Loving hearts

The commandment to love is a tough assignment in so many ways.

It is easy to love those you love, and who love you back, you know what I mean? Tolkien wrote this lovely poem (which I coincidentally came across recently) for his own wedding:

"Lo! Young we are and yet have stood

like planted hearts in the great Sun

of Love so long (as two fair trees

in woodland or in open dale

stand utterly entwined and breathe

the airs and suck the very light

together) that we have become

as one, deep rooted in the soil

of Life and tangled in the sweet growth."

How marvelous, how wonderful... To be of one mind, growing and growing old together. To be of one mind is a rarity (and perhaps in reality relies too much on one party subsuming their identity into the other's), and growing together can take so many forms and directions that provide as many pitfalls as there are advantages. There is however one way that will stand us in good stead and that is to grow together in faith.

But as usual, I digress and that will be taken up another day in another post. Back to the commandment to love all.

There is also the love of those we like. Even if they (as well as those who love us back) drive us mad at times. Then there are those we don't like - and who might drive us mad most of the time. How should we love them?

Is it a different form of love? Are there things we would do for 'loved ones' that we wouldn't for the rest? How far do we go? That is the first big test for us. How do we truly obey Christ's commandment? This post was partly prompted by a recent incident during my weekend golf game.

There are two early riser groups at Richmond, and we 'compete' (fastest fingers first) to see who can get the first tee time. There was some friction in the past, but we've become friendly with all of them with the exception of one chap who is rather rude. During a recent game, my friend A saw him searching for a ball and went to help him. I was immediately struck with embarrassment for my (inner) hostility towards the chap as I knew that I would not have volunteered to help. My friend A who helped the guy, has also been the recipient of some aggression from him and yet, went to help without a second thought.

How far I am from being a good servant, a good testimony for Christ, if such a small act that would cost me nothing was so hard to contemplate. My friend A was a much better testimony for his faith than I. And what if it will cost me something? And my thought immediately goes to the ultimate sacrifice that Christ made for us and how it shames my pettiness. We rationalise it away at times in some circumstances - a beggar may not be genuine and we should not be fooled. A fellow brother and his wife have a different perspective in that they will always give because there might really be a need, and it does not really cost them much.

Which sort of still kicks the can down the road. What if someone has a real need that you can fulfill, but it will cost you. Give till it hurts, they say. Though the following verses seem to suggest that may not be advisable.

2 Corinthians 9:7-8 says "Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work."

Even if you say you would not love anyone differently (and come close to sainthood in the process), I wonder if such a person would feel differently inside, while performing those acts of "love". The verses above suggest that if we harbour some reluctance or feel a sense of obligation to help, it isn't really an act of love? I say this because the verse raises the question, "how do we decide in our heart what to give?" 

I don't have the answer to that.

What I do know is that all we have, whether it be material possessions, good health and energy, or resources like time, come from Him as verse 8 tells us. And what is the purpose of being blessed in that way? For us to love. And if our hearts are disposed to loving and helping others, perhaps it becomes more and more instinctive such that we do not feel an obligation, we do not feel that we are giving up something for others - as the cliche goes, it is not something we give up if it was never ours to begin with. We are merely custodians of what His grace has blessed us with.

Dialectic

A conversation about the post "Inclusivity and exclusivity"

Think your main thrust would be that of addressing individuality?

What did you mean by "addressing individuality"?

So how I read your post was actually a focus on how people, at the end of the day, just wnat to enforce their own views and feel like their own version of whatever they believe in is right... think it is a legitimate problem in society today, just that I was trying to figure out if that was the main direction you were trying to go with

Yes. Though I didn't intend that to be the focus. It was more about how we should love those we disagree with. We must be inclusive. In a way, it is to make the point that inclusiveness is not, in itself the problem. Christ taught us to be inclusive.

Yeah but the source of the problem all stems from that (individuality), and I felt like that could have been illustrated a bit more to then make your point on loving those we disagree with.

Is individuality a problem?

I think so, because society (and your post) does go on about how my truth is right, and you have no right to tell me otherwise. They may not say that Christianity is wrong, but they will insist that nobody should be able to tell another what is right or wrong. For Christians, the society pressure to conform to these expectations has made many of us fearful and unwilling to stand up for what we believe is the truth.

Ok I see what you mean. The issue in my view is not really about individuality. God created us with free will, and that means the ability to make choices, the very essence of individuality. But we have a problem with authority because that means giving up some choices, some 'freedom'. In a way it is a false argument because there are always choices to be made, even if you're not religious.

Inclusivity and exclusivity

I recently listened to a Timothy Keller sermon on Acts 8:26-40 which describes the encounter that Philip had with an Ethiopian eunuch who had gone to Jerusalem to worship. Keller describes how much of an outsider to the Jews/believers the eunuch is, from his origins to his status - both in his work as a treasurer to the queen, and his physical state.

And yet, Philip accepted him and baptized him. This serves as a reminder to us that we are to embrace all who come to accept Christ, no matter their origins. The easier example to recall is of course the person who was crucified with and defended Christ. All he asked was "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom" and Christ assured him "Truly, I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."

There is no additional context provided, or at least none that we need to know. We don't know the background or history of this person, whether he was already a believer, but we know he was a criminal for he said, "We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve." It was probably a pretty serious crime if he accepted that crucifixion was justified.

And yet, Christ assures him in no uncertain terms he will be saved. No pre-conditions or caveats, just a simple declaration. "Today" He said. Not sometime soon, or somewhere in the future. Sceptics will of course disagree but as believers, we accept Christ is Lord, and therefore His words have the full weight of truth.

So Keller makes the point that Christianity is one of the most inclusive, if not the most inclusive of faiths. Regardless of race, status, and any other orientation. Christ does not care who you were and where you came from. He only cares where you want to go.

Keller however makes the point that Christianity is also the most exclusive of faiths. He posted this on Facebook - "The gospel is an exclusive truth but it's the most inclusive exclusive truth in the world." What did he mean?

First he deals with the idea popular in some circles that all religions are equal because we are like the blind men touching different parts of an elephant, each claiming to know the truth. Keller quotes Leslie Newbigin (who wrote a book "The Gospel in a Pluralist Society") who was suddenly hit by the insight that people who claim that we are all only seeing one part of the truth (the elephant), must be claiming that they can see the whole truth or else how could they make such an assertion? This is of course an arrogant position that the most fervent omnists and atheists will also push, based on a perspective very prevalent today in society in which people define their own truths. All based on the idea that we are better off if everyone was free to choose their own paths.

This has been the most ruinous idea in the last few years. Are people happier? The current idea that we must be inclusive and embrace diversity (the big elephant in the room - how far do we go? Let's make serial killers, pedophiles et al feel welcome) is not something borne out of altruism (at least not for everyone) but is largely political. So people who argue for the Church to officiate same-sex marriages, that LGBT people must be represented, are seeking to change the status quo in pre-determined directions.

We have to be careful here because left-wing agendas today seek to make everything a black and white argument. If you are against their idea or position, it is hate speech. Which makes the whole inclusive argument redundant. So clearly not everyone (especially those with differing ideas) should be included, only who they want and that I think is the very definition of what is political.

I am always reminded of the related argument of representation (another political argument) that only gay actors should portray homosexuals in movies - clearly then, directors would have a hard time getting mass murderers, psychopaths and assorted criminals released from prison to reprise their real-life experiences. So many of the ideas about diversity and representation become a bit murky when you dive deeper into them.

The left-wing establishment is trying to make the argument that inclusiveness is somehow a morally superior position. The truth is that it is but a slogan or brand that people can arm themselves with to prove or show that they are more enlightened, more cultured, less fanatical than religious "zealots" - we are easy targets. Inclusivity is in a sense, a fraud because it is a term that seems 'fair' and unchallengeable to mask the real intent. It would be far better, and also more honest for the LGBT community to simply argue their case more directly but that would weaken their political ground.

Christians and their communities need to understand this distinction so that they can have better conversations when pressed on the subject. I didn't say we should have a better argument because that implies someone wins and someone loses the argument. This is where Christianity is inclusive, and in fact is more inclusive than the LGBT community in a sense. We welcome all into the fold, so long as they love God and are willing to repent. Gays may accept Christ and will continue sinning (whether it be on the issue of sexual relations or other sins) because they (and us) cannot save ourselves.

What then is non-negotiable and exclusive? Surely it must be that Christians accept Christ is God, and that His word is the truth. And my layman reading of it (supported by most mainstream Christian views) is that homosexuality is forbidden. However as a non-scholar of the Bible, I would be the last to claim that this interpretation is definitive - I respect the view of those who claim the Bible has a different view about homosexuality. If they want to form their own 'church' with such views, that's their prerogative and we can only try to show love and hope they come to see the real truth. We are then from mutually exclusive communities that agree to disagree. And if both do so out of love, that is the best outcome in my view.

However there are those who hold radically different views from the mainstream and claim that only they know the truth and that the Church must conform to their view. From a liberal inclusive perspective, they can't have it both ways. They cannot insist we only see one part of the elephant, but that they see it in its entirety. This is where the Church must maintain its stance because to do otherwise would be to put the foundations of the Church on sinking sand (as the line in the hymn goes).

I may need to hear all the arguments from the LGBT community that want the church to embrace them to understand them better, but at least one version of it relies on seeing things in a certain context. This to me seems a slippery slope. There are then many things that one could justify based on context - including the persecution of those who do not conform as the history of the church shows. Slavery is another difficult topic. Maybe best left to another day.