The word unconditional has been on my mind for quite a while. As I looked at the historical citations in the OED, I realized almost all of them dealt with unconditional surrender. In LDS culture, "unconditional" is often used to describe the love God bears for his children, and by the same token, the love that his children should aspire to bear for one another. Love that is "not limited by or subject to conditions or stipulations." Love that is "absolute, unlimited, complete." Unconditional.
I've been debating whether unconditional love is a good thing or not and I've decided that it is, but that discussion is going to have to be the subject of another post because this post is already gonna be a doosy. So let's just say that unconditional love is a good thing--something that if everybody aspired to live their lives so as to make themselves purveyors of unconditional love, the world would be a mighty fine place.
So where does the idea "Love the sinner, hate the sin" come into play? Is this even possible within the concept of unconditional love? The vocal opposition to gay rights would say yes, brandishing "Love the sinner, hate the sin" like a weapon. I was browsing the facebook forums on same-sex marriage the other day. With the California ballot initiative to amend the state constitution coming up in November, and the LDS Church's vocal support of that amendment, these kind of message boards have been pretty active lately.
The Exodus International group "Marriage=Man+Woman" defines their positions as:
- marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman.
- to be loving to homosexuals.
(fyi - Exodus International is Christian-affiliated ministry that purports to cure homosexuality. For an opposing viewpoint on the ex-gay movement click here.)
|
Most others made similar "Love the sinner, hate the sin" mission statements. I think there's a profound dissonance in that kind of philosophy. On the surface a statement like that says "I love you no matter what. I may not like what you do, but that doesn't affect my love for you." How touching. And how thoughtful. To proclaim your perfect capacity to love someone as wretched as me. In this context, the phrase creates a hierarchy that puts one person in a place of condescension in their love. And love peppered with condescension isn't love.
Ironically, the phrase "Hate the sin, love the sinner" was coined not by a Christian, but by Gandhi. And it's quite telling that his life was devoted to acts of love and peace. The problem with living by "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is that according to Christian theology, we're all sinners. Maybe Gandhi's idea was more "avoid the stuff you see as sinful if you must, but love everyone without reservation." Plus Jesus taught unequivocally against passing judgment. So it's not my job to point out your sins, it's my job to love you. Period. If I'm focusing on what I see as your imperfections, how can I love you without reservation?
So what's the solution? How do people on opposite sides of an argument come together in a place of love without sacrificing their values? I'm not sure there's an easy answer. But I do know that Jesus taught, "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." If the people who hurt us with words, feelings, and actions are deserving of our love, then how can we begrudge that love to someone who simply believes differently and chooses to live "according to the dictates of their own conscience"?
Can Californians pass a measure that excludes one group from civic rights? They might. It's been done recently in other states, despite the fact that the group was already excluded from those rights. And similar things have been done to other groups throughout history. Is it right? Depends on who you ask. But to me this does sound like a huge case of "Love the sinner, legislate against the sin." And in a civic dialogue where the scientific community has already weighed in, debunking the "sin", this kind of legislation is nothing more than state-sponsored religion. The last time I read the first amendment to the constitution, "law[s] respecting an establishment of religion" aren't acceptable in this country.
So what should the country do? Well, if marriage is a religious institution, then the government needs to get out of it. Completely. Strip away the federal recognition, the tax benefits, the contractual implications, everything. Leave the practice and execution of marriage to the churches. On the other hand, if marriage is a civil institution, the government needs to make it available equally to everyone, without regard to race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or any other demographic*.
Personally, I think it's both. So, for the churches who love the gays but hate the gays getting married, let them join only heterosexual couples, exercising their religion as they see fit. For the other churches (and the couples who choose not to join their lives under the auspices of a church), let them get hitched "according to the dictates of their own conscience." But give them all the same civil rights. There you are. The Mormons don't have to marry same-sex couples in their temples any more than they have to allow smoking in their chapels. And the gay people don't have to go to a Mormon temple to get married. And we can all be happy and treat each other with the love and respect we all deserve! Yay!
Ugh. I'm tired. This has been less of a lesson in love and more of a tirade than I had intended. One thing I do think I need to mention before I pass out: the door swings both ways. Members of the gay community are kinda used to being picked on, and the natural tendency is knee-jerk reciprocation. I think this is profoundly counterproductive. If I can't allow someone their belief system, no matter how wrong I think they are, then I can't expect them to allow me mine. See? It all comes back to unconditional love. I've learned that my parents' idiosyncrasies are integral parts of the people I love. And without their nutty political views...the ones that drive me bonkers...they wouldn't be the same people--the people I love. So whatever their "sins," I can't help but love the "sinners" in their entirety, because they wouldn't be the "sinners" I love without those "sins."
Alright...I'm off. Nighty night.
* Not that this really needs mentioning, but no, this doesn't apply to minors, animals, or any other group of non-adults that legally can't enter into contracts. The "Gay marriage leads to child marriage/pet marriage/house plant marriage" arguments are idiotic and a colossal waste of time to anyone with an ounce of common sense. Additionally, the argument that "gays CAN get married...just to members of the opposite sex like everyone else, ergo everybody has equal access to the institution" is trite, flippant, irrational, completely contrary to current understanding of the purpose of marriage, and really not worth further exploration here.
No comments:
Post a Comment