C.S. Lewis once stated:
"Love anything and your heart will be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact you must give it to no one, not even an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements. Lock it up save in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket--safe, dark, motionless, airless--it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. To love is to be vulnerable."
That sounds sweet, but I disagree.
If we have truly died to self there is nothing left to be vulnerable.
19 comments:
hm... (think, think, think) that was quit something to chew on! I think Howe gets a point for this one (one down on Lewis). As Paul (the apostle) says; true love never fails. But it is easier said than done to be truly surrendered and dead to self...
I'm not entirely sure I agree... You seem to be implying that perfected love will feel no pain upon rejection. It will not be vulnerable to heartbreak. However, if we look at our life's example, Christ, we see several instances where His heart appears to be breaking. What of when He cried over Jerusalem? What of when He cried at the tomb of Lazarus? It was not because He was concerned about what people thought of Him. It was because He was concerned about what people thought of God. You're right when you say that perfected love won't let our hearts be broken by people's opinions of us. However, I do think that our hearts can be broken by people's opinions of Christ. If our life becomes His life, we will still be vulnerable. Only, in a different way.
Joar:
No joke. I'm still miles from the ideal.
Petra:
Christ protects us when we take up His yoke. Why should we try to bear the pain of people's rejection of God when Jesus suffered, cried, and died to take away our pain.
Of course Jesus suffered, but that was so we wouldn't have to. He said: "in this world you will have trouble, but don't let it get to you, because I've overcome the world".
Hmmmm... I'll have to think about that one. This morning I read the passage where Jesus talks about a servant never being above his master. If God mourns over those who reject Him, I find it hard to imagine us being "beyond" that same sentiment. Also, Jesus asks us to love one another with the same love He has for us. If we're supposed to be loving each other with His love, how can it be un-vulnerable in us, if it's vulnerable in Him?
Bascially: Jesus death on the cross gives us access to His love. We are then able to share this love with everyone, and, thanks to Jesus death, are able to partake of the benefits of this love without the costs.
It's the same love, but God offers to cover all risk of harm-for Him and us. Jesus offers to bear our burdens. Why should we hang onto them?
I agree with both Petraglyph and Paul. There are many powerful promises that Jesus will give us peace, joy and hope!(Romans 15;13 for one) He will shoulder our burdens. Yes, in dying to self we are free to love others without factoring in what their response may be. This is an amazing and liberating truth and only through God's work in us can we even approach it. I think in taking up our cross, we can also share God's great love (and potential pain)for man. It seems to me that it is true that Christ's love to the Jewish nation, and all those who reject Him never ceases. When you think of the great lengths and efforts God makes to reach us, to restore us and bring us home, it seems that He might experience sorrow, when there is no more hope, when time is finished. The Bible promises though in the Heavenly city there will be no more tears, that will be a glad day!
Ah, as always, mom comes in as the blessed peacemaker. perhaps there are two levels of vulnerability. we're still living in a sinful world, so touching a hot stove causes a burn. if we follow God, we will have physical tribulations (taking up our cross). However, God handles the doubts, worries, and fears (the mental side) and tells us to cast all these cares on Him. I read Lewis to be speaking of these mental trials, but this may have been a mistake. certainly, I'm not disputing the fact that stubbed toes hurt.
I had to read that a couple of times to really digest this. I think Lewis's point was at the end of the quote, that love not shared with others is impentrable and irredeemable. If we do as he suggested and don't share our love with those around us, we'll cease to love. No one will be able to pentrate us or redeem our love. I think that he was right that to love is to be vulnerable because by loving we allow others a piece of us and a chance to pentrate our real selves. In our world there is a risk in that. With Christ, it's possible to show true love to others, but we will always be vulnerable. I wonder if CS Lewis wrote this after his wife died of cancer?
Perhaps the reason I am having trouble accepting the concept of "feeling no pain when others reject Jesus", is that it seems to suggest the impenetrability that Lisa mentions. Would such love be genuine? If a heart is unthreatened by heartbreak, is it worth being loved by it? When God created the world He risked tremendous heartbreak. And, He got it too. Working here at Vejlefjord with the kids and seeing them make wrong decisions has given me heartbreak several times. I wonder, would I work just as hard to win them over to the God's side, if I had no risk of heartbreak? Probably not. The wish to avoid heartbreak is a subtle factor that spurs me on. It's part of what drives me to open my mouth and testify to others about Jesus. Perhaps this is selfishness that God needs to cleanse me of. Interesting to chew over in one's mind...
Perfect love casts out fear but not necessarily(in this world) sorrow. Else why would God have to wipe away all tears in His beloved in the world to come. Dad
Dad makes a good point. still, I think that most (if not all) of the tears God will wipe away will have been shed unnecessarily. We are all imperfect. in the earth made new, things will finally be set right.
also, we need to define our terms more carefully:
"Vulnerable" has three meanings. one of them deals with gaming, so I'll focus on the other two, which build on each other. Vulnerable means "Susceptible to physical or emotional injury". This meaning is where many of you focused your comments. Vulnerable also means "liable to succumb, as to persuasion or temptation". To tie the parts together, "vulnerable" connotates the possibility of being hurt or overwhelmed.
I have argued that God's love protects us from both, but I would hope that all would agree that it protects us from the latter. God's love should not render us more likely to cave in to temptation.
I'm not disputing the fact that following Christ means taking up a cross. However, this analogy can be tricky, as Christ has offered to carry our burdens. Ok, I'll stop repeating myself...
At this point in the disscussion, it's high time that we stop, think with incisive philosophical brillance, and give up!
Actually, this has been a very important and stimulating disscussion. We just need to realize there's a paradox at play. Paul isn't saying anything hard-hearted with his apparently radical claims. He's just playing up a relativly unexplored dimension of an important, (and undefined) truth.
In my opinion, Lewis wasn't trying to say everything he logically implied, but was simply facing the betrayel of insufficient vocabulary.
If Lewis can be misunderstood on this issue, Paul is probably susceptible as well. Let's not assume too hastily that Paul's perspective necessarily excludes the others. Remember the blind men and the elephant!
well said. at this point, we should read the stuff you posted about four months ago. it would fit perfectly.
Perhaps so, perhaps no.
Intuition doesn't take kindly to reasonable translation
thus these confused comments and post...
Ah yes...
But perhaps it isn't wrong to say that understanding appears only as we journey. May we ever wander on!
Post a Comment