Is it true that the Christian Biblical God Loves Us as We Are?

A recent Facebook post inspired a complicated internal dialog regarding the duality of God’s love.  Someone posted that God loves us as we are.  This is an interesting statement proving either true, false, or both depending on how one interprets theoretical intention.  Biblically, God is described as the potter and we are the clay, as a symbolic analogy to indicate He is never done and always working on us. 

But if God loves us as we are, why would He want us to change?  Better yet, why would we bother changing for ourselves and others around us?  It seems counter intuitive.  God conforming us to His image and purpose seems contradictory to suggestive sentiment that our current condition is “enough”. Claiming God loves us in our current condition, which is technically true, could be used as a theoretical defense mechanism, promoting the status quo while avoiding correction, or even justify continued sin despite extensive theological content rebuking it.  And yet the Bible talks extensively about the things we should not do, promoting a constant correction of ourselves and others, whereas superficial variations of “unconditional” love often dictate inaction toward adverse behaviors promoting passive acceptance. 

“As we are” can just as easily mean “I’ll do whatever I want”, allowing others to bear the consequences of these actions which must essentially be pardoned and ignored under blanket mandates for unconditional love and “forgiveness”.  “As we are” can just as easily mean “I’ll do it my way…under my power”, glorifying ourselves rather than recognizing and thoroughly comprehending the boundless extent of God’s infinite and sacrificial love.  Alternatively, this philosophy can lead to a Biblically accurate understanding of spiritual strength, existing inexplicably at our weakest point.  Recognizing wrongly perceived superficial contradictions illustrates why humanity requires such pervasive interventions.  Simply put, we insist on doing it our way…and our way sucks…whether we realize it or not…

The Christian God is a God of correction rather than indiscriminate tolerance, just as truth is “intolerant” of untruth in a manner of speaking.  How can God be both a God of forgiveness and a God of correction when correction requires finding fault to correct, which must be forgotten in order to be Biblically forgiven?  Is it more loving to let us drown or teach us how to swim?  Teaching requires correction, and correction implies our current state must change.  God loves us as we are…but does He want us to stay that way?

Father Knows Best

When I think of love, I first think of my experience as a father.  I want the best for my children. As a result, I correct them regularly.  They don’t always fully understand where the correction is coming from and what the intent is, so they feel bad that they have to be corrected.  Correction leads to growth and growth can be uncomfortable.  We lose sight of future victory because we are a superficial people who often operate on an inconsistent standard of “seeing is believing”.  We might miss the reward of correction because we reject how it makes us feel in the moment.  Sometimes we insist on doing it our own way, just as we are.  “As we are” often means we are going nowhere, applying the same strategies while expecting different results.

For several years, my son has participated in weekly “ninja warrior” workouts and lessons at local independent facilities, learning key components of various disciplines such as parkour, gymnastics and tumbling.  The most attractive and satisfying element for my adolescent unit has been and always will be the “warped wall”.  My son achieved instant successes traversing the nine-foot-tall obstacle, eventually graduating to the twelve-foot variant, offering a more ominous challenge.  Success was intermittent.  I told him it was clear he could consistently hit it every time, we just needed to find the right strategy, and he needed to listen to his coaches.  He would often get so close to the top but stop pushing and accept defeat.  He struggled with the idea he was doing something wrong, which ultimately kept him from being more successful. 

I was proud of his effort, but I wanted more for him.  After another pep talk, he made the mental connections, achieving a renewed sense of determination and strengthened resolve, while properly comprehending the physical mechanics.  My son achieved full beast mode and proceeded to successfully ascend the 12-foot warped wall fifteen times in a single class, missing only one attempt due to his shoe coming off.  I was so proud of him, and more importantly he was proud of himself.  His progress would lead to further victory, both from an Athletic and emotional/psychological standpoint.  Now imagine if I had just “accepted” him the way he was. 

On the other end of that relationship, what is the consequence if I don’t correct my children as a father should?  Who would I be doing that for?  If I “love” them with the primary intent of receiving fulfillment or a positive reaction in return, is that really love?  My kids would love me if I bought them every toy they wanted.  They would love me if I let them constantly eat junk food.  They would love me if I didn’t regulate screen time.  They might love me if I let them run around unsupervised.  They might love me if revoked household rules and restrictive boundaries.  And what is the subsequent result?  They might feel extremely loved under a temporary basis, while they may not appreciate the ultimate result, later understanding the consequences of activities they once innocently enjoyed. That should provide some insight whether or not God loves us as we are.

Even collegiate liberal youth work courses teach the essential presence of reasonable albeit periodically flexible boundaries. Logical boundaries are often an expression of love recognized by those they are applied to, even in the face of resistance. My eight-year-old daughter said it best when I rescinded the threat of a timeout by saying “Thank you for being a merciful father…but not too merciful.”

To say God loves us as we are almost seems to suggest we are deserving of that love.  Understanding ourselves within proper context paints a clear image of what God’s love truly entails.  While certainly God loves us as we are, He reminds us that we are dust.  Jesus loved us enough “as we are” to be nailed to a cross in our place.  While God loves us as we are, He regularly reminds us that there is no righteousness among us.  God is a god of forgiveness, but only if you ask Him and only if you mean it.  But shouldn’t God love us in spite of anything else?  How can it be true that God loves us as we are, yet some people go to hell?  Imagine working for an incredible employer.  Imagine that the wages and benefits they supply surpass all of your hopes and dreams.  Imagine the wonderful life you could provide for your family.  Now imagine if you never deposited a single check.  So I guess they weren’t a good employer after all. But the difference with Jesus is that we don’t work for salvation ourselves…its a gift that must be accepted, not earned.

Clearly Confused

All of this seems pretty confusing, right?  I thought God didn’t author confusion, so why is attempting to understand Him seemingly so convoluted, offering conflicting and contradictory interpretations?  While it is true God is not “the author of confusion” as the Bible states, is it also not logical to conclude that Godliness is often confusing to us because we are not God?  Biblical principles can be interpreted humanisticly, which exasperates confusion.  That’s why it takes effort to understand if God loves us as we are.

The disciples, in the direct presence of Jesus, were often mystified by His teachings, despite Jesus being God and God not authoring confusion.  If we are dealing with a God of infinite wisdom, and we are not infinitely wise, is it not therefore logical that we may be confused by His infinite wisdom despite Him not authoring confusion?  While God does not author confusion, this does not somehow suggest we understand His lack of confusion perfectly.   Perhaps the statement that God does not author confusion is intended simply to identify the true source of any spiritual or doctrinal confusion we experience…which is us. We like to point fingers but struggle identifying personal user error as a byproduct of pride.

So what is love?  Is it always warm and fuzzy?  Are the results exclusively beneficial on a personal level?  While we focus so much on how we want to be loved, should we spend more time on how we love in return?  The greatest act of love ever recorded in human history was made possible by hate, dishonesty, disobedience, and irreparable destruction.  God’s love for us led Jesus to the cross, predicated upon our own self-interest, self-focus, and nearsightedness.  So, if we truly desire to be “Christ-like” as the most accurate definition of Christianity dictates, we should reject our desire to feel love which often clouds personal judgement, and provide love to those that hate us for it.  Imagine if Jesus had pursued fleeting moments of superficial emotion in an effort to feel loved versus being beaten, tortured, and murdered for those who despised Him. 

Ironically, conversations regarding love often center around personal justifications which reflect pride and self-indulgence more than love.  It is easy to believe if everyone focused on selfless and informed expressions of love in leu of personal fulfillment, that everyone would feel loved as a result.  But this process goes both ways.  Expressions of love often require self-neglect and sacrifice, while receiving it can be equally problematic.  Is an intervention an act of love?  How is that act initially perceived on the receiving end?  For this same reason people attempt to conform God to their interpretation of love.  For some, God can only be “loving” if they agree with Him.

If God loves us as we are, then what about our pride?  Personal pride can distort our interpretation of God’s perception of us.  Ironically, depending on how it manifests, unworthiness can either reflect our understanding of God’s greatness, or it can reflect personal pride.  If God leads you to do something, are you hesitant because of how you view yourself?  And yet not only is denying God in this way disobedient, and you are challenging God’s wisdom, but you are also implying that the intended task will be completed under your power alone and not God’s.  Telling God that you aren’t strong enough suggests that He has no power Himself. 

Are we not all susceptible to different levels of pride?  Does the Bible not say that God “resisteth the proud”.  Does that not contradict the idea God loves us as we are?  It is important to differentiate between Godly love versus the humanistic and schizophrenic version we regularly concoct to negotiate our feelings and our pride.

Opposing Forces

In light of the current discussion surrounding God’s love, it seems only fitting to incorporate the contentious topic of homosexuality as it relates to Christian theology and commentary.  This topic requires a thorough understanding of the scripture and a thorough appreciation for the dynamic contextual and situational continuity between wrath and grace.  Some Christians attempt to exonerate homosexuality in light of scripture, while others unilaterally condemn and antagonize homosexuals.  In the past, I have personally seen university campus demonstrations condemning homosexuals, holding banners which proclaim that God hates homosexuals and that all homosexuals will burn in hell.  Talk about two extreme ends of the spectrum.  Biblical scripture does however make incredibly strong statements regarding homosexual activity.

Leviticus 18:22 – Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Romans 1:27 – And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

While this appears pretty clear, I have heard some attempt to contend that Biblical disapproval of homosexuality simply doesn’t exist.  Interesting.  These are not the only examples, but they are the most overt (here are some more).  Let’s look at these verses critically.  Homosexuality is described as an “abomination”, so what does that mean?  I think this word requires some context.  Abomination does imply “hatred” by dictionary definition, but how are we defining “hate”?  Does fire hate water?  Does darkness hate light?  Does truth hate untruth?  In this regard, perhaps “abomination” implies a state of unnatural contradiction, defeating intended properties through counterintuitive production. 

If God created sex for the primary purpose of martial procreation rather than recreational sexual pleasure or expressions of sexual “love”, then would defeating the purpose of His creation not qualify as an “abomination”?    If you believe in God, and believe that He made everything, then we must conclude that everything He made has purpose.   Simply put, from a clear evolutionary, biological standpoint, men…are not supposed to attempt intercourse with other men.  This is not the intended purpose of biological design, and as a result, overt homosexual acts subvert God’s intended will…or secular interpretations of “evolution” for that matter. 

Saying that homosexuality in this regard is “un-natural” is not an unfair judgement but a simple objective truth.  But what about acts of sexual expression between heterosexuals that align with this categorization as well?  If I say that it is objectively “un-natural” for a heterosexual couple to engage in either oral or anal sex, does that make me “hetero-phobic”? And if God “hates” homosexuals, then why did Jesus die for them? 

John 3:16-  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Does being a homosexual prevent someone from being saved and going to Heaven?  Does anyone who gets saved actually stop sinning entirely?  Is sin equal?  Can a homosexual ask Jesus to be their savior while maintaining a monogamous homosexual relationship?  As Christians, why do we think we are the ones exclusively doing the work?  Maybe just bring people to Jesus and let the Holy Spirit work how it is going to work.  Rebuking sin is Biblical, and being Christ like is our calling, but we often ignore the ways we are unlike Christ in an attempt to be gods ourselves.

James 2:10- For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

In light of this verse, we are all the same.  A law breaker is a law breaker.  If homosexuality is a sin, and you have committed any other sin beyond homosexuality, by Biblical standards you are a homosexual.  So, if a homosexual essentially has no hope as some Christians seem to contend, then I suppose no one does.  What gets lost in translation are applications of context.  Sin requires acknowledgement and understanding.  If you say something untruthful you understood to be legitimate, have you committed a sin?  Should we rebuke those with Teret’s syndrome for their often vulgar language?  So what about homosexuals who believe they are differently programmed? 

Men are interested in women due to biological programming; is it really that hard to believe that in certain circumstances a few wires might get crossed?  Is that a product of personal sin nature, or a product of post Eden biological corruption?  This is of course not to say that all homosexual expressions are equal either.  Much of sexual culture in general explicitly contradicts Biblical teaching.  But there is a fine line between applying Biblical principles and confusing our role with God’s.  If a homosexual wants to come to Christ, but they believe their “orientation” prevents that, are we fulfilling God’s will or subverting it through overtly protesting specific categories of Biblical deviance?  As a Christian, maybe I can point out they are a liar like me and everyone else on the planet, and let the holy spirit decide what it will do with everything else…

On the other hand, in modern society we will defend all brands of homosexual activity through the blanketed mantra “love is love” when sexual activity of most varieties can be reduced to lust and biology, then only apply this standard to brands of “love” we value. This is why overt political support for a special interest group in public schools is deemed acceptable in the case of the “pride” flag…but not John 3:16. Are those who display representations of patriotism expressing “love” for their country and those who reside there? However, effectively applying diminishing labels or loose social excuses nullifies any obligation to consistently apply asserted values.

We will teach Evolution, then arbitrarily promote an exclusionary brand of social tolerance that prioritizes certain characteristics while ignoring their validity from an Evolutionary perspective. Secular commentators frequently evoke the idea of rights, freedom, and values…concepts that are completely subjective and arbitrary if we are nothing but a bunch of fluid filled flesh bags the result of a statistically impossible cosmic mishap. Why would those who believe Evolution the hardest assert concepts rendered meaningless in light of Evolution, not to mention gaslighting those who refuse to conform to constructs proven entirely subjective by Evolutionary framework? We reject any aversion to homosexuality as an expression of “homophobia”, and yet, if Evolution is true, then isn’t a natural aversion to homosexuality logical? Is this not an example of people behaving consistent with logical biological programming installed by “natural” forces? How is it we can figure out a way to justify pedophilia but not non-violent expressions of homosexual aversion?

Proverbs 17:15 – “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord.”

This sure is a fascinating statement.  So what qualifies as “justifying” the wicked?  Did Jesus condemn the adulterous woman from John 8, or did He protect her from social and religious supremacists who desired her destruction?  Depending on how you want to spin that scenario, one could say Jesus contradicted Proverbs 17:15.  Of course, Jesus didn’t support wicked behavior, rather He protected a person with the same sin nature as those who wanted to stone her.  He also told her to “sin no more”.  She was presented to Jesus “as she was”.  Jesus showed her love and mercy, but He did not justify her present state.  This should help us understand how God loves us as we are.

Biblically speaking, if you justify your current state, and are committing any level of unaddressed sin, you are an “abomination” according to the Lord.  Sin is an unnatural and unintended state, unleashed upon the world by our coerced and deceived ancestors.  This illustration fits perfectly with our previously establish framework.

I Love You so Much I’ll Let You Hate Me

God loves us as we are, but our current state is often a huge problem.  While seeking love, we often reject it if it doesn’t meet our standards.  God loves us as we are, but this point of reference serves as the beginning of a perpetual process rather than the justification of a consistent state.  Should the focus be on justification…or sanctification?  And how do any of these principles jive with the current state of Western civilization?  

To many, love means re-writing rules while not truly perceiving the incoherent nature of unreasonable and erratically applied standards.  Love means unconditional acceptance, while applying this standard with conditions.  Love means that there is only one acceptable answer, while failing to conform to these tolerant and unifying expectations will result in ridicule and cancelation.  Love means ignoring collateral damage so a select few can experience happiness on their terms.  If loving a transgendered individual means unconditionally conforming to mainstream Liberal politics, then how do I love transgendered people who align with conservative ideology, or those who are de-transitioning (more discussion of transgender issues here)?  What if love isn’t always what we expect and isn’t always comfortable?  If “Love is Love”, then don’t deny my Christian inspired definition.  Love isn’t a one-way ultimatum, it’s a two-way opportunity.