Is it possible to love your beloved too much? Some hearty, sensible words on
How to Love a Girl, from Bad Catholic:
"There is a tendency amongst Christians to practice what we shall call the Jesus-First Model. I’m sure you’ve heard it before, some bright-eyed girl wearing a little, silver cross informs you that 'Jesus comes first in my relationship.' Or your friend tells you, 'first God, and then my spouse. . . .' But the idea that God is frustrated that you’re loving your girl instead of Him is ridiculous."
Comments:
Actually, even when I was a new Christian, it always bothered me that Christian songwriters apparently couldn't write love-songs to their wives, as though this was unsanctified or something.
It struck me as odd, because I kind of thought that God invented the whole thing in the first place (Gen. 2:18, 2:23-24)-- in fact, in the very first Place that ever was.
Kewpie doll if he’s a non-smoker / non-chewer.
Autographed copy of Dorcas and Nimrod’s “Memoirs”* if he’s not into cigars or dolls (which frankly, I rather suspect).
Anyway, great find, Kevin; thanks for sharing!
--
*Excellent for wrapping fish and freezer meats in.
Trust me, I have not earned your dear rebuke,
I love, as you would have me, God the most;
Would lose not Him, but you, must one be lost,
Nor with Lot’s wife cast back a faithless look
Unready to forego what I forsook;
This say I, having counted up the cost,
This, tho’ I be the feeblest of God’s host,
The sorriest sheep Christ shepherds with His crook.
Yet while I love my God the most, I deem
That I can never love you overmuch;
I love Him more, so let me love you too;
Yea, as I apprehend it, love is such
I cannot love you if I love not Him,
I cannot love Him if I love not you.
…but it occurred to me that perhaps the statement
“love is God” (which I agree is false if, by “love” we mean merely the phenomenon of common experience)
*could* be rendered true by capitalizing “Love”, if, by capitalizing it, we signify Love Personified. (I guess I have in the back of my mind Michael Card’s lyric, “Love-crucified arose”).
Anyway, I *think* that works. But I’m not going to be duckmatic about it.
God is Love, and as Love, will surely lead us to those loves that satisfy His plan for us. But "love" is NOT "God".
Only one person in history had a wholehearted commitment to following God.
Well said.
And just for clarity’s sake, my pithy remark was not intended to imply a position contrary to or incognizant of your excellent balancing statements. (It is exceedingly difficult to cover all nuances of an argument in a bumper sticker-sized formulation).
Speaking of bumper sticker theology, here’s one to chew on:
The statement “love is God” is false, but the statement “Love is God” is true. (“Love” is capitalized in the second instance).
Thoughts?
How might that look? Well, certainly one example is intentionally marrying an unbeliever. And I'd extend that to marrying someone who doesn't share with you a wholehearted commitment to following God in all aspects of life. Because inevitably you're going to be dragged down (or held back) by the less committed partner, and it's going to hinder your ability to serve God.
Marriage is hard enough when you share the same goals. I don't want to think what it would be like to be married to someone who had different fundamental purposes for living.
Love is good, properly placed. But love is not God, even though God is love.
The overarching principle here, I think, is: you cannot fulfill the first great commandment (loving God) without fulfilling the second one (loving others as yourself). Cf 1 John 4:20