There is much misinformation and many mixed signals when it comes to the subject (and/or object) of love. Specifically within Christian circles, with the Love Commands in particular, we become entangled in confusion, myth, and down-right perversion. But what we either ignore or (more probably) what we are completely ignorant of are the Degrees of Intimacy. When we do not understand the variables of human emotion and divine grace (and reason) in the context of love, we confound the proper, healthy relations in which we are called (and equipped) to live.

There are three major degrees of intimacy: Unconditional Love; Sexual Love and; Brotherly Love. Unconditional love is purely logical; it originates in God as a pure essence of God. God has no other form of love, but logical. God does not have the emotional expressions of “sex love” or “brotherly love.” Humans can have perfect (unconditional) love, but only in a proper relationship with God. And we are wrought with sexual and brotherly love precisely because of our humanity.

[Incidentally, we could also speak of our confusion over “love” and “lust.” Lust is the perversion of love; in fact, it’s the polar-opposite. Love gives, while lust takes. Love owes nothing and is owed nothing, while lust feels entitled to a perceived debt. The confusion is steeped in dysfunctional emotions.]

So, for example, in marriage: When one has an affair or is “no longer in ‘love’” with his/her spouse or is “in ‘love’ with another”, it is usually not based in “love” but pure emotion (though not necessarily sex). If that is true, then, it is not logical to have an affair or to utilize these excuses. Unconditional love, being based in logic and sound reason, dictates that one doesn’t have an affair because emotions are irrelevant when pertaining to “love.” However, emotions are directly linked to the degrees of intimacy in the two forms of “Erotic Love” and “Brotherly Love.” These are where we get our wires crossed. We often confuse erotic and brotherly love, thereby, crossing the boundaries of degrees. There is an old myth, based on Freudian Psychology, which states that two people of opposite genders cannot be friends (not for long, anyway). The truth is that here is where the two emotional “loves” become confused. The degrees of intimacy become unclear because the boundaries of “brotherly love” and “erotic love” become blurred.

As such, then, God’s unconditional love (and, therefore, that unconditional love in us for others) is pure logic with sound reason as a boundary. Where “erotic love” and “brotherly love” are complexities of emotions with the boundaries easily blurred because of the emotional links themselves. We can have an improper and unbalanced combination of the three degrees of intimacy, where love based in and governed by logic is replaced by love based on feelings – (either real or perceived) needs, wants; victimization; entitlement, and etc. The perversion comes when “love” is not clearly distinguished and we attempt to blur the lines of the degrees of intimacy in our personal relationships.

Therefore, logic (the basis for unconditional love) dictates that we are to have sexual love for one (but not necessarily any), brotherly love for many, and Perfect Love for all.

Freedom… Much is made of this idea, and especially recently. Legally it is the state of being at liberty rather than confined to restraints. Personally (both physically and mentally) it speaks of liberty as opposed to bondage and slavery. Socially it can have to do with the freedom from any external controls to speak one’s mind or freedom from external control in one’s actions. Politically it speaks of civil liberties that are opposed to despot dictators or governments. Yet, today, an all-encompassing popular definition for freedom could be that “we are free to do whatever we want or see fit.” But if that were true, wouldn’t our freedom infringe at some point on another’s? The United States, arguably the freest country in the world, is a country of laws designed to protect freedom (originally). If a country of laws, then how is it free according to the popular definition? And if freedom is to be “lawless,” how is it really freedom?

When we speak of freedom without a context it always, in reality, concerns our own sake. Like anything else the idea of freedom can be manipulated and perverted. The proper context for freedom is not found in the idea of lawless, but “without law.” Against freedom there is no just law which can ever find it guilty or limited. This context, though rarely mentioned, is the original intent for the idea of freedom. Freedom, first and foremost, is a benefit of grace (for without grace, generally speaking, there is no such thing as freedom). The source of freedom and, therefore, the idea of freedom is from the mind of God; the benefactor of grace.

Biblically, the idea of freedom is to be without religious regulations or restrictions of the Law; it is to be without the Law of Sin and Death; it is without the present Law of Corruption. Never do we find freedom as a license to serve our own selfish desires. In fact, manipulating and perverting freedom to be an excuse to do “whatever we want or see fit” is to again be accused by the Law; it is to again become subject to the Law of Sin and Death; it is the self-expression of the Law of Corruption. Do not confuse rebellion with freedom.

Logically, if freedom is the ability to do “whatever I want or see fit,” then the necessary conclusion is the eventual robbery of another’s freedom. Lawlessness is not a respecter of others and, therefore, is not in fact the state of being free; but, in all actuality, is only slavery to the desires and passions of the self; while attempting to force said freedom of the one onto all others. However, if freedom is the state of being without law, then it is bound by no necessary law (there are no just laws withstanding freedom); it respects all others, and is limitless in its scope and intentions for others. Freedom is not free. It entails sacrifice and suffering.

At the time of this writing North Carolinians are heading to their respective voting stations. Among the offices and positions on the ballots is a (perceived or actual) controversial amendment. If you do not know what I’m talking about, we need to have a different conversation. If you are aware of your surroundings, however, and what is going on in the world of religion as politics, I do not wish to change your political affiliation (evident by the fact that this is being posted the day after the primary), but only hope to conduce thought.

Concerning the officials: Do not be fooled by the (self-contradicting) laws of politics; for example, the law which states that a politician is subject to change his/her opinion dependant on to whom he/she is speaking. Or the law which insists that hypocrisy is always found in what my opponents say and do. Ironically, the laws of politics demand that there are no absolutes; save for those to which my opponents must adhere. A key variable in these laws of politics is based on the degree in which the voters – the public at large – are ignorant; not only concerning the facts of the matter, but also concerning the definition of ignorance (i.e. uninformed) itself.

As is the case concerning religion, when we are ignorant of the laws of politics at least two things result: First, we (the people) are but numbers to be manipulated by differing math formulas and equations in the hopes of ultimate control of the populous by the institution and, secondly, we (the people) believe or disbelieve everything we hear based on who (what party, race, religion, etc.) is speaking. Like the old psychoanalysis which explained that we were all abused in our childhood but simply suppressed the memory, we become self-induced victims because we allow someone or something else to think for us. There is an old adage which states, “If we are ignorant of history we are destined to repeat it.” Worse yet, I think, is the fact that, if we are ignorant of history, then someone can come along and re-write it.

There are deeper issues involved with Amendment One than the overly simplistic notion that this is about homosexuals. Emotions are not logical and, therefore, do not result from a thought process (but, rather, the lack thereof). Do not be fooled by hyper-emotionalism because it does not necessitate thought. The “Christian” argument is ridiculous simply because we have differing interpretations of the Scriptures, and (obviously) differ on to what degree the Cross of Christ is effectual. [Incidentally, the phrase “the Bible says…” is an insufficient and manipulative argument because it is your interpretation of what the Bible says.] Do not be fooled by (so-called) “Christian Ethics/Morals” because they are inconsistent and conveniently selective. While it is true that we cannot legislate morality (forcing what is “right” by making illegal what is “wrong”), it is also a fact that we cannot make “truth” relative. Do not confuse opinion with fact, and proof with conjecture. And “Freedom” does not mean I can do anything I want.

Do not be fooled, regardless of where you stand politically; despite your opinion on Amendment One, God stands on neither side. God is neither “Republican nor Democrat” (and neither is God “Independent,” but only in the absolute theological sense). God does not side with “pro” agendas of any kind (simply because they are in fact self-serving agendas). God does not favor, in spite of reports to the contrary, any separation of humanity what-so-ever. The fact that we have before us Amendment One, and the fact that “politics” is excused from common decency (not to mention the Laws of Logic), proves only the depths of depravity and alienation in which humanity lives, and nothing else. Vote with your conscious and voice your opinion, but know what they are first, and know that they are precisely that – yours.

From the perspective of Vision Casting, humanity can be (roughly) categorized into three cultures: The Churched Culture, the Un-Churched Culture, and the De-Churched Culture. Each culture can be further divided into sub-cultures and counter-cultures of a given category (such as race, tastes in music, and lifestyles, etc). Much of the attention, both positively and negatively speaking, has been centered on the Churched Culture; frankly, because it is the established culture of western civilization (especially in America). The Un-Churched Culture seems to always be the instigator of change. But it is the De-Churched Culture that is usually an over-looked, if not forgotten, category. Living among the un-churched the de-churched remember life as the Churched.

For better or for worse, regardless: By definition, then, the Churched are those that make up the establishment and have historically been the story tellers concerning it; the Un-Churched are those who have never been a part of the establishment and have no story to tell concerning it; and the De-Churched are those who have a memory of the establishment, but ultimately have no positive stories to tell concerning it.

Here is where most people confuse the categories.

The Churched has attempted to set the norms for society; the Un-Churched has never been a part of those norms (or that society) and, therefore, are unaffected by (and often ignorant of) such perceived norms and; the De-Churched feel victimized and alienated by these norms and, thus, the rejected (perceived or otherwise) become those who reject the norms.

As a rule (there are exceptions, which make it a rule), most of your atheists actually belong to the De-Churched Culture. Most of the Un-Churched are not a threat to the Churched Culture, except passively and by implication. It is those of the De-Churched that have abandoned “Christianity” and embraced the sciences as an alternative. They are those who target the church as enemies. The Un-Churched are oblivious to the cause and, honestly, until something changes, the De-Churched will disciple the Un-Churched, via ignorance, at an alarming rate. 

All three categories do have one thing in common: All have an inert need of Jesus Christ. The Churched must remember who it is the story is concerning and make disciples of His (rather than a religion). The Un-Churched must inhale the smelling salt of the reality of Jesus Christ; not by becoming churched, but by expressing Him in and by the Un-churched Culture. And the De-Churched must realize that their memories have nothing to do with Jesus Christ, but in fact only a culture (of which they’re no longer a part), and utilize their energies and talents in telling His story. In whichever category one finds oneself – regardless of the culture – Jesus Christ is powerfully crossing cultures for the building of His Church; not a simple culture, but a composite of the three.