Does Love Necessitate Acceptance?
Introduction
As I begin to write about this topic, I need to convey that the motivation for writing this came from a genuine question that I had. The beginning or spurring of asking this question, admittedly, came from viewing the context of an interaction between a person and their talking with someone who is homosexual. Now, I need to predicate all of this with, this is not some formal treatise against the homosexual person by any means but rather it was simply within this context that caused me to ask the question I hope to answer here. Not only from the context I witnessed in this single event but also from the general interaction between society and the church has caused me to ask this question, does love necessitate acceptance?
Now, what do I mean when I say that I have been spurred on to ask this question based on what I have witnessed in the interaction between society and the church? I mean, typically those within the church will say that they love the homosexual but hate the sin. As a response (common but not always) it is said that the church hates homosexuals because they are that, homosexual. Since I have laid the context for my initial inquiry into asking this question it is necessary that the reader not limit my arguments or points strictly to this domain. This context only spurred my investigation into this idea, but its purpose is far more general in scope. I CANNOT stress enough that the goal here is for you to see the general scope with which this mentality affects other areas of life, so I deeply implore you to not remain fixated on the initial context that caused me to ask this question. With these precursors out of the way let me jump into what I want to discuss.
Does Love Necessitate Acceptance?
To begin, love is a notoriously difficult thing to define but I think it would be good to give a definition, so we have a starting point or a point of reference. The Webster dictionary defines love as such, “a quality or feeling of strong or constant affection for and dedication to another.”[1] This definition is love as it is used as a noun but what about its usage as a verb? Well, it means to hold dear or have devotion or to have a feeling of tenderness towards someone (I say someone since I am specifically talking about persons).
As far as defining purposes, the English language is relatively limited in its ability to convey all the nuances of what many mean when they use the word love. Here, the Greek language can help round out our view of love. In the Greek language, they have six different usages of the word love. Eros, this is a sexual kind of love and deals with passion.[2] Philia is meant to convey a deep sense of friendship love, the kind of love one has specifically for their friends. Ludus is a playful kind of love, this sense is hanging out and joking and those sorts of things. Agape is “perhaps the most radical,” and this is a selfless kind of love for all people.[3] Pragma is a longstanding kind of love, it is the practical (or pragmatic) side that works and makes compromises for growing relationships. Philautia is self-love or the loving of one’s self as a person, you could even say, contra narcissism, this is healthy confidence and affection for who you are and your well-being.
As can be seen and many would agree, English has the same meanings for love when it is used by people but English simply lacks the many ways in which to communicate its nuances. With that said, we now have a context for the meaning of love in two languages and they seem to match up and convey similar things. This leads me to a question, is acceptance a part of these definitions? In one sense one could argue that it is, but I would tend to disagree. The main reason for this is and if I may provide an example (below), the main function of the word is not to accept someone but to have a devotion, affection, or care for that person. Now, I must define the main question I posed at the outset, does love “necessitate” acceptance? By this I mean, is acceptance a necessary part (or something that must be present) for love to be love. With this context in mind, I can move forward.
My example is a rather simple one and it deals with conviction (not in a religious sense but in a moral sense). When you, personally, do something that you feel is wrong, you will often experience feelings of remorse (or conviction). With that, since you have these feelings of remorse/ conviction for the wrong-doing, I think it would be safe to assume that you do not accept the actions that you have done. With that being the case, does your whole love structure for your love of yourself come crashing down? In a very limited sense, it may but I would not say that your self-love comes crashing down so much as your confidence in your ability to always do right. It should be said that this only conveys one very limited aspect of love and that is self-love and there are tons of people in the world who genuinely hate themselves. How about another example, if a child lies to their parents (a problem I often face with my blossoming seven-year-old daughter), does this cause the parents to stop loving that child (given the parents genuinely love and care for that child)? The answer must emphatically be no. The parent does what they see is the right thing and punishes the wrong-doing to correct the moral compass but this is done out of love. Not correcting the morally questionable action would be to not have concern for the course of the child’s life and thus could result in a morally questionable character and (potentially) send the child down a rather bleak path of depression and penalty.
In these examples, it can be seen that you are not accepting the actions of persons because accepting what someone does is not determinative of love. Rather the love rises above this perception of a person is only what they do. So, is acceptance of a person or a person’s actions a necessary part of loving that person? Based on what has been presented above I would have to answer no. Since no person is essentially what they do, our love for a person should not wane due to the misguided directions of that person’s life. There are constant battles of people’s particular views of things. For example, you may have a friend that adamantly disagrees with you on some political matter, but does this affect the love you have for that person? No, or at least it should not.
The general problem that I see with attaching the acceptance part to love is that in doing so we strictly limit our ability to love. By stating that acceptance is an essential component of love we thereby limit the pool of people we can love. Since we cannot love people we do not accept, we essentially can only love those with whom we agree. But this falls apart (given the person is a moral person) because if a person does or believes something that causes a rift in their moral aspect than this person should fundamentally despise themselves, thus causing a collapse of their self-love. I believe this mentality of acceptance being an essential part of love has been born out of the “tolerance” movement. But this poses a real dilemma since to love someone you must accept them and to accept them you must tolerate what they do and believe, how can any progress be made towards anything. Under this thinking, no one would love anybody, and the world would essentially be devoid of love and this would make the world a rather miserable place to live.
I submit that acceptance is not a fundamental part of love. As a matter of fact, Jesus has called us to love our enemies (Matthew 5:43-48; Luke 6:27-30). In this case, love does not even require that the recipient accepts the love. Love is a freely given act and thus has more to do with the fundamental quality that the person we love is, in fact, a person. We can disagree (and do so adamantly) with a person and what they do but have a genuine affection for them as human persons. To stipulate the property of acceptance into the realm of love is to do a disservice to the act of love. It fundamentally limits it and restricts it in an unnecessary way.
Conclusion
The goal here was to show that acceptance is not a fundamental component to love. Love is a stand-alone enterprise that acceptance should have no part. The main reason for this is that with the baggage of acceptance, love is forced into a limited arena through which it can affect lives. Love is a fundamental part of human existence and to limit the scope of its reach is to do a disservice to human persons. The best example of the far-reaching capabilities of love can be found at the cross of Christ. At the cross of Christ, one can see the strips of love worn without the veil of acceptance. It is not the acceptance of God that Christ was bringing for us but rather it was the love of God he was connecting us with because we are separated in our sins. The perfect love of Christ did away with our miserable attempts of acceptance through actions and brought us peace based on our action of love towards him. Do not let the lie that acceptance is necessary to love guide your loving impact for the world but rather dictate that love is the transcendent component that functions to unify the world despite acceptance.
[1] “Love,” definitions, Webster’s Dictionary, accessed April 3, 2019, http://wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?love.
[2] Roman Krynaric, “The Ancient Greeks’ 6 Words for Love (And Why Knowing Them Can Change Your Life,” Yes Magazine, December 27, 2013, https://www.yesmagazine.org/happiness/the-ancient-greeks-6-words-for-love-and-why-knowing-them-can-change-your-life. All references concerning the Greek words for love will be from this source.
[3] Ibid.
Comments
Post a Comment