Love, whether in abstract or in reality, is greatly valued by people. I cannot speak of all cultures, nor can I speak of all times, but it seems that love as a principle is admired by everyone.
It is so greatly valued by people that it is not uncommon to hear "all you need is love" or "love will find a way" or "love is my religion" from people of all walks of life. Whether we are merely quoting a song or reflecting on what we have learned in life, through all our mistakes and broken relationships, we believe in love.
One way or another, regardless of our cultural heritage or religious persuasion, love is the center of all the virtues; it is the one thing to be valued in itself above all other things; it is the one thing, the only thing.
We would die for love.... (Insert some quote from Tennyson that is overly used)
Well, maybe.
I don't think we would go that far because I don't think we really have a firm grasp of what love is. This is not because only the love which is most explicable or explainable is the truest form of love. Love does not need to be explained. Nor does it need to be understood, in most cases.
Love, however, does need meaning. Otherwise...well...it is meaningless. And meaningless love...well...it just isn't love.
Love without meaning bears no fruit. It builds no bridges. It causes no feelings of rapturous ecstasy. Love without meaning ceases to exist as love. It becomes nothing but an idea or a word or some feeling-disguised-as-something-it-is-not.
But what is love with meaning? Can that meaning be meaningful to all people? Or will any definition, by the very nature of being a definition, expose the biases and ignorance of those doing the defining?
All good questions. All need to be asked. All need reflection. But if our response is to be productive, to any degree, it must depart from the need to be universal or overly respectful to every difference.
We do not want to sound conceited in defining love but we also do not need the extra baggage of defining it to the point that it lacks any force, any substance. Love is universal. But to feel it, to understand it, one need not provide a definition that comprehends all situations and all peoples.
What love needs is substance. This is especially important in a society without substance.
We may say we believe in love, that we even feel it, that it is all we need to have true peace, etc., etc. Similar to those who champion "diversity" for the sake of diversity, or "bio-centrism" for the sake of being fair to the environment, "love" for the sake of love barely means anything in our culture.
The last thing we need is a bumper sticker telling us "love is the answer" or something of that sort. What we really need is to stop using "love" so frivolously and so expeditiously. What we need is to stop--stop it all because it all gets so maddening (especially if one finds themselves asking "why love?" or "what is love?").
Love can be the answer only if we are sure our love has meaning. To use an obvious analogy: to love someone only in words but not in actions defies not only love, and whatever it truly is, but our humanity as well.
To love is to be human. And to be human is to love. Love makes us human. And our humanity expresses itself most fully in love.
But all of that is meaningless if love lacks substance and lacks appropriate reflection.
------------------------------------------------------------
Our definition, or more appropriately, our reflection, on what love is must begin with contours not specifics. I choose this path because contours allow us to fill in the specifics. If we began with the specifics and then worked out the contours we would lose sight of what we are doing and what our goal is. To avoid something akin to a child coloring outside the lines of a picture, love must begin with the contours, the lines, so it understands its boundaries. Like mapping out a hike across country, one must pay attention to the contours of the land to take the path of least resistance.
Contours for love are decided by three things: confession, freedom and revelation. Without these three contours love loses its bearing and its reality. Without these three, love loses all meaning--it loses itself.
Confession--Love is never merely opinion. Opinions are inadequate because, even if one shares an opinion with another person, opinions do not bind you to another person. Confession, as in confessing one's beliefs and one's values, supersedes opinion because by its very nature it binds one to another, forges words with deeds, and unites faith with works. Confession creates responsibility; opinions merely create the impression of responsibility without doing the heavy lifting it requires.
By its nature, confession demands decision. And decision, true to its nature, cuts one off of certain possibilities in what possibilities it chooses. Opinions attempt to have their cake and eat it too. Opinions don't demand a decision. They are only comfortable with expressing themselves without choosing to take a firm stand against other options.
Confession relishes counter-pressure; mere opinion falters when pressed.
We appeal to opinion, especially in our concepts of "love," because we think it offers us the most tolerable and tolerant position. In truth opinion can never create true tolerance. Opinion can only create indifference. True tolerance, for that matter, can stand its ground as one confesses their views of love or their beliefs. What makes for tolerance is not accepting all positions as true, or even as possibly true, it comes from humility and regard for others despite our differences. (This is why it is possible for a Christian to believe that homosexuality is a sin yet be tolerant of homosexuals. In fact if we want to have truly productive conversations regarding this particular issue, we need to come to the table with a better understanding of "tolerance" on both sides so that we can get to the real issues that need to be discussed).
Confession is an important contour for love because without it love would lose its substance. Confession demands allegiance to the point of humiliation, to the point of contradiction, to the point of confusion, and even to the point of death.
In sum: No confession, no love.
Freedom--To love is to do so freely, whether this is to a supreme being, like God, or to another person. Without freedom, love cannot thrive; it is literally choked out of existence. Freedom, in a true sense, does not demand the ability to choose anything. Freedom needs to choose but it is not defined by endless possibilities but rather by decision. Typically, freedom and having a free will are thought of without reference to "demand" or "necessity" because such things seem to counter freedom. What is truly the case is that freedom exists in relationship with "demand" and "necessity" despite their perceived differences.
Love to be truly free must exist in relationship with "demand" and understand that by being free it comes under "judgement". Love is never free to do as it pleases. It can only do what is demanded of itself. And if love does not fall under the auspices and scrutiny of "judgement" then it is never truly love to begin with.
Love does not run away from what it "must" do or from being "judged." To be love in the first place it must have the courage to do its duty and take responsibility for itself.
This is why I believe that in order for love to be truly free it needs God. By ourselves the task of love demands tremendous responsibility--a responsibility that we would not have the strength to bear without God.
I say this not to prove that Christianity or belief in God is the only way to love freely and responsibly but because I find no other possibility sufficient enough to bear the weight of such a task. It may not be convincing to all people--and I don't think it needs to be because I do not believe that one needs to believe in God to love people. In other words, because God is, people can love, whether they believe in Him or not. I would argue, however, that faith in God brings an understanding to the possibility of love that unbelief could never accomplish or obtain in itself.
Freedom is an important contour for love because without it love loses its responsibility.
In sum: no freedom, no love.
Revelation--Love always needs a context and a face. This does not mean that love can be explained or completely understood. It means that loved can only be itself when something is revealed.
Revelation does not mean living in a glass house or exposing all your dirty laundry; love as revelation is about living in relationship openly but not without any regard to confidentiality. Revelation simply means exposing one's true self to another.
Revelation is an important contour for love because without it love would merely be abstract or artificial.
It is impossible to love without showing oneself in the process. This is what makes love so risky--and at times so impossible. We usually run from vulnerability because it demands too much of ourselves but vulnerability is a regular, if not essential, experience in loving another person.
For Christians, revelation is a central feature of the Christian faith not merely because we need it to believe in the "one, true God" but because it reveals to us that by making Himself vulnerable to us, Christ demonstrates His love. Bonhoeffer once remarked that only a God who suffers can help us. In a similar way, only a God who makes Himself vulnerable by revelation is worthy of our faith.
Christ's example of revelation is the example par excellence of what love means.
Revelation, once again, is an important contour for love because without it love loses its face. Love as revelation demands that we throw off our masks and "be ourselves." To do so requires great risk but it is a risk that must be taken, otherwise it would not truly be love.
In sum: no revelation, no love.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To follow these contours allows us to fill in the specifics of love as we please (whom we love, how we do it, when we do it, and so on).
Will everyone accept this reflection, or definition, of love? Probably not. I don't expect everyone to be satisfied.
But I would be hard pressed to find any other definition satisfactory without these three contours. I will accept additions to these three--if I am given a persuasive reason to do so--because I do not think I have been as comprehensive as I possibly could.
I will leave that for you. Do you have anything to add or amend?
Preach it, brother!
ReplyDelete