord on a regular basis?

To be continued

Journeying with Paul....part ten

I never dreamed when I started following Paul on his journeys that it would turn into such a long, drawn out, study. Nor did I anticipate the work that would be required on my part to get it completed. When I first began to follow Paul, I figured it would take a week or two at the most. Instead of the week or two I anticipated, this study has stretched out over months.

Just yesterday I was telling my husband how glad I will be to finish Paul's journeys, not because I'm not enjoying this study, not because I'm not learning a lot, but because this study and the writing that I am doing along with it is taking much out of me. This has been a lot of work and it has been time consuming, so much so that there are many times when I simply don't have the time to put into it. Writing of Paul's journeys has been different than my other writings too. With all of my other writings, even the long ones that take me days to write, I can pretty much write them and be done with them. I am writing my thoughts and experiences in those posts, writing what I'm learning at the moment, and then moving on. Paul hasn't been that way. Paul is challenging me, pushing me to the limits of what I want to do, has even pushed me to the limit of wanting to complete this study. There have been days when I wanted to just throw my hands up and walk away from this, days when I wanted to just say, 'I'm finished'. But I started this project, this study, and I will finish it, one way or another, sooner or later.

I may finish it in one long bout of writing and studying or I may finish it in tiny increments but finish it I will.

And so I move back into Paul, into my study on his life, and where I left him. Despite being warned about the dangers waiting for him in Jerusalem, Paul headed there anyway. He wasn't there long before he was captured, removed forcibly from the temple, being accused of defiling it.  The Jews that captured him had intention of killing him but heard that all of Jerusalem was in confusion, a tribune came to Paul's rescue, causing the Jews to stop beating Paul and arresting him. The crowd of people in Jerusalem was so violent that Paul had to be carried into the barracks.

We see in these verses, chapter 21:27-36, that there was much confusion and violence because of Paul, but we do not have any idea of how Paul reacted or what he thought or felt. We are simply given bare facts, almost as if Paul is of no more importance than a rock would be, he is simply there, the center of what is happening, but his thoughts and feelings on what is happening are shown no importance or consideration. They simply are not the important part of this section of Scripture. Here is what Paul was warned would come, here is the violence, imprisonment, and possible potential death of Paul that he knew to expect in Jerusalem, here is what Paul walked into the midst of.

There was a greater plan being worked out around Paul than what Paul thought and felt. Paul was a man, made of flesh and blood. He had emotions, he had preferences, he had hurts. He had just been beat, had people violently clamoring for his demise...he had to be experiencing very human emotions and physical feelings, and yet we are given no insight into those things.

Paul tells the crowd, in Hebrew, which seemed to be important as we are told of the language he used, that he is a Jew. He tells them that he was brought up according to the law, that he persecuted the 'Way' to the death. Paul admits that he was responsible for the death of Christians. And he still identifies Christians as the 'Way'. I can't help wondering what importance came from that term. Why did he call Christians the 'Way'? And why do we not hear that definition today? Why are true Christians never referred to as the 'Way'?

Paul summarizes his experiences for the Jews, tells them how he came to be a part of what he called the 'Way'. And they still called for his death, saying he should not be allowed to live. This resulted in Paul being taken into the barracks for the purpose of being flogged. But Paul asked them if it was lawful for them to flog a Roman citizen. So Paul has now said he is both Jew and Roman. This caused some confusion and fear in the tribune and saved Paul from being flogged.

Paul then faces a council. Paul tells them that he has lived in good conscience before God, to which he is struck in the mouth. How does Paul respond? Does he sit back and do nothing? Does he quietly accept the treatment he just received? Does he tell the council that God loves them?

No. Paul does not physically fight back. Whether he wanted to or not we are not told but we do see that he verbally fought back. He responded to this attack on him by telling the council, 'God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall!"

I recently had someone leave some comments on my blog telling me that what I believe is heresy and an abomination to God, this person also accused me of trying to indoctrinate them into my beliefs, and essentially told me that by responding to them in a true and to the point sort of way, that I had not shown them love. Did Paul show the council love here? I'm not Paul. I'm not even close to Paul. Paul had a job in the Lord's plan that I don't begin to hold, and quite honestly would not have wanted to hold, but...Paul shows here that when someone attacks our faith in God, something that Christ himself said was persecution to Him, that we do no have to sit back and lovingly give a response. Paul, through his example, something he said he set before believers many times in the way he lived, although he did not say that about this encounter, has not gently loved those attacking him. He told them that God would strike them. He called them whitewashed tombs.

I was told that my beliefs are heresy and an abomination to God for...I don't even know what reason. The arguments the person leaving comments on my blog used never really seemed to be about the Gospel but about all these little points of what they thought were ways to follow Scripture. If I had been denying Christ I could have understood their statements. If I had been speaking of a Christ contrary to Scripture I could have understood their comments but I did neither of those things. Instead they took offense at things that are not, to me anyway, the main points of salvation. And then they got upset because I wasn't loving.

Paul wasn't loving here. He told the council that God would strike them. How much less loving can a person be than to say God is going to strike someone. I would not ever want to be on God's strike list. Paul also said these men were whitewashed tombs. He told them they were clean holding cells for dead bodies. I'm not sure what whitewashing meant in Paul's day but I know what it means in our day. To whitewash something means you put a coat of white paint over something, often something old and ugly, and make it nice and pretty and new on the outside, hiding the old that is on the inside. That sounds to me like a pretty nasty insult that Paul just hurled at the council.

That is not the love that the commenter on my blog said I should have showed to them. That isn't the love that so many of today's so-called 'Christians' claim Christians should show, and it isn't the love that those opposed to Christianity in any form demand from Christians. That is straight up truth coming from the mouth of a very important man in Scripture.

There's your Christian love.

Did Paul refrain from judging those men? Did he treat them with kindness and human love that told them that what they were doing, what they believed, was okay? That it was acceptable to God? That God loves them no matter what they do or how they act? Or did he hurl insults at them and all but call down God's wrath on them?

And he wasn't finished!

That was a single sentence. Paul didn't stop there. He went on. He told them...'Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?' Paul went on to use their own law against them. He told them that they charged him according to a law that they were violating.

The comments that were left on my blog were not loving. They did not meet with the standards that the person leaving them accused me of not meeting. My situation was nowhere near what Paul's was. I'm not really comparing comments left on my blog to Paul being persecuted and standing before what amounts to a courtroom of people trying him, with a death sentence hanging over his head. I'm just trying to point out the similarities of people today, of their actions and expectations, and those of Paul's days. The situations are nowhere near the same. I had nothing to gain or lose by engaging in conversation with the person leaving comments on my blog. It crossed my mind, many times, to cut my losses and not approve the comments that person was leaving on my blog, but there was something there, in those comments, that tugged at me. That person felt the need to say what they did, for whatever reason they felt the need to say them, and I felt like I should allow the comments on my blog and to reply to each one of them.

And so...that person basically came to me, accusing me of things, and then got offended and essentially told me that I was unloving and straight out said that I was self-righteous, all while doing exactly what they were accusing me of doing. And saying that I was violating Scripture.

Maybe I was. But here, in Acts 23, is a man that set great examples in Scripture, and he is not responding in a loving way to those that are speaking against him. This is a subject I have been wanting to write on for some time. It is a subject I expect I will write on when the time is right. But for now...Paul did not...I repeat, because it is well worth repeating a hundred times...tell those treating him in such a horrible manner, speaking against him because of what he believes and teaches, that God loves them and He did not treat them with love. Not the human emotion kind of love that strives not to offend their human feelings anyway.

Paul then went on to lay claim to the status of being a Pharisee. So we now see that he is not only a Jew, not only a Roman, not only a Pharisee but he is all three. In those times these titles all seemed to be of great importance. I don't mind admitting that all the titles and connections those titles bring in Scripture still confuses me. I can't keep the Pharisees straight from the Saducees. The Romans from the Jews. They all seem to run in the same circles to me and yet they are all distinct groups of people. And here, Paul lays claim to three different distinct groups of people, people with different rules and customs.

The Pharisees found nothing wrong in Paul but the Jews still wanted him dead, so much so that they vowed to neither eat nor drink until Paul was dead. This almost makes me want to laugh. It sounds so stupid. What does anyone care if the Jews did not eat or drink until Paul died? Why would any ruler care? It is much like a child that tells an adult they won't breathe until they get what they want. I've seen kids do this and quite honestly it has less than zero effect on me. Do you know what happens to a child that holds its breath until it gets its way? It will either grow tired of holding its breath and breathe or it will hold its breath until it passes out. Either way...there is no repercussion to the adult the child is trying to manipulate. And unlike most childhood fits, breath holding doesn't even require the adult to listen to the child scream. Quite the opposite actually, a child that is holding its breath is a silent child.

And a Jew that won't eat is nothing but a hungry Jew. Why would anyone care if they refused to eat or drink. In fact, it would seem to me, that any group of people demanding to have their way to the point that they refuse to eat or drink until they get what they want...will soon take care of themselves. If the Jews truly did not drink until they killed Paul, and if the leaders refused to let them kill Paul, than...the Jews would kill themselves through dehydration in a matter of about three days. Problem solved.

That is a pretty unloving thing for me to say. I know that even as I write it. But it's not my aim to be loving. I don't mind saying straight out that I don't believe that loving someone means treating them the way they think they should be shown love. And I don't mind saying that if a group of people are demanding their own way to the point of throwing what amounts to one massive sized group fit...then let them do it. Why should those in charge care? What does it hurt for the Jews to not eat or drink? They will either get over it, having learned a lesson, or they will take care of themselves.

None of that, of course, was the point to that section of Scripture. In fact we go from seeing the threat, or decision, or whatever you want to call it, that the Jews made to seeing what they did. They tried to manipulate their leaders into doing exactly what they wanted. Again...I ask why would any leader care if a group of men, Scripture says there were about forty, that are obviously troublemakers, starved themselves to death, or if they let themselves die of thirst. Why would the leaders care? It seems to me that they would not want to let these men manipulate them that way, that they would want to make an example of them. I can well imagine my reaction if someone, anyone, came to me saying that they were not going to eat or drink until I gave them what they wanted. I'd most likely spread my hands and tell them, 'have at it'. What's it to me. Why wouldn't the high priests and leaders have done the same to these men?

We really don't see the reaction that the leaders have though because we go from this group of men making demands on the priests and leaders and telling them of the self harm they intend to do if they don't get their way, to seeing that Paul's nephew, at which point we learn that Paul has a sister, learns of this plan and he goes to those holding Paul captive and tells them of this plan.

This resulted in Paul being moved under heavy guard in the dark of the night to another location. The tribune sent him to the governor with a letter that essentially said he found Paul innocent of any wrongdoing but that the governor should decide what to do with him. To which the governor agreed to give Paul a hearing once his accusers arrived and placed him under guard.

To be continued...