 
Ways of Loving

The Rev. Daniel W. Kreller

Published by Daniel W. Kreller at Smashwords

Copyright 2016 Daniel W. Kreller

Discover other titles by The Rev. Daniel W. Kreller at Smashwords.com:

Walking in the Footsteps of Jesus - My Sabbatical in Israel

The God of Abraham Praise - A Short Course in Christian Belief

St. Bartholomew's Haggadah - Prepared by The Rev. Daniel Kreller

The Ten Commandments - _A Commentary_

This e-book is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This e-book may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each person. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

Foreword

"What is love?" was the most frequently searched question on Google in 2014. Since Google ranks #1 in the world in inter-net searches with over 1 billion per month it is safe to say this question is upon many people's minds. The same question was on my mind some years ago as well. As a clergyman by profession I realized that I, and those I taught and counseled, were somewhat befuddled by love. Part of the problem is that as English speakers we have one word, love, that is supposed to service us whether we are talking about love for our beloved, or love for chocolate, and all manner of other loves. Our language is rather impoverished in that respect. Part of the problem is that in the exchange of love, the giving and receiving, what we have received didn't always feel like love to us though the giver asserted it was. Part of the problem is that we have a working assumption that we will recognize love when we see it even if we can't define it or describe it. No doubt there are more problems we could cite but it was these problems that inspired me to collect various definitions of love in the books I read whether from religious writers, philosophers, psychiatrists, or psychologists. If any authors were so bold as to write about love, define it, or describe what love looks like in practice, I took notice and kept a list from which I created a chart. My purpose was practical. I wanted to be able to place a tool in people's hands with which they could answer the question what love is for them and help them understand what love might be for the others in their life. For love is not the same for everyone. We have our preferences in love and some of our failures in love are due to that plain fact. Because the chart I produced reflects my limited and eclectic reading it is not the most refined tool, but I trust it will be helpful to those who seek to answer the question, "What is love?" All of my citations are from males. I don't know why that is other than to say the books that came across my purview were written by men. So, do take that into consideration.

As a clergyman in the Judeo-Christian tradition I have another motive for writing about love. Both Jews and Christians believe the character of God is best described by love. There are two primary words for love in the Hebrew Scriptures, ahab and chesed. Both are used to describe God's love. Ahab, which when pronounced mimics the sound of the beating heart, relates to the heart's desires. Chesed relates to the deliberate choosing of affection and loving-kindness. Ahab is used in a text like the Song of Solomon, a passionate love poem that doesn't even mention God. This Song is included in the Hebrew Scriptures because it is read as an allegory of the love between God and Israel, or God and the individual soul. Ahab is also used in very pivotal texts that describe Yahweh's particular love for Jacob, later named Israel (Malachi 1:2), and in the two great commandments Yahweh imposes upon Israel, their love for him (Deuteronomy 6:5) and their love for their neighbor (Leviticus 19:18). So, the texts imply just as Yahweh's heart beats for Israel, theirs should beat for him and for their neighbor. Chesed is used more often then ahab to describe God's love. Will is regarded as the highest attribute of God by the Rabbis, but what God chooses is love, to seek and do what is best for others. That is chesed. In the Christian Scriptures the Greek word agape is used to describe God's love. Its meaning is similar to chesed, the deliberate choosing of loving-kindness. The Christian Scriptures are unambiguous about the nature of God being love. So the Apostle John can write, "Beloved let us love one another, because love is from God. Everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love." (1 John 4:7-8) The ancients did not distinguish between being religious or spiritual as many do today. For them love was spiritual, from God, and religious, binding us fast, through rituals and practices, to love's Source in God, and through God to others.

* * * * *

Chart

The chart that I produced is printed below. The ways of loving an author or source describes are printed horizontally. The number references that author or source at the bottom of the chart. The numbers are not an evaluation of the sources such that source 1 should be preferred in my estimation over source 10, and so on. The numbering reflects the history of my project. I came upon some authors before others and as I came upon new sources that I felt were worthy of inclusion I added them to the chart. Some sources that were familiar to me when I began the project, like the Marriage Rite of my church and Diogenes Allen's and Scott Peck's writings, I realized I had overlooked and included them later. One source is not numbered, the last one, which is a quote from Jesus. I thought it best to acknowledge that stands in a category by itself. In my original I printed this chart in landscape format (included at the end of the printed editions) so I could better align the thoughts of the various authors and sources vertically to reflect their similar ideas. Since this writing conforms to e-book formats I could not replicate that. I leave it to the reader to align the columns.

As a tool I hand this to the person whom I counsel and ask them to read over the chart. I ask what ways of loving do you relate to? Then, I ask what ways don't you relate to as much? Finally I ask what ways don't you understand? Sometimes we get to the question of how do you think the people in your life would relate to these ways? But that is further down the road. The journey begins with knowing ourselves.

Ways of Loving

1. Attention - Acceptance - Approval - Affection - Allowing

2. Quality Time - Gifts - Affirmation - Physical Touch - Service

3. Affiliation - Friendship - Eros - Agape

4. Mirroring - Validation - Empathy

5. Interest/Excitement - Enjoyment/Joy

6. Otherness of Things - Relative Value - Absolute Value

7. Intention - Observation - Radical Self-Acceptance

8. Heart - Mind - Body - Spirit

9. The will to extend oneself for the purpose of nurturing one's own or another's spiritual growth.

10. "It is good that you exist!"

"In everything do to all others as you would have them do to you."*

Sources:

1. David Richo, How to Be an Adult in Relationships

2. Gary Chapman, The Five Love Languages

3. C. S. Lewis, The Four Loves

4. Harville Hendrix, Getting the Love You Want

5. Donald Nathanson, Shame and Pride: Affect, Sex, and the Birth of Self

6. Diogenes Allen, Love

7. James McMahon, Letting Go of Mother

8. From the Book of Common Prayer Marriage Rite

9. Scott Peck, The Road Less Traveled

10. Joseph Pieper, Faith, Hope, Love

*Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew 7:12

* * * * *

Preface

What follows is my commentary on the chart. It is not the same as the explanations I have given to those who have sat opposite me in my office when I have discussed this chart with them. These are my own musings that I hope will stimulate the reader's own reflections. When I preach sermons my hope is that the listener will not just understand what I say, but will be stimulated enough to have his or her own thoughts about the topic at hand. I invite the same for you, the reader.

I want to give credit where credit is due. I would not have even undertaken this project of developing a chart if it were not for Gary Chapman. It was his book The Five Love Languages that gave me the idea. Chapman is a marriage and relationship counselor. He noticed that his counselees often asserted they loved their spouse or partner, but the spouse or partner did not feel loved. This observation led him to the notion of love languages. We all speak the language of love but our preferred love language may not be the same as our spouse, or partner. Thus, we can fail to communicate love to one another much like a person travelling to a foreign country has difficulty communicating with the citizens of that place. If you don't know the language of the locals, or they yours, all sorts of blunders can happen. This can result in some humorous memories of one's travels, but when one is traveling in the territory of relationships it can lead to much heartache and heartbreak. I invite the reader to now travel with me into this familiar, yet exotic, land of love. I will describe it as I see it. Not so that you see it as I do, but so that you might be enticed to adventure there yourself and see it with your own eyes.

My commentary will be in four stages. Here I borrow a notion from the Rabbis that when God undertakes a work, like the work of creation, he does so in four stages. These stages are conception, creation, formation, and completion. We do the same. For example, if we are taking a journey to a foreign land we first conceive of going there. Next we set out on the journey. This setting out relates to the stage of creation. Formation relates to what we experience on the journey. And completion relates to the end of the journey, the assimilation of the experience of our journey into our life. Love is not an end in itself it is more the journey. The end is union, of becoming one, and communion, the bliss of belonging. When I journey to a foreign country I feel at first a stranger. I am mostly aware of belonging to my native land as I struggle to adjust to this different land. After my journey, when I have assimilated my experiences I feel a part of that place I have visited. I feel a sense of unity of having become one with that place and a sense of belonging to its people. I do believe that is the value of travel. It opens us up to other worlds and other lives, and so enlarges us. Love does the same. It is for good reason that the Rabbis (exclusively men until recently) can refer to women as another nation. They are foreign to us men, but if we can love them and unite to them that will greatly enlarge our own world. Such unions create more love. More love creates more communion, and so on. One need only reflect on his or her own conception and birth through the union of one's father and mother to see that this is so. Marital love gives rise to parental love. Parental love in turn gives rise to familial love, and familial love to other communal loves, like the love of friends, or co-religionist, or fellow citizens. Our individual lives are created and formed in such unions and communions. Through them we are born and grow as a person. But before any such birth and growth takes place there is always a conception.

Union and communion account for the two creation stories that begin the Biblical narrative in Genesis. The first chapter of Genesis is a creation account that ends on the 6th day with the creation of humankind as male and female. This account is in keeping with other creation accounts from other cultures where originally there was one person that had both the male and female attributes that the deity then split to make two distinct sexes. The advantage of this was, of course, that by being two they could unite again in a sexual union and reproduce. To be fruitful and multiply is the first command in the Hebrew Scriptures. As much as the contemporary scientific understanding tends to debunk the religious point of view, science itself affirms that union, which enables reproduction and replication is essential to life. If this union does not happen, life as we know it ceases to exist. The second creation account in Genesis addresses communion. Adam, the first man is created from the dust of the ground and from the animating breath of God. But he is alone and by himself is not "good" if the goal is reproduction. With whom will he unite and commune if that remains to be the case? So, in that account God takes the woman (Eve) from Adam's side to make another to whom he can cleave. Cleave is a word with two meanings. It can mean to split or to unite. The sense is that God first split Adam open in order to create a suitable companion, Eve, with whom he could commune since she was after all, as he said, "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh." (Genesis 2:23) She was from the man (union), and so he could embrace her (communion).

* * * * *

Conception

My wife and I conceived two children together. We did so in a physical act that can be described by biology and chemistry and physics. But can it be reduced to that? These days many think so. We did not at the time. We thought it was our intent and, thus, a deliberate act in which we exercised something many want to exorcise in explaining human behavior, namely conscious choice, the attribute of the will. We chose to have children and we planned for them and plan our lives around them. We could be deceived in thinking this way. Those who study these things with greater rigor could be right. Perhaps we are not far different from the other creatures that are driven, so it appears, by instincts, and conceive without conscious thought or planning. Maybe we are not far different from the rabbits in our yard that even now that spring has arrived are out and about mating as though they are possessed. And the Mallard ducks that come to our pond each year to do the same will be here soon. They all say yes to conception's urges. A Robin pair made a nest in our Trumpet Vine this year. Now the male is spending his days searching for worms in the yard to feed his three hungry progeny. I never sense that these "animals in nature," as my daughter referred to them in her bedtime prayers, have the ability to say no to their "instincts." I sense I do, and others too. And so with yes and no, the possibility of choice presents itself, and, thus, the notion of a will.

As you can see from the chart, one author has chosen to emphasize the will in his definition of love. Scott Peck, a psychiatrist, defined love as "the will to extend oneself for the purpose of nurturing one's own or another's spiritual growth." I don't know how religious Peck was, but I do know that after he wrote his bestseller, The Road Less Traveled, which was a primer on how to grow to adulthood by delaying gratification (an exercise of will), he turned his attention in his later years to the problem of evil and even took an interest in exorcism of the demonic. He asked Francis MacNutt, a well-known Roman catholic priest in the healing ministry, who had written on the subject, to co-author a book with him. It was not to be for Peck died before the project got underway. Why the problem of evil and the demonic, you ask? Because evil and the demonic, as it is understood in theological circles, is about eliminating choice and subjugating the will so that people are kept in bondage. Contrary to the opinion of some, God loves freedom and the evil one does not. The proper Name for God in the Hebrew, and thus the Christians Scriptures, is Yahweh. In a pivotal text in Exodus 3 this Name is revealed to Moses and in a bit of word play the meaning of the Name is given as I am, or I will be as I will be. Thus, the Rabbis conclude that the highest attribute of God is Will – the freedom to choose. As creatures created in God's image he grants us the attribute of will. Of course, the Rabbis, and we, understand that when it comes to Yahweh God, his will is unconstrained. Ours is constrained by powers and forces greater than ourselves. Yet, the Biblical view is that all of the creatures of God have some modicum of free choice, humans more so. One can read the 6-day creation account in Genesis 1 as God ratcheting up the amount of freedom he grants to his creation day by day. By the end of the 6th day when humans are created, we have the most freedom and so the text declares we are made in his image - with will and choice.

As a priest in the Episcopal Church I preside over various rites and ceremonies of the church (sacraments). All of them emphasize the attribute of will. Baptism is the primal one and in it the candidate must freely choose to participate, or at least reaffirm, if he or she was baptized as an infant, their parent's decision for them at the time of their confirmation. The baptized can receive the sacrament of the communal meal we call the Eucharist (thanksgiving). But whether one does or not is a matter of individual choice. I chose to be ordained to the deaconate and then the priesthood and in the rites that set me apart for these orders I was explicitly asked about my choice in the matter. Most believers do not feel called to choose ordination but the majority of the others do feel called to live out the vocation that is marriage. And in that rite the element of choice is paramount. In our church's ceremony of marriage after several paragraphs of introduction that explain our understanding of marriage it comes directly to the "Declaration of Consent." Before the vows are exchanged the bride and the groom are asked each in turn if they will have this person to be their husband or wife. If there is no consent, there can be no marriage. Indeed, in a church like the Roman Catholic Church that does not permit divorce but does grant annulments, the chief reason an annulment can be given is because of a defect of the will (consent). Love, if it is worthy of the name, must be freely given and freely received, at least in the Christian view, because it is rooted in the Jewish view of God, Yahweh, whose highest attribute, as we noted, is Will. Whether the love that one extends is for the Divine Being, or for a fellow human being, if it is authentic, it is willed, chosen.

I do not preside over birth or death. The church has no rite for physical birth. It does for physical death, the Burial Office, but that rite only commends the deceased to God. We recognize our limits. No human has a choice over being born or over dying. These events are the sole prerogative of God. As the Yom Kippur liturgy in the Jewish Prayer Book acknowledges, God (Yahweh) alone decides who shall live and who shall die. For all the ways we humans try to take control and exercise our will over birth and death, it is a chimera. When we wake from such delusions we realize we do have some control, some will, some choice, but only in the midst of life between birth and death. Then the biggest threat to such choice is not from God, but from others that exercise their wills in ways that do not nurture us or contribute to our spiritual growth. This is why the church is so very insistent upon freedom and choice in all of its rites and ceremonies. The rites and ceremonies of the church are worded, not so much to defend human freedom from the coercions of a domineering God, but to protect people from the coercions of one's own family, or one's fellows, or the state, or even the evil one. For example, Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet, written at a time when the state was not involved in marriage, only families and the church, ends in tragedy for the young lovers because they defy their family's coercion to marry those they have chosen for them. The parish priest affirms their love, however, by honoring their choice and marrying them.

Peck's definition of love is very much in keeping with the Biblical understanding of God's works in creation and redemption. God lovingly extends himself in these works, sharing his life with us so that we might live. King David, in Psalm 145, poetically extolls the generosity of God in creation when he writes, "The eyes of all wait upon you, and you give them their food in due season. You open you hand and fill all living things with your bounty." With that open hand and extended arm God gives life to his creatures. And the Apostle Paul, speaking of redemption from a Christian perspective in Romans 8, exults in the graciousness of God when he writes, "What are we to say about these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not withhold his own Son, but gave him up for us all, will he not with him also give us everything else?" The loving God withholds nothing from us, but gives himself completely to us. And when human love comes to its highest expression, as in marriage, we do the same. At the exchange of the rings, in the marriage rite of my church, the bride and groom say to each other, "I give you this ring as a symbol of my vow, and with all that I am, and all that I have, I honor you." We give all.

And yet, Peck's definition may be lacking in one respect. Love requires not only the extension of one's self, it also requires, paradoxically, the constriction of one's self. The Rabbis, with their subtle thought, speak of God's necessary constriction of himself in order to extend himself in creation. Before creation God's presence filled all "space." In order to make "room" for creation he had to withdraw and constrict his presence to create a void. It was into this void then that God spoke the first creating word, Yeh'or – light, let it exist. This notion of constriction is in keeping with David Richo's term – allowing. Love allows for the other. It also corresponds to Diogenes Allen's term - otherness of things. Allen in his book, Love, reflects on the mariner in Coleridge's poem, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner. The mariner shoots an albatross for no apparent reason. That precipitates a series of disasters from which the mariner does not recover until he comes to appreciate other creatures and allows for their being. Christians are familiar with this notion of constriction from the belief in the incarnation. God, the Divine Son, empties himself of his equality with God, Paul writes in Philippians 2, in order to be born in human likeness. It is through this constriction that he can "live and die as one of us," as our liturgy puts it, and lovingly serve humanity. Paul cites Christ's self-emptying as an example of humility that Jesus's disciples should emulate. Such humility towards others is not unlike the empathy that Hendrix names as a way to express love for another. Even without these Divine examples we readily understand that constriction is proper to love. In the exchange of marital vows the partners not only extend themselves to each other, they also constrict their love promising to "forsake all others and be faithful" to one another. And parents readily understand that rearing children is both an extension of themselves and a constriction. When, for example, the child learns to say no, parental love respects the child's will and doesn't override it. But whether one extends or constricts one's self for the sake of love, both are acts of the will. Love is conceived by an act of the will. This act of the will is like a seed with all of its potency that when planted grows into actuality.

There is a cautionary tale about love recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures that shows the importance of the voluntary extension of oneself in love and the importance of the constriction of oneself if love is to reach its ultimate goal of union and communion. It is the story of Amnon's rape of Tamar, his half-sister, recounted in 2 Samuel 13. Amnon and Tamar are both children of King David but by different wives. Amnon is smitten by Tamar's beauty. He loves her. The Hebrew uses the word aheb to describe his love not chesed, so it is not by choice, so much, but by desire and passion that he has set his heart upon Tamar. The story is instructive about the limitations of the unitive power of desire as compared to will. Once Amnon had his way with Tamar and satisfied himself, he rejected her. He obtained the object of his desire by force and then was repulsed by his own action. There was no restraint of his desires, or constriction, on his part. The consequences for Tamar and for him were devastating. Tamar's virginity was taken from her so she was compromised. Then, Tamar's brother by the same mother, Absalom, arranged to have Amnon killed to avenge her. One crime of passion led to another. Such is the potency of love. It can create and destroy. Beware! Amnon failed to regard the otherness of Tamar, and like the mariner, his reckless act and lack of constriction in love, allowing for the other, led to disaster.

* * * * *

Creation

In the Rabbinical view creation is the moment when what was conceived first appears and is visible at last, like a stalk emerging from a seed planted in the ground. It is accompanied by the exclamation of joy and wonder that, "It is good that you exist!" as Joseph Pieper, a philosopher, defined love. Indeed it is good, very good! To this day some 30 years after the fact I can remember the moment my first child, a son, was born. He came into the world after many hours of labor on my wife's part where I served as her "coach." I was grateful to be there, for thus I witnessed his birth. Without a cry, eyes wide open, and pink in color that bespoke health, he emerged into this world. "It's a boy!" the attending anesthesiologist cried in exultation. He was from an ethnos that prizes boys more than girls. He gave voice to those affects that Nathanson say constitute love – interest/excitement and enjoyment/joy, or affirmation as Chapman names it. Life is a miracle and few of us retain that sense of exultation in life until we are reminded by the birth of another life. I was privileged to experience that again when our second child, a girl, was born. My wife had worried before she was born whether she could love a second child as much as her first. She had, after all, exclaimed when our firstborn was put into her arms shortly after his birth, "I will do anything for you!" How many can you "do anything for?" One? Two? Does love have a limit? And if so what is it?

God, in the Biblical view, stopped after 6 days of creating to rest on the 7th day. So, perhaps there is a limit. But, oh what a 6 days! In those 6 days God created all that exists in its great height and depth and length and breadth of variety and beauty in this visible realm. (There are various texts that suggest God had already created the creatures of the invisible realm, like the angels.) And at the end of each day of creating what did God say, according to the Genesis 1 text? God saw and said that what he had created was good. The Hebrew word in the text for good can be translated as something like functional. I do recall that when my children were born the nurses spirited them off for a brief time both to clean them up and for the doctor to examine them to see if all of their parts were in working order. Pity the doctor that has to deliver the news that all is not good, not fully functioning with the child. And pity the parents that receive the news. It is not given or received with the full affirmation that is love. The dysfunction of the child, like any dysfunction in love can only be overcome by some of the other attributes of love. Richo speaks of acceptance, Hendrix of empathy. Both of these affirm the goodness of one's existence despite falling short of "full" functioning. Lewis speaks of affiliation, by which he means you are one of us, part of our family, despite any shortcomings on your part. Many parents have shown profound loyalty to a child that was not perfectly formed, or able to fully function, simply because he or she belonged to them.

Yet in the Biblical view functionality alone hardly defines goodness. Far from it! Understanding of that day God rested, the 7th day, the Sabbath day, reveals this clearly. The Israelites, when they received the commandments from God through Moses at Sinai, were commanded to rest, that is, cease from all their labors on the Sabbath, because God rested on the Sabbath. In reflecting on the meaning of this rest and cessation of work one Rabbi, Aryeh Kaplan, concluded that one does so by ceasing to fix or change anything or anyone, on that day, but by receiving things and people as they are! (See his Sabbath: Day of Eternity) One keeps the Sabbath by affirming as God does, "It's good that you exist!" But since this affirmation is made when the utility of a thing or person is not in view as it is on the other 6 days of the work week, it is clear the affirmation is made for the sheer delight in their being.

One can point to various Biblical texts that express such delight. In Job 38: 4-7, for example, when God is answering Job's question of why he had made him as he is (and all other things the way they are), God replies, "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth...when the morning stars sang together and the heavenly beings shouted for joy? The morning stars, apparently some form of heavenly beings, and the other heavenly beings expressed the same exultation in creation that the anesthesiologist did at my son's birth, only more so. He didn't break out into song as they did! Or, in Psalm 104 where David meditates upon the majesty of creation, he exults starting in verse 24 saying, "O Lord, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all; the earth is full of your creatures. Yonder is the great sea, great and wide, creeping things innumerable are there, living things both small and great. There go the ships, and Leviathan that you formed for the sport in it." Most commentators think Leviathan is a reference to whales. David wrote at a time when man's ships were too small, and the open sea too wide and difficult to ply, to exploit the usefulness of whales. Thus, he could only view them as something to playfully enjoy and marvel at, as human whale watchers do today. And this same sentiment he attributes to God! God does not undertake creation for the utility of it. God creates for the sheer enjoyment and beauty of it!

Two other words for love relate to these aspects of function and enjoyment, usefulness and delight. They are eros and agape, two Greek words Lewis references. Both are translated into English as love. And yet they are very different in meaning. Eros speaks to a desire for someone, or something, a longing that arises out of a felt need. One experiences emptiness in that need and the desire to have it filled and satisfied. The thing, or someone, that fulfills the need can be regarded in a functional way. If one is hungry enough, anything edible will serve as a meal. Often it is claimed that prostitution is the world's oldest profession. I doubt it is that, since a profession is usually chosen, and prostitution seems to arise from the lack of choice by women, or men, who are subject to the needs (eros) of others and function to satisfy their need for gratification, as Ammon sought gratification with Tamar. Agape, on the other hand, begins with the awareness of fullness. But this, too, is a felt need and the longing and desire that accompanies it is the desire to give to another. In the same way eros can lack discrimination, so can agape. Jesus observed that God "makes his sun to shine on the evil and the good, and makes his rain to fall on the just and the unjust." (Matthew 5:45) Chapman's term service speaks to such altruism. And Allen's term absolute value speaks to acting lovingly simply because there is a need without evaluating the worthiness of the one in need. David in his much beloved Psalm 23 depicts God as a shepherd who makes every provision for his sheep, therefore they shall "not want." The emptiness and hunger of God's creatures, eros, is met with God's fullness and open-handed service, agape, without reservation. In the exchange of love there is a need to give and a need to receive. But as Paul observed, Jesus himself said, " It is more blessed to give than to receive." (Acts 20:35)

Typically Biblical texts view God as always on the giving end of love and his creatures on the receiving end. For example, the New Testament, originally written in Greek, uses agape alone when speaking of the love of God. A familiar text like John 3:16 is an example. It reads, "God so loved (agape) the world that he gave his only Son..." Yet, as I noted, fullness can be experienced as a need. So there is a Hasidic saying that, "More than the calf desires to drink, the cow desires to give milk." Thus, the Rabbis acknowledge that God's fullness, agape, becomes a desire itself, eros, seeking fulfillment. The anguish one can feel when such a desire to give is frustrated is expressed well in the lament of Jesus over the people of Jerusalem. He cries out, "How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!" (Luke13:34) Suffice it to say that though we can speak of giving and receiving as distinct aspects of love, they are necessarily related since there is no love without both. A parent knows this well. The desire to create life arises from wanting to give to another, agape, and the need to give, eros. And we can speak of the child that is created as both in need of life, eros, and a gift that meets the needs of the parents, agape. The child is as delightful and useful to the parents as the parents are to the child.

* * * * *

Formation

As I write my wife's garden is flourishing in the late spring. The seeds that she planted in early spring sent forth stalks that have produced an abundance of branches and leaves and flowers. The harvestable fruit is some time off. But the fruit does not arrive if the stalk does not branch and leaf and flower. As her garden grows, so does love. Love is planted, so to speak, in an intentional way like a seed by the gardener. We choose love. Love can then begin to sprout and grow. And soon enough, if love has really rooted and taken hold, it flourishes. It branches out and diversifies into the manifold expressions of love. There are various ways of giving and receiving love and if one desires fullness in love one must become adept in some, if not all ways. The marriage ceremony of my particular denomination speaks of 3 ways (3 branches) – heart, body, and mind. To these I add spirit for that is the context of the marriage ceremony. These 4 ways define the parameters of love but since they are given in the rite of marriage this arrangement presumes a reasonably mature person. An arrangement that more nearly reflects the progression of our development as humans towards mature love would be body, heart, mind, and spirit.

Physical touch as Chapman calls it, affection as Richo names it, or body as the marriage ceremony refers to it is foundational for us incarnate beings to experience love. After my children were delivered and cleaned up and inspected they were returned to their mother and placed into her arms. Before they could see her face or understand her words, they felt her touch. And it was in her touch, the warmth of her body, the swaddling of her embrace, even the smell of her skin (for smell is a potent aspect of physical touch, and thus of acceptance or rejection) that they were welcomed into this world. The body doesn't lie. Whether or not the child feels affirmed and safe and secure depends on the quality of the touch. When the first touch is perceived as loving the child will bond with the mother and he or she is set upon a path to flourish. Basic trust is established. If not, that path is closed off, or, at least it becomes a path full of obstacles to overcome. An element of insecurity and anxiety is introduced into the child's life. Its effects are deleterious.

Nor do we lose our appreciation for physical touch over time as we grow. When toddlers need soothing they want to be held. Older children needing reassurance want a hug. We might begin to depart from touch as we grow into adolescence when words become of greater importance, but we never lose our need and desire for touch. As adults we desire that physical touch of the sexual union that recalls and recapitulates our own conception. It is that desire that leads us to marriage. Before I ask a couple to recite their vows of marriage I ask them to join hands. And after the vows have been recited, the rings exchanged, and the prayers offered, I invite them to kiss to seal the union. In ancient times it wasn't a kiss that sealed the vows it was the sexual union of the two and that was attested by others as the kiss of the bride and groom is publically witnessed today. Indeed, if there is no physical consummation of the marriage that is grounds for an annulment in the Roman Church, or for divorce in civil courts. We love bodily and that is true from the very beginning to the very end of life. How often have I held the hands of those who are dying when they cannot speak and are unable to see, or perhaps even hear? And how often have I stroked their face and kissed them on the forehead when they have died? It is part of my role as Father. Mothers embrace life as it comes into this world. I embrace the life that is departing. Both are physical acts.

It is not uncommon for some to assert that religions are antithetical to bodily existence and thus, to physical affection. I'll only speak for Christianity, my own chosen form of religion. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Christian narrative begins with the Son of God becoming incarnate, taking on human form. Could there be a more ringing endorsement of the goodness of bodily life? Each Christmas we sing the hymn "O Come All Ye Faithful." I am always struck by the second verse and its affirmation of the physical. It reads, "God from God, Light from Light eternal, Lo! He abhors not the virgin's womb..." Others may abhor being born of a woman, as many a great philosopher of the ancient world did, but not God. And many abhor the physical body if it doesn't conform to society's current definition of beauty. God, apparently, finds mere physical existence itself beautiful enough, for in a text that Christians believe applies to Jesus, the prophet Isaiah observes, "He had no form or majesty that we should look at him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him." (Isaiah 53:2) If the incarnation of Christ isn't sufficient proof of God's affirmation of the physical, Christianity affirms that after death Jesus was raised bodily from the grave. Granted it was a transformed body, no longer subject to death and having been further clothed in immortality. But his body was not discarded as though it was not of value but created anew because of its value. So bodily, physical love is good and is not to be rejected. It is to be guided by the soul's virtue of self-control so that it does not succumb to unbridled passions, but governing the body in its desires is different than rejecting the body and love expressed through the body. A horse can only be safely ridden with some sort of bit and bridle. In the same way the body's desires need to be guided by the soul. Again I would reference the Song of Songs that exults in the physical body and love expressed in the body. It's inclusion in the Hebrew and also the Christian Canons of scripture is an unequivocal validation of physical affection in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

As much as the body needs to be touched, the heart needs to be affirmed. By heart I have in mind the diversity of feelings we are capable of expressing. After the reassurance of loving physical touch, the infant needs and wants the affirmation of his or her feelings. This is done through mirroring as Hendrix refers to it where a mother will mimic the facial expressions of the child. If the child is in anguish and crying she will appear to cry. If the child is laughing she will laugh, or pretend to, though for her it is no pretense. Some recent brain research shows that the same area of the brain is activated in one that observes the emotional expressions of another as is activated by the one feeling the emotion. This mirroring of the emotions provides validation to the child as Hendrix names it, or affirmation, as Chapman calls it. It requires attention that Richo cites, or what Chapman calls quality time, and McMahon calls intention and observation. All of this is an act of allowing for the other and acceptance of whatever he or she is feeling at the moment (Richo). In doing so the mother shows empathy for her child. She feels with the child she has born (Hendrix). Given the necessary claims of the body for our survival touch is primary. But we soon move on to the claims of the heart. When sight and hearing and speech improve we want our expressions and verbalizations validated. If they are we believe our heart is accepted and approved. This, too, establishes basic trust and confirms the world is safe for us, a place where we can be ourselves and be welcomed.

Our need for mirroring and validation doesn't diminish throughout life, certainly not throughout childhood and adolescence. Any child that doesn't have empathetic parents will suffer anguish. If that continues into adolescence the anguish will only intensify. Conversely, the infant that is validated throughout childhood and adolescence and has empathetic parents will go from strength to strength. Validation is a sure foundation upon which to build. The lack of it is a feeble foundation. One can only hope that if the parents do not provide it others will. There are determined adults that say it doesn't matter to them that they didn't receive validation. But I have found in my pastoral experience that their bravado is often just defensive detachment, to use a technical term, a stance that declares because I didn't get what I needed, I didn't need it! We did and do need it. All of us! Defensive detachment invalidates our own natural feelings, which is why McMahon speaks of the need for self-love as radical self-acceptance, including of all of our feelings. Hopefully, the validation we receive from others will bring us to this place of self-acceptance, but if it does not McMahon avows we need to receive it from a transcendent source. Thus, it is radical, meaning from the root source (in God our creator) and complete. The lack of self-acceptance will hinder our acceptance of others as the wisdom of the Judeo-Christian tradition recognizes. The second great commandment of this tradition is "love your neighbor as yourself." It links self-love and other love in such a way as to acknowledge they go hand in hand. Thus, one must be adept in self-love in order to be adept in other love.

The necessity of validation is confirmed in an event in Jesus' own life. When he was about to begin his public ministry, he sought out his cousin John to be baptized. The sense of this baptism is that Jesus was now orienting his life to the service of God, the one he called the Father. The accounts of his baptism in the Gospels state that "as he was coming up out of the waters the heavens were torn apart and he saw the Spirit descend like a dove on him. And a voice came from heaven declaring, 'You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.'" (Mark 1:10,11) Note that it was both the words and the spirit conveyed with the words that was validating to Jesus. The same is true for us. A child whose parents spoke critical words in a critical spirit, or, that spoke affirming words in a less than affirming spirit, will feel invalidated. The spirit and the words must match and be affirming. If they do not the soul of the child is wounded. This wound is difficult to heal. The only real remedy I know for it is spiritual, replacing the message of critical parents with the message of an affirming God. God, McMahon's transcendent source, represents the greater truth of our being. Our parent's assessment of our being is both limited and tainted by their own soul wounds. The same could be said of everyone else we encounter in life. Not so with God. God knows us best. Paul writes of this knowledge of God in his first letter to the Corinthians (13:12) when he says, "Now I know only in part; then I will know fully even as I am fully known." God knows us better than we know ourselves. And God loves us best. Again Paul writes of this love in his letter to the Romans (8:31) when he says, "If God is for us, who is against us?" He goes on to cite God's giving up his Son for us, as a sacrifice, as the proof of his love. Is there a greater love than that one should lay down his life for another? The sacrifices parents make for their child is a form of laying down one's life that validates the child's existence and proves the parent's love for their child.

After the heart, there is the mind. One of my favorite prayers in The Book of Common Prayer, used in my denomination, comes at the end of the baptismal liturgy when we pray for the one baptized, asking God that he or she be given "an inquiring and discerning heart, the courage and will to persevere, a spirit to know and love you, and the gift of joy and wonder in all your works." (Book of Common Prayer, page 308) In our day people would replace the word heart in the prayer with the word mind, for we tend to think of inquiring as a mental process. But the Prayer Book was written at a time when it was believed the heart leads the mind and the mind will attend to what the heart is drawn to. Nathanson is in agreement for his definition of love, interest/excitement and enjoyment/joy, is based on affect theory. Our affects are those expressions we make that reveal our feelings (think of the emojis that substitute for words in electronic communication). Affect theory states that feeling gives rise to thought, not the reverse. That makes sense to me for as I hold an infant in my arms after baptism and recite this prayer it seems clear to me the child is feeling more than thinking. At that moment I am too. I feel for this child I hold and then I find myself wondering how this child will develop? Will the gift of an inquiring and discerning heart lead him to the sense of joy and wonder, to the feelings that inspire thinking? I wonder where the thoughts of his heart will lead him in life. What will he love? Who will he love? How will that translate into who he becomes and what he will do? What will he believe and value? And will the gift of joy and wonder, in the end, lead him to the knowledge and love of God? If I hadn't had feelings for the child I would not have had such thoughts. The infant I hold in my arms at baptism has a wide-eyed expression that bespeaks feeling but only a rudimentary thinking. The child is far from making any sense of the world that he or she has entered. But thinking and sensibility do come to children soon enough and it is amazing in its variety. Not one child is like another when he or she matures. They differ in interests, in personality, temperament, and in many other ways. They are individuals and no two are exactly alike, just as I am as distinct from everyone else.

God, it seems likes such diversity and individuality. In my youth I worked in the auto plants of Detroit to fund my education. We strove to make one car exactly like another though in a few "models." My education was in philosophy and history. From that I learned that the philosophers long for an ideal form to which all things and all people should conform. But nothing in the real world does. And I learned that the great figures that drove history, the kings and rulers, were all about imposing conformity. So it goes even down to this present age. While espousing diversity there is much in modern life that seeks, or even demands, conformity. Dress the same. Feel the same. Think the same. Be the same. In most things we are. But in a few things we are not, and that difference means a great deal to love. Love necessarily makes distinctions and discriminates. We will not become friends with everyone. We choose our friends based upon our common interests. Lewis when writing about friendship lamented how much it is undervalued in our modern world but also acknowledged the exclusive nature of it. Peck believed one would be fortunate to find a few good friends in the course of one's life because friendship requires a high degree of like-mindedness, what Richo calls approval. Love doesn't always approve of everything and everyone. It also makes judgments. This is what Allen means by relative value. Not everyone and everything has the same (absolute) value for us. Giving gifts (Chapman) as an expression of love is a good example. We exercise our judgment about what would be a suitable gift, acceptable to the person, and limit gift giving to those for whom we have affection (Richo). Gift giving at holidays is fraught with anxiety for that reason. What should we give and to whom? One gift is not suitable for all. We have all had the experience of being given a gift that was not to our taste. The expression of feeling, the heart of the giver of the gift, was good, but the mind, with its judgments and perceptions was off. It takes a great deal of attention (Richo) to choose a gift for someone that suits their particular interests.

The most adult of all relationships, marriage, bespeaks this particularity and exclusivity. We don't marry anyone and everyone. Whether in a culture like ours where the two individuals make the choice of their partner, or in different cultures where others, the parents of the two usually, make or greatly influence the choice, these matches are highly discriminatory. One of my favorite Biblical stories is of the marriage of Jacob. It is recorded in Genesis 29. Jacob, because of a falling out with his elder brother, fled to the ancestral homeland of his mother. There he fell in love with Rachel, the youngest daughter of his uncle Laban. Jacob worked for Laban tending his sheep and goats. Laban asked Jacob how he could repay him. Jacob asked for the hand of his daughter, Rachel, in marriage as payment. Laban consented with the caveat that Jacob must work 7 years to obtain her. Jacob did so willingly and the time passed quickly for him because of his love for her. When the wedding day came Laban deceived Jacob by substituting his elder daughter Leah for Rachel. When Jacob complained, Laban asserted that it wasn't done in their culture to marry the youngest before the eldest. But he pacified Jacob by saying he would give Rachel to him also, after the period of time passes that a groom should spend with his bride Leah (what we would call the honeymoon), provided Jacob work an additional 7 years for Laban. Jacob agreed because Rachel was his first and great love, his number one love, as I have heard some express it. We have preferences in love and that seems to be a function of the mind, perhaps even more so than the heart. We want compatibility, a meeting of the minds, as well as a meeting of the body and heart.

Lest you think Jacob lived happily ever after with his two sister wives, think again. Jacob's preference for Rachel and the rivalry between the sisters led to much dysfunction in the family. There was out and out competition between the sisters for Jacob's attention, a competition that focused on delivering sons to Jacob. So fierce was the competition that both sisters even gave their handmaidens to Jacob as wives so they too could deliver sons for Jacob. In the end he had 12 sons, whose offspring eventually formed the 12 clans, or tribes of Israel. The sibling rivalry between the wives of Jacob was passed down to their sons and caused much distress in the family. Even so, Jacob could not overcome his preference in love for Rachel and the two sons she bore, Joseph and Benjamin. They were and remained his favorites to the end of his life.

Preferences in love don't necessarily lead to such rivalries. Sometimes such preferences bring two people together that would be natural rivals, or unite people from disparate backgrounds. Two biblical stories reveal this. One is of two young men, Jonathan and David. Jonathan was the son of King Saul, the first Israelite king, and the heir apparent to the throne. However, Samuel the prophet of Yahweh had anointed David as the next king. Nevertheless, Jonathan and David were friends and Jonathan even helped David escape his father's wrath and attempt to kill him. When Saul and Jonathan were killed in battle, David lamented over them with an ode he composed called "The Song of the Bow." One of the stanzas reads, "I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of a woman." (2 Samuel 1:26) The Hebrew word David chose for love in the ode is ahab, the word that expresses deep heart affection. The other story is of two women, a mother–in-law and daughter-in-law, Naomi and Ruth. Naomi and her husband and two sons were Israelites that had migrated to Moab, an enemy of Israel, during a time of famine. While in Moab, both sons married Moabite women. Then, tragedy struck for Naomi's husband and sons died. At that point Naomi decided to return to her native land and she instructed her daughters-in-law to return to their families and remarry. Ruth, however, refused to leave Naomi and insisted she return to the land of Israel with her. In one of the most beautiful entreaties in the Bible she says to Naomi, "Do not press me to leave you or turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die – there I will be buried." (Ruth 1:16) Curiously, these two stories are linked for Ruth married an Israelite relative of Naomi named Boaz. They had a son together named Jesse, and he was the father of David. Perhaps this capacity of particular love to overcome differences was passed down from grandmother to grandson. These examples of love are instances of what Peck calls the will to "extend oneself for the sake of one's own or another's spiritual growth." Spiritual growth is enlarging one's capacity for love as McMahon observes, and that entails allowing (Richo) for what Allen names "the otherness of things."

* * * * *

Completion

As I stated in the Preface, love is not an end in itself. It is more the journey, the ways, for as we have seen there are various ways to express love, in which we achieve the goal. That goal is union and communion. To speak of love as the journey, and of ways of loving, implies love requires effort. When one travels he or she must continually pack their bags and move on to the next destination. So also in the exotic land of love one is always moving on, not to a different place but to a different way, or expression of love that suits the situation. In the course of a day, for example, one may encounter someone who needs attention, another who needs acceptance, a third that desires approval, a fourth affection, and a fifth allowing, to use Richo's terms. And we, in turn, in the course of a day may need all of these expressions to be given to us. But on any journey there are moments of rest and leisure when one has arrived at his or her destination, if only temporarily, and they can unpack and relax. So also we can rest when the love that is given is received. When love is genuinely communicated there is union and communion, if only for that moment. But it is not just for a moment. Love has an amazing capacity to endure and remain. It abides (as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13:13). It is not like food that nourishes the body only temporarily. Love nourishes the soul and any ingestion of love continues to feed the soul in perpetuity. That is why, for instance, a random act of kindness from a complete stranger may set someone's life on a different course. Love once given and received continues to feed us. The body cannot be sustained by the memories of a meal once eaten. The memory of love once received, in contrast, does continually sustain the soul. Early in my ministry I regularly visited an elderly woman that lived in a room in her niece's home. She used to quote the English playwright James Barrie who said, "God gave us memories that we might have roses in December." Most of those she loved in life had died and she only had memories to live on. It was these fragrant "roses" that sustained her.

The Rabbi known as Rashi (Shlomo Yitzckahi, who was born in France the 11th century) said, "One who loves another brings him close and desires to know him well." Drawing someone close speaks to the union of the two and desiring to know that one well speaks to communion. In other words, we achieve union and communion when in the exchange of love we know the other and are known in return. The story of the creation of Eve in Genesis 2 illustrates this. As the story goes, Adam had been created first by Yahweh. Yahweh deemed, however, that it was not good for Adam to be alone. How could Adam know love, other then the love of God, after all, if he was alone? With whom would he find union and communion? Love is a relational term and requires at least two to interact. So Yahweh created all of the animals of the field and every bird of the air and brought them to Adam for him to name. But among them was not found one that was suitable for his helper and partner. He could care for them and love them in their "otherness" (Allen) but they could not reciprocate as equals in love. Because of the difference in their being they could not fully know one another. Yahweh then caused a deep sleep to come upon Adam and while he slept he took a rib out of the side of Adam and from it he made Eve. When Adam awoke Yahweh brought her to Adam and he exclaimed, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman (ishshah in Hebrew) for out of Man (ish in Hebrew) this one was taken." (Genesis 2:23) Having been taken out of man, she could be put back together with man in union and communion. They could truly know each other. That knowing for Adam and Eve began with their seeing and recognizing themselves in the other, inwardly in their souls (bone of my bones) and outwardly in their bodies (flesh of my flesh). It ended with their conjugal union and communion by which Adam knew (yada in Hebrew) his wife Eve and they were made one flesh again and one soul. The fruit of their union and communion was Cain, their firstborn son. (Genesis 4:1) When we achieve union and communion we become most aware of Spirit and spirit. Not that Spirit and spirit haven't always been active and present, animating and moving things along. Eve, when she conceived and bore Cain, expressed this awareness of Spirit best by declaring, "I have produced a man with the help of Yahweh." (Genesis 4:1) Yes, without the help of Yahweh, who is Spirit, there is no life. Eve provided the flesh and Yahweh the Spirit.

Spirit and spirit are difficult to define but are recognized by the effects they produce. Jesus compared Spirit to the wind, which cannot be seen, but one can hear the sound of it, or feel the force of it. (John 3:8) He was not alone in such comparisons. People in all cultures and all times have done the same. Universally Spirit is recognized as the life force, the breath of life, the animating principle, or as we state in the Christian Creeds, the Lord and giver of life. Naming the Spirit as the Lord and giver of life personalizes Spirit. In the Christian view the Spirit is a person and in the Jewish view an extension of the person of Yahweh God. Thus, in our tradition Spirit is not an impersonal force. Jesus' comparison of Spirit to the wind was a way of emphasizing the freedom of the Spirit. In the same way we refer to someone who follows his or her own mind as a free spirit. Impersonal forces don't seem to have freedom, will, or even whimsy. It was also a way of saying that it is easier to see the Spirit from the effects it produces rather than seeing it directly. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, at least, Spirit and spirit are regarded as the inner being of the person, whether of God or man. So, St. Paul, who was a Jew by birth and a Christian by virtue of his belief in Messiah Jesus could write, "For who knows the inner person except their own spirit within them? In the same way, who knows the inner person of God except the Spirit of God?" (I Corinthians 2:11) Spirit refers to the very interior of the person of God, and spirit refers to the interior of any living being that God created. Spirit permeates creation and all creatures. Without the Spirit's presence nothing would exist. Again St. Paul in a speech delivered in the marketplace of Athens declared, "God is not far from each one of us, for in him we live and move and have our being." (Acts 17:28) The God who is that near to each of us is the Spirit of God that animates us, gives us life, and is the ground of our being. In a similar way Eve was the ground of Cain's being. Cain first lived and moved within her and when he was delivered he came out from her insides. Eve, our first mother, is the archetypical mother. All subsequent mothers are Eve for us. McMahon says of mother, she is our first god. And, why not? She was God's helper in creating us. The first woman, the Bible asserts was taken from man. But all subsequent men are taken from women, like Cain. This is the Biblical way of affirming the interdependence and equality of men and women. With such interdependence and equality men and women are capable of achieving union and communion. St. Paul acknowledges this interdependence and equality when he writes of the mutuality of men and women saying, "Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as a woman came from man, so man comes through woman, but all things come from God." (1 Corinthians 11:11,12)

The Rabbis use the analogy of the glassblower to illustrate the movement of the Spirit and spirit. When a glassblower sets out to create he first conceives the idea of the work to be created. Next he gathers breath in his lungs. Then he fills his mouth with that breath. All of these levels of spirit are interior to the glassblower and thus hidden from view. To shape the vessel the glassblower then blows out his breath through a tube that is attached to the molten glass. With this breath he shapes the glass into a vessel and his breath comes to rest in the finished vessel. These two levels of the spirit are exterior to the glass blower but have proceeded from him and reveal something of his interior. In the analogy the glassblower represents God. The moving wind of his breath represents the Spirit of God that is active in creating. The molten glass represents the body of each creature that is formed and animated by the Spirit. Like all analogies, this one fall short for the vessel a human glassblower makes is inanimate. But when God the creator sends forth his Spirit, he forms living beings with spirits, or souls. The soul of the creature is the wind of the Spirit at rest in the vessel of the body. And because each creature has a soul, a measure of God's Spirit within, all creatures can join to God, who is Spirit, and to other creatures with souls. I witness this with the animals that inhabit our yard. The birds wake me as the sun is rising with their songs of praise to God, and then set about during the day with their nest building and mating in the spring and raising their progeny in the summer. At the end of the day they sing praise to God again before settling down with their mates. Since they have spirit, as do I, I can connect to them. The spirit in me recognizes the spirit in them. But since they do not have the same measure of spirit we are not soul mates. Nor are we akin in our bodies. We both have flesh but they are not "flesh of my flesh." We cannot know one another to the degree I can know and be known by my fellow human beings.

The soul, since it is a measure of Spirit in the body, mediates between the two and can be moved by either depending upon which way it "looks." If the soul "looks" to the body, it will be moved by the body's passions and desires (eros). If the soul "looks" to the Spirit, it will be moved by the Spirit's altruism (agape). The Judeo-Christian belief does not opt for one or the other. It affirms both. If the soul only "looks" to the Spirit, and ignores the body and its desires, that is not good. Nor is it good if the soul only "looks" to the body, and neglects the Spirit. The mediator, the soul, must consider both. Perhaps I can illustrate this interplay between agape and eros, altruism and desire, spirit and body, by a vision I had 40 years ago. At the time I was studying for a Masters in Pastoral Theology at General Seminary but taking a course on dreams at Union Seminary, both in New York City. The instructor had given us, a class of 10 or so, a blank sheet of paper and a marker. She asked us to close our eyes for a period of time and then draw our image of God. Afterwards, she said we would share and explain our images. I thought this is ridiculous. I have no image of God and if I did why should I be required to share it! But being compliant, I closed my eyes. No sooner had I done that then I saw a vision that shook me. I saw a celestial city hovering in the air between heaven and earth. The walls of the city were the various shades of tourmaline with light radiating through them from the interior. It was exquisitely beautiful. The colors reminded me of the illuminations of city of Paris from Les Belle Heures, a devotional book from the Middle Ages. The serenity of the city that I saw, hovering as it did between heaven and earth, bespoke Spirit and the altruism of agape. I felt peace gazing upon it, a peace that Julian of Norwich, a medieval mystic, described when she said, "All shall be well; all shall be well; all manner of things shall be well." More troubling to me at the time is what else I saw. Out from behind this celestial city and arcing back to form a perfect circle I saw alternating naked men and women linked, as though in a chain. They were writhing in throes of passion. I was taken aback. How could this be my image of God, I thought? I was terrified at sharing this image with the class. I abstracted the image and made some feeble attempt to describe what I had drawn. I am glad I did. My classmate's drawings depicted something more innocuous. One I recall, that I wished at the time was my own, was of a path through a woods upon which my classmate imagined Jesus was walking with her as her companion and guide. My own image disturbed me and I could not understand it. All these years later, though, I cherish it. God's love is indeed both agape, altruistic, and eros, full of passion and desire. God is Spirit and yet he created bodies. Life as we know it could not exist without both. In the vision I saw they were in perfect balance and interplay. The chain of being, the alternating naked men and woman, imaged union: the radiant city, imaged communion. In this marvelous vision I glimpsed love when it attains completion.

I said above that the marriage ceremony in my denomination speaks of the union of a husband and wife in heart, body, and mind. The context of the ceremony implies the presence of spirit and Spirit. I noted though that developmentally we progress from body to heart to mind to spirit. I point this out since the body and the heart were nearer to me in the vision I saw, represented by the chain of being, than the mind and the Spirit, represented by the celestial city. I saw both in the same instant but in terms of proximity the chain of being was closer to me. The exterior, so to speak, the outward, the body (flesh) was not as distant as the interior, the soul (bone). This is just the reverse of the Adam and Eve account where he first glimpsed the interior of Eve (bone/soul) and then her exterior (flesh/body). This may be due to the fact that they were both already mature developmentally. They were created in an adult state. But even more it may be due to the fact that they were in a state of spiritual perfection. They had not yet fallen into sin and become aware of the lack or failure of love and the resulting shame. They were still innocent. We are not. Yet their innocence is instructive for us. Their love for each other looked first to the interior, to their souls and spirits and not to the exterior to their flesh and bodies. Adam and Eve recognized in each other their soul mate, their bashert as the Rabbis name it. This was true even though both of them were naked and completely exposed to the gaze of the other. My pastoral experience has taught me that we tend to do the reverse. In this fallen post Eden world what we first see is the outward form of the other, usually hidden by clothing. We work our way from that outside to the inside, if ever we get that far. This is a serious issue in our culture that is so focused upon the exterior and equates love with lust. It is as if our vision has become nearsighted rather than farsighted, so we can see the exterior of a person clearly but our vision of their interior is clouded. Adam and Eve saw the insides first and it was the spirit and mind and heart that drew them close before the body. This fact helps me understand the difficulties we all find in developing relationships. We are prone to work our way from the outside to the inside of a person, from their external beauty to their internal beauty. But nature itself is against us in that regard. The flesh fades. The spirit endures. So, if we are to endure in our relationships we must work our way in love beyond the exterior (the flesh and body) to the interior of the person (the heart, mind, and spirit). Working toward the interior of a person is not easy for us considering our propensity for nearsightedness. Ageing is the natural remedy for this but not a sure cure. As our physical attractiveness wanes our appreciation of the interior beauty of others waxes. But our culture resists this natural remedy and insists upon perpetual youth and outer beauty. Yet those who can become farsighted in love and look to the interior of a person have a better chance of achieving the goal of union and communion.

When union and communion are achieved we experience joy and peace. When St. Paul lists the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22 he names love, joy, and peace first. By doing so he implies that through love we are enabled to achieve union with God and others and that results in joy and peace. After the marriage ceremony of my denomination speaks of a union of husband and wife in heart, body, and mind, it goes on to say that this union is intended for their mutual joy. Love, genuine love, leads to joy. Nathanson's definition of love – interest/excitement and enjoyment/joy - confirms this. He observes that normally our brain waves are like a calm sea. But when our interest is stimulated, let's say by the sight of a tantalizing meal when we are hungry, our brain waves swell like a wave building in the ocean. If we satisfy that hunger by eating that meal, our brain waves trough just as the trough follows the swelling wave in the ocean. We then experience enjoyment. The hunger is an example of eros, the legitimate needs of the body. The satisfaction of those needs is, agape, the enjoyment of fulfillment. Both the peak of the wave and the trough of the wave in the brain produce a sense of pleasure for us that we associate with love. When we have eaten and are satisfied the body returns to rest, like the peace of a calm sea. So the cycle at the bodily level is love, joy, and peace. With the heart, mind, and spirit, it is the same. If our heart takes interest in another we are drawn to that one and desire to connect. If we are able to connect and share mutual affection we experience joy. We take pleasure in the company of those who are likeminded and share our interests. And if two are compatible spiritually their bond is strong indeed and recapitulates the bond between Adam and Eve. "Peace be with you," is a salutation in our liturgy. "And also with you," is the reply. This greeting is exchanged with the "kiss of peace." This "kiss" in the liturgy is expressed bodily, either by a kiss on the cheek, or a hug, or a handshake. As with Adam and Eve this exchange begins with the recognition of likeness inwardly that is then expressed outwardly.

The peace that we experience through the work of love that yields the joy of union and communion is related to the Sabbath as described in the Bible. In the Genesis 1 account of creation, God worked for 6 days. At the end of each day he rejoiced in what he had made and affirmed it as good. But on the 7th day, the Sabbath, he rested from all of his labors. A prayer in our Prayer Book sums up well the meaning of this rest. It reads, "O God of peace, who has taught us that in returning and rest we shall be saved, in quietness and in confidence shall be our strength: By the might of thy Spirit lift us we pray thee, to thy presence, where we may still and know that you are God." (Book of Common Prayer, page 832) In the 6 days of creating all things had proceeded from God, but now on the 7th day they would return to him and know him. This would be accomplished by the movement of the Spirit lifting all created things up to God where they could rest and be still before God. This rest is described as their salvation, a word related to the notion of shalom, meaning total wellbeing on all levels, body, heart, soul, and spirit. Such wellbeing can only be experienced in the presence of love, in this case in the presence of God since God is love in the Biblical view. There in the presence of love the creature is quieted, no longer having anxiety about the possibility of not being loved, and becomes confident, since love strengthens each to accept its being and believe in its goodness. As I noted above one Rabbi, Aryeh Kaplan, defined the "rest" of the Sabbath as receiving things and people just as they are. This is what God was doing on the Sabbath and affirming the essential goodness of all of his creatures. "It is good that you exist!" (Pieper) And by enjoining the Sabbath rest upon us he invites us to do the same, to receive all things and people as they are and affirm their essential goodness. The Torah proscribes this for one day a week, the 7th day. Although there are other elements to the Sabbath like the Sabbatical year, the 7th year, and the Jubilee year that follows a cycle of 7 Sabbatical years, or 49 years. The 50th year, the first year of a new Sabbatical cycle is called the Jubilee. Each of these extensions of the Sabbath, deepen the meaning of affirming things and people. The focus upon the utility of things and people, how they may serve us, is redirected to their goodness, their worth beyond utility.

When we begin to appreciate the goodness of things and people we make a shift in our soul. We no longer think of what they can do for us, we think of what we can do for them. How can we serve them, rather than how can they serve us? They are worthy, after all. Jesus when he began his ministry quoted a text from the prophet Isaiah about the Jubilee. He said, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." (Luke 4:18,19) It was a text that revealed he had come to serve, not to be served. And so his ministry was conducted with a Sabbath and Sabbatical and Jubilee mentality and Spirit. He had great compassion for people and was moved to heal and deliver the sick and afflicted in order to restore them to their original goodness. The psychiatrist Carl Jung said of Jesus that he was the most self-realized human being, meaning the most fully developed and mature. I believe he was right. When we are immature we are needy and cannot give so much but are always seeking to receive, necessarily so. When, and if we mature, we become more adept at giving and less demanding in terms of receiving. I say if we mature because in my pastoral experience I have come to realize that maturation doesn't always equate with age. I have encountered adults who are still immature in terms of their needs and their ability to give. I also have come to understand that all of them are operating from a deficit of love. They did not receive the love they needed to mature. But I say that with this caveat. It is also possible to be very "giving" as an adult and still not be mature. That is because the "giving" can be a kind of ruse, or bait if you will, to catch and obligate someone into giving the giver love in return, and so supply their lack of love. Here we touch upon what I said at the outset. If love is genuine, it is free, and that means without obligation. So, such ruses don't work in the end and can't supply the love deficit of the "giver." Mature love declares I will give, but you neither need receive, nor give in return. This is what St. Paul meant when he said of Jesus' death, "But God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8) We, as sinners (deficient in love), were neither able to receive, or to give in return, yet he loved us and gave himself for us. St. Paul's understanding is that we have to be given the grace to even receive the love of God, much less give love to God in return. God's love feely given does not obligate us to return his love. We are free to choose to do so, or not.

St. Paul was a Rabbi by training, a student of Gamaliel, one of the most famous Rabbis of his day. (Acts 22:3) He was brought up at his feet, he says, meaning he submitted himself to his teaching until he was thoroughly instructed in his wisdom and understanding. He doesn't specify what that was but perhaps he was taught, as some Rabbis do today, that on the Sabbath those who observe the Sabbath are given a double portion of soul. Since the soul, in the Rabbinical view is a portion of the Spirit of God, they mean on that one day observant Jews are given a special infusion of Spirit enabling them to better love God and love their fellows. This grace, to use St. Paul's term, enables them to turn towards God and towards others, receive their love and give love them love in return, and celebrate their being. Lest you think this extra measure of Spirit enables the soul to "look" only to agape and altruistic love, think again. Yes, the Sabbath is a day to turn towards God who is Spirit. But that extra measure of Spirit also allows the soul to turn towards the flesh and it needs and desires (eros). Thus, the Rabbis say the Sabbath is the most propitious day for couples to join in a sexual union and even to conceive a child. Hopefully, when and if parents do conceive a child it is out of the abundance of their love, a fullness (pleroma) that seeks to give to another. It can be otherwise as I noted above about "giving." Sometimes parents conceive a child out of their own emptiness (eros) in the hopes that the child's dependence upon them will fill their deficit in love. I think of Jesus' parable about two men building a house. One man built his house upon bedrock. It had a sure foundation. The other man built his house upon sand. It had an insecure foundation. When the rain and the wind and the floods came (the trials and tribulations of life) the house built upon the rock remained standing but the one built upon the sand fell. (Matthew 7:24-27) If one was conceived by parents acting only out of their desire for each other (eros), or only by a desire for self-gratification, that is not a sure foundation for life. I have been privy to the struggles of those who were conceived by rape, or without intention on the part of their parents. Despite the disposition of their human parents, I do believe it was God's intention for them to come into being. But they do struggle more than others. Those who were conceived intentionally, with agape more than eros, generally speaking in my experience, have a better foundation for life. They are built upon the rock and can endure the "floods." But because God is always a principal partner in our creation as Eve acknowledged, "I have produced an man with the help of Yahweh," there is always hope for us. Our human parents may have been deficient in love but God was and is not. So, I am fond of saying to various and sundry, "More than we believe in God, he believes in us, otherwise we would not exist!" The fact that we exist is sufficient proof of his love.

It is noteworthy that Jesus conducted much of his ministry of giving to others on the Sabbath. He even began his ministry on the Sabbath in the synagogue of his hometown of Nazareth. He read from the scroll of prophet Isaiah about the Jubilee, the "Year of the Lord's favor." He asserted he had come to fulfill that text, meaning he had come to serve, with the anointing of the Spirit (an additional portion of soul) in order to restore and heal people. He even claimed to be the Lord of the Sabbath and taught that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. (Mark 2:27,28) As Lord of the Sabbath he claimed the authority to dispense the extra measure of soul (Spirit). As the Lord, the ruler who has come to serve rather than be served, he would give good gifts to his people. There is no greater gift than a further infusion of Spirit. Such an infusion creates more soul and a greater capacity to love. Jesus, as Lord of the Sabbath, is intent on increasing our capacity to love by giving us a greater infusion of Spirit. This is also why he said the Sabbath was made for man. Men and women are destined to increase in their capacity for love. There is no other goal worthy of us. We were created in love for love and any lesser goal than growing in love is trivial by comparison. St. Paul in Ephesians 4 refers to this goal as growing into the "full stature of Christ," in other words, becoming mature, as he is mature. With an additional measure of the Spirit we can each become more soulful and better able to give and receive love. With greater soulfulness we can observe the teaching of Jesus to, "Do unto others as we would have them do unto us." That is the mature stance. It neither denies our own needs or the needs of others but it does prioritize them. As Peck says of maturity it means we can delay our own gratification in order to satisfy the needs of others. The great saints understood this. That is why St. Francis could write, "May we not look for love's return, but seek to love unselfishly, for it is in giving that we receive, and in forgiving that we are forgiven." (Hymn 593, verse 4, 1982 Hymnbook of the Episcopal Church) St. Francis is also known as the patron saint of animals and he was sympathetic of their needs. He like we learn about relationships from them. Jesus also often taught us to do so. Just now I fed the Koi in our pond that I built some years ago at the request of my wife. They were as hungry and demanding as always (eros). I delighted in feeding them as always (agape). We both had pleasure in the giving and receiving. The question of who had the most pleasure is hardly worthy of an answer I feel (despite the view of St. Francis). From their perspective and mine we had equal pleasure, interest/excitement and enjoyment/joy. Afterwards we were both at peace. I understand, however, why St. Francis said what he did. Giving precedes receiving. If there was no giving there would be no receiving, nor would there be union and communion, or knowing and being known.

The priority of giving is revealed in story of Abraham entertaining three men he saw passing by while he sat at the entrance to his tent pitched near the oaks of Mamre. When he saw them he ran to meet them and implored them to not pass by. "Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree. Let me bring a little bread, that you may refresh yourselves, and after that you may pass on – since you have come to your servant," he implored them. (Genesis 18: 4,5) Abraham provided more than water and bread. He had his wife Sarah and his servants prepare a meal for them. These were no ordinary strangers happening to pass by. The three were angels of God (or Yahweh himself) on a mission to investigate the complaints that had risen to heaven about the people of Sodom. Having received this hospitality from Abraham, Yahweh determined to reveal his purpose to Abraham. Abraham, in turn pleaded for the people of Sodom that God would show them mercy. In this story God made himself known to Abraham. God drew him close. But what prompted him to do so was Abraham's own hospitality, his giving. "For it is in giving that we receive." This same priority of giving is affirmed in the story of Jesus washing his disciples feet at the Passover he celebrated with them on the evening of his death. They recognized the inappropriateness of his taking the subservient role. But as he explained after having washed their feet, "So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to was one another's feet. For I have set you an example, that you should do as I have done to you." (John 13:14,15) Complete love, mature love, desires to serve, rather than be served.

* * * * *

Shame

It may seem odd to speak about shame when writing about love. It is necessary, however, for if union and communion are the goal of love, the consequence of shame is the polar opposite. When love is interrupted we fall into shame. When we fall into shame we experience separation and isolation. From the Biblical point of view we are meant to abide in an uninterrupted state of love. That is how Paradise and The Age to Come are viewed. But in this present age we experience both love and love's interruption, or love's failure. When that happens there is an immediate shock, then we experience shame. The Biblical story of the Fall of Adam and Eve that follows the story of their creation illustrates this. They were in a state of union and communion with God and one another. The sign of this was that they were "both naked and were not ashamed." (Genesis 2:25) They dwelt together in a state of innocence. That innocence was shattered when they sinned by eating the forbidden fruit. Many speculate about the nature of that sin but, perhaps, that is less important than the consequences of it. First, they were surprised to discover their nakedness, and second, they felt shame and covered themselves and hid from each other and from God. The difference between the state of innocence and that of shame is startling.

Once, while visiting Bern, Switzerland my wife and I came upon a park that had a round shallow pool, no more than 20 feet in diameter and 8 inches deep at the center where there was a gentle fountain. The pool was surrounded by grass. Parents had stripped down their young children and let them frolic in the water naked. All of the adults sat on the grass at the edge of the pool fully clothed. The children in the pool knew no shame as they stood splashing joyfully, fully exposed. The adults outside the pool were unaware of their own shame but their clothes revealed they had lost their innocence. Their faces also revealed they had lost that youthful joy, though a certain wistfulness in their affect showed they still had some remembrance and longing for a bygone innocence and joy.

This bucolic scene of the naked children and their clothed parents, presented to me serendipitously, perfectly reveals the most salient points that Nathanson makes when writing about affect theory. (I draw primarily on Nathanson in this section on shame since he alone of the sources I reference deliberately set out to write about it.) Interest/excitement and enjoyment/joy, which the happy children exuded in abundance as evidenced in their squeals of delight, is what we mean by love, Nathanson asserts. As long as the children were in the pool they were in that state. But as soon as they exited into the arms of their loving parents, they were quickly bundled in a towel for drying, then clothed as required for interaction outside the pool in polite society.

The pool is like Eden of the Biblical story. Once one leaves Eden, one must be fully clothed for something else has been introduced, namely, shame. We adults are so familiar with shame that we are convinced that clothing is normal. We have forgotten that it was mankind's first invention. It no doubt had some benefit in protecting the body from the elements. But in the Biblical story, Adam and Eve covered themselves to be shielded from the other's gaze, lest they be exposed to shame, or in its worst manifestation, humiliation. It was not to protect their bodies that they clothed themselves it was to protect their souls. If sin is the loss or lack of love, as I have said above, clothing is the bandage we put over the wounds of that loss to protect ourselves from the infection of shame. And yet we are all affected and infected by shame for our wounding in love is inevitable. Solomon, as Jesus observed, despite all of his finery, was not arrayed in as much glory as the simplest flowers in the field. (Matthew 6:29) The flowers know no shame. Solomon, being human, did. And so he covered himself in the finest fabrics with exquisite embroidery. All who looked upon him saw his majesty, yet his royal robes were only a fancy covering for his nakedness and shame.

Nathanson observes that once we feel shame we quickly pivot to other more agreeable affects. Not that any of these are more pleasant to experience for they are all negative, it's just that they are less toxic than feeling shame. He names distress, fear, anger, disgust, and dissmell. Anguish is a more intense version of distress; terror is a more intense version of fear; and rage is a more intense version of anger. But we don't leave shame behind by making that pivot. Rather, we feel the shame less intensely by feeling something else more intensely. The shame remains, nevertheless, until the state of love is restored. Only love can overcome and negate the feelings of shame. And while we are left with feelings of shame, though we may be only dimly aware of them or disguise them under other feelings, Nathanson observes we cope with shame by withdrawing, avoiding, attacking self, or attacking others. If you have ever said or thought, "I'm bad or you're bad, rather than I've done something bad or you've done something bad," than you know shame. If you ever have run away from a situation or taken something or done something to mood alter, then you have experienced shame. We all have. None of us are exempt from shame. We encounter it every day of our lives in ourselves and in others.

Just as we may speak of love in all the manifold relationships we have throughout our lives from birth to death, we must also acknowledge the ever-present possibility of shame in any of these relationships. But in speaking of shame I will limit myself to the experience of shame in relation to marital love. As I have said, love finds its most mature expression in married love. Though we may believe we have banished shame by uniting to a beloved one, this is not the case and, in fact, because we have opened ourselves to greater love, we have, at the same time, made ourselves more vulnerable to shame. For instance, anyone who enters the union of marriage understands that union will end, if only because of our mortality. When love is interrupted by death we are startled. I have found this to be true in my pastoral experience. Certainly that is true when the death of the spouse is sudden and unexpected. In one case I know, a woman's husband went to work on a beautiful fall day and never came home. That day was 9/11 and he perished in the Twin Towers. How could she not be startled? We all were that day for the event was totally unexpected and incomprehensible. But it is also true that we are startled by the separation of death even if we have long anticipated it. I know of many more cases where the spouse had been ill for a long time and living under the sentence of death. Heroically, most often in my experience, the other spouse cared for that one until he or she died. Invariably, surviving spouses all say the same thing, "No matter how much you think you are prepared for the separation of death, you are not prepared. The reality is different." It is shocking. Death interrupts love in the most irrevocable of ways.

In the face of such loss I have heard the surviving spouse say, "It should have been me, not him, that went first." Sometimes it is said with genuine affection, and sometimes with a sense of regret, and oft times with both. That sense of regret is sometimes called "survivor's guilt." But that cannot be the case for we accrue guilt only for the things we have done, or left undone. We do not have a "hand" in the death of our spouse. Only once have I suspected a spouse had a hand in the death, in this case a wife in her husband's death, and to this day she carries herself as one burdened with guilt. But more often I have seen a false guilt on the part of the surviving spouse, when after having done everything humanly possible to prevent the inevitable, he or she feels there is something more he or she could have done.

I used to take such "survivor's guilt" on face value. I do so no longer, for the surviving spouse had no actual responsibility for the death. It is God's prerogative "to kill and make alive." (Deuteronomy 32:39) No, I see it for what it is - shame. For when the union that is marriage is ended by death, after the shock of being alone again is absorbed, the surviving spouse finds himself, or herself, under that Divine judgment, "It is not good for man to be alone." When we feel we are under the judgment, "not good," we fall into shame. That is the state of all widows and widowers, I do believe, even if their relationship to the spouse was very good. That it was very good does not make up for the fact that now the relationship is no longer good, because the partner has been taken, though those who were in a good relationship are better able to grieve and go on. The love of the lost partner still feeds and sustains them.

There is less shame for those who have loved well. And there is more shame, and thus, more difficulty grieving and going on for those who have not. Again, I used to think those who were in a "bad" marriage would be glad to be freed from his or her spouse. But experience has taught me otherwise. They experience the double loss, first, of the promise of the marriage, and second, the loss of the spouse upon whom the promise rested. Their shame is greater and the surviving spouse is often inconsolable even many years after the loss. Those who have loved and were loved well in a marriage ended by the death of a spouse, in comparison, often go on to remarry, after having grieved their loss for a season and a time. While they are grieving (Nathanson's distress/anguish), however, the surviving spouse may also feel fear, now that he or she has been abandoned and is alone again, or anger that God has decreed this fate, or any of those negative affects that accompany shame.

Not all marital unions last until the spouses are "parted by death," as the vows in our marriage ceremony puts it. (Book of Common Prayer, page 427) Sometimes, the contract of marriage is broken by other factors and the union is dissolved while both spouses are alive and they divorce. Divorce has become so commonplace that even Pope Francis acknowledge recently (June 2016) while speaking to a gathering of clergy that many modern marriages are "null" because the parties involved did not understand marriage, in the sacramental view, to be a life long union. He is not the only one to recognize this shift in understanding of the permanency of marriage for some have proposed, when considering revisions for our Prayer Book that the phrase, "until parted by death," be replaced by the words, "as long as love lasts." So, we in the Christian Church that uphold the ideal of a life long union, have been forced to acknowledged that even if the persons once united through marriage are still living, their communion may have suffered a mortal blow and the marriage has ended. There have always been grounds for an annulment of a marriage and even for divorce, but these grounds were limited and exceptional in the past. Today they are more commonplace and unexceptional. Nevertheless, just as with the death of a spouse, even if it has been long expected, the dissolution of a marriage does surprise the parties involved and plunge them into shame and its attendant feelings. After all, the two did enter the union with considerable good will and hope for achieving "mutual joy" and the other goods of marriage, such as "help and comfort," and the "procreation of children" in most cases. (Book of Common Prayer, page 423) When these are not attained and the marriage ends, even though our present society does not deem this shameful, the parties involved, invariably, feel shame. They experience it as a personal failure. And though they may not appear to linger long in the feeling of shame, they often do nurse those feelings that attend shame – distress, fear, anger, disgust, and so on. Then, too, they often indulge in those coping mechanisms we revert to when we have fallen into shame, namely, attacking the other (the ex-spouse), attacking self, withdrawing, and avoidance.

Even in those marriages that do endure until the death of the spouse, shame is commonplace for there is no perfect or complete love in this present age. St. Paul writing in a text that is a favorite choice for brides and grooms at their wedding (1 Corinthians 13), acknowledges this. While speaking of the various attributes of love (in this case agape), he observes it is not fully known or realized now but only will be then (in the age to come where we are fully united to God and one another). Until then we only glimpse it with faith and hope as though through a mirror dimly. In St. Paul's day mirrors were made of polished brass and the image they reproduced was dim indeed! Just so, the image of love that any marital union produces in this age is far from complete or perfect. And that is true of even in the best of marriages where there is considerable compatibility on the four levels of union - body, heart, mind and spirit. Considerable compatibility is not perfect or complete compatibility. So even those marriages that are life long suffer from the lack, or failure of love (sin), and, thus, the partners in every marriage, when some shock opens their eyes to the imperfection of their love, feel shame. They find that the words with which they exchanged rings as a sign of their union, "I give you this ring as a symbol of my vow, and with all that I am, and all that I have, I honor you," were spoken by two flawed shame bound individuals. (Book of Common Prayer, page 427) Even if they each strive to give all to the other, the shame that they bring with them into the union will not remain hidden for long. They cover it for the moment, the bride with her wedding dress and the groom with his tuxedo, but this clothing is soon stored away as a keepsake, or returned to the tailor. As the marriage unfolds what lovers often find was that their "all" was not enough for their partner in the case of an insufficient and neglectful love, or even too much in the case of an overbearing and smothering love. In the various and sundry changes in life that partners in marriage experience together, none find that the love they give to and receive from each other was always "just right." Disappointments in love are the norm, which is why, I suppose, so many searched that question on Google in 2014, just "What is love?"

Even if to outsiders a marital union may look "perfect," the couple from the inside knows otherwise. They know there is only partial and incomplete love in this age where sin and death have not yet been finally overcome. They, too, will cope with shame, perhaps by withdrawing from each other, turning their attention to other interests, or by avoidance, soothing themselves with some mood altering substance or behavior. For example, I have heard many an Alcoholic's Anonymous member confess that his drinking ended his marriage. But such a confession begs the question. If love had been perfected in his marriage would he have continued drinking until the union was destroyed? St. Paul, after all, could warn us to be filled with the Spirit and not be drunk with wine, recognizing that when the soul feels a void in love, it will seek filling with other things. (Ephesians 5:18) And, of course, there will be among couples the assigning of blame for the failures of love in their union. They will, to use Nathanson's terms, attack others or attack self. In the story of the Fall, Adam blamed God for giving him the woman who led him into temptation, and Eve blamed the serpent as her tempter. They each coped with shame by shifting responsibility to others. But that appears to be more of a projection on the other of one's own unbearable feelings of self-blame. From that point forward in the Biblical narrative not one marriage, even of the revered patriarchs, is described as perfect and the failures of love between the couples is not glossed over. Thus, their stories are recognizable to all couples since we share in this fallen and broken humanity. There is love in marriage and there is shame. There are common ways of coping with the shame, but still the shame remains.

While the shame remains, as Nathanson notes, the other negative feelings emerge. So while overtly a couple may appear to be enjoying wedded bliss, covertly the partners may experience distress for what is lacking in their union, or anger over what is present in the union but not welcomed. These feelings may simmer below the surface unacknowledged for years, or they may frequently surface in a bought of tears, arguing, and recrimination. No two couples are exactly alike in how they deal with shame. Yet, despite the failures of their love many couples remain together through the length of their days. Some do out of fear, feeling it is better to be with someone than alone. They judge the benefits of an imperfect union to outweigh the deficits. Others may extend grace to each other and, as St. Paul says of love in that text used so frequently for marriage ceremonies, strive to "bear all things, believe all things, hope all things, endure all things," so that their love "never ends."(1 Corinthians 13:7,8) In another text St. Peter encourages such striving to extend grace to one another saying, "Above all, maintain constant love for one another, for love covers a multitude of sins."(1Peter 4:8) Here he is speaking of agape, the deliberate choosing of love. Eros is more fragile when it comes to the shortcomings of another. Agape is less inclined to point those shortcomings out until such a time as the wounds of shame can be healed by love. As agape awaits that time it is willing to participate in the cover up, so to speak, and be tender hearted towards the failings of the other. Recall, that after Adam and Eve made clothing of fig leaves to cover their nakedness, God himself, made them better clothing of the skins of animals to cover their shame. Couples that endure in marriage do the same. Each is well aware of the faults of the other, but if both are willing to "cover" for the other the union is strengthened. I am not speaking of denial here. It sometimes happens that a couple, or a partner, concocts an illusion of their marriage in order not to face the truth of its imperfections. Such an illusion provides only a false covering for the shame of the shortcomings of their love. This is a form of avoidance or withdrawal, a coping device, and not reality. The covering of charity, agape love, has no illusions about the shortcomings in the relationship, but it chooses not to expose them with a critical or condemning judgment. It opts for mercy.

The question does arise, then, if all marriages are imperfect, what tips the scales so that some end in divorce and others do not? I believe what may account for the difference are those other two affects disgust and dissmell. If the partners in a marriage get to the place where they have feelings of disgust for each other their relationship is endangered, particularly if that feeling endures and doesn't dissipate. Distress, fear, and anger tend to come and go in a relationship but disgust, once it enters, tends to linger. It leaves a bad taste, so to speak, that isn't readily removed. Further, if those bad feelings about the partner ever get to the point of dissmell the relationship is really endangered. Nathanson relates that a colleague who did marital counseling reported that if one, or the other, or both spouses got to the place of feeling dissmel for their partner the marriage could not endure. If it reached that point their relationship was irreparable. Dissmel is that strong an affect.

The word dissmell is not familiar to some people but with a little explanation it is easily understood. I explain it to people I counsel by describing a habit my son had from earliest childhood. Whenever food was set before him he would lean forward to smell it. If the smell pleased him he would eat it. If it didn't please him he would refuse it. Now some thirty years later he is a chef in a fine restaurant where one his greatest assets is his sense of smell. No doubt smell, from an evolutionary point of view, helped our species to survive by guiding us to foods that were safe to eat and warding us off from those that were not. Smell has a great influence on physical attraction as well and that has kept perfumers in business since time immemorial. Nathanson's colleague, however, was not remarking on a literal physical odor, but the application of smell by analogy to the emotional and relational life. We want nothing to do with anyone who "stinks." Couples may be able to get over feelings of disgust for each other, but not of dissmell. If they have that affect when they are in the company of one another they will want to separate themselves and have as little as possible to do with each other going forward. In other words, in terms of the marriage they will divorce if that is an option for them.

In summary, then, in the Biblical view we were created in love for love and are meant to be in that state. But the Biblical view acknowledges we have "fallen" from that state in this present age. Thus, we also experience shame and have developed ways to cope with shame. These ways do not rid us of shame, but only mask or deflect it. Evidence of that are those other affects like distress, fear, or anger that follow after the feelings of shame. Again in that favorite marriage text St. Paul writes "Love is patient and kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist upon its own way; it is not irritable or resentful. It does not rejoice in wrongdoing but in the truth."(1 Corinthians 13: 4-6) In other words, he says in effect, the expression of love produces good fruit like patience and kindness, whereas shame produces the bitter fruit of envy, arrogance, resentment, and so on. If we have fallen into shame in our relationships, only love can restore us to love. How that happens I will address in the next section on forgiveness.

* * * * *

Forgiveness

The Rabbis say God created the world twice. The first time he created the world with strict justice. Humankind sinned and God destroyed the world. The second time God created the world with mercy. Humankind sinned and God forgave them and the world continued on. God's choosing mercy over judgment is illustrated in the story of the people of Israel at Mount Sinai. (Exodus 34) No sooner had Moses gone up the mountain to receive the Law from God then the people fell into the sin of the Golden Calf. The Law was like a Ketubah, a marriage contract that the people had vowed to keep by being faithful to Yahweh alone. But they broke that covenant by turning toward idols and the worship of other gods. In his wrath God was going to destroy the people but Moses interceded, reminding Yahweh of his Name. Yahweh's name implies his freedom to choose, and what he chooses above all is mercy, even over judgment. So, Yahweh shows mercy and forgives the nation of Israel. The nation did not perish there in the wilderness but continues on to this very day as testimony to God's mercy. Mercy, especially pardon and forgiveness, that are aspects of mercy, allow for life to continue. And so mercy is a profound attribute of love since it overcomes the strict judgment of sin (the failure of love) that ends in the death of a relationship, if not also in literal physical death. Love always chooses for life over death.

One of the central tenets of Christian belief, building upon the foundation of Jewish belief, is that God is merciful toward sinners and desires to restore them to union and communion with himself, and by extension to one another. In the teachings of Jesus, forgiveness and reconciliation, the restoration to union and communion, is one of the chief manifestations of God's perfect rule, his kingdom, being realized on earth as it is in heaven. Thus, Jesus included the petition "forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us" in the prayer he taught his disciples that we call "the Lord's Prayer." Jesus illustrated this forgiveness both in word and deed. Some of his most moving parables are about forgiveness. The well-known parable of the father with two sons is one example. The elder son in the parable represents the righteous one who doesn't fall into grievous sin that breaks communion with his father. The younger son, the prodigal, does and he takes his inheritance, withdraws to a distant land, and squanders it there. He represents the sinful one. When he falls into abject poverty, a shameful state for it was a result of his own wrong actions, he determines to repent (literally turn around), go home, and by confessing his sin throw himself upon the mercy of his father. The confession he had prepared revealed the depth of his shame for it acknowledged he was no longer worthy to be called a son of his father, and he intended to beseech his father to receive him back as a servant! The father's response to the prodigal is striking. He orders his servants to bring the best robe and put it on him, to bring sandals for his feet, a ring for his finger, and to prepare a feast and invite his friends, justifying this extravagance by saying, "for this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found!" (Luke 15:24) In other words, the father covered the shame of his son, pardoned and forgave him, and restored him to his former status. That they sit at table again and break bread together is the definitive sign that the two are reconciled. What Jesus taught, he put into practice. On one occasion Jesus came across a group of men who were about to stone a woman caught in the very act of adultery. He wrote something on the ground and then said to the men, "Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone." (John 8:7) When he looked up again all of her accusers were gone. Then he said to the woman, "Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more." (John 8:11) And, of course, Jesus' earthly ministry culminated with death upon a cross that the church understands to be a "sacrifice for the sins of the whole world." (Book of Common Prayer, page 334) He did so as the lamb offered by God to "take away the sins of the world." (Book of Common Prayer, page 337) By taking sin away and removing it from us, St. Paul observes, "God was in Christ Jesus, reconciling the world to himself." (2 Corinthians 5:19)

In the previous verse to the one just quoted, St. Paul had said that God has given us this ministry of reconciliation. He sees this ministry not only as an evangelical one, urging others to be reconciled to God by placing one's faith in Jesus Christ and his sacrifice for sins, but also a pastoral one in extending the grace of that sacrifice to others. So, he writes in another letter, "My friends, if anyone is caught in a transgression, you who have received the Spirit should restore such a one in the spirit of gentleness." (Galatians 6:1) When Pope Francis observed that many modern marriages are "null" because the parties involved did not understand the permanency of the union, sacramentally speaking, I had a different take based upon my pastoral experience. What many couples do not understand is the grace of forgiveness and the obligation, at least for Christian partners who seek to follow Christ, to forgive one another. Our marriage ceremony references this very clearly, saying in the prayers for the couple, "give them grace when they hurt each other, to recognize and acknowledge their fault, and to seek each other's forgiveness and yours." And, also, "make their life together a sign of Christ's love to this broken and sinful world, that unity may overcome estrangement, forgiveness heal guilt, and joy conquer despair." (Book of Common Payer, page 429) One could easily substitute the word shame for despair, for when it is overcome and we experience joy it is because we have been restored to love.

It isn't just a new generation of married couples that struggle with forgiveness and reconciliation. Early on in my ministry, nearly 40 years ago now, I went to visit an elderly couple that hadn't attended church since my arrival as Rector. I thought, perhaps, they were shut in and unable to get out to services. On my first visit I was greeted warmly and we sat around the dinner table in their small bungalow. It was clear from our conversation that they were not housebound for they spoke of other activities they did and the husband was rather proud of the Chrysler he drove. We concluded my visit by sharing communion from the reserve sacrament that I had brought with me. I continued to visit them at home and bring them communion to include them in the fellowship of Christ's body. The mystery remained, however, as to why they did not make the effort to come to church. Then, one day the mystery was revealed. The husband spoke up and asked if I noticed anything unusual about our conversations. Surprised, I allowed I had not. He then pointed out that he and his wife spoke to me each in turn but did not speak to each other! The reason for this he informed me was because some years ago he had had an affair with another women. His wife filed for divorce and it was granted. But because they were rather poor and their chief asset was their tiny house the judge decreed they must continue living together for financial reasons. And so they did, he in his bedroom and she in hers, sharing the one bath and kitchen, sitting room, and dining room, according to a schedule that allowed them to avoid the presence of the other. I was dumbfounded! And that wasn't all he had to say. He was repentant for his misdeed and had repeatedly asked his wife to forgive him but she would not. He said eventually the situation became so unbearable for their children and grandchildren that they stopped coming to visit at the house. Nor would their friends come to visit any longer. While he related all of this his now ex-wife maintained a stony silence. I asked her if all of this was true. She did not reply. I don't recall how many times I visited them after that, maybe two or three times, and then I stopped too. I couldn't justify it to myself. After all, the communion I brought to them was a sign of our reconciliation to God and one another, like the feast of the prodigal son story. Clearly, they were not reconciled and were not at peace. The husband wanted that but she did not. Such is the case with reconciliation. Even where there is repentance and confession, if forgiveness is not extended by the aggrieved party reconciliation cannot be achieved. Conversely, reconciliation cannot be achieved where forgiveness is extended, but the offending party has not repented and confessed the sin. Without forgiveness and reconciliation the couple I visited was at a terrible impasse, suspended in a kind of hell.

Forgiveness is a way out of such an impasse, but it does require giving up the claims of justice. Justice is giving someone what is due them; mercy, thus also forgiveness, gives what is not due. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission formed in South Africa after the collapse of their apartheid system provides a notable example. It was decided that the only way the country could move forward was by having former officials speak the truth of the crimes they committed. If they did so they would not be prosecuted but pardoned! Victims and their families would give up their claim to retribution. The whole process was a tour de force of communal confession, repentance, and forgiveness. Rather than tearing the country apart, as one might have expected, mercy and truth brought great healing and united the country sufficiently to continue on with the prospect of a brighter future.

Forgiveness does come with a cost, as the suffering of Jesus upon the cross clearly reveals. However else one may understand the meaning of the cross, it at the very least reveals the truth that sin, the lack or failure of love, severely wounds the victim of such a sin, and that to forgive the offense, the victim must bear considerable pain. As a hymn attributed to Bernard of Clairvaux puts it, referring to Jesus' sacrifice for sin, "Mine, mine was the transgression, but Thine the deadly pain." Of course, in the Christian view none but Christ is perfectly innocent of sin and, thus, a victim alone. The rest of us are both victim and victimizer, having been failed by others in love and failing them as well. So when we do forgive others, we do so with the awareness that we ourselves also need to be forgiven and that our extending forgiveness is a particular application of Jesus' "Golden Rule," of doing unto others as we would have them do unto us. We will find many occasions when we need to be forgiven by others so it behooves us to be merciful. Jesus named this as one of his 9 beatitudes, or blessings. "Blessed are the merciful," he declared, "for they will receive mercy." (Matthew 6:7)

If mercy and forgiveness are the way out of the impasse when there has been an offense, why do we humans so often opt to hold onto the sins and offenses of others, even getting caught up in a cycle of revenge and retribution? I can only attribute it to a lack of Spirit and spirit. Because we each have a measure of the Spirit we do have an innate capacity to choose mercy, as God does, and to forgive others. Though we were created in love for love, our capacity to love, because of the brokenness and sinfulness of humanity, is greatly impaired. We are lacking in spirit. McMahon observes, that the fact that we love someone reveals less about their worthiness to receive our love, than about our own capacity to give love. In other words, those who have a great capacity to love will love even the unlovable while those who have little capacity to love are unable to love even the lovable. How often have I seen the truth of his observation born out in my pastoral experience! For I have found husbands and wives to be "hard" on each other for no apparent reason, and the same for parents with their children. Many who are worthy of love receive criticism and rejection instead. And many who are not so worthy have been treated as though they were. And so the question arises how can one's capacity to love be increased?

I can only speak from a Christian point of view. One of the least understood but, perhaps, most important aspects of Jesus' cross and passion, was to cleanse us from sin in order that we could receive the grace of a new infusion of the Holy Spirit. Think of the soul as a cup, or vessel. The vessel must first be cleansed before it can be filled with something pure. In the same way the soul must be purified before being filled, or infused, with the pure Holy Spirit. St. Paul describes this new infusion as, God pouring his love into our hearts. (Romans 5:5) Now when you consider that our Prayer Book in the Eucharistic Prayer describes God's love as infinite, a new of infusion of only a portion of that love would exponentially increase our own capacity for love, and thus also, for forgiveness. It is no accident that St. John, when describing the appearance of Jesus to his disciples on the day of his resurrection says he greeted them saying, "Peace be with you," (John 20:21) and breathing out on them said, "Receive the Holy Spirit, if you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any they are retained." (John 20:23) The grace of the Holy Spirit, the infinite love of God, renews our own spirit increasing our capacity to love and to forgive love's failures. But just to be clear, the authority to retain sins that Jesus gave to his disciples has a remedial purpose. The church has understood the point of retaining sins is to lead the sinner to repentance but the goal, ultimately, is to forgive and restore the sinner to communion through reconciliation. Thus, in liturgical churches like my own, the season of Lent was used to separate those from the fellowship that had committed notorious sins (excommunication) in order that they be restored to fellowship at Easter, after having spent those days (40) in repentance and penance. This practice not only benefited the individuals involved but, as our Prayer Book states it, "Thereby, the whole congregation was put in mind of the message of pardon and absolution set forth in the Gospel of our Savior, and of the need which all Christians continually have to renew their repentance and faith. (Book of Common Prayer, page 265)

Prophets, in the Hebrew Scriptures, acted out their message in a demonstrative way. Jesus did the same on the evening of his death. In the midst of the supper he was having with his disciples in Jerusalem (a Passover meal) he rose from the table to wash his disciples feet. (John 4: 4-20) This wasn't the usual hospitable gesture that a host would extend to his guests. In those days people either walked barefoot or with sandals on dusty or muddy paths. When they arrived at their destination their bodies may have been clean but their feet were dirty. The host would offer them water for washing. The host would not wash the feet of the guests but the guests themselves, or perhaps a slave in the household, would do the washing. When Jesus washed the feet of his disciples, in the midst of the meal, it was a symbolic act to demonstrate that he chose to be a servant of his disciples, though he was their master, and they should do the same for each other. Jesus first offered to wash Peter's feet. Reacting to the inappropriateness of Jesus' gesture Peter said, "You will never wash my feet." Jesus replied, "Unless I wash you, you have no share with me." (John 13:8) Hearing that Peter invited Jesus to wash his hands and his head also, but Jesus declined saying, "One who has bathed does not need to wash, except for the feet, but is entirely clean." (John 13:10) The bathing Jesus refers to is the waters of baptism whereby one is baptized into the death of Jesus that cleanses from sin, a death he would accomplish on the morrow of this supper. That one need only have his feet washed after being cleansed by the bath of baptism alludes to the ongoing necessity of a disciple to forgive and be forgiven for sins and offences that accrue as one continues his or her "walk" of discipleship. Thus, Jesus explains the action by saying, "So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have set an example, that you also should do as I have done to you." (John 13: 14) In other words, he directs his disciples to forgive one another as offences arise between them and in this way be restored to love and the bond of union and communion. Though St. Paul did not witness this demonstration, or hear this instruction given by Jesus since he was not yet a disciple, clearly the message was conveyed to him as part of the essential Christian practice - not foot washing per say, but the forgiving and forgiveness it signified. Writing to the Ephesians he cites it as part of the rules for their new life as disciples saying, "Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you. " And then he links this to the act of service Jesus performed by continuing, "Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children, and live in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God." (Ephesians 4:32 - 5:1)

I said above in the section on shame that dissmell is the most potent of all of the affects. If ever we have dissmell for another we want nothing to do with that one. It is curious, then, that St. Paul should equate our forgiveness of others with a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. I did say above that forgiveness is costly, a sacrifice on the part of the one who extends it for he, or she, gives up any claim to retribution, or satisfaction for the offence. One might be inclined to say, "that stinks!" St. Paul says, no, in fact it is a pleasing odor to God and to others. I agree, based upon my own life and pastoral experience. An offence is like a wound. At first it is painful, but clean and does not smell. But, it soon will, if it is not treated. It becomes susceptible to infection. If infection sets in it will begin to smell and the longer it festers the more it smells. The interchange at the supper between Jesus and Peter where he says that he will never allow Jesus to wash his feet and Jesus says in reply, then, you never have any part of me, is so very profound. In all of the scenarios I have encountered in my pastoral experience, the worse case scenario is the declaration, "I will never forgive." Sometimes I have heard that declaration when the wound is still fresh and I think, of course not, not now, not yet. But if I hear that when the offence is getting old, or even very old, then I shudder. I know the wound has gotten infected with bitterness and resentment and all manner of other evils. Eventually, there is nothing that "stinks" more than un-forgiveness. Why do I say this? Because of what Jesus said to Peter, "Unless I wash you, you have no share with me." Forgiveness isn't just about what happened, at least from a Christian perspective, it is about whose company you keep. If you want to keep the company of Christ, St. Paul and the Christian scriptures say, you must forgive. Personally, I think of it like that Robert Frost poem where he speaks of two roads diverging in a yellow wood. Initially he tried both, but then realizing he could only continue on one decided to take the one less traveled. The road less traveled is the one of forgiveness. When one is standing at the crossroads where there is a choice to forgive, or not, forgiveness seems the less attractive choice. But if one chooses un-forgiveness, the further one travels down that road he, or she, will discover that choice leads to bad company and nothing good. One will encounter the stench of stagnant waters and swamps on the well-traveled road of un-forgiveness. Though it may not be apparent when one makes the first steps on the road less traveled of forgiveness, there one will encounter fragrant flowers and fresh breezes. More importantly, on that road one soon finds the company of Jesus.

* * * * *

Afterword

The question "What is love?" prompted me to develop a chart of "Ways of Loving," to answer that question. By focusing upon "Ways" I wanted to provide a practical tool to help people develop their own skills in giving and receiving love. When I hand this chart to someone it is to encourage them to set to work and apply these ways and so increase in love.

There are other questions about love that can be asked. "Whom should we love?" for instance. This is the question that is foremost in the minds of those who are seeking and choosing a partner for the most adult relationship of marriage. As Allen notes in marriage we look for someone with relative value, a partner that is uniquely compatible to us. Not everyone will do though they have absolute value as people.

The question of "When should we love?" is also worthy of consideration. There is no easy answer to that question. The Rabbis speak of the Ten Attributes of God. Among these are love, restraint (or judgment), and truth/beauty. As I noted above the highest attribute is Will. But it is not an easy task to discern when one should choose love as opposed to restraint. Restraint is the withholding of love. When is it good to withhold love for the sake of correction, for example? Parents send their children to their room for a "time out" when they have done something harmful to themselves or others. Such discipline is necessary. But just when does such discipline (din in Hebrew) no longer service the truth and become ugly, rather than beautiful? It is hard to know and takes a level of discernment that requires a further measure of soul, or Spirit. When Jesus breathed out the Holy Spirit on the day of his resurrection upon his disciples he said, "If you forgive the sins of any they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." (John 20:23) Just think of the power and authority he gave to us. We can and do make such God-like decisions over the lives of others. Would that we would sooner, rather than later, come to the true and beautiful decision of God who forgives us all of our sins. Yet, there are many occasions and many reasons to restrain love. It is thoroughly justified. But do consider again what the Rabbis say about the world being created twice that I mentioned above. The first time it was created with strict justice (restraint). Humankind sinned and God destroyed the world. The second time God created the world with mercy (chesed). Humankind sinned, God forgave them and life continued. So the question of when we should love is bound up with this question of whether or not we want life, or a relationship to a spouse, or a child, and so on, to continue. It is bound up with choosing life, or death.

But of all of the questions we could ask about love, the deepest one, the most profound one, is "Why is there love?" As I said above love is a relational term. It requires two or more to even speak of it. Why should there be two or more? This question is similar to the philosophical question of why should there be something rather than nothing. How does one account for existence and account for the awareness of what we call love? Again, I can only answer the question from the perspective of a Christian. Christians believe that God is a Unity of being in a Trinity of persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This means that God is not alone, a singular being, but exists in a community of Being. The three persons of the Godhead relate in love with one another and achieve union and communion. We also believe the persons of the Trinity are perfectly fulfilled in their mutual love, yet that fullness (pleroma) between them overflows, specifically in creating and giving life to all others. In the joy of their love they rejoice in bringing other beings into being. The Rabbis touch on this "purpose" of creation in the analogy of the cow and the calf that I referenced before. The cow in her fullness desires to give. Jesus said he came to serve (give) rather than be served (receive). And, as I noted, St. Francis prioritized giving and receiving by saying, "for it is in giving that we receive." In the Christian view we creatures were created from the overflowing love of the Trinity. One of our Eucharistic prayers says, "In your infinite love you made us for yourself." (Book of Common Prayer, page 362) "Infinite love" speaks to that superabundant overflowing love of God. "Made for yourself" speaks to the fact that we were created in love for love, since God is Love. The whole of creation resonates with love, is attuned to it, and responds to it in kind, because that is the nature of our Creator and we his creatures partake of his nature.

Previously, I shared a vision I had nearly 40 years ago of union and communion. Now let me share a recent dream with you that I had while I was writing this book. It was a dream about the resonance of love. In the dream I saw a very large harp like instrument. When I say large it seemed to me that the base of the harp was more than one hundred feet long. It was attached to an angled upright piece maybe ten feet tall. Three strings were stretched from the top of the upright piece to the end of the base. The base, the upright, and the strings, had the shape of an obtuse triangle. However, the base, as I noted, was ten times longer than the upright arm. The harp and the strings were made out of the same silver-like material. The material was highly refined and unlike any silver on earth. It almost seemed like a liquid. A man sat with the upright piece resting upon his shoulder. As it rested upon his shoulder the base nearest to his feet was elevated slightly while the opposite end rested upon something substantial though it had no form or substance that I could see. When the man plucked the strings of this harp I heard no sounds. Instead I could feel the heart in my chest fluttering. It was vibrating in resonance and the feeling was both an ache of desire (eros) and a relief of satisfaction of the desire (agape). The whole experience was extremely pleasurable, so much so, that I could not endure it for long and roused myself from sleep so that the dream would end.

I take this dream to be an image of the Trinity. The harp was triangular in shape and had three strings. The three strings represent the community, the three persons of the Trinity. The man holding the harp represents the Unity, the one being of God. The man also represents the attribute of Will. He intentionally plucked the strings to make the silent "music" of love. We humans in imitation make much music with instruments and voice that we can hear with our ears to extol and celebrate love.

Some have postulated that the life we know is only the dream of God. If God awakens from his dream we, and, thus, our lives will "fly forgotten as a dream dies at the opening day." (Hymn 680 verse 5, Hymn Book 1982) It may be so. But if so, oh what a beautiful dream of love it was while the night lasted. For in it God gave us hearts to beat in sync with his own heartstrings of love. But I prefer to believe what our faith teaches. It is we not God that sleep and dream. One day we will awake into the Eternal Day and see the One of whom we have only dreamed. We will see Love face to face and know as we are known. That Day will never end for as St. Paul observes, "Love never ends." (1 Corinthians 13:8)

Cover Art: "Christ Washing the Apostles' Feet" by Peter Paul Rubens, 1632.

* * * * *

About the author:

The son of a Baptist minister, I was ordained in the Episcopal Church in 1977. I studied for the ministry at Princeton, General, and Union Seminaries. I have served as a parish priest for over thirty years. I have a particular interest in the healing ministry and the Jewish roots of Christianity. I am married and have a grown son and daughter.

Connect with Me Online:

Kreller@aol.com

