The Four Loves

Author: C.S. Lewis
ISBN: 0006280897
Publisher: Harper Collins
Review:
--------------
One of my favorite quotes from this book, "All that is not eternal is eternally out of date" pg. 166, gave me pause to consider that classics such as this famous work of Lewis can be enjoyed by any generation because the subject of love in the broadest sense is truly timeless. In this book Lewis categorizes love into four variations, each with its own unique characteristics and tendencies. Here are brief descriptions. Affection is the attraction that for example a parent has to their children. It is a familiar comfortableness that can be found even in the most unlikely circumstances, such as between a jailor and prisoner. The relationship develops to the point where a departure of one of the involved parties would result in the sense of loss within the other. Friendship is the companionship derived from common interests. Eros is the "state which we call being in love", differentiated from the "carnal...sexual element" which Lewis names as Venus. Charity is the hardest to concisely define, other than God is this kind of love.

Considering the volumes that have been written concerning this immense subject, this book is an attempt to clarify categories and stake out definitions with a few comments thrown in. Therefore in this review I shall offer a few comments of my own which are by no means comprehensive and which are generally arbitrary. Indeed, it is laughable that anyone would attempt to construct a comprehensive study on the subject of love, apart from the Author of course.

"Man approaches God most nearly when he is in one sense least like God", pg.4. Lewis qualifies this statement as "nearness of approach", and this offers a bit of a conundrum. We hear all the time that we should pursue becoming more like Christ, and that as we do so we draw near to Him. Indeed, Paul states in Ephesians 4:13 that our destination is "the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." In becoming more like Christ are we then drawing away from God? The key to this may be perspective. Paul is informing us about what the finished product looks like, i.e. our Christ-likeness with respect to the humanity of Christ. Lewis is illustrating the fact that to become like Christ we must acknowledge and offer to God those very deficiencies which make us unlike Him. In our 'weakness' we acknowledge His strength and thereby appropriate that strength which increases the growth of our stature. In the finished product those natural attributes which are 'competitive' with and diminish that growth, such as pride, are reduced to the point of no return. Thus we are like Christ in humility as we recognize there is no basis for our pride when our power is contrasted with His. This becomes useful in exposing the flaw in thinking that Love is supreme. Lewis quotes another author, "love ceases to be a demon only when he ceases to be a god." He offers this as a balance against the subtle error of "if God is love, then love is God." Those who promote this perform a feat of legerdemain in switching allegiance to God for allegiance to Love. They may appear to be more LIKE God but in fact they are further AWAY from Him.

Lewis makes the following insightful comment which could use its own discourse, "The human mind is generally far more eager to praise and dispraise than to describe and define." Ask anyone to describe anyone else and almost invariably you will find the description punctuated with statements of valuation. We simply cannot seem to pass the opportunity to voice our opinion and our perception of what is appealing or unappealing.

A very telling passage on patriotism also stirred my interest. In the context of love, Lewis sorts through the various ingredients found within patriotism (generally viewed as a love for one's country). At the time of Lewis' writing, the English empire was not what it once was and had taken a back seat to the industrialism of the United States. However, Lewis looks with a keen eye at historical English pride and his comments still bear fruit today in relation to the current, widespread jingoism in American culture. The superiority complex that nestles side by side with patriotism, i.e. we're better than they and therefore they ought to be like us, is very evident in American foreign policy. It is obvious to everyone, isn't it, that democracy is the best form of the goverment and therefore we ought to export it in any way we can. While I am not debating the merits of democracy, and I do think it is one of the best forms we can hope for here on earth, nevertheless of the evil and corruption that often accompanies such export they "only by being terrible do they avoid being comic". In reference to England Lewis says on pg. 37, "Large areas of 'the World' will not hear us till we have publicly disowned much of our past. Why should they? We have shouted the name of Christ and enacted the service of Moloch." I don't know how far America matches up with England atrocity for atrocity but it is evident that large swathes of the world will not hear what America has to say, even in the face of cruise missiles.

Of affection I have not much to say. Lewis uses a good illustration in the form of Mrs. Fidget who literally loves her family to death, and once death takes her from her family her family is loosed from the bondage of her affection. Individuals who need to be needed to the point where they drive their family crazy need to reexamine the motives of their 'love'.

I especially enjoyed the chapter on friendship. As Lewis says, it is the least natural of all the loves. Unfortunately, deep friendship is infrequently experienced in the modern world. People do have many acquaintances and even have those who they would characterize as a best friend, but few and far between is found true friendship in the likes of David and Jonathan. It has been harmed by the societal rise of homosexuality and the impression that deep male friendships must have something of that within it. Nothing could be further from the truth. As Lewis succintly puts it "Lovers are normally face to face, absorbed in each other; Friends, side by side, absorbed in some common interest." And two is not necessarily the best number for deep friendships. Lewis points out that when a third friend is added, each original friend gains that which the third friend brings out in the other. Lewis also notes that those who "want Friends" are bound not to have any. Instead they should focus on the truth that they see in some interest they have and undoubtedly they will find one who shares that and sooner or later a friendship may develop. It is also interesting, as Lewis points out, that in Scripture, Friendship is rarely (not never) the form used to describe the relationship between God and His people. It generally takes the form of Father/Children or Bridegroom/Bride. He gives the reason that whereas the relation of Father/Husband is symbolic of God's love, Friendship might very well be taken as literal instead of symbolic. I am not confident in that statement. Jesus called His disciples friends. I don't feel that the terms Father/Husband symbolize the same Love, rather, they are facets of that Love, albiet in a mystical, spiritual sense. Therefore as my Friend, even though He is the Kings of Kings, I have the undeserved and profound ability to open my heart to Him as a friend.

Of Eros I will only draw attention to one point. Lewis makes the claim that because husbands ought to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her, so too this headship placed upon the husband is most evident "...not in the husband we should all wish to be but in him whose marriage is most like a crucifixion; whose wife receives most and gives least...". Lewis does qualify this statement by saying that there is no virtue or wisdom in seeking such a marriage. I am not quite sure how to respond to a statement such as this. I can see the logic in Lewis' argument, but somehow I have to disagree. While the grace of God would be most apparent in a man who endures such a relationship and thereby gives glory to God I cannot help but wonder if Lewis is a bit off track, much like those who subscribe to the WWJD mantra. Jesus is not necessarily looking for us to do what He would do, but to do what He wants us to do and the two, I feel, can be quite different. There are many things Jesus did which I don't believe He expects us to mimic. Likewise with regards to marriage as a crucifixion I think the parallel is too sharply drawn and taken a bit too far.

In his passage on charity, Lewis refers to the vision of Lady Julian (I confess that Lewis makes a lot of obscure references) where God's relationship to the Universe is like a nut that He carries in His hand. He is certain not to let go, but it shows that God does not need the Universe. The 'nut' can make no claim towards any need of His. He instead "loves into existence wholly superfluous creatures in order that He may love and perfect them." It is a testament to the fathomless love of God that His love for us is not based upon any need of His, unlike our loves which are generally based upon some kind of need. Lewis ends the book with his discussion of charity and at the end I found that wonderful quote with which I began. I suspect that much of this book fits within that eternal perspective and therefore will always yield fruit to those that read it.