Much is said about love in this world, yet very few grasp what it truly is. The mistake lies in confusing love with the benefit we derive from whatever makes us comfortable. In our limited human language, we can find many synonyms for “love,” but its true significance is unique and beyond comparison—just as God is beyond comparison. To be drawn to something because it makes you feel at ease is not love. Love, in its authentic form, is unconditional. I may feel comfortable in a certain environment, but that does not mean I love it; the moment circumstances change, my attachment fades.
Love cannot be altered by shifting circumstances. 1 John 4:8 declares that “God is love,” implying that the only true synonym for love is God Himself. His decision to love us was never based on our good behaviour. While we were still steeped in sin, God sent His only Son to die on the cross so that we might be redeemed. Jesus came to demonstrate how we are to apply this principle of love toward one another. Our willingness to lay down our lives for others is a tangible expression of love, and a sign that God dwells in us.
God’s love is incomprehensible to the natural mind—just as it baffled the prophet Jonah when God showed mercy to the sinful Ninevites (Jonah 4:1). To our physical humanity, love remains one of the hardest principles to practice, even though everyone longs to be loved. What the world calls “conditional love” is wrongly labelled love altogether. Conditional love has nothing to do with love rightly defined. A mixture of love and hatred is even more destructive than pure hatred. Love is not a worldly behaviour. The very embodiment of true love, Jesus, was brutally murdered, proving that this love is not of this world.
The misunderstanding of love often begins in marriage. Couples enter marriage assuming they are in love, yet romantic love is inherently conditional. It does not mirror the love that Jesus demonstrated. What romantic love commonly lacks is the freedom to let the other person be fully themselves. Yet neither husband nor wife is truly independent in marriage. Infidelity harms oneself, because a marriage partner is not separate from the other—they are one. Divorce has no place in marriage when it is upheld by the quality of love that marriage demands.
Because genuine love does not come naturally to our physical world, we try to enforce it through covenants. But anything held together by a covenant is sustained by conditional love, which differs fundamentally from the unconditional love of God. In biblical terms, this explains what happened to Israel and why the Old Covenant—where blessings were conditional upon obeying God’s laws—proved inadequate. I believe that, in raising the nation of Israel, God intended to demonstrate the unworkability of conditional love.
To reach the level of God’s love in our human condition is impossible by our own strength, which is why Jesus’ death on the cross was necessary. His sacrifice should not merely attract our sympathy; rather, it paves the way we must follow to access God’s love. We cannot graciously enter into Sonship if we refuse to walk the path of the cross. Paul puts it clearly:
“What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” (Romans 6:1–4 NIV)
It was unconditional love that led Jesus to the cross, though no trace of sin could be found in Him. Denominationalism, therefore, exposes the state of modern Christianity, because division is impossible within true Godliness. You are considered a member of a denomination only as long as you abide by its particular doctrines, which abidance alienates you from those in other denominations. Divergent denominational churches cannot all be part of the God whose nature is oneness. Instead of confronting those considered heretical, most Christians prefer to disconnect, unwilling to bear the pain that comes with disagreement—the very pain Jesus described as taking up one’s cross (Matthew 16:24).
The practice of excommunication is no different from divorce and can never be approved by God. It was first wielded by the Roman Catholic Church against Martin Luther. They could not confront Luther with the truth of God because they were a law unto themselves; excommunicating him was simply more convenient. But in principle, it is darkness that cannot confront light. Darkness vanishes in the presence of light. Had the Catholic authorities honestly believed Luther was preaching heresy, they would have engaged him with the truth.
Instead, the authorities could not withstand Luther’s countenance. Even if Luther may have been mistaken in some of his theses and in need of correction by those acting as God’s instruments, those who pushed for his excommunication were not truly God’s servants practicing the way of the cross. The Roman Catholics resorted to the same reasoning used by those who obtain divorce certificates, despite Jesus’ clear disapproval of divorce (Matthew 19:9). Their act of excommunicating Luther posed no threat to them; they simply behaved like anyone of this world.
This stands in stark contrast to an honest person, who feels no threat from a truthful evaluation of their position. Such a person is willing to accept what is true and discard what is false, using facts. Hierarchy does not even enter the equation, because Christ never endorsed it; His teachings alone are the standard in Christianity.
In the story of Martin Luther, we see a problem caused by a departure from what Jesus taught in Matthew 23:8–12. They wrongly excommunicated a man they should have engaged as a brother, carefully assessing his viewpoint. Tragically, their wrongful behaviour was later adopted as a norm by the subsequent Protestant movements and now defines much of Christianity’s current fragmented state.
The Roman Catholics were operating in conditional love, which has no place in Christianity. Two things were likely at play: pride and connivance. Both cause deep trouble for any Christian group because they stem from a love that is conditional and carries either pride or a cowardly turning of a blind eye. One of these two is always at the root of the denominational phenomenon. Only a naïve person imagines these can be handled easily.
They invite a revolutionary struggle and bloodshed, as those involved fight to protect their interests. Nothing is more dangerous than cornering a criminal. When caught stealing, a criminal would rather kill those who caught him than face prosecution. The survival instinct seeks to eliminate everyone else in order to save oneself. To such a person, there appears to be no other way out.
This illustrates how impossible it is to express true love through conditional love. When one is not driven by pride or connivance, one evaluates everything on its own merit. Truth is truth, regardless of who speaks it. If Satan says something true, why oppose it? If God were to say something wrong, why agree with it? God can present something unacceptable—perhaps to test one’s character, or for some other reason.
Consider when God gave Moses a startling proposition: He would destroy the Israelites and make a great nation from Moses alone.
“I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.” But Moses sought the favour of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? … Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self…” Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened. (Exodus 32:9–14 NIV)
If God were like one of the dictators we know in this world, He would have turned against Moses for daring to oppose Him. Instead, Moses reasoned with God on the basis of godly principles, and God did not oppose him. In His love, God expects human beings to behave like Moses, using the very minds He created them with. One reason some people cannot use their minds to solve problems might be idolatry. But where there is no idolatry, pride or connivance is chiefly to blame. King David’s murder of Uriah, for example, was driven by his desire to hide the sin he had committed with Bathsheba.
Pride, which dictators may not even recognize in themselves, makes it impossible to submit to critics, whom they view as opponents. Or it could be that they, like David, fear their hidden sins being exposed. When Jesus spoke of loving our enemies, He highlighted a truth that makes it impossible to sin. Connivance, on the other hand, is sustained by cowardice—an unwillingness to confront the truth out of fear. Happy are those who have nothing to hide. The most miserable person is the one who has something to hide. When one is guided by truth, there is no reason even to think in terms of enemies. A person with a clean heart can never truly be hurt.
The most powerful person on earth is the one who loves his enemies, even when he has good reason to hate them. In Africa, no one else has ever carried the moral stature accorded to Nelson Mandela, a man who genuinely believed in himself. He was not preoccupied with propaganda designed to protect his image; he never lived another person’s life—he lived his own. Sadly, some still harbour resentment, blaming him for South Africa’s current problems, when the real issue is their own inability to use the constitution to eradicate racism. In their cowardice, they turned Mandela into another god.
Greatness lies in loving the unlovable, not merely in loving those who will return the favour. Yet this world celebrates those who find heroism in vindictiveness against the white race. Some can discern, however, that Robert Mugabe’s harassment of white farmers was designed to hide his own evil record. He likely sought to protect himself from future justice should a new leader raise the issue of the Gukurahundi massacres. The racial card was used to whip up the emotions of the unthinking, promoting the lie that hating whites is heroism.
But hating whites actually reveals an inferiority complex. It is the response of those who view themselves as inferior. If those whites were truly racist, they would be the inferior ones, not the blacks. This is similar to those who assume that driving luxury cars without proof of legitimate income is a sign of intelligence. For them, it is not about what they have contributed to society, but what they have stolen. They mistake such displays for wisdom, when in truth they are signs of stupidity. Such people, however unwise, do not deserve our hatred. They deserve to be helped to see the light, if possible.
The only sustainable peace is found in loving one’s enemies, because that is how enemies can become friends, leading to lasting happiness. This transformation does not come by conforming to their ways, but by truthfully showing them their error while living an honest life. The crucial truth to grasp is that a person with a clean heart can never be hurt. Those who take offence at flimsy reasons are often carrying hidden sins. It is a matter of public record that, in Zimbabwe today, we are led by individuals directly connected to the Gukurahundi genocide.
It would be naïve to assume they will easily surrender power. Their instinct invites conflict, a war they hope will drown out their feelings of guilt. Deep within their consciences, they know their wrongness more acutely than their accusers do. Organizations like “Bhetshu Lika Zulu” are justifiably angered and demand justice for the atrocities committed in Matabeleland and the Midlands. From a human perspective, this anger is understandable. Yet that very state of outrage is exactly what those murderers find advantageous. They can be provocative, itching for just such a reaction.
The error lies in assuming that those who commit such crimes enjoy any real advantage. In truth, they are tormented day and night in their spirits—which is precisely why Jesus said they deserve our prayers. No sane person would envy their condition. There is no reason to be angry with them. Without spiritual understanding, most people mock Jesus’ teaching to turn the other cheek. The confusion stems from mistaking wisdom for stupidity, and stupidity for wisdom.
None of us knows exactly what lies beyond this physical life. But even with the faintest imagination, anyone can see that there is no peace in living unethically. I believe Nelson Mandela must have weighed the peace that comes from not fearing what would happen after his death. His twenty-seven years of imprisonment were a small price compared to the eternity he envisioned. The bottom line is this: the ability to love the unlovable is not of this world. It can only be practiced by true Christians, who themselves are not of this world.
Andrew Masuku is the author of Dimensions of a New Civilisation, laying down standards for uplifting Zimbabwe from the current state of economic depression into a model for other nations worldwide. A decaying tree provides an opportunity for a blossoming sprout. Written from a Christian perspective, the book is a product of inspiration, relieving those who have witnessed the strings of unworkable solutions, leading to the current economic and social decay. Most Zimbabweans should find the book to be a long-awaited providential oasis of hope, in a simple conversational tone.
The Print copy is now available at Amazon.com for $13.99
Also available as an e-copy at Lulu.com for $6.99