Category Essays

All You Need is Love, But What is Love?

Todd R 2 Comments

A recent survey said that only 9% of American adults have a “biblical worldview.”  I’m generally skeptical of polls unless I know how they were done.  After looking into this one, I wonder if I fall in to the 91% of American adults who don’t have a “biblical worldview.”  Why?  In their definition of “biblical worldview” the word “love” was nowhere to be found.  Maybe they thought “love” was too hard to define to base a survey on.  If so, I can understand because love is a complicated thing.

In this survey, “love” was not in the definition, but “absolute moral truth” is, which bothered me not because truth is a bad thing, but because moral law is what condemns us.  Moral law would still exist if Christ had not died for us.  The Gospel, or Good News, of Christianity is that we can be saved despite failing to follow the law. Truth without love is like describing Easter and leaving out the Resurrection.  If we have not love, we have nothing but condemnation.  Love is essential.

But what is love?  Love means many things to different people and is a word people like to leave undefined or use to mean whatever sounds good.  Often people agree that “we should all love each other” without knowing what exactly they’re agreeing on.

Photo by Christopher Beloch on Unsplash

Confusion about what love is has been around for a long, long time.  The Bible itself talks about several different kinds of love, making a “biblical worldview” definition harder.  In English translations of the New Testament, the word “love” shows up over and over again, but the Bible wasn’t written in English.  I’m no Greek scholar, but what follows is how I personally understand “love,” and I hope it clarifies rather than confuses.

In Greek, there are at least 4 words for love, including these three:

  • Eros – sexual or passionate love
  • Phileo – this is a root of “Philadelphia”, literally the city of brotherly love.  Loosely, phileo means an affection for people who are “brothers,” who we like because we admire something about them, or because they are like us.
  • Stergo – This is a love toward kindred or family, typically between parents and children.  This love is like a loyalty to those we are related to by blood.

These words and ideas were part of the culture in which Jesus lived, died and rose again over 2,000 years ago.  However, the writers of the New Testament Bible couldn’t line the meaning of these words up with what they wanted to say about Jesus.  Therefore, they took a little-used word – agape – and poured new meaning into it.

A Better Love
Agape is epitomized by the act of Jesus dying on the cross, but also by His selfless love for others repeatedly demonstrated in the gospel records of His life.  Agape is putting the interests of others above the interests of yourself, even if there is no benefit to yourself, or even if there is a significant cost to yourself.  Even if those others don’t love you.  Agape motivates acts of benevolence or charity.

Why is love so important to a Christian worldview?  Not only because if God didn’t love the world, He wouldn’t have sent His only son, but also because if individual Christians leave love out of their worldview, they use “absolute truth” as a reason to judge.  Love that requires sacrifice may be less popular than love that doesn’t, but without it there is no cross.

As I see a Christian worldview, this kind of love is absolutely essential.  From it comes a framework of the entire history of God’s relations with man in three phases: love rejected, love redeemed, and love restored.

Love Rejected
While vague “love” is popular, true agape love is not.  When I took a college class on Interpersonal Psychology, one of the topics was the multiple meanings of love. The professor explained the multiple Greek words used for “love”, but when he got to “agape” he asked if anyone in the class could explain because he didn’t “understand” it (or so he said).  I raised my hand, answered by describing the self-sacrificial love of Jesus, and was snickered at by much of the class.  The professor smiled at me and moved on to the next topic.  He probably set up the same situation every semester.  So, yes, not only does the world often not know what “love” means in a Christian sense, but they actively ridicule it when it’s explained to them.

From Adam and Eve right to the modern day, agape love is the bonds that mankind seeks to break and find their own way.  In an earlier post, I wrote that the “bonds” and “cords” that the world tries to break free from in Psalm 2 are the laws of love for God and for our fellow man.  Jesus summarized all the commandments of the Bible as: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind”, and “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”[1]

I recently wrote that “the problem with every person individually is that they are unable, no matter how much external pressure is put on them, to treat other individuals the way they should be treated.”  People like to ask or demand that others practice agape love, but usually for the benefit of themselves.  It is not in our nature to demand it of ourselves first whether or not anyone else reciprocates.

Love Redeemed
People also usually like the idea that every person gets what they deserve – but we are less likely to talk about that for ourselves than for others.  The justice of God demands that anyone who refuses – at any time – to love Him and to love their neighbor should get what they deserve.  He does not miss anything but is perfect in His justice.  Jesus had to live the perfect life of agape love, under the loving guidance of Our Father, not so we won’t have to, but because we can’t.  Without Christianity and without love, the world would never be able to overcome the “Love Rejected” stage.

Christianity is not judgement, but the only way of escape from it: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16). If man had not rejected love, Christianity wouldn’t be necessary; but also, if Christianity does not restore mankind to agape love, it’s pointless.  Jesus, by willingly giving the ultimate sacrifice of Himself, satisfied God’s perfect justice and perfect love simultaneously.

By rising from the grave, He is able to share with us the power of agape love, which governs and redeems the other loves:

  • Eros – So many of the personal and societal problems in the world are driven by unconstrained eros.  In agape, God provides boundaries within which eros benefits, rather than harms, humanity.  See an earlier post on Godly Offspring for how God prevails over unconstrained eros even when we fail.
  • Phileo – Unconstrained phileo, which can become what we call tribalism, is behind a lot of the racism, sexism, xenophobia, and other group conflicts in the world.  This also is nothing new – God through His Son will redeem us.  I wrote about agape overcoming tribalism in an old post about Jesus reaching out to Zacchaeus the tax collector.
  • Stergo – Families might be expected to be the easiest places to love each other, but they are often where passions run hottest.  James 4:1 says “What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you?”  Only agape provides what is needed to bridge the divide, a love to govern stergo.

A Christian in our world has a restored relationship with God but is only able to practice agape love imperfectly while awaiting a new body in a new heaven and a new earth.

Love Restored
The Bible does not contain a lot of specifics about the eternal life that Christians inherit and it is often misunderstood.  For example, those who think of Christianity as a set of rules that make us “perfect” think they are right to ignore the hope of heaven.  C.S. Lewis says sometimes “our notion of Heaven involves perpetual negations: no food, no drink, no sex, no movement, no mirth, no events, no time, no art.”[2]

But thinking of heaven as love restored helps understand it better.  Elsewhere Lewis reframes heaven as: “When human souls have become as perfect in voluntary obedience as the inanimate creation is in its lifeless obedience, then they will put on its glory, or rather that greater glory of which Nature is only the first sketch.”[3]  By obedience he means obedience to loving God and man, and in heaven every person’s ability to love will be as the laws of nature, as reliable and predictable as the rising of the sun every morning or the return of leaves to the trees in the spring.

Also, we will not become something entirely other than what we are now, like an angel, but will be transformed and perfected, while retaining our individuality.  Pastor Tim Keller explains that “Our future, glorified selves will be continuous with who we are now, but the growth into wisdom, goodness, and power will be infinitely greater.”[4]

This is a future worth having.

How to Have This Love
For those who agree that the agape love we lost is the love we need back, Jesus alone is the Way, the Truth and the Life.  He offers a world where every individual person uses their individual talents, gifts and creativity in the best interests of others.  All you have to do is agree to do the same, redeemed by His sacrifice and empowered by His Spirit to do the will of the Father.

How do we accept this offer?
“…if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.  For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” – Romans 10:9-10

If you haven’t already, ask Him to be your Lord and Savior.

Nobody is more or less Christian than Jesus makes them.  No doctrine or experience can replace a loving, personal relationship with our Maker and Lord, who guides and empowers us to love as He does.  If we have not love, we have nothing (1 Corinthians 13:1-3).  Fortunately, in Christianity we have His agape love if we will accept it above all other, lesser loves.  Christianity is not Christianity, and we are not fully ourselves, without it.

[1] From Matthew 22:37 and 39
[2] Lewis, C.S.  The Weight of Glory (1941).  P. 107
[3] Ibid.  P. 43
[4] Keller, Timothy.  Making Sense of God (2016).  P. 170

Religion That Prioritizes the Gospel

Todd R Leave a comment

I am on vacation this week, so I’ve collected some old posts about James 1:27 for the week.  I’m reposting them as is, but they definitely need some editing!

The gospel is more than just the good news that Jesus took the punishment for our sin, dying for sinners like us so that we may be saved.  The gospel is also the good news of what the punishment has been replaced with – the kingdom of heaven.  If the gospel is about a kingdom, our lives should reflect the values of our King and we should seek for others what our King would offer.

This post, another in the series on James 1:27 (“Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world,”) is about that verse as an ethic that prioritizes the gospel over all other issues by looking briefly at the issue of slavery.

The period of the American Civil War was similar to modern times in its obsession over issues.  While its naïve and vastly simplified to say the North was anti-slavery and the South was pro-slavery, it is not entirely false either.  Those views were typical of many in each area.  Both sides had a high conviction in their cause, using the Bible to justify why their side needed to win, and at what costs.

Paul’s Concern Was for Individuals
Part of the reason for this confusion comes from the apostle Paul’s comments on slavery, which seem ambivalent to many on the actual issue of slavery.  One relevant passage is Ephesians 6:5-9, in which Paul writes:

“Bondservants, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a bondservant or is free.  Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.”

Verses like these were used to justify slavery during the American Civil War and at other times, by people claiming that Paul did not condemn it.  Since the War, others have said that Paul was cruel not to condemn slavery and a few even refuse to read Paul’s words in the Bible, claiming they have no authority because of this cruelty.  This topic goes way beyond what can be covered here, but the reason for Paul’s seeming ambivalence on the issue is that his focus was somewhere else: on the specific individuals involved in all aspects of slavery, including both masters and slaves.  He even addresses them directly and separately: “Bondservants” and “Masters.”  One group was to follow what was addressed to them, and the other group was to follow what was addressed to them.  Why did he take this approach?  Because people matter more than issues.

Photo by Anthony Garand on Unsplash

Having no power to end slavery, which still exists today, Paul did have influence and authority as an apostle to improve the lives of specific masters (who would have to justify their actions to God), and of specific slaves (who would have to do the same).  Paul knew the real question before him was: If slavery currently exists and I have no power to end it, should I do nothing to improve the condition of slaves until slavery is 100% abolished?  Should Paul have focused on ending slavery, or on improving the lives of people affected by it, and offering them a way to eternal life without slavery?  Paul knew God’s heart goes out to individual souls, and the issue of slavery would be eliminated in eternity.  However, many would condemn Paul for not going straight to an all-or-nothing, hyperbolic position we expect when talking about issues.  Also, it’s not necessarily an either/or, but a matter of priority and emphasis.

Some approach contentious issues like the Pharisees of Jesus’ day, “They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger.”[1]  These burdens take the form of ostracism, public humiliation, insistence on use of #hashtags and slogans, rude comments, and other means of hating others simply because those others don’t think the weight of all the issues in the entire world need to be on everyone’s shoulders.  But Paul presents a contrast to this.  He knew God called him to proclaim grace and peace to all people, in Jesus’ name.  Paul’s ministry saved many souls for an eternity where slavery is no longer an issue, and in the meantime, slavery still exists as an issue people mistreat each other over.  Yes, we should fight for peace and justice, but not at the expense of individuals, on either side.

D. A. Carson, a professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, said, “The overthrowing of slavery, then, is through the transformation of men and women by the gospel rather than through merely changing an economic system…In the final analysis, if you want lasting change, you’ve got to transform the hearts of human beings. And that was Jesus’ mission.”[2]

During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln said “My concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.”  This should be our main concern as well.

“Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.”

[1] Matthew 23:4
[2] Strobel, Lee.  The Case for Christ (1998).  P. 168

Religion That Puts People Before Issues

Todd R 2 Comments

I am on vacation this week, so I’ve collected some old posts about James 1:27 for the week.  I’m reposting them as is, but they definitely need some editing!

It’s become cliché to say social media brings out the worst of people, since they can hide from consequences behind internet anonymity and distance.  Mike Tyson, one of the greatest heavyweight boxers of all time, said “Social media made y’all way too comfortable with disrespecting people and not getting punched in the face for it.”  But disrespect and wanting to punch people in the face who disagree with us is nothing new.  Just one generation after Adam and Eve were made in the image of God and living in perfect love, their son Cain killed his brother Abel for uncertain reasons.  Genesis also doesn’t tell us exactly how Cain killed Abel, but we can be sure social media wasn’t involved.  Hate doesn’t require an internet connection or working Wi-Fi, only one person deciding that another person is a thing to be defeated, not as a person made in God’s image.  Sometimes by focusing on what we are disagreeing about, we can lose sight of the fact that the person disagreeing with us is inherently valuable.

Today, after months away, we return to a series on James 1:27, which says: “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.”  James gave careful thought to this phrase, not as hyperbole, but as an example of what perfect religion – worship of God the Father – looks like.  Eternal life is for people who love when there’s nothing more at stake than the person being loved, but putting issues above people is one way we get stained by the world and fail to represent Christ.  Note that I didn’t say ignore the issues – it’s a question of priority.

The Singular Person
Psalm 113 is a Psalm about praising God and making Him known throughout the world, and ends with a very specific praise:

“He gives the barren woman a home,
            making her the joyous mother of children.
Praise the LORD!”

To me, what’s most striking here is that this is a singular barren woman, not barren women as a group.  It doesn’t say that God ends all barrenness (although He might).  The Psalmist chose as a climactic ending to this poem about the heart of God and how He wants to be known a praise to God for giving a home and family to one barren woman.  This means that the sovereign God of all the universe is concerned about individuals, their specific circumstances, and their specific need for salvation.  He does not respond to an “issue” of the barrenness of women but responds in a way that satisfies the needs of individual people.  People are not statistics to Him, to be counted and divided into opposing sides until one prevails over the other.  Each person’s needs and path to redemption are unique in God’s eyes, and only He can provide for all.  He is the only way to a perfect world.

Similar to the “barren woman”, James 1:27 is about visiting specific “orphans and widows,” not fighting for the end of all afflictions for all widows and orphans.  He is fighting for people, not total victory in an argument.  While this might seem obvious to some, it’s so easy to exalt issues over people that we don’t always notice when we do it.

The Issue of Family
A common issue today is “family,” which I put in quotes because as an issue it doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone.  A lot of time and energy is put into fighting for “family values,” defined many different ways, and James 1:27, “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world,” is relevant in multiple ways.

First, an earlier post of this series, said “whatever its source, civil law is a provision for a fallen world, not a pathway to a perfect world.”  In both the Old and New Testaments, God tells us there will always be poor in the land and that every civil law is inherently limited in a broken world.  Christians should “defend the family,” but in what way?  James 1:27 says to stand for individuals for whom the institution of family has already failed – widows and orphans.  “Pure and undefiled religion” succeeds where law fails, filling the gap with the heart of God, who cares for the specific “barren woman” of Psalm 113:9.  There is no perfect law that solves the issue of “family values,” therefore “visit orphans and widows in their affliction.”  Affliction comes in many forms and is too complex and diverse for any government to deal with entirely.

Second, when we fight for perfection in our laws, taking absolute stands on either side of an “issue,” we risk elevating law to a level it’s not possible of achieving, and we also may justify hurting people in the process, thinking the end result will be worth it somehow.  Once we see the world in fully black/white, either/or terms, it becomes easy to think that if only the right side came out ahead, the issue would be resolved, any collateral damage can be explained, and everyone would be happy.  However, consider the extreme example of violence around both abortion clinics and crisis pregnancy centers.  In that case and many smaller ones, when we cause harm to opponents, we prove that there are cracks in our own system, creating new victims on top of the existing ones.  Those left behind haven’t been helped, but new affliction has been added by those hoping it will be somehow worth it to win the “issue” battle.

Third, ministering to widows and orphans keeps us from the pollution of the world which insists that our salvation is political and based on power.  James 1:27 encourages us to reject a world that wants to put laws, culture, even hashtags above actual people.  The world too often believes the ends justify the means because belief in worldly utopia depends on a 100% solution, but also believes it’s ok to ignore concrete problems while fighting for a solution that will never arrive.  Salvation comes from only one source: the cross.

In the start of this post, I wrote that it’s become cliché to say social media brings out the worst of people, and its cliché because massive amounts of time and energy go into fighting over abstract issues and dividing into groups of “us” and “them”.  James 1:27 says that we are not defined by which side of an issue we support, and what we’re willing to do to achieve victory for our side, but by how we love those individuals for whom this world has failed.

It is better to minister to the ones who have been punched by this world than to add another punch to the damage.

Therefore, “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.  And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.” – Hebrews 10:23-25

And what are “good works”?  “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.”

A Kingdom of Gentleness and Respect

Todd R Leave a comment

After the election in the United States, half of the country finds itself disappointed with the result.  However, as David wrote in Psalm 3 when he had been pushed out of power by his son Absalom, all American Christians should declare “salvation belongs to the LORD.”[1]  This is an inherently political statement, declaring that salvation does not come from any government.  But this is a message Christians need to deliver in a way that obeys God in approach and tone.  What does that mean?  1 Peter 4:15-16 says:  “in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.”  This means it is not as simple as just yelling the right story from the rooftops, or in my case, on a blog.  “Gentleness and respect” matter.

Jesus is never on the ballot, but flawed candidates of many types are.  Some are more like David, and some more like Absalom.  David, even as God’s appointed king of Israel, knew that not every problem was in his power to solve.  David was at peace with his limits in this imperfect world, knowing that his salvation (and everyone else’s) came from God alone.  But Absalom hated David’s inability, or unwillingness, to solve every problem.  Absalom harbored angry resentment against David for years before violently overthrowing him.  During this rebellion, David was calm and able to sleep because the kingdom of God was real to him, even when it didn’t look like it.  Then he wrote Psalm 3 to let us know about it.

This conflict between David and Absalom echoes in competing narratives told throughout history: 1) we can and should perfect ourselves, or 2) we are dependent on God to save us.[2]

In the 1 Peter quote above, he says that we defend our eternal hope in God to save us with “gentleness and respect.,” meaning that those who trust God should use not only their words, but also their attitudes and very lives.  The story must be real to us to be convincing to others, and those who hope in God’s kingdom should show obedience to that kingdom.  Easier said than done.

Fortunately, when we truly believe, experience, and stand for God’s salvation, our brokenness and failure is part of the testimony.  When we know God’s salvation is the only solution, we can approach people with different worldviews with our common need for salvation, in “gentleness and respect,” instead of fighting over solutions we know are imperfect.  David was able to sleep at night even when chased out of Jerusalem by his own son, because he had “a good conscience,” showing gentleness and respect toward Absalom.  The kingdom of God was real in his heart, and he believed God would prevail no matter what.  Circumstances could not shake his faith, and God ultimately delivered and restored him.

If, on the other hand, our brokenness and God’s solution for it is not part of our story, we may be left defending an imperfect political solution to those who demand perfection and will gladly poke holes in our story.  In David’s case, he may have insisted that God was unjust in allowing Absalom to succeed.  After all, he could argue, he was a humble king after God’s own heart, while Absalom was bitter and unreasonable.  If David had done this, it may have ironically helped Absalom’s case for tyranny.  In addition, David would not have been able to find peace and sleep at night until Absalom was overthrown.  However, if the starting point of discussion is that weakness is common to all of mankind, then the imperfection of the system is both part of the “reason for the hope” and a reason for even the unbeliever to resist tyranny.  In this case, imperfection is not hypocrisy, but a condition common to mankind.

Declaring “salvation belongs to the LORD” with actions, along with words, gives evidence that worldly utopia is not the answer.  But when words or actions fall short, we can still point to the One who is perfect since we aren’t trying to prove worldly utopia is possible.  The two lessons from Absalom’s rebellion are reconciled in a life lived with “gentleness and respect.”  Because God does not rely on political systems to work His salvation, tyranny is just a temporary and provincial authority subject to the greater authority of God.  We can have a clear conscience based on the sacrifice of Christ and not on worldly success.

A life lived in hope for the eternal kingdom of God is one lived in love for those left behind by all the imperfect systems of this world, but also one that testifies that all systems, including our own individual wills, are not perfectible by human effort.  Peter wrote that those who hope in God will be slandered, but also that those who live humble lives based on hope in God and not themselves will ultimately be proved right.  Until then, by their example as they follow Christ, they can show the futility of tyranny.  By God’s grace, His people will inherit a real utopia by learning to love those who hope in a false one with gentleness and respect.

Our failure is part of our testimony as we drive toward morning, and “Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.” – Matthew 6:33

[1] Psalm 3:8
[2] There’s also a third common story: “If the dead are not raised, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.’” (1 Corinthians 15:32) Today, we focus on the first two.

When Our Seeds Only Grow Thorns

Todd R 2 Comments

Sometimes we feel like we’re putting in a lot of effort but getting no results from it.  We’re sowing good seeds but not reaping any harvest.  At times, it seems disappointment is our only reward.  Often this can just be the way things are at the time – we’re doing nothing wrong but it’s just not obvious what God is doing at that time.  We don’t need to change anything.  But there may be times where we’re not reaping good things because we’re deceived that what we’re sowing is what we’re supposed to be sowing.

According to the prophet Jeremiah, the nation of Judah had this problem and as a result they ended up in exile.  In the first half of Jeremiah 12:13, the prophet says of Judah:

“They have sown wheat and have reaped thorns;
            they have tired themselves out but profit nothing.”

The nation of Judah thought they were sowing good seeds, but they weren’t and there are several examples in Jeremiah’s book.

First, Judah thought they were on the right side politically, with powerful friends and therefore secure.

The nation of Judah allied itself alternately with Egypt and Assyria, who they thought could protect them from Babylon.  Surely these powerful nations could keep Judah from doom at Babylon’s hands.  However, in Jeremiah 3:36 the prophet says:

“How much you go about,
            changing your way!
You shall be put to shame by Egypt
            as you were put to shame by Assyria.”

Because Judah had trusted these nations, other than God, for their salvation God would put them to shame by His own hand, from which there is no escape.  While there are many good ways to work with others, we should never trust anyone with the help that only God can provide.

Next, Judah thought they had the right cultural heritage.

The people of Judah wouldn’t listen to Jeremiah’s prophesies of doom for the nation because they thought God wouldn’t destroy what they saw as His own nation.  Israel had been taken into captivity by Assyria, but Judah thought it could never happen to them because they were the heirs of Jewish culture.  The people would repeat the phrase, “This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD,” to remind themselves that they were special because they had the temple, but Jeremiah says in Jeremiah 7:4,

“Do not trust in these deceptive words: ‘This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD.’”

The temple was provided as a way to approach God, but Judah thought of it like a magical talisman that would keep God happy so they could do their own thing.  However, God doesn’t want us to follow a checklist – He wants us.  All cultural and political institutions – including ones provided by God – are useless outside of God’s purpose for them.  What He provides He can take away if we abuse it.  When Judah was taken into captivity by Babylon, the temple was torn down and burned.

Last, Judah thought they had the right religion and were diligently practicing it

Judah’s religious leaders and people were diligent in observing the practices laid out in God’s ceremonial law.  They faithfully made the morning and evening sacrifices, observed the three main Jewish festivals, and followed many other ordinances, but in Jeremiah 7:22-23, the prophet said:

“For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.  But this command I gave them: ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’”

Because Judah was putting observance above obedience to God, He would therefore discipline them.  The sacrifices were not the objective – the relationship was the objective, but the people made their religion about the sacrifices themselves, not the relationship they were designed to restore.

Do we sometimes practice similar things in the modern church?  Of course we do.

The modern-day equivalent of Judah’s first mistake is when we expect from a political party what only God can give.  Our expectations of them become idolatrous, and we become more likely to compromise God’s principles to support them.  We commit the second mistake when we are convinced our denomination has it all right – the right history, traditions and doctrine – and therefore God will always favor us.  The last mistake happens when we put external religious observances ahead of internal devotion to God.  We may be executing the acts and rituals our religion requires of us, and our peers expect from us, but not giving ourselves fully to God.  We may go to church, but when we leave the church building we don’t take Jesus with us.

Sometimes we think through our political, cultural, and religious activities we should reap wheat, but what is happening when we keep reaping thorns?  Sometimes we need to check that we aren’t repeating Judah’s mistakes.

“They have sown wheat and have reaped thorns;
            they have tired themselves out but profit nothing.
They shall be ashamed of their harvests
            because of the fierce anger of the LORD.”