Above is a dedication page composed by a prominent individual. It demonstrates the sentiment of a large portion of secular society. That “if you love me, then you’ll always make me feel good about myself.
There is nothing in this sentiment that demonstrates wisdom or insight. It merely demonstrates unbridled human sinful nature:
Luke 6:32 – “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them.”
Proverbs 28:23 – “Whoever rebukes a person will in the end gain favor rather than one who has a flattering tongue.”
Unfortunately, these truths are becoming diluted by society’s endless onslaught. Most believers agree that morality is devolving. Some of us believe that we’re on a fast-track back to our primal and animalistic roots. If we consider what is called: “enlightenment” or “progress” we often find a surrender to lust, deceit and self-serving values. Values that arguably are not values at all, but base instincts and a natural consequence of flesh & blood.
Given all of that, the idea that love equates to feeling good should be repulsive. Values that run contrary to our base instincts are a hallmark of Christianity. We’re not a cat or dog that we should prefer those that rub our bellies and feed us treats. We are children of God, and made in His image. Our minds and loyalties should not be for sale.
Proverbs: 27:6 – “Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.”
Much to the contrary, we should cherish the “wounds from a friend” and covet their concern. That is the image of true love, because love “..is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.”
REJOICES WITH THE TRUTH! That is a much different concept than always making me feel good about myself. Because, for all of us, the truth is we shouldn’t always feel good about ourselves. That is a sure sign that we are deceived, even delusional.
So when you consider your friends, and the times they’ve shown no concern for your improprieties, but rather applauded your plunge into self-destructive behavior, consider carefully whether that is really a desirable form of “love”. That you not be a better person, and perhaps be worse, for having known them. Is that what you call love? If so, then don’t be surprised when it doesn’t last, when it fails, and when for all of the “love” loneliness still reigns.
I only really have one point of disagreement.
The comment ” Some of us believe that we’re on a fast-track back to our primal and animalistic roots ” is not actually Biblical in the strictest sense. We do not have “animalistic roots” to go back to, since God formed us out of the dust of the ground.
It would be more accurate to say with Paul (Romans chapter 1-3) that we supress the Truth in ungodliness and unrighteousness. We are given over to our sin. What we are doing is what we have done since the Garden. We want to be “like God.”
Thanks Matthew! You make a great point.
I’ve tended to liken our flesh nature to primal and instinctive animal instincts we see in, well, animals. When trying to reconcile the “whoever finds me will kill me” in Genesis 4:14 it seems consistent with scripture that Cain may have been talking about “people” who were not made in the image of God. The terms “sons of God” and “daughters of men” in Genesis are too ambiguous to throw ourselves on any tracks over. “Pre-Adamism” has a challenging history, and was the justification for some pretty terrible things, but how people used it doesn’t necessarily prove that it’s wrong. I won’t say that I’ve adopted it – if I were to I’d not find any legitimacy to claiming that anyone today is inferior in this way, we have the flood in between – but human nature does tend to look pretty animal-like when people regress.
2 Peter 2:12: “They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish.”
That being said I’ll consider changing the article. It’s important that fringe ideas be discussed as such and not hastily become mingled with formal exegesis. I meant to allude to a “dog-eat-dog”/”dog-love-dog” sort of superficial and self-serving instinct being confused with “love”. I tried to share that angle in a sermon a while back and my wife said it pretty much flopped. It’s hard to discuss anything that resembles “evolution” without alienating a lot of believers. All of us have different limits before we begin to tear our robes. Notice I said “devolve” in the article instead of “evolve”. It’s quite the charged term for many believers.