The Weaponization Of Love
By Tom Bartlett
Years ago, someone very close to my family informed us they were homosexual. While this lifestyle choice was predictably affirmed by non-believers and the “progressive Christians” in their circle, the evangelical Christians (including me) shared that while this in no way impacted our love, we did not agree with their chosen lifestyle. Clearly this should not have been a surprise as our friend had wrestled with the issue throughout life and well knew the biblical position. But in some ways this is beside the point. My intention is not to launch into the biblical case against homosexual activity, but to glean a better understanding of the nature of love.
Perhaps it is helpful to first establish what is meant when we speak of one “coming out” as homosexual. Such a person is not simply sharing information about the desires they feel toward members of the same sex. They are declaring that these desires are now so central to their being as to constitute their identity.
Given the fact that many self-identified Christians are willing to cast aside their judgment in support of a friend, one could justly ask whether these “liberal-minded” are the ones extending love while those of us who stubbornly hold to our original position are withholding love? And what about the open acceptance offered by non-believers? Should we conclude that they are the loving ones while uncompromising believers are the least neighborly? What is the best way to process these disparate positions?
The Christian understanding of love’s demonstration is set out in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). To fully grasp the significance of our Lord’s account, it must be understood that Samaritans were the cultural pariahs of their day. With the story of the man who was left for dead by the side of the road Christ elevated the lowly Samaritan, and at the same time condemned the self-righteous religious authorities of his day. In other words, he attacked the unloving xenophobic tunnel vision of the Jewish authorities. So, was Jesus telling us to set aside our prejudices in favour of acceptance?
I believe the best explanation is offered in the simply stated but profoundly significant exchange that led in the first place to Jesus telling the story of the Good Samaritan. Here is its substance:
“…an expert in the law tested (Jesus) with this question: “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you read it?” And he answered, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.” Be he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” – Luke 10:25-29
Based on Christ’s words, one can clearly see that where other people are concerned the highest duty of a Christ-follower is love that leads to action. If that kind of love is absent, as Paul writes in his first letter to the Corinthians, we are nothing more than resounding gongs or clanging cymbals. So, is it accurate to say that where Christians fail to affirm the ever growing, and always mutable list of socially approved behaviors we are merely spouting a cacophony of sounds that drown out any semblance of love? We know from the parable that everyone is our neighbour. Let’s consider the responses given to my friend.
Starting with non-believers the question must be asked; is it always an act of courage to affirm someone living out the values they themselves endorse? Just as defending free speech is only truly tested when the ideas expressed are deemed abhorrent, tolerance only put to the test where there is disagreement over what is to be tolerated. Christ directed his followers to distinguish Christian love from natural love by loving the enemy. As he pointed out, everybody loves their friends. There is no courage in standing in unity with those whose opinions perfectly mirror your own.
In truth, the widespread insistence that tolerance means affirmation is turning the meaning of the word on its head. Demanding universal conformity to the ideology of the day robs one of the right to exercise tolerance. If God enforced his will by zapping all dissenters into ashes, then free will, tolerance and loving obedience would all be jettisoned. If you don’t believe me, just ask those gushing with public love for their “Dear Leader” in North Korea. A fitting question to put to the arbiters of “tolerance” is why blind obedience to mutable standards determined by the prevailing zeitgeist is not only loving but demanded.
Regarding the “progressive Christians” who insist that our standards should derive from the “evolving” positions of the culture, Romans 12:2 warns believers: “Do not conform any more to the patterns of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind; then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is. His good, pleasing and perfect will.” The professed believer who sublimates the scriptural teaching to cultural preferences violates not only this teaching but both prongs of Christ’s call to love God and others.
Understandably, non-believers refuse to embrace scriptural duties because they are in rebellion against God. They openly refuse to accept God’s authority. But those who claim to know and follow Christ have no such excuse. If they embrace ever-changing cultural norms they are essentially saying that their “enlightened” views outweigh God’s clear teaching; suggesting that they see themselves as more moral than God—at least the God of the Bible. They almost certainly believe their motives to be sincere. Nevertheless, they have exchanged the truth for a lie.
1 John 2:4-5a tells us: “Whoever says, ‘I know him,’ but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in him.” Scripture says that the best way to show our love for God is to keep his commandments. To rewrite God’s teachings to comport with our personal comfort or reduce tension with our unbelieving friends is to betray the God we claim to serve and to put ourselves in opposition to faithful brothers and sisters in Christ.
When Martin Luther found that the church of Rome was usurping and distorting God’s rightful place and departing from biblical teaching, he attempted to call the church back to its first love by returning to Christ alone and Scripture alone (Solus Christus, Sola Scriptura). Christ perfectly demonstrated the way to love others and love God when he met with “tax collectors and sinners.” He broke bread with the disobedient to draw them to himself. In other words, he tolerated their behaviour, but he did not absolve them of their sinful actions. He was the truest of friends, willing to die for them, but unwilling to hide the truth from them.
My friend would be the first to tell you that in life evangelicals have lived up to the promise to love while not compromising God’s standards. We do so because our love is sincere and not based on pragmatism. We meet with our friend, and we make it clear that we are ready to serve him any way we can. But we also love our friend enough to refuse to lower the bar in order to maintain a relationship, and we love God enough to refuse to lower that same bar for ourselves.
I clarified in a discussion with my friend that while I may not struggle with the same temptations, this is not a matter of my moral superiority—quite the opposite, in fact. How could I be considered a friend if I believed (as I do) that all of us begin life in rebellion toward God and that salvation only comes to those who repent and by faith receive Christ as Lord. If this is what I truly believe, I cannot stand by in silence and allow my friend to walk a comfortable road that can only lead to hell. Moreover, he needs to know that it is rejection of Christ’s lordship that places him at enmity with God. Homosexuality is only one aspect of that rejection, and considering what the Bible has to say about pride and other spiritual sins, it may not even be the most important.
My friend shared the belief that any God who would not accept all people as they are is not a God anyone should desire to follow. In short, my friend does not question the existence of God, nor misunderstand the moral standards of the New Testament. Rather, he has issued God an ultimatum, insisting that the Creator receive people based on their terms of engagement. By saying that God is not love if he does not love people as they are, my friend has weaponized God’s love and is trying to use it against him. Ironically, if my attitude was that my friend must come to my way of seeing things or face my personal rejection, we would no longer be friends. Thus, in my desire to be a real friend, i.e., a true neighbor, I become the means by which God disarms my friend’s weapon and demonstrates His willingness to be a Saviour and a healer.
Our Annual Be Ready Conference is back! This year at Be Ready 2020 our theme is ‘Conversations that Matter’. We'll equip you to have conversations with family and friends on matters of faith and culture. Learn how you can explain your faith to others and how you can strengthen your own family and children.