Kinds of Love, Part II: Agape

Having discussed, in my last post, the loves eros and philia, we now turn to the final and highest form of love, agape.  Although, agape may not be unique to Christianity, one cannot be fully Christian without loving, or trying to love, in this way.

AGAPE
This type of love is actually quite simple to understand.  However, this sort of love is the most difficult.  Indeed, agape is offensive to our human sensibilities.

This type of love is most commonly characterized as self-sacrificing love.  As Jesus put it, the love that inspires to lay down one's life for a friend.  Agape is the deepest kind of love.  It requires intimacy, openness and trust.  When Paul writes about love in 1 Corinthians 13--"Love is patient.  Love is kind.... Love does not insist on its own way..." and so on, he is referring to agape love.  It is a love so powerful that we would even give up ourselves, our own life, for the object of our love.  This is how Jesus would have us love our neighbors and ourselves.  Being pushed to make sacrifices for ones we love is an offense to individuality--individual rights and rights of property.  Agape forces us into the type of humbleness and compassion that offends our sense of autonomy.  Yet the gains of agape are immeasurable.  Jesus says at one point, "...those who cling to their life will lose it, and those who lose their life will gain it...."  Part of what he refers to here is the self-emptying that is required for agape.  Although I lose my position of central importance in agape, I suddenly and mysteriously gain an infinitely greater importance by communing with the whole in love.  The whole what?  In a word, God.  In several words: God, the cosmos, all of humanity, etc.  In agape, I never entirely lose myself (rather I gain myself!), but instead, I grow to sense my linkage to something greater--my place in the vast tree of life.

But that is not all we can say about agape.  Indeed, we must say more, for Jesus commands us to not only love our friends and those we know, but also to love our enemies and strangers.  Agape is not just a matter of degree.  That is, agape is not simply that I love my loved ones more deeply.  For instance, I am more likely to jeopardize my life protecting one of my nieces, then for a casual friend.  This contrast does not make my love for my niece agapic love.  Philia, and even eros, can be self-denying or self-sacrificial.  Agape is not so much a matter of degree as it is of application.  Agape is set apart from the other loves because agape is love that is shared with those who are difficult to love.

The word we have for such an expansive application is "unconditional."  I believe that few individuals appreciate the weight of this word.  Jesus died on the cross for all people--the whole world.  Not just his followers, those that loved him, and those that were good, pious people, but also criminals (even the ones executed beside him!), his enemies, the people who accused and incarcerated him, and those who hated him enough to kill him.  Jesus shared his love no matter what the other person thought of him or did to him.  Jesus' love was not conditioned by any thought or action or feeling or -thing on the part of the other, the recipient of his love.  Jesus loves us even while we are dead in sin, because his love is unconditional.  If his love were not, then he would not love us until we were purified and wholly righteous.

Agape is not tolerance.  Tolerance is passive.  Meanwhile, agape is active and proactive.

Agape is not mere acceptance.  It does not condone malicious or destructive behavior.  Instead, agape works to correct such behavior in others through the process of repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation, and through teaching and loving.

Agape is not a feeling.  It is not even a decision or commitment.  Agape is obedience to the will of God.  It is following God's example of love in Jesus Christ.  In this respect, agape is actually quite easy, for all it takes is to follow Jesus, our Pathfinder.

Agape is not preferential.  The true litmus test for agapic love is not how deeply I love my spouse or family or friends.  The true test of agapic love is whether or not one loves and shows love toward the stranger, the offender, and the enemy.  Grudges chase agape out of the heart.  So do vengeance, envy, hatred, fear, loathing, prejudice, bigotry, and indifference.

Agape does not search for reasons to love, despite undesirable traits or actions.  If we must find a reason to love someone, then we never leave eros or philia.  At once, love becomes conditional since we love because of or insofar as the other has a characteristic we admire or love.

Agape is and goes beyond every category, every judgment, every consideration.  I love my Muslim brothers and sisters, not because they are faithful and peace-loving people (though they are), and not even because they are human beings (though they are), but simply because God loves them.  And God's will is that I love them.  I love sinners, not because of their righteousness (they have none), and not because they are repentant (they may not be), but simply because God loves them.  And God's will is for me to love them, too.

Agape is a power that God injects into every ugliness, sorrow or evil---to transform it.

For the Christian it is true that the only way we can attain agapic love is through union and continual communion with God.  God is source and guide and strength.  Before God, the individual realizes how small, sinful and imperfect he or she really is.  And realizing this, it becomes the most natural thing to love all others unconditionally (as God does).  Before God, we realize that we are all completely equal when compared to God's infinite majesty and power and righteousness.  Such is the mystical and cosmic unity found in Christ, that all are equal and agapic love spreads easily and equally across all...

...if we allow God's nature to offend us.

Kinds of Love, Part 1: Eros and Philia

Since we are on the topic of marriage, lo, these last few posts, it may be good to talk about love.  Love and marriage, after all, go together like a horse and carriage (or so the song goes...perhaps we might find a more relevant simile).  The blogpost that follows will not be overly sentimental.  I am not against sentimentality, and personally, I have a very soft and gooey core.  But love is a serious matter.  Indeed, the love found within marriage is not and cannot be based on "feeling" or "sentiment."  Love is and must needs be stronger than this--Christian love especially.

As I reflect on love here, I will use the three most common types of love delineated by three different Greek words for love: eros, philo and agape.  These three distinctions are culturally determined, and therefore arbitrary.  However, English really only has one word for love, and yet most would admit that we love different people differently, depending on relationship--that there are different types of love.  What follows are my reflections on each kind of love in turn, as well as some general thoughts.

Enjoy.  Hope you love it.

EROS
This is perhaps one of the most misunderstood of loves.  From this Greek word, we get the term "erotic."  As your eyes moved over that English word, a couple of things may have happened: you may have perked up, thinking something juicy was surely to follow; you may have experienced a mental red flag--"should I be reading this"; you may have made a knee-jerk judgment--"a pastor shouldn't be blogging about erotic stuff".  Especially in our culture here in America, the word "erotic" comes with a lot of baggage.  Erotica is taboo.  Although some may be of the opinion that erotica is perfectly fine for individuals or couples in private, erotica are not allowed in the public sphere.

Eros does include erotic love, but there is also much more to it than that.  Plato, writing about eros, said that eros is, at root, the appreciation or admiration of beauty in all its forms.  Love of nature is eros.  Love of art is eros.  And, yes, love or attraction to the beauty of the physical human form--the body--is eros.  Eros is aesthetic love, the attraction to things that are visually impressive or beautiful.  And not necessarily just physical.  A well crafted or artful piece of prose or poetry can also evoke the love described as eros.  An elegant logical argument or mathematical formula can inspire eros.  Eros can also be felt for an idea or action.  Love of freedom or even of country is eros.  I can love the action of giving one's life or money or time for another human being.  All of this can fall under the heading of eros.

Eros, therefore, is good, despite what our puritanical culture may say.  It is true, eros can take many unhealthy forms, but eros is, generally speaking, good.  When eros tempts us to objectify someone or something, this is wrong, for instance.  Also, remaining entirely in the aesthetic, in eros, throughout one's life is not healthy either.  Eros is, if you will, a gateway love.  It is base level love, the beginning of love.  Love can grow and flourish to be so much more.  If I love nature for its beauty, great!  But how much better when I am able to love even the uglier or nastier parts of nature.  Some plants, animals, environments and natural processes are not very beautiful.  And yet a mature love will find reasons to appreciate, will find the beauty in, even the less attractive underside of nature.  I ought to be physically attracted to my spouse--it is good to feel eros for my spouse--and yet, if the entire relationship is based on eros, then I have not reached the full potential of love.  My love for my spouse remains contingent on the beauty I perceive in him or her.  A mature love will be excited by the beautiful in the other, but it will also dive deeper.

Sex.  There, I have your attention again.  Friends, sex is good.  And not just for its procreative potential.  The Church has done humanity a disservice by refusing to embrace sex--erotic love--as a gift from God, and a good thing.  We are designed to take pleasure from sex for many functional reasons.  But I believe that God also wants us to take pleasure in sex simply for the good pleasure.  Because sex is such a spiritually and emotionally powerful phenomenon, however, there must be limits and rules.  We are protected from be hurt by sex or using sex in unhealthy ways by the teachings of the Church.  Monogamy, sex within marriage, equal sharing of pleasure, consent, fidelity--all of these things and more protect us from abusive sexual relations, giving us the freedom in Christ Jesus to enjoy the gift of our human bodies, the gift of sex.

Eros can and is spiritual, can and does have a spiritual dimension, however, eros can be neither the foundation on which spiritual love is based, nor the sum total of our love.  Eros is often the beginning of love, but if love does not establish roots (philo and/or agape), then it will whither and die or it will be incomplete and eventually damaging to the human lover.  Eros is a wonderful and nourishing fruit of the tree of love, but it will not bear good fruit if it doesn't have a healthy root system.

A specific example may be helpful here.  I do not mean to pick on anyone, but this example will help clarify eros.  Take the people who say things like: "My worship of God is being out in nature" or similar things.  It is true (Martin Luther even says it, so you know its true) that the Word of God is written on every leaf and cloud and star and blade of grass.  Nature does make us appreciate God's good work, and gives us a necessary sense of awe in regard to God.  However, the love of nature is eros, and therefore not enough in and of itself.  Agape is the root and goal of Christian love.  Nature, therefore, is acceptable--right, our duty and our joy--but it is insufficient.  Nature causes us to love God's action, providence and love, to love the things that God does and is, but it does not and cannot constitute a full loving relationship with God.  Loving God through nature is like loving my spouse because she is intelligent or beautiful.  Although, such eros is a good instigator of love, it is not enough to base the fullest of relationship on.  And if there is one being with whom we are to have a full relationship, it is God.  And so we must dig deeper.

PHILIA
Basically, this is the love experienced in friendship or in family relationships.  The English language proper noun "Philadelphia"is rooted in philia.  It comes from adelphos + philo or "brother" and "love" rendering the compound meaning of "brotherly love."  Hence, Philadelphia is the "City of Brotherly Love."  Philia is perhaps the most wide-ranging of the three loves.  Like eros, it can be applied to non-persons.  Philosophy is the love of wisdom (philo + sophia = love of wisdom).  An audiophile is someone whose hobby is hi-fi...someone who chases after the perfect sound, and who loves the technology that can produce the best quality music.

Although much can be written about philia, we must, for our purposes, focus on one difference.  Philia goes beyond the surface attraction to a thing, to a deeper admiration.  For instance, philia is the movement from loving someone for their physical beauty (although it may start with that physical attraction) to appreciating the person for who he or she is, for the whole personality and being of the individual.  Notice, attraction to intelligence can also be eros.  The difference in philia is that the attraction cannot be explained by any one trait.  Philia is a love and connection strong enough even to withstand some disappointment and "ugliness."  Philia is the love we have for our family, even when our family members may frustrate or annoy us.

Philia has limits, however.  It is preferential love.  In families, the initial bond is the cultural importance we put on blood relationship.  I love my nieces because they are the daughters of my brothers.  And that reason for my love is sufficient.  In fact, it is through the sieve of that love that I also feel proud of their intelligence, beauty, talent, etc.  And even when they do wrong, those failures are eventually sifted out by the love I have for them simply because they are my nieces.  Meanwhile, friendship must begin with some connection based on either sympathetic thought, emotion or experience.  And that is where the preference initially lies, though it may grow to become self-sustaining.

The limitation of philia is that there is a circle of relationships with a definite boarder.  I love because there is a reason to love.  And there is a boundary to that love that places some within and some without.  There is also a boundary within each of the philenic relationships themselves.  We love our friends (and to differing degrees), but we may not make the same sacrifices for them as we would for our family members.  Philia is preferential.  Some (things) are preferred, and some (things) are not.

Well, I believe I should end for now, as we have run long enough.  My next post will treat the third, and I believe ultimate, form of love: agape.  Stay tuned!