On love

This probably should not come as a surprise to anyone, but a consistent issue in most any religious or political discussion really comes down to a definition of how does one love one's neighbor. Wondering about what tack to take in a theological debate? Isn't the choice of whether to be firm, or "live and let live," often a factor of determining how significant the issue is? After all, a minor detail of application leads to a slightly tarnished crown of glory; an issue of soteriology may send the deceived to Hell. One can compromise on the first out of love for Christ, but not the second. It might seem "loving" at first to "live and let live" in the church, but not when it ends up with people in Hell.

In the same way, we end up at the same point with discussions about politics. We might think, for example, that it is a noble thing to provide food, shelter, and clothing for the poor. No problem, right?

Well, in reality, we might find out (like Dinesh D'Souza did) that the poor are often overweight, well clothed, and have plenty of shelter--and what they need most is actually a bit of hunger to encourage them to find gainful employment.

We would do well, I think to remember that God's love for us is not always manifested in day to day comfort, but rather in discipline--sometimes painful discipline. To bring someone temporary comfort at the cost of lifetime or eternal rewards is not love.