There is no justification for love, for if there were, then it would not be love. If we love because we are compelled through force, then it is not love. If I give some money to the poor only because someone is holding a gun to my head and demanding the action, then this is not a loving action. Neither is it loving if I act in order to gain a reward, even if the reward is simply the feeling that comes from doing the act. As soon as we say that we should love, then love disappears, for love is the law that has no law, the way that knows no ‘should’. Love is the law that tells us when to subvert the law, when to obey the law and when to break with laws, yet love is a lawless law that cannot be argued for.
how (not) to speak of God, –peter rollins
Gavin – I’m pretty sure I don’t agree with the point of view that says if I do the right thing for my neighbor simply because I should, it is not love. “Should” may remind me of my duty to my neighbor, but I still have the freedom to choose how to act. In my exercise of that freedom, I have the opportunity to love.
I have this issue come up all the time in marriage counseling: “Well, if I have to tell him/her to do something, it doesn’t count if he/she does it.” Sure it does. You may have explicitly told your spouse what you wanted, but they chose to do it, even if they didn’t feel like it. That sounds like love to me.
In the same way, if the conscience reminds us of our duty – that we SHOULD do something for our neighbor – and we choose to do it (even though the impulse doesn’t spring spontaneously from our deepest inward desires), that sounds like love to me as well.
It seems to me that love is more concerned with what kind of impact I actually make on the lives of others than it is with with the purity of my inner thoughts, motives and feelings.
I seem to remember something about “trampling under foot that enthusiastic doctrine of devils that we are not to do good unless our hearts be free to it.”
And if love is the law that tells me when to break the law, I hope it is also telling me to take the entire impact of my actions into consideration. We have a duty not only to those whom we think we might help by breaking the law, but also to those others (and the community) whom we might hurt by doing so.
Even the part about the gun to the head is puzzling to me. Surely personal, individual Christian love does not come at the point of a gun. But, as a society we routinely put the gun of civil law to the heads of our citizens for the sake of love! Would it be more loving to have a society where murderers, rapists and thieves ran free? Our Discipline and Book of Resolutions are filled with ideas for laws that General Conference thinks Congress should pass (and enforce at the point of a gun, although that part is left unwritten). I disagree with a lot of the ideas proposed by General Conference, but I don’t disagree with the idea that the limited use of the force of law can serve the cause of love.
Gavin – I’m pretty sure I don’t agree with the point of view that says if I do the right thing for my neighbor simply because I should, it is not love. “Should” may remind me of my duty to my neighbor, but I still have the freedom to choose how to act. In my exercise of that freedom, I have the opportunity to love.
I have this issue come up all the time in marriage counseling: “Well, if I have to tell him/her to do something, it doesn’t count if he/she does it.” Sure it does. You may have explicitly told your spouse what you wanted, but they chose to do it, even if they didn’t feel like it. That sounds like love to me.
In the same way, if the conscience reminds us of our duty – that we SHOULD do something for our neighbor – and we choose to do it (even though the impulse doesn’t spring spontaneously from our deepest inward desires), that sounds like love to me as well.
It seems to me that love is more concerned with what kind of impact I actually make on the lives of others than it is with with the purity of my inner thoughts, motives and feelings.
I seem to remember something about “trampling under foot that enthusiastic doctrine of devils that we are not to do good unless our hearts be free to it.”
And if love is the law that tells me when to break the law, I hope it is also telling me to take the entire impact of my actions into consideration. We have a duty not only to those whom we think we might help by breaking the law, but also to those others (and the community) whom we might hurt by doing so.
Even the part about the gun to the head is puzzling to me. Surely personal, individual Christian love does not come at the point of a gun. But, as a society we routinely put the gun of civil law to the heads of our citizens for the sake of love! Would it be more loving to have a society where murderers, rapists and thieves ran free? Our Discipline and Book of Resolutions are filled with ideas for laws that General Conference thinks Congress should pass (and enforce at the point of a gun, although that part is left unwritten). I disagree with a lot of the ideas proposed by General Conference, but I don’t disagree with the idea that the limited use of the force of law can serve the cause of love.