Love Has No Back Door
I must admit that I'm feeling a bit like Paul writing that. You won't find this verbatim in the Bible, but after some interaction and talk last night, I realized that this is exemplified throughout the New Testament.
Let me give you the thought in its condensed form for starters. I will then proceed to elaborate on supplementary stuff afterward to explain the context of the thought and where it originated from.
Love has no back door. We cannot surprise it, nor approach it except through the door it opens. It lasts only when we allow it to be built on a lasting foundation, or else it is just as fleeting and temporary as happiness. Love comes in four forms, three of which were meant to show us how our God loved us from the start; the last retains a specific purpose until the consummation of the ages. Love has order, a gentle demand that requires our all to see it through our life; it has no qualms if we reverse its order as long as we're okay with the cost of trying to use the temporary to create the lasting.
What has me writing about this is the fact that not too long ago I had a conversation with someone who gave me insight to how the youth of today view love. Upon learning this view, I was saddened because it means that somewhere along the way we are teaching the wrong thing, or for what we haven't taught, the youth are learning the wrong thing from their peers.
If you have read C. S. Lewis' "The Four Loves", you know that love can be defined as the following: Agape, selfless love; Philia, friendship love; Eros, romantic love; and Storge, familial love. If you have read Peter and Jesus' exchange in John 21 about the Agape/Philia miscommunication, along with Paul in 1 Corinthians 13, you have a good idea where I'm about to go with this.
Starting with Paul, his letter to the Corinthians is one that answers questions and corrects the mistakes that are being reported with the church. In chapter thirteen, we read Paul's main answer to the mistake the Corinthians are making about trying to be the greatest and retain the greatest spiritual gift, or charismata. Paul gets blunt and tell the Corinthians, "Hey! Without love, or even using these gifts in love, you're not accomplishing anything here. In fact, you're pretty much useless to God this way." The fact of the matter is that Paul is talking about selfless love here; Agape is the word you'll find him using in the Greek here. For those familiar with the use of this passage at weddings but unaware of the full context, I hope this makes you pause for a moment: without being selfless first and foremost before doing ANYTHING, there is no real foundation to what you do, especially when loving your spouse.
Then come Peter and Jesus to back up Paul's words. Jesus finally gets through to Peter the third time by asking him if he is Philia with Jesus, and Peter finally breaks down and says he Agape's Jesus. I'm not certain if any have noticed this before, but consider the fact that it takes two admissions of Philia by Peter before he finally shifts to what Jesus was looking for, Agape. Pause here and consider the following: is it possible that Jesus just proved that Philia, while the purveyor of trust, can be temporary and fleeting if one is in it for selfish purposes? Could it be, then, that the three times it takes Jesus to get Peter to admit Agape are to prove that Peter was simply acting out of weakness when he denied Jesus three times before Jesus' death? Quite frankly, I think Paul answers this question, and thus it leads me to what was disconcerting about what I learned.
In our conversation, I was told that the way love goes, one effectively enters in Philia with another, allows Eros to come in at some point so that finally, somewhere down the line, Agape is formed.
Holy canola oil! Just imagine if that's the way Jesus approached His ministry in the same way, with Philia and Storge mind you, when it came to saving mankind. Not only had we betrayed His trust, but we refused to have anything to do with the Kingdom of God, or, essentially, being adopted family in His reign. In all of that, how could He possibly work to develop a selfless ministry that put us first when all that He had done was try to fix the house before fixing the foundation?
No wonder we're in a mess when it comes to relationships if this is the case the majority of the time. We're trying to create something lasting from something so temporary that we have to expend our energy chasing such fleeting temporary wiles. Once we've had our moment, where is the energy or time to create the thing that lasts and actually counts and makes for something solid? Then we get frustrated and wonder, "What the heck happened here? Where's that lasting relationship I was told exists?"
Even more disconcerting is that I actually witnessed an attempt to defend the place of temptation in relationships. Really, now, why do something like that? Well, in their attempt to do so, they wound up spilling the actual truth in their first sentence before twisting it:
"You can lessen temptation, but can never completely remove it and if you are able to, then you have just fallen back into friendship."
The twist came in saying that there is no relationship without there being temptation to face. Suffice to say, I believe the model prayer of Matthew 6 says otherwise: "Lead us not into temptation" - give us opportunities to do our best and create situations where it's incredibly difficult for temptation to enter; "But deliver us from evil" - if we should stumble onto temptation even after doing our best, get us the heck out of there, Lord.
Furthermore, one line in particular in the context this line in particular was pulled from has since ignited my soul to convey this to the women out there: IT TAKES TWO! You have heard that old song, or you have have heard it in the saying, "It takes two to tango"; this is a very universal truth ladies. If temptation enters the picture, yes, be mature enough to avoid it, say no, whatever it takes; however, if the guy is CONTINUALLY bringing temptation into the picture, even after you said no in days past, get the heck out of dodge. PLEASE, get out of dodge. THAT GUY is NOT worth it. PERIOD. It's not going to stop if you have to continually say no with little result, it's not going to get better when the weight is solely upon your shoulders. The message will ONLY get across if you just leave and let him find out how to change for the better ON HIS OWN.
If they had not twisted this line, they effectively demonstrated the transition from a dating relationship into marriage, and not a backwards move. By marrying your spouse, you've effectively entered into the territory where God has said it is okay to Eros as needed. Their idea of falling back to simple Agape and Philia as good friends is invalid because even in America's definition of friendship, lust has not taken a rest. Guys and gals will continue to run into temptation as friends, even more so, I believe, because of the resulting frustration that it didn't work out. But, through marriage, yes, there is the temptation to be unfaithful and Eros inappropriately, but, in most cases, if the Agape and Philia have developed as they should have as friends and while dating, chances are they'll beat it together, and with the help of those they Storge and Philia.
Let me give you the thought in its condensed form for starters. I will then proceed to elaborate on supplementary stuff afterward to explain the context of the thought and where it originated from.
Love has no back door. We cannot surprise it, nor approach it except through the door it opens. It lasts only when we allow it to be built on a lasting foundation, or else it is just as fleeting and temporary as happiness. Love comes in four forms, three of which were meant to show us how our God loved us from the start; the last retains a specific purpose until the consummation of the ages. Love has order, a gentle demand that requires our all to see it through our life; it has no qualms if we reverse its order as long as we're okay with the cost of trying to use the temporary to create the lasting.
What has me writing about this is the fact that not too long ago I had a conversation with someone who gave me insight to how the youth of today view love. Upon learning this view, I was saddened because it means that somewhere along the way we are teaching the wrong thing, or for what we haven't taught, the youth are learning the wrong thing from their peers.
If you have read C. S. Lewis' "The Four Loves", you know that love can be defined as the following: Agape, selfless love; Philia, friendship love; Eros, romantic love; and Storge, familial love. If you have read Peter and Jesus' exchange in John 21 about the Agape/Philia miscommunication, along with Paul in 1 Corinthians 13, you have a good idea where I'm about to go with this.
Starting with Paul, his letter to the Corinthians is one that answers questions and corrects the mistakes that are being reported with the church. In chapter thirteen, we read Paul's main answer to the mistake the Corinthians are making about trying to be the greatest and retain the greatest spiritual gift, or charismata. Paul gets blunt and tell the Corinthians, "Hey! Without love, or even using these gifts in love, you're not accomplishing anything here. In fact, you're pretty much useless to God this way." The fact of the matter is that Paul is talking about selfless love here; Agape is the word you'll find him using in the Greek here. For those familiar with the use of this passage at weddings but unaware of the full context, I hope this makes you pause for a moment: without being selfless first and foremost before doing ANYTHING, there is no real foundation to what you do, especially when loving your spouse.
Then come Peter and Jesus to back up Paul's words. Jesus finally gets through to Peter the third time by asking him if he is Philia with Jesus, and Peter finally breaks down and says he Agape's Jesus. I'm not certain if any have noticed this before, but consider the fact that it takes two admissions of Philia by Peter before he finally shifts to what Jesus was looking for, Agape. Pause here and consider the following: is it possible that Jesus just proved that Philia, while the purveyor of trust, can be temporary and fleeting if one is in it for selfish purposes? Could it be, then, that the three times it takes Jesus to get Peter to admit Agape are to prove that Peter was simply acting out of weakness when he denied Jesus three times before Jesus' death? Quite frankly, I think Paul answers this question, and thus it leads me to what was disconcerting about what I learned.
In our conversation, I was told that the way love goes, one effectively enters in Philia with another, allows Eros to come in at some point so that finally, somewhere down the line, Agape is formed.
Holy canola oil! Just imagine if that's the way Jesus approached His ministry in the same way, with Philia and Storge mind you, when it came to saving mankind. Not only had we betrayed His trust, but we refused to have anything to do with the Kingdom of God, or, essentially, being adopted family in His reign. In all of that, how could He possibly work to develop a selfless ministry that put us first when all that He had done was try to fix the house before fixing the foundation?
No wonder we're in a mess when it comes to relationships if this is the case the majority of the time. We're trying to create something lasting from something so temporary that we have to expend our energy chasing such fleeting temporary wiles. Once we've had our moment, where is the energy or time to create the thing that lasts and actually counts and makes for something solid? Then we get frustrated and wonder, "What the heck happened here? Where's that lasting relationship I was told exists?"
Even more disconcerting is that I actually witnessed an attempt to defend the place of temptation in relationships. Really, now, why do something like that? Well, in their attempt to do so, they wound up spilling the actual truth in their first sentence before twisting it:
"You can lessen temptation, but can never completely remove it and if you are able to, then you have just fallen back into friendship."
The twist came in saying that there is no relationship without there being temptation to face. Suffice to say, I believe the model prayer of Matthew 6 says otherwise: "Lead us not into temptation" - give us opportunities to do our best and create situations where it's incredibly difficult for temptation to enter; "But deliver us from evil" - if we should stumble onto temptation even after doing our best, get us the heck out of there, Lord.
Furthermore, one line in particular in the context this line in particular was pulled from has since ignited my soul to convey this to the women out there: IT TAKES TWO! You have heard that old song, or you have have heard it in the saying, "It takes two to tango"; this is a very universal truth ladies. If temptation enters the picture, yes, be mature enough to avoid it, say no, whatever it takes; however, if the guy is CONTINUALLY bringing temptation into the picture, even after you said no in days past, get the heck out of dodge. PLEASE, get out of dodge. THAT GUY is NOT worth it. PERIOD. It's not going to stop if you have to continually say no with little result, it's not going to get better when the weight is solely upon your shoulders. The message will ONLY get across if you just leave and let him find out how to change for the better ON HIS OWN.
If they had not twisted this line, they effectively demonstrated the transition from a dating relationship into marriage, and not a backwards move. By marrying your spouse, you've effectively entered into the territory where God has said it is okay to Eros as needed. Their idea of falling back to simple Agape and Philia as good friends is invalid because even in America's definition of friendship, lust has not taken a rest. Guys and gals will continue to run into temptation as friends, even more so, I believe, because of the resulting frustration that it didn't work out. But, through marriage, yes, there is the temptation to be unfaithful and Eros inappropriately, but, in most cases, if the Agape and Philia have developed as they should have as friends and while dating, chances are they'll beat it together, and with the help of those they Storge and Philia.
Click to view