Correction
I have a very dear friend named Tony who has been going to an Episcopal church. I mentioned in an email yesterday that I have other friends going to an Anglican church. Then I explained that the Anglican is the “British” version of Episcopalian.
Well, Tony is the kind of person who doesn’t commit to something without some measure of thought, and he wrote back a “well, actually…” paragraph explaining just how the American Episcopalians were connected to Scottish roots (which they wanted) rather than English roots (which they wanted no part of). His answer was scholarly. But I told him my “two-bit” review of the Anglicans was still true, as I considered it good enough for church step conversation. In another place in time, I would have needed Tony’s treatise. But in the email, during a busy workday, I like mine. Everything I need, nothin’ I don’t.
This leads me to something I’ve wrestled with a bit since last Sunday morning. Lori and I have been in a church plant down the road. It’s amazing how the leadership are on the same page with things God has been showing me in the “wilderness” the past few years. Like we have been in the same wilderness. When, and if, I argue about things I think I disagree on, I end up thinking we really do agree, but only looking at things from different perspectives.
It’s amazing that we see things so alike. Then, on Sunday, one of the pastors, teaching on the importance of loving the body of Christ, blurted out how that old phrase “I have to love them but I don’t have to LIKE them” is B.S. Actually, to be fair, he didn’t say it was bullsh*t, but reading his facial expression, I think he might have if it was “Foursquare.”
It sounded good enough in context that I may have even said an “Amen!” if I were “Foursquare.” But later I started thinking how much I still like that phrase. In fact, I cling to it as if it were scripture and now Jeremy is trying to take it away.
And that made me want to challenge him on it.
Until this morning.
This morning I awoke with a bit of a revelation. It featured a very dear friend in my life. This friend is a model of holiness, but not necessarily very “religious.” This person is easy to misunderstand as he finds a lot of church meetings boring. And isn’t afraid to say it. And he doesn’t show up for church all the time because of something else God put in his life on Sunday mornings. I respect my friend, but he doesn’t line up with much religious military muster, and although my friend doesn’t care, I care, and I don’t want people to miss out on knowing the jewel of Christ that he is.
So the thought crossed my mind that somebody who is not content to exercise the right to use that phrase “I don’t have to like them” is going to be the same person who will NOT cop out and will actually find a way to understand and love my friend.
Yeah, I could confront, and give my case for how some people present themselves as “unlikable.” I could argue against the weight of relationship being put on the “lover” rather than the “loved.” And how Jesus himself had “favorites”, but the question God presented to me was, “do you really want to convince him of all of that?” Or do I want the Jeremys of the church around my friend?
And here is where my stories come together. I would have given the long, thinking, biblically “correct” view, responding to Jeremy’s “two-bit” approach to loving each other. Both are true. This morning, I need his right now, and so does my friend. It’s everything I need, nothin’ I don’t.
