Love Transcends Space, Time, and Law

I loved the movie Interstellar. I thought the movie was well thought out and the filmography was spectacular to watch. I was completely engulfed in the movie from the start and I was thrown out the end of the movie thinking how small we are in such a vast universe.images  One conversation just floored me when I saw this movie…it made me think about Love from a new point of view for the first time. In this scene, the conversation is between Cooper and Dr. Brand on the Endurance space craft as they are deciding which move to make next. What Dr Brand says is what was so eye opening me. Dr. Brand is in love with a college that is on a potential planet for them to visit to see if it will sustain life. Cooper is letting all those involved in the decision to know that Dr. Brand may be driven by love, instead of science alone, for the college on one of the potential planets. The conversation goes like this…

Cooper: She’s in love with Wolf Edmunds.
Romilly: Is that true?
Brand: Yes. And that makes me want to follow my heart. But maybe we’ve spent too long trying to figure all this out with theory.
Cooper: You’re a scientist, Brand.
Brand: So listen to me, when I say that love isn’t something we invented, it’s observable, powerful. It has to mean something.
Cooper: Love has meaning, yes, social utility, social bonding, child rearing…
Brand: We love people who have died, where’s the social utility in that?
Cooper: None.
Brand: But maybe it means something more, something we can’t yet understand. Maybe it’s some evidence, some artifact of a higher dimension that we can’t consciously perceive. I’m drawn across the universe to someone I haven’t seen in a decade. Who, I know, is probably dead. Love is the one thing we’re capable of perceiving that transcends dimensions of time and space. Maybe we should trust that, even if we can’t understand it yet.

This quick conversation has hit the nail on the head when it comes to why we, as humans, even see, or desire, the stories of Jesus to be true. Even though it is hard to understand…we want the stories to be true because we truly desire for something out there, greater than ourselves, to know we exist…to know we have feelings….to know that we matter and have value…..we want to know that we can be saved. We want to know where we came from and we want to be loved. I have faith there is something out there….and it is has to be Love…and it transcends all space and time, yet we can perceive it and experience it. In addition, and more importantly, Love transcends Law….the very Law we use to condemn others to the judgement of God. Did Jesus show this Love in his life? Is Love a powerful force….the most powerful force in the universe? Is God that eternally powerful force that transcends space, time, Law, and everything else that could possibly be knowable? Let’s explore this a little more…

Continue reading

Jesus showed who his Father is…by not “Grasping”

If Jesus is the exact representation of God (Heb 1:3), then God is not only nonviolent, but God does not grasp to be more than he should be. Some would ask, “why would God grasp at anything when he is almighty, all powerful, and everywhere at the same time?” This is an excellent question, but what I would like to propose is that God thinks more about you than he does about himself. Or better yet, God thinks you are more important than himself. That’s a big statement….and I truly think it is possible when we see Jesus representing “God’s very nature”. The verses I will focus on are again in Phil 2, god_is_love_by_riikardo-d70clskwhich say,

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,  who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,  but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.  Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”

I mentioned in the two previous articles that grasping and Love are antonyms. They cannot be more different than each other in terms of how Paul is describing Jesus in Philippians 2. What follows is that, if Jesus is God, then God also does not grasp…for selfish gain over any aspect of creation. If Jesus has emptied himself, so has God. If Jesus is a bond-servant, then so is the Father. If Jesus is obedient to the Father to the point of death, then the Father is obedient to Love to the point of being completely emptied of all conceit and selfish desire to be with Jesus on the cross (2 Cor 5:17-19). Continue reading

“Grasping” for Success cannot be Confused with Love

In my last article, I gave my thoughts on how Jesus did not “grasp” for relevance but knew that Love is the only true revelation of the Father. The idea is presented by Paul in Philippiansdownload (MG book) 2: 1-11, but specifically verse 5 saying,

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,  who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.”

Most people, in my past experience in churches, would say that Jesus shed his divine nature to become human. I do not believe that this is the best interpretation of what Paul is saying here. In an amazing book called Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology, The author, Michael J. Gorman, makes an excellent point that Paul is saying that Jesus, who empties himself of all conceit and selfish ambition, is showing that this is who God is….The very divine nature of God is “self-emptying”, or Kenotic. This makes so much more sense to me, when reading the Bible, than a lot of traditional interpretations of Protestant Theology. God gives of himself…he shows us the exact definition of Love. The kicker is, a lot of our definitions of love are the exact opposite of the kenosis of Jesus in his life and on the cross. Maybe our thoughts on love and who God is are rooted more in our ideas of who we want God to be? Just think about it….

Continue reading

Jesus was the opposite of our churches desire to “grasp” for relevance…He was Love.

This is a paper I finished up reading and it has truly challenged me. Its called, “GRASPING GOD: Philippians 2: 1-11 in the Light of Mimetic Theory by Michael E. Hardin and Steven E. Berry. A paper presented to the Colloquium on Violence and Religion July 2005 in Koblenz, Germany”.  This paper really put a piece of the puzzle in place for me in my mind on the problems with churches being driven by success and results, like we have been discussing over the last several years. images3Those who put the effort into understanding Paul, here in the linked paper, are responsible for the thoughts and quotes that come out in here.

The point the article is conveying is that Philippians 2:1-11 has Paul explaining what the Gospel (good news) actually looks like being lived out in the Kingdom of God through positively mimicking Jesus as he displays the true nature of the Father. Paul explains this in verses 1-4 saying,

“If then there is any encouragement in Christ, any consolation from love, any sharing in the Spirit, any compassion and sympathy, make my joy complete: be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others.”

What would make Paul happy is to see those who follow Jesus to conduct themselves and live in a manner that has no selfish-ambition, no conceit, be of the same mind (mind of who?), be of the same love (love of who?), and with humility, regard another as higher than yourself. I won’t make this too long, but the paper is making the point that positive mimesis, in Christ, is a good thing. We all copy something and it is Jesus who has given us the ability to mimic him who is living out the love of the Father. Continue reading

Dave Buehring’s “Redefining Love”

I want to continue a thought that truth is subjective and that Followers of Jesus need to see Love as the foundation of their faith…not truth. I realize that this seems controversial, but hang with me and let’s see how this comes out the other side to start good conversation with each other. God_is_Love

I had an interesting, yet quick, conversation on Twitter the other day with a person named Dave Buehring, who has a ministry called Lionshare. Someone had pointed out a tweet that this person had made. We were both confused at the statement that he made saying “this redefining love trend”. The comment was interesting for sure, which you can see on Twitter saying,

“In the midst of this redefining love trend, we must remember that love is rooted in God’s character – and is always married with His truth!”

When I asked him what he meant by “redefining love trend”, he ultimately landed on,

“As a follower of Jesus, the Scriptures are my reference point for truth. God loves people and died to free them from sin.”

This is my question. Is the “truth’ that he is talking about really just coming down to what he believes words in the bible say? In addition, is this “redefining love trend” addressed to all the people who do not agree with his interpretation of certain verses in the bible? If so, then this can create a huge problem.

Continue reading

Dr. Michael Brown and his “Truth”

I came upon a guy named Dr. Michael Brown that has a radio show that, I can only assume, is listened to by many people. Therefore, it’s safe to also assume that Dr. Michael Brown has a lot of influence on his listeners. No doubt this is true. What I wanted to do is bring into question a possible point of where theology and doctrine can go down a dark path that seems to be acceptedlineoffire by so many. Here is a quote form Dr. Brown on March 27th, saying…

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: If we walk in truth, no matter how much love we have, people will be offended. Take it on the chin, and keep loving them in Jesus!”

I think this is backwards. What’s backwards? What seems to be backwards is that love can only come after truth or that truth is the foundation to everything…even love. I’m saying that this is a belief that could lead many people into a whirlwind of trouble. This can create a fallacy that justifies religious violence against those we have placed on the other side of the religious line. What needs to be stated, in my opinion is,

The Religious Vortex’s Bottom Line: “Truth can only come out of or even exist because of Love. Because if truth comes first, then truth is completely subjective and will be used as a weapon.”

What I am saying is, we should always walk in love and in turn truth will come out of that. Why? Because when we really get honest with ourselves, truth is subjective. Truth is subjective to whatever authority you allow to be placed over you. For example, most people will say truth is whatever their “pastor” says is truth….what they are told every Sunday morning. If you then translate love out of your subjective idea of truth that you gather from another person behind a pulpit, then love can easily be perceived as a weapon to those you are “trying to love with your truth”. Continue reading