to love someone means to believe the best of them.
a friend and i were talking the other night about trust, which really boils down to love.
do you love yourself more?
or do you love someone else more?
love has the ability to transcend.
or it has the ability to kill, when it lacks.
to love means to risk.
love takes balls.
my deadly viper friends get this.
mike said,
“What if right now, everything we knew, felt, believed about love was suddenly turned ?upside down.? Challenged. Tested. No limits. What if we came to realize that everything we thought and believed about love, grace, forgiveness, each other and ourselves was wrong. We discover that radical grace is real and we can experience it in our own lives and freely give it to others.”
click here to learn about the people of the second chance and to download some ballsy wallpaper.
because love takes balls.
are you willing to risk it?
Comments
39 responses to “love takes balls”
Conforme me lo permite la traducci?n, me pareci? un texto interesante. DIOS LOS BENDIGA.
Desde Santa Fe Argentina, me gustar?a estar en contacto con ustedes.
Jos? Luis.-
Is there a plug in that automatically translates blog comments?
I used Google’s for this: According will allow me the translation, I found an interesting text. God bless you. From Santa Fe Argentina, I would be in touch with you. Jos? Luis
Thanks, Jose Luis!
You are exactly right. Love takes courage and stamina and patience and…Oftentimes we give up far too quickly on people and our bailing comes from lack of genuine love for the other person. Great post Anne.
I love this!! Love takes risks of huge proportions!
Good stuff! I still stumble over the word “balls” because my mom taught me that kind of talk was crude (she really did, but now even she says “sucks” on a regular basis). Yet it captures something I guess “guts” or “courage” does not!
Mike’s comment reminded me of a book I stumbled upon entitled “If Grace is True” by Gulley and Mulholland. They paint a solid picture of radical grace, challenge our shallow versions and push/stretch evangelical theology and practice. If we take radical grace to it’s logical conclusion how does that rock the traditional view of grace we talk about in church? It seems we get the definitions of grace, love, mercy and forgiveness right. Then we say “screw that” when it comes to practice.
Good stuff, Anne…(can’t wait for the book)
Love takes Titts! Can’t have love without nutrients and boobs give you all the nutrients you need, where’s my graphic, oh wait, that would be pornographic…yea, that’s not appropriate but picturing a guys nutts is?
MTV called and wants their use of genitalia to sell LOVE back. Don’t Pimp a God idea appealing to the lowest and most predictable common denominator in all of us. I find this very offensive.
Please forgive my sarcasm, I just really think this is wrong.
so there
i’m there right now and i love Him and them (wife /kids) more than ever. yes, the world can cut off my balls but LOVE will carry me through – it did last time and it will this time
pete – what i lost is of small proportions – what diet are you on and do you want to bottle it and market it?
What a “nutty” way to look at love! Ha!Ha! Love is a RISK but for me an “open heart”…to never try and love…regardless of possible pain…would be not TRULY living!
I admit that I sometimes just don’t feel like being vulnerable to anyone – friends, family, God.
I agree with Carole.
More about superficial shock factor than the message of love itself.
Plus I ain’t into balls.
does this mean that women can’t love becasue they are missing an important factor ?
Sorry if any of you are offended or shocked. I can guarantee that
a) knowing Mike and Jud (and myself) pretty well, we are not about face value shock factor.
b) hoping that you have been around us enough, to know the heart behind the meaning, the intent, the purpose and pray that goes into these movements and know that we aren’t about shock factor.
If you think, at this point, that we’re all about shock and not meaning, then I’m sorry that we’ve miscommunicated somewhere along the way.
When it comes to this kind of love, my balls seem to be inadequate.
Yes, tony and I are utterly offended. We won’t forgive you. Boo.
random thought: on the left “ball” in the love takes balls logo … the little dark marking looks like that’s the place where the vasectomy incision happened…
I’m curious about Michael Danner’s post….when somebody say “this sucks” is that considered to be cursing?
I always thought in Christianese “sucks” is permissible.
ohmyohmyohmy
Anne, I’m starting a petition to bring your blog back to color. All who agree with me shall respond with a “Here, here!” or something along those lines.
From across the living room of the origin of the petition, I here by second the motion. I mean…it’s a black and white matter. HA! punny.
p.s. i know this isn’t the right post, but I blogrolled you
it was a phase….i’m not sure what i want to do….
I love the idea but don’t love the terminology (mostly for marketing reasons… don’t want to offend those we are trying to reach. Unless, of couse, we’re actually trying to offend, to spark a certain course of action or dialogue). But, I won’t throw judgment anybody’s way over this. I think that love does require us to “sack up” a bit, especially when it comes to loving the “unlovable.”
With that said, here’s a couple thoughts this sparked in my mind:
Self-righteous Christians need to do a better job of loving “edgy” Christians.
“Edgy” (i hate that word) Christians may possibly need to consider the implications of bold marketing/promotional moves… a move like this could be viewed as unloving towards survivors/victims of testicular cancer, and, hence, end up contradicting itself. (Though I’m absolutely sure this was not anybody’s intent.)
Anyways, interesting dialogue, and I’m definitely intrigued about this whole thing.
Color! Color!
oh, just noticed new header. that’s nice, keep going ;)
I must have more soccer moms reading my blog.
I was all but called Satan
if the ball imagery freaks you out, remember, it’s just a heart. :)
hmmm sounds like we could all grow a pair…
that font…
ambulance shotgun…
nice choice…
fellow designer.
my comment from los’s post on this:
sorry, but just cannot get on-board with this title/branding. i get the heart behind it. simply am unable to align the visual and reference with Jesus? example of speech/teaching.
thanks, los, for this forum; and, mike, for engaging in the discussion.
(thanks to you, too, anne for this forum :))
I’m a soccer mom, and I’m not offended Anne (and Los).
It does take some serious balls (guts, courage) to love. But funny enough, I had a hard time writing that out myself.
Yonas,
I’ve been a life-long user of the word “sucks”, but my mom – well she used to be quite offended by it because when she was growing up it was slang reference to oral sex.
I think it has a lot to do with how language changes over time. Kind of like how the “Love Takes Balls” slogan has nothing to do with actual testicles, being male, etc. I’m confident that most people recognize that “balls” in this context is a ramped up word for guts, courage with perseverance, etc.
And, I think we all get the point about radical love. It’s easier to criticize someone for using the word “Balls” then it is to actually go out and do what Anne and others are talking about…. Loving even your enemies to the point of death on a Roman cross? That’s not quite as easy as criticizing the semantics of a campaign that encourages people to go and do likewise.
When you have been either the receiver or the giver of radical grace, you understand that love and courage are one.
One symbol. 1,000 sermons.
Thanks MD for your explanation :)
Regarding this thread (or any other thread).
Anybody notices that the ones that get lots of comments always involve some kind of human anatomy/parts? Not bad or good, just pointing it out (tee hee)
I honestly thought after reading your post about this Los, “I sure hope Flowerdust doesn’t fall for this just because it’s Mike Foster’s deal..I bet she wont because she knows what that kind of imagery and sexual advertising does to both woman and men..” I honestly was just sad to see it on here.
No, I am not judging Mike Fosters motives but I do believe this concept is misguided and wrong because the message is lost in the testicles/upside down heart.
‘Balls’ is about language, not anatomy. If you watch any television, you will see it used by men and women. It communicates to people. I imagine very few people missed the reference. Maybe that’s the problem. We understand the concept perfectly – and I personally fall short very often.
hey nice new banner… we approve. :)
I couldn’t use that in a professional job interview. At least the ones I’ve gone to.
No for me on the use of balls. Why do we keep lowering ourselves. Maye we did come from monkeys….
I am a monkey for not being able to spell!! LOL
yeah, that’s gross. we would have known what you meant if you’d said “love takes guts”. besides, it may be just a heart, but you’re trying to make it look like something else.
re: #34 Vicky: Exactly. When one says that doing “this” or “that” takes balls, the coarse expression is exactly that: an e.x.p.r.e.s.s.i.o.n. instead of a literal anatomical reference.
Geesh. Interesting that people have responded in selfish (oh your post made ME feel …) ways rather than choosing to agree that loving in the way Jesus did does takes balls, it takes discipline, sacrifice, and sometimes real pain…