Reciprocated Love, Revisted

For some reason, I have lost a friend again, but this time, not as serious. My friend posted up a political post on her Facebook account, I politely questioned the wisdom of said post, and she promptly deleted me. And you know what, I took that pretty hard. This person was a reader of my blog, a supporter of my decision to leave the ICOC, and my sister in the Catholic Faith. Last time something like this happened, I wondered what a relationship would look like if one continued to love the other, even if that love is not reciprocated. I want to revisit that here.

While I questioned whether love is still real even if not reciprocated, I wonder whether friendship can still exist even if it is not reciprocated. I think the general conclusion I drew was that yes, you could still love this person, even if it had to go through some type of transformation, but I don't know that the same could as easily be said about friendship. If we say that these people are friends, we generally understand that to mean that they are mutually agreeing to this relationship. If one person told the other, "No, we are not friends" then it seems like I want to say there is no friendship. For example, if I befriended Tony because I saw some good in it, but Tony used me as some mere means to an end, we were not friends, and we were not friends because that good we saw in the other is not mutual. 

But I think friendship requires love (even if not romantic love). And since love endures even through death, then something similar should be said about friendship, but what exactly? I don't know that I have the idea well formed enough to put it down in writing, but I know that this is how I acted. I told my friend that while I was upset at her decision to remove me from her circle of friends, that I would nonetheless accept her friendship enthusiastically if she requested it. So, I have this love for my friend, and it is not reciprocated, and I am most willing to be her friend again, which is some kind of friendship. Or if it is not, its some close to it, but I don't know that there is a word to describe it. 

Perhaps a model of Christ can help. Even as sinners, Jesus still loved us, and he no longer calls us servants, but friends. I think we can also say that if we say a friend fall into sin, and was so addicted to their sin they burned, or tried to burn all bridges, and we tried to rescue them and pull them out of their sin, that we would be acting in love as their friend. So, there is no reciprocation, but there is still friendship. There is still love. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Milo

Image
So I decided to go see Milo Yiannopoulos at UCSB yesterday. I was really hesitant to do so, and decided not to go, but a few of my friends wanted to go, and they're all losers who don't drive, so, I had to take everyone. I didn't know much about Milo, and I still don't, but I did learn some things. In some of the more, ahem, colorfully conservative pages of facebook that I follow, Milo has been something of an iconoclast, destroying the feminist narratives left and right. But I also know that he is an active homosexual and he is a rabid Trump supporter (even calling him "Daddy"). So, for those reasons, I was never interested in what he had to say. He was, to take a phrase from Lenin, a useful idiot. That was my impression. But I was wrong. A few days before the event, I had read somewhere on these pages I follow but wont name, that Milo believed himself to be a Christian, and a Catholic at that. I dismissed this immediately, and my opinion of him stoppe
Read more

What Does The Bible Say About Birth Control?

From the early church up to 1930, virtually every church believed contraception was a sin. That fact alone should have us induce that contraception is in fact a sin. Yet, there are many Christians today, even in my own congregation, that will never entertain the possibility of contraception being a sin.
Read more

Is Canon 28 Binding?

In my previous post , I discussed Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (you'll find the full text of the canon there). But I should have put an asterisk on the conversation because Canon 28 isn't properly part of the council. You'll remember from an earlier post , that what makes a council ecumenical is ratification from the Roman Pontiff. Canons are part of councils. And naturally, canons also have to be ratified. However, Canon 28 was not ratified by Pope Leo (Roman Pontiff at the time). So Canon 28 isn't part of the council and thus isn't binding.  If you are Orthodox, this may sound too convenient. I've already suggested why Roman Ratification is the correct theory in the previous link. However, I want to add two things. First, even Saints in the East agree with the Roman position, and second, a case can be made for Canon 28 not being problematic for Catholicism.  First, there are the sayings of Pope St. Gelasius (about 490 AD), and Pope St. Gelasius is
Read more