"Betrayed Christianity" 5. Love Cast Aside

When they become conscious of it, friends and enemies alike, they all admit that the essence, the kernel, that which makes it precious and unique, is Christianity's great principle, Love. I do not really think that any other "Weltanschauung" on earth identified the essence of God with Love. None of them said "God is Love" - but Jesus did say so and he did not express it only in words. His whole life on earth was one continuous offering and sacrifice of Himself in the name of love, from his humble and despised birth, to his martyr's death.
There's no doubt that "existing" Christianity emphatically brings forward love, sometimes honestly and sometimes in a political - diplomatic way. Christianity sometimes refers to serious substantial works of love, solidarity and social welfare - at times with simplicity and naivety, at others with discreet, faintly visible complacency, yet other times with pompous "phariseeism". These works of love take on the character, let us say, of the exercise of other virtues, such as philanthropy and giving money to the poor.
Love is not just a virtue, but something much greater, more precious, more basic. It is not "anise and cummin" but "the weightier matters of the law"5.1. Unfortunately, love has gone from the central point, and has become one part of the periphery, a tiny piece of the mosaic of virtues that a Christian must exercise according to his personal abilities. And if he does not remember it much, or only on well-known Christian holy days, when people with collecting tins knock at the door, or when the media does those "love-marathons" (which are not to be despised), then that's all right. This omission can be very well-balanced by "over-substitution" to the exercise of other virtues, such as special participation in services, going to extra prayer-meetings, further reading of religious books, and many more. The mentality of the Church that we referred to before, contributes to the shaping of this opinion in which love is imprisoned in the narrow boundaries of philanthropy and alms-giving, and that's why it is somehow remote, isolated, accessible only for occasional visits or when you have enough time and energy.
Any simple, good-natured person might not have consciously recognised the meaning of love, as we coolly discuss and anatomise5.1a it or in the way some religious books describe it rather superficially or in a seemingly serious way. Constantly and on a daily basis, this good-natured person cares for, agonises over, and looks after not only his own self and his family, but also the problems and cares of his fellow men. And he does not just do it from some kind of "natural" obligation to individuals of the same species (Homo sapiens) because some blind Chance and inevitable Necessity "brought" them together at the same time on the same planet; but because he feels they are his brothers, since we are all children of the same Father, the God of Love. He does whatever he can do by his own endeavour, with lightness of heart, discretion and humility. He "sheweth mercy with cheerfulness"5.2: A cool glass of water, a friendly word, company (the best thing that can be given free of charge in our present day world of isolation and loneliness) and whatever else "not-to-be-silenced" love can contrive are offered spontaneously and without comment. However, when it becomes too much for him, because he would need serious economic means, the joining of resources, organisation, co-ordination, administration of infrastructure, he looks around for some light, for some pure and unadulterated (by human standards) group attempt to take refuge, and by joining onto them his own strength, he can help to face the issue fruitfully. Most of the time he is disappointed. Here we should perhaps be careful to avoid injustice.
Many "thinkers" from different humanistic movements, intellectuals from offices, television channels, university reading rooms, consciously underestimate or mock the so-called "love" work, and they are inexcusably unjust to simple, anonymous, disinterested people who serve different works of love in action: old people's homes, prison, fund-raising for the poor, and many more worthy actions which are unseen and are therefore even more precious. They live in their own way their view on the essence of Christianity "owe no man any thing, but to love one another"5.3. These people go against the official line of the Church, in practice differentiating themselves from the majority of people who centre their lives on faith and worship. They realise that love is not only giving, especially material gifts, (which would be a privilege of the rich only). Christ did not come to level all social and economic inequalities, nor to make the poor richer and the rich poorer. That is the reason why communists, socialists, humanists and their like did not accept Him and even fought against Him. Christ did not try to do things that sensitive people like Marx and many others could have done and did, in their own way. He came precisely to help man to overcome the worldly situation of the unequal distribution of material goods: to show that "man shall not live by bread alone"5.4. Bread is essential but it is not enough. He certainly did not say to the "hungry" and the "naked": "depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled..."5.5. On the contrary, he identified his Person with the "an hungred, or a thirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison"5.6. Just as a loving person offers everything to the least of his brothers, he offers it to Christ Himself. He did not ask for ceremonial activities, grand worship, slavish behaviour. "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice"5.7. He asked for widely varied, many sided, spontaneous offerings of love, from the fullness of everybody's heart. We would be doing the present Church an injustice if we did not recognise that it does a lot in that direction. But in most instances (let us not generalise, it is unfair) the Church does it in its own way. In what way is this upsetting?
Most of the time this offering is very personal. It concerns almost exclusively the local bishop, and maybe his immediate successor. It quickly degenerates and withers like the seeds that "fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away"5.8. It is a submission to an imposed necessity so that they will not accuse us of not producing work for the community. They say you can be a Christian even with a little sprinkling of love.
What is the official line of the present Church on the Christian prototype? The essential prerequisite of being a Christian is to believe, not only in the basic tenet that Jesus Christ, Son of God came to the world, was crucified and resurrected out of love for every human being, a version which after all is completely self-evident. It is also to believe unswervingly and without reservation all (I underline, all) of what is written not only in the New Testament which is basically Christ's message to the world, but also the Old Testament, for many points of which Christ expressed opinions quite different from those included in it. (I must beg to make a parenthesis here. What are the consequences for a lot of people, who like me, could not read the Old Testament to the end? And many of the extracts I did read upset me rather than increased my faith?)
As I understand it, and I am just a simple person, you have to believe in the dogmas of the Church. Which Church? The one you were born in. (For those who consciously chose it, it is different). Whatever it is, your Church professes that it is the authentic, the genuine, the correct. It is, and others say the same, a continuation of the one, holy apostolic (but in fact fragmented) Church. The teaching of this Church and the practice of this Church shows no "spot or wrinkle". Everyone says that others are full of errors, and if you happen to see something good in some thought or action of the other Church, many look on you as a renegade, traitor and outcast. For those belonging to a creed beyond the "recognised" ones, there is no place for discussion. They are collectively condemned to hell-fire by an irreversible decision, (we do not know whose). So our Christian is invited by his inherited Church to accept unreservedly and without protest its teaching, solid and intact, without leaving out "one jot or one tittle"5.9. The main part of this acceptance is the "no-protesting" because it is nice to have God's freedom, but we should not overdo it. You are free to leave if you want. But if you stay you have locked up your freedom and given it to the "management" of your Church.
This unanimous acceptance secures unity of faith (which is just a dream up until now, since we deny "speaking the truth in love"5.10) and without this each Church would be an "unfenced vineyard" where everyone could say and impose whatever they wanted. It is natural that an organised group made up of people with their strengths and weaknesses cannot make progress unless there is a united acceptance of principles and everyone strictly adheres to the rules. Nobody could be opposed to such an obvious and logical idea.
The thorn can be found in the word "logical", since the Church is the flock of reasonable sheep, gathered in the name of a God above question. The reason for human systems of authority may have very little to do with the logic of God. The first, by definition, is a relationship with authority. The second is a relationship of love and freedom. The first gives you the certainty of historical confirmation. The second embodies the related probability of danger, which only faith (also meaning trust) can undertake. It seems that the churches of "existing" Christianity prefer the certainty of historical experience to the risk of faith, thus contradicting themselves.
Christ's teaching talks of a kingdom which begins here on earth but "is not of this world"5.11. It is something special and unique. But unfortunately, it is taken down to the level of other special sub-structures organised by people. They made it another party, another ideology, another solution to the dead ends of social problems. It is understood that they can not put their authority into the hands of people's "self-determination" and so it is impossible to abide "in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free"5.12. It is humanly impossible to understand that there could be a sheepfold without a fence. However, that which is impossible for man is possible for God, because inside our miserable reality the Church of God exists, lives, and will live forever. In this Church there is room for "Mrs Smith-Jones", who never learned to read, but who cares for others and thinks of them all the time, in spite of having plenty of problems of her own. And when she is returning from the Christmas Day service in Church, she turns to the TV cameras who have come to visit her village and they ask her: "What are your hopes for this year?" She replies "What would I be hoping for, lads! I want good health for my children and grandchildren, and for me - I'm just waiting for the time when they will take me up to Saint George5.13 to meet my mother".
In the same Church there is room for the wise and well-known Professor who seems to be an atheist or an agnostic from his writings and his speeches, who can still say in bidding farewell to a good friend. "Safe journey to the next world. God only knows who is going to the better". And thus he voices his existential agony. He is just like the incredibly sensitive sixty-year old "adolescent" who is constantly searching for "eternal youth" with all that it entails and longs for it deep in his heart, writing songs all the time "for Charon to die"5.15. He is also like (strange as it may seem) the man who blasphemes Christian Faith and pokes fun all the time, fighting ceaselessly between a selfish ego-driven life and the anguished suspicion of a "different" reality. There is no need to give them all an "identity card"5.14. They are not there because anyone collected them, but because of the "evidence of innocence" purposely or unconsciously hidden inside the "thorns and briers"5.16 of life's vanity. They themselves do not want to accept it, but that is where their footsteps are led.
The views of the majority of today's ecclesiastical leadership are not strage nor unexpected. It would be very acceptable to note an exception in Churches, but very few of them have invested in God's gift to man - Freedom. The earthly representatives of God follow a diametrically opposite road mistakenly believing that this is God's road: a road of pressure, the fear of impending punishment, which is waiting to ambush Christians at any moment. But the Gospel, the "Good Message"5.16a, assures us that "perfect love casteth out fear"5.17. Can fear and anxiety coexist with joy and inner peace? For "authentic" interpreters of the Christian message, the answer is yes. These people are prisoners of guilt, insecurity, fear, anxiety and narrow ideas of the Relentless Avenger, created by their Judaic views on God as Master. They fool themselves into believing that they are living with real joy. The basic argument that supports this theory is (or seems) reasonable: is it possible for man the sinner to be sure of his salvation? Until his last moment, should not he be vigilant, stay awake, carry on the struggle? Of course he should. But none of this could be imposed from outside with the threat of punishment. The person who has a personal relationship with Jesus who he thinks of as his friend, his father and brother as well as his God, does it for only one reason, because he loves him.
During his life there are bound to be "storms", loss of faith and hesitations, but Jesus would not strike him down, but would stretch out to him with love, understanding and support. (“O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?”5.18) Even egotistical and stubborn departures from Jesus' sweet company expose a Christian to the mercy and forbearance of God: "Lord, I am worth nothing, but I love you." Which father would leave his child in "hell" however much he had upset him, since he longs to be with his child? So he innocently lives the promise he was given "your joy no man taketh from you"5.19. Things are simple but theology makes them difficult. Can you really love someone, and try to exploit him or cheat him at the same time? That kind of thing only happens in the Mafia's shady business dealings. Is this where the Church has its followers? But people might say, these types do exist. Of course they do. These are the ones who fool themselves into thinking that they are very clever, and enjoy the earthly delights which Mammon awards them in plenty. But they keep their options open, backing the possible existence of there being a next life (you just never know!)
Does the Church realise that these people have no connection with the Church, since they have no connection with love? Is the Church going to exhaust its children because of these irrelevant types? There is only one explanation, and for those who do not believe that there is a Devil, it is a persuasive indication that not only does he exist, but he also knows how to do his work really well, since he manages to get his only ambition offered on a plate: to keep people frightened, despairing and joyless, and lacking in calmness and peace of the soul. The notion that fear does not exclude inner peace seems to me rather schizophrenic. If they can assure me, with their hand on their heart, that they managed to experience it, I will ask their pardon right away. But I believe that their self-knowledge is no less than those who "being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last" when Jesus asked: "he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her"5.20. The stone of "Low", which unfortunately even today manages to find a place in many people's souls and ostracises Grace.
There are still people who believe in the judicial point of view for salvation: Some milligrams on the scales of the impartial justice of God will point to the "place" of each person's destiny. The thing is that they are not even aware that Christ wrote the replacement of Judaic Law in His blood, and with His own Love. It is as if they have never read the parable of the Prodigal Son. They take sides with the older brother, who had never been touched by love, and they mutter miserably and wretchedly: "Is that Just, is that right?" Of course it is not. It is just Love, and let us swallow it if we can, even if it is 2,000 years since it happened.
It is the love that was praised continuously over the centuries, right up to today:
"Whatever you give for love is too little
And you must know that there's no reward.
Just give it, and go, don't lose the chance
Don't put your soul in the margin ..."5.21
And again:
"Love's leaving, it's hiding in the snow
It's leaving to escape from the fires
that pursue it forever
ours they are, old or strange,
and they leave us alone
in ruined roads
castaway in the fury
of the conflagration."5.21


[5.1] Mat. 23, 23
[5.1a] anatomise: 1 : to cut in pieces in order to display
or examine the structure and use of the parts : dissect. 2 : analyze
[5.2] Rom. 12, 8
[5.3] Rom. 13, 8
[5.4] Luk. 4, 4
[5.5] Jam. 2, 16
[5.6] Mat. 25, 44
[5.7] Mat. 12, 7
[5.8] Luc. 8, 6
[5.9] Mat. 5, 18 not an iota, not a dot
[5.10] Eph. 4, 15
[5.11] Joh. 18, 36
[5.12] Gal. 5, 1
[5.13] She means the cemetery of her village.
[5.14] Much dispute has arisen recently in Greece
between Church and State on the issue
of writing the person's religion on his identity card.
[5.15] Charon: in Greek mythology, the son of Erebus
and Nyx (Night), whose duty it was
to ferry over the Rivers Styx and Acheron those souls of the deceased who had received the rites of burial. In payment he received the coin that was placed in the mouth of the corpse. In art Charon was represented as a morose and grisly old man. In Etruscan he was known as Charun and appeared as a death demon, armed with a hammer. Eventually he came to be regarded as the image of death and of the world below. As such he survives in Charos,or Charontas, the angel of death in modern Greek folklore.
[5.16] Hebr. 6, 8 thorns and thistles
[5.16a] The word gospel is derived from the Anglo-
Saxon term god-spell, meaning "good
story" a rendering of the Latin evangelium and the Greek euangelion, meaning "good news" or “good telling".
[5.17] 1 Joh. 4, 18
[5.18] Mat. 14, 31
[5.19] Joh. 16, 22
[5.20] Joh. 8, 7
[5.21] Contemporary Greek songs, sung by George
Dalaras.