What love isn’t

Nothing quite grates on me more than getting lectured by ignorant atheists about what my religion actually commands of me. I complained once, I think, several weeks ago about an offensive and frankly indecent image of a group of Christians (their exact affiliation was unclear) who, at a gay pride parade, showed up to wave apologetic signs, wearing shirts emblazoned with the logo “I’m Sorry.” The obscene display so melted the hearts of the perverts on parade that one of them sauntered over, dressed in nothing but a pair of whitey-tighteys — in public — to embrace one of the sign-wavers. Their embrace was photographed and widely circulated as evidence of Christian love in action. You can see that sentiment on display at this site, where I first read of this monstrous offense against decency, and where, in the comments, an assortment of lefties and atheists who obviously don’t buy their own bullshit command us to embrace sodomy en masse in the name of “love” or… I dunno, be hypocrites or whatever the fashionable judgment of the day is. (Thankfully, this attitude doesn’t go unchallenged).

Well, no. Nope. The thing displayed in that photograph, whatever it is, isn’t love. It’s scandal. It’s the opposite of love. It destroys love; it destroys grace; and it destroys souls.

Nowhere but in the mental contortions which leftist pseudo-Christians undertake with respect to love is the modern mangling of language more clear. Listen to the subtext; these people genuinely believe that “love,” caritas, agape, the love which we mean when we say “God is love” and “God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten son, etc.” — is mere sentiment! Worse than that, mere hugging! Don’t get me wrong: sentiment is a good thing, within reason, and a blessing when ordered toward proper objects. But it is entirely irrelevant to the Christian faith. All the positive emotions in your heart won’t save you; and neither will a heart entirely emptied of affection damn you. Mere emotion is spiritually neutral at best, and insofar as it engenders unhealthy attachment to the things of the world, probably at least a modestly negative force.

The love to which we’re called is a love of the will: an act of willing what is best for another, simply for that other’s sake. Positive emotion isn’t what’s best for another; God is, and the things which are conducive to a healthy love of God. Hugging sodomites isn’t love, but admonishing them for their sins is.

Funnily enough, the philosodomite mentioned above wrote a gushing, vacuous reflection on his scandalous actions, which he concluded with: “I hugged a man in his underwear. I hugged him tightly. And I am proud.”

Proud! Aren’t you just.

7 thoughts on “What love isn’t

  1. It’s okay to love non-Christians and not judge them for their sins. Christians can’t judge them because they don’t believe in God, we are called to love them. However, in this situation, it appears that Christians are supporting homosexuality and that is not acceptable. Condemn the sin, love the sinner.

  2. The love to which we’re called is a love of the will:

    Subtle correction. In my opinion caritas directs the will. The phrase “thy will be done” is a subordination/co-ordination of the speaker’s will to God.

  3. What is this thing called love? Can it be generalized? I don’t think so.

    We cannot have a deep affection for those we do not know in person. We can respect strangers and even admire them, but we cannot love them.

    • Do you mean the leftist understanding of “love”? Yes, you’re right; there’s nothing in it that’s virtuous. In fact, as I hint at in the post, they actually make a virtue out of their failure to control their passions — a virtue out of intemperance!

    • Actually, I think that was the entire point of the article. We may not have gushy, late-night TV drama “love” (romantic or otherwise) for someone we don’t know, but that’s not “love” anyway.

      Indeed, it is very easy to love strangers. Even people you dislike are generally really easy to love, because, at least in my experience, the thing you dislike you find to be pathetic (in the original sense of the word.) The hardest people to love are sometimes those you know the best, because you know their human heart, and have to deal with all their idiosyncrasies.

  4. Pingback: Joseph Shaw on the Eich affair | The Orthosphere

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.