I have been listening to John Piper's sermon from my mp3 player today. He kept on emphasizing that if someone loves God, the love should be started with the re-born life. We don't need to do anything. An example he used: it's like putting sugar on your tongue, if you don't have taste buds, no matter what you do, you won't know the sweetness.
I have some reservations on this.
I think love is not JUST a warm and fuzzy feeling, not for God, not for your family, not EVEN for your lover. Sometimes, it's an obligation.
Over-emphasizing on "feeling" is unhealthy.
Obligation? Love?
9 comments:
I agree. Love is sacrifice, it comes with pain also.
You are probably not understanding what he is talking about in context.
If you read and listen to enough Piper, you know that he embraces the notion of the 'religious affections' in genuine faith. By 'religious', it refers to truth and knowledge. By 'affections, it refers to zeal, passion and love. Both are crucial, and Piper is always careful to given emphasis on both of these things.
* * *
I have no idea which sermon you are talking about, so I will make some general statements here.
I think here, Piper is referring to developing a taste for God, after we are born again. This taste of God can be alluded to taste buds, because after you are born again, you naturally develop a taste for God. He is emphasizing that true faith must have affections. He is not saying that this affection is all you need.
Can you ever have 'too much' feeling for God? Can you ever love God too much? The whole idea of over-emphasizing 'feeling' is from secular philosophy (Immanuel Kant), not Christianity. I can dig up some verses for references as well.
Imagine that you have a son, and when he grows up he asks you why you took the effort to bring him up, how would you reply? Will you say, "It was my duty and it was my responsibility. I had to bring you up because it was right". Or will you say, "It was my pleasure and my joy. I brought you up because I love you."
I admit that I haven't listen to "enough" Piper. =P maybe I just got a partial view.
He really did spend a long time emphasizing the importance of "feelings" in the mp3 I heard...
Just for discussion purpose...
I don't think we can have too much feelings towards God, but I honestly feel it's a mix between love and obligation. I really don't think anyone can spend every day of their life feeling very "spiritual" and filled with affection for God.
On the parent example,
I'm talking about our love to God, I think it's more like our love to our parents. Honestly, how many of us can say we love our parents because "you're my pleasure and my joy"? or course, it's quite different from the feeling towards God, sometimes we got the desire like that in Song of the Songs, I am NOT saying there's no feeling involved, but sometimes, it's a responsibility, even for parents, sometimes they're too tired to feel their kids are their joy.
yun, welcome here.
Love comes with pain... I totally agree. Cross bearing (even tho we love God) can be painful at times, it's not always a nice warm fuzzy feeling.
oh, xaueious
I'll try to listen to more of his sermons if I have time. =)
I don't think anyone can possibly spend their life filled with a passion for God either, but it is ideal. It is better to be motivated by love, than to be motivated by obligation. Obligation is like a crutch that needs to be used when the affections are weak.
I didn't use the parent example to emphasize the parent-child relationship, but rather a relationship involving a giver and a receiver. By the example of giving and receiving, I am making an connection, to the action of serving God.
Most people tend to neglect the importance of affections in our relationship with God. Duty is talked about all the time.
I think it is easier to read John Piper than to listen to him, especially in the beginning. I often find myself rewinding through parts of every sermon more than once. The event messages are often more focused than his weekly sermons, and it may be better to start from there.
xaueious,
I usually find time to listen to mp3 while I'm in MTR or walking on the streets (difficult to read books while travelling)
Love and obligation are both important and inseparable for me. I know it's unhealthy to work for God only under obligation. You really think duty is being talked about more?? I always heard people talking about love, not many people talked about obligation. =P
Anyway, I think I may not expressed all this really well, I was reading Yun's blog today and found a link to an mp3 from littleho. He explained this quite well.
http://file.tpcc.org.hk/worship/20070311w.mp3
Duty is definitely emphasized more than love in most churches I have been at. I am not only referring to sermons, but the Christians who I have interacted with. When people observe you from the outside, no one can tell you where your heart is at, but they can see your commitment to your obligations. For example, I was never told to stir up my passion for God, but I was often told to go pray and to do my devotions, as to fulfill my rightful duty, without appropriate emphasis on a love for God.
Thanks for the link. I never know where to find Cantonese sermons, and I have a need to improve my Cantonese.
(C.S. Lewis, Letters to Children)
Provided the thing is in itself right, the more one likes it and the less one has to “try to be good,” the better. A perfect man would never act from sense of duty; he’d always want the right thing more than the wrong one. Duty is only a substitute for love (of God and of other people), like a crutch, which is a substitute for a leg. Most of us need the crutch at times; but of course it’s idiotic to use the crutch when our own legs (our own loves, tastes, habits, etc.) can do the journey on their own.
Post a Comment