Photo courtesy of Wikemedia
In my last post, which was way too long ago (thanks youth camp), I started a discussion on how we could re-interpret “The Love Chapter” away from weddings and back into our everyday existence as Jesus-followers. You can read the entire post here, and I hope you do. It’s important to discuss what our love is supposed to look like since we are told, “they will know you are my disciples by the way you love one another,” and “God is love.” When such descriptions from our Scriptures are limited to only small portions of our existence, such as marriage, we run the risk of not fully engaging with the faith to which we are called.
This time, I would like to take one of the descriptors from Paul’s words and unpack it, and there is a very good reason for why the starting part is “love is kind.” For most of my personal experience with faith the question of how and when we are to confront those things in the world that damage human relationships, typically called sin, the conversation always expands into multiple tactics of response. Scripture is quoted often, especially from the writings of Paul, with such nuggets as, “All Scripture…is useful for correction.” While trying to not sound dismissive it must be recognized that often this turns into a contest of who can quote the most Bible passages to support their position. Often, the context of those passages, or their overall cohesive voice, is not considered; just how much you can pile upon your side and how accurate your sourcing can be.
At the same time, Christianity in America has been trying to confront different challenges to its tradition. Topics such as the role of women in leadership, race, war, immigration, marriage equality, social justice, and Biblical inerrancy, just to name a few, can spark controversy that tears apart relationships, congregations, and denominations with incredible power. Different personalities rise to the top of different camps as the conflicts unfold. Wisdom is often replaced with invective as words are exchanged between beliefs that become ideologies. In the end a purity test is created and stark, bright lines are drawn in order to highlight who is in and who is out. Some examples of recent memory, but in no way an exhaustive list, are what happened to Eugene Peterson just a couple of weeks ago, the blowback to WorldVision a couple of years ago, and the dismissal of Rob Bell a few years before that.
No matter the topic, when questioned as to the chosen rhetoric which is so willing to dismiss supposed offenders the phrase “tough love” is used often; the idea that they are showing love by freely and openly telling someone that they are wrong, and therefore outside of the grace of God. The hope is that by being so straightforward the offending party will suddenly realize the error of their ways and immediately return to the ideological fold.
With Eugene Peterson and World Vision, it seems to have worked.
With Rob Bell, not so much.
It seems, however, that none of these discussions value the idea that “love is kind.” When Westboro Baptist Church protests a funeral for dead military personnel there is little kindness in what they are saying. When protesters hold up signs condemning theological decisions from denominational bodies proclamations of eternal judgment usually appear. When op-eds are written about the decisions of pastors, rarely are they considerate of the person’s history or their faithfulness over a long tenure of ministry. In short, while I will not say that they do not love, I will say that they are not kind.
One of the immediate responses when ire was focused on them was for book stores to cease selling their books. Immediately after whatever their controversial remarks were, huge chains, such as LifeWay, threatened to remove all of their books. For Peterson, maybe that had something to do with his correction, or clarification of earlier comments if you prefer. For people like Rob Bell, Jen Hatmaker, and Rachel Held Evans, their outlets are now much more limited. Articles appeared on blogs and Christian news sites proclaiming that their work could no longer be taught or recommended by real Christians because the writers had strayed so far.
These stories are the public ones that we see, but there are others who very few ever hear. I could even tell stories from my personal experience where a disagreement over theology has led some to question my faith, or whether or not I am actually a Christian. Choices made based on a need to maintain purity rarely consider the implications of loving kindness.
Can there be love without kindness?
1 Peter says, “Above all, maintain constant love for one another, for love covers a multitude of sins.”
Maybe that is why “the love chapter” is only applied to marriage. In our marriages, we try and cover over those small slights and shallow cuts to our hearts that come when two people join their lives together. We are not perfect after all, and so all our relationships are going to have those moments where they cause us pain. If we were to expand the application of 1 Corinthians 13 to all the aspects of our existence we might have to admit that some of us were wrong when we dismissed those who thought or believed differently from us. If we were kind, we might find a way to truly love those who don’t hold to our ideological purity.
Man, wouldn’t that be something?
No comments:
Post a Comment