Love Actually, in the Apostle Paul

Introduction - Paul, lacking love?

A good number of Bible scholars, particularly perhaps if they are of a feminist bent, have been  - in my opinion - and I, as a white male of European descent have to careful here - too hard on the Apostle Paul. Yes, he said a couple of things about the place of women in the church that some find unacceptable today, for example, I Corinthians (Cor.). 14:33-35 being the passage most often referred to, 11:2-16 being another) - and ‘today’ is the point. 

These things were written to new communities of believers in a world hostile to Christianity nearly 2,000 years ago. Paul was human, and he did not want the gospel and its adherents to m make a bad impression in the society of the day. And yes, he did seem to favour singleness in another place (I Cor. 7:1-17). But that was only in terms of his thoughts of all believers being single so they could be as single-mindedly zealous for his accepted task of spreading the gospel for his Lord as he was. And when you realize how many thousands of kilometres he traveled - much on foot - many miles by ship - you have to have some respect for his remarkable commitment to his calling. We know too it was from from easy. Just read the litanies of troubles he encountered in passages like II Cor. 11:21-12:10.

Paul, the writer

In spite of, and in large part because of, these travels and the new communities of Jesus followers established, Paul found time to write a number of letters. This must show some bond between Paul and the people he writes to. Traditionally, Paul has been credited with thirteen letters, which we often refer to as books, as in ‘the books of the Bible’. In some cases, he wrote to communities in which he had spent time - I & II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, I & II Thessalonians, with one example of a place to which he wished to go - Romans, and in one case to a place for which we have no record of him having visited - Colossians. In addition, he wrote 4 personal letters - two to his beloved ‘spiritual’ son and co-worker, Timothy, one to his co-worker, Titus, and one to Philemon, a man he seems to have met or at least fellowshipped with. Finally, we have note of one letter for which we have no record - a letter to the Laodiceans Paul asks the Colossians to read in exchange for the one they have (Col. 4:16). Colossae, where it is assumed Philemon lived, as Archippus, addressed in Philemon v. 2 seemingly a a member of Philemon’s household, is viewed as the same Archippus mentioned in Col. 4:17 with an admonishment to complete some task he had been given. 

 The World of Paul

This year, my wife and I and some 20 others had the privilege of being able to follow in Paul’s footsteps from Asia Minor (now Türkiye) through Macedonia, Achaia (those are both part of Greece) and on to land in Italy where he did and then on to Rome, where it is believed he met his death. We noted how different our travel was though - air conditioned buses and seagoing vessels that were not as much at the mercy of the wind as those in which Paul traveled. Our sightseeing tour was much enhanced by the input of New Testament scholar/teacher/writer Tom Yoder Neufeld, a Manitoban, most recently from Conrad Grebel College.  Indeed, such seeing coupled with learning was the whole point of the trip. 

As described, this tour, of course, only covered the regions Paul visited in his so-called 2^nd and 3^rd Missionary Journeys. The 1^st was to the region west and next to Syria, from where Paul came. As well, we know we first meet Paul in Jerusalem, already a Pharisee of some authority and scholarly background. Then he went to Damascus, after which he apparently spent quite some time in ‘Arabia’, which some believe to be what is sometimes known as Nabatea in southern contemporary Jordan. Before starting on the major expeditions referred to, Paul did visit Jerusalem to meet the other leaders in the new Jesus movement, but spent the most of the next 14 years or so in Syria, working out of his hometown, Tarsus, but mainly Antioch, which became the centre of the Eastern Church after the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in AD 70. Paul summarizes much of this in his letter to the Galatians 1:11-2:14.

After seeing the places Paul visited, being on the ground there and listening to Tom explain Paul’s letters as they pertained to these cities (Ephesus - now a wondrous and much-visited collection of ruins, Laodicea, Hierapolis, Colossae - although we did not go to this last, as there is really nothing to see there now, Neapolis, now Kavala, Philippi - now basically ruins only, Beroea, Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth, Puteoli, now Pozzuoli, a suburb of Naples, and finally Rome, one gains a new appreciation and understanding of these epistles.  The whole experience stimulated revisiting Paul’s letters with renewed study, especially with the background this trip provided.

Love in Paul’s Writing in I Thessalonians 

Many believe the first letter to the new Thessalonian believers is the oldest writing of Paul’s that we have. It is generally held that he wrote it after continuing south from Thessalonica and arriving, eventually, for an extended stay as it turned out, in Corinth.

Perhaps because the letters to the Thessalonians somehow seem to be those I have least studied, I was keen to look at hem anew and in more depth. When I turned to these letters, realizing the first letter at least is the oldest New Testament writing, save possibly for the Gospel According to Mark, I was all the more interested to see what we could learn from ‘early Paul.’ However, even this is probably twenty years after his unique ‘Damascus Road’  conversion. 

Some students of these letters also find them interesting because the teaching on Christ’s return is still fresher in Paul’s mind here than later writing, so it is interesting to see what that entails. What really struck me as I re-read the first letter though, was the evident love contained in it. This is what led to this essay.

The New International Version English translation of the Bible has 588 uses of the word ‘love’, with 204 of these being in the New Testament. Almost half, 100, are in Paul’s writings. This from an apostle whom some want to see as a stern champion of serious patriarchy? Seven of these references are in I Thessalonians and 3 in II Thessalonians.

I would venture today that all believers soon encounter in their Christian life Paul’s most famous writing on love, chapter 13 of I Corinthians, devoted entirely to what Paul describes, when he leads into the section of the letter, as the “more excellent way” (I Cor. 12:31).

Jesus himself taught that love was what was needed to be able to keep all the laws the Jews adhered to. Indeed, his teaching, recorded in Matthew 22:34-40, is linked to the Old Testament law in Deuteronomy 6:5. When asked what the greatest law was, Jesus replied, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your might. This is the greatest and first commandment.” Then he added, referencing Lev. 19:18: “And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” This teaching has come to be known as The Royal Law, based on Jesus’ brother James reference to it as such in 2:8 of his short ‘book’: “You do well if you really follow the royal law according to the scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’

Paul does not ignore this emphasis on the need for love. In Rom. 13:8-10, this devout student of and formerly legalistic adherent to the Mosaic Law writes: “Owe no one anything except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments… are summed up in this word, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbour; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.” This same teaching is included more briefly in Gal. 5:13-15. 

Let us turn to I Thessalonians now to see what it shows as evidence that Paul was a  man with love. Acts 16:11-18:21 give us the narrative third-party story of Paul in Thessalonica and the context around that. But what is Paul himself saying beyond what Luke, the author acts, wrote?

Paul more often addresses the new converts as brothers (e.g. 1:4, 2:1,9, 17, 4:1, 13, 5:1, 12) than he has a habit of doing in his other letters. Look though at 2:7-8: “…we were gentle along you, like a nurse tenderly caring for her own children. So deeply did we care for you that we were determined to share with you not only the gospel of God but our own selve, because you have become very dear to us.” Then, there is 2:11-12: “…we dealt with each one of you like a father with his children, urging and encouraging you and pleading that you lead a life worthy of God…”  

Do these expressions sound like a harsh, legalistic patriarch? If you read them in context you can hardly not acknowledge the deep feelings Paul has for these people. Would you not agree there is love in there somewhere?

Paul then writes about how he misses them. He had left suddenly, at the encouragement of some his companions it seems, because of the opposition they were experiencing, with its focus, naturally, on Paul as their leader. Perhaps the Jewish people who were persecuting them regarded Paul, as a Pharisee, as a traitor for believing in Jesus as the Messiah, whom their compatriots in Jerusalem had killed. We know from their responses to the Apostles in Jerusalem earlier that they also felt the Apostles were trying to make them feel guilty (Acts 5:17-42). No  one likes to be reminded of their bad deeds.

Now there is the situation of what happened in Philippi and where that left Paul and his companions when they arrived in Thessalonica. In 2:1 he writes “our coming to you was not in vain, but though we had already suffered and been shamefully mistreated at Philippi, as you know, we had courage in our God to declare to you the gospel of God in spite of great opposition.” In Philippi, Paul and Silas had their clothes stripped and been beaten with rods publicly and thrown in the stocks in jail without a charge, let alone a trial, all of which was entirely against Roman law. Paul had protested this greatly when the jailer had simply received word to let the men out to go in peace. Indeed, when the authorities had found out, they had almost come on their knees, begging Paul and Silas to simply go away quietly, as it were (Acts 16:16-39).

The description in Luke's writing in Acts, coupled with how Paul himself described their treatment in Philippi, suggest that what had happened had really had a strongly negative impact on them. If we did not know Paul better, we might have thought Paul suffered a real blow to his ego, and perhaps there was some of that in what he wrote. That may be what prompted him to quickly add that they still had the courage to preach the gospel to the Thessalonians when they arrived; they were still able to ‘do their job’ (2:2).

At the same time, it seems that Paul goes out of his way to make certain that the Thessalonians did not see them as coming for any personal gain. If one reads all of Paul’s protestations in this regard in I Thessalonians 2:3–6 and 9–10, one might also be wondering whether Paul felt their hosts, who appear to have been very good to them it seems, had also responded so positively to Paul's message that Paul may have had a concern that they did so out of pity, and not genuine repentance. This may also be why he strongly points out to the Thessalonians that their faith, the changes in their lives, and their treatment of Paul in his companions, is all evidence of the powerful work of the Holy Spirit in their lives. We see this in 1:5, where Paul says, “…our message of the gospel came to you not in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction". It seems Paul is making sure that the Thessalonians know that their response to the gospel as it has subsequently been borne out in the changes in their lives can only be the working of the power of the Holy Spirit, not any feelings of being sorry for Paul and Silas and the condition in which they arrived in Thessalonica.

At the same time, the persecution that surfaced in Philippi and had followed the Apostles Thessalonica, was already affecting the new believers (1:6, 2:14-16, 3:1-3). Therefore, Paul wants to reassure them as well and expresses his concern that the persecution may have weaken their commitment to follow Jesus was one of the main reasons why he wanted so badly to go back and visit them (2:18, 3:5). At the same time, he has heard such positive reports of their being example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia because of their imitation of the witness and behaviour of the apostles and of the Lord (1:6-7), that he spends much more time giving thanks and praising them for all of this in the first two chapters than he generally does in his other letters.

Going back to Paul's deep appreciation for the Thessalonians’ response in spite of the circumstances, we read in 2:8: "so deeply do we care for you that we are determined to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves, because you have become very dear to us.” In 2:17, Paul writes, “…we were made orphans by being separated from you – in person, not in heart" which made him long "with great eagerness to see you face-to-face” again. Paul writes in vs. 18 about how he wanted to go to them, again and again but believed that Satan was blocking the way.

As Paul then states in 3: 1-3, “Therefore, when we could bear it no longer, we decided to be left alone in Athens; and we sent Timothy, our brother and coworker… to strengthen encourage you for the sake of your faith, so that no one would be shaken by these persecutions,” ending that section with the remarks (3:5) "I was afraid that somehow the tempter had tempted you and that our labour had been in vain." However, then he speaks of Timothy's return, bringing the good news of their faith and love and that they remember Paul and Silas “…kindly and long to see us - just as we long to see you “(3:6). 

Finally, Paul closes this section with a prayer (3:11-12): “Now may our God father himself and our Lord Jesus direct our way to you. And may the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all, just as we abound in love for you." Again, building on what he has heard and already written positively about to the Thessalonians, he adds in 4:9 "Now concerning love of the brothers and sisters, you do not need to have anyone write to you, for you yourself have been taught by God to love one another, and indeed you do love all the brothers and sisters throughout Macedonia."

There is more love language in the final section of the letter. In 5:12-13 Paul admonishes the Thessalonians to "esteem very highly in love [those who labour among you] because of their work.” Then he urged them, as “beloved" (5:14) in various ways of exhibiting the Christian ethic in their lives with one another. Just before his final greeting, Paul also addresses them with a request, "Beloved, pray for us" (5: 25).

Conclusion

I believe that when we read and examine this letter, we see how it is permeated with a strong bond of love between these apostles and the new believer. These are newly met individuals who have received the message he was mandated to give, and with whom Paul is trying to maintain and strengthen ties with, in language that is steeped in caring love. 

Would that we see such love between our shepherds and their flocks and that we also do our part to exhibit such love in our lives that we could also be worthy of the type of praise Paul pours out on the Thessalonian Christians.

Do You Love Me?

Have you ever asked this question? Some might quickly reply, “Of course, don’t most people ask that question at some point or another in their lives?” Others might recall asking the question in all serious innocence of someone in their circle as a child. How many of us have that purposefully asked that question of another a an adult? Do we even ask those dearest and nearest to us? Did we ask, if we are married, our partner before marrying? Or after?

Some might say, we don’t need to ask that question in some of these circumstances. We know the answer. Indeed? How so? I think some might answer, “I can see it in [the other.]” Other would say, “They show it in their words and actions.” Exactly - without the proof of what is said and done, how do we know love exists? 

This brings me to the famous account of Jesus’ intimate moments with his follower Peter after Jesus’ resurrection (It is recorded in the last chapter of John’s version of The Gospel).  They were back home, in familiar territory, where they had met three short years earlier. Peter and his companions had once again gone fishing. It was what they did. When they turned shoreward at dawn, having caught nothing all night, they saw a man on the beach. The man asked them if they had caught anything. When he heard the negative answer he told them to cast their net on the right side of the boat.  It might have seemed an odd request but there was something that compelled them to do so. When they did so, they caught so many fish they could not pull the net full into the boat and simply dragged it along. A miracle?

It seems the men thought so, as, they then recognized this was Jesus, having seen him at least twice already since his resurrection, and whom they knew was entirely capable of performing miracles. Of course, they also knew his voice, one they had often obeyed, as they had felt they should now. And look what happened!

When they reached shore and disembarked, they saw a charcoal fire with fish on it, and some bread. Perhaps seeing that there was not enough fish to go around, Jesus asked them to bring some of what they had just caught. No miracle this time?

Peter obeys and then Jesus asks them to join him for breakfast. He took the bread and  fish, blessing it in the recognizable way they had become so accustomed to, gave it to them.

After breakfast the men likely got busy taking care of their catch. We don’t know for sure what happened next, but reading what followed, I doubt Jesus would have been so insensitive as to initiate the conversation he did in front of the whole group.

Jesus wanted Peter’s attention. At one level, I suspect Peter was dreading this moment. So far, Jesus had said nothing to him about Peter’s denials while Jesus was on trial and Peter was outside, although Peter probably feared that was coming. At one level he probably just wanted to get it over with too, to clear the air between him and his Master.

Jesus asked Peter, “Simon, do you love me?” Note, Jesus did not call him Peter, ‘the rock,’ He went back to the beginning, to Simon, ‘a reed,’ instead of using the name he had given him when he called him to be his follower. Peter replied, “Yes, Lord, you know that I like you (according to the original language).” Notice the difference between the question and the answer. Jesus responded with, “Feed my lambs.” 

Jesus asked again, “Simon, do you love me?” Peter gave the same answer. This time, Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.” What’s the difference? Perhaps Jesus was thinking after the first answer, ‘If you cannot commit to more than simply liking me after all we’ve been through, maybe you are only qualified to minister to beginners, lambs.’ However, when Peter gives the answer the second time, perhaps Jesus thinks, ‘All right, you’re at least sticking with that answer. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you can also feed my sheep.’ Teach the deeper stuff to adults, the more mature believers.

Jesus asks once more, “Simon, Do you like me?” Notice the difference. Jesus, ever sensitive to where a person is as at, perceives that Simon is not ready to commit to anything more than ‘like.’ So, he’ll go with that. Jesus can use us where we are at, sometimes in spite of ourselves. 

Notice that Peter’s cousin, John, who was nearby, (which we know because right after this exchange Peter turns around and sees John and changes the subject to ask Jesus about him) and wrote this, writes that Peter was upset because Jesus asked him this question three times.  Why would he not be upset? He knew exactly what Jesus was getting at. He knew he had it coming to him. Peter had denied even knowing Jesus three times when Jesus was at his most needy. Now, Jesus was giving him three chances to say something different. He was giving hm three chances to make good.

However, Peter cannot bring himself to say, “I love you.” Was that some ‘macho’ fisherman thing? No, Peter, ever honest, knew that at that moment, knowing what he had done a couple of weeks earlier, could not commit to that higher level of affection, to love.

Jesus knows Peter has a way to go. He also knows Peter is the best he’s got to begin to carry on his mission on earth. He tells him again, “Feed my sheep,” but he goes on to tell Peter that he, Peter, will some day pay a high price for his being willing to keep liking Jesus. Then he gives him a chance to grow, but at the same time makes a request, which, if Peter complies, will give Peter the opportunity to gain what he is yet lacking,”Follow me.” It’s the same call he had given him when he called him from his fishing by the Sea of Galilee three years earlier. Then he had told him he would make him a  ‘fisher of men.’ Now it is a shepherd he is calling Peter to be. We could write another whole essay, nay, a book, on what it means to be a shepherd. Peter had some idea though. He had heard Jesus speak of this, of himself being The Good Shepherd, giving some characteristics of such, and what the relationship of a good shepherd with his sheep entails. 

As we know, once Peter was baptized with the Holy Spirit some two months later, he became an emboldened and powerful shepherd indeed. We can read all about it in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, which, in our Bibles, follows the Gospel of John, the last chapter of which gives us this story.

As if there is not enough in this for us to stop here and mull over, there is one more point of utmost significance that needs to be made about this conversation. When things were on the line between Jesus and Peter, Jesus got right to the heart of everything. He asked Peter, ‘Do you love me?’ Not, ‘Okay Peter, you have been with me three years, what do you really know about who I am?’ Peter had answered that one before when he said Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of the living God. Nor did he ask him, knowing he was soon to leave Peter, at least from an earthly point of view, ‘What do you believe, about me, about what I have taught you? What do you remember that you are to feed my lambs and my sheep with?’ 

God, including Jesus in the flesh, is all about relationships.  That’s why God created us, to be in relationship with God. God is love, and at its best, a relationship is based on love, grows on love, matures in love. Jesus did not ask Peter about all those things we as Christians disagree on, get into squabbles, divide and yes, even kill each other over - the identity of Christ, beliefs, doctrine, matters of ethics and practice etc. No, none of that. Jesus got right to the core. As the Apostle Paul wrote, “Put on the clothes of love, which is the bond of perfection, of harmony (his letter to the church at Colossae, chapter 3, verse 14).” Love never divides.    

What did I write at the beginning? We know love from action. There is no love without action. What action(s)? For us, simple, in the words of Jesus himself, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, and love your neighbour as yourself.” And in case you forgot, the Parable of the Good Samaritan makes it clear that everyone is our neighbour.

Our 'creative side'

Christmas is often a time of year when people’s creative side emerges. You see it in decoration, how gifts are handled and in all the baking and cooking that goes into its celebration. Have you ever stopped to think about where this ‘creative streak’ comes from? 

If you accept the theory of evolution you might think of all kinds of adaptive reasons for its development. I am not going to enter into any debate around that. As Christian, I believe we are creative because we are made in the image of God, however that occurred. God is creative. Most religions of the world believe that. We might say that’s why the whole universe is here, including us humans and the earth we live in. We have an account of creation in chapter one of our Judeo-Christian Old Testament.

Can we answer our original question more easily if we understand why God is creative? Interestingly, I am not sure that question is answered anywhere in The Bible, at least not straightforwardly. But I have a theory.

We are told that God is Love. What is love? One could possibly give many answers to that question. For my argument here, I will propose that at least one element of love is that it is an outward directed ‘force,’ for want of a better word. We are also told that God is all about Relationship. Now, if you want relationship, you need something, someone, to relate to. Now, we believe God exists in a Trinity wherein there is a tripartite relationship between ‘Father,’ ‘Son,’ and ‘Holy Spirit.’ At the same time, we believe that is only one being. Still no ‘other’ to share that love with. Follow my train of thought?

Well, yes, he had apparently created angels. We do not know a lot about these beings. They are most often seen in the Judeo-Christian tradition as servants and messengers of God. Were they not enough? Maybe not. And why not? Could it have something to do with their freedom? It would seem from our limited attempts to explain the origins of evil that there was an angel who did appear to exercise some choice and rebel against God. We call him Satan, the Devil, the Evil One, or, in more charitable moments, considering his origins, Lucifer, the Angel of Light. But we also speak of God as Light. But I digress, somewhat.

God had a plan. He has all kinds of plans. He created the universe and our earth in it, populated it with untold varieties of flora and fauna, not to mention the beautiful landscapes and seascapes, the skies. God is Good, so, naturally, everything he was created he saw as good. However, something was missing. When we love, do we not yearn for someone to receive our love, ideally to love us back. Why, that idea was even popularized in a Jefferson Airplanehit song in the 60’s, “Don’t You Want Somebody to Love?” After all, relationships are not a one-way street. That is not selfish. We realize, even scientifically now, it is essential for our health, our survival. All of what he had created from Days 1-5 was unable to reciprocate that love satisfactorily. 

Do we not love best when the other is like us? God’s solution was to create beings into whom he personally breathed the breath of life. Furthermore, we are told, he created them – us – in his image. Ergo, we are creative because God is creative.

So, why do we create? Do we not have a compulsion, a drive to do so? At least if we are healthy enough. And do we not do so because we enjoy it? Do we not like ‘the fruit of our labours?’ Just as God liked and called good all of his creation. 

However, there is more to this. I don’t believe we can separate these characteristics of person we have been talking about – love, reciprocity or relationship, creativity. Ultimately, we create because we want someone else to enjoy it. As I said with relation to our Creator, that is not selfish. Yes, in our imperfection, we have often made it less than what it should or could be. That means some of us seem happy to keep it all to ourselves, for a variety of reasons. Others are so starved for attention and acceptance, approval, they go overboard in trying to gain that for their creativity from others. Notice how relationship is tied in with this.

Also, I believe, in our imperfection, we often create things which are not good. But that’s a whole ‘nother story.

For most of us, who enjoy the creative process and feel compelled to create, we want to share our creativity with others. Does true sharing not come from love? See, again, how the strands of God and personality are inseparable?

So, does this help explain more about what we are about when we create? It’s a lot more than just wanting that ‘Like’ on Facebook, isn’t it?

Going on 42 years – I think that supports my sharing some comments about marriage.

Some say marriage is a dying institution. Others seem to put more stock (literally in some cases no doubt) in the wedding. You learn about weddings costing upwards of $20,000. And then the divorce follows 3 years later. So, what was all that about? I don’t think our wedding, including the clothes we wore, cost $500. And no, that doesn’t mean it would have been a lot more in today’s dollars taking into account inflation etc.

But you are curious about what makes a wedding last. Maybe even more so about how ours lasted so long? 

To be sure, to begin with, ours is what some call a mixed marriage, meaning my wife Anne and I are not of the same background, other than that we are human. Some would say that would be a strike against success from the get-go. Could be. But it’s never been a problem for us. Well, of course, there were a lot of significant values we shared. But with her being from the most conservative ethnic group of Taiwanese and me being from what some would call ‘ethnic Mennonite’ stock in Canada, well, you get the picture. 

One thing we both learned quickly about each other was that we valued family. Anne loved and appreciated her family back in Taiwan. She could see from my connections with my siblings up to my grandparents and even great uncles and aunts how meaningful family was for me.  We also both loved nature. I grew up in northern Canada, where the wild was a stone’s throw from the front door. She had taken to hiking in nature in her university years. We were both pretty thrifty, not materialistic. We both loved music, although my tastes are much more varied, including a lot more rock, blues etc., whereas hers tends mostly to classical, which I also like.  We both like good literature, reading. Gardening was also something we had in common. My family carried on our rural roots Mennonite tradition in that respect. Anne’s family also had all kinds of plants and trees for food in the compound that was part of her home growing up. We enjoy playing games together. As time went on we discovered a mutual fondness for travel and exploration. We tend to prefer nature or heritage sites, especially old buildings (homes, public buildings, churches and cathedrals), most often found in cities.

However, the core of our being together this long really has a lot to do with our faith. The seeds of Christianity had been planted in her childhood by Anne’s attending pre-school and Sunday school in a Roman Catholic mission in her hometown. She was led to join a group of Chinese immigrants who were actively involved with the Alliance Church in Winnipeg, where we met, even before I met her. So, it wasn’t much of a switch for her to start going to my Mennonite Church with me when we started going together. Eventually she was baptized into the Mennonite Church and is as staunch and well-informed an Anabaptist as you will find.

In this Christian tradition, marriage is seen as being ordained by God at the beginning. Monogamy and lifetime commitment are the expected norms. So, when you accept all that and have family and a faith community to hold and support you as you move along the path of your marriage, staying the course is doable. Unfortunately, many don’t even have that to begin with. This is not to say that having a faith is a necessary key to a successful marriage. There are people who have no spiritual faith who make their marriages last. However, they will no doubt still share enough of a belief system, of values, to sustain their relationship.

So, what about the quality of your relationship, some might well be asking. Indeed, that is important. No one wants a joyless marriage. I think the attitude you bring to marriage, in our case, increasingly shaped by our faith, still had a lot to do with this for us. I think we were very fortunate in this regard. I was nearly 28 when we met, Anne, going on 25. That brings a certain maturity to one’s assessment of things. At the same time, we quickly fell into a deeply passionate and intimate relationship. That, in my opinion, has formed an important part of the foundation of a good marriage, at least when it continues. When there are difficult moments, when we are apart, as we often are these days, for months at a time with Anne spending time with her aging parents in Taiwan, not usually with me there, remembering that love helps carry us through. The pictures from that era, the songs we shared between us that I wrote, all help. We are no longer young and as good-looking as we might have been then. But when you have a marriage like ours, founded on what we have, your beloved will always look beautiful to you – what you see is never separated from what you saw when you were younger.

A good marriage is something based on firm commitment that one works at to maintain. As the old “Sound of Music” line goes, “nothing comes from nothing.” Our world is too inundated with material from psychology and the media that creates unrealistic expectations of marriage. You have to be married to a soul-mate. Your youthful passion has to continue till – when? Movies, pop songs and checkstand pulp aside, marriage is not just better and better sex! 

From the outside some marriages might look like the couple never argue, fight or has a disagreement. As Anne would say, “Get real.” But when these things happen, you have to look at the bigger picture and stay the course, making whatever adjustments seem necessary remedy the situation and sometimes just weathering it until it passes, however that occurs. Don’t jump to dire conclusions about the end of your marriage looming ahead of you just because you had a spat! Back off, survey the scene, cool down and let reason re-emerge. Don’t live on feelings and emotions. Of course, as I said, you do need them – in their place. If the temptation of divorce surfaces in the heat of the moment, think about what you have done together over the years, the life you have created together. Think of your partner. What have they done and put into the relationship? How can you selfishly and foolishly think of throwing all that away? 

That brings me to another important aspect of a good marriage, which also has roots in our faith, particularly some of the injunctions in the letters of the New Testament in our Bible about marriage and love. True love wants the best for the other person. Look at who your partner is, what they like that’s valid, what they are interested in, what they are capable of, what their dreams are. Do what you can to support and help them enjoy and achieve all that. I don’t mean put them on a sacred pedestal to worship and adore. That helps no one.

I know some marriages don’t succeed. Some should not continue because, for whatever reason, whether it’s abuse or infidelity, for example, it is really no longer a marriage. I feel for those caught in these situations. Sometimes, with the right help, those situations can be successfully changed. Sometimes divorced couples do successfully remarry, but that’s the exception.

Marriage might not be for everyone. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with singleness. Far be it from me to imply that if you don’t get married life can’t be enjoyable and meaningful. Yes, you will miss out on some things such as the nature of mutually shared love and all that offers, but there are other things in life that can satisfy, provided the single person doesn’t pity him or herself, or envy the married. Singleness has its advantages too. 

A successful marriage is a relationship that requires enough communication to share what’s needed, to solve the problems that arise. It is not created from the moment you say “I do.” It has a beginning, yes, but it is built, over hours, days, weeks, months and years. If you have enough good common ground to begin with, and build on that, maintain it, with a healthy appreciation for the past and hope for the future, hopefully within a supportive community, lifelong marriage can be a love that just keeps on getting deeper and better. That would be my prayer for you, married or contemplating it, dear reader. 

Free Will in the New Earth

As Christians, our understanding from the teachings that have been passed on and from our Scriptures, the Bible, is that the new heaven and the new earth after the resurrection will be perfect places. We have also been taught through these same sources that the original creation was likely perfect, as God seems to have pronounced all of it good.

How this perfect creation then became so utterly marred is something we can see evidence of all around us. How that could happen to begin with is another story. So, who is to say that in the new heaven and new earth post-resurrection, which we often refer to as heaven, and this is one of those questions that one is sometimes hesitant to ask, the same thing could not happen again?

We were talking about these things in our LIFE Group yesterday evening when an answer to my question dawned on me. Thinking about it again this morning, I think it must have been a flash of insight implanted by the Holy Spirit.

Again, we are taught, and learn to know from our own experience as believers, that God is love. As imperfect as our experience and understanding of love is, we have now in our vocabulary something we understand as “unconditional” love. Like all good things, we believe this originates in the love of God, whom we believe created all things.

Most of us are fortunate enough to experience some of this love in one way or the other in our short pilgrimages on this earth. We know how wonderful that is. But what we experience here will pale in comparison, and we can only imagine what this would be like, to what we will experience when we are actually in the presence of God and he has removed all sin. Indeed, for those of us who believe in the death and resurrection work of Christ, our sin is removed now. However, we continue to live in an imperfect body and imperfect world. Only after the resurrection will that ultimately be changed for the better.

And therein lies my answer to the question I shared in the second paragraph of this blog.

Perfect love does not force anything. Perfect love seeks a voluntary and willing response to love offered. That is our position in response to the offered love of God, most perfectly expressed in the death and resurrection of the Christ, which, as I write, we will shortly be celebrating once again in the season we now call Easter. We who believe have voluntarily submitted our will to our Creator God. The only thing that keeps us from actualizing that submission perfectly now is our imperfect body and the imperfect world we still live in. However, when we are removed from that, and that is removed from us, we will be freed of the inability to respond as perfectly in love to God as how he offers us his love.

I believe this is why there will not be another rebellion in the new heaven and earth, as there was and is in this earth. At least, that is an answer that satisfies me at present. As always in this journey, one is open to further insights.