The Dangers of "Self-Love"

 The term “self-love” has gained popularity, even among Christians. Some would say that Jesus affirms this notion in the Second Greatest Commandment. Is that so? What do people mean by “self-love”?

 

The Second Greatest Commandment: “...love your neighbor as yourself.”  

Some Christians believe in “self-love” because of Matthew 22:39, “And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” In their eyes, “self-love” is clear because we should love our neighbors the way we love ourselves. It’s implied that we should love ourselves—”who doesn’t take care of themselves?”  

 

Taking good care of ourselves isn’t a problem... but why doesn’t Scripture write, “love yourselves?” Wouldn’t it be so easy for God to say, “Love Me, love your neighbor, love yourself?”  Perhaps a question that many people who advocate for “self-love” fail to address is, why is such a “self-love” implied? (We’ll allow the term “self-love” for now)

 

I think Scripture gives us an answer. “Self-love”, as in, taking care of ourselves, is an intrinsic function/response of every human being created in God’s image (cf. Gen 1:26-28). By nature, every human being takes care of themselves (to certain extents) because God created us with intrinsic integrity and purpose. If anyone should understand this, it should be Christians—as we should realize the higher purpose we have in Christ.  

 

When “self-love” is acceptable—diligence 

Therefore, “self-love” is acceptable when some Christians have gone through extremely rough upbringings, where their environment affects their identity. Some Christians need to realize that they are created in God’s Image and with a God-given purpose, and therefore, should diligently treat their bodies with intrinsic dignity. Some people need to see themselves the way God sees us, that our holistic being has intrinsic value. In terms of virtue, this is known as “diligence”--and the opposite is “sloth”.  

 

However, to be technical, “self-love” is not a biblical term. In other words, I believe Scripture avoids such terminology for a reason. Therefore, instead of using the term “self-love”, I’d rather stick with “taking care of yourself” or more biblically, “diligence” (cf. 2 Pet 1:5). We are called to be stewards of our bodies.   

 

When “self-love” is unacceptable—indulgence”  

Perhaps the biggest problem with self-love is that, “self-love” is self-defeating. Self-love is unbiblical. Why? Because love, by definition, is selfless (cf. Jn 3:16; 1 Cor 13:5; 1 Jn 4) Self-love appears to be extremely selfish and egoistic. It’s saying “me first”. But God says “God first” and at times, “put others above yourself.” (cf. Phil 2:3-5) Now, don’t get me wrong, diligence and being stewards of our bodies isn’t selfish but biblical and virtuous. 

(The Trinity seems to demonstrate perfect love and unity shared between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as the Father loves the Son selflessly and the Son loves the Spirit and so on. Notice how Jesus never says, “the Father loves Himself” rather, the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father —Jn 5:20; 14:31)

More importantly, self-love can become indulgence—”doing whatever I want to please myself in the name of love”. We are not called to indulge ourselves, whether with food, entertainment, earthly pleasures, lust, sex, egoism, pride etc.  This is not to say we can’t enjoy life (e.g.: Eccl 3:12-13; 3:22). Married couples are called to enjoy each other’s presence (Prov 5:18 cf. 1 Cor 7) alongside food with fellowship (1 Cor 11:17-34). Diligence, in many cases, involves rest. However, there is a line where enjoyment becomes indulgence.  

 

For example, Ecclesiastes 3:12-13 writes, “There is nothing better for people than to be happy...that each of them may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all their toil—this is a gift from God.” Yet, Scripture also writes, “Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.” 1 Corinthians 10:7  

 

Consider Jesus’ words in Matthew 6:31-32, “So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them.” Indulgence is running after the mere physical and external. Yet, God calls us to love Him and to seek His kingdom—and all these shall be provided (6: 33).  

 

Conclusion: 

Do you see the point? Once you cross the line, enjoyment becomes indulgence, and indulgence is not “love” as “love” seeks what is good in the eyes of God as God is good, holy, just, and righteous. Indulgence is self-harm. Some “Christians” use “self-love” to rationalize/justify indulgence and that is demonic because the enemy doesn’t seek your good. They may feel “loved” or “fulfilled” in the moment, such as one engaging in casual sex, but in the long run, there will be consequences and baggage. Therefore, God calls us to diligence, not indulgence.  

 

As for the term “self-love”, I think Christians should generally avoid it because it’s confusing. Rather, let’s be biblical and use biblical terms, such as “diligence” and “indulgence”. God calls us to diligence, the devil calls us to indulgence. Choose who you want to be your “influencer”. 

 

Preachers, Stop Manipulating Numbers!

This is an excerpt from an upcoming project on preaching:

 

Some preachers like to bring out the appearances of certain facts, names, and terms in Scripture to make a point or contrast. For instance, a pastor mentioned “the Bible uses the verb diakoneo (I serve) 37 times and the noun diakonos (servant, minister, deacon) 30 times.”

I remember the congregants sitting next to me were hectically jotting down these facts. But what good do these facts contain? How do these facts impact one’s understanding of Scripture and biblical truth?

Here’s another example:

“In the Gospels, Jesus asked over 300 questions. Do you know how many times He directly answered a question? 3 times. I’m not good at math, but could someone tell me what percentage that is? If anything, this shows us that, to be like Jesus, we should ask questions and not provide answers.”

The problem with Numbers/Stats

Numbers can be easily manipulated to make a statement or argument that has minimal scriptural warrant. We see that on TV or in presentations. I was taught this in 8th grade. In my experience, there has rarely been a case where numbers have been used well to demonstrate a biblical notion—that it was the intent of the author to use certain words and phrases for effect. On the other hand, there are countless examples of preachers who manipulate numbers, particularly the number of appearances a word has in Scripture, to stress a point that does not make biblical sense.

In my opinion, most preachers use numbers to touch upon significance. The usual argument is something like this: “Because this term appeared [X] amount of times, we should take it seriously or not as seriously;” or, “The term [X] appears [a] times, but the term [Y] appears [2a—twice] times. Therefore, [Y] has greater significance than [X].” These arguments drive me crazy. Allow me to respond with four arguments.

Tread Carefully with Numbers/Stats

First, if all Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16), all Scripture matters. All Scripture is important. Even if a word appears only once in Scripture, it is still God-breathed. A word or phrase is significant for the Christian believer not by how many times it appears, but by the fact that it is Scripture. If the objective of making a case with numbers is for the audience to understand significance, “that we should take the term seriously,” numbers and appearances are not the way to do it.

Second, a word or phrases’ appearance does not equate to greater/lesser importance. A word that is used a lot in the Bible does not automatically mean it is necessarily more important than another one. For instance, the word that appears most in the New Testament is kai, a conjunction that means “and, or, even,” with over 9000 appearances.[1] Yet, one would rarely hear a biblical case concerning the significance of kai. This relates to the next point.

Third, even if a word or phrase appears minimally in Scripture, it can carry massive theological—not lexical—significance. I must assert that there are some words in Scripture that contain great theological significance without anything to do with the number of appearances. For instance, “propitiation” (hilasmos) only makes two appearances (1 Jn 2:2; 4:10). Even if one were to combine the variant hilasterion (Rom 3:25, Heb 9:5), the total appearances of propitiation is four. Yet, propitiation is a rich theological notion that is crucial in explaining the Gospel. The word refers to ample passages in Scripture that detail the process of the Gospel. Surely, one would not consider propitiation unimportant unless they would like to deny the Gospel.

Another example is the contrast between kurios (Lord, master) and philos (friend). There are over 700 usages of kurios, in which most of them are designated in reference to Christ. While there are over 20 usages of philos, only a few of the usages indicate the relationship between Christ and His believers as friends (Lk 12:4; John 15:14-15).

Jesus is Lord and the common term to designate Christ is to refer to His lordship—He is the King of kings and Lord of Lords (Rev 19:16). However, just because there are fewer instances where Christ calls us “friends” (philous), a fraternal term, it does not diminish the significance. Jesus is not lesser as a friend than our Lord. He is Lord over all and He is our friend.

Fourth, the attempt to make a case concerning significance with numbers assume that certain terms and phrases are used in the same way. However, a word (especially in Greek) can be used in different ways. For instance, “word” (logos) is used in Scripture referring to “Christ”, “Scripture”, “logic/reason” and (literally) “word”, in the sense of speech (something someone said). In fact, logos is predominantly used as a communication device. Counting how many times Scripture contains logos to make a case may easily ignore the different meanings that the word has. One simply cannot make a case with the number of times logos is used in Scripture.

In my experience, many preachers who attempt to make a case with numbers are not familiar with the original languages of Scripture nor linguistic practices. That’s not a problem…until they act like pros when they’re not by not doing the actual work. Please do the work and handle the word of truth correctly (cf. 2 Tim 2:15). Scripture is not a means of manipulation—even when the preacher did not intend to manipulate and to present inaccurate information.

All to say, a preacher who truly cares about the integrity of the biblical text must be careful in using numbers as an argument. I would suggest that it would be safe to not use the appearance of a term as much as possible unless the preacher has truly made a biblically true case concerning numbers—which requires ample study. A case that employs numbers well is one in which the preacher can substantially claim that the biblical authors intended numbers to be used for significance. In my own studies, these cases are few. One example where numbers are used well could be the length of a king’s rule during Kings/Chronicles. Kings who were faithful to the Law had a longer reign while those who were unfaithful had a short reign.

Preachers, for the sake of integrity and biblical integrity, don’t manipulate numbers. As Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 2:15, may we do our best in handling Scripture.

[1] Mounce, Basis of Biblical Greek Grammar, 20.  

WHEN FAITH MEETS THEOLOGY (and Vice-Versa)

 

When Faith meets Theology and Vice-Versa

 I oftentimes run into (more or less) two groups of Christians: 1) believers emphasizing faith & 2) believers emphasizing theology. By faith, oftentimes this refers to one’s relationship with God—how one engages, experiences, and encounters God on a daily basis.[1] Theology, on the other hand, defined as the study and understanding of God (theos + logos) that is ultimately based on Scripture, deals more (not entirely) with the conceptual and perhaps, even intellectual in some cases. In short, faith = how God works and moves in the believer’s life and theology = who God is and what He does.[2]

Even when it comes to preaching and preachers, some tend to stress on stories and experiences, capturing what the Lord has been practically doing in one’s life, while others can be more theological, emphasizing on concepts, terms, and Scripture that is more “up in the air”.

 

Allow me to use another example. Some Bible studies are “inductive”, where a group of believers gather together and simply share anything upon coming to a certain passage—oftentimes more experiential and related to their life. At the same time, there are some “deductive” bible studies are crafted with actual questions and answers geared towards unpacking every little detail of a certain passage.

 

 While “faith” and “theology” could at times be juxtaposed at different ends of a spectrum, my goal in this article is to present that there is an intertwined relationship between the two, and there is massive importance for every believer to understand how faith shapes one’s theology and vice-versa.

 

Faith impacts Theology

Just as Paul came to have faith in God through encountering the risen Christ (Acts 9), I believe the reason why most Christians are Christians—one people who pledges allegiance to King Jesus—is ultimately because of an experience and encounter with the living God. This is oftentimes called a testimony.

 

At the same time, Paul had a theology before he had faith in Christ (e.g.: Acts 8, Gal 1-2), and his theology ended up being completely changed by his encounter with Jesus (e.g.: Gal 2; 1 Tim 1:13-16). In the same way, one’s experiences in life with Christ can impact one’s understanding of God.

 

For example, one who sees a “believer” who was once extremely passionate for God—only to fall away into sin and ultimately denounce Him—may believe a “theology” that one can lose one’s salvation. Or one who comes to find unconditional love and acceptance in the church may eventually understand the biblical and theological notion of God being love (1 Jn 4:8). Or, on a contrary note, a believer who has been continuously struggling with sin in his/her walk with God, may struggle with the theological notion of how we can have complete victory over sin (e.g.: 1 Cor 10:13; 1 Jn 1-2).

 

My goal here is to illustrate that, when a Christian speaks of his/her faith (whether personal or communal), even if one does not intend to make a theological claim (who God is objectively and ontologically; or “what I believe about God to be true”), there is a “theology” presented beneath one’s faith. It is impossible for one to detach one’s “personal” faith with theology, one’s understanding of God. (even if one says: "I love Jesus", this presents a theological idea that "God is loveable", that He is personal and can be loved—denying agnosticism and pantheism.)

 

Thus, if there are some particular theology (maybe...Christology—study/understanding pertaining to Christ; Pneumatology—understanding of the Holy Spirit etc.) that you do not quite understand or reason with, maybe that's because there are some conflicts or incongruences with the outlook of your relationship with God. In other words, maybe you're not living out your faith right. (If I haven't prayed for forgiveness, I might lean towards believing that God doesn't really forgive me.)

Theology impacts Faith

Vice-versa, one’s understanding of God—or who I think God is (“theology”)—affects one’s (alleged) daily walk with God. Even if one fully professes to be Christian and has committed oneself to live for Jesus and not for oneself, one’s understanding of Him impacts how one’s faith is played out on a day-to-day basis.

 

For example, if one believes that “to love one’s neighbor” is ultimately accepting them and all their behavior (good and bad), and that, when Jesus tells us “do not judge” (Matt 7; Lk 6), it means that we are not to criticize people—then 1) this belief may misread, ignore, or downplay certain aspects of Scripture that present otherwise. 2) More importantly, this believer would likely live out his/her “faith” applying such theological beliefs.

 

Thus, given that theology impacts faith—our experience, engagement, and encounter with Christ—the quantity and quality of one’s everyday faith is oftentimes reflected by what they believe. With the example above, if “love” only means “acceptance”, that “God accepts me and whatever I do”, then this person may not actually experience God well, as love isn’t merely acceptance; this person may not really experience God’s love in any meaningful way.

Here are more examples: 

If a believer believes in a theology that God doesn't heal, he/she may not engage as much in praying for them. 

If a believer believes that God doesn't really care who one dates and marries, one may live out one's faith as more casual relationally, with lower standards—perhaps not actively seeking God's will in one's love life.

If a believer believes that one is still a sinner after coming to know Jesus—and not a saint—this one may be more tolerable to sin in one's life, since "I'm just a sinner anyway."

All to say, if you are struggling with your faith and having difficulties in your experiential side of God, maybe that’s a theological issue—maybe there are obstacles in your understanding of Jesus.

 

Conclusion: 2 Peter 1:2 + 3:18

 

A famous passage (sometimes overlooked) is 2 Peter 3:18, which writes:” But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ…” Literally, Peter is commanding (αὐξάνετε—in the imperative, functioning as a command) the believers to increase in grace and also knowledge of Jesus! As believers, we ought to grow in knowledge of God, to know more about Him as that impacts our relational “knowing” of Him on a day to day basis.

 

What’s interesting, however, is how this passage connects with 2 Peter 1:2: “May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.” Both “grace” (or “favor) and “peace” have an experiential component. We experience the grace and peace of God (e.g.: Phil 4:7) in our faith—our walk with God. Yet, according to 2 Peter 1:2, this experience is multiplied in our knowledge and understanding of God, once again reflecting the intertwined relationship between faith and theology.

 

Therefore, when Peter exhorts us in 2 Peter 3:18 to grow in grace and knowledge, I don’t think he’s presenting the two as separate identities. I think he is treating the two closely—that, as we grow in the grace/favor of God (faith), we grow in knowledge (theology); and when we grow in the knowledge of God (theology), we grow in His grace and peace (faith).

 

 

The relationship between faith and theology is oftentimes a spiral. Both influence each other. When one's faith meets theology, both one's faith and theology are impacted.  

 

---

[1] The basis for this definition mainly arises from how “faith” is used in: Rom 1:8; 1:12; Phil 1:27; 2:17; Col 1:4; 1:23; 2:5-7; 1 Thess 1:8; 3:1-10; 2 Thess 3:2 etc.

[2] I fully acknowledge that this is a super simplified definition of faith (πιστις) and theology (θεος λογος).