- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (10/29)
- Next Post »Reading Classics - The Religious Affections (XIV)
I Love You This Much
- 10/29/08
- 60
Last week I spent an evening reading Rick Warren's soon-to-be-published book The Purpose of Christmas. It is a mostly-original work that, while it draws heavily from The Purpose Driven Life is at least not entirely derived from it. An evangelistic gift book, it is meant to be given as a Christmas gift. I have written a review of it that I will post a little closer to the release date. For now, though, I wanted to deal with one of the statements inside it. It's one I've seen Warren write in the past and one that always bothers me. Here it is. "[T]he baby born in Bethlehem did not stay a baby. Jesus grew to manhood, modeled for us the kind of life that pleases God, taught us the truth, paid for every sin we commit by dying on a cross, then proved he was God and could save us by coming back to life. This is the Good News. When the Romans nailed Jesus to a cross, they stretched his arms as wide as they could. With his arms wide open, Jesus was physically demonstrating, "I love you this much! I love you so much it hurts! I'd rather die than live without you!" The next time you see a picture or statue of Jesus with outstretched arms on the cross, remember, he is saying 'I love you this much!'"
Now clearly it is true that Jesus died as an expression of his love for his people. The Bible tells us as much and it tells us so repeatedly. "Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13). Jesus' death was as great an expression of love to us as he could offer and it was far greater than anything you or I could offer. I might die for a friend, but I could not suffer the Father's wrath on his behalf. Jesus, though, died and faced the Father's wrath so that I would not need to. There is no greater imaginable act of love than that. I would never wish to minimize the love of the Son for his people.
But when that is all there is to the Lord's death, we miss a critical element. When we go no further and see ourselves as the ultimate object of Jesus' love, we raise ourselves far too high. We may inadvertently make Jesus' death a kind of idolatry.
Before he was raised on that cross, Jesus had been asked for his view on which was the most important of the commandments. He did not hesitate for a moment, but answered "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these" (Mark 12:29-31). Love for one another comes only second to love for God. If we do not first love and treasure God, we cannot properly or fully love our neighbors. If we do not first love and treasure God, we make every other kind of love into a form of idolatry--we raise them higher than God in our hearts.
So what we miss in the "I love you this much" story of the cross is that Jesus' death was not primarily an expression of love for us, but for his Father. It had to be this way. Jesus greatest love is not for us, but for his Father. His sacrificial death was not first for us, but first for his Father, so that he might ransom those whom his Father loved. Though there is no doubt that the cross is an expression of love for us, it is first an expression of love for the Father and an expression of obedience to the Father. There is abundant proof for this in Scripture. Jesus said, "I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father" (John 14:31). So that the world may know I love you? No, so that the world may know I love the Father. It was this love and obedience that sustained Jesus, even on the cross. Early in his ministry he had said, "My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work" (John 4:34). Addressing his disciples shortly before his death, Jesus said, "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love" (John 15:9-10). The Apostle Paul says the same: "And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross" (Philippians 2:8). In all these things, and especially in his obedience, Jesus expressed a heartfelt love to his Father.
Bruce Ware says "If Christ's obedience to the Father was the truest and necessary expression of the reality of his love for the Father, then the severity of what was asked of him and his willingness to obey at a cost beyond human comprehension indicate a love that is so great, so pure, so deep, and so passionate, that we can only grasp in miniscule part what this truest of all loves really is. But this much we can know: such love would never, could never, be love were it not for costly obedience. This is the hallmark of Jesus' love for the Father."
So does Jesus love us "this much?" Of course he does. He loves us enough to take our sin upon himself and to face the father's infinite wrath. Jesus could never have made his love more plain than this. But more foundational to this is Jesus' love for the Father. The cross was Jesus' ultimate expression of love to his Father.
Now let me ask you: do you think I am making a false distinction here and fabricating some kind of controversy? Or is it really important to us that we position the cross first and foremost as an expression of love to the Father and only secondarily as an act of love toward us?
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I write books and blogs for fun while doing web design and consulting for a living. I worship and serve at 
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (60)
The very second I hit the "Post" button I thought of the song "Above All." Here is a song that conveys the message of my own centrality of the cross:
Crucified, laid behind a stoneHe lived to die, rejected and aloneLike a rose trampled on the groundHe took the fall, and thought of me above all.
Did Jesus think of me above all? Or did he think of his Father above all? Were Jesus' last thoughts on the cross of me or of his Father?
Did he think of me ahead of himself, in that he died so I wouldn't have to. Yes. But, it's a skewed picture that seems to gloss over... "you sinned this much, that this was necessary" and bypasses any sense of this was all for his glory more than it was for us.
Hi Tim:
As usual, a very thoughtful post.I would agree with you. According to the Gospels, Jesus went to the cross in order to follow the will of his Father. I suppose you could make the argument by saying since "God so loved the world," Jesus loved the world too. If God the Father and God the Son (along with God the Spirit) existed in loving fellowship before the world began, it would make sense that Jesus' love for the Father would take precedence over his love for us.The emphasis on Jesus' love for us also (I think) brings us dangerously close to saying that Jesus glorifies us through his death, where the Gospels are very clear in indicating that Jesus' death glorifies the Father (and, secondarily, glorifies the Son). I'll be very interested in reading other people's thoughts on this.
That's a very good question.
Part of me wants to go: give Warren some credit (though I am not the biggest Warren fan) in that he says the Good News is how much Jesus loves us.
I'm not sure if the "Good News" is how much Jesus loved the Father. Though this is, like you said, very important and should be conveyed to both non-believer and believer. But I think telling someone the Gospel is usually Jesus died for you - to take upon your sin and condemnation - so that you wouldn't have to face God's wrath. He first loved you, so that you could love him.
I don't know the answer - I think though in an evangelistic setting you usually focus on the Good News for that person, namely Jesus' death / resurrection, removal of sin... etc, etc.
Just my $0.02
It's subtle, but I think it reflects how we sometimes try to soften the gospel. Warren's presentation is what I was given as a child: "Jesus loves you so much, doesn't that make you want to live for him?" It sounds good, but an unregenerate heart is not able to do this.
When he presents the Good News, he seems to gloss over the part that we are deserving of God's wrath and have no hope apart from Christ. He mentions it in passing, but it's easily missed by the sinner trying to muster up feelings of love in his own strength.
I was at a wedding of a dear friend last week and "Above All" was sung during the ceremony.
My best friend was also at the wedding, and she was seated across the aisle. We have had discussions about that song before, and so when it started playing I cut my glance over to her only to find that she was looking back at me.
After the wedding we were talking about it and how it kind of surprised us that she had the song at her wedding. My friend said that really, until we realized what the words were saying, we probably would have had it at our weddings, too. I said, "Do you remember when we first realized what the song way saying?" She responded quickly, "I think it was on Challies' blog."
So I'm not surprised it came to your mind during your post. It's definitely applicable, and definitely a skewed image of the gospel, although one that I'm sure thousands of evangelicals adhere to without a second thought.
Tim, I don't think you're making a false distinction; I think you're making an important one. The song "Above All" also came to mind as I was reading this post. I recently had a discussion with the worship team at the church I recently moved to about why we wouldn't be using that song in our worship services. Although the thought has good intentions, the fact of the matter is Christ did not think of me above all else. To teach otherwise would be to deny God the glory Christ died to display.
Bob Kauflin writes helpfully about the song in Worship Matters - a book that the lyricist wrote the foreword too. I find the song a little unhelpful but I'd want to be generous to the lyricist - if it were your whole theology it'd be unhelpful... but then if any song were your whole theology that'd be quite unhelpful.
Tim, Here is a quote from Sinclair Ferguson from Mahaney's interview with him a few months back - notice some similarities:
“When we think of Christ dying on the Cross we are shown the lengths to which God goes to win us back to himself. We would almost think that God loved us more than he loves his Son. We cannot measure such love by any other standard. He is saying, I love you this much. The Cross is the heart of the Gospel; it makes the Gospel good news; Christ died for us; he has stood in our place before God’s judgment seat; he has borne our sins. God has done something on the Cross we could never do for ourselves. But God does something to us, as well as for us through the Cross. He persuades us that He loves us.”
Notice that Ferguson says, "We would almost think God loved us more." What I appreciated about Ferguson's quote is that he doesn't cloud the mystery of the Cross. There is a mystery to the Cross that gives us this wonderful, mysterious impression that God loves us more than he loves his Son. Why would God do what he did? You can't minimize that mysterious impression.
Now as good Edwardsians, we know that it's not strictly true. God's highest affection is for himself - and that's the best thing that ever happened to us. It's because he's for himself that he's for us. Jesus went to the Cross to glorify His Father and to display his own glory (John 17:1-5).
But the mystery is this - while there is a distinction between God's regard for himself and his regard for us (he didn't think of us "above all") - in the Gospel that distinction is blurred! But because we know there is a distinction, the blurring itself becomes amazing! Because God was for himself, he became for us. He shares with us his glory. He shows us the extent of his love. He does say, "I love you this much!"
Tim, I don't think that you are incorrect, but I dispise my own tendency (and that of many Calvinists) to consider people to be "fluffy" or "man-centered" when they talk about Jesus' love for us. I'm not accusing you of being critical; I'm just saying that most of us are.
This quote from Charles Spurgeon may help us all to be a little more balanced:"Your Lord is very jealous of your love, O believer. Did he choose you? He cannot bear that you should choose another. Did he buy you with his own blood? He cannot endure that you should think that you are your own, or that you belong to this world. He loved you with such a love that he would not stop in heaven without you; he would sooner die than you should perish, and he cannot endure that anything should stand between your heart’s love and himself." (-C.H.S. "Morning by Morning," p.256, Sept. 12.)
Just to echo Dave Bish (#8), the lyrics in the chorus of "Above All" have the potential to likely convey something that Paul Baloche did not intend when he wrote it. I'd be careful in saying "This is what the song teaches," because in essence we are saying, "This is what the songwriter believes." A song can, and should, be judged on its own merit. But we need to be careful to judge a songwriter on the whole of his work, not on isolated examples of lyrics that have been written more clearly.
That said, I agree with the sentiment expressed already about the unfortunate reality that the song does indeed seem to elevate sinners to the place of priority in God's heart. I also agree thoroughly with Tim's concern regarding Warren's "good news." I've had lengthy discussions with a good friend about this very issue; his general argument is that the enormity of the price paid speaks of the enormity of our worth to him. My general argument is that the enormity of the price paid speaks of A) the enormity of our offense against him and B) the level of seriousness with which God takes his own glory.
Michael C. (#4) raises a good question, though, in wondering what role this distinction should play in evangelism. I'd be interested in hearing other thoughts about this. I had a seminary prof (a man I greatly respect and admire) who believed when presenting the gospel to someone, we should NOT say "Jesus died for you." We should instead say, "Jesus died to satisfy God's wrath against sin. If you believe in him, you'll be forgiven and restored in your relationship with him." In other words, we should not promise that Jesus had in his mind the individual to whom we're speaking when sharing the gospel; we should state the facts as plainly and accurately as possible, and extend the invitation - so far as it goes - to repent and believe the gospel.
I greatly appreciate your tone in this article. There is nothing technically untrue ... in fact there is something manifestly true about the idea that Jesus death was a death of love (i.e. Mark Driscoll's recent title, "Death by Love").
And yet it seems that we tend to confuse the work of the Trinity that was taking place in the incarnation and cross. Warren's thoughts come out of a Christianity saturated by John 3:16. But notice, "For GOD so love the world that HE gave His only SON ...." It was the Father who in love for the lost sent the Son. The emphasis of the gospel is twofold. It is upon the Father's love for the lost and the Son's humility and obedience to the Father. Even Jesus' desire not to lose any of the redeemed is framed in terms of keeping those whom the Father had given Him.
The Son loves the redeemed! Just look at Jesus interaction with the disciples, specifically with John, and at His High Priestly prayer. But if there is anything that we are to learn from the cross in terms of a lesson it is that the Father loved us so that He sent His Son! And that Jesus so loved the Father that He humbled Himself before the Father even to the point of death on a cross.
There is no tension here, nor does your post create any tension. It simply must be pointed out that particularly in our culture that is infatuated with being loved that to say that Jesus death on the cross was His act of love for the redeemed is incomplete.
And so I offer this parallel to John 3:16 from the perspective of the Son as a summary of the Bible's teaching about Jesus' motivation in His incarnation and death. "For Jesus so loved the Father that He obediently gave His very life that whosoever believes in Him would not perish but have everlasting life."
I do think it is important to remember that Christ came to do the will of the Father, and to save those who the Father had given him. Jesus was willing to die because he saw the pain that the Father had due to the separation from his people, and the pain that his people had due to the separation from his Father.
I'm not sure that it is helpful to raise one over the other (love of God over love of neighbour). I am not certain that Jesus, in quoting the two commandments, was making a distinction; God first, others second. Jesus was asked what TYPE of commandment is greater (or greatest) and he answered that the ones which relate to God and the ones which relate to people (all of them, then) are the greater commandments.
Perhaps it would have been better for Warren to say that it was the Father who was demonstrating his love for us on the cross, rather than Jesus (a la Rom 5:6-8), but I not sure that the distinction is necessary.
The reason I shy away from the distinction is that it implies that the two things may come in contradiction at some point, and then we would have to choose (love of God or love of neighbour). This however, does not seem to be the case. At least one of the ways we show our love of God is through our love for our neighbour.
So, Jesus saying, "I love you this much" towards us on the cross is ALSO saying, "I love you this much" to God. For me it is a both/and, rather than an either/or.
The last phrase in the first paragraph of my previous post SHOULD have read, "lyrics that COULD have been written more clearly."
I don't think you are wrong for pointing this out Tim. It is important. The Bible is not about us, but about what God has done.
I heard a message by D.A. Carson on this at the 2006 Desiring God Conference. He spoke on this issue and I think he wrote a short book on it.
I don't necessarily Warren is completely wrong in what he says, but in what he DOESN'T SAY.
I've always found the "arms open wide" picture to explain his great love sappy; (I mean, why not say he was doing a "thumbs-up" on the cross to encourage us?)However, the scripture does indicate that what He was doing at Calvary was as much about us as the Father:"But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8
I would also add that the unclear translation of John 3:16 in virtually every popular version of the Bible doesn't help this distinction any. It always reads, "For God so loved the world..." To the natural ear of the English-speaker, this means "God loved the world so much that..." In reality, the Greek word behind "so" concerns manner, not degree. In other words, the more accurate translation would be "For this is the manner in which God loved the world...," or "For God loved the world thus: that he sent his one and only Son..."
I often hear John 3:16 quoted in this very way, saying "See how much God loves us? He loved the world so much that he gave his Son." But the point of the verse is, "God demonstrated his love for the world in the sending of his Son." Again the distinction is subtle, but I think it's important.
I grew up in a tradition where when you saw a cross, it was not an empty cross. It was also a tradition of works as a means to grace. I clearly remember my Mom saying to me “Suffer for Jesus”. This placed the focus on ME...I had to do something to earn God’s favor.
When God saved me, the focus was still on ME. God had a “plan for MY life”, etc. This self-centered theology nearly destroyed me, and caused many wasted years.
So, no I don’t think you are making a false distinction at all, Tim. God has a plan alright, but it is, as you say, centered around Christ and the Glory of God and not around ME. It is vitally important that we see ourselves in the right perspective. I’m afraid that the writing you described emphasizes the love ofGod over His other attributes.
Tim,
I do not think you are fabricating AFRESH a controversy over Rick Warren. A simple search on your site will reveal, quite clearly, how you feel about the ministry of Mr. Warren. You see him as one sided.
That being said, is it wrong for a book to be written about Christ's love for humanity? After all, "while we were still sinners Christ died for the ungodly," and "God, who is rich in mercy, BECAUSE OF HIS GREAT LOVE FOR WHICH HE LOVED US, even while we were still dead in our trespasses and sins, made us alive together with Christ."
If this book is intended to be a Christmas gift, would it be sinful to give it to someone because it does not fully reveal the implications behind Christ's death?
At your conversion, did you have all of your theology lined-out and Reformed, or did you grow theologically? Maybe it would be better to give an unbeliever Owen's "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" so that one could insure all the bases are covered. They could probably stomach that early on...
So to answer your questions, "am I making a false distinction here?"--(no), and "are you trying to generate controversy every time Rick Warren puts pen to paper?" (my paraphrase)--(absolutely).
Here's a question: Should Rick Warren stop writing books or resign from the ministry because he is not Reformed in his theology?
It's about context, really. As a baby Christian struggling with assurance, someone gave me that story on a junk pocket card deal with a schmaltzy picture. It was useful, given with much love and designed to show me that God was intimately concerned with individuals and I met that criterion.
As a worship peice, I think music needs to be as theologically precise as preaching. It's one thing as a plattitude on 'jesus-junk', it's bearable as a christian radio syrrupy Jesus is my Boyfriend song. It's another altogether when you're brining it to corporate worship and stamping it, rightly or wrongly, as indicative of and in accord with the great truths with which we have been entrusted.
Kyle, (#11)
Very well put:
"My general argument is that the enormity of the price paid speaks of A) the enormity of our offense against him and B) the level of seriousness with which God takes his own glory."
And yet, as John Murray writes in "Redemption Accomplished and Applied", the atonement was not an "absolute necessity". Your points A & B only add up to God condemning and bringing His wrath to bear upon the sinners. But A & B and God's sovereign choice to turn His love upon sinners (thus the atonement) it is only proper to a say C) God's love is immense and free. It is love and mercy not that the price was paid, but that it was paid by our substitute. A & B simply adds up to the fact that an immense price will be paid. Given A & B, when God's sovereign love is turned upon sinners we can say, "God so loved the world ...."
That the offense is enormous and God's glory is serious only brings us to understand all the more the love of the Father for those whom He would redeem when He sent His son to endure His own wrath.
Tim,
I don't think you are off base. You are being Scriptural. If Warren were to be consistent he would do as you say. IOW, in the quote Warren states, "Jesus grew to manhood, modeled for us the kind of life that pleases God, taught us the truth..."
So, if we should follow Jesus in what He modeled and taught us we should take the approach you did. That is, we should teach and model just what Jesus taught and modeled which is not what Warren did.
I understand what Warren is trying to appeal to, however, he just seems to bring people right back around to what we are trying to get them away from...self.
I look forward to the full review.
In Him,
Mark
Tim;You continue to blow me away with your posts!I think you're dead on. I had a little debate with a guest Sunday School teacher just this last week who was saying people ought to think more highly of ourselves because they have inherent value. He knew this because God apparently found value in us because he loved us so much He died for us.Now I don't argue his point in a very general big picture way. God of course does love us. Scripture says so. That settles it. Additionally, God made man as the crowning achievement of His Creation & He declared His Creation as being good. So despite the Fall I think we do retain some value in ourselves as the result of being His good creation. But I don't think that's how he meant it. It certainly didn't sound that way to me, & if not to me probably not to others as well.My point to him, while probably not expressed well because I was thinking on the fly & I was a little bit agitated, was that we needed the opposite lesson; God is so great because he loves us in spite the fact that we deserve wrath. If we look at it the other way I think we steal glory from God by making it look like His love is some sort of conditional gift based on some merit we may have.I think it goes back to your post the other day, "The Badder the Bad, the Gooder the Good." To really appreciate the Good News we really need to have a firm concept of the bad news first that we are all sinners deserving of death. Then we can naturally proceed to the glory of God & what He has mercifully done for us.
I don't think you are making a false distinction, but perhaps fabricating a controversey. I cannot say I am overly familiar with Warren's writings, so I would be interested to know Warren's reasoning for not discussing God's wrath more. It could be purposeful to make the Gospel more palatable. Or it could be that Warren doesn't get into the issue more because he is focusing on the "evangelistic setting" (as Doug mentions in his comment). The former would be intolerable because of the purposeful elimination of part of God's character. The latter would be understandable (though maybe not ideal) because his writing is focused on certain points, without expressly excluding others.
We do not preach the full gospel if we stop at the cross. Yes, Jesus' death is the atonement for individual sinners, but the gospel goes on to say that he rose again, ascended into heaven and continues to mediate for us.
Jesus fulfilled both the greatest commandment and the second. He loved God to the obedience of the cross; He loved his neighbor by becoming a man (by being the neighbor). Jesus' sacrifice not only purchased our redemption from sin but also brought the possibility of restoration to God's original creation - then we will be presented to God and worship Him. Our life after the cross begins to bear the fruit of the gospel.
At some point in the future, Jesus will present us to his Father God as His bride the Church. "From Jesus, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood - and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father - to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever, Amen" (Rev. 1:5-6) "then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death." (1 Cor. 12:24-26)
I appreciate the comments on this site.
"I'd rather die than live without you!"-Rick Warren
Is this a true statement? Would the Lord have been worse off, if he allowed me, as a child of wrath, to simply go my rebellious way, and be judged by a Holy Creator?
The way I see Christ and the Father's love, is Their perfect holy love for one another. As Tim has said in his post: "Jesus greatest love is not for us, but for his Father." And this perfect love, and loving relationship was severed, so that God would glorify His Son, and the Son would glorify the Father, and His great mercy. And we, the children of wrath, who hated God, and mocked His love, are brought into this love, so that we can be the objects of His glory as well.We should be amazed that God would love us at all.Rick seems to exclaim that god has to love you, and he couldn't live without you.And, although he loves you so much, and can't live without you, many of these He loves so dearly, shall be thrown, soul and body, into the fires of hell. Matt. 10:28
Good post and good discussion. Some deep things here to consider. Especially for my pea brain.
Sorry - the final reference is 1 Cor 15:24-26
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Sounds like love.....God first draws us to Him by his love for us then as we grow in our relationship with Him our fruit should refect our love for Him.Lets not forget that we are not to DO the work of God but it is He that works through usHe FIRST loved us....then we loved Him.
Thanks for a post that helps me see theological distinctions more clearly. Rick Warren's idea of Jesus saying, "I'd rather die than live without you" is somehow revolting to me. It sounds needy, unbalanced, unlike Jesus.
Jesus would rather die than lose any of the sheep whom the Father has given him. He'd rather die than have us die eternally.
I once had a pastor who warned about the dangers of glorying in who we are in the first birth (in the flesh) instead of glorying in who we are in the second birth (in the Spirit). Warren's way of expressing the gospel is dangerously close to glorying in the first birth.
Warren certainly isn't the first to use the "I love you this much" thing, so I think we should lump the Sunday School teachers and musicians who have embraced that in there with him. I know he tends to write theological milk rather than meat, but I've seen people come to faith in Jesus Christ through his work.
Tim, you're right on with your thoughts on what Jesus was really saying, but I also think that the gospel should be preached based on that which is of first importance: Christ died for our sins and was rose again on the third day.
Though it may come in a cheesy package, is emphasizing God's love for us wrong? I don't think so. It's a gift book. I'd expect something simplistic.
Speaking of songs (and cheesy), the church I formerly attended often sang a song with these words (which Google tells me is a Point of Grace song):God loves people more than anythingGod loves people more than anything More than anything He wants them to know He' d rather die than let them go 'Cause God loves people more than anything
Really? I always had a hard time singing it.
Thanks Tim for the post. I agree fully with what you say about Christ's love for the Father.
"He took the fall, and thought of me above all."I don't know the author of the song, or what he believes or what he intended, but my take...
When Jesus was tempted he was offered all that the world offered. He could have had it "all". In love and obedience to the Father, he thought of us "above all" of the world. I guess in this case I don't try to extend the song to cover all of the theology of the cross. But sometimes I'm rather simple.
I think it is important to keep in my mind that Chris's ultimate goal of glorifying the father is what helped him set his face like flint towards Jerusalem and to drink the cup of God's wrath. I do believe that we are the greatest beneficiaries of the cross, but we were not, as you said, the ultimate motivation or object of love on the cross.
Angie (#30), I have a poignant and sort of funny memory of the song you quoted.
I attended a Super Summer youth camp my senior year in high school, and during one of the worship meetings the camp choir (composed of students) sang this song just before the message. When the song ended, Voddie Baucham, the speaker that week, took the stage and basically demolished the theology of the song. He said something along the lines of, "That was a nice song, guys. But you know, God doesn't love people more than anything. He loves his glory more than anything." And then he went on a sort of rabbit trail tirade about God's passion for his glory before he turned a corner and began his planned message.
It was sort of jarring and unexpected to me - but it was also the first time I had heard the notion of God being more concerned with his glory than with my happiness. It opened a door in my life that eventually led me to Reformed theology and, I believe, a more biblical, well-rounded view of God and men. Any time I see or hear a reference to that song, I remember with gratitude that evening with the camp choir and Voddie Baucham, and give thanks to God for his infinite mercy.
I think the distinction that must be made when speaking of God's love is to define what love really is. Our westernized Grecco-Roman definition of love does not do justice to what the inspired authors of Holy Writ were meaning to convey when they penned the words. If we tend to think of God's love for us in the sense that there is something good, beautiful, or admirable that has awakened this love in Him towards us, then we have not truly conceived of love the way God loves. God's love is not awakened or stirred-up by something good in the object of the beloved, rather His love is grounded in His own perfections (which by the way are far greater sources than any human might ever possess). Furthermore, God's love is not a "making much of" the object of His love in the way that man's love for something does. Instead, as Piper says, God's love is based on His desire to set us free to make much of Him, which of course, is what will make us happy forever. This way, exalting the immense vastness of Christ's love for the sinner as expressed at the Cross (Rom. 5:8) only aids in exalting the supreme value and worth of God. They are not at odds, that is, Christ's love for us and Christ's love for the Father.
You know what? Reading your review, it makes it seem like that Warren is preaching universalism, or at least pluralism. Talking about Jesus Christ the Savior without mentioning Jesus Christ as Lord always leads to universalism or pluralism. It is man - centeredness at its ultimate, almost a kind of narcissism, to suggest that God would die for us because of His love for us without mentioning that we must respond to God's sovereignty and Lordship. That makes it appear that because of Christ's death God will not send anyone to eternal damnation.
You are absolutely correct. Christ died first and foremost so that the Father would be glorified!
This becomes a matter of Biblical interpretation. Do we stick to a strict grammatical-historical diagram or do we allow for analogical interpretation? I think interesting arguments can be made for both positions.
I can't remember who it was... maybe Augustine, maybe Gregory the Great (maybe someone could help me out), they suggested that so long as an interpretation lead one to Godliness it was a correct interpretation of Scripture.
I think that there is much truth to this statement. It DOES NOT mean that you let the Scripture say whatever it wants, but in Warren's context, it can be a powerful image of Christ's love for the world.
The analogical view does not necessarily destroy texts on doctrine. It would be wrong to reduce Christ's love as only being for us. But it is not incorrect to view it as Christ's expression of love for us. Maybe it is not pastorally wise to preach and print it like Warren does, but I don't know that the thing he is teaching is inherently detrimental.
Brandon
I think it is an important distinction because while this is just one verse in a song (or a book in Rick Warren's case) it is representative of an entirely different way of viewing God. Does Jesus die to bring glory to God, or because he was so lonely that he needed us so he was willing to die to have us? Also, the love of the Father for us is still not motivated by some sense of lack on his part because he does not have us. Again this seems to suggest a lonely God who created people that he might bring them to Himself all because he's lonely. Poor God...haha. So while the song and the lines from Warren are well intended I do think they feed into, and are derived from, the notion we are all born with, namely, that its all about us.
"..but I don’t know that the thing he is teaching is inherently detrimental."
I think it fits well with the self-love teaching, that we need to love our self first, before we can love God.
So I think this could be detrimental. It says to a sinner, God loves you and no matter what he died for you.
Does the sinner, who is selfish to begin with, and whose heart is wicked, so much so that he doesn't even know it, simply accept a god like this with little concern of his sin?He certainly may.
Suppose we tell the sinner God hates sin, and His holy anger will punish him for every sin he has committed, and in the end destroy all sinful souls, and even the person himself shall be cast into hell's fire. And so you must fear this God, and repent, and cry out for mercy.And God's mercy will come to all who cry out for forgiveness, and who as God to accept them, not according to their goodness, but because of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, and risen sovereign Lord of the universe.
Rick can think that God loves everyone the same, and that He wants to show mercy to everyone, but he must show God's holy wrath.For the Cross displays the Lord's mercy and love for sure, but it also makes evident the wrath of God, for Christ has become sin, and bore our filthy sins in His broken body.
Perhaps Rick spells this out in another portion of the book. But it would be beneficial if he would have done it here. Just a couple more sentences would have sufficed.
I like to hear the fullness of the gospel, and the power therein. The gospel can be watered down, and many false converts will come to the false gospel of making nice people a little better, and labeling this the name Christian.
I also think this approach to considering the cross glosses over the wrath of God poured out on His Son in that moment on our behalf. This isn't just a warm fuzzy story of love, it is an amazing display of love for people that didn't deserve it and in fact, naturally reject it. We were enemies of God but God provided the blood of Jesus as the sacrifice for our sins. To just say that Jesus opened his arms and said, "I love you this much" doesn't tell the whole story.
I agree completely with your blog entry (as I find I do with practically everything you write). There is a big tendency to focus on US rather than Jesus and coming up with clever, pithy cliches or acronyms.
Using the "How much I love you" children's book as a message to make us feel good about ourselves does not "make much of Jesus".
This reduces one of the most inhumane, cruel, painful torture methods that have ever existed with the even more incomprehensible, excruciating spiritual punishment of the sins of the entire world... to a cartoon-mind-picture of a smiling Jesus on a cross with his arms outstretched. This is at best irreverent if not blasphemous.
donsands
Do you see my point on how if we view Scripture analogically, then this understanding of Christ's sacrifice is not inherently incorrect. Perhaps it is not theologically precise. But is Warren writing a theological treatise here?
Perhaps he should be more nuanced in his writings. Maybe in light of His ministry and our times it is not pastorally wise to use these statements. However, I think that too many people on this post have made the statements themselves appear heretical.
I understand the serious concern, but non-Calvinists will simply shake their heads and complain about how Calvinists are obsessed with their systematic theology.
As a Calvinist, I'm all about theologically precise both pastorally and systematically, yet, can we argue that Jesus sacrifice on the Christ was not a true manifestation of His love for us? Who is seriously going to argue against that?
Arguing about the statements that he makes causes Calvinists to look bad imo. Do you understand the distinction I'm making between the validity of the statement, "Jesus loves you this much", and the wisdom of using it in a given context? I'm trying to re-focus the discussion to the validity of his statement and the wisdom of its use.
I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts.
I think this is a bit knitpicky.
"But is Warren writing a theological treatise here?"
I really don't know his mind. He seems much more people-focused than Christ-focused.
I would think he would want to share the fullness of the Gospel.
We sang a hymn tonight at our small group Bible study, which embodies, in three short stanzas, the Gospel. It was quite powerful, and I wonder what the Church would look like if we really believed what the Words say in this hymn.
"Before the throne of God aboveI have a strong and perfect plea.A great high Priest whose Name is LoveWho ever lives and pleads for me.My name is graven on His hands,My name is written on His heart.I know that while in Heaven He standsNo tongue can bid me thence depart.
When Satan tempts me to despairAnd tells me of the guilt within,Upward I look and see Him thereWho made an end of all my sin.Because the sinless Savior diedMy sinful soul is counted free.For God the just is satisfiedTo look on Him and pardon me.
Behold Him there the risen Lamb,My perfect spotless righteousness,The great unchangeable I AM,The King of glory and of grace,One in Himself I cannot die.My soul is purchased by His blood,My life is hid with Christ on high,With Christ my Savior and my God!"
2 Comments...
1. I think it is really important where writers/thinkers/theologians start. Take a ship leaving the port for a long journey as a metaphor. If the ship leaves and is merely 2 degrees off course and does not correct think about how far off course the ship will be when they reach what they think is their destination! A little bit can matter.
2. When reading through all the comments I was struck by their beauty and thoughtfulness. Sure, there was a few comments that may have judged Rick too harshly (do you know him? Really? His heart, passion and history should count for something...) but for the most part you all did great "work" to truly try to understand what was at stake so we could all see Christ and the Father more clearly. How cool is that!! Thanks for the forum Tim!!!
We once had a couple leave our church because we told the children that God loved them. Who are we to say who God has chosen and who He hasn't? There is a mystery to the Gospel that we will not understand this side of Glory and we will take eternity to learn all about the God Head. When the Bible says that God loves us, we need to take it as fact, when He says that He loves and obeyed His Father, we take that as fact also. The older I get in Christ the more and more I realize that "it ain't about me and it never was." Praise God I am a part. I love theology so I do understand learning and trying to grasp hard thiings, and all the hard things lead me to is a Job experience of shutting my mouth before Him who alone is Holy. Lynn Cross lynnsmusings.blogspot.com
Mr. Challies that is one of the songs the choir has sang in my church during the worship time, the last time we sang it as I read the lyrics on the screen I thought...hmm that doesn't sound right and continued singing the song but replaced the last of the line that says "thought of me above all." only we sing it in spanish of course and it says "y fue por mí, por amor" (y fue por mi means, it was because of me) I replaced that with "y fue por Dios" it was because of God...I think you're on track with this, the problem is as fallible human beings when we make ourselves the Main Thing of the gospel...Jesus did it for ME, because he loved ME...eventually we get the glory and God is tossed aside...Yes Christ died for us, but let us not forget that it was for his name's sake"I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name's sake." 1 Jn 2:12"He restores my soul. He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake." Psalm 23.3"Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations," Romans 1:5 In spanish it says "por amor a su nombre" (out of love for his name)
i think what you point out about the Father-Son relationship is important, BUT as a Christmas gift-book, that book is (hopefully) not going to be the only exposure to the gospel they ever get. even if it is, Warren doesn't seem to do a bad job with what he's got there in explaining the gospel.
if anything, i think i'd take issue more with the sentimentalizing of the cross than merely emphasizing the love of humanity (and me!) shown in the cross. “I’d rather die than live without you!" verges on the maudlin, and that's not the kind of love we are talking about when we talk about the cross or even Christmas.
In a day when the teachings in the church elevate man this was timely, Tim. We need to be reminded over and over that Jesus submitted to the will of the Father, that was His mission. It should humble us that we received the benefit of that obedience as a gift from the Father.
Funnily enough, I wrote about an allied issue ("we were worth saving") a couple of days ago. Basically, the point is this: God so loved the world that he gave his only Son. We cannot deny, and must not deny, God's continued love for sinners, for he demonstrates his love for us in this, that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Even someone who would consider that these verses only allow God's love for the elect must acknowledge that he's still showing his love to elect sinners.
However, we must not and cannot state that God loved something in us, so that we should deserve to be saved. The cross shows God's love for us, but it also shows his grace: the price paid for sin shows us how utterly undeserving we are of salvation; the fact that the price was paid shows us how utterly gracious God is.