Romantic and marital love - part 5

If we should not underwrite our marriage contract with eros (as it seems the contract is largely designed to protect the marriage from eros), then what should we underwrite it with? What can be truly considered marital love?

If we were to underwrite our marriages with agape, say, which by the classical definition is disinterested, then our bonds of marriage bond us to serve the other without seeking reciprocation. And yet, we found that while this is easy to apply to neighbourly love, friendship love begins seeking reciprocation from an equal, and romantic love tentatively places responsibilities on our complimentary other. Thus marriage is a mutual bond that places responsibilities on the other (as well as ourselves) which are far greater than any other of the loves we have discussed so far. Yet, is the responsibility placed on the other none other than the same agape which we obligate ourselves to? And is the mutual agape to be undertaken as true agape: i.e. a love that does not seek to protect the rights of the one loving even if the one loved is obligated to love back?

If both spouses loved in a way which only thought of the other, than there would be no need to claim our own rights. But in the world in which we live this is rarely the case. In cases where one spouse, for whatever reason, fails to receprocate the love, the love of other spouse comes under strain as the rights of that spouse are threatened or even violated. Will agape hold up, or is there a point where the unconditionality of agape intersects with the failure of the marriage contract on the part of the other?

In such cases it may be fair to say that the spouse who was doing their part actually continues to love the other, but they do not know if they can continue in the relationship, because the marriage relationship should be two ways. The love remains, but the relationship is broken.

Only a century ago such a spouse would have soldiered on to the grave, faithfully remaining by their spouse no matter what. But these days we are more likely to uphold our own rights (and sometimes this may be necessary in the midst of a violent relationship or an adulterous spouse).

If this is the case, and it seems to be, with so many divorces, then the marriage contract and the pledge of love "to death do us part" is not truly unconditional, but rather remains conditional on the reciprocation of the other. Should either party fail their part of the contract, the contract may be annulled. This may or may not be how things should be, but certainly it is how they are, at least in the Western world.

This, it would seem, places the marriage contract above the love that underwrites it. Perhaps the bigger issue is why the love that underwrites fails in the first place. Could it be that it was the wrong love to begin with, an erotic desire for the other, rather than an unconditional affirmation of the other, the recognition of infinite value (dignity) and the unconditional and eternal response of seeking the thriving of this dignified other, and sharing in the joy of his or her being; walking the path of life together, whereever it leads walking together as one, no matter the cost; forsaking all other desires, potential partners, and ambitions that may pull us apart; fully giving ourselves over to the other, and renewing that gift of our whole selves each day, which is our undying expression of our love; respecting always; trusting; hoping always; never giving up...

If we do not know what love is, then what we think we have may not be enough to underwrite the sacred contract of marriage.

So far I have assumed that the disinterested agape is the preferred love here, but how does this bode with the romantic aspects of marriage, and how does it allow us to receive the reciprocated love of the other? Is there more to it than just agape? And how does our previous exploration of love as seeing fit into this relationship?

Marriage is an exclusive, complimentary relationship underwritten by mutual unconditional love, but I dont think we have gone far enough in understanding the specific nature of marital love yet, save to exclude eros, and to raise some questions about agape.

I will need to continue on this one.

Read more...

Romantic and marital love - part 4

We have established that marriage vows are underwritten by a tangible 'something'. We have noted that the vows are necessary to protect that something, and yet at the same time the something seems to be required to fulfill the vows, which is kind of circular.

I wonder if the issue here is that when people marry, they often marry for eros, which is a desire for the other for myself. If this is true then the I remains supreme and, from the perspective of the I, and the other simply becomes a possession belonging to the I. As long as the other fulfills the desires of the I and does not frustrate the ambitions of the I then everything is fine (from their perspective).

But strain and tension can result if the other does begin to frustrate the intentions, ambitions, decisions, and desires (including but restricted to libido) of the I. Within this framework the I will fight for its will, whether by assertion, aggression, conflict, deception, manipulation, withdrawal, separation... any means to remove the obstacle of the other from the plans of the I. In such cases the two 'I's cease to function as a we (not that they were were one).

Over a prolonged period of this tension, the bonds that draw the two together are replaced by the forces which drive the two apart and, couples may find themselves living together as two individuals, or living together in conflict as fighters, or with one person in submission to the other at all times as a conquered and somewhat dehumanised slave, or various other combinations... until one of the 'I's can no longer take it.

Similarly, if the 'I's marry for eros, which is a desire for the other, then what happens when that desire is fulfilled? I now have the other, but the promises eros made to me about ecstasy and fulfillment from this person are never fully realised (because of the very nature of eros), or perhaps the initial fulfillment and excitement fades into familiarity, since eros desires what we have not yet tasted (or biblically: 'known'). After we taste it, the thing is now 'known' and the desire is satisfied. Yet the feeling of desire which tells us that "if we only had such and such we would be happy" still yearns for "something", since desire always seeks self transcendence. Thus, naturally we will always desire new things, and never be content with what we have.

I do not think that marriage should be based on eros, or at least on eros alone. The more I consider this the more I believe that we should not let eros direct our activity as far as it is in our power not to. I only see it resulting in evil. Even if it is the force that initially brought us together, the same force will at a whim tear us apart.

Read more...

Romantic and marital love - part 3

As our exploration of love leads us closer to understanding it as a kind of union, let us now turn to marital love. We have seen that romantic love appears to be the tentative formation of a strong bond in which there is seen complimentary aspects in the other, and in which each person seeks to transcend their own selves to share life together with the other as a 'we'.

If allowed to run its course, and if the gravitational forces that draw the two together are not counteracted by repulsive forces such as lives that differ too much, clashes of personality, clashes of interests (in essence if the two selves are not able or willing to self-forsake in order to merge into the other and to mutually indwell each other) then a point will come where the two become one.

In just what sense do the two become one? Is this a mystical union? Is it a ontological bond of love that really does unite the two into a we? Is the bond more a volitional bond, a vow and contract of love (i.e. a marriage)? Does it include all of the above? And finally, does it include things we have not listed above also?

I have been wondering about the nature of this union in light of the high rate of failed marriages in the west today, in light of the high rate of adultery, and in light of recent studies in the UK which indicate that a growing number of people see marriage and exclusive binding union (i.e. monogamy) as unnatural.

If adultery is a real and present threat, and if the bonds of marriage can so commonly fall apart, then what is to be said of the bond that holds together? And what is to be said about the nature and reality of the union of the two into a we?

Is it that when people marry these days they do not truly unite? They do not truly give themselves over to the we, and instead they remain two I's? It seems from simple observation that there are many cases of conflicts of interests, clashes of wills, personal ambitions that the 'we' cannot share, and which pull one 'I' away from the other. Even the insatiable eros can pull one I away from the we in search of another I with which to form another we, but the we is often never a true we that the I is pulled away from, and often neither is it a true we that the I is drawn towards. The issue from what I can see, is that the I always remains an I, and any other I tends to be subjected to the desires of this I, as a means to my ends rather than the end of my means.

If this is true, is the problem that the tangible we never truly or never fully forms? Or is the problem that the we is not a bond that is formed once and remains on its own from then on, but rather consists of a constant renewal of the vow to remain a we, and constant reaffirmation and realisation of that vow? If it is then the we is always tentative, always fragile, and the two Is always remain. In such cases the presence of the binding contract of marriage is essential to the stability of the we, and this seems to be the case, or else we would not require the contract of marriage.

It is interesting and comforting that one of the classic clauses in the marriage contract (though it is used less and less in today's DIY marriage vows) is "I take you, forsaking all others". I find the wording of this phrase interesting. It is a volitional commitment to exclusivity. It is not saying "I will not desire others or be attracted to others, but I forsake all other interests, and will be with you alone."

Thus, it is not an automatic thing that when people get married their desires and impulses are turned off, neither is it true that they 'lock on' to the spouse, but love and full union require that each party promises to volitionally forsake all such desires. I think the threat of adultery is only one expression of desire that can draw an I away from a we.

Yet the other desires are not always stated so clearly. "For rich or for poor" is essentially the vow to forsake the pursuit of wealth if it leads you away from the we, just as "in sickness and in health" binds the I's to each other even if the other becomes a burden or deathblow to whatever my ambitions are. In all these cases there is a conscious decision made and vowed that I choose the we over and against any such forces which would work to separate the we for the sake of an I.

It seems that people are only too ready to break this contract and forsake the we for the sake of the I. And obviously there is a lot of serious reasons for this. For one, if the contract is a contract alone, why would we ever desire to enter into it in the first place? And why would we ever desire to forsake the big work break we had been working towards for two decades in order to care for a terminally sick spouse.

This suggests that whatever marriage contract we enter into is actually underwritten by something of substance and value. There is a real bond, however fragile, that is being protected by these contractual vows because without this protection and security, something of great value can and will be destroyed by what is in the end selfish forces (the desires of the I).

Looks like I need to break this into several posts to keep it readable. Stay tuned.

Read more...

Romantic and marital love - part 2

I have struggled to continue with this topic of romantic love for over a week now. I think I am struggling with whether eros can be considered love at all, well at least in light of the Bible's definition of it. It is clear that the Bible does not use the word eros, and it is clear that the love Jesus modelled and called us to is not one of desire so much, as it is a self sacrificing love. Thus, even though eros is considered a type of love by Greek literature, does it deserve to belong to the semantic range of 'love' in modern English? Whether or not is should be considered love, it unmistakably is considered love, and even considered the primary connotation of love in the Western world. Therefore I will continue to use it in my investigation, even if it might only cloud the topic.

So last time I got to a point of understanding eros as self-transcendence or desire for something 'other'. This could be a desire to lose one's self in the other, or to take the other into one's self. This drive or force/dynamic does not include in and of itself any concern for the other, for the sake of the other alone. The drive is primarily centred around the I. That is, it is my desire for the other, my desire to have the other for myself. The other is thus a means to our end, and we are the end. Even if our desire becomes a kind of worship in which we want to become lost in the other, and would do anything for the other, the underlying drive here is because we desire to be with the other for ourselves and for our own sake, not necessarily for theirs, hence there are many stalkers in the world, and rapists etc in extreme cases.

Having said that, our desire of the other can be present simultaneously with our concern and care for the other. In a healthy romantic relationship there is usually both of these aspects. Desire brings the two together, but the two are not destroyed because love regards each other as in individual of worth, thus keeping the two as two and not as becoming one. If love did not stop desire (and assuming the desire was mutual), one would become consumed by the other, or both would become consumed by the 'we'.

It is worth noting that in romance, everything is tentative. Though pledges of undying love are made and felt, and though our desire would decide for us that we would give up all to have the other, or to be with the other, there is still some testing that usually goes on: can I really become one with this person? Can I really live the rest of my life with them? Is this the right one, given that I must forsake all others? Do they love me back? Do they really know me? Do I really know them? Will this 'feeling' last?...

If neighbour love sees something valuable in the other and loves them for their sake as a response, and in friendship love sees equality in the other and loves them for their sake but also expects of them reciprocation, then romantic love is one step further: it sees complementatlity in the other, that is, rather than equality, it sees something in the other that is not present in ourselves, whether femininity, masculinity, leadership, confidence, gentleness, creativity... something that might complete us or make us more full.

If friendship started placing expectations on the other in a two way relationship, romantic love begins to place responsibilities on the other. The more we open ourselves up to each other, and the more we are exposed, the more we risk. Trust becomes paramount the closer two get.

Our exploration of types of love seems to be heading on a continuum between two parties that might start off and remain quite separate, to two parties whose lives, selves, possessions, destinies, time, proximity, emotions, memories and history becomes more and more entangled and shared that we begin to look at love as union.

But not before we look at marital and family love.

I think that marital and family love will take romantic love to the necessary next step. This will probably be the most difficult of the types of love due to the current context in history, where marriage and monogamy is coming to be seen as 'un natural', and promiscuity is becoming the norm.

I will start on marriage in my next post, and might look at it first on its own, and then in contrast to the pitfalls of romantic love outside of the context of marriage.

Read more...

Snippet

Interesting excerpt from Ben Witherington's blog:

“The love of God is greater far than tongue or pen can tell; it goes beyond the highest star and reaches lowest hell…Could we with ink the ocean fill, and were the skies a parchment made, were every stalk on earth a quill and every man a scribe by trade, to write the love of God above would drain the ocean dry. Nor could the scroll contain the whole if stretched across the sky.”(Lehman)

Read more...

Romantic and marital love - part 1

Having explored the similarities and differences of neighbour and friendship love, as well as how they inform and shape our understanding of the very essence of love itself, we now turn to two other types of love, that of romantic love and marital love. Firstly, is there a difference between the two or are they essentially the same thing?

If we look at romantic love first and how it typically appears (at least in the West) before marriage, we will then explore if anything changes when two who are "in love" romantically take their relationship "to the next level" and marry.

Romantic love it typically identified with the Greek word eros, which we had identified in an earlier post as such:

It's central characteristic is desire, desire for the beloved. It sees in the beloved something it desires, and seeks to acquire that something for itself. In some ways it could be referred to as the souls attempt to transcend itself, to find completion in another. Eros is never used in the Bible, and thus never used to express God's love toward us, but some theologians believe it is apt to represent our reaching for God, as Augustine says "we are restless until we find our rest in him." As Eros can be understood as our reaching beyond ourselves for something to 'complete' us, it is typically seen as an egocentric love, a love that consumes, and is therefore unworthy of the love Christ commands us to have. It also makes sense, that if this is the definition of eros then it is not appropriate for God, who is complete in himself and thus does not desire anything from us.

Why would a person try to transcend themselves and seek completion in another? Is the only appropriate object of eros the God who can alone fill the God-shaped hole? Or is it appropriate to experience eros for another person? Is eros actually selfish and therefore a low love?

From what I have read and see in the media through movies, songs and shows, eros is like having an unknown other person living in us and making decisions for us, and promises on our behalf. We are simply slaves to its whim and must follow its lead, execute its decisions and fulfil its promises, hence another saying 'a slave to love'.

Eros is characterised by desire, and this is typically the desire for the opposite sex (sexual desire). Yet eros as sexual desire can also be directed at the same sex, and various other objects which the Bible understands as inappropriate (for example paedophilia). I don’t want to get into these variations, and what the Bible understands as corruptions of eros, suffice to say there are many other corruptions, such as David’s desire for Bathsheba, a married woman whose husband David sent to his death in order to attain his desire. It seems that unrestrained eros is a force for evil, and yet as one of the most powerful motives/drives on earth, human sexual desire is as much a power for evil as it is for good.

In speaking of sexual desire have I strayed from eros? I don’t think so. I think it is one specific manifestation of eros, one that has strong biological connections. But eros can also be desire for intimacy even if sex is not involved. Eros can also be desire for fame, or for riches, since eros is desire itself. On this understanding of eros many have argued that all humans desire something. We are not content on our own and within ourselves. We are not made to be alone (Genesis 2:18) and we cannot sustain life solely within ourselves. We always seek to transcend ourselves, to find completion in the other, to leave ourselves and live inside another, or to take another into ourselves. Eros can lead us to want to leave behind everything we had ever achieved and saved up, our entire kingdom. We want to lose ourselves in the other, in the object of our desire.

In this way eros leads to worship: the total dedication of ourselves to the service of the beloved. For this reason Augustine would say that the only appropriate object of eros is God himself. But eros can work the other way too, for desire is often a drive to take for one’s self. It can be not about losing ourselves in the other, but taking the other into ourselves, consuming them. Passionate acts of intimacy can involve both of these motions/directions. A kiss can be the offering of lips or the eating of the other, sex can be a pulling into one’s self or a losing one’s self into the other. The closeness of a hug can be the pulling of the two into one. And yet the Bible indicates the only appropriate context for the full expression of eros is safely inside a marriage.

Question 1: Why?
Question 2: If this is so, then what is the difference between marital love and romantic love, if anything?

Read more...

Kant love?

So far I have been understanding love as the perception of value in another person and everything that flows in our response to that value. I have found a 'valuable' resource to help better articulate what I have been referring to up to now as 'value'. A dictionary article I was reading referenced this work: Velleman, J. D., 1999, “Love as a Moral Emotion”, Ethics which outlines a model of love based on the perception of value. Velleman seems to be influenced by Emmanuel Kant's theory of human respect. I just want to share their ideas as they pertain to this topic, as this may help find a better word than 'value'.

According to this article the word preferred to 'value' is 'dignity'. Dignity is defined in contrast to price:

To have a price, as the economic metaphor suggests, is to have a value that can be compared to the value of other things with prices, such that it is intelligible to exchange without loss items of the same value. By contrast, to have dignity is to have a value such that comparisons of relative value become meaningless. Material goods are normally understood to have prices, but we persons have dignity: no substitution of one person for another can preserve exactly the same value, for something of incomparable worth would be lost (and gained) in such a substitution. (quoted from article)

Kant built his model of respect on this view. Respect is the minimal response to the recognition of dignity in each other, whereas Velleman expands this to posit that if respect is the minimal reponse, love is our maximal response to dignity.

To play with this idea: a tomato does not have dignity, it has a price. So, a tomato has a value, but not the same kind of value as a person. We generally do not love a tomato, that is, we generally do not respond to a tomato by giving of ourselves to it for its own good, as if the good of the tomato was an end in itself. Rather, we tend to consider the tomato as a means to an end. Its price is is thus an exchangeable value assigned to it that can function relative to other commodities that can also function as a means to an end. For this reason we speak of money as a means "do you have the means to buy that tomato?" Yet, while buying the tomato is the end for which money is the means, the acquiring of the tomato is only another means to another end. Typically, commodities are used as means to our own ends (self love). Commodities are objects that may be living or dead, but have no 'dignity', only a price.

There are of course many who would argue that some things we ascribe a price to indeed have dignity, only we fail to recognise their dignity, usually because our own self-love overrides our ability or even our concern to seek out the dignity in others. Thus some would argue that an animal has dignity. We ought to respect animals and perhaps even love them for their own sake. Some would say the life of animal is an end in itself. Even humans have been given a price and sold as slaves to become the means to other people's ends (and sadly this still happens today in monstrous proportions!). It is even claimed by some that "every man has his price". Thus, while dignity may be present, it is not always acknowledged. This results in objectification and ultimately in dehumanisation, the reduction of people to a means. People cease to enjoy people, and start to use them. In doing so they do not appreciate the dignity of the person. In the worst cases they do not even see a person there at all!

Love, in this respect, is the perception not of value as such, but of dignity. As we can see above, while dignity may be present love may not be the result. It depends on whether the dignity is seen, or more importantly, acknowledged. Things can get in the way of this: selfishness, greed, hatred, lust... (interesting where this list can elsewhere be seen).

In light of this, is there a way we can become more loving? Based on the above, we would need to avoid all the tendencies to objectify the other. We would thus need to identify those tendencies and the thought patterns that lead to them, as well as taking a good hard look at ourselves. We might need to meditate on people we might have reduced to means to our ends, and think about their dignity, and try to see them as an end in themselves. Apart from removing the alternatives to seeing dignity in people, we might do well to explore further where this dignity comes from and how we can recognise it in each person. Finally, if Kant and Velleman are right, then respect is the natural response to this dignity, love is the maximal response. We must thus go beyond the natural and give of ourselves for their own good.

what do you think?

Read more...

Neighbours and friends - part 3

Having looked at neighbour love and friend love can we find something common between the two, and can we eliminate what is peculiar to each, or must we count the peculiar aspects of each type of love as constituent to that love? And if so, does this mean that there is no single 'love' which may have various expressions or forms, but rather there are loves which are all different but bound together only categorically?

If neighbour love sees the value of a person, but does not know them, and may never get to know them, then this seems to be a basic loving response evoked by minimal stimulus, love from a glimpse. Yet friendship love seems to develop the glimpse into a relatively detailed awareness of the other, a perceived knowledge of who they are, where they come from, what they are about, and to some extent the belief that you can treat them more or less as your equal.

Thus friendship love appears to be the natural development of neighbour love, given proximity and communication over time. Yet the development from an acquaintance or a work partner to a friend requires not only proximity and time, but seeing the other as an equal. Should we find that those proximate to us over time, we view as lesser beings, whether in moral standard, or experience and wisdom, or in stature, or in strength, or even sometimes in health, we are less likely (whether right or wrong) to view them as equals who can contribute to us as much as we can to them. We might take the role of a mentor, or be helpful, but may never open ourselves up to them in the same way they might do to us.

I am not so concerned at this stage whether our appraisal of their relative equality is accurate (this seems to be an issue in its own right), but just to say that such an appraisal tends to influence how much we consider a person we have got to know as a friend, or an acquaintance, or just work mate, or even neighbour in the sense of a neighbour who we are not friends with.

In this sense, we can love any person as our neighbour without knowing much about them. We do not expect any reciprocation in this regard, we merely give of ourselves to them for their sake alone. Yet in a friendship we seem to evaluate whether that person can reciprocate our love; whether we can open ourselves up to them. Love becomes two way, and thus is open to some level of risk, since in opening ourselves up to be loved in response, we are making ourselves vulnerable.

At this stage, is friendship love more than just 'seeing value' in the other? Is there a second force or dynamic that comes into the picture? Have we stopped looking at love and started looking at relational dynamics? Or is this just the natural and necessary progression of love? If love is at its base level to see the value in the other and give of ourselves to them for their sake, then what happens if two people do that to each other? And how can we receive love if we do not open ourselves to it?

And yet, if friendship is the natural development of love as it becomes reciprocated, then why is it so much more selective? Are value appraisals valid or are they just a self preservation mechanism driven by other factors such as fear of rejection or fear of betrayal or hurt? Or are the fears more socially complex (and superficial) such as the fear of being seen with a particular person (fear of embarrassment) etc? Without fear, and without the things that cause us to have the fear, would we see everyone as a friend? Would we be able to love each person, but also open ourselves up to be loved by each person?

Finally, what is the net result of this progression (if it is actually a progression and not two separate entities)? If love is at its most basic a response to the value in another, then the progression of neighbour love to mutual friendship seems to suggest that love has another aspect: a goal. As love works and is reciprocated, it forms a relationship between the two parties that unites them loosely. It seems that this unity is loosely based around shared values, interests and experiences, and the strength of a friendship can often be correlated to such things as these as well as physical proximity and the duration and intensity of such proximity. Friends enjoy each other for their own sake.

When a friend stops reciprocating the love, we can feel rejected. When they cease to enjoy us for or own sake we can feel they are using us as a means to an end, rather than enjoying us as an end in itself. We expect friends to reciprocate the love we have for them. In this way we consider them equal and thus place a responsibility or expectation upon them to live in such a way. When they do not we do not consider them to be our friend, though we may still love them and care for them for their own sake. In this case they cease to be friends as such, and love reverts to neighbour love.

Perhaps as we explore romantic love, marital love and familial love we will find that love continues to progress towards a goal of union (or communion), though it is still based on the recognition of value in the other.

Not sure if I have hit the nail on the head with this post, but I think I have uncovered that love has more than one core aspect, namely that it has a source and a goal.

Read more...

Snippet

Was reading a book review in amazon.com and found this interesting snippet, which I plan to explore down the track:

My own view on love is that when we focus on the person we love, there is a oneness or unity. love is the ultimate dissolver of subject object boundaries. love is very oneness itself and without love, oneness is just not possible. the purpose of union is love. (Tom Corbett "Flaky")

I have been thinking about love and 'tracks' or paths, but am not yet ready to write on that topic. It seems though to be an important aspect of relationships.

Read more...

Neighbours and friends - part 2

Having looked at neighbour love, what is different between this and friendship love (which some might define as philia)?

Carol Simon has identified that one of the main characteristics of friendship love is that it is a love shared between 'equals.' That is, A friend is someone who you do not see as lesser than yourself, in which case your relationship would be like that of a parent to a child. Neither do you see them as greater than yourself, or you would be the 'child' and would not feel like you could offer them anything. They are not merely an acquaintance, or you would not be in a position to see them as lesser, greater or equal. A friend is therefore someone who you know, and who you consider to be on par with yourself. Some have depicted friends as two people walking down the same path side by side (though Carol Simon has a more nuanced understanding).

It seems to be generally held (at least by philosophers and psychologists) that friendship love is temporary, typically having correlations with physical proximity, and duration of shared experiences. We become friends with our class mates at school, but when we leave school we do not necessarily maintain our friendships. When we move to a new state or location, we often find new friends and start to 'drift apart' from our old friends, losing contact and thus needing to 'catch up' every now and then.

So a friend is an equal who shares experiences with us.

Another aspect of friendship is that it is a two-way relationship. We tend to feel like we are being 'used' by some people who would say they are friends but do not truly return the friendship. Such people may believe they are better than us, or that we are lesser than their other friends, or they may just be too absorbed in their own agenda to care about who we are and what our goals are (to use Simon's more loaded term, 'what our destiny is'). This suggests that a friend is someone who not only cares about their own agenda, but also cares about ours. And they are someone who we also care about, and who we will help out so that they can reach their goals. That is, as long as we believe their goals are good goals.

We have probably all known a friend who has frustrated us at some stage by a decision they have made which makes no sense. Their actions become 'out of character' and we cannot support them (or 'endorse' them to use Simon's words). It is as if at that stage we know what is best for them, and as they are unable to see it, we become 'higher' than them. It has been noted that if this situation continues for a period of time the friendship is at risk of failing, as we can no longer see the person as our equal. We might resolve to stick by them in their bad decision, but then when they cannot understand why they are now suffering and we know exactly why, we feel that we have lost the ability to 'be on the same page'. The friendship ceases to be what it was, and we might find ourselves wanting our 'old friend' back.

Some friendships do remain strong even over great distances and through the years. These kind seem to be more like the bonds of family, "no matter what I will stick by my friend." There have been many movies where friends will stick by each other through the bad decisions, because the choose friendship over rationality or righteousness or pain and even death. Interestingly, Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was considered the ultimate act of friendship love (which is interesting to note that this comes out in John's Gospel where so many people like to make a great distinction between phileo and agape (e.g. John 21)). In John 15 Jesus speaks of his own friendship love when he says "greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." (verse13). He goes on to say "I have called you friends for everything I learned from my father I have made known to you." and "you are my friends if you do what I command." This is an interesting passage in light of our understanding of friendship as 'equals who share life together.' Can we really be friends with Jesus? can we really be regarded as equal to the Son of God? Does he see us friends, equals that he can share his life with and 'everything he has learned from the father'? John notes the language of friend's shared experiences, and that Jesus shared our humanity and thus lowered himself to become equal with us. He left his father and became one of us, so he can truly be called a friend. I think this is quite significant. He is able to walk our road and share our experiences, to empathise with us and to walk in our shoes. One might wonder, when he calls us to follow him, does he actually call us to walk beside him? And yet, friendship with Jesus is qualified by conditions: "if you do what I command", and verse 10 says "if you obey my commands you will remain in my love, just as i have obeyed my father's commands and remain in his love". We never exclusively have a friendship with Jesus. He is our friend, but he is also our Lord and King.

But in the same way, Paul asks us to be willing to 'associate with people of low position' (Romans 12:16). Is he asking us to love them as our neighbours or as a parent-child relationship, or is he asking us to leave behind our so called lofty position and become true friends with them?

So then, is friendship love a love that not only sees that which evokes the loving response, but that which loves back, in which there is mutuality and in the bond of returned love, equality. Friendship is the safe haven of love's gaze into each other that enables us to share each other's experiences, hopes, wishes, dreams, goals, losses, failings... lives. And yet we have seen that this can be limited to what dreams, goals and interests that we have in common, that we see as equal and shareable. As friends start to follow different pursuits, they can often grow apart, the bond of love does not need to hold them together, but in so far as they walk together, their love looks our for each other and supports each other. When one falls the other can help them up.

There are obviously many more aspects to friendship love that tie into the same (elusive) centre. Why is it that when we split up with our best friend we are left with questions and doubts about our own identity? As if what we have shared of ourselves has been rejected, and thus we are forced to decide whether that was because we are in some way inadequate, or if it was due to some inadequacy on the friend's part. This is why there is either great hurt at such times, or even great hatred.

There are many more aspects too, which I wont explore right now. But I do wonder, what friendship love and neighbour love have in common. now that I have explored what both are, I will compare and contrast them next.

Read more...

Neighbours and friends - part 1

Is it possible to find that which is common in different kinds and expressions of love?, and can we grasp love's essence from they have in common? Let's look at two kinds and see.

Carol Simon has given a good treatment to the topic of neighbour love, as I have read. Drawing from Simone Weil's meditation on the parable of the Good Samaritan, she understands love of neighbour to be the perception of something worth loving in the neighbour. The lover may know nothing about them, not their name, or their history, but they 'see' them and know that this person has a destiny given by God, and, through imagination can envisage ways to promote and nurture that destiny in the neighbour, even at their own cost (i.e. renouncing their own plans, and giving of their time and money etc). This love may be a momentary reaching out, but can have life-long consequences. It can be as simple as a smile or hello to a stranger that lets them know they are not alone, to the offer of a lift, or a job, or a meal. It is helping someone in need, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and providing shelter for the homeless. It is caring for the sick, and defending the helpless. This is something that is very important in the Torah and Israel is severely rebuked in the prophets for not having this kind of love. Jesus also warns his disciples that those who do not show this kind of love have no place in his kingdom.

Is this kind of love based on some kind of 'seeing' the other, a perception of their 'preciousness' or perhaps their need? While this idea resonates a lot with me, I see its dangers, as has been pointed out by Augustine and Anders Nygren. What happens if we cannot see? what happens if we cannot find? What happens in a world where suffering is swept under the carpet, in distant countries where we are not personally confronted with the agony and starvation that our neighbours are enduring and perishing in? There is a modern parable of a man who had stalled his brand new Ferarri on the middle of a rail crossing. While reaching for the ignition to restart his car, and while hearing the crossing bells start to ring he notices a little boy has a foot caught in the tracks not far off. Seeing the train approaching at fast speed he is faced with the decision: 'Do I leave my car here and rescue the boy? Can I get it started in time, move it and still save him? Can I assume he will free himself in time? what will I do?' The more he thought about it the more his time to pursue the latter two options ran out. His eyes fixated on the boy and though he did not know the boy at all, he knew that he was worth more than his expensive car. He left his car and ran to the boy's aid. He managed to remove his foot from the stuck shoe just in time before the train arrived, but he was not able to run back to his car and move it too!

This man was willing to give up a car worth quarter of a million $$$ to rescue a boy he didn't know simply because he saw him in real need. We can ask ourselves what our response would be in the same situation. We can ask if our response would have been different if other people had been near by, such as the case where a woman in a crowded apartment complex was raped and stabbed repeatedly over several hours, screaming out for help the whole time, but not a single person came to her aid before she died. When the police surveyed the other tenants, they all assumed someone else was already gone to help her. Without seeing the truth they were not compelled by love to at least seek out the truth. And yet again, though we might have answered the first question with a very confident 'yes', a car is worth nothing in comparison to a boy's life, and yet around 40,000 children die every single day from starvation related diseases. We do not sell our cars to save those children. We are reminded from time to time that they exist and that the situation is real, but we are not always compelled to act. It is often when we see an image of a malnourisheed child that we are most moved to give. I still remember the image of an incredibly thin child on the movie Beyond Borders which I commented on a while back. There really is something in the seeing, but then is love constrained by what can be seen? (cf. "^If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. " 1 John 4:20).

From the story of the Good Samaritan, is a neighbour defined as anyone we see in need? Or is a neighbour simply anyone who is in need? Is it love of our neighbour that causes us to pay our taxes? The knowledge that our money is paying the medical bills of someone in need, and the rent of someone without a job? Or because it is an impersonal transaction, can it be a way of "giving all I have to the poor, but not have love..." (1 Corinthians 13). And yet, if we specifically give money to a person, it is much easier to recognise and affirm that this is an act of love.

Is love blind, or must it first see?

I took part in a psychology experiment as part of my 1st year psych studies at Melbourne Uni. The experiment 'exposed' a group of us to images and stories of people suffering torture and inhumane violence, coercion and oppresion in Dili (around the time of the Dili massacres). They then offered several ways for us to respond and asked what we would choose (if anything). to pose their thesis as a question, they were wondering whether when people are shown need or injustice, and if they believe they are in a position to make a difference to that situation, are they compelled by a sense of responsibility to act? (cf. "If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?" 1 John 3:17). Again, the response is indeed a response, to 'seeing' something, or being confronted by something. The something typically has to be personal (another person suffering or in need). I remember seeing groups of activists passing out flyers at Melbourne Uni all the time, for various causes, and none of these ever really arrested me, but that psych experiment left a lasting impression!

The love of neighbour sees need, or sees injustice against a person, and is compelled to act.

but what does the love of a friend see?
Stay tuned...

Read more...

Love derived from its types

I have explored three ways of looking at love: (1) seeing something precious in the beloved that causes us to respond in love, namely to protect, nurture, enjoy, give to and promote that beautiful precious thing for its own sake, (2) choosing to love another person regardless of whether we perceive any beauty or value in them, and (3) seeing the person's need for God's presence, and God himself welling up in us to be poured out to the beloved. These are three quite different views, but all have their overlapping aspects. Can we continue to push ahead and get to the heart of love itself?

Would another approach be to explore the types of love, as Caroline Simon has in her book? She explores neighbour love, friendship love, romantic love and marital love (that is as far as I have got so far so I am not sure what other types she has detected). Is there a possibility of seeing what these different types of love have in common, as well as what the three understandings above have in common, and perhaps derive an understanding of love's essence from that? I shall try to do so after considering what I have read. Stay tuned...

Read more...

Echoes in the dark

Oh, for a conversation partner.

Read more...

Love as a substance

Just to go on another tangent, I was watching an episode of the X-Files the other night called Milagro, in which love was described as a substance not of this earth, which humans are unable to create, and the only power we have over it is to destroy it.

Playing with this imagery, one might imagine that love is 'something' that comes from God (1 John 4:7-21, especially verse 10). One might envisage that love is an unseen or spiritual 'substance' that only manifests as we, through faith, pour it out to another (Faith, hope, love). God is love (1 John 4:16) and all love comes from God, and God indeed commands that we love one another just as he loves us. So, using this imagery, can we ascertain what is actually happening when we love?

Perhaps God's own self-giving essence (ousia) is 'poured out' (to death) into the beloved in a kind of perichoretic fashion. Perhaps what we see in the beloved which drives us to love is not actually anything of value (as I have said earlier that it is the perception of this preciousness which evokes our loving response), but rather we see the need, the absence of wholeness that yearns to be whole, that yearns to be filled with what only God can provide: himself. Perhaps loving is the completion of the other with God's all-sufficient indwelling. The completion of the God-shaped hole. Or to put it into metaphors that I like to play with, to put God into the image of God.

Read more...

The classical definition of love

Not long after my last post I continued reading further in The disciplined heart and was confronted with what is considered the classical Christian understanding of love, or to be more accurate, loves. Christians have traditionally drawn a distinction between three types of love: eros, philia and agape. Some of the more prominent champions of this view are Anders Nygren, Martin Luther and Søren Kierkegaard. They posit that eros and phileo are natural human loves, and therefore lesser loves than agape, which they believe is the word used for God's love of humanity. I found it interesting to read Simon's rendition of this classical view, especially just after reading a view that resonated with my own. So I thought I would interact with those views also.

The classical view understands what I have been defining as love as having characteristics of eros and philia. Eros is defined as passionate love (usually romantic love). It's central characteristic is desire, desire for the beloved. It sees in the beloved something it desires, and seeks to acquire that something for itself. In some ways it could be referred to as the souls attempt to transcend itself, to find completion in another. Eros is never used in the Bible, and thus never used to express God's love toward us, but some theologians believe it is apt to represent our reaching for God, as Augustine says "we are restless until we find our rest in him." As Eros can be understood as our reaching beyond ourselves for something to 'complete' us, it is typically seen as an egocentric love, a love that consumes, and is therefore unworthy of the love Christ commands us to have. It also makes sense, that if this is the definition of eros then it is not appropriate for God, who is complete in himself and thus does not desire anything from us.

Philia is typically understood as friendship love, the bond of two friends, and is characterised by affection. It is a love that sees the beloved as an equal and sticks by them so long as they continue to be perceived as equal. In contrast, the classical view implores that agape is higher than both eros and philia because agape loves in spite of what it sees. Agape alone can be called Christian because it alone can love the unlovely, the unlovable, regardless of whether any value can be perceived, and regardless of whether there is in fact any value at all in the beloved. Agape is characterised as a disinterested love, without motive, without regard for one's self, without necessarily having any affection or emotion, not as a response to the other, but as an initiating act, performing loving deeds for the good of the other, but not because of the other. It is a love that is done by choice, by will and because God commands it.

While this understanding of love(s) does have resonances with the Bible, I do not think it is without some problems too. If Agape is a love by choice and has no origin in the beloved, then to love a person is not to communicate anything to them about themselves, rather it communicates to them something about ourselves. Agape does not say "I accept you, you are precious," it can only say "I will do good to you." I think there are many Christians who will read that and say this is how it should be, because we are all sinful and thus should indeed not be accepted, but rather, by grace good should be done to us, not because we deserve it, but because of the nature of the one who does love us. And indeed this is why the classical view is the classical view. And yet, it does not resonate with me, neither am I convinced it is a necessary explanation, as if there are no other possibilities or models for understanding love.

Having said that, I am not very mature in my view, and find it hard to articulate, still hoping that a progressive scan image will become clearer and more defined with each passing.

If agape does not see value in the beloved, and indeed does not care, does it see the beloved at all? Is the love (however we must redefine its essence under this definition) really directed to the beloved, or is it like a wine which, as it is poured our of the bottle, forms its own glass (can't remember where I read that image). If agape creates value in the beloved, then is the object of agape actually the beloved, or is it that thing which it itself created, which is distinct from the so called beloved. Does it in fact say, "you have no value, so I will create something valuable and pour myself into that." ?

If agape does not see the other person, but acts on the choice of the lover, what governs the choice? Is it arbitrary? Will we love whom we will love, and hate whom we will hate? I see another resonance to one model of Christianity here, a model which, again, does not resonate with me!

If agape does not see the other person but loves in response to God's command, then what is the 'love'? The love itself must ultimately be defined by what it does, since it is merely the result of a decision. The decision is to act, and the deed becomes the love. But then why does Paul speak of being able to do love's work without actually having the love itself:

If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,^ but have not love, I gain nothing. (1 CORINTHIANS 13:3)

To me this indicates that the act is not the love, but that love can be the motive for the act. If love is the motive, then perhaps the classical definition is not quite right. Indeed we are commanded to love one another as Christ has loved us (perfect tense, not past tense). And indeed this would mean to love the unlovely, the sinful, the evil people. And what if we cannot see any 'value' in the beloved, are we unable to love them by my definition. Are they dead, needing a creative love to resurrect them? Or is it that we love them in faith that 'what you do to the least of these you are doing to me'? Or by faith that they are made in the image of God and therefore there IS absolutely value in there, we just need to be patient to see it.

And yet, if we can love by faith, without seeing that thing which evokes our love, then how can love be defined as the perception of that thing, from which all else flows?

This exploration is finding many challenges. Carol Simon sees the role of imagination as indispensable to love overcoming a fallen humanity in which perceiving the beloved's destiny can be an all but impossible task. Paul sees love as bound to faith and hope in a way that neither can be separated from the other. How can we love someone for whom we see no hope? How can we see hope if we have no faith? Why would we even care if we had no love?

But again, it all comes back to what actually is the love?

Read more...