Love

We have a stupid journal in our city; that's an undisputed fact in our household. It's not just that the articles themselves are boring, either, because that could be because nothing much happens around town that is worth a proper news column; it is usually the writing style itself, which, to use the modern vernacular, "sucks." However, there was one article in the edition several weeks ago that was so bad in and of itself that I, nicknamed the Grammar Nazi by friends and family, was so irritated as to not even be interested in the possible spelling or grammar problems.

The article, in essence, was about how the religions of the world are not as irreconcilable as most people think. It was about how they all basically teach the same principles, and how if we were to just lay aside our biases, we could all get along. It's a common theme in today's New-Age steeped society, but it drives me batty every time I see it. It is no surprise that the author of this column is a preacher at a Unitarian church who regularly writes articles addressing world peace, living together in harmony, and "loving" everyone; indeed, the only thing that was slightly encouraging about the section was that it was not written by a professing member of the true Church. Unfortunately, the majority of the world looks about Unitarians, Latter Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., as all part of the Church, and therefore opinions expressed by any of those sects are thought to reflect the view of reformed Christianity.

But on to the actual article. The man used as illustrations of his point the religions of Islam and Christianity (not surprising, considering the current war between the "Christian" United States and Muslim Middle East), and made a point of stating that perhaps neither Muhammad nor Jesus came to - as he put it - start a religion, but rather to show people how to live good lives. And if this is so, then we're all really just trying to live good lives and we should help one another instead of being enemies. He even ended his article by addressing those who would disagree with the exhortation to consider Christ's words in the Gospels when he instructed us to love our enemies.

Setting aside the fact that even orthodox Muslims would scorn such a call for peace and unification between our religions, Mr. Author's arguments themselves leave something lacking. First, he has seriously misused the words of Christ and twisted them to his own use. We are indeed to do good to those that hate us, to love or neighbours, and to strive to be at peace with all men as far as possible. These are all Biblical truths that we ought to follow, and I am in no way advocating that we resurrect the Crusades or any such thing. But we must consider the words of Christ in the light of other Bible passages and realize that this call to love is not a call to "oneness."

I believe one of Mr. Author's first problems is a false view of the Gospel itself, so I'll try first to set that right. It has become a view of the World that the Sermon on the Mount is Christianity's gospel - the Beatitudes, especially. This is not correct at all. Jesus did teach there what all men ought to know already, and that is that we are to be perfect: it's what we were created to be. In the same Sermon on the Mount that unbelievers like so often to quote He says, "Be perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect." Perfection is something that we cannot attain, however; not now, not in our current state. That's the bad news of the Good News.

But God, in His infinite mercy, did not leave it there. He sent His Son, that "those who believe on Him should not perish, but have eternal life." God has brought to life those formerly dead souls and given them the ability to believe and be saved. That's the good news of the Good News, and that is what true Christianity teaches - "Christ," as Paul said, "and Him crucified." That's the Gospel, not the Sermon on the Mount itself.

So, did Jesus come to start a religion? Not in the way Mr. Author meant the phrase, I am sure, for he does not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. He did not teach His teachings in order to draw a gathering - no, indeed, for many left Him because of the hard things He said! He came and He taught the words of eternal life, and He died to reconcile Man to God. That was the purpose of Jesus' life. He did not come to "start a religion", but He came to be a sacrifice for the sins of those that God chose.

There is the Gospel. Mr. Author's second problem is a wrong definition of the word "love" - another common problem in the World today. Love has come to mean a kind of pat-on-the-head, a hug-and-a-kiss, a live-and-let-live feeling from one person to another; it has lost the power contained even in the concept of chivalry in the Middle Ages, where the man went to war and into battle to fight for the one he loved. Love is now considered weak, where it once was strong. Love is now considered live a sapling that breaks in the wind, instead of the oak that stands firm against it. Love has lost its meaning.

This calamity has affected many passages of Scripture (notably the "God is love" verse), but since this post is dealing with Mr. Author's article, I'll only address the problems it poses in Jesus' command for us to love our enemies. Mr. Author believes this verse means that we are to embrace the religious differences of other people groups and never disagree with them outwardly or rebuke them for their beliefs. This is his definition of what it means to love our enemies. But other passages of the Bible will support me when I say that this was not Jesus' meaning in the least. Paul says that we are not to be conformed to this world; Jesus says that the disciples (and all believers) will encounter persecution for their beliefs, and that they should count it a blessing; and we see countless examples of the apostles and Jesus Himself preaching the falsity of all other religions. You need not look far to find chapters and verses that say that Christianity alone is true, so I will not go into all the ones that are kicking about in my head.

Mr. Author's definition of love is incorrect - even blasphemous. So what did Jesus truly mean? C.S. Lewis gives good insight into this in his work Mere Christianity, where he addresses the verse that says that we are to love our neighbours as ourselves. Well, says Lewis, how do I love myself? Simple enough, but rarely looked at. He starts by saying that loving oneself does not always mean that "you", or your conscience, agrees with the actions you take. It doesn't mean that you always actively love yourself; sometimes you can downright hate yourself. It doesn't mean that there aren't things that you want to change about yourself. But it does mean that you want the best for yourself, no matter your other feelings.

Looking at it this way, we see that the passage doesn't mean that we always agree with our neighbour/enemy, it doesn't mean that we don't sometimes "hate" our neighbour/enemy (in the same way we "hate" ourselves), and it doesn't mean that we don't try to change our neighbour/enemy. But it does mean that we seek the best for them - the best for them in the long run. It's the same principle that comes into play when a mother doesn't let her child eat all the chocolate he wants (in the long run he'll be glad he doesn't have a stomach-ache) or play outside in the snow barefoot (in the long run he'll be glad he doesn't have the flu).

And in the long run, what is best for our enemies? Their eternal salvation. And if their current beliefs are leading them to Hell, what should we do - stand by and watch, thinking that we thus show love, or speak the Truth and preach the Gospel and try to show them that they are wrong? Right now they may be quite mad that we have messed with their paradigm, but in the long run they may realize that it was for the best and done in true and godly Love.

God convicted us of sin and led us to Christ, which is no pleasant process. But it's Love - true Love, that seeks the good of its object foremost.