Talking of bad takes I’ve picked up in other places than the much maligned Twitter, here’s something else I came across on Threads.
Why is this a bad take? Well, first of all consider the theology offered here as an alternative to Piper’s. There are three things that strike me.
First, what exactly is “a theology of love for self and love for neighbour.” This seems to be based on a re-wording of the second commandment “love your neighbour as yourself.” I’ve frequently heard people argue that this presumes that we do “love ourselves” but that seems to be putting a lot of weight on a particular psychological interpretation of what love is. The Law is not commanding you to “love yourself”, that’s to confuse Leviticus with Witney Housten. Rather, it is simply pointing out that generally speaking, we do care about and look after ourselves. So, we too should actively love, care about, look out for, look after others.
Self-love of the psychological kind isn’t in mind in Leviticus, nor in the teaching of Jesus. Indeed, Jesus’ example and wider teaching would suggest the opposite, that if I’m to love my neighbour, then I’m to forgo and sacrifice that care and protection of myself. I put the others’ needs first. I don’t need to “love myself” in order to love others in the same way. I need to die to myself.
Secondly, if we demand the right to self-love whilst insisting that God must not seek his own glory, then we deny to God the very thing we demand for ourselves, for surely there is a relationship between love and glory. If I love myself then I seek my own glory. This point comes across strongly in Piper’s understanding of the Shorter Catechism question “What is the chief end of man?” and its answer “To glorify God and enjoy him forever.” Piper insisted that we glorify God by enjoying him forever. In other words, love involves taking delight, pleasure and joy in. Piper’s next big point is that God glorifies himself by enjoying himself for ever. Of course the question about the morality of God glorifying, enjoying and loving himself has been long answered even before Piper. If God himself is the one of greatest value, worth, good then it would be unthinkable for him to do anything other but seek the glory of what is greatest and most good.
Thirdly, Jesus’ teaching takes us to the second commandment as like the first. In other words, there is a relationship there. The foundation and sustenance of my love for my neighbour is not found in my relationship to myself but my love for God. First that he loves me, second that I’m called to love him with all in (heart, mind and soul) love. Never mind whether or not God is seeking his own glory, I am commanded not to self-love but first and foremost to love and glorify God. You will realise that underpinning the problems with the theology in the thread is the big problem that this is a theology that is simply at odds with everything that the Bible has to say.
The other reason as to why this is such a bad take is that, as is so sadly, far too often a bad take is that it doesn’t even begin to come close to an accurate reflection of Piper’s theology. Remember that the foundation of Piper’s theology is of a happy God, a sovereign God who does not need to strive to attain glory for himself, he is untouchable and without rival. You might say that bringing glory to himself is just what he does, it is unavoidable. It would be impossible for God not to take delight and pleasure in himself. This God then is one whose joy, love and goodness overflow into creation and into the Gospel so that what we do is simply enjoy and delight in that overflow, which in turn cannot help but bring him glory.
At this point I might add
“Stop worrying about striving to love yourself and simply enjoy God’s love for you.”
The overflow of that will be our love for others.
Faithroots 