Simon Sarmiento's journal

From the AP story:

“I salute Peter Lee’s spirit of generosity and humility as a demonstration that in these critical days for the Anglican Communion it is possible to avoid schism, if American bishops pay attention to the many Episcopalians who are exceedingly distressed by the consecration of Gene Robinson,” Carey wrote.”

I heartily concur with Lord Carey, but I must ask: to avoid schism, will Anglican bishops (throughout the Communion), in a “spirit of generosity and humility, pay attention to the many [more] Episcopalians” who joyfully supported +Gene’s consecration (not to mention those additionally who merely support ECUSA’s canonical processes, no matter their outcome)?

[So help me, if any one responds “Yes, they’re ‘paying attention’ via the Tough Love of disfellowship, and praying for their deceived/deceitful hearts’ conversion,” I’ll . . . ]

Will we bear each other’s crosses?

If there’s an alternative to tough love, let’s take it. But is there an alternative? Laissez-faire? Indulgent love, such as that which spoils a child? All the people we most admire are people of determination/toughness.

But you would surely have to admit, wouldn’t you, Christopher, that the phrase ‘“tough love” has been used to defend some pretty indefensible things — physical abuse of children, harsh penal policies, to name but a few ..

(I remember a Doonesbury cartoon from some years ago, when the term “downsizing” had just come into fashion as the new euphemism for making people redundant. “Good news!” says the man from head office. “We’re enrolling you all, free of charge, in our Tough Love Program.” “Gee, thanks!” say the workers, not realising that they are about to lose their jobs.)

“We shouldn’t dismiss the principle of tough love just because it’s sometimes been mis-applied”, you will say, and of course you are right. But how can we tell when it is being applied rightly, and when it is being applied wrongly? Maybe the term has become so tainted by misuse that it would be better not to use it at all.

I defy anyone to show me how “Tough Love” (which is predicated on one taking power over another) can be combined with “a spirit of generosity and humility” (Generosity: giving, not taking. Humility: placing yourself under someone else’s power).

Oil/Water (False/True, Evil/Good): can’t be done.

Yes - calling something ‘tough love’ does not mean it actually is tough love. But the fact that the term is abused is no slur on genuine tough love. The word ‘love’ is also much abused, but that’s neither an indication that love is a bad thing nor an invitation to stop using the word ‘love’.

Love is a non-negotiable. It is also a non-negotiable that laissez-faire is not loving. That leaves us with only one option: tough love - whether or not we use that particular phrase for it.