The need for preaching to become more evangelistic has been widely acknowledged recently. Doubtless, this is due to concern over the relative fewness of conversions in our churches, a desire to discover the rea­son for this and, in so far as we can, to remedy it. In such an investigation, it is not enough to analyse the social context in which churches now find them­selves. The way in which the gospel is preached should also be examined. Of course, factors like the decline in church attendance and practice of Christian principles and values, the appalling ignorance of the content of the Bible, the growth of non-Christian religions and of New Age paganism all have their place in making such a review. Indeed, the New Testament itself neither belittles nor ignores the environment of the first-century churches (see Acts 14:8-18; 17:16-34; 28:1-10; Romans 1:18-2:16 and 1 Corinthians 9:19-­23). But all the difficulties are not created by the world for the church; some arise within the church herself.

This article seeks to address one of these — arguably the one which lies closest to the root of the whole matter. Contrary to the thinking of what seems to be an increasing number of evangelicals today, this is not the question of either the technique or the terminology in which unbelievers should be addressed, whether in the context of the regular worship of the church or in meetings specially arranged for the purpose. It is rather the question of what can be said to anyone and everyone about God in the light of the good news which he sends to mankind. To be precise, it is a difficulty which lies mainly within the thought-life of gospel preachers. It can be put like this. What can preachers say to anyone about God's attitude to him or her? Or, what can individual Christians say as they witness? The Bible declares 'God is love'. What does that mean and what is its bearing on evangelistic preaching and witnessing?

Many Questions⤒🔗

In spite of the fact that the meaning of the statement 'God is love' seems to be so straightforward, various comments on it show that this is not so. Some of these remarks are made by those who have no grasp of the biblical revelation at all and their views can be easily answered. They claim either that love is God or that God is nothing but love. Both ideas are of course wrong. But other questions arise which are more searching and to which there is no simple answer. These relate to what is written elsewhere in the Bible. For example, does God love all and, if so, what does that 'love for all' mean (see Matthew 5:44-45)? Again, if God loves everyone, how does that love relate to his electing purpose which guarantees the salvation of only those whom he has chosen (see Ephesians 1:4-5)? Does he therefore love those whom he chooses not to decree to save? And if so, how does such a love relate to the death of Christ who consciously atoned only for the elect (see John 10:15 and Ephesians 5:25)? These questions must be grappled with.

A Big Question←⤒🔗

Without minimising the importance of the above questions in the slightest, we nevertheless wonder whether there is not another question which ought to be asked first, namely, Is God love? If love is not God, and God is not just love, what is the relationship between God and love? Is love just one aspect of God? Or, is God wholly love? Is love but one element among others in the overall immensity of his being, found, as it were, at the outpost of his mind or in a corner of his character? Or, is he love — in all that he is? This is what must be settled. How central is love to God's being and how present is it in all his attributes?

A Different Answer←⤒🔗

These questions are of course grist for the mill of systematic theologians. But we wonder whether, in this matter at least, gospel preachers may not well serve us better — provided, of course, that they have a believing and working grasp of a confessional theology! One such was Samuel Davies, Jonathan Edwards' successor at Princeton, and the author of the hymn 'Great God of wonders' which is based on Micah 7:18. Davies was a great evangelistic preacher whom Dr Lloyd-Jones is on record as describing as 'the most eloquent preacher the American continent has produced'. What follows is a précis of his sermon on 1 John 4:8 — 'God is love¹— and a reflection on it in relation to our evangelistic preaching.

Samuel Davies on 1 John 4:8←⤒🔗

Davies begins with the observation that 'love' is the 'noblest passion of the human breast and the fairest ornament of the rational nature'. He regards it as the 'cement of society' and 'the source of social happiness ... without (which) the rational universe would dissolve, and men and angels would turn savages'. But it is not only 'the spring of every pleasure (and) the foundation of religion and morality', it is also 'the brightest beam of divinity that has ever irradiated the creation; (and) the nearest resemblance to the ever-blessed God'.

Commenting generally on the sentence 'God is love', he declares that it is beyond 'penetration (by) an angel's mind' and beyond expression by 'celestial eloquence'. However, he asserts that it means that God is 'not only lovely and loving, but love itself; pure, unmixed love, nothing but love; love in his nature and operations; the object, source, and quintessence of all love'.

He then announces that his aim is 'to recommend the Deity' to 'the affections' of his hearers 'under the amiable idea of love', and with that aim in view to show that 'his other perfections are but various modifications of love'.

We will follow his exposition before reflecting on what it has to say to us.

1. Love and the Goodness of God←↰⤒🔗

Davies declares that 'love comprehends the various forms of divine benefi­cence', including goodness within the category of love and not vice versa. For him, a goodness which deals bountifully with all everywhere, except where incorrigible evildoers are confined and punished; grace to the undeserving; mercy to the wretched, and patience and longsuffering to insolent offenders are 'but love under various names ... gracious, merciful, patient and longsuffering love'.

He cries out 'Oh love what hast thou done! what wonders hast thou wrought!'

2. Love and the Wisdom of God←↰⤒🔗

Davies describes divine wisdom as 'the sagacity of love' because it devises 'schemes for communicating itself in the most advantageous, beneficent, and honourable manner, so as to promote the good of the great whole or collec­tive system of creatures' by means of creation, providence, redemption and, even by judgment. 'Displays of divine wisdom' are 'signatures of divine love'. Clearly, he neither minimises nor cancels out judgment or punishment by magnifying love.

3. Love and the Power of God←↰⤒🔗

Power is but 'the omnipotence of love'. The might which was required to create and sustain such an amazing world as comprehends 'the meanest vital particle of being (and) the most exalted archangel' was also necessary 'to open a channel in which the overflowing ocean of love might extend itself and diffuse its streams'. Divine power is the 'acting hand ... the servant of love, to perform its orders, and execute its gracious designs.' There is no room for anything approaching naked or blind force in Davies' thinking or presentation of God.

4. Love and the Holiness of God←↰⤒🔗

While Davies does not define holiness, it is clear from what he says that it is the antithesis of all sin and unrighteousness. He describes it as 'pure, refined, and honourable love' because it is 'the love of excellence, rectitude and moral goodness' and resembles 'the health, the good constitution of a reasonable being'. By its very nature holiness therefore tends to promote happiness, just as sin produces misery. As God is infinitely holy, so he is infinitely happy and his promoting of holiness among his creatures is in the interests of promoting their true happiness.

Consequently, the requirements of his law are but strict injunctions to his subjects to pursue that course which infallibly leads them to the most consummate happiness; and every abatement in his demands of obedience would be a license to them to deduct so much from their happiness, and render themselves so far miserable with his consent.

'Penal sanctions' are therefore,

friendly warnings ... and honest admonitions. They are threatenings which discover no malignity or ill-nature, as sinners are apt to imagine, but the infinite benevolence of the heart of God, (they are not) primarily and unconditionally intended to be executed, but to prevent all occasion of their being executed, by preventing sin, the natural source, as well as the meritorious cause of every misery ... It is because he loves his crea­tures so much that he requires them to be so holy and that requirement is the highest instance of the love of God for (them) and his regard for their happiness.

5. Love and the Justice of God←↰⤒🔗

The justice of God, even his punitive justice, is, for Davies, 'but a modifi­cation of love and goodness'. Davies is well aware that this is the divine per­fection which seems so obviously to be the antithesis of love because of the difference between it and fatherly chastisement and also the fact that it results in unending punishment. He, therefore, gives more attention to it, acknowledg­ing that it does not have in view any improvement or benefit for those who suffer it, but refusing to allow that those who oppose it should determine how it should be thought of because of their prejudice against it. Davies claims that another view of it ought to be understood and accepted — one which does not separate it from 'the gentle and amiable glories of love and public benevolence'.

In support of this, he works with an analogy which is 'that proceedings similar to those of the divine government, are not only approved of as just in all human governments, but also loved and admired as amiable and praise­worthy, and highly essential to the goodness and benevolence of a ruler'. These are that punishment tends to prevent sin, to uphold good laws and to deter people from destruction and, by so doing, to promote the happiness of all. As God is a moral governor and a benevolent father the same may be expected of him. His punishment of sin is therefore not a contradiction of his love.

Davies anticipates certain objections to this which he records and to which he responds. He writes:

That to represent justice under the notion of love is to affect singularity in language (that is to misuse words), to destroy the distinction of the di­vine attributes and the essential difference of things'. To which I answer,

1. That a catachresis (misuse of words) may be beautiful and emphatical, though it be always a seeming impropriety in language. Such is this representation, 'Divine justice, divine love'.

2. I do not deny that God's executing righteous punishment upon the guilty may be called justice; but that it is his love to the public that excites him to do this; and therefore his doing of it may be properly denominated love, as well as justice, or love under the name of justice, which is love still.

3. I do not mean that the usual names of things should be changed, but that we should affix suitable ideas to them. We may retain the name of justice still, but let us not affix ideas to it that are inconsistent with divine love. Let us not look upon it as the attribute of a tyrant, but of a wise and good ruler.

His conclusion is that the case of impenitent sinners is desperate indeed when it is 'the gentler perfections of the Deity (that) are conspired against them' and says, 'Impenitent sinners! even the unbounded love of God to his creatures is your enemy ... therefore repent and be holy, otherwise divine love will not suffer you to be happy.' This is no 'Smile, Jesus loves you' message.

Reflection←⤒🔗

Two points, at least, can be highlighted for reflection from Davies' presentation. The first arises from his use of metonymy and relates to the limitation of human language. The second relates to the primacy of love in relation to God's attributes. We will comment on each of these in relation to God's love and by extension to evangelistic preaching.

1. The Limitation of Language←↰⤒🔗

We have seen that Davies closely associates matters which are more usually separated or at least differentiated from each other, namely love and (punitive) justice. He does this not merely by putting them side by side on a page, but by allowing the one to affect the other in actuality. The result is that God's love conditions the exercise of his justice and even the execution of its penalty.

To think of love (and justice) in this way may be new to us. But it is not a wholly new way of thinking. Have we not repeatedly thought like this in connection with the holiness of God? We have allowed holiness to be the master concept in our thinking about God so that all his attributes, for example his wisdom and power, become holy, that is wholly other than, or above, their human counterparts? Why not allow love the same dominance in relation to the divine character? After all, 'God is love'.

Further, we often sense the difficulty of having but the one word 'love', and its cognates, to refer to the two kinds of divine love of which the Bible speaks, namely God's electing love and his general love. As a result, we become hesitant to use the word 'love' to describe something less than the greatest love which is the electing, saving love of God. But the 'lesser' love is none the less real in God and how else shall we describe that? Surely, the fact that there is an interpenetration of the divine attributes in God should enable us to live a little more comfortably with the limitations of the English language — and so to preach to all that God loves them. This may lead to a less tidy schematization — and that may be some of the rub. But the Bible will not be contradicted and the benefit will be immense — to all our hearers. We must resist the demand to tie together every biblical statement into a logically tight knot; and the fear that it will be obvious to others that we cannot do so. In all of our preaching — not least our evangelistic preaching — we must not hold back Scripture's emphasis on the magnitude and breadth of God's love.

2. The Primacy of Love←↰⤒🔗

God has revealed Himself in the Bible as the one who is in no state of internal contradiction and is therefore not the author of confusion. He is 'the God of Peace'. There is, therefore, harmony in his being and order in his words and ways. Consequently, it is not improper to attempt to categorise God's perfections revealed in Scripture. But two dangers exist in such an approach.

The first, which has been frequently noted, is that a classification of the divine attributes may lead some to think of God as if he were the sum of a number of parts. Truly, he is 'without parts'. He is not an intricate amalgam of wonderful virtues. But secondly, there is the danger that such a classification may fail to give as much prominence as Scripture itself does to one or other of his perfections. Something like this has happened in the case of God's love. By subsuming love under the attribute of goodness, as often happens in the textbooks, there is inevitably a risk that God's love becomes but one detail in a sub-set of his characteristics. Further, when the attributes of God's character are classified under the headings of the intellectual and the moral, what of his affectionate disposition? To give love but a small place runs the risk of relegating it to the role of a minor motif in the symphony of revealed truth, when in fact it is its underlying theme and grand climax. To filter out all feeling from it, for fear of appearing to make God changeable or passable or vulnerable does not square easily with his self-revelation in Jesus Christ. Davies subsumes goodness under love and not vice versa. Should we not do the same and exalt the love of God and exult in it?

Does not Davies' thinking about God's love open a way for preaching his goodwill to all sinners which does justice to his other attributes but also highlights that it is only sin, Satan and self which keep people from salvation? Does it not assure any and all, however wicked, that it is a lie of Satan that God does not want them to come and might not receive them, even if they called for mercy? Does it not enable preachers not only to issue a word of command in God's name (Acts 17:30) but also a word of appeal (2 Corinthians 5:20)?