What is Love? Part 4

With Valentine's Day quickly approaching, I'm sharing a series of posts on love taken from my book on marriage. In order for today's post to make the most sense, I'd recommend reading parts one, two and three first. I believe a concept as complex as love is best described as a progression of phases. I think love develops along a chain from one phase to the next. It's sequential. I think love (both virtuous and sinful) follows a certain reproducible pattern every time. From the beginning of the progression to the end, as long as the sequence is followed, any point along the chain could be called love. Here's the progression: All love begins with an affection... from there it may or may not develop into a desire... if a desire is strong enough, it may or may not proceed to an inclination of focus... and from there, it might or might not overflow in an action toward or on behalf of the beloved object. Part one explained affection, part two explained desire, and part three explained an inclination of focus, or what happens when a desire just has to be fulfilled. Today we'll take a look at the action part of love.

Love May Progress to Action

We've finally come to the point that many begin to talk about love -- action. When we have an affection flowing from a sense of beauty or value, that sparks a desire and progresses to an inclination of focus, love may overflow in action toward or on behalf of the beloved object. Love doesn't have to overflow in action, but it would usually be (feel) incomplete or insufficient without some form of action. The action may be something seemingly insignificant or highly sacrificial. The action may overflow in any number of ways.

Virtuous Affections, Virtuous Actions

We could begin with a virtuous affection and end with a virtuous action, with all points along the progression being virtuous. This would obviously be what the Lord Jesus Christ did when he walked the earth. He said he always does what pleases the Father (see John 8:29). His love was perfect at all points, and unblemished by any stain of sin. He always had perfect affections, valuing just what needed to be valued with just the right intensity. He always had righteous desires in perfect measure. His inclination of focus was zoned in on his Father's will every moment of his life. He ruthlessly prioritized and sacrificed to achieve his righteous goal "for the joy that was set before him" (Heb. 12:2). Jesus' actions were always wholly virtuous. His actions were always appropriate and always flowed from virtuous affections. Jesus (and only Jesus) was sinless all along the progression of love his entire life. Such perfect virtue all along the progression of love will also be the norm in the new heavens and earth that Christians will inherit.

Virtuous Affections, Sinful Actions

We could also begin with a virtuous affection and end with a sinful action. This is because anywhere along the progression, sin can stain and pervert love. Amnon had an affection for Tamar. It's not a bad thing to have an affection for one's sister. A virtuous affection for his sister could have overflowed in guarding her purity and providing for her. On the other hand, sin could have intermingled with the original virtuous affection and tainted and twisted it. As children, Amnon's affection for Tamar may have been fine. But 2 Samuel 13:1 says, "After a time Amnon, David's son, loved her." Where Amnon may have begun with a virtuous affection, his sin distorted his sense of beauty so that Tamar's value to him flowed as an object to be consumed; rather than a sister to nurture and cherish by helping her be happy in God.

Sinful Affections, Seemingly Virtuous Actions

Though we can begin with a virtuous affection and end with a sinful action, we cannot begin with a sinful affection and end with a virtuous action. That's why it's a progression. If an action is going to be virtuous, it must come from a virtuous affection. Once an affection is sinful, a virtuous action cannot flow forth from it. We must repent of the sinful affection and begin again with a virtuous affection if a virtuous action is going to flow from it. We see this clearly in the Pharisees: "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. You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean. 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 and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness" (Mat. 23:25-28).

The Pharisees outwardly appeared beautiful. In other words, their actions looked right! How many people are being counseled everyday to make their actions look right? But the Pharisees were hypocrites. Why were they hypocrites? It wasn't as though they told others to do what they themselves didn't. They wanted everyone to live by their rules. They wanted people to tithe, and they tithed. They wanted people to pray, and they prayed. They wanted people to give alms and they gave alms. They wanted people to live by their rules, and they lived by their rules. There's no hypocrisy in that. Their hypocrisy was in the realm of their affections.

Two different affections can bring forth the same action. Love for God and love for man's praise can both motivate tithing, praying, giving and keeping rules. The affections of the Pharisees were bringing forth actions that most people thought God should be pleased with. However, he wasn't pleased because he wasn't just interested in their actions. He wanted their hearts. "This people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men" (Is. 29:13). God doesn't say, "Go to church and worship, even if you don't feel like it. Give, even if it isn't cheerful." He tells us to go to church and give because we feel like it. The only way we'll feel like doing God-pleasing action is through God-pleasing affections.

At this point, someone may argue that we must complete certain actions whether we feel like it or not. We do have a duty to perform as Christians. We have rules to obey. That is true. However, it's not enough to just do the actions, even though we don't feel like it. We must do the actions while confessing to God our hard-heartedness. We must pray that God would change our affections and trust in Christ's atonement for our callousness. We cannot fall for the deception that it doesn't matter how we feel or what we want. If our actions flow from our hearts, the root is just as or more important than the fruit. It is possible to begin with a non-virtuous affection and end with a seemingly virtuous action. This is where many people are in their spiritual lives. For example, it's possible to have an affection for our own reputations. So we go to church to look respectable or to follow a counselor's suggestion. Now seated right beside us are people that began with an affection for God. They came to church to be satiated with God's glory. Which love is virtuous? Both resulted in the same action -- being at church. But only one is virtuous because only one began with a virtuous affection; namely, to be happy with God.

This also happens often in marriage. Rather than having an affection for God or for our spouses, we have an affection for ourselves or sex, or money or comfort or security. So our actions can come out all wrong and openly display our faulty affections (in adultery, for instance). Or it may take a very long time to figure out that our affections are non-virtuous because the actions seem to be so virtuous. An example of this might be a husband who works sixty-five hours a week and provides well for his wife and children. His seeming virtue may just be hiding a love for money. Even if his wife and children would leave him, he'd still work sixty-five hours a week. Even if his wife and children desired him to work less, he wouldn't because it's not concern for them that's motivating him -- even though it superficially looks like concern for his family. God is not pleased with this hypocrisy.

Love Can Overflow Toward the Beloved Object

Love can overflow in action toward the beloved object. We see this with Amnon and Tamar. Amnon's love for Tamar overflowed in a sinful act directed toward her. She was the direct recipient of Amnon's sinful action. This would also be true of a steak. I love steak. I have a desire for steak. I eat steak. Steak is the direct recipient of the action. It would be the same with other objects of the creation that people consume (alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, food, etc.). Love overflows in action toward the beloved object in marriage all the time. Imagine a husband coming home from work with flowers for his wife. He gives her the flowers. She is the object of his affection and she is the direct recipient of his loving action, giving flowers. Picture a wife wanting to hug her husband. He is the object of her affection and he is the direct recipient of her loving action, a hug. So when an object of affection is the direct recipient of the action, then the love is toward the beloved object. Love overflows in action toward children as well. A mother loves her children, so she gives herself to her children. She may give her children herself in spending time with them. Or she may give presents to them on their birthday. Or she may give them special attention when they need it. They are the direct recipients of their mother's love. Her affection is for them, and they receive the action.

Love Can Overflow on Behalf of the Beloved Object

Love can also overflow on behalf of the beloved object. We also see this often with a husband and wife. Not only does the husband's love for his wife overflow in direct action toward her, it also overflows in action on her behalf. So one day, the husband could bring home flowers for his wife. She is the direct recipient of his loving action. That night, out of affection for his wife, he takes out the trash. The action was taking out the trash. But the love behind the action was directed toward his wife. So she wasn't the direct recipient of the action. He didn't take her out. She was an indirect recipient of the action. The husband's love for his wife overflowed in action on behalf of his wife. This distinction is important because it shows that love can begin with an affection for someone or something and end in a loving action that benefits someone else. In other words, what if love spreads into more love? What if the man didn't just take out the trash on behalf of his wife? What if he loved her children on behalf of his wife? Rather than love overflowing in taking out trash, what if love overflowed in creating more love?

Consider a man who marries a young widow with two young children. The first time he laid eyes on her at a church picnic, his affection was stirred because of her beauty and value to him. He began talking to her and found out she was widowed the year before. He really desired to be with her and inclined his focus toward her. His love overflowed in action toward her and he proposed. She is the direct recipient of his love. He wants intimacy with her and he wants to give himself to her. However, her children also benefit from his love for their mother, even if he doesn't highly value her children at first (please don't act as though that never happens). His affection wasn't for the children. He didn't propose to the children. His love was directed toward his wife and the children were part of her life. But even though he doesn't value her children (yet or highly), his love overflows toward the children on behalf of his love for their mother. I'm not saying that he may not develop strong affections for the children. He probably will. However, at first, when love is new, he loves what his new wife loves as part of loving his wife. So he loves his wife's children on behalf of his wife. Love for her actually sparked love for a whole new object that may have otherwise never happened.

This dynamic also explains how we can love our sinful neighbor out of love for God. We see this dynamic clearly in the life of King David. "And David said, 'Is there still anyone left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness for Jonathan's sake?'" (2 Samuel 9:1). The word "kindness" there is often translated "mercy" or "lovingkindness." What if our love for our friend was so strong, that even though our friend died, we still honored his friendship with our love? Out of the overflow of affection for our dead friend, we seek out one of his relatives to show loving favor to. That's what King David did for Mephibosheth, Jonathan's son. David took him into his own court and treated him as if he were his own son. David had no direct affection for Mephibosheth. He didn't even know he existed. He had to ask someone. But he knew Jonathan. And he remembered his love for Jonathan (though Jonathan was dead). And out of the overflow of his love for Jonathan, he loved a stranger on behalf of Jonathan, "for Jonathan's sake."

Loving on behalf of another in this way can be a tremendous benefit to our marriages. What happens when we stop valuing our spouses? Affection weakens or dies. What happens when affection dies? Love dies. What happens when love dies in marriage? God's glory gets tramped on. So what happens when our spouses are really not that valuable at the moment? What if we catch our spouses in adultery or they get their fourth DUI? Our affection for them may be at an all-time low. So how do we continue to love them? How do we be a blessing to them? How do we keep giving and serving them with loving actions? We see from King David that it's possible to love someone on behalf of love for someone else. So we can value our spouses even when they don't seem so valuable, because God is. God loves marriage. He hates divorce. So it's possible for a godly spouse to value his mate, not for something inherent in his mate, but on behalf of God. We could say we value our spouses, not because of inherent worth, but because of the preciousness of marriage and the preciousness of God who gave us a spouse. Our spouses are automatically valuable because marriage is valuable. Marriage is valuable because God loves marriage and God is valuable. So, even when our spouses are not living up to our expectations, we can continue to love them out of the overflow of our love for God. We may say something like, "How can I love my spouse for God's sake?"

The best example of love is Jesus. He loved the church and died for her. Christ's loving action flowed toward the beloved object. The church is a direct recipient of Christ's loving action. He loved his church from all eternity (see Eph. 1). He came down to earth as a man. He desired fellowship with his bride. He wanted her and made advances toward her. The church is also an indirect recipient of Christ's love. When sin stood like a wall between God and man, Christ acted on behalf of his bride. He died in her place and tore down the wall. He took on her shame and her guilt and her punishment. "He was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed" (Is. 53:5). Christ died on behalf of the church. Where an ordinary husband may take out the trash, Jesus hung on a cross. So Christ's love overflowed in actions both toward and on behalf of his bride.

Let's briefly review how far we've come. 1) Love is best described as a progression of phases. 2) Love begins as an affection flowing from a sense of beauty or value. 3) When affection for an object dies, love dies. 4) An object's value is determined by the pleasure granted or expected. 5) Love may progress to a desire. 6) Desire is sparked when affection is intense and the object of affection is potentially available. 7) Thoughts and desires determine choices. 8) Love may progress to an inclination of focus -- prioritizing and pressing in on the beloved object. 9) With inclination of focus, love becomes increasingly unreasonable and sacrificial. 10) Love may progress to an action toward or on behalf of the beloved object.

In a few upcoming posts, I'll tease out the implications of this description of love.

Be Content!

Here's a short post for the short-attention span people struggling through the more lengthy love posts.

"3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths" (Genesis 3:1-7)

"Mom never let's me do anything." If you have kids, you've probably heard it or something like it. If you've been a kid, you've undoubtedly said it yourself. Here's a typical conversation for those who are totally unfamiliar with this statement:

Tommy: "Mom, can I go to Billy's party on Friday?"
Tommy's mom: "Are his parents going to be home?"
Tommy: "Not sure about that, but there's going to be girls there."
Tommy's mom: "I'm going to have to say no to that."
Tommy: "You guys never let me do anything!" (As he storms off to his room.)

Of course, Tommy is lying in his last statement. It's not that his mom never let's him do anything. It's just that she didn't let him do that one thing. But in Tommy's mind, that one thing is all that matters at the moment. He isn't content with his current life-circumstances. He wants Billy's party and the girls who will be there. In addition, in Tommy's mind, if his mother has habitually said no to his requests, then to Tommy, it's going to feel like his mother never let's him do anything, even though she may let him do all sorts of things he doesn't appreciate.

This is the same concept taking place in the text I quoted above from Genesis. In this account of "the Fall" we read that the serpent provokes discontent in Eve. “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” Let me translate that: "God never lets you do anything!" Notice, Eve's answer. She informs the serpent that God hasn't forbidden everything. There are plenty of wonderful trees in the Garden to eat from. But then the one she isn't allowed to eat from takes center-stage in her mind. Eventually she agrees with the serpent that God doesn't let her do anything. He's holding out on her and Adam. And like a spoiled child, she ate the fruit along with Adam, they both realized they made a mistake and tried to fix it themselves. We do the same thing all the time.

"There's nothing in the house to eat." Really? Nothing at all? Or is there nothing to satisfy your craving for a particular thing?

"You're always putting me down." Really? All the time? Or is that just what sticks out because it doesn't satisfy your craving for honor?

"We can't go anywhere on twenty bucks." Really? Or is it that you can't go to that one place you had your heart set on?

"We never get any breaks." Really? Or is it that you don't get the kind of breaks you think you have coming?

Do you get the picture? If we're honest, we have to admit that we're often like Tommy or the serpent or Eve. How often do we let our minds skip right over a hundred blessings and zoom in on the one thing that we don't have or can't have? Then we interpret our entire life through that one thing that we're lacking? It's not so much that we're dissed as discontent. You don't have to have everything. You don't have to get your way all the time. Just be content!

What is Love? Part 3

With Valentine's Day quickly approaching, I'm sharing a series of posts on love taken from my book on marriage. In order for today's post to make the most sense, I'd recommend reading parts one and two first. I believe a concept as complex as love is best described as a progression of phases. I think love develops along a chain from one phase to the next. It's sequential. I think love (both virtuous and sinful) follows a certain reproducible pattern every time. From the beginning of the progression to the end, as long as the sequence is followed, any point along the chain could be called love. Here's the progression: All love begins with an affection... from there it may or may not develop into a desire... if a desire is strong enough, it may or may not proceed to an inclination of focus... and from there, it might or might not overflow in an action toward or on behalf of the beloved object. Part one explained affection, part two explained desire, and in this part, we'll see what happens when a desire just has to be fulfilled.

Love May Progress to Inclination of Focus

Love may progress to what I've labeled an "inclination of focus." I am inclined, or propelled toward the object of my desire. I have such an affection for the object that I press my whole being toward that object or I choose on behalf of that object. Inclination of focus may sound similar to desire, and it is. But there's a critical, qualitative difference that moves it beyond desire on the progression of love. With desire, nothing (or very little) has happened yet toward or on behalf of the beloved object. Love may stop with desire. With inclination of focus, I'm starting to sort out options and weed out what seems less valuable so that I can hone in on what seems more valuable. This is about priority. This is the bridge between desire and action. This is perhaps the most dangerous phase. Here's why:

An Inclination of Focus Prioritizes and Imagines

A man may have an attractive neighbor. He develops an affection for her based on his sense of her value. He begins to value her so intensely and she is so potentially available (she lives next door), a desire for his neighbor is sparked in his heart. He begins to fantasize about her, and build up her value in his mind. Now, this man's love for his neighbor may stop at a desire. He never acts upon it, never brings it up and buries it until she and her husband move away. But what if he doesn't bury it? What if in his mind, the potentiality of pleasure is so great that it's worth whatever consequence comes to satisfy that pleasure? What if he starts fantasizing about how great an encounter with her may be? What if the thoughts are very vivid in nature and he begins to confuse fantasy and reality? What if he actually gets to the point where he talks himself into it? You may think that sounds like a stupid, reckless thing to do. But how often does just such a thing happen? Probably everyday somewhere. Now, in addition to the fantasies, the man starts scheming in his mind how to overlay fantasy on top of reality. He starts weighing priorities and consequences. "How can I get her to agree to an affair? Maybe I could probe and see if she's happy with her husband. I need to find a crack in her armor, or a hole in the wall that I could wrench through. What kind of leverage can I use? What will the guys at work think if they find out? Would her husband come after me with a gun? I'd be thrown out of church. My wife would be devastated. She'd probably divorce me and take the kids. They'd hate me forever and I'd be a social outcast. Not to mention God would be mad. That's a lot of bad consequences. But she's so beautiful and an encounter with her would be so rewarding! I've been distracted with her for weeks already. I'll talk to her tomorrow over the fence and drop a few hints that I can easily weasel out of if she doesn't respond favorably." That's the inner working of a mind that has moved from desire to inclination of focus. Notice that consequences are inconsequential. He thinks he must fulfill his desire. He will put things in motion, through manipulating, lying, bribing, leveraging, threatening, sacrificing or whatever else it takes to have his desired object. We can see how the man's inclination of focus zones in on his neighbor and zones out any other option.

Consider another, more frivolous example. Imagine me sitting back in that new restaurant with no idea what they serve. I order the special -- tuna noodle casserole -- because it was on the sign at the front door. The waitress goes by with a steak. I love steak. I have an affection for steak flowing from a sense of its value. Now seeing that steak go by has awakened in me a desire for steak because steak is valuable to me and it's available. I start thinking to myself, "How can I get a steak instead of that nasty old tuna casserole?" As I incline my focus toward steak, I devalue all other options in my mind. What may have been perfectly satisfying is no longer good enough. I must have steak. "I could stop the waitress on the way back. But then that'll just cause problems. The chef will probably spit in my food for changing the order. But steak is so good. It's worth the risk! But wait, I only have seven dollars on me and the steak will be more. Wait again, I can float a check until tomorrow. But I don't even know if they take checks. I could find out, but it's not worth all that. No. It is worth all that. I will not be satisfied with tuna -- I must have steak." Then my love is expressed through action, "Waitress, could you please bring me a medium sirloin instead?" Can you see my inclination of focus zone in on steak and zone out any other option?

Love Becomes More Unreasonable and Sacrificial

When love progresses to inclination of focus, it becomes more and more unreasonable and sacrificial. The mind is fantasizing and imagining all the pleasure that will come through the beloved object. Love for an object is difficult to cut off at this phase. By the time love reaches this phase, thoughts and desires are likely so vivid that we start sensing our own well-being hinging on the beloved object. We start believing that the beloved object must be had or life won't work as well. This can be a great virtue when the motive is noble and the end just. It can motivate the highest acts of sacrifice. "For the joy that was set before him [Jesus] endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God" (Heb. 12:2). We also see this inclination of focus in missionary biographies where saints sacrificed earthly comfort and security despite the pressure from loved ones to "just be normal."

Love can also make the biggest fool of anyone (like Amnon). The saddest part in sinful inclination is that reality does not match up with fantasy. We have the ability to imagine in our heads at a far greater pace and intensity than life can deliver. Sin never truly pays off. It just feels like it does. It always costs; maybe not immediately, but inevitably. That's why "love hurts" and "reality bites." Rarely can a beloved object deliver what love imagines. We see this once again with our running illustration, Amnon and Tamar. Amnon had a clear inclination of focus toward Tamar. It was unreasonable and sacrificial. Amnon was King David's son. He could have been king. Instead, he traded that for one encounter with Tamar. In fact, Tamar's brother, Absalom, avenged Tamar by killing Amnon. Amnon's love for Tamar cost him his life. What would drive a person to give up everything for one encounter with a beautiful virgin? Love -- virtuous or otherwise.

"But Amnon had a friend, whose name was Jonadab, the son of Shimeah, David's brother. And Jonadab was a very crafty man. And he said to him, "O son of the king, why are you so haggard morning after morning? Will you not tell me?" Amnon said to him, "I love Tamar, my brother Absalom's sister." Jonadab said to him, "Lie down on your bed and pretend to be ill. And when your father comes to see you, say to him, 'Let my sister Tamar come and give me bread to eat, and prepare the food in my sight, that I may see it and eat it from her hand.'" So Amnon lay down and pretended to be ill. And when the king came to see him, Amnon said to the king, "Please let my sister Tamar come and make a couple of cakes in my sight, that I may eat from her hand" (2 Sam. 13:3-6).

With a little help from a scheming cousin, Amnon moved from desire: "Amnon was so tormented that he made himself ill because of his sister. . . ." (13:2), to inclination of focus. He started to develop a plan to have the object of his desire. At this point, Amnon cannot figure out a way to get alone with Tamar. She's beautiful and valuable to Amnon, but not exactly available. She's available enough to stir affection, but not enough to satisfy desire. But "Jonadab was a very crafty man" (13:3). He provided the skill to zone in on Tamar. Notice how Amnon's desire was affecting his whole life. "Why are you so haggard morning after morning? . . ." (13:4). That's a clue that Amnon's love was perverted and non-virtuous. Amnon put into motion his plan. He weighed all the options. His desire for Tamar would be fulfilled. Action would spring forth. He would have his beloved Tamar, no matter what the cost. "Dad, I'm sick. Could you have Tamar make me some cakes and feed me?" And David, the accommodating father, says, "Sure, son. No problem."

"But when she brought them near him to eat, he took hold of her and said to her, "Come, lie with me, my sister." She answered him, "No, my brother, do not violate me, for such a thing is not done in Israel; do not do this outrageous thing. As for me, where could I carry my shame? And as for you, you would be as one of the outrageous fools in Israel. Now therefore, please speak to the king, for he will not withhold me from you." But he would not listen to her, and being stronger than she, he violated her and lay with her" (2 Sam. 13:7-14).

Notice Amnon's absolute unreasonableness. He cannot be dissuaded. Every defense is refused, every plea ignored. He has an inclination of focus that will not be denied. He knows he'll be considered "one of the outrageous fools in Israel." He doesn't care. "But he would not listen to her, and being stronger than she, he violated her and lay with her" (13:14). Amnon bridged the gap between desire and action. Don't forget, the writer of 2 Samuel called Amnon's desire love (13:1, 4, 15). He didn't call it virtuous love. It was sinful, perverted love. But it was love nonetheless. Not for long, though. Love turned to hatred with a vengeance. "Then Amnon hated her with very great hatred, so that the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her. And Amnon said to her, "Get up! Go!" But she said to him, "No, my brother, for this wrong in sending me away is greater than the other that you did to me." But he would not listen to her" (2 Sam. 13:15-16). I'm guessing that the encounter that Amnon had been dreaming about in his perpetually haggard state was not even close to what reality delivered. I'm sure in the state in which it happened, Tamar was far less pleasurable than Amnon had imagined. It's a shame, too. Amnon's unchecked imagination cost him his life and Tamar her purity.

What is Love? Part 2

Yesterday I started a series of posts on love. In order for today's post to make sense, I'd recommend reading What is Love? Part 1 first. In part one I put forth the idea that a concept as complex as love is best described as a progression of phases: All love begins with an affection... from there it may or may not develop into a desire... if a desire is strong enough, it may or may not proceed to an inclination of focus... and from there, it might or might not overflow in an action toward or on behalf of the beloved object. Over the next several posts, I'll unfold each step in this progression. Today we'll look at what happens when an affection births a desire.

Love May Progress to Desire

Love may progress to desire. Desire is a want. It's one phase beyond affection. It's possible to have an affection for something, but not desire it all the time. I think love moves on to desire based on extent of value and availability of the object of affection. In other words, picture me sitting in a new restaurant and having no idea what is served there. I'm waiting to order and I see a steak go by. I have an affection for steak because I value it. But until that moment I hadn't desired a steak. When I saw it, a desire was awakened in me. Why? Because steak, the object of my affection, is available to me. Now, seconds later, asparagus goes by. There is no desire awakened in me for asparagus. Why? Because though asparagus is available to me, I have no affection for it. So desire is sparked when the affection is intense and the potential for availability is high enough.

Let's take Amnon and Tamar as a continuing illustration. "And Amnon was so tormented that he made himself ill because of his sister Tamar, for she was a virgin, and it seemed impossible to Amnon to do anything to her" (2 Sam. 13:2). We saw in 13:1 that Amnon loved Tamar. We described that as an affection based on Amnon's value of Tamar -- she was a beautiful virgin. Now in this verse, we see Amnon's affection move to desire. Amnon's love could have remained forever in the realm of an affection. He didn't have to channel it toward a specific want. But here we see Amnon is so worked up and tormented that he makes himself sick. Why? Because Tamar was valuable to him and she was potentially available (lived in close proximity). She was so intensely valuable that even though the potential to do anything seemed impossible, Amnon held onto the hope she could somehow be made more available.

I saw a similar dynamic when I was in the Army. Everyone who trained to be a scout had to endure a 15 week cycle of basic training. Time and energy was strictly channeled into what the government thought most beneficial. The Army didn't see cigarettes as compatible with the strenuous training. There were young men who were hooked on cigarettes who had to quit cold turkey. It was shocking how few had nervous breakdowns! Few ever mentioned withdrawal or how tough it is to quit. Why? The desire for cigarettes soon vanished. Why? Did cigarettes suddenly lose their value? Maybe. I suspect a better answer would be because the immediate availability of cigarettes had vanished. Now what if I would ask those smokers, "Has your love for cigarettes diminished?" I suspect some would say, "Yea, I really don't care about them anymore." I would attribute that to a loss of value. They realized they could live happily without them (perhaps more happily without them). But others would likely say, "No, I love cigarettes. Camels especially. They relax me and taste good." Their love for cigarettes hasn't diminished any. But their desire has -- because cigarettes aren't available to them. They're not pulling their hair out, but when training is over and cigarettes are once again available, they'll likely start up again. A third group might answer differently yet. They may say something like, "No, I still love cigarettes. In fact, I'm craving one so bad I'm going to sneak out at dinner and bring a pack back and hide it in the ceiling tiles." Their affection for cigarettes is so high and they value them so greatly, that they'll go out of their way, at any cost, to make cigarettes available. The same dynamic happens when new lovers will drive hours just to see each other for a fraction of that time. Desire is sparked when affection is intense enough and availability is deemed high enough. Desire is wanting something. It can be good or bad, strong or weak.

Virtuous Desires

"Whom have I in heaven but you? And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you" (Ps. 73:25). We see here a godly desire. When Asaph wrote this psalm, he was fighting envy. He looked around at all the evil men prospering through their oppression of others. Then Asaph considered eternity and that changed everything. He realized that God would judge these evil men and their pleasure would soon be anti-pleasure. That's when Asaph realized the value of God. He said, "But for me it is good to be near God. . . ." (Ps. 73:28). As Asaph took his eyes off others and put them on God, he considered God's goodness. Then his affection for God was stirred and desire for God solidified again.

"One thing have I asked of the Lord, that will I seek after: that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the Lord and to inquire in his temple" (Ps. 27:4). King David clearly had moments of intense sinful desires (see his affair with Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11) and those moments were, of course, idolatrous. But if we read through the account of David's life, the overarching theme was seeking God. He longed for God. Notice in this psalm that David wanted to gaze on God's beauty. David desired God because God is beautiful. David had an affection for God that flowed from a sense of beauty or value ("to gaze upon the beauty of the Lord") that sparked a desire for God in David. Part of the reason David longed for God was because he knew his own sinfulness (see Pss. 32 and 51). When David would consider his sinfulness alongside of God's splendid holiness; rather than drive him to despair, it drove him to desire God all the more. May that be our response as well.

Thoughts and Desires

What makes us desire money over God or God over cigarettes or God over anything else in this world? There is a direct relationship between what we believe and what we want. If we could do surgery on our spiritual hearts we would find thoughts and desires. It's easy to recognize that these two related concepts line up with the first two phases on the progression of love. Why do we have an affection for one object over another? Because we sense the beauty or value of the one object over the other. Why do we have a hatred or fear of one object over another? Because we sense the lack of beauty or value over another. Without sense, we wouldn't know anything. So based on our interpretation of the sense that we have (a belief), we gain an affection.

Now, a desire is sparked when the object of affection is seen as so valuable to us and potentially available, that we want it. The extent to which we've convinced ourselves of an object's value will determine our desire for that object. In other words, every choice in life is based on what we think and what we want in our hearts. We see this in Scripture. "Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life" (Prov. 4:23). "For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks" (Mat. 12:34). "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander" (Mat. 15:19). "For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person" (Mark 7:21-23). "The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks" (Luke 6:45). "For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Heb. 4:12). Our choices come from the thoughts and desires of our hearts. This is why it's so crucial that we think and desire according to the truth and not just what seems or feels right. We'll see this in the next phase on the progression (inclination of focus).

Fantasy, Meditation and Desire

When we begin to desire something, we turn that object over and over in our minds. We meditate on it. Our desires are sparked from our affections. Our affections flow from our sense of value. As an object of affection is meditated upon, the heart conducts more extensive evaluations. In other words, our meditation can channel our desire. Our desire for an object can increase or decrease. Our meditation on an object can be the key determining factor in the intensity of desire. It' like our moms used to tell us when we wanted that new toy at the store -- stop thinking about it. Meditation is not always good. Our "evaluating mechanism" is fallen and corrupt, so that there is always potential for distortion of reality. Unless our evaluations are shaped by the Holy Spirit through Scripture, they may not be accurate. At the extremes, our evaluation may devalue something beautiful -- like God. Or our evaluation may beautify something shameful -- like sexual immorality. As we meditate, we begin to role-play possible scenarios. We allow our thoughts to run free with potentialities. We imagine how enhanced our existence would be if we only had the object of our affection. This can be good when we're thinking of the glories of heaven or the virtues of Christ. However, our role-playing may also inflate attributes of beauty to false proportions. We may downplay any blemish or anything that may taint the image. The actual payoff of pleasure that is expected from an object of affection may be far below what we nurture in our thoughts. We can speak lies to ourselves, and we believe the lies. We have the ability to carry out entire little alternative worlds in our heads. This can be so dangerous because it's difficult not to eventually act upon what we're fantasizing about.

Our heart evaluates based on what we think will pay off with the greatest reward. This is another area where our corruption distorts reality. We frequently place value on some object with lesser potential pleasure that is currently available (no matter the cost), rather than value an object of greater potential pleasure that isn't available the way we'd like. In other words, we loathe delayed gratification. We often fail where Moses succeeded. We'll take hot dogs now rather than steak later. And we'll take sin now rather than heaven later. Rather than looking to the greatest reward, we look to the quickest and easiest. This is the essence of John's warning in 1 John 2:15-17. We are tempted to love the world and the things in the world because the world is right here, right now and we don't have to exert much effort for the payoff. It doesn't take much meditation to enjoy all the immediate sensual pleasures of the world. We can get caught up rather quickly and before we know it, Paul could say of us: "For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things" (Phil. 3:18-19). In the end, only fools choose the world. Those who have a sense of God's beauty or value choose God, even if they have to wait for him.

Just as our thoughts and desires can take us down a sinful path, they can also take us down a godly, virtuous path. This requires meditation on God and truth, looking with the eyes of faith. This requires God's Word. It takes more self-control and discipline to enjoy spiritual pleasures through faith than it does to enjoy sensual pleasures. But the payoff is worth it. That's the message of texts like Psalm 119:105: "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path," or Psalm 19:7-8: "The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes," or Psalm 119:9-11: "How can a young man keep his way pure? By guarding it according to your word. With my whole heart I seek you; let me not wander from your commandments! I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you," or 2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." One of my favorite texts dealing with the benefits of knowing Scripture is 2 Peter 1:3-4, where Peter says God "has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence," and that we have "escaped the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire." So we see here that our affections can be shaped by the Word of God and spark godly, virtuous desires, or they can be shaped apart from God's Word and spark worldly, sinful desires.

Desire is Love

I have tried to show from several texts and plain reason how an affection flows into a desire when the value of the beloved object is intense and can be made available. In the same way that an affection is truly love, a desire is also truly love. A concordance survey of the word "desire" in the Bible would show how often the word "love" could replace "desire" with little altering of the meaning. This is obvious in 1 John 2:15-17. Of course, I'm still referring to love in a neutral way, not a virtuous way. Remember, it's possible to love (agapáō) my brother (see 1 John 2:10) and the things in the world (see 2 Tim. 4:10 and 1 John 2:15-17). What makes that love virtuous or perverse is the motive and object of love, the intensity of love or the fruit that love brings forth.

In the same way that love can stop at an affection, love can also stop at a desire. The desire could remain unfulfilled forever and yet remain a love. Amnon desired Tamar so much that he made himself ill over her, and up to that point his love was nothing more than desire. To that point, his love produced no action. Desire is unrequited love. It may not be returned or satisfied. In other words, I could have an affection for steak flowing from a sense of the value of steak. That affection is so intense it sparks a desire for it. However, if all the steak in the world is consumed, my desire may remain quite high for it, but unfulfilled. My love for steak is forced to stop at desire. Or I could stop having a desire for steak because I settled for ribs instead. In that case, I don't desire steak anymore, yet love didn't die. It just regressed back to an affection. I still love steak; I just don't want one at the moment. But what happens when my desire for steak, or Amnon's desire for Tamar, or David's desire for God is so intense, we'll stop at nothing to get it, regardless of consequences? What happens when love demands a response? We'll find out in part three.

What is Love? Part 1

Valentine's Day is quickly approaching. I'm doing a Pursuit of Pleasure in the Pleasure of Another conference again this Valentine's Day, so I'm thinking about love and marriage more intensely right now. I thought I'd share excerpts from the book for your consideration. In these posts, I'll lay out my definition/ description of love. I know these posts are longer than usual, but don't let that scare you.

Let me begin my description by pointing out that love is a neutral term. Love is not virtuous by mere definition. It can either be virtuous or sinful, beautiful or baneful. When I say "virtuous" love, I mean God-pleasing love as opposed to a love that displeases God. Jesus loved his disciples (see John 15:9) and that love pleased God. Therefore it was virtuous. Religious hypocrites love to show off in front of others (see Mat. 6:5) and that love does not please God. Therefore it is not virtuous. The ability to love flows from God, as man is made in his image. However, man has always had the capacity to bestow that love on whatever object he chooses. The only discriminator between virtuous and non-virtuous love is whether the motive, object, extent and fruit of love pleases God or displeases God. As I use the word love, I mean it in this general, neutral sense.

I describe love with the phrase "progression of phases" because I think love develops along a chain from one phase to the next. It's sequential. I think love (both virtuous and sinful) follows a certain reproducible pattern every time. From the beginning of the progression to the end, as long as the sequence is followed, any point along the chain could be called love. That doesn't mean that the love is sufficient. It may just be a good start. For instance, the first phase on the progression is affection. Love that remains an affection would fall far short of God's pleasure. But it could still be called love (as we'll see). I will try to show how this progression of phases helps explain the rich variety of love displayed in Scripture. As we look at the broad spectrum of love (both virtuous and sinful) in the Bible, the progression of phases seems to describe it every time. Love as sequential progression seems to be Scriptural (it doesn't contradict any text), experientially valid (you'll find yourself saying, "That is how it happens."), reasonable (it makes sense), and helpful (for life and counseling). So here is the progression: All love begins with an affection... from there it may or may not develop into a desire... if a desire is strong enough, it may or may not proceed to an inclination of focus... and from there, it might or might not overflow in an action toward or on behalf of the beloved object. Over the next several posts, I'll unfold each step in this progression.

All Love Begins With an Affection

All love begins with an affection. At first this may sound extreme. All love begins with an affection? Yes. Maybe we've always thought of love as a verb. Love is something we do. As we survey the Bible, we see that love is often a verb. I can buy that. I agree that love involves acting. Love feels. Feeling is a verb. Consider the sentence, "He rejoiced." The subject is "he" and the verb is "rejoiced." Rejoicing is something you do, though the action can be entirely inside you. The apostle Paul says love "rejoices with the truth" and "hopes all things" in 1 Corinthians 13:6-7. Rejoice and hope are verbs, yet they happen inside of us. They're in the realm of affection. To "rejoice with the truth" is to feel good inside about truth. Love has an affection for the truth. To have an affection for an object is active.

Let's look at another biblical example of this. The Old Testament prophet, Micah, had this to say: "He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" (Mic. 6:8). If our minds are accustomed to thinking of true love only as giving or acting, then this verse makes little sense to us. In this verse we have love sandwiched in the middle of two noble actions. "Do justice" and "walk humbly" are both actions that please God. Many people would call both those things love. But right in the middle of those two actions is the phrase "love kindness [or mercy]." Love an idea or a concept. If love is merely an action, how do we fulfill this command? How do we give ourselves to an idea? How do we serve an idea? You may think, "By doing something kind or merciful for others." I would agree that we should be kind, but that's not what Micah said. If we do something kind and merciful, we're loving the object of the kindness, not the kindness itself. Micah says we're supposed to love kindness. I think Micah is saying, "Have an affection for kindness. See its beauty or value. Be on its side. Feel good when you show kindness. But even beyond that, feel good when you see it happening all around you." Should kindness overflow into tangible action? Of course. And we'll rejoice when it does. But we also just love the idea of kindness.

By seeing love in this way, we allow for the rich variety of "love" the Bible depicts. Consider 1 John 2:15: "Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him." First, consider that the love in this text is the same love directed toward either the world or the Father. In other words, whatever love is, it's the same thing flowing out either toward the world or toward God.
The next thing to consider is the question, "What is love in this text?" It is not likely that love in this context deals with the realm of action alone. The love here may result in giving ourselves over to the world or to God. But I have a hard time believing that God is pleased with a person who lusts after women, yet never actually approaches them (in fact Jesus says it's sin in Mat. 5:28). In other words, if love is merely action -- giving or serving -- then until we act on our covetousness, we're doing fine. No, in reality, we're damned for the feeling, not just the acting.

If there's an alternative given between love for the world and love for God, then why would we give ourselves to the world instead of to God? Or why would we love God instead of the world? The answer seems obvious. Because we want to. Why would we want to? Because we have an affection for one or the other. 1 John 2:15-16 is in the realm of motivation. Consider the next verse. "For all that is in the world -- the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions -- is not from the Father but is from the world" (1 John 2:16). We see in verse 16 that loving the world is described as desires. If love in John's mind was nothing more than action or giving, then why would he bring up desires at all? It must at least be because love is connected in some way to the desires. The question I ask then is, "What causes a person to desire the world over God?" Affection is my answer.

Love for the world and love for God are incompatible because there's no qualitative difference between love for the world and love for the Father. Wherever our affection flows, action follows. The reason so many Christians love the world is because they think love for God and love for the world are two different concepts. Therefore, the most carnal of Christians can claim to "love God with all my heart" because love for God is heavenly while love for the world is a different concept altogether. Clearly Paul didn't think this was so. "For Demas, in love with this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica" (2 Tim. 4:10, emphasis mine). Paul was clearly seeing a deficiency in Demas because he loved (agapáō) the world rather than God. John obviously thought love for the world and love for God are mutually exclusive -- because it's the same love directed to different objects (the world vs. God).

Affection Flows From a Sense of Beauty or Value

Why does someone love the world, or God, or his wife, or little dog Fido, or steak, or his favorite sports team? The answer seems clear -- there's an affection for those things. The question that then begs to be asked is why does someone love his own wife and not someone else's, or why might he start loving someone else's wife? Because he has a sense of beauty or value in his wife, or in someone else's wife. So affection flows from a sense of beauty or value. The greater the sense of value, the stronger the affection. I love steak. I love steak smothered with sour cream, mushrooms, onions and steak sauce. As I've eaten this blessed concoction, I've often asked myself why I love steak. Why do I desire it? Why do I prioritize finances to eat it? Why do I love steak and not asparagus? Why do I love telling the world how much I love steak? Now, I'm going to use steak as a running illustration (please don't mistake this as an inordinate love for steak). I love steak because I've tasted it. I've smelled it on the grill. I've seen the grill marks and perfect proportion as it sets on the plate. I've heard it sizzling and felt its tenderness as I cut into it. I love steak because I have an affection for steak. I have an affection for steak because I sense the beauty or value of steak. I see, smell, taste, touch and hear steak. All five senses are enlivened in a good steak-eating experience. I don't love asparagus because I have no affection for asparagus. I have no affection for asparagus because I do not sense the beauty or value of asparagus. I think it tastes like dirt. It looks like a weed. It smells like grass. It feels nasty to cut into and even worse to chew. And all I've heard about its nutritional value doesn't override my other senses! Do you see how my affections are based on values derived from sense?

Why do the majority of people in the world not love God? God commands it, yet they disobey him. Why? It's simple. Non-Christians do not have an affection for God. Now why would a non-Christian have no affection for God? God is infinitely beautiful and altogether lovely and deeply worthy of affection. Nonetheless, God's perfections don't register in the mind of a non-Christian. Non-Christians have no sense of the beauty or value of God. Seeing, they don't see and hearing, they don't hear. Explaining God's perfections to a non-Christian is like trying to explain the color blue to a boy born blind. How can he relate? We have a sense (sight) that he doesn't have and that makes all the difference in the world in appreciating beauty and assessing value. So a brilliant blue sky on a summer day will not likely hold much sway over the blind boy's heart. Paul is clear about this in the realm of spiritual insight: "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Cor. 4:3-4).

The gospel is veiled to those who are perishing (non-Christians). Their minds are blinded. They can't see the light of the gospel of Christ's glory. They have no sense of God's value! The capacity to bring in knowledge about the beauty or value of God is shut off to them. Though they may have five senses, they have no God-valuing faculty. Paul shows the exact same truth in Romans 1:18-32. Paul says everyone knows of God in verse 21. However, rather than worshiping God, verse 23 says they exchanged God's glory for things in the creation. Why would they do that? Verse 28 says they didn't see fit to acknowledge God. Why? Because they didn't value him. "Exchange" is a value word. It's what we do at Christmas with the gift we have no affection for -- we trade it in for something we sense is better. Maybe we don't like seeing an orange sweater so we exchange it for one we do like seeing -- the blue one. "See fit" is also a value phrase. We see fit to do something based on the value derived from the act. Non-Christians do not see fit to honor God because they can't identify with him. So they settle for what they can identify with, what they can appreciate -- the things of the natural world.

Faith -- the "Sixth Sense"

Non-Christians have no faculty with which to sense God's beauty, so they never love him. Christians on the other hand do have a sense of God's beauty. It is a gift of God flowing from the new birth. Faith is the sense of God's value that the world doesn't have. When we're born into this natural world, we're likely to have five senses. We likely develop the ability to see, smell, hear, taste and touch. When we're born again, we have another sense added to our natural five -- faith. In the same way as a natural man develops his five senses, a Christian develops his faith.

I think we find this in Hebrews 11:1 (and the whole rest of the chapter): "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." We also see it in John 3:3: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." We see it in Romans 1:17 where Paul lays faith over against the exchange of God's glory in 1:18-32. We find it in 2 Corinthians 4:6 where God "has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." I could give so many more examples, but I trust we're getting the point. Christians have six senses, while the natural man has five. Faith enables us to find beauty and value in God that exceeds the value of things of this world.

One of the neat things about faith is its impact on the other five senses. It takes saving faith to make the other five senses operable in the spiritual realm. In other words, as a non-Christian we can look at the creation and enjoy its benefits all the time without ever bringing glory to God. But through faith we are able to use our other five senses to bring glory to God. We can listen to music that brings joy and gratitude in our hearts for what God has done. We can taste food that points to the wedding feast to come. We can see a sunset and use it as fuel to inspire the most heart-felt worship of the one who painted it. We can hug a brother or sister in Christ whose world is falling apart. We can smell flowers in spring and contemplate on what pleasures heaven has in store.

Christians sense God's value. What's more, they always will. This is great news. This explains why it's possible to love God forever and with increasing intensity. God is infinite. It's impossible to sense our way to the bottom of God's value. God is worthy of infinite love because God is infinitely valuable. We'll never stop finding beautiful things to sense about him once he gives us the faculties to see or "taste" (see Psalm 34:8). Yet, there remains a great deficiency in love to God by Christians. What can explain this? If love begins with an affection flowing from a sense of value, and God is infinitely valuable, then why don't we love God perfectly? This too has to do with our senses. Though we have a new sense of God's glory, our sense of the world's pleasures has not disappeared. At best our sense of the world's pleasures may be kept in check, but it rarely diminishes. Christians still find things in the world valuable. We just find God valuable now, too. However, we pray that God will continue to show himself more beautiful and more glorious so that our affections for worldly things will be outweighed by God's value.

One reason we value the world is that sin is intermingled with our sense of value -- perverting and distorting it. Another reason is that senses can deceive. Take hot dogs for instance. Hot dogs may not be the most beautiful food, but they do fill us up. What if I spent 45 minutes glutting on hot dogs? Then my neighbor comes over with a steak fresh off the grill. I know steak is good, but I've already eaten. I take a bite anyway to indulge my friend. What if I vomit at the second bite? What did I vomit on? Steak. But should I have? No. Those stupid hot dogs interfered with what should have been truly valuable. This is what John is saying in 1 John 2:15-17. Love for the world and love for God are mutually exclusive because both are competing affections, filling up our hearts.

Affection is Love

I describe love as a progression of phases because love begins with an affection and may or may not move on to the next phase. Love is truly love at the level of affection, even if it dies there. Though the example doesn't perfectly illustrate the point, consider a human being. A person lives along a continuum. An embryo is a person. So is an infant, a toddler, an adolescent and and adult. If a baby dies or has some sort of developmental disease, we still consider him to be human, even though he never progresses to maturity. Love begins with an affection, though at that point, it would be least mature and developed. There are times in everyday life when love doesn't move beyond affection. Let me give you a far out example. I love steak. If every cow on the face of the earth dies of disease so that no steak is produced from this day forward until Christ returns -- I will go to my grave loving steak. I don't have to go through the action of eating it to prove I love it. I go through the action of eating it because I love it! I can say, "I love steak," fifty years from now without ever eating another one. Someone may ask why I love it. I'll respond, "Because fifty years ago I saw, smelled, tasted, touched and heard it, and I found it valuable."

It's possible that love never progresses to the next phase beyond affection (though it would be incomplete). On the other hand, it may regress back to the level of affection from a more advanced phase and still be love. For example, suppose someone is married fifty years. Then his wife dies. He loved his wife. She's gone. He can't do dishes for her anymore. He can't prioritize his life around her. It does no good to desire her. However, if you asked him, "Do you love your wife?" What's he likely to say? "Yes, very much." How? He can't give to her. He can't serve her. But he still has an affection for her flowing from a memory of her beauty and value. If you asked him why he still loves her, he'd likely rattle off a few sentences of praise for who she was.

When Affection Dies, Love Dies

This description of love as a progression of phases enables us to get to the root of why love grows cold in marriage. This is incredibly practical. When affection dies, love dies. Affection is the fountain from which all love flows. It's impossible to perform the other phases along the progression and call it love if it didn't flow from an affection. Love can still be love without an action or even desire (we'll see this later) because an affection may still remain. But love cannot exist without affection. How does this apply to marriage? Suppose a couple comes to me and says, "All the love in our marriage is gone." I could tell them, "God commands you to love. You must love. I know you don't feel like it, but that's alright. If you perform these actions, the feelings of love will come back -- your feelings follow action." I could then show them from Scripture how love is giving and love is an action, send them home with a list of fifty ways to show love (because love is an action, a gift) and demand they ask God's help to do it. And I wouldn't be surprised when that doesn't fix the problem over the long haul.

As an alternative, I could look at the progression of phases and ponder what the Bible says about motivation. It's obvious in this marriage that loving actions are non-existent. I hardly need to ask why. There's no desire to perform loving actions. I could go back to the area of affections and start to probe. In my experience, there are always areas in troubled marriages where spouses simply stop finding beauty or value in one another. Love grows cold because spouses lose value. This is why actions and giving alone are not enough to fuel feelings. If a couple doesn't find any value in the marriage, they'll do dishes and have "date nights" until blue in the face and grow more bitter the whole time. I've seen this happen more than once.

If what I'm saying is true, then why does mere action seem to cause change sometimes? I do agree that demanding change can cause change at times. But that change could make the person twice the child of hell than they were before the change (see Mat. 23:15)! Changing action is not necessarily creating virtuous love. In those cases where godly change occurs, I think the dynamic follows the progression of phases. In other words, the action sparks a renewed interest in finding value, which renews a worn down affection. When that happens on its own, we say, "See, I told you if you just do the work, love happens." That's not in reality what happened at all. Instead, while the couple was focusing on their marriage, affection was restored because value was rekindled. But for those times "action counsel" doesn't work and the couple never improves relations, it's because one or both spouses are not finding value in each other or in the marriage. When value dwindles, affection dies. When affection dies, love dies.

If we're having problems getting along with our spouse, we have to go back and figure out why we've stopped finding value in him or her. Perhaps we got married out of physical attraction. When that wears off, we want someone else. Maybe we married out of necessity. When we don't feel the need anymore, we don't value our spouse anymore. Or it could be that we married to have a companion. But when our companion always wants something from us and wants to control us, then we lose the value of having that person as a companion. Maybe we're comparing our spouse to someone else's or to some dream mate from a movie or soap opera or book or pornography. When our real spouse doesn't measure up, we stop valuing him or her. Then again, we might have valued security at first. But after awhile, we realize how secure we are without our spouse, so value diminishes. There are hundreds of reasons to value someone and hundreds of reasons to stop. If we only value our spouse because he or she makes much of us, what happens when our spouse cannot make as much of us as we're used to? We may feel shafted and our value for our spouse diminishes. If we only value our spouse because he or she makes much of us, then what happens when, in bitterness, he or she starts getting jealous and acting like a brat? We get angry and our value for our spouse shrinks.

If you're in this situation right now, not valuing your spouse, keep reading these posts. Pray that God will show you what he wants you to value. It could be that the reasons you valued your spouse were all wrong. Or it could be that your spouse has changed and truly become less valuable in your eyes. It doesn't matter. If the love in your marriage feels cold, it's because the value between you and your mate is down to yard sale prices. It may not help for you to immediately try to "drum up" things to value about your spouse. It may work, or it may be incredibly discouraging. First, you're sense of value may be all out of whack. Second, it may be because your spouse really isn't that valuable at the current time. I've written this book to try and show what is truly valuable about marriage and our spouses. So keep reading on and let the Bible speak to your sense of value before you put your marriage on the chopping block or start doing all sorts of assessments.

A Biblical Example of Non-virtuous Love

Consider with me a biblical example of the interplay of value and love. In 2 Samuel 13 we read about King David's family. David had a son, Amnon. He also had a daughter, Tamar.

"Now Absalom, David's son, had a beautiful sister, whose name was Tamar. And after a time Amnon, David's son, loved her. And Amnon was so tormented that he made himself ill because of his sister Tamar, for she was a virgin, and it seemed impossible to Amnon to do anything to her" (2 Sam. 13:1-2).

We find in the text that "after a time" Amnon loved Tamar. The question I ask of this text is, "Why did Amnon love her?" There are clues. First, she was beautiful. Second, she was a virgin. Amnon loved Tamar because he had an affection for her. He had an affection for her because he valued her. He valued her because he could see she was beautiful and he obviously would have heard if she had been given to a man -- he knew she was a virgin. We have my description of love taking shape here. Did this love last? No. Why? Because the affection faded. Why? Because Amnon stopped finding value in Tamar. Amnon's love for Tamar overflowed in rape. We read on in 2 Samuel 13 that Amnon ceased to value Tamar after he raped her. Maybe it wasn't all Amnon had imagined it would be. Maybe he'd gotten what he wanted and didn't see the use in repeating. The text isn't clear as to why Amnon changed, but he did. "Then Amnon hated her with very great hatred, so that the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her" (2 Sam. 13:15). I am not saying Amnon's love for Tamar was noble or virtuous. It clearly wasn't (remember, the only criteria for virtuous love is that it pleases God). His affection for her could have flowed out in a desire for her purity. But it didn't. That's the power of sin to corrupt a God-given gift like love. Amnon's affection for Tamar (love) took him down all the wrong paths, at serious cost to her and himself.

Value is Determined by Pleasure Granted or Expected

Love begins as an affection flowing from a sense of beauty or value. The question I now want to ask is, "What determines what we value or to what extent we value it?" The value of an object is determined by the pleasure granted or expected from that object. To the extent that an object can further the pleasure of the one doing the loving, that object is valued. An object's value may emanate from inherent beauty or it may be derived as a means to another end. An example will illustrate this. God is inherently beautiful, or objectively beautiful in himself. So it should not be a foreign notion that every reasonable creature should have an affection (love) for God -- because he's valuable in himself. On the other hand, we have sinful man. He is unlovely in himself. He isn't inherently beautiful. Any beauty man has is derived from God. Therefore, what beauty or value does God see in man that he should have an affection (love) for us? God has an affection for man flowing from a sense of value in himself. It's not that man is inherently valuable and worthy of love. Instead, God is valuable and worthy of love. So God loves the world as a means to the end of getting glory from the world. If this sounds unreasonable, consider Paul's statement in Ephesians 5:

"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish" (Eph. 5:25-27).

Paul says that Christ loved the church. Everyone agrees with that. What did that love require? Christ gave himself up for her. Why did Christ die? Christ died to sanctify and cleanse the church. Why did Christ want to sanctify the church? Christ sanctified the church so that he might present the church to himself in splendor to worship him for all eternity. This was the joy set before him (see Heb. 12:2). Christ died for himself. And he died for the church. This blows away many people's conception of love. Christ had an entirely different reason for loving the church than that they were lovely. Christ had an affection for man flowing from a sense of value in himself. So man served Christ's greater end of glorifying himself. Christ valued the church for the pleasure he would gain from her. What's more, the church eternally benefits from Christ's seeking his pleasure in dying for the church. No sane person faults Christ for this! We should not feel the least bit slighted that Christ is working everything for our benefit, in spite of our unworthiness, to bring glory to himself. We should greatly rejoice that he is. We may be tempted to think that Christ didn't love the church. He just loved himself. That's not what Paul said. Jesus Christ pursued his own pleasure in the pleasure of the church. Paul called this pursuit "love."

In the above illustration of Amnon and Tamar, Amnon valued Tamar because of the pleasure he was expecting to receive from her. His affection flowed in the sinful way it did because his sense of value was perverse. He valued Tamar as a possession, something to be had for the sexual pleasure he expected to receive from her. The difference between Christ and Amnon is that Christ's love ultimately benefits the beloved by helping the beloved cherish God (which pleases God and makes the love virtuous). Jesus pursued pleasure in the ultimate pleasure of the beloved. Amnon's love consumed and did violence to the beloved and cared nothing about helping the beloved cherish God (which makes it displeasing to God and therefore sinful). Amnon pursued pleasure at the expense of the beloved. Christ's love was a fountain; Amnon's a sponge. What is your love for your spouse?

I would like to think that Amnon really just loved sex and saw his sister as an object to satisfy that love. But the biblical writer didn't say that. He wrote in 13:1 "And after a time Amnon, David's son, loved her." He didn't say Amnon loved sex. He didn't call Amnon's love "lust." He said Amnon loved Tamar. We must let the writer say what he wrote. It's alright to try to figure out why he wrote what he wrote. But it's not alright to make him say something he didn't. (Again, this proves that love is a general term, describing either a virtuous action or a sinful action depending on its relationship to God.) I think the pursuit of pleasure explains why Amnon ceased to love Tamar after he had violated her. It's interesting that Amnon wasn't just disinterested with Tamar afterwards. He was actively opposed to her. He hated her. Perhaps it was because Amnon's expectation of pleasure was seriously overinflated in his imagination. We'll see in the next section that Amnon was obsessed with Tamar. He thought of her constantly. He was fantasizing about how it would be. Then when he got his way with her, it was not the payoff he'd been expecting. So Amnon may have hated her because his expectation of pleasure had been dashed to pieces or because he expected no further pleasure could be had from her. In fact, after the deed was done, the thought of potential consequences may have come crashing down on his head. Those thoughts would not have been very pleasurable!

Another example of this relationship between value and pleasure is from the life of Moses in Hebrews 11. We looked at him in the last chapter. Moses had to choose between the fleeting treasures and pleasures of sinful Egypt, or the reproach of Christ. Moses made his choice by considering the reward he'd receive from both. He chose Christ over sin because he valued Christ over sin because his expectation of pleasure from Christ was greater than the pleasure he expected from sin. The reason I think he thought the reproach of Christ would bring greater pleasure than sin was because sin's pleasures are fleeting. They will eventually end and become anti-pleasure. So by faith Moses chose everlasting pleasure over temporary pleasure because everlasting pleasure is of necessity more valuable than temporary pleasure.

This is also John's argument in 1 John 2:15-17. John says not to love the world or the things in the world because the world will end along with its desires. In other words, the pleasure that the things of the world can give is fleeting and temporary. There will come a day when the world's pleasures will come to an end and become anti-pleasure. Seeking pleasure in the things of the world isn't nearly hedonistic enough because the promises of worldly pleasures are not powerful enough. John says the one who does the will of God abides forever. We saw in the last chapter what the will of God is -- to be happy in him through the gospel forever.

We must discipline our minds to constantly weigh competing pleasures. When the temporary pleasures of the world call out to us, we cannot allow ourselves to coast right into them. We must consider their promises, assess their payoff in the end and choose according to what is truly valuable. To a mind awakened to the value of God through faith, God's way will win out if considered long enough, because the eternal pleasures of God's way are better than the fleeting pleasures of the world's way.

It's important to point out at this point that we value based on pleasure granted or expected. Not every choice we make ends up in pleasure. Our decision may solidly backfire on us. If I go to a skydiving school and learn to jump out of an airplane, there is a real chance that the parachute won't open or a line may snap or I could crash into a tree and break my leg. I'm not setting out to kill myself. I'm setting out to get pleasure. However, my choice could result in anti-pleasure. But I'm expecting pleasure, not pain. If I go to a night club in a quest for a one-night-stand, I am expecting pleasure. I am not going in expecting to get a sexually transmitted disease. I may end up with one that could cause serious agony and death. I'm not setting out on a quest for agony. I'm setting out on a quest for pleasure. However, the quest may end in agony. But I'm expecting pleasure, not pain. This dynamic explains why we do the things we do, even when they seem really stupid to those around us. This explains why so many couples won't quit fighting or being selfish, even though it makes them miserable. Both spouses are expecting to get their way. They're not setting out to be upset. They're setting out to be happy. They're just going about it all wrong, and it backfires on them. We don't generally set out to ruin our lives with our choices. We set out to better our lives through heaping on more pleasure and it backfires on us. This shouldn't lead us to stop pursuing pleasure since we can't. It should provoke us to start seeking it in the only place it can be found in durable and ultimate form -- God.

Loving the Unseen Christ

We can see the relationship between love, joy and faith in 1 Peter 1:8-9. In this chapter, Peter is reflecting on the trials and joys of the Christian life when he considers the love that his readers have for Christ. Peter points out that, "though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory, obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls" (1 Pet. 1:8-9). Notice here that it seems somewhat strange to love someone we've never seen. That's why Peter points it out with the word "though." Consider this illustration. If I run around the block, no one may notice. But what if I have a broken leg and run around the block? Would that seem peculiar? Probably. Someone may even say, "Though he has a broken leg, he's running around the block." The word "though" in that sentence points out something out of the ordinary that may keep an act from being done. It's not normal to run on broken legs. In other words, it wouldn't be out of the ordinary to see a guy running around the block. But it is out of the ordinary to see a guy running around the block with a broken leg. Peter is saying something similar about his readers' love. It isn't extraordinary to love someone. It is more extraordinary to love someone you've never seen. That's why Peter seems pleased that his readers love Jesus without having to see him.

Peter seems to be saying here that love is in some measure usually based on physical sense -- in this case, sense of sight. You see Jesus and you love him. If you want to love Jesus, you have to see him. The capacity to love seems related to the ability to assess something lovely. That assessment comes through senses. If you don't have that capacity to assess, you can't decide to love. Now what would enable Peter's readers to love Jesus without seeing him? What would give them the ability to assess something lovely about Jesus that would make it extraordinary? I think it's clear from the text that the answer is faith. Peter calls his readers' joyful, believing love for Jesus "faith" in verse 9. Peter's readers assessed the value of Jesus through the eyes of faith. Faith was the sense by which they could assess Jesus' value.

The love with which these early Christians loved Jesus was fueled by inexpressible joy. Through faith, they could rejoice in the promises of salvation given by Jesus and that sustained them through the most extreme trials. They valued Jesus because Jesus brought them such intense joy that it couldn't be fully expressed. It couldn't have been the sight of Jesus that brought them such great joy, like the sight of a super-model. They'd never seen him. It was what Jesus had done for them through the gospel that provoked such radical joy. And they sensed that, not through sight, but through faith. So we can see the relationship between love, joy and faith in this text. Love flows from a sense of beauty or value. Beauty or value is based on the joy granted or expected from an object. Faith is the "sixth sense" that enables virtuous love to flow without the aid of the physical senses.

I know what I'm saying may be new to you and require intense thought. Don't give up, keep thinking with me. Let me recap my thoughts about love to this point. 1) Love is best described as a progression of phases. 2) Love begins as an affection flowing from a sense of beauty or value. 3) When affection for an object dies, love dies. 4) An object's value is determined by the pleasure granted or expected. Let's move along to the next phase tomorrow.

Outlawing Emotional Abuse?

This is an interesting story. Is this necessary? It is even doable? What do you think?

Handling Conflict Head-on but Humbly

Conflict.

Powerful word. Some people are scared of it and will go to any extreme to avoid it. Others love it and will sacrifice anything for the thrill of being in it. It brings out the best and worst in all of us, providing the opportunity to empty ourselves of our rights for the good of another or assert ourselves at another's expense. It comes in many different forms, from world war enveloping scores of nations to the solitary war within our own heart over whether to buy that pack of chewing gum in the checkout line. As frightening as the word is, one thing is certain in this fallen world: conflict is inevitable. It started when the word of the serpent conflicted with the Word of God and the Word of God conflicted with Eve's desire to be God and Adam conflicted with Eve over whose fault it was and Eve conflicted with the serpent for setting her up and God conflicted with all of them by cursing the world and all of their descendants. And we've all been in conflict ever since.

As a pastor, I must confess that there have been times when I've rushed too quickly into conflict. I've done this for all sorts of reasons - out of fear something bad would happen if I waited or out of a desire to be vindicated or in order to "strike while the iron's hot." This has damaged relationships that could have been spared. I must also confess other times when I've put off a conflict that should have happened sooner. I've done this out of fear something bad would happen if I confronted or out of a desire to trample lightly on the feelings of others or just out of plain laziness. This also has damaged relationships that could have been spared. I have a natural desire to avoid conflict, yet at times compensate for that by forcing myself into it half-prepared just so I can say I'm not scared of a little conflict.

In spite of the unwise and even sinful ways I've dealt with conflict, there are also times when I think I've handled conflict in very God-honoring ways. The results are sometimes the same as when I've handled it sinfully. The relationship is damaged, but at least I can rest in knowing that it's in God's hands to fix it or not. The relationship isn't damaged by my sinful handling of the conflict, but by reasons out of my control. It is my prayer that all of us can do less rushing into conflict and less avoiding it when it is necessary. I hope God in his grace will show us a still more excellent way.

In The Pursuit of Pleasure in the Pleasure of Another, I deal with conflict in Chapter 8 Forgiveness: Guardian of Marital Bliss. I give extensive counsel for husbands and wives in the midst of conflict. I relied heavily on a book by Ken Sande entitled The Peacemaker. I think Sande's book is the best book on God-centered conflict resolution that there is outside of Scripture. The reason it is so good is because it is so dependent upon Scripture.

The Bible tells us what our goals should be in conflict and how to resolve them in a God-glorifying, Christ-honoring way. I'll lay out a little of the process here.

1) Conflict is unavoidable in a fallen world because it's part of the curse. God will not allow this world to be non-conflicted in its rebellion against him. So the question isn't whether we can get through this life without conflict. We can't as long as we are in relationships with other people. The question is much more simple - who will get the glory from the conflicts we have? In a conflict, either I get the glory, you get the glory, Satan gets the glory or God gets the glory. Those are the options. If either you or I get the glory, then Satan gets the glory automatically. I would propose that if Christians aren't very careful, Satan will get the glory more than God from our conflicts. So the most important thing to do in any conflict is make the conscious decision that God will get the glory from the conflict. Don't go through the situation on auto-pilot.

2) Conflict isn't anything to be afraid of. Jesus tells his disciples not to fear man. Fear God. Most sinful handling of conflict is out of fear. I pointed that out in my confession above. Whether I rushed into conflict or avoided it like the plague, it was often out of fear. If God is going to get the glory in conflict, then his followers can't be afraid of it because that will lead to sinful handling of it. So make it a priority to face conflict head-on, but humbly. Head-on BUT humbly.

3) Ken Sande defines conflict as "a difference in opinion or purpose that frustrates someone's goals or desires." This is an excellent definition because it fits with world war or when you gently disagree with your wife over Mexican or Chinese food for lunch. By that definition, how many times a day are you in conflict with another? Often. When those conflicts come up, you may wrong someone else - snap at her or cut off relationship with him or punish in some way - in which case you should humbly confess your sin to the other person. Don't be afraid that confessing makes you look weak or stupid or mean. Everyone knows you're a loser because Christ had to come and die for you. We're all in the same boat. However, when you've searched your heart in light of Scripture, and perhaps had others confirm that you're in the right (without gossip and slander!), then be ready to forgive the sins of the other person, even when the other person doesn't seem to care.

4) Only the gospel of Jesus Christ can truly resolve conflict because any other form of resolution skirts around the main issue; namely, that we're in conflict with other people because we're in conflict with God and are cursed because of it. The gospel is how Jesus resolved the conflict between God and man and how he expects his followers to resolve conflicts with one another. The gospel condemns us so that we don't have to justify ourselves before others, and the gospel justifies us so that we don't have to face the condemnation of others. We are free to confront, free to confess and free to forgive because that's exactly what God did to us in the Gospel.

5) Jesus resolved the conflict between God and man by taking the destructive effects of the conflict upon himself and bearing it fully on the cross. Jesus ended the conflict by forgiving the wrong. When forgiveness happens, the wrong doesn't just go away. It is absorbed by the forgiver. In other words, forgiveness comes with a cost. It cost Jesus the cross and all the humiliation he suffered before it. This is the example that Jesus tells his disciples to follow. However, most Christians try their hardest to be credited with forgiving without actually having to bear any cost for it. They say they forgive, but secretly store away the wrong in their memory somewhere like Gollum stroking his precious ring. So the relationship remains strained forever. True forgiveness simply doesn't work that way. When Jesus forgave you, he accepted you forever, never to let your sins resurface in his mind. You went from scarlet to white as snow forever. When we have our way with those who wrong us, their sins go from scarlet to a kind of dingy gray or off-white that always reminds us of their past wrongs. Just let them be white! Don't force them to be forever gray in your eyes.

6) Forgiveness has nothing to do with the size of the offense. If you can only forgive little things, then you don't yet appreciate how great your sin is before God who forgave you. Go back to Bible 101. Christ went through hell to forgive you because your sin against him is infinitely atrocious. No one has wronged you like you've wronged God. You aren't nearly as worthy of honor as God. So the next time you're tempted to think, "How dare he do that to me? What's the matter with him?" come down off your high horse and forgive like Christ.

Conflict has been on my mind a lot in the past year. I've been forced to think long and hard about how I've personally handled conflict with others and the damage that has been done. And I've seen others in the midst of conflict suffer the slings and arrows, not of outrageous misfortune, but of one another's hard heartedness. But through the gospel of Jesus Christ, we can face conflict head-on but humbly with a power that can only come from God. If God can turn his conflict with rebellious man into an eternal bride and the conflict with Saul into the apostle Paul and the conflict between Jews and Gentiles into the church, surely he can handle anything we throw his way. Don't you believe it?

Simple Beauty

Sometimes I am stunned by the simple beauty of my wife's writing. Like today.

People are Starving for the Greatness of God

"So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths" (Genesis 3:6).

"For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen" (Romans 1:21-25).

It might be impossible to overstate the devastating effects of the Fall of man into sin. Mankind has suffered thousands of years of misery, conflict and death as a result of that first sin. As I've pondered this over the last week, an interesting thought occurred to me. Man spends his entire life since the Fall: 1) trying to recover from the Fall, or 2) trying to escape the realities of the Fall for a little while. Try to think of something that you do that doesn't fit into one of those categories. You either work to improve your life or work to escape it (either mentally or physically). That's pretty much all you do.

One of the worst effects of the Fall is the futility of the mind and darkness of the heart. Notice what happened when Adam and Eve exchanged the truth about God for a lie. God "gave them up" to that futile darkness. We still suffer the same consequences today as we still follow the same foolish path of our first parents today. We are cursed by our own minds and led astray by our own hearts. This is true for Christians as well as non-Christians. I want to narrow our thoughts about this to one area: Christian living.

Go to the "Christian" bookstore. What do you see when you get beyond the pictures and candles and trinkets and cards? Hopefully you see some books. But what kind of books do you see there? If the store owner wants to stay in business, you see books the store owner thinks his customers will buy. So the supply of books is set by the demand of the consumer. This is important to think about because it tells us something about ourselves. Usually there will be a little shelf off in the corner somewhere labeled "Doctrine" or "Theology" or something like that. You won't find many books on that shelf. But the main section of the store will be broken down into "Fiction" "Christian living" "Ministry" "Marriage and Family" "Money" "Teen" "Counseling" "Charismatic" and things like that. This is where the store makes its living on books. The how-to section.

How do I manage my money? Go to the money section. How do I get along with my wife or how do I handle my unruly teen or how do I become a better housewife? Go to the family section. How do I have a good quiet time? Go to the Christian living section. How do I grow my church from 10 to 1,000? Go to the ministry section. How do I escape the reality of my pathetic life for awhile? Go to the fiction section. How do I fulfill my lust for romance novels without feeling guilty? Go to the Christian romance section where you can read about the new hunk pastor that comes to town on a white horse. How do I get the Holy Spirit to give me the desires of my heart? Go to the charismatic section. Do you get the idea? These are the books the stores carry because these are the books Christians think they need to get through life or mentally escape it for awhile.

Now, compare the above paragraph with this quote: "People are starving for the greatness of God. But most of them would not give this diagnosis of their troubled lives. The majesty of God is an unknown cure. There are far more popular prescriptions on the market, but the benefit of any other remedy is brief and shallow... The greatness and glory of God are relevant. It does not matter if surveys turn up a list of perceived needs that does not include the supreme greatness of the sovereign God of grace. That is the deepest need. Our people are starving for God... Man-centered humans are amazed that God should withhold life and joy from his creatures. But the God-centered Bible is amazed that God should withhold judgment from sinners. One of the implications this has for preaching is that preachers who take their cue from the Bible and not from the world will always be wrestling with spiritual realities that many of their hearers do not even know exist or think essential." This quote is from John Piper's book The Supremacy of God in Preaching. This is one of the greatest books on preaching even though it is small.

I brought up the bookstore to point out that our buying habits display a fundamental flaw in our quest for fulfillment. How-to books cannot restore the wonder and majesty of God. They have their place. They can give some nitty-gritty advice on how to live after one has a big God swelling up in their hearts. But I question if one with such a God growing in their hearts would even need the how-to book. When we start with a big God, everything else seems to fall into place. When we start with a little God, then we try to fill in the gaps with how-to manuals that eventually foster self-righteousness.

As a Christian, seek to have your vision of God's glory and majesty and beauty expanded in your heart. Find books that will do this, starting with the Bible. If your pastor preaches sermons that seem heavy on God and light on application, don't chastise him for it. Thank him for it. If your pastor preaches little puff pieces with more jokes and self-actualization techniques then God, lovingly and privately challenge him to bring God to the center. Put down the Christian living book you're reading and pick up a book out of that oft-neglected "Doctrine" section and let your heart race with the big God you find there. Only a big God bringing a big gospel can enlighten our Fall-darkened hearts and correct our Fall-induced futile minds.