It is written by a blogger named Dan, begging people of all beliefs to love one another unconditionally. Read it, and tell me what you think.
Then, you can read below to hear my thoughts.
______
In general, I think this guy is totally right. He wants people to be kind, respectful, and loving, regardless of the differences which separate them, and he reminds readers this same principle is found in all the most dominant religions. He's right!
If I had to label his thesis statement, I think it's this one:
“I know there are many here who believe that living a homosexual life is a sin. Okay. But, what does that have to do with love?...What does that have to do with love? Come on. Don’t we understand? Don’t we get it? To put our arm around someone who is gay, someone who has an addiction, somebody who lives a different lifestyle, someone who is not what we think they should be… doing that has nothing to do with enabling them or accepting what they do as okay by us. It has nothing to do with encouraging them in their practice of what you or I might feel or believe is wrong vs. right. It has everything to do with being a good human being.”
Those actions: putting your arm around someone…walking through life with them…treating them with dignity even though they are different--that is the very definition of love.
Jesus said it’s too easy to “love” someone who agrees with you. Even evil people love their friends and family. But you don't really understand the term until you've learned to "love your enemy." Jesus was hated both by critics in his day and many since then, but he died for all of us anyway. That’s real love. He was spit on by the guards nailing Him to the cross, but He said, “Father, forgive them.”
That is real love.
Dan was sooooo very right with the above paragraph, that I was a little concerned when he said, "[loving people are] able to look at [others] and only see strength. Beauty. Potential. Hope… Isn’t that what love actually is?" (emphasis mine)
Part of love is recognizing beauty and potential. And, like Dan, the Bible associates love with the word "hope." (Love is patient, love is kind, it does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices in truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.)
But this last part about "persevering" makes me believe there is more to the story. What are we supposed to persevere through? That seems to indicate a change is coming, doesn't it? What did Dan mean when he said loves sees potential and "hope?" I think it suggests we are optimistic regarding the future of the person you love? If you really see potential in a man or woman, wouldn't you hope he or she reaches it? I don't think that "love" would leave people in a bad place, if there are things they can do to be better. Consider the alcoholic, or similarly self-destructive person. Their loved ones are the people who MOST want to see them change--not because they hate who they are, but precisely the opposite.
I realize this is a delicate balance. Too many “religious people” think they can save strangers from their sin if they preach long enough, and it ends badly--even though taking biblical advice ultimately would help the sufferer. The fact remains, we must prove our love for others before we earn the right to speak about delicate issues. Without love, pointing out a person's flaws only hurts feelings and starts wars.
For the most part, I think Dan would agree with me on all of the above. There was just one thing he said, which I'd like to question:
"[all religions teach] love for others as the basis for all happiness, and never did they accompany such mandates with a list of unlovable actions or deeds." (emphasis mine)
I believe this is the only sentence in the whole post with which I flatly disagree. Maybe he just worded it carelessly and actually believes differently than the quote sounds. But it seems to me that every, single religion (and every non-religious individual) DOES keep a list of unlovable actions. We each have a moral code--a sense of right and wrong--which is not a bad thing.
Our lists of unlovable actions often include: murder, greed, dishonesty, and selfishness, which we have good reason not to love. Dan himself writes this entire post about something on his unlovable list: the act of being unloving.
He meant to say, I believe, that none of the religions have a list of deeds or actions which make a person unlovable, though the actions themselves are despicable.
I wouldn't call his actions "unloving," even though he speaks pretty harshly about the human condition because his "beef" is with behavior. He is allowed to write about how awful we treat each other and how we need to show love without being contradictory because “love” doesn’t mean “celebrating everything everybody does all the time.” Love is treating somebody with the same esteem and kindness you would IF YOU DID agree with everything they did. It is acknowledging a person's worth and making everything you say to them--whether praise or reprimand--retains their dignity.
When you truly love someone, you will have their best interests at heart, at all times. And that is why I returned to agreement with Dan when he wrote:
“I wish with everything inside of me that [my friend’s homosexuality] didn’t make any difference to others. I wish we didn’t all have to find ways that we’re better than others or more holy and saintly than others in order to feel better about our own messy selves. I wish people wouldn’t cluster entire groups of people together and declare the whole lot unworthy of any love and respect.”
Part of me wants to get defensive along the lines of:
"Just who are these people 'declare whole groups of people unworthy of any love and respect?' Dan already mentioned the Westboro Baptist Church is hated by almost everybody else in the country precisely because the mainstream belief is they are WRONG. I can say with certainty that every, single church I’ve ever attended teaches that we all sin, and we should love our neighbor regardless of how his sin looks. Everybody I know agrees that telling "fags" that they will "burn in Hell" is NOT love, so just who is Dan talking about?"
But, I can't be too defensive because I realize the fact that churches preach unconditional love doesn’t mean their members practice it 100% of the time. And--just because we aren't radical, sign-carrying, name-calling bigots doesn't mean we always have a pure, graceful, loving attitudes. Yes, I worry that telling Christians "not to judge" causes the pendulum to swing the other way--to a point where we aren't willing to confront anybody about things God clearly commands against, even when they are leaders in our own buildings! But, Dan wasn't talking about a Christian who gets away with sin because other Christians are too spineless to correct it. He was talking about communicating with love--with the believer AND the nonbeliever, whether in agreement or disagreement. Never, ever, ever forget love. And, with that I will repeat, I completely agree.
----
To Sarah, the commenter who brought Dan's post to my attention, I want to repeat my apology.
The last time we spoke (under my post “If You Don’t Like MyTeaching…”) you told me you understood getting carried away with beliefs and struggling with words. You said, “I think it is a common issue for people with passion...” and I agree completely. There have been times my loving intentions have gotten lost behind the WAY I’ve delivered the message. And, since love is an action, the delivery is important. If I didn’t deliver the message with love, then I wasn’t loving at all. There have been times I handled critics with respect (for instance, the comments section of Teaching Little Apes.) But, recently, I got off track.
You also said, “To be honest, I would rather be passionate and struggle with how to express it than lack passion.” And I agree with this, too. Intense passion is bound to ruffle feathers, but it sure beats apathy. And, depending on the importance of the topic, sometimes we SHOULD be extremely passionate--and loud, in-your-face, and urgent.
The reason I am passionate about some of the topics on this blog, is I believe it's more than opinion. This is about ultimate truth and whether my actions and your actions please the Creator. All of us must be here on earth for a reason, and it turns out we face a life or death issue: SIN. We deserve Hell, but the Son of God came and died on a cross so that our sin doesn’t have to separate us from Him. We can be forgiven and spend eternity in Heaven, but we must actively accept Jesus’ offer. Those who get to know him personally will be saved. When God asks me to account for all the things I’ve done wrong, Jesus will say, “She is with me. I paid for her ticket.” But those who do not know Him personally will be sent to the pit of fire.
So though I agree with Dan that our beliefs should not affect how we love, I do not believe that love ignores sin. This would mean letting a loved one go to Hell. I will continue writing about selfishness, and how we can allow God to erase it a little at a time, because it is important. And I also write so that fellow believers can know they aren’t the only ones struggling to be good. (Some former posts about my struggles can be found in the “confessions” tab.)
Jesus took the message, “You’re going to Hell without me” and made it sweet by doing what Dan recommended…putting his arm around sinners and giving them hope.
No comments:
Post a Comment