【ママ経験者が語る】ママ活はやれるのか？ママ活のエッチや相場を大公開！
4 years ago
Showing posts with label love. Show all posts
Showing posts with label love. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Chaste Spousal Love: Key to Western Civilization
Chaste love between a husband and wife is truly a beautiful thing to
behold! It wants to call forth from us an aspiration to become our
truest, highest, noblest selves. It has a hidden radiance within it, and
when it shines into the hearts of others who are able to notice its
beauty it can truly transform a culture for the better. This is not
automatic. I am speaking of a spousal love that has its source in the
pierced heart of Christ. It's at the very center of all that was and is
best and most transcendent in Western civilization. Lord, may it not be
too late for this now largely hidden, pure flame to be kindled again.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Unfailingly Soothing Presentations of Christianity: What's Missing Therein?
There is a certain approach taken by some Catholics who are engaged in the work of evangelization that is very puzzling. And this can apply to priests or laymen. I've seen it in regard to both.
It's puzzling not so much for it's content--what it says--but for what it doesn't say, what it leaves out.
What is left out in such an approach as I have in mind? Simply, the cross.
There are good people, both lay and clergy, engaged in Catholic evangelization of a sort that focuses without exception always on the nice things, the warm-and-fuzzy aspects of Christian discipleship. In this approach, Jesus is always the tender one who soothes us and says soothing things to our heats. We are always the good ones, trying our best, messing up at times, but nonetheless basically striving in most respects to be like Jesus.
What's wrong with this? After all, Jesus, indeed, is full of mercy and compassion. He loves every one of us with a power and intensity we can't imagine. He is tender and merciful. It's true. But, if this is the only aspect ever mentioned about our Lord's relationship to us as we navigate life trying to serve Him, something huge is missing. The cross.
There is suffering in human life. It's a reality we cannot escape. The question I am concerned with here, is whether we will invite grace to inform and transform all aspects of our life--including our sufferings--or if we only see being a Christian as something unrelated, detached, set apart, from the deepest sorrows of life.
Jesus does indeed look tenderly upon us in our sorrows. But we forget from where He is gazing--He sees us (or, saw, in one great event both time-bound and eternal in the shock wave it sent through creation) from the cross. His passion--His free embrace of undeserved suffering for the sake of loving us so demonstrably, of pouring Himself out for us, of opening His heart for our benefit in a way that we cannot take lightly--was not a closed event meant only for Him to know in secret. Jesus' loving gaze upon the world from the wood of the cross was an open event. From that one place in time, He looked out upon the entire world, gazing into all human history past, present, and future, and invited us in to His open heart. He tenderly shares with us the grace to permit our hearts as well to join Him in giving ourselves in love for the sake of others.
It is a great absence and a great deficiency to share an enthusiasm for a relationship with Jesus Christ without also consciously seeking to help people freely accept Jesus' invitation to unite our sufferings to His Passion. In this way, our sorrows and pains become folded in to the greatest spiritual event in the history of the cosmos--the Redemption of mankind.
When we accept the grace to unite our trials big and small to the cross of our Savior, our pains take on a powerful meaning. They become little points of heat that help us to play a real role in welding the souls of those we love more strongly to the heart of Jesus. Our self-giving perhaps, with grace may become more meaningful and free when chosen in the midst of pain. It's not the suffering here that is good, but the personal act of welcoming the invitation to make it an offering of love for others.
The cross changes everything. Every single moment of pain, sorrow, trial, suffering, is potentially through grace a gathering point of spiritual power bringing our souls into Christ's salvation of the world.
Now, in heaven, Jesus no longer suffers. He is risen from the dead! But that monumental event of His suffering on the cross still looks out to us from that point; this spiritual lightening bolt began a re-creation of mankind that continues to reach out from the cross through all of time to today, tomorrow, and every day until Christ comes in glory.
It's a re-creation that He, because He loves us, wants us to freely participate in with Him. He has made available the grace we need to be able to join with Him in the greatest act (the salvation and sanctification of souls) that has ever happened.
When well-meaning evangelists speak to other Christian souls only about soothing things, they are missing an essential aspect of Christian life. They fail to invite us to allow Jesus to bring us into His heart poured out for the world on the cross. Such an overly safe approach runs the danger of reducing followers of Christ to mere passive recipients of salvation, rather than calling us to live according to the immense and unbelievable dignity of being welcomed to take a place in Christ's heart even as this great Heart suffered in love for the world.
It's puzzling not so much for it's content--what it says--but for what it doesn't say, what it leaves out.
What is left out in such an approach as I have in mind? Simply, the cross.
There are good people, both lay and clergy, engaged in Catholic evangelization of a sort that focuses without exception always on the nice things, the warm-and-fuzzy aspects of Christian discipleship. In this approach, Jesus is always the tender one who soothes us and says soothing things to our heats. We are always the good ones, trying our best, messing up at times, but nonetheless basically striving in most respects to be like Jesus.
What's wrong with this? After all, Jesus, indeed, is full of mercy and compassion. He loves every one of us with a power and intensity we can't imagine. He is tender and merciful. It's true. But, if this is the only aspect ever mentioned about our Lord's relationship to us as we navigate life trying to serve Him, something huge is missing. The cross.
There is suffering in human life. It's a reality we cannot escape. The question I am concerned with here, is whether we will invite grace to inform and transform all aspects of our life--including our sufferings--or if we only see being a Christian as something unrelated, detached, set apart, from the deepest sorrows of life.
Jesus does indeed look tenderly upon us in our sorrows. But we forget from where He is gazing--He sees us (or, saw, in one great event both time-bound and eternal in the shock wave it sent through creation) from the cross. His passion--His free embrace of undeserved suffering for the sake of loving us so demonstrably, of pouring Himself out for us, of opening His heart for our benefit in a way that we cannot take lightly--was not a closed event meant only for Him to know in secret. Jesus' loving gaze upon the world from the wood of the cross was an open event. From that one place in time, He looked out upon the entire world, gazing into all human history past, present, and future, and invited us in to His open heart. He tenderly shares with us the grace to permit our hearts as well to join Him in giving ourselves in love for the sake of others.
It is a great absence and a great deficiency to share an enthusiasm for a relationship with Jesus Christ without also consciously seeking to help people freely accept Jesus' invitation to unite our sufferings to His Passion. In this way, our sorrows and pains become folded in to the greatest spiritual event in the history of the cosmos--the Redemption of mankind.
When we accept the grace to unite our trials big and small to the cross of our Savior, our pains take on a powerful meaning. They become little points of heat that help us to play a real role in welding the souls of those we love more strongly to the heart of Jesus. Our self-giving perhaps, with grace may become more meaningful and free when chosen in the midst of pain. It's not the suffering here that is good, but the personal act of welcoming the invitation to make it an offering of love for others.
The cross changes everything. Every single moment of pain, sorrow, trial, suffering, is potentially through grace a gathering point of spiritual power bringing our souls into Christ's salvation of the world.
Now, in heaven, Jesus no longer suffers. He is risen from the dead! But that monumental event of His suffering on the cross still looks out to us from that point; this spiritual lightening bolt began a re-creation of mankind that continues to reach out from the cross through all of time to today, tomorrow, and every day until Christ comes in glory.
It's a re-creation that He, because He loves us, wants us to freely participate in with Him. He has made available the grace we need to be able to join with Him in the greatest act (the salvation and sanctification of souls) that has ever happened.
When well-meaning evangelists speak to other Christian souls only about soothing things, they are missing an essential aspect of Christian life. They fail to invite us to allow Jesus to bring us into His heart poured out for the world on the cross. Such an overly safe approach runs the danger of reducing followers of Christ to mere passive recipients of salvation, rather than calling us to live according to the immense and unbelievable dignity of being welcomed to take a place in Christ's heart even as this great Heart suffered in love for the world.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Human Relationships, Love, Not Fully Embraceable Without Jesus' Grace
One of the tragic things about the life and death of Amy Winehouse is that in some ways she was probably closer to the deepest meaning of human life than many people who appear less troubled on the surface.
How so? By way of contrast, there are some (hopefully a small number) whose self-absorption permits them to be so occupied with themselves and so impressed with themselves that they are not attentive to, even seem to become unaware of, the fact that the real space within which human life becomes fully alive is in the midst of relationships with other people. And when I say relationships, I mean those that involve love, friendship, and self-sacrifice.
It seems to me, for all her self-destructiveness and troubles, Amy Winehouse and other artists like her, did not have this sort of ignorance. In part, I think her sufferings and harmful behavior were possible because she knew--very powerfully--that relationships of love and friendship are the arena in which human persons can really experience and live life to its greatest and most beautiful potential.
But, this awareness--remaining in touch with this passion in one's soul for the irreplaceability of meaningful relationships--inevitably must produce great suffering in this fallen world. Why? Sin--the fallenness and prideful selfishness--that has damaged (though not destroyed) every human soul makes the arena of love and friendship a place in which our hearts are guaranteed to be hurt. So, suffer we do, if we don't turn our backs on relationships altogether as a place of irreplaceable meaning in life.
But, the more we sense keenly the importance of love and friendship to life, the more we will suffer as a result of the sin in ourselves and in others. The broken heart, the disappointed expectation, is more painful to one who wants to love most deeply. To the Amy Winehouses of the world, this pain can become unbearable. And yet, the option of giving up altogether on love and friendship to try to reduce this suffering is an option more awful than death itself. What does one do in such a situation? (Please note that I am speculating here in regard to Amy Winehouse since I only know what the general public knows and did not have the opportunity to know her personally.)
The only way--truly--to fully and most humanly embrace the dangerous seas of love and friendship without sentencing oneself to hopelessness and despair because of the hurt one will suffer is to know and love Jesus Christ. He makes everything possible in love and friendship--everything good--healing, forgiveness, friendship and love even in the midst of sin and imperfection become realities when transformed by the precious grace of Jesus. He strengthens and heals and renews our hearts to live human lives of profoundly meaningful relationships of friendship and love, even though this also means pain. First of all, He heals and makes whole what before was broken in our relationships. Love and friendship are much better under the loving guidance of Christ. But these things, though better, nonetheless are still fallen and are sources of pain even with Christ's grace. But even the pain that we still must endure because of love and friendship becomes bearable because it can be woven into the astonishing meaning and power of Jesus' self-sacrificial suffering and death on the cross, in love, for the salvation and sanctification of the world.
If we turn to Jesus on the cross, draw near to the wound in His side, we have no need to turn away from love and friendship out of fear and to protect our hearts. And when we do experience the suffering that inevitably comes our way because we choose to embrace our humanity with gusto and thus to pursue love and friendship, we need not be wholly crushed. Jesus is here to bear our hurts with us and to transform even these most interior, close-to-ourselves sufferings into something spiritually powerful for ourselves and those we love.
But if all the above be true, this indeed has a great consequence: Relationships of love and friendship are not possible for us to embrace and live at their most powerful, most meaningful human depths without the grace of Jesus Christ in our souls. Only with Him can we be confidently and most vibrantly alive and passionate in love and friendship without going off the rails into despair or self-destruction.
How so? By way of contrast, there are some (hopefully a small number) whose self-absorption permits them to be so occupied with themselves and so impressed with themselves that they are not attentive to, even seem to become unaware of, the fact that the real space within which human life becomes fully alive is in the midst of relationships with other people. And when I say relationships, I mean those that involve love, friendship, and self-sacrifice.
It seems to me, for all her self-destructiveness and troubles, Amy Winehouse and other artists like her, did not have this sort of ignorance. In part, I think her sufferings and harmful behavior were possible because she knew--very powerfully--that relationships of love and friendship are the arena in which human persons can really experience and live life to its greatest and most beautiful potential.
But, this awareness--remaining in touch with this passion in one's soul for the irreplaceability of meaningful relationships--inevitably must produce great suffering in this fallen world. Why? Sin--the fallenness and prideful selfishness--that has damaged (though not destroyed) every human soul makes the arena of love and friendship a place in which our hearts are guaranteed to be hurt. So, suffer we do, if we don't turn our backs on relationships altogether as a place of irreplaceable meaning in life.
But, the more we sense keenly the importance of love and friendship to life, the more we will suffer as a result of the sin in ourselves and in others. The broken heart, the disappointed expectation, is more painful to one who wants to love most deeply. To the Amy Winehouses of the world, this pain can become unbearable. And yet, the option of giving up altogether on love and friendship to try to reduce this suffering is an option more awful than death itself. What does one do in such a situation? (Please note that I am speculating here in regard to Amy Winehouse since I only know what the general public knows and did not have the opportunity to know her personally.)
The only way--truly--to fully and most humanly embrace the dangerous seas of love and friendship without sentencing oneself to hopelessness and despair because of the hurt one will suffer is to know and love Jesus Christ. He makes everything possible in love and friendship--everything good--healing, forgiveness, friendship and love even in the midst of sin and imperfection become realities when transformed by the precious grace of Jesus. He strengthens and heals and renews our hearts to live human lives of profoundly meaningful relationships of friendship and love, even though this also means pain. First of all, He heals and makes whole what before was broken in our relationships. Love and friendship are much better under the loving guidance of Christ. But these things, though better, nonetheless are still fallen and are sources of pain even with Christ's grace. But even the pain that we still must endure because of love and friendship becomes bearable because it can be woven into the astonishing meaning and power of Jesus' self-sacrificial suffering and death on the cross, in love, for the salvation and sanctification of the world.
If we turn to Jesus on the cross, draw near to the wound in His side, we have no need to turn away from love and friendship out of fear and to protect our hearts. And when we do experience the suffering that inevitably comes our way because we choose to embrace our humanity with gusto and thus to pursue love and friendship, we need not be wholly crushed. Jesus is here to bear our hurts with us and to transform even these most interior, close-to-ourselves sufferings into something spiritually powerful for ourselves and those we love.
But if all the above be true, this indeed has a great consequence: Relationships of love and friendship are not possible for us to embrace and live at their most powerful, most meaningful human depths without the grace of Jesus Christ in our souls. Only with Him can we be confidently and most vibrantly alive and passionate in love and friendship without going off the rails into despair or self-destruction.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Attentive Humble Service Prevents Spiritual Blindness
If we spend our lives, for whatever reasons, only rarely doing the sort of humble yet significant everyday tasks in which we serve those with whom we live (e.g. washing dishes; laundry; grocery shopping; cooking, etc.), we risk becoming excessively self-enclosed creatures. Or, at least, we risk never going through the sort of spiritual enlargement of soul that such things work in us over time--that is, if we do such things with love, without bitterness, and while united to Christ.
I mention this in light of thinking about a particular spiritual danger faced by the wealthy. If you have enough financial wealth to afford hiring other people to clean and cook around your house, your day-to-day life can easily collapse in on itself in an encasement of solipsism. You are never (or rarely) forced to interrupt yourself from following your own whims for the sake of serving another person. You can go through the day serving mainly yourself.
Now, anyone can fall into this, and many of us do. But, I think it is a particular danger for those who are wealthy. The patterns we live for most of our lives fix themselves into grooves that are very hard to jump out of the older we get. If our life situation is such that we do not often, by the necessity of our daily activities, need to serve other people in humble ways, we should seek out regular opportunities to do this, such as volunteer and charitable work that involves simple personal service to others.
If we do not do this, and thus do not have regular times in our lives wherein we interrupt our interior fancies and reveries to reach beyond ourselves in humble, personal service to other human beings, we are likely to become blind to the real needs of others. We might become an elderly person who does not recognize the basic needs of a debilitated spouse.
Rendering ordinary, mundane, humble service to others--with love--increases our spiritual capacity to see other human persons before us as they truly are in the moment--to recognize their genuine needs as they are in the present, today. It is truly a terrible blindness to see a person in front of us and yet not be able to recognize their externally visible sufferings, not to see the basic needs which they lack. It is a great poverty not to be able to wash a floor for someone because we have blinded our ability to see such needs.
I mention this in light of thinking about a particular spiritual danger faced by the wealthy. If you have enough financial wealth to afford hiring other people to clean and cook around your house, your day-to-day life can easily collapse in on itself in an encasement of solipsism. You are never (or rarely) forced to interrupt yourself from following your own whims for the sake of serving another person. You can go through the day serving mainly yourself.
Now, anyone can fall into this, and many of us do. But, I think it is a particular danger for those who are wealthy. The patterns we live for most of our lives fix themselves into grooves that are very hard to jump out of the older we get. If our life situation is such that we do not often, by the necessity of our daily activities, need to serve other people in humble ways, we should seek out regular opportunities to do this, such as volunteer and charitable work that involves simple personal service to others.
If we do not do this, and thus do not have regular times in our lives wherein we interrupt our interior fancies and reveries to reach beyond ourselves in humble, personal service to other human beings, we are likely to become blind to the real needs of others. We might become an elderly person who does not recognize the basic needs of a debilitated spouse.
Rendering ordinary, mundane, humble service to others--with love--increases our spiritual capacity to see other human persons before us as they truly are in the moment--to recognize their genuine needs as they are in the present, today. It is truly a terrible blindness to see a person in front of us and yet not be able to recognize their externally visible sufferings, not to see the basic needs which they lack. It is a great poverty not to be able to wash a floor for someone because we have blinded our ability to see such needs.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Imitating Christ: Uniting Exhortation With Suffering Solidarity
Here is an aspect of suffering that every Christian with the help of God is called to embrace and that seems to be especially rejected today: the interior spiritual, psychological, and emotional suffering that accompanies being closely involved with other human beings who at times fail us, who sometimes hurt us, who fall short of what they are called to be and yet not turning our backs on them, not walling them off from the deepest core of our own selves (and without giving up on their potential). It is a suffering we often do not appreciate, and that I all-too-often fail to embrace.
There are two poles of this type of suffering, two places or roles in a human relationship that feel let down. First, is the person himself. When we ourselves fail to do what we should (if we want to become better persons), we are sad and experience suffering as we realize our own failings. This is the suffering of Saint Peter, “And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said to him, ‘Before the cock crows today, you will deny me three times.’ And he went out and wept bitterly.” (Lk 22:61b-62) These are our tears too. Second, is the suffering of one who loves us, who because of his love wants us to become the best version of ourselves we can be, as he realizes our failings. This is the suffering of Jesus, who loved Peter, in the very same scene, “And the Lord turned and looked at Peter.” (Lk 22:61a) And imagine the human disappointment of Jesus when his friends fell asleep instead of remaining awake with him on the eve of his passion, “So, could you not watch with me one hour?” (Mt 26:40b) But, despite this pain of disappointment, notice that Jesus did not give up on them, he still called them on to a nobler life. And neither did he pull away from being close to them.
This pertains to a dual calling that Christ modeled for us, the entering into which is a source of a hidden interior suffering to which we are especially averse. It is the calling to strive (in accord with our vocation and gifts) to inspire others to an ever-deeper faith, to an ever-deeper embrace of the highest ideal of what it is to be human, united with another call to a special personal solidarity with others—that is, of joining in compassionate union with others as they suffer in the realization they are not all that they should be (as do we in regard to ourselves). It is less challenging to focus on only one or the other facet of this dual calling than to hold both harmoniously together. I might be good, for example, at the former—at reminding others of the high bar that Christ has set and has invited us to attain with His help. Or, I may be good at the latter—of accompanying others in a union of one heart to another when they are saddened by the lack of their own progress (giving them the consoling presence of a compassionate and empathetic soul). But we are called by Christ to strive to embrace both in our relationships. This is very challenging, requires the help of grace, and brings into our lives yet another of the many faces of suffering.
Not uniting both together in ourselves—not navigating well the dual calling of Christ both to inspire others and to share in the interior burdens that accompany personal failings—is not to be an evil person. It is, rather, to miss a significant opportunity to become more like Christ. And it is a lost opportunity that I believe is especially common today. Perhaps one reason for this is the tendency of popular culture to recoil immediately against any form of interior psychological and emotional pain. Now, wanting to alleviate such pain is not a bad thing. But trying to live life as though it were possible to eliminate all psychological and emotional torment within ourselves or others is a recipe for despair.
I am reminded of this challenge by occasions where a religious leader (or any authority figure) preaches an exhortation to his flock to be better and more faithful Christians. The message is bracing, and, as far as it goes, matches the doctrine of Christ. But apart from the leader’s preaching, in his personal relationships with his flock, he demonstrates a significant lack of compassion—he has no heart to come close to those souls who want to heed his challenging words but who often fail and thus suffer a hidden inner pain because of this failure. They look for an understanding soul who will continue to inspire them but while doing so might also join them side-by-side as they walk the path of their interior crosses of unmet expectations. In other words, we want to continue to uplift each other as fellow disciples of Christ, but we also want to be able to have a meaningful brotherhood together as we share the journey in all its aspects—its failures and sufferings as well as its triumphs. Incredibly, this is what Jesus did with His followers.
Where in the Gospels do we see Jesus modeling for us this dual calling? In many places. But here are some that come strongly to mind for me: Jesus’ loving look at Peter just after Peter denied Him three times (which I mentioned above), paired with Jesus’ tender post-resurrection encounter with Peter on the shore (“Do you love me?” Jesus asked three times. And He responded to Peter, “Feed my lambs”; “Tend my sheep”; “Feed my sheep,” ending with, “Follow me.” [Jn 21:15-19]); and Jesus’ encounter with the woman caught in adultery (See Jn 8:2-11, Jesus asks her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” And she responded, “No one, Lord,” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.” Note in this scene the beautiful union in Jesus of the look of love, of mercy, and yet of gentle exhortation to reform her life.) This should be the image of what we all aspire to be for each other.
Dear Jesus, please grant us the grace to love one another enough to encourage each other gently and hopefully toward ever greater transformation in you. May we do so with humility and mercy, not forgetting justice, never giving up on keeping the fire of love alive in our hearts.
[Thanks to Jennifer Fulwiler for her excellent post, Safe Miracles, which inspired this post]
There are two poles of this type of suffering, two places or roles in a human relationship that feel let down. First, is the person himself. When we ourselves fail to do what we should (if we want to become better persons), we are sad and experience suffering as we realize our own failings. This is the suffering of Saint Peter, “And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said to him, ‘Before the cock crows today, you will deny me three times.’ And he went out and wept bitterly.” (Lk 22:61b-62) These are our tears too. Second, is the suffering of one who loves us, who because of his love wants us to become the best version of ourselves we can be, as he realizes our failings. This is the suffering of Jesus, who loved Peter, in the very same scene, “And the Lord turned and looked at Peter.” (Lk 22:61a) And imagine the human disappointment of Jesus when his friends fell asleep instead of remaining awake with him on the eve of his passion, “So, could you not watch with me one hour?” (Mt 26:40b) But, despite this pain of disappointment, notice that Jesus did not give up on them, he still called them on to a nobler life. And neither did he pull away from being close to them.
This pertains to a dual calling that Christ modeled for us, the entering into which is a source of a hidden interior suffering to which we are especially averse. It is the calling to strive (in accord with our vocation and gifts) to inspire others to an ever-deeper faith, to an ever-deeper embrace of the highest ideal of what it is to be human, united with another call to a special personal solidarity with others—that is, of joining in compassionate union with others as they suffer in the realization they are not all that they should be (as do we in regard to ourselves). It is less challenging to focus on only one or the other facet of this dual calling than to hold both harmoniously together. I might be good, for example, at the former—at reminding others of the high bar that Christ has set and has invited us to attain with His help. Or, I may be good at the latter—of accompanying others in a union of one heart to another when they are saddened by the lack of their own progress (giving them the consoling presence of a compassionate and empathetic soul). But we are called by Christ to strive to embrace both in our relationships. This is very challenging, requires the help of grace, and brings into our lives yet another of the many faces of suffering.
Not uniting both together in ourselves—not navigating well the dual calling of Christ both to inspire others and to share in the interior burdens that accompany personal failings—is not to be an evil person. It is, rather, to miss a significant opportunity to become more like Christ. And it is a lost opportunity that I believe is especially common today. Perhaps one reason for this is the tendency of popular culture to recoil immediately against any form of interior psychological and emotional pain. Now, wanting to alleviate such pain is not a bad thing. But trying to live life as though it were possible to eliminate all psychological and emotional torment within ourselves or others is a recipe for despair.
I am reminded of this challenge by occasions where a religious leader (or any authority figure) preaches an exhortation to his flock to be better and more faithful Christians. The message is bracing, and, as far as it goes, matches the doctrine of Christ. But apart from the leader’s preaching, in his personal relationships with his flock, he demonstrates a significant lack of compassion—he has no heart to come close to those souls who want to heed his challenging words but who often fail and thus suffer a hidden inner pain because of this failure. They look for an understanding soul who will continue to inspire them but while doing so might also join them side-by-side as they walk the path of their interior crosses of unmet expectations. In other words, we want to continue to uplift each other as fellow disciples of Christ, but we also want to be able to have a meaningful brotherhood together as we share the journey in all its aspects—its failures and sufferings as well as its triumphs. Incredibly, this is what Jesus did with His followers.
Where in the Gospels do we see Jesus modeling for us this dual calling? In many places. But here are some that come strongly to mind for me: Jesus’ loving look at Peter just after Peter denied Him three times (which I mentioned above), paired with Jesus’ tender post-resurrection encounter with Peter on the shore (“Do you love me?” Jesus asked three times. And He responded to Peter, “Feed my lambs”; “Tend my sheep”; “Feed my sheep,” ending with, “Follow me.” [Jn 21:15-19]); and Jesus’ encounter with the woman caught in adultery (See Jn 8:2-11, Jesus asks her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” And she responded, “No one, Lord,” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.” Note in this scene the beautiful union in Jesus of the look of love, of mercy, and yet of gentle exhortation to reform her life.) This should be the image of what we all aspire to be for each other.
Dear Jesus, please grant us the grace to love one another enough to encourage each other gently and hopefully toward ever greater transformation in you. May we do so with humility and mercy, not forgetting justice, never giving up on keeping the fire of love alive in our hearts.
[Thanks to Jennifer Fulwiler for her excellent post, Safe Miracles, which inspired this post]
Friday, January 1, 2010
What Place, Reverence For Our Elderly? A New Year's Resolution?
Perhaps this might offer some food for thought if you are inclined to make New Year's resolutions. . . .
I was thinking today of the place that American culture gives to (or, fails to give) the elderly. And it dismays me how poorly American culture in general treats those among us who are aged.
Though there are many good and beneficial things about America and what our nation has given the world, this falls under the category of a negative.
Asian cultures, historically (perhaps the younger generations in Asia are also letting this slip), were highly respectful and reverent toward their oldest family members. The elderly are greatly respected, honored, and appreciated in traditional Asian society.
How does American culture treat the elderly today? Basically, it ignores them. It is indifferent. It treats them like an afterthought.
Why? Many reasons, I'm sure. But certainly one significant reason is our excessive worship of everything young and youthful. Now, youthfulness has several good attributes. But it also has negative attributes that are gradually tempered with the coming of age and wisdom. Do we know this anymore as a society? Do we care? We go out of our way to highlight the ideas and energy of the young. But do we also have interest in the wisdom and experience of the aged--interest that is more than mere humoring?
In light of this I am reminded of the Old Testament. How did ancient Middle Eastern cultures regard the elderly? In the Old Testament view of the world it seems as though the respect and reverence that a family had for its eldest patriarch would continue to increase up to the point of death. The time just before death would be the point at which the most high regard would be given to an aged father of the family.
Consider the scene in Genesis 49, the death bed of Israel (Jacob). In this and similar Biblical death-bed scenes the family would gather around. The father would give a coveted blessing. On such occasions the respect and honor given by the family to the dying elderly person would be at its highest.
In stark contrast to this, do we go out of our way to honor our elderly as they lay dying? Sure, we spend money on funerals and say nice things after they die. But, given a situation in which we can reasonably anticipate that death is nearing, how do we show our love and respect to them before they die? Do we go out of our way to gather around?--To go to their bedside and be with them? To pray with them and honor them and accompany them respectfully as they pass from this life to the next?
I work now with the elderly, as I have in the past (on the oncology ward of a Naval hospital where I helped care for a number of elderly, dying patients). And it seems to me that the norm now in American culture is almost the opposite of the Biblical model. We give all our attention to the young and the potential of youth. We worship the god of youthfulness. As people age, get beyond middle age, retire, and become elderly, our society pays them less and less attention to the point of near-total indifference. Then finally, they die alone--unaccompanied, unloved, unnoticed. It happens every day in hospitals and houses and care facilities all over America. Of course there are wonderful exceptions to this. But this norm of neglect is all-too-common, and, I fear, increasing.
If we take our commitment to our Christian faith seriously, we have to do what we can to love, honor, and respect the elderly in our own families and in our society at large. We should pray that our loved ones do not die alone. Seriously. If it seems at all in the realm of possibility, please consider praying that you (and other loved ones) might be present at the side of an elderly member of your family (especially someone who is now alone) at his or her time of death. It is a great act of love to hold the hand of the dying, tell them you love them, that Jesus loves them, and to give them the dignity of not dying alone. The pain it may cause us to do so is secondary to the love and reverence given to them.
I was thinking today of the place that American culture gives to (or, fails to give) the elderly. And it dismays me how poorly American culture in general treats those among us who are aged.
Though there are many good and beneficial things about America and what our nation has given the world, this falls under the category of a negative.
Asian cultures, historically (perhaps the younger generations in Asia are also letting this slip), were highly respectful and reverent toward their oldest family members. The elderly are greatly respected, honored, and appreciated in traditional Asian society.
How does American culture treat the elderly today? Basically, it ignores them. It is indifferent. It treats them like an afterthought.
Why? Many reasons, I'm sure. But certainly one significant reason is our excessive worship of everything young and youthful. Now, youthfulness has several good attributes. But it also has negative attributes that are gradually tempered with the coming of age and wisdom. Do we know this anymore as a society? Do we care? We go out of our way to highlight the ideas and energy of the young. But do we also have interest in the wisdom and experience of the aged--interest that is more than mere humoring?
In light of this I am reminded of the Old Testament. How did ancient Middle Eastern cultures regard the elderly? In the Old Testament view of the world it seems as though the respect and reverence that a family had for its eldest patriarch would continue to increase up to the point of death. The time just before death would be the point at which the most high regard would be given to an aged father of the family.
Consider the scene in Genesis 49, the death bed of Israel (Jacob). In this and similar Biblical death-bed scenes the family would gather around. The father would give a coveted blessing. On such occasions the respect and honor given by the family to the dying elderly person would be at its highest.
In stark contrast to this, do we go out of our way to honor our elderly as they lay dying? Sure, we spend money on funerals and say nice things after they die. But, given a situation in which we can reasonably anticipate that death is nearing, how do we show our love and respect to them before they die? Do we go out of our way to gather around?--To go to their bedside and be with them? To pray with them and honor them and accompany them respectfully as they pass from this life to the next?
I work now with the elderly, as I have in the past (on the oncology ward of a Naval hospital where I helped care for a number of elderly, dying patients). And it seems to me that the norm now in American culture is almost the opposite of the Biblical model. We give all our attention to the young and the potential of youth. We worship the god of youthfulness. As people age, get beyond middle age, retire, and become elderly, our society pays them less and less attention to the point of near-total indifference. Then finally, they die alone--unaccompanied, unloved, unnoticed. It happens every day in hospitals and houses and care facilities all over America. Of course there are wonderful exceptions to this. But this norm of neglect is all-too-common, and, I fear, increasing.
If we take our commitment to our Christian faith seriously, we have to do what we can to love, honor, and respect the elderly in our own families and in our society at large. We should pray that our loved ones do not die alone. Seriously. If it seems at all in the realm of possibility, please consider praying that you (and other loved ones) might be present at the side of an elderly member of your family (especially someone who is now alone) at his or her time of death. It is a great act of love to hold the hand of the dying, tell them you love them, that Jesus loves them, and to give them the dignity of not dying alone. The pain it may cause us to do so is secondary to the love and reverence given to them.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Selfishness and True Charity are Mutually Exclusive
Is it truly Christian to do a good thing for someone else because I am secretly looking forward to some sort of personal reward from God?
When Christians talk about performing a charitable service in the context of encouraging others to join them they often say, as an enticement, something like, "and you get back so much more than you give." While this may be true, I do not like how common this emphasis has become.
Sometimes such an exhortation primarily emphasizes the benefits to the charitable giver and the benefits to those in need only secondarily. The benefits to others are merely an afterthought. It's as though the person trying to encourage charitable behavior were saying, "If you want lots of spiritual benefits to come into your life, do good things for others. God likes this and will reward you for it. Oh, and by the way, other people benefit also."
This is not an appropriate attitude for anyone who genuinely seeks to imitate Jesus Christ. He did not seem to be the sort of person who said to Himself, "If I do this good thing for this person, yes he will benefit, but I will also get a big reward as well, so I think I'll do it." No. This sort of attitude is selfish and therefore far from the mind of Christ.
When we engage in doing something charitable for others, seeking benefits for ourselves should never be our primary motivation. The fact that we might experience personal spiritual fruits in the course of doing good deeds ought not be the foremost thing in our minds. If it is, our motivation for doing the good work is tainted. We have turned it into an act of selfishness.
When we do good things for others, we should not be thinking of ourselves. Rather, we should be thinking of the other person(s), and how much they, as a child of God, are worthy of our love and sacrifice. Our interior attitude as we perform charitable works should be other-centered, not self-centered. I should not care whether I will benefit when I do a good deed; I should care entirely about the others I am helping and how I can be of service to them.
In some Christian circles it is an all-too-common phenomenon to be mainly interested in the blessings we receive ourselves when we do good deeds for others. This is a perversion of the Christian faith, and is certainly not the example set for us by Christ. If we have to be enticed into loving others by the carrot of receiving a personal reward of whatever form, we have not even begun to comprehend what it means to imitate Christ. We should love because every human being is worthy of nothing less, no matter what happens to ourselves in the process, no matter the personal cost.
We Americans seem to be big on seeking rewards. But staying at this level, that of expecting a reward for everything we do, is ultimately childish. There comes a time when we must put childish things behind us, begin living more as adults and stop looking for rewards; and instead, seek to learn from Jesus how we might give more and more of ourselves away for the benefit of others.
When Christians talk about performing a charitable service in the context of encouraging others to join them they often say, as an enticement, something like, "and you get back so much more than you give." While this may be true, I do not like how common this emphasis has become.
Sometimes such an exhortation primarily emphasizes the benefits to the charitable giver and the benefits to those in need only secondarily. The benefits to others are merely an afterthought. It's as though the person trying to encourage charitable behavior were saying, "If you want lots of spiritual benefits to come into your life, do good things for others. God likes this and will reward you for it. Oh, and by the way, other people benefit also."
This is not an appropriate attitude for anyone who genuinely seeks to imitate Jesus Christ. He did not seem to be the sort of person who said to Himself, "If I do this good thing for this person, yes he will benefit, but I will also get a big reward as well, so I think I'll do it." No. This sort of attitude is selfish and therefore far from the mind of Christ.
When we engage in doing something charitable for others, seeking benefits for ourselves should never be our primary motivation. The fact that we might experience personal spiritual fruits in the course of doing good deeds ought not be the foremost thing in our minds. If it is, our motivation for doing the good work is tainted. We have turned it into an act of selfishness.
When we do good things for others, we should not be thinking of ourselves. Rather, we should be thinking of the other person(s), and how much they, as a child of God, are worthy of our love and sacrifice. Our interior attitude as we perform charitable works should be other-centered, not self-centered. I should not care whether I will benefit when I do a good deed; I should care entirely about the others I am helping and how I can be of service to them.
In some Christian circles it is an all-too-common phenomenon to be mainly interested in the blessings we receive ourselves when we do good deeds for others. This is a perversion of the Christian faith, and is certainly not the example set for us by Christ. If we have to be enticed into loving others by the carrot of receiving a personal reward of whatever form, we have not even begun to comprehend what it means to imitate Christ. We should love because every human being is worthy of nothing less, no matter what happens to ourselves in the process, no matter the personal cost.
We Americans seem to be big on seeking rewards. But staying at this level, that of expecting a reward for everything we do, is ultimately childish. There comes a time when we must put childish things behind us, begin living more as adults and stop looking for rewards; and instead, seek to learn from Jesus how we might give more and more of ourselves away for the benefit of others.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Song of Songs, 7 [on spousal love]
[To see all of the earlier posts and this one gathered together in this my sporadic running commentary on the Song of Songs, look to the sidebar on the right under, "Labels," and click on Song of Songs.]
Chapter 1, v 13-14
The maiden is still speaking. These two verses go with verse 12.
As an aside, I would like to note that ancient cultures made extensive use of tangible, concrete things from the natural world as symbols and metaphors for higher things (with some exception for Greek culture, whose abstract philosophical language was remarkable for its being outside the norm). The Song of Songs uses metaphorical language abundantly. (Our language does this as well, but to a lesser extent. We make more use of abstract, theoretical, philosophical terms.)
In verse 13 she speaks of myrrh--an ancient and valuable ingredient in perfumes and incense. In ancient cultures, myrrh was both very valuable in itself, and, valued for its scent (cf. Gen 43:11, Ps 45:8).
And so the maiden uses metaphorical language to speak of her bridegroom as myrrh--myrrh lying between her breasts. [Please note: this is Sacred Scripture, so any temptations a contemporary reader might have to perceive this kind of language in an objectifying, reductionistic, shallow, pornographic sense, ought not allow himself to go down such a path. Any erotic language in the Song of Songs must be seen as fully in harmony with the dignity of the human person and the nobility and beauty of romantic love--a love in kinship with all that upbuilds and supports a mutually reverent and respectful relationship between man and woman--a love that would never abuse another in any way.]
So, notice that she is using something to symbolize her bridegroom that provides a pleasing physical reaction (from the scent) and is highly prized. Its location provides an obvious connotation of sexual attraction. However, notice also that there is no hint of the sort of physical attraction that might be dominating. The myrrh lays in place. She is aware of it and may be reminded of her bridegroom at any time; however, while its effects may be strong it will not overpower her. A further symbolic consequence, no less important, of the myrrh's location is that it is near her heart. Her bridegroom is always near her heart. The heart is the figurative center of the person; it is where the deepest wellsprings of the self are found.
The next verse, 14, nicely confirms this chaste, pure yet passionate vision of love. Here a metaphor for her bridegroom is used that doesn't seem to have such a direct sexual connotation--henna blossoms among the vines (vineyards) of En-Gedi. Henna flowers (photo here) are clustered like lilacs and are very fragrant. They grow in dryer climates. And according to this source, henna plants were used as a protective hedge around ancient vineyards. So, there is a suggestion of protection and safety (enabling grapes to grow and later be turned into wine), as well as the powerfully pleasing factor of its strong scent. Also, there is an idea suggested by the term En-Gedi of something fruitful and rich amidst a surrounding area of barrenness, for the En-Gedi is an ancient oasis on the western shore of the Dead Sea. Here there is a spring of fresh water making possible the growth of palms and other plants amidst surroundings otherwise too dry for such greenery. This, too, suggests protection as well as providing something vital for the full flourishing of life. This kind of protection does not constrict her in the least; rather, it enables her to blossom.
And so the bridegroom is pleasing to the maiden, like a strong perfume in her nostrils. He arouses desire in her and she values him greatly. She keeps him near her heart. She sees him as a protector whose protection will help her to bring forth the rich wine she is meant to produce in her life. To her he is like the most powerfully noticeable and "fragrant" thing in the center of a great oasis. As one emerges from the dessert and approaches this oasis, when the henna is in blossom, perhaps the first thing to catch one's notice is the scent its flowers.
Such is merely a partial portrayal of the character of the maiden's love for her bridegroom.
[Photo of EinGedi garden by Ester Inbar, available from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ST]
Monday, September 28, 2009
Song of Songs, 6 [on spousal love]
[To see all of the earlier posts and this one gathered together in this my sporadic running commentary on the Song of Songs, look to the sidebar on the right under, "Labels," and click on Song of Songs.]
It's about time I continued commenting on the Song of Songs. So here goes.
Chapter 1, v 12
Here begins a section spanning verses 1:12--2:7 of short alternating statements of praise given first by one and then the other, the maiden and the bridegroom, for each other. It's a kind of alternating duet. This, after they have just finished uttering separate proclamations, the maiden first and then the bridegroom. This is perhaps slightly similar to the form of a contemporary love song duet that begins with one verse sung by one lover followed by the second verse by the other, and then a chorus where they come together and go back-and-forth singing single phrases in alternation with each other.
In verses 12-14 the maiden is speaking of her bridegroom. Verse 12 is perhaps suggestive that the bridegroom, though he has a homestead, lacks something. He may rest in his own room yet he does not have a wife with whom he might share his home. The contrast between the first and second half of verse 12 seems to resonate with this subtle tension. It is a tension meant to be resolved.
The man is content to a certain degree, but restless, for he senses the allure of the maiden--her "nard" calls to him. He cannot help but be aware of his desire for her. It is interesting that it is the maiden speaking here. This reveals that she is quite aware of her powers of attraction and their effects upon her bridegroom. The maiden's "nard" (which seems to symbolize the combined totality of all her womanly allure) is used with an active verb--it yields/gives forth its perfume. Thus, her beauty in all its various shades actively calls out to her lover. The maiden's beauty is like perfume that radiates out from its source--on an active mission--it seeks out and interrupts the awareness of the otherwise contented bridegroom; content, that is, until the perfume of her beauty reaches his heart and gains a firm place in his mind.
I would also suggest that the maiden does not have to try for this to happen. Her beauty calls out to him without her doing anything in particular. Her nard is active on its own and needs little extra help from her. Perfume, when the top is off the bottle, needs no help finding nostrils. It does so by its own powers.
Somehow, the maiden is aware that the entire bouquet of her particular womanly charms is meant for a particular man--her bridegroom. It is to him that the scent of her nard calls. It is this man and not any other, as he rests in his house, whose heart and mind are stirred inexorably in a special way by desire for her. Other women are attractive, but this woman's beauty speaks to him in a unique way, unlike any other. In the quiet of his abode he is aware of her presence, even when she is not physically near.
It's about time I continued commenting on the Song of Songs. So here goes.
Chapter 1, v 12
Here begins a section spanning verses 1:12--2:7 of short alternating statements of praise given first by one and then the other, the maiden and the bridegroom, for each other. It's a kind of alternating duet. This, after they have just finished uttering separate proclamations, the maiden first and then the bridegroom. This is perhaps slightly similar to the form of a contemporary love song duet that begins with one verse sung by one lover followed by the second verse by the other, and then a chorus where they come together and go back-and-forth singing single phrases in alternation with each other.
In verses 12-14 the maiden is speaking of her bridegroom. Verse 12 is perhaps suggestive that the bridegroom, though he has a homestead, lacks something. He may rest in his own room yet he does not have a wife with whom he might share his home. The contrast between the first and second half of verse 12 seems to resonate with this subtle tension. It is a tension meant to be resolved.
The man is content to a certain degree, but restless, for he senses the allure of the maiden--her "nard" calls to him. He cannot help but be aware of his desire for her. It is interesting that it is the maiden speaking here. This reveals that she is quite aware of her powers of attraction and their effects upon her bridegroom. The maiden's "nard" (which seems to symbolize the combined totality of all her womanly allure) is used with an active verb--it yields/gives forth its perfume. Thus, her beauty in all its various shades actively calls out to her lover. The maiden's beauty is like perfume that radiates out from its source--on an active mission--it seeks out and interrupts the awareness of the otherwise contented bridegroom; content, that is, until the perfume of her beauty reaches his heart and gains a firm place in his mind.
I would also suggest that the maiden does not have to try for this to happen. Her beauty calls out to him without her doing anything in particular. Her nard is active on its own and needs little extra help from her. Perfume, when the top is off the bottle, needs no help finding nostrils. It does so by its own powers.
Somehow, the maiden is aware that the entire bouquet of her particular womanly charms is meant for a particular man--her bridegroom. It is to him that the scent of her nard calls. It is this man and not any other, as he rests in his house, whose heart and mind are stirred inexorably in a special way by desire for her. Other women are attractive, but this woman's beauty speaks to him in a unique way, unlike any other. In the quiet of his abode he is aware of her presence, even when she is not physically near.
Friday, September 11, 2009
"Give me One Reason" Tracy Chapman & Eric Clapton
I have to post this song also. Below is a video of Tracy Chapman and Eric Clapton (another musician I love) performing her bluesy song, "Give me One Reason." The two of them together here are awesome! This version of the song is really fantastic! If you like blues, or Chapman, or Clapton, you will love this.
What about these lyrics? Do they suggest something true about the mysteries of love?
Two things about love, to me, are hinted at in this song. First, is that love is not automatic--it requires work. Neither party can simply assume it will remain as it is without effort; it is necessary for each person to tell the other they love each other--and including at times, why--reasons why you find the other person calls forth your love (as in, "give me one reason . . ."). The second, is that love between two people does not completely erase the fact that human beings are never completely, totally, 100% compatible in this life. Sometimes we speak as though there is a "perfect" love if only the right person could be found. But, in reality, our souls yearn for a perfection of love that no human being could ever give us in its totality. Sin gets in the way. So, in this life, the mystery of love between human persons--even two people who are a good match and who love each other genuinely--has a little bit of an edgy, thorny quality. We want to be with a lover, but then, at times we want to escape, to get away, to be alone. This song nicely captures this edgy ambivalence that lurks underneath love and that can creep up to the surface if we don't continue to work (as in the first point) to fan the flames.
I love blues music. Isn't it great! And behind its simple lyrics can be rather profound snippets of wisdom about life.
What about these lyrics? Do they suggest something true about the mysteries of love?
Two things about love, to me, are hinted at in this song. First, is that love is not automatic--it requires work. Neither party can simply assume it will remain as it is without effort; it is necessary for each person to tell the other they love each other--and including at times, why--reasons why you find the other person calls forth your love (as in, "give me one reason . . ."). The second, is that love between two people does not completely erase the fact that human beings are never completely, totally, 100% compatible in this life. Sometimes we speak as though there is a "perfect" love if only the right person could be found. But, in reality, our souls yearn for a perfection of love that no human being could ever give us in its totality. Sin gets in the way. So, in this life, the mystery of love between human persons--even two people who are a good match and who love each other genuinely--has a little bit of an edgy, thorny quality. We want to be with a lover, but then, at times we want to escape, to get away, to be alone. This song nicely captures this edgy ambivalence that lurks underneath love and that can creep up to the surface if we don't continue to work (as in the first point) to fan the flames.
I love blues music. Isn't it great! And behind its simple lyrics can be rather profound snippets of wisdom about life.
"You're the One," Tracy Chapman; love sees the beloved with a special depth
Have I mentioned Tracy Chapman on this blog yet? She is another singer/songwriter whose music I really love. When I first found out about her and bought my first Chapman album (her 1988 debut album, "Tracy Chapman"), around 1990 or so, I remember putting it into my car stereo (at the time I had a really great car stereo) and just sitting in my car with the music playing, completely immersed in the music--even mesmerized by it. The spirit she conveys in her music, its simplicity and directness and closeness to human experience is amazing.
Here is a video of Tracy Chapman singing, "You're the One."
I would like to observe that the lyrics of this song indicate a deep truth about people in love. Now the approach of the song toward this truth may not be altogether entirely healthy, but it still points the way to something true about real love. What is this truth? When two people love each other, they gain--through their love--a deeper insight into the hidden goodness of the other person. Love, in a special way, shines a clarifying light upon the unique inner truth that is the core identity of the other person. This song, I think, taps into this reality. She may not have been thinking exactly this way, but nonetheless I think this truth about the ability of love to know the beloved in a special way lies behind the song's lyrics. This is also suggested in that the song speaks of others who are critical of the singer's loved one. But in spite of this she proclaims her loyalty. Now, this might be (and sometimes is) because she is deluded. But, it could also be because her love permits her to see things in the beloved that others cannot see.
Listen to the lyrics, and see if you don't agree with me. (And, you gotta love those cool percussion dudes playing beat boxes with their hands.)
This song is so smooth. With all of her songs, I love the way the music just seems to flow out of her, with such a simple directness and authenticity. Great!
Here is a video of Tracy Chapman singing, "You're the One."
I would like to observe that the lyrics of this song indicate a deep truth about people in love. Now the approach of the song toward this truth may not be altogether entirely healthy, but it still points the way to something true about real love. What is this truth? When two people love each other, they gain--through their love--a deeper insight into the hidden goodness of the other person. Love, in a special way, shines a clarifying light upon the unique inner truth that is the core identity of the other person. This song, I think, taps into this reality. She may not have been thinking exactly this way, but nonetheless I think this truth about the ability of love to know the beloved in a special way lies behind the song's lyrics. This is also suggested in that the song speaks of others who are critical of the singer's loved one. But in spite of this she proclaims her loyalty. Now, this might be (and sometimes is) because she is deluded. But, it could also be because her love permits her to see things in the beloved that others cannot see.
Listen to the lyrics, and see if you don't agree with me. (And, you gotta love those cool percussion dudes playing beat boxes with their hands.)
This song is so smooth. With all of her songs, I love the way the music just seems to flow out of her, with such a simple directness and authenticity. Great!
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
"Choosing Thomas" video; beauty of a fragile life
[Update: The mother in the video below, Deidrea Laux, emailed pro-life blogger Jill Stanek in response to Jill's posting their video about Thomas on her blog. Read Deidrea's note here.]
What follows is an inspiring witness to the reality that the only response worthy of a human person is love.
This video has quickly become a hit with many folks I know on the internet. And for good reason. But, just in case anyone has not seen this, please take a few minutes to watch this. And be ready for some emotion. It is a powerful, heartbreaking and also beautiful witness to the dignity of life and the nobility of a mother and father's love for their child.
The video, "Choosing Thomas," chronicles a husband and wife's decision to allow their newborn son to experience their love even though it would mean pain for them, even though they would only have a few days with him.
This would be great to show teenagers. If you are involved with a teen youth group or religious education/CCD, etc., you might want to download this video and show it to the kids. And then have a discussion about the value of life and about how precious it is to experience deep love even if only for a short time.
What follows is an inspiring witness to the reality that the only response worthy of a human person is love.
This video has quickly become a hit with many folks I know on the internet. And for good reason. But, just in case anyone has not seen this, please take a few minutes to watch this. And be ready for some emotion. It is a powerful, heartbreaking and also beautiful witness to the dignity of life and the nobility of a mother and father's love for their child.
The video, "Choosing Thomas," chronicles a husband and wife's decision to allow their newborn son to experience their love even though it would mean pain for them, even though they would only have a few days with him.
This would be great to show teenagers. If you are involved with a teen youth group or religious education/CCD, etc., you might want to download this video and show it to the kids. And then have a discussion about the value of life and about how precious it is to experience deep love even if only for a short time.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Song of Songs, 5 [on spousal love]
[To see all of the earlier posts and this one gathered together in this my sporadic running commentary on the Song of Songs, look to the sidebar on the right under, "Labels," and click on Song of Songs.]
Chapter 1, vv 10-11
These two verses are couplets and are parallel to each other (they correspond in a parallel fashion; the first part of 10 to the first part of 11 and the second part of 10 to the second part of 11). The bridegroom is speaking. He notices the earrings and necklace on his beloved. But, he does not comment on their appearance; rather, he comments on the appearance of his bride's face and neck. The ornaments are subservient to what matters here--the physical appearance of his bride. It seems somewhat like the role of a proper frame around a great work of art. A well-chosen frame helps to present and enhance the artwork, but the beauty of the art does not come from the frame but from the painting itself. The frame merely assists in drawing the onlooker to the splendor of the artwork itself.
The bridegroom recognizing the beauty of his bride seems to be a public thing. In verse 11, the fact that he will have golden earrings and silver beads (for a necklace) made for her adds an exclamation point that he not only sees her as beautiful but sees her possessing a beauty that should be recognized by others. He not only wants to see her beauty but wants others to notice her beauty as well. Having his own party make ornaments for her acknowledges this; it is like framing a beautiful work of art for more proper recognition.
Chapter 1, vv 10-11
These two verses are couplets and are parallel to each other (they correspond in a parallel fashion; the first part of 10 to the first part of 11 and the second part of 10 to the second part of 11). The bridegroom is speaking. He notices the earrings and necklace on his beloved. But, he does not comment on their appearance; rather, he comments on the appearance of his bride's face and neck. The ornaments are subservient to what matters here--the physical appearance of his bride. It seems somewhat like the role of a proper frame around a great work of art. A well-chosen frame helps to present and enhance the artwork, but the beauty of the art does not come from the frame but from the painting itself. The frame merely assists in drawing the onlooker to the splendor of the artwork itself.
The bridegroom recognizing the beauty of his bride seems to be a public thing. In verse 11, the fact that he will have golden earrings and silver beads (for a necklace) made for her adds an exclamation point that he not only sees her as beautiful but sees her possessing a beauty that should be recognized by others. He not only wants to see her beauty but wants others to notice her beauty as well. Having his own party make ornaments for her acknowledges this; it is like framing a beautiful work of art for more proper recognition.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Song of Songs, 4 [on spousal love]
[To see all of the earlier posts and this one gathered together in this my sporadic running commentary on the Song of Songs, look to the sidebar on the right under, "Labels," and click on Song of Songs.]
Chapter 1, v 8
The maiden may gain an understanding of her bridegroom's ways by being alert for the "tracks" of those whom he looks after. Or, another way, she may look for traces of the effects of his work in the world. These need not be great in the world's eyes. Simply, how do her groom's activities impact (whether in ways large or small) the lives of those on behalf of whom he works? Further, if she wants to get a variety of perspectives as to what sort of person he is, she might be wise to spend some time alongside those companions in his life who are closest to him.
v 9
I grew up with horses. They are excellent creatures! Mares (female horses) are not all of the same temperament. A mare who was destined to the honor of pulling the Pharaoh's chariot would surely have been hand picked as the very best among those suited by disposition for this special role. Such a horse could not be timid, "flighty" (easily scared), or overly delicate and prone to injury. A chariot horse (in a horse-like way) would have to be strong; sturdy; fearless (to forge ahead in spite of the din of war all around her); totally trusting of her driver's signals yet also possessed of tremendous and quick instincts of her own about where dangers lay on the field of battle and how to avoid them without flipping the chariot over; she would need to be fast; of extraordinary stamina and determination (to hold to a line through the battlefield and keep charging through it no matter what). In other words, superb chariot horses were very special, extraordinary creatures--and greatly prized. Certainly they were highly trained to work as a single unit in harmony with their particular drivers. And, in keeping with ancient cultures for which the horse was an integral part, it would always be best if the mare were all the above and also beautiful and glorious to behold! There truly is something very special about a beautiful horse. Horses seem to have a nobility and grace--a combination of natural majesty together with refined power--that exceeds any other creature (beyond the world of persons) on earth.
And so when the bridegroom compares his beloved to a mare of Pharaoh's chariots, this is something quite extraordinary. For the Pharaoh's mares, for sure, would have been the most superlative in power, instinct, toughness, speed, docility to the driver's touch, and fearlessness, as well as the most breathtakingly beautiful of all their noble equine sisters! Such literary comparisons perhaps pass through our minds as quaint or of little consequence. But this would not have been so for a reader belonging to an ancient Eastern culture that depended on horses in battle. Good horses were vital to the survival of their society.
Indeed, I suggest that perhaps it would have been true that in the ancient east, in a horse culture, the most flattering animal that could be used out of all the creatures of the earth as an analogy for an extraordinary and beautiful woman would be the horse. Ancient horse cultures were serious about their horses!
Chapter 1, v 8
The maiden may gain an understanding of her bridegroom's ways by being alert for the "tracks" of those whom he looks after. Or, another way, she may look for traces of the effects of his work in the world. These need not be great in the world's eyes. Simply, how do her groom's activities impact (whether in ways large or small) the lives of those on behalf of whom he works? Further, if she wants to get a variety of perspectives as to what sort of person he is, she might be wise to spend some time alongside those companions in his life who are closest to him.
v 9
I grew up with horses. They are excellent creatures! Mares (female horses) are not all of the same temperament. A mare who was destined to the honor of pulling the Pharaoh's chariot would surely have been hand picked as the very best among those suited by disposition for this special role. Such a horse could not be timid, "flighty" (easily scared), or overly delicate and prone to injury. A chariot horse (in a horse-like way) would have to be strong; sturdy; fearless (to forge ahead in spite of the din of war all around her); totally trusting of her driver's signals yet also possessed of tremendous and quick instincts of her own about where dangers lay on the field of battle and how to avoid them without flipping the chariot over; she would need to be fast; of extraordinary stamina and determination (to hold to a line through the battlefield and keep charging through it no matter what). In other words, superb chariot horses were very special, extraordinary creatures--and greatly prized. Certainly they were highly trained to work as a single unit in harmony with their particular drivers. And, in keeping with ancient cultures for which the horse was an integral part, it would always be best if the mare were all the above and also beautiful and glorious to behold! There truly is something very special about a beautiful horse. Horses seem to have a nobility and grace--a combination of natural majesty together with refined power--that exceeds any other creature (beyond the world of persons) on earth.
And so when the bridegroom compares his beloved to a mare of Pharaoh's chariots, this is something quite extraordinary. For the Pharaoh's mares, for sure, would have been the most superlative in power, instinct, toughness, speed, docility to the driver's touch, and fearlessness, as well as the most breathtakingly beautiful of all their noble equine sisters! Such literary comparisons perhaps pass through our minds as quaint or of little consequence. But this would not have been so for a reader belonging to an ancient Eastern culture that depended on horses in battle. Good horses were vital to the survival of their society.
Indeed, I suggest that perhaps it would have been true that in the ancient east, in a horse culture, the most flattering animal that could be used out of all the creatures of the earth as an analogy for an extraordinary and beautiful woman would be the horse. Ancient horse cultures were serious about their horses!
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Song of Songs 3
I would like to return to my sporadic commentary on the Song of Songs. For my earlier posts see the first here and the second here.
Chapter 1, v 7
The maiden wants to know where her bridegroom is active about his work--where is the place where he is engaged in the world. Where is the place where he is responsible to watch over others--where is it that he has a vocation to guard, protect, and provide for others? For this, this is the place she wants to be also. The maiden senses that she is somehow fated to be joined with the destiny of the work of her groom--she is to be one with not only him, but with his vocation and his place of active engagement in the world. Until she is finally together with him and his field of action in the world, she feels a little bit lost, wandering, with no definite place to belong. Wherever he leads his 'flock' is where she wants to be; this is where she is no longer a vagabond.
[Please note these are simply my reflections based upon Sacred Scripture, following where it seems to lead; I make no claim to anything like a definitive exposition. A highly poetic and literary book of the Bible such as this especially lends itself to multiple interpretations.]
Chapter 1, v 7
The maiden wants to know where her bridegroom is active about his work--where is the place where he is engaged in the world. Where is the place where he is responsible to watch over others--where is it that he has a vocation to guard, protect, and provide for others? For this, this is the place she wants to be also. The maiden senses that she is somehow fated to be joined with the destiny of the work of her groom--she is to be one with not only him, but with his vocation and his place of active engagement in the world. Until she is finally together with him and his field of action in the world, she feels a little bit lost, wandering, with no definite place to belong. Wherever he leads his 'flock' is where she wants to be; this is where she is no longer a vagabond.
[Please note these are simply my reflections based upon Sacred Scripture, following where it seems to lead; I make no claim to anything like a definitive exposition. A highly poetic and literary book of the Bible such as this especially lends itself to multiple interpretations.]
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Simple Love: Alison Krauss
All right. I guess I'm on an Alison Krauss kick today.
Here is another beautiful song, "Simple Love." It's not explicitly religious. But, it's wonderful for how it brings out a simple truth we sense inside us that ought to be so about genuine human love. As the lyrics state, love (real love), is "always giving, never asking back."
It's also great because, I think, it shows the importance of parental love for their children--especially the love of a father for his daughter. The song is a tribute by Alison to her parents' love for her (and it highlights her father particularly). It's a simple song about the "simple" love of a Dad for his daughter. I love it. How powerful, and so important, is the love of parents for their children! It roots them in an inner security they will have all their lives.
Here is the video. It's a live performance at the 2007 CMA awards.
Here are the lyrics to the song. What a blessing for a father, to have your daughter sing like this one day about your love for her!
Here is another beautiful song, "Simple Love." It's not explicitly religious. But, it's wonderful for how it brings out a simple truth we sense inside us that ought to be so about genuine human love. As the lyrics state, love (real love), is "always giving, never asking back."
It's also great because, I think, it shows the importance of parental love for their children--especially the love of a father for his daughter. The song is a tribute by Alison to her parents' love for her (and it highlights her father particularly). It's a simple song about the "simple" love of a Dad for his daughter. I love it. How powerful, and so important, is the love of parents for their children! It roots them in an inner security they will have all their lives.
Here is the video. It's a live performance at the 2007 CMA awards.
Here are the lyrics to the song. What a blessing for a father, to have your daughter sing like this one day about your love for her!
Little yellow house sittin' on a hill
That is where he lived
That is where he died
Every Sunday morning
Hear the weeping willows cry
Two children born
A beautiful wife
Four walls and livin's all he needed in life
Always giving, never asking back
I wish I had a simple love like that
I want a simple love like that
Always giving, never askin' back
For when I'm in my final hour lookin' back
I hope I had a simple love like that
My momma was his only little girl
If he'd had the money he'd have given her the world
Sittin' on the front porch together they would sing
Oh how I long to hear that harmony
I want a simple love like that
Always giving never asking back
When I'm in my final hour looking back
I hope I had a simple love like that
I want a simple love like that
Always giving never asking back
When I'm in my final hour looking back
I hope I had a simple love like that.
There is a Reason; Suffering can Highlight the Love of Christ
Here is a beautiful song written by Ron Block and sung by Alison Krauss: There is a Reason. Click the link for a live video performance. (Unfortunately, I can't embed it).
Take note of the lyrics (below) as you watch. It speaks to the mystery of why Jesus chose to die in the way He did, so full of suffering. He could have saved us with far less suffering, for He is the infinite God; any suffering by the God-man would hold infinite value. Why, then, suffer as much as He did? In part, at least, it was to reveal the sheer depth and limitlessness of His love--to draw us into His heart.
Take note of the lyrics (below) as you watch. It speaks to the mystery of why Jesus chose to die in the way He did, so full of suffering. He could have saved us with far less suffering, for He is the infinite God; any suffering by the God-man would hold infinite value. Why, then, suffer as much as He did? In part, at least, it was to reveal the sheer depth and limitlessness of His love--to draw us into His heart.
I've seen hard times and I've been told
There isn't any wonder that I fall
Why do we suffer, crossing off the years
There must be a reason for it all
I've trusted in You, Jesus, to save me from my sin
Heaven is the place I call my home
But I keep on getting caught up in this world I'm living in
And Your voice it sometimes fades before I know
Hurtin' brings my heart to You, crying with my need
Depending on Your love to carry me
The love that shed His blood for all the world to see
This must be the reason for it all
Hurtin' brings my heart to You, a fortress in the storm
When what I wrap my heart around is gone
I give my heart so easily to the ruler of this world
When the one who loves me most will give me all
In all the things that cause me pain You give me eyes to see
I do believe but help my unbelief
I've seen hard times and I've been told
There is a reason for it all
Thursday, May 21, 2009
The Wonder of the Womb; The Ignobility of IVF
I would like to reflect again on a bioethics-related topic. It has to do with the human womb. (In medical terms, the 'uterus.' But, 'womb' seems a more personal term so I'll use this.) More completely, my topic here deals first with conjugal union as the only appropriate means of bringing about a new human life, and second, with the womb as the only appropriate place for that life to be brought about.
A few months ago at the blog of a friend the situation of the "Octomom" was being discussed. In the midst of this discussion someone stated the opinion that she saw nothing undignified about conceiving a child through in-vitro fertilization (IVF). Another commenter made the astute observation that the IVF process results in "life conceived in the unloving confines of a glass petri dish." I thought this was an excellent and very thought-provoking phrase; and right on target.
I share here some of the ideas I gave then about the contrast between human life conceived how and where God planned for it to be conceived--through the marital embrace and in the womb of a woman--vs. life conceived in a petri dish (as in IVF). . . .
The only appropriate means for conceiving life. Sexual union between persons has inherent meaning. It is full of meaning. In a proper context (spouses who love each other), the meaning of this act is, "I give myself fully, completely to you--I love you, I give myself to you, I commit myself to you, holding nothing back." A husband and wife say this to each other through the built-in symbolism of marital intercourse. With IVF, the creation of the child is divorced from the inherent meaning of conjugal union between spouses. But the two physical events (sexual union and the creation of a child) are meant to be always united together because their meanings are so inherently one.
There is no symbolic meaning built into the act of using lab equipment to unite an egg and sperm in a petri dish corresponding to this profound, built-in, natural (and God-ordained) symbolism of intercourse. The IVF lab procedure simply does not posses the great meaning of natural marital union.
In other areas of life we have no problem seeing the difference between the inherent meaning of human physical gestures and less human, technical processes. Is a physical hug between friends the same in significance as saying hello on Facebook? Technological processes simply have no ability to carry the meaning that is woven into thoroughly human, personal acts. And what more profound and deeply human, personal act is there than a husband and wife giving themselves to each other in love, freely, in the marital embrace?
The only appropriate place for conceiveing life. Sometimes we Christians (perhaps Catholics especially) are accused of a kind of inappropriate womb-worship because of the way some of us privilege the womb as the only place proper for the beginning of human life. We do not worship the womb (to do so would be a pagan thing not a Christian thing) when we point out that the womb is the privileged place God designed for the special and unique event of bringing new human life into the world. God loves human beings in a special and privileged way among all the earth. He would not provide anything less than a very special place for the hidden realm wherein He would lovingly "knit together" (see Psalm 139) the fragile and beautiful beginnings of every human being. There is no impropriety in drawing attention to this beautiful truth. As the place where new life should begin, being more fitted to the inherent, God-given dignity of every human person--hands down, the womb beats a glass petri dish every time!
Indeed, without being inappropriate, I think that the womb certainly is worthy of particular reverence because it is a three-dimensional living canvas in which the master artist of the universe lovingly forms and brings to life His greatest and most cherished creations. Would it be strange to suggest the womb is somewhat like a custom designed studio, perfectly suited for what the master artist who designed it intends to create there?
Only one place was made by God for the purpose of sheltering and nurturing nascent human lives. He could have made various other places. But he made only one: the womb. This is the sacred place He made within which He might reach down and bestow His divine power of creation upon the spiritual-physical union of husband and wife. It seems almost crazy to me to suggest the idea that an inert, non-living object such as a glass dish in a lab could ever be just as appropriate a canvas for God's creative power to touch as the living womb of a woman who is herself precious to and beloved by God!
The ultimate purpose of our lives is to become living vessels of divine grace--each a unique, living jewel of divine truth and love--sharing as a family in the bliss of the heavenly paradise. Our Father in heaven arranged the world in such a way that we--creatures with such high dignity and transcendent purpose--should come into being in a context worthy of the nobility He has given our lives. This context is that we should appear on the stage of existence through a loving soul-body union of our mother and father. And the only place adequate to the great worth of each of us as we begin the earliest stages of our fragile life is the womb of our mother. How beautiful this is!
A few months ago at the blog of a friend the situation of the "Octomom" was being discussed. In the midst of this discussion someone stated the opinion that she saw nothing undignified about conceiving a child through in-vitro fertilization (IVF). Another commenter made the astute observation that the IVF process results in "life conceived in the unloving confines of a glass petri dish." I thought this was an excellent and very thought-provoking phrase; and right on target.
I share here some of the ideas I gave then about the contrast between human life conceived how and where God planned for it to be conceived--through the marital embrace and in the womb of a woman--vs. life conceived in a petri dish (as in IVF). . . .
The only appropriate means for conceiving life. Sexual union between persons has inherent meaning. It is full of meaning. In a proper context (spouses who love each other), the meaning of this act is, "I give myself fully, completely to you--I love you, I give myself to you, I commit myself to you, holding nothing back." A husband and wife say this to each other through the built-in symbolism of marital intercourse. With IVF, the creation of the child is divorced from the inherent meaning of conjugal union between spouses. But the two physical events (sexual union and the creation of a child) are meant to be always united together because their meanings are so inherently one.
There is no symbolic meaning built into the act of using lab equipment to unite an egg and sperm in a petri dish corresponding to this profound, built-in, natural (and God-ordained) symbolism of intercourse. The IVF lab procedure simply does not posses the great meaning of natural marital union.
In other areas of life we have no problem seeing the difference between the inherent meaning of human physical gestures and less human, technical processes. Is a physical hug between friends the same in significance as saying hello on Facebook? Technological processes simply have no ability to carry the meaning that is woven into thoroughly human, personal acts. And what more profound and deeply human, personal act is there than a husband and wife giving themselves to each other in love, freely, in the marital embrace?
The only appropriate place for conceiveing life. Sometimes we Christians (perhaps Catholics especially) are accused of a kind of inappropriate womb-worship because of the way some of us privilege the womb as the only place proper for the beginning of human life. We do not worship the womb (to do so would be a pagan thing not a Christian thing) when we point out that the womb is the privileged place God designed for the special and unique event of bringing new human life into the world. God loves human beings in a special and privileged way among all the earth. He would not provide anything less than a very special place for the hidden realm wherein He would lovingly "knit together" (see Psalm 139) the fragile and beautiful beginnings of every human being. There is no impropriety in drawing attention to this beautiful truth. As the place where new life should begin, being more fitted to the inherent, God-given dignity of every human person--hands down, the womb beats a glass petri dish every time!
Indeed, without being inappropriate, I think that the womb certainly is worthy of particular reverence because it is a three-dimensional living canvas in which the master artist of the universe lovingly forms and brings to life His greatest and most cherished creations. Would it be strange to suggest the womb is somewhat like a custom designed studio, perfectly suited for what the master artist who designed it intends to create there?
Only one place was made by God for the purpose of sheltering and nurturing nascent human lives. He could have made various other places. But he made only one: the womb. This is the sacred place He made within which He might reach down and bestow His divine power of creation upon the spiritual-physical union of husband and wife. It seems almost crazy to me to suggest the idea that an inert, non-living object such as a glass dish in a lab could ever be just as appropriate a canvas for God's creative power to touch as the living womb of a woman who is herself precious to and beloved by God!
The ultimate purpose of our lives is to become living vessels of divine grace--each a unique, living jewel of divine truth and love--sharing as a family in the bliss of the heavenly paradise. Our Father in heaven arranged the world in such a way that we--creatures with such high dignity and transcendent purpose--should come into being in a context worthy of the nobility He has given our lives. This context is that we should appear on the stage of existence through a loving soul-body union of our mother and father. And the only place adequate to the great worth of each of us as we begin the earliest stages of our fragile life is the womb of our mother. How beautiful this is!
Miami bishop affirms Church teaching on conjugal love
Since I posted previously about the scandalous counsel of Fr. Cutie, and in the course of my comment I wondered whether the Archdiocese of Miami condones such counsel, I should let you know of the following.
I had emailed the Archdiocese of Miami asking them for clarification as to whether or not they consider it acceptable for their priests to counsel a couple that sex before marriage is fine, even a good thing. I'm glad to report that Auxiliary Bishop Eduardo R.Jimenez, Director of the Family Life Department of the Archdiocese of Miami (which oversees marriage preparation in the diocese) emailed me on May 18. His response included the following:
Thank you, Archbishop Jimenez, for your response, and for your assurance that the Archdiocese of Miami stands fast with the teaching of the Catholic Church about the proper role of the gift of conjugal love as within marriage.
I had emailed the Archdiocese of Miami asking them for clarification as to whether or not they consider it acceptable for their priests to counsel a couple that sex before marriage is fine, even a good thing. I'm glad to report that Auxiliary Bishop Eduardo R.Jimenez, Director of the Family Life Department of the Archdiocese of Miami (which oversees marriage preparation in the diocese) emailed me on May 18. His response included the following:
As Director of the Family Life Department of the Archdiocese of Miami, I want to assure you and everyone that we do not encourage or support anything contrary to the Catholic Church Moral Teachings. We do not support cohabitation, nor having sex before marriage. . . . I can assure [you] that we do not counsel or support this kind of statements in any of our programs.
Thank you, Archbishop Jimenez, for your response, and for your assurance that the Archdiocese of Miami stands fast with the teaching of the Catholic Church about the proper role of the gift of conjugal love as within marriage.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Song of Songs 2
Here is a second installment of reflections as I continue little-by-little through the Song of Songs.
[Please note: as the Song of Songs is part of Sacred Scripture it is inspired by God and thus authored by the Holy Spirit along with the human authors. This means I assume that any of the language of the Song which is an authentic part of the canonical book cannot be otherwise than to have a meaning that is entirely coherent with God's plan for human life and the Holy Spirit-guided teaching of the Church about chastity and marriage. I will always comment from within this assumption.]
Chapter 1, v 4
Again, the maiden wants to be lead by the bridegroom ("Draw me in". . .). But, this results in their becoming joined together in shared action: "let us run."
The union of the lovers is itself a cause for joy of other people. Spousal-oriented love is both private and public. An aspect of every potential marriage is public--others have a stake in this relationship, for the good of their society. It is right for other members of the lovers' local community to take joy in the lovers' relationship.
[Please note: as the Song of Songs is part of Sacred Scripture it is inspired by God and thus authored by the Holy Spirit along with the human authors. This means I assume that any of the language of the Song which is an authentic part of the canonical book cannot be otherwise than to have a meaning that is entirely coherent with God's plan for human life and the Holy Spirit-guided teaching of the Church about chastity and marriage. I will always comment from within this assumption.]
Chapter 1, v 4
Again, the maiden wants to be lead by the bridegroom ("Draw me in". . .). But, this results in their becoming joined together in shared action: "let us run."
The union of the lovers is itself a cause for joy of other people. Spousal-oriented love is both private and public. An aspect of every potential marriage is public--others have a stake in this relationship, for the good of their society. It is right for other members of the lovers' local community to take joy in the lovers' relationship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
