Matthew 22:34-40
What do we mean when we say, "Love
is Unconditional"? Whenever we
speak of "love" in biblical terms as "unconditional", we
must qualify that statement because in real, American-culture-speak, we generally
understand "love" only in conditional terms because humans have little
capacity - and virtually no desire - to love that which would not love us back
or serve us well.
If the object of our desire rejects or betrays
us or does not serve us or suit us or please us in some way, it is hardly
likely we would be willing to love - and this is the very essence of
"unconditional love"; a willingness to "do" in spite
of how we may feel ... even when we would rather not as we deem the object of
our affection "unworthy" of our love - which is entirely beside the
point of "unconditional". Remember
the whole point of the Love Dare© is not about what another may or may not do;
it is about what we are called to do!
This includes our spouses, our Lord, our Lord's Church, and perhaps
especially the Lord's people who are not our own kin and whom we don't even
like! If we get nothing tangible or
useful from any of these persons for ourselves, it is very hard to honestly say
our "love" is unconditional.
That kind of deep, abiding, enduring, sacrificial love requires divine
conditioning of the soul - it is a Gift! - because it does not come naturally
or easily for humans.
The reason for this double-speak is that
"Love" is itself a loaded word that can mean anything (including a
score of "zero" in tennis!).
There is nothing universal about the human capacity to understand
"love". I know a preacher (retired
now) who would write "letters to the editor" of a local paper and say
the most vile, hateful things imaginable against a former president (while that
president was in office). When I called
him on it, he insisted he "loves" the president but is compelled to
call him on his "ungodly" policies in such a public forum. When I asked him what he considered the
likelihood this president would ever read the local paper, see his
admonishment, and spiritually benefit from that "love", his only
reply was that I was being ridiculous.
Of course I was and I admit at the time
I was picking a fight, but my question was also dead serious! I personally found his words and public
spectacle to be not only offensive to this Republican but embarrassing to the
United Methodist Church and to the Church universal. I also found his premise of "love"
rather confusing because this man was a mentor, a college professor of religion,
the pastor of a nearby church, and a teacher of Methodism whose classes I often
enjoyed. Though we were on opposite ends
of the political (and sometimes theological) spectrum, I still found his
perspective useful and instructive. I
counted on him as a teacher.
So when he claimed his invective against
the president to be in the name of "godly love" which I understand as
"unconditional" and edifying rather than destructive, I was genuinely
thrown off - as I suspect many outside (and inside) the Church are also rather
confused by church language of which "love" is the most often-used
and least understood word in our vocabulary.
In today's culture even within the Church, that word has become as cheap
and as useless as the word "grace" because neither faithfully conveys
a biblical truth; at least not in how we use these words as the means of
self-justification.
The truth is we do not "love God
because He first loved us"; we say we love God because we are supposed
to say it. Even as it is our language, in
practice if we withhold anything - ANYTHING - of ourselves, our time, our
treasures, or our talents in favor of something we would much rather do for
ourselves or only for those we "like", we cannot say we
"love" God "with all our heart, all our soul, and all our
strength". Not even close. Thus we find ourselves in the very
uncomfortable position of being in direct violation of what Jesus
clearly calls not only a "commandment" but
"the greatest commandment", a "point of
law", a "requirement", an "expectation" of the people
of faith. Non-negotiable and not subject
to individual interpretation.
We may be fond of the Lord and we may be
fond of a concept of spending eternity in heaven by invoking a "magic
prayer" that seems to compel the Lord to do our bidding but requires
little else on our part - but - if that prayer does not come from a willful
heart devoted to discipleship, there is no "love". Of course our lack of will does not diminish
Divine Love, but it does define OUR love (or the lack thereof) for the
Lord. We can call it anything else but
if we are fond of something only in terms of how we may personally benefit from
it, it is more appropriate to call it "lust". And we hesitate to use that word because we
have typically associated "lust" purely with behind-closed-doors
fleshly desire. It is true enough in
that context, of course, but not exclusively so.
In translating from Greek to English
(Greek being the original language of the NT), we can honestly say there are
many different types of what we call "love". There is "eros" which is primarily
physical, there is "phileo" which is primarily emotional, there is
"storge" which is more associated with family, and there is
"agape" - the only true, unconditional and Divine (not human) attribute. Each of these Greek terms conveys a different
understanding or a different level of what we have reduced or marginalized (some
say "corrupted") to "love", but the biblical concept of
"love" as perfected by Christ Jesus is unquestionably
"agape" - which is truly "sacrificial".
It is only within this sacrificial
context by which Love can be defined as "unconditional" because the Crucifixion
took place even as most of Jesus' beloved disciples were headed for the hills
for their own safety just as Jesus had predicted - including that same Peter
who swore he would die for the Lord (the "phileo", or emotional,
concept of love that is only in the moment but will certainly collapse out of
fear or for the sake of self-preservation or self-satisfaction). This sacrifice also took place in spite of
that certain reality that there would be untold millions of souls who may never
know ... or even care about what took place in their behalf; the
"agape" that endured to the bitter end.
When Jesus was questioned about what
must be the "greatest" commandment, those religion teachers may have
been looking for a legal answer to affirm their own sense of righteousness. Maybe they expected an answer from among the
"Ten Commandments". It's hard
to say. What is not hard to say is that
these religion teachers were not likely looking for affirmation; they were
trying once again to catch Jesus in a baited blasphemy trap (recall the penalty
for blasphemy is death, Leviticus 24:16). The last thing they expected to hear was that
the Holy God laid claim to the totality of our being and that our only
appropriate response is to offer back to the Lord our totality; all
our heart, all our soul, all our strength! All in what we "do" (agape)
rather than in how we "feel" (phileo).
This is no easy task; in fact, "impossible"
is the more appropriate word. Literally,
to give so much of ourselves and ask or expect nothing in return is next to impossible
for a human being - except perhaps for a parent to a child, but Jesus did not even
allow this as a substitute for righteousness ("Do not even the tax
collectors do the same?" Matthew
5:46). We are hard-wired and
socially conditioned to survival rather than to sacrifice; such is what comes
naturally to us! So such an overbearing
commandment makes our Lord seem more a burden than a blessing and leads many to
question why we must give so much of ourselves and the treasures for which we
worked so hard and endured ALL the risk and NOT expect something - anything! -
in return.
Well, here is the enduring truth. We DO get something in return. It is, in a word, "power". Do we not see that in our willingness to give
so freely of ourselves without question, holding nothing back, we are being
endowed with genuine, divine "power"?
It is not the same "power" we can lord over another human
being or expect to get our own way.
Rather it is the "power" to be called "children of the
Most High God". It is the
"power" to find Order in chaos.
It is the "power" to forgive when vengeance seems more
appropriate. It is the "power"
to find Light even in darkness. It is
the "power" to find Life even in the face of death; the threat of
which we face every single day.
But just as you and I do not delegate
such power to our own children until we are sure they are ready - AND WILLING -
to use it responsibly (like driving a car in public), our Holy Father will not
grant such power to us unless or until we can AND WILL show Him we can be
trusted with it just as the Lord spoke through the prophet Isaiah; "So
shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty,
but it shall accomplish what I please and it shall prosper in the thing for
which I sent it" (55:11). His will - not our own.
There is only one thing that keeps us
from being endowed with this kind of eternal, life-changing power: ourselves. As the cartoon character, Pogo, once said:
"We have met the enemy, and he am us!" This power is not given easily nor in a
moment of emotional weakness or excitedness.
It is given to those who will freely give of themselves to a life in and
for Christ and the Holy Church. It is
the power by which we will be saved - "for those who endure to the very
end" (Matthew 10:22). And it is ours for the asking, ours for the
devotion, ours for all eternity - for it is only in giving - as Christ our Lord
gave - by which we may expect to receive - just as Christ our Lord
received. It is ours to claim only
because it is His to give.
No comments:
Post a Comment