Wynkoop, love and the church

[Roland Hearn]

In the book review thread we have discussed Wynkoop's Theology of Love. It has been something of a revelation to me to see how clearly she understood the issues of love in a frame work sometimes at odds with theologians that had gone before her. She very much opened the door for a new dynamic in understanding holiness and digging out its daily application. I made the suggestion that we discuss the book more thoroughly looking specifically at how the truths she presents ought to shape the way we see the church. While I tried to dodge the bullet on leading such a discussion Hans would have no part in it:basic03 and it has fallen to me to introduce such a discussion.

I plan to quote a passage from the book, working systematically through it, and then throw each passage open to discussion centering on these issues:

What does this do to our understanding of love? How does this impact us personally? What should the church look like if we were to apply this truth as a practic rather than just a theory?

Feel free to go where ever you feel led but I do want us to wrestle with the application side of our discussion.

In the very first line of the first chapter, "The Clue" Wynkoop poses:
"The question which occasions the writing of this book is, simply, Is there a principle of interpretation - a hermeneutic-which can explain Christian doctrine and Christine life in the same system without either one undercutting the integrity of the other?

Her answer is that "love" is the only such hermeneutic and that is what the book is about. To thoroughly understand love will change everything we do at every level. That is my claim. Our church, built around such a thorough going understand, will be different then it currently is. Is there anyone out there that would like to join me in this discussion?

[Hans Deventer]

In the very first line of the first chapter, "The Clue" Wynkoop poses: "The question which occasions the writing of this book is, simply, Is there a principle of interpretation - a hermeneutic-which can explain Christian doctrine and Christine life in the same system without either one undercutting the integrity of the other?

Her answer is that "love" is the only such hermeneutic and that is what the book is about. To thoroughly understand love will change everything we do at every level. That is my claim. Our church, built around such a thorough going understand, will be different then it currently is. Is there anyone out there that would like to join me in this discussion.

Her basic presupposition is of course that there is a huge credibility gap between Christian doctrine and Christine life. From that point on, the question arises as posed above.

Maybe we should start with the question if we agree with the gap? For if there is no gap, there is no question and no need for such a principle of interpretation other than we already have.

To answer, I for one would agree and I think that little has changed since 1972. We're still facing a huge gap between our pretensions as the Body of Christ on the one hand, and the daily reality on the other. That reflects very negatively on the image of the church in the broader society, is a huge stumbling block of evangelistic efforts and in fact a crying shame. As Rob Bell said, "'Christian'" is a great noun but a bad adjective".

So we have a problem.

And agreeing with the proposed hermeneutic, we'd still need to define very clearly what we mean by "love". Perhaps "agapè" would be a better word.

[Roland Hearn]

And agreeing with the proposed hermeneutic, we'd still need to define very clearly what we mean by "love". Perhaps "agapè" would be a better word.

I don't think we will go very far into the book and the definition will not flow easily from the discussion. That is why I love the book so much it forces you to have a definition that you can walk around in.

I think it is also a strength of both the book and the love paradigm that once you have arrived at a workable definition there is not a page of scripture not a moment of life that it does not fit in. This is precisely why I propose the discussion, I think we grasp to easily at a theology and a dogma that skirts the issues of daily living. This first sentence had me thrilled.

[Brenda Jackson]

Roland

I would very much like to go through the book with you, (I have just started it) and hope that it will bring a fruitful exchange between my views, which I believe that Wesley held, and the opposing views of all on this board. I hope that it will prove to be appreciated just how useful it is to have ones thinking challenged, almost as useful or even more than, finding those in agreement, in our search for the truth in Christ. I have already moved to the theory that love is at the center of everything and am looking forward to hearing Midred's understanding of entire sanctification.

During the discourse, we will usefully have an opportunity to see love in action through the way that the opposition of views is handled. Will it be divisive (Mildred's first point that I have just read) and therefore unloving or will the claims of holiness here, stand up to such rigorous testing yet enable us to keep in fellowship? We shall see.

[Roland Hearn]

Brenda,
By all means join the discussion but please understand that the discussion here is centered around the practical application of the construct of love. I for one do not want an endless debate about sinless perfection.

[Brad Mercer]

Her basic presupposition is of course that there is a huge credibility gap between Christian doctrine and Christian life. From that point on, the question arises as posed above.

Maybe we should start with the question if we agree with the gap?

I would further suggest that the people of whom we should ask that question are not ourselves as the presumed possessors and dispensers of this "perfect love", but rather that we should ask it of the presumed recipients. In other words, we ask the presumed recipients, whether visitors to our church, or our neighbors, coworkers or the member of our household: "When you've been in contact with that person or group of people (or "with us"), do they (we) leave you feeling loved?"

I suspect their answer will be no a lot more often than our answer will be. I further suspect that our response to that answer will be more likely defensive than repentant.

All that to say that I believe there is indeed a gap and that it's probably a larger gap than we imagine.

Brad

[Brenda Jackson]

My view is that entire sanctification is the practical application of the construct of love. Are you saying that the discussion can only take place around a circumcised set of subjects (and therefore already divisive)?

[Roland Hearn]

Brenda,
I started this thread with a clearly stated series of questions. I have a desire for us to discuss how we apply out theoretical understanding of love to the church in which we are a part. You can tackle that however you see fit. But if you come to this discussion accusingly strident I for one will ignore you. I have no problem discussing the things you want to talk about and have done so but I would dearly love for this thread to be about how we apply our relationship to Christ, His transforming power and the grace of God to the church and how we see Wynkoop addressing those issues.

[Garth Lahana]

Is there anyone out there that would like to join me in this discussion?

I am not a theologian, but am looking forward to following this thread!

Garth

[Hans Deventer]

For anyone who wants to join, the book can still be found at http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyctr/books/2601-2700/HDM2663.PDF

Makes for easier quoting too!

[Chris Baker]

For anyone who wants to join, the book can still be found at http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyctr/books/2601-2700/HDM2663.PDF

Makes for easier quoting too!
Thanks for this, Hans. It's very helpful for those of us who are students/pastors/fill-in-the-blank and don't have extra money for books. :basic01

[Ryan Scott]

We're still facing a huge gap between our pretensions as the Body of Christ on the one hand, and the daily reality on the other.


I'd say that is due to the very fact that we don't have a widely understood application of our doctrine. That's what makes this book and this idea so important. While, "Christian" has remained an identity that people have to describe themselves, it has come to define more of an intellectual assent than a committed lifestyle.

[Ian Gentles]

I have always felt church talks about a love that it dosent practice. This may seem a harsh statment but neverthless i beleive it to be true, sadly. Love is a plain requierment, 1 Corinthins 13, so what hinders us from being what we are required to be?
Love is a going out of our way to help and support others, as God the Father did in sending us Jesus. Love is not necceraly an emotion but a practical outworking of doctrine of love.

[Randy McRoberts]

When I was at NTS in the mid-to-late seventies, Dr. Wynkoop was theologian-in-residence. My theology prof was Dr. J Kenneth Grider. There seemed to be some sort of theological beef between the two. Of course, Dr. Wynkoop's book was all the thing at the time.

Dr. Wynkoop said that God is holy love. Dr. Grider answered back that God is loving holiness. Is that distinction an important one to understand as we represent God in our world?

[Ryan Scott]

Dr. Wynkoop said that God is holy love. Dr. Grider answered back that God is loving holiness. Is that distinction an important one to understand as we represent God in our world?


I think one allows us more control (or at least rationale for it) and the other requires us to let go of control (which is obviously very scary).

[Ian Gentles]

I think one allows us more control (or at least rationale for it) and the other requires us to let go of control (which is obviously very scary).

I beleive love has to be a concious effort on our part we have to want to do it, to obey the doctrine. We are to be in control of our actions or we couldent be accountable for them.

[Hans Deventer]

Dr. Wynkoop said that God is holy love. Dr. Grider answered back that God is loving holiness. Is that distinction an important one to understand as we represent God in our world?

Yes. It's crucial even. If God is most of all holy, even in a loving way, it would mean that at the core of His being, God isn't love. For love would only be qualifying holiness.

If, however, God is holy love, than He indeed is love at the core of His being. And I believe it is exactly His love that makes Him holy.

8 "How can I give you up, Ephraim?
How can I hand you over, Israel?
How can I treat you like Admah?
How can I make you like Zeboiim?
My heart is changed within me;
all my compassion is aroused.

9 I will not carry out my fierce anger,
nor will I turn and devastate Ephraim.
For I am God, and not man—
the Holy One among you.
I will not come in wrath. (Hosea 11:8-9)

[Ian Gentles]

I agree God is holy at his very core and this is so important. Wesley saw perfect love as holiness rather than an experiance. God is Love therefore God is holy. Pure love dosent harm only does good, hard for us mortales the grapple with

[Brenda Jackson]

My internet copy only goes up to page 281.

[Hans Deventer]

Dear friends,

I love the discussion, but I do feel we (and I include myself) have taken a different direction than the original question Roland asked, and most certainly left the structured approach he tried to set up. So I'm going a few posts of the thread to the book review page, because it absolutely relates to Dr. Wynkoop's book.

[Hans Deventer]

My internet copy only goes up to page 281.

That's OK, Brenda. The page numbering differs from the printed copy, but checking with that one, as far as I can see, it is complete.

[Roland Hearn]

I think one allows us more control (or at least rationale for it) and the other requires us to let go of control (which is obviously very scary).

That is a good observation. I think it precisely the kind of application of our theology that we need to discuss.

In reality there ought not be a difference between the two however when love is the adjective it leaves room for a legalistic bias that really shouldn't exist.

[Ryan Scott]

Yeah, holiness is definable, while love is open-ended. We get really nervous when we delve into things we can't quite get our minds around.

Love doesn't really allow us to define who's in and who's out or who's worthy and who's not. That's really troublesome for us humans.

[Roland Hearn]

Yeah, holiness is definable, while love is open-ended. We get really nervous when we delve into things we can't quite get our minds around.

Love doesn't really allow us to define who's in and who's out or who's worthy and who's not. That's really troublesome for us humans.

That is quite astute Ryan and precisely the issues. We are called into a relationship with God that allows him to define us, that means we loose control. A holiness defined by the law is our attempt to reintroduce control, a holiness defined by love is entirely other and if is very scary.

[Ian Gentles]

we are defined by love, do we pratice or do we not :

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Dwayne was fortunate to have Dr. Wynkoop as a professor, but I bow out. I have not read the book you are mentioning.

[Ryan Scott]

Dwayne was fortunate to have Dr. Wynkoop as a professor, but I bow out. I have not read the book you are mentioning.


You don't have to leave. I haven't read it either. I bought it this summer and I'll have to read it over Christmas for Doctrine of Holiness in the Spring, but I figured I can at least comment on the ideas that are brought up.

[Roland Hearn]

In the quoted passage I want to look at next, found on page 17 in the hard copy and page 11 in the online version http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyctr/books/2601-2700/HDM2663.PDF. Wynkoop is discussing the issue of freedom of individuality enshrined in an effective understanding of love. She does this as a counter point to her well worded proposition that "almost any significant passage could illustrate almost any central doctrine." This proclamation she makes to enforce the idea that Wesley has a "Rotunda Theology," rather than a "Stairstep" one. That makes it hard to analyse for there is no clear separation in theological points - for all are bound up in the idea of love. An individual could mistakenly, then, think that Wesley's theology is blurry and its adherents lacking in diversity - to counter that she says this:

Let it not be imagined, however, that Wesley’s emphasis on love cancels out definition. No Christian doctrine is neutralized by love, nor its sharp line of identity feathered off by it. Any concept of love, which tended to erode way rational integrity had short shrift in Wesley’s hand. Christian doctrines did "come alive” in human experience, but that is a far cry from the dissolution of doctrine in a mystical fog.

Nor did love, for Wesley, cancel out controversy, or drain off creative tensions in human social relations, whether religious, home, church, or any other. Love was not a soft, permissive cover-up of human ‘personality, as explosive as it might be. Love or holiness as he interpreted it, was not the end of wholesome, even intense human reactions but rather the discipling of them. Christian love creates an atmosphere in which all the creative conflicts may not only exist but be matured and fully utilized without tearing apart the fabric of Christian unity.

Wesley’s “love” would belong to the same kind of thing that God’s love is, because that is where Wesley got the idea. It creates freedom and achievement. It “takes on” anything that would destroy it. It has poise in, and thrives on, the wholesome give-and take of persons in relationship.

I think that is an incredibly potent and telling statement. It says something about the way we relate to each other particularly the issues upon which we disagree. But more it says we should disagree. However even more than that it lays down the foundation for understanding the incredible worth of an individual that is found in a Wesleyan construct.

That for me is the essence of the human component of the church and what we must focus on if we are going to reach a post modern world.

Your thoughts.

[Ian Gentles]

Sounds facitating description of Wesleys theology. "Rotunda theology" is a helpfull description

[Ryan Scott]

I like the implication that what makes a relationship enjoyable and fulfilling is the commitment of each party to love. I've found that more and more in my own life, when I don't get along with someone, there is a deficiency of love in either them or me.

[Roland Hearn]

Sounds facitating description of Wesleys theology. "Rotunda theology" is a helpfull description

Yeh I really like that too. I think that is what makes it a perfect fit for the post-modern mind. Post moderns find things that are interconnected much more compelling than that which is lineal in thought. And, of course, love is the centre of the rotunda around which everything spins. When you keep that balance there is a lot less to explain in theology.

[Roland Hearn]

One more passage to close out chapter one. This is found on page 18 in the hard copy so I guess page 12 online.

The very nature of sin is love's perversion which makes the self the object of its own dedication.

While there is much more in this opening chapter that Wynkoop uses as "clues" to the central theme of Wesley's theology this statement grabs me because it is a key statement in understanding sin outside of a legal matrix. What does this statement suggest to you?

[Ian Gentles]

Sounds like love turned inwards to me, I love only self and not God and others so it is imperfect love. Perfect love is unselfish and is directed towards God and others! How am i doing?

[Hans Deventer]

The very nature of sin is love's perversion which makes the self the object of its own dedication.

While there is much more in this opening chapter that Wynkoop uses as "clues" to the central theme of Wesley's theology this statement grabs me because it is a key statement in understanding sin outside of a legal matrix. What does this statement suggest to you?

That sin is never anything original, but always the perversion of something good. And yes, it is relational to the core.

[Ian Gentles]

That sin is never anything original, but always the perversion of something good. And yes, it is relational to the core.


Sin is a perversion of all things good, whether it be love or creation itself. We are inwardly motivated to satisfy self, so all good things suffer

[Roland Hearn]

Yes true enough but what Wynkoop is saying, and what she is saying that Wesley is saying is, that love is the core of all good things. Therefore sin is in fact entirely relational and only coincidentally legal. I think that has fairly stunning implications.

[Ryan Scott]

I like to think of love as unselfishness and sin as selfishness, when it's all boiled down. Dedicating your unselfish aims towards yourself is an impossibility.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Dr. Wyncoop seemed to feel that many are competing for certain gifts, etc. but Paul wanted to lay out a far better way for them. Then we go on into the Love Chapter. But, "What do we do with that love? We surely should use it to win souls to the Lord. Charity (love) is love in action. You may have to use love to meet needs before you are able to lead someone to the Lord.

[Ryan Scott]

You may have to use love to meet needs before you are able to lead someone to the Lord.


See this seems contrary to the Biblical model. For Jesus love was not a means to an end, love was everything. I believe that we are called to love and if we love and the person never becomes a Christian we haven't failed.

I just think we do God a disservice when we make God's greatest gift, love, into a tool by which we accomplish other things.

[Roland Hearn]

I like to think of love as unselfishness and sin as selfishness, when it's all boiled down. Dedicating your unselfish aims towards yourself is an impossibility.

Well yes I think I would agree. I would very quickly define "selfishness" though to separate it from self awareness, self worth, self identity. I think Wynkoop does that too. Selfishness is the placing of our distorted ego needs above love. When we do that it is almost impossible to love effectively. What we are attempting to do is have the distortion, created by seperation from God, in our psyche satisfied. It never can be. Love, however, transforms replacing that distortion with an understanding of ourselves that refects the way God sees us.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

If we fail to love when we should, we have failed. But, I believe that works would also follow love, if we have the means to do something to help a person that needs help, and we will not do it. I might love a person dearly, but I should also show that love by helping them, or meeting a need if it is at all possible for me to do do. In fact, we are told to do that. Why do we go into a country teaching agriculture, digging wells for the, buying sewing machines, etc. We want to help them become able to support themselves and their families. When people are sick, needy, hungry, etc. it is hard for them to settle down and listen to the gospel telling them about a Savu=iour tht loves them. We do what we do because of the love of God that is shed abroad in our hearts.
But, christ wants us to be His hands, etc. extended to others to me needs and lead them to the Cross.

[Ryan Scott]

Why do we go into a country teaching agriculture, digging wells for the, buying sewing machines, etc. We want to help them become able to support themselves and their families.


You're very right, but I think sometimes we forget or worse, we don't know that if we do this, we are sharing the gospel with them. Loving others is the gospel; love and grace is the good news.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Ryan, we are very aware of why we are going into a country doing the things we do. First, we try to meet their human needs, and then we can tell them about our Savior, when they see that we truly love them. That is one way of "going into all the world and preach the gospel." Otherwise, it is "What you do, speaks so loud, I cannot hear what you say." But, our actions, stemming from our love, makes them want to hear what we say. But, the root of it is our love for Christ, and our desire to be like Him.

[Ryan Scott]

This thread kind of got hijacked, so we should probably get back to the real issue. I was just trying to illustrate how we can quickly make something other than love the preeminent issue.

[Brad Mercer]

Sin as love's perversion suggests, among other things, that the sinner should be an object of compassion rather than condemnation. His sin is not simply a violation of some arbitrary rule, with an arbitrary punishment arbitrarily attached to it just because the lawgiver says so. The sinner, in making self the object of its own dedication, is not only replacing God and neighbor as the objects of his love, but is also replacing God as the giver of love to him, the sinner. We love because he first loved us. The self that can only really receive love from himself, who has not allowed himself to be loved by God, finds himself infinitely, incurably needy.

It is inadequate to simply tell the sinner to follow the rules better. We have to teach the sinner that the love he seeks so unsatisfyingly to provide for himself is provided freely and in perfect fullness by the father God who made him and values him. He can feel loved and he can only love others adequately to the extent that he allows himself to be loved by Someone outside himself, and to allow that Other's love to define for him who he is and what he's worth. And in the meantime, we have to keep coming back to those truths for ourselves, as well.

At least that's how I see it. I think.

I think this perspective changes the way we approach evangelism and discipleship efforts. A correct prognosis and prescription requires first a correct diagnosis.

Brad

One more passage to close out chapter one. This is found on page 18 in the hard copy so I guess page 12 online.

The very nature of sin is love's perversion which makes the self the object of its own dedication.

While there is much more in this opening chapter that Wynkoop uses as "clues" to the central theme of Wesley's theology this statement grabs me because it is a key statement in understanding sin outside of a legal matrix. What does this statement suggest to you?

[Marsha Lynn]

I'm jumping in here late for the initial discussion, but I don't see where anyone has mentioned Wynkoop's definition of love, which is one of the most beneficial things I took away from the book -- "impartial goodwill"

impartial - it's for everyone: rich, poor, Christian, sinner, infidel, hypocrite, friendly, hostile, obnoxious, disgusting. There are no favorites for this type of love.

goodwill - this isn't gushy affection; it is simply a "live and let live" wish for good to come to the other person and a willingness to be part of the fulfillment of that wish.

I find it much easier to extend goodwill toward one and all than any other definition of love I have encountered. I may not feel up to interacting with a particular person, but I can sincerely hope they encounter someone today who will speak a friendly word to them. I can wish good upon even the most obnoxious person that crosses my path. And once I have envisioned good things coming their way, it's much easier to smile and accept the role of being one of those good things.

Marsha

[Ian Gentles]

Can we also sin in seeking God's love for ourselfs, admitedly often prayer life can be self centred a lot!

[Ryan Scott]

Can we also sin in seeking God's love for ourselfs, admitedly often prayer life can be self centred a lot!


For me the goal is to be totally selfless, although I'm resigned to the fact that I won't ever get all the way there.

[Hans Deventer]

Can we also sin in seeking God's love for ourselves, admittedly often prayer life can be self centred a lot!

Before we take out the whips to chastise ourselves, let's start with the fact that we were MADE to live in God's love. The very fact that we seek it, comes from Him!

Now the next thing is of course, that His love is meant to flow through us, and not end in us. But we can hardly seek God's love too much, I'd say.

[Ian Gentles]

It is to flow through us, even with all our natural imperfections, what annoys me is i feel I hinder His love flowing through me more than aiding it :(

[Roland Hearn]

I'm jumping in here late for the initial discussion, but I don't see where anyone has mentioned Wynkoop's definition of love, which is one of the most beneficial things I took away from the book -- "impartial goodwill"

impartial - it's for everyone: rich, poor, Christian, sinner, infidel, hypocrite, friendly, hostile, obnoxious, disgusting. There are no favorites for this type of love.

goodwill - this isn't gushy affection; it is simply a "live and let live" wish for good to come to the other person and a willingness to be part of the fulfillment of that wish.

I find it much easier to extend goodwill toward one and all than any other definition of love I have encountered. I may not feel up to interacting with a particular person, but I can sincerely hope they encounter someone today who will speak a friendly word to them. I can wish good upon even the most obnoxious person that crosses my path. And once I have envisioned good things coming their way, it's much easier to smile and accept the role of being one of those good things.

Marsha

Basically Marsha we are skimming through the book looking at a few highlighted passages We are still in the first chapter. It means leaving out an aweful lot of good stuff. I obviously don't know every passage in the book so if we have skipped that definition in what we have done so far we may need to go back to it. Can you pull it out for us?

I've got to say I struggle with definitions of love that allow me to wriggle out of what is going on in me that causes me to feel the way I feel about people. Sometimes in wishing someone well because they are obnoxious there is actually something in me that God wants to address that is causing me to feel the way I feel. I want a definition of love that pushes me constantly to process that stuff.

BTW my internet is down at the moment. Hopefully won't be for more than a couple of days so my sporadic writing is due primarily to that.

[Roland Hearn]

Can we also sin in seeking God's love for ourselfs, admitedly often prayer life can be self centred a lot!

No, it is not possible to pursue God's love in a sinful way. That is about as good a definition of holiness as there is.

If I am acting selfishly, that is out of my own distorted sense of self, I may be pursuing validation from God but that is different from pursuing the love of God. We very often can confuse the two in almost every arena, however. People will often say, "I love you", when they actually mean "I feel validated by you." What is actually going on when the rock star says, "I luvs ya all." They can't possible mean that in any real way except that I feel good about myself because you are all screaming for me. That can be the way we pursue God.

[Marsha Lynn]

Basically Marsha we are skimming through the book looking at a few highlighted passages We are still in the first chapter. It means leaving out an aweful lot of good stuff. I obviously don't know every passage in the book so if we have skipped that definition in what we have done so far we may need to go back to it. Can you pull it out for us?

Sorry, Roland. I hadn't pulled out my copy of the book and just assumed that she would have defined love in the first chapter, particularly after a couple of posts here on the need for definition. However, it turns out that the definition I mentioned doesn't appear until page 33 in chapter 2. I will look forward to continuing this discussion when we get there.

Marsha

[Roland Hearn]

First the bad news: I came down with a flu like bug yesterday afternoon, had a pounding headache and aches and pains all through my body. At one point my head went all fuzzy and I thought I might fall over. I came home from work and went straight to bed. I slept for an hour or more and got up feeling a little better. Everyone that loves me pushed for me to stay home in bed today. I'm feeling a little better but in light of their love and the fact we have our next "Come and See" service this Saturday night I decided to take the day off and get thoroughly past the aches and pains, which are still there but not quite as intense.

Now the good news: I have internet access back and I'm bored with being in bed so I get to write a little on Naznet today.

We are starting the second chapter, which honestly is one of the most compelling pieces of writing I have ever come across. My struggle is going to be to limit the amount of material we actually discuss. The opening paragraph on page 21-22 in the hard copy and page 13 online, http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyctr/books/2601-2700/HDM2663.PDF, states:
"It is suggested here as a thesis to be explored, researched and defended, that Wesleyanism (that segment of the Church taking its cue from Wesley) in its most authentic moments interprets Christian theology in terms of love. It is not 'authentic' when it fails to do so."

Wynkoop invites us to constantly assess and agitate our understanding of God and the church around the issue of love. I think we do that a lot on this board. I think that is the reason I have such a strong desire to study this book. I don't think the church as a whole does near enough assessing on all that it says and does in terms of this our major paradigm. I want to see a surge created among us, we that are called Nazarenes that says, "we will not rest until we have reassessed everything we are and do, from political structure, to rules, to theology drivers, to missiology and practics in light of this one issue. I think it is that important.

[Brad Mercer]

I'm jumping in here late for the initial discussion, but I don't see where anyone has mentioned Wynkoop's definition of love, which is one of the most beneficial things I took away from the book -- "impartial goodwill"

I haven't looked at her definition yet, or what she has to say about it, but I'm comfortable with the definition found in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, minus only the sexual one and the sports one:

• noun 1 an intense feeling of deep affection. 2 a deep romantic or sexual attachment to someone. 3 a great interest and pleasure in something. 4 a person or thing that one loves. 5 (in tennis, squash, etc.) a score of zero. apparently from the phrase play for love (i.e. the love of the game, not for money). • verb 1 feel love for. 2 like very much. 3 loving showing love or great care.

I don't know yet whether that conflicts with her definition, but one of the things I like about the dictionary definition is that it makes it more difficult for us to claim that we love someone who consistently feels condemned and torn down and controlled rather than affirmed and valued by us when we've "loved" them. Christians tend to be pretty good at destroying people in the name of love. Neither destruction or a detachment that constitutes practical apathy strike me as love, so I want a definition that makes it difficult for those effects to claim love as their motive or intention.

I do think it is true that if we deeply, persistently seek and pray for the wellbeing of another we come to deeply desire those things and to discover in ourselves an increased awareness of the worth of that other person.

Brad

[Brenda Jackson]

The dictionary definition says that love is a feeling, but Christians say that feelings are not important and that love is the action coming from a decision of the will to 'love'.

How does this work out if we really do not have the feeling? How can love be shown without it feeling false to the recipient and therefore intimacy is prevented because of the guilt we feel because we do not have a any feelings of love?

How can we have integrity here?

[Barbara Moulton]

The dictionary definition says that love is a feeling, but Christians say that feelings are not important and that love is the action coming from a decision of the will to 'love'.

How does this work out if we really do not have the feeling? How can love be shown without it feeling false to the recipient and therefore intimacy is prevented because of the guilt we feel because we do not have a any feelings of love?

How can we have integrity here?

As a chaplain, I need to show love to everyone I meet. But, by the same token, if I loved everyone with whom I was involved I would soon lose myself in the collective pain and be unable to minister.

When I walk into a Palliative Care Room, I don't "love" the people. Often they are just names on a referral sheet.

But I believe that I can choose to be "in the moment". I can choose to let the Holy Spirit work through me as a channel of His grace and peace. I can choose to listen to their pain and help them connect with God.

And when I make that choice, I find something sacred happens. In the moment, I experience a sense of empathy and compassion.

I believe that this is from God.

[Roland Hearn]

Barbara, I'm not sure I fully follow what you are saying. You may be saying that when you choose the way of grace you find God's love working through you. I would agree with that. I think that is what we are called to do.

[Roland Hearn]

The dictionary definition says that love is a feeling, but Christians say that feelings are not important and that love is the action coming from a decision of the will to 'love'.

How does this work out if we really do not have the feeling? How can love be shown without it feeling false to the recipient and therefore intimacy is prevented because of the guilt we feel because we do not have a any feelings of love?

How can we have integrity here?

To genuinely love is to genuinely understand the worth of another. As we seek to understand another about their worth feelings will often follow. They are not, however, essential. Love never feels false, ever, when what another experiences at our hands is a reflection of their worth. In fact it is impossible to genuinely love and not communicate worth. So even when another frustrates me, challenges me or bothers me if I seek to first understand their worth and then communicate it they will experience love. It never fails. Similarly if you say you love someone and they do not experience a sense of worth they will always doubt your love. Worth is the testing ground for love.

[Barbara Moulton]

Barbara, I'm not sure I fully follow what you are saying. You may be saying that when you choose the way of grace you find God's love working through you. I would agree with that. I think that is what we are called to do.

Yes...that's part.

But there is something more that happens that I can't explain.

It begins with a choice and God's love does work through me but I usually find that "in the moment" I have feelings for these people. I am not sure I would call it "love" but there is a definite empathy and compassion.

[Ian Gentles]

I beleive we need to see more communal love in the church, not just a Sunday embrace!
Wesleys heart was ablaze with love, beleive me you wouldent travel hundred of miles on horse back, in English weather, to preach to folks if love wasnt your motivator. Wesleys life and doctrine which he lived out, was love. It is this love church needs ro rediscover!

[Roland Hearn]

Barbara I see love as a continuum not a place. So I would suggest that what you experience is love because you see the worth of another and reflect it to them. Let us suppose that someone with whom you are caring and experiencing that empathy and compassion was to be in relationship with you for many years rather than a few minutes. The ultimate experience of love with such an individual would not be of different stuff than in the few moments it would simply be of greater quality and quantity.

[Barbara Moulton]

Barbara I see love as a continuum not a place. So I would suggest that what you experience is love because you see the worth of another and reflect it to them. Let us suppose that someone with whom you are caring and experiencing that empathy and compassion was to be in relationship with you for many years rather than a few minutes. The ultimate experience of love with such an individual would not be of different stuff than in the few moments it would simply be of greater quality and quantity.

Well...whatever happens...whatever it's called...it begins with a choice and allows me to be God's presence to another.

The reality is though that when I leave one room or situation and move into another, I am in a different moment with a different person. That's why I hesitate to call it "love felt". But I do believe it is the "choice to love".

[Ryan Scott]

I think her "black and white" distinction aligning authentic with loving and inauthentic with unloving. We have to remember that if come to a conflicted decision, we have to go with the loving option over all others.

[Ian Gentles]

I think her "black and white" distinction aligning authentic with loving and inauthentic with unloving. We have to remember that if come to a conflicted decision, we have to go with the loving option over all others.

But how do we live love as Wesley did, are we doing this?

[Marsha Lynn]

impartial - it's for everyone: rich, poor, Christian, sinner, infidel, hypocrite, friendly, hostile, obnoxious, disgusting. There are no favorites for this type of love.

goodwill - this isn't gushy affection; it is simply a "live and let live" wish for good to come to the other person and a willingness to be part of the fulfillment of that wish.

I find it much easier to extend goodwill toward one and all than any other definition of love I have encountered.

I'm comfortable with the definition found in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, minus only the sexual one and the sports one:

• noun 1 an intense feeling of deep affection. 2 a deep romantic or sexual attachment to someone. 3 a great interest and pleasure in something. 4 a person or thing that one loves. 5 (in tennis, squash, etc.) a score of zero. apparently from the phrase play for love (i.e. the love of the game, not for money). • verb 1 feel love for. 2 like very much. 3 loving showing love or great care.
...

I do think it is true that if we deeply, persistently seek and pray for the wellbeing of another we come to deeply desire those things and to discover in ourselves an increased awareness of the worth of that other person.

Can we discuss this yet? I've been thinking about it.

An illustration:

At a business I frequent, there is a lady a few years younger than I who just generally annoys me. I stand in line waiting to check out and she is flirting with the men in front of me, giggling as she tries multiple methods to get the crotchety credit-card reader to read their cards. And I wait, holding my cash and trying to not be too obvious about checking my watch. (I generally go there right before I need to be someplace else and it's mainly only if she is doing the check-out that I run tight on time.)

When I get to the front of the line, she becomes all business, counting my change while looking past me to see if someone more interesting is behind me. No matter how often she sees me or how friendly I am, she doesn't know me. She saves all of her friendliness for other people.

This annoys me.

Now, as Roland suggests, I could do a self-analysis to see why I harbor negative feelings toward this lady -- she devalues me; she messes up my schedule; I find flirting unattractive, particularly among married people.

None of my reasons are particularly good ones but it's not like I can stamp them out simply by looking at them. I'm not sure this is worth a lot of self-examination. I'll readily admit that self-interest colors much of my view of the world, despite all efforts to push it aside or burn it on the altar. There are multiple reasons why people annoy me -- because they parent for show without regard for their kids' feelings; because they verbally abuse their children right in front of me; because they seem to think the world should revolve around them; because they are gushy in pursuing relationships; because they insist on being the object of my focus for extended periods of time when I'm trying to do other things; etc., etc.

Back to standing in line at the checkout counter: What impartial goodwill does is allow me to get to the front of the line and offer friendship every time. I offer eye contact, which she usually doesn't notice. I smile as she hands me my change while looking past me. And in that moment, thanks to the grace of God, I am willing to accept as little or as much friendship as she cares to offer. In that moment, the annoyance drains away as I wait for her to see me and open up any part of herself to me. I don't know this lady, but I presume that somewhere behind all of the banter and tunnel vision, there is a person with whom I could find some sort of connection given time and opportunity.

I guess the point where the "impartial goodwill" definition overlaps your dictionary definition is in definition 3. Goodwill towards someone makes them an object of interest and value even when there's not enough connection for genuine affection. When I'm watching this lady's banter from a distance, I find only annoyance in my heart. But when I'm standing in front of her, I see her as a person of interest and value and, as God helps me, am able to set aside the annoyance and wish her a good day and mean it. And do the same as I continue on my way to others who annoy me for other reasons. I don't have to fix them and I don't have to apply social pressure by expressing displeasure toward them. I don't have to seek a spiritual level where nothing ever annoys me or try to find warm, fuzzy feelings for people who treat others shamefully. I can simply keep looking for that spark of the image of God that resides deep beneath all of those annoying layers of coping mechanisms and wish people well.

Marsha

[Roland Hearn]

Can we discuss this yet?
Sure, we still aren't there yet but I can see it is busting out of you :basic03.


Now, as Roland suggests, I could do a self-analysis to see why I harbor negative feelings toward this lady -- she devalues me; she messes up my schedule; I find flirting unattractive, particularly among married people.

None of my reasons are particularly good ones but it's not like I can stamp them out simply by looking at them. I'm not sure this is worth a lot of self-examination.

Oh but it is. Marsha do you see how even in this statement you have surrendered your sense of worth to a complete stranger. That which Christ gave Himself for you have offered up to another. And no you don't stamp it out by looking at it but by looking at it you get to go to the next step which is to say, "this is rediculous, that is a valuable human being with pain and confusion in their life and rather than letting them be human; for my own sense of worth I want them to treat me the way I want to be treated, I am not leaving them any room just to be themselves. Father You are the only adequate source of worth, I think I will chill now." Or something to that effect. The value of looking at ourselves rather than having feelings going on unabated is we get to stop them by looking to Christ as the only adequate source of worth. This not some mumbo jumbo, hoodoo, self analysis, feel good formula, this is simply discipleship.



Back to standing in line at the checkout counter: What impartial goodwill does is allow me to get to the front of the line and offer friendship every time.

In the margin of my text I wrote when I read this by Wynkoop that I thought it was inadequate. It's inadequacy is not found in the meaning of the phrase. If you truly mean to impartially will the good to another then that will always be adequate. Impartially-regardless of their deserving or their response. Will- constantly choosing. Good- the good, all that God means when He calls something good. If that is what is meant then I think it is fine, in fact adequate. My problem is that it so smacks of cliche that it would be easy for someone to turn that around and say - "I don't wish them harm". To will the good means that at the very least when my contact with that person is done they will feel better about themselves then before.

We had an exhibition a couple of weeks ago that involved our company. A guy that works for another company a couple of days after the event commented to me that he noticed that everyone that left our booth genuinely felt better about themselves then they did when they came to the booth. We deel with building products. Plenty or room there for a nondescript encounter yet he noticed something about the way we treated people. His final statement was that he wanted to come and work for our company becuase he so admired the way we did that. We did not even think about it yet it is enshrined in the purpose of the company that we reflect worth to builders.

I think good will can certainly be an adequate reflection of love. Love can be found in every encounter. My problem with the phrase is that it is easily misinterpreted to be less than what it can be. I want a definition that thrives on impacting others.

[Marsha Lynn]

Marsha do you see how even in this statement you have surrendered your sense of worth to a complete stranger. That which Christ gave Himself for you have offered up to another. And no you don't stamp it out by looking at it but by looking at it you get to go to the next step which is to say, "this is rediculous, that is a valuable human being with pain and confusion in their life and rather than letting them be human; for my own sense of worth I want them to treat me the way I want to be treated, I am not leaving them any room just to be themselves. Father You are the only adequate source of worth, I think I will chill now."

Roland, I appreciate your paradigm of self-valuation and the enlightenment it brings, but in this case you are laying it over my thoughts without validity. Why do you assume that I see myself as less valuable when someone I barely know fails to see value in me? (Too many small-town connections to echo your "total stranger" description.) Could it not be rather that I am tempted to scorn her because she is obviously blind and unable to recognize true worth? Rather than saying, "I am not worth anything in her sight so I must be of less value than I thought," I can just as well say, "This is a shallow person who specializes in frothy relationships. That's why she doesn't recognize and value my offer of genuine connection."

Whether the source of my irritation is a sense of my own crumbling self-worth in light of her dismissal (she doesn't notice me so there must be something wrong with me) or a sense that this is a person not worth my time in light of her apparent lack of substance (she doesn't notice people like me or value our time so there must be something wrong with her), the challenge remains to get to a place where I can fully value her as a person. I don't have to accept her assessment of my worth to do so. Rather, I need to recognize that she is a complex personality in whom God has taken an interest and choose to share that interest.

In the margin of my text I wrote when I read this by Wynkoop that I thought it was inadequate. It's inadequacy is not found in the meaning of the phrase. If you truly mean to impartially will the good to another then that will always be adequate. Impartially-regardless of their deserving or their response. Will- constantly choosing. Good- the good, all that God means when He calls something good. If that is what is meant then I think it is fine, in fact adequate. My problem is that it so smacks of cliche that it would be easy for someone to turn that around and say - "I don't wish them harm". To will the good means that at the very least when my contact with that person is done they will feel better about themselves then before.

As I mentioned before, this definition is probably the greatest contribution to my life from Wynkoop's book. I don't see it as a cliché. Rather it's the only definition of agape love I have run across that I can get enough of a handle on to take it to cash register lines and other public places and apply it (impartially) to the obnoxious people of the world. Far superior to the old "I love them but I don't like them" approach that I've encountered so many times, embracing this approach allows me, by the grace of God, to at least come close to liking (wishing good for) people who are involved in detestable actions because it helps me to look past the actions to the broken person behind them.

I want a definition that thrives on impacting others.

Me too. For at least this time of my life "impartial goodwill" is that definition for me. When I watch someone rain verbal blows on their child and wish them well, that 'well' includes someone who will teach them to love and value that small child and nurture the kind of parent-child relationship I know is possible. And it makes me want to somehow offer that service to them. I think there's value in a cliché that will stir up that sort of desire within my heart when confronted by behavior that would more naturally stir up a desire to snatch the kid away and make sure they never have another opportunity to speak that way to a child.

I guess we find different things of value in this book. I'll try to be quiet now and let you get back to your outline.

:fav16

Marsha

PS to Brad: Here's another of those catchy tunes to torment people with. Every time I get involved in this thread I end up singing it for the rest of the day. From the country genre:

Hey, you don't know me but you don't like me
You say you care less how I feel
But how many of you that sit and judge me
Have ever walked the streets of Bakersfield?

:)

[Brad Mercer]

PS to Brad: Here's another of those catchy tunes to torment people with. Every time I get involved in this thread I end up singing it for the rest of the day. From the country genre:

Hey, you don't know me but you don't like me
You say you care less how I feel
But how many of you that sit and judge me
Have ever walked the streets of Bakersfield?

:)

I thank you and my wife thank you, although I doubt the sincerity of her thanks. I sang to her the lines you quoted and she replied regarding you: "She's so good to me." :basic03

Brad

[Ian Gentles]

Songs help, though i am not musical in any way.

[Roland Hearn]

Roland, I appreciate your paradigm of self-valuation and the enlightenment it brings, but in this case you are laying it over my thoughts without validity.
:)

Marsha,

I really don't think I am.


she devalues me; she messes up my schedule;

Those are your words not mine. You said she devalued you, you said she messed up your schedule. Both of those statements are statements of worth.

One of the hardest things in helping people to get to the place where they actually buy completely the love paradigm and the impact of worth issues on others is recognising how many times in a day we ourselves act out of worth issues we don't even realise we are doing. It is only when we realise how powerful they are in our own lives that we can appreciate how powerful they are in others and love accordingly.


Whether the source of my irritation is a sense of my own crumbling self-worth in light of her dismissal (she doesn't notice me so there must be something wrong with me) or a sense that this is a person not worth my time in light of her apparent lack of substance (she doesn't notice people like me or value our time so there must be something wrong with her),

Both of these are exactly the same thing. It comes down to how you respond to the fact that she has devalued you, whether you crumble or go into defense mode. I know that you were talking completely hypothetically and not personally but it is interesting that in both these possible responses you see as available the central issue is how she impacts your worth. That is the reason why I suggested right at the beginning that I want a definition of love that causes me to look at me, to see how the situation is impacting on me and how that in turn is implicated in the response I give. (When I say "I" in this sense I am speaking of generic personal evaluation, it is something that I personally try to achieve but it something that I would hope that all people of faith were processing.)

Wynkoops definition allows you to do exactly what I am saying we should not do, and I don't think Wynkoop intended us to not do either. I want something that pushes me to work out why I am not loving affectively and that sets me free to do just that. That is the only thing I am interested in. Socrates said "the unexamined life is not worth living." I agree.


the challenge remains to get to a place where I can fully value her as a person. I don't have to accept her assessment of my worth to do so. Rather, I need to recognize that she is a complex personality in whom God has taken an interest and choose to share that interest.

I agree completely, well said. I would simply maintain that to arrive at such a place is easier if I am aware of how she impacts me. That way rather than simply putting the response over the top of what is going on in me, I can surrender that to His love and allow His love to impact her in that brief few seconds in the way you describe as your response.

I don't have any doubt that you are doing that but I have seen a lot of people attempting to "love" through gritted teeth and I think this definition of love to easily allows for that. I did suggest earlier that I find the definition perfectly adequate when each word is allowed to mean what it is intended to mean, which I am confident you are doing.


As I mentioned before, this definition is probably the greatest contribution to my life from Wynkoop's book. I don't see it as a cliché. Rather it's the only definition of agape love I have run across that I can get enough of a handle on to take it to cash register lines and other public places and apply it (impartially) to the obnoxious people of the world. Far superior to the old "I love them but I don't like them" approach that I've encountered so many times, embracing this approach allows me, by the grace of God, to at least come close to liking (wishing good for) people who are involved in detestable actions because it helps me to look past the actions to the broken person behind them.

I am certainly glad for that Marsha, my problem with this definition obviously can not be with those that get the deeper sense that Mildred is calling us to. My problem is that the language allows for too many to do less with it. Of course to be fair I am not certain that any definition can be made to achieve the hope that it will avoid dilution.

[Ian Gentles]

Hey i get a big feeling if self worthlenes bosses want me out after 29 years, oh it hurts

[Roland Hearn]

Of course it does Ian, you are right. That is the type of honesty and vulnerability that allows God to bring healing.

You do amazingly well in the middle of terribly difficult circumstances with very few things to hold on to, all the while battling depression, to reflect a hope in the grace of God. You should know you are doing well as a servant of the King. I want you to know that I have grown to love you starting with the day in London 18 months ago. I wasn't writing much on Naznet in those days but since returning you have become an important person in my life.

Good luck with the next One day on Monday, 1 apiece, that keeps it interesting.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Marsha, The way I would handle situations like that clerk, would be with a small gift or a compliment once in a while. It is amazing how it sometimes changes people's reactions to you. I have done things like this with school teachers at times. It doesn't hurt to lose a little pride, and compliment someone that we really do not enjoy being around. If it made the teacher just "love" my child, what did I have to lose?
One lady that I was not really excited about being around, changed when I gave her a gift of a tiny bottle of cologne. You might start getting checked out sooner, or whatever the situation is. And, there my be more to gain than one could ever realize.

[Hans Deventer]

I want you to know that I have grown to love you starting with the day in London 18 months ago.

Make that 27 months, and I thought it was a crazy day, but I have no regrets whatsoever!

[Roland Hearn]

Make that 27 months, and I thought it was a crazy day, but I have no regrets whatsoever!

It may be 27 months for you but it is only 18 months for me, it has something to do with the international date line and the other hemisphere:basic03.

[Marsha Lynn]

One of the hardest things in helping people to get to the place where they actually buy completely the love paradigm and the impact of worth issues on others is recognising how many times in a day we ourselves act out of worth issues we don't even realise we are doing. It is only when we realise how powerful they are in our own lives that we can appreciate how powerful they are in others and love accordingly.

So ...uhm... this is a test, right? If I accept your discription of my self-worth issues as the truth about me (let you define me with your description), it verifies your position. If I don't, then I obviously don't know myself well and need to devote more time to spiritual navel gazing until I can see the problem like you can. And you have taken this position based simply on my admission that sometimes the coping mechanisms of other people stir up annoyance in my heart?

As a veteran navel-gazer, I need no encouragement toward self-interest. Thus, I respectfully decline to see every twinge of annoyance in the presence of obnoxious people as a symptom of a floundering self-image that should send me back to my prayer closet for further self-examination. It has been a long road to get this far toward setting aside self-focus and realigning my focus and concern on those around me. I truly can't imagine how regression would be progression in pursuing that goal.

So enough about me! Have you, Rev. Hearn, found a level of self-worth that allows you to go through your days without ever finding the people around you annoying? And has the occasional appearance of impatience with others in your NazNet posts actually been misinterpretation on my part?

Roland, you know that I love and admire you and am willingly your student. This particular exchange, however, can't help but make me smile as you push me into a catch-22 position of being diagnosed as displaying misplaced sources of worth no matter which way I turn.

Wishing you no end of good (in an impartial way),

Marsha
:fav16

[Roland Hearn]

So ...uhm... this is a test, right? If I accept your discription of my self-worth issues as the truth about me (let you define me with your description), it verifies your position. If I don't, then I obviously don't know myself well and need to devote more time to spiritual navel gazing until I can see the problem like you can. And you have taken this position based simply on my admission that sometimes the coping mechanisms of other people stir up annoyance in my heart?

Marsha,
I think I pretty well clearly displayed the language that I see reflects worth issues.

As a veteran navel-gazer, I need no encouragement toward self-interest.

Did I encourage toward self-interest?


Thus, I respectfully decline to see every twinge of annoyance in the presence of obnoxious people as a symptom of a floundering self-image that should send me back to my prayer closet for further self-examination. It has been a long road to get this far toward setting aside self-focus and realigning my focus and concern on those around me. I truly can't imagine how regression would be progression in pursuing that goal.

I think your misrepresenting both the focus and the goal.


So enough about me! Have you, Rev. Hearn, found a level of self-worth that allows you to go through your days without ever finding the people around you annoying? And has the occasional appearance of impatience with others in your NazNet posts actually been misinterpretation on my part?

Well I can see by the use of this formal address you're feeling fairly strongly about this. I really would like you to go back and read the posts, I kept trying to get back to why I thought the definition was inadequate.

But to answer your question. No I haven't. That is precisely what progressive sanctification is. It is the process of finding the places from which self worth is drawn that is apart from God and returning them to Him. And no there has been no misinterpretation on your part when you have seen impatience in posts for the most part - I can't always guarantee that what you are seeing is what I am feeling but there have been many times I have been impatient with people and reflected that. I have also apologized numbers of times on Naznet for that as well. You see there are times I draw my self worth from my posts and I shouldn't so I keep processing.

That is why I consider vulnerability the most important component of the sanctified life. As long as we are honest about what is going on inside us we give room for Christ to work in us. To follow Christ is not to simply allow Him to work through us - He must work in us. When these things are made objective an opportunity is missed for Christ's love to go deeper still making us more like Him. I have never indicated that I think I am beyond that process in fact I constantly confess I am right in the middle of it. Even in this discussion I have indicated repeatedly that what I am talking about applies to me too. I'm sorry if I communicated to you that I was a finished product.

To describe this process as navel-gazing is an unfair caricature of what I am saying but if that is what you hear me say do you think there is a way I can say it better so that what you hear me say sounds like deliberately pursuing Christ?

Roland, you know that I love and admire you and am willingly your student. This particular exchange, however, can't help but make me smile as you push me into a catch-22 position of being diagnosed as displaying misplaced sources of worth no matter which way I turn.

Marsha I would love for you to be able to spend more time in conversation with me so you could hear what I am really saying. It seems that this conversation is buying into a struggle that I am not a part of. Something you feel like you resolved a long time ago but that is coloring the way you perceive what I am saying. I don't think if we were having an ongoing one on one conversation in person that you would find what I am saying at all as distasteful as what you apparently find my writing. Once again I am sorry for the limitations that I am projecting in this manner.

[Brad Mercer]

As a veteran navel-gazer, I need no encouragement toward self-interest.

My own spiritual growth probably requires spending a little time now and then reviewing my own ongoing relationship with God, my view of him, and my perception of how he views me, and the extent to which I share his view of me. If I ever get those things perfectly right all the time I'll be a perfect man (which I'm not). But I press on.

Thus, I respectfully decline to see every twinge of annoyance in the presence of obnoxious people as a symptom of a floundering self-image

I don't know if you recognize that you're exaggerating what he's saying when you use words like "navel gazing", "floundering" and "crumbling". "Navel gazing" suggests a pointless introspection that never gets to the point of reaching conclusions and making positive personal changes that are lived out in our outward lives. "Floundering" and "crumbling" suggests that we can only get our sense of identity from one source, persistently and totally -- that it's all or nothing.

In fact, we can get our sense of worth from all sorts of sources and to varying degrees at different times. And feelings of fear, anger or just irritation generally indicate that, to some degree, even if only to a small degree and even if only for that moment, this encounter feels to me like a threat to some secondary source of worth. So I work backward from the feeling to figure out what source of self worth was threatened in that encounter, and I then deliberately choose (again, probably) not to let that, whatever it was, define for me my worth, to even that small degree, for even that brief moment. If I can hang onto that decision through the next encounter, I find myself less emotionally defensive or negative in my next similar encounter with them and therefore more able to genuinely love them and see their worth.

And no, it's not a process I've perfectly mastered. It's an ongoing, presumably lifelong process of spiritual growth.

I usually can't process that sort of thing until sometime later. It takes me a while. Roland, who has been doing it longer than me, can frequently process such things for himself about his own issues almost instantly. At his best, only those closest to him can see the little hamster in the wheel in his head as he tries to process and recover from his first, instinctive, defensive response. He barely hesitates, stumbles over a word, and then responds out of genuine grace with the initial sense of threatened self-worth dealt with that quickly.

Of course, when you've seen irritation in a NazNet post it means he hasn't recognized or resolved the issue that quickly, but he manages it that quickly more often than anyone else whom I know well enough to see what's happening inside them.

The bottom line is simply that there is no transforming power through me for others in this paradigm (at least in my observation), unless I model for them the same vulnerability and honesty about how it works in my life that I want them to learn to live out in theirs.

It's been at precisely that point that I have to do the hardest work on this journey. And it's been at precisely that point that we have most often lost established Christians who were initially excited about what they saw. As established Christians we're comfortable learning to behave better toward others and, depending on our own personality type, comfortable helping to fix other people. It's in the area of vulnerability and openness of our own hearts that we struggle.

And every time I see someone become vulnerable and God start doing amazing things in that person's life because they saw that same vulnerability in another, it reminds me that I can't settle into a public persona that says I'm all fixed on the inside and don't need to look there anymore in my quest for personal spiritual growth and power for ministry.

When we can see ourselves at that level we can see others at that level. When we can see others at that level we can relate to them out of admiration, affection and compassion instead of out of self-discipline.

Brad

[Hans Deventer]

Roland, you know that I love and admire you and am willingly your student. This particular exchange, however, can't help but make me smile as you push me into a catch-22 position of being diagnosed as displaying misplaced sources of worth no matter which way I turn.

Marsha, sometimes I read stuff in way that I simply know people did not intend. It may be the way they formulated it, it may be the way I interpret it, it may be both. Please do consider this option.

[Ian Gentles]

I find examining myself a very depressing thing to do, it discourages me to think about what God sees. Did Wesley have a good feeling about himself?

[Ryan Scott]

I find examining myself a very depressing thing to do, it discourages me to think about what God sees.


God sees the most lovely creation ever made. You're the one who sees something depressing. I fall into the same idea quite often, but it all comes back to guilt, something we don't have to worry about thanks to the grace of God.

[Hans Deventer]

I find examining myself a very depressing thing to do, it discourages me to think about what God sees.

God sees someone with all his/her faults, mistakes, disorders, sins and of course all the good things as well. He sees someone He loves so dearly, He paid the ultimate price to save him/her.

So when I look at myself, I see some good, I see some bad. But most of all, I see one who God loves.

[Ian Gentles]

Agreed, how did Wesley view himself? I am sure he wasnt always positive!? Did Wesley say much about loving self in his theology of love. Seems he spent his time loving others.

[Ian Gentles]

In which way does Wesleys Rotundra, rather than steps, theology of love, help how we view self?

[Hans Deventer]

Agreed, how did Wesley view himself? I am sure he wasnt always positive!? Did Wesley say much about loving self in his theology of love. Seems he spent his time loving others.

"I the chief of sinners am, but Jesus died for me". This is not to imply that he "daily sinned in word and deed", but it is to imply that he knew that by himself, he was nothing, but for the love of Christ.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

God does not look as us as bad as people do. He looks on the inside and knows our hearts. I always feel that He looks down, sees our efforts and struggles , and sort of looks at us like little children learning to walk, or maybe a little older. What are we called besides saints in the Bible?---"My little children..." Goodness, if a day is with the Lord, as a thousand years, how old are you now? Go figure! He also knows if we should know better than what we are doing. That's the catch-right? Ha

[Ian Gentles]

Great Ann!

[Roland Hearn]

Ian think about the way a parent feels toward a child. A parent knows the struggle but their love for the child allows them to see the very best in the child even when there is failure. I don't know that Wesley spoke a lot about love for self it tends to be an issue that arises as our understanding of psychology grows. Jesus did though - He said "love your neighbor as yourself." And he was not intending to suggest a despising of one's self. Of course the dominant theme of the scriptures is God's love for us. It would be hard for us to say that God loves us but he doesn't really know us. We are just going to have to go ahead and agree with God. He loves us. We probably should accept that as the final word, not that which our imagination tells us about ourselves. John says "even when our hearts condemn us...God is greater then our hearts."

[Ian Gentles]

Did Wesley feel the same ;)

[Ryan Scott]

Did Wesley feel the same


You'll have to ask him.

[Ian Gentles]

LOL i was asking you ;)

[Roland Hearn]

Ian I can't validate that Wesley was concerned about these issues. A lot of things that we work with in the church are cultural applications and awarenesses. As I said Jesus mentioned it - if it had been an issue in culture during Wesley's time he probably would have. The issues of self worth and self image began to emerge more strongly in the 20th century.

[Ian Gentles]

OK thanks

[Marsha Lynn]

So enough about me! Have you, Rev. Hearn, found a level of self-worth that allows you to go through your days without ever finding the people around you annoying? And has the occasional appearance of impatience with others in your NazNet posts actually been misinterpretation on my part?
Well I can see by the use of this formal address you're feeling fairly strongly about this. I really would like you to go back and read the posts, I kept trying to get back to why I thought the definition was inadequate.

To describe this process as navel-gazing is an unfair caricature of what I am saying but if that is what you hear me say do you think there is a way I can say it better so that what you hear me say sounds like deliberately pursuing Christ?

I don't know if you recognize that you're exaggerating what he's saying when you use words like "navel gazing", "floundering" and "crumbling". "Navel gazing" suggests a pointless introspection that never gets to the point of reaching conclusions and making positive personal changes that are lived out in our outward lives. "Floundering" and "crumbling" suggests that we can only get our sense of identity from one source, persistently and totally -- that it's all or nothing.

I think I would call it hyperbole. I had a grin on my face when I wrote those words and was having fun playing with language. The formal address was to playfully emphasize the distance between us. Sorry. I don't seem to have a lot of skill at fitting my laughter into words. But perhaps it would be even worse if I did in light of the serious concern you are expressing about the lack of worth evidenced by my irritation with inefficient checkout people.

That is why I consider vulnerability the most important component of the sanctified life. As long as we are honest about what is going on inside us we give room for Christ to work in us. To follow Christ is not to simply allow Him to work through us - He must work in us. When these things are made objective an opportunity is missed for Christ's love to go deeper still making us more like Him.

Ah ... if what you want is vulnerability, I will confess that I have spent much more time applying your paradigm to my response to this thread than to my annoyance with the lady running the cash register. I love this book. Others love this book. I'm not capable of following all of the discussion (or totally comprehending the book), but I do know that there's one part of the book that has opened new vistas for me, that enables me to look past the annoyance some people stir up within me by their words and actions and value the person independent of those actions (whether directed toward me or others). So I jump in and share my excitement about that one concept. And the response I get is that 1) we're not there yet and I don't seem to understand the approach we're taking; 2) that particular section isn't on the agenda at all; 3) the definition I prize is really not very good, and, in fact, is not adequate at all. The first (only?) negative words I encounter in regard to the book were in response to my post listing my favorite part.

If you want to talk to me about self-worth, here's the place to do it. Why does it bother me so much when someone in Australia seems to brush aside my comments as an annoying interruption to a previously productive exchange and then tries to persuade me that I'm basing my self-worth on how I'm treated by annoying people? That's a much more pressing question than the one about whether my sense of worth decreases when a person running a cash register fails to see value in me. Even if the answer to the latter question is yes, there are far greater devaluing forces in my life than that one that need work before I'll be able to address that one.

Marsha I would love for you to be able to spend more time in conversation with me so you could hear what I am really saying... I don't think if we were having an ongoing one on one conversation in person that you would find what I am saying at all as distasteful as what you apparently find my writing. Once again I am sorry for the limitations that I am projecting in this manner.

You may be right. Possibly in person you could persuade me that it's people I barely know who pull down my self-worth rather than the people who know me best and whose opinions I most value. That's assuming, of course, that you didn't throw up your hands in disgust and walk away first, particularly in light of my failure to maintain a serious demeanor while considering the possibility. I sure would like to at least try it.

:fav16

Marsha

Edited to add: Comments above concerning my reaction to the responses I have received here are in no way criticisms of those responses. I realize that there has been no intent to trivialize my contribution to the discussion. My point is that when I start searching for secondary sources of worth, I find more to consider here than in the checkout line.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Maybe you two should talk on email. Roland is going through enough stress right now It doesn't seem that he willingly meant to hurt you. He is very aware, I am sure, that you are a person of great worth. in his sight and God's.
No, I am not a monitor, but I am a peacemaker, so I am blessed.
Forgive me, if I am totally out of line.

[Marsha Lynn]

Maybe you two should talk on email. Roland is going through enough stress right now It doesn't seem that he willingly meant to hurt you.

Anne,

Thank you for your concern. I'm sorry if this exchange looks like a source of stress for Roland. I certainly hope that isn't the case. And I am confident that you are right concerning his intentions. I have counted him as a trustworthy friend and mentor for many years. He wrote about how we need to examine our reactions to others for evidence that our sense of worth my be based on something other than God's love for us. And he pointed out a place for me to start. My response is that I'm more concerned with my reaction to what he wrote and what that reaction says about my source of worth than my response in the illustration which has been the focus of our discussion. Observing my own reactions to what someone says requires no judgment as to the appropriateness of what was said. I have often responded negatively to perfectly valid, kind, and helpful words from others. I assume that this is another case of that happening.

He is very aware, I am sure, that you are a person of great worth. in his sight and God's.

Well, I think the point is that my worth is not in any way dependent on his or anyone else's assessment, only on God's view of me. But I thank you for your kind words. And if Roland agrees that this is a source of stress for him, I will willingly move on to other topics.

Marsha

[Roland Hearn]

If you want to talk to me about self-worth, here's the place to do it. Why does it bother me so much when someone in Australia seems to brush aside my comments as an annoying interruption to a previously productive exchange and then tries to persuade me that I'm basing my self-worth on how I'm treated by annoying people?

Marsha,
I'm having trouble writing this response. It seems each time I respond to you I somehow get you further off side. I have now six time written a portion and erased it. I feel like I am communicating so poorly with you that you are perceiving me to say things that I am not intending. I'm deliberately limiting this post to this quote and we can look at the other stuff as might be profitable.

I am at a loss to know how you see me brushing aside your comments as an "annoying interruption", I certainly have not felt that in anyway. I have gone back through all my posts to try and work out how I did that and the only thing I can come up with is it doesn't matter that I can't find it that is the message you got from me - I'm sorry for that. I have not intended to suggest that what you have written is annoying interruption.

And to clarify I do not find this process stressful - I'm obviously communicating poorly but hang in there I'm sure I can rectify some of those things.

[Ian Gentles]

Lets get back to the book discussion is facinating I want more :)

[Marsha Lynn]

I feel like I am communicating so poorly with you that you are perceiving me to say things that I am not intending.

I am at a loss to know how you see me brushing aside your comments as an "annoying interruption", I certainly have not felt that in anyway.

Ah... see this is the trouble with vulnerability. I carefully noted multiple times that I realized that the problem was in my reading, not in your writing. The words I was processing from you are simply the setting for my way-too-public self-examination as I ask myself, Why do I see devaluation where none is intended? and, Why does it bother me so much? The problem is not with your communication but with how quickly and easily I read devaluation into your words. You're right: There's no accounting for my ability to do so. If I understand what you're saying, I'm proving the point you've been trying to make all along -- that we all look to sources other than God for our value as revealed by our negative responses to those around us when we read devaluation into even their most innocent words or actions.

And to clarify I do not find this process stressful - I'm obviously communicating poorly but hang in there I'm sure I can rectify some of those things.

Good, 'cause I wouldn't want to be the only one enjoying the exchange.

:bannana

Marsha

[Ian Gentles]

Can we continue with book Roland its what we all want :)

[Ian Gentles]

I'd say that is due to the very fact that we don't have a widely understood application of our doctrine. That's what makes this book and this idea so important. While, "Christian" has remained an identity that people have to describe themselves, it has come to define more of an intellectual assent than a committed lifestyle.

Agree, much of christian life has become more doctrine than lifes style. What facinates me with Wesleys theology is that it seems also to be a life style he lived!

[Marsha Lynn]

I guess I should be as clear as possible here. I'll replay a few excerpts from the dialog and add my thoughts and interpretations in blue. I realize that I'll leave out some things, but I already cringe when someone quotes one of my posts and I see how long-winded I am. I'm trying to be as brief as possible.

And agreeing with the proposed hermeneutic, we'd still need to define very clearly what we mean by "love". Perhaps "agapè" would be a better word.

(Yes! The definition of 'agapè'! My favorite part of the book. Maybe someone will mention it.)

I don't think we will go very far into the book and the definition will not flow easily from the discussion. That is why I love the book so much it forces you to have a definition that you can walk around in.

I think it is also a strength of both the book and the love paradigm that once you have arrived at a workable definition there is not a page of scripture not a moment of life that it does not fit in.

(Still no mention of the actual definition. Is it time to get involved?)

I'm jumping in here late for the initial discussion, but I don't see where anyone has mentioned Wynkoop's definition of love, which is one of the most beneficial things I took away from the book -- "impartial goodwill"

Basically Marsha we are skimming through the book looking at a few highlighted passages. (I need to explain the approach we're taking here since I can see that you're struggling to comprehend it.) We are still in the first chapter. (It appears that you are out of order.) It means leaving out an aweful lot of good stuff. I obviously don't know every passage in the book so if we have skipped that definition in what we have done so far we may need to go back to it. Can you pull it out for us?
(Ah, a glimmer of hope. Is he really interested or simply trying to encourage me after noting the lack of understanding evidenced by my response?)

I've got to say I struggle with definitions of love that allow me to wriggle out of what is going on in me that causes me to feel the way I feel about people. Sometimes in wishing someone well because they are obnoxious there is actually something in me that God wants to address that is causing me to feel the way I feel. I want a definition of love that pushes me constantly to process that stuff. (I fail to see value in the definition you have provided. You aren't comprehending what we need here.)

Marsha do you see how even in this statement you have surrendered your sense of worth to a complete stranger. (My superior understanding here allows me to see a problem to which you are apparently oblivious. Let me explain it in simple terms to you.) That which Christ gave Himself for you have offered up to another. And no you don't stamp it out by looking at it but by looking at it you get to go to the next step which is to say, "this is rediculous, that is a valuable human being with pain and confusion in their life and rather than letting them be human; for my own sense of worth I want them to treat me the way I want to be treated, I am not leaving them any room just to be themselves. Father You are the only adequate source of worth, I think I will chill now." Or something to that effect. The value of looking at ourselves rather than having feelings going on unabated is we get to stop them by looking to Christ as the only adequate source of worth. This not some mumbo jumbo, hoodoo, self analysis, feel good formula, this is simply discipleship. (And I can tell by what you've written that you're not there yet.)

In the margin of my text I wrote when I read this by Wynkoop that I thought it was inadequate. (In this otherwise excellent book, you have stumbled upon one of the few flaws and lack the discernment to recognize it as a flaw.)

I hope that you can see how I've allowed my insecurities as to whether I am qualified to participate in the discussion to cast a negative light on your comments. Your comments were not negative. Rather, my interpretation of them was negative because of my initial lack of confidence. And the more you have tried to enlighten me on the subject, the further we have drawn apart.

Applying the definition Wynkoop gave for agape love to scenes such as I described has brought nothing but good into my life. I won't let you talk me out of it. However, I also value your description of how lack of self-worth is often the source of our negative responses and will confess to seeing that at work in my life in response to this thread.

I could confess to dozens of other situations where that same principle drags me down, but those situations involve other people and I hesitate to post them on a public forum. Thus, in spite of the risk of misunderstanding, I turned to the one situation for which we both have first-hand involvement. I'm not saying that there was anything wrong with your words. I'm verifying that the principle you describe is indeed at work in my life. (And even in posting this, I'm revealing a continuing hunger for someone to affirm my worth by acknowledging that maybe I'm not so far from understanding as it seems. This misdirected quest for worth is indeed a huge obstacle to achieving spiritual wholeness.)

Can we continue with book Roland its what we all want :)

Yes, please do. I went back to look at your last comments on the book itself to see if I could bring that part of the thread back to life, but could think of nothing to contribute to the discussion. What's next?

Marsha

[Roland Hearn]

Marsha,
I appreciate you willingness to be open about the way you read my posts. Of course self worth issues are at work in me as well and so even though you highlight in bold, to emphasize, that you see the problem as the way you read it I still found myself wanting desperately to justify and defend what I wrote. I'm now trying desperately to not defend because that would detract from your willingness to process openly . It is, however, still my struggle to want to go back and say "but I didn't mean that."

Obviously some of the caution that you feel in your own spirit about what you termed naval gazing is a preoccupation with our own struggle and never getting to the place of moving beyond that. I certainly agree with that sentiment and know of many people that live that way. For me the journey is a walk with the Holy Spirit, identifying issues in my own life and then deliberately choosing to let go of those things. For me I long to be validated, I love people agreeing with me, I hate pushing people's buttons and causing pain. If those things don't happen I want to run around in circles until they do. It has been an enormous struggle in my own life to come to the place of being able to apologize to people and then let it go. I don't have to have people agree with me but I do have to do all in my power to make relationship possible.

Having said that let me just say a couple of things on that back drop. If they are superfluous, then I ask either your indulgence or forgiveness. My hesitancy in diving straight for a definition while still in the fist chapter was entirely because I didn't want to give one but wanted it to evolve, or even be created young earth style :basic05, through the discussion. I do have a definition for love that works, at least in my experience, but it was never my intention to impose that. I think something can flow out of the discussion.

I have never read a book yet that I agree with everything in it, even my own - Brad got some stuff wrong :basic03. Yet, I identify from what you have said that one of the most significant things for you in the book was in fact one of only two things that I penned as inadequate in my own musings on the book. As I tried to explain the inadequacy was not in what was written but in what I saw as potentially what people did with it. You on the other hand saw it for what it was intended to be and it liberated you. I did not notice at first how compelling it was for you, even though you clearly stated it. That was where I was at fault. By not pausing long enough to validate what you had seen I imposed my view without due consideration of either its significance for you or indeed its literal significance. I can see where I could have done better with that and perhaps avoided pushing you to experience this thread in the way that you have. Again for that I apologize.

I am certainly ready to move on but not without recognizing that I am, I think, the better for the delay we have had thus far. Christ is still working in me.

Now is there anyone left that would like to continue with further consideration of the book. It will have to wait another 24 hours but I am up for it.

[Marsha Lynn]

Roland,

Thank you for this exceedingly gracious response. The explanation of your own thought process was indeed helpful.

I am certainly ready to move on but not without recognizing that I am, I think, the better for the delay we have had thus far. Christ is still working in me.

I can echo these words without reservation. Thank you for your willingness to work thru this.

Marsha

[Roland Hearn]

The following quote is found at the bottom of page 22 in the hard copy and page 14 on line: http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyctr/books/2601-2700/HDM2663.PDF
I get the feeling this is one of those stand out passages for those that have followed in the continual development of a relational theology. She makes these statements following her own quoting from "Plain Account" where we find that line that rings deep within Wesleyans: "Settle it then in your heart, aim at nothing more, but more of that love described in the thirteenth of the Corinthians." From that she makes this observation:

Whatever one may feel to be the proper theological relationship between holiness and love, in a study of Wesley it is only right to ask him what he taught It is an obvious fact that Wesley did indeed not merely relate these two words (and the concepts they represent) but equated them. They are not, to him, two concomitant aspects of grace but one blazing unity of truth In the second place something of the relationship of these two terms begins to come clear when it is seen that the concept “dynamic” when applied to these terms puts them into a framework of thought where living relevance is, That framework is “personal relationship.” The juxtaposition of the terms holiness and love, together with “personal relationship,” puts a meaning to each term, as well as uniting them. This transforms them from mere abstract terms into dynamically biblical concepts.

I find these comments to be profoundly compelling they insist on an integrity of scripture that keeps the focus where it was intended to be. Every other debate looses color when subjected to this understanding.

[Brad Mercer]

Wesley did indeed not merely relate these two words (and the concepts they represent) but equated them. They are not, to him, two concomitant aspects of grace but one blazing unity of truth In the second place something of the relationship of these two terms begins to come clear when it is seen that the concept “dynamic” when applied to these terms puts them into a framework of thought where living relevance is, That framework is “personal relationship.” The juxtaposition of the terms holiness and love, together with “personal relationship,” puts a meaning to each term, as well as uniting them.

This was the "liberating" quote for me. A little of what she said I wasn't quite sure I completely agreed with or didn't feel she pursued quite for enough. A lot of what she said I was pretty sure I just didn't understand from just one reading. But the paragraph from which the above quote is excised helped me make sense of an awful lot of scripture and made God a lot less paradoxical (ie, self-contradictory).

Brad

[Roland Hearn]

On page 25 of the hard copy and page 16 online Wynkoop makes the following statement:

The dynamic of personal relationship is love. Love is a quality of response between persons. Love can exist only in freedom. It cannot be coerced. Freedom is the most fundamental ingredient of love. When love is spoken of, freedom is presupposed and persons are involved. Love describes the kind of response that exists between persons. Love may link the persons into a fellowship or it may short-circuit about itself and reject other persons. In either case it is the relation between persons that is at issue.

This comes in her "Existential Glossary". To thoroughly appreciate what she is saying at this point the whole passage should be read but even on its own there is remarkable implications for the church found in this quote:

Would anyone like to share a thought about how "freedom" as an expression of love impacts or at least intersects what we do as a church? What does it say about our efforts in evangelism, the way we shape the special rules, the way we do worship and probably most importantly the way we lead? How should a pastor wrestle with this truth in his relationship with the people he seeks to lead?

[Ryan Scott]

I think it has a scary impact, requiring great risk. Love is dangerous. Yet, love is essential to life.

[Hans Deventer]

Would anyone like to share a thought about how "freedom" as an expression of love impacts or at least intersects what we do as a church? What does it say about our efforts in evangelism, the way we shape the special rules, the way we do worship and probably most importantly the way we lead? How should a pastor wrestle with this truth in his relationship with the people he seeks to lead?

Like God. That's why I like The God Who Risks (http://www.amazon.com/God-Who-Risks-Theology-Providence/dp/0830815015) so much, that's why it touched me. Love never forces, but will win in the end all the same. That's what resonated in me.

[Ian Gentles]

I like the idea of Freedom to love, and acknowledge love is a risk. We are meant to risk all in our love for the Lord and others. Wesley gave up known security of an anglican ministry motivated by his love for God and the lost of England. I dont think we have this love in our churches i feel we are scared to risk it! Love means giving our all to another or for anothers benefit, if we risked all in loving God and others we would be giving up so much that we have!

[Roland Hearn]

On page 28 of the hard copy and page 18-19 online, Wynkoop makes the following observation when discussing "The Implications of a Theology of Love."

Love is “happiness” (in Wesley’s sense of the word). Happiness is not an emotional titillation but a harmony of the whole of the self. Holiness is not a glorified maladjustment, a neurosis, as its critics like to say. It is health, vitality,wholeness; the end of disharmony, edginess, and out-of-jointness. Love goes straight to the heart of personal relationships and demands a right ground fellowship. It mercilessly, but healingly, sorts out the motives and directs the realignment of attitudes and relationships. It stands in judgment against any attitude or act which, in its name, and claiming its authority wrongly, destroys fellowship. It is not soft, but highly discriminating. It is not blind, but keenly alert to anything which ruptures fellowship. It is not amorphous, unrelated to law, but the very inner structure of moral law, the conservator of moral integrity.

This is an issue I found greatly interesting. Happiness, I believe, is a oft missed component of the Christian life. All my life I have heard people talk about "joy" as one of the fruits of the Spirit but in such a way that it did not look very much like the dictionary definition. I think happiness is a genuinely identifiable emotion that is difficult to redefine. In fact I think it is a profound indicator of what is happening within. Brad and I have focused on that issue in both our own books. It is something I am able to use as a yard stick for my own experience with grace. I often miss the mark in this arena, but I know where to go to find it restored.

[Ian Gentles]

I like the way she paints love as a strong thing dealing with harmony and emotions, boy this is quite a passage, still diggesting it :) I like to see love portreyed in strenth for too long we have had a wishy washy love preached in our churches. I see love and Holy Spirit as one and the same here!

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Hopefully, I will get started reading that book soon.

[Roland Hearn]

There is a lot of good stuff between the last part we looked at and the section we will consider today but because eventually we would like to over view the whole book and not get bogged down I'm jumping straight into the section on "The Credibility Gap." This chapter really helped confirm the imperative nature of a genuinely reasonable approach to scripture and theology that fits in the world. Wynkoop argues that to fail to have these things connected creates a "credibility gap" and presumably decreases our capacity to adequately reflect Christ to a needy world.
On page 42 in the hard copy, 29 online http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyctr/books/2601-2700/HDM2663.PDF, she makes this observation following a quote of Wesley's intent to write sermons that speak to "plain people." She says: "It is our conviction that in the lives of some of us our “holy words” may have become escapes from thinking and action— substitutes for the vital Christian freedom and holy aggression which belong to the Spirit-filled life and to the “holiness” message."
What she is saying is that often we allow our language to stand in the place of our reality. Right words but little substance. I would see that being a reality for many people I have encountered, including myself. We know how to say the right stuff but we live with something other than what those words would reflect should they mean the things they are supposed to mean. Any thoughts?

[Ryan Scott]

I'm seeing this more and more. It's very easy to make the right statements and say the right things. However, in the reality of the screwed up world in which we live, those "right words" don't amount to much good. We have to figure out how to live in the tension between the ideal and the real. Love plays a huge part in this. It's the whole reason I don't think we can talk about judgment in this life. Sure the Bible speaks of judgment, but its always from either God's perspective or from a post-resurrection perspective. As faulty beings in a faulty world, we have to, at times, make compromises from our ideal beliefs. If we can't live in the real world, our words mean very little. Love becomes a good measuring stick for our actions.

[Marsha Lynn]

There is a lot of good stuff between the last part we looked at and the section we will consider today

I'll say. I count 20 underlined passages in my copy of the book between the two.

On page 42 in the hard copy, 29 online http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyctr/books/2601-2700/HDM2663.PDF, she makes this observation following a quote of Wesley's intent to write sermons that speak to "plain people." She says: "It is our conviction that in the lives of some of us our “holy words” may have become escapes from thinking and action— substitutes for the vital Christian freedom and holy aggression which belong to the Spirit-filled life and to the “holiness” message."
What she is saying is that often we allow our language to stand in the place of our reality. Right words but little substance. I would see that being a reality for many people I have encountered, including myself. We know how to say the right stuff but we live with something other than what those words would reflect should they mean the things they are supposed to mean. Any thoughts?

I wish I could contribute something but somehow we focus on entirely different points in this book. After 20 underlined passages in 12 pages, my pen went quiet from page 40 to the middle of 43. I don't have a good grasp of what it means to "allow our language to stand in place of our reality" or what you mean by "right words but little substance". I'll just have to lis