Archive for category Philosophy on Love
I think it is an uncontested fact that we hate to be lied to. I think we can say with absolute agreement that when given information about a product we are purchasing, we want accuracy, clarity, and non-interpretable language. In short we want truth and not advertising. We want reality and not fiction. We even pass laws requiring ingredients be listed on products so everyone can be informed. So I have to wonder why moral and social behavior is handled so differently.
New York recently passed a law that expanded abortion rights. The state had followed the guidelines of most of the country, which allowed abortion by choice up to 24 weeks and after that only by exception. That exception was based upon a doctor determining the physical or mental health of the mother was at risk. It did not really change it’s stand on that; it simply put into rule was previously the exception. The new law specifically states that abortion is now restricted to the 24 week window or it is necessary to protect the patients life or health. It removed any checks and balances on that decision to the doctor’s opinion.
I have to admit when reading the law I found it hard not to vomit. I also must admit that it is not only the allowance of this act but the interpretable language and advertising mentality that was the problem. The law appears worded to protect the government by placing the interpretation and thereby the responsibility for the action on the doctor and patient. It starts with a comment that is abhorrent at best. It reads “Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States”. I can safely say that can only be accurate for at most 50% of the patients involved because by virtue of the “procedure” at least 50% of the living beings die.
It is hard not to notice the immediate hypocrisy of this. New York has found capital punishment to be unconstitutional as it violates the rights of the criminal but has made it constitutional to kill an unborn child with the loophole of opinion. I guess the infants rights take a back seat to the criminals rights.
For many years the arguments about abortion centered on the definition of life. Originally they claimed the fetus was not living until it left the womb. It then moved back to a point where it was determined to be viable. The arguments changed at that point to individual rights and whether the state or for that matter any being or entity should have control over a woman’s body.
I honestly believe the most sickening part about this is the rhetoric involved that obfuscates the tragedy of the action. We have gone from discussing the value of life and are now hearing arguments about rights and freedoms and the perseverance through inner turmoil on a tough decision to have an abortion. Really? I am supposed to respect a person because they chose to kill a baby? We are being encouraged to celebrate free speech when people shout their abortion. Again, really? If a person wore a t-shirt shouting they had killed a baby, it would be considered a confession and an arrest-able offense. However if the optics change because we desensitize the world through logos, ad agency lingo, and rebranding, I am supposed to accept it? I think I need to vomit again.
I am doing my best not to be glib because the real conversation is truly about life and death. At the same time, I need to understand the Christian response. Many Christians raise their voice vilifying those who have had an abortion rather than doing anything to help. We focus on political candidates who can overturn laws as if that will stop the problem. We don’t want to address the real problem, which is that we argue against from the outside without ever considering what the problem looks like from the inside.
If I am not willing to find a way to truly help, should I be vocal about the problem at all? We should be sickened by this epidemic. We should see how it cries out against God and celebrates the hubris of mankind. But anytime I have ever recognized something like that, God is not asking me to re-tweet or re-share a meme. He is asking me to get involved with the tools that I have been given. I do not believe the bible teaches us to build a Christian utopia here on earth and call it God’s Kingdom. I have read the book and it doesn’t end that way. I do believe God is calling us to minister to the broken. And this circumstance is truly broken. I am reasonably certain the world knows we do not accept or approve of abortion. We can stop over sharing that. Now lets use the gifts God has given us to find a better answer. But beware, the devil is in the details.
Sometimes I will sit and wonder at the palace I have created. Not the workmanship or innate beauty of its architecture or engineering skill, but moreover the fact that it has stood standing as long as it has. I am by nature a deconstructionist where metaphysics and ontology collide. Words written about God have 2 dimensions and try to describe God in 3 dimensions. Theos Logos (theology) or Words of/on God are only truly effective if they embrace God in all 11 dimensions (I apologize to string theorists for co-opting the concept) and for me to truly know him to the fullest extent I can I need to break down those dimensional structures to understand how they hold together so I can get the clearest image of God possible for my 3 pound fallen brain. Sometimes that works very well and sometimes that creates a house of cards afraid of the slightest breeze.
Most of the time after careful work removing structural parts and replacing them with other pieces I am left with questions. What does it mean to be a man of God, a pastor, a man after Gods own heart? The Westminster Catechism says the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. Does that even have meaning today? In 1647 it was intended to bring people together around a central belief while adding value to their lives. I am not sure it really worked then, at least not to the extent they wanted, but does that have any real meaning today? If the chief purpose of my life is to be a venue or example of God’s handiwork and thereby glorify him, then what is my part in it?
What am I doing and how can I tell if I am doing it well? I experience life at what seems like a hundred miles an hour and yet the things I remember most or at least most often are the moments of pain and regret for things I have lost along the way. Vivid recollections of soul wrenching agony over the loss of a loved one or horrendous acts I can neither take back or otherwise remove from my memories. Some days I am lost in a maelstrom of tasks to complete and the desire to shut down. I fight the urge to remember the good I have done to compete with the darkness for the simple reason that if it was truly good, it can not be used as a bargaining chip to assuage guilt or shame or loss.
But wait a minute, what about grace? The central idea of Christianity that binds all things together with the power of the love of God and yet I seem to let the idea slip my mind when I am thinking about myself. Don’t get me wrong, part of the job, part of the essence of being a voice for the Creator is that I will fight (metaphorically) vehemently for others to see that and never believe the voices in their heads that say they can’t. I will travel long distances and struggles to help people see that God’s grace is real and life changing. It is not something that exists because we believe, we believe because it exists. Yet somehow in the midst of the struggle, I seem to forget that the message so crucial to the lives of others is for me as well. The simpleness of the problem is almost laughable, yet somehow still seems to haunt me.
Is it a lack of faith? Is it pride? Is it just a lack of knowledge? Simply put, maybe, could be, and I doubt it would be that easy. Faith is a construct of hope and trust held together by real world applicable experience. I have plenty of that for this purpose. Pride is a trait easy to put down when you compare yourself to the Divine but somehow it follows you like a stalking cat waiting to pounce when you least expect it only nowhere near as playful and cute. The trick is to do that comparison daily to keep it in check. Knowledge is just the applicable connection of facts to be remembered, or is it? To truly know God, we need to experience God. Not just the earth shattering sea parting salvation from our worst nightmare but the connection to our daily sustenance and air itself. True knowledge is that God is in and with us each moment, even when we are lost in the malaise.
So the increased faith through the rejection of pride and experiencing God daily for all that he does seems to be the candlelight in the darkness that lets us navigate our way home. Could it be that easy? Well, I am not sure easy is the right word for it, but it is that real, that sure, and that comforting. I think I will give that a try.
I read a story recently about a neighborhood tomcat who had become known to people as “Ugly” because he was always filthy, scarred, and getting into fights. He would go up to people and they would throw cans at him or turn the hose on him. Their motto became don’t touch Ugly and they made sure others knew this when going through that neighborhood. One day Ugly bit off more than he could chew and got into a fight with a couple of large dogs. A man heard the scuffle and went outside to find Ugly mortally wounded and lying still on the ground. His heart went out to him and he picked the cat up fearing he would be scratched and started to the local vet. Instead, Ugly nestled into his chest and purred with affection. He didn’t make it to the vet and the man wondered if affection was what the cat truly needed and if he had shown him affection earlier, would things be different? The allegory to Christians reaching out to the unlovable in this world screamed out and the guilt strings played a familiar tune. And yet, when I was done reading, I felt more anger at myself than anything else. If we as Christians need a story of a dying cat to remind us to love the unlovable, there is something very wrong. If we need to be forced by emotion to take the action that God wants from us, we are in trouble. But I have to wonder if it is simply because we just don’t really understand the concept of Love.
Love is thrown around like a fix all and be all. It is all we need and means never having to say you are sorry, as well as a thousand other trite greeting card slogans. But is that really love? Some posit that love is an innate quality that we are born with. Mothers bond with their children immediately and create a connection that cannot be replaced. But is that love? Love is not a biological imperative. It is not caused by a physiological manifestation or chemical process. Those are feelings and are a cheap substitute for love. They are certainly motivating factors especially in relationships where love can or does exist, but they are not love.
Some feel that love is a learned behavior. It is the “input” required in order to gain something we want. We love in order to receive affection and caring from others. The problem is that it takes morality out of the question. If there is no higher purpose or reason other than quid pro quo, than love is neither universal or sustaining. We would be able to find a balance on expectations of what is required for love and then regulate it to the point of not caring for those who don’t match up. Regulating love to a moral commodity removes its value all together. Love is an action, it is a reality made true by choice. If the evolutionary model that modern science proclaims is accurate, then relationships with others are created based upon a biological need. those needs are to secure internal wants. Love however is an external choice that is willing to give of itself in order to achieve the best for another. Christ said (and many have quoted both in religion and out) that there is no greater love than a man who lays down his life for a friend. How does biology account for that? If the existence of a person ends at death, how does a biological need give a willingness to sacrifice for others. Quid pro quo makes sense to some extent, but if there is no pro quo, how can their be quid?
Because love is an action it is worthless unless it is chosen and made to happen. It cannot be sugarcoated and it cannot be faked. If it is real, then sacrifice follows it. Not necessarily the ultimate sacrifice Christ mentioned but a true giving of self that cannot be expected in return. If we truly love, whether or not we see results such as change in another person doesn’t matter. What matters is the sacrifice and the love shown. A christian should not be loving for any other reason than virtue. Don’t get me wrong, I am not suggesting there is any value in piety or self promotion of virtuous behavior. The truth is far more realistic. We love because Christ loved us first. That is the backstory for virtue. It is not a normal process in mankind, and it does not exist in nature. We take action based upon our desire to serve God and that action causes us to give of ourselves in love even at our own detriment if needed.
Love is not for the faint of heart and not for people who want quick reward. It is a long journey to be lived with an expectation of nothing more than to meet our Savior face to face upon completion. That is when we will truly see the benefits of love.