Thanks to our newly minted Vice President, JD Vance, the phrase ordo amoris is in the news and all-over social media. For this, I am grateful. The VP has been making the point that America has a responsibility to its citizens before it has a responsibility to the citizens of any other nation. Therefore, it is not outside the bounds of love or justice to deport illegal immigrants.

Vice President Vance clarified on X that this comes from the ancient Christian idea of the ordo amoris, order of loves. The idea is that we should love some things more than we love other things and that we should love some people more than we love other people. This isn’t bigotry, it isn’t racism, it isn’t white ethno-nationalism, it is classical Christianity.

What Should We Love?

Christians ought to love everything that exists. 1 Timothy 4:4 says, “For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving.” God has created everything that exists (sin and wickedness do not have their own existence but are rather privations of what is good). If this were not so, then there would be more than one God, but scripture and nature prohibit us from believing such an absurdity. Since all things are made by God, and since all things made by God are good, then Christians have an obligation to love all things, in their proper order. I ought to love my computer, I ought to love the oak tree in my backyard, and I ought to love my daughter, but not in that order.

Some Things Should Be Loved More Than Other Things

Though we should love all things that exist, we ought not love all things equally. Rather, we ought to love things in accordance with their nature. How great is a thing? That is precisely how much you ought to love it. The greater a thing is, the more beautiful a thing is, the more worthy a thing is, the more it ought to be loved. This goes for mundane things like water bottles and seat belts, and it goes for exceptional things like people and virtues. Our loves must be commensurate with the nature of the thing loved.

There’s a really important point here that we can’t miss. We don’t get to choose the nature of things. Only the Creator does. So, we don’t get to choose how much a thing ought to be loved. God does that. Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, it is determined by God, who is the Creator of all and who is Beauty itself. Some things are inherently more lovely than other things and it is our duty, as God’s creatures, to bring our loves and desires into alignment with that objective reality.

Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, it is determined by God, who is the Creator of all and who is Beauty itself.

I may really love boxed mac n’ cheese (I don’t). Perhaps it conjures pleasant memories of childhood. Perhaps my tastes have been trained by the regular consumption of said mac. But my love for it ought not exceed the love it should receive according to its nature. I ought not prefer boxed mac n’ cheese to a medium rare rib eye steak. Why? Because the nature of the rib eye steak demands greater love. Indeed, the man who has trained his loves to desire the steak more than the mac gets greater enjoyment from the steak than the man who loves the mac more gets enjoyment from his overly processed meal. The more you give your love to greater things, the more you are satisfied.

Or perhaps, to bring it a little closer to home. I may really love my pets (as I ought). But my love for my pets should not exceed that which the nature of those pets deserves. One ought not love their ‘fur babies’ as much or more than one loves his children or his grandchildren, or anybody else’s children for that matter. Because the nature of a child is far greater than the nature of a dog. If I love my pets and my children in accordance with their respective natures, I will get far more enjoyment from my children than my Chameleon.

This rhymes with what Aristotle says about the aim of education. The purpose of education is to get the student to associate pain with bad things and pleasure with good things. In education, our duty is to help the student love what he ought to love in the degree that he ought to love it. This does not come natural to us in our fallen state, but it can be learned and trained and given by the grace of God.

What Ought to Be Loved Most?

The obvious answer to the obvious question is God, as it often is. God must be loved most. Matt. 22:37-39 says, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” God is the only being we cannot love too much. We are to love things insofar as their nature demands, God’s nature is infinite, and thus demands infinite love, which we do not have to give. But so much as we do have, we give. When, by the Spirit, we make God the highest of our loves, our hierarchy of love begins to fall in place. After God I must love those made in His image, my fellow man. But so long as God is not my greatest desire, my desire for everything else will be misplaced and misshapen. I will not get enjoyment and satisfaction out of life as I ought because God is not my greatest love.

This is a transformative thought. The more I love God, the more enjoyment I will receive. Not just from Him, but also from all the things He has made. Because everything He has made reflects His goodness, beauty, and majesty in some way or another. When our love for God is not greater than everything He has made, our disordered loves make us miserable. We are not satisfied to the degree we ought to be in the things we love because we love them too much or too little. The Bible calls these disordered loves idolatry. And the end of idolatry is always misery.

The Nature of Sin is Disordered Love

All sin finds its genesis in disordered love. Our desire for some things are greater than they ought to be, or less than they should be. An excessive love for rest leads to sloth and indolence. A deficient love for truth leads to deception. An excessive love for food leads to gluttony. A deficient love for man leads to murder. As Augustine says, “When the miser loves gold more than justice, he does not reveal a fault in the gold, but in the himself.” And this all flows from our lack of love for God. Furthermore, virtue is found in the proper ordering of our loves. Again Augustine, “It is a brief but true definition of virtue to say it is the order of love.” Either we will love God first, or we will be idolatrous. Either we will be virtuous, or we will be miserable.

We Should Love Some People More Than Others

We ought to love man in accordance with his nature. But ought we love some men more than others? In one sense yes, in another sense no.

No, we ought not love some men more than others because all men share a common nature, human nature. No man’s nature is superior to another’s because the essence of who we are is the imago dei. No one has more of it than anyone else. If our love is to be commensurate to the nature of a thing, then our love for man must be equal since we have the same nature. A denial of this truth has led to all manner of bigotry, racism, and abuse.

When our love for God is not greater than everything He has made, our disordered loves make us miserable.

However, in another sense our love for all people ought not be equal. Not because men’s natures are different, but because the nature of our relationships is different. My wife is not greater by nature than anyone else, yet I am still obligated to love her more than I love any other human being because the nature of my relationship to her is greater than the nature of my relationship to anyone else. She is my wife. Ephesians 5:25 says, “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” The scriptures demand of me a greater love for my wife than for any other human being.’

Furthermore, I should love those in my immediate family more than I love anyone outside of it. 1 Timothy 5:8 says, “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” I have a greater responsibility to my family than to anyone else. More than that, I have a greater responsibility to my own household than to my extended family. This is the proper ordering of loves.

I am commanded to honor my own father and mother. This does not negate the necessity of honoring other fathers and mothers, but I have a priority to my own first. Then to my grandparents, then to my great grandparents and my ancestors before them. In fact, I ought to love and honor my own ancestors more than I love and honor the ancestors of other people. I ought to love and honor my own cultural heritage (insofar as it is good) which my ancestors have given me than I love the cultural heritage of others.

In like manner, I am to have a greater love for my own children than I do for the children of my neighbors. I am commanded to love the children of my neighbors, but I am commanded to love them less than my own children. In the same way I have a greater responsibility to my grandchildren than my neighbor’s grandchildren, and to my great-grandchildren, and to all my future descendants. The proper order of loves in the family sphere helps us to understand the nature of love on the communal and national level. Bavinck says it like this, “The one relationship of family is terminal and is the type of all the others. From the household family and its relationships stem all the other relationships in variegated complexity.”

Who is My Neighbor?

In Matthew 22 Jesus makes it clear that love must be given to God first, then to our neighbors. But the question the rich lawyer asks is the same many of us might ask, ‘who is my neighbor?’ Jesus proceeds to tell the parable of the Good Samaritan. For the Good Samaritan, his neighbor was a man at his feet who was from a different nation, different family, and different religion than he, yet he loved him anyway and manifested that love in acts of mercy and service.

The proper order of loves in the family sphere helps us to understand the nature of love on the communal and national level.

Jesus is making it clear that all men are our neighbors, and we ought to love them all. However, the Good Samaritan had the means to help the wounded man because they were in the same locale. We have a greater responsibility to love our closest neighbors first, not because they are better than other people, but because we have a greater capacity to do them good than we do people who are far away.

Augustine says,

All men are to be loved equally. But since you cannot do good to all, you are to pay special regard to those who, by the accidents of time, or place, or circumstance, are brought into closer connection with you.

I can love my next-door neighbor far better than a man in Mumbai who is equally deserving of my love. Therefore, I have an obligation to my next-door neighbor first. John Calvin echoes Augustine when commenting on Matthew 22 he says,

Now since Christ hath demonstrated in the parable of the Samaritan, that the word “neighbour” comprehends every man, even the greatest stranger, we have no reason to limit the commandment of love to our own relations or friends. I do not deny, that the more closely any person is united to us, the greater claim he has to the assistance of our kind offices. For the condition of humanity requires, that men should perform more acts of kindness to each other, in proportion to the closeness of the bonds by which they are connected, whether of relationship, or acquaintance, or vicinity; and this without any offence to God, by whose providence we are constrained to it.

In the proper ordo amoris, I must first consider my family, then my neighbors in my community, then those in my city, county, state, nation, then those around the globe. More love for one person than another person is not hatred nor bigotry. It is proper according to nature.

The Ordo Amoris and Immigration

What does all this have to do with immigration? The Vice President’s point is this. Yes, it will be hard for illegal immigrants to be deported. Yes, it will be hard on the countries to which they are returning. But the rulers of this nation, and the citizens of this nation, have a moral duty to their fellow citizens before they have an obligation to the citizens of other nations who have taken up residency here. We ought to love illegal immigrants and care for them as we can, but not to the demise of our families, communities, cities or fellow citizens. Love for the homeless man who is down on his luck does not require that you give him a key to your home. This especially when your home is in disarray, disrepair, debt, and disaster.

Our nation is currently in disarray, disrepair, debt, and disaster. We ought to love those outside our nation, but not at the expense of our nation. We need first to get our own house in order, from there we will be in a position to help those outside who need it.

The Household of Faith

Our love for the household of faith ought to supersede our love to those outside the faith. Our love for our brothers and sisters in Christ ought to outstrip our love for our brothers and sisters by blood. Galatians 6:10 says, “So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.” Everyone should receive our love, but especially those of the household of faith.

We ought to love illegal immigrants and care for them as we can, but not to the demise of our families, communities, cities or fellow citizens.

This does not undo our responsibility to family or nation. We do not seek to do harm to our family or our nation for the sake of those in the church. The church ought not advocate that all Christians of other nations be given automatic citizenship. Just as we ought not give a key to our house to every person who calls himself a Christian. Even so, our love and loyalty ought to be for the Church first and foremost, to the people that Christ loved the most, then to others after them.

God has made everything good, and everything good must be loved by His people. But not equally. Our love for things must be commensurate with the nature of those things. Our fallen intellects blind us to the true nature of things, our deficient loves lead us to hate those whom we should love. But in His grace, God has granted us His Spirit, and He will give us wisdom when we ask for it. Wisdom to see the true nature of things, and grace to love them the way we ought. And as the Spirit makes us wise and virtuous, He will also reorder our loves to what they were intended to be.

In this world, there are different types of people who believe they have a relationship with Jesus.

There are those who have had some “encounter” with Jesus, and they wrongly feel there is a connection  because they are deceived..

There are other people who genuinely do have a relationship with Jesus, but they have been taught that authentic relationship with Jesus consists of a certain experience or emotion, so they doubt the reality of their salvation.

Then there are Christians who have authentic fellowship with Jesus and are certain of it, but they know they can excel still more.

And then there are people who simply do not know Jesus at all.

Every person is in one of these four groups. But how does one know for certain if he or she has a genuine relationship with the Lord and Savior?

In John 12:20-26, some Gentiles make a request – “We wish to see Jesus” – that prompts Jesus to address the question all people should ask: How can someone have real, authentic fellowship with Him?

Jesus’ response is puzzling at first glance. Most commentators admit difficulty with understanding how Jesus’ answer relates to the request. The link, while on the surface enigmatic, is very powerful. Jesus knows these Gentiles desire fellowship with Him, but His response goes beyond their inquiry. He wants to know them personally.

John includes this episode because he wants to assure his readers that though we have not seen Jesus in person, much like the Greeks at the time they made this request, Jesus wants authentic fellowship with everyone who will come to Him in faith.

In the rest of the text, verses 23-26, Jesus highlights three keys to authentic fellowship with Him.

First, we experience authentic fellowship with Jesus through His saving work.

The Lord begins his response to the Greeks by referring to His saving work: His death on the cross, His burial, and His resurrection from the dead. 

Jesus calls His saving work, His glorification. He does this for two reasons. First, because the cross is where God’s attributes in Christ are most clearly put on display. At the cross, we most clearly see God’s love, wrath, grace, mercy, justice, and Law – in all its demands and its penalty on transgressors. The cross instantly brings together all these glorious and perfect attributes, that always seem opposed: law and grace, mercy and justice, love and wrath.

Jesus is also glorified at the cross because of the results of His work. Through Christ’s death, He would bear much fruit. The Greeks coming to see Him were a precursor to that. They were the first installment, as it were, of the multitude of fruit to come. 

The only way the Greeks can have any meaningful fellowship with Jesus is if He first dies on the cross. Yes, they could interview Him. However, if they really want to know Jesus, it can only happen by means of His death. Jesus must provide the mercy of God by satisfying the justice of God and open the floodgates of the love of God by bearing the wrath of God.

The cross is where God’s attributes in Christ are most clearly put on display.

Our fellowship with Christ does not depend on a feeling or an experience, but on a crucified Savior who died on a wooden, bloody, Roman cross. It’s crucial we come to understand that because of Jesus’ death and through faith in Him, our relationship with Him is objective reality. We experience authentic fellowship with Jesus through His saving work. 

Second, we have authentic fellowship with Jesus through denying ourselves.

Jesus presents the concept of self-denial in a paradox. The person who loves his life loses it, but the person who hates his life keeps it. The first part is the person who loves his life. What does that mean? After all, who doesn’t hang on to the things of this life? That is exactly the question Jesus means to raise in our minds.

The word “lose” is a violent word that signifies destruction. One writer described this word as “definitive destruction, not merely in the sense of the extinction of physical existence, but rather of an eternal plunge into Hades and a hopeless destiny of death.” Those who are living for this life are actively and systematically destroying themselves.

If we want to inherit life and have authentic fellowship with Jesus, we will hate our lives in this world. We will take the eternal perspective and realize that living for the here and now is to waste our lives and to ruin them. The way we protect our lives, odd as it seems, is to let go of it for life eternal. We reject instant gratification and self-centered living, and we wait for eternal life and live a life of self-denial. The goal is life of authentic fellowship with Jesus in His presence forever! 

Finally, we experience authentic fellowship with Jesus through following Him.

The person who knows Jesus through His death and resurrection is marked by a life of denying self and following Him. One commentator helpfully noted, “True discipleship involves not only denial of self but also the recognition of the importance of Christ.”

We follow Jesus by following His example. In 1 John 2:3, John wrote, “By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.” Then he adds in verse 6, “The one who says He abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.” The people who have real, continual, authentic fellowship with Christ live after His pattern.

Our fellowship with Christ does not depend on a feeling or an experience, but on a crucified Savior who died on a wooden, bloody, Roman cross.

So, for example, that means we love one another. Paul wrote in Ephesians 5:1-2, “Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you.” Jesus Himself illustrated this in John 13. He washed His disciples’ feet, and then He said to them, “If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you.” Following Jesus, then, means living a life of humble service to one another. It also means forgiving each other. Colossians 3:13 says that we should forgive one another, “just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you.”

Those who follow Jesus will be where He is. This is the heart of the message to the Greeks. Jesus responds, “Do you want to see Me? Do you want to be where I am? Then follow Me. Serve Me. And if you are My servant, you will be in my presence.”

Men and women who have this fellowship with Jesus will be honored by the Father, who will reward the servants of His Son. This promise also strengthens Jesus’ call to self-denial and following Him down the Calvary Road. It is not those striving after honor in this world who receive honor from God, but it is those seeking humility, obedience, and fellowship with Jesus in His sufferings and death and resurrection, who are honored by the Father. 

Jesus’ message to the Greeks who wanted to see Him was that the way they could truly see Him was through His cross as they denied themselves and followed Him. Then they would be where He is when He came for His own. Then they would see the glory He had with the Father before the world began. Then the Father Himself would reward them. The only ones who get to see Jesus are those who are dying to see Him by dying daily to themselves and following Him.

The question for each of us is this: Do we, like the Greeks, want to see Jesus?  

Duty is defined as “that which one is morally or legally bound to do.” That defines duty in an absolute sense. Another definition is “action or conduct required by one’s profession or position.” That might, often does, involve absolutes, but the particular actions required are relative to the skill, qualification, interpersonal relations, and professional office of a person. My duties to my children are different from my duties to the children of others but are not on that account less than absolute.

On occasion, public speakers, including preachers of the gospel, will belittle “duty” as if it is an inferior motivation for action or compliance to standards. Delight is seen as a superior motivation while duty is—Well, if I have to do it, OK—synonymous with begrudging action. One brings his wife flowers because it is his delight to do so, for he is delighted with her. If he gives her flowers presenting them to her out of a sense of duty, this is connoted as a lackluster action deserving scorn. But this tendency to diminish the excellence of a sense of duty is misguided. It is a moral error. The husband’s duty is to love his wife as his own body, for he who loves his wife loves himself (Ephesians 5:28; Genesis 2:22, 23). To treat one’s wife tenderly, to look to her desires and happiness, to bring her flowers, to live with her according to knowledge is to love her, to delight in her, and at the same time to do one’s duty.

The bifurcation between duty and delight is one of the sinister results of the fall. That one can feel duty to be a burden is one evidence of how the flesh lusts against the Spirit. In Galatians 5, Paul investigates the relationship of the law to love and the operations of the Spirit. Through love, we serve one another (13). By the flesh, we “bite and devout one another” (15). The whole law, that is, the whole duty of one person to another, is fulfilled in this, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” So how does one overcome the antipathy of the flesh to the law of love? “Walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh” (16). The Spirit, law, and love unite in giving expression to human duty. When one walks by the Spirit and bears the fruit that the Spirit produces (5:22, 23), he does nothing contrary to law but walks aligned with the law. God’s law constitutes the duty of man and at the same time is the perfect expression of love.

I will not seek to investigate vigorously the relation between benevolent love and complacent love but only this.  God loves sinners out of benevolent love as far as his knowledge of their sin and rebellion is concerned and their consequent worthiness of eternal wrath. There is nothing lovely in us that would give God pleasure in loving us.  He does nurture, however, a complacency in his unmerited favor toward sinners, for he does this to the praise of his glorious grace and the demonstration of the “depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God” (Ephesians 1:6; Romans 11:33). His benevolence toward us, therefore, finds it foundation in true complacence toward himself. On our part, both benevolent love and complacent love is due to God, first, foremost, and unstinted and then to all other things on his account. He has the most of being and is in fact the only thing that has being in and of himself, the only self-existent entity, and infinitely so, in all of reality—so benevolence is due him above all things. In addition, his being not only is large and indestructible but is beautiful, the sum of all goodness. Jonathan Edwards argues, “For as God is infinitely the greatest Being, so he is allowed to be infinitely the most beautiful and excellent.” Real virtue then, the faithful expression of duty, “must necessarily have a supreme love to God both of benevolence and complacence” at its core. All is derived from him and is absolutely dependent on him and his “being and beauty are, as it were, the sum and comprehension of all existence and excellence” [Works, BOT 1:125]. God’s comprehensive and infinite excellence, therefore, establishes the consuming duty of all intelligent creatures to love him in seamless devotion of all our parts.

Resistance to duty is resistance to moral perfection and resistance to love—both for God and man, neighbor and family. Nurturing selfishness and personal pleasure at the cost of loving service equals lawlessness rather than obedience, flesh-following rather than Spirit-walking, irregularity rather than duty. In the unfallen state of man, obedience to the law written on the heart was the supreme delight of Adam and Eve. To expand their vision of God’s attributes and to be more maturely conformed to his beautiful perfection was the goal that drove their obedience. This moral propensity was used perversely by Satan to entice them to disobedience—“His mercy is greater than his law and this act is the very path to be like him.” Such reasoning deceived Eve to take an independent path to these goals and brought about the fall. As uncorrupted image-bearers, however, their duty was their delight and the prospect of unwavering obedience their true happiness. Andrew Fuller stated in his confession of faith, “I believe if Adam or any holy being had had the making of a law for himself, he would have made just such an one as God’s law is; for it would be the greatest of hardships to a holy being not to be allowed to love God with all his heart.” In the unfallen state, they loved the duty that was theirs; the obligation that was perfectly commensurate with the righteousness set before them was no burden but their holy hope.

Presently, fallen creatures have no regard for God. Instead, they shut off from their contemplation the power and perfection that should be obvious from the witness of every created thing around them. Duty is reprehensible because the concept of divine beauty, power, and prerogative conflicts with the corrupt mind in its self-centered, rather than God-centered, goals. If any sinners are to be converted, each must come to grips with the distance between their affections and their duties. 

The new birth involves a reconciliation of affections with duties. The faith that adheres to justifying righteousness approves God’s righteous law, righteous judgment, righteous atonement, and righteous reconciliation. Saving faith admits that our duty toward such righteous expressions of divine goodness infinitely transcends and is radically other than our pursuit. Sanctification progresses in proportion to the affections’ realignment with intrinsic duties. Again, Andrew Fuller presses this truth into a confessional article: “I believe that such is the excellence of this way of salvation, that every one who hears or has opportunity to hear it proclaimed in the gospel is bound [italics mine] to repent of his sin, believe, approve, and embrace it with all his heart; to consider himself, as he really is, a vile lost sinner; to reject all pretensions to life in any other way; and to cast himself upon Christ, that he may be saved in this way of God’s devising. This I think to be true faith, which whoever have, I believe will certainly be saved.” One’s being “bound” to these responses mean that every stage and trait of justifying faith arises from duty. Reconciliation with God necessarily involves reconciliation of our highest desire with our highest duty.

When one grasps accurately the moral loveliness that requires the devotion of all moral beings, it is impossible to dismiss duty as an inferior motivation for action; rather one sees duty as a moral disposition, an aesthetic judgment, a true perception of fitness, a consent to perfect being, and a joyful submission to expressions of order, law, love, moral symmetry, infallible purpose, transcendent wisdom, and divine revelation. Duty permeates the entire calling of the minister of the gospel and the message that he preaches. Again, listen to the confession of Andrew Fuller:

I believe it is the duty of every minister of Christ plainly and faithfully to preach the gospel to all who will hear it; and as I believe the inability of men to spiritual things to be wholly of the moral, and therefore of the criminal kind, and that it is their duty to love the Lord Jesus Christ and trust in him for salvation though they do not; I therefore believe free and solemn addresses, invitations, calls, and warning to them to be not only consistent, but directly adapted, as means, in the hand of the Spirit of God, to bring them to Christ. I consider it as a part of my duty which I could not omit without being guilty of the blood of souls.

Why does Fuller say that it is the sinner’s “duty to love the Lord Jesus Christ and trust in him for salvation.” The first concerns the fullness of the law; before all things and with all the energy of the mind, the will, the understanding, and the affections the Lord Jesus, in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwells, is to be loved. Having fallen short of that in Adam and in personal transgression, sinners need a path to righteousness and thus life. In Jesus that righteousness has been perfected and the merit of eternal life is found in him alone. A complete resting of the soul on his work (trust) as alone worthy unites the soul to him. He is the Lord, and, also, he has loved the Lord his Father with all his heart, mind, soul, and strength. He is the goal of the law and he is the perfect doer of the law. The duty, therefore, to love him absolutely and to trust him for salvation is based on the same moral excellence involved in both. 

Duty, in reality, as indicated above is prior to love. The focus of love is determined by the duty implied in the excellence of the object. The greater the excellence, the greater the duty; the greater the duty, the higher and more focused the love. The infinitely perfect being calls forth our devotion and admiration; the law of such a being establishes our duty. That all things exist by his will and serve his purpose gives us varying degrees of duty toward all that he made and sustains. “You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for you created all things, and by your will they exist and were created” (Revelation 4:11). Though varied in degree, all duty is absolute. We have a duty to our pets as well as our parents, but the latter is of a higher degree of duty that the former. How the glory of God is manifest in each thing and in each relationship determines the intensity of duty involved. Food and drink are good and are partaken with gratitude and to God’s glory and with a fully-approving conscience, but may be omitted for the sake of the conscience of a brother (1 Corinthians 10:29-33). Fundamental to love, therefore, is the level of duty that defines each relation.

Articles in this edition of The Founders Journal treat those areas of duty that are of the highest order. The first is from the opening chapter of John L. Dagg’s Manual of Theology and explores the duty to love God. On this duty hang the reality and peculiar relevance of all other duties. 

Another article by Paul Taylor deals with the duties of church membership. Christ has died for the church, has called and gifted every member and united all these members in one common goal to achieve the “measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” {Ephesians 4:13). There is a duty, therefore, that each part of  this body do its work which “causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love” (Ephesians 4:16). 

Another article, by Ryan Denton, concerns the ongoing witness of the church, corporately and individually, with a view to the conversion of sinners. This is to occur until the final elect one is called. Benjamin Keach stated that the “task and calling of the minister as an ambassador” is “to persuade sinners to receive and embrace the Lord Jesus.” The truths of Christ’s seeking and finding all of his people should stir up ministers “to do their utmost in order to the conversion of sinners.” They should not be weary, nor faint, nor be discouraged even when reproached by men and Satan for “God has appointed preaching as his great ordinance, for the … conversion of lost sinners.”[i]  And though the minister has no power either of virtue or persuasion to change a heart and bring a sinner home, but only Christ alone by his Spirit can do that, nevertheless,  ministers “are to do what they can, they are to invite them, press, them, entreat and persuade them to come.”[ii]  A faithful ministry “will do what the Lord commands them to do” with the confidence that “in God’s heart is room enough for millions of souls; and in God’s house there is not only bread enough, and to spare, but room enough also.”[iii]  A minister of Christ, in order “to accomplish his Ambassy, and to bring the King’s Enemies to accept of Peace,” must pray, entreat,  and “beseech Sinners to be reconciled to God.”  In fact, like the apostle who cried tears over the lost, “Faithful Ministers art willing to spend their Lives to win Souls to Christ, yea, to die upon the spot to save one poor Sinner.” Ryan Denton reminds us, in Keach-like fashion, that this duty cannot be transcended in demonstrating love to God and man.

Concluding this edition of the Founders Journal is a brief resume of the Nature of True Virtue by Jonathan Edwards. This work is perhaps the most profound discussion on duty—its true beauty and its intrinsic ethical absoluteness—in American evangelical literature. We pray that each of these articles and the impact of the whole will give unction for holiness and faithful service.

[i] Benjamin Keach, Parables., 368-370.

[ii] Keach., 546.

[iii] Keach, 546.