Why Love Is Not the Answer
From a talk given by Stanley Hauerwas posted on The Dude's personal blog last year:
http://postcritical.blogspot.com/2006/04/why-love-is-not-answer_19.html
http://postcritical.blogspot.com/2006/04/why-love-is-not-answer_19.html
posted by Matthew at 5:13 AM
9 Comments:
Interesting article. I understand what he's trying to get at, but the article's poorly written, especially the second paragraph.
"There is no question that love between the persons of the Trinity is at the very heart of the Christian faith." I don't think that's a true statement. The "very heart" should be unshakeable, undeniable truths, and this is not one.
"But I think nothing is more destructive to the Christian faith than the current identification of Christianity with love." I have no problem with the identification with love, which I'll explain later. But in my opinion, the most destructive force to the Christian faith is the Church. Because of either the absence of love...or the show that they put on. I know most of my friends and peers that "don't know Jesus" would rather me be pissy and rude than have a false mood.
I think my problem with the article is my problem with the post-modern movement (which is another destructive force on Christianity, and I know nothing of this author, but the article reads very post-modern) is that it's narrow and that in getting across the point it's trying to make, the movement doesn't notice that they're destroying another piece (accidentally?).
I think this author had good intentions, but again, the article is poorly written. Love was meant to set us apart as Christians. It wasn't something to flaunt. Christ taught that Christians were to serve those around themselves through love, not to worry about being a spin doctor. Because that's Christ's job.
And for the longest time love did set us apart. And Christians in the 1950s and 1960s were viewed by many as freaky. But now, I know a lot of my unbelieving friends view Christianity as a bandwagon. Why? Because it's become a production, entertainment, or chicken soup for the soul. Maybe all three in some cases.
Love isn't the problem. I understand the author's point that the center of Christianity is Christ, but love was meant to be the identifying mark. That is why love and faith are linked throughout Paul's letters. That is why the church in Rev. 2:19 is rebuked by Christ for lacking in love. They were servers, but not in love.
Let me close by saying that this statement in the article had me laughing: "Ask yourself: If that is what Jesus is all about—getting us to love one another—why did everyone reject him?" I don't think the author understood what Christ meant at all by the second greatest commandment after reading that.
One thing I forgot to say was that love has had it's definition changed the last 5 or 10 years. Suddenly, it's being referred to as an act of service...or as something you didn't do. "I didn't flip that guy the bird even though he cut me off, therefore, I showed him love" That's what it's turned into. Which is sad. That's not the love that was meant to mark us as believers.
If love isn't a central thing, then why are so many verses that mention the love of God...or the love of Christ...or the Spirit's love. And not love between each other, but more commonly, love towards his people, as well as the unbelievers.
hudson's dad,
Christ's job is to be a "spin doctor"? Please explain.
I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, but frankly, what I have read of your post is circular and hard to follow.
I think Hauwerwas (not even close to the correct spelling, I'm sure - that's why it's nice to say "the author") is pretty dead on. Many would agree that we should just love everyone. So why would Christ be killed for that? Christ came and turned the system on its head.
Just my thoughts. I am no philosopher, so it would not be useful to debate semantics with me. I just calls em as I sees em.
Well, let me say, that I too am a poor writer, so it's no surprise that I have trouble getting my point/opinions/feelings across.
Let me try to explain what I was trying to say.
First, on the "spin doctor". Christians these days feel they have to spin everything...and qualify their comments. But our job is to live our lives in love for our neighbors and pursuing Christ. Our job is not to make sure everything is heard correctly or that Christianity is viewed in the correct light. We cannot control people's ears. That's God's job.
My overall point though is this:
We as believers cannot show Christ himself to those around us because we do not have Christ in the physical sense. But we do have his attributes...one of which (the most important) is love. That is what reveals Christ to those around us. It's a deeper, more genuine love. I feel that the author not only dismissed that, but struck it down. Maybe I'm misreading what he wrote, but that's exactly what it sounded like to me.
Let me know if that doesn't make sense.
I've read the article "Why Love Is Not the Answer" 3 times and I'm sorry to say I don't get it. Could someone help me, what is the point? And if not "love" (ie. the radical love demonstrated by Jesus), what other criteria do you use to guide your decision making?
"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets".
I've read this article several times again. (Now about 15-16 times).
I'm really confused. I feel that the author may be confusing what he's calling "love" with "popularity". Either that, or he's unaware of the depth and difference there is in Christ's love for us and through us.
I don't know. But that's a weird, weird article.
OK...some clarification...and my apologies...
This is an EXCERPT of a much longer lecture. The author is not confused, he is a polemicist. He is arguing against a certain understanding of 'love' and working to show a fuller picture of divine love in contrast to this watered down, youth-group love that has enculturated us (those are my words, not his). He is not saying love isn't important, but he is trying to show that 'love' isn't all there is...
I apologize that the full thrust of the article is missing because, well, more than half of the article is missing. And I didn't realize that link is broken.
Stanley Hauerwas, the author of this piece, is a theologian from Duke Divinity School. Here are some links to maybe give you a fuller understanding of who he is.
Interview
Biography
I have considered posting the entire article but I'm not sure that would really be helpful.
You don't have to agree with him, many don't. But I do think you need to take his argument seriously. Like Matthew and I have tried to do, Hauerwas much more eloquently places the cross at the center of our faith. We must view all of life through the lens of a crucified and resurrected messiah.
Read again, this last paragraph, on what is offensive about Jesus:
"The offense is not that Jesus wanted his followers to be loving; the offense is Jesus. Jesus is the politics of the new age. He is about the establishment of a kingdom. He is the one who has created a new time that gives us time not only to care for the poor but to be poor. Jesus is the one who makes it possible to be nonviolent in a violent world. We should not be surprised that Jesus is the embodiment of such politics. After all, Mary’s song promised that the proud would have their imaginations “scattered,” the powerful would be brought down from their thrones, the rich would be sent away empty, the lowly would be lifted up, and the hungry would be filled with good things. Is it any wonder that the world was not prepared to welcome this savior?"
Remember, Jesus was killed. And he wasn't killed because he told people to love one another. This is because Jesus is about more than love, though certainly not less. And we need to remember this.
"Note then the kindness and the severity of God" -- Romans 11:22
I think our boy Stanley was simply trying to say that the love of God is not always a feel-good love. God is kind but He is also severe. The Bible is clear that Jesus was delivered up to death "according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23). A tortured and crucified Messiah does not fit into our cultural definition of warm and fuzzy love.
The "love" that was referenced on last week's blog was defined as not allowing for a person to assert that he is right and you are wrong; "love is not judgmental" -- I would call that tolerance at worst or compassion at best, but not love.
Yes, the two greatest commandments are "love God" and "love others," but sin demands judgment. Telling people we will love them no matter what they do is love. But not telling them about the consequences of disobeying God is not love. I would not love my son (if I had one) if I told him to do whatever he wants. I have to tell him that playing in the street is dangerous. And I might even have to spank him if he strays from the boundaries I give him. If my son cries, it will break my heart, but it won't stop me from instilling fear of consequences in him -- I would love him too much not to.
If I am going to love the guys reading this blog, I must speak truth even if it pisses you off. And the truth is, Jesus was killed because of our disobedience. And it is only by His blood that we can be redeemed.
As we prepare to celebrate Christ's death and resurrection this weekend, I would hope that we reflect on the severity of God. The penalty Christ paid reflects the seriousness of our sin. For any of us to say, "It's OK, do whatever you want" is to slap our crucified Lord in the face. Our sin is not OK. Our sin drove Jesus to leave heaven to live with us and then die the most painful form of death man had invented, to endure ridicule from tongues that He created, torture from hands He formed, to remain on the cross when He could have called legions of angels to wipe out all of His accusers. That is love.
Thanks Dude for posting the links on Hauerwas. They were very informative and very helpful. I would definately be interested in reading some of his works. I've copied the last paragraph of the article below...which I think asks the question we are trying to address. So what should the world be like if Christianity is true?
I agree with you that we must take better care of our physical world and I also agree with Hauerwas that it would be a much less violent world. As citizens and Christians, I believe it is our responsibility to choose policy makers that are more likely to make choices consistent with these beliefs.
Hauerwas argues, “Christianity is unintelligible without witnesses, that is, without people whose practices exhibit their committed assent to a particular way of structuring the whole” (Hauerwas, 2001a, 214). These practices can and must have a positive effect on those outside the community, “…for the only truthful way of making Christianity attractive is through witness.” Thus, the job of Christians is not to convince but to witness, and the Holy Spirit bears witness to the unbeliever through the witness of Christians (Hauerwas, 2001a, 210). The purpose of the church is not to prove that Christianity is true, but to demonstrate what the world is like if it is true (Hauerwas, 2001a, 214).
Post a Comment
<< Home