Game, Set, Match
"Ad in, second serve..." Whack! "Ace!"
"Wow... that's game, set, match, huh?"
"Guess so..." you say, still heaving. "Here... have a seat, Joe, you look tired."
"Yeah. I look tired. Are those sweat stains or Rorschach tests?"
You laugh and pull out two bottles of gatorade, then throw one right at his head. Joe catches it and guzzles it down. For three solid minutes no words are exchanged, just the sounds of breathing and gulping.
"So, uh..." Joe mutters, "I've been meaning to ask."
"Yeah..."
"You go to church, right? You and your wife?"
"Yeah..."
"Well, don't take this the wrong way, but I know that in church they teach you to make friends with people who don't. Go to church." Joe looks at you like you're supposed to respond, but you wait, to see if his next sentence will be easier to answer. "So... I guess what I'm asking is... are you just hanging out with me to, you know... convert me?"
You know he's right about what the church teaches. And you're not ashamed of it. In fact, you've never been less ashamed of the gospel since you started making it a point to build relationships with the unchurched. It was back when you thought you were supposed to go door to door and hand out tracts and pounce on unsuspecting co-workers with cold-sell questions like, "So where do you go to church?" that you were constantly embarrased of your faith. But now that one of them is pouncing on you, the old feelings start to return.
"Joe, what are you talking about? That's ridiculous!" After all, you do enjoy playing tennis with him, although you don't have much else in common. You laugh what you hope is a genuine laugh, and hold up your racquet. "I was just looking for somebody I could actually beat." He laughs what you hope is a genuine laugh.
But the question rolls around in your brain all evening. You keep asking yourself if you were telling the truth. But despite your spiritual fitfulness, you manage to fall asleep quickly.
"Joe has made his choice. He is lost. You will not change his mind."
Morning light streams through the window and lands on your face. You open your eyes, and realize your head is pounding. But it's not a headache, it's those words. He's lost? Permanently? And you know the answer is yes. You've never heard of anyone having a dream like this before, but your heart tells you it's the real deal. God has just told you that Joe is going to hell, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Joe's question comes back to you again. Are you just his friend to get him saved? You shut your eyes hard in distress, and think about all the other non-Christians you know. Did I lie to him? But I've only got so many hours in a day...
The phone rings. It's so early.
"'Hlo?"
"Hey, God-boy!"
"Oh" you mutter, still froggy, "Hey Joe."
"Sorry, I... don't usually call people this early, but if you want to give me that rematch after work today, I'll have to pack my duds now."
"Oh right..."
And you don't know what to say.
Labels: church, creative writing, spirituality
Posted at 1:53 PM
View 25 comments made so far
Add a comment
Links to this post
25 Comments:
I think i comes down to whether you really love the person or not. If you enjoy his/her company, you'll want to continue the relationship. If you were guilty as charged, and only were trying to befriend him/her in order that some greater good might come of it (e.g. salvation), those chances are pretty slim.
Thank goodness this is a situation that we will never be faced with, because i don't know what i would do if the latter was true. I guess the question is, "What does God think?" Really that's all that matters. Building relationships is all for the glory of God, no matter how you spin it. That's the Christian purpose, anyway. That's the purpose of marriage, child-rearing, earning a living, enjoying hobbies. It's all for His glory. And if that ever ceases to be our motive, that's the primary issue that needs to be addressed.
So is the glory our relationships bring to God limited to "decisions"?
Did Jesus say, "Love your neighbor if you think you can get him saved?"
If God continues to love those who never repent, who are we to do otherwise?
Very good questions. The answer to your first one is "Certainly not." But i might take it a completely opposite direction. As Louie Giglio put it, "Faith is what rings the bell with God... He LOVES faith!" Disciple-making is what brings God glory, not merely conversion.
In regards to your second question, it's debatable whether God "loves" unrepentant sinners. God lovED the world by coming to earth and living in our muck, enduring our mockery, and then dying for us. I believe that God loves all those, past, present, future (for there is no difference with God) who have FAITH in Him. Because He knew in eternity past who those people were, He is not bound by our timeframe, which is really what's tripping us up on this issue.
That said, God is just as much glorified when people go to hell as He is when people go to heaven.
Did i just say that?
Yes i did. God's will for us is to make disciples. When He said "My command for you is this: love one another," He meant that we are to love our brothers and sisters in Christ. The two greatest commandments are "Love God" and "Love other Christians". Now, He obviously commands us to love sinners, because without that, no one would come to faith in Him (unless He, in His sovreignty, provided other means). But this does demonstrate our priority. If our relationships with our brothers and sisters in Christ are neglected because we are ministering to the lost, then our priorities are out of place.
But again, this is all speculative, because no human being knows what the eternal destiny of another individual will be. It's kind of like debating the second return of Christ. The Bible says a few things about it, but it's none of our business. That's what i think about this topic (although it does stimulate interesting side discussions. )
:)
What you call "side discussions" are actually the main thing I was trying to stimulate.
So we have our pecking order in place: We are to love, in this order, 1) God, 2) Spouse, 3) Children, 4) Relatives, 5) Fellow local church members, 6) Christians at large, and 7) Non-Christians.
Although they are at the bottom of the list (assuming the Non-Christians in question are not spouses, children or relatives) are we not to love them?
How could Christ tell us to love our enemies if God doesn't love the unrepentant sinner?
I don't agree with many of the preconceptions given here. I believe we are to love. period. that is our command. Love God. Love others. I don't believe in a pecking order, I don't believe in side motives and I certainly don't agree that God doesn't love all. And since I have no idea what goes on in another's heart, what the Holy Spirit is doing in them, I have NO RIGHT to manipulate them into relationship if and only if I think I can get them converted. How dare I presume what's going on between them and the Spirit of God? We love others because we are commanded to do so. We don't love them because they might be one more notch on our proverbial belt. I don't compartmentalize my relationships so I can't imagine even wrestling with this.
First, i want to say that we need to beware that we don't make the awful mistake of putting words in each other's mouths, or presuming upon one another by oversimplifying what they are saying in order to more easily prove them wrong. Second, i ask that we take care to read what each other actually writes, not what we are constructing in our minds that we think they are writing.
I must have been talking in too complex theological terms, b/c i think you both completely missed my point. Don't underestimate the power of foreknowledge in all of this. Go back and read my explanation of the "God's timeframe" factor.
I definitely said that we ARE to love sinners, so you must've glanced over that part. Again, Makeesha made a VERY important point. NONE OF US KNOWS, therefore the whole question of this blog is basically pointless. But, of course, as Coreman pointed out, this is really not ultimately addressing that "What if" question. It's addressing our love for people. So why don't we just talk about loving people, considering that we don't know what is anyone's eternal destiny?
I'm inclined to agree with the pecking order (although that term sends chills down my spine), but i don't necessarily trust myself on that. It makes sense philosophically, humanistically, and most definitely, democratically. I think Makeesha's conviction is correct, theologically. But where it caves in is in the course of everyday life. How's that? Because there are only so many hours in a day to spend with people.
So you have to have priorities, otherwise you have no way of deciding who to spend your time with. "Everyone!" she says. "Bunk," i say. If we really followed this to the tee, we would have to drastically reduce the amount of time we spent with our spouses, children, (parents), and brothers and sisters in Christ and thus neglect those relationships. Again, this is only IF we do not establish priority. I want you to stop and actually ponder that for a few moments before reading any further.
Go ahead, i'll wait... :)
Now, how're my wife and daughter going to feel if i'm going downtown every other night to hang out with other people, Christian or not, while leaving her at home? (which is the only option, by the way, when you have a baby.)
(Remember, read what i AM saying. I am not saying that i can't take one night out of the week and go hang out with strangers downtown, and another night to go hang out with Coreman, and another night to spend in fellowship with the Body.) Don't get thrown off by the fact that i didn't explain every possible scenario here. I'm well aware that there are plenty of ways to build relationships with many people at once, and that it doesn't always have to be at night... i'm just explaining MY current circumstance.
That's all i'll say until you respond to my theology in my previous comment, which defines my position. I don't do "feely good" conversation. I'm a rational man, so i don't let my emotions overtake my ability to reason. (Case in point: Don't be tempted to think i am accusing anyone specifically of being led by their emotions... I might be, but i might also not be.) :)
You know, i was thinking... Maybe we should get from philosophy to reality for a minute, to shed some light on this discussion.
Coreman, do you believe i love lost people? Do you believe i love them as much as you do? Did you believe that before this blog conversation? I ask this, because there's no way of knowing my heart for the lost (which is tremendous) without actually knowing me as a person. So basically, i'm saying to Makeesha (and everyone else who's reading but not commenting) that I LOVE PEOPLE. Lost people. Saved people. Family members. Strangers. Friends. Enemies. Diplomats. Tyrants. I love them all. But if i do not desire above all else that they come to know our glorious Savior, then i do not love them at all. If it was not God's supreme desire that all humanity know Him, then He would not love humanity at all. We were created to know and be satisfied in God. That's it. Anything less than that falls short, therefore, focusing on anything less than that is selling out to a lesser God.
Lots and lots and lots of love to ya'll.
I read everything you wrote, Beloved. And if, by "too complex theological terms" you mean putting quotation marks around the word LOVE, than I guess I did miss your point.
You said it's debatable whether God "loves" unrepentant sinners. For the whole rest of your comment you do not suggest that God "loves" (whatever that means when it's inside quotes) the person whom He knows is going to end up in hell.
When you later say that God commands us to love "sinners" you do not add the word "unrepentant" in front of it. When I asked in my subsequent comment if God didn't command us to love them, I used your first phrase "unrepentant sinners", with both words. That is, the same phrase you use to identify the people that God may not love.
Beloved, I believe you love everyone, no less than I do (and maybe more.) But perhaps this post is good for bringing up the (admittedly abstract) question of: Do we love more people than God does, based purely on our ignorance of the future?
Or maybe this whole conversation will continue to go down the wrong track until Beloved tells us what he means when he puts the quotation marks around the word LOVE.
And by the way, I recognize the paradox of saying that we should love all people equally, but also recognizing that God has put certain people in our lives to love "with priority." Makeesha and Beloved are really both right. But isn't it interesting how John is recognized as the disciple "whom Jesus loved"?
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ahh, good observations, my friend. Actually, i had to go back and refresh my memory as to why i put quotes around "love". The reason i put quotes is because of the blurred distinction between past and present with God. I emphasized that "God so loved the world" was past tense. His sacrifice on the cross was enough to demonstrate His love for all sinners of all time. The reason this is important is that this love is only made AVAILABLE to those who repent, initially, and receive His gift, accept His invitation.
I was speaking with a Catholic woman a few years back, who said that her daughter came home one day talking about needing to be saved. She told her daughter, "That's nonsense. Jesus already saved you, honey." So there's this idea that God's grace covers every human being, regardless of their personal response to it. Basically, it's universalism, or else institutionalism (i.e. you belong to Catholic church, or you got wet as an infant and therefore you are saved).
The reason i cannot believe that God loves those who will spend eternity in hell is best expressed in a question. How could God eternally punish a person in hell if He loves them? John Piper puts it like this. God's love is most demonstrated for us in that His ultimate desire is for us to know and be with that which is ultimately most satisfying... Himself. If that is the case, then it cannot be concluded that eternal punishment in hell can coincide with love.
Throughout scripture, God tells us that He has nothing but wrath for the unrepentant (i.e. unsaved), and that He opposes the proud (pride is the reason people do not repent). God's justice and His love aren't synonymous. They co-exist marvelously, but they are opposites. Jesus' death on our behalf was the greatest injustice in the history of the universe!!! Think about that for a minute... or an hour, or a day, or a year... how about a lifetime.
God's justice and His love do not cooperate. Think. Think hard. Through His death on the cross He demonstrated His love, not His justice. His justice is demonstrated through His wrath, because that is what is deserved by fallen humanity.
Again, don’t think about God as having “feelings” but rather having characteristics. I’m not saying He doesn’t have feelings, because I have no clue. I’m just saying this to help you understand the point. Part of God’s character is that His wrath is directed at sinful humans, not just “sin” in an abstract sense. This is consistent throughout Old and New Testaments. Only when sinners become saints via salvation is His wrath absorbed by Christ’s atonement. His wrath was still poured out, but it was poured out on Christ. However, the unsaved do not have the luxury of Christ’s blood standing in the way of God’s wrath. Therefore, they are recipients of His wrath. John says it like this in chapter 3: “They are condemned already.” Am I making sense, regardless of the fact that I’m frustrating you? :)
Anyway, that's what i meant by talking over you. My theological conclusions weren't easy to arrive at, without in-depth explanation. By no means did i intend that comment as demeaning to either of you. I hope you know that. You all are both very bright. :)
Don't feel pressured to agree easily on this stuff. It's very deep, complex theology, and i will be the first to say that i could very well be wrong. But this is what i believe at the moment, based on the best evidence i have. Take from it what you will.
Beloved,
You're a complete moron! I can't believe you would say such things! Haven't you read Romans 5:8? It says that "God demonstrates His own love for us in this, that while we were still SINNERS, Christ died for us." So HA, you're wrong! Oh wait. Who is the "us" that Paul is referring to? That couldn't be referring to those He foreknew could it? Naw, not a chance.
:)
No, Beloved... you're not a moron.
The only morons are the people who argue with themselves and lose.
:-)~
So, you're saying i won the argument with myself? I guess that means i also lost!!
I think beloved, that you and I have different opinions on certain theologies which is going to affect the whole conversation and I feel I cannot effectively communicate on this topic in print, for one thing, I hardly understand a thing you've written (my own issue no doubt).
Here's what I know. I know that if I knew that a friend of mine was not going to become a Christ follower, I would still love them and be their friend.
That's totally cool. I respect your humility in admitting your limitation in regards to communicating through writing. If you were able to sit and listen to me attempt to "facilitate" a Bible study, you would see that i have a fairly difficult time with that communication style. I'm A.D.D. (seriously), so i don't do well when i am interrupted. I lose my train of thought, and most definitely my passion, when i have to compete for the attention of others. Therefore, i find tremendous freedom in communicating through blogs and email and websites. We're all just geared differently and that's completely ok.
And this is important to realize when discussing theology and how it actually influences the decisions we make from day to day. There's only so much you can know about a person through his/her writing. You have to experience relationships firsthand. Which is why online/distance relationships are so risky. I can be a completely different person online than i am in person. I try not to be, but i'm sure Coreman would tell you that our conversations are much different in person than they are via blogs and email.
You are definitely right that our theology will dictate our attitudes and actions. I believe in the supremacy of God and that God's glory and our satisfaction in Him is the ultimate reason for the existence of humanity. Therefore every attitude and value i hold, and every decision i make is measured by that standard. And i believe all of the theology i have laid out here lines up with that standard.
May the Lord bless us and keep us focused on Him as we wrestle with tough yet vital issues.
Much love.
no doubt :)
I think what I was trying to say is that you're delving into the world of deeper theology. Not a problem. I consider myself a student of theology and enjoy reading mind bending stuff daily. But your comment felt very convoluded to me and was very hard to follow so I really couldn't address the issue. From what I understood of your theological position, I didn't fully agree with and the rest didn't make sense to me in light of the original post.
I have no doubt that were we to discuss in real life it would be easier - or even if we were both to take the time to type out fully our thoughts, but I am not willing to try to get all my thoughts about this issue in type because I find it a very simple issue.
Christians are called to love- "no strings attached". Any issue of foreknowledge on God's part, predestination (either way or both ways), calvinism vs. armenianism vs. weslyanism...blah blah blah...it can all bring a flavor to how we approach the question that was raised but FOR ME, it's all about loving without condition.
I love my best friend and I always will. I have no idea whether or not she will become a Christ follower, I have no idea what the Spirit is doing in her on the path she's on right now. I love her, I share my life with her (good, bad, ugly...all of it with Jesus at the center). I welcome her into my story. That's all that's important to me.
So as much as I like a good deep academic discussion about the theology of foreknowledge and our role in God's timing and Kingdom plan, I don't find it particuarly relevant to the question at hand when it comes right down to it.
Yeah. i agree that it's difficult to relate this type of theology to real life. In fact, i struggle sometimes with how much i actually "believe" what my mind concludes. As i alluded to previously, i love people and i give my life for the sake of others. My heart breaks for the lost, and for the saved who are not fully experiencing the joy and freedom that Christ brings when we are surrendered to Him. That is the whole reason God has made me a pastor. I carry the burdens of others. I hurt for them. I can't get them out of my mind. I really feel like i identify with Jesus when He "looked upon the crowds and was moved with compassion".
So to that extent, it's hard to say how my theology influences my everyday life. The only way i know it influences me is in communicating the gospel, and doing my best to accurately present a picture of God to people. It gives me a certain urgency when i know that tomorrow, or even later on today, a person could die and spend eternity in hell without Christ. But my theology, again, reminds me that it's not up to me to save a person. However, there are certain things God has left up to me, and those are the things i do my best to follow through with.
Beloved, this is how you'll know if you truly believe your conclusions about God only loving those whom He has foreknowledge of: if an unsaved person were to ask you, point blank, "Does God really love me?" and you can say, "It depends."
Although I see some merit in Calvinistic theology, I know that I cannot really buy into it, because in that same situation, trying to put together everything I know from God's Word and ignore all my humanistic sympathies, still my only answer can be "Yes."
Oh my gosh, can you imagine? "does God love me?" "It depends". Oye that just lands flat in my spirit. If there is a theology that would end up with that response I certainly could not subscribe to it.
Yes, of course. You could never say such a response. I guess i'll have to try and debate with myself again, so here i go...
Remember how i said that God does not function within our timeframe? I used that truth to explain the role of foreknowledge (not necessarily predestination) in love and condemnation. I explained how love and condemnation don't mix, but how the unsaved sinner is, in John's words, "condemned already." However, when we are communicating to the lost, we absolutely have to emphasize God's love for humanity. I will never go so far as to say the ridiculous cliche that "If you were the only one on the face of the earth, Jesus would have died for you." But i will say that God gave Himself up for sinners, plain and simple. Because He is love. We just can never view His love outside of its relationship to His glory.
We have to know how to answer the person who asks, "How can God condemn someone He loves to an eternity in hell?" My answer to that is, "He will love you until the day that you die. He will pursue you as long as He has opportunity. But when you take your last breath, you can no longer accept the invitation of His love."
Amen.
But if you can say to anyone that God will love him/her till death, isn't that saying that God loves every last person, no matter what their ultimate destiny?
And I would argue that love and condemnation do coexist. Because it is not a matter of God simultaneously loving and condemning anyone. I would posit that the only one God ever condemned directly was Lucifer. One third of all the angels were condemned, not directly by God, by indirectly, by association with Lucifer. And at that moment, God's love expired for them. I believe it is the same for those humans who associate themselves with darkness instead of light. Jesus' sacrifice was more than sufficient to cover every human being, and His invitation is extended to all of us. But we can only serve one God/god. If we do not accept Jesus' atonement, we, by default, associate ourselves with Satan and the kingdom of this world. Thus we do not negate the love of God, but we forfeit all its benefits. And at death, His love for us would expire.
I do, however, recognize the difference between foreknowledge and predestination, and I accept that distinction in my own doctrine, because I believe God foreknows everything, but that's different from determining the outcome. For example, if I see you step into a deep puddle, I know your foot is going to come out wet. But can anyone blame me for your soggy socks? Of course not.
Although God knows everything, His love is not up for question. It is universal for the living. The choice to benefit from that love for the present, and for eternity, however, is ours to make.
That's a good way of putting it. Right on, Coreman. ;-)
yup
The problem with Pop Xianity is too many "go to Church" when in reality "you are the church."
That's true, anarcho. So where did you come from? Where are you going? Anywhere the wind blows?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home