Love trumps faith and morals

[AlanFromWichita]

Dear all,

After decades of struggling with Church teachings, practices, and expectations, and after a few weeks of sometimes heated debate on these forums, I finally came up with a theory which I hope may help reconcile my personal views with those of the Church.

One big stumbling block my late father (a saint IMO) had with God was that Abraham had enough faith to sacrifice his son for God. My parents couldn’t believe a loving God would ask a man to kill his son. I countered with the fact that God didn’t ask him; he was only testing Abraham’s faith. They countered by saying only a cruel God would put a parent through that type of test on purpose. I could only respond that I do not presume to know the mind of God.

I think I finally hit on the answer to this. He was not going to kill his son out of love for his son, but out of faith in God. Abraham loved his son dearly, but his faith in God was stronger. Abraham had great faith, but he did not have the love of Jesus. If he had the love of Jesus, he would have been willing to go to hell for love of his son. Maybe when Jesus told us about “no greater love” he meant not only to be willing to give up one’s physical life, but his eternal life for others. That would be a much more radical interpretation of “no greater love” than I’ve ever heard, but Jesus went to hell for us, didn’t he?

I’ve watched on this forum as people who (are either lying or) are truly trying to do the right thing, are thwarted at every step by the Church because she is ostensibly bound by her own rules. Maybe, just hypothetically, for sake of discussion I will concede that she is infallible in faith and morals. Nevertheless, she is taking her prodigal sons and instead of welcoming them she is blaming them, holding them bound, testing them, and doing everything she can to prevent their getting back into the flock until she is satisfied that they have undergone sufficient “ritual cleansing” and even then their reception back into the Church is not guaranteed. Dare I hint that this is not love, but hypocracy? The cleaning on the outside for all to see is more important than what is inside their hearts, it would seem.

Jesus teaches that a good shepherd will leave the flock to find a lost one. Here you have a sheep trying to get back in, but the shepherd is saying “I don’t know you” and locking the gate until the sheep dances the right tune. Perhaps that tune is a crashing gong or clanging cymbal.

Love trumps faith because:
Jesus teaches us that love is greater than faith and morals; Abraham would kill his son to save his own soul while Jesus allowed himself to be killed to save others.

Love trumps morals because:
Paul teaches us that love keeps no record of wrongs (as well as other things) and that love conquers all. Jesus said, “forgive one another as I forgive you.” Sure, we have the legal right to hold someone bound for their moral transgressions, but is it love? OK so maybe I didn’t make such a good case here but I’m getting long winded so I’ll finish this up.

Even if the Church were infallible on faith and morals, that does not imply she has love for her sheep. Therefore even if I concede on my disbelieve that the Church cannot err, I still have a logical explanation for all the things she does that I think are wrong.

In summary, if my own beloved son were running the Church and I had one thing to tell him, I would remind him that, conquers :tsktsk:.

Alan

 

[JGC]

I think this was by an Archbishop of Cantebury.

Love without truth is vague and sentimental
Truth without love is harsh and exclusive

Holiness without love is legalistic and unattractive

 

[Joan_M]

Alan, you seem to have thought very deeply about this, and, yet, come up with a totally wrong answer!

Love can never “trump” faith and morals. First of all, we must have faith to be able to even start loving God. Secondly, obeying the moral laws of God, which the Church teaches us is loving God.

“If he had the love of Jesus, he would have been willing to go to hell for love of his son. Maybe when Jesus told us about “no greater love” he meant not only to be willing to give up one’s physical life, but his eternal life for others. That would be a much more radical interpretation of “no greater love” than I’ve ever heard, but Jesus went to hell for us, didn’t he?”

This is totally wrong! Jesus did not go to hell for us. He went to the “limbo of the Fathers” where the souls of the faithful were awaiting the Messiah and looking for the day they would be liberated to go to Heaven. Being willing to go to hell for love of a son is an oxymoron. A person’s first responsibility is to save their own soul, and then to do what they can to assist others in saving their souls. It is an appalling idea! To go to hell we have to sin mortally and not repent. What could that do to save someone else’s soul? Nothing. It would be more likely to have an evil effect on them, and cause them to lose their own souls!

Quite simply, we are called to willingly submit to the Church’s teachings, because they come from God. Believe and obey. When ever we have a problem with one of the teachings of the Church it is usually because we want to do what we are told not to do, or not to do what we are told to do, and we rationalize in our own favor, simply because we are, essentially, selfish and self-centered.

Obedience is a wonderful virtue that has been mostly cast aside in our permissive age. We need to get back to it.

 

[trogiah]

Your very personal sharing invites person response - so here goes.

AlanFromWichita:

After decades of struggling with Church teachings, practices, and expectations, and after a few weeks of sometimes heated debate on these forums, I finally came up with a theory which I hope may help reconcile my personal views with those of the Church.

I have come to the realization that there is a difference between reconciling one’s views with those ot the Church and being at peace with God. We are all first and foremost called to be at peace with God. I also struggle to reconcile with Church teachings but if I fail at times , I have decided I can live with it.

AlanFromWichita:

One big stumbling block my late father (a saint IMO) had with God was that Abraham had enough faith to sacrifice his son for God. My parents couldn’t believe a loving God would ask a man to kill his son. I countered with the fact that God didn’t ask him; he was only testing Abraham’s faith. They countered by saying only a cruel God would put a parent through that type of test on purpose. I could only respond that I do not presume to know the mind of God.

There is much to be said here. We live in a time when childhood mortality is a very uncommon thing. We firmly believe in the right to life. The death of any child is a great catastrophe that no fair minded person would accept. So we believe

In the not too distant past, this was not true. My grandmother buried 5 of her 10 children at various stages of life. She mentioned it once as a struggle but something she was at peace with. A sacrifice that God had asked her to make and she had found it possible to accept. (I know it is not the same as actually killing your own son, but it still requires a mindset recognizing that all life comes from God and eventually goes back to God).

In Abraham’s time, such sacrifice was not all that uncommon. His willingness to make that sacrifice was, as you say, an indication of his great faith in God.

You mention your parents’ inability to accept this story. I think it is worth considering the words of the 1st commandment

“I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishments for their fathers’ wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation
but bestowing mercy, down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

For many of us, our parents’ stumbling blocks become, to some extent, our stumbling blocks. I have my own from my parents. (I think a valuable lesson here is that our children are benefitted more by our love of God than by our love of our children.)

If they thought what God did to Abraham was cruel, what would they think of what God did to Mary. (Imagine her at the foot of the cross).

I don’t think any of us will be asked to kill or in anyway participate willingly in the deaths of our own children, but I think the examples of Abraham and Mary show us that God should come before even our own children.

AlanFromWichita:

Love trumps morals because:
Paul teaches us that love keeps no record of wrongs (as well as other things) and that love conquers all. Jesus said, “forgive one another as I forgive you.”

Alan

I think right there you have priorities as they should be.

None of us can do without peace with God. Living a life unreconciled with the Church is not impossible but is generally a struggle. May will all make progress on that road as well.

peace
-Jim

 

[triciafrancess]

AlanFromWichita:

I’ve watched on this forum as people who (are either lying or) are truly trying to do the right thing, are thwarted at every step by the Church because she is ostensibly bound by her own rules.

Dear Alan,

I’ve encountered you in several forums recently and you seem like a kind and loving person. I think I know whose situation you are responding to as you watch people thwarted at every step by the Church. I, too, am disheartened by that particular situation – but I am even more concerned for you – that you are doubting the Church and feeling she is betraying her mission.

As someone who had to struggle to come into the Church, I had almost the exact feelings you describe, Alan:

AlanFromWichita:
…she [the Church] is taking her prodigal sons and instead of welcoming them she is blaming them, holding them bound, testing them, and doing everything she can to prevent their getting back into the flock until she is satisfied that they have undergone sufficient “ritual cleansing” and even then their reception back into the Church is not guaranteed.

Well, as I went through the process of RCIA and getting an annulment, although I wasn’t happy I had to do it, I began to understand that far from being a hoop to jump through or a form of ritual cleansing, the Church has really stuck her neck out for people who want to come in (or come back) to the Church. Rather than thwarting us and putting up obstacles, the Church has given us a way – annulment – and I am very grateful. For me, the struggle made the prize even more precious, and I now understand how grievously I sinned and I’m truly repentant.

It is painful to read about situations that seem unfair and we so much want to be able to help or give a magic piece of advice. We’ve all had our struggles – maybe not identical to Theresa’s – but how often do we find when we finally stop struggling and accept our helplessness, that God works it out. She is making the right decision to let go of her active struggle right now and to seek solace more privately.

I will continue to pray for Theresa, and I’m sure you will too. That’s the best help we can give her.

Love,
Tricia Frances

 

[RNRobert]

JGC:

I think this was by an Archbishop of Cantebury.

Love without truth is vague and sentimental
Truth without love is harsh and exclusive

Holiness without love is legalistic and unattractive

I heard something similar (I can’t remember where):

Law without Love is Legalism
Love without Law is License

 

[Pax]

Alan,

The Church is not hard on her sheep. The prodigal sons and daughters that have difficulty returning to the Church would not find it difficult if they were willing to raise the white flag in their rebel hearts. Admittedly, we can have some poor ambassadors that turn people off, but more often than not, people want to come back on “their terms.” The Church is the body of Christ on Earth. This is no small statement and every member of the Church and those that want membership need to understand what that means.

When the prodigal son returned to the household, he came with unconditional surrender. He placed no demands upon his Father. Instead, he came with complete repentence. This is exactly what the sons and daughters are to mirror. The Church accepts these sheep with total love and affection, and there is tremendous rejoicing in heaven.

Ponder the implications of the Church being the body of Christ. Ponder the implications of Christ’s prayers for unity in the Gospel of John. Ponder the implications of Paul’s writings where he warns us “so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine…”[Eph 4:14]. Ponder the implications of not submitting to the authority of the Church that is described in 1 Timothy 3:15 as, “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” Ponder all of the warnings of scripture to the “sons of disobedience.”

It isn’t that the Church doesn’t love the sheep. It is quite the opposite. It would be contrary to Godly love if the Church did not properly shepherd the sheep. The sheep return to the Shepherd on the terms of the Shepherd and not the other way around.

 

[cestusdei]

We cannot separate love from truth. Imagine that your son likes running out on the street despite heavy traffic. Do you say “I love my son, but I don’t want to burden him with rules” or “I love my son, so I will make it a rule he not play on the busy street. If he does I will punish him, not to hurt him, but to save his life.” You cannot have love and abandon faith and morals. All to often those who do that have some sin they are desperately attached to. It is precisely then that they need to be challenged by love to change. God will give the grace to do so.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Joan M:

Jesus did not go to hell for us. He went to the “limbo of the Fathers” where the souls of the faithful were awaiting the Messiah and looking for the day they would be liberated to go to Heaven.
Dear Joan,

Since I’m not an expert, I don’t always know all the fancy
terminology. I wonder, though, if He did not go into hell, then why does the apostles’ creed say “He descended into hell?”

Being willing to go to hell for love of a son is an oxymoron.

I would think that Abraham believing the same God who commanded us not to kill, told him that he should kill his son, is at least as much of an oxymoron. Maybe it was Abraham’s love for God over his love for his son that caused him to obey, but isn’t that also an oxymoron given what Jesus told us about whatsoever you do to the least of His people, that you do unto Him?

A person’s first responsibility is to save their own soul, and then to do what they can to assist others in saving their souls. It is an appalling idea! To go to hell we have to sin mortally and not repent. What could that do to save someone else’s soul? Nothing. It would be more likely to have an evil effect on them, and cause them to lose their own souls!
This makes me wonder why God asked Abraham to commit the mortal sin of killing his son, making him choose between obey the God of the past (Moses) and the God of the present (Abraham). Doesn’t this put him in quite a bind? Abraham was damned if he did, damned if he didn’t. Good thing God wasn’t serious about Abraham killing his son.

Quite simply, we are called to willingly submit to the Church’s teachings, because they come from God. Believe and obey. When ever we have a problem with one of the teachings of the Church it is usually because we want to do what we are told not to do, or not to do what we are told to do, and we rationalize in our own favor, simply because we are, essentially, selfish and self-centered.

Perhaps it is usually that, but I don’t believe each of us will be judged by appearances, or by God’s assumptions about us based on what other people do in similar circumstances. If that were the case, we would have no personal responsibility at all.

Obedience is a wonderful virtue that has been mostly cast aside in our permissive age. We need to get back to it.

We need to get back to it, but I think the Church also needs to quit posturing herself as infallible, quit blaming the sheep for her problems and start being a better shepherd. A good shepherd craves love over justice, or Jesus’ life would be pointless. If we blame society for the fall of the Church and her people, then the gates of hell will have prevailed against her. She should be stronger than that. Tall skyscrapers have two feet or more of sway at the top in a wind, like a reed. That’s why they don’t blow over. If they were built rigidly, they would break.

Just my personal opinion, of course. You don’t need my permission to disagree. I may change my mind at any time. Thank God for free speech and this forum.

Alan

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Actually I would say: love = faith and morals.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Pax:

When the prodigal son returned to the household, he came with unconditional surrender. He placed no demands upon his Father. Instead, he came with complete repentence. This is exactly what the sons and daughters are to mirror. The Church accepts these sheep with total love and affection, and there is tremendous rejoicing in heaven.

But in the case of the Church (and the case I’m thinking of), they may be in surrender but by Policy we won’t let them back in until they have successfully completed an obstacle course, assuming it is possible for them to do so…

Ponder the implications of the Church being the body of Christ. Ponder the implications of Christ’s prayers for unity in the Gospel of John.

Unity works two ways. If I know anything about God, it is that He is willing and able to accept us back at any time. If the person is sorry, there is forgiveness. No battery of lawyers and months worth of red tape and paperwork are needed with God, only with the Church.

It isn’t that the Church doesn’t love the sheep. It is quite the opposite. It would be contrary to Godly love if the Church did not properly shepherd the sheep. The sheep return to the Shepherd on the terms of the Shepherd and not the other way around.

Again, I thought the shepherd left the flock and went and found the lost sheep. In your scenario it sounds like the sheep must come back themselves and dance a jig to please the shepherd in order to get back in.

Alan

 

[JimG]

God tested Abrahan by asking him for the sacrifice of his only son, whom he loved. Because he did not withhold his only son, God blessed him abundantly. For Abraham, it was a test. But the Father also did not withhold His only Son to be sacrificed for us. And it was no test, but an act of love. Love and sacrifice go hand in hand.

While the Church was given the power to “bind and loose,” that was for the forgiveness of sin, and for church discipline. The Church has never had the power to change the moral law given by Jesus.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Greg_McPherran:

Actually I would say: love = faith and morals.

Dear Greg,

I like your idea, at least theoretically.

Unfortunately, as far as her practices, if the Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals, then your equation must not be operative.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

JimG:

God tested Abrahan by asking him for the sacrifice of his only son, whom he loved. Because he did not withhold his only son, God blessed him abundantly. For Abraham, it was a test. But the Father also did not withhold His only Son to be sacrificed for us. And it was no test, but an act of love. Love and sacrifice go hand in hand.

Dear Jim,

I like that. I’ll have to think about it more, but I have to go now. I’ll catch y’all back later.

Alan

 

[JimG]

To expand just a bit on the idea of love and sacrifice being inseparable, here is a quote taken from the old rite of marriage:

And so you begin your married life by the voluntary and complete surrender of your individual lives, in the interest of that deeper and wider life which you are to have in common. Henceforth you belong entirely to each other. You will be one in mind, one in heart, one in affections. Whatever sacrifices you may hereafter be required to make in order to preserve this common life, always make them generously.

Sacrifice is usually difficult and irksome. Only love can make it easy; and perfect love can make it a joy. We are willing to give in proportion as we love.
And when love is perfect, the sacrifice is complete.

 

[Pax]

AlanFromWichita:

But in the case of the Church (and the case I’m thinking of), they may be in surrender but by Policy we won’t let them back in until they have successfully completed an obstacle course, assuming it is possible for them to do so…
Unity works two ways. If I know anything about God, it is that He is willing and able to accept us back at any time. If the person is sorry, there is forgiveness. No battery of lawyers and months worth of red tape and paperwork are needed with God, only with the Church.
Again, I thought the shepherd left the flock and went and found the lost sheep. In your scenario it sounds like the sheep must come back themselves and dance a jig to please the shepherd in order to get back in.

Alan

Obviously, God can do things through His infinite grace and mercy in any fashion He desires. In some cases God may, in fact, extend His mercy without what you might call “hoops.” The good thief on the cross being the obvious example.

The Church, on the other hand, is not in this same position. God commissioned the Church, and the Church has rules set out by God in scripture and tradition for the express purpose of letting the flock know God’s will. Conforming to God’s will is our submission and surrender. The Church can only judge whether or not someone is surrendering based on the standards given to her. I know from my own personal experience when I finally fully surrendered to God. It was the same day that I surrendered to the body of Christ on earth, the Church.

I do not understand the parable of the lost sheep and the Good Shepherd in the way that you suggest. Instead, we need to remember that the sheep hears the voice of the Shepherd. The Shepherd knows the sheep and the sheep know His voice. The Church is the voice of Jesus Christ. Those that listen to the Church hear the voice of Jesus, the Good Shepherd.

 

[martino]

Alan, you seem to equate love and license! That seems to be the essence of your post. If the Church truly “loved” Her sheep, she would “accept” any and all behavior because if we really and truly love someone we can not tell them that they did wrong! According to you, telling someone that they did something wrong is a sure sign that you do not love them. I submit that you have a distorted concept of “love”. The truth is that without discipline their is NO Love! If we know that something is bad for our child, do we let them have it anyway? OF course not, that would not be the loving thing to do. The loving thing for parents to do is discipline their children, even if the child gets angry and upset. Giving the child what they want simply because they want it, is the exact opposite of love.

If someone’s behavior is objectively wrong that would mean that without repentance and ammendment, their soul could be in jeopardy. If we fail to correct our loved ones when they behave sinfully; then our souls too could be in jeopardy! To think that we ought to be more accepting of sin is twisted and illogical reasoning.

It is precisely out of love that we correct and discipline others. Anyone that believes otherwise doesn’t know what love is.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello Allen,

Many people today create a false “unconditional forgiveness” concept of Jesus in their mind that does not corrilate with Jesus’ scriptural teachings. It was Jesus, not Moses, who first gave us the concept of eternal damnation and fires of Gehenna. To those who do not care for the poor, Jesus tells us He will throw them into the fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Jesus teaches us that those who do not repent from their sins He will plunge into intense suffering and put to death.

Jesus teaches that it is those who obey His commandments who love Him. Jesus loves us all tremendously and desires with all His heart that we repent from the hatred of sin and turn to love God and fellow man through obedience to the will of God. Still, if Jesus judges that a person did not repent, He will condemn them to hell.

Do you agree with what Jesus actually teaches in scriptures? If so, would it not be a good thing for the Church to discipline Christ’s flock to repent?

WARNING! Jesus Does Not Forgive All

NAB JOH 14:21

**“He who obeys the commandments he has from me is the man who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father. I too will love him and reveal myself to him.” **

NAB MAT 25:41

Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’ Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (ISA 58)

NAB JOH 12:47

"If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I am not the one to condemn him, for I did not come to condemn the world but to save it. Whoever rejects me and does not accept my words already has his judge, namely, the word I have spoken - it is that which will condemn him on the last day. For I have not spoken on my own; no, the Father who sent me has commanded me what to say and how to speak. Since I know that his commandment means eternal life, whatever I say is spoken just as he instructed me."

NAB REV 2:22

“I mean to cast her down on a bed of pain; her companions in sin I will plunge into intense suffering unless they repent of their sins with her, and her children I will put to death. Thus shall all the churches come to know that I am the searcher of hearts and minds, and that I will give each of you what your conduct deserves.”

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[martino]

Ok I think Steven just nailed it!! Great post!

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Dear all,

Thank you for all the great ideas. Rather than address them all individually I’ve summarized what each person said since the start of this thread so I can try to bring it all together.

It looks like JGC in post #2, trogiah in post #4, and RNRobert in post #6 seemed to echo thoughts closest to the point I was trying to make. Trogiah (a.k.a. Jim) made a point that such sacrifice was common in Abraham’s day; from this I might infer that in that day it didn’t seem so evil as it would seem today? My daughter also pointed out to me that the story of Abraham and his son was a prefiguration of the crucifixion, and in today’s scripture I realized that Abraham came after Moses. Perhaps my idea about Abraham is not right, but it is not critical to support my main contention.

In any event, my contention that “love trumps faith and morals” still applies. For a second, I will put aside the “morals” part and focus on the “faith” part. Some have said that love implies faith or that love is composed of faith, and I’m not trying to say that love should stand alone without faith. Also some have interpreted my comments as meaning that love implies a lack of discipline and even a lack of telling the truth. That is not my point.

My point is that love overshadows all other virtues. Telling the truth is one thing; refusing forgiveness or giving artificial conditions for forgiveness is another. Steven Merten disagreed with “unconditional forgiveness” but I am presupposing the person is sorry and is asking for forgiveness. Pax said that the Church would not know if someone is “surrendering” unless they go through the Church’s process. That is a good point; however, I’ve seen many people who are honest about their feelings be judged by others as obstinate while others who simply hide their feelings and go through the motions seen as sincere when they really are not.

Interestingly, it sounds as if Steven Merten is disagreeing with me, when some of the material he posted seems to be in agreement with my point. He quoted from the famous part in Matt 25 where Jesus states, “what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.” Couldn’t this apply to the Church officials who deny Communion to a penitent, pending some arbitrary long process with no guarantee of completion? I can already imagine some of the arguments I may get about this, but why would this apply to sheep but not the shepherds? In addition, in Steven Merton’s signature there is a link to iloveyougod.com/, where the first thing on the page is:
www.iloveyougod.com:

Saint Paul tells us, “Now I will show you the way which surpasses all others. If I speak with human tongues and angelic as well, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong, a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and, with full knowledge, comprehend all mysteries, if I have faith great enough to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.” (1 COR 13)

Doesn’t that prove my argument that love is greater than faith? Anyone who disagrees with me on this major point could perhaps explain to me how I’m misinterpreting St. Paul’s last verse in the same chapter: “So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.”

Pax observed that lost sheep are expected to come back on the shepherd’s terms, not the sheep. I agree that the Church operates this way. In today’s gospel, Jesus says about the shepherd "And when he does find it, he sets it on his shoulders with great joy and, upon his arrival home, he calls together his friends and neighbors and says to them, ‘Rejoice with me because I have found my lost sheep.’ It sounds to me like the shepherd in the parable gave the sheep a free ride.

My point, again, is that love is greater than faith. Perhaps we need to establish that we all agree on that before we go into what the practical ramifications are or where “morals” fit into the picture.

Alan