We live in a world of competing loves. That sounds, perhaps, more dramatic than it is. All of us -- every last one -- have a host of competing preferences whose hierarchy determines our choices. "Do you want broccoli or pizza for dinner?" would be decided by which you prefer. And which you prefer can change. "Yesterday I chose pizza (obviously), but I'm watching my weight now, so I prefer to eat more healthy. Give me the broccoli." Competing loves.
We've seen this played out a lot in the last couple of decades. This prominent figure will come out against, say, homosexual behavior as immoral ... right up until their son or daughter comes out ... as homosexual. Then they have a change of heart. Maybe it's not immoral. Why? Did the morality of it change? No. It was a collision of loves. "Sure, I love right and wrong, but I love my son or daughter more." And it doesn't seem to matter if we're talking about self-professed believers here. Christians do it, too. "I used to think that it was against Scripture for a woman to be a pastor, but then my daughter went to seminary and was hired as a pastor, so now I think it's okay." That is, love for family dictates the meaning of Scripture.
Jesus had something to say about this. When He called together His twelve, He told them, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matt 10:34). Tough words, Jesus. In what sense? "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me" (Matt 10:37). Ouch! So we do live in a world of competing loves -- all of us -- and the primary question is "Which love is supreme?" Is it Christ at the apex, sorting out all others, or is it something ... anything ... else? That answer will drive a large number of decisions in our lives.
5 comments:
Your examples also show a misunderstanding of love. Endorsing your "gay" child or pastor daughter is actually not loving them truly. Knowing that obeying God is for their best, but encouraging them in their sin to make them happier is not love. We need to remember that.
Two immediate thoughts came to mind reading this today: (1) Rather than needing to choose between pizza and broccoli, why not have a veggie pizza --with broccoli and other nutritious toppings--and have them both? :) (2) This seems to build off yesterday's theme regarding Peter's need to affirm his loves--i.e. his former, familiar life or his new assignment from Jesus (as you termed it).
I can relate to competing loves: Upon being born again at ages 18 and 20, (respectively), my husband and I forsook the traditional religion of our families; this was especially displeasing to my Italian mother-in-law and created a barrier between us and our relatives from then on. There was never an option of our choosing anything or anyone over following Christ, though, so we just had to live with her displeasure. Not a serious circumstance but definitely a playing out of Matt. 10:37 for us.
Based on David and Lorna's responses, I guess I didn't get across what I intended. I was trying to play off more the idea that we always choose the things we want the most ("loves") rather than some warm feeling toward things. I was trying to aim at what motivates us. We will always choose according to our hightest preferences. Sometimes we're just not aware of what those are.
I guess I didn’t pick up your exact point as you worded it above, but l got this one: the need to subjugate all earthly loves to devotion to Christ. (I also got David’s point: believers who compromise biblical truth out of affection for their loved ones are not truly loving them anyway when they gloss over blatant sin on their parts).
I understood you. But I think too often we conflate love with highest preference. The pastor that changes his mind on homosexuality because his son comes out as gay is abiding by his highest preference (peace with his son) but I would argue is not love, it is neither love for God nor the son.
Post a Comment