Love Trumps All

All you need is love. Were the Fab Four right? Personally I think they were pretty spot on, although they may not have meant exactly the same thing as me by the word ‘Love’.

As a Christian I believe that God is love and that Jesus was the human embodiment of God.

And, therefore, that those who genuinely know and follow Jesus will inevitably grow in their love for their fellow human beings.

What does that mean in practice? What is this love? Some warm, fuzzy feeling of affection towards other people? In my days as an atheist, I remember a friend criticising ‘born again Christians’ he’d met, for advocating loving everyone. “How can you love everyone when you can’t even like everyone?” was his response.

Again, for Christians, the Bible is our starting place. One of the most famous passages in the Good Book is 1 Corinthians 13 (worth a look, if you’re not familiar). The gist of it is that when we love, we’re not only kind and generous, but we act in a way that seeks the good of others and don’t assert our own rights or desires over those of others. In other words, we’re unselfish – selfless, even.

Which brings us to the Bible’s ultimate plumbline of love…. the life and (especially) death of Jesus – giving up a sinless life to a brutal execution for the restoration, wholeness and forgiveness of many others. The perfect act of selflessness.

An act that: a) transforms, from the inside out, the lives of those who receive his gift by faith, bringing forgiveness and power to change, to love; and b) becomes our example to follow, our source of inspiration.

The Bible writers go on to describe how we live this out in practice in our flesh-and-blood family and in our spiritual family – the church community.

For example Paul, in his multi-ethnic, multi-faith, 1^st Century culture, explains how he’s free to eat meat that’s been sacrificed to idols because at the end of the day it’s just…meat. BUT if this causes offence to a fellow Christian, then he would even go so far, if necessary, as to never eat meat ever again! He could have declared, like the Soup Dragons in their brilliant 1990 hit:

“I’M FREE TO DO WHAT I WANT ANY OLD TIME!

The original Soup Dragon (on the right) – for fellow Clangers fans!

“It’s my right to eat meat. God has said it’s OK to eat meat, so I will!” He could have looked down on those whose faith was ‘weaker’ and tried to persuade them that his way of seeing things was the right way.

Instead, he did the loving thing. The thing that respected his Christian brother’s conscience and way of faith.

But doesn’t ‘living under grace’ mean that we’re free from religious rules, from ‘do’s and don’ts’. Yes, kind of, but love is the greatest commandment and the only response to grace.

Love trumps all.

If love means following a ‘rule’ so as not to hurt a sister or brother in Christ, then we follow the ‘rule’.

The idea that what we say and what we do affects those around us – that no man is an island – is an important concept to followers of Jesus.

In a similar way, when it comes to relationships, Paul tells a community of Christians to let the ‘peace of Christ act as judge (or ruler) in your hearts’. Which means that the peace of Christ that you normally experience as a Christian is a gauge of the health of your relationships with others in the church: i.e. if this peace is disturbed because of conflict and disharmony between you and others within the church community, it’s telling you – you need to put something right. ASAP.

All of which leads me to Margaret Thatcher…

Because she was the lady who was not for turning. Politicians rarely do U-turns. Or if they do, they generally don’t admit it, because that would mean admitting they were wrong the first time round and that would mean losing face.

(Never mind the fact that the voting public would actually appreciate some integrity and humility for a change).

I am doing a U-turn – on my last blog post, Sowing and Reaping, or part of it… because my recent blogging has had some negative impact on my relationships with one or two Christian brothers in my own church community, causing some concern and offence to them, not to mention a great deal of anxiety to me. The peace of Christ in me has been troubled.

Taking the approach of challenging the status quo, provoking controversy, in the quest for sincere faith – although it may encourage some Christians and help build bridges with others outside the Christian faith – may be an obstacle to the building of other relationships in the church.

One of my passions is to be part of a community that’s being built together in love, building with them, and if my blogging works against that, if it’s promoting discord rather than unity and community, then I would consider never blogging again!

I would at least take a U-turn on writing anything that causes disharmony within my own church community.

Because love trumps all. Yes, even free speech and open dialogue, which I hold dear.

I wrote in Sowing and Reaping about finding some resonance in Progressive Christianity – not that it’s really any different to any other ‘type’ of Christianity (because Christianity is Christianity, and really there is no Christianity, only Jesus Christ, who doesn’t change), but this particular ‘stream’ or ‘movement’ places an emphasis on experiencing Jesus and on living out his love in action, while some expressions of Christianity have been perceived historically to over-emphasise doctrine.

To quote Paul again: “The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love” (Gal 5:6).

While doctrine and theology are important, some of us are not cut out to be theologians – at least in the academic sense, although we may be theologians in the sense that we know and love God and have a passion to live this out, rather than to debate predestination, atonement and the like. As an ancient prophet put it:

“ ‘He defended the cause of the poor and needy,
and so all went well.
Is that not what it means to know me?’
declares the Lord”. (Jer 22:16)

I’m happy for others to take care of the theology. I recognise its value and I respect the gifting of those who are called to study and teach it.

For me, I’m happy to live it out in love as best I can. That includes the work that I do (see The Spirit of Healthcare) and writing creatively, to express this love to those who don’t claim to have faith in Christ. I hope to continue blogging in a way that finds common ground with atheists and agnostics, while also encouraging the faith of fellow believers.

And if that means refraining from making controversial statements that may offend my own (local) spiritual brothers and sisters, then restraint will be the order of the day.

Or if it means maybe running a blog draft past particular individuals before posting it, to avoid offence, then I’ll happily do so.

Because love trumps all.

Why am I posting these thoughts? Well, not to claim any moral high ground.

1) To explain that I’m just someone with many flaws including a strong self-will (which can also be a good thing), but with a resolve to go against my flaws and follow the One who called me and gave me everything.

2) As a heads-up on this ‘U-turn’ (or this ‘toning down’ at least), for those who follow my blogs.

3) To encourage fellow believers to continue working out how to live a life of selfless love for their spiritual brothers & sisters.

4) And for everyone else, to shed a little light on the fact that, whatever you may think of Christianity, whatever you’ve imbibed (subconsciously or otherwise) of the media image of church…sacrificial, selfless love does go on week in, week out, within church communities. Not flawlessly. Humanly. Imperfectly reflecting the perfect love of Jesus Christ shown on the cross.

Love that trumps all.

A sense of perspective

At the risk of being repetitive and boring, banging on about the church and homosexuality again…

This is written mainly to a Christian audience, but if you wouldn’t call yourself a Christian, you’re of course still very welcome to read and comment on it!

Below is a letter I wrote to Christianity magazine, printed in this month’s edition.

One of the reasons for this letter is that divergence of opinion on sexuality seems to be currently the distinguishing factor between church and the rest of society – at least publicly, as portrayed by the media.

This worries me immensely, although I know this is not actually the predominant differentiating factor for (hopefully) any Christian, but rather an emphasis implied by the media.

The things that should distinguish the church from the world around us are qualities such as joy, love, forgiveness, mercy, grace:

Joy: Christians should be the happiest people on earth because we’ve received the best news ever, of a slate wiped clean, of eternal love, with the joy of true liberation.

Love etc: We should be known for our love for each other: church fellowships held together by patience, mercy, forgiveness, unity of heart, and overflowing with grace and generosity to the world around us.

Actually, much of the time this is the reality!

One of many things that drew me to Jesus was seeing faces of Christians ‘glowing’ with the joy of knowing the Messiah. They had something supernatural and wonderful.

The unity, love and community support within ordinary church fellowships goes on unnoticed by the media and much of society, week in, week out. Churches are made up of ordinary, broken people with faults and difficulties, and yet these fellowships are communities held together by patience and love in the face of (at times) misunderstandings and disagreements that are typical of any family.

Church members’ support for each other is often phenomenal and sacrificial, without any trumpet-blowing or media hype.

Their experience of Jesus’ love drives many to serve outside their churches, in the wider community, either voluntarily or (as in my case) in paid work, through organisations like Street Pastors, hospices, healthcare and other public services.

Privately, church communities are often what they should be, distinguished from the rest of the world by love, joy, patience and mercy. Let us not be fooled by the media that we’re defined by views on sexuality.

So that’s the backdrop to my letter to Christianity, which was edited down to the point where the argument I was making was unfortunately somewhat lost. Hence, for the record, below is the full letter (with relevant Bible passages also inserted, rather than just references).

Note to self: in future, when writing to magazines, write shorter letters!

Here’s the letter:

Dear Christianity

Whatever our view is on homosexuality, it’s important to hold it in perspective. To illustrate from the story of Sodom: even IF (and that’s a big ‘if’) homosexual practice is always wrong in God’s eyes, the sin of Sodom was not so much this as the fact that they had become so self-centred and hedonistic that, not only did they neglect to show hospitality to strangers and care for the poor, they went even further by seeking only to rape and abuse those who came to visit their city.

See Ezek 16:49-50: “Sodom’s sins were pride, gluttony, and laziness, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door. She was proud and committed detestable sins, so I wiped her out, as you have seen”.

The root was selfishness. What can we learn, therefore, about how to treat gay or straight people who visit our churches or move into our streets? How good are we at welcoming and caring for people? Are our church services designed to serve ourselves or to draw in outsiders? These questions are more important than sexual orientation or practice.

This sin of Sodom was the worst possible abuse. AND YET…even worse than this in God’s eyes is the rejection of grace and of the Holy Spirit by those who have seen evidence of him working before their very eyes.

See the words of Jesus in Luke 10:8-12: “If you enter a town and it welcomes you, eat whatever is set before you. Heal the sick, and tell them, ‘The Kingdom of God is near you now.’ But if a town refuses to welcome you, go out into its streets and say,‘We wipe even the dust of your town from our feet to show that we have abandoned you to your fate. And know this—the Kingdom of God is near!’ I assure you, even wicked Sodom will be better off than such a town on judgment day.”

How we respond when we see God at work and hear his voice is ultimately more important than anything. This will affect how we love God and people, whether gay or straight.

Even IF we believe homosexual practice is wrong, it is OK for others to believe and practise otherwise with a clear conscience. We can agree to disagree. If same-sex marriage is approved, it will apply to a small minority and will not threaten traditional marriage nearly as much as the far more accepted and widespread practice of heterosexual co-habitation or the prevalence of failing heterosexual marriages. I see few Christians campaigning against heterosexual co-habitation. Let’s not worry about same-sex marriage: who knows, maybe gay couples will show greater commitment and honouring of their vows than straight couples?!

Let’s avoid hypocrisy as much as possible, keeping things in God’s perspective and making God’s priorities our priorities: such as practising hospitality, recognising God’s voice and showing grace and love to people of all sexual and theological persuasions!

(I promise the next blog will be on a completely different subject!)

Redefining marriage

Here I am writing my first ever blog, on a subject that’s totally non-controversial! I’m being ironic, of course. How on earth did I decide to post a blog on something as controversial as the Government’s plans to redefine marriage, laying myself open to possibly huge criticism?

I guess it’s because the arguments on both sides have left me with lots of questions which, for me, lie at the heart of the debate and which I’ve heard nobody address satisfactorily, leaving me feeling entirely dissatisfied with both points of view.

My aim here, rather than to give a definite view, is to ask those foundational questions, and perhaps to give a hint at what I think the answers are. To raise more questions than controversial views.

I’m not sure what I think of the Government’s plan to redefine marriage, nor the response of the church or Coalition for Marriage. The questions which for me remain unanswered include (and these are not rhetorical):

• Who has the right to define or re-define any word or idea? The Government? The church? The Oxford English Dictionary? Society?
• Who owns marriage?
• Is marriage a religious thing? Or is it a concept that has transcended theistic, atheistic and pagan groups everywhere throughout human history, for the good of society?

When society changes the meaning of a word, the dictionaries catch up afterwards.

Similarly, when Western, democratic society evolves its ideas or values, the Government will often introduce (or amend) laws to reflect these changes afterwards. Like it or not, has Western society not already redefined marriage through the concept’s decreasing popularity, people’s disillusionment with marriage and preference towards co-habitation, and high divorce rate?

If the Government redefines marriage by allowing gay couples to marry, it is simply reflecting society’s changing values – society’s move towards equal opportunities between heterosexual and gay people. Is that not a legitimate way of reflecting society’s current values? Does the Government have the right to affirm this shift in values? Does the church have the right to challenge the Government’s proposed law? I don’t know. But doesn’t marriage belong to society (if anybody)?

And would not this proposed change in law (if anything) promote faithfulness (in this case, between gay couples) over promiscuity?

I cannot see how this change in law would in any way detract from or threaten heterosexual marriage. Marriage is already under siege – not by the gay movement, but by a growing sense of transience or impermanence within marriages and heterosexual relationships generally.

I understand and agree with the Christian view that true marriage originates from God’s heart and reflects his faithfulness, love and unity. I understand and agree with the basis for this being rooted in the account or allegorical beginnings in Genesis: one man, one woman, for life, as the context for an intimate, exclusive sexual relationship and for raising children.

Of course, the church has every right to believe that this is the only moral context for sexual relationships.

However, societies and people groups throughout the world and throughout history have had diverse views on what form marriage takes, and I’m not sure the Western church, with its particular interpretation of marriage, has the right to dictate to society or Government what marriage should look like.

If the church is going to make this case, should it not also be fighting for a law against co-habitation? Is it not hypocritical to stand against gay marriage but to have a relaxed view on heterosexual couples living together without a marriage covenant? I’m not advocating for either case, by the way! But is co-habitation not more of a threat than gay marriage to traditional marriage?

Like most Christians, I believe strongly in the importance of marriage in the true sense of a covenant, as one of the building blocks for a stable society. Rather than worrying about the effect of gay marriage on the marriage institution, shouldn’t the church’s focus (or that of Coalition for Marriage) instead be on promoting, supporting and modelling marriage generally, enabling couples (the majority of which will always be male/female) to live out long, loving, stable marriages? Strengthening couples whose marriage is in jeopardy. Modelling how a spiritual life (of prayer, worship etc) between couples keeps the love and passion alive. In many ways the church already does this, and should continue to do so.

I wonder if the fight against gay marriage is the wrong battle. If two gay men or women want to marry, can the church not ‘live and let live’? It’s no threat to me, and I see no reason why it would be a threat to the church or traditional marriage.

Steve Chalke, founder of Oasis, has received some flak (and some support) from Christians for his recent article in Christianity magazine endorsing homosexual relationships, although his critics recognise his ‘pastoral motivation’. Like Steve, I’m motivated by inclusivism, sensing the welcoming heart of the Father, although evangelical friends might say that I’m neglecting to give the Bible, the word of God, its proper place of authority, or twisting its words. That’s another question!

Maybe I’ve become more liberal and less evangelical in my old age! If that’s the case, I’m not ashamed of it. My intention is now, more than ever before, to be a Jesus-follower (however well or badly I may succeed at that) rather than to be this or that type of Christian. A blog on evangelicalism to follow another time…..!

The battle for the church in this context is to promote faithfulness, commitment and sacrificial love to the society around us, and to point to Jesus, the Author of these characteristics who demonstrated them ultimately at the cross.

Does the church have a monopoly on marriage? Does the Goverment, or the church, have the right to define or redefine marriage? I don’t know. But I think society has already done so.

Have I asked more questions than I answered? I hope so.