Posted on by Abe Austin

Deeper Love- Love Without Acceptance

An Unfounded Assertion)

Yesterday I discussed some of my issues with the question, “How can you say you follow Jesus and his commandment to love everyone, while also not accepting members of the LGBT community?” And for today’s discussion, we can even drop the parts about Jesus’s teachings and religious belief. Leaving us the more general assertion that if you do not accept someone’s sexual or gender identity, that you do not love them.

This assertion is built upon the assumption that love = acceptance. That assumption is everywhere in our society today, but nowhere have I seen it justified. Love and acceptance are clearly two different concepts, with two different meanings entirely, so why would we assume that they were equivalent, or that one was the necessary component of the other? It is not immediately apparent to me that this is the case, and I have never seen any argument, let alone a convincing one, that such a claim is logical.

Love Defined by Whom?)

And how can we determine whether someone has genuine love for another person or not? A spouse might say that she loves her husband every day right up until she serves him divorce papers. A father might struggle to ever say that he loves his children, even though he sacrifices for them every day. Is not the man who feels the love most qualified to know that it is really there? How can we tell a person that there is no love in his heart, when we do not personally feel what stirs within him?

I believe that when people suggest that love = acceptance, what they really mean is, “I can only feel loved if you accept me.” What they are describing then is not an inability for love to be sent by the lover, but an inability to receive it by the loved. Such a plain admission is unlikely, because usually in these conversations there is an intention to place the problem in the other person, but requiring acceptance says more about the person who demands it than the person not providing it.

If a person is unable to receive love unless special, personally defined criteria are met, then the solution is to examine what walls they have built up on their own side, to ask, “What is wrong in me that receiving love does not come naturally?” Just as if I find that I really am unable to love a person while fundamentally disagreeing with them, then the solution is for me to examine what walls I have built up on my side, to ask, “What is wrong in me that giving love is not natural?” If both of us will work inward, rather than at the other, then we will achieve the shared goal of love being given and received.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Deeper Love- Common Criticisms

Disagreements on Love)

As a traditional Christian, I have been challenged about how I can follow Jesus’s admonition to love everyone, and also be opposed to certain lifestyles, particularly those under the LGBT umbrella. I’d like to take a couple posts to address this matter. Sometimes I feel these questions are posed in good faith, and sometimes not, but in both cases, I believe the inquirer deserves for me to have ordered my thoughts and feelings into a coherent and genuine answer.

To start things off for today, I do have to point out why I say that sometimes these questions are not asked in good faith. I believe that many of the people asking these questions don’t actually believe that disapproval precludes love. We all have people that are very close to us, that engage in something that we think is hurtful, that we wish they felt differently on, that we fundamentally disagree with them about. Whether it be politics, or self-destructive behavior, or mannerisms, we all see flaws in other people, even the ones we love most. Yes, differences of opinion can become a source of hostility, and sour love in a relationship, but we all know that it doesn’t have to be that way. We can both love a person and disagree with parts of them.

Of course, it is true that I could profess to be a Christian and also have a deep hate and resentment for everyone in the LGBT community. That is a possibility, but it is not a foregone conclusion. It is also possible that I can both love and disagree.

Narrow Questions)

I do also find it interesting that I only ever get these questions related to people living an LGBT lifestyle. As a traditional Christian, there are many other lifestyle choices that I am also opposed to, yet no one ever asks me why I “don’t love them.” For example, I’m just as opposed to fornication, adultery, and most forms of divorce. Why not challenge me as to whether I can still love a person who cheated on his spouse or who got a divorce because he just wasn’t feeling it anymore?

From what I have observed, it seems that the love of Christians is only brought into question on LGBT matters because that movement is unique in its requirement for total acceptance. The fact that these questions only come up in such narrow contexts suggests more about the views of the people that ask them than they say about me and my views.

I think it’s also worth noting that among all the behaviors that I renounce as a Christian are ones that I struggle with also! I have spoken at some length on this blog about my addiction to pornography, which I absolutely condemn as one of the greatest evils of our day. I have always known that it is wrong, and every time that I’ve engaged with it I’ve felt deep shame, but also each time I strive to fall back in love with the Son of God that still lives inside of me. Thus, on questions of whether I can disapprove of behavior but still love the individual, my practice begins with myself.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Faulty Premises- Trojan Horses

What is Love?)

In the last post we examined the feminist movement, and the explicitly false statement, “what a man can do, a woman can do as well.” As I pointed out, anything built on a twisted foundation was sure to lead to twisted outcomes down the road.

Now, let’s consider another example, one that is more subtle. Around 20 years ago the LGB movement (as it was known then) entered the mainstream and claimed many victories in social and legal status. If there were a single, defining slogan of this campaign, it must have been that “love is love.”

This is an interesting statement because it is, on the surface, obviously true. It is a tautology. If love is equivalent to anything, it must be love. But, of course, the slogan means more than just that. In addition to its explicit meaning is an implicit one. The “love” at the start of the assertion stands for the sexual and romantic relationships that the LGB community engaged in, and the “love” at the end stands for either traditional, heterosexual marriage, or for the abstract concept of love, which is considered to be one of the greatest goods. Thus, “love is love” is standing in for, “my relationship is just the same as yours,” or “my sexual or romantic relationship is always good.”

And these more specific claims are obviously false. I believe that all of us can think of multiple sexual and romantic unions that we would label as bad and different from the ordinary. Polyamory, incest, AI sexbots, pedophilia, and bestiality all come immediately to mind.

A Slippery Slope)

Of course, back when the LGB movement was really gaining traction, there were many who foretold of even worse sexual perversion being championed later on. This is the argument that is classically known as “the slippery slope.” It is important to note, though, that this slippery slope was not simply an argument of “once you given them some advantage, they’ll press it for more and more,” it was, “the premise by which you justify this change also justifies more.” It was therefore not idle fearmongering, but a reasonable analysis of the movement’s central logic.

Maybe those in the LGB movement of 20 years ago only meant “love is love” to secure legal marriage for gay couples, but once Pandora’s Box was opened, once the rising generation was inculcated with the belief that anything under the umbrella of “love is love” goes, then that logic would necessarily lead to further transformation.

In my last post I mentioned the transgender movement as being downstream from feminism. It is also clearly downstream of the LGB movement, giving that acronym its now-familiar T. If there is no difference between men and women, and every kind of sexual identity is good, then transgenderism has to be a logical conclusion of those two premises. Even as transgenderism has seen a sharp decline in popularity over the last year, it remains to be seen if the faulty premises of feminism and the LGB movement will also decline. If not, then you can be sure that we have not yet seen the end of their unintended consequences.