In the ancient Greek world, the word commonly used for “love” was eros.  Eros, in our times, has wrongly been identified solely with sexual love, and recently a friend of mine referred to eros as “lust.”  But eros is much deeper than that.  Eros is the love that draws someone toward something or someone else.  It is better translated as “desire.”  But is it a specific type of desire? It can be a desire based on the body (that is the impulses of the body) or a desire of the soul.

Now the reason it is associated with sexual love is because sexual attraction is a manifestation of eros.  But whenever we pause when we behold a beautiful sunset and we stop and gaze at it, and whenever we read a beautiful poem and we smile and it keeps ringing in our head, or when we smile when we are around the person we love, this is eros.

Whenever we wonder at something like the expanse of the universe or the beauty of the heavens or the person we love, this is a manifestation of eros.  This wonder (which is intimately tied to eros) is the foundation of all exploration of knowledge and acquisition of understanding.

In the marvelous book The Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius writes a short poem that alludes to this teaching saying,

“Love binds people too,

in matrimony’s sacred bonds

where chaste lovers are met,

and friends cement their trust and friendship.

How happy is mankind,

if the love that orders the stars above

rules, too, in your hearts.” (The Consolation of Philosophy translation by David R. Slavitt, 58)

The complex (and serious) character of eros is the subject of Plato’s Symposium where seven speakers each contemplate the nature of eros over a symposium (which was an after-dinner conversation accompanied by wine).  Socrates, when his turn comes to speak, recounts a conversation he had with a certain Diotima of Mantinea, a philosopher and priestess, who talks to him about the nature of eros.  Thus far in the symposium all the speakers described eros in terms of bodily attraction, but Diotima’s teaching is incredibly profound.  She says to Socrates,

“Those who are pregnant in the body only [in other words whose potential is only in the body], betake themselves to women and beget children—this is the character of their love; their offspring, as they hope, will preserve their memory and give them the blessedness and immortality which they desire in the future.  But souls which are pregnant—for there certainly are men who are more creative in their souls than in their bodies—conceive that which is proper for the soul to conceive or contain.  And what are these conceptions?—wisdom and virtue in general.  And such creators are poets and all artists who are deserving of the name inventor.  But the greatest and fairest sort of wisdom by far is that which is concerned with the ordering of states and families, and which is called temperance and justice.  And he who in youth has the seed of these implanted in him and is himself inspired, when he comes to maturity desires to beget and generate.  He wanders about seeking beauty that he may beget offspring—for in deformity he will beget nothing—and naturally embraces the beautiful rather than the deformed body; above all when he finds a fair and noble and well-nurtured soul, he embraces the two in one person, and to such a one he is full of speech about virtue and the nature and pursuits of a good man; and he tries to educate [the other]; and at the touch of the beautiful which is ever present to his memory, even when absent, he brings forth that which had conceived long before, and in company with [the other] tends that which he brings forth; and they are married by a far nearer tie and have a closer friendship than those who beget mortal children, for the children who are their common offspring are fairer and more immortal” (Symposium 209a-d, 100-101).

The Symposium is thus the origin of the idea of Platonic love, which is a love between souls only.

Body Language as Incarnational Speech (Dialogue)

That brings us to the one relationship in the cosmos that most concretely manifests eros. One of the most interesting things to see (and experience) is when a man and a woman are drawn to each other because of eros especially if that eros is one of the soul, and not only of the body.  It manifests itself in body language.

The Old, Old Story

by John William Godward, 1903

First begins the eye contact, then the exchange of smiles, then the unconscious imitation of one another.  You can see it in the way they are sitting next to each other or if they are sitting across each other, how their bodies are oriented toward each other.  Then they hug.  In psychology, this is known as the breaking of the touch barrier.  Then if the eros is sincere and more importantly real and not contrived, then the body language will naturally and gradually progress.  This touch barrier, if it is broken appropriately, meaningfully, and at the right time, then it is a sign that the relationship is progressing.

This is also interesting because this reality is seemingly opposed to early Christianity’s emphasis on the rational soul because when a man and woman are drawn to each other, the rational soul is almost secondary; the body language is primary.  But upon reflection, that’s not quite true; rather the body language is incarnational uniting the pattern of love (which is immaterial and universal) and it manifests in the body language.  This body language takes what you are, what you have said, and what you have thought, and acts them out.  The incarnate Christ did the same thing.  He came to act out what He had earlier spoken through the prophets in order to show His love for humanity.

The Dance of Love

If you noticed in the example of the man and woman, such an experience of eros must develop authentically, organically, and slowly.  Those who jump in are missing the point that this is a slow dance.  Many people today jump at the chance to enter into a relationship so they can immediately have romance and butterflies (and other things), but the rushing in means there will be a lack of substance and meaning.  It’s like a movie, but instead of watching it from the beginning all the way through the end, you fast forward to the end.  Such rushing in spoils the experience.  Such an approach to eros is doomed to destruction because it is self-serving.  That now brings us to agape.

The Fruitfulness of Eros

Agape fulfills eros in an analogous way to Christ fulfilling prophecy.  At the point when eros is being experienced and a relationship between the two is developing, one out of two things must happen: a reaction or response.  How are these different?  A reaction is impulsive and thoughtless and focuses on the moment, but a response is thoughtful and focuses on the moment and what will result from this moment.

This is where agape’s opportunity is.  Agape is the type of love that wills the good for the other.  This is why it is called unconditional love; it is not based on any condition, but it is a rational type of love purely oriented toward a goal rather driven by a feeling.  That goal is to seek the best for others and for them to grow in that goodness by the actions that we take.  Eros is conditional, but agape is not.

The ancient Greek world did not talk much about agape.  It was Christ who embodied the idea of agape and preached it to the world.  Indeed, the Apostle John said that “God is love” meaning the nature of God is willing the good for us as humanity.  Thus, we respond to such agape by becoming full of agape ourselves, since after all, we are imitators of Christ, who is agape incarnate.  It was Christianity that spread the idea of agape across the world.  And the idea of agape as sacrificial love is one that is rooted in Christ.

But eros, since it is conditional, can be ambiguous and it can lead to a destructive end, but agape loves the person regardless of what condition they are in.  This is the type of love that a mother has for her children whether they are well-behaved or ill-behaved, whether they are gifted or whether they have special needs.  It is the love that never stops working, and indeed, it is the love that works miracles in the lives of people.  It saves those who are hopelessly beyond saving, and it transforms people for the better so that we might not even recognize them after the transformation.  God uses the analogy of a mother’s love to describe His love for His people in the Book of Isaiah twice when he says,

“Can a woman forget her nursing child,
And not have compassion on the son of her womb?

Surely they may forget,
Yet I will not forget you

See, I have inscribed you on the palms of My hands” (Isaiah 49:15-16).

And

“Behold, I will extend peace to her [that is Jerusalem] like a river,
And the glory of the Gentiles like a flowing stream.

Then you shall feed;

On her sides shall you be carried,
And be dandled on her knees.

As one whom his mother comforts,
So I will comfort you;
And you shall be comforted in Jerusalem” (Isaiah 66:12-13).

This response to eros and agape unified leads to responsibility in our lives.  We protect and revere what or who we were drawn to through eros, and we work to seek the best for that person or thing.  That is agape.

It is a type of liturgy when you think about it.  That is one of the reasons they robe the man in the wedding ceremony with the priestly robe, and they crown the man and the woman.   When love changes from taking to offering, this is liturgy.  Marriage and family life is therefore a liturgy.  When it is done right, the children produced in a marriage resemble the parents naturally.  And it is something mystical.  They cannot be taught to be like their parents.  They can’t even be whupped to be like their parents (although many parents think this helps), but it must ultimately be one of an overflowing and reciprocal love.  Agape in parents will nurture eros in their children for them and for the truly good things in life.

This is a dialogical existence.  It is a unity of eros and agape. It is exemplified when a husband and wife converse with one another, and that conversation fills them spiritually and overflows and their children become images of that love and dialogue.  In short, they become images of their parents.  Such love also transforms our character.

If this dialogue between a husband and wife (and later parents and children and children with each other) is not there, then the character of a fulfilling marriage is not there, but rather what we see is herding.  Herding is a characteristic of our animal nature, but dialogue is the evidence of the rational soul united to the animal body, which is what makes us distinctly human.

Agape without eros is incomplete; eros without agape is destructive and self-serving.

Meddling Kills Eros

But then meddling comes in when people lack eros.  There are two types of meddling: one is related to the person in a relationship portraying themselves one way, and in reality being another way.

The second type of meddling is the meddling of the parents of the man and woman in the relationship.  This type of meddling usually reduces itself to a checklist and to a set of questions (really meant to be interrogations).

“How much money do you make?” goes one question.  In a certain county in California, among a certain church denomination, I actually heard from one of the mothers that the other mothers tell their daughters not to seriously consider any man who makes less than $200,000 a year.  I thought this was a joke because only 5%-7% of the population make that much, and how many of them are not young?  They were serious.  There is now a significant number of women in that community in their early to mid-40s who are not married.

“What is your profession?” goes another question.  It does not even matter how much you make; they want their children only to marry people from a certain profession.

Meddling from parents can get to be quite embarrassing.  I remember one time on my way to a friend’s wedding, one of the people in the car with me was discussing another wedding that she attended that started over two hours after the time listed on the invitation.  I asked her why (I can see one hour late, but two hours late was really odd).  She said that the parents of the bride and the parents of the groom did not want their children to get married.  Gosh darn!  They didn’t find any time to argue this except the wedding day, and what’s worse is that the people attending knew about it.

Such meddling leads to the death of eros.  When eros dies, then a part of your humanity dies.

Now I’m not saying that parents should have no part or guidance in a relationship; a relationship without the awareness of parents should be suspect.  Rather, if a parent clearly sees the need to be involved continually, then they did not raise their child to adulthood, but have a perpetual child on their hands.  Such a child will regularly fail in their relationships regardless of how old they are, and even if they are married.  They never learned to be independent and never learned to exercise good judgment.

Too much parental involvement can lead to manipulation and become a proxy war between parents on one side and the parents on the other side using the man and woman as pawns in their game of chess.

But parental awareness, on the other hand, is good because it pushes the man and woman in the relationship to be reflective, exercise good judgment, and to be honest.

Is this a spiritual problem though?  Isn’t this just social?

It actually is spiritual because eros offers us a vision of God.

Eros Offers A Vision of the Divine

C.S. Lewis in his book A Grief Observed, which is based on his journals reflecting on the death of his wife interwoven with insights from the Christian tradition, describes marriage as iconoclastic because it gives the best window to approaching the reality of God because it breaks down images that we have set up of other people (which we love, and thus idolize).  In marriage, we deal with the real people themselves and are transformed in dealing with them.

The most important aspect of marriage is communication, but not what you think.  Can the man and woman talk with each other and be filled from the conversation as from an overflowing river.  This is dialogue?  And this is practice for a prayer life with God.

Sadly though, some people only talk to God with the words “give me , give me.”  These people treat their spouses the same way because they have nothing to talk about.  They were only attracted to each other bodily, and when the honeymoon is over and reality kicks in, it is a miserable existence.  Everything becomes a business transaction.  I’ll give you this and you give me that.  Such a marriage life is poor; such a prayer life is even poorer.

But since we’re on the topic of business, a few years ago on an internet forum a lady who described herself as “young and pretty” asked the people in the forum how she can attract a rich man (specifically one that makes $500K or more in NYC) to marry her.  She asked for advice where to meet such a man, how old he would have to be, and why apparently rich men’s wives are not that attractive.

Purportedly, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase answered her and told her that from business perspective it would not be a good investment to marry her because his money and assets will appreciate but her prettiness will depreciate over time.  It is not a good trade.  It would be better for her to go earn $500k herself than think she will get a man who makes that much to marry her.  They might date her, but never marry her.

Harsh!  But the reality is that approaching marriage and God as business makes one spiritually poor.

So am I saying ignore money?  No, but don’t make it the priority.  Regardless of what profession a man and a woman are in, money is not going to get you much anymore like in the past(even if you make much money).  Rather, the role of money in marriage is about supporting yourself in dignity, safety, and relative comfort, not extravagance.  If you can do that, and you are drawn through eros to someone who makes significantly more or significantly less than you, both of you together will be able to support yourselves in dignity, safety, and relative comfort.

Wealth takes years and decades to achieve regardless of what career you are in and what income you earn.  Don’t kill eros because of a desire for wealth.  Remember what we said about not rushing in, and that this is a slow dance?

We Love Those Who Are Dead

To bring this to an end, there is a great conversation about love in the otherwise grim and depressing film Interstellar by Christopher Nolan.  The movie’s premise is that the earth is no longer able to sustain farming and thus humans on the earth.  The ground is becoming irredeemably infertile, and thus humanity will surely die.  NASA, which has become a secret organization, sends people to other galaxies through wormholes to find habitable planets.  Joseph Cooper, a farmer, leaves his family and goes into outer space with other astronauts including Amelia Brand.  In the middle of a very tough day in outer space, Brand makes an observation about love saying,

“Love isn’t something that we invented. It’s… observable, powerful. It has to mean something.

Cooper responds, “Love has meaning, yes. Social utility, social bonding, child rearing.”  This is a materialist and hardly satisfying answer.

Brand quickly and emphatically responds, “We love people who have died. Where’s the social utility in that?”

Cooper admits “None.”

Brand continues, “Maybe it means something more – something we can’t yet understand. Maybe it’s some evidence, some artifact of a higher dimension that we can’t consciously perceive. I’m drawn across the universe to someone I haven’t seen in a decade, who I know is probably dead. Love is the one thing we’re capable of perceiving that transcends dimensions of time and space. Maybe we should trust that, even if we can’t understand it.”

And maybe we should too.

If you found benefit from this blog entry, click here to like my Facebook page here OR sign up to my email list to receive my latest blog entries every week in your inboxes, and you will also receive my free eBook The Way of Christ.  Click here to sign up.