Tough Love
Llewelyn Muriel Austria-del Rosario
July 17, 2006
James Dobson says, “Love must be tough.” Sounds like an oxymoron to me, like “airplane food” and “serious athlete.” Others even go as far as saying that it cannot co-exist. Hence the great debate about whether it is better to be loved or to be feared.
On one side of the arena you have believers of fear-based approaches towards leading, parenting and teaching. They stress that it works because you can compel others to do what you want. Proponents of this approach believe that democracy may not necessarily be the best form of government for our country. They also typically have tendencies to be rigid disciplinarians as parents and teachers.
Proponents of love-based approaches on the other hand, insist that love conquers all. Democracy means freedom, parents should be their children’s buddies and teachers have no right to punish nor scold.
As Filipinos, our experience with martial law and the autocratic parenting and teaching styles of old is a clear indication that fear-based approaches do not work.
Yet, after adopting the current trend of tolerance and unconditional positive regard towards others show no signs of better leadership, parenting and teaching! In fact, we have gone progressively worse.
Apparently, worldviews based on generating fear nor love alone is inadequate in and of itself. Even this whole dichotomy is foolish. The most effective approach is an integration of both perspectives.
While I believe that the purest form of love is unconditional—we should choose to act lovingly towards our beloved however unlovable he or she may be, it does not mean that love should always be accepting, understanding and nurturing.
Sometimes, the most loving thing you can do is to give your subordinates, children or students a really good scolding. This is what James Dobson means when he says love must be tough.
Unfortunately, the idea of tough love is totally lost in this age of tolerance. After all, it is no longer politically correct to adamantly fight for what is right, noble, pure and true. How sad.
After all the hype about love these days, most people’s concept of love is not accurate. Love does not only dictate that we affirm others. It also means that we will not rescind on our mandate to rebuke when necessary. Love’s posture should not only bear grace, but also the rod of discipline.
Even the church is not immune from bastardizing love in order to sit more comfortably with tolerance. In fact a lot of abuse goes on in evangelical Christian churches under the banner of unconditional love. Those who are hurting are often urged to love others and forgive prematurely. Those who question and have doubts are forced to “love God” and exhibit blind faith. Those who question unethical practices and wrongdoing are told to be more loving and less critical.
That’s why my strongest reproof is to the Christian church. One of the biggest lies that make evangelical Christianity obscure and weak in this country today is the belief that suffering is a virtue. Unnecessary suffering is stupid at best and skewed at worse. I find that a lot of Christians believe that the ultimate glory in this earth is to die a martyr like Christ.
What few people realize is that Christ was born to die. We, on the other hand, were born to live and fulfill our purpose in life whatever that may be. That may entail martyrdom but more often it simply means pursuing a life of excellence and integrity.
People who claim to be followers of Christ should be the embodiment of His love. When we Christians speak when we should be silent, when we offer pat answers when we should weep with compassion, when we spout off easy platitudes when we should rise up in righteous rage over evil and injustice, when we are silent when we should speak, when we as Christians forget that while we are not of this world, we are still in the world, when we do not fully and meaningfully engage our world, we cease to be Godly, but we remain Christians.
Unconditional love is not an excuse to be compliant, passive and pacifist. After all, love must be tough.
On one side of the arena you have believers of fear-based approaches towards leading, parenting and teaching. They stress that it works because you can compel others to do what you want. Proponents of this approach believe that democracy may not necessarily be the best form of government for our country. They also typically have tendencies to be rigid disciplinarians as parents and teachers.
Proponents of love-based approaches on the other hand, insist that love conquers all. Democracy means freedom, parents should be their children’s buddies and teachers have no right to punish nor scold.
As Filipinos, our experience with martial law and the autocratic parenting and teaching styles of old is a clear indication that fear-based approaches do not work.
Yet, after adopting the current trend of tolerance and unconditional positive regard towards others show no signs of better leadership, parenting and teaching! In fact, we have gone progressively worse.
Apparently, worldviews based on generating fear nor love alone is inadequate in and of itself. Even this whole dichotomy is foolish. The most effective approach is an integration of both perspectives.
While I believe that the purest form of love is unconditional—we should choose to act lovingly towards our beloved however unlovable he or she may be, it does not mean that love should always be accepting, understanding and nurturing.
Sometimes, the most loving thing you can do is to give your subordinates, children or students a really good scolding. This is what James Dobson means when he says love must be tough.
Unfortunately, the idea of tough love is totally lost in this age of tolerance. After all, it is no longer politically correct to adamantly fight for what is right, noble, pure and true. How sad.
After all the hype about love these days, most people’s concept of love is not accurate. Love does not only dictate that we affirm others. It also means that we will not rescind on our mandate to rebuke when necessary. Love’s posture should not only bear grace, but also the rod of discipline.
Even the church is not immune from bastardizing love in order to sit more comfortably with tolerance. In fact a lot of abuse goes on in evangelical Christian churches under the banner of unconditional love. Those who are hurting are often urged to love others and forgive prematurely. Those who question and have doubts are forced to “love God” and exhibit blind faith. Those who question unethical practices and wrongdoing are told to be more loving and less critical.
That’s why my strongest reproof is to the Christian church. One of the biggest lies that make evangelical Christianity obscure and weak in this country today is the belief that suffering is a virtue. Unnecessary suffering is stupid at best and skewed at worse. I find that a lot of Christians believe that the ultimate glory in this earth is to die a martyr like Christ.
What few people realize is that Christ was born to die. We, on the other hand, were born to live and fulfill our purpose in life whatever that may be. That may entail martyrdom but more often it simply means pursuing a life of excellence and integrity.
People who claim to be followers of Christ should be the embodiment of His love. When we Christians speak when we should be silent, when we offer pat answers when we should weep with compassion, when we spout off easy platitudes when we should rise up in righteous rage over evil and injustice, when we are silent when we should speak, when we as Christians forget that while we are not of this world, we are still in the world, when we do not fully and meaningfully engage our world, we cease to be Godly, but we remain Christians.
Unconditional love is not an excuse to be compliant, passive and pacifist. After all, love must be tough.
Print
Email
