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!