As you alluded to in your last sentence, what would you prefer to see? No mention of love or perhaps a rigorously defined and applied praxis of care? Both of these seem negative and unreasonable to me.
I think Christians should start with an acknowledgment that the word "love" vaguely defined, interpreted through the lens of my culture (not sure about yours), is a very lucrative but largely empty marketing tool. And so churches should basically make it central to their message that, just as faith without works is dead, love without sacrifice is dead. Christians need to acknowledge that a commercialized, individualized pop psychology has so infiltrated our culture that even the core Biblical language of the Christian message (at least translated into English), a lot if which involves love, is in fact contrary to the Gospel absent self-giving action. I know preachers talk about sacrificial love all the time, but they still usually fall into the trap of saving the "meat" of preaching sacrificial love in contemporary human practice (and not just in what Jesus did/does) for people who are already well in the door of the church, while giving the culture at large and people whose connection to the church is tenuous (which is mostly everyone nowadays) a big serving of the "milk" of good-vibes "love is all you need."
Basically I think the solution largely boils down to using the word "love" less, especially in short phrases and soundbites (maybe even in slogan-like quotations from Scripture). Focus on what Christian love really means (not what the word live means in our culture) and preach that with other words. And show what Christian love means in action without marketing that action with posters everywhere declaring that "this is what love looks like", because our culture is so strong that people will focus on the good vibes meaning of love when you do that and ignore the sacrificial meaning of love, even if your poster is hanging right above helping the poor, the sick, the homeless, the imprisoned, etc.
But in my bubble of privilege, I see the word "love" and its ramifications differently than many people, including the poor, sick, homeless, and imprisoned I just mentioned. I guess the difference is between whether a good action undertaken by the church is done in order to put Christian love in action, full-stop, or whether it is to recruit new church members by making the "cult of feel-good love" look cool by associating it with charitable action. Does that make sense?
Just truly unconditional love aka positive regard, not the appalling depraved Christian travesty. And being unconditional, nobody has to pretend to be happy. We all walk naked together.
Yes, love, ...but not the love that loves for something, to gain something, or because of something, but that love that I felt for the first time, when dying, I saw my enemy and yet loved him. I knew that feeling of love which is the essence of the soul, for which no object is needed. And I know that blissful feeling now too. To love one's neighbours; to love one's enemies. To love everything - to Love God in all His manifestations. Some one dear to one can be loved with human love; but an enemy can only be loved with divine love. And that was why I felt such joy when I felt that I loved that man. What happened to him? Is he alive? ...Loving with human love, one may pass from love to hatred; but divine love cannot change. Nothing, not even death, can shatter it. It is the very nature of the soul.
War and Peace
Book 11, Chapter 32
1812, Prince Andrew, a superb character in delirium, refined by fire, in a story written 55 years after its setting. By one of the greatest entirely natural minds of that or any other century. Natural human love can be at least that good. Better. For real. No magic. Tolstoy's beliefs developed for nearly 40 years and I have embraced several of them. He died as sadly as his character.
As you alluded to in your last sentence, what would you prefer to see? No mention of love or perhaps a rigorously defined and applied praxis of care? Both of these seem negative and unreasonable to me.
I think Christians should start with an acknowledgment that the word "love" vaguely defined, interpreted through the lens of my culture (not sure about yours), is a very lucrative but largely empty marketing tool. And so churches should basically make it central to their message that, just as faith without works is dead, love without sacrifice is dead. Christians need to acknowledge that a commercialized, individualized pop psychology has so infiltrated our culture that even the core Biblical language of the Christian message (at least translated into English), a lot if which involves love, is in fact contrary to the Gospel absent self-giving action. I know preachers talk about sacrificial love all the time, but they still usually fall into the trap of saving the "meat" of preaching sacrificial love in contemporary human practice (and not just in what Jesus did/does) for people who are already well in the door of the church, while giving the culture at large and people whose connection to the church is tenuous (which is mostly everyone nowadays) a big serving of the "milk" of good-vibes "love is all you need."
Basically I think the solution largely boils down to using the word "love" less, especially in short phrases and soundbites (maybe even in slogan-like quotations from Scripture). Focus on what Christian love really means (not what the word live means in our culture) and preach that with other words. And show what Christian love means in action without marketing that action with posters everywhere declaring that "this is what love looks like", because our culture is so strong that people will focus on the good vibes meaning of love when you do that and ignore the sacrificial meaning of love, even if your poster is hanging right above helping the poor, the sick, the homeless, the imprisoned, etc.
But in my bubble of privilege, I see the word "love" and its ramifications differently than many people, including the poor, sick, homeless, and imprisoned I just mentioned. I guess the difference is between whether a good action undertaken by the church is done in order to put Christian love in action, full-stop, or whether it is to recruit new church members by making the "cult of feel-good love" look cool by associating it with charitable action. Does that make sense?
I'm not sure it does make sense. I'm a millennial in The Episcopal Church and if "love" is a "lucrative marketing tool" then it would be nice if some of that lucrativeness got to us. For sure, PB Curry invokes it regularly and it does get some usage in various sermons, but I can't think off the top of my head of any sermon I've heard that used it in some kind of feel good sense, whereas I can think of several examples of sermons that have talked about love to exhort us to truly love and serve our neighbors. Now, does this mean that the sermons come with instructions on what this means? Well, no. But that doesn't mean love is being cheapened. Rather, I think that is in keeping with the general Anglican ethos of allowing each individual Christian the freedom to follow their conscience as they see fit.
Following that, I'm not sure that the message about love being preached and exhorted upon in churches that I'm familiar with are pop-psychology infused (also note that since we live in a Christian culture, pop-psychology has lifted this from Christianity, I think). They don't spell it out because what it means for each of us to love our neighbors is going to be different. Some people can't give money, some people can't give time, some people can't do X, Y, or Z, but there may be other more general actions they are able to do. Saying that such actions aren't good enough isn't helpful.
Preaching on love regularly, talking about it and attempting to implement it in a church community isn't giving way to the "cult of feel-good love," it's just following Christ's commandment. For sure, it sucks that it has been commodified and I agree that the Church ought to focus the teaching about love on the theology behind it, but at least in the circles I move in, that's pretty precisely what I hear.
Sorry if I've related this fifteen times before. I was schlepping across the chancel of St. Giles. Northampton in my GLE days, 2005-ish, after services coffee time, and a guy was coming the other way. I elegantly matched his body language. Including when he stopped. And said, 'You know don't you?'. My mind went in to overdrive and I said 'Yes'. He grabbed his passing wife and said 'He knows'. He was an international palliative care consultant. What I knew, and I was right, was, that he was running on empty. I get moved segueing from that that to a 'little old lady', her south London words, very moved. She said, 'I get frightened Martin'. And I was a big, strong, strapping chap. I said 'So do I, Margaret'. She was amazed. I always loved Colin Blakely's Jesus in Dennis Potter's Son of Man. I was 14. He said, in essence, to Brian Blessed's Peter 'Don't be scared', which Peter characteristically denied; 'I'm not!'. To which Jesus replied 'I am mate, I am'. And He was wasn't He?
I am wary of saying that love must be self-sacrificing. It may be that under most circumstances in the modern world it will be, at least for those of us who are better off. But it seems to me that the essence of love as a concept is that two people who love each other are happy together.
Love as self-sacrifice is an ideal that can have damaging effects on people who are more vulnerable.
The point of the pearl of great price is that it was more than worth all the merchant sold to afford it.
I think there comes a point when we (I) just have to shut up and do the thing (in this case, to love). Nobody's likely to listen to me making suggestions... the actions might be useful.
I am wary of saying that love must be self-sacrificing. It may be that under most circumstances in the modern world it will be, at least for those of us who are better off. But it seems to me that the essence of love as a concept is that two people who love each other are happy together.
Love as self-sacrifice is an ideal that can have damaging effects on people who are more vulnerable.
The point of the pearl of great price is that it was more than worth all the merchant sold to afford it.
It is a quandary and sometimes I think of using the word 'love' in solidarity or in fellowship as something that can only be expressed in specific situations or contingencies. What Simone Weil wrote seems pertinent: 'The love of our neighbour in all its fullness simply means being able to say, "What are you going through?" ' The more so when one has no answers or solutions or practical gestures that will make any difference and can only accompany the neighbour, stay beside them, or listen.
I am wary of saying that love must be self-sacrificing. It may be that under most circumstances in the modern world it will be, at least for those of us who are better off. But it seems to me that the essence of love as a concept is that two people who love each other are happy together.
Love as self-sacrifice is an ideal that can have damaging effects on people who are more vulnerable.
The point of the pearl of great price is that it was more than worth all the merchant sold to afford it.
I think this is a good point and one worth meditating on when considering a Christian praxis of love. The commandment to love is not solely outward, though, as we are told to love our neighbors as ourselves. For many people, the loving has to start with themselves.
I am wary of saying that love must be self-sacrificing. It may be that under most circumstances in the modern world it will be, at least for those of us who are better off. But it seems to me that the essence of love as a concept is that two people who love each other are happy together.
I find this concept worrying. It seems to condemn the partnerless to a life of non-love.
And what of the couple who "love each other", who experience happiness together, at least some of the time, but also find themselves unable to cope with the lived experience of being together?
This concept looks like a rehashed version of "love conquers all".
I realise the usual caveat that this might not be what you mean, but it's what the words you've posted say to me.
Love as self-sacrifice is an ideal that can have damaging effects on people who are more vulnerable.
Indeed. The idea that the downtrodden, the marginalised, the vulnerable, need to embrace the concept of self-sacrifice does not sound healthy.
I think this is a good point and one worth meditating on when considering a Christian praxis of love. The commandment to love is not solely outward, though, as we are told to love our neighbors as ourselves. For many people, the loving has to start with themselves.
I'd also been thinking along these lines. And, in principle, "Love your neighbour as yourself" seems to potentially qualify the concept.
However, I find many interpretations, which often amount to "you need to love yourself before you can love other people" rather unsatisfactory. In itself, this perspective seems to do rather more for those who welcome a justification for "I need to look after myself" but, for vulnerable people stuck in damaging patterns of behaviour, it doesn't seem to offer much in the way of concrete help.
When we first met, she was with a group of four eligible women. I found myself very much attracted to her. She had a nice figure--she actually still weighs the same after all these years. She came across as extremely intelligent. The other women just seem to fade away.
A week later we went on a double date with one of my friends taking one of the other women out to see the first Rocky movie. We had a great tme as a group. When I dropped her off, I just said good bye from the car. She thought that was odd. My friend thought it was odd too.
But early the next morning she called me. She told me how much she enjoyed the movie and invited me to come with her the next weekend to a modern jazz concert. (She still loves jazz). Great time. That time I went to her apartment and we got a little more acquainted. I did not stay overnight, though.
Next date nearly did me in. I took her on a canoe trip down a river. After the third time we swamped, she was not talking to me.
She did not see me until a week before my graduation from seminary, a month after the canoe disaster. We went out for ice cream. I mentioned my folks were coming in for my graduation, and I would like here to meet them. I also said I had been planning on staying for a post graduate program.
She did not come to my graduation.. sadly. But we had breakfasts with my folks the next dau. Everyone had a great time. I took her to her place. As we got there, I told her I had just received orders to do Reserve training in California. She seemed so disappointed. I invited her to come to California while I was there. She agreed.
As she was coming to California, she stopped over at my folks in Idaho. I was able to get leave for the weekend. But, to tell you the truth, I was going to break off the relationship because of irreconcilable religious differences. However, when I got to my parent's place, the moment I saw her all my doubts vanished.
She was going to see a friend outside of Seattle for a couple of weeks. Then she came down to see me.
The first night she was there in the evening I took her to a park. As we were walking to the park, I mentioned that an evening like this would make a guy want to propose. She asked if I was asking her to marry me. I said yes. Without hesitation she said yes,
This was all in the span of four months. As I look at the process, I could see how we went through the four stages of love. First, attraction. Second, friendship, Third, physical (eros) and then agape.
We got marries ten months later. That was 43 years ago. To this day, every morning we tell each other we love the other. Every evening it is the last thing we say to each other. There have been challenging times, but we joke if the canoe trip did not separate us, nothing will.
I would say it is the continue decision to tell each other of our love daily gets us through the day and into the evening. Is the word meaningless? Not for us.
This is not the first time you have linked to a poster’s whole list of discussions - without any comment - and I have no idea what that is supposed to indicate.
This is not the first time you have linked to a poster’s whole list of discussions - without any comment - and I have no idea what that is supposed to indicate.
Wasn’t it C S Lewis who wrote something like “She lives for others. You can tell the others by the haunted looks on their faces”?
So-called self-sacrificing love can in reality be self-serving. For my fellow musical theatre fans, think Mama Rose in ‘Gypsy’.
I don’t think there is anything wrong in starting with the basic level of ‘here’s a thought - why not treat people with the respect they’re due?’ Looking at how many people treat retail workers badly, for instance, it seems we need reminding to achieve even basic courtesy sometimes. Yes, it shouldn’t stop at the level of ‘don’t be a jerk’. But sometimes it has to start there.
Comments
I think Christians should start with an acknowledgment that the word "love" vaguely defined, interpreted through the lens of my culture (not sure about yours), is a very lucrative but largely empty marketing tool. And so churches should basically make it central to their message that, just as faith without works is dead, love without sacrifice is dead. Christians need to acknowledge that a commercialized, individualized pop psychology has so infiltrated our culture that even the core Biblical language of the Christian message (at least translated into English), a lot if which involves love, is in fact contrary to the Gospel absent self-giving action. I know preachers talk about sacrificial love all the time, but they still usually fall into the trap of saving the "meat" of preaching sacrificial love in contemporary human practice (and not just in what Jesus did/does) for people who are already well in the door of the church, while giving the culture at large and people whose connection to the church is tenuous (which is mostly everyone nowadays) a big serving of the "milk" of good-vibes "love is all you need."
Basically I think the solution largely boils down to using the word "love" less, especially in short phrases and soundbites (maybe even in slogan-like quotations from Scripture). Focus on what Christian love really means (not what the word live means in our culture) and preach that with other words. And show what Christian love means in action without marketing that action with posters everywhere declaring that "this is what love looks like", because our culture is so strong that people will focus on the good vibes meaning of love when you do that and ignore the sacrificial meaning of love, even if your poster is hanging right above helping the poor, the sick, the homeless, the imprisoned, etc.
But in my bubble of privilege, I see the word "love" and its ramifications differently than many people, including the poor, sick, homeless, and imprisoned I just mentioned. I guess the difference is between whether a good action undertaken by the church is done in order to put Christian love in action, full-stop, or whether it is to recruit new church members by making the "cult of feel-good love" look cool by associating it with charitable action. Does that make sense?
Tolstoy
Book 11, Chapter 32
1812, Prince Andrew, a superb character in delirium, refined by fire, in a story written 55 years after its setting. By one of the greatest entirely natural minds of that or any other century. Natural human love can be at least that good. Better. For real. No magic. Tolstoy's beliefs developed for nearly 40 years and I have embraced several of them. He died as sadly as his character.
I'm not sure it does make sense. I'm a millennial in The Episcopal Church and if "love" is a "lucrative marketing tool" then it would be nice if some of that lucrativeness got to us. For sure, PB Curry invokes it regularly and it does get some usage in various sermons, but I can't think off the top of my head of any sermon I've heard that used it in some kind of feel good sense, whereas I can think of several examples of sermons that have talked about love to exhort us to truly love and serve our neighbors. Now, does this mean that the sermons come with instructions on what this means? Well, no. But that doesn't mean love is being cheapened. Rather, I think that is in keeping with the general Anglican ethos of allowing each individual Christian the freedom to follow their conscience as they see fit.
Following that, I'm not sure that the message about love being preached and exhorted upon in churches that I'm familiar with are pop-psychology infused (also note that since we live in a Christian culture, pop-psychology has lifted this from Christianity, I think). They don't spell it out because what it means for each of us to love our neighbors is going to be different. Some people can't give money, some people can't give time, some people can't do X, Y, or Z, but there may be other more general actions they are able to do. Saying that such actions aren't good enough isn't helpful.
Preaching on love regularly, talking about it and attempting to implement it in a church community isn't giving way to the "cult of feel-good love," it's just following Christ's commandment. For sure, it sucks that it has been commodified and I agree that the Church ought to focus the teaching about love on the theology behind it, but at least in the circles I move in, that's pretty precisely what I hear.
Love as self-sacrifice is an ideal that can have damaging effects on people who are more vulnerable.
The point of the pearl of great price is that it was more than worth all the merchant sold to afford it.
It is a quandary and sometimes I think of using the word 'love' in solidarity or in fellowship as something that can only be expressed in specific situations or contingencies. What Simone Weil wrote seems pertinent: 'The love of our neighbour in all its fullness simply means being able to say, "What are you going through?" ' The more so when one has no answers or solutions or practical gestures that will make any difference and can only accompany the neighbour, stay beside them, or listen.
I think this is a good point and one worth meditating on when considering a Christian praxis of love. The commandment to love is not solely outward, though, as we are told to love our neighbors as ourselves. For many people, the loving has to start with themselves.
And what of the couple who "love each other", who experience happiness together, at least some of the time, but also find themselves unable to cope with the lived experience of being together?
This concept looks like a rehashed version of "love conquers all".
I realise the usual caveat that this might not be what you mean, but it's what the words you've posted say to me.
Indeed. The idea that the downtrodden, the marginalised, the vulnerable, need to embrace the concept of self-sacrifice does not sound healthy.
I'd also been thinking along these lines. And, in principle, "Love your neighbour as yourself" seems to potentially qualify the concept.
However, I find many interpretations, which often amount to "you need to love yourself before you can love other people" rather unsatisfactory. In itself, this perspective seems to do rather more for those who welcome a justification for "I need to look after myself" but, for vulnerable people stuck in damaging patterns of behaviour, it doesn't seem to offer much in the way of concrete help.
When we first met, she was with a group of four eligible women. I found myself very much attracted to her. She had a nice figure--she actually still weighs the same after all these years. She came across as extremely intelligent. The other women just seem to fade away.
A week later we went on a double date with one of my friends taking one of the other women out to see the first Rocky movie. We had a great tme as a group. When I dropped her off, I just said good bye from the car. She thought that was odd. My friend thought it was odd too.
But early the next morning she called me. She told me how much she enjoyed the movie and invited me to come with her the next weekend to a modern jazz concert. (She still loves jazz). Great time. That time I went to her apartment and we got a little more acquainted. I did not stay overnight, though.
Next date nearly did me in. I took her on a canoe trip down a river. After the third time we swamped, she was not talking to me.
She did not see me until a week before my graduation from seminary, a month after the canoe disaster. We went out for ice cream. I mentioned my folks were coming in for my graduation, and I would like here to meet them. I also said I had been planning on staying for a post graduate program.
She did not come to my graduation.. sadly. But we had breakfasts with my folks the next dau. Everyone had a great time. I took her to her place. As we got there, I told her I had just received orders to do Reserve training in California. She seemed so disappointed. I invited her to come to California while I was there. She agreed.
As she was coming to California, she stopped over at my folks in Idaho. I was able to get leave for the weekend. But, to tell you the truth, I was going to break off the relationship because of irreconcilable religious differences. However, when I got to my parent's place, the moment I saw her all my doubts vanished.
She was going to see a friend outside of Seattle for a couple of weeks. Then she came down to see me.
The first night she was there in the evening I took her to a park. As we were walking to the park, I mentioned that an evening like this would make a guy want to propose. She asked if I was asking her to marry me. I said yes. Without hesitation she said yes,
This was all in the span of four months. As I look at the process, I could see how we went through the four stages of love. First, attraction. Second, friendship, Third, physical (eros) and then agape.
We got marries ten months later. That was 43 years ago. To this day, every morning we tell each other we love the other. Every evening it is the last thing we say to each other. There have been challenging times, but we joke if the canoe trip did not separate us, nothing will.
I would say it is the continue decision to tell each other of our love daily gets us through the day and into the evening. Is the word meaningless? Not for us.
What do you mean by posting this link?
This is not the first time you have linked to a poster’s whole list of discussions - without any comment - and I have no idea what that is supposed to indicate.
Sorry. It's a salute.
So-called self-sacrificing love can in reality be self-serving. For my fellow musical theatre fans, think Mama Rose in ‘Gypsy’.
I don’t think there is anything wrong in starting with the basic level of ‘here’s a thought - why not treat people with the respect they’re due?’ Looking at how many people treat retail workers badly, for instance, it seems we need reminding to achieve even basic courtesy sometimes. Yes, it shouldn’t stop at the level of ‘don’t be a jerk’. But sometimes it has to start there.