The greatest virtue is love. To will the good of the other. Love is about choices you make that benefit another person to become more of whom God desires him/her to be. We can personally affect the God-given destiny of other people by loving them.

We notice that love is about actions we take. Love is not about feelings. Your emotional condition when you are willing the good of another through the choices you make towards them is not important. What you do is what counts; not how you feel.

If love were a feeling we would not accomplish what God wants for us. Feelings are terrible sources for action. Feelings can be helpful servants of encouragement when we act with sacrifice and feelings can be helpful servants of guilt when we need to turn back to God. But if we base our actions on our feelings we are ruled in a way we are not designed.

Jesus has given instruction about this in scripture. When Jesus says, “Love your enemy,” he is not speaking of something that comes naturally. He is saying that we can become the kind of people who can will the good of those who wish to harm us. The most potent choice is to pray for your enemies. In the act of prayer you lift your enemies up to God and say, “God do exactly what is right in my enemy’s life.” If God is to punish them, so be it. If God is to open their eyes, amen. If God is to make them more forgiving toward us because we have wronged them in some way, then this too will be done. But feelings don’t need to enter into any of this.

We are also given “instruction” about not allowing our feelings to rule us in God’s natural design. For example, even though people are sometimes sexually attracted to their children or their siblings, in all cultures and during all times of human history, with isolated exceptions, incest is a strict taboo. Even though your desire might be to be sexually active with your immediate relative, it is forbidden. This is in atheist cultures as well as God-based cultures.

It would not be a loving thing to do to encourage incest because someone has that desire. Even if some day geneticists could isolate behavior genes (there is nothing close to this in actual research), and people are said to be “born with” that desire; feelings must be denied. Incest taboos are in place for consenting adults, as well, and so this is not an adult/child issue. In the case of incest, someone’s feelings must not be acted on and the loving thing to do as a culture is to strongly disapprove.

So whether through our conscience or the special instruction of the Bible we know love is not about feelings, but rather about choices.

We have a working definition for the word, “good.”

“That which God desires.”

Now, let’s consider the word, “love.” I think one of the greatest misinterpretations of language today is the definition of the word “love.”

A proper definition for love is to “will the good of the other.” So we make choices in our relationships that help others move in the direction of what God desires. We want what God wants for people and we act upon it.

This isn’t the common definition for “love” today. “Love” is not working to help others receive what God desires for them. Instead, “love” becomes working to help others receive what they want. Not helping someone fulfill God’s desires but instead helping someone fulfill his/her own desires.

So if loving someone is to accept them as a fellow human being and approve of their desires, then we are in total contradiction with the Bible and common sense.

The Bible is clear from beginning to end that if we follow our desires and our passions, “flesh”, or “nature” as it is called, we are in for a heap of trouble. Because we are sinful human beings, when we become our own measure for what is right and what is wrong, get ready for destruction. We are not good judges.

Common sense tells us that there are many things that we desire but they aren’t healthy. In fact, there are many things you don’t need the Bible to tell you about as far as what’s healthy and what’s not. Your God-given conscience left unmanipulated will tell you the same thing.

To encourage someone to live in an unhealthy way because they desire to make unwise choices is not an act of love. It is promoting deception which is not in God’s category but in someone elses (John 8:44).

There is a movement begun in European academic circles that has gained influence here called, “postmodernism.” All you need to know about it is this.

There is no absolute truth. “Truth” is culturally conditioned and so what is true for you may not be true for me. You don’t consider things as “good” or “evil” as these terms themselves are culturally conditioned. “Reality,” then, becomes your experience.



How do you live in postmodernism? Any way you want. Whatever you do is culturally conditioned anyway. There is no right and wrong.

The Christian view of the world is the exact opposite of postmodernism. There is absolute truth. Jesus. We don’t have 100% access to the mind of Jesus but the Bible is his words and teachings. With a careful and straightforward reading Jesus makes it possible for us to know him enough to point to true reality. Our experience is valuable but, unlike truth, it is not absolute because we are sinful people and our experience may be clouded by our sin.

In the Christian worldview there is good and evil.

“Good”- That which God desires

“Evil”- The absence of good

So, we know what “good” is if we know what God stands for. We know what evil is if we know what God stands for. Keep all of this in mind as we continue tomorrow.

Yesterday, I saw 12 high school freshmen declare their intentions to follow Jesus before an audience of several hundred adults. If they were Baptist, which they weren’t, they would have been baptized. These young people had already been promised to God and connected to his family through Baptism earlier in life, and so the proper term for the rite is, “Affirmation of Baptism.”

So, what did happen? Well, take a dozen teenagers in the middle of LA who declare that they will continue to dedicate their lives to serving the needs of others and what do you have? 12 who say “Yes” to Jesus and thanks to their parents, pastors, and adult faith mentors who are guiding them along the way? It is amazing there was no news media at the event. After all, any time the gangs of LA hint at a truce the media clamors to get the story, and rightfully so. Any decrease in the ill will followed by evil action is welcome news.

But, if you want a real story, take 12 teens who are part of a different gang. A gang of hope. A gang of help. A gang that is a home to them. They follow that radical gang leader, Jesus, who has the guts to tell them they are responsible for their own attitudes and actions. They are not responsible for what others do to them in their families and in society, but they are responsible for how they respond (Mark 7:18-23). When Christians are “dissed” they wouldn’t think of “popping a cap” or whatever.

Their leader, Jesus, even tells them they are to serve rather than be served, and they listen. As this dozen joins the other youth in the “gang” of God, they infect society with everything that is right with our world. So, if there are any reporters out there who want a real story, you drop me a line. Peace, out.

Historians tell us that the Christian faith spread from Great Britain to India, as well as in North Africa and the Middle East. In less than 100 years! Why? A Christian will say primarily because of the power of the Holy Spirit. Historians, of course, don’t give credit to the Holy Spirit. But they do give credit to the Christian worldview, in particular two of Christianity’s key teachings. One is caring for the poor and one is caring for the sick.

The Christians were well known throughout the Roman Empire as the people who would reach out to those who were not in their own family or tribes. They would take people in who needed food and/or shelter. If you became part of the Christian community, you were never destitute. The Christians were also known as the ones who would heal the sick, and care for those whom others would ignore. The Christians would care for plague victims, for example.

So, with this one-two combination of compassion, the Christian faith swept through a large chunk of the world. A compassionate revolution that is still transforming the world once again, today.

Well, it’s time to give the “Jesus” talk when it comes to politics, elections, and current events. As Dallas Willard would say, “As we face life immersed in the Trinitarian Reality, it is a perfectly safe place to be.”

In other words, “Don’t sweat it.”

It is important to vote because this exercise in democracy is a key cornerstone of our nation. We are to be involved in this process as good citizens and being a good citizen is a byproduct of being a good disciple of Jesus. But, I really have to say, what seems less important, when all is said and done, is who actually is elected. Yes, I know it matters from a human and historical perspective, but from an eternal perspective, whoever is elected will not have the impact of the power of the Holy Spirit. Will it?

I have bet my life and my family’s life on Jesus. President Bush and John Kerry may or may not be good choices, but Jesus wins every time. He’s the one who has all the answers. Jesus is Lord.

So, I will vote on Tuesday. But I will vote on Sunday, too. I and my family will vote with our praises that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

As I hope I have made clear, it is illogical to think you can possibly isolate your decision making from your faith. In fact, as I have alluded to before, it would be a glaring injustice if politicians of biblical faith ignored the Bible’s clear call to care for the needy and the poor (e.g. Matthew 25:31-46). The Bible’s call to protect children (e.g. Matthew 18:1-6). Can you imagine anyone standing and saying,

“I have a deep faith that impacts every area of my life. But I don’t want to impose my religious beliefs on others who don’t share my faith. Therefore, I must respectfully vote against any funds going toward this pediatric clinic.”

Now, we have to recognize there are indeed religions that do not place the same strong emphasis on caring for the poor, including poor children. There are worldviews, for example, where belief in reincarnation brings with it a belief in absolute fate. In this case, it may be wrong to interrupt someone’s life circumstances if they are living out their fate. You would be messing around with someone’s just reward.

Fortunately, not everyone who follows these “fate”-based religions actually practices them in this way. But, even if people were to interpret their religion to mean you shouldn’t help those in need, including children, this doesn’t mean these same people don’t have the right to run for political office. In America we rely on the voter to decide.

Yesterday, I wrote about supporting candidates for election who have the greatest chance to do good, rather than those who may match my values more closely. Here is where it starts getting interesting. Do I automatically vote for a Christian candidate over a non-Christian candidate? Two views.

Yes-

A candidate who acknowledges Jesus as Lord has at least shown he/she has an excellent view of reality. If he/she uses the Bible as their filter, than he/she uses the most brilliant resource available. A Christian may be more likely to make sure the anti-Christian bias of present government institutions (e.g. “Inherit the Wind” is still showing up in the public high school theatre circles, including our daughters!) doesn’t increase. If he/she is a man/woman of prayer to Jesus, than all the more likely Jesus guides this faithful Christian seeking his wisdom.

No-

A candidate who acknowledges Jesus as Lord may not necessarily follow the filter of the Bible. The same candidate may not be consistent in applying biblical principles. A Christian candidate may think he/she has God’s guidance on a decision, but it wasn’t God, it was his/her own projection, or worse, Satan’s temptation disguised and joined with their projection.

God also guides non-Christians in government (Romans 13). Biblical principles can be used by non-Christians to inform their decisions. Conscience is also a tool at God’s disposal. The non-Christian may simply have greater political influence and may, therefore, have a better chance to bring about change that is more conducive to good.

I would argue that the “No” position is more supportable, though “Yes” is quite attractive. I would tend to agree with Christian thinker Martin Luther who said, (paraphrase) ‘I would rather be ruled by a wise Muslim than a foolish Christian.’

If my faith necessarily informs my thinking, than do I use my faith filter to decide whom to vote for in elections and what to vote for when it comes to ballot initiatives? Yes, but there are some considerations to be made.

Greg Koukl speaks of “incrementalism.” This is the idea that to change something you work at it bit by bit. One works with others to move toward an outcome more closely reflecting his/her desired worldview. Here’s an example.

If you follow the biblical standard that human life begins at conception, then an embryo is a human being. Therefore, the idea that you develop embryos in a lab in order to harvest their stem cells, and discard that person afterwards is homicide. So, does that mean you would vote against a ballot initiative on promoting embryonic stem cell research? Yes, if you think the embryo is a human being, which is the biblical position (note: almost all biologists would also say that “life begins at conception”).

Would you then only vote for a candidate who opposes embryonic stem cell research? Here is where “incrementalism” comes in. You vote for the candidate whom you think has the best chance of getting elected and will promote the greatest good. Candidate A may reflect your values entirely and be unelectable. So to vote for him/her would only be a vote of conscience. Candidate B may support embryonic stem cell research, but may also be more likely to uphold biblical values in other areas. Candidate B also has a good chance on being elected. You go with B, who is able to promote the greater good. More tomorrow.

So, should your faith be a resource for decision-making? I have argued that it has to be if it is truly your faith. Your filter. Now, if you are a Christian, this is completely logical. If Jesus is God, as Christians claim, then he is the creator of everything, including knowledge and logic itself. If the teachings of Jesus from the Bible are accurate, which again Christians claim, then they must be the most brilliant teachings in existence. So, obviously, if you are a Christian, it would be harmful and illogical to purposely ignore the teachings of Jesus when considering a decision to be made or an action to be taken.

Of course, one can misapply a teaching of Jesus, misinterpret it, or simply not understand it. “This side of heaven” we can’t say we are thinking exactly like Jesus thinks. But, there is a certain universal clarity to his teachings that inform the thinking of those who call themselves “Christian.” The point is to be a Christian and say I can’t let my faith cloud my thinking in the public arena is an unsupportable position from a faith and reason standard.