Skip to main content

The Law of Least Love


Counters

Those who are patched in to Living Social/Facebook may well know that last week I had the misfortune of watching that execrable Matthew McConaghey rom-com "Ghosts of Girlfriends Past." I won't go into the reasons why I ended up watching it here. There is no excuse that can remove the shame and disgrace of it all...

It really was the nadir of creative cinema. A shallow, predictable reworking of Charles Dicken's Christmas Carol, with Christmas taken out and replaced with "love/relationships" as the core theme (they kept the snow though!) It might be interesting to contrast this reworking with the Zemeckis version that is out in the cinemas at the moment... but I for one won't be doing the comparison as a) it is yet another 3D epic, and such films are wasted on a son with only one eye, as is the case with my youngest son Ciaran, and b) it apparently will scare the pants off me, something that is not my idea of preparation for Christmas (although it is in tune with the original Victorian "Christmas Ghost Story" tradition that Dickens was tapping into.)

But anyway, why am I wittering on about one film I am not likely to watch and another that I loathed, hated and detested?

Well, in the midst of the detritus that is "Ghosts of Girlfriends Past" is the core idea that the power in any relationship lies with the one who cares less, and the "discovery" by the "hero" that relationships should not be about power, but happiness.

However, that idea of power lying with the one who cares less, or "The Law of Least Love" as some would have it, is a rarely expressed, yet important way of understanding the incarnation of Christ and his role in our atonement. Steve Chalke tried to articulate it subsequent to his clumsy (or tabloidesque) "cosmic child abuse" statement, but essentially what it means is that in any relationship the one who loves most surrenders most power... Hence, in both incarnation and cross we have a demonstration of the Almighty God laying down his power because of his love for us...

As Charles Wesley puts it, he "emptied himself of all but love, and bled for Adam's helpless race."


(ps. I could suggest that there is "cruciform" symbology going on in the film poster of "Ghosts..." but that would probably be taking things a number of steps too far...)


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Woman of no Distinction

Don't often post other people's stuff here... But I found this so powerful that I thought I should. It's a performance poem based on John 4: 4-30, and I have attached the original YouTube video below. A word for women, and men, everywhere... "to be known is to be loved, and to be loved is to be known." I am a woman of no distinction of little importance. I am a women of no reputation save that which is bad. You whisper as I pass by and cast judgmental glances, Though you don’t really take the time to look at me, Or even get to know me. For to be known is to be loved, And to be loved is to be known. Otherwise what’s the point in doing either one of them in the first place? I WANT TO BE KNOWN. I want someone to look at my face And not just see two eyes, a nose, a mouth and two ears; But to see all that I am, and could be all my hopes, loves and fears. But that’s too much to hope for, to wish for, or pray for So I don’t, not anymore. Now I keep to myself And by that
2 comments
Read more

Psalm for Harvest Sunday

A short responsive psalm for us as a call to worship on Harvest Thanksgiving Sunday, and given that it was pouring with rain as I headed into church this morning the first line is an important remembrance that the rain we moan about is an important component of the fruitfulness of the land we live in: You tend the land and water it And the earth produces its abundance. You crown each year with your bounty, and our storehouses overflow with your goodness. The mountain meadows are covered with flocks and the valleys are filled with corn; Your people celebrate your boundless grace They shout for joy and sing. from Psalm 65
3 comments
Read more

Living under the Empire... (2) Where is Babylon?

We were driving back from school last week, talking about books that we had been reading and my younger son, Ciaran, asked me "Where is Babylon?" I have to confess that my history is better than my geography, and I said that it no longer exists as an inhabited city, but its ruins were to the north west of the current capital of Iraq, Baghdad. When I checked however, I discovered that it is actually about 50 miles south of Baghdad and the modern town is the administrative centre of the province of Babil... But just as the modern city is but a shadow of the historic capital of 2 ancient empires, first under Hammurabi in the 18th century BCE and then the "Neo-Babylonian" empire (under Nebuchadnezzar etc) in the 6th century BCE, so the earthly Babylonian empire/s was/were fleeting in comparison to the enduring metaphorical idea of Babylon. The original Empire under Hammurabi was probably the ultimate origin of some of the early Biblical stories, including the &quo
Post a Comment
Read more