The Idolatry of Love - Tim Phillips

 


 

Valentine’s Day is just around the corner, and if you are like me, you have no idea what you are getting your wife. Flowers die, candy is empty calories, and it is next-to-impossible to get a reservation at any of the nice restaurants (I’m also the guy who bought his wife a carpet cleaner for Christmas – but only because she asked for one). Plus, if you are a busy pastor, you likely have a meeting on Tuesday the 14th (I need to attend the Diaconate meeting that evening, for instance). My mind will likely be anywhere but on love (at least romantic love) on Valentine's Day. But, as the Missus always reminds me, it’s just a day on the calendar.

 

There is no doubt the Bible talks a great deal about love. The two great commandments, according to Jesus, are based on love (love for God and love for neighbor). Paul writes that love is the fulfillment of the law (Romans 13:10). John states that love for the brethren is one of the marks of true Christianity (1 John 3:10ff). Again, the commandment of Jesus is that we love one another (John 15:12, 17). Perhaps the best remembered Bible verse is focused on God’s love toward a world undeserving of that love (John 3:16). Most people who don’t know the Bible probably have that verse memorized, along with this one: “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16).

 

Sadly though, the biblical concept of love is very much misunderstood and ill-defined in our day. In Jonathan Leeman’s book The Church and the Surprising Offense of God’s Love, the first chapter is aptly entitled “The Idolatry of Love.” How can somethinglike love be an idol? The author writes, “We have made love into an idol that serves us and so have redefined love into something that never imposes judgments, conditions, or binding attachments.” Leeman identifies the culprits for this idolatry as individualism (“a hatred of authority [resulting from] a diminished God”), consumerism, commitment phobia, and skepticism (particularly toward forms of religious dogma). After exploring each of these in great detail, Leeman concludes:

 

…[I]n our individualistic, skeptical, anti-authority, God-despising age, we are instinctively repulsed by the idea of being bound by anything. So we have defined God and the expectations of his love in such a way that we are not required to do so. We have erected an idol and called it ‘love.’ And this idol called love has two great commands: “Know that God loves you by not permanently binding you to anything (especially if you really don’t want to be)’ and, following from it, ‘Know that your neighbor loves you best by letting you express yourself entirely and without judgment.’

 

As examples of this change in definitions of “love,” Leeman mentions the shift in religious songs, away from expressions of God’s love for sinners (e.g., “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross”) to a subjective love of the individual for God (“I Could Sing of Your Love Forever”) — in other words, a transition from the way God demonstrates His love to a priority in the way we feel about love. In addition, this idea of love can be seen in a rejection of Christian orthodoxy in favor of a mushy, murky “tolerant” love that so often finds itself outside the boundaries of God’s expressions of love without even realizing it. Many in our day will decry any reference to the supremacy of God’s word as “bibliolatry,” but it appears in our day as if the bigger problem just might be “phileolatry” (love of love).

 

If we have made love into an idol in our hearts, we need to tear down that idol and smash it to pieces (a la Hezekiah in 2 Kings 18), for we cannot love “love” and still claim to love God. A servant cannot have two masters — ironically, he will love one and hate the other. On the other hand, God shows us what love really is. “By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:9-10). The love of God is demonstrated to us most clearly in the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ. If we are ever speaking of a love that it is not centered on the gospel of Jesus Christ, then Cupid’s arrow has missed its mark.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Make Our Worship Spaces Presbyterian Again by Rev. Benjamin Glaser

Image
We’ve all heard the jokes about Presbyterian’s being anti-fun, the so-called frozen chosen. The seen, but not heard denomination. The post you are about to read is going to sound like it came from the official spokesman of the “Presbyterians against anything nice” coalition. Maybe it’s true, maybe I am the grumpiest Presbyterian alive, but my goal here today is not to get hits or cause trouble. Rabble rousers are boring people. Men who seek out controversy don’t have enough to do and they aren’t really seeking to win converts to their position. They just like to see the fight.  At the end of the day I’m really a harmless little fuzzball who just wants Presbyterians to be Presbyterians, Baptists to be Baptists, and Anglicans to be Anglicans. Good fences make good neighbors. If you know where the other person stands it makes it easier to know where you stand. The topic I’d like to get into today is about the meeting space. Some call it the “sanctuary”, others the “preaching hall”, ...
Read more

What Does the ARP Confess About the Civil Government? by Rev. Benjamin Glaser

Image
A common problem in our conservative Presbyterian circles is that some members of the PCA believe they not only invented American presbyterianism, but that they and the OPC are the only actual members of the party. One way their aloofness shows itself is through an unwillingness to recognize that not all of us descend from the 1729 Adopting Act nor gauge our history through Francis Makemie or the Philadelphia Assembly of 1789. When Makemie established the first presbytery in the American colonies in 1709 some of us were still in Scotland, both in and out of the revolution settlement CoS. Ebenezer Erskine was a spry twenty-nine years old and Alexander Moncrieff was fourteen. The years 1782 and 1803 are relevant to our history in ways the other dates are not. We are not overly concerned with what the mainliners were up to in those days. We’ve been blessedly free from that mess for two hundred twenty plus years. The reason why I bring that up is because the folks who think they hung the m...
Read more

Ralph Erskine and Mental Images by Rev. Benjamin Glaser

Image
  One of the most common exceptions taken in the ARP (and the PCA  et al ) by newly ordained men and those taking transfer exams in presbytery is without a doubt a certain clause in the explanation to Westminster Larger Catechism #109. This mainly concerns the prohibition against making mental images of the Godhead, especially the Second Person, in accordance with the catechism’s teaching on the Second Commandment. I will post the question below: Q. 109.  What sins are forbidden in the second commandment? A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of the...
Read more