THE POWER OF LOVE

A Sermon by the Rev. George Briggs, Minister Emeritus

Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Winston-Salem, NC

June 26, 2005

I have been writing today’s sermon all of my life. It occurs to me that even though this sermon is a work in progress, it is high time for me to preach it. So here we are!

I am sure we will all agree at the outset that "love" is a complex subject. Paul was probably not using the word in the ways that you and I use it most of the time. In 1 Cor. 13, most versions now use the word love. As you know, the King James Version of the Bible uses the word charity in this context. I much prefer the word love. As a matter of fact – a fact about myself – I have a problem with the word charity. In current usage it has acquired a condescending tone, so I will stick to the word love.

When Paul said, "Love never fails," he probably meant “goodwill never fails.” It is possible to have a high level of goodwill toward other people – including people we have never met – without any implication of emotional involvement on our part. Yet I believe that for most of us today, when we use the word love, we are implying some measure of emotional involvement. I suspect it is a continuum from a disinterested sense of goodwill toward others to varying levels of active caring.

I plan to have a good time with this complex subject and I invite you to have a good time with me. I would like to see Unitarian Universalists spend a bit more time with the writings of Paul. Paul is a wonderful illustration of the complexity of serious religious issues, including the concept of love. Look at the 12th chapter of Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Paul writes, "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head." The heaping of burning coals upon someone’s head – even figuratively speaking – does not appear to me to be a loving act. If something is seen as a technique for manipulating others, for gaining control over them, then it seems to me that calling it "love" is an act of self-deception. It seems to me that the word love often lends itself to self-deception. This is just one of the reasons that to understand the meaning of love is a highly complicated enterprise.

Somebody wrote, "The love of power needs to be replaced with the power of love." I tried to find the source of this quotation and was unable to do so. If memory serves, it is somewhere in Lewis Mumford’s book The Conduct of Life. I first encountered this work when I was a senior in college. Just recently, in my effort to find this quotation, I obtained a copy of the book through interlibrary loan. I re-read it from cover to cover. I could not find the quote. I still think it is in there, but no matter. The love of power needs to be replaced with the power of love. I am afraid that this is one of those things that sound good when you say them quick. It must have made an impression on me, however.

I recall a sermon I preached at Christmas during my first year in my first church. I titled it "Life’s Christmas Alternatives." One must choose, I said, between Herod and the love of power or the babe in the manger and the power of love. Simplistic, simplistic, simplistic! Our religious traditions have led us to unrealistic expectations for the power of love in human relationships. The New Testament, for example, masks the complexity of love in hyperbole. The writer of 1 John tells us that "perfect love casts out fear." Fine, but where do you find perfect love? The Apostle Paul writes, "Love never fails." Unfortunately, however, love has failed many times – in every context. Love, after all, is only human. A psychologist wrote a book titled Love Is Not Enough. I never read the book – the title says it all! None of this invalidates love. It merely affirms that the power of love, like everything else about us, is only human.

Before going any further, I want to narrow my focus. In this sermon, my focus is on love as a meaningful concept in interpersonal relationships. I have come to the conclusion that love is a meaningless concept, for example, in the context of international relationships. Here it is much more helpful to speak of justice and economic cooperation and the responsible use of power. So in this sermon my focus is on love as part of what we bring to our one-to-one connections with other persons. This, too, is a wide focus, which we will make a little less so by excluding romantic relationships.

One of my deep concerns is that we be careful in our use of language. I believe that language is sacred. Because it is sacred, language should be used with precision. Words have definitions so we can set limits on our use of those words. One of the things I am trying to do this morning is to set some limits on our use of the word love. I also want us to be careful in choosing words that we might substitute for the word love. I have received many appeals to add my name to a list of people who are calling for "tolerance." When I receive such an appeal, it goes in the shredder. I do not believe in tolerance. I am basically an intolerant person. Tolerance is a counterfeit of love – it is a counterfeit of respect. I respect many people that I do not necessarily love, but I will not insult them by saying that I "tolerate" them. Not even if they are my parishioners!

If love implies some measure of emotional bonding, then we do not have to love everybody in order to have sound interpersonal relationships. Furthermore, love is not the solution to every human problem – at least not love alone. To say otherwise is simplistic in the extreme. Love is human. It has limits. So much as I cherish our Universalist heritage, I have a problem with it. The message of universalism is that love is the ultimate reality. I am not sure that there is any such thing as ultimate reality, but for the moment this is beside the point. For early Universalists, God’s love was so great that all persons would attain salvation. As Universalists moved into the 20th century, universal salvation came to be defined in humanistic terms – universal education, universal health, universal justice, universal participation in the good things of life. According to the modern universalist, no human being is uneducable. If someone does not learn, it does not mean that he or she cannot learn; it merely means that we do not yet have the skills needed to teach that person. According to the modern universalist, no human being is incorrigible. If someone does not overcome anti-social behaviors, it does not mean that that person is incorrigible. It merely means that we have not yet acquired the skill to help that person. This is the message of Jesus in such parables as "The lost sheep." If 99 kids are doing well, we expend our energies and resources in helping the one who is not doing well to overcome his or her problems. If someone continues to have serious problems getting along in spite of our best efforts, it just means that we have not yet acquired the needed knowledge and skills for helping that person. I happen to believe this. I also believe that a lot of children and adults will continue to fall through the cracks. It begs the question to assert that these folks just need more love. The reality is that many persons are destined to live their lives within severe limitations of one kind of another. All of the love in the world is not going to change this anytime soon. All of the love in the world is no guarantee of anything! Our love will keep us searching for the knowledge and skills that are needed to help troubled people. But it is so easy for the potential good effects of love to be thwarted. Sometimes the potential good effects of love are thwarted by ignorance, sometimes by just plain stupidity. And sometimes the potential good effects of love are thwarted by our own unresolved emotional needs.

Guess what? I’m not smart enough to know the difference or to sort out the difference between ignorance, stupidity and unresolved emotional needs. I do know that children sometimes need protection from loving parents. I am convinced that genuine love can coexist with child abuse and child neglect. So I have to say that if a parent is hurting a child, whether or not that parent loves the child is irrelevant. Children sometimes need protection from loving parents. Love, by itself, does not make good parents.

Child abuse can sometimes be subtle – non-physical. I recall a woman in one of my congregations whose priorities did not allow her to attend her daughter’s high school graduation. Something else she wanted to do that evening was more important to her. That was child neglect, just as surely as if she had denied her daughter food or clothing. Yet I do not doubt that this woman’s love for her daughter was genuine. It just was not enough. The good news is that there are resources available to help parents who love their children to obtain some of the knowledge and skills that will help them to be better parents.

We are so proud of the work that our daughter is doing in Tampa, Florida. An employee of the State Department of Public Health, she has been involved for some years in a program called "Healthy Families." Although loosely related to the Health Department, this program is relatively autonomous and is funded from several sources. New parents at risk for child abuse are identified. Before the mother and baby leave the hospital, the mother is interviewed by a Healthy Families worker. When possible, the father is also interviewed. These new parents are then offered five years of supportive services. It is totally voluntary – yet no new parents offered this opportunity have turned it down. The really good news is that with the parents who have gone through this program so far, there has been no reported case of child abuse. Not one! These parents love their new babies, but they are ready to acknowledge that their love is not enough by itself. They are eager to obtain the knowledge and skills that will help them to be better parents.

Now let us turn to the biblical admonition that we "love our neighbors." Whether or not we love our neighbors might not be the issue either. In one of his books, Martin Luther King responded to those who argue that morality cannot be legislated. King agreed. He said, in effect, We cannot pass laws requiring people to love their neighbors; however, we can pass laws that require people to treat their neighbors with minimal standards of decency. Over time, King said, this has an educational effect. After learning to treat their neighbors with minimal standards of decency, some will develop respect for their neighbors. Some persons will even find that they have come to love folks they had not previously allowed themselves to know. In the meantime, legal sanctions are available when the minimal standards have been violated. It is because love is so important in our lives that the word should not be trivialized. We are human. Love is human. Love is no guarantee of anything. When all is said and done, love can only "be there." But it remains "the greatest of these."