Tags

, , , , ,

“Show me your love.   Don’t talk about it.”  That is what the married woman insisted to her husband, who was, admittedly, a person enamored with his own words.  Other circumstances could also lie behind the woman’s frustration.  In any case, she wanted “evidence.”  She wanted action that confirmed that the words “I love you” weren’t hollow.  “Flesh it out, man.”

We can sympathize with a person who says, “Shut up, and show me that you love me.”

In spite of what is right about “Shut up and show me” and what is wrong about the one who only says “I love you” without showing any corroborating evidence, there is a reality we can’t ignore – it is only a matter of time before someone will walk, psychologically if not physically.

—————————————

“What kind of church would it be if the members showed among themselves the radical love that exists between Father God and Jesus?”  Stating that as a rhetorical question, without giving specific illustrations of what that love looks like, assumes that both speaker and listener have the same kind of behavior in mind that would flow out of such love among humans.  But, that assumption is usually not the case.

People have that tragically interesting trait of not agreeing on what to include in the semantic circle “love.”  The circle of one person may be completely different from another’s circle.  The circles may overlap.  And in rare cases, the circles may be identical.  Between the Father and the Son, they were identical circles.  Between humans, probably not; our different past experiences pretty much guarantee that.  Father God and Son have no differences in their “past.”  They see things the same way.  They interpret things the same way.  They project things the same way.  Their semantic pool is identical!!  One says something, and the other responds, “That is exactly the way I would have said it.”  They are of one mind.  We aren’t.