Follow up to last night's thought

Last night, I wrote that love, by its nature, is unconditional. What prompted that entry is this statement by our archbishop:

[I]t is misleading to call God’s love unconditional. God’s love is faithful even when we sin. But there are consequences for sinful behavior!

The archbishop's main point is that we should not shy away from "straightforward moral teaching." I agree. But to this man in the pews, to suggest that God's love has strings attached seems contrary to Scripture. See, e.g., 1 John 4.

Comments

[Dave!]

I think you're correct about love being, by definition, unconditional. I'm definitely not up on the theological background, but it seems to me that the archbishop is confusing love with something else, what I'm not sure (devotion?). God's *love* is unconditional--he loves us no matter what--but his devotion(?) is conditioned upon living free of sin (or being repentant when we do), right?

It's one thing to love unconditionally, and it's another for their not to be consequences for one's actions. God can love unconditionally, but insist that we take personal responsibility for sin. Think about living/loving an alcoholic. You might still love them, but throw them out until they get help. In fact, in my mind the concept of forgiveness kind of requires that unconditional love... God will forgive your sins if you're repentant, right? Why? Because he loves you.

[kiwi]

Along the lines of what Dave added,think about loving your own children. We (as parents) impose consequences for our children's misbehavior not because our love for them is conditional but because our love compels us to impose boundaries, limits, appropriate corrections. We impose consequences to help guide our children along a healthier path. So, too, of God's love for us, His children. Except, of course, that we can have even greater faith that the consequences He imposes are just.