One morning this week I was reading an article that I won’t directly cite because I’m still so peeved about it and I don’t want to just unnecessarily put this guy on blast. But it was a fascinating and, in many ways, brilliant article about why kindness is essential to being a great leader and finding financial success in business. One of the equally fascinating and frustrating things about it was the way this guy, again somewhat brilliantly, attempted to explain how kindness is morally necessary without rooting it in the character of God at all. Because if you want people to be kind, you have to give them a reason to be kind. And unless you are a preacher nobody is going to pay you to tell them that God wants you to be kind. So you have to find another way to argue your point. And this guy’s way… was math.  Because nothing makes a person want to be kind like math… He argued that kindness is a relational expression of the mathmatic principles of the universe. As if putting letters in math wasn’t bad enough, now we are adding virtues. 

But his point was that math wasn’t created by us, so it transcends humanity. And he implied that the fact that it’s a non-material reality means that it can and should govern non-material realities like relationships. Again, fascinating. Wrong-ish, but fascinating. But his point was that we  owe kindness to others, as a way of balancing the relational equations in the world. That if somebody is kind to us, but we are unkind to them, then we are sort of stealing from them. At least you were upsetting the relational equilibrium of the world. And so he hypothesized that, if you are kind, you will keep things in a better state of equilibrium and flow and ultimately generate more value for your shareholders. Now aside from how fascinating it is that this guy was trying to talk about the necessity of moral virtue to make economic systems work, or how interesting it is that he recognized the need to ground our virtues and morality in something bigger than ourselves and  in something which is non-material like they are, this article absolutely ticked me off. Not in a bad way I kind of liked it. But still. 

At one point in the article he says this: “try as I might, I couldn’t come up with a better word [than kindness.] There isn’t one, except maybe love, which is related to kindness, but not the same. Love is intimate, and personal, whereas kindness can be exchanged by complete strangers. Meaning, kindness is much more scalable than love.” 

Oh man. I love this guy and cannot stand him at the same time. [things can be two things]. But do you catch the argument? Essentially he’s implying that kindness is cheaper than love. Kindness is more easily exchanged than love. Kindness is more… scalable than love. It’s like he thinks of love as the big, impractical gold bars that stay locked away in a safe and kindness is sort of like paper money and coins that we use to parce out and scale up or down. Like you can’t buy a candy bar with a gold bar… you need a dollar bill. Or ten dollar bills 5 years from now.  Or maybe it’s more like, love is the valuable artwork you bring out to show close friends and family., but kindness is this cheaper thing you can freely exchange for goods and services.  Either way, love is more valuable, more scarce, less practical, and not scalable. Kindness is… I don’t want to say cheap, but…. Practical and affordable. And remember, his ultimate point is that kindness will actually make your company more profitable and you more wealthy - so that and math is the reason you should do it. That’s how you have to think without God in your life.

But this one thing really stuck out to me… the idea kindness is much more scalable than love. So today in 25 minutes I’m going to try and prove to you that, in addition to being patient, and kind, and humble, and all that good stuff, love is also scalable. And the reason I want to prove that to you is that without God and without the gospel, our thinking will revert to the same shape as this article. We will revert to a scarcity mindset towards love. And towards a transactional mindset with relationships. And towards the idea that loving is like investing, where I should only do it strategically when I can expect a healthy return. I want to prove to you that love is scalable becuase I want you and I to be much less like this article, and much more like our Heavenly Father. Because let me tell you something, that guy gives away love like it’s going out of style. And if we are going to be his sons and his daughters, so should we. Put very simply I want you to walk out of here ready to love like you’re spending daddy’s money from a big fat corporate expense account - not pinching every penny of kindness you can find between the couch cushions. 

So I’m going to try and prove to you that biblical love is scalable for all those reasons, and with these two points: first, that God is a loving Father, and second, that you are his very wealthy heir. 

• God is a loving Father

Now I’m going to go out on a limb here but I think it’s a pretty sturdy limb so here goes. I think we aren’t radically, lavishly, unreasonably generous with our love for others because we do not think God is that way. I think that we think God is holding back, and so we should too. I don’t think the problem is so much that we don’t think of God as our Father, but that we think of him being a chip off of our block rather than the other way around. I think we think he’s stingy like us. After all, this was the first and greatest temptation, from which all sin  ever sprang up. Satan walked up to Eve and he said, “Did God really say you couldn’t have that? That fruit is good. Surely God wouldn’t be so stingy as to withhold something good from you, would he?” 

And I think those words have been ringing in our ears ever since. I think we hear it when we imagine the way we wish our life was. Being out of debt is good, right? Having money to share is good, right? Finding a spouse, having kids, buying a house, it’s all good, right? Surely, God would not be so stingy as to withhold something good from you? And I think we hear the same voice questioning why God isn’t good to all the people suffering in the world. Either God is in control and he can stop it, but he chooses not to, or he’s not in control and he can’t prevent it. Well we in the Reformed world are not so much in the “God can’t stop it” camp. And our sin nature loves to take advantage of our self-righteosness on that point. Because if God is totally in control and he could do good to everyone, but he doesn’t, then he isn’t good. I know. Not the kind of question you want to bring up on the Sunday with the short sermon. But for real... “Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to do it.” Well if that’s God’s standard for us, what’s he doing? 

Now the first response of the religious person is almost always a legalistic one. We zero in on that “to whom it is due” part. In other words, all I have to do is question somebody’s worth. If they aren’t valuable enough to deserve good being done to them, then God’s off the hook. And you know what? So am I. And not only does that make it easier on us, because then we don’t have to owe them anything, it sort of subtly inflates our own egos. Because if God only gives good things to those who deserve it, then I like what God’s goodness in my life says about me. And so we get this mindset where God is good to his people, who for whatever reason deserve it, but God is not good to those outside the church. Probably because, for whatever reason, they don’t deserve it. And of course if they don’t deserve it then I’m not going to give it to them. Who am I to try and be more generous than God? 

But of course, this is wickedness. This is not what the bible says. These are not the thoughts of a person who has any recollection of what God is really like. Maybe they knew at one time, but these are the thoughts of one who has at least forgotten what God is like. Because while it is true that God doesn’t owe anybody anything, because all of us have collectively spat in his face with our sin, God has shown us love anyway. Not at all because we were owed it. And not even while we were asking for it. But while we were enemies, God showed his love for us in this: Christ died for us. So if we got love from God while we were his enemies, how in the world are we going to then walk around withholding good from people on the basis of seeing them as enemies of God? Who are you to say this or that enemy is more or less deserving than you were? Or than that other enemy over there? So an argument that God frequently makes to his people in both the old and new testaments is that, if you have received grace from him, then you owe it to him to show grace to others. God may not owe grace to anyone, but you do. 

But be that as it may, the question still sort of remains, if God can show grace to his enemies… why not that guy? We can sort of get our minds around why not all. After all, if God owes grace to everybody then it’s grace to nobody. It’s not like he’s ever been forgiven in a way that obligates him to forgive others. But it gets a little harder when we are talking about someone specific. And it gets a little more tempting to just shake our head and walk by someone in need and say well, not that I deserved what I have, but God will have mercy on whom he has mercy I guess. That guy is not my problem. 

And of course this line of thinking fundamentally misses the point. God is a loving Father. Not just to you… but through you. You see, in a lot of ways, the idea that we should be able to look at ourselves and get an idea of what our Father is like is not totally off base. The problem with that is that we sinned and stopped being reliable images of our Father. But what that means is that, though I am not always a good evidence of who my Father is, because of sin, I still can be a good evidence, once I have begun to be delivered from my sin. In fact, I should be. So the great irony of standing here and asking, “why isn’t God being good to that person?” is that God can very legitimately ask you, “well… why aren’t you?” Not that you’re God… (1) but that you are his child. (2) And you have been given his Spirit… (3) and you have been made an ambassador of his kingdom, and (4) sent on a mission to spread the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere, (5) and to let your conduct shine like a light among the gentiles, (6) and to let your reasonableness be known to all, (7) and to be known by your love for one another…

Shall I go on? Ok. …And to be fruitful and multiply by (8) going into all nations and baptizing people in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, (9) and teaching them to do everything that Jesus said, (10) which includes loving your neighbor as yourself (and by neighbor we know Jesus means that guy because the “who is my neighbor” justification has a 100% failure rate in the bible,) (11) and to do good to everyone, especially (not not only) those in the household of faith, and (12) to do good, be rich in good works, generous and ready to share with anyone who is in need, (13) and to repay no one evil for evil but rather to seek to do good to everyone, (14) and to love not just your friends but your enemies too that you may be sons of your Father in Heaven - For he makes the sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. God is a loving Father not just to you but to his enemies, and far from being a skeptic of that fact you are meant to be the evidence of it.

But how can you possibly be the evidence for such lavish love when you, yourself, have such a limited supply? Of course we’re stingy with our love. We have trouble working up enough for even ourselves and those close to us, let alone strangers. What are we supposed to do about the bottomless needs of even one other person, let alone a whole world of people? Well I have good news. Whether you have yet to realize it or not, if you are sons and daughters of your Father in heaven, then you are his very, very wealthy heirs.

• You are his very wealthy heirs. 

Now before I do this next part we need to learn a big word.  (15) And that word is, patricentrism. (16) Father, centric, ism. And this, according to scholars whom I very much agree with, is the underlying societal principle of the Old Testament. Sometimes this prinicple is confused for patriarchy, which is not quite the same thing. Patriarchy can be defined similarly, but as we will see in a moment, it is usually defined as something that is functionally the opposite of patricentrism. So let’s look at Patricentrism first. (17) And the best way to explain this idea is to think of concentric circles. Also don’t worry, we are getting out on time. Hang in there with me this is worth thinking about. 

So these concentric circles represent the way that society was set up and thought of in the Jewish mindset. (18) Fathers were at the center, as evidenced by the way households are spoken of as “my Father’s house,” or how the sins of the Father are visited on subsequent generations, or how the old testament patriachs would move and their families would move with them. As Daniel Block argues in his excellent chapter on the subject, even though Fathers, as heads of households, naturally had authority over their households, the power they had was not the center focus of their roles. Rather, their ability to provide was. Their responsibilities to their families and their communities was the focus. The way it was set up is that the Father was supposed to be the source of provision for his household, as evidenced by the fact that a jewish man couldn’t even take a wife until he had built or purchased a house for her. In order to start a family, the man had to demonstrate that he was ready to provide for a family. 

So starting with the Father as the center, then the (19) next concentric circles would be the mother, (20) then the children and extended family, (21) then their community and the nation of Israel, (22) and finally the world. This was the basic structure of society in the Jewish mindset. But the structure itself is not the purpose. And this is where you can start to see a clear delineation between patricentrism and mere patriarchy. The core idea of patricentrism is that blessing, and service, and peace would flow outward from the Father at the center, to each of the circles thereafter. So the Father had the responsibility to initiate this service, by blessing his wife (23), but then the two of them together as the parents (24) would bless the children and extended family, and the (25) larger famly together would bless their community and the nation, and ultimately (26) Israel’s purpose as God’s people was to bless the word. The goal of redemptive history is that the world would be filled with the knowledge of God like waters cover the sea, that God’s people would be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth with disciples who obey everything that Jesus commanded them to. At least, that’s how it was supposed to work.

What actually happened was… worse. See, the fall broke people at a deep and fundamental level. Instead of being filled with the fullness of God, we exchanged that for the emptiness of sin. And among many, many terrible consequences, was the fact that the biblical concept of society got broken. Fathers, like everybody else, were broken and empty. Unable to act as a source of blessing, and service, and provision for their families as they were meant to. So men abused the power that God had given them, and rather than using it to provide for their families, they began to use it to take from them instead. (28) So rather than blessing and service flowing outward, increasingly it began to flow inward. Rather than Fathers existing to serve and bless families, families began to exist to serve and bless Fathers. And that’s what we typically mean when we say patriarchy. And that’s not how God built the world. Rather than imaging God’s sufficeincy and provision, we began to reflect only our own brokenness and emptiness. And men aren’t the only ones who fell. We all did. And all the societal structures with us, because societies are made of people. And broken people make broken societies. 

So not only did husbands look to wives to serve them, but parents looked to children to meet their needs (29). What happens with this, by the way, is that you reduce the value of a person down to their ability to bless and serve you. So if they can’t do that, they have no value to you. So women are discarded when they no longer meet our needs and children become burdens to rid ourselves of rather than blessings to cultivate and viola, the objectification of women, the death of marriage and the rise of the abortion industry, which means the death of children. Sin spreads death to our communities. It’s the opposite of what we were made to do, which is to spread flourishing and life to those around us. And moreover, (30) once the family structure collapses people turn to the nation - to governments and social programs to meet their needs. And one can hardly fault them for this because what else are you going to do? And ultimately (31) the nations begin to steal from and abuse other nations because everybody in the world really just exists for our benefit. (32) Everyone else is a resource to be exploited and consumed. (33) And so through one man’s transgression death spread to all . 

But. (34) As death spread to all through one, so did life. And remember, as we already established in the first point, that life didn’t just forgive us and leave us. (35) He adopted us and sent his Spirit into us. Now something different is at the center (36). Now the person at the center who draws on their own sufficiency to provide blessing, and service, and peace, and flourishing to those outside of him is not the earthly Father. (37) It’s the Spirit of the Heavenly Father. So Dads, that's good news for you. And for everyone else. (38) Because now the Spirit of the Father is the one providing, from his own sufficiency, our ability to move outward in service to bless others, (39) rather than reaching out to take from them. He initiates. We have to receive from him before we can initiate towards others. This is what biblical servant headship in the home looks like. It’s sourced from the Father and it’s leveraged for the benefit of the other, not the self. 

Now, quick point of clarification here, I’m not saying Fathers mediate the presence of the Holy Spirit to their wives. They don’t. In Christ there is neither male nor female, for all are one in Jesus and have the same equal access to the Father according to Gal. 3:28. What I’m saying is that Fathers still retain the obligation to initiate that outward movement of blessing and service within the family. Then, (40) Fathers having served their wives, both parents together draw on the Spirit and move towards the kids to serve them. (41) Then the family moves together towards the church to serve and bless her. And by the way it’s very worth noting on this point that James considers true religion as this, for the church to look out for widows and orphans. And Paul talks about the need to make disciples and act as Spritual Fathers and Mothers, brothers and sisters, towards those who have none. In other words, the church is supposed to be a place that supplements this structure in the lives of those for whom it has not been filled out. Then having done that, the church moves together, as an extended family, collectively drawing on the sufficiency of the Father’s Spirit, to serve and bless the world (42). And the really important principle in all of this is the compounding effect. Nobody moves outward into the next circle alone. 

Husbands move towards wives in Christ. Parents, both biological and spiritual, move towards children in Christ. Families move towards the church in Christ. And the church moves towards the world in Christ. So he wasn’t lying when he said "behold I am with you always, even to the ends of the earth.” But it’s also not just him we are going with. Every step outward is a step towards someone who will go the rest of the way with you. So what I’m trying to say is that love is scalable. Because sure, even if you have access to a limitless supply of love, you yourself are a finite conduit. Imagine trying to fill up the grand canyon with the pacific ocean, but doing so by running it through a garden hose. Sure the ocean is vast enough for even the emptiness of the canyon, but that is a heck of a choke point. You’re not made to do that. We are made to do that. And I don’t just mean OGC. Why do you think we are always praying for other churches in the area and around the world? Because we need them! 

So in a minute you’re going to walk out those auditorium doors and you’re gunna be greeted with tables, each with a singup sheet where you can get involved with a local ministry outside the church in our community. And if you feel like you’re walking out alone, drawing on your own sufficiency, then the threshold between the auditorium and the lobby is going to feel daunting. Because we talked about a big God in here, and they are talking about big needs out there, but you’re just you and I’m just me and neither of us are up to it. But I want you to notice something else about those tables… Every one of them are staffed, not just with representatives from those ministries, but with OGC members who are already there. So you’re not being asked to go alone. 

Something else I want you to notice is that all the ministries are in our local community. In other words, I’m not asking you to go out and meet the needs of the world. I’m not even asking us to go out and meet the needs of the world. God is asking and equipping us to go out and meet the needs of our neighbors. It’s true, asking “who is my neighbor” won’t get you out of loving that guy. But it will show you who is your responsibility to love. “Neighbor” just means the person next to you. And God has promised you enough of Himself to love them. 

So what I’m saying is this… Don’t love like you’re on a budget. Don’t love to get a return. Don’t love people like it all depends on you. Love to be like your Father. (43) In the way that your Father has first loved you. So I’m going to pray, then we will have a brief time to reflect and consider what God is calling us to, then we’ll take communion, and after that we will walk out those doors together. Let’s pray.