Genuine love in Romans 12

The diagram below is the product of many years' pondering the differences between what we typically hear about love in popular culture and what the Bible commands. I recently created it to use with my teens during our weekly Bible study, where we've been studying what it means to give one's life as a "living sacrifice," as per Romans 12.1-2. Here's the diagram, and I'll unpack it below.

As I've visualized it here, this definition of love generates from the realization that most misrepresentations we hear are not truly wrong, but rather reduced -- not completely off the mark, but improperly emphasized. For example, one common perspective on love is that it is a feeling of attraction between two people, involving commitment, warmth, and kind intent. This isn't wrong. It's just missing something. However, the typical Christian reaction against this definition of love is binary, over-emphasizing elements of choice and insisting that love is not what you feel but is rather a committed act of the will. Again, not wrong, but reductionistic -- missing something.

What I've tried to demonstrate with the above diagram is that there are multiple, vital facets to love that are interdependent. Love is not a simple see-saw between action and feeling. It is a more complex and nuanced thing. What I propose is that truly genuine, truly biblical love cannot be reduced from three distinct but closely related things: Heart, Action, and Will.

Will and Heart are challenging to differentiate from one another, and I'm reminded that only the Word of God is able to decipher such infinitesimal differences between soul and spirit (Heb 4.12). The Bible often uses the word "heart" to refer to the core, inmost being, and I'm not attempting to cut against that clear synecdoche or create confusion. However, what I'm seeking to distinguish here is the difference between our felt wants ("Heart") and understood values ("Will"). In this definition, Heart is visceral, psychological, and physiological; Will is what is felt and known at the level of beliefs that define our identity.

For example, I value my health and my body, and I know I should exercise to stay in shape, but I don't particularly feel like it. Such a breakdown results from a conflict between what I feel ("Heart") and what I value ("Will"), and ultimately results in a lack of Action, the third component of Genuine Love. Action is the distinct, external evidence of what is felt and understood within. It is the obedience of body, heart, and mind to the unity of felt wants/needs and internal values. In the exercising example I've used, the object of love is the self: if I truly value my own health and well-being, and know that maintaining them is important, I will take action despite the disconnect of my heart, and in so doing seek to bring my feelings properly in line with my values. In so doing, I express genuine love for myself by taking care of my body -- in some ways, despite what I feel.

All three of these components -- Heart, Will, and Action -- together make love genuine, full of integrity and wholeheartedness. Because Romans 12.9 teaches that our love must be “genuine,” that is the operative word that I'm using. Genuine love means Christians can't camp in any of the off-center cross-sections of Sentimentalism, Obligation, or Idealism. We must gravitate toward the middle of the diagram, where all three elements of love are represented.

Let me unpack these ideas a little more, addressing each cross-section one at a time.

Genuine love, the central element, cannot be reduced to what I've termed Sentimentalism. That's what happens when our love only involves Heart and Action, without the commitment, sacrifice, and value of our Will. In other words, because dating, romance, and friendship all inspire strong emotions, there is a natural tendency to act according to those emotions, with or without the assent of our deeper values. Furthermore, those emotions are what we truly feel, so they have a ring of legitimacy, and the actions that flow from them feel natural. Loving others because we feel strongly isn’t wrong, but the Bible communicates that the true test of love is how we treat those for whom we don't have strong feelings, or those whose actions toward us cause strong feelings opposite of affection. And what about when the person for whom we have strong affections doesn't reciprocate? What happens when the emotions that I feel are strong irritation or even hatred? Genuine love responds differently in these scenarios than mere Sentimentalism does, because the third element of Will serves to keep our Hearts and our Actions from simply following the path of least resistance. This is because love is not less than feeling something, but is so much more than merely feeling something. Therefore, truly genuine love requires dedication beyond simply what we feel ("Heart") and what we do ("Action") as a result of those feelings.

Genuine love also cannot be reduced to mere duty or Obligation.  I'm stealing this analogy from John Piper, but if I come home from work on a given night with flowers for my wife Tara, she would really appreciate that small act of thoughtful kindness. However, if I give them to her begrudgingly, and make it clear that I'm only doing it because my husbandly duty means I HAVE to show her affection, is she still likely to appreciate the gesture? This is the problem with the D.C. Talk theology of love: if love is truly just "a verb," it lacks the key component of "Heart," the emotional component that makes the Action of love truly genuine. The problem most Christians encounter, reacting to the Sentimentalism of the world, is that their duty-based love is not truly genuine either. Action alone is not proof of genuine love. Genuine love requires input from the necessary component of Heart.

Lastly, genuine love cannot be reduced to Idealism, a love that incorporates Heart and Will, but lacks Action. The greatest example of this is the "thoughts and prayers" epidemic on social media, often lambasted as a heartless, meaningless, and -- in some ways -- harmful. To many, it's an expression of false care in the face of tragedy. To be fair, expressing heartfelt sorrow to another who is hurting is an external act, and it is done in obedience to Romans 12.15, which commands us to weep alongside those who weep. But truly genuine love also incorporates 1 John 3.18, which means that our love for others goes beyond just verbal expression to include real, immediate Action. Good intentions alone do not verify Idealism as genuine love. Why? Because a necessary component of genuine love necessarily is Action.

I can anticipate some objections to this model of love. To some degree, it is impossible to hit the "bulls-eye" of genuine love, because we are sinners and we live in a fallen world. Certainly knowing the grace and love of God empowers us to rise above these limitations, but we know the challenges. To properly apply this model, we must understand that the three components of genuine love are not equally represented in each scenario -- in other words, in order to genuinely love a given individual, it might not mean 33.3% Action invested alongside 33.3% Will and 33.3% Heart. For certain family members, more exertion of Will might be necessary than for others. For people I don't really know, a greater emphasis on Action or Heart might be pertinent. Different people and different scenarios require different responses, but all three elements must be present and involved, compensating for deficiencies in any area.

Further, there is a centripetal force exerted by these three elements in that they serve to police one another. Genuine love is best expressed when all three components of Heart, Will, and Action are in perfect harmony, but there are times when I am still genuinely loving someone when I do what I know to be right even if I don't feel like it. Provided that I'm not content with the condition of my heart in that instance, but am seeking to bring my feelings in line with my actions and my values, I can still honor the Lord and serve others with that effort. Typically, the problem is that I am far too self-motivated and need to surrender one felt need/want in order to replace it with the genuine need/want on behalf of another.

In some scenarios -- say, a teenager striving to love his parents by obeying them -- the tendency might be inclined toward Duty and Obligation. However, the conscious application of Will and Action serves to incorporate the Heart even if it does not come naturally. Often, doing what we know to be the right thing even when we don't want to ultimately produces a sense of satisfaction after the fact, which goes a long way toward replicating that response in the future. A rocky marriage often becomes a pendulum of Sentimentalism, oscillating between strong feelings of affection and strong feelings of fury, because the marriage has no backbone of Will to anchor it. Striving to incorporate what each spouse knows to be right, and valuing the needs of one another over self-interest will begin to incorporate the grounding element of Will to move that marriage toward more genuine expressions of love and out of feelings-based action. Sentimentalism, Idealism, and Duty are only problematic if they become our templates for love instead of our starting points toward the real thing. They must transition if we are to love genuinely.

But what about the nature of relationships? Am I obligated to love everyone in this manner, incorporating Heart, Will, and Action in every relationship? How far should I go for the sake of people I don't know? It's important to consider our circles of influence when we think about investing -- who is within my circle of influence, and who is outside my circle of influence? Some people we have greater responsibility to love because they are in close proximity to us. However, in any given interaction, Christians should be able to evaluate the output of Action against the input of Will and the driving fuel of Heart. I should be able to slow down and ask of myself, "Am I truly loving this individual? What do my actions say? What do I feel toward him/her? How am I engaging what I know to be right and true?" Even in minute interactions with strangers, there is great potential for us to exude a genuinely loving spirit by preferring others. The crucial component, however, is theological. If I'm striving to love Jesus every day, every minute, and every hour, I am actively seeking to align my Heart, Will, and Action into serving Him. Properly understood and applied, this puts me in the proper frame of mind and spirit to invest in others at the appropriate level.

What about the extremes? What about the cases of abuse? The instances of betrayal? Romans 12 anticipates this, because it includes in its conversation about genuine love those who persecute us (Rom 12.13), and those whose actions against us might give us cause to seek vengeance (Rom 12.19). While the specific expressions of Action and types of feelings in our Hearts may vary, the values of our Will remain the same, because they are grounded in the Scripture. Certainly there is room for caution, protection, and discretion in these types of scenarios. Sometimes loving an individual who has harmed us means showing mercy, if not grace; sometimes it means using the full expression of law to assist an individual in understanding the damage he or she has caused, and preventing him or her from harming others. Either way, my Heart, Actions, and Will toward that person factor in the reality of harm done as well as the sacrificial, exemplary, and effective actions of our Savior on our behalf. In loving these individuals, we surrender the consequences to the Lord, our Vindicator and Defender, and do what we know to be right.

This is hard. How do I make change in my heart happen? Can I truly change what I feel? This by itself is the subject for an entire book. However, it is an important consideration for this topic. We'd all acknowledge that our feelings change, but we'd perhaps differ on what actually affects the change. Is it circumstances? Relationships? Godly influence? Is it simply time? While our Heart is arguably the single hardest area of love to truly impact, I'd argue that Romans 12 gives us the necessary steps. Counter-intuitively, we change not by addressing the level of feeling, but rather the level of value -- we must choose to love and uphold what is good, but hate and ostracize what (not who!) is evil (Rom 12.9). A failure to love manifests in different ways, but is ultimately related to poor values.  If we seek godly values -- begun by studying the Word (see Psalm 119.9) and removing sinful influences, replacing them with good influences (Rom 13.12) -- this gradually changes what I feel and begins the process of aligning those feelings with what I know to be biblically right and true.

The expression of genuine love is a learned experience. For the Christian, it is not a voyage of self-discovery in relation to other human beings, but rather being in receipt of Christ's genuine love for us. Remember, Paul is making this appeal to love others "by the mercies of God" (Rom 12.1). In other words, he beseeches the believers in Rome, "Because you have personally experienced and understand the incredible mercies of God toward you, you must therefore respond in love for others." As Christians who know God's grace, we are living out toward others the very things we learned from God’s mercies toward us. If we believe in the love of God, we must be wholeheartedly loving toward others. Truly genuine, truly biblical love is the proper alignment of the feelings of my Heart with the values of my Will, expressed appropriately in Action. Each of these three elements is necessary, not optional. No other lesser expression of love quite adheres to the appeal in Roman 12.

Eliminating the "Feel-Good" Gospel

"The typical gospel," wrote Dr. Scott Johnson in 2006, "that most churches set forth in America is [best defined as follows]: 1. popular, 2. does not offend the sinner, 3. would be considered 'politically correct,' 4. will not violate any hate crime legislation, 5. will usually assure job stability for the Pastor and line his pockets nicely as he is a hireling and has no true love for the sheep.  It will usually manifest itself as 'The Jesus Loves You' gospel and/or 'A loving Jesus would never send one of his children to hell' gospel." (Beware of the Feel Good Gospel).

Seven years have not seen much change.  If anything, the proclamation of such false gospels has only increased.  The sad reality is that this is not a counter- or anti-Christian movement aimed at reforming the religion.  This is a problem coming from within the assembly of God.  This is about trying to make the faith more acceptable and more inclusive by propagating a "God loves you just the way you are" doctrine to a spiritually hungry generation.  This is about wolves in sheep's clothing taking chisels to the narrow gate in an attempt to widen its restrictive parameters - just a little bit at a time.

We fool ourselves and others when we attempt to make the gospel palatable by softening its defining edges.  Things like the fact that we are helplessly terrible people and that we need a Savior to sacrifice Himself on our behalf, or things like the fact that God enacts salvation and we have nothing to do with it rub people the wrong way.  We dislike everything about the gospel that reveals how weak and needy we truly are.  And so we invent an alternative - one that cleans up all the bloodstains so that everyone wins and no one is ever sad again.

The real root of the problem is our inflated sense of self-worth.  We think about the gospel in terms of what it gets us, and so that's what we sell to unbelievers: "Accept Jesus so you don't have to go to hell" or "Accept Jesus so you don't have to feel guilty anymore."  Sure, that's all well and good, but is that enough?  When we make the giving of grace all about us, those who receive it, then the answer is yes - that is enough.  Why bother including anything else when the gospel is all about taking our sip from the fountain?  We effectively divorce the gift from the Giver in an attempt to allow ourselves the slack we need to continue living the way we want while still playing it safe.  In this line of thinking, we grossly misunderstand the gospel.

Let's recall that our salvation wasn't the primary reason Christ came.  Lifting us out of our sinful condition was his goal, absolutely, but the primary reason God chose to extend grace to miserable, sinful human beings is because it pleased Him to do so and brought Him glory.  Redeeming our corrupt race through the death and resurrection of His Son was the ultimate means of magnifying His perfect love and His perfect forgiveness, and we who believe merely benefit from His lovingkindness.  We are absolutely marginal in the story of redemption.

But the Bible tells us that God came for sinners because He loved us!  Right?

A good friend of mine was sharing with me recently that we misunderstand the "so" in John 3.16.  We read "For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son" and think the "so" means "extravagantly," "deeply," "equivocally."  And while it is absolutely true that the Father's love for us is vast beyond all measure (1 John 4.7, 19; Luke 15), we change the original meaning of John 3.16 when we improperly place such an emphasis on this little adverb.  How it should read is as follows:

"13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. 16 For God [in this way; in the same manner] loved the world[:] that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."

The "so" in the verse is comparative, not emphatic.  For just as God provided salvation to Moses and the Israelites in the wilderness, so He offers salvation to the rest of the world by lifting up His Son for all to receive.  We have nothing to do with that.  God's motivation includes us, but it is not about us.  So why do we feel at liberty to make ourselves the focal point of the gospel?  We are merely the recipients of a great gift, and not any way the cause of it.

When we elevate ourselves to such a place of priority, it is only natural that the next thing we should do is change the requirements the gospel places on us.  If we are the glorified party in salvation, then Christ did all the hard work for my benefit so that I can live a stress-free, white-collar, American Christian life.  But that's not at all what the Bible teaches.  In fact, Scripture points to the hard work that Jesus did accomplish on our behalf and tells us that we should do likewise.  Christ told His disciples that if they truly desired to follow Him, they would need to get behind Him in line with their own crosses on their shoulders (Matt 16.24).  This means that, far from granting us a glorified and comfortable life, the gospel instead grants us the potential privilege of suffering.

Yes, you read that correctly.

The gospel enables us to participate in the suffering of Christ because it is our opportunity not only to identify ourselves with our Savior, but also to pare back the worthless things in our lives and truly hone in on righteous living.  If sin is the elevation of our desires above God's, then suffering for righteousness decreases our drive to pursue sinful things.  Peter teaches us that when we live righteously and suffer for it, instead of discouraging us from continuing down that path, the suffering will actually help us cease from sinning (1 Peter 4.1; 2.21).  It's a dose of reality - the reality that we are called to suffer with Christ and that the things we used to chase in this life really aren't worth the time when there is something more rewarding in store.

But once again, we need to be careful, because even the suffering is not about us.  As Paul wrote to the Corinthians, the Lord's grace is sufficient to sustain us, and His power is made perfect in our weakness (2 Cor 12.9).  Suffering, therefore becomes all about what God is doing, not what we are capable of withstanding.  We think self-centeredly about our problems, but God has a much bigger plan for our lives, and suffering reveals it.  Therefore, suffering for a Christian is certain.  It should not give us pause to wonder why when terrible things are happening in our lives.   When Jesus sent out his 72 followers, he warned them that He was “sending us as lambs in the midst of wolves,” and His instructions to us contain the same (Luke 10.3).  Our Savior never called us into a "state of uncertainty, but to one of supreme certainty" (Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship).  When we possess a true understanding of the gospel, we know with supreme certainty that believing in Christ and living for Him will result in a suffering.  But we also know that it is purposeful.  Suffering is both testing and refining, and when we continue patiently through it, we will become more like Christ in the end.

That's what the gospel is all about.

The gospel is a life-changing message that has absolutely nothing to do with us.  It was delivered for our benefit, to fully satisfy the impossible debt our wanton living had rung up - but not because our situation demanded that God rectify it.  Rather, it was purely His will to crush the Messiah on our behalf, because it would magnify His fathomless love and mercy (Isa 53.10).  Ultimately, the gospel was given so that we could use that gift of freedom, which we did nothing to deserve, to turn around and give all glory and praise and thanksgiving back to the Redeemer.

The gospel is all about Jesus.

The Worship Lifestyle, Pt. 2

I've had the privilege of leading music at my church for the better part of eight years.  Ever since I was an awkward teenager in our youth group who dug his mothers' vintage Fender F-70 out of the attic and began learning chords so I could play U2 songs, I've had a passion for singing about the Lord and engaging with others in worshiping Him.  One of the most difficult things I've encountered in conversations with people about what the musical side of worship should encompass is the issue of emotions and what their appropriate role should be.  This topic is something I've written about before (hence the "Pt. 2" in this blog's title), but I'd like to dig into the matter once again, not only because it is a very pressing issue in how the church worships (both privately and corporately), but also because it's something that is dear to my heart as a worshiper of Jesus Christ.

I've encountered several extremes concerning emotion's role in worship.

One is this mindset: "I don't worship God when I don't feel like it, because it would be meaningless."

A second is this: "I'm going to worship God whether I feel like it or not, because it's the right thing to do."

Another is as follows: "I worship God when I feel close to Him."

As is usually the case, all of these perspectives possesses some very real shreds of truth.  On one hand, we absolutely want to worship God when we feel like it, because that is a genuine outpouring of our dependence upon and love for Him.  On the other hand, we want to worship God even when we don't feel like it, because our emotions are unstable and we can't base worship upon them.  Additionally, we want to celebrate God when we feel close to Him, because his nearness means joy and salvation (Psalm 73.28).  However, worshiping God is never a "fake it 'til you make it" type of learning process, nor does it allow for a "follow your heart" mentality.

After leading for so long and studying a number of excellent resources (most notably, Worship Matters by Bob Kauflin and Desiring God by John Piper) in addition to the Word of God itself, the conclusion at which I've arrived is as follows: worship is 1. built upon sound theology and 2. expressed through our emotions.  It is always a two-step progression, and it is essential that the process happens in that order: our response to God should be emotional, but the foundation of our worship should never be.  In fact, Bob Kauflin says it perfectly: "Magnifying God's greatness begins with the proclamation of objective, biblical truths about God, but it ends with the expression of deep and holy affections toward God."  This is rooted in the fact that worship is all about God's character.  It's all about Jesus.  That's why worship transcends musical style, be it through ancient or modern hymns.  That's why worship is a lifestyle, and not just an action.  Worship is a celebration of who God truly is, expressed through our desire to see His truth proclaimed - both to others and to our own hearts.

It's simply all about Jesus.  Therefore, we respond whole-heartedly, emotionally, to Him.

Another way to think about it is that we worship God through our emotions and in spite of them.  This is due to the fact that while our emotions are incredibly unstable, God's character constant forever.  When we are wrestling with sorrow, anxiety, and even anger, we must worship in spite of our emotions.  If I find myself walking into a worship service while in this frame of mind, then in order for me to worship God effectively, I need to mirror the heart of Job, captured in Matt Redman's "Blessed Be Your Name:" "My heart will choose to say, 'Lord, blessed be Your name!'"  In this vein, although I am singing out of a heart which needs divine comfort, I am also magnifying the Lord's sovereignty and compassion, effectively minimizing my suffering in the wake of His provision.  It may sound like a subtle difference, but it is all the difference that is necessary.  It's a matter of perspective: instead of weeping over my pain and begging the Lord to take it away, my worship is now built upon a sound understanding that God is sovereign (Deut 10.17) and that He cares about my pain (Psa 56.8), poured out in humble expression of my desperate need.  It doesn't mean that I'm all of a sudden carefree, it just means that in esteeming God to be greater than my circumstances, I experience the Joy of the Lord which transcends pain and heartache.  Inevitably, my worship then becomes about His character, not what I am feeling.

On the other side of the coin, when we are soaring on Cloud 9 with joy, or when we experience a peace that surpasses understanding, then we worship God because of our emotions.  If I find myself here, then I must channel my celebration into magnification of God's benevolent character and esteem Him the author of my good fortune, while at the same time acknowledging that my promotion or an answered prayer ultimately takes a back seat to the gift of His Son (Psalm 13.6; Titus 2.13).  Otherwise, I begin to stray dangerously close to arrogance, independence, and even self-worship.  Once again, by celebrating the Creator because of who He is rather than simply because of what I feel, I am subtly shifting my perspective so that my worship is dependent upon His character, not what I experience or achieve.

There is a third mindset toward worship, however, that I haven't mentioned yet.  That perspective is one of indifference.  If I find myself in this position, then I have to very honestly and very carefully consider my own heart.  It's been said that the opposite of love isn't hate, because both are driven by passion: therefore, the true opposite of love must be apathy.  If we simply don't care, if we could take or leave a worship service, then we certainly can't engage in worship that magnifies a holy and righteous Creator.  John Piper writes, "The engagement of the heart in worship is the coming alive of the feelings and emotions and affections of the heart.  Where feelings for God are dead, worship is dead."  However, the problem I need to address is not my lack of emotions, but the condition of my heart.  To try to change how I feel would be to treat the symptoms and not the disease.  Either something in my understanding of God needs to change, or a sin that is callousing my heart toward Him needs to be addressed.  Only when the heart has been cleansed can emotion follow that may be used to glorify God.

In sum, worship is expressed through emotion, but is not built upon it.  In this regard, the appropriate expression of our feelings in worship should always be in response to God's character, and we should use our emotions to magnify Him above what we feel and experience.  However, worship is also very much dependent upon our feelings, because love is empty and meaningless without passion.  It can't be 100% objective in the same way that it can't be 100% subjective.  The Bible makes it very clear that God desires worshipers who celebrate Him in spirit and truth - in other words, with all of their being and with their fullest understanding of His character (John 4.23; Matt 22.37).  Jesus also proclaimed that it is out of the "abundance of the heart" that the mouth speaks, a statement which clearly implies that the only lips worthy of offering praise are those which are connected to a heart full of passionate love for God (Matt 12.34).  As Bob Kauflin states it, "What we love most will determine what we genuinely worship."  If God truly sits on the throne of our heart, if He truly encompasses our being, then we will only desire to worship Him, no matter what circumstances beset us.  Encountering His greatness should always result in the outpouring of heartfelt emotion, because He is holy, wonderful, and eternally deserving of our praise.

I'd like to conclude with a passage from Kauflin's Worship Matters as a final encouragement: "Worship is accepted not on the basis of what we have done, but on the basis of what Christ has done.  It's not uncommon for us to 'feel' accepted and loved by God when we're engaged in worship.  But if that feeling isn't rooted in the gospel, it will be an elusive sensation.  It's not enough to sing songs about God's love that produce warm feelings in our hearts.  We need to glory in the reality of Jesus Christ, beaten and bruised for our transgressions, giving up his life in our place on the cross.  There will never be a greater proof or demonstration of God's love."

Successful worship is worship that celebrates Jesus Christ as our mediator.  Successful worship is worship which glorifies God as our Holy Father, who - out of unfathomable love for us - gave such grace that He poured out all of His just wrath against sin upon His only Son.  Therefore, successful worship is dependent upon the condition of our hearts, in response to that truth.  Whenever we enter into a time of singing, prayer, or Bible study, we should always preclude entry by pausing to evaluate ourselves.  No matter what stage of life, no matter what frame of mind, we need to constantly check where our hearts are in relation to God.  If there's one thing I know about myself, it's that I am a wicked human being and my heart is incredibly deceptive (Jer 17.9).  As believers, it is our responsibility to be certain that we are loving the Lord with all of our hearts, souls, and minds.  Frequent self-evaluation is necessary to ensure that we are not behaving as the Pharisees did, whose lips were quick to spout all the right answers but whose hearts were simultaneously distant from the Messiah's (Matt 15.8-9; 23:27).

So examine your heart, because if it is far from God, then worship is impossible.

The Fullness of God

Here is the angel of the world's desire

Placed on trial

To hide in shrouded alley silhouettes

With cigarette coiled

To strike at passing voices

Dark and suspect

Here is the howling ire

- King Crimson, "The Howler" (Beat, 1982)

~*~

As the story goes, during the recording of the King Crimson's 9th studio album, Robert Fripp gave Adrian Belew a copy of Jack Kerouac's On the Road and a handful of other works from the Beat movement to read for lyrical inspiration.  One of those works in particular, Allan Ginsberg's "Howl," became the direct influence for "The Howler," the second to last track on the album.

In the fashion of the Beat movement, "Howl" is a building rage against oppression and the treatment of the downtrodden.  As Ginsberg put it in "Notes Written on Finally Recording 'Howl,'" the poem was a lament for the youthful "Lamb in America," sacrificed to ravenous society - a society which Ginsberg likened to the pagan god of the Old Testament, Moloch.  The Beat Generation was a post-World War II movement notably characterized by its experimentation with drugs, alternative forms of sexuality, interest in Eastern religions (especially Buddhism), and exuberant means of self-expression.  As a result of their radical philosophy and overall conduct, the Beat poets essentially became the subject of their own works -- the ones downtrodden by mainstream society.  Twenty-five years later, King Crimson's Beat commemorated Kerouac's On the Road and referenced a number of other Beat-era writings, in celebration of the artists' passion, vision, and vitality.

Interestingly, while Belew's lyrics can be understood to sympathize with the plight of the outcasts Ginsberg glorified in "Howl" (even assuming the guise of the angel on trial in the final lines of the song), there is intentional distance between singer and subject -- perhaps in recognition of coming judgment, perhaps out of a sympathy that can understand but not fully empathize.  Either way, "The Howler" concludes with the following lines: "Here is the sacred face of rendezvous / In subway sour / Whose grand delusions prey like intellect / In lunatic minds / Intent and focused on / The long thin matches / To light the howling fire / No, no, not me / Burn, I don't wanna burn."

I think there is an interesting parallel between the lyrics of "The Howler" and Paul's letter to the church at Colosso (here we go -- spiritual application from progressive rock).  In the larger context of discussing the new life of the believer, Paul encouraged his readers to "put to death what is earthly in you" - or "put on trial," as Belew put it - in order to put on righteousness (Col 3.5).  While the aims of the Beat Generation were perhaps admirable, their pursuits were unquestionably driven by the carnal type of knowledge which Scripture regards as "earthly, unspiritual, and demonic" (Jas 3.15).  Their lifestyles were unfortunately more Romans 1 material than Galatians 5.  King Crimson's Beat walks the neutral path as far as Kerouac and Ginsberg's lifestyles are concerned, simply seeking to convey the message they began.  Modern generations are increasingly interested in the plight of the oppressed.  The mantle which Ginsburg donned in "Howl" -- purporting himself as the voice of the voiceless, the "great minds of my generation destroyed by madness" -- certainly finds similarities in Belew's echoed sentiment.

To a Christian, the type of depravity which characterized the personal lives of the Beat Generation poets is idolatry in its most obvious form: idolatry of the self, idolatry of one's own sinful passions.  It is glorification of the lusts of the flesh to their fullest realization.  While their desires to create new and unique poetry and to speak out for the marginalized are certainly worthy ambitions, the Beat Generation's godless approach reveals the condition of their hearts.  It's an easy diagnosis.

Sadly, while it is always easy to spot sinfulness in the world, it can be comparatively difficult to recognize the pet sins in our own lives -- those things which we simply don't want to give up, which keep us shackled to this world and hinder us from fully realizing our role as God's new creations (2 Cor 5.17).  Even as believers, we can still cower in the "shrouded alley silhouettes" and "strike at passing voices" whenever they come close to uncovering our hidden wickedness.  This is why Paul, desiring completeness for all believers, insisted that we put to death the passions of the flesh and be filled with the Spirit instead (Eph 5.18).  If we want to know that satisfaction, we need to forsake our sinful desire to remain in our old nature, to which we are no longer enslaved, so that we may be "rooted and grounded" in the love of God instead (Eph 3.17).  But the only way to be firmly planted in this love is to uproot one's self from the world first.

Therefore, the question I want to pose is this: what "angel of the world's desire" do you still harbor?  What idol do you need to put on trial (and ultimately condemn) in order to fully embrace Jesus the way He intended?  As modern-day believers in Christ, do we "know the love of Christ which surpasses all knowledge" so that we may be "filled with all the fullness of God?" (Eph 3.19)

American Christianity has fragmented the love of God into less of a pursuit than a compromise.  Instead of seeking, we settle.  Instead of achieving, we accept.  Our focus of joy and pleasure should be God Himself, and were that true, our worship would reflect it.  But instead, we settle for the lesser, temporal pleasures of this world, augmented only by an optimism-raising acquaintance with Jesus.  As John Piper puts it in his book, Desiring God, the problem besetting Christians is not that we are unsatisfied, but "far too easily pleased.  The enemy of worship is not that our desire for pleasure is too strong, but too weak... We have accustomed ourselves to such meager, short-lived pleasures that our capacity for joy has shriveled. And so our worship has shriveled."

During the abolitionist movement in pre-Civil War America, William Lloyd Garrison founded his anti-slavery newspaper, The Liberator, a weekly circulation that -- over the course of its thirty-three years of circulation -- would earn nationwide notoriety for its uncompromising advocacy of "immediate and complete emancipation of all slaves."  In the publication's first issue, Garrison famously wrote, "I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest - I will not equivocate - I will not excuse - I will not retreat a single inch - AND I WILL BE HEARD.  The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead."  Partially in response to criticisms he'd received for being so vocal on the issue of slavery, the passion with which Garrison delivered this creed was further fueled by the fact that the people around him who also shared his anti-slavery sympathies were not doing anything to support the abolitionists.  Whether for fear of their own reputations or simply out of halfhearted devotion, Garrison's contemporaries were reluctant to throw their weight so heavily on the side of emancipation.

Not coincidentally, Jesus had said something to the same effect some 1800 years earlier.  During the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the Pharisees -- probably fearing Roman intervention -- demanded that Jesus silence his followers from praising Him so uproariously in the streets.  Probably with a sad smile at their ignorance, our Messiah replied, "If they were to hold their tongues, the rocks would take up the cry instead" (Luke 19.40).  Our God will be glorified, whether we praise Him or not.  Nature proclaims His handiwork even when we are preoccupied with our own.  The point is this: when we tolerate our sinful habits and allow them to callous our hearts, we are effectively silencing ourselves.  We are no longer overcome with joy at the coming of the Messiah the way the disciples were.  Lest we forget, sinful habits are not simply acts of commission -- swearing, stealing, getting angry; sin is also omission -- laziness, poor stewardship, selfishness.  Perhaps we desire to accomplish good things the way Ginsberg did.  Yet, if we also practice wanton living, mentally or physically, our lives cannot be testaments of God's love.  Our ambitions have become worthless, our worship has indeed "shriveled," and the rocks and statues are mumbling as a result.

The sad thing is that, in so doing, we completely miss the greatest blessing God offers: Himself.  We become distracted by other things we think will satisfy, and our passion for righteousness becomes secondary to our passion for entertainment, emotional fulfillment, success.  The enemy of love is not hate, as is popularly understood.  The enemy of love is apathy, because it is the lack of passion.  When we grow apathetic in our Christianity, we fail to truly understand the promise God gives in the Scriptures -- that He alone is our source of completeness.

When Jesus told the rich young ruler in Mark 10 to sell everything he had and follow, He was telling the man to get rid of everything which could potentially come between him and his relationship with God.  In other words, Jesus was telling him to lay down his idols -- to pull them out of the "shrouded alley silhouettes" and put them on trial.  But instead, hanging his head, the man walked away.  Clearly, his desire for God was swallowed by his desire for his possessions and his status.  He was too easily satisfied with what the world had to offer him.

Again, it is very easy to point out the man's problem -- after all, his story in the Bible is a perfect object lesson for spiritual priorities.  But are we really doing any better?  Instead of earnestly seeking after righteousness, we compartmentalize our faith in order to allow ourselves the American freedom of pursuing earthly ambition.  As Derek Webb put it, we need to repent of our "pursuit of America's dream," of "confusing peace and idolatry" by craving our own comfort and our own preferences ("I Repent," I See Things Upside Down).  We certainly make room for easy ministry and Sunday attendance, but our day-to-day lives are lacking in true heart-worship.  We like to feel comfortable, content, and safe in our spirituality, and so we justify and give the minimum effort.  We think we're doing well if we pray before meals and display our optimistic smile to the strangers we pass, but in reality, we are only cheapening the love of Christ by not letting it consume our lives.  When our lives revolve around our schedules and not around Him, we take God's love for granted and consider it less of a treasure than it truly is.

In his book, Radical, David Platt argues that in so compromising the nature of our Savior's love, we are "molding Jesus into our image," or conforming Him to our expectations -- as Webb termed it, "domesticating You until You look just like me."  Albeit unintentionally, we make Him look exactly like us because "that is whom we are most comfortable with," Platt continues, "and the danger now is that when we gather in our church buildings to sing and lift up our hands in worship, we may not actually be worshiping the Jesus of the Bible.  Instead, we may be worshiping ourselves."  This is the type of idolatry that is hardest to recognize -- especially when we ourselves are the perpetrators.  By reducing Jesus to a white, middle-class American who only requires a regular tithe and kind gestures, we are worshipping our own halfhearted ideal of what our faith should represent, and not the Jesus who would ask us to do hard things -- certainly not Savior who brings us completion.

Let's return to the story of the rich young ruler.  In regards to this passage, Platt writes: "Jesus was not trying to strip this man [the rich young ruler] of all his pleasure.  Instead he was offering him the satisfaction of eternal treasure" - a better, fuller treasure, with intrinsic and everlasting joy!  The second half of Jesus' invitation is that, after selling all he had to the poor, the young man would have "treasure in heaven."  Unfortunately, not unlike the rich man, we want immediate gratification -- not the promise of future reward.  What we fail to recognize is that fulfillment is not something we have to wait for until we get to Heaven.  God, in His infinite wisdom, has blessed us now with "every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" through the person of His Son (Eph 1.3).  This directly correlates to the parable Jesus told the disciples of the treasure hidden in a field.  When the man in the parable stumbles upon it, he immediately sells all he has in order to purchase that field, just so that he can obtain the treasure -- a treasure which was worth more to him than everything else he owned (Matt 13.44).

That is Jesus to us.  He is something worth losing everything for.

For a mature believer, the love of God will naturally become the chief goal and the only treasure of his life.  Idolatry is a sin which takes place within the heart (Ezekiel 14.3, 4, 7; Jas 4.2-3; 2 Cor 10.5), and we do it when we value anything more highly than we value our Savior.  After all, it is impossible to serve two masters, because we will inevitably love one and hate the other (Matt 6.24).  But seeking after lesser things can only be temporarily invigorating (Ecc 2.10, 11).  Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics (the law of entropy) doesn't just apply to the physical things in this world: it also applies to our ambitions -- love, success, reputation.  These things will die and fail us, and if we pursue anything less than to be constantly filled with the love of Christ, the fullness of God, we are merely striving after the wind (Ecc 5.16).  But on the other hand, if we are passionately seeking the love of God, we will never be empty.  We have been given the same "living water" which Christ offered the Samaritan woman in John 4, after all.  Instead of keeping it corked in a bottle, to horde (via head knowledge), we should drink and be full (via heart application).  As the Psalmist wrote, "Taste and see that the Lord is good.  Fear Him, you His holy people, for those who fear Him lack nothing" (34.8, 9).  This is more than just a statement of God's provision.  This is a statement about true enjoyment.

Barnes' commentary on the New Testament records the following: "We may aspire to being filled with all the fulness [sic] of God. We may long for it; pant for it; strive for it; pray for it--and we shall not strive in vain. Though we shall not attain all we wish; though there will be an infinity beyond what we can understand in this world, yet there will be enough attained to reward all our efforts, and to fill us with love and joy and peace. The love of God our Saviour is indeed an illimitable ocean; but we may see enough of it in this world to lead us to adore and praise God with overflowing hearts."  Nothing else but the love of God can truly fill our hearts to the point where they overflow.  Nothing else but God's love is big enough, and nothing else can satisfy.

How about you?  Do you insatiably desire more of Him or are you allowing yourself to settle for lesser things?  Do you truly want to be satisfied, or are you content with the things that will pass away?  For the Beat poets, life became a study in wanton living, dissatisfaction, and endless searching.  But for the believer, the treasure which will bring our lives meaning is fully at hand.  However, we can't simply take hold of it: it must take hold of us.  It must consume our entire beings, our hearts, souls, and minds (Matt 22.37).  Only then are we able to be joyful, thankful, wholehearted worshippers of the Father.

Spiritual Warfare and Our Responsibilities

Two things happened recently that prompted me this post. The first was a discussion which took place in my English Seminar II concerning the Devil and his role in various faiths, and the second was an offhanded opportunity I had to watch a documentary called Return of the Nephilim, a production by Chuck Missler and Koinonia House ministries (khouse.org). The close conjunction of these too seemingly inconsequential events sparked the meditation which led me to write this piece.

Event No. 1

"If you really think about it," my professor, a former Catholic and a self-proclaimed atheist, told our class, "the Devil plays a very minor role in the Bible. He was really more of a product of the Middle Ages."

For a moment, I found myself agreeing. Halfway between a swig of coffee and a yawn, with a textbook open in my lap, I thought about the predominance of man's sinfulness in the Scriptures, the beatitudes, the concepts of righteous living in the epistles and spiritual gifts, all of which pertain to Christian living. Besides, just about anyone has at least heard of the ridiculous witch trials of the Middle Ages and the prominent mystical beliefs, melded with pagan traditions of the time period. Such superstitions, so deviant from real Biblical truth, certainly reinforced the Devil as a mortal enemy of both mankind and God Himself.

But then I remembered God's prophetic statement to the serpent in the Garden of Eden, that one day the Seed of the woman would crush the deceiver's head, despite the fact that the serpent would bruise his heel (Gen 3.15). I remembered the direct role Satan played in the temptations of Job and Jesus Himself, and the fact that the Messiah spent more time warning about hell than teaching on heaven. I remembered the frequent New Testament demon possessions, Paul's constant discussions of spiritual warfare in his epistles, and – last but not least – Satan's final defeat in the book of Revelation. Unquestionably, he is more than just a bookend character. Satan is the antithesis to the entire story of redemption, and therefore integral to its plot and conclusion.

It was one of those moments where I wanted to raise my hand and offer an alternative point of view, but organizing my thoughts had taken too long and the class had already moved on to another topic.

Event No. 2

A good friend of mine acquired a DVD copy of Chuck Missler's Return of the Nephilim and suggested, with a wry grin, that we watch it. To be perfectly honest, I think both of us sat down expecting to make sarcastic comments about the holes in Missler's theory, but instead we came away with more to ponder than either of us expected.

There are a couple fairly obvious reasons for our preconceived notions. First of all, the premise of Missler's Nephilim lecture is that U.F.O.s are potentially real and directly connected to the Bible. Yes, you read that correctly. Like many of you, realists or Christians or both, I've spent years denying the veracity of theories on alien life. In fact, I have a family member who is obsessed with alien movies, U.F.O. sightings, and government conspiracies. We've butted heads many times over these issues of paranormality, and I've done my best to offer rational Biblical explanations for these otherwise inexplicable phenomena. The second reason for my skepticism was that Missler and the K-house organization staunchly hold the pre-tribulation (Left Behind) view of Revelation, and although that is also my general perspective on eschatology, I'm very cautious about fire and brimstone preachers and organizations which I fear are far too obsessed with current events and far too disinterested with rationality.

In his presentation (which is available in its entirety for viewing on YouTube -- part one can be found here), Missler spent a lot of time debunking popular objections to some of the more renowned conspiracy theories, and presented a surprising amount of additional evidence of extra-terrestrial activity. The vast majority of this material is clearly intended to shake viewers (AKA skeptical Christians) loose of their stony rejection of the possibility of real U.F.O.s, and Missler certainly made a very compelling argument for their existence.

That was largely the preamble, however. What was more fascinating about his theory was the connection he drew between modern-day U.F.O. sightings and the Biblical record of a hybrid race of men and angels called the Nephilim. I won't get into all the research, because you can watch the presentation for yourself, but some of the specific Biblical references for study are Genesis 6.4, Numbers 13.33, Jude 6, and 2 Peter 2.4-10. Not unlike the diverse interpretations of Revelation, the Nephilim are also subject to various opinions - namely the early church view, in which the text is interpreted literally, and the popular theory taught by most seminaries today, that "sons of God" and "daughters of man" merely refer to unions between the lines of Seth and Cain respectively. Close investigation of the Hebrew and Greek words in these texts, however, would point more toward the literal interpretation than the latter – that "sons of God," or fallen angels, mated with "daughters of man" to create a race of giants (the literal translation of "nephilim") which were worshipped and feared during their existence on earth (possibly the origin of the Greek demigods). This is the key principle behind Missler's theory: the very real interactions of demons with mankind, and the elaborate attempt of Satan to deter man from worshipping God alone.

As I said to my friend after turning off the TV, "So the takeaway is that U.F.O.s, provable or otherwise, are just another means of demons trying to distract humans from the truth." Whether or not you can call U.FO.s Nephilim or not, Missler's real point was that we as believers in Christ need to be constantly alert in order to spot the trickery of the Devil. Satan is neither a myth of the Middle Ages nor a devious little man with a tail and a pitchfork. By replacing the knowledge of Satan and his minions for theories of extra-terrestrial invasion or hauntings, man effectively swallows the lie Satan wants him to buy: that there is no such thing as evil.

So what do we do with all this information?

What I don't want you to do is worry about Chuck Missler's research. His documentary is definitely worth watching, but I don't want you to get caught up in proving or disproving the theory. The Nephilim might be an interesting point of study, but they are not the main point of this discussion. What we need to do is this: acknowledge the very real spiritual warfare in which we engage every day. That includes the demonic oppression which, felt or otherwise, does surround us; and yes, the activities of Satan himself.

It is no coincidence that Peter, in discussing the fallen angels and their interactions with mankind, also warns the recipients of his epistle to be constantly alert and vigilant, for our adversary the Devil “prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5.8). Too often, I've encountered Christians who assume the mantle of East Coast (AKA Easy-Comfy) theology and consider Satan and his minions to be mere metaphors of the trials of this world. I too have been guilty of the “I'm my own worst enemy” thought process, which is only true to a certain degree. Yes, we were once dead in our trespasses and enemies of God, and yes our adulterous pursuit of the lusts of the flesh is the result of the "sin which dwells within" (Rom 7.20). However, just as Paul warned the Ephesians, our struggle is not simply with our own mentality or spiritual deficiencies, but ultimately against the "cosmic powers over this present darkness" and the "spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (6.12). Don't discount Satan just because you don't see demon possession happening around you like you're Anthony Hopkins. Don't let your guard down just because the hair on the back of your neck doesn't stand up around the practice of unseen evil.

Let me be very clear. This is not intended to be a “demons behind every bush” type of discussion. You don't need to toss salt over your shoulder, because Satan won't literally be hovering there. However, I know for a fact that we as E C Christians take demonology and mysticism far too lightly, as though they are things which died out in the days of the early church. “East Coast” theology, by the way, is not a scientific term (or a term at all, for that matter, but you're welcome to steal it from me) but I think it's appropriate for describing a business-as-usual type of faith.  The U.S. East Coast is esteemed to be the epitome of normalcy, unlike the vast stretch of country beyond the Appalachians.  There's a reason why rock stars sing about Hollywood, California and not Raleigh, North Carolina.  Throughout history and literature, Americans dreamed of the west and its mysterious, unknown qualities.  It was glorified by the Western, and remains a place of wonder to those of us who make our homes in the most densely populated sections of the East Coast ("What?  They have space?!").  However, the west is also a place where some of the limitations we impose upon the spiritual realm are stripped away, simply by interaction with more obviously godless living than we encounter back home.  Here, we simply see blandness and misery; out there, we see real evil.

My wife (long before she was my wife) went on a missions trip with our church out west in New Mexico to work on a Navajo reservation, partnering with a mission that is managed by a family affiliated with our church. In preparing for the trip, the head missionary from the reserve warned the group about the level of spiritual oppression they would encounter. This was not just the type of rejection you would face trying to hand out tracts at the Ocean City boardwalk in New Jersey – this was a type of oppression in which the local shamans would attempt to put curses on you if they heard you say the name of Jesus. This is a place where too much illness, misfortune, and even death occurs to be simply the result of bad luck. Though many of us Easy-Comfy thinkers discount such practices as trickery or superstition, my wife and the others who went on the trip can attest to the very real demonic activity in which the Navajo people engage. What they call “spirit worship” is really interacting with the “present darkness” that Paul speaks of, or forces that stand in opposition to God.

Although those of us who are literary-minded (okay, maybe just me) don't like our heroes and villains in novels and movies to simply be binary opposites, the either-or dichotomy does exist in our world, even if it is sometimes hard to distinguish the defining line. It's not a popular opinion, but the truth is that any alternative faith is against God if it does not confess the name of Christ as the only name “under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4.12). As a side note, although we do want to embrace all people regardless of their religious beliefs and love them the way Jesus does, any notion of coexisting (as the bumper stickers encourage) is contrary to the message of Christ and ultimately sinful for those of us who call Him savior to follow. That type of live-and-let-live mentality is what led the Israelites into idolatry, and it has the same adverse effect upon modern-day Christians as well.

The point is this: spiritual warfare isn't a relic of the Dark Ages, and it isn't reserved for under–developed countries. Although we don't typically see it on the East Coast, it is very real, it is unquestionably among us, and it is Satan's principle objective to distract us from his doings. He wants to create lazy, unobservant Christians who worry more about how many times they read their Bible this week and whether or not they should go to church this coming Sunday than truly live for the Kingdom of God. Satan wants us to be comfortable, and I believe that is one of the primary reasons why God allows trials and sufferings to dominate our lives here on earth – not for our misery, but to keep us alert, and to keep us constantly dependent upon Him.

So be sober, and be vigilant. Actively resist Satan's temptations and seek righteousness, and he will flee from you (Jas 4.7). To the one who earnestly seeks Him, God will be a capable and available help in all times of weakness, uncertainty, and fear (Psa 46.1).

ADDENDUM:

An intriguing account of demonic presence in contemporary times and a practical discussion of what our attitude/approach toward it should be (esp. 6:00ff): Healing and Exorcism - desiringgod.org/blog