As a fellow 'faltering follower of Christ', thank you for this insightful reminder. I am at a point in my relationship with religion where I feel more confident distinguishing between the true faith, the love, and the administrative processes that us imperfect humans think need to exist. (And this is proving to be a necessary skill as my fiance and I pursue marriage in the Catholic Church. smh, eyeroll). But the thing about religion is that I keep coming back to it, so there's got to be something that they/we are doing right, and I hope it's love.
I've heard rumors about how tough it can be to organize a Catholic wedding -- you have my sympathy! I believe there will always be painfully high tension between institutional religion and personal faith. I am increasingly convinced that there are few better schools for love than the one you enter in an organized faith community. It's not fun! It mostly sucks, actually! People have this fantasy of what a church should be, and I think it emerges from some idea that the people in it should be better, somehow. But humans are humans wherever you find them. And, according to Jesus, good behavior is (unfortunately) not a prerequisite for love. I go to church to learn how to love people who are behaving badly, and, on the best days, I also learn how it feels to be loved regardless of how badly I myself am behaving.
Lot's of thoughts on this, but I'll try and limit to one - I also grew up in Christian circles, went to a Christian college, worked at a Christian church. I haven't been to a church in years, not because of my distancing from Jesus, but from how far I feel Christian's are from what is actually Christ's message (which you write about here).
1. I also think the idea of love has some baggage that may need to be unpacked. I gather the current zeitgeist of love is a bit one dimensional.
2. One specific part of love I might add is it's active nature. To follow your example, can a parent love a child but never touch them? Never talk to them? Never tell them they love them? I think the answer is not only "no," but is considered abuse in most if not all contexts. To love is also to go out of your way, to "go first," to be the leader, the initiator.
Anyway, thanks for the thoughts! We need more of this in our world, I think.
Completely sympathize with your need to get some distance from Christians. And I frankly think that most people need to get a little distance before they can personally discover a clearer picture of true Christianity.
1. Yes! The "current zeitgeist of love" has its merits, but I'm afraid it is often worse than useless.
2. Great points. Love, boiled down, means putting full effort into filling an actual need, regardless of any other consideration. Nothing about that is easy, least of all determining need. But often the thing that is most needed is courageous, self-sacrificing leadership.
I also loved this so much.
I loved this so much.
Well said! Thank you for writing this article; i LOVED reading it! Such a simple yet profound principle.
Thank you!
As a fellow 'faltering follower of Christ', thank you for this insightful reminder. I am at a point in my relationship with religion where I feel more confident distinguishing between the true faith, the love, and the administrative processes that us imperfect humans think need to exist. (And this is proving to be a necessary skill as my fiance and I pursue marriage in the Catholic Church. smh, eyeroll). But the thing about religion is that I keep coming back to it, so there's got to be something that they/we are doing right, and I hope it's love.
I've heard rumors about how tough it can be to organize a Catholic wedding -- you have my sympathy! I believe there will always be painfully high tension between institutional religion and personal faith. I am increasingly convinced that there are few better schools for love than the one you enter in an organized faith community. It's not fun! It mostly sucks, actually! People have this fantasy of what a church should be, and I think it emerges from some idea that the people in it should be better, somehow. But humans are humans wherever you find them. And, according to Jesus, good behavior is (unfortunately) not a prerequisite for love. I go to church to learn how to love people who are behaving badly, and, on the best days, I also learn how it feels to be loved regardless of how badly I myself am behaving.
Lot's of thoughts on this, but I'll try and limit to one - I also grew up in Christian circles, went to a Christian college, worked at a Christian church. I haven't been to a church in years, not because of my distancing from Jesus, but from how far I feel Christian's are from what is actually Christ's message (which you write about here).
1. I also think the idea of love has some baggage that may need to be unpacked. I gather the current zeitgeist of love is a bit one dimensional.
2. One specific part of love I might add is it's active nature. To follow your example, can a parent love a child but never touch them? Never talk to them? Never tell them they love them? I think the answer is not only "no," but is considered abuse in most if not all contexts. To love is also to go out of your way, to "go first," to be the leader, the initiator.
Anyway, thanks for the thoughts! We need more of this in our world, I think.
Completely sympathize with your need to get some distance from Christians. And I frankly think that most people need to get a little distance before they can personally discover a clearer picture of true Christianity.
1. Yes! The "current zeitgeist of love" has its merits, but I'm afraid it is often worse than useless.
2. Great points. Love, boiled down, means putting full effort into filling an actual need, regardless of any other consideration. Nothing about that is easy, least of all determining need. But often the thing that is most needed is courageous, self-sacrificing leadership.
Merry Lovemas to you, too!!
So glad you said this. I wanted to, but didn't have the courage.
So did I...beautifully put
:)